The result was Delete. Despite the vocal protest of two editors, they have failed to show how/why this passes any of our notability criteria, whereas the "delete" !votes are solidly policy-based. Boss Reality and Starman005 (if ever the latter gets unblocked) are strongly reminded of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Randykitty ( talk) 14:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
After finding quite a bit of copyvio in this article from [1] I tried to find reliable sources to rewrite it. The only clearly reliable sources I found was a book at [2] which mentions him in connection with the documentary 911:In Plane Site but doesn't tell us very much about him. Seems to fail our notability criteria. Dougweller ( talk) 17:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well now, the self published refs mainly refer to the music and film releases which I have looked up and can most likely be referenced elswhere on nortable sites. This appears to be a repetition of what I have had to endure. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 08:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC))
*Keep, notblity is established and I agree with the creator, Also there seem to be NY Times and NBC linkes too. Good enough ! (
Boss Reality (
talk) 08:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC))
* Comment - I refer to what the page looks / looked like at a certain time. So looking at this capture here I made after the last edit
done by WegianWarrior at 11:42, 10 August 2014. That's what the page looked like after his / her edit. Basically the statement by this person is totaly incorrect. WegianWarrior says he / she has been through all the refs twice.
Quote WegianWarrior: "I have gone though every single reference twice after Starman005 have been working on it. The article seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published."
This is incorrect and even I can see (with one eye closed) that the main foundation of the article is reliant on credible refs. Sure there are some self publshed refs. The self published refs are to do with some of the recordings released and a film or 2. It's the same as saying a house with concrete foundations has bamboo foundations and is unsteady just because the window covers are made from bamboo. If there is a bit of intentional misleading then that's very naughty of our young friend. If not then very careless and reckless. But besides that I know that this is a repetition of what happened with my articles and I do believe I detect censorship yet again. I'm not losing my mind here as I have asked others to look in and they have seen what I've seen. Now it seems others have to endure this with their articles and have their work deleted. Could this be so that people are now deciding what others should access? I do know from my limited time here that certain articles are much more likely to be deleted go against the official version of things and if the people they're about are hated by certain groups or organisations. This is commonn knowledge.I remember once a case of a boy messing up his brothers bed then calling his mother to say his brother hadn't made his bed. He may now have grown up into a man I once worked with who would sabotage other co workers projects to make them look bad. If Wikipedia is going to be an encylopedia with blanked out pages then we need to have a good long look at things and decide if this should be a place where one group decides what others should see and know. I can tell you right here and now that's not something I'd support. (
Boss Reality (
talk) 10:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC))
::::* Reply to MrBill3, Doesn't matter if the CD's are on CD baby or not. I believe you're attempt at making the point is to support your agenda. Now imagine this, If Harry Wayne Casey of
KC & The Sunshine Band hadn't found an overseas distributor for his records then they would have been released on his TK Records label which is the one he formed himself to get them out. They'd be self published then and I know that you wouldn't be tattooing his page with the like you've done here. Friend, sorry I disagree with you all the way on that and that doesn't stack up at all. (
Boss Reality (
talk) 23:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC))
* Comparisons to make the point- Again I'm taking the unusual step to post here 2 comparisons of edits. One last edit by starman 005 who created thew article and the other by MrBill3 who after WegianWarrior has deliberately made a mess of the article by tagging it in a way that by my observations could only be described as a strategic manoeuvrings to discredit the article to hasten and ensure it's deletion. This tactic has been previously and successfully applied by WegianWarrior and my good friend Dougweller and usual core group that follow him around. Rather than discussing the quality of the links that have also been pointed out by 2 other editors here to be worthy, this tactic is instead employed. And again I emphasize it's done IMO to get rid of the article. The questions pops up like a helium balloon riding a huge sudden gust of wind .... What's the agenda? (
Boss Reality (
talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism - truthers etc.
Quote: Dougweller Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences.[3] (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website[4] - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup.[5][6]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Please note other content in between these 2 entries not included.
Quote DougwellerYes. This article is clearly fringe - it's all about a fringe view about a global conspiracy and pushes fringe people with neo-Nazi connections. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
All I can say here is it's not a good look at this kind of what I believe to be carlessness and possible naughtiness should that not be encouraged. It could give folks the wrong idea. So please let's play fair. Thanks ( Boss Reality ( talk) 10:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC))
The result was Delete. Despite the vocal protest of two editors, they have failed to show how/why this passes any of our notability criteria, whereas the "delete" !votes are solidly policy-based. Boss Reality and Starman005 (if ever the latter gets unblocked) are strongly reminded of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Randykitty ( talk) 14:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
After finding quite a bit of copyvio in this article from [1] I tried to find reliable sources to rewrite it. The only clearly reliable sources I found was a book at [2] which mentions him in connection with the documentary 911:In Plane Site but doesn't tell us very much about him. Seems to fail our notability criteria. Dougweller ( talk) 17:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well now, the self published refs mainly refer to the music and film releases which I have looked up and can most likely be referenced elswhere on nortable sites. This appears to be a repetition of what I have had to endure. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 08:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC))
*Keep, notblity is established and I agree with the creator, Also there seem to be NY Times and NBC linkes too. Good enough ! (
Boss Reality (
talk) 08:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC))
* Comment - I refer to what the page looks / looked like at a certain time. So looking at this capture here I made after the last edit
done by WegianWarrior at 11:42, 10 August 2014. That's what the page looked like after his / her edit. Basically the statement by this person is totaly incorrect. WegianWarrior says he / she has been through all the refs twice.
Quote WegianWarrior: "I have gone though every single reference twice after Starman005 have been working on it. The article seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published."
This is incorrect and even I can see (with one eye closed) that the main foundation of the article is reliant on credible refs. Sure there are some self publshed refs. The self published refs are to do with some of the recordings released and a film or 2. It's the same as saying a house with concrete foundations has bamboo foundations and is unsteady just because the window covers are made from bamboo. If there is a bit of intentional misleading then that's very naughty of our young friend. If not then very careless and reckless. But besides that I know that this is a repetition of what happened with my articles and I do believe I detect censorship yet again. I'm not losing my mind here as I have asked others to look in and they have seen what I've seen. Now it seems others have to endure this with their articles and have their work deleted. Could this be so that people are now deciding what others should access? I do know from my limited time here that certain articles are much more likely to be deleted go against the official version of things and if the people they're about are hated by certain groups or organisations. This is commonn knowledge.I remember once a case of a boy messing up his brothers bed then calling his mother to say his brother hadn't made his bed. He may now have grown up into a man I once worked with who would sabotage other co workers projects to make them look bad. If Wikipedia is going to be an encylopedia with blanked out pages then we need to have a good long look at things and decide if this should be a place where one group decides what others should see and know. I can tell you right here and now that's not something I'd support. (
Boss Reality (
talk) 10:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC))
::::* Reply to MrBill3, Doesn't matter if the CD's are on CD baby or not. I believe you're attempt at making the point is to support your agenda. Now imagine this, If Harry Wayne Casey of
KC & The Sunshine Band hadn't found an overseas distributor for his records then they would have been released on his TK Records label which is the one he formed himself to get them out. They'd be self published then and I know that you wouldn't be tattooing his page with the like you've done here. Friend, sorry I disagree with you all the way on that and that doesn't stack up at all. (
Boss Reality (
talk) 23:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC))
* Comparisons to make the point- Again I'm taking the unusual step to post here 2 comparisons of edits. One last edit by starman 005 who created thew article and the other by MrBill3 who after WegianWarrior has deliberately made a mess of the article by tagging it in a way that by my observations could only be described as a strategic manoeuvrings to discredit the article to hasten and ensure it's deletion. This tactic has been previously and successfully applied by WegianWarrior and my good friend Dougweller and usual core group that follow him around. Rather than discussing the quality of the links that have also been pointed out by 2 other editors here to be worthy, this tactic is instead employed. And again I emphasize it's done IMO to get rid of the article. The questions pops up like a helium balloon riding a huge sudden gust of wind .... What's the agenda? (
Boss Reality (
talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism - truthers etc.
Quote: Dougweller Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences.[3] (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website[4] - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup.[5][6]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Please note other content in between these 2 entries not included.
Quote DougwellerYes. This article is clearly fringe - it's all about a fringe view about a global conspiracy and pushes fringe people with neo-Nazi connections. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
All I can say here is it's not a good look at this kind of what I believe to be carlessness and possible naughtiness should that not be encouraged. It could give folks the wrong idea. So please let's play fair. Thanks ( Boss Reality ( talk) 10:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC))