Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Theo Klemesrud

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Theo Klemesrud

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tom Theo Klemesrud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a case of WP:BLP1E. Most of the article consists of WP:OR with inadequate sourcing (such as usenet posts and WP:SPS). A WP:BEFORE finds no evidence of notability for the individual outside of the Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc. case. As most of the content fails verifiability, I think it should be blanked and redirected to Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The tag is inaccurate. The tag is making the case based of the name "Tom Theo Klemesrud" when that is not his known name. Take for instance the Scholar tab. The search with the false name only brings up one article. But if you search it with the correct name, "Tom Klemesrud" this is the result you get – five Google pages of citations. User Klemesrud has stated that he does not want his middle name used because he is not known by the string "Tom Theo Klemesrud." A correct search would yield these results: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=%22Tom+Klemesrud%22&btnG= This same error is repeated for every category of research listed. This proposal for deletion is a sham based on untruths. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a rhetorical strawman argument. You user:Schazjmd create your strawman by falsely defining an article and then go to try to burn that article down by false sourcing tabs. What you've done here is false and should be opposed. And you do it with hard to follow circuitous codes and links. Disingenuous to the max. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You, user:Schazjmd, recently deleted my contribution for this page in the writings section, saying the text of this court filing was not reliable. The filed declaration came from attorney Richard Horning and it is ok to contact and verify with him. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/professionals/h/horning-richard-allan

Also Shari Steele at EFF can verify it. The case and file was on the EFF server, but was accidently destroyed. https://www.eff.org/about/staff/shari-steele Seen here on BBC-2 ... //youtu.be/b6KM27TUsvM?t=367

The declaration is also on Pacer of course. The case is published. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc , No. 95-20091 RHW, 1995 Comp. Ind. L. Rptr. 20214, 20292, 20357, 20380, 20435 (N.D.Cal. 1995), 907 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D.Ca. 1995) 71.29.113.108 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I said a file on google docs was not reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I want you to know that I am 70 years old approaching an end-of-life situation, and that I consider what you are here – trying to cancel me – Delete my Wikipedia page that I've had for 13 years. I have hearts in lung problems that are terminal.

I consider your actions to be cyber bullying of a disabled senior citizen, by psychologically terrorizing an old, sick man whom you say is a "run-of-the-mill journalist" – when I spent all my life in radio and TV broadcasting, most recently 28 years as a videotape editor for some of the highest rated Hollywood shows. I only took over my parents newspaper in order to keep it going, to salvage their legacy.– threatening to take away my legacy that I worked hard to establish all my life. And if it doesn't stop, I'm going to report you to federal authorities that I have come through the years of knowing on a first name basis. And please don't consider that a threat, but next course of action Included in this would also be Muboshgu who I believe started this whole thing because I objected on the Georgia Secretary of State's page saying there was no election fraud in Georgia that today has been proven. I want you to knock it off, please. I am going to try to forward this also to Liz and NickCT, do you consider Amazon.com's international movie database IMDB.com as an unreliable source? There you will find many of my accomplishments that are fact checked and provided by the studios to IMDb. Just click on that link on my page you are colluding to remove. ANI Here is the link to my attorney. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/professionals/h/horning-richard-allan my talk page Tomklem (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for your troubles. Nothing about this is personal, only about applying the policies of Wikipedia to determine whether there should be this stand-alone article. (We do not consider IMdB a reliable source, by the way.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep/Oppose object to deletion. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (Duplicate !vote. Already !voted above "oppose/keep 71.29.113.108 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)) -- Valjean (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

WP Guidlines

"Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion..." And, this proposed deletion is as controversial and complicated as can be. If one were to give this article a fair hearing, you would find that this is where the legal concept of safe harbors for Internet service providers began. It began with Tom Klemesrud's declaration to the federal court of judge Ronald M Whyte. It culminated in Judge White's ruling in November 1995 that gave safe-harbor protection from liability to Internet service providers for what their users might post. California Congressman Christopher Cox relied on this ruling in the creation of section 230 of the communications Decency Act of 1996. It was from this Netcom case – Klemesrud's declaratory stance – that user:Schazjmd, reverted, with the novel claim that a legal document submitted by way of Google Drive, was not a reliable source. These case documents are all over the Internet, and can be found on the US Courts Pacer service. It was Klemesrud's declaratory stance, and Judge Whyte's rulings, that were codified into United States code for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, also.

It should not go unnoticed that Wikipedia itself could not exist without these legal safe-harbor liability protections. Neither could YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, or any other Internet service that allows third-party user input into a public forum. This attempt to erase Internet history should not be supported because of Klemesrud's political leanings in support of Donald Trump. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just want to point that this isn't PROD, this is AfD. Thanks. Eyebeller 10:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say that in plain laguage? Tomklem (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from below as these comments belong here. Tom, you are simply mistaken, as explained by User:Eyebeller. This is an AFD, not a PROD. BTW, there is nothing about this that has to do with your "political leanings in support of Donald Trump." -- Valjean (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose/keep object. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (Duplicate !vote. Already !voted above "oppose/keep 71.29.113.108 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)) -- Valjean (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Relevance?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[Citation] ... Importantly, the court held 

that:

     "[w]here a BBS operator cannot reasonably verify a claim of
     infringement, either because of a possible fair use defense, the
     lack of copyright notices on the copies, or the copyright holder's
     failure to provide the necessary documentation to show that there
     is a likely infringement, the operator's lack of knowledge will be
     found reasonable and there will be no liability for contributory
     infringement for allowing the continued distribution of works on
     its system." Slip Op. at 17.

If a fact-finder agrees that there is no liability in such a situation, many
system operators will live much happier lives as a result.... [End citation]

Published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, December 13, 1995, at page 6. https://1drv.ms/t/s!AvW0eEdkOQQMgoQuXUIm1JTXzdig_A Tomklem (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "Judge Whyte correctly concluded that Internet service providers and BBS providers can't be directly liable where there is no volitional act," said Carla Oakley, a partner at San Francisco's Morrison and Foerster who represents Dennis Erlich. "It's a very important and key decision...." https://1drv.ms/t/s!AvW0eEdkOQQMgellswVXOlN_uElZyw Tomklem (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Theo_Klemesrud&oldid=999003428"