Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)


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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete - this article history is riddled with BLP violations and this clearly can never be a wikipedia article Spartaz Humbug! 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)
Penright was encouraged to create this page after challenging the deletion of Triumph of Truth (Who s Watching The Watchers?) at Deletion Review; see Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31 Unfortunately, both the original article and the recreation in user space are nothing more than over-long and unverifiable paranoid-delusional ramblings about a non-notable person and his non-notable self-published book. There is absolutely no chance that Wikipedia will ever consent to host this material as an encyclopedia article; it is inappropriate to give Penright the false hope that we might do so; and, given that this will never be an article, this is inappropriate use of user subspace. A willingness on our part to continue to host stuff like this would harm our reputation. This rubbish needs to be purged. --Hesperian 23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This literally got accepted to userspace two days ago. Let's see what Penright does with it. Honestly, deleting it after it was just UNDELETED per a deletion review that he didn't seem to understand in the first place is going to confuse him to incredible amounts. At least keep it for another week or two before nominating. GrooveDog (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't userfied because of the DRV. It appears Penright created this on his own after being linked the subpage in the DRV, but it was not actually userfied for him.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, per Groove Dog. I think we've bitten him enough for the time being. If nothing comes of the article in a few weeks, I would support a deletion. Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 03:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you guys think is going to come of it? Look at it. Try and read it. Look at the sources it relies upon: this for example. Tell me that you honestly believe that there is any possibility at all that a coherent article on a notable topic might emerge from this. It ain't gonna happen.
 * Read below about how
 * "Stephen Carew-Reid was taken to the Canberra Airport to be flown to Western Australia by a normal commercial airline, however, Stephen Carew-Reid,because of how well knows his courts cases, books and his "fight for justice, fairness and a fair go for the average Australian" was around Australia, all air hostesses around Australia threatened t call an Australian wide strike so that no commercial aeroplane in Australia could take off, and the whole of the commercial air industry would have come to a halt, if the Federal and Western Australian police, who were tying to get Stephen Carew-Reid on the aeroplane, made any further moves to put him on the plane. In the end the police had to take Stephen Carew-Reid back t the Canberra Watch House and the only way they could get him back to Western Australia was by an Australian government RAAF cargo plain plane the next day in company with 60 SAS solders as company."
 * These are the deranged and fabulous ramblings of someone who is unwell. We should not be providing a forum for this. Hesperian 04:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon reading the wall of text below and the comments above and below, I see what amounts to several personal attacks against Wikipedia editors. This is not acceptable. There is precedent for removing WP:NPA material from userspace despite the wide-latitude we usually give. I thus switch to delete. Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hesperian. By userfying, all we've done is give him some more cred' by way of the page being indexed on Google http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Stephen+Carew-Reid  This would be exactly what he wants to justify his ongoing crusade against the establishment.  I am apparently the subject of an investigation which relates to this user
 * the USA Weekly News investigative team have discovered that the person that removed the above articles and edits to the Perth Western Australian Daily-Weekend News page in Wikipedia, calls himself Moondyne, and was originally in the administratin section of Wikipedia, which is an unpaid job, and since 2003 when he resigned from from being on the adminteam of Wikipedia, he became a full time writer for Wikipedia, writing and editing thousands of artilces all about people, places, history, courts, sport, general news, media, crime, politics, etc from his rural property in Moolibeenie, near Gingin in Western Australia, which is about one hour from Perth, the capital city of Western Australia. In fact Moondyne was the person that posted the first edit of Perth Western Australian Daily-Weekend News page in Wikipedia, and complete most of the other minor edits completed by other part time editors of Wikipedia.
 * WTF! And that url is one of the sources in the userfied article.  Before long no doubt, this deletion and userfication saga will be another chapter in several of these self-published webpages, thus proving the conspiracy theory.  –Moondyne 05:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Hesperian regarding discussion on his wanting to have Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) deleted from userspace

Hi Hesperian, note your below comments about the use of user space to was approved and authorised by senior deletion review editors.

S Marshall and endorsed by 1. Vicenarian, 2. -AndrewHowse 3,.javért stargaze , to develop the article Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?).

They stated

" the article is moved to a separate part of the wikipedia space where you can work on it at your leisure before it is "published" into the mainspace".

I have been working hard on the article and solid references to support the article before I went back to the the deletion review committed for their advice and decision of whether the article was ready in the right form and substance to be then moved to the main space, whether the article needed further work and adjustments and editing to satisfy the editing and set out rules for Wikipedia's main space.

From looking at your contribution history and the way you worded your comments attacking the subject matter of the article The Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?),

there is no doubt you are form Western Australia, and are part of, and well established with the establishment of Perth, Western Australia, who were obviously behind the destruction by the J S Battye library of Stephen Carew-Reid's seven series of books entitled Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), as a result of a forceful approach from a Western Australian Crown Law Attorney, after the books were purchased by the J S Battye Library, Western Australia's State Reference Library, and paid for by public money.

The head historical librarian at the J S Battye Library, who ordered the books in the first place, has been interviewed as to why he ordered them in the first place, being obviously so contraversial.

"He stated that he had read the books cover to cover, and was satisfied that it was important that they should play an important part of the documentation of the alternative view of Western Australian History in relation to the law, the courts, the judiciary, the Public Trustee, politics, the legal community, the police and the business community."

This head historian-librarian is a very experienced and respected person in the Western Australian librarian and literature world, and if he felt the books were of enough public interest and importance to be placed into the main resource library for Western Australia, then certainly they are important enough to have an article written about them in Wikipedia.

I have interviewed many people and read a lot of comments in various papers ( private and public ones)about Stephen Carew-Reid in Western Australia and the words "paranoid-delusional ramblings" come up a lot form people that have an interest to classify Stephen Carew-Reid that way.

I do not know your real name, and you chose to attack the subject matter of the article and Stephen Carew-Reid with some vigour and strong personal determination to convince senior Wikipedian editors on the Deletion Review Committee, from your comments that they should overturn their decision they made only two days ago after reading a lot of argument and material on the matter and very thoughtful and due consideration.

In all due respect, because of the obvious likelihood of bias from you and anyone else from Western Australia, and even throughout Australia, from that matter, should not be allowed by Wikipedia to be involved in any discussion and/or voting on whether the subject matter contained in the draft article currently in Wikipedia userspace entitled Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?, should be allowed to remain in user space according to the orders given by the deletion review committee two days ago that stated "the article is moved to a separate part of the wikipedia space where you can work on it at your leisure before it is "published" into the mainspace".

To say Stephen Carew-Reid is not well known enough, and thus not considered to be noteworthy enough to have an article in Wikipedia, is an uninformed comment from the research I have done on Stephen Carew-Reid. Stephen Carew-Reid'd reputation is such that as far as I have been able to ascertain, 99.9% of all people of any note, power and or authority in Western Australian, business, political, legal, courts, police, medical, prosecution circles, all have the same opinion of Stephen Carew-Reid as you personally have of Stephen Carew-Reid.

For so many people of importance in the community to have such opinion, and/or any opinion at all about Stephen Carew-Reid, indicated that he was clearly very well known and thus noteworthy.

One of my research assistants has spoken to a number of attorneies At Law in Western Australia, and in fact all over Australia, and they all know of Stephen Carew-Reid, and in fact Stephen Carew-Reid is so is widely known through all the legal cirlces throughout Australia, to the point that I am informed that no qualified Attorney At Law will represent Stephen Carew-Reid in any legal matter whatsoever in the whole of Australia.

Summing up all the comments made about Stephen Carew-Reid, it seems that on one hand many people say ,like you do, that Stephen Carew-Reid is a "paranoid-delusional person", that may be true, I am not a doctor, I am not an Attorney At Law, I am a writer.

On the other hand when we have asked Attorneys at Law to read the lengthy 40 page statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in legal action, Cor 81 of 1993 Stephen Carew-Reid v the Western Australian Public Trustee and others, all the Attorney's At Law say that this very complex statement of claim has been written very clearly and with an extreme high knowledge of very complex corporate legal arguments.

In fact many of the Attorney's At Law we spoke to actually said that they were not highly experienced and and/or legally qualified enough to have been able to write such a factually and legally complex statement of claim and if asked by a client to prepare such a document, they would have to employ one of the top QC Attorney's At law to prepare such a document for them.

The other interesting point to note is that Stephen Carew-Reid maintained his court actions and/or defended court actions for over 10 years in the courts, which we understand only ended in the end because Stephen Carew-Reid left Western Australian and went into hiding in fear of the powerful people he was having the long legal battles with and that he wrote about in his seven lengthy volumes of Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?).

Having read all seven volumes it is clear that he had a real and not un-foundered fear, that the, 99.9% of all people of any note, power and or authority in Western Australian, business, political, legal, courts, police, medical, prosecution circles in Western Australia and in legal circles all over Australia, who all have the same opinion of Stephen Carew-Reid as you personally have of Stephen Carew-Reid, feel that Stephen Carew-Reid is a "paranoid-delusional person who should be locked up in a mental institution to be treated as a paranoid-delusional person", and thus anything that he would write, could in your opinion and the opinion of 99.9% of the other people of any note, power and or authority in Western Australian, business, political, legal, courts, police, medical, prosecution circles could only be "over-long and unverifiable paranoid-delusional ramblings". The interesting thing here is that everyone that voices this opinion of Stephen Carew-Reid all have a public, legal, political, financial and or other reasons to say this about Stephen Carew-Reid.

I make no opinion either way, however here is no doubt that Stephen Carew-Reid is very well known amongst 99.9% of all people of any note, power and or authority in Western Australian, business, political, legal, courts, police, medical, prosecution circles in Western Australia and in legal circles all over Australia.

Stephen Carew-Reid is also very well known in media circles, however, I am told that there is clearly has been a media black ban in Australian mainstream media outlets and organisations in discussing Stephen Carew-Reid, the most contraversial his seven lengthy volumes of Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) he has written and published by the Australian Weekend News Publishing Group, and/or his 20 years of thousands of contraversial court hearings the legal system has every experienced in every court in Western Australia, and even the Federal and High Courts in Canberra, in any newspaper, on any Television Net Work, any radio station, any magazine and/or any website.

I am not taking his side, I am just trying to provide a balanced unbiased article that on a subject matter I have been researching for over twenty years myself. I agree with you completely that the subject matter of the article, I am writing for Wikipedia, is the subject matter of the most contraversial seven lengthy volumes of Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) he has written and published by the Australian Weekend News Publishing Group, in legal, political, police, prosecution, public trustee, prison, business, media circles is one that well could be based on a man that may well be as you state and personally believe, "a paranoid-delusional".

However, we all have to admit that one thing Stephen Carew-Reid is not, that this, "NOT WELL KNOWN AND NOT NOTEWORTHY.", he is one of the most well known and talked about people in Western Australian and even over Australia in media, business, political, legal, courts, police, medical, prosecution circles.

In fact, as set out and proven to be true in his books, when he was arrested at the Federal Court in Canberra Australian Capital Territory) after the first hearing of his Federal Action against 69 of the most powerful people in media, business, political, legal, courts, police, medical, prosecution circles in Western Australia which also included the Prime Minister of Australia and the Attorney General of Australia as respondents in his court action FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

-Carew-Reid v Joyce [1999] FCA 998 (see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1999/998.html),

and after a number of court hearings all the way from the Magistrates court to the Federal Court of Australian, all held in Canberra appealing against an extradition order to be taken to Western Australia.

Stephen Carew-Reid was taken to the Canberra Airport to be flown to Western Australia by a normal commercial airline, however, Stephen Carew-Reid, and because of how well known Stephen Carew-Reid was in his courts cases, books and his "fight for justice, fairness and a fair go for the average Australian" was around Australia, all air hostesses around Australia threatened to call an Australian wide strike so that no commercial aeroplane in Australia could take off, and the whole of the commercial air industry would have come to a halt, if the Federal and Western Australian police, who were tying to get Stephen Carew-Reid on the aeroplane, made any further moves to put him on the plane.

In the end, the Federal and Western Australian Police, had to take Stephen Carew-Reid back to the Canberra Watch House,

The in the end, the only way they could get Stephen Carew-Reid back to Western Australia, was by an Australian Government RAAF cargo plain plane the next day, in company with 60 SAS solders as company.

It is clear from reading all the information in the subject available, that the authorities were scared of Stephen Carew-Reid appealing to the High Court of Australia, the next day, after losing the Federal Court Appeal at 7pm that night.

So they collected him at 4am the next morning from the Canberra Watch House, and drove him up to Newcastle, in News South Wales to put him on the RAAF Cargo plane to get him back to Perth before he could not haved any opportunity to lodge the High Court of Australia appeal the next day.

If the High Court of Australia Appeal was lodged, Stephen Carew-Reid would have had to stay in Canberra until the High Court Appeal was finalised, and the international media, who are in mass in Canberra all the time, may well have picked up the story.

Hesperina, I look forward to your further comments on this matter and thank you for bring it up for discussion.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia < Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion[edit]User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)Penright was encouraged to create this page after challenging the deletion of Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers? at Deletion Review; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31#Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Unfortunately, both the original article and the recreation in user space are nothing more than over-long and unverifiable paranoid-delusional ramblings about a non-notable person and his non-notable self-published book. There is absolutely no chance that Wikipedia will ever consent to host this material as an encyclopedia article; it is inappropriate to give Penright the false hope that we might do so; and, given that this will never be an article, this is inappropriate use of user subspace.

A willingness on our part to continue to host stuff like this would harm our reputation. This rubbish needs to be purged. --Hesperian 23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)best regards PenrightPenright (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the giant brick-o-text immediately above, which in itself contains any number of things that Wikipedia is not and cannot ever be, plus the existing discussion of this material at DRV. If the eventual intention is to embody such allegations in a Wikipedia article, it's best to cut those intentions off sooner rather than later, and that means deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Update: I have reviewed Penright's revised version and see no reason to change my opinion. Although less bad, the revised version still can never be a Wikipedia article. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Userspace is not mainspace, and many of the strictures on mainspace are not applicable here. Especially since userfication of articles which do not belong in mainspace does not mean that they are instantly deletable from userspace - that is why userfication exists. Collect (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This rant has no chance of ever becoming an article. I suggest that Penright look into getting web hosting of his own, and save a copy of his work to his hard disk in the mean time, if he hasn't already done so.  Gigs (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - It doesn't really matter if this is kept or deleted, honestly, it is just a TL;DR user-space entry right now. Set aside the poor article-writing for a moment, what this user desperately needs is some seriously rudimentary instruction in basic communication/interaction with other users.  I cannot tell what they are trying to accomplish with this unformatted repetitive cut n paste wall. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Userification is justified for subjects that are borderline notable or articles that are insufficiently sourced but possibly notable. However userspace is not the place to host unsourced conspiracy theories and wild allegations against all and sundry, like this "article". I recommend that anyone !voting to retain this text, spend some time to read through it; a representative sample:
 * The article always be developed offline, till sourcing, notability and fringe issues are taken care of. Abecedare (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article always be developed offline, till sourcing, notability and fringe issues are taken care of. Abecedare (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary of debate of whether User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) should stay or go

1.Hi I am using Penright's log in editing name hear and I have changed my name by officially and for Wikipedia I which to be known as Robert Jamison, being my writing name.

2. I have been involved with investigating the evidence, allegations and claims made in the seven series of books called The Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), written by Stephen Carew-Reid and published by the Australian Weekend News Publishing Group, in the early 1990's, that were originally purchased by the Western Australian Resource and Reference Library known in Wikipedia as the J S Battye Library, since the 1980's.

3. I was originally a senior Western Australian Police Officer, who resigned from the Western Australian Police Force, after I could not any more live with the deeply rooted, entrenched and endemic corruption in the police, prison, courts, legal fraternity, the law and prosecution sections of the Western Australian Community. 4 . I have officially changed my name with the help and assistance of the internal affairs of the Western Australian Police Service and the Australian Federal Police Service, after agreeing to provide evidence of corruption amongst the Western Australian, other Australian State Police Services and also amongst the Australian Federal Police. 5. I have changed my name officially because of fears of the physical safety of my family, friends and myself as a result of my providing evidence again corrupt members of the police.

5. I am now under Australian Federal Police Witness Protection and I am still involved with the research, investigations and enquires allegations and claims made in the seven series of books called The Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), written by Stephen Carew-Reid and published by the Australian Weekend News Publishing Group, in the early 1990's,.

6. As far as the entry of Moondyne coming into the debate, I have now completed research internally in Wikipedia and elsewhere and it seems that a number of factors should be considered as far as whether Moondyne should be allowed to enter the debate, and whether his vote as to deletion and/or non deletion of User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) should be allowed to effect the end decision by Wikipedia as to whether to delete and/or not delete User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) from Wikipedia:

(a)the USAWeekendNews.com website has wrongly or rightly indicated that Moondyne would have obvious reasons to have a bias for various reasons, as explained by the USAWeeklyNews.com website, in any voting for the deletion of User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), as Moondyne has done already,

(b) I make no comment on the validity of reason provided by USAWeeklyNews.com, however, the mere fact that the allegations have been made, it would only then be appropriate for the administration of Wikipedia to rule that Moondyne's vote and comments, to urgently and forcefully push for the immediate deletion of User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), not be counted in the final decision making process of whether to delete or not delete deletion User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) from Wikipedia User Space,

(c) I do note however in terms of pure logic I have learned to use after years of being a senior police officer, in analysing the comments made by USAWeeklyNews.com, the evidence seems to indicate that

Moondyne appears to have be involved on a very full time basis for a number of years with others helping him, such as Hesperian See:(cur) (prev) 00:21, 10 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (→Re: Kamin) (undo) (cur) (prev) 00:19, 10 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (undo) (cur) (prev)  03:15, 9 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (→Wittenoom) (undo) (cur) (prev)  03:14, 9 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (undo) (cur) (prev)  02:21, 9 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (→Re: Kamin) (undo) (cur) (prev)  02:21, 9 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:55, 9 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (replay and revert abuse) (undo) (cur) (prev)  01:51, 9 May 2006 Michael Kamins (talk | contribs) (undo) (cur) (prev)  00:44, 9 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (Wittenoom) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:29, 8 May 2006 Sumple (talk | contribs) m (Elise Chen) (undo) (cur) (prev)  21:06, 7 May 2006 MiszaBot (talk | contribs) (Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3) (undo) (cur) (prev)  03:45, 5 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (undo) (cur) (prev)  03:37, 5 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (undo) (cur) (prev)  03:20, 5 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (undo) (cur) (prev)  03:20, 5 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (undo) (cur) (prev) 03:18, 5 May 2006 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (undo) sited at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=User_talk:Moondyne&dir=prev&action=history)

on research, solely on editing and writing articles that concern Western Australia, one way or another.

(d) I ALSO note the following record and comment by YellowMonkey on Moondyne's history contribution files (The YellowMonkey strongly condemns paid editing for businessmen as inherently un-NPOVable. Functionaries should not be able to do it.(taken from Moondyne see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:YellowMonkey (cur) (prev)  08:18, 3 May 2006 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) (→Boy Charlton: ACOTW) (undo)(cur) (prev)  01:51, 3 May 2006 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) (→Template:Did you know: fix-up medal citation) (undo)(cur) (prev)  01:50, 3 May 2006 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) (→Template:Did you know: DYK medal) (undo))

So the fact that the logic says that as Moondyne and User_talk:Hesperian appear to have been working closely together on a full time as paid contributors and editors of Wikipedia of the last few years and also appear to be the best of friends on a personal and business level who both appear to have lived in Western Australia for many years and just mainly work together writing and editing Wikipedia Articles concerning places, people, events, the law, courts, sports, music, entertainment, media, film etc in Western Australia and if fact seem to be in an unofficial control of any article that is origanlly written and/or edited about any subject concerning Western Australia.

This thought pattern is backup by the fact that in the last few weeks I tried to edit two aricles concerning western Australian Affairs, that is Daily_News_(Perth,_Western_Australia) and List_of_newspapers_published_in_Western_Australia, and on both occasions the edits have been reversed within minutes of them being placed on Wikipedia by me.

(e) the language, words and comments that were made by both Moondyne and User_talk:Hesperian about my edits of these articles and the edits by User_talk:Penright on his article User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) have been clearly wrongful and unnecessary against new editors of Wikipedia that are just learning the ropes in a very complex set of rules, guidelines and regulations and these comments such as " unrelated spam" by Moondyne and "unverifiable paranoid-delusional ramblings" by User_talk:Hesperian seem to be to be in clear breach of the Wikipedia guidelines as to the way use Wiki editors are meant to be treated and spoken to, and have warranted the most strongest response in return, Even thouhgh I fully agree with  in principle with User:Vicenarian comments when she gives here reason for changing her decision form not to delete to delete because of what she says

"Upon reading the wall of text below and the comments above and below, I see what amounts to several personal attacks against Wikipedia editors. This is not acceptable. There is precedent for removing WP:NPA material from userspace despite the wide-latitude we usually give. I thus switch to delete."

, "the personal attacks on editors" as she calls them, have only been in response of serious and wrongful personal attacks on new Wiki editors that were completely unwarranted and clearly outside Wiki Guidelines, and the these personal attacks were only a response to personal attacks on two new Wiki Editors, and anyway a full apology if provided to put an end to that as a reason for User:Vicenarianchanging her mind from not to deleteItalic text to delete.Italic text 6. the heated discussions as the have become on this  Strike-through text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Penright/Triumph_Of_Truth_(Who_Is_Watching_The_Watchers%3F)&action=edit page havingnothing to do with what will end up in the finished article on User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) before it is represented to the to the Deletyion Review Committe, when the artilce in final finished after a planned consulting with another experienced editor that User:Penright knows personally in the USA. 7. I also note that while it is useful to have these current discussions, in fact any open discussions and debate on nay matter is healthly, no matter how heated and emotional it may get at times, the current process of attempted deletion of User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) which even though officially was initiated by User_talk:Hesperian, I have been a police officer for too long no to have the opinion (no offence intended), that it was Moondyne that asked User_talk:Hesperian to do him a favour by putting in the news initiation of deletion discussions, when in normality and fairness, such discussions and deletion decisions should be restricted to the original Deletion Review Committee that ruled on the moving the original Triumph_Of_Truth_(Who_S_Watching_The_Watchers?) artilce to userspace ot give as much time as needed by User:Penright to finish editing User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) before it was represented back to  the Deletion Review Committee  for their decisions of what to do with it next. The current attempts to set up new "a back door deletion committee that is stacked with people that seem to have a personal vested interest in the outcome", rather than a Deletion Review Committee that was originally picked at random with no prior knowledge of the matter, could be considered as a wrongful attempt by bypass the the original Deletion Review Committee's decision. 8. I also make the comment that the all issues involved have to be separated separated and not all bundled into one so we can all make sense of the debate. Issue One: Whether the extreme contraversial nature of the facts surrounding the article on User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) which clearly involves seven books that have no doubt been written, with copies having been sold to the J S Battye Library,having been advertised in the West Australian Newspaper for sale for a number of weeks by the Weekend News Publishing Group, the publishers of the books called The Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?). These facts are easily verifiable by searching a copy of the West Australian Newspaper the micro fish at the J S Battye Library and a statement from the librarian in the J S Battye Library that originally ordered and paid for the books, as well as I can provide a copy of the receipt form the library that I was given back in the 1990's that confirms that purchased these books called The Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) published by the Australian Weekend News Publishing group under their newspaper, magazine and book publishing masthead the Weekend News, which was later changed to the Australian Weekend News.Wikipedia has to decide if the contraversial nature of these books is an issue that will stop them having an article p;lace don Wikipedia about them, what was said in them and the cercumstances of these being destroyed by the J S Battye Library, and later on in 2005, the original manuscripts for these books take by the Queensland polcie form a home iat 6 EarL Court, Tallai, Gold Coast, Queensland. There is a copy of the original receipt available that I have personally seen, signed by Senior Detective Gregory Stormont for an on behalf of the Queensland Police for the removal of the books. That issue seems to already have been adjudicated by, wrongly or rightly, by the original Deletion Review Committee's decision allow User:Penright to move the article to Wiki User Space and have as much time as he needs to work on the article to get it into shape for bringing back to the original Deletion Review Committee for further checking and decisions to me made about the article.

The only thing left to decide, debate and discuss is the actual wording, grammar, layout, set out etc of the final article and that the final article in accordance of the publishing rules for Wikipedia Main Space. I do believe that the proper place and forum for sorting out these last set of issues as to the final format and working of the final edit of the article is the the original Deletion Review Committee, not a back door committee set up and consisting of some of Wiki Editors those that seem to have a a personal, business and/or other interest at stake in having User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) immediately deleted so it never can go back to the original Deletion Review Committee for further checking and decisions to me made about the article.

This is like making an appeal to a hight court, and just because the higher court make recommendations and orders that does not suit parties that have a personal interest in the matter, that they the set up another alternative appeals court and bypass the one that the issue is already being adjudicated by, stacked with adjudicatiors that have a personal interest in the matter. 9. I woould appreciate your sensible thoughts and view to what I have said here and please do not take any personal offence as to anything I have said, it has all been in aide of trying to get the debate and discussion back onto an unemmotial and not attacking mode.Penright (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks User:Abecedare for our valuable contribution to User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Many thanks User:Abecedare for our valuable contribution to the editing of User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), the sentence that you suggest is in appropriate for inclusion on a Wikipedia Main Space Page has been edited out according to your wished and suggestion. that is the sentence :. Just for the record, this quote taken from notes that were taken from reading the original books when they still in the J S Battye Library, and the original books where the source for that statement. The quote was edited into the draft article of User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) to explain to those his reading the article as to why the original one paragraph Writ was issued in 1986 in the Supreme Court of Western Australia by Stephen Carew-Reid against the Public Trustee of Western Australia. The mere fact there is now Wiki editors reading this draft article in user space, and making comments and suggestions as to what should be included in the article and what not should be included, in another good reason why this very sensitive article about the most contraversial subject and matter in the history of the law, the courts, society, public trustee, police, business, media, literature that ever existed, should be developed on-line in User Space were hundreds of thousands of editors worldwide can be allowed to make suggestions,ideas etc as edits that should be made to this article in User Space called User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), before it is re-submitted to the original Deletion Review Committee for further checking and decisions to me made about the article. I suppose the main factual points of the article are that the books were written, about a particular contraversial subject matter, that was so contraversial that those that were written about in the books, decided to use their influence and power in the Western Australian Crown Law Office and the Queensland Police Service to have all copies and manuscripts of these books destroyed and/or removed and destroyed, from where ever they could be could be found. The places they were found was in the J S Battye Library having been purchased by the J S Battye Library with public money, and the original manuscripts removed from 6 Earl Court, Tallai, Queensland by the Queensland Police. Thee facts are clear and undisputed and provable, and not challenged by anyone. How the article is worded to be an unbiased account of all this it up to as many Wikipedians editors that are interested to help edit this article that is part if the history of Western Australia. the rest if the article talks about the authors well know and notable family (alive and deceased which include:

1. his brother Lloyd Carew-Reid who has become very notable in his fight for justice in New York, his sister Pippen Drysdale who has become an internationally acclaimed artist-potter,

3. his brother Wayne Carew-Reid, who is a well known and notable business and sport person living in Western Australia, and

Stephen Carew-Reid's great grand father, Sir Edgar Bertram Mackennal, (1863-1931) was the most significant Australian Sculpture of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Born in Melbourne in 1863, the son of Scottish immigrant and architectural sculptor J. S. Mackennal, Bertram Mackennal studied at the National Gallery Schools in Melbourne (1878-1882) before he departed for Europe in 1882, seeking further training and greater opportunities for sculptural success., there seems no doubt in due course there will be Wiki Articles created on both Lloyd Carew-Reid and  Pippen Drysdale), the creation of some cartoon characters for the books and for the use in the Weekend News which later became the Australian Weekend News newspaper and the author started publishing from 1986 onwards as an Western Australian Newspaper as the Weekend News, and then as an Australia wide newspaper as the Australian Weekend News, as a continuation of the original Weekend News published for many years by the West Australian Newspaper Group, and form 1990 on as the cointunuation of the old Daily_News_(Perth,_Western_Australia. It article also talk about Stephen Carew-Reid's connection with another very notable Western Australian, the internationally acclaimed cartoonist, Paul Rigby, and advices, support and help he gave to Stephen Carew-Reid's endevours to continuation the publication of the original Weekend News and [Daily_News_(Perth,_Western_Australia]] under a new newspaper masthead Australian Weekend NewsMany thanks for listening and for you valuable contribution, thought and ideas to this matter.Penright (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete soonest. Clearly a violation of BLP against several people.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Penright, if you continue to disrupt this discussion by uncollapsing your massive comments, you could be blocked. Gigs (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no chance of becoming a legitimate article, and BLP issue doesn't allow leniency here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Applied __NOINDEX__ for the time being. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I originally support the userfication of this "article". However, due to the concerns raised by Moondyne as well as giving the "article" a thorough re-reading, I must vote for its deletion. Absolutely nothing good or productive can come from this. Violates WP:NOTWEBHOST to the extreme. Best, → javért stargaze 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted more material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Have deleted more material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) since your last vote to delete could please could you review your deletion decision in the light of the last editBold text, according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)many thanksPenright (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is no chance of this ever being a valid article as it stands. If, somehow, material relating to this content is ever printed in a WP:RS, then by all means undelete the page (hell, I'll do it myself if that is the case).  Until then, it should be deleted due to the numerous BLP issues in the history, among the other serious problems present.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC).
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.