User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

To Do list (from July block)

• Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
• Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.

Incorrect information in the Ken McCarthy article

Hi Arthur Rubin,

You've made some helpful comments about the article I wrote about Ken McCarthy, an early Internet commerce pioneer and social activist.

The person calling McCarthy a "911 conspiracy theorist" is expressing an opinion, not fact. He has also posted and...re-posted...information that is clearly NOT accurate.

I am not a wikipedia power user and can't figure out how to contact this person - Jettparmer - or otherwise seek mediation for something that appears to be turning into an "issue."

For example:

McCarthy DID NOT write a book on Jonestown by the title he mentions or any title.

This inaccuracy was posted before and removed for the reasons stated above.

I have asked the poster of this incorrect information to please produce evidence such a books exists or ever existed.

If he cannot provide evidence of the existence of such a book, I respectfully request that he stop re-posting this incorrect info.

Also to say that McCarthy promotes government complicity in 9/11 is a falsehood bordering on slander.

McCarthy was, in fact, one of the first people to warn in a detailed way of environmental risks to WTC rescue workers, a warning that turned out to be all too true years later.

He also was one of the first commentators to point out the flaws in air defense procedures on 9/11, something the Pentagon publicly admitted to years after McCarthy presented evidence and analysis on this subject.

This is a far cry from claiming government involvement in 9/11.

Given the emotionalism surrounding this topic, claiming that McCarthy in essence accuses the US government of the 9/11 attacks absent of supporting facts is tantamount to a personal attack on Mr. McCarthy.

Also, as far as I know, the hosting of video on a wide variety of subjects does not make one a conspiracy theorist. Otherwise, Google and YouTube would be conspiracy theorists too.

I have spent a great deal of time gathering factual information on McCarthy and other little know pioneers of the movement to commercialize the Internet. I have gone to great pains to post verifiable facts as free as possible from opinion.

Thanks for any advice you can offer.

Nolatime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolatime (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Difficult, difficult. My take, without researching the material closely:

1. If brasscheck.com really was his site (implied, but not stated in the article;, then he has to take responsibility for the 9/11 conspiracy theories on the site, even if he, himself, didn't author any of the theories.
   • If brasscheck.com wasn't his site, it's not usable in this article, and all material sourced to it and all references to it must be expunged.
2. Similarly with brasschecktv.com .
3. I don't see any evidence that he accused the US of government for the 9/11 attacks; but he does seem to clearly state that (forced in) the US Government took advantage of the attacks to elminate constitutional freedoms.

But, be careful. Please remove all false material which is not sourced to a reliable source, and I'll watch the article. (If false material about him appears in reputable media, it needs to be included in the article. Try to find reputable media which contradict the statements, as well.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for posting comments in the wrong place. I'm not a new user, but I'm not a frequent or power user. I'm assuming now that this is where the discussion of this topic should take place. Nolatime (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Nolatime

I am interested in the vigorous defence of the comments I added to Ken McCarthy's bio. I bleieve all the elements added are directly attributable to him. The information regarding Jonestown was written by him and appeared on his Brasscheck website - see Talk:Ken McCarthy. Frankly, I am stumped as to the postiion taken by User:Nolatime. Ken is clearly both a savvy internet marketer and an avid "alternative journalist", who happens to promote conspiracy theories. These are now promulgated via his BrasscheckTV.com website. Let me know where I have made false statements or mislead in anyway. Jettparmer (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I note the deletion of the commentary regarding this dispute over the K. McCarthy article. Here is my thinking. An biographical article on a living person should contain verifiable, non-controversial or libelous facts. All of these have been provided. The originating user seems to have posted the article originally for commercial purposes - as the information originally read like a press release. Would you care to comment on this discussion? Thanks Jettparmer (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the commentary which may be considered as WP:OUTING an editor. Whether Nolatime is an associate of the subject should not be relevant. Whether he's a particular associate of the subject is not a matter suitable for Wikipedia unless he's already revealed it intentionally.

But, provided it's established that brasscheck.com and brasschecktv.com are the subject's sites, and there's no editorial policy determinable, he can be credited with supporting the contents of the site, even if controversial. Other reports of his activities need to be reliable secondary sources, per WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. Both sites are clearly owned by McCarthy (evidenced by WHOIS searches and statements of ownership on those sites). With regard to nolatime, his profile clearly identifies him by name and my concern was that the original posting may have been solely a commercial venture with the bio entry by the user a proxy self-entry. I fail to see how self identified statements, web published articles and other published critiques of the individual do not qualify as reliable sources. Nevertheless, I will stick to basics on the contents of these sites, however, I consider the biography misrepresentative. Jettparmer (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, if you have time - would you review the talk:ken McCarthy page and article? I have made a formal request for editorial help as well as a review from the biography portal. Jettparmer (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur-

1. A simple search of the whois database for brasscheck and brasschecktv.com will show that Jettparmer's representation about the records for these domain names is simply not factual.

2. Another mistatement by jettpalmer: The Nolatime profile does not in fact identify anyone by name.

3. Jettpalmer's stated concern that the article appeared commercial to him and that his edits are an attempt to correct that is not supported by the facts. He has, in fact, added commercial links have been specifically avoided in this original version of this article since it original posting.

4. The subject of this article merits an article in wipipedia not because of his personal opinions, whatever they may be, but because of certain verifiable contributions made by the subject to a specific field of endeavor that is of legitimate historical interest.

5. A simple look at the site before and after jettparmers edits and additions, shows numerous incorrect, unbiased, and non-neutral postings. Furthermore statements he's made made about McCarthy in this and other forums shows his lack of neutrality on this subject.

As jetpalmer has made clear by numerous posts to this and other forums, he does not think much McCarthy's opinions (he apparently objects to the fact that his friends have forwarded them to him) and he is going to use wikipedia to portrary McCarthy as a "enabler and purveyor" of "conspiracy theories."

To accomplish this he has posted items proven to be wrong, to be unverified, and to my mind barely relevant: an amazon reading list, a stumbleupon blog etc.

6. I am not a power use of wikipedia. Time spent protecting this article from subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to undermine its accuracy and integrity is not easy to come by. Can this be moved to level where an arbitrator examines what is going on in detail?

When an editor states his bias against a subject (which jettpalmer has done) and repeatedly posts inaccurate and unverified material to wikipedia to advance that bias (which jettpalmer has done) clearly this goes beyond a run-of-the-mill editorial dispute.

If jettpalmer would like a soapbox to collect links and quotes that support his original thinking that McCarthy is in fact one of the major purveyors of "conspiracy theories" on the Internet, there are other means open to him. For him to use wikipedia to do this - especially when the biography of a live person is concerned - seems to me to fly in the face of everything wikipedia stands for. Thanks.

Nolatime (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

Arthur - Which whois database are you looking at? The one I look at does not support that these domains are owned by McCarthy. I am ready to be corrected on this point but I just don't see it.

Nolatime (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

I recommend that the Ken McCarthy article be deleted. The information I have provided is factual and verifiable. At no point have I expressed any contempt for conspiracy theories, Mr. McCarthy or any other aspect in the article. It is simply an interest. Ken clearly states in the Alterati interview, which is also podcasted, that he owns both site - Brasscheck and BrasscheckTV. The fact that the Brasscheck domain is now owned by DomainsbyProxy does not change the ultimate declared ownership. There is a wealth of information on Ken's writings and work, all of which are directly attributable to him personally. To repeatedly delete factual, verifiable material is simply not in keeping with an accurate representation of a person's life. Wikipedia suffers sufficiently for being "untrustworthy", and it is edit wars of this type which fuel that argument. I intend to invite Mr. McCarthy himself to view the article and provide some comment. BTW - the Nolatime user site seems to be associated with a specific person - who is a colleague of Ken's - you may want to correct that. I am really not sure how to proceed. Jettparmer (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can delete the article just because someone (here, I'm not specifying which of you it is, for an objective statement) is adding inappropriate or subtracting appropriate information. The only reason for deleting the article would be that, taking all reliable information into account, he's not notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think he is notable - though whether deserving a Wiki Bio page is beyond my ability to judge. He is notable both for his marketing impact and alterantive journalism role. THere is a lot of initial information from the genesis of the article which is either unreferenced or unsubstantiated. There is no evidence that he was the program director of the Princeton station, the roomate of Stanley Jordan or a producer of any of his concerts or even a listed advisor to the Levees.org group. I am struggling with a biography which orginally appeared to paint an individual in a specific light (in my opinion, to enhance a reputation for commercial purposes). I concur that opinion should remain out of this article, however, there is a solid record of this persons activities, views and contributions which is being excluded. Jettparmer (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Years

In 2009, WikiProject Years developed a essay for the inclusion of events "recent year" articles.

Important policy discussions took place in January 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.

Deilvered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC) on request of Wrad

User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs—I would like your opinion, especially on the draft of proposed guidelines on linking chronological items. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Recent Years guideline is unnecessary, because even though in is a good idea to organize the page, this guidelines remove the information from the main page of the year, where everybody can see them. Please consider this.User:AliDincgor —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

I am sorry. I didn't know.User:AliDincgor —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

No problem. I answered on your page because I wasn't sure you were watching here. It's late, and I'm going to bed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett section

Arthur - you need to read the wikipedia section on "libelous" once again...

Arthur:

You wrote me the message below. In it you made the statement: "Note that our definition of "libelous" is more expansive than the legal definition, so reprinting the libelous material your namesake has been posting all over the Internet is not allowed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I particularly take issue with that part of the statement that says "so reprinting the libelous material your namesake has been posting all over the Internet is not allowed here."

As you are no doubt aware my writings (Tim Bolen) on the internet have been legally challenged in several venues by Stephen Barrett, and others. And, to this date, every challenge has found my writings NOT TO BE LIBELOUS.

Please show your source for this statement.

You used this thin excuse, it seems, to remove my question about Barrett's LACK of credibility due to information provided in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court case. Why did you do that?

In addition you failed to address the original question.

Tim Bolen--TimBolen (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's quite incorrect, on many points. Reprints of your material have been declared exempt from (US) libel laws under the CDA. There was a judicial finding that your claims against Polevoy were libel per se, and that the original publication of the "de-licensed" comment was probably libelous, but he didn't sue you in the proper jurisdiction. I don't know the status of the remaining court cases, but the Wikipedia article shows a malicious prosecution case against Clark and her lawyers is still in progress. (It doesn't make it clear whether they were your lawyers, as well, so I didn't say it.)

And the question of Barrett's credibility in that court is a question of fact, so the appelate court would have no business overturning the trial judge's decision unless the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion. In fact, the summaries that you and Ilena have posted on the net show what appears to be a clear abuse of discretion, as the arguments would apply to any professional expert witness with a specialty, but that's not entirely relevant, either.

Unless the case is particularly relevant to Barrett, and references to the (many?) cases where his testimony as expert witness were admitted are included, it shouldn't be there. I would previously have been willing to accept a simple statement in the article, but WP:UNDUE suggests that cases where his expert testimony was admitted would also need to be included, unless you can verify that such cases don't exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur - once again you are not following wikipedia's rules...

Arthur:

In your statement, above, you make several FALSE assumptions that you cannot, or will not, source. This is very sloppy on your part, and, according to what I am reading on Wikipedi's rule pages, puts YOU, Arthur Rubin, in violation of Wikipedia's policy.

For instance: (1) You state "There was a judicial finding that your claims against Polevoy were libel per se," - NO, THERE WAS NOT. Show us your source for this. That IS NOT what the Court decision said.

(2) You state "and that the original publication of the "de-licensed" comment was probably libelous, but he didn't sue you in the proper jurisdiction." - This is totally false. NO SUCH THING EVER HAPPENED. Show us your source.

(3) You state "I don't know the status of the remaining court cases, but the Wikipedia article shows a malicious prosecution case against Clark and her lawyers is still in progress." You have this totally wrong also. I, Tim Bolen, am not involved in this case, and it has no bearing on me. Besides, a case in progress has NO LEGAL STANDING as evidence - for it has not been adjudicated. Only "Decisions" have weight.

(4) You state: "And the question of Barrett's credibility in that court is a question of fact, so the appelate court would have no business overturning the trial judge's decision unless the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion." - You are NOT an attorney, nor a judge, and have NO legal expertise - nor, do you quote any reliable source.

(5) You state: "In fact, the summaries that you and Ilena have posted on the net show what appears to be a clear abuse of discretion, as the arguments would apply to any professional expert witness with a specialty, but that's not entirely relevant, either." Again, you, Arthur Rubin are NOT an attorney, nor a Judge, and cannot claim any legal expertise. You cite no acceptable by Wikipedia, references.

(6) You state: "Unless the case is particularly relevant to Barrett, and references to the (many?) cases where his testimony as expert witness were admitted are included, it shouldn't be there." You are, here, once again in violation of Wikipedia policy. You have provided NO EVIDENCE where Stephen Barrett has EVER been accepted as an expert witness. In deed, Barrett has often been officially denied status as an expert.

(7) You state: "I would previously have been willing to accept a simple statement in the article, but WP:UNDUE suggests that cases where his expert testimony was admitted would also need to be included, unless you can verify that such cases don't exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)" You are NOT reading the source material I provided. The original case speaks LOUDLY for itself. So loudly, I believe, that the words from the case should be the FIRST statement Wikipedia would include in an article on Stephen Barrett.

(8) Here. Below are the exact words from the original NCAHF v. King bio case decision - all of which were upheld by the Appeals Court. I have higlighted, in red, the important parts:

"C. Credibility of Plaintiff’s experts - Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson’s university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well."

Arthur, I am very disappointed in the quality of your editing for Wikipedia.. You appear to be very biased, yourself, in this matter.

Stephen Barrett, and quackwatch, rely on the 407 links from Wikipedia to quackwatch to give then search engine positioning. Given the facts of this court decision, it appears to me, that all 407 link references are in question and should be removed.

No one, to my knowledge, other than Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson, has EVER been declared by the court system to be "biased, and unworthy of credibility." Such a person. it looks to me, would not, and could not, meet Wikipedia's standards as a source for information.

--TimBolen (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Still wrong.

(1) Found it. The first appeal in Barrett v. Rosenthal found that the statement was libel per se. The case was then thrown out on CDA grounds, and the anti-SLAPP ruling was canceled as to Polevoy.

(2) I'll have to retract that. It ("de-licensed") was found false and defamatory, but apparently not libelous. I'm not sure why. Perhaps that was a jurisdictional problem, also.

(3) Irrelevant, actually. My mistake in bringing it up.

(4) Please read the actual appellate court decision. The appelate court, in a footnote, quoted the trial court as saying "biased, and unworthy of credibility." It went on to say that it would not overturn the ruling as there was evidence to support it, denying the relevance that there was evidence against it.

(5) I'll have to partially retract that one also. It would discredit even a clearly acknowledged expert if he had also worked for political or administrative restrictions against the material he (believed to have) proved was harmful and was on the lecture circuit. It's not just any expert. It's obvious that a "successful" expert witness will get more money as an expert witness than an "unsuccessful" one, regardless of real expertise. Still, there's no real basis in law for that, either, but there may be other facts the judge didn't mention which were credible reasons for his statements.

(6) Barrett claims he was an expert witness in a number of court cases. An example is http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/newwomyn.html . Also, http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html states that "… I have also been involved as a consultant or expert witness in similar cases filed by other parties. Overall, at least ten were settled with agreements under which the defendants promised to stop making the false claims to which we objected." If that can be verified, any claim that he has been discredited as an expert witness needs to be balanced with that. Even it cannot be verified, we cannot include a statement that he has been discredited as an expert witness unless his statement is found incredible.

more to follow. As for not following Wikipedia rules, Ilena was banned, in part, for doing what you're doing here. It might be said that you should be subject to the same ruling, as most of her importance is in chanelling your libelous false and defamatory statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably worth tracking down the ip addresses and accounts (if any) used by people claiming to be the same Tim Bolen. If I recall correctly, some of them received blocks or bans. Since this editor also claims to be the same Tim Bolen, and is behaving in a similar manner, this editor should at minimum be checked for sockpuppetry against any blocked or banned editors claiming to be Bolen. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• 4.233.98.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Brought up in arbcom --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 75.107.23.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Recent spamming of information violating blp. Very probably user TimBolen. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

After a quick search, I'm not finding any others. Maybe I'm confusing Bolen with Negrete. I'm sure I recall someone spamming information similar to 75.107.23.242 that was directly involved in the Bolen-related issues other than Ilena. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RfD

Hello, I've moved your RfDs to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 16, so please check back there for any feedback or watchlist it. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy - Educator or Promoter?

Hi Arthur, I noticed that you promptly reverted my last edit at Ken McCarthy with a forceful comment. I don't see it as a very big deal but I was sure my description is the more accurate. I'd have thought it was uncontroversial that his principle activity is teaching techniques of internet marketing. It is true that he promoted the concept of using the Internet as a commercial medium back in the early nineties when it wasn't generally recognised as such, but surely the idea is now a commonplace and doesn't need any promotion? What is it that you object to? DaveApter (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm about the forceful phrasing. I'm dealing with Alex Jones, where there is no doubt that he promotes conspiracy theories, in spite of multiple attempts at removal. Go ahead and revert me if you like, but it seems to me that "promoted" is more precise than, and as accurate as, "educated". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok - no big deal as far as I'm concerned and I don't want to get into any battles over it. cheers DaveApter (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - once again we seem to be at odds over Ken McCarthy. I'm puzzled by your reaction to my comment today on talk:Conspiracy theory - I thought I was only repeating the position you had asserted a few lines above on December 4th, where you said:

As I said, the only thing in his article about conspiracy theories is that he claims to be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. There's nothing there to indicate he's a major player even in 9/11 conspriacy theories. Please update his article (with adequate sources), and we can discuss whether he belongs here

Not only have there been no justification for that claim, but it has been removed from the bio page (not by me), quite correctly, because it is false and there are no sources for it.

You say:

Brasscheck.com is a conspiracy site, and it's his.

I'd agree that there's no doubt that it's his site, but what is your justification for saying that it is a conspiracy site? I had a look round it and can't see anything that would lead me to that conclusion. I've only looked at a sample of the pages on it - can you point me to any that are arguably promoting conspiracy theories? More to the point for wikipedia purposes, are there any reliable secondary sources that characterise it as such? DaveApter (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything on brasscheck.com which isn't a conspiracy theory. Some of the conspiracies appear real, and the Pacifica Radio is not your usual conspirator, but... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would look here for one of Ken's original articles which would qualify (reference legal action taken after his investigation here) and the academic journal reference on his writing about the Jonestown event. Full Text Jettparmer (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur - just for the sake of clarity, when you say that everything on brasscheck.com site is a conspiracy theory, are you using the term in the sense of

• a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim, or in the sense of
• folklore and urban legend and a variety of explanatory narratives which are constructed with methodological flaws, or in
• the pejorative sense to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed: ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational?

Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More-or-less neutral. The Pacifica case is an interesting conspiracy, which would normally be seen as implausible by the usual "liberal" Pacifica supporters. (As an aside, I dropped my subscription to the local Pacifica station, KPFK when then (a) dropped a program which I regurally listened to, and (b) decided that Black History (and Hispanic History, and other -group History) is intrinsincaly anti-Jewish. As a further aside, I wondered if the censoring of outside comments by KPFK staff is related to the Pacifica conspiracy.)

I suppose a real investigative reporter might be considered a conspiracy theorist under those definitions. A relevant question, as in Alex Jones, is how is he seen, by supporters and opponents alike. Alex is seen as a conspiracy theorist. Is Ken?

I think a conspiracy theorist might be a legitimate title ascribed to an investigator - if they are searching for a conspiracy. Bob Woodward, one of the Watergate reporters started our with a conspiracy theory which was later proven to be largely accurate. I think the negative connotations arise when proponents of their theory can not provide sufficient evidence or fall into the second sense described by DaveApter. Jettparmer (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any suggestion anywhere describing him as a conspiracy theorist until this series of wikipedia posts by Jett Parmer. Google searches on his name return a huge number of results, including many endorsements from high-profile businessmen and commentators. These primarily relate to his 15-year career as a marketing, Internet, and copywriting educator; secondarily to his social activism; and not at all to conspiracy theory promotion. Thus any such description of him would amount to original research.

As far as the brasschecktv.com site is concerned, it is clearly stated that views expressed in the videos are those of the respective producers, and inclusion does not imply endorsement by the site's operators. If his own writings are judged to meet this description in the neutral sense of the term, might it not be better to avoid it entirely bearing in mind the derogatory and pejorative overtones that it has? This whole wrangle would be avoided if we could agree on a less emotionally laden wording - how about "amateur investigative journalist"? DaveApter (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This post on McCarthy, a contributor in the early days of the internet, an internet marketing promoter, independent journalist and conspiracy theorist was started in January of this year. I still find nothing negative in the term conspiracy theorist. It is accurate and reflects his writings over the past ten or more years. I refer to the two academic sources classifying his Jonestown work as conspiracy theory. Even the accusations promoted by [1], with which he is involved, have the earmarks of conspiracy theory.

Oddly, the BrasscheckTV site was only recently updated with the disclaimer you reference, as evidenced by the Google cache. The problem is that unlike an automated search site, the inclusion of the videos implies editorial bias - otherwise the site would contain a much broader array of videos.

I am beginning to think that the constant attempts to "redirect" this article towards a specific and incomplete view of the subject individual would suggest that it is not time for including Ken's bio on Wikipedia. He is either a notable person, and thus subject to a complete analysis of his life - in encyclopediac fashion - or he is a private citizen who should not be listed. Jettparmer (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE It seems that more than the site disclaimer has been modified. The WHOIS registry for BrasscheckTV has been altered to DomainsbyProxy from the original AMACORD ownership. The original BrasscheckTV site started in June 22, 2006. Alexa lists the original ownership as AMACORD, with the New York address. Further About Us also provides the original registrant of the site, despite its now hidden ownership. Thoughts? Jettparmer (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jettparmer states: "I am beginning to think that the constant attempts to "redirect" this article towards a specific and incomplete view..." The case could be made that this statement - directed by jettparmer at editors who find his edits questionable - is in fact a fair description of what he himself is doing. His posts and edits could be considered "constant" according to his own use of the term and they attempt to "redirect" the article from topics that are relevant into a "specific," "incomplete" and idiosyncratic account of McCarthy's career that jettparmer is clearly passionate about promoting.

A case can be made that jettparmer is using wikipedia as a blog to collect and display evidence to support his rather passionate quest to find justification to label the subject of this article with a potentially derogatory term.

Before jettparmer's contributions, this was a straightforward if imperfectly cited article that recounted the subject's career in rough proportion to the significance of each of its elements. Contributions to early efforts to commercialize the Internet are objectively more significant to the world at large than McCarthy's numerous web publishing projects and his involvement with various non-profit ventures over the years. Yes jettparmer would clearly like to take one or two pages of what appears to be a lifetime output of many thousands of pages and devote roughly 50% of the bio's space to those pages...all in an attempt to justify tagging the subject with a title jettparmer has stated clearly in a previous post to wikipedia he has contempt for. There is as little justification for taking up significant portion of the article with the table of contents of one of dozens of McCarthy's sites as there would be for publishing verbatim talks he's given and published. That's what links are for.

As for the issue of "promoter" vs. "educator," - the stated subject of this discussion - on what basis is a person who has taught a subject (web publishing and marketing) since at least 1994 a promoter and not an educator? The video linked to from the site (1994) has a pretty clear cut educational tone. Is the claim being made that one who has enthusiasm for a subject and encourages others to pursue it is a defacto "promoter" and thus to be denied the description "educator?" Have any of the editors posting to this article watched the referenced video? Wouldn't that constitute part of a fair examination of the "evidence?"Nolatime (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)nolatime

William Rodriguez dispute

Your input at the BLP noticeboard would be appreciated:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Help_needed_resolving_content_dispute_at_William_Rodriguez

I would like to see the situation resolved in a way that's fair to Mr. Rodriguez and consistent with our BLP policy, yet does not disregard WP:NPOV. And, the behavior problems need to stop. The BLP/N discussion is an attempt to seek input from uninvolved editors, as well as anyone else with knowledge of the situation. --Aude (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I uninvolved? I had been contacted by the subject; although, (I think) I convinced him that what he wanted is outside of Wikipedia policies, but I certainly haven't edited the article or the talk page lately. I've noticed significant edit warring, there, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the page from my watchlist, some time ago, since there seemed to be nothing I could do. At the same time, turning a blind eye to BLP problems is not a great way to handle it. Recently, I noticed the dispute popping up on the Kevin Barrett and other pages. Now, I see two uninvolved (but non-admin) users have stepped in, which is a chance to maybe get this finally resolved. Ideally, input from uninvolved admins is needed, but any input would help. --Aude (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the BLP/N. Hopefully, someone will take interest in helping mediate and resolve this. There's not much else I can do either. --Aude (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy - Help!!

I need some advice. The Ken McCarthy article is devolving into an edit war. I am at odds with a user over relevant content. Additionally, I suspect some sockpuppetry at work. During the development of the article several of the referenced web sites owned by the subject (Ken) have been changed as if in answer to the facts revealed in the article. Additionally, yesterday his entire Brasscheck.com site went dark updaed - it's back up. The BrasscheckTV site was recently transferred to a DomaninsByProxy ownership status, thus concealing the original owner. I am beginning to feel that this individual really would not prefer to be the subject of a biography. I also suspect that the page originally started out with commercial / vanity intent and has grown beyond itself. I really would like your input (and that of any other admin). It is my belief that the subject is too sensitive and thus the article should be deleted. Thanks. Jettparmer (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Update - I am working with one of the editors DaveApter, fingers are crossed. Jettparmer (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Re the undeletions of AP's so-called mathmatical theories on the Talk:Archimedes Plutonium page. I feel your pain. I added a <div> box around his text, so at least it stands out now as his own "contribution". | Loadmaster (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

An anon contributor (who seems to identify himself as AP) posted a second wall of text today, so I removed that one and the previous section - and only afterwards realised that there was a week's worth of backstory ! I also removed en passant your eventual response to the first section - hope you don't mind that. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's find a compromise here

Arthur, I get the feeling all you moderators think my goal is to turn stir up controversy and spread lies. Its not. I'm merely concerned, not as an extremist that believes the government is always out to get me, but as an educated citizen of this country. Now if we're going to be honest with ourselves, the mainstream media can hardly be called truthtellers, or even journalists for that matter. You seem like a smart guy, can you not tell me that you hear honest reporting in the media? Honest coverage of Iraq?

Anyway, my point is that my source, from the Financial Times, one of the most well-known and well-respected publications in the world, undeniably has a place on either the world government page, the New World Order page, or the Alex Jones page. So please tell me how I can better word it to your satisfaction, and we can end this edit warring. Because as it stands now, regardless of your views about Jones(which I admit he exaggerates on certain issues, but does tell the truth), his page has very little sources to bolster his views and the views of his listeners, which are out there. They just seem to be censored, like the problem I'm having right now.

For example, check this article out, its about the 1st brigade of the 3rd infantry division being stationed at home, to police american people on american soil. This of course is illegal and violates the Posse Comitatus Act(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act).

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

I'm not trying to convince you of anything I just want fair representation of a man and a movement that is respected by millions of people worldwide. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCMemento (talk • contribs) 15:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I suggested wording on Talk:World government. "(author name), writing in the Financial Times, says ..." well, whatever it is he does say. Include the quote in the text, or in the {{cite news}} template, so we can see what he does say. Alex Jones frequently quotes people out of context; and his supporters, in good faith, may believe that the quotes really support what he's saying they do.

As for Jones, we cannot use his words for what he does, but we can use his words and his sites for what he says. We can't find reliable sources that he's involved in civil rights, nor that he advocating assaulting an opponent at one of his demonstrations, both of which are supported by videos. If you want to say that he says he's involved in civil rights, and can support it with his own statements, I can accept that. But it doesn't belong in the infobox; certainly not under "known for".

(My Internet connection is intermittent at the moment, so I can't check details at this time.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert on 1991

Hi, I noticed you reverted my recent edit on 1991. I did some research on the matter and that is why I modified the page. I am sure you have a good reason to have reverted my edit, but I was wondering what it was. Thanks, 2help (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's possible your research is correct; but the links are clearly wrong. Our article Bravo Two Zero is about the movie, rather than about the real mission. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. As you can see, Bravo Two Zero is an article about the real-life mission. Bravo Two Zero (film) is about the miniseries. I think this is where the confusion is coming from, so I am going to re-do my edit. Please let me know if you disagree. Thanks, 2help (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. The link in the 1991 went to the film, though, although I'm not sure exactly why. Go ahead and reinsert your correction, making sure the Wikilinks go to the correct place. Note, though, that I haven't verified that the references support the correction, and if they don't, others may reverse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

9/11

Sir, I have noticed that you support the official narrative of 9/11. I suggest you visit the following website for a step-by-step walkthrough of all the anomalies in the official story as well as contradictions of all subsequent official investigations: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_01.htm All information is presented in a factual non-sensationalist way, and is perfect to gain the pure information that is needed for a truly critical analysis of what is the most important crime scene in history. As one mathematician to another, I am merely trying to expose you to the same information I have seen. Autonova (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It happens I do support the mainstream report of 9/11, with the exception that I believe that the military drill may have prevented the military from shooting down any of the planes. However, for the purpose of Wikipedia, we believe in verifiability, not truth. None of the sources for alternative theories are from what we call reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

James Fetzer

Arthur,

Who else would know what I have been doing over the past year or more? WHO ELSE? Who else would know the society I founded has been made a SIG for IACAP? or that I was flown to Buenos Aires to give lectures on 9/11 and JFK, which were well-covered? or that I have done additional research on JFK, 9/11 and Paul Wellstone? WHO ELSE? Everything I have added--apart from a few stylistic changes--is supported by means of citations. I rarely update, but I did so today, and I find it quite offensive that you arbitrarily reverted back to the original I was updating. The additions I have made are entirely appropriate to the article and deepen and strengthen it. I would appreciate it if you would not mess with it. For God's sake, I have published 28 books and edited important journals, some of which I founded. I understand what is appropriate and what is not. The activities I have added are important and relevant, including replies to attacks that have been made upon me in the past, which I consider to be entirely without merit. But I only observe that I have replied to them "several times", which, of course, is the case and is easily verified, since I have provided citations. The same for everything else I have added to make this a more complete and timely article. In the past, the complaint has been made that some points were not documented. Well, everything I have added here is documented! This should be a welcome development.

James H. Fetzer (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, as I noted on your talk page. What you should do is note the documentation for what you've done on your talk page (which is sadly lacking in comments over the past 2 years), and some of your supporters will include your accomplishments. You clearly do not know what is considered appropriate to Wikipedia. As you've edited your article in 2004 and in 2006, and been warned about improperly including information about yourself, I'm not sure I should have warned you this time; instead just blocking you. But I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

As an aside, there are a number of people, some more notable than you, who have been banned from Wikipedia, primarily for including inappopriate information about themselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur,

The very idea that subjects of articles should not make entries is at least faintly absurd. WHO ELSE is going to know more about the subject? WHO ELSE is going to be more sensitive to nuances and subtleties in their entries? EVERYTHING I HAVE ADDED IS OBJECTIVE INFORMATION. What, are you suggesting that I did not fly to Buenos Aires for a week of lectures on 9/11 and JFK? and that my visit received extensive coverage? There were about eight articles in newspapers, but what is most striking is TELOS, the News Service of the Republic of Arentina, published two long articles about my visit, including a list of discoveries by Scholars that refute major aspects of the official account of 9/11! Now, when it comes to "conflicts of interest", since you have acknowledged that you accept the official account, how can you be OBJECTIVE AND BALANCED in evaluating my work? What is the basis for your beliefs about 9/11? I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. I have spent years studying 9/11 with physicists, engineers, pilots, and other experts. I founded Scholars to figure out what happened. Tell me, what is the melting point of steel, for example? UL certified the steel used in the building to 2,000*F for three to four hours without suffering any adverse effects. How long and how hot did these fires burn? What is "jet fuel" made of? What is the burning temperature of kerosene? NIST studied 236 samples of steel taken from the WTC. What was the result of their study? 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F, which is the temperature of an ordinary office fire, the other three not to temperatures above 1,200*-1,400*F. But the melting point of steel is 2,800*F! The rest of the buildings-- below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th floor of the South Tower--were stone cold steel. They had a carrying capacity that was around five times what they were bearing, which means that "pancake collapses" were not even physically possible. Plus there were massive explosions in the subbasements PRIOR TO any impacts by any planes, which occurred as much as 14-17 seconds earlier! They took out the sprinkler systems, which would have extinguished these very modest fires. IMPOSING YOUR OPINIONS ON THOSE WHO KNOW MORE ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS IS COMPLETELY ANTITHETICAL TO THE IDEA OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. And I am not even making arguments about what actually happened here, but only describing activities and publications in which I am attempting to bring the truth about 9/11--as I understand it--into the public domain. More- over, since you ask for documentation and citations on every crucial point, how can there be a "conflict of interest" between the subject of an article and the points they are contributing, WHEN EACH OF THEM IS VERIFIABLE? Surely the subjects know more about their lives than anyone else alive. ALL OF MY ADDITIONS ARE RELEVANT AND ACCURATE, as you would know if you followed the links and citations that I have provided. The entry makes it clear that I am especially interesting--over and above my publications in the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science, which can be verified by my academic home page--because I hold controversial views about JFK, 9/11, and the crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone. Surely it is appropriate to add information about additional research I have done on each of these subjects, especially by providing links and other citations where it can be verified. And since I am "controversial", isn't it a good idea to observe that I have been selected for inclusion in WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA and WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD? or that the professional society I have founded is becoming a Special Interest Group for the International Association for Computing and Philosophy? Your conflict policy seems to imply that you would rather have an encyclopedia that is inaccurate and incomplete than to accept information from the subjects of its entries--EVEN WHEN THAT INFORMATION IS EASILY VERIFIABLE! Something is wrong here, even profoundly confused. Information of the kind that I have added belongs in the text of the entry. Few will be those who know or even care that there are "talk" pages where minutia can be discussed. None of the items that I have added falls into that category. They are important and relevant. I suggest that you have mistaken the SOURCE of relevant data for its TRUTH, even though you requires that data be VERIFIABLE! Well, no one in the world is going to know more about these subjects than the subjects themselves. If you are dedicated to the integrity of Wikipedia, your requirement of verification is appropriate, but disallowing subjects from making contributions is not. The right policy is that additions or revisions by subjects is only appropriate when it adds to the accuracy and completeness of their entries, where those changes are able to be verified.

Now I have gone through the revisions and corrections I have made to my entry, and they all add to the accuracy and completeness of my entry--and are easily verifiable! That includes my addition about the Society for Machines & Mentality being made a SIG of the IACAP and that my bio sketch has appeared in standard reference works, where I could add another citation to my academic home page if you want further verification. That I co-edit an on-line journal for advanced study of the death of JFK is also an appropriate addition, since it no only confirms my standing in the field but identifies a resource for those who want to learn more. Need I add that exposing the false reports our government has sold us as a form of propaganda is in the public interest? that without true information we continue to be susceptible to being manipulated on the basis of fake rationales, as in the case of going to war in Iraq and even Afghanistan, when even Bush has conceded that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11; a series of inquiries--including by the Inspector General of the Pentagon--has concluded that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda; and even our FBI--our own FBI!--has acknowledged that it has "no hard evidence" connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11? Surely what experts have to say about events of this magnitude that corrects the misinformation peddled by administrations is overwhelmingly in the public interest! That I have lectured on JFK at Harvard, Yale, and Cambridge Universities is also clearly relevant to assessing my credibility--and that this is a subject on which I continue to make major research contributions is also relevant. My trip to Argentina has been discussed above, but surely that I have been flown to Athens to appear on a three and 1/2 hour television program on 9/11 that was broadcast world-wide by satellite and that I was flown to Buenos Aires to lecture on JFK and 9/11 are also notable and appropriate. That I organized the first conference sponsored by Scholars on 9/11 and produced its first DVD are also significant developments in reaching out to the public to inform it of our discoveries. That I have also done additional research on the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone--in collaboration with a Ph.D. in physics who specializes in electromagnetism--which was published in Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" newsletter--is also clearly appropriate and, again, provides an access route for the public to consider the evidence we have unearthed in greater detail. Need I observe that, if the GOP has found a fool-proof method for taking out its political enemies, then the public needs to know about it? And, again, it is easily verified, since I provided a link to the article itself. Because I have been attacked numerous times by others who, in my opinion, have an agenda, surely it is appropriate to point out that I have responded to these attacks "several times" and provide links. Otherwise, the impression is left standing that I have had no response and therefore they must be right. And surely there can be scant doubt that correcting information about the radio program I am currently hosting is likewise relevant and appropriate. If you think I am wrong about any of these changes and additions, then let's discuss them, item by item. But to make a blanket judgment that corrections and clarifications like these are UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SOURCE, WHEN THEY ARE VERIFIABLE, is an indefensible policy for an encyclopedia, unless you want to promote information that is inaccurate or incomplete! All I have done is take the categories of my entry and added more relevant information to them. I realize editing Wikipedia has to be a time-consuming and in many ways thankless task. I know the time and effort required to edit journals and books, an area in which I am an expert. So please know that, after scrutinizing the changes that I have introduced in making these revisions because you have made an issue of it, they all appear to be relevant and appropriate in the best interest of having a more accurate and complete entry on its subject. That the subject happens to be me is surely irrelevant. Given that they are all objective and verifiable--where you will see that I am not offering arguments to support my opinions on any of these controversial issues, but only explaining where I have done more research and the public reception I am receiving--I submit I am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia by making this entry more accurate and complete with documentation and citation. If I have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, then I could be wrong, but it appears to me that, in fact, these changes are constructive and promote the objectives of the encyclopedia. Let me know if you think I am wrong about any specific items and we can discuss them. Thanks!

James H. Fetzer (the four tildes did not yield my name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.19.124 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Notable; Undid Revision 267772717 by Kentholke

Greetings Mr. Rubin

I noticed to "undid" my addition of Phil Spector's arrest to the February 3 events section, citing that it was "not notable." So that I may gain better understanding for the future, is it Phil Spector himself you believe is not notable, or is it his arrest in connection with a capitol murder investigation that is not notable? Might it have been the verbage I used that made the event pale in comparison to the other events? Or is it a simple case of me missing the boat somewhere, so to speak? Kentholke (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, except in case of a manhunt, an arrest is not notable, regardless of the seriousness of the crime. Others may differ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time out to clarify this for me. I respect your opinion. I also find myself in agreement to a certain degree. Cheers! Kentholke (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm disapointed, but...

I was bored and did something like 4-5 hours worth of editing wikipedia today, my usual is about an hour. I just found out all of my edits were reverted by you. Why did you revert every single one? I feel like I just wasted all that time now. Some of my edits were on restructuring articles and were very helpful for some. I know Nineties kid is probrably not notable, but I was helping someone else finish it. A lot of the pages I added into the 2000s fads category belong there: Citizen journalism, Bionicle, Line Rider, Dancing banana, Metrosexual, Retrogaming are surely fads for our decade. I thought that one of the main points to wikipedia was to change pages in order to progress them, isn't wikipedia's slogan "Be bold". I'm not attacking or anything, but 4-5 hours geez and I don't vandilize, I'm in the process of reforming several key articles mostly relating to the 1990s decade. (Tigerghost (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

1. I didn't say Nineties kid wasn't notable; I said that the parts which are not WP:Original Research belong in Generation Y.
2. Most of the entries you describe Most don't look like Category:2000s fads to me. I read through the articles, and I didn't see evidence there or in the real world for fad-dom. As for Bionicle, I noted Bionicle as a whole as the fad, rather than the list of toys, and I do recognize that one.
3. The #See also section for 1990s in science and technology should be replaced by a nav template. It's clearly bad, and worse than nothing, the way you had it. I can't find the right nav template though; perhaps there's one in 1990s in India. Well, there is, but it's substituted. Let me see if I can fix that up....

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound a little harsh on my previous paragraph, I have been the target of your re-editing before. I mistook the edits as personal attack. I apoligize. Lately I've been getting into similar edit wars with the 1990s decade page. I want to reform it to match the 2000s one; the current page is lengthy and all of the information is already stored on sub articles. Anytime I have changed it, it has been reverted back. Any advice could be appriciated(Tigerghost (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Stanley Meyer article

Can you please at least offer me some explanation of your reversion of my edit to the Meyer article? Did you even bother to read the page I cited from?

EDIT: I've just been reading through this talk page, as well. Looks like you're really well loved around here.

Petrus4 (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I love you, User:Arthur Rubin; well, your work here is of quality, at least. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. Also, extraordinary claims (that the Nature article is incorrect) requires extraordinary evidence (at least, a peer-reviewed journal). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Polynomials AfD

Thanks! Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur your question: Anyone can start a Hall of Fame

Arthur it is very true what you say anyone can. The truth is most haven't in the community for different professional reasons.

We have just launched and already we have on our Executive Selection Committee for the Seduction Hall of Fame a who's who of the elite dating coaches.

They include Cliff from Cliff's List, Swinggcat, Matador from VH-1's the pick-up artist, Payton Kane from the Seduce and Conquer Radio show (David DeAngelo's Dating Guru Series), The Player from Becomeaplayer.com, Donovan from the Seduction Chronicles, and many more elite professional coaches/community personalities in the field.

This was all through word of mouth, we haven't even started to call up the members that have already been inducted.

I have very little to gain from promoting others. I have been a coach for 15 years most of that time working for free. We just appreciate the work that these men do to change the dating landscape for men.

I can appreciate that it is difficult for Wikipedia to quantify the Seduction Community, as well as your job must be extremely difficult to keep track of spammers, and prejudiced posters.

That is why we have gone through a very thorough procedure to create the best way to quantify the coaches who have made such an impact.

We have an Executive Selection Committee they choose the names on the ballot, and the public votes on who is the inductee.

Sort of like the Academy Awards and the People's Choice rolled into one.

Only elite members of the community can be on the Executive Selection Committee.. and that number is growing by the day. We will have the most respected panel with even factions that despise each other on the ESC. Our policy is "All baggage is left at the door."

This is a seduction community project and the community is the most important part. You can see our Rules and regulations Policy at http://www.seductionhalloffame.com/Hall/hallrulesregs.html .

I must admit I am no Wikipedia expert I leave it to your sound knowledge, I am an expert in a different field.

If you have any questions or anyone else for that matter they can contact me at webmaster at seductionhalloffame dot the com.

We can document and change anything that the community at large suggests. This is a project for the people, to serve them best. We have gone to great lengths to make it that way.

We work for the people and from an unbiased platform as I will have little to gain.

Arthur if I can help you in any way please let me know.

Orlandomac (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For a note in the main seduction community article, we need a source outside the community that your hall of fame is notable. (It's possible there is a reliable source (as we define it) within the community, but the odds are against it.) In that case, a paragraph listing the inductees in the seduction community article might be appropriate, with a link to your web site as reference for that fact.

For the individual inductees, the link to your web site isn't helpful, as (1) they are more notable than the "Hall of Fame"< and (2) there is no individual article about the Hall of Fame (nor should there be, IMHO, at this time. I don't think you could honestly write an article which would survive WP:CSD#A7.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why is it you say I don't know how to edit an RFAr? I appreciate your comments at the Workshop, I just wasn't expecting this, so if you would clarify I'd be grateful for it. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Primarily WP:BAIT. You need a thick skin to edit an RfAr, especially if you're a party. You (and TE) don't need to comment each time the WP:GANG makes absurd comments about date linking, nor do you need to repeatedly accuse Tony, Greg, DaBomb87, Lightmouse, etc., of bad faith, incivility, and genocide. (Well, perhaps not the last.) I'm afraid I'm guilty of making repeated accusations, myself, but they're not all in the proposed findings yet. That being said, I liked "Wikipedia is not Survivor". I'm more upset by TE's placing megabites of evidence in /Workshop rather than in /Evidence, but TE seems to have gone off the deep end, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment (especially looking back at it now). I will do my best to avoid the baiting (particularly Tony and Greg's latest comments), hopefully others will choose to correct them if necessary. As for TE, agreed, but he did remove quite a bit the other day (you may not have noticed since there's this latest spat taking place now) and replaced it with direct links to his evidence. Trimmed quite a bit. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Counter proposal on chronological linking

Please share your ideas at User:Kendrick7/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. -- Kendrick7^talk