Talk:Usenet personality

Archives
I noted when I renamed the article and discussion pages that there is the Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive page and the Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive 1 page. However only one of these, the second one, is linked to at the top of this page. The other one, that is, the first one, is linked to in the blue explanation box. Does this need to be addressed or repaired? .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They probably both need to be linked, and also renamed as Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive 1 and Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive 2 (in chronological order obviously) for consistency. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've added the old archive, named "/Archive", to the box temporarily until I figure out how to fix it properly. I also repositioned the archive box to the right of the TOC, as per Help:Archiving a talk page    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   05:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the archives without having to bother an admin, Loadmaster. I renamed /Archive 1 to /Archive 2, and that converted /Archive 1 to a redirect page.  I thought about placing a speedy deletion tag on it, so I could rename /Archive to /Archive 1, but then it occurred to me that if I just edit the redirect to /Archive, a positive result would be achieved.  I notice that by doing all this, both archives have wound up in the  template.  If you'd like to get the /Archive 1 redirect page deleted, and then rename /Archive to /Archive 1, I'll leave that up to you, or if you'd like me to do it, let me know.    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   06:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means, dive in. Ideally, Archive/1 should be a rename of the old Archive page instead of a redirect. But renaming pages over existing pages can be tricky (I've done it before, but don't remember the details), so perhaps asking an admin would be more effective. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and tricky enough that I haven't found how to do it without the help of an admin. Apparently one has to tag the redirect page (/Archive 1) for speedy deletion, and then once it's deleted, the /Archive can be moved to that name.
 * I also noticed that the dates in the archives are, for Archive 1, 27-28 Sep 2007, and for Archive 2, 1 Jan-24 Apr 2009. Are there archives for the gap between Sep 2007 and Jan 2009? and are they retrievable?    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I "reversed the redirect", renaming the actual page from Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive to Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive 1 and leaving behind a redirect Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive → Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive 1. DMacks (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, DMacks! I had just gone to tag the redirect for SD.  Big red letters came up informing that the page had just been deleted.    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   18:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I wonder... is there any way the archive(s) between the date gaps of Sep 2007 and Jan 2009 can be retrieved?
 * Where did they go? Did they get offloaded into an archive page that is misplaced/misnamed/deleted, or were they just manually deleted from an existing page? DMacks (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I plugged "Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive 3" into a Search, and I came up with Talk:Derek Smart/Archive5. I find it fascinating that there doesn't seem to be an actual "Derek Smart" discussion page, nor even a user page.  Do these entries look promising?    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   19:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, wait. I found the Derek Smart article, and these, Archives 1-6, appear to be archives of that talk page.    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First archive of Talk:Usenet celebrity, now called Archive 1 originated as per HERE on 28 Sep 2007 by User:Cheeser1.
 * Second archive of Talk:Usenet celebrity, now called Archive 2 originated as per HERE on 27 Mar 2009 by User:Mikaey. This archive is actually the discussion page of Archimedes Plutonium.  It is not a true archive of Talk:Usenet celebrity. This is so noted in a  template at the top of the page.


 * In looking over the history of this page and the dates on this page, these are evidently the only archives. No other archives exist as yet.  I clarified this in the archive box.    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   00:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tim Maroney
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Unprotection?
Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning up the tags. My network connections keep dropping today:( DMacks (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning up the tags. My network connections keep dropping today:( DMacks (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Collection of sci.math posts
A collection of crank posts from  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)

It is time for Archimedes Plutonium, King of Science, to have his own separate Wikipedia page, considering he has published 128 science books in less than 2 years. For according to AP, that if Wikipedia had existed in 1st century AD, that Wikipedia would have given Jesus Christ just one paragraph, not even his own page, but a paragraph in a list of terrorists of Rome, while giving Roman Geshnortz 4 or 5 pages (Dr. Tao, Dr. Wiles for fake math), and Romania Geshnortz 4 or 5 pages because she wants to be famous for "wanting to be famous as a blonde airhead". We can well understand Wikipedia editors are running around to look for airheads to give them 4 or 5 pages, but the point of Wikipedia is to evaluate "worthy news". AP, the King of Science needs his own separate page in Wikipedia. 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:7A (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)AP

Usenet WHAT?
What is a "Usenet celebrity?" I never saw the term outside of the Wikipedia article.

To the extent that anyone listed could be a "celebrity" in the usual sense of the word for reasons pertaining to Usenet posts, the only one on the whole list would have to be Kibo, and I wouldn't swear in a court of law that his twenty years of mildly amusing Usenet posts would get him a cup of coffee. Hipcrime and Serdar Argic were spammers pure and simple, Archimedes Plutonium is a depressingly maladroit and painfully unfunny wannabe Kibo clone, the Internet Oracle is a PERL script, B1FF was a pseudonym created for purposes of trolling (or, if you prefer, "Usenet performance art"), and--with the honorable exceptions of the late Gharlane of Eddore and those listed under "Other Personalities"--most of the rest of the people listed are shrill, obnoxious, obsessed cranks whose freely chosen online behavior: to wit, monomaniacal devotion to reducing the signal-to-noise ratio of various Usenet newsgroups in the 1990s, have made them unwelcome in most any online community forevermore. That is a rather odd sort of fame, in my opinion.

And if that's the kind of "fame" you're talking about, then your list is missing Richard Bullis, Edmond Wollmann, Tim "Three Fucking Weeks" Thorne, Bruce Daniel Kettler, John Martin Grubor, Jerry M. "Dr. Richard X. Frager" "Art Wholeflaffer" Kolnick, Dave Tholen, Viv "Fucknozzle Jr." Eshwar, Doctress Neutopia, Erik "Erik Mouse" McDarby, Emmett Earl Gulley, Brad Jessness, Alexa Cameron, Tim "Skidmark" Brown, the late Earl Gordon Curley, and... well, I could go on and on, couldn't I?

In all seriousness, I don't grasp what this article is about or what these people have in common. Kibo got a TV commercial or two fifteen years ago. No one else on the list got that much fame, for good or ill. I don't get it, guys. I don't get it.

Did someone come in here from AUK and try to post a list of Usenet kooks? And then someone else was afraid of a lawsuit, I'm just guessing here, and rather than delete the article, renamed it "Usenet celebrities" and added Kibo and John Baez in an attempt to prevent Valery Fabrikant from suing Jimbo Wales from his padded cell for character assassination?

There's nothing and no one notable here, nay, not one. If you're going to put up a list of Usenet cranks do so, but don't sugar-coat it by pretending it's something else. This article is neither encyclopedic nor worthy of the bytes it occupies. Where do I go to suggest deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.96 (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD is the place for that formal deletion-discussion. It's already been there twice, and most recently there had a was consensus that it was a viable encyclopedic topic with some sort of defined criteria for inclusion with WP:RS backing it up. Crazy, eh? There are links to those two in one of the yellowish boxes at the top of this talk-page. DMacks (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be typical of Wikipedia that because WP:NEO discourages the use of neologisms, WP's reaction is to create its own painfully contrived one, just to avoid using whatever post-Shakespearean term is already in use elsewhere.
 * "Celebrity" here is indeed generally rather kook-centric, because those are the ones sufficiently annoying to warrant the typing to get them added. "A Hall of Fame" rightly ought to find room for the likes of Gerry Hurst, John DeArmond and Jukka Korpela, but that's not what this is. Norman Yarvin deserves a place under "History of Wikis" for his Yarchive project. GWH can dig his own bunker. Surely though you're not suggesting adding coverage of RtS? 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

>>>What is a "Usenet celebrity?" I never saw the term outside of the Wikipedia article.

The term has been around since at least the mid-to-late 1990s, mostly on account of the efforts made by Joel Furr and a few others who preceded him to chronicle such persons. Since Usenet as it was known then didn't survive the transition to today's Internet very well, some historical details were bound to have been lost.

Now, on another topic real quick - soc.motss was one of the major newsgroups back when I read newsgroups. With such a large and strong community on the net, of course homophobes would spring up. Any notability there to speak of? I remember Ted Kaldis and Daniel Karnes on alt.flame and other newsgroups, both particularly ubiquitous and obnoxious for long periods at various times. There was also another guy, whose name I've possibly forgotten (Philip Stromer, maybe?), who posted extremely offensive and homophobic material to rec.sport.pro-wrestling for quite some time. Once he started posting the same sort of material to other, better-read newsgroups, he found himself fired by Sun for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioKAOS (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

{| align="center" border="0" width="100%"
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|

Nomination for a Jesse F. Hughes entry
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)


 * 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 Notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of trivia. — Loadmaster (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * }

{| align="center" border="0" width="100%"
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|

Respectfully Request from a Managing Editor of Wikipedia unfamilar with Archimedes Plutonium
I have had troubles with the Wikipedia entry of Archimedes Plutonium ever since the first entry appeared almost 10 or more years ago which one editor described as a "mockfest". Entrees that contained the words or cited to words of "kook", "crank", "crackpot", and had me living in Montana and had me as a fired dishwasher and had my clothes all written on. A truly genuine total mockfest, and the straw that broke my back was when these editors around 2005 insisted I be saddled with a false nickname of Arky. So I called for the Attorney General to inquire into Wikipedia circa 2005 and my entry was dropped immediately. But up sprang new entries of Archimedes Plutonium which we see two of them today.

But my Request is that I would like to know if Wikipedia has a Editor Tag? A tag not unlike the "call for deletion tag". Only the editor tag is a tag in which private citizens who are displayed in Wikipedia can ask for a higher level editor of Wikipedia to look into whether a individual or "gang of editors" at Wikipedia is beating up unfairly on this private individual. It is unrealistic that a person featured in Wikipedia with a false and racial slur of a nickname of Arky has to spend oodles of time and contacting the Attorney General, because a gang of editors of Wikipedia find it fun to harass private individuals.

A case in point is that the editor DMacks is charging Archimedes Plutonium for disruption of entrees, but that DMacks has placed a Deletion tag not on the entry I have been reverting but rather, DMacks has taken it upon himself (herself) to tag for deletion a different page which was never in question. And so, I respectfully request that private citizens who are featured with an entry in Wikipedia be allowed to post a TAG on a entry which that tag requires a higher level managing editor to investigate whether a gang of editor bullies is harrassing that private citizen. I lost a lot of time in having the Attorney General remove a racial slur of a nickname.

So Please, provide a Tag that investigates whether there is a gang of editors at Wikipedia that find it pleasurable to harrass people featured and where I can type in the names of a few editors who seem to stalk and keep an inordinate eye on every move made of the Archimedes Plutonium entry. 216.16.55.208 (talk) Thanks for such a tag —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC).


 * That's not how Wikipedia works. Please familiarize yourself with some of the relevant policies of Wikipedia:
 * Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
 * Editing policy
 * Notability (people)
 * Verifiability
 * — Loadmaster (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * }

{| align="center" border="0" width="100%"
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|

Respectfully Request the Nomination for Deletion Tag over at Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium be moved over here to AP/Usenet Celebrity
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).
 * }

{| align="center" border="0" width="100%"
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|

New Category called "Models of Good Behaviour of Usenet Posting" and two nominations
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).
 * }

{| align="center" border="0" width="100%"
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|
 * style="background:#FFFFCF; border:1px solid #A0A080"|

Unfair and prejudicial treatment of Archimedes Plutonium by Wikipedia editors
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 Who writes Wikipedia). The actual content of the articles is derived through a process of collaboration and consensus (see Consensus). — Loadmaster (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And in my opinion,the reason that criminals and MI5 appears in Usenet Celebrities is that the entire site is just a negative backdrop to what DMacks, David Tribble and other Wikipedia editors wish to paint the picture of Archimedes Plutonium as a demon devil. Mind you, they may not be doing it intentionally but subconsciously they hate AP so much that they do not know themselves of what they do. 216.16.54.94 (talk) Volcano Electricity-- our energy future to make fossil fuels obsolete —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC).


 * 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 Talk page guidelines and Civility). Making false accusations and insults will not accomplish anything. — Loadmaster (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * }

Jack Sarfatti
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

What about Grubor and Boursy?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Others who may belong: "Dr." Jai Maharaj, Dan Gannon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrao (talk • contribs) 07:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request – 17 March 2014
A redirect to this article, , needs rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:
 * from this...
 * 1) REDIRECTUsenet celebrity
 * to this...
 * 1) REDIRECT Usenet celebrity

Template Redr is an alias for the This is a redirect template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. Thank you in advance! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 19:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE MIDDLE LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Red rose64! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 20:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of David D’Amato
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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium should be removed
I don't think Archimedes Plutonium is notable. We might call him a "fake crank". He mainly uses his pseudo theories to anoy and insult people, which is obvious from here: http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2832666 His false status as a crank or even usenet celebrity helps him maintain his spam in sci.math, and attracts other similar spammers like John Gabriel, Bassam King Karzeddin, etc.. These other spammers then produce less camouflaged hate speech, including Eugenics etc..

Jan Burse (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's cited by multiple independent sources, which is the wikipedia standard. He may well be annoying and insulting (in your opinion or in wider-established group consensus), he may have various reasons for behaving as he does (but we're not allowed to use our speculations as any basis for encyclopedia editorial content decisions), and others may follow him to behave the same or worse (again, we can't use our own analysis of causes of behavior). Instead, WP:NPOV means we take a step back and use what the refs say even if we don't like it. DMacks (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is possible to delete when the references are not the right references. For example the first reference http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/featnotes is not about Archimedes Plutonium. Archimedes Plutonium is only mentioned in one paragraph in passing but the article is about another phenomenom in general. The article also doesn't say that he is a "usenet celebrity". The second reference http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm is also not about Archimedes Plutonium. Again Archimedes Plutonium is this time only mentioned in two sentences in passing but the article is about another phenomenom in general. The article also doesn't say that he is a "usenet celebrity".
 * Jan Burse (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Some more question, where, in terms of references, do you get the biographic data from? Things like the born name etc..? Shouldn't you put a reference? Was it from here: http://soc.history.narkive.com/mMbmYyWE/wikipedia-entry-of-archimedes-plutonium ? Just wondering what makes up the content of the AP entry.
 * Jan Burse (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * None of the subjects in this article qualify as "celebrity". That doesn't mean we should exclude them; rather, it means the article title should be corrected to something more accurate, such as "notorious people on usenet" or some such. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am trying to get down to the bone what bugs me. I understand the sarcastic connotation of usenet celebrity, especially since it uses the special term usenet and not internet. But since today we have real internet celebrities, such as youtube vlogers etc.. and not fake ones as these cranks, it might be a misleading article name by now. I am also studying ethymological "sources" such as http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Internet%20Celebrity right now. Jan Burse (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Usenet personality" - the alternate title, given in the introductory sentence - would be better. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion. I have WP:BOLDly moved the article to a new title. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The biographic data can be sourced to The Dartmouth Murders by Eric Francis. There's a short chapter on Archimedes Plutonium with some biographical details. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I Archimedes Plutonium, thinks that Jan Burse, in my opinion, ought to be put into a Swiss jail or prison as a one man crusader who is anxious to tear down every web site that deals with Archimedes Plutonium. Jan Burse in my opinion is a hatemonger of anything that deals with Archimedes Plutonium. 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:8B (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)AP

It is high time for a separate page of Archimedes Plutonium with his 127 published books of science in Amazon Kindle. 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:54 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)AP

Protected edit request on 12 April 2017
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Archimedes Plutonium should be moved to "Criminal and eccentric personalities"
He is clearly clogging a lot of newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.math, and recently comp.lang.prolog. I wouldn't know that his Atomic theory has anything to do with comp.lang.prolog. So he shows signs of trolling behaviour, moving his spamming feud to other newsgroups. Jan Burse (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Eccentric - Yes. Criminal - No. --Bduke (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe the wikipedia article is problematic, since it lists as criminal behaviour "newsgroup trolling activities.". This should be possibly removed. Without this removal, in my opinion, Archimedes Plutonium clearly falls in this category. What started as a charming alternative theory venture by Archimedes Plutonium has become a spamming endeavour pasting minor edits of the same posts again and again, clogging newsgroups such as sci.physics and sci.math, and recently unrelated newsgroups. Time has long past that he posts theories of some sort, his genere is now literary pests. Latest example by Archimedes Plutonium:


 * "Pandemic Causing Toilet Paper be like Sandpaper
 * Abstract: Notice a rash feeling as the arse cheeks rubb together? Peer through your legs bent forward in bathroom while placing a mirror near butt. The redness measures are 15cm, by 7.5cm in crack of arse (Uncle Al, 1996, NATURE, "Weaned hand to mouth spoon-fed"). One of our Colleagues in Boston, Kibo Parry noticed throughout 2020 of shitting 8 times a day with runs to the bathroom of Diaherra of Mouth, (foaming mouth syndrome) and using toilet paper 3 times the amount of 2019, that he developed the Dan Christensen "red arse"."


 * https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.prolog/c/V8jXGy7iQlk/m/bhEd0SB1AAAJ


 * Its a pitty that Wikipedia gives an additional platform to such trolls, by giving them a honorable mention. Its strange how many people have fallen for this troll and still fall for this troll. Maybe he symbolized some freedom of speech in the past, but after all these years what remains is just trolling couched in an academic format. His fan club must really ask themselves who and what they are worshipping.


 * Jan Burse (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is an offence and obscenity that should be immediately deleted
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)


 * "similar articles"? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sounds like you are a crank on the list. 84.216.157.87 (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

net.legends FAQ
... you know, this page, or something very like it in the future, was one reason I wrote the net.legends FAQ three decades ago now. it's still there in the Usenet FAQ-posting mechanism, it's just turned off, < http:// www.faqs.org/faqs/net-legends-faq/ >; mirrors exist at, among other places, < https://hack.org/mc/texts/net-legends.txt >, < http://www.barkingduck.net/ehayes/essays/ > in four parts, and < https://www.linux.it/~md/usenet/ > (Italian page), as well as Tim Skirvin's < http://wiki.killfile.org/mirror/net.legends/ >.

If you'd like to reference it here, feel free, please. It feels very weird to me to see such a page with zero mention of it?

--David DeLaney, currently dbdatvic {at} gmail.com

ps: I can't imagine why Wikipedia would have experienced problems with links to faqs!org, but I've spaced it out above so it's not a direct link. If anyone wants to go look, it's there since I think 1995. 2601:840:4380:2DF:ADB0:D4A2:A34B:5A6E (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * pps: I'm guessing, based on receiving similar emails back during the period I was actively editing the FAQ, that the topic above mine about "offense and obscenity", which I also note seems to have no identity associated with it here, is from one of the folks mentioned on the page itself.
 * --Dave, which just goes to show that categories of net behavior do, in fact, never change 2601:840:4380:2DF:ADB0:D4A2:A34B:5A6E (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2023

 * 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)

Usenet personality → List of Usenet personalities – 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. Mach61 (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose as unnecessary per WP:CONCISE. It's something more than just a pure list, and without a separate non-list article I see no benefit to a longer title when the shorter one would just redirect back here anyway. Station1 (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless there's some plan to write an article at Usenet personality. Otherwise, current title is correct since this is all we got ... until someone adds more. Steel1943  (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If renamed as proposed, there would be no standalone topic article for usenet personality. Just because an article aggregates information, doesn't mean we have to name it "List of...". It is unnecessary. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)