Talk:Usenet personality

message: Why does Tim Maroney redirect to Usenet celebrity when there's no mention of him on the page, or even in this talk page? Kay Dekker (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Redirect page's history, it was created here by editor Dbachmann, (talk).  Then, at this edit that editor decided to create it to REDIRECT the page to Notable Usenet personalities, an older name for this Usenet celebrity article.  After that the history just shows the fixing of double-redirects to point directly to Usenet celebrity.  My guess would be that editor Dbachmann intends to add Tim Maroney to this article at some point.  Although if interested, you might check with that editor to be sure.   .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: That is a very good question!  Why do "editors" continually spend their time removing content from Wikipedia?  The world may never know. beefman (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Maroney 

message: A collection of crank posts from sci.math over the years is available at www.math-atlas.org. It includes posts from some of the personalities listed in this article, including Archimedes Plutonium, Jack Sarfatti, and Alexander Abian. (It is also available as a link from Crank dot net.) It is interesting, if not amusing, reading. — Loadmaster (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection of sci.math posts 

message: Jesse F. Hughes devised a unique trick in his sci.math postings by making his signature block for sci.math contain "quotes out of context" by 
various other sci.math particpants. And the Hughes trick was to hunt through posts of others looking for a sentence that would make that
poster look bad. So that Hughes's signature block would not have Hughes's name but rather a "quote out of context" and the name of another
poster who Hughes did not like. And these signature blocks would be repeated over and over again, with the upshot that a new reader could
not really tell who the true author of the Hughes post was, and where quoted author was made to look bad because the out of context quote
was selected by Hughes to make that person look bad. Jesse F. Hughes goes by the alias Phiwum as a Wikipedia editor and claims on his
Wikipedia page "about him" that he is a college professor teaching on the East Coast in the Massachussets area. This seems rather contradictory
to me, as I was often a target of Hughes's signature block and complained to News Admin Net Abuse that Hughes's was not only "quoting out of
context" which no college professor that I know of would continue such practice when asked to stop that behaviour, and when such a practice
verges on forgery. So it is my opinion that a entry in Wikipedia Usenet Celebrities is warranted for Jesse F. Hughes as a College Professor who
sees no wrong or harm in quoting out of context a different author and inserting that quote with authors name as his signature block. It is my
opinion that Hughes is ** pushing the envelope** of good and bad behaviour as it relates to quoting out of context and the name of another in
his signature block which is hard to tell who was the author of Hughes post. There are hundreds of Hughes post to sci.math where names other than Hughes are in the signature block. Now I know that in Medicine there is a code of conduct, the Hypocratic Oath of do no harm to patients. But is there some College Academia Code of Conduct that professors in Colleges who commit to quoting out of context and are spinning those
quotes as a hate-mill to sci.math and when asked to stop that habit and frequent pleas to News Admin Net Abuse of Hughes's signature block.
Is there some Code of Conduct by Colleges that can stop Hughes from maligning other people who post to the Usenet? 216.16.55.208 (talk)Concerned Reader of
Usenet  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.55.208 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a published citation to back up any of this, or a reference to any discussions (outside of the newsgroups themselves or any self-published personal web pages) that shows that Hughes is widely known specifically for his newsgroup postings and/or sig blocks? If not, then he does meet the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of trivia. — Loadmaster (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jesse F. Hughes is a valued contributor to sci.math.  His sig often contains attributed quotations.  Only a steaming idiot would think that the body of the post came from the person to whom the quotation is (rightly) attributed. 86.166.161.14 (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for a Jesse F. Hughes entry 

message: To keep the Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium page because it is objective and quiet and peacefull. It is this entry of AP that is noisy and a combative zone of AP with editors.
DMacks has it all wrong with the accusation and charge of "magnet for edits". This page of Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium has been a quiet and peaceful page. The page that needs consideration for Deletion is the Usenet Celebrity entry of Archimedes Plutonium where that entry is a magnet for edits. One can only guess the intentions of DMacks in wanting to delete this quiet and peaceful page of Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium so as to have only one entry of AP packed with words like "crank, crackpot, kook"
I have respectfully requested a TAG be put on this page asking for senior managing-editors to review the long tortorous history of the Archimedes Plutonium entry and the combativeness of a gang of editors usually lead by DMacks. On the DMacks info page concerning DMack says that he/she attended Penn University and Brown and subjects of chemistry. When the AP page was torn down circa 2005, because the Attorney General had sent a letter to Wikipedia asking why its editors insisted on pegging Archimedes Plutonium with a false and racial slur of a nickname-- Arky, And the speed at which Wikipedia tore down the page was gratifying to me, but shortly after it was torn down, that some Wikipedia editors then located several defunct organizations to thence reinstall the Wikipedia page that the Attorney General asked to be removed. And such pages that appear on a Google Search of Archimedes Plutonium of Indopedia encyclopedia with the intention of throwing in the word "crank" of that old Wikipedia page. And then the sci.chem Uncle Al hatespam of "how stooopid is Archie Poo". So I have to ask what was the role of DMacks in the resurrection of all those old Wikipedia pages in defunct organizations such as Indopedia and of the curmudgeon Uncle Al Schwartz based in sci.chem and DMacks linked with sci.chem, so I have to ask what role does the Wikipedia editor DMacks have in the packing of websites that demonize Archimedes Plutonium? Are some editors at Wikipedia playing demonizing and harrassement of private citizens and using Wikipedia editing privileges in order to malign innocent private citizens?
When will editors like DMacks and a list of others, easily found on the talk discussion pages of Usenet Celebrity-- Archimedes Plutonium? When will they be happy-- when the entry of Archimedes Plutonium reads the same as Uncle Al's "Archie Poo is stooopid, more stupid than dirt" and referenced with words of "crank, crackpot, psychoceramic, kook".
So if DMacks gets his way on this Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium page which has been quiet and peaceful for 2 years now, then DMacks is well on his/her way of a full DEMONIZATION of Archimedes Plutonium.
Ask DMacks a simple question-- since he studied chemistry which requires logical coherence, ask him/her why charge this peaceful and quiet page for Deletion when all the noise occurred over at the other Archimedes Plutonium page. Seems like incoherent logic on the part of DMacks.
So I respectfully request that the Deletion of Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium be undone, and that Deletion process be transfered and voted on for the Archimedes Plutonium Usenet Celebrity page where the noise seems to emanate.
And I respectfully request that Wikipedia have a TAG, similar to a Deletion tag that investigates whether some editors are rogue and whether they form gangs that pick on private persons of their entry in Wikipedia, because ever since Wikipedia had Archimedes Plutonium some 10 years ago, the ride has felt like "pulling teeth."
So can a managing editor please provide some links to a TAG that investigates a group of Wikipedia editors which I suspect are unduly harrassing Archimedes Plutonium and who want to install a "demonization entry" of Archimedes Plutonium. 216.16.55.93 (talk)Private Citizen who has followed this drama for years.  —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respectfully Request the Nomination for Deletion Tag over at Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium be moved over here to AP/Usenet Celebrity 

message: The current Usenet Celebrities is too much of a overall negative tone, as if good people and good posters
do not exist in Usenet and this is an attempt to address that.
Also, I challenge the category that has criminals and mental issues, since it probably reflects more on the
mental state of the authors and editors who created this page than it reflects on the Usenet community at large.
For instance the largest entry is that of a mental case of MI5. Is that really appropriate? And the issue of a
murderer who may have posted a few times to the Usenet, and thus the appropriateness of such an entry.
And what is the standard for that? Are we to see murderers and criminals who made a few posts as
filling up this site?
The site is sorely lacking great and good posters which I think, and most people would agree that the majority
of posters to Usenet are good people, but we find it hard to see that in what this site now shows.
So I nominate two posters that I think show the best in what a Usenet poster can be. (1) Her name was
Henrietta in the 1990s and I believe she went on to be the head of her own newsgroup in the law and
lawyer news groups. Her posts showed a woman of extreme compassion and intelligence and her
posts would be a model for others. And the second candidate is (2) LWalk and some say L. Walker
going with the alias "Transfer Principle" who posts mostly in sci.math. This poster I have known
for about 5 years and his ability to enter into a discussion of hatemongering other posters and
to afford them respect, where most all other posters would have rather handcuffed the ruffians
is a remarkable talent. LWalk is a model of a compassionate person and how one can conduct
themselves on Usenet even though it is surrounded by profanity, hatred.
So I think Wikipedia should revise Usenet Celebrities far beyond what it currently is. It's current
presentation is of a negative overtone that is not representative of the bigger picture that Usenet
is composed mostly of good people, whose posts are valuable to read and learn. 216.16.54.94 (talk)Superdeterminism  —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category called "Models of Good Behaviour of Usenet Posting" and two nominations 

message: It is easily seen from the discussion history of this site and from the older sites of Archimedes Plutonium that he
is treated unfairly. This site Usenet Celebrities was created because of the need to cover AP whose site was
torn down circa 2005 due to a Attorney General letter enquiry into Wikipedia because of the false racial slur
of a nickname "Arky" that the Wikipedia editors were trying to saddle AP with. So the AP site was torn down
for it was commented by outside observers that the AP site was mostly a mockfest with racial slurs and
works like "crank", "crackpot", "psychoceramics". Because it was torn down, and rapidly removed, Loadmaster--
David Tribble created this new site now called Usenet Celebrities in response to the AP removal.
Now comes the analysis of why Archimedes Plutonium is severely prejudiced by this site. At first Loadmaster
sandwiched AP in between criminals listed and it took AP several months to rectify that problem. Much of the 
harsh words of "crank, crackpot, psychoceramics" were not removed for they are still seen in the references
cited. But worst of all, is that all the other persons listed in this site are afforded webpages, or archives or 
specific Usenet posts as citations, but AP is not allowed or afforded that same respect. Having watched this
Wikipedia site for years now, it is my opinion that if DMacks were in charge that the entry of Archimedes
Plutonium would read like this: AP is a crackpot, a crank, a psychoceramic.
But since Loadmaster is the editor in charge of this site, AP's entry has the words crank crackpot and psychoceramic not listed
directly but indirectly in the references. It is my opinion that the reason AP is never afforded the same citations of webpage, archives
or Usenet posts is because, then Loadmaster cannot pelt or pommel AP with crank, crackpot or psychoceramic.
: I am not the editor in charge of this site (sic). There is no such thing on Wikipedia. Any editor may contribute content to existing articles, as per the Wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia). The actual content of the articles is derived through a process of collaboration and consensus (see Wikipedia:Consensus). — Loadmaster (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's just false. As far as anyone but you can discern, there is nothing derogatory or negative about the description of Archimedes Plutonium (you) in the Usenet celebrity article. Everything in it is factual, and is even supported with citation. If you believe it to be inaccurate, please discuss how it could be improved in a civil manner (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Civility). Making false accusations and insults will not accomplish anything. — Loadmaster (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair and prejudicial treatment of Archimedes Plutonium by Wikipedia editors 

message: Re : having a PhD doesn't make you a theoretical physicist. You're a TP if you actually practice it, not if you studied it briefly years ago. I believe he used to be a lecturer at UCSD is all very well; if there is a source for that it belongs at Jack Sarfatti William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you claim that Archimedes Pu is, but Jack Sarfatti isn't?  There's a whole load of sense... Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying that Archimedes Plutonium practices theoretical physics? I would think that publishing papers in peer-reviewed theoretical physics journals, and possibly getting paid to do such practicing, would be more of a requirement for determining who can rightfully be called a TP. Ditto for being called a "mathematician". — Loadmaster (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jack Sarfatti]] 

message: I thought John Grubor and Steve Boursy were more well known than some of the guys listed in this article, shouldn't they belong?  68.81.180.171 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they would qualify.  If you can find a good source(s), go ahead and add them.   --SubSeven (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a good Boston Globe article about Boursy but I can't find it. 68.83.175.245 (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What about Grubor and Boursy?

message: A redirect to this article, , needs rcats (redirect category templates) added.  Please modify it as follows:
*from this... 
#REDIRECTUsenet celebrityCategory:Protected redirects
*to this...
#REDIRECT Usenet celebrity

* 
Template Redr is an alias for the  template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories.  Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, Redrose64! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request – 17 March 2014 

message: This has been done on request from David D'Amato.
This entry is factually inaccurate and that is the reason that it has been professionally removed
from Wikipedia.
Deepak343 (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have multiple citations, meeting the Verifiability policy and notability/inclusion guideline for this type of article. Subjects who have come to the public light do not get to control their content. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of David D’Amato 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Usenet celebrity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071223022949/http://www.geocities.com:80/benny_patrick/post.html to http://www.geocities.com/benny_patrick/post.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Going through Special:DoubleRedirects and trying to get uneditable redirects fixed (in this case, to Usenet personality). Booyahhayoob (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand, what exactly is the problem? Neither Usenet personality or the old title Usenet celebrity (which is now a redirect) are protected in any way from editing. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Archimedes Plutonium is. That's what I tried posting the edit request on, but it redirected the request here. Booyahhayoob (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, thanks for the explanation, I get it now. I fixed Archimedes Plutonium. If you run across any others similarly protected, let me know. ~Anachronist (ta/lk) 19:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 12 April 2017 

message: These and similar articles are a true disgrace and a pure infamy: not just *totally biased and unfair*, these are in fact the acts of the very self-appointed bullies and psychos who are actually responsible for the demise of Usenet, systematically offending, provoking, libelling and spamming the Usenet and in fact every public forum on Earth for at least two decades now.  And even if you don't see how these nazi sociopaths and their actions are killing all life and intelligence on this planet, this and similar articles have just no reason on Earth to exist on Wikipedia and should be immediately *deleted*, plus excuses offered to all parties unduly involved.
PLEASE DELETE THIS OBSENITY AND OFFENCE TO ALL DECENCY.  If nobody will, I will do it myself in exactly 48 hours from now. 93.41.99.242 (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "similar articles"? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

text: The criteria on wikipedia is whether the person is notable, i.e. has been noted. We have articles on really serious criminals, because they have been noted. It is perfectly reasonable that we have this article, so if you delete it, someone will restore it and you may be banned from wikipedia. --Bduke (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Sounds like you are a crank on the list. 84.216.157.87 (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is an offence and obscenity that should be immediately deleted 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure).  Jenks24 (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Usenet personality →  – The actual content on what such a personality is is minimal. Indeed, the talk page has a notice explaining that the article exists to aggregate users with some coverage but not enough for an article. I don't think Usenet is unique enough to justify a non-list article about one of its user-types anyhow; at least, nothing that wouldn't be merged into something under Category:Internet culture. Mach61 (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 November 2023