1340:
close to the truth as possible. If people want lists of crackpots or cranks or good restaurants or poor songs, they can go to the Usenet itself where plenty of people make up these subjective list contraptions. Why should a encyclopedia stoop to that level of non-objectivity? Knowledge (XXG) editors are too much chasing after sources, but seem to have lost touch with what makes encyclopedia so valuable and distinctive. It is not from editors making up lists, but because of the drive to objectivity and the drive to eliminate subjectivity. Now let me give you a probability scenario of the author of the Usenet
Personality List, is likely to be overly religious and thus would likely want to make up a list of people who have ideas that oppose his religion. And thus likely to compose a list of scientists who have antireligion views and sandwich them in amoungst criminals, murders, crackpots and cranks. Subjectivity in list making is probably one of the worst forms of subjectivity and propaganda. So it is likely, not certain, that the author of the list hates an Atom Totality theory and is tasked by his church to compose a list that sandwiches the theory in amoungst murderers and crackpots. So instead of seeing this type of feud and fighting and blacklisting going on in Usenet itself where the theory is being debated, we have Knowledge (XXG) picked up as a surrogate forum to continue a subjective propagandizing by a religion group that wants to target the Atom Totality theory. They want to target Darwin Evolution and so they creep into Knowledge (XXG) and seed their subjectivity and propaganda. Stuff like this was never suitable for an encyclopedia, but since Knowledge (XXG) is so new and so loose and open, a flood of propaganda, blacklisting and oceans of subjectivity come flooding in. Knowledge (XXG) should not be called an encyclopedia if they allow this torrent of subjectivity. Encyclopedia's are not Fashion Statements, not opinionated, subjective lists. Unambiguity of list membership is there for a very good reason-- otherwise it is a subjective list. I do not know if the world's most famous encyclopedia editor-- James Clerk Maxwell ever discussed the difference between objectivity and subjectivity and the importance of omitting all subjectivity from an encyclopedia. But from my experience of Knowledge (XXG) editors, I have never seen anyone take the stance of objectivity versus subjectivity, and that is pretty alarming, for it means that Knowledge (XXG) should not be deemed an encyclopedia.
1450:
action, and to see
Knowledge (XXG) stoop to this sort of nonsense is a pitiful shame. Knowledge (XXG) has some sort of rule about "no original research". The Atom Totality Theory is new original research. It is being debated the world over. Like all new theories it has few adherents but as time goes on, time goes by the numbers increase as the case of all new theories that are true. In the case of the Atom Totality theory, Knowledge (XXG) has no right in Prejudging, in biasing, in wrongly classifying the Atom Totality theory. This Knowledge (XXG) entry was set up and designed to cast a dark and bad spotlight on the Atom Totality theory by filling it with murderers sandwiched in between convicts and cranks and all other sorts of suggestions-- paranoid, threatening, crank, crackpot, kook. This Knowledge (XXG) entry is a smear campaign lifted from the wild west days of Usenet where a few editors of Knowledge (XXG) are using the encyclopedia for their own propaganda against a new theory of science that scares them. They do the same thing for the Darwin Evolution theory that scares them and their religion. The Atom Totality Theory is new, original research. It is being debated around the world. It has found its way into Knowledge (XXG), but Knowledge (XXG) has no right to prejudge and PreConclude the theory. Knowledge (XXG) has the right to "tell what it is" but it has no right in classifying it as crank or crackpot. That is the job of science and it may take 50 years as it took almost 50 years for Continental Drift to be judged. So Knowledge (XXG) should not be taking sides on the issue of the Atom Totality Theory. This entire page was set up to pack the Atom Totality Theory in amoungst some shady other listees. Knowledge (XXG) has no right in calling the Atom Totality theory as "eccentric", no matter how many people dislike it and print it in a newspaper, for that is the process of debate as to true or false. An encyclopedia cannot take sides on NEW ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
980:
decision resting on that. So I think it is preferable to warn contributors to not add "delete or keep" for that sends a wrong message. And to warn contributors it is the quality of their statements that is under consideration. The tenor of my statements has always been that encyclopedia's are in the knowledge business, and not the fashion business of someone's idea of a list of bad songs, list of good clothing, list of Usenet posters. That once a encyclopedia strays into these gray areas of someone's idea of a list, then the encyclopedia has gone off the edge. Tribble's list, would be different from every other person who was tasked to make a list of Usenet posters. However, Tribble's list of
Canadian Prime Ministers would be the same list as other taskers. So once encyclopedia's start doing "editor's lists" they have strayed far too far away from the knowledge business and are into the crude shopping mart tabloid stands.
1512:
Totality Theory is a very antagonistic attacking and prejudice, especially because
Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia wannabe. So we have an editor who is ignorant of the Science Process and who is flagrantly biasing a New Original Theory of Science. Knowledge (XXG) has the right to describe the Atom Totality theory, but the process of finding out whether it is true or not true may take 50 years. So could the Editors in Chief of Knowledge (XXG) please keep these editors like DMacks or Andy Dingley from being too caustic and from being so "disregarding of the rules of Knowledge (XXG)" rules designed to keep out their subjective bias, designed to protect living authors of new theories from being smeared by encyclopedia editors.
306:
is predominantly a "bad connation" of the people listed. This is imbalanced in that we are to think the only notable people have a "bad reputation". To be Usenet
Notable means being a murderer or a spammer? What about the hundreds of "good posters that are notable"? This list cannot be distinguished from -- Knowledge (XXG) editors opinion of who are crackpot or insane posters in the view of that editor. If the list had been unambiguous-- everyone with a full page article in Wired magazine. Then the list could fly. Otherwise it is a writers list of who he thinks are insane posters. Also, it is hideous to see people sandwiched inbetween convicted murderers on the same list
1666:
because some hack newspaper or magazine who has no science editor calls it a bad name is not a permission tag for
Knowledge (XXG) to then judge the Atom Totality Theory. Discover magazine was a comment in passing but not a scientific stance on the Atom Totality theory and so Knowledge (XXG) is not allowed to jump in the middle of a debate on Atom Totality theory and side one way or the other. Just as Darwin Evolution theory or Continental Drift theory could not and should not have been entered into an encyclopedia as "Eccentric theory". It is up to the science community and may take 50 years but Knowledge (XXG) should not be prejudging with biased editors.
1402:
Knowledge (XXG) from having a entry in a list because it is original research that is being debated. So when
Knowledge (XXG) has the Atom Totality theory listed, Knowledge (XXG) is taking a "conclusionary stance" on the theory and classifying it as "eccentric". It is rather classified as a "Rival theory" not a "eccentric theory". It is original research that is in the middle of debate especially on Usenet. So for Knowledge (XXG) to enter this debate and classifying it as "eccentric" is way out of bounds, as per the rule of Knowledge (XXG)-- no original research. That means Knowledge (XXG) is not allowed to classify original research either.
1246:
viewer statistic of 6,000 hits in April and "electron dot cloud" of 26,000 hits, whereas Usenet
Personalities shows 2,000 hits for April. The point is that people are not running to a encyclopedia for "subjective lists written by editors with some axe to grind" but are going to encyclopedia's for that of objective unbiased knowledge of what most people would call "remote facts". If an encyclopedia allows for subjective editorializing, it is on the course of a slippery slope into whether much of anything is reliable in Knowledge (XXG).
462:
page itself is not a total loss and I don't see any serious unsourced/defamatory BLP problems. The article talk-page is full of discussion hashing out some of the more controversial entries and numerous editors there found the refs to be sufficient and reliable to include. I would also draw attention to the long history of (well beyond "disruptive" IMO) edits from a certain IP-block on this page, its talk-page, and the talk-page of the predecessor article (now kept as a
1021:β This is the type of article and controversy that sets Knowledge (XXG) apart, for the good or bad, from other staid, dusty references. The article definitely needs a complete makeover, including the name. More personalities need to be added like Zeus, Jack Mingo and Bill Palmer. The best way to go appears to be an earnest effort to improve the existing article, and to continue this work until it becomes a featured article on Knowledge (XXG).
918:
the police after the offenders of the rules. We simply send in the police. Rules of Lists were broken for
Knowledge (XXG), and I find this "voting booth stance" as rather to put it mildly-- obnoxious action. I think, Mr. Supreme, that there must be a Knowledge (XXG) rule, that a senior editor steps into this situation-- sees rules violated and chucks the page out the window. As the violin virtuoso Andre Rieu remarked "am I right on this?"
681:
not want to be on this smear list?? Archimedes
Plutonium requested several times to be removed as easily as John Baez was removed. If Abian were alive, I know how he would react to this list, as he reacted so many times to Usenet Crackpot lists in the 1990s, through gentle persuasion. A list that should and did have John Baez, yet allows him to go but gestapo-style keeps others is a list that no encyclopedia should ever have.
658:, both on Knowledge (XXG) and on sci.math, for the reasons as to why he wants his entry (or the entire article) deleted. As I said, his complaints do not constitute sufficient reasons for deletion, and they certainly do not uncover any violations of WP policies. Please indicate where I've crossed the line from documented verifiable fact into personal opinion, because I don't see it. β
654:. (2) The published sources cited in his entry in the article mention that very same observation (have you read the sources cited?). (3) It is a certainty that it is AP himself posting from IP addresses 216.16.55.*, as this is the address of the dial-up service used by AP in South Dakota, and he has cross-posted the contents of his recent WP edits to sci.math et al. (4) I am quoting
1665:
Knowledge (XXG) can describe a Ongoing New Research Theory, but Knowledge (XXG) is not allowed to bias the theory, as it awaits the consensus of the science community. Show me a Science journal that describes the Atom Totality theory and describes a scientific proof or disproof--- there is none. Just
1600:
Some individual entries may have problems. Any entry that requires original research or is relying primarily on usenet posts is going to be problematic. However, most are not in that category but rather have good sourcing. Other entries can be removed or corrected as necessary. Note also that some of
1401:
No Original Research in Knowledge (XXG), also means no Knowledge (XXG) entry of that ongoing research debate. Knowledge (XXG) has a rule that no original research. The Atom Totality theory is original research, and that prohibits Knowledge (XXG) from having a entry on it. But, it should also prohibit
1072:
I left a note on the talk page about a name change. And I noticed that there was a little box near the top that stated that the deletion process resulted in "no consensus". If this is so, then who would we turn to in order to remove the deletion template at the top of the article page? (or was that
917:
I would like to know what Knowledge (XXG) rules there are when a violation of the Rules occurs and then, instead of deleting the violation-page, we have a circus of voting going on. It seems logical to me when we have a bank robbery, that we do not enlist the public at a ballot box to vote on sending
680:
John Baez was on this list early on. But even he could not stomach it, seeing that it was a Knowledge (XXG) Editor's Crackpot List, thinly disguised, thinly veiled as Usenet Personalities. So if John Baez is taken off the list with a simple email request. Why is Loadmaster not affording others who do
461:
The article now does address the previous concerns (and appears to have been created to collect the viable tidbits from several now-deleted predecessors): it is objectively written in tone and content, and has least some third-party sourcing as well as primary. No, not every entry is perfect, but the
305:
Horrible when an encyclopedia that is supposed to be "objective" has subjective articles. What is next? Some editor's list of songs he hates? Some editor's list of politicians he hates? It is very difficult to have a list of people-- pro or con -- defined to a behaviour. The Usenet Personality list
1554:
And that is why this page is up for deletion as witness by the hatemongering opinion of DMacks above. Knowledge (XXG) allows NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and there is the fool DMacks judging original-research. Who uses Knowledge (XXG) to spread his worthless opinion. Tell me, is there a Template asking to
1245:
is very revealing as to "ILIKEIT" "USEFUL" and gives added meaning to what a encyclopedia is all about and the deterioration or misuse of the concept of "encyclopedia" for other than its thoughtof role-- dispenser of objective facts. Listed in the article is "fine structure constant" which shows a
1186:
I understand that the majority of those who have commented here are of the mind to continue to host this "list" on Knowledge (XXG). I still believe, quite firmly, that the overwhelming host of "ILIKEIT" and "USEFUL" type comments do not override the sorry state of sources provided and the glaring
487:
It seems to me, the commonsense, when a article is in violation of the Rules which guide a encyclopedia, that the situation is not given a vote, but that a senior editor of Knowledge (XXG) comes to the dispute and looks to see if a Rule is violated-- ambiguity of membership inclusion or disclusion
979:
Okay, well, if it is an argument and quality of argument page, then I think a word or two in the headers about "voting delete or keep is in order" for as it stands at the moment, virtually everyone is misled into thinking that in the end of this process the "deletes and keeps are tallied" and the
1449:
I was around in the wild-west 1990s of the Usenet where about everyone with idle hands posted their own version of a crank or crackpot list. Sci.physics abounded in flame-wars, especially when Bullock living in Japan near KEK posted his Crackpot list. These things are nothing but Subjectivity in
1339:
In the first paragraph of this list speaks of -- subjectivity in chosing who is notable. I would hazard to guess that many people have written on the subject of what makes a encyclopedia so different from almost all other forums. Certainly, objectivity would be the highest priority, for it is as
387:
Why is this even up for a vote? Is there a Editor in Chief at Knowledge (XXG)? Rules have been violated-- the list membership is totally ambiguous. Hence this article should be removed, without voting. This list violates the Rules. Nothing further should be voted on, no concensus, other than the
1511:
DMacks obviously is not a scientist and has no science abilities because a scientist knows that a Original New Idea can take upwards of 50 years or more to become the Mainstream-science such as Continental Drift. And so for a Knowledge (XXG) editor to come busting into Original Research of Atom
356:
template and I'm strongly opposed to the notion that a "single posting" equates to some unfair bias or less valued opinion. However there is evidence (WHOIS pointing to an obscure local ISP) that you're a single poster IPSocking between anon IPs (probably innocently, as your ISP dynamically
1310:. Subsequent edits show the collective work of many contributions made by many editors. As I've stated before, any editor's personal opinion of any of the people listed in the article is irrelevant (as it should be), and your continued claims to the contrary are baseless. β
1627:, and is one of several RS discussing AP cited in his entry. I think that this one and maybe some others could also serve as refs for the article itself (that the general idea of "there are some well-known such people" has RS interest as well as each individual entry).
956:
a vote. This is a place where we present arguments. The decision to keep or delete is based on a combination of consensus and the quality of the arguments. I have seen deletion decisions overturned because the "keep" arguments were deemed higher in quality.
245:
secondary sourcing, not a ban against noting primary material. Most of the reasons against primary material also don't apply to Usenet, as they originate with the difficulties of its verification and the Deja / Google Groups archives avoid this.
488:
from a list, and then simply, just deletes the page. Surely, this must be a Rule in itself within Knowledge (XXG)-- Rules broken require the senior editor of Knowledge (XXG) to "not have a voting stance" but a deletion of the offending page.
80:
197:
notice too and that then warrants their mention here. Personally I'd rather be reading a "List of Usenet physics crackpots", categorized conveniently into the anti-GR and the anti-QM loons, but I doubt I'll ever get that onto WP 8-)
1221:
I do think an admin should remove the stuff sourced to unreliable sources (some of these appear to just be cited to the newsgroup with no further info). I'd do it myself but I think an admin doing it would have more credibility.
151:
and our general policy on notability and verifiability again? Oh and beyond that, citing ticklishguyscasting.net as a source? Sickening. Just sickening. There are no logical rules for inclusion or exclusion on this page.
1494:
non-science/eccentris/crackpot, not just "unproven or original in WP editors' opinions". That's the standard here: cited reliable sources. There's no way around it here...multiple reliable sources state it, so we can state it.
444:
193:. Not ideal, as this excludes many people who are considered notable on and by Usenet, but WP requires external sourcing as well. However we can still support a list article on WP: Some of Usenet's notable people make it to
850:. The article accomplishes what it says: describe individuals that gained notoriety on usenet. I find this to be a useful compilation, myself. I agree with responses above that this deletion proposal results from a case of
449:
1118:
with the same outcome. We may want to seriously consider using the Celebrity article as a formatting example to spiff up the "Notable Usenet personalities" page when all this deletion-nomination stuff is silenced.
798:
Talk-page notes that the above comments are not how it actually happened, which is in keeping with 216's pattern of making baseless assertions related to content removal (see recent comments in archived talk-page).
1700:
Knowledge (XXG) cannot evaluate the validity of such theories. However, that's irrelevant to the matter since we have reliable sources describing the personalities in question, which is what this article is about.
650:β Sorry, but I fail to see where I am personally attacking anyone. (1) AP is well-known on several Usenet newsgroups, and a simple Google search verifies that most of the people on those newsgroups consider him a
528:. This article provides a place for these people to be mentioned on Knowledge (XXG) who otherwise would not have an entire individual article devoted to them. No editorial rules have been violated, and the
573:(and derived from his own newsgroup postings); his theories have been described in numerous places as "crackpot" (or worse); and his newsgroup postings have been described as a public example of typical
218:, and in multiple instances, cites sources such as Usenet and ticklishguyscasting.net for some rather contentious information. So you're damn straight I don't like that, but that has nothing to do with
454:
75:
577:
behavior. His displeasure at the labels that the outside world gave him, and Knowledge (XXG)'s sourcing of those facts, do not provide sufficient reasons to delete this article. His accusations of "
439:
1110:
Thank you, DMacks! At first (after you'd altered the template) I did a double-take and thought I'd misread it before. Now it's very clear. And those who keep citing "lists" ought to read
1601:
these entries have apparently deterioated from their best state. For example, there were multiple articles in reliable sources that discussed Archimedes Plutonium (including an article in
1555:
get rid of a particular hatemongering editor of Knowledge (XXG)??-- who time and time again is totally unreasonable. People of the likes of DMacks just tears down all of Knowledge (XXG).
1398:
I would like to see DMack rise to be the editor in chief of Knowledge (XXG). Let us make a "list of Notable Knowledge (XXG) editors" once the above list is revamped. But, kidding aside.
434:
854:, which is not a reason to delete. The article meets criteria for inclusion, and it should be improved to correct deficiencies. Deletion is not the answer to such deficiencies. ~
1380:
Above user is bordering on getting himself a rangeblock for repeated NPA violations (as well as evading (though maybe not intentionally) an existing block on one of the IPs).
140:
241:
There's no WP policy problem with citing Usenet as a reference. It's a problem if primary material is the _only_ citation for someone's notability, but our policy is a
107:
102:
565:). His entry provides a perfect case in point, though, for this article: AP is well-known on the sci.math and sci.physics newsgroups; this fact is well documented in
466:), claiming to be one of the entries in the article. Making oneself a public and known figure and then complaining about being documented as such doesn't fly for me.
111:
268:.) One cannot assume that because a post has a person's name in the "From" field, that person actually authored it. The concept of reliability is founded upon
94:
1742:
of some of the entries, so the rest are merely a matter of firming up the sources or removing the entries. It doesn't justify deleting the entire article.
463:
1169:
The sourcing for a lot of these is really pathetic... many of these entries boil down to "I read about it on Usenet 10 years ago, take my word for it". --
631:"Redacting" (which doesn't mean what you think) another editor's comments here would be vandalism. Don't do it, unless you're working towards a block.
179:
If you don't find the referencing adequate, then fix it. That's not a reason for deleting a whole article, certainly not a reason for deleting a list.
1748:
1710:
1675:
1650:
1636:
1614:
1564:
1521:
1504:
1459:
1411:
1389:
1349:
1319:
1255:
1231:
1216:
1200:
1178:
1164:
1137:
1105:
1091:
1063:
1039:
989:
968:
927:
903:
883:
865:
836:
821:(2009-08-24) that removed the entry for Baez. No evidence whatsoever about a request from Baez, nor has anyone ever requested that the full article
808:
789:
770:
735:
690:
667:
640:
618:
597:
541:
497:
475:
397:
378:
315:
297:
255:
231:
207:
164:
59:
427:. The criteria are stated, key parts of the content are referenced, that's about all there is to say in response to the nom. Previous related AfD:
888:
Attribution looks correct to me. I find it curious that you mischaracterize my entire argument (as opposed to one short sentence I made) as
147:
What? This article is relying on Google Groups (aka USENET, aka a PRIMARY SOURCE) as its source of information. How does this not violate
1425:
1403:
1207:
Well that's your opinion but I still count 4 sources that satisfy the RS policy and that make the associated subjects satisfy notability.
1578:
1556:
1535:
1513:
1363:
1341:
1269:
1247:
1003:
981:
941:
919:
411:
389:
335:
307:
1693:
1582:
1539:
1477:
1429:
1367:
1273:
1007:
945:
753:
708:
415:
339:
1689:
1667:
1473:
1451:
1288:
You really need to stop describing this article as a list based on personal opinion. As anyone can see quite plainly from the article
1212:
1160:
749:
727:
704:
682:
550:
489:
17:
1293:
358:
98:
265:
1096:
That box is indeed the previous AfD (which is where its link points), not the present one. I upgraded the template to clarify.
1208:
1156:
588:, and his claim that a handful of WP editors are "hate-mongers" bent on smearing his name are unfounded and irrelevant. β
1050:
90:
65:
1763:
277:
36:
517:
1129:
1083:
1031:
1762:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1337:
Do the editors of Knowledge (XXG) ever get any training in the difference between objectivity and subjectivity?
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1421:
1407:
851:
219:
174:
1574:
1560:
1531:
1517:
1359:
1345:
937:
923:
407:
393:
331:
311:
1469:
1455:
1265:
1251:
999:
985:
745:
731:
726:. This is not a matter for voting on, but a matter for a senior editor to step forward and delete the list.
700:
686:
493:
509:
1685:
1671:
1306:
636:
374:
276:. In high contrast to Usenet postings with no authentication, it is easy to determine that, for example,
251:
203:
57:
1417:
1570:
1527:
1355:
1261:
995:
933:
403:
327:
1681:
1465:
741:
696:
1315:
1121:
1075:
1059:
1023:
832:
818:
663:
593:
554:
537:
362:
780:. Here and on the talk-page, the removal of Baez at his own urging has been mentioned. Link please?
609:
and allegations which cannot possibly be verified. Please redact them quickly so I don't have to.
566:
1227:
1196:
1174:
879:
614:
227:
160:
1296:, this list was created as a place to collect summaries of documented notable Usenet posters. The
889:
871:
557:
himself, one of the people named in the article. His main complaint is that he is categorized as "
963:
898:
860:
761:
You've already been quite loud and clear about how you feel. Repeating yourself does not help.
1706:
1646:
1610:
1602:
632:
508:β Firstly, the purpose of the list is to provide a place to mention people who are considered
370:
293:
247:
199:
186:, then of course we need to fix that entry to meet policy. Still no reason to delete the list.
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
570:
485:
What is the point in having Rules, if violations of Knowledge (XXG) Rules, results in voting?
1632:
1500:
1385:
1155:
There is at least 4 reliable sources here and I think that satisfies the notability policy.
1101:
804:
785:
766:
562:
471:
1188:
585:
578:
529:
366:
215:
183:
148:
1311:
1055:
874:
argument to keep all the while citing a completely incorrect attribution of IDONTLIKEIT.
828:
659:
589:
533:
1735:
1734:
Usenet, so there's a balancing act here. Either way, as has been pointed out, there are
194:
1730:
sources are problematic, but then some of these people are notable for their activities
1223:
1192:
1170:
875:
651:
610:
574:
223:
156:
1739:
1491:
190:
958:
893:
855:
274:
that identified author's reputation for fact checking and accuracy can be determined
1702:
1642:
1606:
823:
558:
357:
re-allocates you). These anon IPs have already recently been "contributing" to the
350:
289:
128:
1628:
1496:
1381:
1097:
1054:, but was renamed as a list and the "Notable" part was unfortunately dropped. β
800:
781:
762:
516:
community at large. The people (and user-IDs) listed in the article are in fact
467:
361:
page (and reverted as vandalism on occasion) where they have also claimed to be
1114:, so they can get that article deleted for listing all the various faiths, or
582:
445:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination)
1743:
1115:
450:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (4th nomination)
520:
as notable. While it may not be appropriate that the article is titled
262:
Usenet posts can be, and regularly are, forged in other people's names.
1447:
Knowledge (XXG)'s version of a crank crackpot list-- gone encyclopedic
1727:
561:", and that his entry is placed in the same section as "a murderer" (
553:(who calls himself "LogicMaster"), these are obviously being made by
513:
264:(We even have an article on one particular instance of such forgery:
260:
There is a policy issue, and it is the reliability of such sources.
1641:
Huh. For some reason I didn't see it. My eyes must skipped over it.
1073:
little box on the talk page the result of the first nomination?)
214:
Hello Andy Dingley. What sickens me is that this article violates
81:
Articles for deletion/List of Usenet personalities (2nd nomination)
1111:
455:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Usenet personalities
1756:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
440:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (2nd)
435:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium
1297:
1289:
814:
135:
124:
120:
116:
722:
Knowledge (XXG)'s Rules on Lists have been violated--
569:; everything mentioned in the article is accurate and
173:"Sickening. Just sickening.", is a prime example of
1184:
ATTENTION CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR, WHOEVER YOU MAY BE
1048:For the record, the article was originally titled
76:Articles for deletion/List of Usenet personalities
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1766:). No further edits should be made to this page.
288:s reputation for fact checking and accuracy.
189:The inclusion criteria are broad: Usenet and
8:
365:, one of the people listed here - that's a
270:being able to correctly identify the author
605:Your own entire reply above is laced with
524:, remember that it was originally titled
73:
1304:on Knowledge (XXG), taken mostly from
1605:) that have been apparently excised.
1300:was a short list containing links to
388:realization that rules are violated.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
72:
1191:issues which continue to remain.
369:that you ought to declare openly.
24:
282:The Chronicle of Higher Education
266:Godfrey v Demon Internet Service
1292:and the purpose heading on the
526:"Notable Usenet Personalities"
1:
1051:Notable Usenet personalities
182:If you find entries against
91:List of Usenet personalities
66:List of Usenet personalities
870:Its ironic that you make a
532:are strictly adhered to. β
280:was genuinely published in
1783:
736:22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
691:22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
619:21:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
598:20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
542:20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
498:17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
476:15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
398:11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
379:11:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
316:11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
298:10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
256:08:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
232:19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
208:08:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
165:07:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
222:. Try to follow along.
1759:Please do not modify it.
1209:Iggy pop goes the weasel
1157:Iggy pop goes the weasel
915:Question for Mr. Supreme
549:β As to the comments by
32:Please do not modify it.
1749:07:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1711:00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1676:22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1651:20:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1637:20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1615:20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1565:19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1522:20:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1505:17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1460:16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1412:03:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1390:03:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1350:02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1320:23:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
1256:16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
1232:13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
1217:04:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
1201:21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1179:14:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1165:07:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1138:21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1106:22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
1092:04:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1064:00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1040:23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
990:20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
969:18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
928:18:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
904:18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
884:09:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
866:00:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
837:00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
809:20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
790:00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
771:00:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
668:00:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
641:09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
284:, and so is subject to
60:20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
1307:Category:Usenet people
71:AfDs for this article:
1694:few or no other edits
1583:few or no other edits
1540:few or no other edits
1478:few or no other edits
1430:few or no other edits
1368:few or no other edits
1274:few or no other edits
1008:few or no other edits
946:few or no other edits
754:few or no other edits
709:few or no other edits
656:what he wrote himself
586:attacks on WP editors
530:rules for biographies
416:few or no other edits
340:few or no other edits
1696:outside this topic.
1585:outside this topic.
1542:outside this topic.
1480:outside this topic.
1432:outside this topic.
1370:outside this topic.
1276:outside this topic.
1243:Page view Statistics
1010:outside this topic.
948:outside this topic.
756:outside this topic.
724:ambiguous membership
711:outside this topic.
555:Archimedes Plutonium
418:outside this topic.
363:Archimedes Plutonium
342:outside this topic.
346:I hate to use the
44:The result was
1738:establishing the
1726:. Yes, the pure-
1697:
1603:Discover Magazine
1586:
1543:
1481:
1433:
1371:
1302:existing articles
1277:
1136:
1090:
1038:
1011:
967:
949:
902:
864:
757:
712:
567:published sources
419:
343:
1774:
1761:
1746:
1736:reliable sources
1679:
1568:
1525:
1463:
1415:
1353:
1259:
1134:
1126:
1120:
1088:
1080:
1074:
1036:
1028:
1022:
993:
961:
931:
896:
858:
739:
694:
607:personal attacks
563:Valery Fabrikant
401:
355:
349:
325:
138:
132:
114:
53:
34:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1764:deletion review
1757:
1744:
1130:
1122:
1084:
1076:
1032:
1024:
819:Scott MacDonald
579:rule violations
571:neutral in tone
353:
347:
243:requirement for
134:
105:
89:
86:
69:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1780:
1778:
1769:
1768:
1752:
1751:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1618:
1617:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1545:
1544:
1508:
1507:
1490:The ideas are
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1418:216.254.227.46
1404:216.254.227.46
1399:
1393:
1392:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1204:
1203:
1181:
1167:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1067:
1066:
1043:
1042:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
974:
973:
972:
971:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
852:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
827:be deleted. β
793:
792:
775:
774:
773:
759:
716:
715:
714:
713:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
644:
643:
624:
623:
622:
621:
544:
503:
502:
501:
479:
478:
459:
458:
457:
452:
447:
442:
437:
429:
428:
422:
421:
420:
382:
381:
344:
322:
321:
320:
319:
300:
286:The Chronicle'
236:
235:
234:
220:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
211:
210:
187:
180:
175:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
145:
144:
85:
84:
83:
78:
70:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1779:
1767:
1765:
1760:
1754:
1753:
1750:
1747:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1722:
1721:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1699:
1698:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1571:216.16.55.163
1566:
1562:
1558:
1557:216.16.55.163
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:216.16.55.163
1523:
1519:
1515:
1514:216.16.55.163
1510:
1509:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1493:
1489:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1448:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1356:216.16.57.187
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:216.16.57.187
1338:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1298:original edit
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1262:216.16.54.189
1257:
1253:
1249:
1248:216.16.54.189
1244:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1139:
1135:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:216.16.54.244
991:
987:
983:
982:216.16.54.244
978:
977:
976:
975:
970:
965:
960:
955:
951:
950:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:216.16.57.227
929:
925:
921:
920:216.16.57.227
916:
913:
912:
905:
900:
895:
891:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
868:
867:
862:
857:
853:
849:
846:
845:
838:
834:
830:
826:
825:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
797:
796:
795:
794:
791:
787:
783:
779:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
758:
755:
751:
747:
743:
737:
733:
729:
723:
720:
719:
718:
717:
710:
706:
702:
698:
692:
688:
684:
679:
678:
677:
676:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
646:
645:
642:
638:
634:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:"List of ..."
519:
515:
511:
507:
504:
499:
495:
491:
486:
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
460:
456:
453:
451:
448:
446:
443:
441:
438:
436:
433:
432:
431:
430:
426:
423:
417:
413:
409:
405:
404:216.16.54.157
399:
395:
391:
390:216.16.54.157
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
352:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:216.16.54.157
324:
323:
317:
313:
309:
308:216.16.54.157
304:
301:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
244:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
212:
209:
205:
201:
196:
192:
188:
185:
181:
178:
177:
176:
172:
169:
168:
167:
166:
162:
158:
155:
150:
142:
137:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:
82:
79:
77:
74:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1758:
1755:
1731:
1723:
1682:216.16.56.26
1678:LogicMaster
1668:216.16.56.26
1624:
1597:
1567:LogicMaster
1524:LogicMaster
1466:216.16.54.64
1462:LogicMaster
1452:216.16.54.64
1446:
1414:LogicMaster
1352:LogicMaster
1336:
1305:
1301:
1258:LogicMaster
1242:
1183:
1152:
1132:
1123:
1086:
1077:
1049:
1034:
1025:
1018:
992:LogicMaster
953:
930:LogicMaster
914:
847:
824:John C. Baez
822:
813:Here is the
777:
742:216.16.57.35
738:LogicMaster
728:216.16.57.35
725:
721:
697:216.16.57.35
693:LogicMaster
683:216.16.57.35
655:
647:
633:Andy Dingley
606:
602:
546:
525:
521:
505:
490:216.16.55.41
484:
464:talk archive
424:
400:LogicMaster
371:Andy Dingley
302:
285:
281:
273:
269:
261:
248:Andy Dingley
242:
238:
200:Andy Dingley
170:
153:
146:
52:Juliancolton
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1692:) has made
1581:) has made
1538:) has made
1476:) has made
1428:) has made
1366:) has made
1272:) has made
1006:) has made
944:) has made
752:) has made
707:) has made
500:LogicMaster
414:) has made
338:) has made
318:LogicMaster
278:this source
1740:notability
1623:Ref #3 is
1492:verifiably
1312:Loadmaster
1056:Loadmaster
829:Loadmaster
660:Loadmaster
590:Loadmaster
583:ad hominem
551:216.16.*.*
534:Loadmaster
518:documented
1294:talk page
1224:Chiliad22
1193:JBsupreme
1171:Chiliad22
1116:Celebrity
890:WP:USEFUL
876:JBsupreme
872:WP:USEFUL
611:JBsupreme
559:eccentric
224:JBsupreme
157:JBsupreme
1690:contribs
1625:Discover
1579:contribs
1536:contribs
1474:contribs
1426:contribs
1364:contribs
1270:contribs
1004:contribs
959:AmatuliΔ
952:This is
942:contribs
894:AmatuliΔ
856:AmatuliΔ
750:contribs
705:contribs
603:Response
412:contribs
336:contribs
272:so that
141:View log
1703:JoshuaZ
1643:JoshuaZ
1607:JoshuaZ
1290:history
1019:Comment
778:Comment
648:Comment
581:", his
547:Comment
512:by the
510:notable
290:Uncle G
239:Comment
191:notable
108:protect
103:history
1728:Usenet
1629:DMacks
1497:DMacks
1382:DMacks
1189:WP:BLP
1098:DMacks
801:DMacks
782:DMacks
763:DMacks
514:Usenet
468:DMacks
367:WP:COI
303:DELETE
216:WP:BLP
184:WP:BLP
154:DELETE
149:WP:BLP
136:delete
112:delete
1745:Xihr
1127:Paine
1112:Faith
1081:Paine
1029:Paine
652:crank
575:crank
359:talk:
195:WP:RS
139:) β (
129:views
121:watch
117:links
16:<
1724:Keep
1707:talk
1686:talk
1672:talk
1647:talk
1633:talk
1611:talk
1598:keep
1575:talk
1561:talk
1532:talk
1518:talk
1501:talk
1470:talk
1456:talk
1422:talk
1408:talk
1386:talk
1360:talk
1346:talk
1316:talk
1266:talk
1252:talk
1228:talk
1213:talk
1197:talk
1175:talk
1161:talk
1153:Keep
1102:talk
1060:talk
1000:talk
986:talk
964:talk
938:talk
924:talk
899:talk
880:talk
861:talk
848:Keep
833:talk
815:edit
805:talk
786:talk
767:talk
746:talk
732:talk
701:talk
687:talk
664:talk
637:talk
615:talk
594:talk
538:talk
506:Keep
494:talk
472:talk
425:Keep
408:talk
394:talk
375:talk
332:talk
312:talk
294:talk
252:talk
228:talk
204:talk
171:Keep
161:talk
125:logs
99:talk
95:edit
46:keep
1125:^)
1079:^)
1027:^)
954:not
892:. ~
817:by
351:spa
48:. β
1732:on
1709:)
1688:β’
1680:β
1674:)
1649:)
1635:)
1613:)
1577:β’
1569:β
1563:)
1534:β’
1526:β
1520:)
1503:)
1472:β’
1464:β
1458:)
1424:β’
1416:β
1410:)
1388:)
1362:β’
1354:β
1348:)
1318:)
1268:β’
1260:β
1254:)
1230:)
1222:--
1215:)
1199:)
1177:)
1163:)
1131:(^
1104:)
1085:(^
1062:)
1033:(^
1002:β’
994:β
988:)
940:β’
932:β
926:)
882:)
835:)
807:)
788:)
769:)
748:β’
740:β
734:)
703:β’
695:β
689:)
666:)
639:)
617:)
596:)
540:)
496:)
474:)
410:β’
402:β
396:)
377:)
354:}}
348:{{
334:β’
326:β
314:)
296:)
254:)
230:)
206:)
163:)
127:|
123:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
56:|
1705:(
1684:(
1670:(
1645:(
1631:(
1609:(
1573:(
1559:(
1530:(
1516:(
1499:(
1468:(
1454:(
1420:(
1406:(
1384:(
1358:(
1344:(
1314:(
1264:(
1250:(
1226:(
1211:(
1195:(
1173:(
1159:(
1100:(
1058:(
998:(
984:(
966:)
962:(
957:~
936:(
922:(
901:)
897:(
878:(
863:)
859:(
831:(
803:(
784:(
765:(
744:(
730:(
699:(
685:(
662:(
635:(
613:(
592:(
536:(
492:(
470:(
406:(
392:(
373:(
330:(
310:(
292:(
250:(
226:(
202:(
159:(
143:)
133:(
131:)
93:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.