Talk:Project bluebeam

Project Bluebeam redirect to Serge Monast page ---

I have tried on multiple occasions to edit the 'project Bluebeam' page by including the actual information about 'Project Bluebeam' and undoing the pointless redirect to the Serge Monast page. The user 'David Gerard' has undone my revisions every time. In fact, going back in the history of the 'project Bluebeam' page he has been doing this for quite a few years. He cited "multiple cut n paste copyright violations" as his excuse. I have since contacted the author of the source I used and if I can't get him to grant permission to use his work then I will do my own original write up in a 'Wikipedia format' in order to get round this excuse - although I feel the user David Gerard is more concerned with keeping the specific 'project Bluebeam' information out of public circulation - rather than being concerned about any 'copyright violations'. We will see if he tries to delete the 'Project Bluebeam' information again after I have re-written in an original format. If he does, then his intentions and motivations are not 'copyright protection' but to keep the information out of public circulation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.224 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is claimed by David Gerard that the Project Bluebeam page has been deleted because it violates the 'WP:RS' and is subject to a Wikipedia article of deletion. However, I contend that the 'WP:RS' has not been violated here.

On the 'WP:RS' page, it states -


 * "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * • the piece of work itself (the article, book);
 * • the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
 * • and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)."

Since the author of the work is being quoted (Monast himself) then the source material is relevant. So 'WP:RS' is not being breached in this circumstance.

Finally I contend the Wikipedia article of deletion regarding 'Project Bluebeam' because on that page it wrongly states -


 * • "Delete as not notable. There is no significant coverage of this conspiracy theory in reliable sources. Note that the coverage doesn't need to support the truth of the theory (it can be skeptical), but the theory is not well enough known to justify this article. - Pburka (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)"

This is wrong! There are multiple reliable sources to verify this information from, and the theory IS well known. Other websites have published source material (including books) to back up the assertions of Monast. Anyway, there are PLENTY of other unrelated articles on Wikipedia that rely on dubious sources but they somehow manage to be acceptable to Wikipedia so what is so special about Project Bluebeam???

Wikipedia has already received multiple complaints over this issue and the fact that you have is proof positive the Wikipedia article of deletion is wrong as the theory IS well known! In fact, other forums criticize Wikipedia regularly for deleting it! At the end of the day this is a public website, if I want to write an article about a project that actually exists, then I will and I will provide multiple reliable source material to back it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.2 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time that I have had to paste in the above talk conversation. This previous conversation was deleted. It was deleted illegally as there were NO copyright violations in it! No one has a right to delete these talk conversations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.148 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * - Look, if there were Wikipedia-quality sources for Project Blue Beam I'd have written the article already. I'd love there to be a Wikipedia article on Project Blue Beam, but there's nothing I can find that passes Wikipedia muster. As it is Serge Monast only just scrapes through for Wikipedia-notability. Yelling won't convince anyone - sources that are quite clearly mainstream and high quality may - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * - Thats fine! Thats what I am trying to do. I am not in the least bit interested in arguing with you forever in a day over this back and forth, thats not in anyone's interest. However, I intend to do just that and provide clear evidence to you that Project Bluebeam has been the subject of discussion and recognition at public awareness level for quite some time. In time, I will provide that to this page. I (of course) do challenge the articles of deletion (for the reasons given above). Yet I will leave it just now until I provide more evidence. In the meantime I would appreciate it if you could leave these talk discussions in tact without deleting them as it is helpful for me (and others who support Project Bluebeam getting a Wikipedia page) to make reference to! Thank You! (PS - I'm not yelling about anything, 'Caps Lock' is yelling,'Bolding' is emphasization) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.148 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)