User talk:Litman bd

Your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D. Litman

If you are Brian D. Litman, you should address your concerns in some other forum. AfD is incapable of determining the accuracy of any of your statements or your identity. If you have a brief defense, you're welcome to give it the same way any participant is, but you're not entitled to a privileged position as the subject of the article.

Power~enwiki (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

In Re: Afd: Brian D. Litman from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_D._Litman

Below text was attempted for User-Understood Correct Protocol for Inclusion in AfD page, but deleted by original commenter:

Power~enwiki (talk): I am afraid I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion, the article merely stated common Soviet Intelligence operational procedure concerning foreigners conducting business with organizations at the governmental or Party CPSU levels. But, your time spent with editorial improvement are noted and appreciated. litman_bd (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Below is the text which Power~enwiki indicated was improperly placed. Although the banner did not indicated that article subjects were banned from commented on their own AfDs. I would attempt a revert but I apparently don't comprehend the rules and Power would likely revert again. :O ....

• Editors: I am Brian Litman - the subject of the article.

Some may question my decision to "testify on my own behalf", however I feel a disservice to the historical record (and perhaps myself) might occur if I did not oblige. Therefore I, by definition have a [WP:COI]. (With thanks to Editor User:PaleoNeonate for illuminating these acronyms.)

I would appreciate the opportunity to provide my own perspective for the edification of those who are deliberating on this AFD.

I wish to, drawing from my own knowlegebase, address some misconceptions which may have been formed by an one of a number of errors. I agree, User:Arrant Errant's Article was very long. (He does not respond to last known coordinates.) That said, the article's content, had it not been factually accurate when first reviewed, would have engendered a response from me by now.

As I explained in a recent request to an Administrator to remove an undesired KEEP vote by an unnamed source:

"Sometime last year an interested writer contacted and interviewed me. We had more than one discussion. The original focus for this discussion was my involvement in digital audio technologies. But as the conversation deepened I recalled (to this writer) that the reason why I had organized my AMP technology team in Croatia was because my co-founders were there. Further I told him that I was very comfortable operating in Eastern Europe because I had considerable familiarity with Russia, having resided there in the early 1990's.

This led to his inquiry as to my work activities there. He found my recounting of this "likely hard for the public to believe" and he asked for proof of my unusual relationships. I decided to avail the writer of links to some of my personal photographic and document archives (with permission to publish). The writer thought these archives were necessary to "prove" that I had relations with prior members of the Russian intelligence community and high officials such as Soviet Premier Ryzhkov.

The rather extensive results of his interest are evident in Wikipedia's article. As I now understand it, such "primary sources" are discouraged, but, under extenuating circumstances, are permissible under Wikipedia rules [1]. But, I am the only one in possession of these items and I have them archived in my private cloud which is neither indexed or overtly "published".

Otherwise, the author sourced many links, (still visible even from the early 90's) related to my business dealings with KGB.

Perhaps these should be provided to the Wikimedia "Commons"??"

.....................................................................................................

User:Огнемет who represented that he is writing a book and seeking an interview, (and after receiving other several prior "WTF?" emails from recent days) my attention was brought to this matter. Having looked into the issue User:SoWhy was kind enough to remove an unattributed KEEP vote (for reasons I do not wish to repeat). And I appreciate the Editors' consideration in removing that.

I also see that User:Огнемет... an American (with a curious Russian 'handle'), had been soliciting live interviews and using article-cited external sources for his writing - defended the article before the fact of my promising some archival material (in particular concerning - a pointed interest for him.

It seems that Arrant wrote and sourced the Article in contravention of Wikipedia policies. As such, I can understand the need to redact those portions. (I value Wikipedia and do not envy the nonsense that the active Editors and staff surely contend with daily.) I do ask Editors' forebearance in clarifying some possible misconceptions. In particular some I'd like to bring to the attention of the initiator of this Afd: User:Location (A "he" I presume.)

Location states:

"The claim to notability is as a "media, entertainment and technology entrepreneur and inventor"; however, this does not appear to be backed up by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

I submit to the gentleman (and the other interested Editors) that it seems all of the references already listed in the original article ... and apparently other ones sourced above (by User:Огнемет), should contain sufficient "established media" evidence to support - at least what I can objectively visualize having been a journalism graduate - "notablility". Including the inventors' patent citation which also cites my PlayMedia cofounders Uzelac and Mario Kovač.

This at least with regards to the MP3 aspects of my career.

Next, Location stated: "A closer examination of the references show citations to the websites of companies he is affiliated with; his own websites containing primary source material, qontinuum.org or wildernessofmirrors.org; jfk conspiracy websites such as jfklancer.com and maryferrell.org; or links referring to the KGB or Oleg Nechiporenko that do not even mention him."

The un-indexed, non-public, qontinuum.org is my own archive and wildernessofmirrors.org is an unpublished archive that is another project involving people who have some relationship to espionage. So those appear disqualified.

As to jfklancer.com and maryferrell.org, well, I will address this further with Location's talk page. But, somehow, I fear Location got the idea that I represent or am an advocate of JFK Assassination "Fringe Theory" as cited here .

This seems to be a pillar of his objections, but if true he fully misunderstood my stated positions.

Perhaps he assumed this, because I was invited to speak about KGB and Lee Harvery Oswald at the 2 principal symposia on the JFK's 50th: and . If this is the principal generator of his discontent - let me set the record straight.

As was quoted at the conferences, I do not subscribe to any "conspiracy theories". A nearly two year immersion into JFK and Oswald-ology in Moscow, researching KGB archives completely galvanized my conviction that Oswald alone killed Kennedy. (See my comments with Location for any more depth you may desire.)

I have also perceived some sentiment that this article of last year may have been some kind of exercise in ghost-written self-promotion. Were that true, a skeptical Editor would reasonably expect to also see the same legerdemain for entitiies of greater economic import to me such as PlayMedia and AMP. Both, active since the late 1990's. Neither has been pushed (from my end as a principal). (I think some writer made a go at AMP many years ago, but it never made the "cut".) Honestly, I do find this suprising given those Topics' impact in modern music distribution, but - Wikipedia works in mysterious ways.

An interested Editor with a fascination for the messy history of digital music might want to research these subjects. This, given the massive impact of Napster / AOL and Winamp - and PlayMedia's deep involvement. And let me not forget to mention some unfortunate legal conflicts, which are today still cited in intellectual property case law

Finally, I was saddened that the entire Article is proposed for the gallows rather than spanking it with one of those admonishments. Unfortunately, writer Arrant was the only one noticed in late April. And my efforts to reach him have been in vain - with precious corrective time lost.

With that, patient Editors ... I rest my case and thank you for your time and just consideration. litman_bd (talk) litman_bd (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)