Jump to content

Talk:Usenet personality/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Incoherent

The list at present seems incoherent. It includes Torkel Franzen and Joel Furr under the section for those with eccentric beliefs and theories. I cannot see how either of these are plausible — especially not Franzen. Phiwum 19:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I copied the initial list from the Usenet article, which did not have the names categorized. So obviously this list needs some work. I added a third category for notable Usenet users that do not fall into the other "eccentric" or "unusual" categories. Based on your comment, Franzen and Furr belong there instead. — Loadmaster 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is UNCLE AL on this list216.16.54.119 15:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the opening paragraph. Ken M Quirici 00:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)96.237.188.130 (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've moved the {{cleanup-section}} tag to the Eccentric personalities section, since it's the only section having incomplete entries (which are marked with "INCOMPLETE" comments). Once these entries are expanded, the tag can be removed. — Loadmaster 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Quinn the Eskimo ?

There was a guy that ran a bot, everytime some posted his name with a question, he would be able to find it and respond (a bit like alerts today). People started hiding his name in anagrams but he would still find the post. Then they mashed up his name with "god" "daemon" etc. He would just adapt the bot. Back in the '80s it seemed like magic. :) Anyone have the information on him? I was sure it was Quinn but I can't find it. I think he might've hung out mostly on .mac groups. I seemed to remember he was from a Queensland Uni in Australia but that might've just been one of the main aussie nntp servers... thanks. Laurel Papworth 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That was Kibo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.74.102 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability

If they're notable enough for an article okay, but if they're not notable enough for their own article, then there is no reason they should be on a list here. Notability is highly subjective and if the best we can do to source that is say "I remember that guy from usenet yeah he was really big" that does not make an article. If the individuals get their own article, they can be brought together with a category.--Crossmr 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The existence of this article is a compromise for those on the one hand who think certain Usenet posters deserve their own articles, and those on the other hand who don't but who think they may deserve a minor mention within the context of a larger article. Hence this article. See the AfD discussion about Archimedes Plutonium. Also see the earlier revisions of the Usenet article (Usenet personalities section), which prompted me to create this page, and from which a lot of its initial content was taken. — Loadmaster 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For persons listed here having their own separate article, if that article is little more than a single paragraph in length, I recommend that the article contents be moved to this page and the short article be removed. That way, WP has a summarization of that person but without the overhead of a separate but needlessly short article. — Loadmaster 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Xihr 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It's also a good idea to make a redirect page for each newly added name/pseudonym that points to this article. — Loadmaster 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted alt.usenet.kooks awardees

I deleted these from the eccentrics:

  • Richard Bullis — Named as "Clueless Eternal Newbie" on alt.usenet.kooks.
  • Earl Curley — Named as "Kook of the Century" on alt.usenet.kooks.
  • Brad Jesness — Named as "Kook of the Decade" on alt.usenet.kooks.
  • Edmond Wollmann — Named as "Kook of the Millennium" on alt.usenet.kooks.

Their articles all redirect here, and there's no substantial information about why they are eccentric, so I'm thinking there are substantial BLP issues involved. BenB4 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine, since there does not seem to be any further info about these guys other than that they were named by alt.usenet.kooks. If any more details do emerge, that article is the appropriate place for them to be. — Loadmaster 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

uffnet inclusion

Several anon editors have repeatedly added it here (to various other wikipedia pages as well), several registered editors have removed it (every time, on every page to which it's added). Let's consense...I vote non-notable self-promoting spam and not useful per WP:EL even if not. DMacks 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear it's linkspam, or at the very least violates WP:EL to me. I've reverted it several times, but it keeps getting added by anonymous IPs without comment. Xihr 06:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The anonymous IP is still going strong. This is now gone way past WP:3RR. Xihr 03:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the semiprotection, Stephen. Xihr 06:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He's back again. IP 221.140.39.78 added a link to UFFNet again (2007-07-27), but then removed it about a minute later (12:40:16 UTC). — Loadmaster 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Correct me if I'm wrong, but citations are only needed for the entries that do not link to separate articles (which presumably contain the necessary citations), right? — Loadmaster 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes (unless this article has information that's not in the other articles - which probably shouldn't be happening). --Cheeser1 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent

Where is UNCLE AL from sci.chem on this list of notables?? 216.16.54.119 15:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He does get a mention at the Uncle Al disambig page. I was looking for him too, I was sure there used to be something on him at one time. He would not be in the incoherent category. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

uffnet linkspam

I hear you, Cheeser1. This persistent linkspam is really tiring. Xihr 06:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please request (another round of) semiprotection while other avenues are explored DMacks 12:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Usenet versus Internet postings

I assume that, due to its title, that this article should include only people who posted on Usenet, right? (Unless, of course, this article was renamed to Notable Internet personalities.) So I would assume that people such as John Titor, who apparently only posted on bulletin boards, would be excluded? — Loadmaster 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Snopes

Snopes was a notable Usenet personality. The Albino Alligator 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Snopes appears to be a website - what Snopes are you talking about? ---- Cheeser1 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
David Mikkelson and Barbara Hamel were valued contributors to alt.folklore.urban from about 1991-1995, when they got married and went off to found their commercial site. They were very important to AFU, but weren't such personalities as Serdar Argic and B1FF. Most of the people here contributed just style; they contributed content. PhGustaf (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Boursy

I can't edit the original post as I don't have an account, but if John Grubor is listed, Steve Boursy probably should be listed too. Boursy was very well known as an eccentric individual. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mi-5

The Mike Corley entry is biased, as I found out when I copied it to start a MI-5 Persecution page. He's annoying, but we can say it in a nice, objective way. MMetro (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it biased? I can't see a single issue here that isn't accurate, and distinctly mild (relative to his immense annoyance value, particularly via Google Groups). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How did the name "Mike Corely" become associated with this personality? I looked at his own Web site, and he has copies of letters written to him by various authorities, and they are addressed to B. T. Szocik. this would seem to be an essential fact in his bio. Cpacker666 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)cpacker666

Unreferenced material

I deleted all of the list items that didn't either include in-line references or a link to the subject's article (which I presume has the necessary references, although I didn't check). Please do not re-insert without including references. Conversely, please feel free to re-insert with appropriate references. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Topmind

Should Jacob Bryce, aka Tablizer, aka Topmind count ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.238.27 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Tyler?

The article on the Gastric-brooding frog refers to the Australian zoologist Dr. Michael Tyler, but the page links to here. His name doesn't appear anywhere on this page. As far as I know, he's not a Usenet Personality. Wocky (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't remember why I created the link. Probably just confusion on my part, so consider it a mistake and feel free to delete the page. — Loadmaster (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Bertha Thing (Tony Lance)

I'd like to add an item on Tony Lance, who posts his semifrequent "Big Bertha Thing" posts (which contain incoherent ramblings about physics, astronomy, and chemistry), but I don't have any solid info about him. I've located his website at www.tonylance.talktalk.net, but not much else. Anyone know of any reliable biographical information to use? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Try link as follows;-

www.tonylance.talktalk.net/mayor.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.153.5 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, I meant a third-party source that refers to Tony's posts as notable. His website alone is not enough (obviously). — Loadmaster (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

There is a recent article published in The Argus Leader [1] about local resident Archimedes Plutonium, by Nestor Ramos, 2008-06-29, here. Currently only registered/subscribed users can access the story, but it should become freely accessible in a few weeks, and would provide a nice aditional external source. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The complete text of the article was posted to alt.religion.kibology (2008-08-31), available here. | Loadmaster (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium was recently mentioned on This American Life http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/293.mp3 http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=293 Mindme (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The mp3 URL is dead but the other one works. That is a good episode, but the mention is brief and over a half hour in, a few minutes into the beginning of the third act titled Sucker MC-Squared. Again, it seems he was so eccentric he is only mentioned with his main idea, followed by a longer sketch of another character, followed by the actual third story. Too bad there isn't better documentation now, but at the time he was a real pain. My philosophy teacher even mentioned his nonsense. --Dgroseth (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Brother" Norman Boyd

Is this guy notable? He was a fundamentalist Christian(or a troll imitating one) who would post to homosexuality-related newsgroups with gruesome "sermons" about how gays are possessed by demons and would be tormented horrifically in Hell(with occasional allusions to an impending Apocalypse brought on by "Killer Asteroids" and his own past as a reformed homosexual). MSTings of some of his work can be found here(probably NSFW): [[2]] 68.123.238.140 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Franz Gnaedinger?

I would say Franz Gnaedinger should be mentioned. He is a crank "linguist" who says he can trace back the origins of words to a "Magdalenian" language, which he seems to be improvising on the spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.66.100 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Trumpets

We seem to have the beginnings of an edit war, with associated WP:COI involving Michael E. Schmidt. Rlrr who is James A. Chappell, a known enemy of Michael E. Schmidt, has libeled Dr. Schmidt, and has NOT followed this policy, the clearly written Wiki policy: "policy, and must not become a magnet for inflammatory attacks on Usenet users (or WP editors, for that matter). Tone must remain neutral and factual." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.140.252 (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Is this usenaut a genuine notable crazyperson worthy of inclusion?
  • Is the pre-User:Usatrumpet state appropriate and to be defended against vandalism?


Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Usatrumpet (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Maryland editor states many things about Mikey Schmidt that are untrue. These are personal attacks. Mikey marched an entire season from beginning to end in an open class drum and bugle corps called the Chattahoochee Sound Association from Decatur, GA who placed in 1980 (with Michael competing) finished in 18th place in D.C.I. A-60 open class. Here is a picture that was taken in Birmingham with Michael in it, Mikey is the last person to the viewers right on the third row: http://www.corpsreps.com/showpicture.cfm?corpsid=316&corpstype=Junior&picnum=958 Michael was a member of the Chattahoochee Sound Association from their first rehearsal in the fall of 1979, until the corps folded in 1983. In the fall of 1981 Michael was the Chattahoochee Sound Associations soprano soloist on "This Masquerade".

Maryland editor gives an unverified opinion when he claims that Mikey's Trumpet of the Lord ministry is "insignificant". This editorial biased opinion can not be verified. Mikey and the Trumpet of the Lord have played in thousands of concerts, Mikey has played the trumpet for major sports teams, and for large and significant churches such as First Redeemer Lutheran Church in Atlanta, and for Southern Baptist President Dr. James Merritt at First Baptist Church of Snellville, Ga.

This could be considered evidence for Schmidt's ministry being insignificant. rlrr (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

69.246.140.252 (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Only by those who are ignorant, First Redeemer is the most prestigious religious musical gig in Atlanta. Since James A. Chapelle lives in Maryland he most likely would not know that. Also First Baptist Snellville is one of the largest and most influential Southern Baptist churches in the country. To be invited to play a concer there in a honor. Not many artists are invited to solo there who are not members. Mikey has also soloed for two major sports teams. Mikey was invited to play for Lt. Clebe McClary and the Veterians Patriot Task Force to show honor to those who served in the US Military. Michael was also Dr. Jerry Falwell's trumpet player, playing weekly on Falwells nationwide the Old Time Gospel Hour television show. Michael currently plays on religious tv for Oasis Revival Center. Michael has had a top 40 southern gospel instrumental radio chart hit with Randy Stalls of Vision Quest Music Group.69.246.140.252 (talk)

lives in Maryland -- That might actually be news to some people. rlrr (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Although Mikey and Jerome Callet have never met in person, Jerome Callet , a maker of trumpet mouthpieces, former maker of trumpets , and trumpet teacher knows Mikey and has made several trumpet , flugelhorn and mellophone mouthpieces for Mikey. This fact is easily verifiable by contacting Jerome here: http://www.super-chops.com/home.html

Usatrumpet (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

His edits are many and incoherent, so it's not at all clear to me what's going on. User:Usatrumpet, if you want to contribute usefully to the project, you are going to have to do better than this.  Xihr  08:03, 25 August 2008
His incoherence is one of the reasons he is (was) a "Notable" Usenet personality. rlrr (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I don't know this is proven and we should at least assume good faith. Either way, this has gone on far enough.  Xihr  06:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So the Maryland poster just gets to break Wiki rules and post lies about Mikey such as that Mikey's music ministry is small and insignificant? Is the Maryland editor allowed to continue his lie that Mikey never marched an entire season in an open class drum and bugle corps? Is the Maryland editor allowed to continue to bring suspicion to Mikey's degrees when it has been proven that Mikey does hold a doctorate degree? Is the Maryland editor allowed to continue to post suspicion that Mikey does not know Jerome Callet when it has been proven that he does? Usatrumpet (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Who is Maryland poster? Dr DR Hall (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Usatrumpet (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)The Maryland poster is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RlrrUsatrumpet (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on calling "rlrr" Maryland poster? Dr DR Hall (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

````Maryland is stating misinformation such as that Mikey never marched in an open class drum corps that is at best confusing, unverified, libel, and at worst seen by many as completely dishonest. Maryland editor calling Mikey's music ministry small and insignificant is biased, opinionated and unverifiable. Mikey does not just claim to have a doctorate, Mikey does have a doctorate from Gwinnett- Hall Baptist College and Seminary and this has been verified by his critics. The statement that Michael claims to have a doctorate is misleading, and was removed, as Mikey has produced proof that he does hold an earned doctorate from a real school, and this has been verified, and can be verified by anyone who contacts Gwinnett - Hall Baptist College [[3]]in Lawrenceville, GA. The statement that Mikey claims to hold several other degrees is uninformed and misleading as Mikey holds three graduate degrees from Liberty Baptist Seminary [[4]]including an M.Div.. A quick call to Liberty can also verify this.

It is true that you claim to have doctorate. Stating that you make this claim is not the same as saying your claim is false. rlrr (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2008

69.246.140.252 (talk)Then why don't you James A. Chappelle call Dean Lawson at Gwinnett - Hall Baptist College in Lawrenceville, GA and verify that Michael does hold 2 degrees from there?. If you are going to write in Wiki James, you should do proper research. 69.246.140.252 (talk)

(UTC)Usatrumpet (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)yet Maryland poster removed the statement that said that Mikey HAS a doctorate, which is a statement that better clarifies Mikey's credentialsUsatrumpet (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Usatrumpet (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Mikey HAS a doctorate. Stating that Mikey claims to have a doctorate is misleadingUsatrumpet (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the letters "MES" is a rude form of disrespect in violation of Wiki guidelines, Maryland Rlrr poster needs to refer to Mikey using his real name. Maryland poster continues to vandalize page with opinionated unprovable unverifiable opinions, who give the Maryland poster the right to slam a person in Wiki without any sources? Rlrr continues to vandalize Wiki with unfounded opinions such as the opinion that Mikey's Christian music ministry is insignificant. Where is the source for that? This is in clear violation of "policy, and must not become a magnet for inflammatory attacks on Usenet users (or WP editors, for that matter). Tone must remain neutral and factual."

The letters MES are simply your initials. Wpolicy, and must not become a magnet for inflammatory attacks on Usenet users (or WP editors, for that matter). Tone must remain neutral and factual.

hat's the the whole "Maryland" deal? What point are you trying to make? rlrr (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mikey has been listed multiple times as one of the top ten best Christian trumpet players of all times, Mikey is currently has held the third most # of Christian solo trumpet concerts, and the Trumpet of the Lord Ministries budget is # 4 of all times. Maryland poster continues to spread his libelous claim where he spreads misinformation when he states that Mikey never marched an entire season in a jr. open class drum corps. ```(UTC)

MES was used by the original author of the article. It is a fact that Michael E. Schmidt is often referred to as simply MES on usenet. rlrr (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

using "MES" still violated Wiki guidelines

Usatrumpet (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Mikey deserves to be called by his real name. Wiki is not the place for people who do not agree with Mikey's political views to be allowed to taunt him with rude insulting nicknames for him Usatrumpet (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Political views? Who said anything about your political views? rlrr (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

69.246.140.252 (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Rlrr - James A. Chapelle has a long history of an ugly politically motivated rivalry with Mikey. Besides, Mikey is not involved in political things anymore, Mikey does not even post on usenet anymore69.246.140.252 (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Schmidt is the one known for posting "ugly" comments on usenet. rlrr (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Usatrumpet (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Mikeys does claim to be able to play the world's loudest and highest notes on a trumpet, he even states so on his website. Many professional trumpet players and other musicians have PRAISED Mikeys ability to play a trumpet well, which can be read on Mikey's [5] myspace page. The fact that Mikey's myspace page has 5 x as many plays as some of his usenet professional trumpet playing critics like Jeff Helgesen goes to show that Mikey is without a doubt a very popular trumpet player. Usatrumpet (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits and comments are barely coherent and do not follow any coherent markup strategy I understand. More importantly, you have both severely violated WP:3RR several times.

Usatrumpet (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Maryland "editor" is allowed to libel Mikey unchecked. Maryland "editor" refuses to call Mikey by his real name, instead using "MES", which is rude and offensiveUsatrumpet (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 Usatrumpet (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Untrue, I was reverting Marylands libel, unsupported poinions and vandalism, which is allowed.Usatrumpet (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)(UTC)

It's time to call in an admin.  Xihr  06:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm done editing this article. I'll defer to the admins. rlrr (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rlrr I think this would be a wise thing for you to do, Thank you. Usatrumpet (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Usatrumpet, this is a public page for discussion among people who may not be familiar with all the issues and personalities. Therefore, it is critical that you refer to others in a way that others will know who you mean. "Maryland editor" is inappropriate. DMacks (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Usatrumpet (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Fair enough, good point, for this point on I refer to him as Rlrr or James A. ChapelleUsatrumpet (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Usatrumpet still should explain what was meant by "Maryland editor" as it made absolutely no sense at all. rlrr (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, on the article page, we have standards for refering to people (WP:MOSBIO among others). If the person is known by an alias in public ("Madonna", for example), using that in the article is reasonable. If there's not a universally known alias for the person, the manual of style for wikipedia says to use the last name. If there are nicknames that are used sometimes, they should be included (it's part of the facts surrounding the subject), but not as the primary way to refer to the subject. DMacks (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then we should be refering to Mikey primarily as Dr. Schmidt.

Usatrumpet (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not...just last name. Style-manuals are quite clear that honorifics and other titles are not appropriate except in the case of royalty and the like. DMacks (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding content, WP:CITE and WP:RS must be followed, which is especially important to avoid WP:BLP problems. Claims of fame ("best", important accomplishments and notable actions, etc.) or criticism ("insignificant", other negative analysis, etc.) can't be included unless they are verifiable. DMacks (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Usatrumpet (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 

(UTC)Thank you DMacks for your wise words, excellent commentUsatrumpet

(talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The entry is not well written, and contains too many irrelevant facts. It needs to be rewritten in a more concise form. — Loadmaster (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

69.246.140.252 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)The current page that is up about Mikey is a complete joke, full of UNPROVEN libelous biased opinions about Mikey which are clearly in direct violation to Wiki's written policy. 

01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear USATrumpet, thank you for your comment. Would you please try to post your comments to the end of a thread, not in the middle of a previous comment, as it makes things hard to read. You do this when posting both as USATrumpet and when sockpuppeting as 69.246.140.252 Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

69.246.140.252 (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Andy the Wiki editors have blocked a page from being edited that still contains untruths and biased unproven views of Rlrr , James A. Chapelle of Maryland, someone who is writing in Wiki to libel Dr. Michael E. Schmidt. The FACTs and Evidence of this were given above.69.246.140.252 (talk)

Rlrr is not "James A. Chapelle of Maryland". A simple fact Schmidt can't even get right. rlrr (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

69.246.140.252 (talk)! James A. Chappell , or however you spell your name, Rlrr is James A. Chappell. Funny that you James, after making so may errors on the Schmidt article would try to talk about getting things right. But you are an Obama supporter arent you James? No wonder you get so many things wrong.69.246.140.252 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling isn't Schmidt's only problem with Rlrr's identity. Also, Schmidt might want to check out WP:OUTING. rlrr (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chappell / Rlrr outed himself, because he added a link on Wiki to a page to his homepage where he lists his real name, which is James A. Chappell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlrr

Chappell is one to talk about HARASSMENT, being he harassed Mikey with a bunch of statements on wiki that are untrue(see above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.140.252 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With all of the TALK / "lies" that Chappell has given you concerning Schmidt, if any of you want to hear current samples of Mikey's trumpet music you can go here: http://www.myspace.com/thetrumpetofthelord

Of course James A. Chappell is a drummer who knows nothing at all about how to play a trumpet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.140.252 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An earmark of MES's postings is that he's in the habit of referring to himself in the third person. I would consider it a given that the third-person assertions referencing him in the above discussion are by MES himself.

TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Doug Bollen

The entry on Doug Bollen is poorly written, and is written with a negative POV. Are there any other sources to back up these claims? — Loadmaster (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the real problem here - which I have contributed to it has to be said - is that the entry is getting rather long. Note that the description at the head of this page uses the term "brief". It could be edited to make it less POV but it is also the case that as a "Notable Usenet Personality", the description is almost bound to be somewhat POV.

The sources are almost always direct links to archived texts on google of his own words. Can you suggest some better form? Soarhead77 (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no other sources to back up the claims - all sources are Doug Bollen's original posts to usenet. I agree that it has become overlong - perhaps we should agree to highlight, say, 4 of his more outlandish claims. Brianwhitehead (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Doug Bollen entry should be kept, and shortened. The guy is a crank. He posts a lot of stuff that contradicts his previous views, and manages to wind just about everyone up, including those who may be sympathetic to his views. e.g. He is against all air travel, apart from that required to ferry food from the other side of the world, and he himself just to fly a lot. He is against cars, yet used to own a 4x4. He purports to be a cyclist, yet slags cyclists off. A look at his website shows that he jumps on every bandwagon possible. He supports CAMRA and Alcohol Concern amongst other contradictory groups. IT does seem to me that the Doug entry was deleted because of the Micheal Schmit edit war. 82.14.71.249 (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AKA "the NOID" surely a recorded 10 year history predating 1998 is enough. http://www.whirlnet.co.uk/demon/demon-service-part2.txt (Skyshack (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

A person who has gained notoriety among a sufficiently large group of newsgroup posters can have an entry in this article. The key points being notoriety and sufficiently large; if the guy is widely recognized as being notable, then he meets the criteria, and the more so if and there is a link to a source to support that assertion. If he's just some guy who rants a lot on a single newsgroup, then obviously that's not enough to make him notable enough. Yes, these are purposefully vague terms, but we're deferring the judgement of notable to the consensus of the newsgroup readers themselves. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Doug is known to quite a large amount of UK users who have been using Usenet for a while, despite being currently based on uk.transport, he is known by many in other uk groups, to the point where he is refered to as Doug in groups he does not post to that often.82.14.71.249 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Doug has worked his way through many other UK newsgroups, including the demon.local groups (mentioned in one of the sources provided), uk.misc, uk.environment, uk.rec.cycling to name just a few. He quickly became notorious in each one. Would it help if I provided sources to some of his more outlandish claims in other groups? Brianwhitehead (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Bollen *needs* to go in this article; the guy actually claimed there were two (and chemically distinct) types of ozone, good and bad! He's surely a kook and an entry is a must. Violentbob (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Doug Bollen meets all the criteria stated by Loadmaster - and then some. His notoriety stretches back 14 years on a large number of Usenet groups in the uk.* hierarchy including the ones mentioned by Brian Whitehead as well as soc.culture.british. Just do a Google Groups search on the term "Duhg" (a derogatory name that was coined for him in 1997) and you'll see what I mean. The "two ozones" thread of 1998 referred to above is widely regarded in the uk.* hierarchy and beyond as a Usenet classic, which is still widely cited to this day. Again, do a Google search and see for yourself. Almost as funny has been his constant denials that he is in fact Doug Bollen, when he has left a clear and unbroken audit trail stretching right back to his first posts on Usenet as Doug Bollen in 1994 up to the present day. If Doug Bollen is left off this list off notable Usenet personalities, then quite frankly the list has no credibility. Indeed, the man should have a page of his own. --EdwardBanger (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've personally been recording Bollen's Usenet contributions since 1994. He's not a one-group wonder, he's a genuine netkook with a long posting history covering many Usenet groups. He was particularly prolific in the service and local groups for his former ISP, Demon Internet, but expanded from there to various environment, transport and political groups. he has made several attempts to disguise his identity and to run sock-puppets but within a matter of days he will revert to type and give away his 'deception' either by returning to a topic previously covered by Bollen or by his trademark signature which refers to "Smiley's Radical Campaigns Jump Page". Previous attempts to create a Bollen-specific Wiki entry were thwarted by an over-zealous moderation. Please don't let that happen to this entry, which can be edited for brevity but should not be removed entirely. Lotaresco (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request ref Doug Bollen section.

checkY Done{{editprotected}} Could an admin please re-insert the Doug Bollen section, that seem to have been removed as part of the Michael E. Schmidt edit war. The Doug Bollen section is not part of the WP:COI edit war about Schmidt. 82.14.71.249 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. --EdwardBanger (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to register my plea to have the Bollen section reinstated. I can't see a valid reason for it to have been removed. Lotaresco (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thirded Soarhead77 (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fourthed Brianwhitehead (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like an AOL user... 'Me too' Violentbob (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the page on Doug Bollen back. He is surely worthy of a mention due to his past exploits and contradictions. Mike Pearson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.206.4 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the edit war that led to protection was about Bollen, no admin will reinsert the section until after the page is unprotected. Take the opportunity to discuss the issue here and find some sort of consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

the edit war that led to protection was about Michael Schmidt, not Bollen Brianwhitehead (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct, there was no edit war about Bollen. I appears that the removal was a mistake, and that the section should be reinstated without delay. Lotaresco (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any edit war in the normal sense around this section. No evidence of continual contributions and reversions is there in the history. I can see this page has a history of being protected/unprotected - almost inevitable given its subject matter, but this section seems less than controversial to me. 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting concerned by the silence from whoever deleted the Bollen entry and (presumably) locked the page for edits. We've not had a statement from an administrator about why the Bollen section has been deleted, nor has there been any acknowledgment of the debate here. I think that at the very least those who have contributed to the section are entitled to an objective jstification for the removal of the entry. Lotaresco (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And now I'm even more concerned. The administrator who locked the page has expressed a lack of interest in sorting out the problem caused by his deletion of the Bollen entry and his locking of the page for edits. It seems that we have a consensus that the content was appropriate, possibly needed some minor edits for length and possibly (but not agreed) for tone. However we're now in a position where an administrator has caused a problem but has walked away from the consequences. Can anyone else help to get this issue resolved? Lotaresco (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I too left a note on the protecting admin's talk page. If he doesn't justify his actions in a day or so, I'll re-add that material. DMacks (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
...which he didn't, so I did. DMacks (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, your effort is much appreciated. Lotaresco (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone called for an admin on WP:RFPP. Whats up, readers digest version.--Tznkai (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

An edit war broke out over the Michael Schmidt entry. In consequence an administrator locked the page. At the same time the section on Doug Bollen, which is not related to the Schmidt entry, was deleted. This change occured when the admin reverted the page to an earlier state "10:50, 2 September 2008 AndonicO (Talk | contribs) (18,801 bytes) (Reverting before protection.)" The reversion went too far back in time erasing not only the vandalism and edit wars over the Schmidt entry but also a section that was being actively edited and seemed to have consensus approval. Lotaresco (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. It looks like DMacks has it, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you need another pair of eyes.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The Reader's Digest version? Bollen was A Damned Communist and lacking in Moral Fibre, which caused his articles to fall off. He then saw the error of his way, found God, Capitalism and the American Way, then crawled back 15 miles over broken glass whilst having severed his own legs with a chainsaw. God Bless America.
Can we have the Bollen content back please, it was just finger trouble, not edit- or wheel-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kibo

Just tagged AfD over at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Parry. If you're reading this talk page, you'll probably have an interest in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul Cummins - Internet Engineer

Anyone think that Cummins qualifies as a "notable Usenet personality"? In June 2001 he announced to The Register that he had taken on ORBS from Alan Brown. Within days he had to change the name to ORBZ possibly because Brown did not approve of the take over. Then in March 2002 the service was shut down because of "criminal charges for denial of service relating to the Lotus Domino issue". Cummins was a bizarre character known, among other things, for his inability to tell the truth. For years he claimed to be Dr. Paul Cummins but would never discuss where he obtained his degree or the subject of his thesis. Eventually he claimed to be a doctor of divinity and later admitted that he had no degree. Some sympathetic soul bought a doctorate at a "non-accredited" university and donated this to Cummins in an attempt to silence Cummins' critics. Cummins also claimed to have had Internet Access since 1981, despite there being no evidence to support his claim. Cummins became involved in an acrimonious disagreement with Dr. Lawrence Godfrey (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/demon.service/browse_thread/thread/c71942a709653a8d/6f513d5406a7ced8) it was fairly obvious this was never going to end well and it didn't. Late last year Cummins mysteriously disappeared from the scene - but suggestions have emerged that he is spending time at Her Majesty's Pleasure in Winchester Prison. This rumour has been given strength by the publication of an article by "Paul Cummins" in the May 2008 issue of "Inside Time" a national newspaper for prisoners. Lotaresco (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he's just a run of the mill Usenet "contributor", not especially notable within that particular cuckoo's nest. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive deletions

What's with all the massive deletions ([6], [7], [8])? I'm having difficulty understanding what some editors find acceptable as "reliable sources" about Usenet notoriety. These entries are not so much about the volume of a person's Usenet posting activity as it is about his notoriety among other Usenet users. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Material which may reflect badly on a living person must be removed unless the sources are watertight. Unfortunately, usenet threads and student rags are not reliable sources. You'll need something like press coverage. If that's not available, then it isn't suitable for wikipedia.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
To add to that, what was lacking in most of these cases wasn't evidence that individuals said or advocated certain things - for that, I agree that usenet posts can work under the right circumstances - but evidence that they achieved sufficient notoriety to justify being covered in Wikipedia. The presumption in favour of privacy in WP:BLP requires (among other things) that we not publish potentially embarrassing details about people's lives unless others - that is, others who qualify as reliable sources - have done so first. Most of what's been removed has been information about people who are covered almost entirely in potentially-embarrassing terms, and without any reference to third party coverage. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
So why delete Laurence Godfrey? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Archimedes Plutonium was discussed a few months ago on this talk page, and some WP:RS were given. I would be interested to see evidence of consensus that "student [newspapers] are not reliable sources", although for substantially negative BLP, I would hope additional sources (or the sources used by the school paper) would also be found. DMacks (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Joel Furr's entry seemed factual and not negative with the exeption of one sentence, and there are a bunch of WP:RS-looking cites on his own page supporting his notability in relation to USENET. DMacks (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Likewise for James D. Nicoll. This deletion seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater... DMacks (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when we have BLP violations the policy is to temporarily throw out the baby and bathwater. If there is material that can be properly referenced, from reliable sources, then you are free to reinsert it (with the sources).--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Scott is right. WP:BLP policy requires that unsourced statements about living people be removed without discussion, whether they are positive or negative -- it is the only way to avoid lawsuits. I think it's the case that (for instance) Archimedes Plutonium and the like are notable (in the general, non-Wikipedian meaning), but the fact is that Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP) require us to have reliable sources asserting notability, and content that is backed up with verifiable citations, before proceeding. If those reliable sources are lacking because of the nature of the subject (e.g., a Usenet crackpot with little notability outside of that domain), then we do have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's what the rules require. If you disagree, then you should bring it up on those relevant policy pages, not here. The other deletions that I'm familiar with are similar situations.  Xihr  07:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright then, let's establish what the criterion is for someone to be "a notable Usenet personality". Note, I'm not objecting to setting a reasonably high WP:N bar, but this page does accumulate "various quality additions" and the whole page is about one aspect of the items listed, so getting consensus and policy explicitly stated here will solve problems going forward. I'm especially interested in ones that are already notable (i.e., enough to have their own WP page). How good a source and how directly does it have to state that such a person is "a notable Usenet personality"? Is it enough to cite that he is active on usenet (or additionally that he is active in relation to what he's already notable for)? Or do we need to cite that he is "notable on Usenet" (not just "notable and on Usenet")? If so, given that some parts of Usenet are fairly insular, self-defining, or otherwise not well documented by outside, mainstream media (but perhaps well documented in its own forms or by less mainstream media), what qualifies as a WP:RS to document it? Going in the other direction, if a page about Person X supports that he is a Y, does a page "list of people who are Y" need to cite each X as being Y, or do we just need to be certain that each X page is well-cited? DMacks (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The list itself needs citations. For two reasons: 1) the citations on the individual article may be challenged or removed and yet the list would remain (now uncited). 2) if we don't insist on that, it wouldbe hard to look at the list and identify any uncited claims. Every controversial claim on a living person needs an adjacent citation.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that applies in a case like Laurence Godfrey (and others) where the list entry is merely a linked teaser to a full wiki article and that article itself contains the necessary citations. The policy requirement is to have these citations in an accessible place, not to duplicate them into as many locations as possible. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It's best to insist on references on the list itself, for the reasons I outlined. The linked article can change (or be deleted).--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Archimedes Plutonium, you can see in the section above that there were two citations. Quoting from above:

There is a recent article published in The Argus Leader [9] about local resident Archimedes Plutonium, by Nestor Ramos, 2008-06-29, here. Currently only registered/subscribed users can access the story, but it should become freely accessible in a few weeks, and would provide a nice aditional external source. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Archimedes Plutonium was recently mentioned on This American Life (MP3, [10]). Mindme (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
In my view, that sourcing is sufficient to include him in this article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Gharlane of Eddore

I moved Gharlane of Eddore from "eccentric" to "unusual." By some standards, he couldcertainly be called eccentric but he belongs in the second group. He wasn't crazy or malicious and was, in fact, a respected figure. If you think otherwise, you could do a poll on the sf newsgroups or just ask James Nicoll.

I may have to open an account in order to add some more people. I live on UseNet, or sometimes it seems that I do and there are many, many candidates more notable than some of the ones listed. There's the guy who makes the dog newsgroups practically unreadable. There's "Sound of Trumpets" and Ed Conrad and many others. — 71.234.37.99 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven71.234.37.99 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

James Nicoll

I changed "James D. Nicoll" to "James Davis Nicoll" at his request. He prefers to spell it out or not use it at all. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I switched it back to his more commonly used name, the simple James Nicoll. He never posted with the "Davis" part in. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

He's been the subject of a chapter in a book, of at least four newspaper articles. He is a magnet for attention wherever he goes, and he googles high. He is one of the most notable of all the usenet personalities, if not the most notable of all. I believe that with a good level of protection, the article can be completely factual, nonabusive etc.Likebox (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why he has an entry in this article. (I created this article expressly for this reason, in fact.) But AP still does not merit a separate article unto itself, which is being promoted at (the deleted page) Talk:Archimedes Plutonium. | Loadmaster (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course AP merits an article - he's notable, and reliably referable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Only if such an article is limited to discussing why he's notable on Usenet. Which doesn't seem like much more than a paragraph or two, which is about as much space as is devoted to his entry on this page. You might want to reread the arguments given at AfD/Archimedes Plutonium (4th nomination) et al. | Loadmaster (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Speak of the ...

I have a scan of a page of Scientific American where he (Or someone who signs himself as LP) demands they publish that the universe is a plutonium atom. Is there any use for this? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. I assume you're talking about his infamous letter to SA. If it can be displayed here as a reasonably-size thumb image (150~200px wide), it might be interesting enough to add to AP's entry here, especially if it's cropped to show his letter only and not the entire page. (Be sure to include date/volume/issue info on the image upload.) | Loadmaster (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there more than one such letters? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there third-party resources establishing that this "LP" is the same person? WP:BLP requires better than supposition.  Xihr  11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I commented out the only external link, which was to Skirv's "Legends" page. The link redirects to a 404 page on his site. I looked around his FAQ page and couldn't find anything on legends.  .`^o Painediss`cuss o^`.  20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 

John Titor

Should we include John Titor in the list? Or does he not quite qualify as a Usenet personality? — Loadmaster (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Loadmaster's lack of logic as to these lists and why Wikipedia should immediately drop this page

This page is nothing more than the Crank's Loadmaster's low opinion of several Usenet posters.

Spurious use of the term "eccentric"

And then attach paranoid and troll, what he means to say "I think these people are insane"

It is a black list.

He even has a murderer who posted a few times.

Why not sandwich convicted felones who posted once to Usenet between other names.


This listing bespeaks not of a information sheet on some posters, but it bespeaks more of the dark recesses of some mind who wants to scream " I think these people are insane"

Take a look at how Utah State University lists its Notable Persons. They subpackage notables as say "sports" as say "science & education" Utah State does not list their notables as to "eccentric-paranoid" "unusual"

So this entire page should be removed at once and not put up again until it can be shown that it is not a defamation list of Loadmaster's dark recesses of his mind.

And the list could have categories such as this:

Notable for "New Science Ideas"

Notable for "Humor"

Notable for "computer information"

As it stands currently, this Wikipedia page is nothing more than a list of who Loadmaster has a "low opinion of"

I say drop this list immediately until a Logical Rationale of categories is set up

Abian, AP do not deserve to be in the same list as a convicted murderer who posted a few times. Loadmaster deserves to be on the same list, but not those two.

And it shows the general lack of logic of the mind's of some Wikipedia editors.

216.16.57.59 (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster


There probably is some sort of Rule in Encyclopedia making or in journal or book making. A rule concerning membership of LISTS. That if you cannot construct a list that has clearcut membership, then you cannot publish that list. This rule probably extends into courts of law, where you have lists of who or who cannot join or participate with categories determining membership.

So what I am getting at is a list in an Encyclopedia, for which membership is vague and not at all clearcut, such as a murderer who makes a few posts and someone who makes posts on science. And that the list is overall a Negative Tone to the list, as to say that the list is a bad list.

So I am rather sure that there is some rules in Encyclopedia making, regards lists and persons placed on lists.

Now if we wanted a list of presidents, that is straightforward and could not be tampered with by including a convicted murderer on the list of presidents.

And I am sure that all other encyclopedia's never had a list such as what Wikipedia has "lists of Usenet Personalities", because those encyclopedia's realized it would break their Rule on lists.

So I am saying that if you want to make a List as an entry and unable to WELL DEFINE membership of that list, or at least a defining that is reasonable, then the Encyclopedia should be forbidden to make such an entry. Lists have to have some clearcut membership determination. Otherwise the list is rogue.

The entry for Archimedes Plutonium is placed in the section reserved for individuals considered eccentric by the Usenet community, as stated at the top of the section:
These individuals (or user-IDs, or pseudonyms) are noted for their eccentric beliefs and theories, paranoid or threatening behavior, or newsgroup trolling activities.
AP certainly meets the first of the three independent criteria listed. It is a matter of public record that AP's theories are considered eccentric, and there are external citations verifying his notability. So by the Wikipedia rules for notability, AP deserves to be mentioned here. Furthermore, everything said in the entry is true and written in an entirely neutral style, and is based on AP's own claims in his Usenet postings. Any opinions I may have about AP the person or his postings are completely irrelevant to how people at large perceive him and the documentation thereof. Your ad hominem attacks on Wikipedia editors are likewise utterly irrelevant. As for what constitutes proper material for lists, please refer to Wikipedia Guidelines for lists. In general, the potential topics for a list is unlimited. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Loadmaster said this: "... how people at large perceive him and the documentation thereof."

That is not the function or purpose of a Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are about factual data, not about perceptions. And although encyclopedia's do contain "perceptions" they are underpinned by facts and data.

By Loadmaster's admission above of "perception" then we begin to see that this list is more clearly defined as

"List of Usenet Personalities Perceived of as Insane Persons" 216.16.56.10 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster

ill-defined list that sandwiches murderers alongside Abian and Archimedes Plutonium

Loadmaster is very dense in mind when it comes to him making mistakes. So I please and respectfully requesting other editors of Wikipedia to intercede.

The problem with this Wikipedia entry is glaringly obvious in that it is ill defined category So ill defined that you can sneek just about anything under "eccentric"

So there I am along with Abian next to a convicted murderer who may have posted once or twice to the Internet.

So in 5 years time, can Abian and I expect to be sandwiched between several other murderers?

And look at the entire discussion page--- it is mostly over whether to include or remove someone.

So if ever there was a case where a encyclopedia entry was the foibles or random opinion of one person, is this page.

It comes down to whether Loadmaster likes a inclusion and where that inclusion is sandwiched.

This is encyclopedia writing at its worst

So remove the entire entry until and unless you can Well Define the List

Don't be throwing me and Abian into a list that is going to be packed with criminals

And don't be throwing me and Abian onto a list that is markedly a disquised list of who the author of the list thinks are "insane people" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.56.10 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How Does One Start a "Deletion Action" of this Page?

Reason: List is ill-defined as per membership

Who to contact, to start a Deletion process?

216.16.54.141 (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster


According to Wikipedia policy---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMOSLIST

Lead and selection criteria

Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list; do not simply say "This is a list of X", but make sure the scope of the list is understandable. Even if it might seem obvious what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources. Non-obvious characteristics of the list, for instance regarding the list structure, should also be explained in the lead section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMOSLIST

This page violates Wikipedia Policy

216.16.54.141 (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster

Why do sections 32, 33, 34 not appear

They do not appear, so do we have editing without logging in as editing?

216.254.227.226 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster

Probably the most convoluted leader statement to a "list" in all of encyclopedia writing

--- quoting the leader statement of this entry --- Eccentric personalities

These individuals (or user-IDs, or pseudonyms) are noted for their eccentric beliefs and theories, paranoid or threatening behavior, or newsgroup trolling activities.

--- end quoting ---

Since when has Wikipedia editors become trained psychologists making psychological judgements over a Usenet poster. Deeming them as trolls or deeming them as paranoid?

Archimedes Plutonium and Alexander Abian have posted new science ideas to Usenet, and as such, should not be judged by some editor of Wikipedia

Neither Archimedes Plutonium nor Alexander Abian display paranoid or threatening behaviour, nor can they be judged as troll or crank by a Wikipedia editor.

The Wikipedia rules are very clear as per "lists" as unambiguous to membership.

The above is about the maximum in ambiguity towards membership. Something that was designed by a drunken hobo, but not suitable for a encyclopedia entry.


Also, I make note of the fact that John Baez was on this list not too long ago. Apparently, what transpired is that John Baez looked at the shadyness of this list and decided to email Loadmaster asking to be removed. And removed he was. In the same manner, let this post by Archimedes Plutonium be the same request of Loadmaster to have the Archimedes Plutonium entry into Usenet Personalities be removed immediately. If John Baez can remove his, I want mine removed.

I cannot speak for Alexander Abian, but I would think he would wanted to have his name removed from this list also, because when it boils down, this list is a fabrication of a group of editors of Wikipedia who are screaming out loud " we think these people are insane"

It is a pitiful contrived list, hiding behind a convoluted ambiguous leader criterion. And the list is started to be packed with murder criminals.

I do not want to be on a list that screams of a group of editors who want to paint people as "insane cranks" when they are not.

Since John Baez was able to remove himself, quickly and easily, I expect removal of Archimedes Plutonium in the same quick and easy style.

216.254.227.226 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster

"Since when has Wikipedia editors become trained psychologists making psychological judgements over a Usenet poster."
Wikipedia editors aren't. It doesn't matter, because even if they were, that would count as WP:OR and wouldn't be permissible anyway. So the people listed here are only here because some WP:RS, outside Wikipedia, supports their inclusion. Archimedes Plutonium is a loon with bizarre and self-contradictory crackpot theories about physics (read the Google Groups archive - we both have a track-record of discussion re this, stretching back many years although I would no longer bother to engage. I'm still rather disappointed I've never managed my own crackpot listing here 8-) ). However even though I'm happy to believe this myself, and have the personal experience (and a laser physics degree) to support it, I still can't write that on Wikipedia without external sourcing for it.
You clearly don't like this article, or the inclusion of AP on it. So find some reasons according to Wikipedia policy to change it. Otherwise your random edits and attacks on others, despite your socking across many IPs, look awfully like vandalism and trolling themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So, typically, Andy Dingley calls me everything from a loon to a insane crackpot, and we can expect objectivity out of Andy Dingley??? But that aside.

SHOW ME HOW this Wikipedia Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMOSLIST

Lead and selection criteria

Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria.

SHOW ME HOW THAT GIBES with this: --- quoting the leader statement of this entry --- Eccentric personalities

These individuals (or user-IDs, or pseudonyms) are noted for their eccentric beliefs and theories, paranoid or threatening behavior, or newsgroup trolling activities.

--- end quoting ---

Then, show me why John Baez can be removed of his entry quickly and easily on his request, whereas I should be prejudiced when I make the same request. I do not want to be on a list by an author/s whose list is "we think these people are insane"

216.254.227.226 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster

If you think you're Archimedes Plutonium (well known loon and crackpot theoretician), then I suggest you start with WP:BLP. Don't complain about the nature of the list, that's an irrelevance. However WP:BLP policies do generally tend towards removing anything that the subject of the article wishes to have removed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

nominate Uncle Al for "eccentric" Usenet Personality

Noticed this post today and why Uncle Al is missing from this article? He has been a Usenet curmudgeon for going on to twenty years now. If you have Abian, Sarfatti and of course AP, then why are you not inclusive of a curmudgeon. Schwartz has a rapp sheet on him and his Victoria Canada.

Newsgroups: sci.math, soc.history, sci.physics From: Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:33:43 -0700 Local: Fri, Apr 24 2009 3:33 pm Subject: Re: John Baez quick and easy removal then I expect the same Re: Wikipedia violating their own policy on "lists" Re: bad entry Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:

[snip crap]

> Neither Archimedes Plutonium nor Alexander Abian display paranoid or > threatening behaviour, nor can they be judged as troll or crank by a > Wikipedia editor.

[snip rest of crap]

Archie-Poo is a chronic abusive trolling idiot.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.

-- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ 

(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2


Show Archie that you are fair in your list by including Uncle Al who has bothered sci physics for years with his offbeat bizarre gravity expose.

216.254.227.18 (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Sister Maria

Please don't sockpuppet between two IP addresses (.18 & .226) - they're very obviously either the same person, or closely related. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This list violates Wikipedia rules on lists; is merely a "disguised Tribble Crackpot list"

Wikipedia rules say list membership cannot be ambiguous. How is (1) theory (2) paranioa, (3) troll , anything but ambiguous. How is it that Abian and Archimedes Plutonium find themselves on a list of murder felons? The answer is obvious. This is a smear list, concoct by an author who disguises the list.

Proof: John Baez was on this list, but a simple email to Wikipedia, he is removed.

Archimedes Plutonium requested to be removed from this list, but like pulling teeth, Tribble refuses. Baez is removed in a breeze. Tribble makes it pulling teeth for AP to be removed.

Here is a post to sci.math, and soc.history over this Wikipedia nonsense:

Newsgroups: sci.math, soc.history Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Local: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 2:13 am

David R Tribble wrote: > See: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presolar_grains > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust

Talking about Wikipedia, I need you to remove me from the "Usenet Personalities List"

It is encyclopedia writing at its worst.

It does not obey the Wikipedia rules for unambiguous membership. You have three criteria on one list alone-- (1) theory, (2) paranoia (3) troll Three criteria is hardly unambiguous and is not in compliance with rules of Wikipedia.

But worst of all, some people who are to be put on that list and where there originally such as John Baez, who seeing that the list was really a sham list of someone's sense of who is a crackpot, and where John emailed Wikipedia and they expunged him from the list.

I do not take kindly to a author such as Tribble sandwiching me and Abian between a convicted felon just because they posted to Usenet.

So, David Tribble, remove me from Wikipedia Usenet Personalities. The real title which anyone can discern "between the lines" is "Tribble's list of who he thinks are crackpots"

And anyone reading the "discussion page" of Usenet Personalities can see clearly that Tribble is overly adamant of suppressing a "normal page" for Archimedes Plutonium. A normal page that Likebox has already crafted. Likebox's entry of Archimedes Plutonium is "objective" and fair. Tribble's entry of Archimedes Plutonium is a smear. A smear to me and to Abian.

Tribble's juvenile authorship of a encyclopedia entry is basically a juvenile attempt to make a List of Crackpots in the mind of Tribble. And when other Wikipedia editors tries an objective page for Archimedes Plutonium, then Tribble puts on his overzealous suppressionist mode.

AP

216.16.57.213 (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster


Hey there pseudo-anonymous person! I agree, this list is a travesty and should be removed! I am in the minority however on this one. I feel it completely and utterly fails our list guidelines and our verifiability policies and even WP:BLP policy. But the majority rules in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New Page Title

In an effort to improve this article so it won't be deleted, let me suggest that the name be changed. Wikipedia is not really about "Lists" of things or people. Anywhere I've come across lists, I've seen templates suggesting that the list text be incorporated into the rest of the article. Now here we have an entire article about a "list". So my suggestion is to rename the article. Here are some suggested possibilities:

  • Notable Usenet personalities, (overusage of "notable" noted, see below by ~Amatulić)
  • Usenet celebrity (see Celebrity)
  • Famous and infamous Usenet personalities
{ the above altered by  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC) }
{ the above altered by (your ~~~~ here) }
{ the above altered by (your ~~~~ here) }

Since it is really more than a simple list and comprises information about the personalities as well, this change appears to be warranted, and perhaps necessary to ward off the deletion process?

I shall make this change in a few days if nobody objects.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  03:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the rename. However, please wait until the present AfD process has completed to avoid confusion. DMacks (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting, as long as people realize that the renaming back in November appears to be part of the "project" to get the page deleted. "I know! We'll retitle it LIST! That's sure to get it deleted!" This article is necessary in any context of UseNet culture and should not be deleted. Instead, it needs to be honed, sharpened and refined into an article that's worthy of Wikipedia.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
That ought to be Usenet personalities, as per WP:NAME#Lowercase on case. I don't have a strong opinion either way, although this would seem to be a "list" as per WP:LIST. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is all in the perception Andy. If an article is written well, then any number of things can be listed, such as the many religious articles that begin generally and then go into various faiths to show examples. Try Faith for example. Would this article be a candidate for deletion because it "lists" various faiths within the article?  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's another shining example for you Andy, and I think that this article on notable UseNet personalities ought to eventually be fashioned after the Celebrity article. This would include links to individual articles such as this one, and also this one that was evidently deleted from article namespace.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that the original title of this article was Notable Usenet personalities. It was change to List of ... and the notable part was dropped in this edit (2008-11-30). I prefer the old name, because it contains the word "notable", and because it does not suffer from the constraints imposed on "list" articles. — Loadmaster (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "Notable" is needed in the title. And I cannot help but wonder why a member of the editing community would title any article using "List" against Wikipedia policy? All I can come up with is that it was an effort to disparage the article further in order to get it deleted? I see DMacks point above, that renaming the article should wait until the decision is finalized. But since there doesn't seem to be any consensus for deleting the article even this second try, how long must we wait before this process of deletion is over?  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
An AfD discussion runs for 7 days, so "until Thursday". DMacks (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, DMacks - Thursday it is, then.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  21:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that "notable" needs to be in the title. The word "notable" is way over-used on Wikipedia. In a title, it's redundant. If an article meets the criteria for inclusion, then by defnition the subject is notable. There is no need to include the word in a title or heading, and I often see no need to include the word in article text either. If it's notable, it's on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable, or 'worthy of notice'." Ref.: Wikipedia:Notability. So I see a ring of truth in what you say, Amatulić. Since there is still time, I shall give it some thought and perhaps come up with a better wording for the title. Thank you very much for your input!  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Post-Afd(2nd)

  1. Notable Usenet personalities, (overusage of "notable" noted, see above by ~Amatulić)
  2. Usenet celebrity (see Celebrity)
  3. Famous and infamous Usenet personalities
  4. Famous and infamous personalities of Usenet

Notice

This will hopefully be fair notice to all that this article will be renamed to Famous and infamous personalities of Usenet tomorrow, May 12, 2009, or soon thereafter.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  15:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The #4 choice seems wordier than #3, the latter (but not the former) being one of the ones favorably considered in last-week's discussion. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point, DMacks. I also like #2, it is brief and to the point, and would like to use the Celebrity article as a guide to help with formatting, whatever name is chosen. There is still time, though. Nothing's etched in stone. How does #2 sound?  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with #2 or #3. #3 seems closer to what the article is now (just the people), #2 would be a great goal (lots of content about the phenomenon). DMacks (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. Instead of just a targetable list of personalities deserving historical note, a complete unbiased description of the general phenomenon of celebrity on Usenet. I'm leaning toward #2, now...  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  17:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section split

I'm thinking of splitting the "Eccentric personalities" section into two sections, "Eccentric beliefs" and "Eccentric behavior". The former would contain entries for people who post about eccentric (or strange, crank, wildy non-mainstream, etc.) theories and beliefs, while the latter would contain entries for those who also exhibited eccentric behavior (from trolling, excessive paranoia, threats, etc., up to and including actual physical violence).

(This proposed reorganization is prompted by the continued edits by Archimedes Plutonium, who has been editing under various IP addresses (216.16.5*.*) and sometimes calling himself "LogicMaster". He's attempting to distance himself from the "insane" people and "murderers" within the same "eccentric" category. I don't agree with his tactics, and I certainly don't think his brand of beliefs have been documented as being any less eccentric than those of most of the other personalities listed. To date, though, he has not exhibited any violent behavior beyond insulting other newsgroup posters.)

On the "pro" side of the split is the argument that the existing single section is too broad a category. On the "con" side is the problem of deciding when a given personality has crossed the line from simple eccentric "belief" to "behavior". Obvious entries, for example, include Valery Fabrikant, but less clear-cut entries include Jack Sarfatti.

Comments on this proposed section split are appreciated. — Loadmaster (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to engage rationally with Archimedes Plutonium is doomed, just look at years of experience from Usenet. 8-(
Secondly, I'm short of candidates for the "eccentric belief, rationally discussed" list. The anti-QM / GR people aren't noted for their quiet natures. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to deem the new section "eccentric belief, rationally discussed", but rather "eccentric belief without violent behavior". Again, that's what makes the split seem pretty useless, because we're splitting eccentric people into two classes based on how they behave in the newsgroups, not just on what they wrote. Recognizing what other posters thin about their theories/beliefs is pretty straightforward fact-finding (especially when a consensus view is published elsewhere); deciding whether their behavior crosses the line from non-violent to violent is probably a more difficult, and more subjective, task. Is someone who threatens violent acts different from someone who threatens actions and is fined for it, or are both of them to be considered in the same classification? — Loadmaster (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I also don't think this split is a good idea. This secondary attribute (with/without violence) seems like an artificial distinction, unrelated to what makes them part of this page (the primary attribute of being an outspoken proponent of some scientific (in some sense) theory). In terms of this page, I don't think we should make distinctions except in light of things related to this page. If we had some reliable source that examined the different modus operandi and made separate light of these two subcategories, I'd be fine making a distinction since then it would be a verifiable one. DMacks (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the split has been done, into sections "Eccentric believers" and "Eccentric personalities". So far, the lack of reverts/changes appears to indicate a general acceptance of this topic division. Assuming that a notable person's newsgroup posts are primarily devoted to promoting his eccentric theories and beliefs, he logically falls into the first group. Once that person's main goal is trolling, making insults and threats, and other paranoid or uncivil behavior, he then falls into the second group. Naturally, further suggestions and improvements are welcome. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the point of this section. It merely seems to serve as advertising for particular newsgroups by saying "This is where the famous people go". Any reason it should remain? Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective Greg, and thank you for it! But many of these "famous" people aren't there anymore. They've either died or moved on. The worst that can be said about the listing is that it is incomplete, and that a complete listing, if ever attained, could become very long and difficult, a distraction to readers. So there are definitely pros and cons to maintaining the list. Another problem might be that the newsgroups links section is not as easy as a references or notes section to build and maintain. I put the External Usenet newsgroup links section there, however I am certainly willing to abide by a consensus on whether or not it is suitable, whether or not it improves the article.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, it would be nice to be able to click on a link to see actual postings by the personalities mentioned in the article. On the other hand, a list of newsgroup links clutters up the article somewhat. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't clutter up the article to list examples of postings by names, and then cite them, with the citation having a link to the posting. The article would remain uncluttered, and the links would end up in the References section where they belong. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so everybody is aware, I made this separate Usenet newsgroup link section to set apart the newsgroup links from the http links in the References section. I thought it might be an improvement, since clicking on a newsgroup link opens the newsreader software on a reader's computer. The http links just open the http url in a reader's browser.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  03:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the letter links have been removed from this section. History says this was done by Amatulic. Was this an oversight? The carats that followed the letters acted just like the carats that follow the numbers in the References section. Clicking on the carat would take the reader to the part of the article where the newsgroup is mentioned. You'll notice that the letters in the "Note label" templates you removed coincide with bracket-enclosed letters in the article (which would also behave like the bracketed numbers that link to the numbered citations in the References section), and these are now disabled but have not been removed. Would you like me to replace the Note label templates in this section? or do you intend to remove the disabled bracketed letters in the article as well?  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  03:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the usenet links per WP:EL. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll abide by a consensus on this issue. However, the WP:EL only says to "avoid" such links as Usenet links, not necessarily to exclude them when they are appropriate. Usenet links therefore are inappropriate on most pages of Wikipedia. And yet howso would they be inappropriate in an article such as this one?  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • PS. I'll go ahead and remove the disabled bracketed letters next to the newsgroups within the article until this issue is discussed to everybody's satisfaction.

Usenet hyperlinks: to be or not to be

  • This is just to get a consensus. It's my contention that while Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:EL, guides us to avoid using Usenet links when editing Wikipedia, the policy does not say never to use them. To me, this means that the policy anticipates that the usage of Usenet links may be appropriate under certain limited circumstances. Would articles that are about Usenet and Usenet-related subjects qualify as exceptions to the avoidance policy?
  • Does no discussion on this issue mean that nobody else agrees that Usenet newsgroup links may be used in articles about Usenet and related subjects such as this one on Usenet celebrity? If so, then I readily abide by these wishes, and the deletion of the newsgroup links was a good edit.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  15:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support (with limitations) — On the one hand, the WP policy of not using links to newsgroup postings for citations in regular articles is quite rational, because newgroups are generally not reliable sources of information and because the identity of authors is hard to establish. On the other hand, it seems counter-constructive to omit any and all links to newgroups and posting in articles that are about newsgroup posters themselves. Surely an article should include links to relevant sources about its topic, even if those links would normally not be used for non-Internet related articles. These people are in fact notable (in my opinion, notable enough for a WP article like this one), and they are notable because of their postings on Usenet newsgroups. Therefore, it seems fair that links to some of their actual writing is appropriate within the context of this article. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting a Police List of Wikipedia Editors who run roughshod over private citizens

It is apparent from this Usenet Personalities entry, that Wikipedia editors have gained a "one upmanship" over the general public. Where they pack together as a pack wolves, and due to their extreme juvenile age such as :

That they include a "kook list" into a encyclopedic entry.

And whenever persons of the general public get fed up with this juvenile behaviour of Wikipedia editors and try to change the acid, they are ganged up by those wolves with their reverts, their blocking, their voting.

So what has to be done to change this situation of a gang of editors, lording over the general public with their "slanted entries". What has to be done is to start making names of Wikipedia editors who have belittled and defamed common citizens.

File with the State Attorney's Office. File in courts. Start listing names of Wikipedia editors who use the "encyclopedia as their own platform to fan hatred".

William Tecumseh Sherman, the Civil War General, long ago commented that when one of his boys was killed on the field, the newspaper would end up misspelling his name. Well, if General Sherman were alive during Wikipedia, not only would his dead and dying soldier have his name misspelled, and if Wikipedia had their say, that soldier would be on a "kook list"

It is fine to enlist packs of juvenile editors to build a encyclopedia, but then it goes too far, it stretches too far and you have a encylcopedia that does harm and damage to the society because of its pack of juveniles wanting to get a laugh out of belittling people.

216.254.227.20 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)posted to sci.physics,sci.math,soc.history

You are free to pursue legal action, but be advised of the Wikipedia policy covering this:
If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. ... Do not issue legal threats on or through Wikipedia.
— Loadmaster (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't a clue what all that means, but it seems to be you could have more effect by correcting the "slanted entries" rather than abusing the people who write them? Greg Tyler (t • c) 07:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It's just Archimedes Plutonium again, demonstrating his long-standing inability to operate within any sort of community or consensus-based framework. We would seem to have three options here:
* Ignore, but accept that he will keep posting these spiels with inexhaustible energy and patience.
* Ignore and delete them on sight, which is a bunch of work. Remember (the lesson of Usenet) that he has more energy and patience than mere mortals.
* Vast IP-based rangeblock over his entire ISP and much of Sioux Falls, Dakota
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's somewhat of an honor and distinction now to have been singled out by him. (TIC) We must be doing something right!
Fact is, I believe editors should take great pains not to belittle any of the entries in this article. They deserve an important place in history, spec. the history of Usenet, and ought to receive fair and unbiased attribution.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  15:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the guidelines related to biographies of living people shouldn't apply here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing in the AP entry violates WP policy. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged the unsourced statements in that section for now, but I'll take a closer look at all entries when I have a chance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You might want to check edits 287381148 and 287383707, which added the text you tagged. The second edit in particular was almost certainly done by AP himself (per the IP tracing discussed elsewhere). As to recent claims about his revolutionary new numerical notation, see these newsgroup posts: [11][12][13]. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, personal attacks, threats – is it worth it? This is not Usenet, this is Wikipedia. On Usenet, the advice and counsel is always to ignore the troller so as not to "fuel the fire". People like AP cannot be ignored on Usenet, and this seems to be their strength. There's always somebody, like the one below who asked AP a question, who cannot grasp that by taking such actions they just make things worse. I submit that vandalism and such is not and cannot be ignored on Wikipedia. If AP does not want to go down in history in the greatest encyclopedic reference work the planet has ever known, then I say pull his entry. It's really the only way to put out the fire. Take him off the page and let's get on with improving the article.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  04:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for Archimedes Plutonium

Hello Archimedes Plutonium I hope that you are doing well. I would like to ask you what exactly you think that this wikipedia article should say about you? Thanks, --194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits here made by banned editor (WP:NLT, confirmed at WP:ANI) have been removed; editors wishing to see removed comments may check the edit history. The comments were also posted by Archimedes Plutonium to newsgroups sci.math, sci.physics, and soc.history.
You will probably have better luck posting this question in one of AP's threads on sci.math or sci.physics. For example, this thread (2009-05-11). In his latest post (2009-05-11) he indicates that he has no problem being called "eccentric", but that he objects to the external link to RationalWiki's List of internet kooks. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it so hard to comply with that wish of his? I certainly don't see the harm in doing so, what do you and the rest of you think?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
We do not generally care what the subject of a Wikipedia article thinks of it, unless he/she can present relevant comments within the Wikipedia guidelines. The subject is usually in the best position to suggest sources for material about him, but is not in the best position to decide their relevance, notability, or reliability. There was an exception made recently, that a person's request to delete the article about himself may be taken into account if he's only of marginal notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, I dislike the tone of your post. "We do not generally care", what sort of statement is that, who is this we that you are referring to and what's with the insensitivity on your part? We should definitely care about what the subject of a wikipedia article thinks of it, another question is if we can actually do anything regarding the reasons why a subject of an article feels one way about it or another, if the subject only has minor objections to the content of the article then perhaps something can be done to try to please it but if there are more grave objections and conflicts with wikipedias policies and rules then perhaps regrettably nothing can be done regarding the objections. Now let me ask again, can anyone think of anything minor that can be done to ease the objections of the subject of this article?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, User:194x144x90x118... in order for you to better understand Arthur's response, please peruse this Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It's possible that Arthur meant that editors are more inclined to consider the well-sourced facts about a living article subject, and that the living article subject may not be the best source for the facts about him- or herself.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  04:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What he meant is pretty irrelevant, the way he said it was not appropriate however.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. What he meant is by no means irrelevant, pretty or otherwise. To say so violates Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, is incendiary and serves no purpose among serious encyclopedia editors. One who says such things may lose credibility. We have only our written words with which to communicate. Assuming good faith is vital to this communication.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  01:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, AP (or anyone else) cannot dictate what references are listed in an article. It's true that the "kooks" list contains his name, but we here at WP are obviously not responsible for the content of other web sites. We are responsible for adding relevant links to articles, however. So it boils down to a question of whether the external link is useful and appropriate to this article, and not of whether someone objects to their name being mentioned in the external web page. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Basically true, but there's an argument to be made here that if people aren't notable enough for there own article, they shouldn't be included in lists like these. If it were "List of really great people" it might not be that much of an issue, but being including on this particular list seems like a dubious honour. I'll start a new section about this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, this article was started because the original Archimedes Plutonium article contained a lot of cruft irrelevant to his Usenet notoriety, which is pretty much the only reason he is famous. Which presents something of a minor conundrum, because he is in fact well-known among the population of the posters of several newsgroups, and he is a prolific poster, and both of these facts can be cited in a couple of published sources (including Discover magazine). So it would seem resonable to conclude that he is notable enough to warrant some kind of mention in WP. On the other hand, beyond being notable for theses reasons, there is not much else of substance to say about him (without diverging into descriptions of his crank theories), so it would seem reasonable not to devote an entire separate article on him. And of course, he's not the only one like this. The compromise solution, therefore, would appear to be having an article exactly like this one here, wherein notable "celebrities" get a proper mention, but no more than a paragraph or so; where more is to be said about one of these people, this article can link to a more in-depth separate article. (That is the point of the explanatory paragraph of this talk page.) — Loadmaster (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Question . I don't see this link anywhere in the article. Does this in fact mean that Archimedes Plutonium does not have any problems with this article that he has mentioned and that these problems are now solved?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It was removed in this edit by Delicious carbuncle (2009-05-11), and rather improperly as he did not also remove the section title. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed it per WP:EL's "links normally to be avoided" (Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors). I left the section head because although it appears to be blank, there's actually a commented-out entry that seems like it was part of a recent clean-up that was interrupted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that commented-out entry was there under a visibly empty EL section when I added the rationalwiki.com link. DC merely removed my edit leaving things as they had been.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  01:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Usenet_personality/Archive_3&oldid=1136225666"