Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Protest Warrior

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled comment[edit]

  • ok, I give up, if someone else wants to continue the boxing feel free--64.12.117.10 05:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, also[edit]

As a side-comment, I want to ask the PWs: If you guys win this (which looks rather likely, with 28 to keep and about 13 or so to delete), will you concede that Wikipedia is not a part of the "Liberal media conspiracy"?

No one is alleging any conspiratorial, nefarious cabals. The fact is that Wikipedia is liberal, insofar as the people administering it on a daily basis are almost uniformly on the left, and there are very few, if any, conservatives or center-right Wikipedians, or even centrists. All you need do is look at any entry on the Arab-Israeli conflict, American politics, Islam, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

I would use the laudatory Indymedia entry as a reference point.

Jim Whales is perfectly entitled to be a liberal. In fact, every one who moderators Wikipedia is so entitled. This is a free country. I simply think that we should be honest about things.

72.68.172.20 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this sorting I did[edit]

I did my best to faithfully copy comments to this talk page and to sort delete and keep votes into respective categories, and to be as neutral as possible in doing so. I would appreciate it if someone would check my work (correcting any mistakes is a plus) and put a note here if you checked the page. My count for before and after is 33/14, including votes that were crossed out. I'd also welcome any comments from experienced editors about the wisdom of my actions. I was doing my best to make the AfD readable for others, though I don't know if everyone will see it that way. Thank you.--Chaser T 08:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of recommendations, however much you may think that this helps the process. Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of making the decision at the closure of discussion much harder, not easier.

Moving the comments to the talk page is not considered desirable either, but I haven't attempted to fix that yet. --Metropolitan90 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll have to admit I forgot about the recommendation not to refactor votes into lists, etc., although modifying the disastrous mess of comments seemed like a good idea. Perhaps wikifying them would have made more sense. In any event, I think I could move them back, but I've done enough at this point.--Chaser T 17:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "wikifying them" in this context. When I think of wikifying, I think of turning a sentence like "Following family tradition, he attended prep school in New England, at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts" to "Following family tradition, he attended prep school in New England, at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts." That is, adding Wikilinks to the text, which isn't really needed with regard to most AfD comments/"votes". --Metropolitan90 04:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant adding bullets and colons to make clear where responses are, bolding votes, etc. Formatting the way an AfD normally is, but not changing the content or its location. Perhaps wikifying was the wrong word for that.--Chaser T 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you just added bullets and colons to fix the ordering of the comments, or removed line breaks so as to prevent a single comment from spreading over multiple paragraphs, that would most likely have been fine. I've done similar things myself in other AfDs. I don't recommend bolding the votes, though, since the commenters should decide when to do that themselves. --Metropolitan90 08:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll keep that in mind for the next AfD that runs to 40 kb. Sorry I screwed with the comments and votes in this one. Live and learn.--Chaser T 08:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting other articles, as well?[edit]

Jdh 24 argued that The White Rose Society (website) ought to be nominated for deletion as well. Someone else has done so.--Chaser T 04:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start an AfD on both of those entries, then. That is how this process works. I think PW is yesterday's news, and is about as encyclopedic as, say, C.U.B.S. This was Citizens United for Baseball in the Sunshine, and was the group that wanted to keep the lights out of Wrigley Field, and I was a member of it. An encyclopedia entry on C.U.B.S.? Not a chance. The group is dead not even worthy of a mention in the article on Wrigley or the Chicago Cubs. BenBurch 03:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I? I don't want your page deleted nor do I care. ProtestWarrior's page should not be deleted. The organization is relevant today and therefore should be in this encyclopedia. If it isn't relevant in 25 years, delete it then. Jdh 24 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find them relevant NOW, but that is just me. You are free to disagree, and that is why we are having this discussion. BenBurch 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it interesting that you don't hold yourself to the same standards that you hold other organizations and people. Jdh 24 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create either the Ben Burch page or the White Rose page. The former was created by a CUer. I don't know who created the the latter. I don't find myself to be especially encyclopedic, but three votes, and one on White Rose say otherwise. There is a current AfD on White Rose, and you should feel free to express your opinion there. BenBurch 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize having your web organization vandalize the wikipedia entry of Ben Burch does not help this debate at all. --70.157.35.245 03:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is not my web organization at all, and I do not support the vandalization or defamation of said user's page, nor do you know that it is from Protest Warrior where the vandalizations originated Jdh 24 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look over there and they are discussing said vandalization and this AfD. But feel free to vandalize all you like. The anti-vandal bots will just remove it, and it isn't like anybody ever looks there or at the White Rose page, either! But I sure am laughing at your obvious distress! BenBurch 04:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know where you got the perception that I am 'obviously distressed'. And if I was, are you saying that you're happy about it? Jdh 24 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You" meaning the PW members who were doing the vandalism whom I presume are reading this, not you personally. Mea Culpa. BenBurch 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page is clearly marked "member and supporter of ProtestWarrior.com" and all of the edits to Ben Burch are very recent so what am I supposed to conclude other than this is some sort of retaliation merely for some minor pruning of wikipedia. --70.157.35.245 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?p=11050984#11050984 Jdh 24 04:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's reverted back to the original page.

What happened?

72.68.172.20 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comments moved from AfD[edit]

moved by me--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that this is simply a political attempt to delete. Protest Warriors entry is also being vandalized with links to sites that exist as a response to Protest Warrior. I think those forced links are proof enough that Protest Warrior is still valid. Notice that all the left wing articles lack links to opposing opinions yet Protest Warrior is flooded with them. 24.22.103.188 05:44, 15 June 2006

France: http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2004/10/operation-rooster-crow-infiltrating.html

Australia: http://wheels128.blogspot.com/2004/11/protest-warrior-photos.html

The Netherlands: http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/International/Dutch/dutchpw.php— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.177.238 (talk • contribs)

  • There are PW chapters on at least five separate continents, and numerous countries throughout the globe. Some of them are very active, e.g. those in the U.S. and Australia, some of them are moderately active, such as the chapters in Canada, and some of them are probably defunct. That doesn't mean that Protest Warrior is not a "global organization." There are numerous Protest Warriors in the Armed Forces-deployed overseas-and even one serving in Iraq who engaged in his own PW activism while overseas: http://www.protestwarrior.com/newsletters/12_25_05.php 06:49, 15 June 2006 72.68.177.238
This whole discussion on whether or not being a global organization as a qualification for a Wikipedia article is getting ridiculous. There are chapters in almost thirty different countries, and hundreds of chapters in the United States. http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=chapters/list_chapters.php I think this just about wraps up this discussion in favor of keeping the article. Jdh 24 06:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought I was doing the tilda thing in my last few comments...? Those are replies to earlier remarks; I wasn't attempting to start a tangential conversation. If so, I apologize. 72.68.177.238 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Extended argument about voters with few edits[edit]

moved from AfD; was in response to Crockspot's vote--Chaser T 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • And that tidbit of info is significant.... how? Crockspot 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's useful to the closing admin. Newly registered users who contribute overwhelmingly to AFDs are often discounted as being possible sockpuppets or meatpuppets brought in by an off-site page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • FYI, I have been registered here since at least April, and I have been using the name crockspot online for years. How long does one have to be registered before one is no longer accused of being a newbie sockpuppet? Crockspot 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • A good way to avoid that would be to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Right now almost all of what you've given to Wikipedia consists of votes in AFD, which may be suspicious to any administrator closing this AFD. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have made numerous anon contributions to Wiki previous to my registering. Some of the info on the Gillian Welch page came from me, as well as the Fred Phelps page, just two that come to mind. But thank you for your concern. Crockspot 16:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • My concern is not for you, it is for Wikipedia process, which has currently been tampered with by another community's action. Prior to your registering, your contributions, however great they may have been, were not credited to you, and as such, that kind of a claim bears little weight as far as a claim against sockpuppetry goes. I do not necessarily thing that you yourself are a sockpuppet, but it concerns me that there is a thread in the PW forums encouraging members to come here and rig the vote. Thanks, --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, I am not from PW, I am a member of Conservative Underground, which was a previous victim to the nominator's politically motivated nominations, and about which he bragged on several liberal sites about how he got our entry deleted. But I see from your comment below that you are now beginning to realize what BenBurch is really up to. Keep up the good work. Crockspot 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Tell another lie, Crackpot! CU was deleted in a process I had nothing whatsoever to do with, a fact that is easily verifiable. What a joke you are. BenBurch 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There is no such thread that encourages users from PW to come rig the vote. It is quite clear that this is not a 'vote' so much as a 'debate' 24.182.146.39 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the thread explicitly tells members to vote or not, there were instructions on how to 'vote' in that thread. Any thread in another community forum about an AFD on Wikipedia is immediately suspect to me, and any instructions on how to edit in that selfsame thread is practically crying out to the community to try to stuff the ballot. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More miscellaneous comments moved from AfD[edit]

The weekly vigils held outside of Walter Reed were actually started by FReepers-to the best of my knowledge-although several Protest Warriors, as well as friends and family of active servicemen, and vets, participate in them frequently.

Pertinent link:

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1645374/posts

72.68.181.68 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More media coverage, post-2003

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011770.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24488-2005Jan20.html

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040824-115347-4386r.htm

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/rnc/9733/

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11770

72.68.181.68 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, the idea that PWers are flooding this discussion, or the corresponding afd vote, is patently false.

NBGPWS 01:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)PW are flooding and freeping this vote: Documentaion here:[reply]

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=157487 NBGPWS 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thus far, I've seen 25 "keeps" and only 4 recognizable user names from Protest Warrior, notwithstanding the "delete" vote of grebok, a PW troll.

72.68.166.122 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think this discussion has come to a reasonable conclusion of keeping the article. Negligble number of "delete" suggestions do not have any evidence as to why the article should be deleted, and most has been refuted by myself or others. Would the admins or mods please remove the Protest Warrior article from the Articles for deletion. Jdh 24 21:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This begs the question, why does a lunatic like Burch have administrative privileges?

He's already deleted an entry for Conservative Underground-whose Web traffic dwarfs his insignificant file-sharing site for unpopular liberal talk show hosts-and is now attempting to broaden the scope of his pernicious regime of Marxist censorship.

The fact that his actions are not under stricter scrutiny-and that he has not yet been ordered to desist in his malicious actions-only leads me to question the credibility of the Wiki administration.

Over thirty "keeps" and less than half a dozen "deletes."

Can we consider this issued closed for now?

At least, until Burch Boy goes on his next Stalinist censorship wilding?

In other words, when is the tag coming off?

72.68.190.24 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

72.68.190.24 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes 5 days. Consider logging in, getting an account, and editiing for a while, nothing's going to come of this anytime soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't like this ideologically motivated RFD any more than you do, please keep in mind that on Wikipedia there are no personal attacks. Neverborn 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point well-taken.

I just think that it's a bit absurd that this has been nominated twice-out of purely malign political motivations-and that both nominations resulted in the same lopsided votes, and yet nothing is being done to punish the offender, i.e. Burch.

72.68.190.24 22:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Burch isn't motivated by his own political views and thinks that websites have no place for their own articles, then perhaps he'd like to be the one to nominate the article for Democratic Underground for deletion. It would be ridiculous to delete either one, but if one is to be deleted, how about a little consistency here? BennyJoe81 22:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to know how you can justify deletion of this entry-on the grounds that Protest Warrior allegedly does not exert a large enough impact on the broader body politic-and yet at the same time assert that a far-left, little-read, sectarian Marxist journal like In These Times deserves a lengthy entry.

Can someone explain to me how the influence of PW is negligible, yet that of an obscure new left publication isn't?

72.82.111.224 00:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I demand that all anomymous votes and comments be deleted by the mods. This discussion is being PW-spaz-attacked:

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=157487

As a Senior Wiki Master, I will do so myself in 3 hours if action isn't taken. NBGPWS 0:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you managed to become a "Senior Wiki Master" without anything in your profile page or discussion page. Jdh 24 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who that imbecile is-although, judging by his initials, I would suspect it's our resident troll/house mongoloid/perpetual banee, Neoconsbegone-but every sentence in that statement is a bald-faced lie.

From Operation Defend The White House:

http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrowse.asp?folder_id=1469661

72.82.111.224 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic, more recent PW operations:

http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/172099.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmVFcgMI20A&search=Protest%20Warrior%20immigration%20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUf72MCJ1r0&search=Protest%20Warrior%20immigration%20

http://www.fightingtheleft.com/html/coffinmarchjan7_06.html

http://wheels128.blogspot.com/2005/03/protest-warrior-photos.html

72.82.111.224 02:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A short selection of other notable media mentions:

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=135258

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/NEWS10/603200339/1016/NEWS

http://www.dailyiowan.com/media/paper599/news/2005/09/26/Metro/Locals.Join.Huge.D.c.Peace.Rally-997940.shtml

Their response to the Communist front group known as International ANSWER:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2389375675702459981

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1649604/posts

72.82.111.224 02:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://hotair.com/

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002928.htm

"TAM: Besides Rush Limbaugh, what media attention have you gotten for your protest at the protest? Did you just call Rush's show or was there some news story that caught Rush's attention?"

"Kfir: We first called Michael Savage, one of our favorite talk show hosts, who loved the signs and told us to send him pictures. Based off him and all the other great reactions we were getting, we called up Rush the next morning, he loved our slogans, and the next thing you know we're being featured on his website. That inspired us to create this website, and we hope to keep getting more national attention, particularly after all the new material we'll have after this next protest on the 15th."

Tell me, has Ben Burch-or his low-traffic, extremely obscure website-garnered publicity from any leftist pundit, commentator, website, or radio talk show host of comparable stature?

In other words, is there a socialist or extreme leftist as famous as Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage that has touted his work, or linked to his website?

And please don't give me Democratic Underground, because I don't think my hernia could handle bursting into hysterical laughter right now.

72.82.111.224 03:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PW is a miserable failure. Even the Freepers can't stand them as evidence by their brutal physical attacks on PW Head honcho creationist Kfir in Crawford. As an organixation it has gone frome simply irelevant to dead. NBGPWS 02:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that this NBGPWS is a sock puppet? If he isn't, then there is an obvious attempt to inject a bias into Wikipedia. Oh, and such unprofessionalism from a fake "Senior Wiki Master", whatever that is. Jdh 24 03:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not the only one. NBGPWS has been vandalizing the PW entry and his only activity has been involving the PW entry and discussion pages. He's also "voted" at least twice on the AfD page for PW. And, of course, that whole "Senior Wiki Master" line. Jinxmchue 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word of advice, Neo,

A. Learn how to spell. You'll still be a complete ignoramus, but at least you'll be able to pass yourself off as someone who isn't functionally illiterate.

B. You seem to take an obsessive interest in something that is purportedly "dead."

C. Kfir is not a "creationist." Another day, another lie.

72.82.111.224 03:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more miscellaneous comments[edit]

The assertion that other conservative groups or individuals are distancing themselves from PW is rubbish.

Protest Warrior has collaborated with numerous patriotic and limited government/right-leaning groups, as illustrated by Operation Liberty Rising, which had participants from a wide array of organizations, e.g. Right March, Bureau Crash, Free Republic, the New York Young Republicans, Log Cabin Republicans, among many, many others.

In New York City we work with Liberal Hawks and the United America Committee constantly, and in other parts of the country PWers join with YAF, Move America Forward, among a host of other patriotic, conservative organizations.

72.82.111.224 03:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentative, non-responsive and utterly puerile.

Will another Wiki admin-preferably one who isn't in the 9th grade-please rein in this person, if-and I certainly hope this isn't the case-he actually is a Wiki editor?

72.82.111.224 03:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Protest Warrior exists simply as a way for people to garner attention and self-importance by doing nothing more than making people angry. One member explained that joining Protest Warrior "changed his life" and said, "I hate how liberals roll their eyes at us ... like we are children whenever they see our signs."

Something that both mainstream conservative and liberals on campus and nationwide learned long ago is that if you want your ideas to be accepted by adults, you must first act like one. Judging from Protest Warrior's rhetoric and behavior, it is clear that acting like adults is something the group would rather not do."

http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/937294

NBGPWS 03:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NeoCons, you're turning this debate into an imbecilic, fruitless flame war, which seems to be the preferred tactic, if not the modus operandi, of the Stalinist left, which you and Burch boy are proud members of, no doubt.

Please, either keep it contextual, or refrain from commenting altogether.

72.82.111.224 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the future, please try and keep all flaiming/puppet-shows inside the bright yellow box, thanks--64.12.116.133 04:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What about the numerous highly relevant links that I've posted?

I don't think you should penalize pertinent information and informative content, simply because it happened to be posted in the midst of a flame war, which was provoked by the deletionists, not us.

72.82.111.224 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you say, just keep it inside the box, thank you--64.12.116.133 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • AHHH!!!! Can someone show me this "yellow box"? Maybe if I knew what it was, I would be able to keep my flame comments (or lack thereof...hehe...) inside them. Probably the reason why nobody puts flames in the "yellow box" is because nobody sees it. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you're not actually in the box, the box is mostly for random anon flames, so there are actually several smaller boxes following them around, the markup code tends to get a bit messy after a while--64.12.116.133 04:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the worst argument you've seen on Wikipedia, then I would presume that you don't spend much time browsing the talk pages here.

The reason I brought up Burch is because he is the one who instigated this transparently partisan attempt at deleting the PW entry.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but the vast majority of people here have responded negatively to Burch's attempted purge.

I won't even bring up the fact that almost every argument in favor of deleting the PW entry-with the sole exception of the Alexa ranking, which is itself of dubious value-has been rebutted.

72.82.111.224 04:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a troll, simply responding to attacks in kind.

I would also appreciate it if the links and information I provided-which do not constitute flaming in any way, shape or form-were removed from your little orange box.

The fact is that as hard as you folks have tried to come up with excuses to delete this entry, you have failed utterly.

The only talking point you have is the Alexa ranking, which has never been used in the past as a guideline for deletion.

If it had been, then the White Rose Society-and a dozen other websites currently on Wikipedia-would have been zapped before PW was even considered.

71.125.253.62 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not that PW is primarily a Web-based organization-it isn't-but:

Criteria for web content

Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

This criterion excludes:

Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4] Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]

The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6] The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

Could the people advocating deletion please delineate-and provide supporting evidence/documentation-how Protest Warrior fails to meet the aforementioned guidelines?

71.125.253.62 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BenBurch and IP's argument about notability[edit]

With all due respect to Mr. Burch, could he please explain precisely how a website that has been hacked-repeatedly-and whose owners/founders have assisted the FBI in a crucial criminal investigation does not meet his unique "notability" standards?

Pertinent links:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/newsletters/05_26_06.php

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005268.htm

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1639178/posts

http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2006/05/leftist-hacker-indicted.html

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=715042&

http://caosblog.com/category/leftist-agenda/

72.68.163.158 04:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major media coverage of our rally against Camp Casey:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167216,00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1073887&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Coverage of Operation Liberty Rising:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5699723/site/newsweek/

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15920

72.68.163.158 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that Mr. Burch has not returned to justify his indefensible nomination.

On the other hand, he has expended much effort-and time-defending the inclusion of his own, much more obscure, website, even as he claims to not have a stake in its fate.

72.68.163.158 04:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I said my piece. Nothing to defend. PW is about the most non-notable group of non-entities on the Right. And basically over, too. BenBurch 04:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a concession of defeat.

BTW, the Wikipedia users here-by a 3-1 margin-disagree with you.

You fail at the IntraWebz, just like IRL.

http://www.editingarchive.com/imgs/239.jpg

72.68.163.158 05:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it feel to be beaten like a rented mule, Burch Boy?

I suggest you stock up on lube if you intend on repeating this experiment in the near future.

72.68.163.158 05:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more factual information that your Wiki fan club can enclose in the orange cube of death.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-09-09/feature.html

http://humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=14989

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12209

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4585

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/38825

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092400852_pf.html

72.68.163.158 05:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest comments from 72.68.163.158[edit]

And here is proof of PW's "irrelevancy."

After all, our Marxist, anti-American opponents have completely forgotten about us, according to you.

We've fallen off their radar, and here's the irrefutable proof illustrating that incontrovertible fact:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/08/29/17631941.php

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=04/09/02/8528112

http://www.orthodoxanarchist.com/2005/01/romper-stomper.php

http://www.antiauthoritarian.net/NLN/photo-gallery/2006_wrl_funeral/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1653855

I know that Mr. Burch will enjoy that last one.

72.68.163.158 05:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, but can I make a small request?

The indictment of Jeremy Hammond-and the preceding DOJ investigation, as well as the assistance PW rendered to the FBI-bears directly upon this discussion, i.e. whether or not Protest Warrior is entitled to a Wikipedia entry.

Do you think you might be able to restore that?

72.68.163.158 05:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point well-taken.

I agree with your judgment, i.e. the absurd length of that afd discussion.

Particularly in light of the fact that the vast majority of users feel that this nomination was either in error, or in some cases, in bad faith.

I have no problem complying with these rules.

72.68.163.158 06:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about first attempts at sorting (refactored from AfD)[edit]

A. What constitutes "vandalization?"

B. Do you have any substantive, confirmatory evidence that would suggest PWers are "vandalizing" this entry, or that they have created more mischief than those who are antagonistic towards PW?

72.68.163.158 06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the assertion that this entry is biased in favor of Protest Warrior is demonstrably false, as anyone who gave even a cursory glance to the links section would realize.

There is the direct link to protestwarrior.com-as is customary with these entries-an article/interview from a mainstream cable news network, a balanced piece by a well-known, reputable conservative newspaper, followed by three extremely tendentious, critical opinion pieces, from various leftist sources.

72.68.163.158 06:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism referenced above was a good-faith attempt by an anonymous user (identified by the IP address) to sort the page. That attempt was reverted by User:Alphachimp with VandalProof, a tool used by experienced wikipedians to quickly revert changes. Alphachimp never alleged that it was vandalism, but used VandalProof to revert quickly b/c it appeared votes had been deleted. Since then, the IP raised the issue at Alphachimp's talk and is being amicably resolved. Relevant comments are at User talk:Alphachimp and User talk:71.246.245.50.--Chaser T 08:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see.

Thanks for the explanation.

72.68.172.20 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just received an e-mail from a friend of mine.

For the record, this is a conservative member of The People's Cube.

KEEP - Such charmingly Stalinist reasoning from those advocating purging PW from a public record: "It is yesterday's news"; "PW consists of very few people whatsoever... only one or two people per counterprotest"; "appears to be a group that has come and gone and nothing it did is worthy of more than a footnote in an encyclopedia"; et omnia generis alia...

"Yesterday's news"? Were that the criterion by which entries in *reputable* public records were judged, the Encyclopedia Brittanica would be a single slender volume. The purpose of any encyclopedia is to RECORD FACTS. Failing that, an encyclopedia would have no reason to exist at all. One might as well advocating purging ALL of Wiki. "Yesterday's news"... What a transparently idiotic brain-addled notion to put forth as "reason" in this debate.

Now, the following may be phrased in a tongue-in-cheek manner, but I am deadly serious. Purging the politically inconvenient and annoying from the public record is a tried-and-true method of socialist propaganda. The motto of those who seek to act in this manner is "he who controls the record of the past controls the future" - think about it, and consider the drive to delete PW from WIKI in that light. An election cycle is just warming up, and it seems likely that it shall become quite heated. Prior elections have demonstrated that Protest Warrior is an effective poke in the eye to the mass of folks parroting the usual global socialist talking points. Seldom have "so few people whatsoever" so effectively rained on the kollectiv parades of so many Useful Idiots. That they have ever been relevant earns them a permanent place in the record. That they are likely to be so again merely reinforces their worth, and sheds cold light on the motives of some who would purge them from history.

71.125.251.145 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't accused him of anything of which he is not guilty.

Are you denying that this-as well as the CU afd nomination-were motivated by base political animosities-and had no basis in fact?

He lied about a CU user creating his vanity White Rose advert.

He lied about LGF mentioning him and his website by name.

He lied about trolling for votes in leftist hives, e.g. DU.

Nothing he says or does has even a shred of credibility, IMHO.

72.68.187.150 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase that eminent wit, Mary McCarthy, "everything he writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'"

That describes you to a tee, Burch boy, now doesn't it?

72.68.187.150 02:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Protest_Warrior&oldid=1081664546"