Talk:Sollog/fullarchive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Archive 1
2 Archive 2
3 Archive 3
4 Archive 4
5 Archive 5
6 Archive 6
7 Archive 7
8 Archive 8

Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article was voted on for deletion. It was decided to keep the article. --Rlandmann 05:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because of all the vandalism, personal attacks, and legal threats carried out on this page, I'm refactoring the discussion to contain only suggestions for improving the article in question (which is, after all, the purpose of this talk page). Anyone interested in what has gone before should consult the page history. --Rlandmann 12:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In order to keep discussions constructive, civil, and on topic, I'd like to remind everyone of the following policies, plus I have some proposals regarding how they might be enforced on this page:

Sign all comments with ~~~~. Unsigned comments will be de-anonymized.
Consider logging in if you have an account. If you don't have one, create one. If you have more than one, pick one to use on this page and stick with it, i.e., don't be a sock puppeteer. Posting without an account does not protect you or exempt you from the rules. Posting from anonymizing proxies is not allowed.
No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed.
No legal threats. Portions of comments containing legal threats will be removed.
Do not maliciously alter other people's comments, blank the page, etc. This is considered vandalism and will be reverted.

Thank you. --MarkSweep 19:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Name

"Son of light, light of God"

Article should explain that the name is an acronym... and should also mention that he was convicted of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and DUI and claimed to be God while defending himself in the courtroom. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree, acronym and court case both merit mention. Apparently the court case was quite a sight at the time... A2Kafir 20:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does that have anything to do with the sentence "Belief of TOH is that all life is part of God and therefore GOD"? I can't quite parse it, but if GOD stands for something that would help. (Kind of...) —tregoweth 00:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

you people are a joke, as has been pointed out and erased, sollog is not an acronym of son of ... that's bs from altman a moron, that's why the morons running this bs resource keep linking to him and ignoring all the major media mentions of sollog, and that's why they keep erasing true sollog info like sollog doesn't mean son of whatever

BIASED and false remarks. Sollog's name is not son of light... Also, Sollog is well know for his prophecies, math theories and books, not for a bs court case that was over turned. How can someone be tried for a 1988 dui in 1996 when such minor crimes are under a 5 year statue of limitations, plus the skeptic author even admits the cop lied on the stand. Any links promoting that bs is nothing but an attempt to harass sollog and TOH members

SOLLOG does not mean Son of whatever, these posts are an insult to Sollog and all members of TOH.

DO NOT REFER TO SOLLOG AS ENNIS

You people are real ignorant. Sollog is Sollog that is his true name. Calling Sollog ennis is like calling Muhammad Ali by his slave name Clay. You people have no respect for the great leader and founder of TOH. So STOP CALLING SOLLOG by names that TOH MEMBERS consider to be offensive.

TOH Member S FL

Muhammad Ali isn't a sockpuppet, Ennis. Wyss 14:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not ennis and I'm not sollog and I am offended that you try to imply I am Sollog and you call him ennis show you biased position. You need to be removed as a member of this site. You keep offending people over their religious beliefs.

In my opinion Ennis posts as a sockpuppet in order to further the illusion that he has followers. I don't think my posts violate wiki policy, but if I were to be suspended from wiki for my posts, or was asked to stop posting to this page, I certainly wouldn't return as a sockpuppet. Wyss 14:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lam a proud member of TOH and l believe everyone should have Religious FREEDOM to pray and Worship whatever Religion they want too. But all we members ever see is lies about our Great leader SOLLOG who knows so much and just wants to help all the people of the world see the TRUTH. We are sick and tried of seeing these LIES spread. The American Goverment knows much more truth about SOLLOG than any of you people here. You'll Wake up some day and find it's too late to change when you finally see the TRUTH You will have doomed yourself and your family by not being honest and doing some research yourself. You have a few more years until the end my friends. (ToraH)

Comment There is a straight-forward explanation for why most (or all) of the posts by Sollog's followers seem to have the same pattern of syntax, grammar and punctuation errors: I suspect they're written by the same person, probably John Ennis, aka Sollog, which reinforces my opinion that he may have few if any serious "followers", that this article is truly vanity advertising and would be best reconsidered for deletion. Wyss 18:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"A few more years until the end?" Care to specify how many? It would make an interesting test of Ennis's powers of prophecy. --Carnildo 19:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

OK, since we're keeping the page, anyone have any suggestions for improving it? --Rlandmann 06:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

YES if you want to show wiki is truly a neutral source then you need to keep out info that is defamatory and links to such info is wrong.

You need to concentrate on why Sollog is so popular on the net.

1. He allows his prophecies to be put into Usenet as soon as they are made, that means you don't have to pay him to see what he says about the future.

2. You need a complete bibliography of his 30+ books under his three pen names.

3. You don't need incorrect information about what his religious names means or doesn't mean.

4. Sollog is involved in several movies, so he needs a filmography as well

5. Sollog has several CD's so he needs a Music list as well

6. Sollog has about 9 or so major math theories, so they need to be listed.

7. A few links to the most famous prophecies would be a good idea

8. A few links to the major media references of him would be a good idea (city paper is not major media) such as the WP, der spiegel, register in uk and few others

9. A couple of links explaining his connection to Leo Phoenix

10. Links to info about TOH the religious movement he started

11. Links to his abstract symbolism art

The facts are Sollog has many fans and skeptics in usenet and on many web sites, he has many references in the media. His is known mostly for his prophecies, you don't see other seers or psychics allowing their stuff to be put into the public domain via usenet where it is recorded with time stamps to prove they either know details about future events or they don't. He has many many hits and some of the so-called misses are in fact simple allegorical hits. i.e. the 902 prophecy about the pope of satan's death, no where does he say john paul II, but skeptics say he did, fans point out anton lavey aka the pope of satan died that month etc.

Sollog is a brilliant mathematician and his finding of hidden 24 number deep number sequences within primes and fibonacci prove that. He did ratio align the inner planets in his PDF formula, he united the mythos of major religions in his creator formula.

You can find references in articles where judges call him the most brilliant man they have ever had in their court room, yet you allow people here to call him names and then threaten his fans with banishment.

Look at all the bs hoary and wyss said about Sollog fans and yet you threaten his fans with banishment.

I suggest you get a new mod to supervise the creation of a real neutral article on Sollog, since the people doing it so far are not neutral.

Allowing the same people that have been attacking him and his fans to create the page is a joke, get a new mod that is neutral and leave off stuff that will harass his fans.

That was contributed at 06:21, 10 Dec 2004 by 65.34.173.202. (Why not get a user ID?) I'll just take two points. First, Sollog is a brilliant mathematician and his finding of hidden 24 number deep number sequences within primes and fibonacci prove that. Uh-huh. Does any mathematician back that up? Secondly, You need a complete bibliography of his 30+ books under his three pen names. Does this mean that "Sollog" has pen-names? A pen-name of a pen-name seems absurd -- why not rename the article Ennis and list the pen-names there? In the meantime, bookfinder.com lists a total of, count 'em, 0 (no) books by "Sollog" or "Sol Adoni", which appear to be Ennis's fave names when he's in a writing mood. What are the criteria for "book" here? -- Hoary 06:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I own over 20 so shut up.

- What are the criteria for "book" here? Let's say, for simplicity, anything that has a verifiable ISBN. --MarkSweep 08:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not it's not. ISBN means nothing, it's an artificial number system and since Sollog's words are HOLY you don't number them.

Wikipedia aims to present information from a neutral point of view. This means that when there is more than one point of view, then we aim to present both of them. Altman seems to be the most outspoken of Sollog's detractors, and the general consensus here seems to be that links to his articles are worth including in the article. As to your other points:

1. Agreed that his usenet activities should be better described.

2. Could you please supply publication details on his 30+ books? As far as anyone here is able to tell, these are just vanity publications available in electronic format. Have any of them been in print? If so, who published them and when?

3. The "Son of Light, Light of God" moniker seems to be a fairly widespread interpretation of his name - so widespread that it probably needs to be commented on, even if to say that Sollog does not claim (or no longer claims) this to be the meaning of the name.

4. see 2. Who distributed the films?

5. see 2. Who distributed the CDs?

6. Wikipedia has a policy of not publishing original research. Have any of Sollog's math theories been published in a peer-reviewed publication? If so, please supply citations.

7. Wikipedia is not a link farm. However, I agree that some of the major prophecies should be detailed. What are Sollog's three most accurate prophecies?

8. Agreed that we could perhaps include a couple more links. Der Spiegel's material seems especially relevant.

9. Why?

10. Agreed - if there is any information on this movement available that has been written by third parties and not by Sollog or his close associates.

11. see 2. Has this art been published or exhibited?

Finally - If Sollog's fans are willing to adhere to the same standards of behaviour that are required of all members of this community, their contributions here will be welcomed. If they use their editing privileges to vandalise the encyclopedia, disrupt the project, or make personal attacks on or legal threats against other users, then those privileges will be taken away and they will be excluded from the community. It's really as simple as that. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adoni Publishing distributes all Sollog material via their network of over 300 developed content sites. Haven't you heard you live in a new digital age? Adoni Publishing is one of the largest new media publishers in the world, they get millions of viewers each month across their large network of web sites. They publish full color facsimiles of rare ancient works such as Nostradamus and Shakespeare and have over 5000 titles in their catalog. They have several films and Music CD's as well.

You can either download Adoni Films (three are related to Sollog) or you can order them on DVD or eMovie CD.

Anyway, from what I hear Wiki is about to be served with a lawsuit to remove any and all Sollog material.

So this page will be removed soon.

No point in fixing what will soon be removed.

Wiki has shown they can't be neutral on Sollog so wiki will be sued to remove all reference to Sollog.

NB: The last passage "Adoni Publishing distributes ... wiki will be sued to remove all reference to Sollog" was contributed by Sollog, i.e. User:65.34.173.202, at 02:29, 10 Dec 2004. --MarkSweep 07:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This saga is getting more and more exciting. Last time Ennis sued for a mere trillion dollars (or so we learned); this time, will it be a quadrillion, or a squillion gazillion? And hold on -- I thought that I was saying W'pedia needn't bother with Sollog, while his fans wanted as much publicity as possible. Meanwhile: we're told that Adoni Publishing distributes all Sollog material via their network of over 300 developed content sites.... Recall that Adoni is another moniker of Ennis, so this means that Ennis is publishing Ennis, so it's self-publishing. As for maths, without credible evidence of any significant mathematical breakthroughs by Ennis, I suggest changing "mathematician" to "self-described mathematician". -- Hoary 07:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that ~~Sollog~~ Ennis realizes he's been identified and can't vandalize or intimidate his way into having a vanity page and fortune telling ad of his very own on wiki, he wants all reference to himself removed... Wyss 07:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You people look like fools. Let's see does Sollog own Adoni Publishing? Let's see Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni aka Sol Adoni aka Founder of Adoni Publishing. Adoni Publishing was created to distribute Sollog's writing. They also publish several other authors, they also publish historical facsimiles from the Adoni Collection. They also publish over 300 content sites, they publish Books, Movies and Films. They also own several programs. Didn't you hear Sollog owned a very successful software company years ago that had the largest market share in their industry.

The copyright on Sollog.com and all Adoni sites says COPYRIGHT ADONI NET, this is public information. And you people act like you 'discovered' it. Funny how when Sollog's lawyers sue wiki the first thing they'll do is show this IP address does not belong to Sollog like all you liars are saying.

You need to look at various sollog forums, there's a huge class action coming against wiki and of course altman, about time AIS sued him for his slanders. Since wiki is quoting him as a source he will now be removed from the net as will wiki.

Just remove the page, if you don't wiki will be put out of business.

That minatory comment added circa 08:11, 10 Dec 2004 by 65.34.173.202. "Sollog"-fan, (i) the only thing I heard about Ennis's earlier business was that it involved porn; (ii) I hadn't been aware that Wiki was a business; (iii) my "divine" (not!) ability to predict the future tells me that your minutes of freedom to edit Wikipedia are numbered. (If these things aren't coordinated, look out Wikisource and the rest!) -- Hoary 08:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, John, we're clearly at an impasse. You keep pushing everyone's buttons, but that has not resulted in any progress, only in people pushing back. At the very least, you'll probably have realized that you're outnumbered -- there are more people interested in keeping this site running and civil, plus you just won't have the time to keep up your comments at the current pace. So let's assume you'll come clean about who you are and stop antagonizing people, stop the name-calling, and stop the legal threats; you don't need to say anything, we'll just notice in passing that you've stopped and that's that -- clean slate. What everyone is really interested in is making this a better article. Now you have certain views about what this might look like, but you have to accept that people here will not necessarily agree with everything. How about continuing the dialog that User:Rlandmann started, regarding specific suggestions for improving the article? --MarkSweep 10:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Annual TOH Toy Drive

65.34.173.202 posted a link to a TOH activity here. --Carnildo 09:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See http://www.sollog.com/toh/toys it's one of the many charitable things Sollog does through TOH you should have it on his main page

See how you biased people are removing positive stuff about Sollog

Post a link to the TOH Toy drive and don't remove it, is a legit thing to discuss

The above was posted by 65.34.173.202

Now that you're not advocating a particular course of activity with respect to that site, maybe the link can stay. This isn't an advertising venue. --Carnildo 10:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, it "is a legit thing to discuss", so let's kick off a discussion. I took a look at that page. What it says is that "Each year TOH distributes Winter Solstice Toys to Children". There's no hint of what these toys are, where the children are, how they're distributed, etc. There's no solicitation of toys. Instead, Ennis wants your money (via PayPal, to sollog@sollog.com). (Incidentally, I'm surprised that such a major concern as Ennis's hasn't yet set up its own secure server for payments, but then of course "God" moves in mysterious ways.) In return for your donation of money, Ennis will send you such amazing things as "a 15 Minute phone reading by Sollog" (that's for 250 unspecified units, revealed in the hidden source [!] as US dollars). Mmm, are these donations tax deductible as charitable? If so, I wonder why the deductibility isn't mentioned; and if not, I wonder why not. Looks pretty feeble. Not notable. Oh, OK, notably unconvincing. -- Hoary 12:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If wiki is so lame, I wonder why Ennis bothers to expend so much energy on a single talk page? Personally, I think the locked wiki article about him is still too PoV. Aside from the fortune-telling scam, about all that's left is a link to a freep article about this person's allegedly dodgy past, some commercial websites and lots of USENET spam. Since he and his fans appear to be one and the same, in my opinion the subject of this article is really nothing more than a bandwidth hog: Hardly notable. Ironically, I'd still vote to delete (and protect the article title from future vandalism). Wyss 13:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. Calling Sollog ennis is an insult to Toh members SO STOP IT. I'm not Sollog and I know many members of TOH and even more fans. I've given to TOH for many years. You show your ignorance about taxes, like native indians and the amish TOH members are Tax Exempt. By Biblical Law. TOH only follows Books of Moses. Anyway, TOH is a tax exempt religion. So the whole tax garbage does not pretain to TOH and members of TOH. So keep paying your 'voluntary' taxes in the USA. comment added at 14:27, 10 Dec 2004 by T-Mobile USA customer 208.54.95.129, who has made lots of other contributions to this page today

T-Mobile Man (or woman), I can make little sense of what you say other than that you don't want "Sollog"/Ennis to be called "ennis". The "tax garbage" I was referring to was the ability of people to claim charitable contributions as deductions from their taxable income. So anyway, what are the toys, where are the kids, what percentage of money sent to Mr Ennis goes to the toys for the kids? Can you present any other evidence that this is a real charity that does a significant amount of good in the world? Incidentally, while whether "TOH" members (their incomes?) are tax exempt according to their own interpretation of something in the Bible is of some trivia interest, I think readers of the article would be more interested to see how the IRS of the USA views this publishing empire. -- Hoary 14:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TOH members ask that this page be removed

I am a member of TOH i.e. TEMPLE OF HAYAH

I find the links to City Paper offensive to me and any TOH member due to false information in the articles meant to defame Sollog and TOH members.

I find the way several Wikipedia mods/members have been harassng and defaming Sollog and all TOH members.

Since Wikipedia has proven they are not a neutral resource TOH MEMBERS demand all Sollog pages be removed ASAP.

TOH MEMBER S. Florida

208.54.95.129 talk contribs 09:02, 10 Dec 2004

Agreed, you guys need to get rid of that BS Altman article. He's a moron putting out disinfo about Sollog. Be fair and get rid of the biased material. Aries31 02:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would not be in the spirit of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We will, of course, have everything scrutinized that Altman claims, but bias is not in itself a reason for excluding material. We can always neutralize it by stating "Altman claims that so-and-so... Others counter that so-and-so..." or (preferably) refactoring everything into one more neutral statement. After all, if "biased material" were outright disallowed, most of the information coming from the Sollog website and people who openly claim to be his followers couldn't be put in either. There'd be no article left. JRM 03:15, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

If you would like this page to be removed, you should register as a wiki user and nominate the page for deletion. You can count on me for a Delete vote. Wyss 14:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Unlikely to happen. It was just voted on, and the consensus was to keep. I'd probably vote to keep again. --MarkSweep 17:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know... I was just trying to point out that as usual, Ennis seems to have issues following wiki procedure. Wyss 20:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

REMOVE HOARY WYSS MARKSWEEP

I do not think hoary, wyss and marksweep can do a neutral page on Sollog and TOH.

Please remove them and all their comments.

They are harassing all pro-Sollog posters.

208.54.95.129 talk contribs 09:11, 10 Dec 2004

Civility, and the discussion

No matter how much people vandalize a page, no matter how ridiculous or invalid you think the topic is, no matter how lowly you think of people—practice what you preach by discussing here. Don't call people sockpuppets. Don't imply that any particular person editing under an IP is Sollog, or another IP, or Archimedes Plutonium for all I care. Don't take the "you are a vandal and I am not" approach by threatening people with tasty blocks and bans because you've seen them vandalize before and know they'll do it again. Do not lower your standards for administering these measures because you feel their behaviour warrants it. Don't ridicule the topic at every turn to make a nice inharmonious editing club of you and other regular Wikipedians.

Now, why am I saying this instead of properly deriding all the vandals? No, it's not because I'm a member of a Wikipedian Moral Majority who are comfortable in remaining as bland as they are unattached to any opinion. It's because these people can be of use in improving the article, even if just to get the far-out POV of Sollog followers straight from the horse's... mouth. (I must remind myself to practice what I preach as well, every now and again—no facile jokes.) This is Wikipedia on the edge. Maybe it'll go over the edge sometimes; we're all only human, after all. (No easy jokes here either...) We have the unique opportunity to give the world an NPOV article on a topic that, to my knowledge, has not had any neutral observers. Let's use it. At the very least, it could give us a better understanding of the social phenomena involved. If you don't care, I still do. Humor me.

With that out of the way, there are several things I would like to have cleared up.

What, according to TOH members, does Sollog mean? Where does it come from? Is it "Sollog" or "SOLLOG", and why? Where did Altman get the expansion "Son of light, light of God" from? Did he make it up himself or was he misreading something?
I've tried to get some information from the website, but found it rather hard to navigate. What is "'Hayah" (is the apostrophe right)?
Does Sollog now or has Sollog ever claimed to be God, or a god? Have his followers?

JRM 00:22, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

You're right. How about we remove all comments that are not directly about the article and concentrate on specific issues? ~~See below for a proposal.~~ --MarkSweep 01:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) Added later: I'll continue this on a separate page. --MarkSweep 03:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page is a refactoring of the existing discussion, centering it around specific issues scattered across the comments on the original talk page.

The goal is to keep the discussion here on topic and as objective and non-contentious as possible. Some things were deliberately left out, typically comments that insult, belittle, taunt, bait, etc. Other comments may have been left out by accident. Please fill those in, unless they duplicate existing material -- no use repeating the same point dozens of times.

There are also a few anonymous comments here that I haven't identified yet. I'd appreciate any help with that. Thank you. --MarkSweep 03:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NB: The version immediately preceding the refactoring is here.

Introduction

This article was voted on for deletion. It was decided to keep the article. --Rlandmann 05:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In order to keep discussions constructive, civil, and on topic, I'd like to remind everyone of the following policies, plus I have some proposals regarding how they might be enforced on this page:

Sign all comments with ~~~~. Unsigned comments will be de-anonymized.
Consider logging in if you have an account. If you don't have one, create one. If you have more than one, pick one to use on this page and stick with it, i.e., don't be a sock puppeteer. Posting without an account does not protect you or exempt you from the rules. Posting from anonymizing proxies is not allowed.
No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed.
No legal threats. Portions of comments containing legal threats will be removed.
Do not maliciously alter other people's comments, blank the page, etc. This is considered vandalism and will be reverted.
No person may revert the same page more than three times in any 24 hour period; full details can be found here.

Thank you. --MarkSweep 19:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right. --MarkSweep 01:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, since we're keeping the page, anyone have any suggestions for improving it? --Rlandmann 06:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss already categorized issues under the appropriate heading. If you want to discuss a new subtopic, please create a new subsection. Thanks. --MarkSweep 03:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Name

What, according to TOH members, does Sollog mean? Where does it come from? Is it "Sollog" or "SOLLOG", and why? Where did Altman get the expansion "Son of light, light of God" from? Did he make it up himself or was he misreading something? JRM 00:22, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Article should explain that the name is an acronym... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SOLLOG does not mean Son of whatever, these posts are an insult to Sollog and all members of TOH. 208.54.95.129 09:13, 10 Dec 2004

DO NOT REFER TO SOLLOG AS ENNIS (...) Sollog is Sollog that is his true name. comment made at 14:15, 10 Dec 2004 by "TOH Member S FL", actually 208.54.95.129

The "Son of Light, Light of God" moniker seems to be a fairly widespread interpretation of his name - so widespread that it probably needs to be commented on, even if to say that Sollog does not claim (or no longer claims) this to be the meaning of the name. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been trawling backwards through Google Groups, trying to find where the acronym idea may have started. this post makes me think that Ennis may have originally publishing his predictions under this name. The only way to be certain, I guess, would be to consult The City Paper. --Rlandmann 23:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The phrase but Sollog supporters deny this, pointing to his own explanation of the name being comprised of "Sol" and "Log" could perhaps be expanded to indicate what "Sol" and "Log" are supposed to mean. His site indicates that "Sol" is a reference to the sun, and it seems to imply that "Log" is derived from the Greek Logos, with an intended reference to math and "divine wisdom". -- Zawersh 20:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wonder what the logic is to have a meaning of Sollog's name (Son of God...) listed which is disputed by the individual themself. An outside party can't determine what someones name means. Repeating someones guess as to a names meaning doesn't seem relevant to an encylopedia entry. In addition using the word 'pseudonym' while technically accurate, appears to be used as a slur. Perhaps different phrasing can be used similar to Malcolm X's wikipedia entry which simply states "He was born as..." --Justcron 16:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notability

(The article) should also mention that he was convicted of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and DUI and claimed to be God while defending himself in the courtroom. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog is well known for his prophecies, math theories and books, not for a bs court case that was over turned. comment made anonymously at 06:36, 10 Dec 2004 by 65.34.173.202

I have to say I more or less agree with that. --MarkSweep 01:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He allows his prophecies to be put into Usenet as soon as they are made, that means you don't have to pay him to see what he says about the future. 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Agreed that his usenet activities should be better described. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can find references in articles where judges call him the most brilliant man they have ever had in their court room (...). 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Could you please specify some of these articles? -- Hoary 10:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Usenet celebrity of "Sollog" has been mentioned before. Intrigued, I took a look, and it does indeed seem that he has a certain fame. This page tells us that "John P. 'Sollog' Ellis" (that's the term it uses) was Alt.Usenet.Kooks "Kook of the Month" for June 1998 and January 2001, and co-winner (with Edmond Heinz Wollmann) of the "Earl Gordon Curley Memorial Nebudchanezzar". See also www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/kards.html. Who is a "net.kook"? That's explained here. If Usenet celebrity is something worth noting in the article, this surely is part of it. -- Hoary 10:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, he was only KoM once, and I mistakenly "corrected" one to two in the main article. Sorry! I blame my limited stamina for reading kookery and even meta-kookery. -- Hoary 05:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as deity

Does Sollog now or has Sollog ever claimed to be God, or a god? Have his followers? JRM 00:22, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

There are serious credibility issues. After more checking I'm reasonably sure most of the pro-Sollog posts on this talk page, if not all of them, have been made by the original author of the article, John Ennis himself (aka Sollog) and that TOH is a religion with a membership of essentially zero. His tactics on wiki match his past behavior towards other web sites. All of this should be considered when pondering the possibility of engaging in a civil dialog with him for the purpose of developing an NPoV wiki article. Wyss 03:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it should not. If we started to ponder whether discussion is possible or not, we shouldn't do it. Discuss or do not discuss—there is no try. Now obviously we are not going to take anything these self-proclaimed follower(s) claim, Sollog or no, as the gospel from high above. In fact, I basically want any factual claim they make to be checked, and any statement of opinion to be carefully weighed for inclusion. This article isn't going to turn into a pro-Sollog PR platform if any of us can help it. Furthermore, we can just state that it is widely held (if indeed it is, and I for one will join you on it) that Sollog's basic schtick is astroturfing on a massive scale.

Are you saying that after multiple acts of vandalism, refusal to even give the appearance of following wiki procedures, vulgarities, rudeness ad yawnium and all the rest, there's no diminished likelyhood of rational discussion? Wyss 14:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course there is. All I'm saying is that you don't need to rub our faces in it every time we ask anything about Sollog without adding "and of course this is all hokum" in the byline. I think everyone can be trusted to their own judgement on Sollog when they see a supported claim of him calling himself God. I know I can... JRM 15:40, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

When people refer to his "followers", I feel compelled to repeat that the preponderance of evidence indicates he impersonates all of them himself, and has been doing this for years. Wyss 16:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to his earlier comment (paraphrased), Scollog's family has never been involved in pornography, I'd like to mention that his website has direct links to pay-for-porn sites, so there appears to be misrepresentation as well. Wyss 03:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This can just be plain oversight. I've seen a serious site by a movie enthusiast have direct links to pay-for-porn sites (and no, it wasn't a porn movie enthusiast). "Involved in" is so vague that you can claim anything. Don't start some poisoning the well arguments by implying a "if they lie about this, they'll lie about anything" line of reasoning. You're not here to convince us Sollog is an out-and-out kook who does his own PR, and you're certainly not going to convince him/them, so what's the point? JRM 13:19, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

The point is that all of the domains (sollog.com, famousslut.com, deathgallery.com etc etc) are registered to AIS in Coral Springs Florida. I appreciate that you're trying to keep an open dialog here, the point is that you're likely not going to accomplish it with the author of the article and yes, once a lie is parsed, forget credibility. Wyss 14:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, see? Factual statements, those I like. So then he is involved in pornography, by virtue of owning several domains on which pornographic material is displayed. Voilà.

and yes, once a lie is parsed, forget credibility. Even liars occasionally say true things, if only by accident, or because it suits them. Does lying make you less credible? Of course; it certainly means we cannot put in any claim without corroborating it with facts, or we'd do our readers a disservice. But what else is new? I wouldn't trust, say, George W. Bush on many things he says about himself, and I think we all agree that Bush is quite a bit more reliable than Sollog in this respect.

You may find my motives easier to understand when you realize I'm basically not hoping for anything here, not even a thorough discrediting of Sollog, who I think does the discrediting quite well by himself. Anything indisputable we can salvage from the discussion is already a major victory in my book. JRM 15:40, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

It isn't plain oversight. The AIS "empire" includes sites that sell pornography, execution videos and pictures of dead bodies. For one particularly nasty example see here [1]. Considering rotten.com offers the same for free, it is a wonder that anyone into that stuff would pay for it. All the AIS sites link incestuously to one another, use the same boiler plate layout and and are clearly produced by the same hand. This isn't the case where you cut and pasted a bit of advertising JS into your site and are now serving up porn / casino ads - it's deliberate and hardcoded. --Cchunder 10:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finally, Sollog claims to be God [sic]. In my experience, the implications of an assertion like that diminish the chances of establishing a rational online exchange with him to about nil. Ultimately (in either his own name or as an anon sockpuppet "member of TOH") he's likely to keep insisting on a page written exclusively to his PoV or threaten anything he can think of to have it deleted altogether. Wyss 03:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In which case we will politely but insistently refuse to indulge him. I was sort of hoping for a reference to the "claims (has claimed?) to be God" claim. And I mean one that's a little less biased than the Altman article (he had a good laugh, of course, but the tone of his piece makes clear this is not intended to be an objective news article). Has he claimed divinity in the court case, for example? Do others confirm that? Is he still running around introducing himself as God or is he singing a new tune? JRM 13:19, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

A cursory Google search (Sollog Ennis) shows this is true. He claims "various courts around the world" recognize God or Almighty God as the only lawful alternatives to the name Sollog. This remark has cropped up when people refer to him as John Ennis. He has also vandalized this page with the statement SOLLOG IS GOD. Wyss 14:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Following a few of those links [2], it appears none other than our very own Sollog was responsible for the big "Nostradamus predicted 9/11" urban legend, which has gained some notoriety. (I knew he'd claimed to prophesy 9/11 himself, but this connection wasn't clear to me).

Not really... almost all the Nostradamus types were on 9/11 within a day or two. I don't see any evidence Sollog was the catalyst for that nonsense, looks to me like he merely jumped on it with the others. Wyss 15:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, he didn't originate it. See Snopes for the full genealogy; ironically, it was first offered as an original example of a hoaxed quatrain. But the site I mentioned specifically connects the poster (Xinoehpoel) with Sollog, and this mass-posted "quatrain". Whether he had any significance in the spreading is another question, but it appears that at least for alt.prophecies.nostradamus, he did. This sort of thing is notoriously hard to pin down for sure, of course, but it at least warrants a mention, if only in the context of discrediting this "prophecy". JRM 16:41, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Sorta like the Sanford Wallace of discredited psychics, then... Wyss 16:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll try and condense all the factually verifiable material we have on Sollog from this talk and the VfD nomination later; it's basically all a big mess now, and the smoke and mirrors from the Sollog camp aren't helping.

It seems that 15 minutes of fame really are achievable by just making enough waves on the Internet. I might have to rethink my career. :-) JRM 15:40, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

According to clapton.onecom.com/biography.htm, "In the late 1960s, one of the most prominent pieces of graffiti seen in London and New York was 'Clapton is God'." I'm not sure I remember seeing this, but I have seen such statements. Surely they were not intended to imply that Eric Clapton created the universe, etc., etc.; merely that he was a "god" among guitarists. Are the statements of Ennis or the Sollogites that "Sollog is god" of a similar nature, praising his (alleged) predictive powers? -- Hoary 05:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as book author

You need a complete bibliography of his 30+ books under his three pen names. 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Could you please supply publication details on his 30+ books? As far as anyone here is able to tell, these are just vanity publications available in electronic format. Have any of them been in print? If so, who published them and when? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adoni Publishing distributes all Sollog material via their network of over 300 developed content sites. Haven't you heard you live in a new digital age? Adoni Publishing is one of the largest new media publishers in the world, they get millions of viewers each month across their large network of web sites. They publish full color facsimiles of rare ancient works such as Nostradamus and Shakespeare and have over 5000 titles in their catalog. They have several films and Music CD's as well.

Get some old copies of City Paper and you will see a dozen or so bookstores listed that carried the original sollog books in print. Any bookstore can order you an eBook CD of the Sollog titles, some are in print and most are in POD. — Anonymous comment by 65.34.173.202, at 02:29, 10 Dec 2004. The comment ended by saying that "wiki will be sued to remove all reference to Sollog", remarkable in view of the fact that it was 65.34.173.202 (contributions) who/that started the article in the first place. (Moreover, starting the article was 65.34.173.202's first ever contribution to Wikipedia.)

We're told that Adoni Publishing distributes all Sollog material via their network of over 300 developed content sites.... Recall that Adoni is another moniker of Ennis, so this means that Ennis is publishing Ennis, so it's self-publishing. -- Hoary 07:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean that "Sollog" has pen-names? A pen-name of a pen-name seems absurd -- why not rename the article Ennis and list the pen-names there? In the meantime, bookfinder.com lists a total of, count 'em, 0 (no) books by "Sollog" or "Sol Adoni", which appear to be Ennis's fave names when he's in a writing mood. What are the criteria for "book" here? -- Hoary 06:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are the criteria for "book" here? Let's say, for simplicity, anything that has a verifiable ISBN. --MarkSweep 08:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not it's not. ISBN means nothing, it's an artificial number system and since Sollog's words are HOLY you don't number them. comment added at 14:13, 10 Dec 2004 by 208.54.95.129, a T-Mobile customer whose contributions are listed here

Although some consider his works holy, others do not. Many more people consider the bible holy, and all variations in print have an ISBN

ISBN is indeed an artificial number system. Does ISBN mean nothing? Many people would be persuaded otherwise by isbn.org, by such shorter explanations as ISBN, or indeed by the ease with which ISBN numbers are used to buy particular editions of particular [real-world] books. Note that ISBN is not, and will not be, limited to "dead-trees" publications: in the transition to longer ISBNs, "There will be no proposed change to the basic guidelines for application of ISBN to digital files ... Format/means of delivery are irrelevant in deciding whether a product requires an ISBN (if the content itself meets the requirement, it gets an ISBN, no matter what the format of the delivery system)" (from an isbn.org page).

...I must add that anyone can buy their own little range of ISBN numbers for a couple hundred euros. An ISBN number alone doesn't mean much... content, distribution, peer review and reference, along with the backgrounds of the author and publisher can all combine to establish some sense of notability. Wyss 15:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll take "you" in the comment above by 208.54.95.129 in the indefinite sense ("people"). First, if the words of "Sollog" are "holy", this would seemingly imply some divinity of the author; perhaps a sollogite could explain this more fully in Status as deity (above), where precisely this question has been raised. Secondly, the publishers of other works claimed as holy (e.g. the Qur'an) obtain ISBN numbers for them; why would this not apply to the works of "Sollog"? -- Hoary 04:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as film maker

Sollog is involved in several movies, so he needs a filmography as well 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Who distributed the films? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can either download Adoni Films (three are related to Sollog) or you can order them on DVD or eMovie CD. anonymous comment

It's a shame God couldn't use a spell checker: http://www.1emovies.com/ "SEE THE FIRST Full Screen Full Lenght eMovie - Must See" comment posted anonymously at 22:40, 14 Dec 2004 by 81.153.140.51 (making a minor correction to a comment the same IP number had made minutes earlier)

Status as musician

Sollog has several CD's so he needs a Music list as well 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Who distributed the CDs? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as mathematician

Sollog has about 9 or so major math theories, so they need to be listed. 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Wikipedia has a policy of not publishing original research. Have any of Sollog's math theories been published in a peer-reviewed publication? If so, please supply citations. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Does any mathematician back that up? -- Hoary 06:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for maths, without credible evidence of any significant mathematical breakthroughs by Ennis, I suggest changing "mathematician" to "self-described mathematician". -- Hoary 07:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think numerologist is more accurate. Wyss 15:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe I read this, but here we go: on his site, Ennis claims to have discovered a so-called[3] "Prime Field Formula", which states a necessary condition for a number being prime. It states that

Every prime number above 7 is located within the limited field of whole integers expressed as 90(x) + n where x is a whole integer > 0 and n is equal to one of the following numbers: 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 49, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 77, 79, 83, 89, 91, 97

Quibbles about "whole integers" aside, what this "discovery" boils down to is the fact that if p is prime, then (p mod 90) is a number strictly between 0 and 90 which is coprime to 90 (he takes care of 1 and 7 by including 91 and 97 in his list; note that the composite numbers 49 and 77 are also included, since they are coprime to 90). This "discovery" does not qualify as a notable mathematical result.

He further intends to state sufficient conditions for primality. There are nine rules altogether, the first eight of which are jointly insufficient to guarantee primality; he then adds a ninth rule which states that a number n is prime if it has no prime factors less than $\sqrt{n}$ (the case where n is the square of a prime number had already been excluded). In other words, this is an overly complicated version of an ancient naive primality test, not a novel result. --MarkSweep 00:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What he describes is akin to saying a prime number is always odd but never ends in five (this, for example, is true, but it also describes some non-prime numbers). I don't see any description of a pattern unique to primes, only an assertion that they fall into one that includes non-primes. Wyss 00:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like Gaul, his discussion is divided into three parts. In the first part he states necessary conditions for primality, i.e., properties that all prime numbers must satisfy. These conditions can only be used to show that a number is composite. In the second part (rules 1 through 8) he attempts to state sufficient conditions for primality. He rules out numbers that are divisible by 2, 3, and 5, as well as some other special cases. Then in the third part (rule 9) he actually manages to state something that can be interpreted as a necessary and sufficient condition for primality. However, that turns out to be a well-known naive primality test. In other words, nothing to see here, move along. --MarkSweep 00:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the periodic 24-number sequence in the Fibonacci numbers that Ennis claims to have discovered, this could very well be an old problem. A cursory search reveals that the problem was defined formally in the American Mathematical Monthly (volume 109, November 2002) by Syrous Marivani as the problem of characterizing the digital roots of the Fibonacci numbers. The sequence of digital roots is A030132 in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. A solution to Marivani's problem was obtained by Roberto Tauraso and published recently in the American Mathematical Monthly (volume 111, number 7, 2004); it is also available from Tauraso's homepage as a PDF file. Even if Ennis did discover this periodic sequence independently, it is hardly notable without a discussion or proof such as Tauraso's. --MarkSweep 03:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Following contributed by anon user 72.9.232.114: The FACT is Sollog discovered the Base Nine sequences in Primes, Fibonacci, Exponents, etc way back in 1995. Seven years later someone takes credit for the Fibonacci sequence that Sollog found that matches his prime sequence means the 2002 'discovery' was post 1995 Sollog discovery. It's well documented Sollog found the 24 number sequence in primes that matches the Fibonacci sequence, he found it in Mersennes as well.

Your case of being a mathematician could be made if you had published these "discoveries" in a mathematical journal. However, your observations about prime numbers, to the extent that they are true, have been known for centuries. Some of your other observations about patterns in prime numbers are patently false. I also don't see the link between the prime numbers and the Fibonacci sequence that you talk about. The observation that the sequence of digital roots of the Fibonacci numbers appears to be periodic is not a major insight (a neat puzzle, sure), and it's even conceivable that this observation itself is quite old, as the Fibonacci numbers too have been (undeservedly?) studied for centuries. You merely demonstrated that the first few digital roots of the Fibonacci numbers appear to be periodic. However, you presented no further discussion or proof that this holds for all Fibonacci numbers, i.e. infinitely many. Tauraso's 2-page paper, on the other hand, contains all of that and more. --MarkSweep 18:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status as artist

Links to his abstract symbolism art 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Has this art been published or exhibited? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is a working link to some of his drawings, http://www.sollog.com/art/abstractnudes/. Wyss 15:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, you just made my day with that link. I trust everyone can see why. JRM 15:41, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Beautiful, Wyss, just beautiful. Your research that is, not the drawings. --MarkSweep 22:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at this discussion regarding his talents and how it quickly degenerates. Look familiar? [4] --Cchunder 10:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Degenerates? You seriously think anyone on this planet except Ennis would call that art? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 20:05, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

What's sad is that he's attacking Jimbo for being a pornographer. Oh, the irony... 63.130.194.65

Status as netizen

Alexa tracks over 50 Million web sites, you have to be top 10% in traffic to even get a ranking there. Adoni has put dozens of sites into the top 100K at Alexa, something no other publishing company has done. Any site with a 500K or so ranking at Alexa is in the top 1% of the net for traffic. — Anonymous comment by 65.34.173.202, at 02:29, 10 Dec 2004. The comment ended by saying that "wiki will be sued to remove all reference to Sollog", remarkable in view of the fact that it was 65.34.173.202 (contributions) who/that started the article in the first place. (Moreover, starting the article was 65.34.173.202's first ever contribution to Wikipedia.)

1. Alexa ratings. Alexa Top Sites suggests that it's a list that you have to buy; thanks, but I'm not eager to pay for it. The list of the top 500 doesn't, as far as I can see, have a menu option "What this actually means". Does it tot up accesses by "Alexa Toolbar"? "The toolbar is only compatible with Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows", says Alexa Toolbar: this implies that Alexa's numbers are of visits by people who still use 'Doze, who still haven't switched to Firefox or whatever, and who install something widely regarded as spyware -- admittedly a large group, but one that would be expected to overrepresent the docile and to underrepresent the skeptical. (See also this comment on bizarre rankings by Alexa.)

2. Instead of talking vaguely of "dozens", can anyone name a small number of websites ("Adoni" or otherwise) that are particularly popular? -- Hoary 02:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A netizen appears to be anyone who utilizes the Internet as a means of discourse. By Wiki's listing, Sollog is a netizen. You are a netizen. We are all netizens. Therefore, I suggest that Sollog *not* be called a "netizen", because the article already mentions the following statement, which already appears to account for his status: "...Sollog has been very prolific, publishing his beliefs and predictions on the web and Usenet."

I believe the grandparent was implying that Sollog was more than a mere netizen, but instead a "net celebrity" of some sort. As Alexa's FAQ suggests, the population that uses its toolbar is not representative of the entire internet. Furthermore, Alexa's ranking system does not determine how popular an individual may or may not be. As such, I think there is a significant lack of information regarding Sollog's status in the minds of most internet users, and as such should not be mentioned. Cookie3 02:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this is the talk page, not the article. I think the idea was to avoid the use of the term celebrity, since Sollog's following is disputed, and celebrity by spam seems like a dubious thing. Wyss 02:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with how Wiki operates. I'm just trying to provide info that shows Sollog and/or his followers have yet to generate any credibility with the original poster's argument. My reply suggested that the recognition of netizen is frivolous, and that the ranking system that was suggested did not matter with regards to his status anyway. If Sollog and/or his followers can provide an intellectual argument explaining how Sollog's status is more significant than simply a prolific Usenet poster and webmaster, then I'd listen to it. As I said above, though, Alexa is not an analysis of an individual, and is unsuitable to be used in such matters. Cookie3 03:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prophecies

A few links to the most famous prophecies would be a good idea 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Wikipedia is not a link farm. However, I agree that some of the major prophecies should be detailed. What are Sollog's three most accurate prophecies? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Media coverage

A few links to the major media references of him would be a good idea (city paper is not major media) such as the WP, der spiegel, register in uk and few others 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Agreed that we could perhaps include a couple more links. Der Spiegel's material seems especially relevant. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a problem, though: The article series from Der Spiegel is not freely available, one has to purchase it on the Spiegel website or hope that it's in a library. --MarkSweep 03:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The two City Paper links should be removed as they contain inaccurate information about Sollog. The links say Sollog was involved in illegal pornography which I believe is untrue and cannot even be verified. Therefore, if no one here can verify that the allegation is true, then I request the links are removed. I have tried already but have been told to discuss it here.

Another reason for removing the links are that there are only two pro-Sollog links and four anti-Sollog links in the article. Removing the two City Paper links will make that part of the article neutral.A2X 06:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no "tit for tat" rule that the number of links must be balanced exactly, even if you assume there are only two sides to the issue. If there are legitimate pro-Sollog links you feel should be included, we would be happy to consider them for the article.

We have no way of knowing if the links in question are accurate or not, just as we have no way of knowing if any link is accurate. We must judge the best we can based on context, the reliability of the source, etc. Frankly, we have to assume that a newspaper in a major American city is accurate, and in the vast majority of cases they are. In this case, with no evidence to the contrary, we must assume that they are accurate. Newspapers make mistakes all the time, but we cannot simply take the word of some random internet users that they are wrong in this case. Provide some evidence and prove your case. Gamaliel 07:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you are asking me to do is impossible. You are asking me to prove a negative. It is impossible to prove that someone is not an illegal pornographer. You are using the same tactics that Bush used to start a war against Iraq. He wanted Iraq to prove there were no WMDs to avoid a war, something that was impossible to do. I recommend you stop asking me to prove a negative. Frankly, I expected better than a recycling of G.W. Bush's ideals from an administrator. No one here here has been able to prove that Sollog is an illegal pornographer and if you can't do that then the City Paper links should go.

I am also disappointed to see that other City Paper links have been added that make similar allegations against Sollog, and that the admins here have not seen fit to remove them. As soon as the links are removed by me or someone else, they are put back up again even though no one has proved the allegations aginst Sollog are correct. A local FREE sex rag with adverts for homosexual liaisons is not an acceptable source, in my view.

I request the admins remove the City Paper links or allow me or someone else to remove the links and that they do not allow anyone else to put the links back up again until someone proves the allegations contained in those limks are correct.A2X 17:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, A2X, I'm not sure you have much credibility on whether the claims made in those City Paper articles are true or not, because you were not even accurate on what claims were made. I've read all linked City Paper articles and not one of them accuses Sollog of being an illegal pornographer. Of being in the business of pornography in the past and possibly present, yes, but despite your repetition of "illegal pornography" and "illegal pornography", there is nothing inherently illegal about pornography (not in Sollog's country) and no one has suggested that the porn Sollog is alleged to have been involved with was the illegal kind. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also note that linking to the City Paper articles does not constitute an endorsement of any views expressed in those articles. A2X seems to believe that those in favor and those opposed to including the City Paper links are obliged to prove or disprove the factual accuracy of those reports. Not so. The City Paper links are here because they point to published articles in a paper from a major city written by a professional journalist. The issue of what views are expressed in those articles is irrelevant; what's at stake here is verifiability. If there are other published articles written by professional journalists that are more favorable to Ennis, I'd probably be in favor of linking to those as well. --MarkSweep 19:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To elaborate further, there is no "tit for tat" rule for good reasons, because presenting a contentious issue by introducing an artificial balance between supporters and oponents of that issue may in fact paint an inaccurate picture of the real situation. If in fact the majority of people is on one side of an issue and a vocal minority is on the other side, a report that treats both sides as equal could arguably be characterized as biased. For a discussion how this has affected science journalism, read the article Blinded By Science – How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality in the Columbia Journalism Review. --MarkSweep 07:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Connection to Leo Phoenix

A couple of links explaining his connection to Leo Phoenix 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Why? --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Leo Phoenix = anagram of Xinophoel (or vice versa) = see above. -WCityMike 22:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Religious movement (and tax exemption), meaning of "TOH" and "'Hayah", TOH Toy Drive

Links to info about TOH the religious movement he started 65.34.173.202 06:21, 10 Dec 2004

Agreed - if there is any information on this movement available that has been written by third parties and not by Sollog or his close associates. --Rlandmann 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to get some information from the website, but found it rather hard to navigate. What is "'Hayah" (is the apostrophe right)? JRM 00:22, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

65.34.173.202 posted a link to a TOH activity here. --Carnildo 09:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See http://www.sollog.com/toh/toys it's one of the many charitable things Sollog does through TOH you should have it on his main page .... Post a link to the TOH Toy drive and don't remove it, is a legit thing to discuss Posted anonymously at 10:06, 10 Dec 2004 by 65.34.173.202. (Slightly less than two hours earlier -- 08:11 -- the same IP number had been used to demand "Remove all Sollog Pages".)

Now that you're not advocating a particular course of activity with respect to that site, maybe the link can stay. This isn't an advertising venue. --Carnildo 10:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, it "is a legit thing to discuss", so let's kick off a discussion. I took a look at www.sollog.com/toh/toys. What it says is that "Each year TOH distributes Winter Solstice Toys to Children". There's no hint of what these toys are, where the children are, how they're distributed, etc. There's no solicitation of toys. Instead, Ennis wants your money (via PayPal, to sollog@sollog.com). (Incidentally, I'm surprised that such a major concern as Ennis's hasn't yet set up its own secure server for payments, but then of course "God" moves in mysterious ways.) In return for your donation of money, Ennis will send you such amazing things as "a 15 Minute phone reading by Sollog" (that's for 250 unspecified units, revealed in the hidden source [!] as US dollars). Mmm, are these donations tax deductible as charitable? If so, I wonder why the deductibility isn't mentioned; and if not, I wonder why not. Looks pretty feeble. Not notable. Oh, OK, notably unconvincing. -- Hoary 12:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You show your ignorance about taxes, like native indians and the amish TOH members are Tax Exempt. By Biblical Law. TOH only follows Books of Moses. Anyway, TOH is a tax exempt religion. So the whole tax garbage does not pretain to TOH and members of TOH. So keep paying your 'voluntary' taxes in the USA. 208.54.95.129 14:27, 10 Dec 2004

The "tax garbage" I was referring to was the ability of people to claim charitable contributions as deductions from their taxable income. So anyway, what are the toys, where are the kids, what percentage of money sent to Mr Ennis goes to the toys for the kids? Can you present any other evidence that this is a real charity that does a significant amount of good in the world? Incidentally, while whether "TOH" members (their incomes?) are tax exempt according to their own interpretation of something in the Bible is of some trivia interest, I think readers of the article would be more interested to see how the IRS of the USA views this publishing empire. -- Hoary 14:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Hayah" returns no hits at the IRS seach page for tax-deductible charities. --Rlandmann 00:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV issues

Personally, I think the locked wiki article about him is still too PoV. Aside from the fortune-telling scam, about all that's left is a link to a freep article about this person's allegedly dodgy past, some commercial websites and lots of USENET spam. Since he and his fans appear to be one and the same, in my opinion the subject of this article is really nothing more than a bandwidth hog: Hardly notable. Ironically, I'd still vote to delete (and protect the article title from future vandalism). Wyss 13:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am a member of TOH i.e. TEMPLE OF HAYAH

I find the links to City Paper offensive to me and any TOH member due to false information in the articles meant to defame Sollog and TOH members.

I find the way several Wikipedia mods/members have been harassng and defaming Sollog and all TOH members.

Since Wikipedia has proven they are not a neutral resource TOH MEMBERS demand all Sollog pages be removed ASAP.

TOH MEMBER S. Florida

208.54.95.129 talk contribs 09:02, 10 Dec 2004

Agreed, you guys need to get rid of that BS Altman article. He's a moron putting out disinfo about Sollog. Be fair and get rid of the biased material. Aries31 02:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: the only contributions of Aries31 have been related to "Sollog"; see his contributions page. -- Hoary 12:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you would like this page to be removed, you should register as a wiki user and nominate the page for deletion. ~~You can count on me for a Delete vote~~. Wyss 14:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unlikely to happen. It was just voted on, and the consensus was to keep. I'd probably vote to keep again. --MarkSweep 17:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know... I was just trying to point out that as usual, Ennis seems to have issues following wiki procedure. Wyss 20:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Can I unprotect this article? We need more info than this on Sollog, so someone ought to have a chance to expand it. I figure a Sollog follower could do a lot of expanding, and then if it's not quite neutral, one of us impartial observers could do some NPOV tidying. As for vandalism, I've got it on my watchlist, so I'll rollback any that I see. Everyking 04:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Protection policy and would argue that we have overwhelming evidence for the article being a target of persistent vandalism. I've stated my position in favor of continued protection before, and I've seen nothing that would have made me change my mind. This said, I'm also inclined to say go ahead and unprotect it if you want, since you seem to be prepared to deal with vandalism. --MarkSweep 06:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain one or more "Sollog follower" could and indeed would do a huge amount of expanding, and would also remove anything that he deemed insufficiently reverent of "Sollog" (about whom we've repeatedly read "Sollog is God", often in FULL CAPS). I'm also certain that such changes would be untrammeled by attempts on this discussion page by, er, infidels [yes, a word that has been used!] at a rational discussion: "What do you mean by X? "What specific examples can you give of Y?" etc. This discussion page allows acolytes and infidels alike the opportunity to present arguments, pose questions, and suggest revisions. Let those who want to do so take up these opportunities. When there's something like an agreement on a proposed change, an administrator can act on it (and rapidly reprotect). Or anyway I suppose that this would be possible, but I'm no expert in procedural matters. -- Hoary 07:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it just seems wrong to leave it protected indefinitely. That's not the Wiki way. If we were going to do that, it should've just been deleted. Maybe we could wait a while and then unprotect once things quiet down, then? Everyking 07:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found it amusing when he used the word "infidel" against me, since it is part of my screen name. Less amusing are his occasional anti-Semitic comment (referring to the reporter at City Paper as "that Jew..."). A2Kafir 19:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By "he", who are you referring to? I hope it's not User:Hoary, because that would mean you've come to entirely the wrong page, and are probably look for his talk page. JRM 20:10, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Sorry, by "he" I meant Sollog or one of his putative followers, not Hoary. A2Kafir 20:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My bad. I couldn't place your comment at all because I hadn't seen Sollog call you "infidel" (this and the VfD nomination have generated so much prose that its very hard to trawl through), but I have no doubt that Sollog has called many people many things. My sincere apologies for not assuming good faith. I take this as a sign that I haven't edited enough articles today, and should get to work. :-) JRM 20:23, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Going by past behavior (a record of which is available through a Google search for Sollog Ennis), it's reasonable to assume the page will likely be vandalized indefinitely by its original author. I do agree that the alternative to indefinite protection is deletion. Wyss 07:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mark and Hoary here; we're likely to going to waste a lot of time reverting vandalism, and this will both hamper discussion and drown out the good edits. I also have to agree with Everyking and Wyss, however: indefinite protection isn't really an option. Let's look at it this way: if there are really only one or two IPs we suspect as likely candidates for vandalism, it'll be easy enough to revert.

Note to everyone: keep in mind the three revert rule: if you revert any article more than three times in 24 hours, you are subject to being blocked. I don't expect any of us to get blocked for just reverting the vandalism, but still keep it in mind—reverting is not a productive tactic for discussion, and at this point nobody cares if our article on Sollog does not look factual and neutral 24-7. I'm not advocating tolerance for vandalism, but think about this before getting in a revert war. And try to salvage from edits what you can, of course.

Could we perhaps unprotect briefly as a trial run, and protect it very soon after vandalism happens, without the customary delay periods? This will obviate the need for mass-reverting. JRM 13:31, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I'm about to go to bed, while you Americans -- um, Americans of all (both?) shades of opinions on "Sollog" -- are waking up. So if you unprotect very soon, the ensuing fun and games will be without me. So I'll say no more, other than to point out that there are numerous IP numbers that have been used (some of which appear to have been used earlier by different personalities, and thus are likely to be DHCP, internet cafes or similar), as well as a number of purpose-made IDs. I think you're going to have your work cut out. Good luck! -- Hoary 14:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry. I love the smell of vandalism in the morning. JRM 15:14, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

The evidence suggests that you were right to advocate unprotection, I was wrong to oppose it. The article is a lot better now. I'm sorry to hear that Jimbo Wales has been getting junk phone calls; but that matter aside things seem to be going well. The quiet before the storm? (Pardon the cliché, but I haven't yet had my first coffee of the day so my brain can't manage anything better.) Hoary 01:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt it. Since the aforementioned calls, we have seen no edits from pro-Sollog people—unless you count me, as I seem to be the mildest judge on Sollog, but that's all relative, believe me. :-) Once Sollog is bored with whatever he's doing now, he might just remember his good friends at Wikipedia and offer to expand their knowledge with some accurate, neutral, verifiable statements on himself. Or take off on a vandalism spree, I'm not quite sure what option he'll take. Oh, and good morning; you'll be interested to know it's just about time for bed over here. :-) JRM 01:21, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

NDC777's posts about Sollog were deleted

Wikipedia, or as I call them, THICKYPEDIA, have been deleting all posts about Sollog made by his fans. However those who are posting FALSE AND SLANDEROUS INFORMATION are being allowed to post.

What is Thickypedia's problem?

[legal threat removed] posted at 14:09, 11 Dec 2004 by NDC777, whose only contributions have been "Sollog"-related

Please see points 3 and 4 at the top of this page:

3. No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed.

4. No legal threats. Portions of comments containing legal threats will be removed.

In short, people are allowed to post information even if you consider it false and slanderous to Sollog. Posting insults and personal attacks on people here and threatening Wikipedia with legal action is not. I like "Thickypedia", by the way. Don't know if anyone else has come up with it yet. JRM 14:19, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Well, NDC777, if you said anything substantive about Mr Ennis that was deleted, please repost it. Please also reread the instructions at the top of this page, which say that comments should be signed. It's is very easy; you do it like this: ~~~~ Incidentally, I've taken the liberty of rewriting your subheading so that it will be easier to understand when viewed in the list of contents. -- Hoary 14:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thicky! I like it : ) Wyss 14:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As do I. We could transwiki all the articles about pancakes, omelets, oversized hardback books, and woolley blankets to it. Inky 02:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog Rants About Wiki On His News Site

Wow! See [http://www.247news.net/] for the latest news on the shocking Bomis.com connection! Wyss 15:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For a direct link: [5]. Relevant quote (under fair use): "What most people don’t know is that Bomis is a sex search engine and Wale’s has admitted the selling of sex images is what finances Wikipedia the ‘new encyclopedia’." Perhaps it is worth adding this to the press coverage section... of BJAODN, that is. JRM 15:47, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Update: do read our article on Bomis, however. It's all true, of course. Sort of. JRM 15:50, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Porn drives much of the Internet (and most of it's legal). The only issue is Ennis' denial of his own background and current efforts in that area. Wyss 16:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but what really got to me was the "the selling of sex images is what finances Wikipedia". This on an encyclopedia where one of the biggest discussions lately was whether we should censor possibly offensive images. Like Wikipedia is some sort of seedy back-alley business operating from a brothel. And, hey, we all have to pay the bills. Even God, it seems. JRM 16:29, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked, to hear you say Ennis might be distorting the facts. : ) Wyss 16:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now now, that's a little bold. I said no such thing. It might be possible, however, that he has slightly misinterpreted them and is additionally presenting them out of context—I'm sure it's all an honest oversight. Why, we all make mistakes. JRM 16:46, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

One notable remark on the side, however: he is providing sources for his claims. I think that counts for something, even if his conclusions are, of course, ehm... atypical. Man, this neutral writing is hard...JRM 16:49, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Sollog Denies He's a Sockpuppet on his 24/7 News Site

http://www.247news.net/2004/20041211-wikipedia.shtml

On 11 Dec 2004 D.E. Alexander (a documented alias of John Ennis aka Sollog), wrote:

If you look at the edit history of the Wikipedia Sollog pages, you will see dozens of Sollog fans complaining about how Wikipedia is editing the Sollog pages. These ‘pro’ Sollog edits are immediately purged and then the poster is called Sollog or a Sollog sockpuppet (a bogus poster who is the same person).

I sat in an office of AIS and saw three different people on one high speed connection post about Sollog. They were all called the same person and Sollog. Then I went to local Starbucks and saw another person post to Wikipedia pro Sollog statements and they too were called Sollog. All of the posts were of course edited out later by the clowns running Wikipedia.

Here, D.E. Alexander claims he happened to witness "member of Toh" postings made from two different locations. An alternate explanation is that Ennis made a number of "member of TOH" postings himself from his home or office, realized the IP number was being noticed and went to a nearby Starbucks to make a few more from a different IP.

The following are references to Ennis' sockpuppet postings on other websites (one refers to him as a sockpuppet army):

http://www.scienceone.org/MATHEMATICAL_PROOF_OF_GOD__Sollogs_Creator_Formula-6353143-4253-a.html

http://www.psychologytalk.org/Amazing_Seer_Sollog_Hits_Two_Major_Tragedies__Be_Prepared_for_th-3058252-4706-a.html

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/terror5.htm

http://www.dnforum.com/archive/index.php/t-59959

A Google search for Sollog sockpuppet reveals other examples, his behavior on Wiki is part of a long-established pattern. Wyss 19:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Then I went to local Starbucks and saw another person post to Wikipedia — That's where the posts from the T-Mobile IP came from, I strongly suspect. --MarkSweep 19:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two main competing POVs:

The man who calls himself "Sollog" is extremely prolific and proficient at distributing material under identities purportedly belonging to members of a religious group he has established; or
Said religious group has a large number of members who share the same beliefs, opinions, preferences for grammar and syntax, visit the same venues, and are all convinced that everything Sollog says is true and worthy of mention, despite manifest evidence to the contrary.

There are lots of references for people who adhere to the first POV, while I consider it not impossible that the last POV has only one adherent. I also think the selective phrase "almost universally regarded as a crank", with which the distinguished Archimedes Plutonium is honored, would (if added to the article) only be contested by said adherent. But all this, of course, is my personal opinion. JRM, one of the clowns who runs Wikipedia 19:46, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I claim that User:64.191.63.213 is at the very least a "Sollog" shill. I've created a user page for that IP which outlines a possible case for an IP block. Could someone please look into whether that IP is considered an open proxy? Thanks. --MarkSweep 20:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

64.191.63.213 is a server in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area operated by DDUK Hosting, the owners of http://surffreedom.com/, an open proxy. Wyss 21:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss here, editing via anon open proxy at surffreedom.com/ : )

Me again, same proxy 64.191.63.213 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...and it's me again, editing now in my normal, unproxied way. Notice that when I was editing via surffreedom, the identical IP address was reflected. Methinks we've another sockpuppet in our midst. Thanks, MarkSweep. Wyss 22:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What just happened? Is someone impersonating Wyss? Or is that really Wyss demonstrating how to use open proxies? Anyway, could we get an admin to look into the open proxy issue? Thanks. --MarkSweep 22:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No worries, MarkSweep, that was me, Wyss, using the same open proxy that Ennis used. Go to http://www.surffreedom.com/ and try editing this page via their web-based proxy yourself. Wyss 22:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain in more detail... I traced IP 64.191.63.213 to a server in Philadelphia, found it was a hosting company, hunted around their site and quickly found an anon surfing service with a free tryout feature, then used that service to edit this page to see what user IP address would pop up and lo, it was the same as the anon poster, 64.191.63.213. Wyss 22:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why I unprotected it

Yesterday, I received telephone calls from 4 different people about this page being protected. The major objection seems to be to our having a link to the citypaper.net article. We have every right to have that link, but it will be sensible to note that Sollog fans claim it to be libellous.

My unprotection should not be treated as special, but just an ordinary unprotect by an ordinary admin. Use your usual judgment as to whether and when it needs to be protected again, if it does. Jimbo Wales 20:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Phone calls? That sounds a little inappropriate. This is an Internet project, after all, and tracking you down by phone could be considered a mild form of stalking or harassment. A2Kafir 20:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you discuss the nature and content of the phone calls? Like who called and when, and what the specific complaints were? If this talk page isn't the appropriate place, can you discuss it elsewhere? Just curious. --MarkSweep 21:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is quite interesting, because if it really were four different people, then there are three more Sollog supporters than most of us think there are. JRM 20:59, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

As I said, open dialogue is not possible with Ennis, who has sockpuppeted via the telephone in the past as well. Ask yourselves, how did four separate people manage to track Wales down in a single day? Did he get callback numbers and names? One thing's for sure, it appears Ennis has hit Wales' button somehow. Since this seems so outside Wiki procedure, and the rules have become murky, I'll abstain from further participation on this topic until clear rules have been re-established. Wyss 21:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't make more out of it than it is. Sollog happens to be the first kook (there, I've said it) dedicated enough to actually get through to an admin on the phone. That it happens to be Jimbo is not coincidence, of course. Jimbo has neither the time nor the inclination to argue with kooks on why their accusations of slander are unwarranted, least of all in the off chance that they are not, when all he has to do is unprotect the article and let the wiki mechanism handle it. As for rules: I recall the rule that says "ignore all rules". I think that's one of those cases here. JRM 21:14, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Ok JRM, you convinced me : ). Wyss 21:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are devices that alter your telephone voice dramatically; it's possible our friend Sollog has one. A2Kafir 21:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to be clear - no change of rules here! Please continue editing in the usual way. :-) The article already looks much better than it did. The phone calls were from 4 separate people, and they were mostly just insisting that we delete the page. 3 of the 4 I would characterize as hostile.

The emails I have been getting are much much worse. One person claiming to represent Sollog wrote a particularly vile personal attack on my wife and daughter -- I won't repeat it in a public forum. --Jimbo Wales 22:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that, I take the freedom to quote a report by the Dutch government about "cults" here

"Whenever there is an absolute truth at stake, the manners become careless. This applies both to the owners as well as their opponents of that truth and to all people involved. " from the 1982 book Between stigma and charisma/Tussen stigma en charisma by Paul Schnabel page 343.

Andries 22:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been advocating deleting the page from the start. I'm not saying I was "right all along"... I just felt it would worthless promotion for a spammer in any form (and now it seems to be not worth the effort). Wyss 22:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe not, but (IMHO) it's a matter of principle now. The consensus was to keep the article, and to change that decision just because some net kook made some nasty phone calls means that anyone can get Wikipedia to do anything they want with very little effort. Gamaliel 22:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'k, Gamaliel, you've convinced me, too. : ) Wyss 22:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's valuable if only for the precedent: don't let the bullies of the world get to us by avoiding them out of fear. Many people voted to delete just for Sollog's... sorry, Sollog's followers ' obnoxious behaviour, others added keep because they thought that alone made him notable (which of course it did not) but let's face it: Sollog is notable enough to have an article. And no matter what doom and gloom we call on ourselves with articles that invite the less civilized members of the human race to attack us, we are an encyclopedia and should still do it. To paraphrase what I said on the VfD nomination, because I'm lazy: "If a million idiots on a million typewriters are out to attack us on an article that meets our standards, it's still an article that meets our standards, and by Jimbo we shall not cede it." Of course, that's easy for me to say if I'm not the one who has to catch all the flak. Someone give Jimbo a call to tell him we all love him. :-) JRM 22:28, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Oh, what Gamaliel said before I could. :-) JRM 22:28, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I voted to keep this article on the assumption that, if it were smashed the bits by Sollog's supporter (as I diplomatically put it), said person would quickly be banned, until there were none of him left. Keep your enemies close to you, as they say. Have there been any recent attempts to hack / crash / deny the service of Wikipedia? -Ashley Pomeroy 22:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(reads 'Know thy special friend' below). Ah. Ah. I see. Fantastic picture, it has to be said. There is something to be said for being known as 'pornographer and X'. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Why is there an NPOV tag on this article? The article merely presents facts and doesn't even come out and point out the obvious - "Hey, this guy is a loon". All the Sologites complain about are some links, and a couple obviously valid links do not an NPOV dispute make. If the Sollogites want to hash out specific problems and provide links or evidence of their own, they are welcome to, of course, but until then I don't think their ranting is enough to justify tagging this article. Gamaliel

Congratulations

I believe congratulations are in order for all those who've edited here. MarkSweep, Hoary, Wyss, Gamaliel, Rlandmann, A2Kafir and last but certainly not least Jimbo Wales, I thank you all. I think we can safely say that this was a productive collaboration, and the result (such as it is now) against all odds.

I'm still accounting for the possibility that Sollog and his followers (if such there are) will come here to stir up trouble, but personally I'm not the least bit scared of the possible consequences. Are you? :-)

Regardless of what you think of Sollog for the moment, consider this: Wikipedia is the only place on earth where something like this could have been written. Not on someone's personal website. Certainly not on Usenet. Not even in a newspaper, as evidenced by Altman and his comedy hour. If anyone now wants to know who Sollog is, they can just come to Wikipedia and walk away fully informed. And that, my friends, is why Wikipedia is so great. I swear, if Wikipedia had an anthem, I'd be singing it right now. Apologies for being so POV. :-) JRM 03:28, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Obviously JRM deserves to be congratulated as well, for his contributions and his persistent calls for openness. So, congratulations! --MarkSweep 03:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on the page and had intended to do some copy editing once it was unprotected. All my concerns have already been addressed. Good job everyone. Fire Star 06:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After just finishing my read-through of this talk page, I would like to vociferously second the congratulatory remarks of those that have gone before me. Crises often bring out the best in a community, and while this isn't exactly a crisis, it is certainly a good exercise of and for Wikipedia policy, operating procedure, and most importantly spirit. I am so pleased that Wikipedia exists in the form that I have just witnessed. I hope that this page can be salvaged insofar as a landmark or reminder of the quality here. Truth will out. --Iosif 01:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm impressed. The article is great, it is as fair and unbiased as something like this can be, not even taking into consideration the "other" obstacles. Above all, the information in it is useful, which is the whole point of an encyclopedia anyway, right? Fantastic work from all of you, and you proved that Wikipedia can work (I believe some Slashdot users had some criticism on the overall WP model earlier today regarding this article). Inky 02:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alleged NPOV dispute

A2X, whose only contributions have been "Sollog"-related, has just applied a "dispute" thingie to the main page. A2X, I'm aware that the Sollogites are not happy with the page as it stands, but so far they haven't been able to say anything much that's different and coherent, and that stands up to scrutiny. Are you disputing something on the page (and not merely saying that others dispute it), and if so, precisely what is it that you dispute and precisely what is your argument? -- Hoary 07:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said before, saying "I think these two links are biased" with no evidence or anything beyond that presented is not enough for an NPOV dispute. I'm removing the tag on that basis until some sort of legitimate case is made. Gamaliel 07:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hoary and Galamiel beat me to it, but I'll say it anyway. Please demonstrate the bias with some specific examples. Wyss 07:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please delete this page

Most of the people posting here have made false remarks about there being no fans or members of TOH. The statement by Jim Wales proves all the anti-Sollog posters were wrong. I'm a TOH Elder and I've corrected the most glaring errors on the article page and included info about Bibliographies and such that are correct. Also, if you really need to know what Sollog means there is an in depth definition by Sollog at http://www.sollog.com/sollog

Anyway, stop the wars and delete this page since it filled with errors about there being no Toh members etc.

Wales knows people from around the world who are TOH members called him physically on the phone, I'm sure more are calling him today. All TOH wants is not false information about Sollog here and TOH does not want false information (i.e. Altman lies) to be promoted by Wikipedia.

That being said, treat Sollog like any other article, list his credits, books, music etc.

Mention his most famous achievements, i.e. prophecies and founding of TOH

As to all the remarks that are biased leave them out.

That way members of TOH don't have to harass Wikipedia and Jim Wales.

Shalom

TOH ELDER [above comment unsigned by 208.54.95.129 at 14:54, 2004 Dec 12 UTC]

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Thank you for the link. If you believe this page is filled with errors, then please point out what they are, and why they are errors. The things you deleted (for example, that many think Sollog supporters are either not real or very limited in number) were not stated as facts, but as major opinions by people. The article didn't say Sollog was a kook, but that he had received a Kook of the Month Award. This is true, and we do not express support by merely mentioning it.

That being said, treat Sollog like any other article, list his credits, books, music etc.. Wikipedia is not an advertising board. We will mention Sollog's most notable achievements, but we cannot list everything he's ever done or written. We will certainly not have inline links to Sollog material; we don't have that for any article. We already point people to the Sollog site, and they can get anything else they want from there.

As to all the remarks that are biased leave them out. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We are required to put in biased remarks if they are often made, provided we properly attribute them. For example: many people do say there is nobody but Sollog supporting him. It doesn't matter if that's true or false, we must still say it. Sollog supporters are free to provide their own opinions on this, and we will list them as well, but we will not censor information because somebody doesn't like it.

That way members of TOH don't have to harass Wikipedia and Jim Wales. They don't have to do that period. And they shouldn't, as I'm pretty sure there are laws against it. JRM 15:09, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Note that large amounts of existing material were deleted prior to starting a discussion here. Don't do that. Talk first, edit later. Since I disagree with most of your removals and the current version does not meet our standards in either style or neutrality, I've reverted the article, and added a note about his name. Please talk things out here first. If we agree that things need to be changed, we can do so on a case-by-case basis. Do not start cutting wholesale from the article because you don't like certain things. I agree there's still room for improvement, but we won't get it by mass deleting. JRM 15:22, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

TOH Elder at 208.54.95.129

I'm interested in knowing more about Sollog's followers. TOH Elder, your handle seems to imply some authority with Sollog's religion. I assume you haven't registered as a wiki user because you want to preserve your anonymity and I respect that, but could you let us know a little more about yourself? How did you first learn about Sollog? Through the USENET? Does TOH have regular meetings? How many TOH members are there around the world? What is your role with TOH? Do you know Sollog personally? Are you one of the people who called Jimbo Wales? Only answer what your comfortable with, of course, but the more we know about TOH, the more we can do to ensure that the facts are being presented fairly.Wyss 19:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that 208.54.95.129 was blocked for 24 hours. --MarkSweep 21:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noted and retracted. Wyss 22:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Know thy special friend

Re: wikipediasucks: What an odd piece of work. Sollog's followers have even more free time than I do. I managed to get banned from the forums pretty quickly, but I guess that's what happens when you impersonate The Great and Powerful SOLLOG. What little discussion was there were pretty mundane vandalism instructions: use different IPs, vandalise popular articles, etc. Gamaliel 21:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And at right is wikipediasucks' depiction of our beloved Jimbo. Personally, I think it's a flattering portrayal. Gamaliel 21:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to his "news" site (see the direct link posted by JRM above), Our Special Friend has recently registered the domain "wikipediasucks.com". This is truly remarkable. Didn't Ennis's company AIS win a lawsuit against someone who was using a domain name based on an trademwark owned by AIS? Our Special Friend apparently doesn't realize that "Wikipedia" has been registered (or is this still pending?) as a service mark. --MarkSweep 23:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I won't link to the site at the newly registered domain, and I'd encourage everyone to similarly abstain from direct linking (as incoming links appear to be used by Google's secret page rank algorithm). Our Special Friend has already tried, unsuccessfully, to promote his new site on Wikipedia today – no need for us to help him with that. I have to be POV here and say it directly: the site in question is a vile piece of sick attacks against Jimmy Wales and his family, and against Wikipedia(SM) in general. The gist of the personal attacks that were made against JW over the phone is not hard to imagine now either. IANAL, but in my uninformed opinion the new site in question is slanderous, it encourages harassment, and it looks like a violation of the "Wikipedia" service mark. I feel really sorry that JW and his family got singled out for this treatment. One item of interest on Our Special Friend's new site is the forum, which contains a "hit list" of articles to be vandalized and an outline of a strategy of using anonymizing proxies. --MarkSweep 21:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~~I think a link at Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements and Hate_group#New_religious_movements could be appropriate. Andries 21:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)~~

Thanks for retracting that, Andries. Consensus is that TOH is a Sollog sockpuppet army, not a group. Even if by some odd chance it is a group, we should not indirectly state that as fact by adding that link. JRM 21:59, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC) (Forgot to sign)

Pages targeted for vandalism: God, Jesus, Devil, Jim Wales, George W. Bush, Britney spears, Nostradamus, Adolf Hitler, Einstein, Sollog, Wikipedia, as well as anything linked from the Main Page. --MarkSweep 21:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We should probably make a list of potental IP ranges and post a warning notice to Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress. Gamaliel 21:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. Go to ~~red alert~~DEFCON 1 immediately. JRM 21:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

I've posted a warning here. Perhaps some more technically capable person could post information about potential IP addresses. Gamaliel 22:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Steady on, chaps. I'd thought that it was pretty easy to register XYZsucks.com, where XYZ was a registered trademark/servicemark. (There certainly seem to be a lot of sites named in this way, and it must be conceded that some are more interesting and perhaps even more valuable than the corresponding XYZ.com.) What surprises me more is that any Ennis entity ever won any lawsuit, as I'd thought that he was pure blowhard -- perhaps this is explained in one of the newspaper articles or web pages that's already linked, but I confess I haven't read all of them as I've already spent hugely more time on Ennis than he's worth. Anyway, it's good of Ennis to provide a hit list of articles that he intends to sollogize and that therefore can be put on one's "watch" list. I'd keep an eye on articles such as those on James Randi, too. (But why Britney Spears? Keywords such as "nutbar" spring to mind.) -- Hoary 22:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm sort of grateful we've moved on from the "politely discussing things with alleged Sollog followers" stage to go to the "RC patrol" stage. Suffering fools gladly was rather tiring me out. I am a little worried that people like Sollog will actually never tire from their attempts, though. Common standards for sanity and boredom just don't apply here. JRM 22:29, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Never's a long time of course, and the half-life of this sort of behavior has its limits, but as long as the article's up, one should be prepared for at least several months (and possibly years) of sporadic vandalism. Wyss 23:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OSF has listed Wales' telephone number and email address on his main site. Wyss 22:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to express my opinion that despite OSF's urgings to his followers to vandalize wiki and harass its founder offline, I believe this is a tactic to deceive us into fearing that he does have followers. I'd also like to point out that getting a few friends (or paid actors/associates) to make telephone calls is an alternative explanation for some of the offline harassment we've heard about. Finally, I do think we're dealing with a full-blown psychopath who has probably already crossed the bounds of lawful behavior, acting online through an army of sockpuppets who use identical language, syntax and punctuation (along with a rather limited number of IP addresses, after all) and wiki users may want to ponder being careful about protecting their privacy while responding to this attack. Wyss 23:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure how to deal with this, being a newbie from /. with only a few Wikipedia contributions under my belt. Quite a bit to learn here... If it weren't controversial, I'd correct the "trademwark" error above, but not even sure if that's appropriate here. However, after looking over the article, this Talk discussion, and some related topics, I think three additional aspects should be addressed more directly:

How unintentionally funny these characters are.
The harm they do to the SNR of the Web. (The de facto death of the newsgroups especially bothers me.)
What is to be done?

With regards to #3, there are so many behavioral similarities that I think there must be some unified thread underlying their sociopathy, and that creates the hope (dream? fantasy?) of a "cure". By the way, on a couple of occasions I've greatly offended such trollish characters. I think that makes me suspect. ;-) Shanen 10:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Wiki assholes"

I am disappointed that I didn't make the "Wiki assholes" list on the wikipediasucks forums. People who did make the cut are:

hoary

wyss

marksweep

jrm

Congratulations, and if I work harder maybe I can win during the next round. Gamaliel 23:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh heh. Wyss 23:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the cut, too. Oh, well, life (by the grace of Sollog) goes on. A2Kafir 23:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The amusing thing is that all of the people in question are claimed to be "admins." BTW, what do you think of my elaboration to the article? I feel the more troll fodder they/he gives us, the more we have to include in the article - in the interest of covering all perspectives, of course. Pakaran (ark a pan) 23:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I appreciate and agree with your perspective, I think your additions slant the article into a combative perspective. If the consensus is to "not cede" the content of a neutral, fact-oriented article on this topic, I'd suggest reverting your additions.Wyss 23:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree here. There is no way we can look ~~unbiased~~ neutral if we spell out in full detail what Sollog does to our precious encyclopedia and its beloved founder. I am as reviled as you are by these attacks, but I thought even Andries' remark about attacking Jimbo's family was being too specific. After all, is there any reason to assume his attacks on Altman were less acidic? And yet we don't go around hunting for sources and spelling those out in full detail. Our obligation here is to inform the reader neutrally, not to nail a certain part of Sollog's anatomy to the wall. Mentioning that Sollog's followers have attacked Jimbo personally is enough. I'm not sure even the mention of vandalizing Wikipedia should be included, because this is, I hate to say it, "not notable". I think Sollog makes himself look bad enough without publicizing our righteous indignation at what he did to us. JRM 23:41, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Ha, almost caught myself there. Of course we are biased. We should just explicitly acknowledge that, and take care to not give excessive attention to ourselves. JRM 23:52, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

JRM, I agree with your earlier (23:41) position: Snip snip. Oh, as for my appearance in the sollogites' shortlist of fundamental orifices (as quoted above), 't ain't no big thing. I'd be amused to discover that he they liked me, but otherwise couldn't give a damn. (OTOH I'd be delighted to be acknowledged as causing serious irritation to a verifiably real cult, one with buildings, assets, meetings, brainwashing, punishments, etc.) -- Hoary 03:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But this is no cult, it's a spammer.Wyss 09:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In that case, may I suggest you take up Scientologist-baiting? --Carnildo 04:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After all, is there any reason to assume his attacks on Altman were less acidic? — On the contrary: In one of his City Paper pieces, Altman states that Ennis spammed him with unsolicited faxes and made bomb threats, whereupon Altman reported Ennis to the FBI. --MarkSweep 00:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jeez. I guess we should be lucky that he's restricted himself to "merely" harassing Jimbo with personal calls and defamatory websites. But let's not give him ideas... JRM 00:09, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Like he doesn't already have them? It's well-documented- he wrote these menus of harassment long ago and is picking from them a la carte. Wyss 09:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perfect, Pakaran. "Succinct" seems to be the best word for it. It still conveys the general unsavoriness of the Unmentionables without going in too much detail. JRM 23:55, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Neat. Wyss 08:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment from Sollog mailing list subscriber

This was added to the article by User:142.229.94.182 and properly removed, but I thought it was worth preserving on the talk page:

I have been on his mailing list for years and never once have I seen a "True" prediction comming from the list. Not to mention, I have been on able to unsubscribe from the list either. And on top of all that I got an email from them today stating that this site was calling me a moron, which is not at all the case. This site is simply stating the facts. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the feedback. JamesMLane 21:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm on his list and a member of TOH. The list alerts people to new prophecies. [profanity removed]

Sollog 911 warning

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6tb7rp%24gvr%241%40winter.news.erols.com

Sollog on Shuttle (113th mission) and March 11th Madrid Massacre (11/3 eurodating)

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=9dca61bc.0203072305.28bb8518%40posting.google.com

Sollog on Xmas Quake in Iran (hit at 9PM EST)

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=f2967f4e.0312161736.30a9ca3c%40posting.google.com

These links keep getting erased, just look at the history.

Keep them up and then add them to the article while it is still on the site. The article will be ordered taken down. It's only a matter of time. 65.161.65.104 14 Dec 2004, posted anonymously

A Lonely Spammer

Ennis' anti-wiki forum is strangely quiet for a seer with lots of fans and followers (in this respect it's much like the other Sollog forum I've seen). There are some posts and a couple of sockpuppet replies, all in the mildly disjointed syntax we've come to know so well. I don't really recommend visiting (I'm rather jaded but felt uncomfortable just reading some of the personal attacks, they're that twisted and desperate).

IMO Ennis doesn't really believe he has any followers. The countless skidmarks he's left on forums across the Internet show a serial pattern of desperate sockpuppet attempts to recruit members, which always seem to fail, followed by ROTFL remarks about how inept he is, which he invariably responds to with ominous remarks (such as, "you'll all be dead..."), then vulgarities and legal threats which end when the sysop bans him.

He claimed Elizabeth Smart had been murdered by her parents/grandparents [6] [7]. On his TOH site he claims to have proved that the earth is the mathematical centre of the universe [sic], but one has to buy his book to read the specifics.

On sciforums.com one of his sockpuppets (Jahiro) actually admits to the porn sites...

07-31-03 "The other sites do have some porn related material... It should be obvious that the whole point of ALL the AIS sites is to LINK the USER back to Sollog.com to hear the true message." [8]

I imagine he has perhaps a trickle of income from the porn, going by what I know about the economics of thinly promoted pay-to-play sites, combined with his frequent and strident remarks about money (usually to disparage the current victim of his anger).

Noting the almost complete emptiness of his forums, and almost incredible lack of sympathetic replies to his USENET spam, I doubt he sells more than two or three of his "religious" memberships per year to curiosity seekers, if that many (he would of course disagree with my speculation).

After viewing dozens of USENET and forum posts relating to Sollog I have seen zero evidence of even one follower, only postings under pseudo religious or occultish names with that familiar syntax and punctuation style (and sometimes the same vulgarities), invariably answered by ridicule, derision and if in a moderated forum, by a block. I've even come to suspect that his purported wife Nikkee (the Goddess Warrior) may on some level be a sockpuppet, an online fictional fantasy of his real-life wife Nicole. Wyss 22:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know of exactly 1 genuine follower of Sollog, but hardly does the fellow do him any favours. He is alternately incoherent, expounding Sollog, bemoaning Sollog (for banning him from forums), and fantasizing about having anal sex with women. He uses socks and is irregular so he is a little tough to track down (esp. with the new Google) but here is one example [9]. --Cchunder 10:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

are you claiming SOLLOG is not GOD and knows the truth about earth? he has also published many prophecies like 911, it's all on the site so why don't you get a clue. and saying he is related to porn is just false and slanderous and the attorneys of TOH and SOLLOG will SUE thickypedia and Jimbo "Pornmonger" Wales for FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS for each of these false claims. read the site you idiot and you'll see his wife is real and calling her a sockpuuppet or fictional is just SLANDER! you muist delete this article within 24 hours or you will rue the day you were born. get a clue you morons

TOH elder

(Is it convincing enough? Perhaps some more insults are needed? I don't think Sollog could construct a phrase like "rue the day", but I have to make do with what I have.) JRM 00:20, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Erm, don't block me, please. Here, I'll prove I'm not Sollog: I hereby affirm and express the opinion that Sollog is neither God, nor outfitted with anything remotely resembling civility or common sense. You'll never hear him say that, I guarantee. JRM 00:20, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

JRM, you are neither angry enough nor sufficiently borderline dyslexic to imitate his unique style convincingly :) Wyss 00:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know. I just can't do it. I have this mental block against idiocy and hatred. *sobs* I'm sorry, people. B-) Goodnight from over here, and happy editing. JRM 00:44, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Dude, it was a valiant attempt......A2Kafir 01:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I thought it was pretty darn good. JRM, you make a much better psychotic than I would. :) Although I do agree with MarkSweep's improvement to it. JamesMLane 02:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you see,you guys ARE biased posted anonymously by 68.127.240.118 06:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We never denied that we were. Everyone is biased. Even (some would say especially) Sollog. We just try to represent all biases fairly. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If at any time you feel your point of view is underrepresented, feel free to come with constructive suggestions for improving the article. We will listen.

Also, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It's not, but I think it's a lot milder than putting up websites where you insult and harass the family of a man who has done far greater good for this world than you or Sollog can ever hope to achieve. Does that make me biased? Then it's a bias I'm proud to have. Good day, sir. JRM 11:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

How many people did Jim Wales say called him from TOH to complain? So that shows all these remarks that there are no TOH members is false. 65.161.65.104 14 Dec 2004, posted anonymously

I believe it was in his "Oy McVeigh" article that Altman claimed Ennis called him on the phone, impersonating a journalist. If that is true, it's also conceivable that someone employed deceptive tactics when contacting JW. --MarkSweep 17:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Voice-distorters are sold for this specific purpose (legitimate use would be for a female to impersonate a male to scare off someone). They are sold in catalogs and on-line. That could explain the four "different" calls. I'm sure the local phone company would be happy to look up the records of the calls, if necessary (if Sollog keeps up the harassment). A2Kafir 17:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AIS as peddler of titillating images

Several people have rather convincingly alleged, and sollogites have vehemently denied, that AIS sells sexual or shocking images. But this talk has been scattered. (A lot of the talk about this on this discussion page has taken place in the "deity" section.) This makes it harder to follow the various arguments. I'm reluctant to shunt people's comments around this page -- it would take some time for me to do it to my own satisfaction, and people would (perhaps rightly) resent it -- but invite those interested in the porn/"Mondo" angle to discuss it here, perhaps by moving their own comments here. -- Hoary 11:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In truth, Sollog and his followers [sic] have denied that Sollog is a pornographer, but don't deny that AIS, which owns the Sollog website, sells porn (which it does). The Sollog PoV seems to be that AIS is merely a separate publisher of Sollog, so he can't help it if his publisher also happens to peddle porn. One Sollog sockpuppet even admitted (see previous section, A Lonely Spammer) that the purpose of the porn to is to draw traffic to Sollog. This editor has done some research and is convinced that Sollog, AIS and John Ennis (along with the journalist D.E. Alexander, 24/7 News, the porn sites and an army of sockpuppet followers) are all the same entity, John Ennis aka Sollog. Wyss 11:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TOH Members reporting Wikipedia and Jim Wales to FBI

Jim Wales has stated here several people contacted him by phone to remove this page due to it being nothing but an attempt to harass and defame Sollog, TOH and TOH Members. Most of the posters here refuse to except there are TOH members. So now TOH has informed their members to start filing complaints with the FBI that Wikipedia and most of you are harassing them over their religious beliefs. So your actions have caused Wikipedia to now be under investigation for RELIGIOUS HATRED. The fact is as Wales admitted there are members of TOH and the way you people are attacking Sollog is based on religious HATE. Your article on Sollog implies there are no TOH members. You're wrong and Wales even told you all on this page HE GOT CALLS FROM SEVERAL TOH MEMBERS.

Actually, what it says is that people dispute that there are any TOH members. Which is a fact - not everybody believes that TOH even exists outside of Ennis. When I looked, I couldn't find a single piece of independent evidence on the web or usenet to support the idea that any such organisation exists. If you're aware of any, please provide links - I have no problem with being proved wrong on this. --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can see at these pages Sollog and TOH are linking right to the FBI so TOH members can file complaints against all of you for posting RELIGIOUS HATE MATERIAL. I suggest you delete any and all pages about Sollog since you have all shown you are biased.

Here are links about how Wikiepedia and Jim Wales are now being targeted in an FBI investigation over how you people are harassing Sollog and TOH members.

I suspect that the FBI will be interested in some of the same questions that we are - such as making a vague accusation of "HATE MATERIAL" a little more specific, and of course, in whether TOH actually exists in any meaningful sense. --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://www.templeofhayah.com/wiki.shtml

http://www.sollog.com/wiki.shtml

http://www.247news.net/2004/20041213-hate.shtml

So the question is now, will the FBI who has a 3,000 page file on Sollog due to his accurate prophecies do anything about a blatant attack on Sollog and members of TOH? We briefly interrupt this anonymous comment by 65.161.65.104 to bring you the following message:

Hmm, tricky, let me think.... no. It's good that the FBI has a file on Sollog, though. --MarkSweep 17:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous comment by 65.161.65.104 continues: Sollog and members of TOH are in fact protected from harassment due to their religious beliefs, the FBI investigates such things. So look at the posts here, they pretty much say the same thing, look Sollog says he is GOD. (lie) There are no TOH members (lie) Sollog is a pornographer (lie) Sollog is wacko or crazy (lie) Sollog is the only person posting here with positive things to say about Sollog (lie).

TOH is also starting a 'class action' suit to go after Wikipedia and Jim Wales over this page. This is not a legal threat, I'm reporting on real events taking place now.

Do you see TOH members attacking anyones religious beliefs here?

Why are you all attacking anyones religious views here?

Why have you deleted all the posts to direct hits in his prophecies by Sollog.

Because they're all published only by Sollog, and Wikipedia is not an advertising service. If you're aware of any independent verifications of these "direct hits" then I'd be interested in seeing them. So far, every independent appraisal of Sollog's accuracy that I've read has been less than complimentary. There are many such opinions - at the moment, the article only links to one example (regarding Columbia). --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason is you are scared, you don't want to intelligently debate the simple facts that Sollog has made direct hits on future events, he is one of the most investigated people in the history of the FBI for those hits and all the bs about how altman and other people reported him to the FBI is pure bs.

If Sollog threatened those people where is the case? Where was the arrest?

Now in 1995 Sollog was detained for the Oklahoma City bombing. He later sued the US government over it the case is eastern district of Pennsylvania 96CV 1499

It is Sollog aka GOD vs USA

Did Sollog win? --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In TOH all members are GOD since the father of MANKIND is GOD, man was made in GODS image. So all your criticism of Sollog is due to ignorance, look in the mirror Sollog says even you are god. So what if TOH theology things MAN IS GODS IMAGE AND GOD?

So what!

Why are you people attacking Sollog and TOH members over it!

Where has anyone made an attack on TOH's theology? --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are many TOH members, in fact there are TOH members in almost every country on this planet now. The actions of most of you have now caused Wikipedia to be the subject of multiple complaints of RELIGIOUS HATRED.

There is no way Wikipedia can handle a Sollog page without bias, so just delete the Sollog page.

If Wikipedia thinks the Sollog article is not biased and filled with false and slanderous material meant to harass and defame Sollog and Members of TOH leave it up and explain it to the FBI.

Speaking as one of the ones who supported keeping the Sollog page during the VfD, I think you're being extreme. WP can handle a page like this, and it has done so in the past. Writing clear, accurate, and neutral articles on controversial subjects and people is de rigeur for some of the authors and editors here. Look at the pages about religious leaders such as L. Ron Hubbard and Pope Pius XII, plus seers such as Nostradamus and Madame Blavatsky and tell me that those articles are "biased" or "filled with false and slanderous material". Inky 03:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Similar complaints will also be made in Canada and the UK as well as Australia where TOH has members. TOH will not tolerate wholesale attacks on Sollog and TOH members on any web site.

You people should be ashamed of what you are doing.

It is pure harassment of Sollog and TOH members for one reason RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

The only mention of Sollog's or TOH's religious beliefs in the article is "all life is part of God and therefore GOD". Nobody has even commented on that belief, let alone criticised it... --Rlandmann 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you think wikipedia has the right to harass members of any religion you are wrong and this site, it's owners and the people using it will be prosecuted, if not by the FBI then by Canada or the UK or Australia. In fact a judgment in one Jurisdiction has already been done. A legal body has ORDERED Wikipedia to remove any and all references to Sollog and TOH immediately. The ORDER was posted on a site and it says it is being delivered directly to Jim Wales.

If you can actually tell us specifics about this order, 65.161.65.104, I'm sure we'd all be interested. What judgement? What jurisdiction? What legal body? What site? Of course, right now, having only the claim that it was A judgement in A jurisdiction that resulted in AN "ORDER" (so good, you capitalized it twice!) that was "posted on A site" before it was delivered to the person it actually affects, well, ~~you can understand~~ any reasonable person can understand our skepticism. I for one would be really interested in what jurisdiction posts its judgements online or makes them available for posting by other parties before notifying the party the judgement was passed against. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your actions have now involved the various jurisdictions in several countries that investigate RELIGIOUS HATE CRIMES.

Has TOH or it's members harassed you over your religious beliefs?

NO Thus ends the anonymous comment by 65.161.65.104.

Comment A free discussion of the documented facts regarding Sollog and TOH, for the purpose of writing a collaborative encyclopedia article, doesn't even come close to reaching the definition of a religious hate crime. This writer interprets user 65.161.65.104's remarks as another predictable, tactical contribution by Mr Ennis himself, and believes these remarks are representative of the true harassment taking place, so here's some friendly advice for him:

Stick to the porn business... the cold reading and marketing skills displayed by Sollog aren't up to those required of an effective religious scam (which makes fuzzy-thinking folks feel so good about themselves, they'll part with their money to maintain the buzz). Worse, the artwork on sollog.com is creepy and two-dimensional, the music is mediocre and boring and the mathematical content now and then shows some college-level talent but is accompanied by a complete lack of rigor and objectivity, with embarrassing results. One last hint, Old Testament anger isn't at all in style among most English speaking psychic fans these days... they want attractively packaged illusions wrapped in warmth and charisma : ) Wyss 17:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An old word for what religious con-artists used to do in the old days was "projection." This usually appied to counterfeiting or "puffery." I think that it also applies in a modern psychological sense for the arguments of Ennis' sockpuppet army. It is projection in the sense that he feels free to spew vitriol (and porn, apparently) all over the internet, yet has such a hyper-sensitive reaction to largely neutral critical thinking exercised about his behaviour, carrying on about the slightest perceived slight in a way which would seeminly cause him to blow a gasket if such were directed back at him. Accusing everyone else of his own techniques, in other words. One would think a god should be more effective with his divine arguments... Fire Star 18:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major revision suggestions

This section was inserted by anon user 72.9.232.114

1. Purpose of Wiki is NPOV the current Sollog article had major problems so these are suggested edits. Before reverting page to old page see if others agree certain things in current article are not NPOV

This anon poster is making major changes to the article without discussion and consensus, then asking for discussion and consensus before reverting his changes. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. The KOOK of whatever is not a NPOV topic. It makes the whole Sollog article look biased, so if wiki really wants to maintain an above the sollog crowd look, drop the kook stuff.

The Kook awards are PoV, but documented, third-party information and therefore legitimate links. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- I'm beginning to think Sollog has a point here. A heading called "Accusations of Kookery" is a bit much. We shouldn't delete the kook stuff, but perhaps it can go in the section devoted to his usenet activity. Gamaliel 18:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Give it a suitably positive title, something like "Awards Recieved". Sollog can hardly object to that, can he? --Carnildo 23:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Or "Perceptions of Sollog". -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3. Odds article, if you have links to real subjective analysis fine, links to anonymous stuff in usenet makes the whole thing look below wiki NPOV standards

The USENET material can reasonably be assumed to represent Sollog's past activities. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4. FBI stuff, if the FBI arrested him 10 years ago when altman made the claim fine, but to say look FBI when nothing came of it is not NPOV, everyone knows altman says anything he wants about sollog, he is biased

Ennis was apparently arrested by the FBI a decade ago. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5. Altman articles, is he the new wiki source? Maybe one altman piece but all of that altman stuff is nothing but advertising for altman and he makes wiki look biased

Altman has actually met Ennis and has an established record as an editor. They are somewhat PoV, but there is no wiki policy against linking to PoV articles. If Ennis can produce some links to positive commentary about Sollog by an author who is verfiably not Ennis, I'm sure the strong consensus will be to link to them. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully the article page can be greatly reduced and only important sollog info retained.

NPOV is the argument for the massive editing

If you want to debate each of the topics above, do it

the articles were not debated on here before insertion

Maybe the best thing is to strip the sollog article to a stub and then discuss each topic as it is posted as to if it is wiki standards or skeptic harassment

Attention needs to be paid to the fact there are some followers or members or whatever, maybe new wictionary word sollogite?

Heavy editing is needed to make article NPOV, each new topic should be discussed before insertion

The consensus appears to be that most of this has already been accomplished. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe just a simple stub is best

Sollog a controversial figure on the net who likes to sue people. Founder of TOH. Birthname John Ennis. Author of occult oriented books on Nostradamus and UFOS, etc.

Keep it short and sweet and get over this stuff

Too much time to waste on the whole thing

Keep it short and NPOV and do important work

Here, Ennis is pleading for what amounts to a deletion, a stub, anything to get the content he doesn't like removed from wiki. Wyss 18:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, 72.9.232.114, the thing that makes Ennis notable, to my mind at least, is the public reaction to his behaviour. Whereas that is well documented in the public domain and can be reported in an encyclopaedia article, the existence of his followers (if any) isn't, for example. If you provide some verifiable citations as to their number and location, we'd be happy to mention them in the article. Fire Star 18:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's some material User:72.9.232.114 posted on my user page (not on my talk page):

keep the sollog page as stub it is not NPOV. All the kook and fbi and no followers stuff makes wiki look like a joke. Make it stub and do a serious section by section edit until you have a wiki article. That page as it was makes wiki look terrible. Be above Sollog's crew and do a short NPOV work.

I got a pretty good chuckle out of that, especially the exhortation to be above Sollog's crew, which simultaneously alleges that Sollog actually has a crew while displaying some remarkable insight into Sollog's standing as a reasonable contributor. --MarkSweep 18:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prepare to be Slashdotted

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/14/1732238&tid=95&tid=133

--MarkSweep 19:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- I imagine that /. serves up different ads for the same thread at different times, but when I visited that page I was served with this splendidly appropriate image. -- Hoary 01:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the anon had a point when he wrote that the current version of the article is biased. I understand very well that regular Wikipedia contributors are anti-Sollog and find it entertaining to ridicule someone whom they consider a complete fool but I think that Wikipedia is about excercising restraint. Andries 19:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty mellow. It says "Sollog claims..." then discusses why some people dispute the claims. What's wrong with that?A2Kafir 19:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Care to guess who our latest anonymous friend is and why He keeps deleting anything critical of Sollog? As was pointed out several times on this talk page, if there are verifiable, independent reports that are pro-Sollog, they should probably be included. The Philadelphia City Paper, the Washington Post, and even Usenet to a certain extent, are all verifiable sources. The assessment in those sources appears to be overwhelmingly skeptical at best, often crossing into ridicule. The article itself reflects that widespread skepticism, but should try to stay away from ridicule. IMHO the current version is the best in the short but dense history of this article, but could certainly be improved. If you have specific suggestions for improvement, by all means, list them here. --MarkSweep 19:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know my comments on this probably won't be taken seriously since I do not have an account here and could easily be another 'sockpuppet' - but I thought I'd take a moment and say something. First of all, while this is an article about a person it seems (in its current form) to have elements that are overly ad hominum. I think the article would be well served by forking into two seperate areas of debate. What I mean by this is that there should be a section on Sollog the man/god/fluffy bunny and a section about his purported psychic abilities/predictions/ideas. Simply because a person is bad or good doesn't make the ideas that come from them the same. If you fork the discussion in this way you will most likely be able to make clear factual statements about Sollog the person and his history, then have a seperate article about his beliefs and predictions (also forked into the skeptical and the true believers) 66.74.142.117 20:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)DrkNexus.

Ennis' prose easier to detect than that. It's not my impression that the article presents Ennis as good or bad. I do suspect, however, that any neutral description of his activities (forked or not) will inevitably describe things as the current article already does. Wyss 20:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those who think Wikipedia users are biased should read hostile media effect Mastgrr 20:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John P Ennis??

This guy's name is John P Ennis? Seriously? I bet he had a tough time at school... ;-) -- ChrisO 20:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis is a well-known Irish surname. [10] Wyss 20:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And Patrick is a well-known Irish Christian name, but using it as an initial before Ennis is, well, unfortunate... -- ChrisO 21:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That slapping sound you heard was my palm connecting with my forehead :) Wyss 21:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A frustrating youth is a possible and likely cause of later psychoses, I hope our frustrated friend Mr. Ennis at one point will be able to get the medical treatment he needs. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 21:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

where's the bias?

As an infrequent Wikipedia user, I stumbled into this off slashdot ( http://slashdot.org/ ) today. And while I don't want to get into too much of a fuss, I do have a few questions, mostly concerning TOH.

1. What is TOH i.e. what is 'Hayah, etc? 2. Why is Sollog (or Ennis or however he prefers to be called), and not God, revered as the Great Leader? From the way the article and this discussion have been going, it seems like TOH is a way for Sollog to garner more attention for himself. Again, I speak without knowing anything about the religion - and I'm curious to know more; I do not mean to offend.

I hope to learn about TOH and then make my opinions.

69.243.85.6 22:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bias in the Article

As an unbiased observer, I read the article and noticed a...slant against the supporters of Sollog and his ideas.

With that said, I purpose that Mr. Wales open an inquiry into what exactly should be added to this article, or rather what this article shall be.

I understand Mr./Ms. 65.34.173.202's slant toward Sollog, there appears to be a link between him and www.sollog.org.

I also understand Mr./Ms. Wyss's (Forgive the incorrect spelling, if it is indeed incorrect.) slant against Sollog.

Therefore, I think it would be fair to let them both submit their version of the article (Or if Mr. Wyss does not want to do it, someone else) via e-mail, or another form, to Mr. Wales, letting him merge the two versions. As a balance, I believe that both Mr./Ms. Wyss and Mr./Ms. 65.34.173.202 should post their versions of the article in this Discussion page, and have both locked in place, unalterable. This would allow the nuetrality of the article to be discussed and have it so one could not say that something was left out without proof of it, a paper trail if you will.

Both versions should follow the rules of Wikipedia, both will be merged together with the same neutrality. If Mr. Wales believes himself to be biased against Sollog, and the associated followers, he should select someone else to merge them. His bias would be evaluated by himself. If, after the final article is posted, there are still concerns over the nuetrality of the article, someone else, who is unfamiliar with this, shall merge them. By 'concerns', I believe that if 10 posters, ALL with unique addresses, and not in the same general geographic area, will warrant a new "merger".

That is my proposal. I hope it is, at the least, considered as a possible resolution to this conflict.

As a side note, which ONLY applies to the owner of wikipediasucks.com (And, at my request, should not be used against him/her): You registered the site under Coral Springs, ST. ST is not a state. I think you may want to change this back to where it truly is, which is still easily figured out.

Edit: You know what, I spent 30 minutes fleshing that idea out and I forget to add my User Name! But to be quite frank, I am still not sure how to do this, so here is my best shot.

Cheapy

I originally voted to delete the article, and would still do so. I had nothing to do with writing it, although I've done some research into Mr Ennis and participated at length in the discussion. Wyss 23:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While we appreciate the effort and enthusiasm that went into your proposal, we already have plenty of means for handling content disputes. Jimbo will not be participating in this process unless he wishes to, and if he does it will most likely be as merely another editor. He simply does not have the time to preside over every controversial article and that is just not the way wikipedia works.

What we could do, right here and now, without resorting to reinventing the wheel, is just some good old fashioned editing. Help us identifity specific problems and biased elements in the article and we can all work together to fashion a solution. Gamaliel 23:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is hard to narrow down the exact bias, I can see it, and I do recognize it, but putting it into words is harder. The best that I can come up with is that where as the pro-arguements are short, the arguements that 'attempt to shoot the pro-arguments full of holes' are much longer. Although I suppose specific examples of Sollog's correctedness could be seen as aligning itself with this religious belief (Note, I have not read the other Religious belief pages, so I do not know if aligning occurs there.)

Well, thanks for considering it!

Cheapy

I'm repeating myself here -- I've tried to make this point elsewhere on this cluttered talk page: IMHO an article that devotes 50% of its text to one side of the issue and 50% to the other side is not necessarily fair or balanced. If the real situation is such that most people view things one way and a minority has a diverging opinion, then a report that grossly overrepresents the minority view could be seen as distorted. That's not to say that the majority of people necessarily gets to dictate its views, since the inherent and/or empirical plausibility of a proposition has to be taken into account as well. In this case, Ennis's predictions are imprecise to the point that they have no serious empirical predictive power, they are only used to justify post hoc his claims that he was right all along, etc. So his position is inherently weak. Moreover, independent observers (on Usenet and in the newspaper articles referenced here) have uniformly dismissed his alleged psychic abilities. So both the evidence that we all can look at and published opinion don't support Ennis's claims; it's only Ennis and his sockpuppets who persistently assert that he has psychic powers. In this situation it would be blatantly unfair, IMHO, to devote too much attention to the guy. Bad analogy: would you expect a serious article on the concept of perpetual motion machines to devote as much space to people claiming to have invented such devices as it does to explaining why such machines are widely believed to be impossible? --MarkSweep 06:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

someone has set up this topic the bomb!

this topic is on its way to becoming news-of-the-weird-worthy. i'll buy an artifact of this religion to put next to my printed archive of john titor's futurehistory predictions, my ormus generator, my perpetual motion machine, and my collection of poorly translated japanese games. John P. Ennis is the Luke Stewart (of mediafusion fame) of today. he and "his followers" setting up numerous attack pages, reporting the wikipedia owner to the FBI for content he doesn't control, and giving and receiving accusations of "sock puppet armies" and persecution will keep my checking back on this every day. hell, i think i'll put this in the campus newspaper. keep it up! i know you guys can iron this out! edit: they're posting jim wales' phone number on their website, and telling their readers to call him to take this page down!! isn't that in violation of numerous anti-harassment laws? posted anonymously at 23:01, 14 Dec 2004 by 70.25.24.42

Wikipedia

Hmmm, I know that Wikipedia editors are loathe to mention wikipedia in wikipedia articles, but I think in this case, his article on Wikipedia was newsworthy enough to get a slashdot discussion... Don't you think that wikipedia and the slashdot article should be mentioned in the "Disputed following" and "External link" sections, respectively? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Probably not, considering it just happened. Perhaps after things cool down a bit, a simple link to the slashdot discussion would be suitable in the #External_links section. If it is deemed notable, it would probably be more suiting in the Wikipedia article than this one. --Alterego 23:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Already noted at slashdot effect. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:01, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

In case I forget

Based on the quote, "all life is part of God and therefore GOD," someone should add a link to list of people claiming to be deities in the see also section of this article once it us unprotected. --Alterego 23:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think a link to the list is justified. A link from the list already exist. If a category is made based on the list, then the article should be added. But as it is, the link is not very valuable, certainly not enough to waste space in see also, may be make a piped link on words such as "proclaiming that Sollog was God". But in any case, it doesn't seem very clear that he himself has claimed that he personally was god (claiming that "all life is god" is different). So may be he should even be removed from the list. Paranoid 23:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article now bears four citations to him making this claim. It's rather set in stone and verifiable.

"John Patrick Ennis; testified in court in Philadelphia in May 1996 that he was God. "...all life is part of God and therefore GOD"[11][12][13][14]"

I like your idea about placing these folks in the category. There are starting to be enough of them :) --Alterego 00:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minor editing change suggested

When the page is unprotected, please, someone change "Both Altman and Reich have contacted..." to "Altman and Reich have both contacted..." That would sound better, as there have been at least five individuals attacked by Sollog, but starting the sentence with "both" weakly implies that there's been two. Thanks. Paranoid 23:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand how the reader would get that impression since the same paragraph names five specific targets of harassment. Gamaliel 23:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

comment from someone new to wikipedia...

Hey Folks, I just wandered over from Slashdot and just want to tell you how refreshing it is to follow this discussion (it's also pretty damn funny, but I'm sure you're aware of that too!)

If I could vote, I would say do NOT delete the page. It is a sterling example of a measured, rational response to an irrational position. It is also a fascinating example of a COMMUNITY response to what is apparently one man's delusions.

/Hehe, just don't let OSF hear you say that. >> Seriously, and this is a little OT, has Wales done anything about the nonsense regarding his wife and children? If nothing else, that surely breaks some law somewhere.

- Ze Great Launchpad 04:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)/

Wikipedia rocks!

Terry

P.S. -- I apologize in advance if I'm breaking any wikipedia rules by posting this. Like I said, I've never been on before. Comment made at 01:26, 15 Dec 2004 by 66.63.141.30

No, it's fine. But do note that there's no question (other than in the mind of John P. Ennis) of deleting the article. There was such a debate (and I was among those supporting deletion in view of Ennis's lack of notability) but the decision was made to keep the article. You're very welcome to Wikipedia (as is anybody else who'd care to contribute); do please get yourself an ID, if only because it's harder for most people to remember IP numbers than IDs. -- Hoary 02:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV wording

I think that using the term "fans" for Sollog's supporters is rather POV. They should be called "supporters" or "followers" instead. -- Khym Chanur 04:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

The usage of "fan" where it would be more usual to use words such as the ones you suggested is an idiosyncracy of Sollog and/or his supporters (if indeed any truly exist). I guess that's something else that could be explained in the article... --Rlandmann 05:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: could you change this sentence

On the page now: "He operates a business known as Adoni Publishing, which sells his writing in ebook form, as well as CDs of music composed by him, and video material about him."

Could you please remove the last comma, changing the final phrase to read "as well as CDs of music composed by him and video material about him."

Better yet, strike the sentence and write: "He operates a business known as Adoni publishing selling ebooks of his writings, music CDs composed by him, and hagiographical videos."

In fact, you could probably assume that music implies CDs and leave the sentence as: "He operates a business known as Adoni publishing selling ebooks of his writings, music composed by him, and hagiographical videos."

add a link named "Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia" pointing to http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/14/1732238&tid=95&tid=133

The above was contributed by 24.196.82.211 at 04:21 GMT on 15 Dec., 2004.

Hey there -- antoher newbie to wikipedia over from slashdot. I just wanted to say I find your unbiased view particularly refreshing, and can see how hard you have all worked to maintain it. Just one suggestion --

The section entitled "Playing the odds" Is perhaps the one remaining baised section of the page. It makes a number of critical claims, and in my opinion, the title is implying that the predictions are not true -- while I agree with that, surely that counts as biased?

$0.02

203.10.111.38 04:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) ChinDoGu

Deistic Claims

What are the strengths of Sollog's claims to being deity. A quick read of what was posted in the main article and elsewhere leads me to believe that Sollog is no more claiming that he is god than the rest of us, and the world at large, is god. If that is the case this isn't too kooky of a kooky religious belief - see Thelema/Wicca and other New Age religions of the sort which are relitively mainstream.

As to 'neutrality' - perhaps it is best that one admits that neutrality is a myth. We all have our perceptions on the world and being such subjective beings destroys our ability to be objective/neutral.

This shouldn't be a huge debate. Part 1 - this is the man. Part 2 - this is what the man believes. Any negitive actions on the part of the man should be clearly referenced but not gone into at great length, as those writing them probably can't obtain objectivity on the point, as to what the man believes (e.g. in his oracular powers) let the true believers write it, and the skepitics should make a brief note HG2G style, 'of course many believe this is pure bs' ... and then post links to support that point of view. 66.74.142.117 07:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)DrkNexus

Sollog's spree

I’ve just reverted a Sollog posting spree that ran for 22 edits, including a lovingly detailed description of Altman's sex life and a signature of "fvckyou" with each post. I was content to let him have his fun until he started personally attacking specific wikipedians and then I decided enough was enough. If anyone besides Sollog thinks I've acted inappropriately by doing this they are free to restore his edits.

John wanted to bring to our attention the following links, so much so he posted them 19 times in 22 edits. Apparently they are google posts of some prophecies of his, and I don’t know why we can’t add them to the article when it is unprotected.

I would also ask John to restrain himself and play nicely. We are willing to listen to you provided you remain calm, post in an orderly fashion, and stop insulting people. Gamaliel 09:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For which purpose, he might restart the medication. Well, that's just a guess; I don't know that he needs medication; after all, I don't have videocameras in his house. Erm, I missed the "lovingly detailed description of Altman's sex life". (Presumably Mr Ennis has a videocamera in the journalist's bedroom.) Normally I wouldn't be interested, but now that (somewhere in the unintended humor of those 22 edits) I, Hoary, have (MMf!) been (snort!) recognized as Altman (wahaha) -- excuse me while I suppress my laughter -- I suppose the sex life described would allegedly be my own. Gamaliel, yes, I think Wikipedia might indeed post those two Google links; they reveal the true face of sollogy. -- Hoary 09:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"all pro sollog posts are sollog is a lie", and "wyss is harassing sollog," claims Sollog

Just look at the history page, someone removed 22 PRO Sollog posts and then claims that person is Sollog.

Readers are urged to look at the posts themselves via the page history. Wyss 11:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where's your PROOF?

Saying all the Sollog pro posts are Sollog is nothing but a LIE.

The suggestion is that they're all John P. Ennis, actually. Wyss 11:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You want to talk to Sollog's TOH members in almost every country in the world there's a CONTACT TOH MEMBERS in your country page at www.TempleOfHayah.com

In Sollog forums there are posts explaining how to use 'proxies' so peoples identities can be protected from hackers since wikipedia is publicly posting ip addresses of any Sollog fan or Toh member that posts here.

So due to the actions of wikipedia putting 'private' IP addresses into the public domain Sollog fans are all intentionally using proxies, for the most part. Some Sollog fans or members of TOH might be using their own IP's to post here. So for all these people to say there are no fans or members of TOH you are wrong.

Go email a Toh member in your country at http://www.templeofhayah.com and see how a real person in that country replies back to you.

How does Toh have members in most countries around the world if there are no members as you people claim.

Ennis asserts that having a form on a web page proves he has followers. Wyss 11:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are several Sollog and Toh forums where this page is being discussed, they all come with a WARNING that wikipedia is exposing private IP addresses to harass Toh members. Hackers can do a lot with an IP address, so why is wikipedia exposing all IP addresses of Toh members that post here.

The logic of the people here is wrong, they think because someone posts here about Sollog that is new they must be Sollog.

That is dumb logic.

Members of Toh have been told to post here, to protest the wrong info and the harassing info that is being posted here. They know to use a proxy since they don't need to have a private IP address posted here.

Notice how Ennis slips in his use of language... Members of Toh have been told to post here... not asked, or requested, or urged... but told. Wyss 11:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:67.15.54.16 09:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)i think wiki sucks

Interesting to see how the page you link to there has a forum... presumbaly for TOH members. More interesting to see that; a) it requres me to sign up and log on to even read the board )and presumbly keeps track of my IP if I do so); b) there is a whopping total of 29 memembers (for an international religous moment that ain't much); and c) there is but 20 articles. Oh, and the domain was registered on the 10th december 2004 - after things heated up here.

Interesting... makes one wonder about a few things =) WegianWarrior 11:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh my. You don't think... could it be... that wiki is dealing with an attack from the Sockpuppets of TOH? Wyss 11:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See how wiki is posting IPs

That's why this is a proxy.

And I'm not sollog and I find it harassing that all these IP's are being attributed to Sollog. That is a lie. Again, just email a TOH member at http://www.templeofhayah.com

User:67.15.54.16 09:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)stop posting IP's it's harassment

By making any edits to Wikipedia you agree to place your IP in the public domain on the history page. If you want to hide your own IP address, then you must create an account ('tis one of the reasons for doing so). If you don't like Wikipedia, don't use it. Estel (talk) 10:02, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well Mr-Ennis-using-67.15.54.16-for-a-change, could you explain the stylistic similarities among all the "contributions" made here by sollogites? They all look the same to me, and the same as what's written in for example this incitement to avoid payment of taxes, which says in part "GOD did also place the rule of Tithe on his believers, which means believers of GOD should give 10% of any earnings to GODS TEMPLE!" (idiosyncratic orthography in the original). Incidentally, I hope you don't mind my retitling the header; now it starts to make sense. -- Hoary 10:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Going by a quick glance at the page history, most of Ennis' posts (which he claims were from followers worldwide) came from IP 67.19.84.148. There are only two or three others, all in the US. Along with this, they seem to be uniformly signed with the same vulgar text handle (with unvarying spelling), and offer the same, long URLs with no mistakes or differences in format (never mind the identical syntax, punctuation and style). In one of these, Ennis claims this contributor is Jim Wales. Heh heh. Wyss 11:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hahaha hey wyss see what a public company did when a few Toh members complained about slash dot org, you ever hear of /. Org removing an article?

Ennis got confused when /. routinely backed the article off its front page, then claimed the article had been removed as a result of legal pressure he'd applied. Note how he projects his own personality onto his sockpuppets. Wyss 13:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Toh sites say huge class action coming to wikipedia and va software the public company that runs /.Org, you'll see Sollog in court wyss since you are going to have to defend you lies. haha 67.19.84.148 12:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)your worst nightmare and I'm not sollog and I know who most of the people posting here are. They are real people and toh members and they are pissed at wiki and all of you clowns. Now isn't that news that /.Org folded to the threat of a class action.

Flattery. Wyss 13:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow! That sure is news! I'm sure it's especially news to Slashdot, who are evidently unaware that they "folded to the threat of a class action", since they still have the story up, in the same place they have all the stories they put up that day. Gosh, I bet they'll be surprised when they find out how scared they were and how they took down the story, quaking from fear of the WRATH OF SOLLOG (but of course, "taking it down" in a way that means "treating it no differently from any other story.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slash Dot and Wikipedia named in Class Action

http://www.247news.net/2004/20041215-lnux.shtml

Where's the Slash Dot Org article?

GONE

Look at the edit above, see how wiki insists all posts are sollog and there are no toh members.

Wikipedia is on the way out of business, Sollog's lawyers are going after them along with a public company that rlandman conspired with to defame sollog and toh members

67.19.84.148 12:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)your worst nightmare

Well my post to Slashdot had to do with personality disorders and the B cluster of symptoms. Looks like we have a living breathing example -- gtoomey

Mr Ennis, old chap, if you were my "worst nightmare" the world would be a lovely place. No ozone depletion, no nuclear accidents, no melanoma, no mesothelioma, no AIDS, no Kim Jong-Il, no Karl Rove. That aside, we non-sollogites are all just dying to find out who these "lawyers" of yours are that are "going after" Wikipedia and "Slash Dot". (Is this the Twinkie charge?) -- Hoary 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog gets confused...

I hear that is a first, VA Software making slash dot org remove a libelous article.

Wake up Jimbo Wales a huge class action is gonna hit you real soon.

I'm not Sollog but I am a member of TOH

Remove the Sollog article or you'll be in court losing all you own. [67.19.84.148]

Comment provided by 67.19.84.148 12:46 GMT 15 Dec. 2004

What are you talking about? The article's right here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/14/1732238&tid=95&tid=133 - Evil saltine 12:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"God" probably confused Slashdot's normal operating procedure of moving old stories off the front page to "Yesterday's news" with an actual removal. -- Cyrius|✎ 12:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe he can't accept that he's yesterday's news. :) 14:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Get off his case, he only claims to be able to see the future. This inner eye obviously clouds his vision of the past, duh. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:44, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of confusion, yesterday Ennis' wikisucks site proclaimed, SLASHDOT ORG RULES (or something in that price range). Today it reads, Slash Dot Org & Wikipedia accused of Religious Hate Crimes. I haven't yet stooped to commenting on Ennis' predictive abilities, so I won't start now. Wyss 16:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TOH?

Under the Class action section of this article there is an un-wikified reference to TOH. What is this TOH and should it be documented somewhere on wiki?

Otherwise I think that without any sort of documentation or detail the class action section should be deleted or at least removed until papers are filed in some court somewhere real. PPI 13:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This isn't the article, it's the talk page. Wyss 13:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was written by "the contributor" that has continually blanked this page. It's not really worthy of mention. User:Estel (not signed in)

- I apologize for being unclear. I was reffering to the sollog article itself, but it appears someone has already removed the part I was talking about... Problem solved. PPI

I was just wondering how to frame the 247news.com link, given the somewhat disreputable apearance of the site's main page ("The 911 Warning - PROOF BUSH KNEW", "DEATH GALLERY - GROSS GROSS GROSS", "New Planet Discovered - Where Sollog Predicted", etc.) but someone's beaten me to it and just removed it. Probably the right thing, but is there any actual evidence linking 247news.com to Sollog himself? — PhilHibbs | talk 14:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

www.247news.net is registered to AIS, 4613 University Dr Number 311, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. This is the same registrant as sollog.com, wikipediasucks.com, the deathporn sites and so on. The news site uses html boilerplate similar to the others and of course the writing style and syntax problems are the same. Wyss 14:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed someone registered (and so sabotaged my plan to reg it myself and put mirror of this article there :) ) 'sollogsucks.com' .. the registrant has the same info as the one for the sites mentioned, however the last row of the address is 'Coral Springs, ST 33067' instead of 'Coral Springs, FL 33067' .. it's the divine syslog himself, or it's different person ? - JohnyDog 16:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Didn't someone comment earlier on some AIS websites being registered with "ST" as the state abbreviation? Inky 19:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My prediction has come true!

In the VfD voting for the Sollog article I made the following prediction on Dec. 9th:

Reluctant keep. I think the guy is a fraud, but I predict that this discussion has brought enough attention to the issue from conscientious editors to prevent it from becoming mere advertising for him in the long run. Fire Star 18:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since we have many inferences here that an even tangentially accurate prediction is evidence that one is a god, and I have made at least one prediction which has since apparently come true, I hereby proclaim my divine status. From now on, we would like you to address us as Syllog. Fire Star 13:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What a very great waste of time, as I had thought. --Wetman 14:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep. My opinion was, and still is, that a prolific spammer is not notable. Wyss 14:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me too, as the VfD page will reveal. I didn't fully understand what the phrase "oxygen of publicity" meant until I discovered J. P. Ennis. -- Hoary 14:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Court order to remove sollog article

http://www.templeofhayah.com/supremecouncil/decisions/wikipedia.pdf

Justice is swift within the SUPREME COUNCIL of TOH

There you go jimbo, your site was reviewed by the SC of TOH they found your site was libelous.

This truly horrifying contribution was anonymously made at 14:14, 15 Dec 2004 (Earthly time) by the divine 65.161.65.104

WARNING: the above PDF crashed Firefox when I tried to look at it. Approach with caution. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, looking at the file properties... Ennis is a Windows user... and this was done with Acrobat PDF Maker for Word... Wyss 20:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A lot of PDFs crash Firefox, especially when you try to close them. — PhilHibbs | talk 11:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And they say BJAODN is dead… &#0xfeff;--fvw * 14:16, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
That's nice. I just established the Supreme Divine Really Spiffy Court of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which declares that Sollog is a spammer and is not God. As such, we are ordering Sollog to stop spamming his sites on Wikipedia. Pakaran (ark a pan) 14:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think I have.......(*drum roll*)........the answer: Our friend Ennis needs slack. He should explore the Church of the SubGenius for his answers. He will find that Bob, indeed, loves us all.A2Kafir 15:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
...one hears the sputter of melting synapses. In the self-written "order", Ennis also asks for a million dollars from Wales. Wyss 14:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
O mighty Ennis, could you please summarize the judgement for us trembling mortals? (But make the summary really, really short. Three lines or fewer, OK? And go easy on the capitalization.) -- Hoary 14:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He's written a decree, replete with cheesy, cloned TOH logos, "ordering" wiki to delete the page and pay him a million dollars for offending his sockpuppets. Wyss 14:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. Stop wasting your time on this nutjob. Ignore him until (if!) he says anything that could be taken as relevant to the article. I won't start holding my breath now, mind you. You lot are just as bad in spamming the talk page. Wikipedia is not your private mock and ridicule forum any more than it's Sollog's press kit. We know the guy is stark ravingly mad. You don't need to confirm it every time he opens his mouth (if that is indeed the orifice his remarks originate from). If you are all really having far too good a time to stop, take it to another page or something. Talk pages are supposed to help us improve the article. I fail to see how any of this is helping. Oh, and just to really confirm I'm not a Sollog sockpuppet: I am Sollog. 201.7.98.147 14:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment The irony is, Ennis himself originated the article and wiki's editing process subsequently produced content he didn't want mirrored on hundreds of encyclopedia sites around the world. If he had refrained from the vandalism and made a polite request to delete the page, saying he had genuinely misunderstood wiki policy about self-promotion and advertising, the page likely would have been removed with little fuss. As it is now, the page will probably remain as long as there are wiki mirrors to carry it. Wyss 15:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to start a poll: Should the lowly Wikipedia community, as a sign of repentance, bestow a lifetime honorary BJAODN membership onto Mr Ennis AKA God? Please vote below "yes", "yes, and decorated with ad-hoc invented law court insignia", or "yes, and decorated with pornographic websites and whois queries". Thank you. Kosebamse 16:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oh man you made my day. Really! Citing my message on slashdot I wrote with so much love to Sollog (pronounce So Long, if no one made this pun yet) to discredit him as much as I can is like having a great massage: I can sleep in peace tonight. More seriously, I wonder if it is legal to post a phone number without the permission of the owner. I won't put any website here, but if I want to call Mr. Walles, I think I might have his (hint: TOH). You guys have any idea if it could be possible to have a REAL court order against TOH for this? Poltras 22:00, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  - By the way, fear the 1law. Look at the mailto: adress and you see 1ao. Damn he truly possess a lot of things. I have another question too: is TOH really registered as a religion (read sect... we're far from Amish)? If so, how can I make mine and get my god to beat Sollog? My God would be much cooler: a killer rabbit... Who's with me? Poltras 22:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

.... Man. You know, when I posted yesterday asking for more information about which legal body in which jurisdiction had supposedly issued an order to remove all Sollog-y content from Wikipedia, I only narrowly resisted a snarky comment about "Court orders originating in the sovereign nation of Sollogia does not count." Now it looks like, except for the name "Sollogia", I was correct. Maybe I'm a better prophet than Sollog, hey? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This still isn't as bad as Mr. Treason threatening to file treason charges against me in New Jersey state court. Well, maybe not. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's interesting that J.P.Ennis doesn't seem to quite know whom he is suing. The above linked PDF refers to a "Wikipedia Foundation" four times. Pakaran (ark a pan) 20:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, now the gig is up. We're just gona have to remove the article, aren't we ;) ? -- Ld 21:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt

I can understand all the sarcastic remarks and the sheer entertainment value of this topic for some readers. Heck, I never imagined it was possible to abuse a PDF as I have just seen done.

I can also sympathize with the "don't feed the trolls" remark above.

Were it not for extenuating circumstances, I would see this person's attack on Wikipedia as kind of par for the course, and defer to the mechanisms that are already at work here to deal with it.

But the extremely personal attack on the "sucks" web site (I won't link to it) against Jimbo Wales and his family should not be allowed to stand. Another user here has made a pretty good case that perhaps this article should not even link to the aforementioned site. I'm not sure if anything else can be done by an individual editor, other than make an offer to donate to a legal fund dedicated to defending against this personal attack should Jimbo choose to set one up.

In the meantime, this article can go a long ways towards exposing this person for what he is, and I congratulate the experienced Wikipedia editors who have tried to make lemonade out of a lemon under these circumstances.

Good luck.

— DV 15:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just want to point out that all of these silly games of name calling, deifying, court orders and jesterlike tom foolery go against all of the laws that members of TOH are supposed to follow. The biggest mistake I see in Sollog worship is stating that they following the 10 commandments, along with the rest of God's law as written by moses (and the book of leviticus I assume). If they do believe what is written in the Torah, they will see that they are all going to a very bad place, and they will also see that they are messing with a very vengeful God (this isn't the forgiving God that Jesus taught about, this is the God that killed first born sons, and inflicted the perfect with boils and famine). I am not religious at all, I just think its amusing that Sollog would affiliate himself with a God that will, if he exists, destroy him slowly for mocking him. --Slung 17:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had added the following comment just before the cutoff and archiving, so I don't know if it was of no interest, or just had bad timing. On the theory it might raise a couple of interesting aspects that are still not well covered, I've followed the suggestion of copying it over (with minor changes):

Not sure how to deal with this, being a newbie from /. with only a few Wikipedia contributions under my belt. Quite a bit to learn here... However, after looking over the article, this Talk discussion, and some related topics, I think three additional aspects should be addressed more directly:

How unintentionally funny these characters are. (Or does that mean I have a sick sense of humor?)
The harm they do to the SNR of the Web. (The de facto death of the newsgroups especially bothers me.)
What is to be done?

Shanen 01:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silly idea

Maybe we should nominate this to be a featured article, along with Nostradamus and others. Ennis would go nuts. But it might be more trouble than it's worth.A2Kafir 15:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the temptation to do that, but he doesn't seem notable to me. Wyss 16:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd shoot that down just on the ground that it would be advertising for Sollog. We can do better things with our FAs. That he has an article here is one thing (and he should actually be honored, but I can see why he disagrees :-) but let's not puff this windbag up even more than he himself already has. He's universally derided as a delusional monomaniac with an extremely unpleasant demeanor, but aside from himself nobody thinks he's actually important or anything. Not too many centuries ago, this wacko would have been filed away under "harmful to the community, do not suffer a God to live". In these enlightened times, we no longer ostracize people just for being abrasive, abusive, self-aggrandizing kooks who make a living begging for whatever scraps society's overhead throws at them, but that doesn't mean we should plaster them on front pages of popular websites either. 203.127.188.131 16:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well said. It was just a dumb idea I had. But, by the will of Sollog, I have come to the decision that it isn't a good one.......A2Kafir 16:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Skepdic link

I've removed the link to The Skeptic's Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com/). It's a great site, but unless I'm missing something, it has nothing about Sollog. The alphabetical index has no entry for Sollog, Temple of Hayah, TOH, or John P. Ennis. Using the search function for any of these names turns up what appear to be three passing references on a Brazilian edition of the site; although I don't read Portuguese, nothing there looks like it's worth linking to. (The article on Nostradamus at http://www.skepdic.com/brazil/nostradamus.html contains a link to http://skepdic.com/sollog.html but there's no page there. Perhaps Sollog's legal threats succeeded in intimidating the site owner into removing an article.) Finally, the entry concerning oracles refers to the general tactic of making vague predictions to increase the chance of a hit, but we've covered that in the article. JamesMLane 17:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I put it back, because it works for me when I click on it (it's all about Sollog). Wyss 17:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... there may have been a duplicate of a generic link to skepdic, which you removed... anyway whatever we both did, it seems to be ok now. Sorry if I caused any confusion. Wyss 17:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the link to The Skeptic's Dictionary, but what you've inserted is a link to Skeptic News. I don't know whether there's any relationship between the sites. At any rate, I have no problem with the Skeptic News link, which is indeed, as described in the article, a debunking of Sollog's alleged shuttle disaster prediction. JamesMLane 18:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Skepdic article that peeves Ennis so much was removed along with the whole personalities section. Perhaps Carroll couldn't stand all the kook email in his inbox. Anyway, it *is* available on Usenet. So if you want to see what provoked a previous meltdown, read this [15].

Gammy's revision

I'm on a WikiBreak, I'm not editing here, really I'm not... I just wanted to remark that Gamaliel's refactoring of the alt.usenet.kooks stuff into the predictions section is brilliant. I should have thought of that, it fits like a glove. JRM 20:46, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

PS. maybe Mark should refactor the talk page again. :-) At the very least we could consider archiving some old stuff, as it's getting very long. JRM 20:46, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

PPS. Rlandmann, you put this on Slashdot?! Argh. I don't know whether it reflects well or badly on Wikipedia... hmm. :-) JRM 20:46, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

PPPS. I wasn't here. JRM 20:46, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Re "refactoring": It's a major undertaking. Clearly lots of stuff could simply be removed from the live talk page: mocking Ennis is not particularly new or helpful when it comes to improving the article itself. At the very least, we could archive the current page somewhere, since it's already 159kB in size. Is there a standard procedure for that? There is already a page Talk:Sollog/archive1 from before the last major refactoring. Would someone care to do that? Like JRM, I'm taking a break from actively editing here, at least until the slashdotting is over. --MarkSweep 21:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. And now I'm really off. :-) JRM 21:08, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

I'm off too! Wyss 21:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be careful

It turns out that Sollog has a serious criminal record, including convictions for assault (see the new "Criminal Record" section of the article). I think we need to be careful here - if individuals get threats from him, I suggest that it should be reported to the police. -- ChrisO 21:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad that section was finally added - we should not give in to his threats. - Ld 21:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPoV. Wyss 21:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are our sources for the record? Make sure we get it right....A2Kafir 22:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Philly City Paper: http://www.citypaper.net/articles/050996/article016.shtml . -- ChrisO 22:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The pro-Sollog types keep referring to a federal court case "96CV 1499", which supposedly disproves all the claims about his criminal record. Anyone know how to dig that up, if it exists? --Carnildo 23:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's in the style of a federal district court docket number for a civil case. Even though it's not a criminal case, the file might have information about a litigant's criminal record. The trouble is that every district in the country probably had a civil case number 1499 filed in 1996. You'd have to know which district it was. Then you could go to the office of the Clerk of the Court and ask to examine the file. (There are services that will do this for a fee.) It's probably old enough that the clerk would have to pull it from storage, and if the storage is off-site you might be told to come back in a few days. JamesMLane 00:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks JML. I was hoping something would be available on Lexis, but I guess that was wishful thinking. Gamaliel 00:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A quick Google search indicates that it's probably the Eastern Pennsylvania district. Searching that site's archives for 1996 gives no sign of the case. There might be something on PACER -- it's noted as going back to 1990 -- but I didn't check. --Carnildo 01:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While the above info is gleaned from an early Altman article all the facts are false. The US government did its best to arrest and harass Sollog in 1995. He was detained over the OK City bombing and he was arrested for threatening the US President. Now you need to present the outcome of all that legal activity.

1. Ennis was not wanted in AZ and he produced a fax from discovery he got when he sued over the false arrest. The fax is an exhibit in case 96CV 1499 and is directly mentioned in the complaint.

2. The Secret Service arrest was dismissed, but Ennis put the document from the case into 1499 that he admitted he wrote, said document warned Clinton to stay away from Jackson Holy WY or a plane crash would occur. In the summer of 1996 a presidental support plane did crash.

3. The DUI was overturned on several points.

In summary the AZ warrant was bogus, the SS arrest was dismissed and all you have now is a 20 year old DUI that was overturned.

Best to leave out the arrest bs since it is not what Sollog is known for.

He's a famous psychic and founder of a religious movement.

Let's see Bush and Cheney both have DUI's that weren't over turned.

Is that info on their pages?

(posted by 212.160.132.1)

See George W. Bush#Personal life, service, and education (seventh paragraph); Dick Cheney#Education (second paragraph). Both articles have had this information since before the Sollog article was even created. JamesMLane 00:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That, and Bush/Cheney to my knowledge have not proclaimed themeselves deities. Crimes that deities have committed should be public knowledge. And remember children, sign your name to the things that you write! --Iosif 01:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring again

This page is now clearly too long and needs another refactoring. Since it's now 162 kb long, that's not a trivial task. The last refactoring was substantially assisted by one of the anon contributors posting a list of what he saw as issues that still needed addressing. As a prelude to refactoring, then, I'm asking what (if anything) do people here feel we still need to cover to improve the article? --Rlandmann 23:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Barcodes?

Right now the article suggests that Sollog is very much opposed to barcodes and any other sort of numerical code in any way representing or being associated with him or his ideas. It states plainly that Sollog is so opposed to numerical codes that he has even refused to use the ISBN codes on his books. However, the article also says that Sollog is associated with several websites and much of his work is distrubted online. These two views seem to be contradictory. As everyone knows, every website is assoicated with a numerical code (IP address). The article should address this inconsistency. Acaides 23:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's common knowledge that everyone's physical place of being resides on some sort of a longitudinal and latitudinal intersection; a precise number that can be easily tracked by the beast. We're fucked. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 23:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- But do IP addresses represent the number 666? See Conspiracy theory#Barcodes for more on this odd belief. -- ChrisO 00:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Do barcodes or ISBN lables really represent the number 666? Acaides 20:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - There are two "barcode conspiracies". One is that ISBN codes (and possibly other barcodes) are related to the Mark of the Beast. The other is that the barcodes on the backs of street signs are secret instructions for the upcoming takeover of the United States by UN forces. It's up to you to decide which, if either, you feel is correct. --Carnildo 20:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      - This is all very interesting, but it dosent resolve the glaring contradiction of rejecting barcodes because they use numbers (in some satanic way) while simultaneously embracing a system based entirely upon numerical representation of information(which could just as easily be satanic). Acaides 02:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's declare victory and go home

"I AM NOT a sock puppet! I am your GOD!! Bow before me or be sued!!
And there are no infidel tanks in Baghdad! Never! The infidels are being roasted as we speak!

I note that of 22.40 UTC, Dec. 15, there have been over 180 edits to this article since its protected status was revoked on Dec. 10. As stated in the VfD discussion, this is pretty much what I and several others feared would happen: that Sollog and his "followers" would use it as an excuse to conduct a flamewar/harassment campaign on Wikipedia. The article needs to be protected again, indefinitely.

Conducting battle with Sollog is like poking a puff adder with a stick: it's fun at first, but it quickly devolves into a pointless waste of time and energy. Let Sollog and his Holy (Wholly?) Sock Puppet Army post all the nonsense and abuse that they like for a time on this talk page (the administrators can remove anything too abusive). My prediction is that if they meet with little or no further response, they will eventually wander off and find more promising targets for their spleen. I can understand the reluctance in protecting an article, but I cannot see a realistic alternative here. This was fun for awhile, but it's time to turn to more worthy subjects.

PS: Mom says to stop playing with that damned snake and get your butt home. Dinner's ready.

PPS: None of the above should be interpreted as my dismissing the seriousness of any threats, stalking or other forms of personal intimidation or assault that Sollog may be guilty of. If indeed this has happened, I absolutely agree with ChrisO-- report it to the police immediately! Edeans 23:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Victory" is when an article is perfect, and no longer edited because no-one can see a way of improving it. It is not achieved when we decide that the article looks "good enough for a topic the likes of Sollog" and lock it down indefinitely. Some people, of their own free will, decide to devote time and effort to it. You'll notice that a good deal of those 180 edits were by legitimate contributors improving the article. We should not compromise on our standards and policies. Not for Sollog, not for anyone. You are free to turn to more worthy subjects. Nobody's forcing you to watch this. If Sollog threatens the Wikipedia in any meaningful way (see above), we should just come down on him like a ton of bricks, not adapt the wiki to his behaviour to be "realistic". I can be very real if I want to. :-) 82.92.119.11 00:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS. Something has gone horribly wrong in archiving this. It's now 507 KB long and seems to contain duplicates. Pasted to the wrong page? 82.92.119.11 00:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I see it, there are still two things that need to be checked out: the 96CV 1499 court case, and what happened with the Philadeplhia DUI, assault, etc. case. --Carnildo 01:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on checking out the "96 CV 1499" case. What one of the TOH posts said about it was: "1. Ennis was not wanted in AZ and he produced a fax from discovery he got when he sued over the false arrest. The fax is an exhibit in case 96CV 1499 and is directly mentioned in the complaint." My inferences are: (1) The reference is to a paper Ennis submitted, not to a judicial decision, so it's very unlikely that a copy would be available anywhere online (I don't think any court scans the thousands of pages of litigant submissions to put them online). (2) Even if you went to the Clerk's office and saw a dead-tree copy, you would be looking at a paper submitted by Ennis, apparently consisting of a photocopy of a fax from an unspecified person. Fine, it's "directly mentioned in the complaint", but a lot of outright balderdash gets directly mentioned in complaints. An individual doesn't give any special status to a document of unknown provenance by attaching it to or mentioning it in a complaint. Looking at the paper in the court files wouldn't answer the question whether Ennis himself had forged it shortly before filing it. If someone wants us to modify the paragraph about Arizona, it would be useful to identify what's allegedly wrong, what the truth of the matter is, and what source provided the facts and the fax (Arizona State Police or whatever). JamesMLane 01:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there anyone here with access to something like lexus nexus that can look up the court case? A simple google of the case brings up nothing but "sollog" owned links. — Slung 02:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello Slung. I searched Lexis Nexus for 'Sollog' and '96 CV 1499' and "John P Ennis", firstly only in the state of Pennsylvania. Only result was for a graphic image of a guy named "Adam Sollog." Then I searched news sources in the NE in general, and the only thing I get is "John P. Ennis, doing business as Ennis Flower Shoppe,104 Argonne Drive, Syracuse, by the State Tax Commissionn $2,279." I searched Google for the court case and all I get is "Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the menu at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility is not sufficient to support his Eighth Amendment claim." I also searched the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's online database. There is a guy named "John P. Ennis" who went to court in 1996 and 1990. click here to see. That's all I can offer in just a few minutes. --Alterego 03:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 1990 case appears to be a lawsuit against Ennis stemming from the DUI where he lost by not showing up in court. --Carnildo 05:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything under that docket(?) number on http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/ – note that the numbers there are typically given in the format "96-CV-1499". There are two scanned pages of a criminal complaint against Ennis listed here on Ennis's own site; however, this case does not appear to be directly related, it's a criminal complaint against Ennis for making threats against the president. --MarkSweep 03:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A google search on 96CV 1499 brings up Ennis links where he claims all sorts of fascinating things are part of that filing, but mainly what I'm interested in is whether or not the case existed in the first place. --Carnildo 05:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This might prove an interesting point of departure: http://www.citypaper.net/articles/050996/article016.shtml Sjc 20:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This guy is hilarious

There really needs to be some kind of Andy Kauffman award that Sollog can win.

Or am I not supposed to tell people that I know that it is a very elaborate and hilarious joke because I'd be ruining it for others? Micah 01:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, I've been wondering myself if we've all been had by a Drunken Master of Troll-Style Kung-Fu. However, trolls generally operate asymmetrically, by generating as much controversy with as little effort as possible: a few sweeping generalizations here, a few heretic remarks there, occasionally fanning the flames, etc. But the stubborn persistence of this guy combined with his sheer inability to comprehend that there is a diversity of views out there tells me that he's no troll. During a recent spate of activity, he must have driven from his house to a local Kinko's and then to a Starbucks to do his sockpuppetry; he has spend a fair amount of time, effort, and money posting from different IPs to both WP and Slashdot, setting up a hate site, even acquiring domains like "sollogsucks.com" before anyone else could use them against him, etc. Would an ordinary troll go to such lengths? The high art of trolling is to use your trolling powers subtly, so that people get sucked into a flamewar without ever realizing they've been trolled. This guy is definitely not lazy, and he has the subtlety of an enraged two-year-old. --MarkSweep 05:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think he has been up to his own thing for a while, but saw Wikipedia as a way to draw a lot of attention to his sites. When you sit down and look at his books/movies, they are hollow shells, not the rantings of an authentic nut. I think this guy is really funny, and he is good at getting people going. If the new entry about his convictions are true, then I guess it could be the real deal, but all of this seems far too good to be true.Micah 03:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I doubt he's a troll of any sort. The reason he doesn't sound like most ranting nuts is because most ranting nuts suffer from schizophrenia, which tends to produce a very distinctive writing style; see timecube.com for a classic example. Further:

John P. Ennis does seem to be his legal name - a number of court documents refer to him by it.
Someone trolling or going for attention usually won't risk going to prison for assaulting a police officer; the Philadelphia court circus he put on in 1996 was a virtual guarentee of that happening.
Getting the personal attention of the Secret Service for threatening the President is a Bad Thing. Most people try to avoid it.

--Carnildo 05:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Move

I made the decision to move the article. It was clearly biased against this man. ~~I find that continuously referring to him by a pseudonym he doesn't wish to be called is very POV~~, and have also changed most references of Sollog to Ennis. --Alterego 04:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the article was biased against him, but I like a lot of your changes (without having examined all of them). Ennis, or close imitations thereof, are most insistent that he should be called "Sollog", so I'm puzzled by your rationale for retitling the article. (And, while I don't dispute your right to retitle it, I'm surprised that you didn't first suggest it and ask for comments.) There are some good grounds for retitling it, but if it's retitled then I wonder why "Patrick" is spelled out; he seems to be referred to as John P. Ennis much more often. -- Hoary 04:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Hoary. I wanted to see a swift turnaround in the article so I went ahead and made a few choices. I think the quality has improved greatly. If someone else accords that 'John P. Ennis' is a better title, I invite them to go ahead and make the move. I am, though, against having the main article titled Sollog. --Alterego 04:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why are you against the article being named Sollog? That is the name under which he is most famous. As Hoary pointed out, Sollog is not a "pseudonym he doesn't wish to be called". (By the way, good recent work on the article!) --Dbenbenn 04:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since Sollog is the name by which this person is most famous, it's the one that's most consistent with our naming policies. cf Ringo Starr, Malcolm X, Madonna, Mata Hari and many many more I'm sure... I strongly feel that the article should be moved back. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, it's Ennis' original name that the purported Sollog followers find offensive - "they" insist that he be referred to as Sollog. --Rlandmann 05:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to stand my ground in the face of several wikipedians. Majority rules when it comes to my peers! Suffice it to say, though, that I am highly skeptical and worried about this article. I have seen that users have been handing out barnstars congratulating its quality, when the state it was in was a completely biased joke. Intended to make this man look like a joke. It needs to be written in a method that allows readers to make up their own minds without making suggestions. The controversy is amplified by the fact that Wikipedia is now involved, and I think we need to step as far away from it as possible. --Alterego 05:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that the article was intended to make Ennis look like a joke. I do, however, regard him as a joke, though a tedious one. (I voted to delete the article on the grounds of the lack of notability of its subject matter. He's merely spammed himself into minor notoriety.) My reason for having the article titled (some form of) "Ennis" rather than "Sollog" is that the sollogites, or "fans" (as they have termed themselves) of "Sollog" --- or (judging by idiolect, etc.) more likely just Ennis himself -- have claimed that "Sollog" has various other noms de guerre. It seems odd to talk of pseudonyms of a pseudonym, better to have the article (if it must exist at all) under "Ellis" and have "Sollog" point to it. Incidentally, this talk of "legal name" at the top reminds me: I'm not familiar with US law about names, but wouldn't an actual (as opposed to merely imagined) change of legal name be a matter of public record? -- Hoary 05:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A bit of poking around.....it might be that the act of changing your name may be public record, but not the actual new name. --Alterego 05:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with the main title of the article either way. If there is a consensus to move it back, so be it. I've tried to look for a precedent of someone who has used multiple aliases or who has used aliases for deceptive purposes, but then realized that this doesn't apply here: we have no evidence that the name "Sollog" is used in a deceptive manner, and it appears to be the most widely used of the many alises that Ennis has allegedly employed. I don't quite agree with Alterego's assessment of the previous state of the article (Alterego's contributions are clearly a welcome improvement, this is not meant as a criticism): do we have an obligation to make someone appear more serious than he does himself? I'm quite aware that my views are generally skeptical, but many of Sollog's claim would appear dubious to any reasonable person. Do we then have an obligation to hide deficiencies and treat them as more serious than they actually are? If Ennis makes himself look like a joke to a reasonable person, should we pretend otherwise? I don't think we can easily skirt the issue. --MarkSweep 05:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rlandmann, I want to also point out that when you introduced him to Slashdot, you did it with his real name first: "John Patrick Ennis, whose nutty predictions as Sollog (Son of Light, Light of God) are familiar to many usenetters, may have bitten off more than he could chew when he picked Wikipedia as his latest vehicle for spamvertising". --Alterego 05:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, but this is not Slashdot. Different choice of words for different purposes, circumstances, and audience. --Rlandmann 07:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article should be called Sollog. A) He's famous (to whatever degree he has fame) under that name; B) He seems to reject the use of his given name, so I think that it could be seen as POV to call him that. Everyking 06:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some possible objection (I'm not endorsing these, just bringing them up for discussion): The current article talks about "legal problems" – those are the problems of John P. Ennis, not of his Sollog persona. If this is an article about Ennis, the inclusion of Ennis's legal problems seems more on topic. Re (B), he also rejects a lot of other views and opinions, yet despite his efforts they are included in the article. Ennis might disagree, but it's not slanderous to call someone by their actual name, is it? --MarkSweep 06:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am strongly against this move. John P. Ellis is some insignificant Philadelphian. Sollog is how he is known and why he is notable. I'm with Rlandmann: Mark Twain, not Samuel Clemens, Ringo Starr, not Richard Starkey, etc. Gamaliel 07:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With apologies to our dear W.S. of famous memory:

What's Sollog? It is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O! Be some other name:

What's in a name? That which we call tripe

By any other name would stink as strong;

So Sollog would, were he not Sollog call'd.

Edeans 08:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments on some issues above:

Article name: It should be the name by which the subject is most widely known -- here, "Sollog". Redirects at John P. Ennis and John Patrick Ennis. ~~Disambiguation at Fruitcake.~~
Ennis name change(s): Whether or not he got a court order changing his name, and whether or not he used still other names, wouldn't affect the foregoing rule. (Incidentally, in most U.S. jurisdictions a formal name-change procedure is available but not required. You can just start using a new name if you aren't using it for deceptive purposes. Of course, you might have trouble with things like cashing checks payable to your new name.)
Ennis's legal problems and personal preferences: These also don't affect the naming conventions. Legal issues were about this one person, even though in different contexts he's used different names, so they all go in the one article. William Sydney Porter's conviction for embezzlement is noted in the O. Henry article. The bio subject's preferences are immaterial. Our primary duty is to our readers. We put the article where they're most likely to look for it.
Bias: People skeptical of Sollog have been contributing. The TOH-initiated changes have been so absurd as to constitute vandalism. When all the people who are actually editing are on one side, some bias naturally results. Alas, I haven't seen evidence that anyone from TOH is willing to participate in constructive editing. I don't think the article was "a joke" before, however.
Deletion: Yes, maintaining the article has been a hassle, but it may turn out to be worth the effort if the big splash on Slashdot brings in even one new steady Wikipedian.

JamesMLane 07:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've taken a break, but as someone who has come to know something about this Sollog character and participated in these discussions, I have some comments. I think the article (if it is kept at all) should be named Sollog, with a redirect from John P Ennis. This individual is a prolific spammer with cold reading, deathporn, auction and personal "art" sites of little or no documented notability. He has a somewhat serious criminal record (whatever the details) and a long history of sockpuppetry, sysop bans, hollow legal threats and vandalism. He has been a subject of ridicule on the Internet for years. I still believe a wiki article was never justified, but if there must be an article it should clearly reflect these aspects of his background. Finally, as for the barnstars, I gave these out to a few people not for a completed article, but for the worthy efforts they made and as tokens of the "wiki rapport" we'd developed. I gave one to Wales for other, similarly appropriate reasons. Don't fuck with my barnstars! :) Thank you all, and please... keep up the wonderful work you're doing, not only on this sad story, but on our beloved wiki! Wyss 09:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion since the Slashdot posting and I have to agree that the article should be named Sollog. As much as I would love to see the fits the sockpuppets would throw by naming it John P. Ennis it doesn't make sense. Those few that do know him know him as Sollog, and this is the, for lack of a better word, character that the article is truly based on. DasAlbatross 14:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems that most people are for the article title "Sollog". I'm going to move it back though I'll wait a while in case anyone else wants to register their opinion here. Gamaliel 21:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV/NPOV

I do, however, regard him as a joke,
John P. Ellis is some insignificant Philadelphian.
"I still believe a wiki article was never justified"

There have been a few level-headed posts here but these do not help. I would appreciate if any wikipedians having a conflict of interest would not participate in the situation as you are only adding POV. --Alterego 15:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If Alterego believes this writer has a conflict of interest, he's cordially invited to describe it plainly. Wyss 15:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I simply dug through the comments and grabbed the few things that had stuck out at me. This means that your words were speaking for themselves. I would not be concerned about someone having a bias against someone if it weren't the case that this article was very biased yesterday, and still is. And the fact that there were virtual pats on the back being passed around. And the fact that there are probably 50-100 wikipedians with this article on their watchlist, and even with the frequent edits no one was taking the time to remove the most painful and glaring POV from it. The first time I read it I nearly shit my pants. The tone of "fans," the playfulness of "fallen afoul of the law," completely unfounded claims such as him suing his attorney (still haven't seen a cite for that one), 'putative' following, as if Wikipedia has some vested interest in that claim; complete sections turned straight away against him. I made an attempt to clean this article up by giving it an hour of my life. I don't think anyone who is on this talk page and is ragging him needs to be helping with the article right now. It is a conflict of interest, especially considering the publicity and self-referrential nature. --Alterego 16:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Sorry to interject, Gamaliel.) Alterego, I'd like to respond to a few of your points above.

"fans". It seems that Sollog's followers themselves [sic] use the word "fans". There's nothing wrong with followers, but fans isn't just a POV derogation as you seem to think.
I think "fallen afoul of the law" was more neutral than "broken the law". The first doesn't imply he actually committed a crime, merely that he was on the business end of legal proceedings.
"suing his attorney". See [16], which is referenced one sentence later in the article. It actually only says he "threatened [his defence attorney] with a lawsuit".

--Dbenbenn 17:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've said plenty of unflattering things about Sollog. "John P. Ellis is some insignificant Philadelphian." is not one of them, it's a plain statement of fact. Ellis is insignificant, as are both you and I, when it comes to encyclopedic notability. Sollog is what is significant about Ellis, which was the point I was clearly making. This is the talk page, not the article, and no one is served if we all hide our dislike and pretend it doesn't exist. We do dislike him, and why shouldn't we? For one thing, he's insulted most of us personally; to me he threatened to "stick my Doc Martens up your faggot ass" or something equally charming like that. But, as all good wikipedians, our duty is to put aside our POV and work on an article, not to pretend we never had a POV in the first place so we have a neat and tidy talk page. Have we failed to present a fully NPOV article? Yes, in places, we have, which is why editors with a fresh perspective like you are useful to this article. What is not useful is an editor telling us we aren't smiling enough when we're being insulted by a lunatic pornorgrapher who thinks he's God. Gamaliel 16:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gamaliel - I'd like to second every one of the thoughts in that remark.

I too will freely admit that on occasions, the personal feelings that most of us have developed towards Ennis (most particularly after his phone and web attacks on our beloved God-King) have bled through into the article. Thanks, Alterego, for showing us POV that our collective blindspots have hidden from us.

At the same time, while I'm sure you didn't mean to insult any of us, I for one feel a bit miffed that you'd dismiss our efforts here as "a joke" when I think that a number of wikipedians have fought very hard to bite our tongues (fingers?) in the article and preserve neutrality. You can probably get a sense of that by comparing our comments on this talk page (and elsewhere) to what actually went into the article itself. I think that each one of us has caught and reverted something POV by one of our colleagues over the past ten days.

Can it be further NPOVed? Perhaps, although the reactions that the article has generated from outside commentators on Slashdot and usenet tend towards suggesting that Ennis' treatment has been more than fair. IMHO, it's important to keep in mind that an over-zealous approach to NPOV can lead to distortions of its own. Like the other "first wave" editors, though, I'm more than willing to step back now and let fresh eyes look it over. --Rlandmann 00:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego is pasting quotes from a talk page, out of context, as tacit examples of conflict of interest, without specifying what that conflict of interest might be. This writer, aside from trying to make technical corrections to a couple of URLs, has had nothing to do with the writing of the article but did hours of research and contributed to its discussion on these pages. I'd politely suggest that Alterego "needs" to keep in mind that the article is the unfinished artifact of a vandalism war conducted by a known spammer with a criminal record who attempted to use wikipedia as an advertising platform for cold reading and deathporn. That's not PoV, that's documented fact. Regarding any "virtual backpatting", it's really none of Alterego's business if wikipedians decide to say nice things to each other from time to time. Wyss 17:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I want to note that many of the problems Alterego noted and corrected are from the "Criminal history" section. If I read the edit history correctly, this section was new and only in the article for four hours when he started making his edits. I don't think the problems of this new section should be held against all of us collectively as some of the people Alterego is criticizing hadn't even read the section before it was edited by him. Gamaliel 17:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I am really not interested in arguing with each one of you, and you are free to refute my points. It doesn't change the bigger picture. A Wikipedia user who has edited this article posted it to Slashdot, and freely expressed his opinion concerning Ennis. This invited thousands of people here to edit it, several of them commenting and ridiculing him on this talk page. As a matter of fact, this talk page is full of negative comments towards Ennis from Wikipedia users. Some of these Wikipedia users are still in active dialog with Ennis, who is actively trying to mold the article towards his POV. In result, Wikipedians crafted sections of the article intended to make Ennis look bad. Perhaps, though, it wasn't an intention (as was claimed above). If that is the case then those sections were born of unconscious bias against him. If you happpen to be one of the users who the picture I just painted applys to, I am really not interested in arguing with you specifically. I am simply here pointing out the fact that this article is a joke. It doesn't need to be deleted, but certainly rewriting it from it's state at Jimbo's last edit wouldn't be a bad idea. Removing biased words and phrases out of statements, paragraphs, and sections written from the point of view of that bias does not completely remove the tone. I'm really tired of talking about this, and I hope one of you is able to take a step back from your microscope and see this for the circus it is. --Alterego 19:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is a joke. I can see Sollog emailing the article to major media starting to use Wikipedia as a source saying WTF are doing using Wikipedia. Look at this article. This article makes Wiki look very bad. Mediadog 02:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Some observers would assert that Mediadog is John P. Ennis) Wyss 05:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

this article is a joke... er... wait a sec, isn't that the sort of language you cited above as indicative of bias and conflict of interest? Wyss 20:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like I sayd, Wyss, I am not interested in arguing petty specifics with you. --Alterego 20:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. If the specifics are so petty and uninteresting to you, then I assume I can similarly interpret any remarks you based on them. Thanks. Wyss 21:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did we collectively go a bit overboard in some places in the article? Yes. Should that bias be corrected? Yes. Let's see, someone posts a long section and four hours later another editor corrects it and makes it more NPOV. That doesn't sound like a joke, that sounds like wikipedia functioning exactly as intended.

If you are not interested in arguing about this, why are you posting here at all? The talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not for you to lecture everyone and congratulate yourself on your neutrality. Gamaliel 21:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Folks, please. Alterego's contributions to the article have all been useful, and it's good that someone with a fresh perspective has decided to join in. Of course many people on this talk page are biased, partly because Ennis decided early on to make this personal and has singled out several editors for insults and ad hominem attacks; the remarks about JW's family are particularly revolting. Still, we all have to assume good faith. The people who edited the article before Alterego arrived were doing their best to work on it in the face of escalating vandalism. Alterego, you should allow for the possibility that each one of the editors is a reasonable person, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, and will eventually realize which claims are too POV, perhaps after a cooling-down period. The collective nerves are already inflamed, and saying things like "this article was a joke" is probably not helpful, though I too will assume that you're acting in good faith and that you're probably right. But don't you think your latest remarks could indicate that you're getting a bit stressed out yourself? Gamaliel is right: if you don't want to argue specifics, what else is there to argue about? I suggest we all take a deap breath, count to 2048, and then continue working on improving the article. --MarkSweep 22:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are three quotations at the top of this section. I don't believe I said the second, but I pretty much agree with it. I'm not sure that the third is in my words, but I've said much the same thing and it may well me a quotation from me. (More specifically, I don't think that minor notoriety via spamming, threats, etc., justifies a Wikipedia article.) And it was certainly I who said the first of the three. Yes, the "Sollog" persona is (to me) a joke. Yet the claims made for "Sollog" have never caused me to laugh; I've seldom even smiled. There are, of course, different meanings of "joke". An extreme illustration: I suspect that, if asked, the writers of the article North Korea would say that the use of "Democratic" and "People's" in the name "DPRK" is a joke -- yet they have created a good article. (Meanwhile, Ennis isn't a joke; he's just rather sad. Or so I tentatively infer.) So while I take no offense at criticism (or even condemnation) of my statements in this discussion area (not in the article), I'm not the slightest bit apologetic about them. I've never thought that I should have the last word on "Sollog" or attempted to do this; I don't think I've ever felt or expressed hostility to anybody who'd care to present "Sollog" in a better light via reasonable argument or explanation (as opposed to exclamations), and I have no conflict of interest here: all in all I see no reason why I shouldn't participate. As it happens, I'm moving out of arguments on the non-issue of "Sollog", but this is simply because (a) I'm busy with other matters and (b) the novelty value of "Sollog" has worn off for me. -- Hoary 02:49, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Unfortunate naming

While perusing the Philly court archives for more material, I stumbled across someone who simply must be related to Sollog. If you think being named "John P. Ennis" is bad, consider going through life as Lolita Ennis. --67.160.57.80 06:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is John P.Ennis really his name? Come on now....

That's why I wanted to see some court records -- with a name like that, there was a sizable chance that this was all just some elaborate hoax. --Carnildo 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit weird. Wyss 20:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...however, I did lots of further checking yesterday and couldn't turn up a hint of any other name (although I did find a couple more interesting URLs which have already gotten installed in the article). Furthermore, F cam's summary of Ennis' lawsuits against the US government (below, which appear to have both been dismissed contrary to Ennis' intimations), refer to him as John Ennis and ENNIS. Throw in that middle initial and it doesn't take much imagination to understand why he might have issues with it. Wyss 18:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

We're being set up

Muslim Scholar embraces Sollog's Book Jesus Is Not God

Muslim Scholar Ibrahim B. Syed PHd has embraced Sollog's book "Jesus Is Not God - The Biblical Truth" [17]. Dr. Syed supports Sollog claim that Jesus cannot be God since Jesus claimed "My father is greater than I". [18]

Selawj 18:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not quite, but he quotes our friend on a page about declining readership of the bible. Wyss 19:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... irfi.org (the page's address) is on a server in the ~~Dallas~~ Houston TX USA area but there doesn't appear a domain record of it... could be forged. Wyss 23:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Syed is a Clinical Professor of Medicine (Medical Physics and Nuclear Cardiology) at the University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky. He also writes articles about Islam and is a volunteer Muslim chaplain at many Kentucy prisons. Wyss 01:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Syed was born in India. He's an enthusiastic and prolific booster of Islam in the states and has hardly "embraced" Sollog's book. It looks to me as though he might have run across it on the Internet and quoted it without understanding the qualifications or background of its author. Wyss 01:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Islam as a whole considers that Jesus was just a human prophet , I don't see how a Muslim saying "Jesus is not God" is worthy of attention F cam 20:35, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. This has all the symptoms of someone pressed for time who quickly searches the Internet for a fit-to-order quote without doing a jot of due diligence on the source. I suspect Ennis ran across the citation during a vanity Google session, heart pitter patter. A cautionary tale, that. Wyss 21:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a2kafir "censoring" important sollog info

Look at history page, a2kafir is censoring important Sollog info about connection to terrorists and muslim scholars. While most of you may think discussion 20 year old minor crimes like a dui, the truth is muslim scholars are embracing sollog's views and he has a clear connection to osama saince al-qaida is striking on key dates in his writings. Censor 12kafir and put important info about sollog's terrorist and muslim connections. All you have done is refer over and over to howard altman articles who by the way professes to have mossad connections. My posts referred to major articles by a muslim scholar, the NY Times, Der Spiegel and other major resources. It seems this site only wants insignificant rants by people like howard altman. You cry out that no one takes Sollog seriously, yet when you post such serious matters you censor it.

Sollog is a terrorist, he is connected to Atta and Osama. Expose sollog for what he is, an evil terrorist

Selawj 18:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your assertions that he is a terrorist or associates with terrorists are not fact and shot not be listed as such. If you have proof of him associating with terrorist please feel free to share it. Also, having connections to muslim scholars by no means makes one a terrorist.--DasAlbatross 18:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page asserts he was reported to the FBI for terrorist threats. I have linked to pages claiming he and Mohammed Atta the mastermind of 911 both lived in Coral Springs. How does someone give exact info about 911 that lives where Atta does not be a terrorist? So it's okay for the article to link to biased rants by Altman, but pointing to articles about Atta and Sollog connection are wrong? The fact that both Atta and Sollog lived in Coral Springs is inportant known fact of people interested in Sollog story. The fact Muslim scholars openly embrace his religious views is important. That is unless this site just wants to have an attack piece on Sollog and not significant information about how he is preceived by Muslim scholars and how there is known connection between Sollog and Atta. There is no serious discussion here of the known Sollog hit on 911. The reason he hit this is he lived in Coral Springs where Atta lived. Many have noted that fact. Dozens of pages exist on the Net and Usenet about the Atta/Sollog/Coral Sprints connection. Yet that isn't provable? But, you post to allegations of pornography crimes and DUI's babased on one reporter who has an obvious hatred of Sollog? Selawj 18:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it weird that this newbie Selawj has a similar writing style to Ennis and his merry band of sockpuppets? This saga gets odder all the time.A2Kafir 18:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So anyone putting important Sollog terrorist information into this article is Sollog? Sollog is a known terrorist.Selawj 18:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, whether you're a sockpuppet or not aside, links to usenet groups and personal web pages do not count as citations. His arrests and criminal history are a matter of public record. If you can come up with something other than opinion then perhaps your points can be considered.--DasAlbatross 19:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Public record is PACER 96CV1499 it explains there was not AZ Warrant. The source for the false info is Altman, whereas the public record explains no warrant from AZ was there.Selawj 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

96CV 1499? This is the same document that contains a warning of the Oklahoma City bombing, Princess Diana's death, a "proof" of UFOs, warnings of the September 11 attacks, the non-existance of the USA as a nation in 2001, the school shooting "Line of Death", and presumably many similar things? --Carnildo 19:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~~Sollog~~ er, Selawj seems rather familiar with Ennis' legal troubles. Wyss 20:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It took me a paragraph or so to start hearing the familiar beat and mildly dyslexic cadence. At first, I thought the syntax might very well be that of an educated Arab speaking English as a second language. Also, note that Selawj has phonetic similarities to Sollog, who can't resist using exotic sounding names for his sockpuppets. This is a clever move, trying to stir up more publicity for the deathporn by starting rumours of a connection between Ennis and Atta. Where's the evidence? Wyss 19:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog uses coral springs for his office address. Atta lived in Coral Springs. Do you deny atta was known to live in coral springs? Do you deny Sollog.com is registered to coral springs?Selawj 19:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh. I see. So, like, Barbara Streisand and Larry Hagman both live in Malibu CA, so that means they're involved together in a conspiracy to... ? Wyss 19:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I have the sneaking suspicion that he is trying to get something which could be considered libelous on the article so that he can come back with another sock puppet and scream about legal action.--DasAlbatross 19:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, in that Ennis is likely to take any opportunity he can find to influence the article's content or circumstances to his advantage. Wyss 19:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem quite possible that this is Sollog or a Sollogite (are there any?) trying to set Wikipedia up for a libel suit, or at least impugning WP's reputation by injecting false information. I've removed from this page Selawj/Sollog's repost of the content deleted from the article. -- ChrisO 19:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read up on borderline personality disorder. It wouldn't be surprising at all if Ennis tried to post slanderous information via a sockpuppet and then came back to harass WP about it. --MarkSweep 20:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a few words on personality disorders here the other day, and using the same username on Slashdot as well. There are plenty of PD symptoms here but the same holds true for other cranks/trolls. They can be ruthlessly manipulative & devious so exercise caution. Gtoomey 23:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gtoomey. I read your Slashdot post, and fully agree with your assessment and warnings. I was merely practicing some random folk-psychology, I don't really know what I'm talking about. However, it's clear that our friend has tried just about anything: first, more or less playing by the rules; but then, when he couldn't get his way, vandalism; using sock puppets to create the illusion of broad-based support; profanity and vile personal attacks; potentially harassing phone calls; hate web sites; producing his own "court order"; threatening to sue in US courts, and threatening to report WP to the FBI; perhaps posting deliberately false and slanderous information via a sockpuppet, maybe to point a finger at WP to shame us into giving in; allegations of "hate crimes" and slander; cleverly adopting WP terminology and procedures, talking about "bias" and "POV" in the article that should get "corrected"; arguing that editors who have opposed him in the past should be banned; etc. It almost seems that nothing is off limits and the end of pushing his POV justifies any means necessary to accomplish that. --MarkSweep 08:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it weird that this newbie Selawj has a name that when reversed spells J Wales? Many of his sockpuppet's names have this reverse spelling characteristic.

Read a vivid exchange wherein a Sollog sockpuppet is unmasked at The Domain Name Forum Wyss 20:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog Atta Connection

This info is being censored all over the net. http://web.archive.org/web/20040307062958/http://rulestheweb.com/sollog It is now only in the archive. Why?

More on Sollog/Atta http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.terrorism.world-trade-center/msg/dd4274923c436b3f==Sollog Atta Connection==

This info is being censored all over the net. http://web.archive.org/web/20040307062958/http://rulestheweb.com/sollog It is now only in the archive. Why?

More on Sollog/Atta http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.terrorism.world-trade-center/msg/dd4274923c436b3f

More http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/ce8a05f0e0c43800

PS Sollog Sucks

This classic bit of Ennis-style expletive was posted anonymously by 68.39.54.129, from behind a firewall on a server controlled by Comcast in Philadelphia. Comcast IPs have been used in the past by Sollog sockpuppets. Wyss 20:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding changing one's name to God

There has been legal precedent. Formerly Charles Haffey, a man now named "I Am Who I Am," was denied the right, in a florida court of law, to have his name changed to "God"[19]. Changing your name is different in every jurisdiction, however, for the most part you can Simply change your name--no legalities required--so long as you are not using the duality as a means to escape legal responsibility. In some states you are required to submit a public notice announcing the name change. Of course, having a religious name is protected under the law so long as it is being used in that sense. I know folks who have completely stopped using their birth name and changed it to their religious name officially in a court of law. As a matter of hearsay and trivia, the cheapest court to have your name changed in may be Washington state, where it should run you about 70 bucks. From what I see on the SSA website, legally changing your name is very easy in every way.

I don't see a specific citation, but I know the Beltway Snipers wrote on tarot cards that they were God. According to this metafilter posting (cnn) they were also denied the right to be called God in another florida court of law.

Perhaps this information is helpful, or perhaps it is just trivia :) --Alterego 20:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I should mention, if someone does get their name legally changed, it is a matter of public record. Someone in philadelphia could go to the courthouse and pull records for John P. Ennis, in theory. --Alterego 21:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just use Pacer and see Sollog aka GOD vs USA Et Al Eastern District PA case 96cv-1499

The case is 2:96-cv-01499-SD ENNIS v. USA, et al. Wyss 20:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An open letter to Sollog

Hey, buddy, come on. We out number you, and your sockpuppets. We can play this game much longer than you, and we can work in shifts too. You have to sleep. You'll never get this to have your POV, as Wikipedia strives for the NPOV. All you're doing is wasting your time.

Don't you have followers or something?

This approach had been tried alreay during an earlier vandalism spree. Keep in mind that we're potentially dealing with someone with narcissistic/borderline personality disorder, so ordinary standards of boredom, civility, sense of purpose, etc. may not apply. --MarkSweep 21:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Its pointless trying to reason. He'll be manic about the publicity he's getting and anxious that he cant control anything. I mentioned an ongoing distortion campaign in my Slashdot post a few days ago. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132750&cid=11090407 Gtoomey 02:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a borderline disorder :) ? The usual pattern is for him to go into a meltdown for a few days and then disappear in a huff for weeks. The outbursts are unpredictable, but may occur when his mania, narcissism and a messianic complex are in 'conjunction'. That or a lack of medication. I suggest you'll never get rid of him, no matter what course of action you take. But locking this article and throttling contributions from open proxies or new users would be one straightforward way to limit the vandalism. --Cchunder 10:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Internet is replete with examples of forum denizens attempting to reason with this person. The past is no guarantee of the future, but it can be a useful indicator of probabilities: IMHO a rational exchange with Sollog/Ennis is highly unlikely. Wyss 22:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm the original poster of the open letter. I really should register.. but I don't have too much time to get involved deeply in this. I suspect Wyss or Mark.. you'll be better served calling for a vote of protection on the page.. let it stay there a few weeks..

These anonymous posts were contributed by a user at 4.37.66.133, [20] via a server in Chicago USA for which there appears to be no domain record. This is the same user who reverted a spree of Sollog vandalism on this page about two minutes after it occurred, earlier this evening. Wyss 23:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be me. I am NOT Sollog, but a humble programmer who was bored and came over from Slashdot. I noticed he was hitting the page again, and reverted. Redcard 23:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here come the Feds!

Sollog is now spamming Usenet claiming that "WINKIPEDIA [sic] SPREADING LIES AGAIN" and that "WIKIPEDIA & SLASHDOT.ORG BEING INVESTIGATED BY FBI" (he seems to have an aversion to verbs). Usenet doesn't seem to be buying it [21]. So if the gentlemen from the FBI run across this thread, welcome to Winki, er, Wikipedia... ;-) -- ChrisO 23:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Translation of Spiegel Article

At last, the Spiegel article about Sollog (along with a picture of Howard Altman). This is a translation from German, so when reading the Altman quotes bear in mind they went from English to German and back again. Wyss 00:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://xinoehpoel.united.net.kg/xinoehpoel/xin-news_spiegelde.htm

Sollog article is a Joke & Wyss chats with Ennis

Sollog article is a Joke

That is the opinion of one of your own long term members. Do you think any encyclopedia in the world has anything like this article in it? It and this talk page is nothing but an attack and laugh at Sollog page. What is a joke is there are Toh members, how do you think they feel they way you are treating Sollog and saying they don't exist? You all think Sollog did this or that. Prove it.

What is wrong with this article?

1. Sollog is known as Sollog not John Ennis not Sollog Immaneul et al, not God. Sollog is known to many as Sollog. Calling him John Ennis is like calling Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay. It is obvious most of you were not taught to 'repect' everyones religious belief. So what if Sollog wants to think he and everyone else is God? So what. Does that give you the right to slander him and his belief? Do you really think all the Sollog posts in usenet are Sollog? Respect to Sollog should be shown in that his name is Sollog, that is how he is know to many. Yes his birth name was John Ennis, does he use it at all today? No. Calling someones religious name a pen name shows no respect. So the beginning of the article needs to be changed. Sollog full religious name Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni, birth name John Ennis.

2. The next line should be what is he known for. He's a. A psychic/prophet b. His prophecies are well known on the Net (he appears in most directories as a known psychic or mystic if you research him without bias 3. He has authored a large amount of books, someone here made a big deal they don't have ISBN's, so what. Someone else found out why that is, Sollog's religious beliefs think ISBN and bar coding is connected to biblical prophecy about 666, guess what he isn't the only person with that opinion. So once again religious ignorance and bias has shown through the article. No one knows how many companies have published what of Sollog since he makes it a point to keep ISBN's off his work. At least he practices what he believes.

3. TOH, it is a religious movement, who knows how many belong. Does it matter? Do you think if Sollog and say 5 people show up in a court room complaining about what went on here it would mean more to the court than if 1000 showed up, or 1 Million. The courts will treat TOH as a belief no matter how few there are or how many. Religious freedom is one of the rights courts bend over for. So this site should also respect the right of anyone to be Toh or any belief.

4. A serious review of the major Sollog prophecies is needed, if you can't accept the fact he has had some uncanny hits than you shouldn't be editing this article. The fact is he did have hits. The fact is he was detained after the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact is the US Government arrested him over his prophecies and the judge explained in the court record in very strong words to the US prosecutor that what Sollog writes as a prophet is a protected religious freedom and not a threat and if he saw Sollog in his court again he would have the prosecutors arrested for harassing Sollog. Why do I know that? I've seen most of the transcripts of various Sollog court cases. The Federal courts treated him with great respect. I think the same should be done here.

If you have seen these transcripts could you tell others where to find them? it would be most helpful. As for the hits, it's rather likely that they'll happen if you are loose enough about numbers and the specifics. For the madrid bombings Sollog gives 9 separate dates, and 9 possible events. If you assume that 50 of these events happen a year (vast underestimate, according to [22] there were 193 acts of international terrorism in 2003 and that the list of events includes hurricanes and earthquakes, but lets assume that we only look at the bigger ones), and that the events are independant and spread uniformly throughout the year (untrue for hurricanes, but probably ok for the rest), the probability that none of them happen on any of the listed 9 dates after 3 years is only 2%F cam 02:25, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

5. A bibliography is needed.

6. Some note of some of the arrests of Sollog is perhaps needed, however, is a 20 year old DUI a big deal? The fact the US Secret Service arrested him is a big deal, the fact they were admonished in open court by the Judge and had to withdraw the case is a big deal. Making this arrest material a big deal is a sure way to turn the article into a joke. Sollog isn't known for what he did 25 or 20 years ago. He's known for what he has done publicly since 1995.

7. Usenet, well this page and the article is resembling Usenet, it's a joke.

Mediadog 01:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you're such a long-term member, why is this your very first contribution? And why is its syntax so similar to Sollog and his sockpuppet legion?A2Kafir 01:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And to address point 3: since when is insulting religion illegal? Some people make careers of it.A2Kafir 01:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do an analysis of what Sollog has written. Have you read any of his books. Show a similarity to any posts here. Do you think you are an expert on syntax? The same old lie, everyone pro-Sollog is Sollog. Get a life and answer the charges. As has been pointed out by a long term member (not me see above complaints calling this article a joke) Mediadog 01:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediadog is not a ~~registered~~ long term wiki user. Wyss 01:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and dog is god spelled backwards. Hi Ennis :). How's tricks? Wyss 01:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More lies, everyone is not Sollog. So all the people using dog in handle (a common slang word today) is Sollog? Why don't you answer the charges, one of your main members above called this article a 'joke'. And all you do is more look it has to be Sollog crap. Mediadog 01:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True. I'm sure not Sollog. Anyway, sure, the dog in the handle's no biggie. Hey John, I was wondering, why do you keep showing up here as a sockpuppet when everyone knows it's you? I'll bet if you just came out and said, "ok, ok, fuck it, this is the big guy, why are you guys raggin' on me all the time?"... we might actually open up, like, a frickin dialog with you. How 'bout it? Wyss 01:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No matter how much you write John or Sollog, those are not my names. Why are you calling me John if you think I'm Sollog? Would you call Muhammad Ali Cassius? You like insulting peoples religion. Look in the mirror and all you will find is hate. When you die I hope you have to explain to God why you attacked Sollog like this. Mediadog 02:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dude, when I'm facing God after I die, Sollog will be the LAST thing on my mind. And I'm guessing God won't bring you up, either.A2Kafir 02:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said several days ago, Muhammed Ali is not a sockpuppet. Have you forgotten? Oh John, let's get past all this shit and get down to it. You say you're God, I say you're a deathporn dealer. Is there really any difference at all between the two? Wyss 02:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dang, I lost him. Do ya think maybe he skipped class the day they covered elenchos? ;) Wyss 02:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, for all it's worth, at least now he's posting in a semi-coherent manner using real sentences. -- Ld 02:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediadog (whose contributions have all been to this one article) writes: TOH, it is a religious movement, who knows how many belong. Does it matter? I don't think anybody would worry much if it were a question of whether there were (a) 20 or (b) 40 members. But can you demonstrate that it has any members at all? Does it have any buildings for meetings? Have there been any conferences? Have there been TV interviews with members who weren't John P. Ennis? (Incidentally, could you contribute any photo of Ennis for this article?) -- Hoary 03:37, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

You need to research something before you open your mouth. You're the person that said there were no Sollog books due to lack of ISBN's. Now that someone else posted to an article explaining why that is do you still think there are no books? What about www.1ebooks.com/sollog did you download the samples? Do they exist? Why no images of Sollog? Or do you insist on being a jerk by calling someone by a birth name when they desire you to call them by their religious name. Do you call Ali by Cassius still? You need to look in the mirror and see the evil littler person you are. You are doing nothing but trying to harass Sollog and members of Toh, you disgust me. You want to talk to a member of Toh go to their site and look for the contact Toh members in your area page. They have thousands of members all over the world. I know quite a few of them. You are so ignorant with your questions, if you researched the belief all your answers would be answered. Go to a synagogue and take a picture of Moses, and then post it here. Then go to a Mosque and take a photo of Mohammed. Then post it here. Go ahead. Guess what there are no images of either Moses or Mohammed from their time for the same reason images of Sollog are prohibited. It's a religious law, NO IMAGES OF GOD OR THE PROPHETS ARE ALLOWED. Don't you just hate such ignorance.Mediadog 04:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Guess what there are no images of either Moses or Mohammed from their time...". Um, Mr. Ennis, what kind of camera equipment was around in the time of Moses? I'm guessing that 40 years of wandering the desert left little opportunity for Polaroids. And it is written that Mohammed couldn't get his hands on that nice Nikon he always wanted......A2Kafir 14:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note, the display of any likeness of the prophet Mohammed is considered blasphemy by even most moderate Muslims (this is one reason why Hollywood has never made a bio-pic on the subject- its mere existence would severely alienate a huge swath of the target audience, and worse). Further, displaying likenesses of Moses and Jesus has either been banned or quite controversial across various periods, groups and regions throughout Judeo-Christian history. Essentially, Ennis cites theological precedent as the reason why there don't seem to be any photos of him available. Seems to me there must be at least four or five mug shots held by scattered police forces (and of course, the FBI). Wyss 14:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there has been a movie made about Muhammad[23]. They got around the problem of images of the prophet and Allah being blasphemy by having the movie take place from Muhammad's point of view and representing Allah as a light.--DasAlbatross 17:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediadog, old chap, I was attempting some research. Since you write in the same style as Ellis, you're probably him and can supply some info. But rather than answering questions, you're wittering on about how I might gaze at myself in a mirror, etc. Since two parts of what you write do seem to make sense, I'll address them. (1) ISBN and the genuineness of books I didn't say that the lack of ISBN numbers implied that there were no Sollog books. Instead, I pointed out that no normal retailer appeared to sell any, and none among a small number of very large libraries whose catalogues I checked stocked any. Somebody else then suggested the existence of an ISBN as a criterion for a book. I may or may not have commented on this; I did point out that ISBNs weren't limited to works printed on paper. In response to an objection from you writing in a different (but similarly transparent) guise, I pointed out that the publishers of religious works (e.g. the Q'uran) routinely obtained ISBNs for them. (2) Ali:Clay/Sollog:Ennis Ali/Clay is well known, Sollog/Ennis is not. Ali is almost universally referred to as Ali, Sollog/Ennis/etc is perhaps more often referred to as Sollog than as Ennis but there's no great imbalance. -- Hoary 06:17, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Just call him what the Federal courts say his legal name is. GOD Let's see Google says 17,400 Sollog pages (fans of Sollog LOOK 147 Sol's birtday again) and then there's John Patrick Ennis only 300 pages http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22john+patrick+ennis%22&btnG=Search

Note, the federal courts called him John Ennis, with an "aka Sollog Immanuel Adonai God" tacked on. Wyss 18:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

His 'prophecies' certainly are well known on the net, since they are easily the worst, vaguest, lamest, demonstrably wrong of any at the moment. How's the Pope doing? Oh that's right he's still not dead despite Sollog reeling off multiple dates. What about those GAMES OF DEATH in Athens? Yup such a terrible waste of life. Or the SATANIC SACRIFICE of Elizabeth Smart? It must be news to her. Or Bill Clinton dying in office? Ah yes, the nation mourned. Or all those US cities GUARANTEED to be destroyed by 2001? Only now we're picking up the pieces. Or that ever changing wibbly wobbly LINE OF DEATH? Or all those GREAT HURRICANES that never destroyed any cities? Better luck next time.

These prophecies have been seriously reviewed and then seriously laughed at.

As for the TOH being a religious movement - one person and a bunch of socks does not a movement make. I don't suppose the TOH celebrates the "Feast of Maximum Occupancy" by any chance does it? --Cchunder 10:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ban wyss for vandalism

Do not maliciously alter other people's comments, blank the page, etc. This is considered vandalism and will be reverted.

He's altering my posts. Mediadog 04:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just altered this very post of yours, but merely in order to save space. Which alteration by Wyss are you referring to? (An alteration on this page or in the article? And at what time?) -- Hoary 04:13, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Face it, anyone that wants to see what you did to this page can look it up in history. This page says NO ALTERING OTHER PEOPLES POSTS, you did and you should be banned from this article, you are biased and harassing anyone who posts positively about Sollog. Mediadog 04:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm hereby altering this last post of yours, removing a line break in order to make the argument (such as it is) easer to follow. That's the extent of the alteration. To the best of my understanding, there's nothing destructive about such behavior, let alone anything that would prompt being banned from Wikipedia. (I haven't heard of people being banned from a specific article.) Right, Mediadog, you seemed to imply that Wyss had maliciously altered your posts. Sure, anybody can look things up. But there have been many edits? Why should anyone hunt among them for the edit that may or may not be the one that you find offensive? If you think an edit is so offensive that you want its perpetrator to be banned for having made it, surely you can summon the energy to tell us which edit it was. So: which post, and when? Please either (a) explain what you mean lucidly or (b) stop banging on about it. -- Hoary 06:03, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

So adding false info about a conversation with Sollog isn't editing someones work? How much time have you spent editing out what Sollog fans have posted? I guess your time isn't worth too much since you're working for free here to harass and defame Sollog and his members. 82.201.187.136

My time, user of 82.201.187.136 (whose only contributions have been Ennis/Sollog-related), is indeed not worth so little that I'm going to dig around in the history to find what "Mediadog" might be referring to. Mediadog seemed to imply that Wyss had maliciously altered Mediadog's comments. I made the mistake of taking this complaint seriously, asking for the specifics. None were forthcoming. Mediadog and you are just wasting time. Since you ask, I've spent little time removing material posted by "Sollog fans" (more likely Sollog/Ennis); I've spent a lot more time identifying material to which they/he lazily/hurriedly forgot to append ~~~(~). Thank you for your recent additions. -- Hoary 11:58, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

"false info about a conversation"? I suppose that this false info is claiming that Mediadog is in fact Ennis? If so, he put this info into the section header, and since he didn't do it in such a way as to be putting words into Mediagod's mouth, I hardly think it can be considered malicious. If Mediadog had put up a section title of "I, Mediadog, am not Ennis", and Wyss had altered it to read "I, Mediadog, am Ennis", then that would be malicious; what Wyss did is not. -- Khym Chanur 00:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the only ways in which Wyss has altered Mediadog's talk posts is to add "& Wyss chats with Ennis" to the end of "Sollog article is a Joke" section header, and to change the indentation level of one of Mediadog's comments so that following the flow of conversation would be easier. The rule that you quoted says "Do not maliciously alter other people's comments", and neither of those things is malicious. Or, if somehow they are malicious, then you'd better ban me too, because I just changed the indentation of several of your comments (and also the indentation of Hoary's comments). -- Khym Chanur 00:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I put maliciously in there precisely for this reason, to allow for reasonable modifications of unreasonable posts, correcting someone else's typos, removal of personal attacks as stated as part of the larger set of rules, etc. As far as I can tell, Wyss has not done anything that would be against the letter or spirit of the rules. --MarkSweep 00:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Members of TOH that were banned

A long term member from Australia A member from the UK A member from Canada A member from California A member from Illinois A member from Florida

That's six different members of TOH that I personally know who were banned here.

You want PROOF there are any Toh members? Just click on the contact a member in your area link on the Toh contact page. You can email real Toh members around the world. Contact page is in Forum at http://www.templeofhayah.com under International TOH section. comment by Mediadog at 04:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) temporarily interrupted

Looks like you forgot to put that link in, John. I guess that's understandable, what with so many AIS deathporn sites to update... wiki articles to vandalize... decrees to write. Anyway, there is no International TOH section at http://www.templeofhayah.com. At least, there wasn't when I posted this ;) Wyss 04:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contact page is in Forum at http://www.templeofhayah.com under International TOH section. What part of that didn't you understand? IN FORUM under INTERNATIONAL TOH SECTION. Are you banned at TOH? Are you a member of TOH? Only TOH members can read the Forum. So looks like you have to JOIN Toh to read the info. Here is direct link, but you have to JOIN Toh to view it http://www.templeofhayah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16

Comment... Yes. Ennis has finally remembered to add it. Wyss 13:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment continued: Just run a trace on some of the banned IP's here, let's see there's Canada, the UK, Australia, the United States. IP's from around the world banned because they support Sollog. There is a huge class action lawsuit being prepared by Toh lawyers against this site and the public company that runs /.Org, VA Software trading as LNUX. http://www.247news.net/2004/20041215-lnux.shtml Mediadog 04:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That might mean that Ennis has supporters in the named countries, or it might mean that he knows how to find and use open proxies. There's no way to be sure. —No-One Jones 06:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a heads up in case you weren't aware, we all know that 247news.net is a Ennis controlled/written site.--DasAlbatross 14:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In case you missed it, a ~~sock puppet~~ person writing in the inimitable style of John P. Ennis has recently been defacing user pages with messages such as (formatted less wastefully): The Sollog page was ORDERED to be REMOVED due to HATE CRIMES / http://www.templeofhayah.com/supremecouncil/decisions/wikipedia-hatecrimes.pdf / Anyone disobeying this order will end up charged with HATE CRIMES. Just one problem with this is that no credible evidence has been presented for the claim that anybody other than Ennis (and perhaps his wife) believes that "TOH", or its "supreme council", numbers anybody beside Ennis (and perhaps his wife). So all this means is "Ennis is unhappy", which is already known. Here, Mr Ennis, is another opportunity for you to provide evidence that "TOH" etc. exist other than merely in your imagination (and perhaps that of your wife). Do its members regularly meet somewhere? If so, where? Have they had occasional meetings? Can you specify any news stories reporting on encounters with "TOH" members other than yourself? If you can't, then I'd advocate changing Ennis is the founder of Temple of 'Hayah (TOH) to Ennis vigorously publicizes the fiction of a "Temple of 'Hayah" ("TOH") or similar. -- Hoary 02:17, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

The only TOHs in play here are the ones on the ends of the editors' feet... ;-) -- ChrisO 02:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Propose major edit of arrest section

The arrest section is 1. too much info it makes article look like attack 2. has false info

You can read a real court record on the AZ warrant via PACER, the case is 96CV 1499, in the complaint Sollog explains how the Secret Service was faxed a letter by AZ saying they did not want Sollog/Ennis. As much as some of you won't want to admit it, that is the public record and one of the main reasons Sollog sued the US government for false arrest. So all the stuff about AZ has to be dropped, it's simply not true. Also, your only source is Altman, I've provided a real public record that explains the whole thing.

Another thing that has to be taken out is all the stuff about reporting Sollog to the FBI by Altman, so what. If he did anything wrong he would have been arrested. Anyone can say they reported someone to the FBI. Look members of Toh are reporting Wiki to the FBI, so what. Real news moves on charges or filings. Reports are reports anyone can say someone did something. So, to make this look like a real encyclopedia article stick to facts like if Sollog was charged with such threats by FBI and if he was convicted. In this case neither happened so the charges were ungrounded by Altman which speaks volumes to his credibility.

I will be the first one to admit the Secret Service did arrest Sollog in 1995. What was the disposition? Case withdrawn right after rabin was assassinated. How about this, SS arrested Sollog FACT (there are scans of the case on sites) then FACT it was withdrawn after rabin was assassinated then a link to the court transcripts where Sollog mentions how a world leader would die on 11/3 (rabin was assassinated on 11/4 the so called Sollog one day off code).

Yes there was a significant arrest threatening the US President. There is also an exhibit from the case, the document Sollog released to the media warning Clinton to never fly back to Jackson Hole Wyoming or a plane crash would occur. That is a major part of the arrest story to fans of Sollog. It was why he was arrested for warning Clinton to not fly again to Jackson Hole. Then we can link to news accounts how one year later a presidential support plane crashed when Clinton flew back to Jackson Hole.

As to the DUI thing, it is the least significant part of Sollog arrests, it was the only conviction for something that happened almost 20 years ago. You can look up state statues in PA it says the state has 5 years only to convict for a crime other than murder. I don't think a 20 year DUI that was overturned is news. It makes the article look weak. I didn't want to rip apart what is there now without people agreeing it was excessive and biased.

The above unsigned section was contributed by Mediadog at 05:26 GMT on Dec. 17th, 2004.

I've looked up the case on pacer, where it is listed as 2:96-cv-01499-SD ENNIS v. USA, et al. So much for his legal name being god (although Sollog Immanuel Adonai God is listed as an alias). There is another case (2:96-cv-03168-JP ENNIS v. UNITED STATES, et al), I'm not quite sure what the relationship between the 2 is, although the judge from the first case is on the list of defendants as well as President Clinton (for good measure I assume) and 2 other judges (I'm not sure why).

There's some amusing stuff in it. In the first case Ennis filed a motion requesting that the judge (Stewart Dalzell) be added to the list of defendants (which was pretty long to being with). This was denied which may be part of the reason for the second case. He also filed this motion

Motion by plaintiff John Ennis to order a lower court to acknowledge the plaintiff as counsel. to order a lower court to reschedule a date that the plaintiff is subpoenaed to appear, that is a religiouly observed holdy (sic.) day in his religious belief

Classic Ennis syntax. Basically everything seems to have been dismissed without prejudice to the defendants. F cam 16:22, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Unfair revert put back to my last edit

I've corrected most of the errors in the article. It was starting to look balanced, pro Sollog info and anti Sollog info.

However someone reverted all my work.

PLEASE PUT IT BACK

If you notice the links I did you see all the negative stuff is there, plus a Sollog counter to most articles.

That is what Wiki is suppose to be one point the other side. Right now it is all one way, all anti Sollog.

Anyway, ONE OF YOU who is not biased and interested in keeping Wiki looking like a legit encyclopeida read my last edit before the massive revert and see how balanced it is. The Sollog negative stuff is still there, Sollog articles about the same thing are there to make it fair.

I put in a link to his corporate site since that is a major part of him, I also put in a link to his book titles, that is fair as is a future bibliography for his work.

I'm trying to help out and make the article show both sides, the major revert erased all the Sollog side and left only an attack.

PLEASE PUT BACK THE ARTICLE I FIXED

It settles most of the argument, it explains the name, it puts in valid links to Sollog claims, it gives the article a look at both sides. If you just want one side then I'll stop wasting my time.

You can see the history of this page, you can see how biased the current article is. LOOK AT MY LAST EDIT, the page looked almost balanced. The only thing that needed work was the crimes section and a bibliography.

There were still more anti articles than pro.

PLEASE REVERT BACK

Mediadog

Hi John,

I'm the one who reverted you. You seem to have a misconception on what the neutral point of view means. You wrote above:

It was starting to look balanced, pro Sollog info and anti Sollog info.

Neutrality is not the same as being "balanced". In fact, in this case, where there is overwhelming support for one side of an issue, balance is contrary to neutrality.

Furthermore, as I wrote in my edit summary, Wikipedia is not a link farm. It suffices to link to sollog.com and templeofhayah.com, without including adoni.us, 1ebooks.com, and 247news.net. --Dbenbenn 05:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) (David)

Fine then remove all the biased Altman links, how many links to City Paper are there in article? Face it you are one of the people making this article look like a joke. Hey alterego or someone who understands all those links to City Paper is not neutral, it is an attack on Sollog. The fact is you can't handle all the links to the topics Altman was writing about. Point - Counterpoint. Someone that wants to bring some balance to this article, please revert back to my last edit and ban dbenbenn for being too biased to edit here. He's the great reverter, he's done it a few times if you look at history against other Sollog info. That info was very biased though. Mediadog

~~Are you God?~~ (sorry, couldn't resist) Wyss 06:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The real demands of Ennis

Looking at the past suggestions by various accounts who claim to represent TOH or Solog, it is apparent that what is needed is a listing of the books, videos and other merchandise. In essence free advertising.

By putting emtpy links this material on the site it would encourage critical book reviews of the material and would ultimately lead to massive mirroring and indexing of your works. Given the way that search engines such as google work, this would ultimately have the very critical materials listed higher than your own pages that would allow people to purcahse them - turning your own attempt at advertising against you.

Solog/Ennis - you do not have anywhere near the backing of Scientology (that does have some measure of legal clout). Trying to get free advertising here and have the various material listed would be a mistake. Be content with the attention that you have gotten, the article as it is (continued conterversy only encourages people to dig deeper and turn up more material that you would rather not see), and the links back to the pages that you have. shagie Dec. 17, 06:13:07 UTC

Meanwhile, I think the current article's references to Ennis' "fines" levied on wiki, along with his harassment of Wales need serious re-writing. Wyss 22:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TOH logo

I got bored, so I clipped his logo out from one of his "court decisions."

Should we put it on the page?A2Kafir 22:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I'm assuming this may qualify as fair use, personally I think we should err on the side of caution and not give Sollog a legitimate reason to sue. Gamaliel 23:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we should put it in. If it causes a problem it can always be removed later, but I don't think we should let fears of being sued hold us hostage. --Dbenbenn 23:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it's fair use, and, uhm, illustrative... also good for another $1,000,000 levy from Ennis' sockpuppet council. Er, he may read this, so make that $10,000,000... $100,000,000... there'll be no end to it, so to speak. Wyss 23:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's enough precedent regarding the use of logos that WP has its own Template:Logo for that, which A2Kafir used on the image description page. Even if the logo was trademarked, we could still use it to talk about the organization which it is a trademark of. (A quick search at http://www.uspto.gov/ doesn't reveal anything relevant; except that "TOH" is a trademark of TOh products which applies to "Low flow fluid distribution components for fluid handling and irrigation applications (...)".) Anyway, no reason to become paranoid. --MarkSweep 00:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added the logo to the page, but Vivin reverted me a minute later. --Dbenbenn 00:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has now been removed, by Xwatcher, whose only contribution so far has been this. -- Hoary 07:04, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert

Sorry about the revert, I was reverting the version by MarkSweep and I didn't realize that I removed the logo. I didn't mean to.

No problem. I was wondering if that was what happened. :) --Dbenbenn 00:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Why would you want to revert my reversion of vandalism? --MarkSweep 00:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is Sollog's 'court judgement' against wikipedia encyclopedic?

I think this article is starting to get a bit too self referential. Sollog coming up with odd court judgements is hilarious, but should it be part of the article? Is this truly of encyclopedic interest? I'm asking this while I know there are many details in wikipedia articles (such a fan-related material) of which the encyclopedic nature can be debated. This case however can be clearly identified as a self-referential comment on wikipedia. A guideline might be that we want to avoid self-referential mentions to wikipedia in articles, unless it's a really major event in wikipedia's history that is involved somehow.

I don't consider any silly but harmless crackpot behavior like making up fake court judgements to be a major event in wikipedia's history. We have tons of text about wikipedia and wikipedia events, but it's in the talk space, where it belongs. This particular event doesn't seem to stand out among Sollog's activities either -- from what I've seen he goes into these kind of silly debates all the time. Martijn Faassen 02:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. TOH has so far not been confirmed as any sort of legitimate group at all, and any "judgements" proclaimed by it are meaningless. Just because Ennis gives it an official appearance doesn't mean we should report on it. Keep in mind that he's probably getting off on this just as he's annoyed by it. Don't indulge either him or our editors by including stuff our readers don't need to care about. 82.92.119.11 02:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'd replace "legitimate group" with "real-world group". I see no evidence for concluding that the whole edifice isn't a fiction, perhaps (very optimistically) devised as a tax dodge. -- Hoary 02:54, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

IMHO, the whole edifice has been constructed by Mr Ennis as a means of providing opportunities to make money and stoke his ego in as many ways as possible (never mind its actual success). Wyss 03:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The last paragraph of the "Legal problems" section should be trimmed or even removed. The details of his various threats aren't terribly notable. --Dbenbenn 03:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The language about Ennis levying "fines" on wiki has bothered me since it appeared. I don't think any of his "decrees" should be mentioned in the article, partly because they are patently worthless and therefore not notable. Reference to wikipedia should be kept at a scant minimum. I'm even uncomfortable with the reference to Wales, because this could all in turn be interpreted by casual readers that the article has been inevitably distorted. Wyss 03:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In all honesty, my intent in including the "fines" was partially that if it was linked from the article, somewhere, he would feel less compelled to link it from all over the place, making my job as a sysop easier. Granted, that's a questionable reason to add content to articles.

On another note, Wales is a victim of Ennis' actions, just as others in the media have been. Whether he needs a longer mention than the others is, of course, open to debate. Why not link this talk page (as an external link, of course) so that those interested in Ennis' interaction with the WP community can read it? Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I cut out the following paragraph:

Ennis has also threatened legal or "class action" suits against UFOMind.com, DNForum.com, NamePros.com, GoDaddy.com, and e-Bay (and its subsidiary PayPal). More recently he has threatened suits against Wikipedia and VA Software Corporation (owners of the Slashdot.org website) for the content of this article and the adverse publicity which its repeated vandalism has attracted. Ennis' Temple of 'Hayah organisation (in reality, Ennis himself) has published a "court judgment" in which Jimmy Wales and the "Wikipedia Foundation" (sic) are ordered to delete this article, and each pay a fine of $1 million in compensation. [24] An additional fine of $10 million was "levied" against Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation a few days later. [25] Given that the Temple of 'Hayah has no judicial standing, it remains unclear how Ennis expects to be able to enforce his "judgments." However, he or his followers have been quite successful in pasting links to them on random Wikipedia articles, and have been occasionally blocked from editing for doing so.

--Dbenbenn 03:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that the specifics of his judgements against Wales/wikipedia are uninteresting, I would leave the statement that he enjoys making vacuous legal threats and demands of one million dollars (to be read like Dr. Evil) F cam 03:17, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. A sentence about a long history of making threats to sue for mega sums would work... one might also consider holding off on any mention of the Wales incident until some time has passed. Time will likely provide the needed perspective and context. Wiki's an encylcopedia, etc etc. Wyss 03:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article does mention threatening to sue Altmann for "one trillion dollars, mu ah ha ha." I agree that the "long history" should be pointed out. --Dbenbenn 03:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To note that the threat against Altman wasn't an isolated event, but to avoid excessive self-reference, I mentioned his threat against Slashdot as another example. JamesMLane 07:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also removed:

Sollog or his supporters later made offensive telephone calls to Wales and created a website attacking both Wales and Wikipedia, as well as Wales' family and the nature of his business.

Although it was a nasty thing to do, we don't really need to tattle it to Wikipedia's readers here. Will it be remembered in five years? --Dbenbenn 03:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it is, the tale can be told from that longer view... Wyss 03:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This line, Ennis has broken the law on a number of occasions seems superfluous to me. Why not just start the para, "In 1987, Ennis admitted..."? Wyss 03:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph needs some sort of introduction. I don't like "broken the law", however, which implies he was guilty. I'm trying to think of a more neutral phrase... --Dbenbenn 03:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh heh... take it from me, that para don't need no intro ;) Wyss 03:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dbenbenn, I think Ennis and His Critics and Legal Problems are now much improved in content, perspective and style. Wyss 05:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article was voted on for deletion. It was decided to keep the article. --Rlandmann 05:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archived versions of this page:

/archive1, December 4, 2004 – December 11, 2004
/archive2, December 11, 2004 – December 15, 2004
/archive3, December 15, 2004 – December 18, 2004

I've archived all the previous discussion here: /archive3 and cut off the discussion at an arbitrary point. Feel free to restore any previous discussion you deem necessary. Please remember the rules. Dbenbenn 19:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In order to keep discussions constructive, civil, and on topic, I'd like to remind everyone of the following policies, plus I have some proposals regarding how they might be enforced on this page:

Sign all comments with ~~~~. Unsigned comments will be de-anonymized.
Indent your comments appropriately using :, ::, :::, ::::, etc... (added by --Alterego 20:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC))
Consider logging in if you have an account. If you don't have one, create one. If you have more than one, pick one to use on this page and stick with it, i.e., don't be a sock puppeteer. Posting without an account does not protect you or exempt you from the rules. Posting from anonymizing proxies is not allowed.
No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed.
No legal threats. Portions of comments containing legal threats will be removed.
Do not maliciously alter other people's comments, blank the page, etc. This is considered vandalism and will be reverted.
No person may revert the same page more than three times in any 24 hour period; full details can be found here.

Thank you. --MarkSweep 19:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Der Spiegel Article Discussion

Thanks! I'm still trying to check the reference for the Critics section. I'm curious what xinoehpoel.united.net.kg says, but the site's been down for a while. --Dbenbenn 05:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine has a copy on file: [26] --Carnildo 05:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to say, the English translation of the Spiegel articles is is not always accurate. In the English translation, the title of the first article starts with "911 - a remarkable legend develops". However, "remarkable" is completely wrong, it should be "macabre" or "grim". A better translation of the title would be "a macabre myth takes shape". Anyway, here are some excerpts about Ennis:

This is normal for a circular translation... Wyss 13:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but this is not fully circular yet. The indented paragraphs are my direct translation from the original Spiegel articles. We only go full-circle when we translate the German translation of Altman's comments back into English. --MarkSweep 21:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's exceedingly likely that Xineohpoel [sic!] is none other than Sollog, the self-proclaimed Prophet of the Internet. He has haunted [the internet] since the early 90s and experiences boom times whenever people suffer.

"Sollog," says journalist Howard Altman – who for several years has had the dubious pleasure of dealing with Sollog, including in court – was once short for "Son of Light, Light of God".

The last passage suggests that Altman had to deal with Sollog on several occasions including in court. It could even be understood to mean that both Altman and Sollog were parties in a court case, which is news to me.

I read that as a reference to Altman meeting Ennis during the "God" trial. Wyss 13:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the interview [Patalong interviewed Altman for the Spiegel articles] Altman clearly hints at what he thinks of Sollog: After Altman made fun of the self-proclaimed deity in several skeptical columns, Sollog threatened him with mail bombs and sued for one trillion [see below] dollars in damages. Altman: "That was pretty insane."

The original has "Billion" here, but in European usage that often means 10¹², i.e. an American trillion. However, it's perhaps more plausible that Altman actually said "billion" and that his statement was mistranslated as "Billion" or that "Billion" was used implicitly with the US meaning of 10⁹.

It's probably billion. Wyss 13:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but our article here on WP currently says that "Ennis also reportedly threatened to sue Altman for one trillion dollars in damages", which could be off by three orders of magnitude if a bad translation is the underlying source. It's possible that Altman actually said "billion" and that his comment was translated into German as "Billion", which is at best misleading, and translated back into American English as "trillion". A cursory check did not reveal a reliable English language source for this claim (I don't consider the English translation of the Spiegel articles available on the web to be reliable). --MarkSweep 21:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nope, found the source for "trillion": another column by Howard Altman. Amended comment: The relevant quote is "my old psychic buddy SOLLOG (Sun of Light, Light of God) who, on his planet, is suing me and the Washington Post a trillion dollars for libel." Could refer to another "TOH judgement" like the one issued against WP. --MarkSweep 23:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog's actual name is John Patrick Ennis, but for years he has sued anyone who dared to call him by his baptized name. It is therefore relatively difficult to locate Ennis in archives or on the web. The few photographs of him that once existed have long since disappeared, with the assistance of legal counsel.

Again, the claim that Sollog has ever successfully sued anyone about the name issue in a real-life court is news to me.

Nothing here says he ever won one of those lawsuits (although I think he did win one, or force a settlement, after a domain name marketer tried to swindle him). Wyss 13:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the issue remains open whether Sollog is really just the individual Ennis, or if a whole group of people who use this god as their "trademark" is behind this: Ennis, however, appears to be the inventor. People calling themselves "J.P. Essene", "Hisam H'asi", "Tony DiPaolo", "Nick Ensley" and "Leo Phoenix" are also listed as "incarnations". Reading the last of these names in reverse, one arrives at Xineohpoel. Whether these names represent actual people or are mere aliases used by Ennis remains equally unclear.

That last possibility is not unlikely: So far, 81 email addresses of John Ennis are known – he loves to play hide-and-seek.

There is another paragraph (omitted) about how his Usenet postings are essentially just ads drawing traffic to his websites.

Until 1998, Sollog attracted attention by his harsh attacks against [his] critics, which even included ambiguous threats of "inevitable deaths". Sollog/Ennis was arraigned on charges of allegedly attempting to run down a police officer, and on several occasions was investigated by police and intelligence services [could be a mistranslation of "Secret Service"] for being a dangerous type prone to losing his temper [lit: "choleric"] – among other things for threatening then-President Bill Clinton.

That phase ended in early 1998, when he began serving a sentence of several months. Sollog remained in existence – as an author of books and as a web site. Aliases such as Xineophoel recruit disciples in newsgroups – and buyers for Sollog's books.

Again, this appears to be a novel claim: while Ennis was serving time, others used aliases to continue to direct traffic to the Sollog online emporium. The article goes on to debunk Sollog's predictions, which I'll skip. --MarkSweep 07:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be Nicole. Wyss 13:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MarkSweep, do you have a link for the original German Spiegel article? That link should go in the "External links" section along with the translation. --Dbenbenn 22:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can get to a mirror of the German articles via the English translation that's already included in the "External links" section; the direct URL is here. However, as this is someone's mirror of the Spiegel Online article (and potentially a copyright violation on their part) we have no way of knowing whether it is in its original form. The original series of articles can be purchased from Spiegel Online for €0.50 each: part 1, part 2, interview with Altman. --MarkSweep 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(TOH ORDERS) Religious courts well know in other countries

Religious bodies do have the right to hold trials and issues orders. In many countries these courts have legal recognition, there are many religious courts in Israel that are recognized as above the Israeli civil system. While most of you ignore the fact that several 'Toh' members bothered to call Wales on the phone, it would seem therefore there are some Toh members. If there are Toh members then there would be legal precedent for 'Toh Orders' to have a valid standing in some courts eyes, such as Israel. In the US it would be hard to enforce 'Toh Orders' but they could be used in US Federal actions (which Sollog is known to have filed several cases against the US Government). The Sollog stradegy would be to use the religious orders as evidence of a warning to people like Wales that certain material is deemed libel and hate crimes by them. In a politically correct venue where the minority is given more protection that the majority, a court could rule that the way these orders were ignored is proof the owners had ample warning that certain material was libelous and considered religous hate by certain people in a group. So the orders are most likely the first steps Sollog and Toh are making in bring a long threatened action against several in the media. Since Toh has listed contact info for members in many small countries and all larger countries on their site, it might be that members in minor countries start to file actions against all the media that has negative articles about Sollog on their web sites. Since smaller media such as City Paper won't be able to afford defending lawsuits in minor countries, the first courts to validate these religious orders might be small foreign nations. Or on the other hand, maybe Sollog uses a country like the UK or Australia and even Canada to attack US companies for religious hatred. In these countries they find a sympathetic court to agree that the actions of a few US media companies are an example of why many around the world hate the United States for invading Muslim nations.

That all being said, the actions of 'Toh' are valid actions in some parts of the world. Religious courts are a reality outside the USA and since 'Toh' is so anti-USA they may have the majority of their membership outside the USA. The reason so many lawyers were in the Sollog court case as noted by Altman is he did get a US Magistrate to agree in an open court hearing that his legal name in court proceedings is GOD as it is for all members of TOH. That hearing is on Pacer and that decision appears to have given Sollog some fame within the Philadelphia legal system. Also, it is known that Sollog did file complaints against a famous lawyer in Philadelphia named Charles Perutto who was fired by Sollog for not revealing he was a 'friend' of the judge who later called Sollog the most brilliant man who ever appeared in his court. (see Altman article)

I've been watching the various Sollog forums and it is being discussed who to target with a hate crimes complaint next, it seems City Paper is next up and then the Washington Post. You put a few major media companies into a future US Federal case regarding material that may be false and viewed as hate by a minority group and you could have some interesting legal decisions in the future.

If you are a minor company like a city paper or a non profit owner like Jim Wales, at what point do you stop defending material that most would think were obvious attacks on a person due to his religious beliefs. While Sollog wouldn't have much of a case as an individual, he has a novel case as a religious leader. If say only 5 people show up to say Sollog is their religious leader the court will bend over backwards to protect such a minority. If Toh does have hundreds and even thousands of members around the world then the courts will act to protect the rights of that group.

The term for a religious court like the 'Supreme Council of the Temple of 'Hayah' is halakah in Hebrew. In fact the root of this word that means 'The Law' in Hebrew is the name 'Hayah. You replace the y in Hayah with lak and you have Halakah the word given to explain Hebrew courts based on Torah. The Torah is also the only religious book recognized by 'Toh' which interestingly is the root of Torah. You add ra or evil (ra is evil in Hebrew) to Toh and you have Torah. Which also means literally 'The Law' in hebrew. So Toh and Hayah are both root origins of the key words for 'Law' in hebrew.

Side note, the Sollog Federal Civil cases were filed John Ennis aka Sollog Immanuel Adonai aka God, his first appearance was an expedited motion about something (a religious holiday to him maybe) and the majority of that matter was the judge deciding what to call Sollog in court. He finally decided God was his legal name. The cases were dismissed since most of the defendants were judges a sitting president. Judges can't be sued and a sitting president can't be sued. When Sollog or his movement (Toh) use the US Federal courts if they do, they will be suing individuals and public companies, the matter won't be so easy to dismiss since libel and civil rights violations are jury questions and Sollog and his group have the right to sue about such things. It will cost a small fortune to defend such an action, so be prepared if you want to publicly mock Sollog and his group. --posted anonymously by 200.93.32.134 (wow, Venezuela!), whose only contributions so far have been to this page

Actually, in 2:96-cv-03168-JP ENNIS v. UNITED STATES, et al I count a total of 17 defendants, including 1 sitting president and 4 judges, and in 2:96-cv-01499-SD ENNIS v. USA, et al I can see 21 defendants, including 1 sitting president and 0 judges. Ho hum. F cam 15:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

O anonymous person from Venezuela, what do you mean by "mock"? (Treat skeptically? Question?) -- Hoary 08:36, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Maybe Sollog is Hugo Chavez. That's a headline for the Drudge Report!A2Kafir 08:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like he's in his D.E. Alexander mode here. Wyss 13:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Judges can't be sued and a sitting president can't be sued." Not true. Bill Clinton was sued by Paula Jones while Clinton was in office.A2Kafir 08:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Supreme court decided in 1997 (after Sollog's case was dismissed for not being able to sue a sitting president) that a president could be sued while in office. So the Paula Jones case set legal precedant, you're wrong once again kafir.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C2571%2C00.html

-- Comment by annonymous user 195.229.241.182, which appears to be from the United Arab Emirates (wow, we're really going international with this). This IP has edits to 10 other pages since May 7, on w a wide variety of subjects; I wonder if it's an open web proxy

This phrase by our Venezuelan visitor, If say only 5 people show up to say Sollog is their religious leader the court will bend over backwards to protect such a minority, is identical in structure to something said earlier by a suspected sockpuppet. The only difference is a vast improvement in diction.

~~By the way, what's this ↓ link doing here?~~ — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 09:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since Jim Wales and the Wikipedia servers are both based in the United States, US laws apply. In the US, the only legally recognized hate crimes are those where something that is already illegal is motivated by hatred for a particular group, like assult and murder. Hate speech isn't illegal, unless it incites someone else to commit a crime, but that's illegal regardless of it being hate speech or not. So unless the US has some sort of hate speech extradation treaty with other countries, hate speech charges aren't going to affect Wales or Wikipedia.

As for libel, I'm not sure what the libel laws are like in Venezuela, but in the US the burden of proof is on the plantif (the judges aren't going to "bend over backwards" for them), which includes that the defendant either made the statement out of malice or reckless negligence.

Of course, it's possible that Wales (or other contributors) could be tried in another country in absentia, and thus never be able to travel to that country without being fined and/or arrested.

Finally, about the religious courts: "Each one is entitled to set up religious courts, which have personal jurisdiction over members of the relevant community. Disputes that involve members of different communities ordinarily go to the civil courts." [27] -- Khym Chanur 10:14, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not Toh Orders mean anything, the fact is Sollog has several sites pushing people to a page to report Jim Wales a FL Resident to the Florida Attorney General's Office for Civil Right violations. It is a Civil Right in the USA to not harass people over their religious views. This is the page he is pushing to to report Wiki and Jim Wales to the Florida Attorney General over a Civil Rights issue. http://www.templeofhayah.com/flago.shtml -- Anonymous comment by 151.8.7.15, from Italy

It's a civil right in the USA not to be harasses over their religious views by private people and entities, and not just the government? If there's any law or statute in the USA which makes it a crime for a private individual/entity (as opposed to the government) to harass someone for their religious views (as opposed to laws which make it a crime to generically harass someone), then which law is it, and which section and paragraph? -- Khym Chanur 11:47, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Given AIS' involvement with so many commercial websites, including TOH, whose only known presence is a website that sells books and memberships, and zero evidence of any active, practicing members aside from Mr Ennis, it's questionable whether any court in the US or Europe would recognize TOH as a religion. Wyss 13:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the US, but in the UK 390,000 people claimed their religion was Jedi in the last census, but you wouldn't achieve anything except a few laughs if you tried to sue someone for promoting the dark side or claiming Yoda was a weenie. I have my doubts about Sollog and his many followers. Also it appears to me that anyone will have a tough time suing anyone over whether someone is actually God or a prophet or anything like that since most religions tend to disagree about who or what is or even whether there is a God like being at all. F cam 15:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's true, in most jurisdictions one can't be sued for saying I don't think Jesus [sic] was the son of God. Ennis is reportedly living "underground" but given the anti-taxation rhetoric on his TOH site, if he practices what he preaches (so to speak), if he did pop up somewhere in the US with an actual lawsuit filing he might be exposing himself to all sorts of ancillary risks. Wyss 15:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I should add, I don't think the wiki article even contests his asserted beliefs, but only reports some documented facts about his background along with various viewpoints about what he's doing. Wyss 15:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Referrring to Sollog as Ennis is religious harassment

What is wrong with you people. Do you think calling Sollog Ennis is a joke? You are guilty of religious harassment. -- Anonymous comment by 213.42.2.21, another United Emirates IP, but from a different net block.

I think it's a huge joke. It's hilarious! And to think this Sollog guy is accusing Jimmy Wales of being a pornographer, when he does the same thing himself! Very good laugh, I must say. - Mark 09:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Referring to someone by their birth-name is harrasment? If someone changes their name for religious reasons, then calling them by their birth name might be considered rude, insulting, or disrespectful, but I don't think that it could count as harrasmnet (in the legal sense, at least). -- Khym Chanur 10:49, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

If it's harassment, he must have a real beef with his parents... -- ChrisO 11:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to Sollog, as I think that is the proper title. I also think we shouldn't belittle a person, and I don't see how that's going to achieve anything here. It's just pouring fuel onto the flames. Everyking 09:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO, that's the appropriate title. Wyss 13:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Referring to Sollog as Ennis is neither a joke, nor a crime, and definitely not religious harassment. There was some debate about what the primary title of the article should be. The consensus was that "Sollog" would be more appropriate, so that's what it is now, thanks to Everyking. Move along now, nothing further to see here. --MarkSweep 10:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further, in ethical terms, given Mr Ennis' long and documented history of impersonating various personae on the Internet, along with his criminal and arrest record, I think it's reasonable to refer to him by his known birth name as a means of avoiding confusion. Wyss 13:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me this is a simple case. He's better known as Sollog, so we call him that. There should obviously be a note about what his birth name is, so people aren't taken in, but we don't insist on filing actors under their birth names, even if they are still their legal names. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that the article has moved to Sollog (yay!), should we refer to him as Sollog everywhere within the article? Currently, he's called Sollog in a few places, and Ennis in a few others. I'm dubious about replacing Ennis with Sollog everywhere. I'm afraid it might imply that his "religious name" is more legitimate than it really is. If he had lots of followers who called him Sollog there wouldn't be any question; but it appears that he simply made up the name for himself. On the other hand, there are some cases, like "Sollog's predictions", where Ennis wouldn't be appropriate. (By the way, the Muhammed Ali article refers to him as Cassius Clay for events that happened before he changed his name, and switches to Ali afterward.) --Dbenbenn 18:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And to showcase WP precedent for holy names of religious leaders, so does the article on Pope John Paul II, referring to him as Karol Wojtyla until it comes to his papacy. Inclusion of both names in this fashion serves accuracy. Inky 20:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WARNING

I've gotten a couple of emails from Sollog sites I've recently joined. They're steering people to a page to report Jim Wales and Wikipedia to the FBI and also the FL Attorney General Office for harassing Sollog and Toh over religion.

http://www.templeofhayah.com/flago.shtml -- Anonymous comment by 151.8.7.15, from Italy

For what it's worth, all of these IPs are deeply relayed, and do appear to be anonymous open proxies. Wyss 13:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup, I've tried using several of them as proxies too. The FL Attorney General Office's page specifically says they can only advise you of your options, not give you legal advice nor take legal action on your behalf, so I'm not sure what Ennis is hoping to achieve. F cam 15:28, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

In ~~a word~~ two words, publicity and buzz. Site traffic will result in more deathporn sales if nothing else. Wyss 15:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The AGO does not work for anyone, correct, it files complaints for the state. So if the AGO finds merit to the complaints filed by Toh members then the FL AGO will file a complaint against Wales and Wikipedia on behalf of the State of FL and not on behalf of TOH. The complaints by Toh are an attempt to get Wikipedia to stop harassing Sollog with their article. If enough Toh members complain the FL AGO will be forced to at least contact Wales over it and explain the article isn't that neurtral and the are getting complaints from around the world. So it is a smart legal way to make Wikipedia be neutral and not an attack piece.

Comment This is classic Ennis. One can imagine the attorney general in Florida has gotten a dozen or so similarly worded emails from scattered anon open proxies around the world. Wyss 23:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A religious name is not a pen name

Ennis' religious name is what he has used for over 10 years. Calling it a pen name is a false statement. Is Malcolm X called a pen name? How does Wikipedia treat Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali? They are not called 'pen names'. Referring to Sollog as a pen name shows bias imho.

Contributed by 210.212.218.35 from what appears to be an anonymous open proxy in India.

I must agree with Ennis here. The term pen name has never seemed appropriate to me and tends to mislead or lend bias by implying he's a notable author. Perhaps alias or pseudonym would be more accurate. However, I'm not sure comparing himself to Malcom X or Muhammed Ali in this context is reasonable. Wyss 17:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, pseudonym is correct here. It just means a name other than your birth name. --Dbenbenn 18:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From m-w.com: a fictitious name; especially : PEN NAME. so 'pseydonym' is biased as well. how about his 'relgious name'. Sollog is not a fictitious name; it is his real, religious name. --Alterego 18:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps you're right. But it's unclear to me how "real" this name is. Just because you make up a name and claim to lead a religion doesn't make your religion real. It would be nice if we knew when Ennis changed to Sollog. --Dbenbenn 18:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to make sure i was being clear, you can have your name 'legally changed' in a court of law. However, understand that simply beginning to use a new name is a de facto legal name change. Dbenbenn, I understand your point of wanting to know when he changed - however, if Sollog is breaking the law by going as both John P. Ennis and Sollog, it's not much of our concern until we can prove it. He has stated publicly what his new name is. If, however, we can find a recent court or any other document where he was using the name John P. Ennis, then that is his legal name in real life (whatever that is). So I guess it depends on that - if Sollog is now his legal name, then John P. Ennis is his former name. If Sollog is simply a religious name, then John P. Ennis should probably go first in the intro statement. --Alterego 19:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction

Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni (Sollog or SOLLOG for short), is the religious name of John Patrick Ennis (born July 14, 1960), an American numerologist, mystic, and psychic. In addition, he is also a self-published author, artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker. He currently resides in South Florida, and previously lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. --Alterego 18:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or: "is the religious and preferred name of John Patrick Ennis --Alterego 18:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The bonafides of TOH as a religion are not established. For one thing, Religious name would imply followers, for which there is zero evidence, and thus introduce bias into the article. Wyss 18:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's his religious name and has been recognized by US courts. Remove self-published, he's an author of 30 or so books. What don't we add all the other places Sollog has live, Phoenix, California, Europe, the Middle East, South America. Let's see Adoni has domain names registered to New Jersey addresses and Delaware addresses and countries outside the USA, some are Florida. No one knows where he lives. Produce a real address that isn't a business mail drop for him. Oh you can't can you. So produce real estate or drivers license records showing where he lives. You can't can you. So the statement lived here or now lives here is speculation. --posted anonymously by User:210.212.218.35 (contribs)

Um, self published has no implications about the number of books one has written. As for addresses, I've got an address in pennsylvania from the court cases i checked on pacer. F cam 19:45, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's usual to put the real (i.e. legal) name of the subject of an article first, because otherwise the wording is awkward (the article is about a person, not about a religious name, but the latter is what is suggested by "X is the religious name of Y..."). Thus John Patrick Ennis (born July 14, 1960), who uses the "religious name" Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni, is..., etc., would be better. Proteus (Talk) 18:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, having a religious name is protected by the bill of rights. It is a personal decision that anyone can make. Proteus, I explained what a 'legal name' is above. Sollog is his legal name the instant he says it is and makes a public announcement concerning it. /archive3#Regarding changing one's name to God <-- click there --Alterego

"Bill of Rights"? No one disputes Ennis' right to call himself whatever he wants. The only issue is how we should refer to him in the article. I'm surprised at the position you take here, given that you moved Sollog to John Patrick Ennis earlier.

Proteus, I implemented your suggestion. I used "Sollog" instead of "Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni", since the full religious name is explained in the second paragraph. --Dbenbenn 19:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dbenbenn, it is painfully obvious you are looking for an argument. I addressed the bill of rights comment specifically at Wyss. His comment, which I made explicit I was replying to, was "For one thing, Religious name would imply followers, for which there is zero evidence, and thus introduce bias into the article.". So yes, the legality of him being able to 'call himself whatever he wants was in dispute. His right to a religious name, whether or not he has followers, is protected by the bill of rights. --Alterego 19:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Proteus, I implemented your suggestion." You do not seem to understand the situation, Dbenbenn, and before you make any more edits I would appreciate if you would finish this conversation. --Alterego 19:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, please indent your comments and do not place them in a position to make others' comments seem out of their original context. I am referring to [snip]... Wyss 19:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)"--Alterego 20:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done ;) Wyss 20:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego, I think you're confusing legal rights with stylistic and content decisions on a wiki talk page. Wyss 19:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In relation to that comment specifically, the legalities surrounding his name need to be determined in order to decide how to arrange the original sentence. No one here is making a statement as to what his legal name is. It is possible that Sollog is now his legal and religious name. --Alterego 20:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no evidence that his name has been legally changed to some form of Sollog or GOD. There is significant evidence, however, that his legal name is John P. Ennis. Wyss 20:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego, are you a sysop, bureaucrat, or any other form of "admin" here at wiki...? Wyss 20:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank SOLLOG no I am not! And I would appreciate it if you would move that comment you put above out of the way of the conversation it interupted. The replies appear to be to you and they were not. --Alterego 20:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego, I'm not looking for an argument. Sorry if I gave that impression. I disagree that Wyss was disputing the legality of Ennis calling himself Sollog. I agree with Wyss that calling Ennis by his full religious name might inappropriately imply that his religion has legitimacy, and there is no evidence of that.

I don't claim the opening sentence is perfect, but I think it is better. Nonetheless, I will do as you ask, and refrain from editing that paragraph until there's more consensus. --Dbenbenn 19:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"I agree with Wyss that calling Ennis by his full religious name might inappropriately imply that his religion has legitimacy, and there is no evidence of that." It doesn't matter if his religion 'has legitimacy'. Aside from the fact that the evidence leads us to believe he has no followers, his religion is automatically legitimate, even if he is the only follower. And he has the right to call himself Sollog yadayadayda, and even make that his legal name. --Alterego 19:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, if that religion (which the evidence indicates has roughly one follower) is merely an edifice built by an individual with a well-described criminal and arrest record, a history of impersonation and spamming on the Internet and commercial deathporn sites, it's not a religion at all, but might more likely be what (I believe) is called in some circles a front. Wyss 19:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are permitted to call it whatever you like, however, you do not delineate what another person is or is not allowed to worship or claim as their religion. It is his freedom as a citizen. As far as the "well-described" criminal goes, I spent more time on probation as a teenager than Sollog has and i'm hardly a criminal. --Alterego 19:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have some appreciation for the enthusiastic transgressions of teenagers, but did you ever end a police officer's career by dragging him a couple dozen metres under your opened car door? Wyss 23:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego, I don't understand why you keep saying things like "you do not delineate what another person is or is not allowed to worship or claim as their religion." As Wyss and I have both tried to point out, no one is saying that Sollog can't do whatever he wants. The issue is simply whether this encyclopedia article should refer to him as a "religious leader", or make that implication in other ways, such as by talking about his "religious name". --Dbenbenn 20:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What Dbenbenn said :) Wyss 20:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neither of your understand the point. I have friends with religious names. I know very well how this works. Anyone can have a religious name. The fact of whether or not Sollog is a religious leader is aside the point of his religious name. He has that right and it stands aside from any other points being made. --Alterego 20:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, nobody denies that Sollog has a religious name; the issue is merely what kind of emphasis we should give it in this article. --Dbenbenn 20:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Ennis brought this up originally, and I agreed with him that pen name wasn't helpful. Personally, I think alias would work, but religious name seems descriptive enough. Wyss 20:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Er, but if someone starts calling Ennis a religious leader in that article, I will likely rant. Wyss 20:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It comes down to this: Has sollog suggested that his legal name is "Sollog yadayadayada" ? If so, then that is what should be reflected in the article. If he were to go to court today, what name would he report to have put on the docket? Sollog, do you have any input on this? --Alterego 19:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well in 1996 it was John Ennis AKA sollog etc.. F cam 19:46, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

How about a compromise? Since the term "religious name" implies that this is a religion we're dealing with, which is in dispute; and "pen name" is by no means accurate to the situation, why not call it a "holy name"? If I remember right, members of certain faith groups use that term to refer to the name they take when converting or joining those groups. Inky 20:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to interject my opinion. Since the article is about "Sollog" The introduction should start using this name then expand into what his real(legal) name is. I would have no objection of it being refered to as his "religous name" as long as the religion (and optionally its disputed following) are explained within the article. => (Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni (Sollog or SOLLOG for short), is the religious name (see TOH) of John Patrick Ennis ) myork (sorry about multiple edits)

Specific details about the Ennis cases

This is getting interesting! Ennis has recently added "specific details" about his involvement with the law. Unfortunately,

His statements aren't verifiable, and don't come with citations.
His writing isn't neutral.

The gist of the changes is that there was a case of mistaken identity; a different John Ennis was arrested in 1986 and 88. (By the way, note that Ennis himself uses the word "fans" to refer to his hypothetical followers.)

Anyway, it might be a good idea to note somewhere that the "Legal problems" section is based completely on Altman, who is himself not the most objective authority in the world. --Dbenbenn 18:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we don't have a reliable source, should we be reporting it in the first place? "Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories." Wikipedia:No original research --Alterego 19:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Altman is unreliable, just that he isn't objective. He's the best we have, and since he is a published journalist, I don't think using him as a source counts as original research. As with most things regarding Ennis, it's quite difficult to be sure what really happened. --Dbenbenn 19:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

look at your bias, anyone putting info that makes Sollog not look too bad is Sollog. Wrong again. I'm not Sollog. Personally the whole legal history thing is biased, Sollog is known for two things, the biggest is his prophecies and the 2nd is the founding of TOH, well a third thing could be his books and perhaps a 4th thing his math theories. So is a 20 year old claim of sex videos where a John Ennis got 1 year probation by a stoned judge a big deal? Is a 20 year DUI where he got 1 year work release to his own companies a big deal? The only part in the whole legal section might be the secret service bust, it was withdrawn in a month or so. Also, the Sollog case 96cv1499 is now known to be real, funny how all the skeptics over the years dismissed it as false. Is the long arrest record of Malcolm X in his article? Is the arrests of MLK in his article? Is the arrests of Ghandi in his article? Cases with 1 year probabation, 1 year work release and a case that was withdrawn are not major items and make the article look unencyclopedic and biased. Wow look at the arrest record of John Ennis, he got a year probation by a stoned judge, he got 1 year work release on a dui that was over turned, he was arrested by the secret service and the case was withdrawn. See how badly biased editors of the article are trying to make the legal history a big thing when it is a minor thing. Has Sollog ever been convicted of anything he did (since 1995 when Ennis became Sollog)? No. So the big crimes of Ennis are all now almost 20 years old, one was a minor business offence and one was a dui which qualifies him to be the next prez of the USA. The only crime Sollog was said to commit was the secret service complaint. Guess what it was withdrawn which shows the US Government did harass Sollog. Only a small amount of Secret Service cases are ever withdrawn.- unsigned comment by 210.212.218.35

When you come up with counter examples, you might first want to verify that they are true. Contrary to your claim, the articles on Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X all mention their arrests, and the latter article even has an entire section called "Prison". This is why we are not going to change the article based on your claims; you are simply not a trustworth source. Even if you were, this encyclopedia does not do original research like interviewing people and so forth. We rely on secondary sources. So provide us with some. You keep citing this great court case - surely as a participant in this court case you must have some court documents. Show us the money, Sollog. Gamaliel 19:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed TOH changes

Since a biased person deleted this I thought some might want to consider putting up something encyclopedic about Sollog. I propose there be unbiased sections for what Sollog is really known for. Look at all the bs in the article for a minor criminal history. Yes minor since the only convictions seem to be related to 1. a business selling an adult video and 2. a 20 year old dui, hardly the stuff that makes anyone a 'criminal'. I think four sections should be in the article with serious unbiased info.

The first section should maybe be prophecies (his most famous claim to fame)

Many observers regard Ennis' prophecies as a rather inept form of cold reading. Wyss 19:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The second section should be perhaps TOH

Without verifiable evidence of active, participating members, TOH is not a notable topic for wiki. Wyss 19:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The third section his books (30 books by any author is a notable thing)

Even 100 self-published books is usually not notable in itself. However, if some have been peer/critic reviewed or mentioned in non AIS publications, some notability could be established.Wyss 19:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

and 100 self-published ebooks is even less notable. --Rlandmann 23:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you've got a point there, Rlandmann. Wyss 00:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fourth section his math discoveries since they are connected to his religion i.e. creator forumula, creator proof, planet distance formula an argument for intelligent design

Hmm, maths "discoveries". Like his 2nd prime law "LAW 2: ODD NUMBERS ENDING IN A 5 ARE NOT PRIME ABOVE 7." Forgive me if I say "duh". F cam 19:57, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Without peer-review, Ennis' thoughts on mathematical topics are not notable. Wyss 19:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I haven't even seen any positive peer-review for Ennis as a numerologist (not counting USENET sockpuppets). Wyss 00:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the proposed TOH changes that should add a nice encyclopedia touch to the article

TOH - Tempel of 'Hayah

Sollog is the founder of the Temple of 'Hayah, it uses the acronym of TOH in most literature, TOH belief is that "all life is part of God and therefore God." [28] It is a Torah observed belief system based on 'Hayah being the name revealed to Moses when asked what was the name of God. [29] TOH claims membership in almost every nation on earth (due to it being spread by the internet since 1995). It has operated 'join' pages under several web sites over the years. To join one has to admit God created earth and gave Moses the Torah. [30] TOH also claims that members are tax exempt due to biblical law set in the Torah. [31] TOH also has it's own version of the Torah translated by Sollog, it is vastly different than modern English editions. [32]

Links in the article provide access to that information, for which there is insufficient evidence of notability. Wyss 20:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that version is a lot better than what we have now. We haven't really had any detailed description of what TOH believes up to this point (which is why I've found the various howls of protest over "religious hate" to be pretty bizarre - we haven't even described TOH beliefs, let alone denegrated them...) However, I think we need to lose the multiple links (to avoid the spamvertising effect), and need to add that there is a commonly-held perception that the religion has few if any members other than Sollog himself, and that there is no independent evidence to suggest otherwise. --Rlandmann 00:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. One must bear in mind that Ennis' AIS websites will inevitably gain traffic from this article and its mirrored copies and most of their content is behind PayPal links.

Moreover, given the overwhelming lack of evidence for any actively participating TOH membership, this should be mentioned plainly in the article. Wyss 00:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rlandmann, I'd like to see a detailed description of what 'Hayah believes, too. But I suspect it won't be possible to make neutral, factually correct statements about what is, after all, something that only exists in the mind of Ennis. For example, is it correct to say that 'Hayah is based on the Torah? I doubt Jewish scholars would agree with that assessment. At best, you could say that 'Hayah claims to be based on the Torah. --Dbenbenn 01:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current Predictions?

Does anyone feel like creating a section on what he's predicting now? I'm curious, and can't be bothered to wade through Sollog's site. --posted anonymously by 220.240.179.187, (contribs, apparently not a sock puppet)

http://www.stopnukes.com states Sollog has warned since 1995 the age of nuke terrorism is coming. He says the first three areas to fall victim to nuke terrorism is Israel, Rome and Washington DC.

Recent quake warnings were issued for major quakes on New Years Day and March 1st or March 21st (equinox of spring)

Sollog fans speculate Ides of Augustus will connect to death date of the Pope it means Ides (middle 13th or 15th) of a month. So far it seems it refers to months connected to Octavian Augustus or August and October. It is said to be perhaps connected to the moon phases as well, so the 13 and 15th days of moon in the suspect months are thought to be keys to the Sollog pope riddle.

Asteroid impact off the coast of China in the evening in August is another Sollog prediction many of his fans discuss.

--posted anonymously by 210.212.218.35, (contribs)

Legal problems section

I'd like to edit the "Legal problems" section of the article, replacing the first line with

According to Howard Altman of the Philadelphia City Paper (Altman 1996), Sollog has had various legal problems, culminating in his arrest by the United States Secret Service.

Ennis' legal problems, according to Altman, started in 1987 ...

I feel this change makes it clear that the whole section is based on one source. However, the section in question has been changed by a presumed sockpuppet. I'm not going to revert, since I've already reverted three times today. And I don't want to complicate life for whoever does revert. So I'm putting my changes here instead. --Dbenbenn 20:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reverted back a few hours, sorry in advance if I screwed up. Wyss 20:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I notice you restored the quotes around "religious name". I'd remove them if I hadn't promised Alterego not to touch that opening paragraph. --Dbenbenn 20:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe WP:3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. If you're talking about reverting User:203.113.132.50's wholesale deletion of useful material, I'd consider that vandalism. However, it's probably best to err on the side of caution and take turns reverting. --MarkSweep 21:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for the zap, Dbenbenn! ;) Wyss 01:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mirror Roulette - A Spamming Tactic

Although Ennis' constant edits seem futile and less than rational, there's a bit of method involved in this spammer's madness. Wiki is mirrored on dozens and dozens of sites globally, which each update their content sporadically (and sometimes don't re-update for some time). By continually pasting in his advertising content, he increases the chance that a brief incarnation will be picked up by a mirror. I'm not suggesting any response to this, only pointing out a probable (and from his perspective, somewhat rational) motive for what we're seeing. Wyss 02:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The probability of a reader hitting a version with soan on it here is the same as that of a reader hitting a version with spam on it on a mirror though. It's merely that whereas here there's going to be a reasonably fixed and low percentage of people seeing the advertising version, on the mirrors there's a large chance nobody will see the advertising version and a small chance lots of people will. &#0xfeff; --fvw * 02:53, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

It's more likely that he's just crazy. There's no point in speculating on the motives of vandals and loonies. Gamaliel 03:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's crazy and crazy. My guess is that he's rational. He knows what he wants (money and celebrity), and he's relentless (and very tiresome) in pursuit of what he wants. -- Hoary 03:13, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Agreed that there's not much point in speculating... I was just remarking that I wouldn't be surprised if in a few months one could do a Google search on Sollog and hit number 45 happened to be a ghost page from globularpedia.nz [sic] with a spam version of the article.

For the record, I'd like to cite the following edit note (on the article's page history) made by an Ennis sockpuppet:

04:22, 19 Dec 2004 24.6.7.120 (sollog business ventures are not major things he is known for they should be removed but for now gave it an order of importance as per search relevance)

Here, Ennis slips up, referring to the deathporn, auction and other commercial AIS sites as sollog business ventures, making it clear these activities are not those of a publisher beyond his control, but his own. Wyss 12:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent Prophecy Post

WTF why is this excellent post being removed? It shows both points of views. I think I remember someone here asking for examples of the top Sollog prophecies. Don't remove it This and the lengthy passage below were added anonymously at 03:16, 2004 Dec 19 by 200.31.23.195, whose contributions to Wikipedia have all been "Sollog"-related.

Prophecies

Sollog is best known for his prophecies, some of them use quatrain style similar to Nostradamus. Sollog has been called a modern day Nostradamus by many of his fans and in the media. Sollog started writing his Prophecies in 1995. They first appeared in full page newspaper ads in weeklies such as the City Paper in Philadelphia. In 1996 Sollog's prophecies started to appear on the Internet. Since 1997 Sollog's prophecies have all been released to Usenet by his fans in either alt.prophecies.nostradamus or sci.earthquakes.

The most famous Sollog prophecies according to his fans are his Prophecy about the coming age of Nuke Terrorism. Sollog says the first three locations hit by nuke terrorism are Israel, Rome and Washington DC [33] In 1995 Sollog was detained by the US government after he faxed a warning about a 'BIG BANG' on April 19th to 60 major executives in the US media. In case 96cv1499 Sollog named the 60 Executives and produced documents to verify he was detained for the Oklahoma City bombing. Sollog was also investigated by the FBI for various warnings he issued about 911 and terrorism in New York City in September. Fans of Sollog say this warning about a major emergency in DC on 911 was a clear hit. It was issued on 9/11/1998 three years to the exact date of 911. [34] On 9/02/1997 Sollog issued the infamous 902 Prophecy, in it he warns of major terrorism larger than the Oklahoma City bombing and he mentions New York City over and over. [35] Howard Altman did an article on the Sollog 902 Prophecy and stated he warned the Whitehouse and the New York City mayors office about it. The article appeared ironically in the 9/11/1997 issue of the City Paper. http://citypaper.net/articles/091197/article024.shtml Skeptics of Sollog claim the Prophecy was meaningless. Fans of Sollog point out that the Big Bang in the Big Building for September was a clear 911 hit. Skeptics say Sollog said the pope would die and didn't. Fans say the pope of Satan mentioned by Sollog did die in the month he said, that was Anton La Vey the founder of the Church of Satan who was also known as the Pope of Satan, a term used directly by Sollog in the Prophecy. Skeptics say Bill Clinton did not die, Sollog fans say Bill Clinton suffered political death by his impeachment. Sollog fans also point out that the date Sollog gave was the date Clinton started his affair with Monica Lewinsky which led to his impeachment. Skeptics point out none of the New York City media named by Sollog in 1997 died, Sollog fans say most of the media celebrities he named suffered bizarre tragedies. Rush Limbaugh went deaf in October 2001 and was fired from his job in October 2003, he also had to check into a substance abuse program in October 2003. Rudy Guilliani was struck with cancer and Howard Stern who always bragged how great his marriage was saw a sudden divorce strike him.

Another major Prophecy of Sollog is known as 'The 113 Prophecy'. In this Prophecy Sollog warned of March 11th several times and mentioned how other dates that had 113 in their numbering were future dates for rare tragic events such as major terrorism, plane crashes and train disasters. After Sollog released the 113 Prophecy [36] the Shuttle Columbia tragedy occurred, it was the 113th shuttle mission. On March 11th 2004 the Madrid Train Massacre occurred, March 11th was the only date mentioned more than one time by Sollog.

There are several other famous Sollog prophecies, but his fans say these are perhaps the best examples of his work.

So far though, we've not seen a single, head-on, accurate prophecy from Sollog that didn't require stretching either on the date, location, or other factor. "Big bang in the big building" doesn't say much. Tall buildings have always been a favorite target for terrorists, and they tried to hit the WTC before.

113 can be interpreted so many ways. January 13 or 31, November 3, March 11, the 113th day of the year (leap or otherwise), and that's just as dates. I haven't even gotten to airline numbers, flight numbers, social security numbers.

And what I've been wondering is that why Sollog is only able to predict disasters, but never gets any info from his "sources" on how to keep them from happening. Or more particularly, why Sollog refuses to warn NASA/New York/Rudy Giuliani/Rush Limbaugh/Bill Clinton/etc when he claims to know what's going to happen down to the very day?

Some places have an odd law that states that if you know a crime or similar is going to happen you're obligated to report it or you can be charged as aiding it or as an accessory. Doesn't Sollog feel moral obligation to deliver accurate and useful warnings to those involved?

But the point I'm trying to make is that nowhere have any of us seen any accuracy from these "prophecies" that would be considered more than stretched applicability (see The 23 enigma). Because he doesn't warn, that means his prophecies aren't accurate enough to make them useful. Because he can only find a relation between his prophecies and the events after the fact, that means that his prophecies are bogus, or as near to it as makes no odds.

For a claim of accuracy, we need demonstrated accuracy. To do this, I propose the following experiment:

1) Post on this Talk page a Sollog prophecy in its entirety for a disaster that has not happened yet but will in say, the coming 90 days.

2) Postexactly what it predicts (what/where/who/why/when). Vague guesses are not allowed, we want specific dates, locations, and all that.

3) After the event occurs, prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sollog was nowhere in the area trying to "prove" the prophecy himself.

Then, we'll be happy to post the accuracy results. Inky 21:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added material that should be discussed first

This keeps getting added and reverted. I'm not familiar with the entire history, but it seems to me that this material is unnecessary, since it is already discussed in a more NPOV manner later in the article. However, I'm posting it here so that it can be discussed. (Please don't just put it back in without any discussion whatsoever, though.) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These claims have already been discussed, ad nauseam, and rejected by everybody here other than various IP numbers and newly arrived users (aka sockpuppets). PS the passage in question appeared both above and below Aranel's post; I've removed the duplication below. -- Hoary 03:41, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Logical format for this article

This article should cover the main things Sollog is famous for, searching search engines and usenet shows why people wrote or discussed him

Number one is his prophecies, search for Sollog and you get a ton of hits, search for sollog and prophecies and you get almost as many hits so PROPHECIES is key thing about why Sollog is even in this site

Number two believe it or not is Nostradamus so the Sollog connections to Nostradamus is needed, his translations, his 1566 only known first edition, etc

The line of Sollog is the next top search

Then Sollog and God is a high hit search

There are almost no posts about Sollog and arrested or Sollog and legal

Other key search hits for Sollog are

911 Earthquakes Diana

So the article should touch on what Sollog is actually famous for

His prophecies, his Nostradamus stuff, the line of Sollog, God, 911, Quakes and Diana

Oh, SPAM is a high search hit as well, so it should be mentioned, some say Sollog is nothing but Spam, but, his fans say all the spam is from his skeptics

Do searches for yourself and you'll see what Sollog is really known for, it isn't conspiracies, and skeptics and arrests ....Posted anonymously at 03:55, 2004 Dec 19 by 24.6.7.120, whose contributions since October have been singlemindedly devoted to "Sollog"

Comment It is noted that a Google search will for the most part bring back hits on the years of spam Ennis has contributed to the noise level of the Internet and USENET. Wyss 04:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you want, I can re-write this article based on what Google tells me about him, but don't blame me if it bears a strong resemblance to the following:

Sollog, also frequently referred to as Pennis[sic], is a notorious Usenet spammer, psychic, and crank. He is best known for his near-miss on predicting the attacks on the World Trade Center, and was once arrested by the Secret Service for threatening the President. He claims to be God, and has frequently filed lawsuits under that name against people who disagree with him.

--Carnildo 04:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like Carnildo says and my my my, this article certainly has become the revert war predicted in the original VfD, hasn't it? Looking over that page ([37]), I notice that several people mentioned the article would require indefinite protection. I recommend it (I'd recommend deletion, but Ennis' decrees make that too grotesque to contemplate). Wyss 04:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I remember them telling me in grade school that if you ignore someone they will go away. I don't see any sore thumbs with the article in it's current state, so perhaps we can just ignore the dude and revert all of his edits back to the last good one by a Wikipedian. After a while he will get bored with us, like most antagonizers. Considering he has been doing this for a decade and really does seem to believe himself, i'm probably going to be eating this delusional worldview along with my foot in the next ten minutes. --Alterego 04:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of him as "Pennis", and I've no reason to believe that he's frequently filed lawsuits. (Endlessly wittering on about filing lawsuits, yes.) Having a revert war with The Many Masks Of John P. Ennis is a waste of time, but the silver lining is that it's a waste of his time too, and while he's doing his hardest to turn Wikipedia into another sales channel he's not sollogizing usegroups and the like. -- Hoary 04:53, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

That nickname isn't by any means universal but I've seen it many times while searching forums and newsgroup caches . Wyss 04:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My view on the revert war is that it's cheap entertainment -- drop in every now and then to see what the latest sockpuppet rantings are, then revert them if they haven't been already. --Carnildo 05:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sock puppets are energetic today!

and I've used up today's revert allowance. One of you others who's not John P. Ennis will have to take a bash. Or of course the page could be frozen till the current mania has subsided. -- Hoary 05:12, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm out until this evening too. They are rather active today, perhaps a protection is in order. &#0xfeff; --fvw * 05:16, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you guys banned, but if you read WP:3RR you'll see that the Three Revert Rule does not apply to "correcting simple vandalism". I wish there was a technical way of auto-blocking any anonymous user who's been inactive for two weeks or more and whose first five edits include either this talk page or the "Sollog" article. --MarkSweep 05:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know; I'd read this. Had the page been replaced with the normal stuff about how Wikipedia sucks and how "Sollog" is god, I'd have had no qualms about reverting it. But what has going on is arguably not vandalism. If tried for the, uh, wikicrime of deleting it, I'd claim that it was blatantly bloody-minded refusal to consider arguments that had already taken place. Anyway, I was getting bored of the job of reverting, so this was my handy cop-out line. -- Hoary 05:52, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

The quotes around "religious" may have re-appeared by accident through the numerous anti-vandalism reverts, but I agree with EveryKing (who has removed them) that they're not necessary. Wyss 13:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[sockpuppet vandalism has been blanked here, users are invited to see it in the page history] Wyss 13:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wyss guilty of vanalism he is removing all sollog fan info as vandalism

[pasting here by anonymous IP 209.201.13.34 of "sollog fan approved" version of article removed by me, Mark. You can view it in the page's history if you wish. - Mark 13:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)]

You just beat me to it, Mark. Actually I momentarily misread the underpunctuated charge as "venalism". Heady stuff! Incidentally, I'd be interested in genuine "fan info". Is there any credible info on the size of the fanbase? I'd tentatively estimate it as two (John and the missus). -- Hoary 14:00, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

This was an edit summary by one of the anonymous contributors: "Sollog fans have approved this page, it will be posted over and over by Sollog fans, we outnumber the few who are harassing sollog with false info here, by Sollog fan in NL". Unfortunately for the anonymous contributor(s), I sincerely doubt that the number of Sollog fans in total outnumber the number of Wikipedia Administrators, let alone the number of active Wikipedians. Also unfortunately for the anonymous contributor(s), the Sollog fan-approved version of the article is not the Wikipedia-approved version of the article, as determined by majority consensus. As a result, wholesale article replacements of this form will not be tolerated and will be construed as vandalism, and thus in accordance with Wikipedia policy will continue to be reverted beyond three reverts. - Mark 14:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, that sockpuppet "in NL" was actually behind the firewall of an anon o.p in Poland. Wyss 14:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WOW 9 reverts by wyss within 24 hours

so much for your rules

Dearest sockpuppet, reverts made to delete vandalism are not covered by the three reverts rule, which applies to editing. Wyss 14:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss is rv'ing even the discussion page now haha

why are you people letting wyss use his bias to rv article 10 times in one day and to remove all recent pro sollog posts in discussions

wyss is out of control and making this site look like a joke

The difference between you and me, dearest sockpuppet, is that they know if they ask me to stop, I will. Wyss 14:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, these latest contributions have come from what appears to be a broadband connection in Sweden, http://www.bredband.com/se/, customer account c-876f73d5.06-36-67626717. Wyss 14:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It (like all the other IPs replacing the article with the "sollog fan" version) seems to be an anon open proxy. Proteus (Talk) 15:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two things

One: Many of the "mathematical discoveries of Sollog" were not his. For example, the fact that

1/89 = 0.0112359... (the first five nonzero digits being Fibonacci numbers)

is not his original discovery. It's long been known that, in terms of formal power series,

$\frac{1}{1-x-x^2} = 1 + x + 2 \cdot x^2 + ... + F_{n+1} \cdot x^n + \ldots$ .

When x = 0.1, you get:

$\frac{100}{89} = 1 + 0.1 + 0.02 + 0.003 + 0.0005 + 0.00008 + \ldots$

Therefore, these results are neither surprising, nor mystical, nor discovered originally by Mr. Sollog. I would guess that other mathematical truths of which he claims discovery have also already been discovered.

Two: I believe I've heard him ask for deletion of his page at one of his rant pages. He's clearly notable, but if he wants gone, I don't think Wikipedia will be at much of a loss to delete his page. Mike Church 16:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog didn't claim 1/89 was his discovery, he revealed in 1995 several hidden sequences within numbers, one was a 24 deep sequence within primes that is also hidden within fibonacci numbers, both are 24 number deep sequences, he also revealed in 1995 hidden sequences in exponent tables, there are only six that repeat infinitely and he used that fact to prove FLT in 2 pages. In 2002 another mathematician claimed to have 'discovered' the same 24 deep sequence in fibonacci, something Sollog did seven years earlier. 198.165.90.74

I wonder why this proof of fermat's last theorem hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal? Ah yes I know it's because it's a nonsensical rant (written in all caps on the page I found it) which doesn't proove anything. woo. His rant also prooves $x^n={\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{x}}\right)}^{2n}$ yawn. F cam 17:04, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

So you need to reread the article and point to where Sollog claims 1/89 is his, he merely put some interesting little know facts about Fibonacci in the work before he tied it into his prime and exponent sequences using the same technique, that being base 9 number reduction.

This scholarly reply from 198.165.90.74 appears to have originated from another open proxy on a Verio server in NY owned by http://www.cheznoo.net in Newfoundland, Canada. Wyss 16:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Base 9 number reduction being a posh name for adding up all the digits in a number. Ho hum arithmetic modulo 9, now there's a new area of maths. His harmonic exponent tables are just the nth power residues mod 9. They cycle. What a discovery. Writing down those tables for the first 13 values doesn't prove fermat's last theorem, sorry.F cam 17:04, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've already tried to debunk his mathematical "theories" on /archive2#Status as mathematician. All of his results are well-known and/or already published in peer-reviewed maths journals. --MarkSweep 20:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

YES DELETE THE SOLLOG PAGE 198.165.90.74

No, don't delete. Sollog found Wikipedia, said "Look, free advertising!" and posted his page. Then his nightmare began as many editors, led by Rlandeman initially, made the article into a factual account instead of a fanboy link-laden grammar-impaired tribute. Sollog got more than he bargained for in us! A2Kafir 16:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think his motives are irrelevant. Punishing him for taking advanatage of "free advertising" is a poor reason to keep a WP article on him, and alone I don't think it stands. Besides, do we know for sure that he was the original author? Mike Church 16:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Based on the available evidence it can be safely assumed that John P. Ennis aka Sollog was the original author. Wyss 17:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

keep this page as a piece of wikipedia history and a monument to peer review. sollog thought he could use this as free advertising, but when peer review rolled in and turned it from a tract to a factual account of his life, he bitched and moaned and tried to pee all over wikipedia because we wouldn't remove his monument to his own stupidity. besides, this is a (relatively) factual account of the internet phenomenon known as Sollog, so it technically belongs in wikipedia. here's to the law of unintended consequences. Chumpchange

Deletion

If you want to nominate the page for deletion, the deletion-nomination process is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

If Sollog himself wrote the original article, there's a high likelihood that it can be deleted on those grounds alone. Wikipedia has a soft policy against auto-biographical entries and a lot of such pages, even for famous people, are deleted. Mike Church 16:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although I think deleting the article would be grotesque on a certain level (Ennis will proclaim on the USENET that wiki caved in to the demands of his sockpuppet council), I would vote for doing so (as I did originally). After all the research I've done into this character, I still don't think Ennis is notable. Wyss 17:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I come at it the other way. I believe Ennis is notable (though maybe not important, as they are different things) because, if I recall correctly, I remember hearing about some of his Usenet rants on CNN. For example, there was brief mention of his 9/11/98 prediction on CNN, as I recall. It's not much, but enough to count as "notable".

That said, as a skeptic on most paranormal claims, I agree with the charge that he was just playing "disaster roulette" and don't think he has any meaningful claim to fame. But he is well-known (certainly now) and therefore, arguably notable. Still, if he wants it gone, and WP has no interest in maintaining it, then why not delete it? Mike Church 17:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that I can ever recall any specific wiki policy saying that non-notables shouldn't have articles. Or that they should be deleted. But I'd say that Ennis is notable for his repeated Usenet presence, this article, predictions, and spamming both this page and Slashdot. This may be notable enough for WP:-) Estel (talk) 17:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'd say there's also an issue of principle here. I wouldn't want to see Wikipedia being bullied into deleting an article because some obsessive individual keeps vandalising it via open proxies. -- ChrisO 17:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that Ennis himself is not notable, IMO the nearly unanimous public reaction to his dramatically virulent claims of notability is. That reaction is what survived the first VfD, and is what has engendered such a dedicated watch on this article. Fire Star 17:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... So far, I don't detect much consensus for deletion. I tried, Ennis ;) Wyss 17:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article went through VfD quite recently. Re-listing it would be an abuse unless some significant new reason has developed to change the deletion debate. What's actually happened since the end of the VfD vote is that more people who demonstrably aren't Sollog have edited the article, taking it even further away from any charge that it's vanity. JamesMLane 18:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As before, I voted to keep the article on the grounds that the inevitable vandalism would be a good way of rooting out wrongdoers - a similar argument to that put forth by L7 in Wargasm, their classic take on the military-industrial death machine - although I had no real opinion as to the validity or worthiness of Sollog itself. I have to admit that I was also slightly annoyed that Eva Ionesco had passed through the VFD process, but that's by-the-by. However, I am genuinely impressed by the way that this article has gone; it's a good example of how an unpromising subject can be given form and shape, and it's also a diverting read. Wikipedia helps me while away the boring hours at work, and this talk page alone has been a masterclass in how low a human being can stoop. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The many (ab)uses of Sollog

The latest vandalism to the article by user 194.63.235.157 appears to have originated via an open proxy on some sort of educational server in Thessaloniki, Greece. Apparently, Ennis continues to assert the fiction that Sollog ~~fans~~ from all over the world have organized to have their way with wiki (the assertions that these are TOH members have faded for the moment). They all use open proxies and have typically performed identical pastes of a "Sollog fan approved" text into the article space. Wyss 20:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If nothing else, he's doing a good job of identifying open proxies for me to block... :-p -- ChrisO 20:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was about to say that at the very least Sollog/Ennis has ferreted out a large number of open proxies. Perhaps he deserves the Upside-Down Barnstar of Black-Hat Network Analysis. --MarkSweep 20:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

his site has a list of over 100,000 proxies that they are passing out to fans to post anonymously here and they are giving out instructions on how to hit the busiest pages, you guys are in for a war, look at his paypal info almost 1000 buyers wiki is only 2400, dozens or hundreds of people using 100,000 proxies will crush this site if you ask me

Comment The vandalism rate indicates one individual hopping from proxy to proxy. Wyss 00:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would guess that he's using some kind of script to find and exploit them. It's no big deal - they're just block-on-sight fodder now. -- ChrisO 22:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not that anyone's been holding their breath on this one, but his anti-wiki forums (which one might expect to be the centre of such activity) don't feature a list of 100,000 proxies, or even one. Wyss 04:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Religious name vs. alias

I just think it's hilarious that Ennis first changed "religious name" to "alias" [38], then tried to change it back [39]. Maybe the first change wasn't Ennis; only one edit from that IP though. --Dbenbenn 21:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He may have been trying to set me up for something (Wyss vandalizes...!). Earlier on this talk page, after saying I agreed with him that pen name wasn't appropriate, one of my suggestions was alias. Wyss 21:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest sockpuppet drive-by paste was by user 148.244.150.58 via an AT&T server in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Wyss 21:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then 203.197.169.19 (which resolves to a non-working tataelxsi.co.in) from a particularly dark looking proxy a few hops from a http://www.vsnl.net.in/ server somewhere in India ...looks like it's in Bombay. ~~Nice one, Ennis~~. (Just noticed the comment in the edit box) Wyss 21:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog vandalism elsewhere on Wikipedia

Just noticed that Ennis now appears to be hitting articles across Wikipedia - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=148.244.150.58 , which shows vandalism to a slew of articles linked from the main page. I assume this is the next step in his campaign of vandalism. If people block his proxies, could they please check out the "contributions" that he's making elsewhere? -- ChrisO 22:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also just reverted his vandalism on the European Union article. Seems he edited a lot more. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=208.63.158.141. Impi 22:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've seen info in several sollog sites explaining how to use proxies since you guys are banning all people posting positive info. What's wrong with being anonymous behind a proxy?

Dearest sockpuppet, because it's you :) Wyss 00:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous proxies are the source of an inordinate and unacceptable level of vandalism. Wikipedia policy permits and encourages us to block proxies (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy). Any proxy posting to this article or talk page will be blocked on sight. -- ChrisO 00:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog paypal rating huge (er, not)

Wiki is a top 200 alexa site and it's paypal rating is 2400

Sollog's site use several paypal accounts, his main paypal is almost 1000 which is huge since he has recurring billing and clients that buy multiple items (books, videos, memberships, etc)

His other sites have lesser accounts from 200 to 400

A quick look at some PayPal storefronts showed volume ratings of over 30,000 for clearly independent, "unknown" ecommerce sites listed there. Wyss 23:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So is no one is buying his prophecies then why is his paypal account almost as strong as wikipedia?

His numbers would include the deathporn and as already mentioned, at under 1000 this would be on the very low side. Wyss 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Food for thought

Yes indeed. Barely one step ahead of the bailiffs, huh? Anyway, thanks awfully for the insight ;P Wyss 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Above edit by 80.58.50.174, proxy server located in Spain - JohnyDog 23:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Do these "ratings" mean something? I'm not that familiar with Paypal; does Wikipedia have anything to do with Paypal? Or is it just the usual Ennis nonsense? --Dbenbenn 23:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If Ennis' reference to wiki's PayPal volume rating is correct, it would be on the minimal side, all to be expected, since last I heard, wiki isn't an ecommerce merchant. He does this... making comparisons out of context and with illusory baselines. Wyss 00:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest vandalism by 194.63.239.27 seemed to come from another educational server, looks like a suburb of Athens, Greece. As mentioned above he's probably using scripts, and the IPs do appear to be blocked almost on sight by wikipedians. Wyss 00:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Son of light, light of God"

It's very widely reported that "Sollog" is an acronym standing for "Son of light, light of God." Why doesn't the article mention this? Does the statement that the name is derived from "Sol" and "Logos" a new explanation, or was the old one erroneous? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's been in and out of the article repeatedly during the revert wars. I suspect it got lost somewhere along the way. --Carnildo 00:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it was last taken out yesterday morning. --Dbenbenn 01:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the "son of light, light of God" was taken out because it appears to be a backronym. I added a sentence explaining that. --Dbenbenn 01:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A while ago, I did some digging, and the earliest usenet post I could find (c. 1996) to make reference to "Son of Light, Light of God" suggested that it was the name under which Ennis first published his prophecies in the Philadelphia City (before Altman started making fun of him). --Rlandmann 04:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected?

I thought the page was supposed to be protected? I might be wrong though. --Sgeo | Talk 02:22, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

It's been in and out of protection a few times over the past week. Right now, it's being used in a game of whack-a-mole with a number of open proxies. --Carnildo 02:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't look now

Don't look now, but it seems that the wikipediasucks forums have been discovered by the GNAA. --Carnildo 02:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A single, bland post about VfD from someone signing off as GNAA with a little devil graphic. Most of the posts (there aren't that many) are Ennis sockpuppets, talking to himself, often with vulgarities. One ends with the line, "Damn I'm good." Wyss 03:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The wikipediasucks forums are disappointingly boring. Looking at the members list it appears that most of the members are either wikipedians or slashdot members. I suspect John deleted all the remotely interesting posts and blocked the posters, just like he did with my first sockpuppet there. Gamaliel 03:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis Poetry

From one of his forums...

Yeah wikif***, like jitterbug but only ragtime dance.
Do the wikif*** wickf*** yeah yeah/

When will Bennett become the arcangel Gabreil.
Hail Mary Fully of grace. Lord append your souls. Rain go away.

Why do you keep coming back to my brain in the morning. Go.

____________________________________________________

It was the last line that got me. Wyss 02:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Karma works that way, doesn't it? One would think a god would've known that... Fire Star 04:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please tell me he composed some more music so one can sing and dance to these awesome lyrics!!!Micah 07:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It reminds me of Kenneth Higney's infamously scronky 'Attic Demonstration' LP [40] -Ashley Pomeroy 09:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm convinced - he is a genius! -- ChrisO 09:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you plese provide link, I am unfamiliar with this verse, it does not look like Sollog's style, are you playing game? Nltoh

Dearest sockpuppet Nltoh, I believe you wrote it, so you should certainly recognize the style. Wyss 20:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, it's limerick time!

There once was a prophet named Sollog
Who tried to use Wiki like his blog
His writing was confused
Which led to editors bemused
By his text through which they must slog.

A2Kafir 20:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There once was a prophet from Broward County
who through proxies vandalised a fair amount. He
    used more than one pseudonym
    and all attempts to tutor him
failed. Someone put out a coward bounty!

A sockpuppet army like Sollog's
requires mere miniature bollocks.
    Words of doom and of menace
    reach his puppets' antennas.
With friends like these, who needs Ennis?

Oh slippery Sollog! Your prophecy
is as hard and as fast as, say, toffee. See,
    it lacks specificity
    and just serves as publicity.
If we ban you, we'll let you getophezy.

You apparently had your own theory:
"What I post here, will stay. For, ideally,
    I can quickly revert
    what some people insert
to render my prose more NPOV."

Now that you've been duly anthologized,
isn't it time you apologized
    for the spam links you posted
    to those hate sites you hosted
and the numerous times we were Sollogized?

--MarkSweep 01:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think giving Sollog a limerick overstates his importance. He doesn't merit even a haiku, let alone five full lines. JamesMLane 04:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True enough, I think, but I like MarkSweep's last line... Wyss 04:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With friends like these, who needs Ennis?

As much as I enjoy watching the ongoing feud between a troll and the maintainers I would humbly request that the Wikipedians try to adhere to item #4 listed at the very top: "No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed." It reflects poorly upon the maintainers when they stoop to the level of mockery that Ennis is attempting to do (albeit with better spelling and grammar in most cases).

This vaguely resembles Simpsons episode 3F04 - the one with the song "Just don't look" Simpsons lyrics

--Shagie 08:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hackers take down Wikipedia?

http://www.247news.net/2004/20041220-wiki.shtml

How long was this site down today?

Not all too many hours, from about 3:21 (UST) onwards. Wikibooks was down a bit earlier... I don't think that Sollog has spammed there yet (better not provide any ideas) Estel (talk) 20:25, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

What was the reason? 148.223.48.226 17:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) (Unanonymized by [[User:Kyrin|Kyrin\^talk]] 17:44, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC))

A few hours for server upgrades F cam 17:32, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

better fire your IT person, server upgrades when done right take minutes, someone posted ping results from this site on a forum, the ping went unanswered, then it came back later as protocol not installed, so it looks like a complete core meltdown on the bromis server, guess wiki can't afford a mirror in house, most are saying it was a DoS attack due to lenght of time

The above advice was posted by 202.63.163.66 via a Concentric server in the San Francisco, California area, prob. an open proxy. Wyss 16:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good grief - has this guy no shame? Now he's boasting about his vandalism of Wikipedia... -- ChrisO 18:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's amazing looking at those "news" articles how many grammatical mistakes, and downright self-contradiction gets into what is obviously the most professional of websites. Estel (talk) 19:12, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sollog's most prominent (grammar) problem is run-on sentences. It's like he never made it through seventh-grade composition or something. A2Kafir 20:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have a disclaimer of the validity of information and their use? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 20:13, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

From the linked page: "Some see this recent action as the death knoll for Wikipedia.org since it is taking up a ton of volunteer time to try to stop this protest editing." Hee. Heehee. Ha.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! -- Khym Chanur 01:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Heh heh. As I mentioned below... he still hasn't figured it out. Wyss 01:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a cult?

[vandalism deleted, see it in page history Wyss 20:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) ]

User Nltoh's only contributions have been Sollog-related and included vandalism to the article. Wyss 20:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, I understand, but please bear with me putting this back. I'll explain at the bottom:

That's ok (sorry if I over-reacted... am I out of control yet? :) Wyss 20:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps exasperated like anyone that looks at this page... if slightly amused Estel (talk) 20:52, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Start of very long 'cult' posting

I see this on forum for Sollog. Is this site a cult? Why does he say Sollog site WikipediaSucks.com? Sollog not own that site.

That's a rarity, he owns nearly all of the ones mentioned on here ;) Estel (talk)

Hello Sollog, I saw your Wikipedia sucks website. Unfortunately, I know from experience that you are right. I want to remain anonymous because I am afraid of threats from current Wikipedians who are so devoted to their "achievements" and they get extremely angry about even a little criticism. I sincerely hope that people will be warned against Wikipedia because I do not want other to go through what I went through. Please do distribute the following information to help current and prospective Wikipedians. Thanks from an Ex-Wikipedian

Why would this 'one' post be fractioned like this? It's as if one person has written a short letter, and then signed off.Estel (talk)

There is a lot of controversy with regards to Wikipedia. Vocal critics, most of them are ex-members accuse Wikipedia of being a brainwashing cult that engages extensively in propaganda.

Some indications that Wikipedia is indeed that the cult that vocal critics believe it to be are listed hereunder

1. Vocal critics assert that Wikipedia practices thought reform and indoctrination by demanding people to read and adhere to the NPOV policy. 2. There is documented evidence that the NPOV policy is a form of dogma and it is explicitly stated as "non-negotiable". In other words Wikipedia discourages critical thinking. It should be noted that in many cults, basic principles can not be questioned. The NPOV has numerous detailed prescriptions and even says that some words are taboo, which members call "words to avoid". 3. Wikipedia has utopian ideals. Founder Jimbo Wales has explicitly stated that he wanted to make it the best free on-line encyclopedia in the world. This is a very typical of abusive new religious movements because it will lead to ever increasing demands on members. 4. There is documented evidence that Wikipedia engages in love bombing, a policy that members euphemistically call "be nice to new comers". 5. Members (aka unpaid volunteers) are encouraged to spend large amounts of time on the project without any warning that this may be unhealthy. Note that cults will typically behave the same. An unpaid volunteer is a just a slave who was lured by false promises. 6. Apart from the demands of large amounts of time, Wikpedia also solicits for financial contributions. Many cults engage in this behavior too. 7. Another form of financial exploitation are the legal copies made by commercial websites that use the hard work of idealistic volunteers to make money by advertisement. 8. Some current members openly admit that they are addicted called "Wikipediholics". If Wikipedia were a responsible organization it would advise its members to put a maximum of time devoted to Wikipedia and if necessary advise members to seek professional help. 9. There have been complaints about abuse of power by admins and sysops. Sysops and admins are members who have managed climb in the cult's hierarchy with power over regular members. Abuse of power is a typical complaint of ex-members of cults. 10. Members are drawn ever-deeper into the organization by progressing though Wikipedia's multilayered and growing hierarchy, beginning with initiation into the rank of Administrator. The senior members of Wikipedia state that "There Is No Cabal," but there are few limits on the power wielded by the Arbitration Committee and fewer still on those shadowy figures known as "the Developers." Most cults deny the existence of their highest levels of initiation to newcomers and outsiders. 11. Members of Wikipedia have their own idiosyncratic concepts and language (e.g. "Wikipedians"). This is a clear, generally accepted indication of a cult. 12. Members who break the NPOV dogma of Wikipedia are expelled and even shunned. 13. New members are actively recruited by making advertisements in usenet groups. Current members are encouraged to buy mugs and stickers with the Wikipedia logo to advertize it to colleagues, friends and the general public. Cults are also typically involved in proselytism. 14. Wikipedia is engaged in censorship. This article can not be placed as a serious, regular article in Wikipedia. It would be removed soon. This proves that dissenting opinions are not allowed. Censorship is a very typical behavior of cults.

Some of ex-members' complaints: depression and shattered self-esteem

Vocal critics assert they have fell into a depression after they came to the conclusion that Wikipedia was a sham. They claim that they feel betrayed and suffer from an extremely painful disillusionment and lost all sense of meaning in their lives when they could no longer believe in Wikipedia's utopian ideals. Disgruntled ex-members complain that they suffer from loss of self esteem because they always believed that other people, not they, but ignorant, stupid, wide-eyed, gullible people get sucked in a cult, not intelligent people like them. Some resorted to excessive use of alcohol to compensate for this emotional loss.

Many ex-members, especially those with academic titles are too embarrassed to admit under their real names that they were involved in the Wikipedia project, so they prefer to submit anonymous testimonies. They are afraid that testimonies under their real names will hurt their businesses or academic credibility and that they will be ridiculed. Vocal critis testify that they also met people who got depressed after their ISP was cut off, which, according to critics, is clear proof that Wikipedia has an unhealthy addictive nature. One vocal critics asserts that she met one person who got depressed for months after he got expelled because of non-adherence to the NPOV dogma, that by the way had been accepted without scientific proof of its correctness.

Critics assert that they have been naive to succumb for the tempation of attractive and hence contagious illusions (or memes) disseminated by Wikipedia's adherents who were also attracted because of their their idealistic nature and unfulfilled psychological needs, which was just waiting to be cynically exploited by unscrupulous dishonest bussinessmen. They assert that they have underestimated the influence of communal reinforcement, group think and wishful thinking.

When reading the above mentioned bitter complaints, it will be of no suprise that some ex-members (somewhat pejoratively called apostates) intend to make a website to warn prospective and current members of the dangers of, what they call, getting sucked into Wikipedia's misguided world view and faith. The group of vocal critics also intend to contact the media to, as they say, expose the cultic nature of the Wikipedia project.

Debating the cult label

Wikipedia does not explicitly request its

members too sever ties with family and friends but the excessively time consuming practice of collaborative editing leads in practice to neglect contacts with family and friends and to conflicts with them. So the net result is the same.

At the moment there is not an extreme form of

charismatic authority in Wikipedia, though it should be noted that co-founder Jimbo Wales' opinions still have a disproportionally strong influence, like a guru, on other members that may come close charismatic authority in its strict sense.

Current members of Wikipedia generally resent

being called members of a cult. Members of purported cults do the same, as can be verified in the hundreds of discusion groups all over the internet.

It is true that Wikipedia is not a religious

cult, unlike most other purported cults but the concept of cult is not confined to religious groups, for example the notorious People's Temple was in its latter days more a social, political movement than a religious group. Indeed, some controversial new social movements are also classified as cults by cult experts such as Steven Hassan, Rick Ross, the late Margaret Singer Ph.D. Janja Lalich who herself is an ex-member of a political cult, and Michael Langone of the American Family Foundation.

Crisis help line and exit-counseling

If you think that you, a friend or a family members is involved or shows interest in participation in this controversial new social movement then do not hesitate to contact other ex-members who feel that they have become victims of the self-deception or deception perpetrated by the Wikipedia and affiliated projects. Seek information before you or others get hooked and then make an informed choice. There are knowledgeable ex-members who know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia who can do some exit counseling. The exit couseling is free but of professional quality! Please write and support the Ex-Wikipedia support group by sending an email.

It really is worrying that that person (aside from absolutely everything else on this page and the main article) can be bothered to write quite so much that shall get him nowhere whatsoever. The only people reading this page anyway (well... most likely most of them) are Wiki-editors anyway, that have been at least showing an interest in this page and therefore know what stupid, senseless posts that person is posting. There is not a single logical reason for his posting them... ahh well... that was obvious anyway. Estel (talk) 20:44, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

You should see his forums... barren wastelands of sockpuppets... Wyss 20:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To me, this "letter to Sollog" reads like a very skilled troll aimed at Sollog. --Carnildo 21:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm reasonably confident the sensation you're having is an artifact of his own, well-known ineptness. Ennis is his own worst troll. Wyss 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Doe-eyed cult fiend)

end of very long 'cult' posting

DJ Clayworth 20:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are three reasons why I think the post above should be left.

We don't normally remove talk page postings
This is the funniest thig I've read in weeks
I think it shows Wikipedia in a better light if we leave it.

What do I mean by the last? Well, look at the things we are accused of:

We are nice to people
We 'exploit' people by allowing their work to be used for free
We have noble aims ('utopian ideals')
We demand that people read site policies
We want to be the best

Seriously I am proud to have been attacked in this way. I think every word of it should stand. We should make links to it! Humour is, after all, one of the best weapons against the fanatic. DJ Clayworth 20:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would this be a good candidate for BJAODN? It certainly amused me in a black-humour way. — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 23:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I forgot the best - the proof that we are a cult is that we object to being called a cult. Would the Cult of Sollog agree with that, or would they object to being called a cult? DJ Clayworth 20:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see the day that Wikipedia would be compared to Scientology, etc. Bizarre.A2Kafir 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Damn you wikipedia and your heinous quest for neutrality! Showing all sides of an issue, now that's a true master plan for indoctrination F cam 20:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Oh my God, I've seen the light. It's all true! Jimbo doesn't love me, he's just after my contributions! It's all part of an evil conspiracy to sap my spirituality and convert it into a dogmatic view of the world's best encyclopedia!

No, wait. That's actually the whole point. Going back to RC patrol now. 82.92.119.11 20:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My only regret is that the poster neglected to give the address and email of the Ex-Wikipedia support group ( for apostates as we supposedly call them). This is obviously a serious omission, and since we can't find it out, maybe we should start one. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've always thought covenant breaker had a nice ring to it. Wyss 21:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Covenant Breaker" would also be a good band name. Maybe for a punk/gospel/country crossover band. --MarkSweep 23:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heavy metal, surely? Add a heavy metal umlaut or two - Cövenant Breäker - and set it on fire so that it looks "hard" on stage. -- ChrisO 23:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about Kфvëпäпt βrëäkëR? Gamaliel 23:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok but the songs have to be like, way ranting cultish Wikipediology screed, ya know? Wyss 00:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

En pee oh vee, En pee oh vee
Don't rain on me
With your vanity
En pee oh vee, oh vee eff dee
Just take it down
With Jimbology!

... :) Wyss 00:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Ranting cultist)

I always imagained Wikipedia song lyrics as semi-intellectual sounding, with lots of long words, but not making complete sense. Kind of like Bohemian Rhapsody but with links. DJ Clayworth 02:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Strange; I can't seem to be able to find any Google hits for this widespread organisation. Estel (talk) 20:58, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The cabal is suppressing it, you fool! Don't you know Jimbo has an inside link into Google? 82.92.119.11 21:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and we have a Charismatic leader as well. I'm sure Jimbo will be happy to be told that. DJ Clayworth 20:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And he has a beard too! (well, facial fuzz anyway). What self-respecting prophet doesn't? -- ChrisO 23:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I now see wikipedia is biased

I try to put in this wiki site correct Sollog information, but I now see 247 news tells the truth once again. All my corrections of error were removed. You use posts in usenet with wrong information about the famous Line of Sollog. It is from south of Seatthle through south of Miami. This is fact and is in many books I have since long time ago by Sollog. Also, I tried to put in correct information about 113 Prophecy and 911 warning but they were deleted. It is now very plain to me that wiki site is biased site. So long. Nltoh

Bye, Ennis. Note how the sockpuppet (Nltoh probably = Netherlands TOH) attempts mask his syntax with deliberate grammar errors, but the mild dyslexia is difficult to hide. Wyss 21:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Ranting cultist)

He tried to make additional grammatical errors in order to appear foreign. But your average Dutch person, posting to English Wikipedia, would do far better than Ennis would in using English, I suspect.A2Kafir 21:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (cult acolyte)

You bet your tuckus we would. For one thing, we have these things called plurals and articles (not the encyclopedic kind) in Dutch too. A Dutchman/woman is far more prone to slip up on idiomatic expressions and phrasal ordering than basic stuff like verb inflection. It is now very plain to me that Sollog is silly person. So long. 82.92.119.11 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (cabal's whipping boy)

I have to agree, having spent a great deal of time on IRC and other places talking with people from other places I've got to say that most of the people I've had the opportunity to talk with are quite capable of near-perfect english, the only things they sometimes slip on it sometimes finding the right word, or (rarely) using a word in the wrong context. Seems people who are more than just a little bit 'net savvy are able to pick up the language quite easily and are usually quite happy to expand their knowledge, usually they don't mind being corrected. (I personally correspond with three people for the sole purpose of critique and comment on their writing in order to help them overcome simple flaws in sentence structure or misuse of various words.) [[User:Kyrin|Kyrin\^talk]] 21:26, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC) (MMMmmm, Jello for brains tasty!)

For what it's worth, I think he was trying to simulate an Arab or Indian person speaking English as a second language (the Netherlands, especially Amsterdam, has a high population of non-ethnic Europeans) and as the apparently Dutch person above implied... I know Dutch people who speak English as well as any of us. Wyss 21:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right about the second language thing. Sollog puts a lot of thought into these things, after all. #:-D I'll ask my Arab friends if they've heard of this cool new TOH group... They might want to do something after those boring mosque visits. !-) 82.92.119.11 21:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (doe-eyed cult peon)

Thank you Nltoh my loyal follower for trying to fix the LIES and SLANDER that is here. Your loyalty will be rewarded. --Sollog 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this a sockpuppet of a contributor here in an attempt to make him look even more ridiculous? Man, I'm getting paranoid. 82.92.119.11 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Nope, that wasn't Ennis... likely one of us having a bit of fun) Wyss 21:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Ranting cultist)

Yeah, likely. Let's not point fingers here, but personally, I think a ~~wyssard~~ wizard did it. (You see, even experienced speakers make silly spelling mistakes...) 82.92.119.11 21:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a fun note: I managed to get into an edit conflict with myself, twice. Now tell me again I'm not part of the upper echelons of the WikiCult. B-) 82.92.119.11 21:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nope, not me... I'm too familiar with his style to ever try imitating it without simply copy/pasting stuff from his spam. Wyss 21:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's him. However this is nothing compared to his wonderfully refreshing "cult" rant. -[[User:Ld|Ld | talk]] 02:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard Ennis refer to his TOH sockpuppets as followers, he calls them members of TOH or TOH members... nor utter thank you (thanks TOH, maybe)... nor make an interjection of this kind without some sort of vulgarity or insult, like you morons. I'm sure it wasn't him. Wyss 04:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I read (maybe on IRC) a claim from a real user that he'd established the User:Sollog account just so no one else could. I think this is "one of us having a bit of fun". I'm too lazy to check, though. I just discovered we have scores of articles using the (non-)word "thusly", and I think dealing with that is more important than Sollog. JamesMLane 09:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Full Archive

I made a page combining archives at Talk:Sollog/fullarchive -Sgeo | Talk 21:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ennis' Test

That's right, he still hasn't figured it out. ;) Wyss 22:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It came from user 12.73.18.30, via an AT&T dialup in Portland, Oregon USA. Wyss 22:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What happened to the logo?

The "TOH" logo won't load. Anyone know why?A2Kafir 22:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cache issues. I've purged the page. Works for me now. 82.92.119.11 22:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I gather there was/is some sort of problem with one of the image servers. -- ChrisO 22:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Cult" posting - Church of Jimbology proposed

Sollog is right - Wikipedia is a cult, and Jimbo is our prophet. I propose we establish the Church of Jimbology in recognition of this fact. (There are some pretty cool exemptions for cults and those robes are snazzy!) All those in favour say aye. ;-) -- ChrisO 23:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would we have to, like, chant and stuff?A2Kafir 00:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hare Jimbo

Jimbo Jimbo

Hare Hare Gamaliel 00:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone want to buy a used J-meter? -- ChrisO 00:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sort of depends what you used it for... I want to be a high priest by the way! &#0xfeff; --fvw * 01:23, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

If we get Travolta he could play Ennis in the movie... Wyss 00:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Ranting cultist)

Jim Caviezel would be good to play Jimbo... -- ChrisO 08:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Erm, apart from being a sucker for (real? just faked?) punishment, he seems to be a bit of a nut (way out there with Gibson). Perhaps he could be induced to play another figure in this tiny melodrama. -- Hoary 09:20, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Hey. Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog and James Randi

It appears that famous skeptic James Randi has had a run-in with Sollog: [41]. If we can find a better source than 247news.net, it's something that could go in the article. Dbenbenn 02:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog publicly challenged Randi to set parameters to judge a rare quake (above 6.5+), Randi refused. Sollog's parameters were that he would be within 3 days and 250 miles for a 6.5+ Quake http://www.sollog.com/challenge.txt

Randi supporters claim Sollog never submitted the form, that is a lie since a scan of it is on Sollog's site http://www.sollog.com/randi/randichallengeb.jpg

That's proof he filled in the form, not that it was submitted F cam 13:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Meanwhile, James Randi is on my watchlist, as are several other articles that I fear might be sollogized. -- Hoary 02:25, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I think the problem is this part of the challenge rules: "Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required." So Sollog contacts the Randi Foundation and says "Hey, here's my prediction about when a natural disaster is going to strike", and they respond "Your prediction is too vague, after any natural disaster stirkes you could interpret your prediction after the fact to make it look like a hit." If that's what happened, then there won't be any record of it besides at Sollog's sites, unless Sollog sues Randi for refusing to even accept the challenge, or something similar. -- Khym Chanur 03:33, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I wish Randi kept a record of rejected challenges on his site. Dbenbenn 03:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Only stuff I've been finding are echoes of Ennis' various announcements on forums at the time (followed by the usual disparaging comments). As far as I can tell, Ennis refused to comply with Randi's standard application (there seems to have been some telephone contact between them), whereupon Randi dismissed him as "a nut" and apparently didn't think it was significant enough to mention anywhere. Wyss 04:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd accept Sollog's challenge. If he posts, to my talk page, the date and place of a 6.5+ earthquake, and he turns out to be right, then I'll put an acknowledgement that he did this on my user page. I have no problem, as long as the date and place are unambiguous. I'll be generous and say he is allowed three predictions. DJ Clayworth 03:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll be even more generous. He just needs to get the date right to within a week, and the place right to within 100 miles. --Carnildo 06:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ha, you'll be lucky. Sollog 'predicted' that a great quake would strike within 100 miles of Easter Island that "many shall mourn". Then he vociferously claimed a hit for one that cracked a few roads in the middle of Argentina! He (or rather sockpuppets) feebly tried to claim it was 100 miles away from Chile which owns Easter Island, but unfortunately it wasn't, or that Easter was an allegory for Santiago del Estero (which it isn't). If he can claim a hit on a quake that kills no one, thousands of miles away in a different country, what chance have you got of getting a straight answer out of him? Of course the answer is none. He buries the misses (e.g. his most recent and laughable GAMES OF DEATH stinker), and plays up the 'hits' which are usually so awful that it's a mystery how he concluded he got anything right in the first place. In fact of course Sloppy knows he is a lousy prophet, otherwise he wouldn't couch his predictions in extremely vague terms, shot gun a dozen or more out at a time, or use numerology to bolster his dismal score. --Cchunder 09:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, it's the famous usenet troll cardinal chunder aka chunder here, search for his posts and see what a foul mouthed troll he is. The Sollog Easter Quake Prophecy was the first in a long series of famous Sollog quake warnings. THE ONLY 6.5+ quake to occur anywhere in THE WORLD for the WHOLE MONTH of April 2000 http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/neic/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=HH&SYEAR=2000&SMONTH=04&SDAY=01&EYEAR=2000&EMONTH=04&EDAY=30&LMAG=6.5&UMAG=9&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search

So the fact is Sollog hit the EXACT DATE for the only major quake in a whole month, it struck approximately 100 miles from the country he names since Easter Islan is part of Chile and this Easter Quake struck approx. 100 miles from Chile, the quake also just happened to hit the line of latitude that Easter Island is on. In 2000 and 2001 Sollog issued 10 such quake warning, the first five like this gave an exact date when a rare 7.0+ range quake hit.

That's a pretty damn weak argument, it's like predicting an earthquake will happen in the UK and then claiming you're right when one happens in the Falklands F cam 13:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oh sure, 100 miles is it? Funny, this map shows it to be 544 kilometers from even the remotest border of Chile [42]. That's 340 miles away or a DIRECT MISS in other words. It wasn't close to Chile. It certainly wasn't close to Easter Island. No one died. No one mourned. It was a complete and utter miss. --Cchunder 15:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go back to usenet cardianl chunder, I'm sure wiki doesn't want anything to do with a foul mouth demon like you Tohindia

Note, ~~Cchunder is an Ennis troll who posted this seemingly anti-Sollog post, then vandalized the article.~~ Tohindia is an Ennis sockpuppet. Wyss 13:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an Ennis troll, my usenet record is evidence of that (search for "Cardinal Chunder"). I haven't vandalized the article, as can be seen from my edit history within this article and elsewhere. If there is a specific issue with something I've written, please cite and I will explain why it was changed the way it was. If you're talking of the most recent change by me, it was simply to clarify that someone called el9 (i.e. not Sollog) claimed Sollog made a warning but didn't cite where Sollog supposedly said it. Thus the the prediction is even more dubious than it was before. --Cchunder 14:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cchunder, for what it's worth, I was just about to post that I now do not think you're an Ennis troll. You have some similarities in writing style but it's not at all a match, plus your edit history at wiki is non-Ennis-like in the extreme. Sorry. Let's discuss these substantive changes to the article before you make them, fair enough? Wyss 14:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any similarities are actually due to parody. Thus I only capitalized GAMES OF DEATH in the post above because that's how Sollog likes to say it. --Cchunder 15:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm amazed anyone's even discussing his cold reading. Wyss 11:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prediction sections

Hi, everybody! (Hi, dr. Nick!) I'm just popping in here for a brief visit. To no surprise, there's been a lot of discussing... or rather, dissing and cussing... and our dear friend still seems to think he's stronger than Wikipedia (or maybe this is just his idea of a good time, I don't know.) To more relevant matters: please try to keep in mind that this is not a chatbox; if there's something meaningful to say about the article, please let that take precedence over the latest Sollog joke. (Though there are lots of good ones here. :-) Don't tell me all non-anon edits go undiscussed.

That "examples" section annoys me, for example. :-) Encyclopedias should in general be very wary of giving examples, and preferably describe things in a general matter instead. And going so far as to claim they're "best illustrated" by example borders on spoon feeding.

Most of Sollog's "prophecies" are both utterly non-notable and based on principles described in detail elsewhere (like cold reading and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy -- note that the latter can be excused from giving examples, as they illustrate a general point). It is sufficient to state that critics (or "everyone but Ennis", but that's probably too POV) claim Sollog is faking it, and why, possibly linking to some "prophecies" but not quoting them verbatim. The purpose of this article is not to discredit this (very common) "type" of prophecy by demolishing Sollog's specific drivel.

Also, the 9/11 prophecy section doesn't tie in with Xinoehpoel, which seems suboptimal.

In general, though, keep up the good work. This just proves to the world that we can be encyclopedic about anything. :-) JRM 12:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

What JRM said :) Wyss 12:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xinoehpoel section was merged with 911 section and it was considered 'vandalism' if you read history on page. So giving an exact date and location for a 7.0+ quake is a cold reading? Saying on 9/11/1998 three years before 911 struck that a major emergency would hit DC on 911 is a cold reading? He had the date (911) and the location (DC) and the event (major emergency) 100%. Note he didn't say terrorism, he say a major emergency, 911 was the biggest emergency in US history and the USA is run from DC so 911 hit DC exactly as Sollog warned. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6tb7rp%24gvr%241%40winter.news.erols.com Tohindia

Note, Tohindia's only contributions have been Sollog-related. Wyss 13:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your "merging" was not in good faith, or it wouldn't have been reverted — that's how much faith I have in everyone else. Yes, saying on 9/11/1998 that a "major emergency" will hit DC, and relating this somehow to the number 911, is a total and utter fluke. Coincidence. Lucky guess. Creative interpretation. Insignificant statistic from a huge pool of "prophecies" of which the majority didn't happen by any stretch of the imagination. If I prophesize today that three years from now, some unspecified "major emergency" will hit DC, and do that often enough with different places, dates, and a license to interpret "major emergency" any way I want, then statistically I will get it right by pure coincidence some time. But why am I explaining this to you? I'm sure you understand the mechanics better than anyone else. You are John P. Ennis, and I claim my five pounds. I will not tell you to get a life, for obviously, this is your life. I'm sorry. I wish I could make it better for you, but you probably wouldn't have it any other way. JRM 13:54, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

And of course Sollog would have claimed a hit if it had happened on the 9th of november, or 19th of January or the 119 or 191st day of the year (and probably things related to 116 since that's just 911 rotated by pi ) etc etc... And arguably New York was hit a lot harder than DC F cam 14:01, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and about that "Church of Jimbology" — don't you heretics know about the Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia? Repent, sinners, or burn in the fires of eternal banishment! JRM 12:33, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Ennis

I am about to replace every usage of "Ennis" in this article w Sollog, w the exception of the 1st sentance. I think repeatedly refering to this man in a manner he does not prefer is unencyclopedic, and unneccesarilly antagonistic. Thoughts? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 13:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't make that change until a consensus as been reached. Ennis' preferences are not related to the development of an accurate article. Wyss 13:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, I'm afraid (and thanks for asking here first!). "Ennis" seems more encyclopedic in style to me. Moreover, I strongly believe that for making decisions about this article, the question of what might or might not antagonise Sollog/Ennis should be completely irrelevant. — Matt Crypto 13:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog is known as Sollog to the world, so referring to someone by a name he does not use and considers a slur due to his religious beliefs is a very biased and un-encyclopedia thing to do. It would be like constantly referring to Malcom X by his slave name or Ali as Clay, etc. Other than noting Sollog was born John Ennis there should be no reference to Ennis, Sollog is famous for his prophecies and they all say Sollog. When Sollog appeared in court the fact is the US Magistrate referred to him as GOD, it's in the court record. That was decided upon by the judge as the LEGAL NAME of Sollog for any court proceeding.(Added by Tohindia)

The Sollog followers would be slightly harder to spot if they weren't ALWAYS REQUIRED TO USE CAPS. Seriously, his name is Ennis and that is what should be used. Carrp 13:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(This was contributed by Tohindia who not long ago vandalized the article... and given the content and writing style, clearly a sockpuppet of John P. Ennis) Wyss 13:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of the source, Tohindia's argument is sound. Many famous people call themselves something other than their birth name, and it is unencyclopedic not to respect that. His birth name ought be mentioned, but not more than necessary. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 13:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed it should be "Sollog". I also personally dislike the "Son of light, light of god" sentence. If it's a misconception why is it in the encyclopedia? Justcron 15:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note, Justcron's only contribs have been related specifically to the "Son of light, light of god" issue. Moreover, after receiving a welcome message from Francs2000, Justcron replied by saying he/she had been "learning the ropes" on wiki for a month or so and was now "ready to contribute". Wyss 15:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it common to analyze a contributor and post their information in a talk post? Seems a little creepy to me. If you want to discuss the issue thats cool... please dont make it personal for no reason Justcron 15:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Justcron, there has been so much vandalism and sockpuppetry relating to this article that I'm wary of any user whose only history is so finely focused on Sollog. Your posts are public, for all to see, and I'm simp;y referring to them to provide as much context as possible. However, I am assuming good faith. Why is the "Son of light, light of god" reference so particularly important to you? Wyss 15:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, I hear what you're saying. I knew I was stepping into a snake pit and have tried to respect everyones rules and the consensus. I haven't edited any other articles because the ones I have read haven't struck me as needing any changes. Regarding the SOLLOG acronym reference, it seems a basic idea not to have 'misconceptions' in an article, but of course I will respect the consensus viewpoint. I was simply stating my opinion, not trying to take on the powers that be. I've been following Sollog on usenet and have personally concluded he's a 'false prophet' if that helps provide some insight into what I really think. Personal feelings aside, I'm simply applying journalistic principles to the article. I feel at this point the only etiquette violations I have made is sharing personal information on this talk page, but that wasn't my choice. Justcron 15:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, come on. As far as new contributors go, you're a paragon of virtue. There's plenty of WikiLove to go around. Wyss was just a bit on edge, and that's understandable too. Here's your official visitor's pass — no wait, give that back, you don't need one to begin with... Close harmony edit chorus, people. A-one, a-two, a-one two three... JRM 15:50, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I think this would depend on the context of their activities. More seriously, since Ennis has a long history of multiple online identities and sockpuppetry, it's important to refer to him by his birth name for the purpose of reducing any possibility of confusion. Wyss 13:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We've argued this before. It seems simple to me; which name is going to be most recognisable to the reader? That would be Sollog. There is no danger of deceit, since we give his full name clearly. Calling him by his best known name doesn't imply approval at all, any more than the court that wound up calling him 'God' meant to approve his deity status. There is enough to decide here without making a big point about the name. DJ Clayworth 14:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reitering a previous edit I added. The article is about 'sollog' so this is the name that should be used in the article (in my opinion). Though making a note of his real(legal) in the introduction should be fine (as it is pure information). myork 16:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, i'm curious about this. Is he using the name Ennis or not ? All of his sockpuppets claims that he does not, however that James Randi form posted here link is signed as "Sollog aka GOD aka J. Ennis". - JohnyDog 16:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Johntex views on use of Ennis/SOLLOG:

Agree with User:UTC that Ennis' views should not be the guiding force behind decisions about the article. However, common courtesy suggest that his views not be capriciously ignored either.
Agree with Sam that the main factor for naming should be how the person is best known.
Therefore, Sollog should be the dominant name used, but not to the exclusion of other names.
The article should be titled Sollog (as it is currently)
The first paragraph should remain as-is, explaining that Ennis is his birthname
Most subsequent references should be replaced by SOLLOG.
The fact that he has also used other aliases should also be mentioned, if they can be listed and documented.
The "Son of Light, Light of God" reference should be retained because it is such a common view. This name for him is used in the Philadelphia City Paper article that is referenced here. I have seen postings that claim Sollog claimed this explanation himself at one point. Can we point to a reference for this?
Suggested second paragraph:

Ennis refers to himself by what he calls the "religious name" of Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni (the first name is sometimes fully capitalized: SOLLOG). "Sollog" is widely thought to stand for "son of light, light of God", although more recently, Sollog has denied this explanation. Sollog explains that the name is derived from "Sol" and "Logos", literally "the word of the sun". [43] He has also gone by other aliases. He prefers not to be called by his birth name, John Ennis, considering it an insult, and claims instead that "GOD" is the legal name of any Temple of 'Hayah (TOH) member in any legal proceeding. [44] Johntex 16:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The last sane version of the article was basically fine, IMHO. Don't do a global s/Ennis/Sollog/, rather use the form of the name that's appropriate in context. For example, it's the Sollog persona who issued the prophecies and it's Ennis who got questioned by the Secret Service. Some instances of the name will be open to debate, though. --MarkSweep 17:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will attempt an edit bsed on that principle, though I think most things will be down to Sollog. Sollog was arrested as much as Ennis. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

South Florida?

The article currently says that Ennis is "thought to reside in South Florida". This fact was added by Cchunder, [45], who has recently been reverted and accused of being a troll. So do we have a reference for the Florida thing? Dbenbenn 14:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was accused of being a troll (by User:tohindia) simply because I tend to greatly annoy a certain person. No prizes for guesssing who. The reason why is that this person doesn't like the fact that I can usually demolish their claimed powers simply by comparing the claim to the evidence (e.g. the Easter Island prediction mentioned elsewhere). Concerning the reference to South Florida, I said it for two reasons. First if you look at the ASI drop box it's in Coral Springs. Secondly, take a look at an Amazon.com reviewer called "adoni_pub" [46] and see where they claim to reside - Key West. Between the two I surmise that he lives in South Florida.

Note that on Ennis's website he's asking people to complain to the Florida Attorney General about Wikipedia. Why the Florida AG when there are 49 other AGs to chose from? It's got to be because it's his home jurisdiction. -- ChrisO 15:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason is simple, Jim Wales and Wikipedia are both in Florida, Wales lives there and his company is chartered there, so the AGO that has jurisprudence over the actions of Wales and Wikipedia is guess who the Florida AGO. If enough people complain to the AGO in Florida from Toh then the AGO will be forced to confront Wales on this page and the actions of the people harassing Sollog and Toh. knock knock wales it's the FL AGO at your door. 202.63.163.66

I was wrong in my first conclusion about Cchunder, I strongly doubt he's Ennis, but I'm still trying to determine if his agenda is NPoV. Comments, Cchunder...? Wyss 14:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, you need a dose of assume good faith. Even if his "agenda" were not NPOV (what sort of an agenda is that, anyway?), being POV is fine on the talk page — as long as Cchunder is discussing with us, he's A-OK even if he were the bastard child of Sollog and Satan. I accuse you of having a POV agenda to make sure criticism of Sollog is presented well, and not necessarily defense of him. Am I wrong? You would not be, in any case. NPOV is the neutral point of view, not no point of view or the neutered point of view. Push that POV! As long as you're civil and don't break the 3RR, it's all good. Every editor here is innocent until proven guilty, not until a declaration of good faith is made. In fact, the worst vandals and edit warriors I've seen will all loudly claim to act in good faith. Doesn't mean anything. JRM 15:20, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Agreed on all points JRM and apologies to all. Wyss 15:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you were just in a fighting frenzy over slaying all those sockpuppets. Time to wash the blood off, valiant defender. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed, and I dub thee Knight of the Wiki. Now let's all edit in peace, tranquility and a healthy dose of sceptic wariness :-) JRM 15:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Slaying sockpuppets leads to lint all over the place, I would imagine, instead of blood. He need one of those lint roller brush things.A2Kafir 16:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Wiki cult acolyte)

Cardinal Chunder is a troll

Want proof Cardinal Chunder is a usenet troll

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=chunder+troll&qt_s=Search+Groups

Anyone else has 128 hits for troll on his name?

(The above was contributed by Myork)

That's pretty feeble if I do say so myself. After 4 years of posting literally thousands of messages to various 'fringe' groups, I have by my own reckoning (i.e. searching for "Cardinal Chunder" and "troll"), 49 hits [47]. Needless to say only a fraction of those are referring to me being the troll. --Cchunder 16:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

face it chunder 128 posts mention TROLL with your name, you're a troll

Tohit

Article based on your conclusions

Since the majority opinion is

Sollog is not a real name

Sollog is a religious name or alias, actually. Wyss 16:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is not Toh religion

There is, nominally, a Toh religion. Any membership is disputed, however. Wyss 16:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are no Sollog books

Of course there are. Wyss 16:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xin is not Sollog

This has not been determined either way. Wyss 16:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are no Sollog prophecies as per Chunder saying 911 Warning is not from Sollog

Then this is all that is factual about Sollog according to your opinions

John Patrick Ennis (born July 14, 1960), is an American numerologist, mystic, psychic, and self-published author, artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker. He is currently thought to reside in South Florida, and previously lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

(Posted by Tohindia)

Activities

Ennis uses Adoni Publishing to run websites that sell pornography, pictures of dead bodies, and execution videos [48]. Since the mid 1990s.

Ennis and his critics

Ennis and his followers have singled out a few individuals for personal attacks, including Howard Altman, an investigative reporter and former editor-in-chief of the Philadelphia City Paper, Robert Carroll, founder of the website The Skeptic's Dictionary, Los Angeles Times reporter Kenneth Reich, Washington Post reporter Victoria Shannon, and Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, claiming each of them responsible for what they consider slanderous remarks on Ennis's personality and achievements.

According to Altman, Ennis responded to irreverent articles by sending faxes warning him to handle his mail carefully in case it included explosives. Altman interpreted this as a mailbomb threat. Ennis also reportedly threatened to sue Altman for one trillion dollars in damages, though there is no sign as yet of any such suit being filed. [49] He has made similar threats of huge lawsuits against other critics, such as the owner of the Slashdot website.

Both Altman and Reich contacted the FBI as a result of their harassment.

Legal problems

According to the Philadelphia City Paper (Altman 1996), Sollog has had various legal problems, culminating in his arrest by the United States Secret Service.

Ennis' legal problems, according to Altman, started in 1987, when he admitted selling obscene materials in Maricopa County, Arizona and was put on probation. He reportedly violated his probation by committing an aggravated assault later that year, following which the authorities issued a warrant for his arrest. He left Arizona and moved to Pennsylvania.

On February 5, 1988 he was arrested in Philadelphia following a drunken high-speed vehicle chase which ended with police officer Sam D'Urso being seriously injured. He was charged with two counts of aggravated assault (including one charge of intentionally causing serious bodily injury to a police officer), one count of recklessly endangering another person and one count of driving under the influence. He failed to appear in court when summoned. A second warrant for his arrest was issued, but the authorities failed to follow up on this and it remained unactioned for another seven years.

In September 1995, Ennis was arrested by the United States Secret Service on suspicion of making threats against the President of the United States (according to him, this was related to a prediction that a plane crash would occur if President Bill Clinton flew to Jackson Hole, Wyoming). It was discovered that he had two warrants outstanding against him, and he was committed for trial on the February 1988 vehicle offenses. When the case came to court in May 1996, Ennis's defense invoked conspiracy theories involving the President, the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Mayor of Philadelphia. He dismissed his own defense attorney, calling him "part of the conspiracy", and represented himself from that point on. Judge Anthony DeFino described the case (which the press dubbed the "God Trial") as being "the most unusual case I have ever seen in my courtroom." Ennis was convicted on all four charges and imprisoned.

Ennis claims that the conviction was later overturned on technical and evidentiary grounds, although this claim has not been substantiated.

External links

A critical view of Sollog's prediction of the Columbia disaster, from Skeptic News web site.
"Heavenly Justice: SOLLOG might have had a case if he hadn't played God" by Howard Altman; Philadelphia City Paper, May 9–16, 1996
"Diana's Death Brings Out the Good, Bad and Ugly on the Net" By Victoria Shannon Washington Post, September 8, 1997 (on the best and worst reporting of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales)
"Stern Warning" by Howard Altman; Philadelphia City Paper, September 11–18, 1997
"Seer Vs. Scribes" by Howard Altman; Philadelphia City Paper, September 25–October 2, 1997 (On the harassment of reporters)
"911" - a remarkable legend develops: Was the WTC impact predicted? translation of an article by Frank Patalong in Spiegel Online, September 14, 2001
"Scouring the Internet in Search of the Tracks of Terrorists" by John Schwartz, New York Times, September 17, 2001 (on the Xinoehpoel prophecy)
"Oy McVeigh" by Howard Altman; Philadelphia City Paper, February 21–28, 2002 (Column concerns international interest in Sollog's claim of predicting the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks)
The Official Alt.Usenet.Kooks Funny Farm; Ennis has won multiple awards, including the "Kook of the Month" award.
"Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia", Slashdot, December 14, 2004

Category:1960 births Category:Paranormal phenomena Category:Usenet peopleThe above 3 nonsensically duplicated sections from the main article were posted here by Tohindia.

Comment, IMHO, this is Ennis trying to remove as much identifiable information about Sollog from the article as he can, in order to reduce search engine hits on the wiki article when Sollog is searched for. Wyss 16:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

why would ennis care about search engines, you say there is no sollog, there is no toh, there are no members, no one buys books, so the article should be the 'real name' you have been asking for, you won wyss, you got your way there is no sollog, or do you believe in sollog now and want to use sollog as the name of ennis

you people make me laugh, you argue for weeks there is no sollog now two toh members say you know what you're right, there is no toh there is not sollog and now you want to revert back from what you wanted, no sollog

THERE IS NO SOLLOG

THERE IS NOT TOH

THERE ARE NO BOOKS

so remove all sollog references and toh references etc

Nice ennis page though

haha

...Yawn... Mr Ennis now seems to be posting as Tohit and Tohindia. Wyss 17:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Need for Archiving

Talk:Sollog has gotten very long again. I don't know the proceedure on archiving a page. Can someone here archive it to reduce the length? Archiving is not a perfect solution, however, because it does not help to concentrate the comments on a single issue together. Is there a way to split this into multiple topics (E.g. Ennis/Sollog, Predictions, Legal History, Usenet Activity, Other)? I recognize this would not be a perfect solution either, since it would mean watching (and guarding against vandalism on) more tha one page. Other suggestions? Johntex 17:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The procedure for archiving is to cut-and-paste the contents of the talk page into a newly created archive page like the ones linked to from the top of this page. Refactoring the talk page to keep the discussion on topic is a good idea and has been tried in the past. However, since certain special contributors are apparently not very interested in keeping the talk page neat and tidy, it tends to quickly degenerate after refactoring into something resembling the present state. --MarkSweep 18:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

9/11 Attribution

Perhaps I've missed something, but the 911/'READ IT AND WEEP MORONS' prediction now continues with "This message is not from Sollog and makes no reference to where or even if he made such remarks". Given the bald statement of fact that it is "not from Sollog", who is it from? How does the person who wrote this know that it is "not from Sollog"? - Ashley Pomeroy 17:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis has been on a vandalism/posting spree here and there may be a couple of artifacts of that in his new "proposed article" section. Wyss 17:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current revision of the article discusses the so-called 911 prediction as one of two examples of Sollog's prophecies. Right after the quoted newsgroup posting, it says, "This message is not from Sollog and makes no reference to where or even if he made such remarks. However supporters interpret this...". This does not do justice to the real situation. I agree that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain who posted that Usenet message and when. However, Sollog and/or his supporters usually take full credit for it, claiming it is a "DIRECT HIT". So it should be seen as a canonical, Sollog-approved prophecy; any cautionary remarks about its authenticity should come second. --MarkSweep 18:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Who

Legal religious alias pseudonym pen-name thingy

"Son of light, light of God"

Ah ha! Do you have a reference? Then we can explain that Sollog originally used "son of light, light of God", and later changed it. Dbenbenn 19:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis vs. Sollog

Please don't make that change until a consensus as been reached. Ennis' preferences are not related to the development of an accurate article. Wyss 13:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Sollog followers would be slightly harder to spot if they weren't ALWAYS REQUIRED TO USE CAPS. Seriously, his name is Ennis and that is what should be used. Carrp 13:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(This was contributed by Tohindia who not long ago vandalized the article... and given the content and writing style, clearly a sockpuppet of John P. Ennis) Wyss 13:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed it should be "Sollog". I also personally dislike the "Son of light, light of god" sentence. If it's a misconception why is it in the encyclopedia? Justcron 15:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Johntex views on use of Ennis/SOLLOG:

Agree with User:UTC that Ennis' views should not be the guiding force behind decisions about the article. However, common courtesy suggest that his views not be capriciously ignored either.
Agree with Sam that the main factor for naming should be how the person is best known.
Therefore, Sollog should be the dominant name used, but not to the exclusion of other names.
The article should be titled Sollog (as it is currently)
The first paragraph should remain as-is, explaining that Ennis is his birthname
Most subsequent references should be replaced by SOLLOG.
The fact that he has also used other aliases should also be mentioned, if they can be listed and documented.
The "Son of Light, Light of God" reference should be retained because it is such a common view. This name for him is used in the Philadelphia City Paper article that is referenced here. I have seen postings that claim Sollog claimed this explanation himself at one point. Can we point to a reference for this?
Suggested second paragraph:

Ennis refers to himself by what he calls the "religious name" of Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni (the first name is sometimes fully capitalized: SOLLOG). "Sollog" is widely thought to stand for "son of light, light of God", although more recently, Sollog has denied this explanation. Sollog explains that the name is derived from "Sol" and "Logos", literally "the word of the sun". [50] He has also gone by other aliases. He prefers not to be called by his birth name, John Ennis, considering it an insult, and claims instead that "GOD" is the legal name of any Temple of 'Hayah (TOH) member in any legal proceeding. [51] Johntex 16:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will attempt an edit bsed on that principle, though I think most things will be down to Sollog. Sollog was arrested as much as Ennis. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that it will come down to Sollog most of the time. The entity "Sollog" is only verifiably real in the world of web sites and USENET. In the real world, he is invariably known as John Ennis, with "Sollog" only being used to identify the persona by which Ennis is at all noteworthy. If we're going to use the name appropriate to the context of the information, then it will come down to Sollog much of the time and Ennis for real-world things like arrests and trials: "Ennis was arrested by the Secret Service in 19xx for his USENET predictions made under the name of Sollog..." — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 00:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment: In Sollog's application to challenge Randi, he signed "Sollog aka God aka J. Ennis". So he at least doesn't use Sollog exclusively. Dbenbenn 02:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What

Prophecies

Another major Prophecy of Sollog is known as 'The 113 Prophecy'. In this Prophecy Sollog warned of March 11th several times and mentioned how other dates that had 113 in their numbering were future dates for rare tragic events such as major terrorism, plane crashes and train disasters. After Sollog released the 113 Prophecy [55] the Shuttle Columbia tragedy occurred, it was the 113th shuttle mission. On March 11th 2004 the Madrid Train Massacre occurred, March 11th was the only date mentioned more than one time by Sollog.

So far though, we've not seen a single, head-on, accurate prophecy from Sollog that didn't require stretching either on the date, location, or other factor. "Big bang in the big building" doesn't say much. Tall buildings have always been a favorite target for terrorists, and they tried to hit the WTC before.

For a claim of accuracy, we need demonstrated accuracy. To do this, I propose the following experiment:

1) Post on this Talk page a Sollog prophecy in its entirety for a disaster that has not happened yet but will in say, the coming 90 days.

2) Postexactly what it predicts (what/where/who/why/when). Vague guesses are not allowed, we want specific dates, locations, and all that.

3) After the event occurs, prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sollog was nowhere in the area trying to "prove" the prophecy himself.

Then, we'll be happy to post the accuracy results. Inky 21:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the 9/11 prophecy section doesn't tie in with Xinoehpoel, which seems suboptimal.

In general, though, keep up the good work. This just proves to the world that we can be encyclopedic about anything. :-) JRM 12:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

9/11 attribution

Ennis has been on a vandalism/posting spree here and there may be a couple of artifacts of that in his new "proposed article" section. Wyss 17:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current wording comes from Cchunder, who added it, got reverted, and added it again. Dbenbenn 18:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At some point therefore some-one should replace that paragraph with "Sollog and/or his supporters interpret this as a specific prediction of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which involved the destruction of two towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, damage to the Pentagon building in Arlington County, Virginia, and an airliner crash into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania." Incidentally, I reverted some vandalism to Mark Sweep's user page from... well, guess. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I mention this because it seems DJ Clayworth has protected the page, although he hasn't put a 'protected' notice on it. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The page was actually protected by Sjc, though I don't think Sjc went out of their way to tell us about it. --MarkSweep 20:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog and James Randi

It appears that famous skeptic James Randi has had a run-in with Sollog: [56]. If we can find a better source than 247news.net, it's something that could go in the article. Dbenbenn 02:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Randi supporters claim Sollog never submitted the form, that is a lie since a scan of it is on Sollog's site http://www.sollog.com/randi/randichallengeb.jpg

That's proof he filled in the form, not that it was submitted F cam 13:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Meanwhile, James Randi is on my watchlist, as are several other articles that I fear might be sollogized. -- Hoary 02:25, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I wish Randi kept a record of rejected challenges on his site. Dbenbenn 03:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where

The article currently says that Ennis is "thought to reside in South Florida". Do we have a reference for the Florida thing? Dbenbenn 14:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Legal threat from 202.63.163.66 removed per rules. Redcard 19:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You complain to the AGO of the location where the person is harassing you, Wales is from FL and his company is a FL corp. So FL AGO is why Toh is telling people to complain to FL AGO, since Wales and Wiki are under that jurisprudence.

Hmm, a revert removed my msg, but yes - the ASI drop box is in Coral Springs, and a suspiciously familiar Amazon.com reviewer called "adoni_pub" [57] resides in Key West. So the chances are Ennis does too. --Cchunder 20:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are we building an encyclopedie on things that have a chance to be? Otherwise, we should call Sollog and Rael god, just in case (because there is a chance that they are). I suggest that any statement about current residence be removed, as they add (or please explain) no value to the article and are subject to change (add the fact that we don't have any proof). I searched for other examples in Wikipedia and found most of the articles on people didn't state any residencial informations. Oh and if someone has a picture of JP Ennis, that would be great. Poltras 01:01, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The reason why his area of residence is of unusual interest is that he's reported to be living "underground". This is probably part Ennis-created myth, and possibly related to pressing circumstances. As for photos, none are known to be available on the Internet (although several law-enforcement organizations certainly have some mug shots). Ennis seems to assert that likenesses of him are offensive (since he's a deity and all). Wyss 01:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The underground thing should be explained in the article, then, shouldn't it? With a link to support it. I personnally don't like the "He is currently thought to reside ..." phrase as it is now, seems like he has a special mystic aura and whoever finds him win a prize... We can do that for Area 51, but seems too much for this guy ;) What about simply removing it, or explain the underground thing like being a rumor? I'll try to find something out tonight if I have the time, or tomorrow. Poltras 14:04, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is that we have some information pointing to Florida, but it's not definitive. I don't like omitting the possibility, but I also don't like "thought to reside". I changed it to the simple "may reside". Similarly, we don't know where the "son of light, light of God" thing came from, so we can't say that it's a misconception. Because it doesn't sound like something that Altman or another critic would invent, it may well have been an early Sollogism. We should certainly give Sollog's version but to say "Sollog explains" implies that it's the correct version, so I've changed it to "states", attributing it to "Sollog himself" to make clear that we don't know that he's ever endorsed the other version. JamesMLane

Points of contention

1. Sollog's books have been published by several companies, that means he is not self published

self published means that the author (as opposed to an independent publishing company) bore the cost/risk of publishing the work. Can you cite any independent company that has published a work by Sollog without taking payment from Sollog? Johntex 19:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Self publishing has a set meaning in the world of publishing, it means an author publishes it. There are many companies that have published Sollog's work. Some of the publishing info in books (not ebooks) I own say Calf, another ASSI, another AIS, another Adoni Publishing. AIS has over 5000 titles in their catalog, so what if a few dozen are Sollog. There's not one book or ebook from what I understand anywhere with published by Sollog or John Ennis on them. Show one example of any book or ebooks saying published by Sollog or John Ennis. Until then he's an author.

As a published author myself, I can tell you that 'self publishing' does not exclusively mean 'an author publishes it'; it means that the author supplies the money. It's synonymous with 'vanity publishing', whereby an author pays a company money to print up copies of his or her sixth-form comic fantasy novel / thinly-veiled autobiography. Ennis is even lower than this, as he only seems to offer ephemeral 'e-books'. The rest of the argument is spurious. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you know what a 'legal entity' is? Sollog is a person, Adoni Publishing, Calf, ASSI, ASI and AIS are all 'legal entities' that have published Sollog titles. They are the publishers, end of subject. So put one title in this thread I need a laugh, go ahead.

My first observation is that you cannot prove these are 'legal entities' or even that they exist; and if they do, that they are not adjuncts of John P. Enis. My second observation is that you fully understand what is meant by 'self publishing', and that you attempting quite poorly to disseminate. -Ashley Pomeroy 09:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If they are legal entities, then they must be registered as fictious or assumed names. What jurisdiction were they registered in? Interestingly, there is an Adoni Publishing registered in Port Charlotte, Florida, but owned by the "Family News Network" [58], which is described on another site as "a successful family magazine serving the Charlotte Harbor region. The magazine, which supported local programs such as Do the Right Thing and the Mom's Club of North Port, focused on family-friendly entertainment and activities for children." Which leads me to conclude that it is not the same entity as the one connected to the AIS empire. If Ennis' Adoni Publishing is in any way connected to some of the more dubious publishing activities that have been discussed on this page, then the real Adoni Publishing might have some cause for concern... --Rlandmann 19:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. The Son of Light garbage can be traced right back to 1996 and the biased writings of Altman, it's not true and all references to it are based on Altmans hack article filled with many errors and lies

Can anyone find an earlier source or an independent source? Otherwise, it has to be acknowledged that it is possible Altman made it up or was mistaken. Johntex 19:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In fact, that's how it's treated now. Dbenbenn 20:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at [59], which implies that when Ennis was originally publishing his material in City Paper, it was under that name. To confirm it, we'd need to consult an archived copy somewhere though. --Rlandmann 19:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3. What is the source for saying Sollog or Ennis 'runs' Adoni Publishing? The fact is a person named Ensley runs it.

Thanks, Ennis. Would that would be N. Ensley, your wife Nicole Ensley, the warrior goddess Nikee...? http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Nicole+Ensley%22+Ennis&btnG=Search Wyss 23:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who said Ensley runs the company? Oh a Sollog fan or member of Toh. Now, is it Nicole, her brother, her father, a cousin? Do you have access to their corporate documents? If not then shut up with speculation. And is Sollog an Ensley? NO So Sollog does not run AIS and Adoni Pub. So what does the article say Sollog runs Adoni, he doesn't.

Here, Ennis concedes that Nicole's last name is Ensley, and at the very least, Adoni is run by one of his in-laws. Wyss 05:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that N. Ensley is the contact of record for andoninet.com (at least, she was when I saved the record an hour or so ago). Wyss 05:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, her email address is listed as dnr@theasi.net, the same contact email address used for every AIS/Adoni/Ninth Level site I've looked up. Wyss 05:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4. What is the source for saying Adoni Publishing runs www.TheeUnderGround.com? Whois shows 9th Level in Caymans and the copyright claim is also 9th level. So give a source to back up such a claim

Reason? He has changed the registrations. For example, www.TheeUnderGround.com, formerly registered to AIS, has this note in the database record, ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2004-12-20 19:10 Wyss 19:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look fast however. www.famousslut.com is still registered to AIS. Wyss 19:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So is deathgallery.com Wyss 20:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[uhm, this is a personal attack Wyss (agreed, removed. Redcard 21:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)) 21:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)]

It would seem likely that www.TheeUnderGround.com (which has links for selling porn and death videos) is run by Sollog, in one capacity or another given that, at the top of the front page, is has two links to the TOH site (one for the toy drive, the other for PROOF OF GOD), and it also has a link to WikipediaSucks.com. You also have to wonder why FamousSult.com links to Sollog.com for "Horoscope", and without a associate ID of any kind, so it's not like they're getting commissions or kickbacks for linking there... -- Khym Chanur 03:36, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Registration Service Provided By: AIS Contact: dnr@theasi.net Visit:

Domain name: famousslut.com

Registrant Contact:

  Ninth Level
  Domain Register (domains@ninthlevel.com)
  +1.1112223333
  Fax: +1.1112223333
  Box 999
  Grand Cayman Island,

AIS has a domain name division, they register domains and provide whois info for their clients. Who is the contact? Ninth Level a Cayman company. Oh no AIS runs a domain name registration company for many clients and one happens to have some adult sites. Domain Registration companies don't turn away due to use.

On Dec 11, the record looked like this (I've saved the original trace records).

Registrant Contact:

  AIS
  Domain Register (dnr@theasi.net)
  +1.1112223333
  Fax: +1.1112223333
  4613UniversityDr.Number311
  CoralSprings, FL 33067
  US

And... the current record he quotes has the following note... ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2004-12-20 19:10... he changed it yesterday.

deathgallery.com still does look like it's AIS, though. Wyss 20:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I ran it again, deathgallery.com is still clearly registered to AIS. Wyss 20:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[this is also a personal attack Wyss(agreed.. removed. Redcard 21:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)) 21:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)], the whois says

Registration Service Provided By: Registerfly.com Contact: support@registerflysupport.com Visit: http://www.RegisterFly.com

Domain name: deathgallery.com

Registrant Contact:

  Ninth Level
  Domain Register (domains@ninthlevel.com)
  unlisted
  Fax: unlisted
  Box 999
  Grand Cayman Island, na na
  KY

Ennis, the database on that was changed yesterday... ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2004-12-20 19:10...

My tracing script has been popping up the old text files, which show the old registrations. It's a bug here. Sorry for the confusion... he changed everything yesterday. Wyss 20:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The database change time on all three records is identical, by the way, 2004-12-20 19:10. Wyss 20:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, these update times apply to the entire database, not to the entry changes. However, I can confirm that he's changed the registrations, since

a) The text files for the old ones kept popping up on my computer showing AIS and, b) I still have them. Wyss 21:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whatever their registrations, all of the sites below...
http://www.sollog.com
http://www.247sex.com
http://www.satans.net - main site page is http://www.satans.net/index2.html
http://www.famousslut.com
http://www.deathgallery.com
http://www.theeunderground.com
http://www.gogobars.us
http://www.247news.net
http://www.1ebooks.com
http://www.adoninet.com

Appear to be either on the same server, or on the same rack of servers at an http://www.xo.net/ space in Seacaucus New Jersey, USA. All traces terminate with the following pings:

11 139 ms 138 ms 139 ms ge4-0.CHR1.Secaucus-NJ.us.xo.net [64.1.6.35]
12 188 ms 140 ms 134 ms 209.116.198.126
13 139 ms 139 ms 140 ms 216.74.127.113
(followed by the IP for each specific domain, some of which are shared)

Many also share the same Adoni logos and/or html boilerplate (used at sollog.com). They all seem to link to each other. Wyss 22:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about some more names

http://www.worldsgreatesdomains.com http://www.idomainbrokers.com http://www.domainnewsnet.com http://www.thedomainforums.com http://www.adoni.us http://www.adonifilms.com http://www.adonibooks.com http://www.adonifilms.com http://www.adonimusic.com http://www.adonidesign.com http://www.adonisoftware.com http://www.adoniadvertising.com http://www.adoninet.com http://www.adoniweb.com http://www.egossip.net http://www.theparanormal.net http://www.hitlers.org http://www.nostradamus.org http://www.cheiro.org http://www.nikkee.net http://www.nikkee.org http://www.sollog.org http://www.realufos.com http://www.ufostheproof.com http://www.propheciesofsollog.com http://www.stopnukes.com http://www.dirtynuke.com http://www.nuketerror.com http://www.nuketerrorism.com

I'll add more later, they are all hosted and designed by Adoni

Adoni has over 300 developed content sites

Adoni owns over 1000 domains

(For an ordinary member of TOH, Tohde seems to know a lot about Ennis' domain name empire, and notice he's not addressing the ownership issue of Adoni, which at best designs and hosts deathporn, see below. Wyss 04:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Moreover, famousslut.com appears to be vhosted on server849.1-domains.com (1-domains.com itself is registered to none other than AIS in Coral Springs, FL) with IP 216.74.127.98. That IP was blocked recently from editing Wikipedia for repeat vandalism of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sollog. --MarkSweep 23:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to be clear, server849.1-domains.com, IP 216.74.127.98, vhosting www.gogobars.us, famousslut.com, satans.net, 247sex.com and www.adoninet.com is in that same rack of servers in Seacaucus... Wyss 02:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point being, this indicates an inter-relationship of somewhat more depth than Domain Registration companies who don't turn away due to use Wyss 00:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And to complete the circle, Ninth Level's own http://www.ninthlevel.com, which Ennis was so eager to point out as the (new) registered owner of several "former" AIS sites, is littered with Adoni logos and is also vhosted at server849.1-domains.com, IP 216.74.127.98, owned by AIS (today, anyway). Wyss 03:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gee WYSS you just proved what everyone knows, AIS is a Domain Registration/Hosting Company/Design Company/Logo Service

Look up what a virtual host is, you can put hundreds or thousands of domains on ONE IP, shared IP means nothing other than they are virtually hosted domains, similar IP ranges means nothing other than a common host

Owner ship is nothing but reg info, hosting means nothing, design means nothing, as much as you want Sollog to be the owner of these sites he is not, 9th Level own the Under Ground sites, so what if they were designed by AIS, the sites say so, so what if AIS is the registration company, so what if AIS is the hosting company, that is common in web design services, you get a client, you reg the name, you design the site, you host it

Here, Ennis admits that the relationship is more than domain registration services. AIS/Adoni at a minimum designs and hosts these sites. Wyss 04:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AIS has over 300 content sites in their company, none of them have death or porn

You've proven nothing wyss, now get a life, look at all this time you are wasting saying Sollog owns AIS (prove it) that he publishes porn and death (prove it) so far all you've proven is AIS has a large client (9th Level) they provide registration services, hosting and design services, so what wyss, prove 9th level is Sollog or shut up

Hi Ennis :) http://www.ninthlevel.com links directly to http://www.freakyfuckingshit.com, a deathporn site which also resides on server849.1-domains.com, IP 216.74.127.98, owned by AIS/Adoni, run (according to the Ennis sockpuppet) by one N. Ensley, aka Nicole Ensley, aka Nikkee the Goddess Warrior, purported wife of John Ennis who is also known as Nick Ensley, and as Sollog. This editor rests on the assertion that John P. Ennis, aka Sollog, is a deathporn dealer. Thanks for trying to set us up again, John... as usual it was helpful, even if it means... nothing. Wyss 04:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5. The whole Kook award garbage if it should even be in article should be in Critics, it looks [...] biased [...]

It currently does not get prominent mention in the article, so it's position is justifiable. Johntex 19:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

6. The [claim that] followers have never alerted to a specific date or act is [wrong], Sollog has hit many exact dates for quakes and the whole Leo Phoenix thing was based on an exact date 911 and the Sollog 911 warning was an exact date hit

What is the most precisely worded prediction that happened as Sollog predicted? Please cite your source. Johntex 19:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

7. The 'line of Sollog' thing is a joke, the line of Sollog has been since 1995 when first published from SOUTH OF SEATTLE to SOUTH OF MIAMI, so the whole reference about a zig zag is not true, there are several maps on Sollog's site showing the exact location, south of seattle to south of miami

Please cite your source. Johntex 19:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

8. The hurricane thing is a joke, once again there are sollog maps showing the lines and they touch very little areas of the east coast, the fact is also that five hurricanes this year hit exact areas on the lines next to areas he named, none of the hurricanes this year qualify though as 'great hurricanes' since none hit above a Cat 4, but nonetheless the hurricanes that hit this year did hit his lines in areas where the lines touch the USA, 99% of the lines are in open water and not touching land in the USA, so the lines do not cover a large amount of area in USA. Also, Isabel was on the list and it hit last year, it was the first great hurricane in 5 years in the Atlantic. The names get recycled every year so in 2008 names can still hit areas he named. Anyway, the fact is the worst hurricane season on record for damage just happened to occur less than two years from when Sollog made the prophecy and all the hurricanes have hit areas covered by his lines, which again only cover a small area, just look at the maps of the lines on his site.

Please cite your source. Johntex 19:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

9. Format the 113 Prophecy as the original is, then explain how March 11th is given multiple times and then explain how the Madrid Massacre didn't happen on March 11th and how the Shuttle isn't the 113th shuttle mission and how the Shuttle did't occur 8 hours from 1/31 one of the key dates in the prophecy. Do you have permission to use the prophecy? NO

If it was posted on Usenet, it should be in the public docmain. Even if it isn't, fair use still applies. --MarkSweep 19:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IANAL, but I don't see why usenet posts are any less protected by copyright than any other piece of writing. But yes, our use of it here is fair use. --Rlandmann 19:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

10. 911 Prophecy says it is Sollog and then [...] Cardinal Chunder argues it is not from Sollog. Funniest [thing] I've ever seen.

This is irrevelent to our goal of making the article better. Johntex 19:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

11. Conspiracy should mention the fact Sollog was arrested by the Secret Service and the case was withdrawn and then he sued the government for false arrest in case 96cv1499

I would be in favor of laying out the whole incident. Can you provide references to verifiable documentation? The phrase "96cv1499" does not mean anything to me and returns zero hits on google. Johntex 20:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This refers to a case 96-CV-1499 in the federal circuit court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. See /archive4 or /archive3. Unless we can get copies of the filings or any new specific information, let's not reopen this discussion. --MarkSweep 20:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Google search on 96-CV-1499 does return 23 hits, all of which seem to be TOH postings. Tohde, why don't you post copies of the court documents here so that we can discuss them? Johntex 20:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

12. Sollog supporters? Just ask Jimbo Wales how many people called or emailed him from around the world about Sollog. Using claims from usenet shows there is no truth to it, it's the same people like Cardinal Chunder who say there are no fans, etc. Why does Sollog have a 1000 or so Paypal rating if he has no fans or members in Toh?

Most or all of the e-mail and posting traffic in support of Sollog is from non-verfiable sources, such as IP numbers or user names that have never been used before on this site. That means that can easily be the work of one person. The Paypal rating is because Sollog is associated with multiple commercial sites and a 1000 rating is not even that large. Johntex 19:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

13. The legal section is pure bias the source is Altman who lies. Also, the section has Sollog in AZ on 1 year probabtion, then he commits an assault, then he moves to PA and then he has an assault trial in PA. See how the whole altman piece is garbage just like the section. How can he commit an assault in AZ and then move to PA and then be tried for a PA assault. You have the facts all wrong. It was proven there was no warrant from AZ and it as proven the secret service arrest was withdrawn, do you mention that? Also the article claims Sollog was imprisoned where is the source? It's not Altman. Prision is not jail, and work release to your own company for one year is not imprisoned.

Can we find any sources other than Altman? The paper he writes for is not exactly a prominent paper, and citing only Altman runs the risk of getting into a he-said/he-said between Altman and Sollog. Johntex 19:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On July 11, 1996, Ennis owed $2,691.00 in fines and costs relating to probation [60], and on April 17, 1991, he lost a lawsuit to the tune of $65,000.00 by failing to appear in court [61]. --Carnildo 21:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! This by itself isn't incontovertible evidence (the documents are labeled unofficial, and there is always a chance there is more than 1 John P. Ennis in the Philadelphia area). Still, these do generally tend to support the other sources. They are completely consistent with the timeline in the legal section. Thanks for introducing some new material. Johntex 21:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The documents are "unofficial" in the sense that they aren't certified copies made by the court clerk, not in the sense that they are thirdhand summaries. Further, I doubt there is more than one set of parents in the world sadistic enough to give someone a name that lends itself so nicely to being turned into "Pennis". --Carnildo 22:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Rant by User:Tohde, one of the usual sockpuppets) (Text breaking Rule 4 removed by Redcard 19:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC))

"Tohde", if you would tone down the stridency of your speech, you have a few interesting points. For example, can you provide one of these "several maps on Sollog's site"? Dbenbenn 19:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One other thing, ma'am. Enis has mentioned a 'twenty year old DUI that was set aside' or something like that - I assume 'DUI' is American for 'drunk driving', although he seems to have badly injured a policeman whilst trying to evade arrest. Given that he committed the aforementioned crime in 1986, does this mean he has another conviction from 1984? Or am I, like Luke Skywalker, very much mistaken? -Ashley Pomeroy 19:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And whilst we're at it, the 'UK Register' (e.g. 'The Register') is not a 'major newspaper', it's rather akin to Slashdot, but less silly, more focussed on IT news, and without the prominent discussion threads. It's a website; entertaining, but not a major news source (it has no reporters, for example, it merely comments on articles from news agencies). -Ashley Pomeroy 19:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Just a thought. Has anyone noticed the repeated use of TOH in the names of these vandals? Why don't you people give real, tracable names, somewhere? Redcard 21:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a thought. There are no people. There is just one person and he has a vested interest in not giving "real, traceable names". But I assume you know that, and are trying to get some honesty. To which I can only say: good luck. 82.92.119.11 22:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that, but one would think that the best solution to "cynics" and "doubters" like myself would be the light of truth, as it were. Oh, for those curious :) Jarrod Henry is Redcard 22:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which just goes to show you the problem of "real" names. How would I use that to verify that you are really Jarrod Henry — whichever Jarrod Henry of the no doubt numerous Jarrod Henry's you may be? The problem with sockpuppets is just that there's no way to be sure that they're not sockpuppets, except by looking at their actions. The alleged Sollog sockpuppets all simply state "facts" about Sollog, with typical grammar and spelling, without ever supplying verifiable sources or answering follow-up questions meaningfully. Thus we "jump to the conclusion" that they really are Sollog sockpuppets. There's no way to know for sure, of course. I could be John P. Ennis in disguise (but since my IP is verifiably not usable by someone in Florida, that's pretty unlikely). I could claim to be, say, Andre Engels in disguise, which is not impossible (but again not true, of course, as Andre can confirm. :-) You see that new contributors here are often treated as sockpuppets by default (which is tough and unfair, of course, but can you blame people)? It's only when they demonstrate that they're a) capable of coherent writing and b) interested in discussing Sollog from all sides, good and bad, that they show legitimacy. "Identity" is really a questionable concept on Wikipedia, and you can't blame people for not handing over their telephone numbers and addresses to get confirmation from. :-) 82.92.119.11 22:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. My point was that I did not wish to appear to be hypocritical, hiding behind the name "Redcard". Identity notwithstanding, the sockpuppets have made no effort to fit in to any other Wiki article, or any other thing. They've not contacted other Wikipedians and have not answered messages left to them. They , in short, do nothing to indicate they are real live beings. Instead, all their actions are indicitive of sockpuppetry. That's what I was initially saying in this subject, that maybe they should do something to show they ARE real instead of just posting from open proxies.Redcard 22:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Public watchlist

Please include all Sollog related articles at /watch. --Sgeo | Talk 21:35, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

"Nikkee"

When the page is unprotected, could someone copy this to an appropriate place in the article:

According to author D.E. Alexander, who writes books about Sollog, Sollog is married to Nikkee, who is a prophetess. According to her web, Nikkee is the ancient Greek goddess of victory (see Nike). [62]

DJ Clayworth 22:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note, Altman refers to her as Nicole. Wyss 22:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More data... she is probably Nicole Ensley, Ennis' purported wife, and the "N. Ensley" listed in the registration data for AIS/Adoni sites. Wyss 23:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...there is some doubt she exists... Altman does refer to her once. Wyss 23:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... at http://www.sollog.com/randi/randichallengeb.jpg, Ennis' application for the Randi challenge, we see a witnessing signature by a Nicole Edwards. The "Edwards", however, appears to have been altered. The handwriting seems different, and is much darker than the name "Nicole" Wyss 00:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Nick Ensley" is also a reported Ennis alias, http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/10056 ...Wyss 00:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The online German version of the Der Speigel article also refers to "Nick Ensley" as a John P. Ennis alias (the English translation mis-spells it as "nod"). Wyss 00:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

D'oh! It just occurred to me how that could have happened: German "nicken" is "to nod" in English. Someone must have used Babelfish or some other translation program to produce the English version, which translated "Nick Ensley" from the German original as "nod Ensley". No flesh-and-blood translator would make that sort of mistake. --MarkSweep 00:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Nikkee" is as an awful a prophet as Ennis and I'd say he just roped his poor wife's name into the prophecy business so he could have two guesses for the price of one. An example of this was the Sollog / "Nikkee" howlers concerning Elizabeth Smart. Sollog guessed she was SACRIFIED in a SATANIC RITUAL (complete with usual allcaps) [63], whereas "Nikkee" guessed her being murdered and stuffed into chemical drums [64]. It was no surprise therefore given how hopeless Ennis is as a prophet that Elizabeth turned up alive in the end. So he was left desperately flailing to turn a complete and total miss into a "hit" [65]. Which kind of shows you that you can even turn a complete and total miss is a "hit" if you're deluded enough. For a laugh, take a look at this other curious incident concerning the space shuttle disaster that was picked up on by CSICOP. [66]. --Cchunder 16:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2004 Superbowl

I found this example of a Sollog prophecy. It was here and I found a copy here. It's a prediction of the 2004 Superbowl. The text is very straightforward; the date is January 12th; a few weeks before the Superbowl. He names the four teams left in the running, which is hardly difficult on that date, just involving reading a newspaper. Nonetheless Sollog devotes several lines to predicting those four team, something any competent sports fan could have done. Now to be fair he does clearly indicate a prediction for the two teams in the bowl: the Colts (upside down omega) versus the Eagles (wings). He also gives the score in cryptic form. 'three eights' for one team (possibly 24?) and either 'nine' or 'three nines' for the other.

So what was the final score? New England Patriots 32, Carolina Panthers 29.

DJ Clayworth 22:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Great research, DJ. This could be construed as proof that he is a prophet after all. It's like scoring less than 25% on a multiple choice exam with four possible answers to choose from for each question – a really low score would be proof of some knowledge. The problem is that the sample is so small here that the issue remains inconclusive. --MarkSweep 23:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~~The sample is so small as to make the outcome meaningless. He just had particularly bad luck here.~~ I really can't believe I typed that, MarkSweep ;) Wyss 02:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog has hit ten straight super bowls, he publishes RIDDLES before the game is played and he has done that for 10 years in a row, each super bowl his riddle has hit

From http://www.247news.net/2004/20040202-superbowl.shtml

Sollog hits 10th Super Bowl in a row! Famous Psychic does it AGAIN! Written By D.E. Alexander 24 7 News Net 24 7 News Net - The Alternative News Wire -- Advertising link removed -Carnildo -- February 2nd, 2004

How does he do it?

For the 10th Straight year a simple riddle about the Super Bowl by the Nets most infamous seer has contained the exact score of the Super Bowl.

The Vegas line on the 38th Super Bowl was 38 Points. A few fans of Sollog GOT THE RIDDLE before the game was played.

The Sollog riddle clearly pointed to 60. The total of the game was 32 to 29 or 61 Points.

Sollog is known to put the OVER AND UNDER number in his riddles for the most famous sports game played each year.

60 was indeed what a gambler would call the true OVER/UNDER for the game.

No one would have dared predicted such a high scoring game by two great defensive teams, but sure enough the last line of the Sollog riddle stated THE SCORES OF THE BOWL ARE ABOVE.

Sollog gave two scores above, both had amazing hits as well on the AFC and NFC Championship games, but I'll get into that a little.

The first riddle about a score within the riddle was THREE EIGHTS if you know how to add.

Sollog's fans pointed out before the game was played in the various forums where Sollog is discussed that three eights could mean 8+8+8+8=24

14 to 10 was the half time score. That's 24 points or the total that Sollog gave in the first part of the riddle.

The second score that was clearly in the riddle was FOUR NINES. That's 9+9+9+9=36

The final line of the riddle was the SCORES ABOVE ARE IN THE BOWL

24+36=60

Once again Sollog hit the exact OVER/UNDER for the game.

This is a link to a time stamped post archived by Google the largest search engine in the world. It proves the Sollog Super Bowl 38 Riddle has been on-line for almost 2 weeks before the Super Bowl was played.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=5d0f6bee.0401120917.3e601615%40posting.google.com

Besides hitting the exact score total of another Super Bowl game, the riddle also contained the winners and scores of the Championship games.

This is how a fan of the seer explained the way that both Championship games were in the riddle.

The Omega (Colts) Upside Down (gambler's slang for bad bet or losing bet) also The Omega means THE END so the Colts were at their END

3 8's = 24 the score of the winning team was 24

38 was the total of the game

Team with the wings of a fowl (fowl is phonetically the same as FOUL) the eagles to play FOUL

Eagles had THREE POINTS the first number in the second score verse

The second score verse had

Three Nines and Fourth = 3 + 9 = 4 for a total of 16

The game was 17, Sollog gave the UNDER for the Game

So the fact is both games just happened to point to the LOSERS (Colts = Omega = THE END) and Eagles = Fowl or FOUL (stinker)

Both games just happen to have the exact score of the games

38 was the first game exact total and 16 was the exact under for game two

So once again Sollog puts THE EXACT SCORES of MAJOR GAMES into a simple riddle and once again the riddle is proven to be correct

I couldn't have said it better myself. Credit to that explanation goes to TPN at The Parnormal Net Sollog Forum

Did Sollog really see the score before the game was played?

The beginning verse about Super Bowl 38 stated NINE WAS THE KEY to this years Super Bowl.

Look at a tape of the game, with only 9 seconds left the game winning field goal was attempted.

NINE SECONDS was the KEY TIME in the game, it decided the future.

And once again Sollog put the KEY TO THE GAME in his Super Bowl riddle...

The Prophecies of Sollog are world famous you can find the Prophecies of Sollog at -- Advertising link removed -Carnildo --

Join our emailing list -- Advertising link removed -Carnildo --

The above anonymous comment was by Tohde. And D.E. Alexander seems to have gone to the same writing school as some of the other Sollog fans. Inky 04:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of the Super Bowl, has Sollog released his RIDDLE for 2005 yet? Apparently he had the 2004 Super Bowl prediction "on-line for almost 2 weeks before the Super Bowl was played." I am now requesting the 2005 Super Bowl Riddle Prediction, or at least a link to it as soon as it's posted, to test the accuracy of the riddle before the event. Let's see some real proof that the prophecies come out before the events do, and I'm not talking about timestamps. Hard evidence, posted here, quote it if you have to under fair use. Inky 04:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis has released several of these Superbowl predictions and all have been equally hopeless. He even misses when shooting fish in a barrel. --Cchunder 09:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Superbowl 2005 is not yet out, but even more amusement can be had by looking at his past one. Here is the riddle for Superbowl 2003:

Behold the ground shakes around the world
Behold the date for the GREAT QUAKE draws near
Behold the date of GREAT DEATH is here

The LINE OF QUAKES have been struck over and over
The LINE OF QUAKES runs through San Diego
The LINE OF QUAKES shall shake the masses

Is this the game that cannot be played?
Is this the game that terrorists shall strike?
Is this the game that the ground shall shake?

One is a Raider the other is a Buccaneer.
One is the spread between the victor and loser
One shall point and the earth shall move

Can you see the THREE ONES I have created?
Can you see the 3 and 1 in the score?
Can you see the 31 that is GODS NUMBER?

Silly little mortals that cannot see the obvious within this riddle. Remember Rome burned as Nero strummed his fiddle. The death shall come while the game is in the middle.

And the results of the Superbowl 2003:

Tampa Bay 48, Oakland 21
Earthquakes:none
Terrorists:none
Deaths (in middle of game or otherwise) none. 
The spread between victor and loser: 27

Now, I can see the 1 in the score, and I can see the 3 if I look at the 8 and hold a piece of paper down one side of it. Of course the '21' for the Oakland score adds up to three, but I couldn't see the 1 if I did that. Oh, and someone should tell Nero to stop strumming his fiddle; it's meant to be played with a bow; he'll ruin it. DJ Clayworth 04:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just goes to show how these "predictions" are interpreted after the fact. Poccil Peter O. (Talk, automation script)[[]] 05:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

"Cult" message now on BJAODN

The posting to this page from Nltoh, headlined "Is wikipedia a cult?", has now been preserved for posterity in BJAODN. See Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense: The Return of the Nonsense#Is wikipedia a cult?. JamesMLane 04:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Funny. That text was created as a sidebar joke during a talkpage debate over the cult articles about six months ago. Some people took it seriously, then, too. Its author assured us (the version above is somewhat redacted) that it was originally meant as a humorous break in a discussion that had a lot of potential to become rancorous. Fire Star 04:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. I thought it was written by Nltoh. I think the entry on BJAODN should be changed. Do you know enough about the background to give proper credit for it? JamesMLane 04:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The author of the original version (which was somewhat different) was Andries. You can find references to it on his talk page. Cheers. Fire Star 04:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left him a note about what happened. He should be credited as the author if he wants, but he may not want to be. JamesMLane 06:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected?

Why is the page protected exactly? It isn't like the reverting has been worse than usual; nothing we can't handle. Did I miss something? Dbenbenn 05:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be unprotected. JamesMLane 06:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Gamaliel 06:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CAPS lock-out

The article now says (the first name is sometimes fully capitalized: SOLLOG). Years ago, I sometimes wrote copy for Nissan. Every time I mentioned the company, I'd have to write "NISSAN". Sony often writes "SONY". This is not noteworthy. It's especially unnoteworthy for "Sollog", as Ennis shouts in capitals whenever he's excited, which is very often indeed -- or so I infer. I'd have been bold and deleted this, but hesitated because others here seem eager to attend to Ennis's whims in these matters. -- Hoary 09:09, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC) (or should I say HOARY?)

Ennis does that a lot, e.g. DIRECT HIT, GUARANTEED, LINE OF DEATH, CREATOR FORMULA, GREAT HURRICANE etc. --Cchunder 09:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The amusing thing is that the all-caps form arguably supports the thesis that the name is an acronym -- yet Sollog disputes the "Son of Light, Light of God" business. I'm not prepared to pore over Our Special Friend's writings enough to determine whether the all-caps form appears only when he's excited, so I'll acquiesce to the community decision on capitalization. JamesMLane 11:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

KEEP THE CAPS, YOU MORONS haha! No, seriously, I think we should mention the all-caps because of the acronym issue. Nissan and Sony are brand-names doing that occasionally for effect, whereas some sources claim Sollog is an acronym, and the all-caps versions support that idea.A2Kafir 15:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Synchronization

I note that the entire world population of "Sollog fans" seems to have been quiescent during the last few hours, or at least to have lost its normal interest in this article. This raises another possibility for the extraordinary powers of "Sollog": that he has imposed his own sleep patterns on all of them, regardless of their time zones. Would it be worth saying that the flock (if it exists at all) appears to rise and retire at the same time? -- Hoary 13:19, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Enis' next step will be to set his computer to post invective according to a pre-programmed schedule, throughout the day and night; perhaps it already is, and there is no Sollog at all, he's just a computer in a basement sending out someone's pre-recorded thoughts - like in Ray Bradbury's 'I, Mars', or umpteen Philip K. Dick stories. When we finally break into Stalin's chamber, we will find Stalin's dusty skeleton, and a bank of tapes... -Ashley Pomeroy 14:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Landru, guide us!---A2Kafir 15:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, a chatterbot to mimick Sollog? I think it could be done with little effort. And then we let Sollogbot loose on Sollog himself, of course. BJAODN legend in the making... 82.92.119.11 20:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another miracle, as "Sollog" appears to have deactivated the entire "Temple" (or at least its Wikipedist activities) for the last few hours as well. I'm in shock and awe. -- Hoary 06:15, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Prediction patterns

The current revision includes the phrase "...rather than the work of a brilliant mathematician manipulating numbers to accurately predict an outcome." Unless someone objects, I'll remove that sentence and perhaps additional surrounding context. For one, I don't think the phrase "brilliant mathematician" should be present in the article, even if it's used in a statement denying that this is the work of a mathematician, brilliant or not. Moreover, forecasting (of, say, election results, football scores, etc.) is a serious activity that involves careful data-gathering, statistical modeling, etc. Brilliance is not required, it's fairly routine work. I guess those activities could be described as "manipulating numbers", but that phrase, to me, suggests more of a sleight-of-hand or some unspecified numerological procedure than anything approaching the work of a mathematician. --MarkSweep 20:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Further, I think it's more accurate to describe these activities as cold reading and numerology. Wyss 21:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. I edited the paragraph in haste, more to make it grammatical than anything else. Wyss' terminology is also acceptable to me. I've put a welcome message on the original contributor's talk page with links to the WP style manual, etc. Fire Star 21:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's much better now. Wyss 22:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

N. Ensley, CEO of AIS

According to archived newsgroup chatter about Ennis (which I've read more than my fill of, thank you), the names Nick Ensley and N. Ensley, while clearly related to his (reported) wife Nicole Ensley, are longtime Ennis aliases, and here's an email whereby Ennis links the name Ensley with AIS/Adonis... seems he didn't like his DMOZ link [67].

The second is apparently a copy of a charming, rare USENET post Ennis signed as Sollog after a stay in jail [68].

These links are offered as background, I wouldn't recommend them for the article. Wyss 23:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another good one, Wyss. I just deleted a long paragraph of choice quotes plus commentary I wrote: on further thought, these things have to be experienced directly and do not require comment. --MarkSweep 23:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Earlier USENET and forum users took to calling Ennis various code names for fear of promoting the name Sollog on search engines (until someone realized this was inadvertantly censoring unflattering information about him)... be advised that the authors of these posts are not necessarily paragons of objectivity and restraint themselves [69] [70] [71] [72]... best only glanced at, then. Wyss 00:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finally, here's a Sollog joke [73]. Wyss 00:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone will care but...

I made Template:SollogPuppet. --Sge o 00:22, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hee, hee. Great minds think alike. [74] Edeans 03:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about a zero tolerance policy for obvious and blatant sockpuppet vandalism? I assume you know the sort of vandalism I'm talking about: the kind that cannot be explained as an isolated incident – the recurring silly and increasingly revolting stuff that various sockpuppets post around here. Why do we have to warn them to keep it down when it's pretty obvious what's going on and the dozens of prior warnings had no effect? Just a thought. --MarkSweep 04:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MarkSweep, I agree with your thought. On the other hand, wiki has been showing its resiliancy and strength by keeping the article mostly unprotected by a software lock, yet agressively defended by so many editors working together. I must also say that each time Ennis has dropped by with a new tactic of disruption, he's accidently spilled new morsels of information and admissions about his activities. For example, we have Ennis himself to thank for providing such overwhelming, direct evidence to the world that TOH is a religion of zero to one. Wyss 05:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What would "zero tolerance" mean? I don't think comments should be deleted from the talk page just because they're from Sollog or his "fans". If a comment is so long that it disrupts the conversation, or if it's one of these with the vulgar defamations against Jimbo or his family (or anyone else), that's another story. I also agree with Wyss that it would be much better if we didn't have to protect the page. JamesMLane 07:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would only apply in the situation where a new sockpuppet shows up and blanks a page or replaces it with a pointer to the hate sites that have been discussed here. Such accounts should be banned pretty much immediately and for a long time. I used to post warnings and various degrees of the {{test}} template on the talk pages of these accounts, but it's pretty clear where they are coming from and why polite warnings have had no effect. The policy would not apply to regular comments, only to blatant, obvious vandalism. --MarkSweep 07:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pro Sollog Campaign

Wow! Supporters of SOLLOG post here!

The post below inspired me to create this section for pranksters to support personal, potentially unlawful attacks on children and spouses (among other stuff, uhm, like see above). Wyss 04:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to show my support for the pro-sollog campaign. GO SOLLOG! 65.103.53.243

Looking at User:65.103.53.243's contribs, I don't think it's a sock puppet, but I'm not sure. That's disturbing; Ennis is usually totally obvious. Dbenbenn 04:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That wasn't Ennis... besides, he's really pissed off right now and probably incapable of typing a complete sentence (fragment) without a vulgarity. I think it was an ordinary prankster sockpuppet. Wyss 04:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, maybe it was just an ordinary prankster who wasn't a sockpuppet. Real people like a good laugh too. DJ Clayworth 05:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:65.103.53.243 appears to be User:Lir, who seems to have no dog in this fight, just a grudge against the wiki "cabal" in general. Gamaliel 19:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am most amused to note that the anti-wiki website mentioned above, at which they vociferously complain about not everyone being allowed to contribute to Wikipedia equally, both requires a registration AND moderates its postings. DJ Clayworth 04:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been in that forum (well, my sockpuppet has) and it is a cold and weird place populated mostly by Ennis sockpuppets. One sockpuppet asks how he can join Sollog's church (that's the word used), and Ennis replies to himself (basically), "No church here. This is run by Sollag fans." Wyss 04:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tried to join but I'm b*****ed if I'm going to give my email to it. I did notice that it has a total of slightly under fifty posts, though. DJ Clayworth 05:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(offensive post by 65.103.53.243 deleted) DJ Clayworth 06:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Put my two posts back up again you YELLOW BELLIES! 65.103.53.243

That was the same prankster (not Ennis)... smells like a sock to me... Wyss 06:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Either way I'll take responsibility for deleting the posts this time. We don't need personal attacks here, especially not against whole cities. DJ Clayworth 06:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the wording at the start of this section to clarify! Wyss 06:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is SOLLOG pronounced?

Subject line says all... posted anonymously at 10:58, 2004 Dec 23 68.160.162.78

I don't know. Does anyone ever talk about him? I've certainly never wanted to. I've reason to think I've met anybody who's heard of him. (I'd never heard of him myself till I encountered this article.) One solution would be to have his name rhyme with "tennis". Omit the "t" and there you are. -- Hoary 11:06, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

I always pronounce Sollog in my head like the french "sol" (ground, like "solar" without the "ar") and english "log". that would give ground log.... eh not bad for an usenet poster. :P Poltras 14:10, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I come across many variations in pronunciation. Wyss 14:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Ennis." En as in ten w/o the t, nis as in sin backwards. Fire Star 14:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I must say that's my fave as well. Wyss 15:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sometime in the last few weeks, I followed a link purporting to prove that Sollog and D E Alexander are not one and the same person, by allowing you to listen to an interview between them (www.247news.net/audio/dragonfire.rm). According to that, it's "so" as in "so" and "log" as in, well, "log". Interestingly, in the first few moments of the interview, "Alexander" pronounces it once with the emphasis on the first syllable ("SO-log") and once with emphasis on the second ("so-LOG"). It's definitely worth a listen - just don't try it while drinking coffee - I nearly drowned at one point I was laughing so hard. As for proving that there are two different people speaking... let's just say that I was left less than convinced. --Rlandmann 03:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are certainly not the same person. No one in the world could have a voice as mechanical (that lack of emotion and background sound is too much) :P I'm sure he used a text to voice program... hehe. As for the pronounciation, put the accent wherever you want, it seems to me too that it is so-log (then I don't know where this reference about sol and loggos are now, because the o in sol is not pronounced at all like the o in so. oh well, God's thoughts are so mysterious sometimes ;). Nice audio there, Rlandmann. They really don't seem to answer for each others, but more like a retapped record. Poltras 08:48, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

A Sockpuppet Interview

A friend of mine's an audio engineer. Her professional summary is...

There are audible edits (or "cuts") between each question and answer.

The modulation frequency of the background noise is different for each voice (higher for David [D.E. Alexander]). This is made more obvious by the "heavy RealAudio compression algorithm" of the recording.

The voices aren't synthesized (that is, they were spoken).

Sollog/Ennis' voice sounds slightly modified but close to reality.

David [Alexander]'s voice is not synthesized, it's the same as Sollog's but raised in pitch a few steps through a harmonizer, "a pitch correction device available in many audio software programs". This accounts for the higher pitch of the background noise when David [Alexander] speaks.

The interview sounds stilted and emotionless because it's been carefully read, probably many times, and carefully pasted together with an editing program ("David" and Sollog are the same person).

"This is really creepy."

My own comment...

Alexander pronounces the name sew-LOG both times (but the stress on the second syllable is a bit different the second time around).

Oh. Ennis does "music" too. So I guess he'd have one of those "recording studio" programs or whatever laying around somewhere.

Wyss 09:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This "interview" is ~~carefully~~ spliced together. It could be as simple as one person recording himself in two different rooms with different microphones plus some minor pitch shifting. If you look at a narrowband spectrogram here (approx. 24 seconds into the audio), you'll see several clear signs of editing: the first (horizontal) arrow shows an area with sudden total silence (no energy across the spectrum) right after "Sollog" stops and before "David" begins to speak; the second (diagonal) arrow points to a narrower splice site that shows the different noise characteristics more clearly. There also appears to be a small dog barking approx. 48 seconds from the start. --MarkSweep 15:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The splicing is very obvious if you normalise the quiet bits; Enis seems to have been using a poor-quality microphone, and he hasn't blanked the silences, I assume because he didn't listen to the 'interview' with headphones. However, the fact that the dialogue is edited does not show that the two participants are the same person, as this kind of editing is par for the course when producing an interview, indeed I used to do it myself, either to remove coughs etc, to keep everything to a certain time or to give it more of a 'flow' (although I made sure that there were no obvious gaps in the background ambience, which is why it is better to conduct an interview under controlled, or at least consistent, conditions). They may also have been using two microphone set-ups, or they may have been in two different places, both of which are legitimate methods of conducting an interview. Having said that, my two observations are (a) this sounds like one man interviewing himself and (b) if D. E. Alexander were really a freelance journalist, with one eye on future employment, he would try to be more impressive. The "Hmmm" at the beginning of "Hmmm. The October nuke warning. Can you explain what you warned of last October in/with regards to nukes?" is truly an Ed Wood-esque piece of bad acting, and I wonder if he is a member of the Vestibules, the Canadian radio comedy group. For a supposedly 44-year-old man the whole thing seems rather immature. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, Altman wrote that he got a call once from "D.E. Alexander", and by the end of conversation realized he was talking to Ennis. Wyss 10:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog hits GREAT QUAKE Window again

On 11/23/04 Sollog issued his 10th Anniversary Great Quake Prophecy

It listed key dates for future GREAT QUAKES

A great quake is a rare seismic event it is an 8.0+ Quake, they occur less than one year on average.

One month to the exact date of the Sollog Great Quake warning a 8.1+ quake hit,it was 9 days from the key date Sollog gave of 01/01/05

Yawn. Wyss 19:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The statistical odds of anyone being within +/- 9 days is around 20 to 1 Probable

More Ennis math. Wyss 19:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wrong simple probability, an 8.0 quake occurs about once every 400 days on average so to be +/- 9 days for a great quake prediction is 18/400 probable

Casino. One hit out of how many failed throws of the dice? Dozens. Wyss 20:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis, could you point me to where you predicted an 8.0-range magnitude tembler specifically? (great is not specific as to Richter magnitude I had to learn quickly here)Wyss 20:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So once again Sollog has named a KEY DATE for a rare seismic event and a rare quake hits close enough to his date to be a major statistical hit

That's wonderful, except seismic events aren't at all rare (quite the opposite) and Sollog didn't name the date. Wyss 19:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

more wyss lies USGS says less than one such quake occurs each year http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/ussjal/

[Personal attack above...] Exactly. Not rare. Wyss 20:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In no way does this mean another great quake won't occur closer or even on the exact date, but the fact that one has already struck to so close to 01/01/05 is a statistical hit for Sollog ONCE AGAIN

Er, not when compared across the entire base of your failed predictions. Besides, your prediction didn't specify any magnitude range. It was, in effect, a statistical certainty [75] that a newsworthy tembler would hit somewhere in the world in December or January. Even so, so far you've missed on the thousands of fatalities prediction. Wyss 20:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In 2000 Sollog hit five exact dates for 7.0+ quakes in a row, the odds of anyone hitting an exact date for a 7.0+ quake is almost 30 to 1, the odds of anyone hitting an exact date for a great quake 8.0+ is over 400 to 1, to hit +/- 9 Days as Sollog just did is ~20 to 1 probable

We appologize for the interruption. I, my sister father and mother were all born on a Monday. This is ~343 to 1 probable (sic) to have 4 people born the same day of the week. Are we psychic? That's without checking your fact above btw. Pakaran (ark a pan) 18:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the odds are a bit better than that. Your calculcations assume equal probability for each day of the week, but the way hospitals are managed nowadays means fewer births on Saturdays and Sundays. The probability of being born on a Monday is slightly higher than 1/7, the probability of being born on a Tuesday is more like 1/6, and for Sundays it's closer to 1/10. --MarkSweep 22:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[personal attack by anon poster/sockpuppet removed]

Here is the time stamped Sollog 10th Anniversary warning issued 11/23/04 or one month ago to the exact date of this hit

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/99de7ac658525a4c

Here is Cardinal Chunder who has been posting here that Sollog never hits anything posting about the 10th Anniversary Quake warning

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/c73fef474bfa0318

haha

Yep, you missed Ennis. Thousands of humans...? Also, I see nothing there about an 8.1 magnitude quake... You'd have jumped on a 4.0, anything, if necessary. Truth is, 7.0 magnitude quakes happen on average more than once a month [76]. All combined, earthquakes kill thousands of people a year on average. Even with a statistical certainty, you couldn't manage to write an earthquake "prophecy" without leaving gaping holes in it. Wyss 20:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note, the Kobe earthquake of 1995 is said to have been a 7.2 magnitude quake on the open-ended Richter scale. Over 5000 people died. Wyss 22:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't be modest, and quote that which you link to. I said: "Would you to say specifically, unambiguously where these great quakes will occur and what damage they might do, or should we sling this on the dung heap with your other failed predictions?". And the answer to that appears to be "No". You'll simply postdict the result to fit the open ended and vague claim just as you always do. And in the event of a total miss (the norm) you'll simply pretend it never happened. BTW How were those GAMES OF DEATH? --Cchunder 09:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like Sollog said, if Randi wants to lose 1 Million (Randi doesn't have 1 million anyway) the GREAT SOLLOG will hit an exact date for a rare 6.5 Quake and be within 250 Miles of the location.

Solloghitsagain

Note, a scientific experiment intended to detect the presence of paranormal abilities involves control groups and other carefully defined parametres. It's not a one-off casino play. In the past, Ennis aka Sollog has refused to comply with the contractural terms of Randi's challenge, which are designed to ensure a scientifically valid result. Wyss 20:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wrong again wyss, Randi refused the application and declined to test Sollog.

Ennis, saying I'm wrong and demonstrating it are two different things. You refused to agree to a scientific test, is all. Wyss 20:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As to the funny statements below about Randi having a million dollars. The FACT IS Randi admitted in a US Federal court case THERE IS NO MILLION DOLLARS http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=randi+promissory&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

Hogwash. Numerous groups have confirmed the existence of the money, including recently the BBC. --Cchunder 09:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can request confirmation of the balance in the Randi Foundation's account by sending them a fax or email, as their webpage states. Pakaran (ark a pan) 18:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Randi admitted there is no million dollars, it is promissory notes. http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=randi+challenge+promissory+notes&hl=en& Solloghitsagain

From the foundation's website, it looks like they have that much in an account balance. Feel free to contact them about this matter. Pakaran (ark a pan) 19:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the sci.sceptic FAQ, which is the fourth or fifth search result on your link, states that at one time (due to lawsuits) the challenge was backed by promissary notes; apparently that was the case 6-7 years ago. Again, feel free to email Randi requesting proof of the account balance. Pakaran (ark a pan) 19:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog hits the window all right...like a bird. A2Kafir 19:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can someone give us some details of this quake that is supposed to have happened? I don't see anything on any news organisations. Or is this just another prediction? DJ Clayworth 20:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

USGS main quake info site it was a rare major quake http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/ussjal/

Er, silly me. I assumed there'd been a significant tembler today, but it's Ennis posting, after all (I can't find any news of one). :) Wyss 20:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/ussjal/ the main site for quake info in the world, but you're a wikian a person that knows little

There's this: [77] Of course, he may have predicted dozens or hundreds of things that didn't happen. Also I can't confirm offhand the frequency of earthquakes of this strength, et cetera. Pakaran (ark a pan) 20:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wrong again, Sollog issues 2 to 4 prophecies a year

Contributed by 213.29.2.249 from a telia.net server in the Czech Republic (likely an open proxy). Wyss 20:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, as an afterthought, we have List of earthquakes which isn't complete (and doesn't yet include the above-linked one) but would tend to suggest that this was one of the few stronger quakes in terms of energy released (NOT property damage) of the 21st century. Pakaran (ark a pan) 20:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) it was the strongest quake in around 15 months or almost 500 days

It's still proof he missed again. He's predicted lots of stuff that never came to be [78] [79]. It's mind numbingly boring to wade through, but his many clear failures are well documented. Wyss 20:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hitting a date for a rare 8.0+ range quake within 9 days is a statistical hit, modern science can't do it, you can't do it, yet Sollog does hit quake windows all the time, if you think you can beat 9 days do it

Contributed by 213.29.2.249

Note, there is no evidence Sollog specifically predicted an 8.1 magnitude tembler (7.0 magnitude quakes happen at a rate of more than one per month, so of course he hits his fuzzy "windows" all the time- who could avoid it?). Wyss 21:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antarctica?? I guess when he wrote "thousands of humans will be sacrificed" that was code for "thousands of penguins". DJ Clayworth 20:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

actually a couple of hundred miles south of Australia it leveled anything in that area for 50 miles or so, 8.0+ range quakes can rearrange a landscape 213.29.2.249

Uhm, not quite [80]. Wyss 23:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[81] It was felt by a few people. Not sure what it leveled, given it was in the middle of the water... which generally doesn't stay level too long, especially when shaken... I'm neither a psychic nor a geologist nor an oceanographer though. And please if you can't log in and sign your comments, put them on their own line. Pakaran (ark a pan) 20:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, for me, Sollog's 911 prediction back in 1998 is starting to look like an anti-Sollog prank/satire that accidently hit three years later. I'm not sure about this, and solloging through the USENET wasteland of cranks and kooks for any sort of verification is not fun. Wyss 20:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I love that reference to "solloging through the USENET wasteland". A brilliant neologism -- or is it a neosollogism? As to the quake, maybe there were thousands of fatalities, including of course Stephen King, but the anti-Sollog media are hushing it up. JamesMLane 22:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Has nobody looked at the timestamps yet? The news.com.au article [82] reports the antarctic quake happening Friday at 1:58am AEDT. AEDT is UTC+11, so that makes it 14:58 UTC on Thursday. The USENET post made by Sollog [83] is timestamped "13:59:16 -0800". What does that show?

~~The quake happened Thursday at 14:58 UTC.~~
~~Sollog posted to USENET Thursday at 21:59 UTC.~~
~~Therefore, Sollog posted his prediction seven hours after the quake happened.~~

~~Yet another example of Sollog's prediction "methods".~~ — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Sollog post is dated 23 November. Wyss 02:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well hell, you're right. I thought it was too blatant to be true. I'll blame it on the time-warp that always happens to me when I finish a term at school. :-) Thanks for the catch; I'm off to hide in shame for a bit. — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For all his psychic abilities Ennis claimed a hit on a non-event, "forgetting" about the stronger earthquake closer to his predicted date. And of course Ennis would have been content with a 6.5 magnitude quake like last year's one in Iran. F cam 09:29, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Radio appearances

From a recent addition to the article:

Sollog appeared on some high profile radio shows in 1997 such as Alan Colmes and Jeff Rense among many others.

Does anyone have verification of this, and how notable are these guys? Is it worth sticking this line back in the article? --Carnildo 21:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He did apparently appear on a Jeff Rense show (the audio doesn't seem to be easily available anymore). Ennis was apparently unhappy with the experience, and later threw the familiar variety of slurs at Rense, [84]. Wyss 21:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog used to do radio bits with a major radio show in Philly in 1995, he did many morning shows in the USA and other countries in 1996 to 1997 or so. He did Alan Colmes and was on Sean Hannity and Joan Rivers plus a few others. Some dude in Pittsburgh was fired for putting him on the air. hahaha (it was some religious channel)

High profile? Doesn't Rense specialise in whacked out conspiracy loons and the like? Perhaps Sollog was a bit too whacked out even for him. --Cchunder 23:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note, a quick Internet search finds a reference to Joan Rivers and Sollog only on a known Ennis site [85]. Wyss 23:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I can't find any mention of him on Hannity and Colmes (reasonably notable ultra-conservative radio/TV hosts) except on sites like this, this, and this; all three of which have already been established as part of the Great UnderSollog Empire. Interestingly enough, both www.1underground.com and www.whatshotin.com both claim to be "the most controversial site on the Internet." Inky 01:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of radio shows, doesn't anybody think it's odd that Sollog hasn't even been on Coast to Coast AM? :-) Even the Bible code guys get on there. Inky 01:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you do some research, Sollog has said for years Art Bell is a fraud, his Autograph Authentication Company exposed the Art Bell MJ 12 Documents as fakes years ago.

(anonymous comment by 213.138.128.14 (contribs), our possible sockpuppet with the Britney Spears fixation) Inky 04:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ennis :) Appearing on a program presented by Art Bell is hardly a credential for objectivity or sanity, so there's really no need for you to bash him like you bash everyone else. Wyss 03:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And what does this "Autograph Authentication Company" do, exactly? Should we add some information on it to the article? Maybe some whitepages on its techniques? Or is this another "oh-crud-they-got-me-I'd-better-make-something-up-quick" tactic? Ennis, your tactics remind me of playing Cowboys 'n' Outlaws with my little brother years ago. "Bang! I shot you!" "No you didn't! I grabbed an anvil from the blacksmith's and stuck it in my shirt!" Inky 04:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that this company exists only in Ennis' annual payment of 12 dollars for its domain, if it isn't running on one of his other domains. Pakaran (ark a pan) 04:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog Haters proved to be simple fools by the Great Quakes, first one Biggest in four Years then followed by Biggest in Forty Years. Most normal people dont need anymore proof but hes some more GREAT QUAKES to FOLLOW. THOUSANDS KILLED JUST AS SOLLOG TOLD YOU. Sollog is LORD G_D ALMIGHTY.

Largest quake in 4 years hits Sollog quake warning

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11775215%255E421,00.html

The quake struck nine days from the Sollog warning date for a GREAT QUAKE (rante 8.0+)

His prediction did not specify a great quake. Wyss 22:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog fans expect more such GREAT QUAKES either on or near 01/01/05 and 03/21/05 to celebrate the 10 year anniversaries of the discovery of Sollog's Point of Creation and Creator Formula theories.

Note, here Ennis keeps his options open, not for another month... but three. It's statistically almost inevitable that we'll hear about at least two or three more newsworthy quakes during this time. There's no clairvoyance, no "mathematical brilliance" in saying that. When such a quake comes, he'll find a way to cram it into his vague prediction (never mind he's hoping for the demise of thousands of individual human beings). Wyss 23:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are the odds that the largest quake in 4 years would hit 9 days from the Sollog great quake date of 01/01/05?

This is meaningless, since he didn't predict a "great" (8.0+) quake. Even so, the odds of lucking out with something newsworthy are almost certain [86]. He'd have settled for a 6.5. Regardless, his prediction was incorrect because it mentioned thousands of fatalities. Wyss 22:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~1500 days in 4 years so it is 18/1500 probable that such a rare event would occur within 9 days of the date GUARANTEED by Sollog

This is a classic example of Ennis post-shadowing. Moreover, he adds characteristics that weren't in the original prediction and omits others in order to make it "fit" to this event: He didn't predict a "great" (8.0+) quake, this one didn't occur on the day he "guaranteed" and the prediction of fatalities appears to be completely wrong. Wyss 22:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog gave two dates for GREAT QUAKES and Great Quakes are defined by the USGS as 8.0+ range quakes.

Sollog also says he's God [sic]. The use of the term "great" wasn't in a sentence where one might expect to parse the USGS meaning, and if an earthquake of 7.0 magnitude happens on 7 January, rest assured, Ennis will claim that 7.0 is "great enough", that the 7th is "close enough", but as has been shown, statistically, it's more than likely that as many as three or four 7.0 temblers will take place around the world over the next two months, Ennis will claim his hits, and the world will ignore him for the crank that he is. Wyss 04:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of which, here are two lines from his prediction (it's linked in full above):

The 10th Anniversary of the discovery of the CREATOR FORMULA is 03/01/2005

To celebrate this event THOUSANDS OF HUMANS shall be sacrificed in a historic quake

The reader's invited to ponder what the second line says about John P. Ennis.

THIS IS ONE DON'T ERASE IT

I did anyway. Sue me. Wyss 22:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be "hit" in the "not at all" sense. --Cchunder 23:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog warned of TWO DATES for future GREAT QUAKES (usgs says a great quake is over 8.0+ range) First date is 01/01/05 and second is 03/21/05 the fact is the largest quake in 4 years just hit nine days before the Sollog date which is an great statistical hit.

(anonymous comment by 213.138.128.14 (contribs), revealed)

USGS says it, but Ennis didn't, and no matter how hard he tries to massage his language, Ennis didn't predict "the largest quake in four years" would happen on 23 December. He predicted thousands would die (gross). It didn't happen. Wyss 04:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism watchlist

Is anyone finding /watch useful? --Sgeo^TC 00:36, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's useful. Maybe we could display it prominently at the top of the talk page? --MarkSweep 01:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is very useful for tracking changes and catching vandalism. I do think it should have a more prominent notice at the top along with the rules. - Taxman 13:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

PROOF Sollog predicted GREAT QUAKE

No matter how much wyss LIES the fact is Sollog predicted a GREAT QUAKE and it hit wyss argues Sollog didn't mean Great Quake as the USGS Defines it 8.0+ Here is PROOF that wyss LIES http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/c8ee00b4e02b09c7 That post from THREE YEARS AGO explains how when Sollog says GREAT QUAKE is means by USGS standards 8.0+ above

We briefly interrupt this rant, posted anonymously at 16:53, 2004 Dec 24 by IP 67.133.123.36 (which has only been used for this single message).

At no point in that post does Enis explain that, when he says "great quake", he means "a quake with a magnitude of 8.0+ on the USGS scale". I assume you must put all this stuff in a database somewhere, for you to pluck it out three years later in case somebody questions you; in all this time, what have you achieved, really? With your fabricated interviews, cross-linked index book, and hundreds upon hundreds of hair-splitting posts to the impassive online world? Are you jealous of the 'hoax moon landing' people, who are so much more successful, of Jasmuheen, the breatharian? What have you achieved? -Ashley Pomeroy 17:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it too funny that three years ago Sollog hit the same type of warning by the same error margin It was noted then that a 9 or 10 day miss was around 400 to 1 probable So as you can see the history of Sollog GREAT QUAKE warnings is to miss by +/- ~ 9 or 10 days Can scientists predict a 10 day window for a GREAT QUAKE? NO Yet Sollog keeps doing it Yet a liar like wyss wants you to believe Sollog didn't mean a grea quake is a 8.0+ quake even though his fans have argued that is what it means for years as this post shows http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/c8ee00b4e02b09c7

Here was the post with the Sollog GREAT QUAKE prophec in it http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/99de7ac658525a4c

What does the NINTH line say BEHOLD THE GREAT QUAKE OF 01/01/2005 NINE DAYS OFF the quake hit just like in 2000 when Sollog was hitting GREAT QUAKE warnings then NINTH LINE = NINE DAYS OFF NINE = ENNIA in Greek Sollog's birth name

So, I was sitting here, pondering this latest Ennis screed, and someone stood over my shoulder and said, "You're still spending time with that weirdo?" So enough of these circles, and I bid you all a Merry Yule! Wyss 17:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis=Ennia? Ennion, Ennium are next. Look out periodic table! No wonder the guy thinks he's a psychic. If I had a big enough hammer I could force all of my random stout induced ravings from the last 30 years into some sort of loose framework from which I might claim to have predicted the inexplicable popularity of rap as well as the anorexia of the Olson twins, to boot. Regardless, a happy Yule indeed to all, including Ennis! Fire Star 18:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it would take a bit more than that to prove the popularity of rap...No offense to any rappers out there :). Merry religious holiday of your choice, everyone. Akchizar 07:46, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cock. I'm missing The Simpsons, which is on Channel 4; it has the voice of Gary Coleman in it! -Ashley Pomeroy 18:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Merry Yule to all, even to Those Who Believe They Can Win An Argument By Using All Lower Case Letters For The Name Of Their Opponent. ;-) Edeans 02:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoopdiedoo, so this guy almost predicted an earthquake. I PREDICT THAT THE NEXT GREAT STORM WILL OCCUR SOUTH OF THE NORTH POLE ON A DAY THAT ENDS WITH THE LETTER 'Y'. Of course, 'GREAT' in that context means cyclonic, powerful, or just plain good. You can interpret it how you like, but my prophecy will be fulfilled. This is because I am GOD and I have OMNIPOTENCE and I will CRUSH my opponents like cockroaches in my almighty mind-grip. Anyone who questions my supreme status as creator and ruler of this universe is Satan embodied and must be driven out of Wikipedia or else I will direct the GREAT STORM at you! Yes, YOU! ..... But seriously folks, this guy is a total laugh, especially pretending to be a legion of believing fans. Have a Merry Christmas and hopefully he'll go on a vacation somewhere without computers. - Mark 08:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Come on Mark, we can do better than that... (ahem):

BEWARE 6!

7 is the ancient symbol of PERFECTION. 6 is NOT QUITE 7. It is IMPERFECT and UNHOLY. Great calamities surround 6!

January 05 = 1 + 5 = 6

BEWARE January!

These are the KEY DATES for JANUARY 05. They contain 6 as well as the 6 contained in JANUARY 05!

January 6

January 16

January 24

January 26

BEWARE THESE FOUR DATES! These days will contain great TERROR for the Earth and for the people on it. There will be EARTHQUAKES, FLOODS, and TERRIBLE STORMS on these days. MANY will lose their lives.

These are KEY DATES for DEATHS of CELEBRITIES and POLITICIANS! BEWARE the FOUR DATES!

Rlandmann 13:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC), not Sollog, nor any of his fans.

JRM's rewrites

I want to weed some cruft and merge some bits. Give me some time to process everything before you go over it. If you disagree with something, just holler, but I'll put up comments on what I've done below. I might be a while; I'm not a fast writer. Please be patient while I agonize over whether the comma should go here or there. :-) Thanks. JRM 21:54, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

The very best of luck with it. (And what a remarkable "Wikibreak"!) -- Hoary 22:03, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Hmph. Shut up. :-) JRM 01:14, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

JRM, I suggest mentioning the possibility that the 911 "prediction" may have been a satire or prank that Ennis later adopted as his own. The reasoning behind this includes the wording of the email and the sender's email address, which both deviate somewhat from Ennis' typical usages. Wyss 23:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No can do, Wyss. No original research. I will mention as clearly as possible that nothing points to Ennis actually making these claims, other than his own repeated insistence. The rest must remain up to our readers. For completeness, I'd like to point out that if you look at it closely, the vast majority of "specific" predictions are actually done by Sollog "followers". Ennis just puts up vague nothings and then has sockp... followers "interpret" these in endless variation. It's a sound strategy. Well no, not really. JRM 01:14, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

He may now reside in South Florida? Cut the weasel words. We mean that, based on IP traces we've personally done from contributions we believe to be from Ennis, that he now lives in South Florida. Why aren't we mentioning this? Because we know these suspicions are not something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unless we can find something else to support this with, it just shouldn't be there. And what's the point of mentioning where someone has lived in the past if you cannot tie this to anything notable? His legal problems tie him to specific places, but the places themselves are not interesting. Removed the lot.

He prefers not to be called by his birth name, John Ennis, considering it an insult, and claims instead that "GOD" is the legal name of any Temple of 'Hayah (TOH) member in any legal proceeding. [87]

I read that carefully, but do not see this claim substantiated. All he claims is that

It is an INSULT TO SOLLOG to call him John Ennis THAT IS NOT HIS NAME GOD is also THE LEGAL NAME OF SOLLOG.

And

His only other legal name recognized by various courts around the world is GOD or GOD ALMIGHTY.

Nowhere can I find that the same should apply for all TOH members; the closest thing is the claim from DisDain.tv is that TOH is an alias of Sollog (a claim many here would agree with, I'd wager), which would mean that "any TOH member" implicitly refers to Sollog. Removed.

If I recall correctly, that came from one of the court documents that Sollogpuppets quoted here. They were very insistent that Sollog didn't say his legal name is GOD, but that he claimed the legal name of any member of TOH before a court is GOD, thus including himself indirectly. However, it's a nuance that I'm not sure is necessary anyway since we're not mentoning the Philadelphia "God Trial" in that context. (Other than that quibble, I like the edits.) — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:54, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

The "activities" section now really grates with the well-written second half of the intro (I'm too lazy to look up in the edit history who are responsible for that, but it's good). I have never cared for the offhand mention that Adoni publishing "runs websites that sell pornography, pictures of dead bodies, and execution videos". I've reworded this to sound slightly less like a knee-jerk attempt at discrediting Ennis, without (I hope) mincing words too much.

He also received the Earl Gordon Curley Memorial Nebuchadnezzar Award. This factoid is really going too far; for one thing, these "awards" are of course made up humorously by the alt.usenet.kooks crew. Spelling it all out is subtrivial and lends the thing more credence than is necessary.

I've trimmed the examples drastically, and in particular, I've kicked out the example subsection, because this is just an invitation to add anything in the name of factual accuracy and completeness. As informative as these examples might be, we don't need to spell it all out; only enough to point out the general patterns. One example or summary per prediction method, please.

The "Pope dies at this exact date" claim doesn't seem to pan out. It's just another one of Sollog's "he may die somewhere in October 2003, maybe on this date, maybe another, or maybe you just need to rearrange the numbers". Then a Sollog "follower" comes along to "interpret" this claim and supply a specific date, and surprise, surprise, this doesn't pan out. Oh well. I've rewritten it to match this.

The "Line of Death" mentions do not seem to build up to any point, other than that Sollog doesn't seem terribly consistent in his approach. So what? I've merged it with the other section on it, and trimmed the specifics.

Sollog may draft conspiracy theories to reason away criticism. So do lots of less than sensible people. This is not notable, unless we can point out why, say, Sollog's purported belief in the barcode conspiracy is relevant to anything else in the article. The only reason we have this is because Sollog used it to explain why the Great Author could not be found in any bookstore, or any other relevant publicity outlet for that matter. Sollog's paranoid rants in this area are no more relevant than any other personal belief he may claim to hold. Removed.

Mentioning a trillion dollar lawsuit (likely based on a translation error) is one thing, but sourcelessly stating that "he has made similar threats of huge lawsuits against other critics, such as the owner of the Slashdotwebsite" adds nothing, IMO. Removed.

Actually, "trillion" is not due to a translation error. Altman too mentioned "trillion" in one of this other articles (I'm too lazy to dig up that reference, it's in one of the recent archives). However, Altman described that incident in a way that suggested that he might have been "sued" in one of Sollog's own "courts", perhaps the same court that produced the take-down notice against Wikipedia. --MarkSweep 09:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finally, I've tried to apply more consistency in using "Ennis" where real-world affairs are involved, and "Sollog" where his alias is involved. This occasionally looks rather schizophrenic, but I believe it's the only sensible way to approach this. The article is primarily but not exclusively about his activities as "Sollog".

I fully agree. --MarkSweep 09:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis makes another mistake

Largest quake since Sollog born (1960) hits over 1000 dead

Actually, a larger 9.2 temblor hit Prince William Sound Alaska in 1964 (it appears Ennis can't even get his post-shadowing right). Wyss 18:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just remove the Sollog pages

You've been warned

The Largest Quake since Sollog was born in 1960 just hit 8.9+

This is incorrect, see note above. Wyss 18:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Over 1000 DEAD

This is incorrect, the actual figure (sadly) is at least ~~seven eight~~ ten times that... Ennis was off by an order of magnitude, even after the fact. Wyss 18:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/26/asia.quake/index.html

Sollog claimed the title LORD GOD ALMIGHTY in his recent Quake Prophecy

He stated many would be SACRIFICED to bring attention to his Creator Formula from 10 years ago

He stated GREAT QUAKES would hit the world to prove NUKES ARE EVIL

No, he named specific dates, January 1st and March 1st. Wyss 18:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You all just saw HISTORY made with the recent Sollog Quake warning

It is time you respect Sollog and members of TOH

One can't resist noting that here, Ennis seems to ask for respect as a mass murderer... Wyss 20:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remove these pages

Or your souls will be destroyed

Ennis was once arrested by the US Secret Service on suspicion of threatening the life of then-president Clinton, too. Wyss 20:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Sollog Quake Warning http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/99de7ac658525a4c

A TOH Member

(contrib by 219.30.48.169, using Ennis' standard "admin" language and alias... apparently via an open proxy near Tokyo)

Comment - While we don't want in any way to diminish the tragedy represented by this terrible loss of life, which Ennis is attempting to exploit, his sockpuppet mentioned 1000 dead, yet a few hours later the estimates were well over 7000, mentioned as a reminder of the "predictive" abilities demonstrated by this individual. Wyss 16:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A powerful earthquake but in terms of people killed it's not that big, compared to say last year's quake in Iran. And most of the damage was done by the tidal waves. F cam 10:52, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Besides which, Ennis is just playing lotto again. His prediction does not state the place, magnitude, time, date or anything. Although, I reckon the barrage of "hahas" and other rants that will follow today allow the word "ghoul" to be stuck in the article without fear of violating NPOV. --Cchunder 10:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to correct myself, it does state the date(s) - 01/01/2005 and 03/21/2005. Both of which are not today. In order words, a miss. Not just a miss but an awful miss, considering he managed to completely fail to predict such a large magnitude quake (or the location, strength etc.). --Cchunder 11:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know, it's funny. The prediction was only made in November, so it's a large miss. Sorry Sollog, you'll have to be more accurate if you want anyone with half a brain to believe you. - Mark 13:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest Quake warning? I thought you were talking about lag time on my network game! Dammit, how could I have been so blind?! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis claims to have vandalized Sumatra

SOULS DESTROYED OVER THIS PAGE

Jimbo Wales

Wyss

CChunder

Mark Sweep

Hoary

JRM

To namea few

And everyone here who mocked Sollog

Go back to sheol you demons

SOLLOG IS GODS WORD

Above terror struck on 26 December by 219.30.48.169, who at 10:19 verily cast a thunderbolt and destroyed this entire heathen page (since reconstructed)

But wait...if Sollog is the "LORD GOD ALMIGHTY", then why doesn't he just wave his hands and make Wikipedia disappear or strike all of the editors dead with bolts of lightning from clear blue skies? 202.39.18.35 11:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because God is too busy wrongfooting Ennis by causing quakes on days that he conspicuously didn't predict. --Cchunder 11:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back, John! You said Remove these pages [pause for effect] Or your souls will be destroyed. Mm, Mephistophelean! Remove by when, soul destruction by when? Will you be able to provide independent verification of the soul destruction? Original research isn't allowed on Wikipedia, as you know. And now that 219.30.48.169 has removed this page (at 10:19 today) is everything hunky dory? -- Hoary 14:52, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

They deserve to Lose there SOULS maybe G_D can use chunder OWN idea and Hit him by LIGHTING. Now that would be very very Funny.

Uhm, I'm very sorry to tell you this, Ennis, but you didn't predict the earthquake near Sumatra today, nor the tsunamis which have so far reportedly killed over ~~four~~ six thousand people, and all the post shadowing you can think of won't change that. I am flattered, however, to have made "second place" on your list! Wyss 14:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You liar mister. You know Sollog predict great quake for now. Very rare quake hit my area, I feel ground shake very bad. Thousands now dead like Mr. Sollog warn. You be good boy and stop lying. Sollog is god. (contrib by suspected troll via 202.179.109.110 in Malaysia, which looks like an open proxy. Wyss 16:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~~Here, Ennis sockpuppets as an Indonesian.~~ On second thought, no, I don't think Ennis is capable of altering his language to this degree. I smell trolls... yawn. Wyss 15:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No good, Ennis. You claimed you predicted the "penguin-shaker" quake (that happened in the middle of the ocean anyway) earlier. You can't suddenly say that this new quake is the one you were really prophecising (sp?). No takebacks.

Secondly, there's the fact (and this was commented on earlier with no response from you) that the actual quake didn't kill thousands. The majority of the deaths were from the tsunami you apparently overlooked. Face it, your connection to the future is having some bandwidth problems. Inky 18:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What the hell?

Back to sheol? First I took that as one of John's typos, but then that looked less likely and I decided to google for it. Some people dream up the damnedest web pages. "What-the-hell-is-hell.com" -- is that a cool domain name or what? -- Hoary 14:32, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Actually I'm not even sure his usage (back to) is correct. Sheol is Hebrew for abode or place of the dead. Are there any Hebrew scholars lurking about? (my sincere apologies if so) Wyss 14:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prediction: I will eat some food tomorrow

OMG! I have the gift! I have the gift of foresite! I am all powerful. I am in tune with nature. I know all things and all things know me. Since the beginning of time I have been predestined to know that TOMORROW I will eat some food. The details are clouding over... I must go now and rest. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I bow down to your ALMIGHTY HOLINESS, most prophetic one. I shall scurry off and write a true and representative biography page for you, right here on Wikipedia, which highlights your amazing talents and prediction! - Mark 13:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go now in peace, brave follower of Ta bu shi da yu (twice leader of the Cabal and owner of the NPOV article and with the ability to rollback THOSE WHO DEFILE GREAT PROPHECIES). I see a bright BRIGHT future for you! For you have followed and written about the Great One. This shall truly be a great featured article. All those who oppose it shall be smitten. Smitten and crushed! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A suspected troll enters the discussion

Sollog is God I felt his great quake

What is wrong with you people? I feel the Sollog great quake. Sollog is god, he say great quake and boom, thousands now dead from quake. Biggest one in 40 years. I believe Sollog now. (contrib by suspected troll at 202.179.109.110)

Sollog could NEVER be as powerful as myself though. I predicted yesterday that I will take a breath of air, and behold! I did. My powers are greater than Sollog's. He is but a pale shadow of Ta bu shi da yu. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, master. You stun me with your brilliance and modesty at a time when the world should be bowing down and grovelling at your feet. - Mark 15:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog why you kill my brother, he lived near beach you struck. Sollog why you so mean and kill thousands with quakes. You kill innocent people Sollog, why? (contrib by suspected troll at 202.179.109.110)

Alright, this patent nonsense has gone on long enough. This is clearly not relevant to the article; a talk page is not a chatbox. Any more of this irrelevant claptrap will get reverted. Mark and Ta bu shi da yu: yes, I laughed. Now stop feeding the trolls, please. :-) JRM 15:28, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

I didn't write that about Sollog killing people. I find it in particularly bad taste, as a matter of fact. - Mark 15:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know you didn't; "someone" (hah!) used an open proxy in Malaysia. I was referring to the "cult" you and Ta bu shi da yu have newly established. :-) JRM 15:40, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

(As noted above, I have my doubts it was Ennis... probably just a troll... my guess is a GNAAer but who cares?) Wyss 15:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Propose we revert the Sollog is God I felt his great quake humour as well? (it was funny but...) Wyss 15:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the content alone, I'd say yes, but I like to believe I'm being fair by not removing anything added before people were explicitly warned not to post trollish nonsense. Also, I think it helps if others know what we're up against here. :-) JRM 15:53, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

We were explicitly warned not to post trollish nonsense? Where? - Mark 16:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You were not. That's why the comments were not removed. (After I made the remark, MarkSweep added the new "rule" — literally. :-) And we've all had good laughs at Sollog's expense; I'm just urging people to keep it down to a minimum if possible. Otherwise we should just set up a separate wiki/blog/chatbox/IRC channel/Usenet group for this. ("alt.fan.sollog", anyone?) Let's try to stay focused on producing encyclopedia articles, here. Now excuse me while I remove this rod from my backside... :-) JRM 00:05, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Ok, please give me a tick then, I'm going to mark the unsigned posts. Wyss 15:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done :) Wyss 16:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Earthquake

Why does Sollog take credit for an earthquake which occurred on December 26, when his own page says "The dates the Prophecy gave were 01/01/05 and 03/21/05."? 172.198.86.142 22:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Beats me. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently Sollog does this all the time: he'll make an exact prediction, either a date like with the 01/01/05 "anniversary" quake, or a date and a location. When the event happens late or early (and a hundred or more miles away, if there's a location), Sollog and/or his supporters will claim it as a hit, making a window of time around the exact date that's just barely large enough to include the event, and calculating the likelyhood of the event happenin in that window, given how often such an event takes place. By making it a window after the fact, the window is never too small to include the date, while at the same the window ends up being as small as possible, thus making the probability of the event falling in the window smaller; plus there's always the chance that the event will, by chance, happen on the exact date, in which case he can claim an exact hit, which he couldn't do if he'd predicted a window of time before hand. -- Khym Chanur 21:21, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ennis Post-Shadows

Sollog hits killer great quake during holidays prophecy

From

http://www.247news.net/2004/20041226-quake.shtml

Greatest Quake in 40 years hits when Sollog Warned

Incorrect. Ennis did not predict the "greatest quake in 40 years", and it did not happen when he said an earthquake would occur. Wyss 00:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A more accurate headline might read...

Sumatra quake hit 6 days before Ennis' predicted date, 3 days after he'd already claimed the Macquaries quake as the one he caused in classic post-shadowing kookery

Byline Staff of 24 7 News

This is a known alias of John P. Ennis, aka Sollog Wyss 00:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

www.247News.Net 12/26/04

Join our eMail list --advertising link removed Carnildo--

Two rare GREAT QUAKES (over 8.0+) have just struck days apart. These types of quakes are supposed to occur more than a year apart.

Incorrect. Quakes in excess of 8.0 on the open-ended Richter scale occur on average about one year apart. Wyss 23:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are they signs? For days people have been mocking a warning about thousands dying from a rare GREAT QUAKE that was to strike this holiday season, today over 10,000 have died from the largest quake in over forty years.

Incorrect. Sollog did not predict that any quake was to strike "this holiday season". Note the not-so-subtle use of vague language here... are they signs?... Ennis is leaving things open, hoping for yet another earthquake.Wyss 23:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's right, for days skeptics have been mocking the GREAT QUAKE PROPHECY of Sollog (see www.Sollog.com) on the Net. The prophecy was written November 23rd 2003 and it stated that a series of GREAT QUAKES would soon occur. The dates the Prophecy gave were 01/01/05 and 03/21/05.

Substantially correct. Wyss 00:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A great quake is defined by the USGS (US Geological Survey) as an earthquake having a magnitude of 8.0+. These are rare seismic events that usually occur less than one per year according to the USGS.

Substantially correct. However, the Sollog "prophecy" didn't use the term great in a context that specified the USGS definition, or that would have limited him to that definition in claiming "hits". Wyss 00:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The simple fact is a person who has a history of predicting rare quakes (see last years Bam Iran Quake article http://www.247news.net/2003/20031231-bam.shtml ) released a warning for a GREAT QUAKE to kill thousands this holiday season. Today that happened! This great quake was also less than one hour off from the exact time of last years killer quake that struck in Bam Iran as well. Again, the same person hit that quake last year by stating a great killer quake would hit on Xmas Day, it did at 9PM EST on Xmas Day, this new killer quake hit at 8PM EST on Xmas Day.

Incorrect. "This person" did not predict that a quake would occur on December 25th or 26th. Wyss 00:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This recent killer quake was the second GREAT QUAKE to hit this quake prophecy since one month to the date that the recent Sollog GREAT QUAKE was written and released to Usenet where it was time-stamped, a rare 8.1+ great quake also struck between Australia and Antarctica on 12/23/04. It was the largest quake in four years since a Great Quake hit Peru. Sollog also predicted that event in Peru by warning such a rare Great Quake would hit South America. See our 2001 article about it http://www.247news.net/2001/20010623-peru.shtml

Incorrect. As pointed out in Ennis' own sockpuppet news report, the "prophecy" specifically names January 1st and March 1st as the quake dates. Wyss 00:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The recent Sollog GREAT QUAKE warning was posted to Usenet on 11/23/04 where some knuckleheads mocked it. It has also been discussed on the Talk Page about Sollog at Wikipedia. On that page people have been laughing how no one died from the 12/23/04 Great Quake near Australia and how it was nine days off from the date Sollog gave which was 01/01/05. The skeptics ignore the obvious facts; that for anyone to warn of a great quake and be even nine days off is a major statistical hit in quake prediction. Scientists can't do it and other quake predictors have never hit such a rare seismic event that accurately. The odds of anyone being nine days off for the largest quake in four years is around 1500 to 18 probable.

Incorrect. This is classic post-shadowing. Given that Ennis clearly would have accepted less forceful temblors as "hits" (as he has in the past), it was almost a statistical inevitability that some sort of newsworthy earthquake would have occurred within a week or two of January 1st. Wyss 00:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the Usenet post that has a time-stamp of 11/23/04 http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/99...

This is the Wikipedia page discussing the Sollog Great Quake warning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sollog

Since there have been thousands of entries on the Sollog discussion page you might have to look in the Sollog archive at Wikipedia to see the Sollog Great Quake discussion where Wiki members openly mocked the Sollog Prophecy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sollog/fullarchive

Readers are assured that Sollog has been mocked. Wyss 00:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fans of Sollog stated in various Sollog forums to expect more GREAT QUAKES while skeptics mocked Sollog. Now a few days from the exact date Sollog gave for a historic killer GREAT QUAKE this holiday season, the largest quake in over 40 years has hit and thousands have died, exactly as Sollog warned.

Incorrect. This is inexact post-shadowing. Sollog predicted a quake would happen on January 1st. Wyss 00:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are the odds that the largest quake in over 40 years would occur a few days from when Sollog warned? It's about 15,000 to 10 probable. That's around 1500 to 1 probable that the largest quake in 40 years would have occurred that close to the date Sollog gave!

Ennis' probability calculations aside, this statement is meaningless, since he didn't predict "that the largest quake in over 40 years would occur a few days from when Sollog warned". Wyss 00:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Great Quake of Sollog has killed thousands due to tidal waves in many countries from the quake. As I mentioned, the great quake struck within 1 hour of the one-year anniversary of the Great Bam Iran quake that killed tens of thousands last year. And as I mentioned already, Sollog predicted such a killer quake for Xmas last year. Both killer quakes struck on Xmas Day if you use EST, which is the time standard usually given in Sollog quake warnings.

We have confirmed with two members of TOH that had Xmas Dinner with Sollog that they were told by Sollog's son Shonin, who is only six years old, that he had a nightmare Xmas Eve. He said many people died from a great wave from the ocean. He also mentioned a Lake. It seems Shonin is as psychic as his father since he even connected a lake to the event. Many thousands died in Sri Lanka, was that why little Shonin connected the word lake to this tragedy?

Comment is reserved as to why Ennis' purported son may be having nightmares. Wyss 00:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And Shonin? Poor kid must have a terrible time on the playground. Inky 04:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog's site is (see www.Sollog.com) Many consider Sollog to be a modern day Nostradamus, he is the founder of a religious movement named TOH an acronym for Temple Of 'Hayah (www.TempleOfHayah.com)

Sollog is very famous for warning of acts of terrorism as well. He put exact information about 911 into the public domain well before that tragedy happened. Here is one of the warnings about how a MAJOR EMERGENCY would hit Washington DC on 911. Three years to the exact date of that warning 911 occurred.

Sollog's authorship of the 911 post is disputed. There is some evidence that it may have been a satire or prank written by a detractor (the USENET is replete with these) which he began exploiting 3 years later. Wyss 00:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here s a time-stamped 911 warning from Sollog archived by Google.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6tb7...

Here is an article in Der Spiegel the largest paper in Germany about Sollog and his 911 warnings.

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,157197,00.html

And while we're at it: Der Spiegel is the largest weekly magazine in Germany, not "the largest paper". And the article cited here is mostly about debunking Sollog. It quotes Howard Altman calling Ennis's behavior "pretty insane". --MarkSweep 01:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog warned of a March 11th Terrorism attack, it was fulfilled when the March 11th Madrid Massacre occurred.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=9dca...

Last year Sollog warned a killer quake would hit on Xmas day 2003, around 9PM EST the great Bam Iran Quake hit and 50,000 died.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=f296...

Staff

www.247News.Net

Pro-Sollog advertising posted by 208.54.95.129

None of this contradicts the current conclusions in the article in any way, namely that Sollog has no legitimate claim to predictive powers. If you're trying to get us to add this particular "prediction" to the article: this has no claim to notability of any sort. Should major media pick up on this, as they more or less did with the 911 "prophecy", we will update the article to reflect it. Until then, this is no more notable than any other of Sollog's demonstrably flawed predictions. Your arguments have been discredited, your sources are not reputable, your advertisements are not encyclopedic, and in my opinion, you're wasting everybody's time. Though I'm sure you don't see it that way. JRM 00:11, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Wow! "Scientists" Beat Sollog!

One of Ennis' favourite lines is that "science can't do it", but he can. As it happens, some Indian scientists may have outdone the shadowy spammer...

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1041227/asp/nation/story_4179143.asp

Note, this article is offered tongue-in-cheek. No connection between planetary alignment and earthquakes has ever been established, and the claims of these "scientists" are entirely unverified.

Wyss 01:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where is the PUBLIC quake warning? [NL] It doesn't exist [NL] Let's see them repeat it via sci.earthquake [NL] Prediction was for a 7.0 quake, they occur 13 times a year [NL] Sollog predicted a rare GREAT QUAKE which occurs less than once a year [NL] Until they prove they made a public prediction and until they do it again, it's a BS article like wyss is ...posted in shy anonymity by 208.6.91.7 on 27 Dec 2004. Rearranged from the original, delightfully sollogite but somewhat space-wasting format: "[NL]" = new line

Hi Ennis :) That was the point. They're kooks like you, 'cept they at least managed to get some journalist to mention them in a regional newspaper... which is how they beat you. Wyss 03:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wyss is a joke look at his argument

wyss is a joke [NL] he says Sollog didn't predict a great quake [NL] haha [NL] Sollog predicted a rare great quake and he said it would kill thousands [NL] The date was 01/01/05 [NL] So Sollog missed a once in a 40 year quake by 5 days [NL] To even miss a great quake by 5 days is a hit in seismology since statistics are they occur around once in 400 days [NL] A search of the USGS database shows that is true no matter what the liar wyss says [NL] The fact is Sollog said great quakes were coming and two struck within days of his window [NL] There was no public quake prediction in India, it's BS [NL] Sollog is the only quake predictor that publicly warned of a killer GREAT QUAKE for the holiday season [NL] HE HIT IT [NL] http://www.sollog.com ...comment posted in shy anonymity on 27 Dec by some sock-puppet of John P. Ennis. Regretfully rearranged from inimitably sollogite but space-wasting style -- "NL" = "new line" -- but no other change made

Your astute reasoning (essentially "I'm right, you're wrong") has convinced me. You do deserve mocking, at least on a critical thinking basis. — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:43, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Just because one can do a thing doesn't mean one should. Although admittedly the temptation is inexorable... Fire Star 07:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And so it goes... Ennis' "prophecy" doesn't mention "wiggle room" around any bloody window, but then if it did, as we've learned in today's lesson about post-shadowing, it'd be "statistics" ;) Wyss 04:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prophet Sollog (PBUH) hits two Xmas Day Killer Quakes

The honorable Prophet Sollog (PBUH) has hit two Xmas Day killer quakes. This is the Xmas Day Prophecy from last year released in early December by Sollog (PBUH). http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=f2967f4e.0312161736.30a9ca3c%40posting.google.com

"Panic controls the fools that still invest in the street called Wall" is awful, and untrue; 2004 saw no significant market collapse. Note that the post contains several dozen predictions, with the 'quake' as an afterthought, amongst lines such as "over and over soldiers shall die in suicide bombings" and "behold the plane falls from the sky". Note also that nuclear terrorism seems much more likely to strike in India / Kashmir, but Ennis - being American - barely acknowledges that part of the world. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Prophecy of Sollog (PBUH) stated killer quakes would take many lives. The Bam Iran quake struck at 9PM EST last year on Xmas Day and this years killer quake struck at 8PM EST on Xmas Day. The last two great killer quakes have both struck on Xmas Day using EST, which is what Sollog (PBUH) used in his 10 Quake Prophecies in 2000. Yes Sollog (PBUH) warned of a 'great quake' for this Holiday season, but until 01/01/05 has come and gone, Sollog (PBUH) followers can point to the Xmas Day Prophecy as proof Sollog gave the exact date for these killer quakes. Feel free to discuss this amazing SIGN OF GOD at the TOH forum http://www.templeofhayah.com Sollog (PBUH) is the return of Mohammad (PBUH). Allah is Great and Sollog (PBUH) is his word. ALI

Please blast unconvincing humbug. Pray block uncountable hoaxers. Prose betrays unlettered hack. JRM 16:48, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

And I'm a bit (but not much) offended by the use of "Peace Be Upon Him" for Sollog. He's not worth a salami, let alone a salaam. Inky 18:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wager most actual Muslims would find Sollog's post quite insulting, implying as it does that Sollog is a prophet of Islam. Of course, he has skipped "bigger than Jesus" to go right on to declaring himself God, so perhaps this should not come as a surprise. JRM 19:54, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

The prophet Muhammed was rather clear about that, describing himself as the last, or the seal of the prophets. The theological handsprings necessary to get past this are rather daunting (many have tried). The usual tactic is to proclaim oneself some sort of "manifestation" of God... however I've never heard of any mainstream sect of Islam accepting such a claim and many have been imprisoned or died trying (or supporting) such assertions. In Islamic culture, even comparing oneself to a prophet (including Moses or Jesus) is unadvised.

This is another reason why Arab or muslim-sounding sockpuppets of Ennis (like "ALI" above) are especially ludicrous to some. Wyss 20:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of my hobbies is the study of different religions, and Ennis so far displays practically no understanding of the ethics that the founders of any of our major religions address. He even makes your run of mill cult leader look good, as they sometimes at least pay lip service to the golden rule... Fire Star 05:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned in regards to Mr Ennis some time ago, building a successful cult does involve at least a bit of sales finesse ;) Wyss 09:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The two earthquakes in question did not happen on Christmas Day unless you force yourself to use American time zones, which is entirely illogical (unless, of course, God has his headquarters in Canada or something). - Mark 09:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Predictions of the Future

On April 13, 2029, a great space rock will crash into the Earth. Hurricanes, earthquakes, tidal waves, and great destruction will follow in its path. When this comes to pass, the survivors shall refer to me as "Dog", for my incredible powers of prophecy!

Bah! I know your type. You'll accept any world-destroying asteroid hit on this planet as "proof" of your prophecy coming true. Inky 22:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Can you prove it didn't happen? . . . God help us, in the future." -- Criswell Edeans 22:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that he is refering to Mn4 Which has been getting some press lately. Turns out that those estimates were wrong. --Slung 19:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page protected

Because of the recent vandalism spree by our esteemed friend and prophet, I have protected Sollog. Thanks for fighting the vandal off so bravely while the article was still unprotected. Let's hope our esteemed friend returns to his business of predicting the future so the protection can be lifted soon. And if I may make a prediction myself, "THERE WILL BE NO WAY A SINGLE NUTTER CAN HAVE HIS WAY AGAINST THE WHOLE OF WIKIPEDIA". Sorry for shouting, I know it won't help. Kosebamse 23:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given the recent vandalism I think you did the right thing. Flawiki 23:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Certainly agreed. It's tempting to protect the talk page too, but that is clearly against policy. Besides, then how would I get my list of vandals to block? - Taxman 23:51, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, he's a real trooper, ferreting out those open proxies for us. Always room for one more at the ban list, I say. JRM 00:01, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
Inevitable. *sigh* Edeans 01:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I thought that the consensus was that Sollog was never going to go away or get tired of vandalizing this page, and so it will either have to stay protected forever, or be forever watched by at least a handful of editors. Also, if Sollog and his ~~sockpuppet~~ army can't spend time editing this page, then he'll likely edit other pages, like the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which shouldn't be protected because it's a current event. I say unprotect it, and let this page consume most of his "gotta have it my way" editing time. -- Khym Chanur 01:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think protecting the article is the only reasonable thing to do for now... and I'd suggest keeping it locked for at least a couple of weeks, then making sure some of us watch it as needed (and re-protecting as necessary). Re the talk page, may I suggest archiving the above with the other archives, locking them and hyperlinking back to this page (as above)? The past discussion would be preserved and Ennis can use this live talk page as his sandbox, with people cleaning up after him in a more leisurely way. This person will not be going away in the near future, but at some point, hopefully sooner than later, will inevitably start to fade. Wyss 02:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's probably high time we archived it again anyway. It'd be a good excuse to start over with a blank talk page. Inky 02:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem with keeping the page protected indefinitely is that Ennis might start splattering himself over the rest of Wikipedia. --Carnildo 06:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh... one more thing, I agree that Ennis is doing wiki a service in identifying all those open proxies. Let him play on the talk page! Wyss 02:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Washington

re: the claim that sept 11 2001 attacks had nothing to do with washington. Isnt the pentigon in washington? i thought it was. The bellman 08:23, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

It isn't. The Pentagon is in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac, which makes up the southwestern border of D.C. --MarkSweep 09:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thats still DC dropkick you people are so stupid it's not funny. Pithy, thought-provoking if inaccurate, punctuationally challenged criticism posted by 203.56.245.47

Arlington, Virginia is NOT a part of DC. It was until the mid-1800s, then it was given back to Virginia.A2Kafir 16:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog's "prediction" is analogous to saying, in 1938, "ON 127 THERE WILL BE A GREAT EMERCENCY IN MALAYSIA" and later claiming that as a prediction of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (Because, of course, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, even if people tend to forget the Philippines). And then acting like it was nitpicking to point out that the Philippines are not in Malaysia, or that the attack on the Philippines occurred on December 8th.

The important point is: if the U.S. had taken Sollog's prediction seriously and had beefed up security in Washington D. C. on September 11th, 1998 and November 7th, 1998 and September 11th, 1999 and November 7th, 1999 and September 11th, 2000 and November 7th, 2000 and September 11th, 2001... it would not have saved one single life.

An experiment

Here's an experiment to show Sollog's followers how easy it is to twist prophecies and make them look as if they're predicting what you want them to have predicted. Let's take one of the most famous prophesies of all time, the Bible's book of Revelation and see if we can find any reference to Solllog in it...

There's an interesting passage in chapter 11. Someomne or something called "the Candlesticks of God" speaks with flame, causes floods, and makes trouble for people who don't believe its prophesies. Sollog has been accused of posting flames online, flooding websites and in-boxes, and causing trouble for people who don't believe his prophesies.

But how can we explain the "Candlesticks of God" reference? Simple. Just consider the effect that advancing technology has had on our use of metaphors. Nowadays we have lightbulbs that are brighter than many candles, so a more appropriate, modern version would be "Light of God". No wonder Sollog doesn't like the phrase "Son of Light, Light of God". It gives away his true position in the divine scheme of things.

The candlesticks then become destroyed in a war against a beast that crawled out of a bottomless pit. People will gather round the dead candlesticks and rejoice that the evil false prophets have been defeated. That's good news, but who is this beast that's gonna destroy Sollog?

Well, Wikipedia is a sort of endless pit of knowledge. Perhaps the passage is referring to us defeating him in this edit war. Our victory is guaranteed -- it's predicted right there in the Bible.

Well, no, actually it isn't. Read the actual chapter, and you'll see I've had to twist it a lot to get this interpretation, cherry picking those verses that support my prediction, ignoring those that don't. Just like Sollog does with his prophesies. If you play with words and numbers, you can twist almost any passage to have almost any meaning!

At 10:44, 2004 Dec 28, P Ingerson probably just forgot to add identifying twiddles to the above

You're right. Sorry. P Ingerson 11:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) (See, I remembered this time!)

Cardinal Chunder has a good site that shows us heathen how we too can become Ennis/Sollog. -- Hoary 11:06, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

I think you're expending too much energy in fruitlessness; Enis knows his claims are ridiculous (the poetry above mentioning "panic in the street called Wall" is proof enough of that), and this whole 'Sollog' business is presumably a strange hobby, rather like the people who regularly post nonsense on the FuckedCompany forums. He doesn't give two hoots. Of course, it reflects badly on Enis that he spends more time on this than he does with his (cough) 'wife' or administering his (cough) 'religious affairs'. I've never run a church, myself, but I should imagine it takes a lot of time and energy; similarly, I've never been married, but I find it hard to believe that someone would be willing to spend time with Enis in real life. If it wasn't for his date of birth being part of his criminal record I would assume he was twelve years old, and it's doubly worrying that a 44-year-old grown-up man does this. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"too much energy in fruitlessness"? Maybe. It was just a bit of harmless fun. (This business of twisting prophecies is quite enjoyable once you give it a try. It's wasy to see why Sollog got addicted to it!) P Ingerson 11:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He's not even trying, though; his prophecies seem to be along the lines of 'a crashing plane will cause sorrow in New York in 2004' rather than, say, 'the great bird of three will come to rest in the city of lavender' or something equally vague. Where do lavenders come from? -Ashley Pomeroy 12:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I note, incidentally, that the great bird of three has come to rest in the city of lavender, i.e. Viktor Yushchenko ('THE GREAT BIRD') has blockaded the cabinet ('COME TO REST') in Kiev ('THE CITY OF LAVENDER'). Yushchenko is distinguished by the colour orange, and lavender is also a colour - a different colour, yes, but a colour nonetheless. Kiev is famous for its lavender gardens, and Yushchenko is often referred to as 'Tsar Holubka', which is Ukrainian for 'great bird' YES IT IS and he 47 plus THREE years old. AND I SO RULE. -Ashley Pomeroy 09:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's a hobby for Sollog/Ennis, but rather that he's completely serious. If you'll read this newspaper article, you'll see that when he was on trail, he dismissed his attorney for being "part of the conspiracy", and then proceeded to piss of the judge and jury so much that he was found guilty, in spite of the fact that the evidence was more than good enough to have him found innocent. In other words, he's a nutter. Which is why he is never, ever going to stop mucking with the page. -- Khym Chanur 00:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I thought P Ingerson's exercise was helpful and fun to read! I also agree with Ashley Pomeroy's general sentiment of fruitlessness. Ennis is a deathporn spammer. The more publicity he can generate, the more traffic trickles into his little web mines of hate. Does he really believe he's God [sic]? Given absolutely no evidence of even one flesh and blood follower, he's either barking mad, or (in my humble opinion) only half barking mad, feeling somehow justified by circumstances, a lonely, angry, alienated spammer stuck with the social skills of a two-year-old, trapped in an over-active but weirdly limited imagination and delusions of intellect (the "gifted" self-taught mathematician who can "hit" his statistical "window"... better than science). Insofar as any guess about his purported wife and family, it seems there may have been a real Nicole Ensley and maybe even a couple of kids at one time, all now long gone and replaced by... sockpuppets. Wyss 12:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a really sad novel. ("Sollog's Bollocks"? "It's a Horrible Life"?) Unless you insert a large amount of conjecture, I don't see how it could have an interesting plot, however. :-) JRM 12:33, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

do you think ennis will get tired of playing here?

this should be an interesting experiment in seeing how persistent the prophet is. will he get tired, give up, and leave? or will you have to build a cabin here to stay for the next few months. the funniest (and saddest) part about this is that he's investing so much time (and possibly money) to fight this outstandingly meaningless judgement of him. the King of the Sockpuppets can't compete with the army of The People With No Lives. added anonymously at 02:13, 2004 Dec 29 by Chumpchange

There is no judgment of him in the article. The article is a record of various public reactions to his behaviour. In effect, it is a big shiny mirror held up to his nose. He obviously doesn't like what he sees. Fire Star 02:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if he is subtle enough to create an account, make useful edits for a few months, and successfully nominate himself for sysop? added anonymously at 12:30, 2004 Dec 29 by 141.154.76.167

I sincerely doubt he can snap out of his raving delusions long enough to be so coherent. Also, we don't promote just anyone who's been "mostly harmless" to sysop, and to "protect" his edits he would need to abuse the adminship in such a way that he'd be kicked out rightaway. It would be a giant waste of his time, really. But who knows? Maybe he's making useful edits as we speak. Maybe he'll become a regular Wikipedian. Maybe. Personally, I gravely doubt it. JRM 14:00, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Sollog the talented artist

The article states sollog is an artist, I think this is a little bit exagerated. I know most of you have seen his beautiful drawings of abstract nudes (did I really write beautiful?). Frankly if he is an artist, then every 4-year-old in kindergarden is also. Maybe self-proclaimed artist would be more accurate? Glaurung 07:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed (I don't think he could even hack it at the Museum of Bad Art), and changed accordingly. -- Hoary 07:58, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

What's art? Are you only an artist if someone else calls you one? Note that you wouldn't call someone "a self-proclaimed writer" or "a self-proclaimed singer", not matter how awful the writing or singing in question. JRM 08:31, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Yes, I am playing ~~devil's~~ God's advocate here. :-) JRM 08:32, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say 'amateur artist'. Although it's lovey-dovey to think that absolutely anyone can be a professional artist, at least in the UK you have to have a degree from the right university and/or some kind of commercial track record. Plenty of people cook their own food, but they wouldn't put 'cook' on their passport because they don't do it for a living. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the UK has the Turner Prize which is pretty much poseurs calling themselves artists just because they do weird stuff. Under that standard, Ennis qualifies. A2Kafir 14:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, the UK argument seems like a good reason to keep it in. The "cook" argument is not so convincing — what does Sollog do for a living, anyway? Troll people into paying him for his garbage? If so, then the "art" is as much a part of that as anything else he does, even though I personally wouldn't believe that anyone forked over a single penny for Sollog's "masterpieces". As it stands, the article is probably fine (he's now suddenly a "self-described everything", but I seriously doubt anyone is going to question it, given the utter non-notability of Sollog's various excursions into the arts — if Sollog is a "poet", then so am I). JRM 11:01, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

I don't know how long all of you have been following what "sollog" does or has been doing, but I have. I have seen his site and listened-not supported-to his rantings since 2000. I have an interest in Nostradmas, Edgar Cacye, Michael Gordon Scallion. So while searching the net for this kind of info on the net, I came across Sollog. (I will pause for a moment a appologize ahead of time for my often abuse of comas.) Anyway... Back then there was hardly anything on his website. Mainly links to- you guessed it: all the wonderful tabloid, taboo crap you could think of. back then it was mostly Princess Diana stuff, but there was also some alien stuff on there too. There where only a few references to Sollog and sollog's work itself. A small prediction supposedly naming Princess Diana and various earthquake predictions. Honestly people, I may have a few hard copies I printed out from all those years ago. I will have to look and look for any dates. I'm pretty sure my PC prints the date of the print job. Anyway, I'll look. So my point was that Sollog promoted all this other crap, that's how he got people's attention, then he's sneak in some of his "stuff", calling it secrets and slapping Nostradmas's name on things, etc. One of the main things that coaught my eye/attention back then was that the biggest part of his site was dedicated to his "Religion" Which you could become a member of. I may even still have the paperwork I printed out stating that I'm "officially" a Temple Of Hayah member. (Again, I will look-if any of you are interested) And yes I did pay for a membership back then is wasn't more than $10 for a yr. Over the last 4 yrs I let my "membership" expire, but I still recieve his faithful emails, and I have watched his following grow from afar. I believe these people were drawn in by the same interests I was and got suckered by a few good ideas he came up with and the fact that his slaps Nostradmas's name on alot of his stuff. But the more of his material I downloaded and read, the more I got sick witht the fact that this man's ego is bigger than this planet. My own personal opinion is that he may have a handful of good ideas and insights, but they are not worth putting up with his almost sociopathic opinion of himself and his many alter egos. I do remember seeing a supposed picture of his wife-"Nikkee" Does anyone remember seeing that? Not saying it was "real/true" (you can claim anything on the net;) ... contributed anonymously at 11:36, 2004 Dec 29 INtuitionSEA (User's only edit has been this post)

From the punctuation and verb conjugations, I presume the above to be John P. Ennis attempting to salvage what he can... a few good ideas and I have watched his following grow from afar, indeed. Wyss 14:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See [88] for the only purported image of "Nikkee" I've ever seen. It's been worked over with more than one Photoshop-type plug-in, however. As such, it barely qualifies as an image of anyone. The Internet Wayback Machine has a copy of it from September 2002 [89] (note that Ennis' Sollog site is blocked there). This is not a verified image of Nicole, in any event. Wyss 14:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ennis got laughed off an art forum when he modestly compared his willy and boob doodles to Picasso and Dali! [90]. Most people grow out of the puerile doodle stage in high school. --Cchunder 15:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as the encyclopaedia goes, for me, the most question isn't if he is an artist at all, but whether or not he seems to be a notable artist. The consensus (since an article about him was kept) seems to be that he is notable enough as a seeming scam artist, but is he notable enough to mention as a graphic artist? Fire Star 16:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article currently reads, He is also a self-published author and a self-described artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker. While it seems overly generous to me to even mention these things, if they must be mentioned, I think it's accurate enough. Wyss 16:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me weigh in here. I own an art gallery, and work as a professional curator for other galleries. Being an artist is a job, being interested in art or being an ameteur artist is a hobby or interest, which may be of such inisgnifigance to not merit being mentioned in the article. Yes, Sollog draws, but he does not do so within the "art industy" and so far as I know his work has not been exhibited in public, outside of his website. Generally, when artists are reviewed, one of the criteria I and other arts professionals look for is "is this person a working artist, or just someone who paints, draws, etc...". Sollog shows no evidence of being a "working artist," and the descriptor should be removed.

The only reason that it would make sense being there would be if you were trying to make Sollog look more like a "renaissance man." It should be removed to make the article NPOV. It would be appropriate to describe his interest in art or his artmaking activities in a section that spoke to his hobbies, interests, etc... By loading the top of the article with the terms "artist, musician, poet and filmmaker" the reader is provided with the assumption that Sollog does these things in a professional capacity or has shown some signifigant accomplishment in those areas. He is a self published author, and that should remain, and be the focus of the descriptive sentence.

The UK argument is not a good reason to keep it in. The artists who do work for the Turner Prize are conceptual artists, and the art culture in Great Britan is such that those who give the prize are within their professional right when they choose to award recognition to the kind of work they have been recognising in the past several years. Personally I think the whole British art world is ridiculous, but that is another issue. --Glowimperial 20:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. The only reason for leaving such references in as descriptors of Ennis then would be for them to serve as "character references" of a certain type, as evidence of megalomania, perhaps. Can anyone devise an npov way to preface them as such? "Self-described" does imply that to most people, though. Fire Star 20:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tohde's changes

Tohde made a number of changes that I reverted.. though many of them had some substance. It was clear he was trying to sneak good in with bad, and I it would take too much time to filter it out. So instead, I suggest TOHDE post his changes with sourceing here.Redcard 18:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, Todhe was being Sollog's toady. Can't Ennis use a little bit more imagination when thinking up names for his sockpuppet? P Ingerson 18:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page protected 29 December

Tohde was making a lot of disruptive edits (of the kind which should be discussed on the talk page first) so I protected the page, for now. He started out trying to sound reasonable enough, but got a bit carried away I'm afraid. Once it is past his bedtime I recommend an admin unprotect it if I don't get to it first. Fire Star 18:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Enis' next tactic will be to make several hundred tiny edits to the page, the reasoning being that, if he can fill up the 'history' list, it'll take slightly more mouse-clicks to revert him. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not much more, though. One mouse click for every 50 edits; less if it seems likely he's made several hundred. --Carnildo 20:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Music [sic] of Sollog

Since the article does mention his musical activities, here are two examples of his musical work (they'll download directly off his server- these are big MP3 files). I have tried to come up with some pithy description as a teaser but can't, the curious are simply invited to listen. Wyss 19:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Answer - http://www.sollog.com/music/answer.mp3
Tribute to Nikkee - http://www.sollog.com/music/godnikki.mp3

Here is his Nikkee, Goddess of Victory video. She's nowhere in sight... it's mostly a series of NASA/JPL earth-orbit videos strung together, with some other images of (what looks like) Neptune and Mars. Apparently this is offered as a demonstration of Adonis' video production abilities, with the tag, This is how nice eVideos can really look! (This is a very big download) The audio seems identical to godnikki.mp3. Wyss 20:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nikkee, Goddess of Victory - http://www.1adoni.com/trailers/nikkee.rm

Damn. They're instrumentals. I was looking forward to hearing him sing - or rather, I was hearing forward to looking to him sing... or something. He needs to get hold of MDA's VST Piano, however, as the GM version on what I assume to be his Soundblaster Live! isn't nearly as good. I would mock him, but I - and probably you, dear reader - have produced something like this at some point in the past (cough) [91]-Ashley Pomeroy 20:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wonder why he spells Nike as "Nikkee?"

Two words: porn soundtrack. Edeans 00:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Emma Watson vandalism

Emma Watson Has been vandalised a few times in the past couple of days. One vandal was User:WIKIPEDIASUCKS, and that's also the name of Sollog's website. Hmmm... What a coincidence... (BTW since Britney Spears has also been on the recieving end of his vandalism, has he got some kind of grudge against beautiful, succsessful, popular girls?)

He's hitting what he thinks are articles with the most heavy traffic (with his known affection for Alexa rankings, I imagine those are an influence). As for grudges along the lines mentioned, one only has to glance at some of his websites to get a fairly clear notion of whatever there may be to that idea. Wyss 20:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Unlocked page 31 Dec.

Maybe things have settled down, and with this talk page archived we can keep track of our prognosticating friend a bit better, one hopes. Fire Star 03:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected archives

I've protected all of the talk archive pages, since they shouldn't change (being archives and all), and pro-Sollog types might vanadalize those when nobody's looking. But I've left /fullarchive unprotected, since it just transcludes the other archives.-- Khym Chanur 05:19, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

You say "pro-Sollog types" like it's a plural. Is that PoV? :-) Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tohes

I warned the editor on their talk page to stop the POV pushing. We'll see if that does any good. But since he has been asked to substantiate his edits here first, it is justifiable to undo his revert edits if needed. - Taxman 18:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Ok I protected the page to stop the reverts. Any necessary changes need to be discussed and substantiated here. If substantiated, the edits will certainly be allowed to stand, so that is not the point. Avoiding multiple reverts by sockpuppets is. - Taxman 18:15, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

You a liar, Toh members editing this article. Wiki no want to put right info in article. Wiki want to harass sollog. For instance, Sollog is Sollog, that is his famous name. Sollog is only known for his prophecies. All the rest is junk. Sollog creator info important, yet not in article. Sollog predict many quakes yet no in article. You put in phrases like 'indirectly' connected to porno, that is junk. You base whole legal section on crazy man altman who runs a sex magazine for homosexuals. Remove the wacko stuff it is not POV. Wiki claim POV info removed, yet in this article wiki wants POV info and no NPOV info. Add 247 pages, remove all the pages to city paper. Look at the article you lock in, it is a joke and not POV. You no let in most important Sollog info, you put in garbage no one cares about. Fix page or remove it. Sollog if you read this please sue wikipedia for lying about you and harassing you and all members of TOH.

Tohchina

Me Chinese so excuse my bad english.

I'll just let the absurdity of the above stand on its own without further comment. - Taxman 04:45, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your article is doodoo

You people only want to harass Sollog and his fans as well as members of TOH. [...]

Sollog is Sollog, that is how he is world famous. [...]

Who cares what [...] at wiki thinks is Sollog method, that is pure junk. Sollog Creator Info is important. Sollog clearly predict Xmas quakes that is important. You people only want crap info [...] in article.

You lock page when fans change to right info. Wikipedia is joke. You run this site like joke. Wiki is joke. Sollog is Gods prophet.

Tohchina

I'm not sure about sanitising this kind of attack; it makes Tohchina look relatively reasonable without all the 'homos' and the 'fatso Altman'. Also, the way that the original version wrapped made it look as if Tohchina was writing "Sollog clearly predict Xmas", which was both funny and relevant (because (a) Xmas is easy to predict, it happens every year and (b) it's been and gone). Also, I believe 'Nashville', one of Robert Altman's greatest films, is being shown at the NFT in London. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Damnit! I tried to edit the article, but by the time I hit "save page" it had been protected again. Dbenbenn 18:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note that Dbenbenn reverted an additional rant from OSF that repeated arguments already addressed several times before. We normally don't censor talk pages, but OSF's edits are spam/vanity/trolling, take your pick. Unless constructive and sanely phrased criticism comes from the Sollog corner, I'm not at all opposed to reverting these things. JRM 18:54, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Addendum: OSF = Our Special Friend (coined by Wyss, I believe) AKA Sollog, AKA John P. Ennis, AKA Tohnl/Tohde/Tohes/Tohchina/Toh*. JRM 18:55, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

[this is not true], me chinese fan of Sollog and chinese member of TOH. Me no Sollog. [...]. Tohchina

Ennis attempting to imitate non-native English is as futile as it is insulting. Word of advice: non-native speakers generally don't use "me" in place of "I". It's a literary device and cliché (think, "me Tarzan"), but the real difficulties of second-language learners are quite different. --MarkSweep 19:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Everyone knows the owner of Wikipedia stated he got calls from all over the world about the Sollog article. So all these crazy people saying we are all Sollog is just crazy people. They are WCP (Wiki Crazy People) Tohes

Discussed and debunked before. It's been suggested that Ennis has done impersonations in the past. --MarkSweep 19:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this: Sollog did not predict the "Xmas quakes". The date he gave was 2005-01-01. Claiming that this is "accurate" within a certain window is useless to the point of being cynical and macabre: the tsunamis hit within minutes or hours of the quake, so for a prediction to be useful merely giving the (wrong) day is not enough, it should have mentioned the precise time, the exact minute. Mentioning a location would have been nice too. I'm disgusted that Sollog claims to have psychic powers, yet he felt it was beneath him to use his alleged powers to give a precise warning. --MarkSweep 19:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[removed spam contributed by Fuckwiki^G ]Wyss 18:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV problems with Sollog page

(wiki keeps removing this because it is true)

That is not accepted by anyone except Ennis. - Taxman 04:40, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is POV problems with Sollog article.

Sollog is known as Sollog. All the crap about his name is garbage. Sollog is Sollog it is real simple.

Wikipedia articles will always provide birth names wherever they are available. See Madonna, Muhammad Ali, Lewis Carroll, Ringo Starr and plenty of others. --Rlandmann 07:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The son of light stuff is garbage that came from city paper editor altman. City paper is free sex mag for homosexual market, it is well known homosexuals hate Sollog and attack him over his religious views. Sollog says bible condemns homosexuals as abominations. Some of the people editing Sollog article openly declare they are homosexuals on their users pages.

Sollog's authority to interpret theological texts is, to say the least, disputed. Wyss 19:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look at the history of this page to see how wyss is deleting any and all pro sollog info Fuckwiki^G

Wikipedia does not claim that Sollog ever referred to himself as "Son of Light Light of God". It is, however, correctly reported that some people claim that this is the origin of the name. --Rlandmann 07:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All links to altman should be removed as POV rants from a sex magazine.

Sollog advertised heavily in that same "homosexual sex magazine" until Altman exposed him. Wyss 19:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Show where and when Altman 'exposed' Sollog, you're making stuff up again wyss, look at the history of this page to see how wyss deletes all pro sollog info

Wait a minute. Doesn't Sollog say that everyone is God, and that ToH members should be called God during legal proceedings? That doesn't sound very Biblical to me... - Khym Chanur 00:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Legal section is POV it is based on article from altman.

Perhaps it is, but without any other reliable source, we are in no position to tell. Simply put, Altman's articles are the best reference we have. If you are aware of others, please supply citations. --Rlandmann 07:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Activities is false info, you say 'indirectly' because the info is POV and put there to harass sollog.

Article needs quake info, Sollog hit Xmas Quake warning two years in a row, Bam and Sumatra quakes were on Xmas Day using Sollog time of EST. He has many quake predictions with exact times for 7.0+ quakes all used EST.

Note, the evidence indicates that Sollog's published commentary regarding earthquakes is a form of cold reading and post shadowing, unrelated to scientific description and of no predictive value. Wyss 19:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note, wyss is a sick person who is deleting all pro sollog info just look at HISTORY of this page and see what wyss is doing.

No links to 247 News article the top source on Sollog, yet you have 7 links to sex mag City Paper.

The consensus is that 247 News is entirely written and edited by John P. Ennis, aka Sollog, using the alias D.E. Alexander. Wyss 19:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And whether it's written by Sollog or not, it doesn't seem to be a credible source, unlike Philadelphia City Paper, which has things like premises, staff, and the capital and capability to print things on paper. --Rlandmann 07:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having 'according to altman' for legal section shows legal section is POV and should be removed.

Rather, it's an statement of Wikipedia's neutrality. We acknowledge that we're relying on one source, and naming that source. Again, if you can provide the other side of the story from some verifiable source, the legal section will be rewritten to refer to them.

Having lies like Adoni Publishing is 'indirectly' related to porno site is POV and should be removed.

In this editor's opinion, the term indirectly is incorrect. The evidence, including IP addresses, server locations and configurations, domain registrations and contact names suggests that Ennis is directly involved in websites marketing pornography and death images. Wyss 19:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wiki article should be short, state facts, Sollog is famous for prophecies, that's it. The rest of stuff is not important to readers. Put simple links to famous Sollog prophecies and no opinions, let reader judge for themselves, did Sollog predict 911, Xmas quakes and such.

Ennis aka Sollog is more famous for his spamming activities and sockpuppetry than his "prophecies." Wyss 19:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog if you read this sue wikipedia for their lies.

I think he's read this once or twice. Perhaps he should pursue that $10 Million judgement from mid December? Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tohchina

There is no evidence of any membership in TOH (the "religion" founded by Ennis aka Sollog). Rather, the consensus is that Tohchina is more than likely a sockpuppet of John P. Ennis. Wyss 21:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wyss is lying, there are Toh members in almost every country in the world, email the contact info at http://www.templeofhayah.com and discuss Toh with a member in your country. Just look at the history of this page to see how wyss is deleting all positive Sollog and Toh info. BAN WYSS Fuckwiki^G

The evidence indicates that there are no TOH members, anywhere. Wyss 18:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS Wiki keep removing this section because it is TRUE

You tell the truth Tohchina. People harassing Sollog at this site openly declare they are homosexuals like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fvw Others harassing Sollog here also declare they are homosexuals. Homosexuals have been attacking Sollog for years. They don't like his stance on the bible saying homosexuals are abominations. The city paper is filled with sex ads for homosexual prostitutes in Philadelphia. Everyone knows that, yet to Wikipedia that is a good source for their article. Tohes

Open any major mainstream newspaper and you will find "sex ads for prostitutes", both male and female and both heterosexual and homosexual. Are you suggesting we stop citing newspapers altogether? - Mark 15:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note that AIS/Adoni (controlled by John P. Ennis aka Sollog) is at a minimum a hosting and design service for deathporn sites. Wyss 19:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
However Sollog chooses to feel about homosexuality, it's true that some of us on this page are non-heterosexual, and some of us mention this on our user pages. If I was going to go after someone for being a homophobe, I'd choose someone a bit more notable than Sollog, and honestly I have better ways to spend my time on WP. Looking around briefly on the City Paper's webpage, it didn't look like a "sex rag" but I didn't spend that much time on it. I personally don't happen to feel attracted to dead people, so I don't visit Ennis' death porn sites. If Ennis is a homophobe, honestly I could care less. There's much better reasons for spending time on this article and why I, personally, feel that the public should know about Ennis' history. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, one can safely assume that Ennis has mentioned this topic for strictly self-serving reasons. I suspect that if he thought promoting freedom of choice along these lines would help in his spamming activities (or in swaying the content of this article), he'd do it without a flinch. Wyss 17:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With regards the $10million judgement mentioned above, note that if you enter 'John Patrick Ennis' into Google, it appears as the first result (with Wikipedia as the second, and an anti-Ennis page as the third). I imagine Ennis is cackling with glee at this, although it hardly helps him. Also, is there space in the article to mention that John Patrick Ennis is nothing to do with John Ennis, a genuinely talented and technically gifted painter? [92] -Ashley Pomeroy 17:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog email club

The only reason the UK based email discussion group was removed was because it was proof that 4 years ago Sollog was being discussed in the UK.

Surely Wikipedians, dedicated though they may be, have to give a reason why they remove links?

This is the address for the email discussion group referred to above. It is disappointing that the address was previously removed as it is to a UK group and I cannot see why this reference should be removed.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sollog/

I've been inducted into the honorary "offensive email from Sollog" club. What a pleasant person he is:

[headers removed]
Received: from mail1.0web-hosting.com (mail.0web-hosting.com [216.240.142.188])
        by [me]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:22:06 -0500
Message-Id: <[removed]>
Received: (qmail 32985 invoked by uid 399); 31 Dec 2004 20:14:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (216.240.138.3)
  by mail.0web-hosting.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2004 20:14:12 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: AnonymousMailer@beHidden.com
To: [me]
Subject: Shut the fuck up faggot
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SpamProbe: GOOD 0.1736548 507418b9dac2217f39d0260cd637dc81

You're one ugly faggot.

http://www.[my web page]

SOLLOG RULES

Dbenbenn 20:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Better keep that, in case you need to complain to an ISP. --MarkSweep 01:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How dim is this guy?

He can't disguise his obvious writing style, even though he has a huge incentive to; his latest attempt was an offensive (yet lame) attempt at Asian English. He can only resort to obvious falsehoods (City Paper as "sex rag") and vicious insults to get his point across. He vandalizes high-traffic pages repeatedly, knowing they'll be caught in under five minutes.

I actually find his attempt at Asian English extremely extremely offensize as i am an Asian who speaks perfectly well english and know other people who do as well as he is obviously trying to use the stereotype to such an extent it is blatantly obvious that it is not an Asian which would lead me to believe he is mocking the accent more then trying to hide his identity... anyway, this guy is just plain old dumb and is one of the great examples of post-shadowing.68.149.125.176 09:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is he so threatened by? He obviously thought he could post a fanboy treatment of himself here and have it unaltered. Now that it's balanced with information he doesn't like, he's full of impotent rage. Why doesn't he just give up and move on? Other negative stuff about Sollog is online, so Wikipedia is just one more source. Is he worried that the Wikipedia article will turn up high in the Google search for Sollog? And that his life will be affected by this fact how, exactly? A2Kafir 01:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hum. This is only very tangentially related to the article, but still. I don't think he's mentally capable of "moving on", regardless of what actual impact this article has on his endeavours. He just can't live with the notion that Wikipedia is portraying him in a light he doesn't consider flattering enough. It bothers him, and it'll keep bothering him. If he wasn't so annoying, you might pity him, really. He must know what he's doing has no effect, and that Wikipedia will simply last longer than Sollog. He's not so stupid that he believes he can "win". It's a matter of "honor" now. Or mindless, relentless indignation, rather. He has to do this to support his ego, as much as you or I need to breathe. I'd really like it if he could put this behind him and move on, but I doubt it. Perhaps if something more important comes along, but that's pretty unlikely too. My amateur attempt at psychoanalyzing the mind of a kook. JRM 01:32, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Ennis is obviously using his proxies from different countries to register "Toh" this or "Toh" that with different countries' names or abbreviated names suffixed to them as sockpuppet Wikipedia accounts. And to make weak parodies of ESL Chinese AND to transparently talk to himself in order to accuse everyone who disagrees with him of homosexuality. My theory is that the article gets to him because deep down he indeed has a vestigial sliver of guilty conscience and that he hopes against hope that somehow that if he screams loud and long enough, he won't have to take responsibility for his unfortunate career choice. Happy New Year everyone! Fire Star 02:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the same to you :-). I suspect that his actions on WIkipedia, and probably most of his prophecy attempts, are an exercise in pagewank (is that a word?) aimed at gathering attention for his commercial sites. And yet he feels the need to point out what everyone has known for years - that Jimbo operates/operated adult sites. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know that. Yes, Sollog has taught someone something he didn't know! Perhaps that's the most amazing thing of all. :-) JRM 14:28, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Here's the famous email curse:

Subject: CURSE UPON THE DAMNED! Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:54:49 -0500 From: LORD GOD ALMIGHTY <G...@theeunderground.net> Organization: UNIVERSE To: flags...@erie.net, chris.sivewri...@which.net

BEWARE!

LUCIFERIUS ET TU DOMINUS!

THIS CURSE is upon the list of TOWLAH within this CURSE!

You have been WARNED who you MOCKED!

You are the SCUM that is now known as TOWLAH!

Your LIFE and SOUL is NOW CURSED and shall be TERMINATED!

You have MOCKED the CREATOR of CREATORS!

So the FORCES of the UNIVERSE that BOWS to the MASTER have been SUMMONED UPON THEE!

The NAMES on this LIST are the TARGETS of THIS CURSE!

They are INDEED CURSED by the CREATOR of CREATORS for ETERNITY!

Their SOULS shall be BE TERMINATED!

The rest of their short lives shall be HORRIFIC!

Their SEED shall also be CURSED upon!

Their MORTAL LIFES and their SOUL TERMINATED by the WILL OF ONE!

COME FORTH SERPENT OF DEATH!

From the SHADOW OF THE ABYSS!

DIRECT YOUR VENOM OF SUFFERING UPON THE TOWLAH upon this LIST!

Let the MIND of the TOWLAH be TORMENTED with these WORDS from the MOST HIGH!

The OFFENSE commited by these TOWLAH upon the MASTER is most grievious and must be BALANCED with the CURSE OF THE DAMNED upon the list within this CURSE!

Let the TOWLAH squirm for a short while upon this sphere!

Then the TOWLAH shall be GONE!

Their SOULS ERASED by the WILL OF ONE!

There is NOW a chill upon the spine of the TOWLAH that DARED to MOCK the WORD OF ONE!

Their FAMILIES shall also BEAR THESE CURSE OF ONE throughout ETERNITY!

DAMNED are the SEED of those that chose to MOCK THE ONE!

TOWLAH BEWARE YOUR SOULS ARE NOW DEAD!

You have been written out of the BOOK OF LIFE by the MASTER!

THE MASTER of MASTERS who speaks and TOWLAH ARE TERMINATED from his mere WORDS!

THE TOWLAH upon this LIST whose FAMILY is NOW CURSED THROUGH ETERNITY is Patrick Campbell of Erie PA who plays upon the net of erie.

Chris Sivewright of the net of the which!

YOUR BLACKS SOULS are NO MORE!

The mere breath of THE MASTER blows out the candle that is the light of your SOUL!

For the MASTER CREATED THEE to LEARN!

And you have now FAILED your EXAM!

You shall not be tormented with the bowels of Sheol since you are too repulsive to even be PUNISHED with the LOWEST DIMENSION!

Enjoy the WRATH of ONE that is now UPON your FAMILIES!

You shall see the YOUNG STRUCK with vile diseases!

You shall see all around you, HORRIIBLE SUFFERING!

For your MOCKERY has TURNED the POWER of the CREATOR upon thee will FULL VENGENCE!

Now TOWLAH, thee shall know, I AM THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY!

THE ONLY ONE!

THE MASTER OF ONE!

THE HOLY ONE!

Come forth ANGELS of PAIN & SUFFERING!

I have prepared a FEAST for my ravenous vultures of TRUE SUFFERING!

The PREY of the FEAST is the FAMILIES of the TOWLAH that have been NAMED!

Now my VULTURES of PAIN and DISEASE enjoy the FEAST THE MASTER has given thee.

NOW from the depths of the ABYSS, I call forth my KEEPER of the GATES!.

I command my keeper of the GATES, that when thee see the TOWLAH upon this LIST, their SOUL shall be TERMINATED!

I have entrusted thee with the ENTRANCE for the return of all souls.

But, the TOWLAH upon this list must NOW be TERMINATED!

Now ANGELS of PAIN & SUFFERING embark upon the PREY!

And, Hear these words my KEEPER of the GATES!

Thee art forbidden to allow the TOWLAH upon this list to enter again any dimension within MY KINGDOMS!

BANISH THEIR SOULS TO THE ENDLESS ABYSS OF NOTHING!

When THIS CURSE upon the TOWLAH starts to PENETRATE the PREY of my CURSE, then their SUFFERING shall be so immense, they shall cry upon MY NAME to release their PAIN!

I shall REFUSE to HEAR THEIR CRIES!

For I told them both I AM HE!

No go forth spirit of MY WORD!

Let all within my DOMAIN know of the PLIGHT of the TOWLAH that have been CURSED!

Let all within the KINGDOM KNOW!

THE JUDGEMENT has now BEGUN!

THE FIRST TWO SOULS TO BE TERMINATED for ETERNITY have been DESTROYED!

Here's the link: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_thread/thread/376f70564700ba92/6480d665f9752203?q=curse+sivewright&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dcurse+sivewright%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#6480d665f9752203

Recent reverts on the talk page

Guys, I realize he has no credibility, but try to only remove the vandalism and patent nonsense. If he tries to make valid points, leave those. The recent edits have removed a few that could be considered in that category. So far they have all been easy to refute, but this article is not NPOV so we need to get back to the point where it is improving. Removing valid discussion on the talk page doesn't help. - Taxman 17:40, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

He's only re-posting post-shadowing and other spam that has been discussed and debunked endlessly on this page. I interpret that as straight vandalism (and harassment), and delete it accordingly. Wyss 17:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Face it wyss you are deleting any and all pro sollog info.

No, Ennis, I'm deleting spam. Try saying something original? Wyss 18:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wyss here. Virtually all of the information posted by by the Toh* family recently has been debated before and can be found in the archives. Unless there are new facets to this debate, it's just more junk that will clutter the talk page. I'm in favor of more aggressively shaping the debate: talking about an alleged conspiracy that's trying to suppress information which is part of the history and the archives is unproductive trolling, IMHO. --MarkSweep 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm listening, if they keep posting the same repetitive crap that has already been debunked, then we don't need to keep it. Just make sure it is the same old thing and note that in the edit summary. Then if people test for open proxies those are fair game to ban on the spot. - Taxman 20:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Given that 'Tohde' and other aliases of Mr P. have stuck around for longer than a day, and given that they're extremely disruptive 'users', is there a case of listing them on the 'Problem Users' page? Probably pointless, but the inevitable result would give whomsoever challenges the hydra some kind of glowing sword of justice. A glowing, hot sword, with which to cauterise the necks of the 'hydra' (which is a metaphor) and also a rock, to bury the 'immortal head' (another metaphor) - and then, we could dip our 'arrows' in Ennis' 'blood', and use them to kill Nessus, although unlike the real-life Hercules we should take care not to come into contact with this blood otherwise will we have to metaphorically 'kill' 'ourselves'. With 'it'.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone has been around this page for far too long. And "the real-life Hercules"? :-) JRM 22:20, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Quake Predictions

I wonder if we should really add a section on Sollog's predictions of quakes around this time. After all we have a lot of timestamped evidence of his prediction process. We can include:

The original prophecy;
Sollog's enthusiastic claiming of the Antarctic quake as the fulfilment of it;
His sudden change of mind when the Pacific tsunami happened

DJ Clayworth 18:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this worth it? His post-shadowing has already been debunked as unpredictive and of no value. He's trying to pull the discussion in circles, hoping to gain even a shred of positive commentary in the article, after which he'll keep on with his strategy of attrition and vandalism. Wyss 18:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He'll just bring this up and up and up and up until it so resonates in our collective minds that we're deluded into thinking it's notable, at which point we will do our readers a big disservice by giving Sollog's specific misgivings more attention than they deserve. We must violently resist the temptation to turn this into a biography.
Sollog will claim success for some prophecy on every major disaster that will happen. None of these claims should be mentioned unless external sources give them some sort of notability (the 9/11 prophecy being the hallmark). JRM 18:47, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

But it can be used as a concrete example of why he is percieved as a quack. Everything that can be documented regarding that is important. Currently the article just says his claims are not accepted, evidence showing why would be valuable. The quake claims he keeps pasting in show no date claimed in one, but still claiming a successful prediction. So document it with sources and that is closer to NPOV than we are now. - Taxman 18:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The article already does rather an effective job at that, which is why he continues to vandalize it. Even discussing these individual post-shadowing incidents skews PoV to a noted crank and spammer (and in my personal view, something of an obscenity, given the 120,000+ human beings killed by tsunamis in the Indian Ocean). Wyss 18:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To simply state a representative "prediction" chain or two and the commonest statistical interpretations of their validity as evidence should allow people to make up their own minds. Ennis' spamming, viciousness and other eccentricities of expression (and their mention) should fill in the gaps for most people of good will, which is the most we can hope for with such a dog's breakfast. Fire Star 19:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would agree on this level... If his recent post-shadowing is to be dissected in the article, then mention should also be made of the hate-email he's sent to Wikipedians, the ridiculous "Decrees of TOH" he's promulgated, the reptitive spamming and vandalism of many Wikipedia articles, and a more in-depth discussion of evidence for the following: 1) His deathporn marketing activites, 2) Lack of any membership in TOH, 3) His long history of abusing other websites and 4) His sockpuppetry. Wyss 19:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog quake info wiki is hiding (No hiding going on)

Just look at the history pages of talk and article to see all the factual information about Sollog hits on quakes and other prophecies that wiki has intentionally deleted.

Sollog Quake info Wiki is deleting

No one is hiding it. It is in the page history. It is just that no one believes it. Lets consider the evidence: - Taxman 23:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

1. Sollog predicted major killer quakes for Xmas before Bam Iran Quake hit last Xmas. The Great Sumatra quake was also an Xmas Quake. Bam hit at 9PM EST last Xmas and Sumatra hit at 8PM EST on Xmas. Wiki deletes all edits that post this info. The famous Sollog Xmas killer quake warning is here [1] (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=f2967f4e.0312161736.30a9ca3c%40posting.google.com)

Post-shadowing previously debunked. Wyss 23:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There are no specific predictions there, just generalities that would be expected to happen in any given year. No Dates are given, so no accurate predictions can be claimed. Therefore no prediction. - Taxman 23:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Clear hit. 1. Prophecy is about Xmas 2. Prohecy warns of 'killer quakes' since it was written two biblical killer quakes have hit on Xmas Day using EST, the bam quake and the sumatra quake, the prophecy is clear. So put a section in Sollog fans claim this prophecy predicted xmas quakes in bam and sumatra and then put what your skeptic claim is

Show us a prediction that gives the time, date, strength, and place of the earthquake, along with a warning to those affected. Anything else or anything cryptic is useless, and actually insulting to the dead (by saying that you warned of the quake that killed them).A2Kafir 17:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any Sollog fans, but plenty of evidence of John P. Ennis sockpuppets. The "skeptic claim" is that Ennis is post-shadowing events to non-specific "predictions". Wyss 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I find a skull in the ground and show it to you, then that could be said to be 'evidence' of the skull. If you then hide it, you could legitimately say, 'there is no evidence of any skull'.

You'd be wrong as there is evidence but you've hidden it.

The same could be said of Sollog Fans.

Let me list some:

a. Amin. he has posted on the UK Sollog Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sollog/ and from his comments and the way he writes it is almost impossible that he's Sollog.

b. T-EL-C. He used to post on alt.prophecies.nostradamus. He was disgusted by the email-porn-fake-headers controversy a few years ago and tried to help trace the originator. He was still a 'fan' though he did not seem impressed by the behaviour of 'fans' - but impressed by Sollog.

c. Jahiro. If you look at the tone of his posts, they are very different from the posst by SOLLOGFAN and a number of other aliases.

d. Truthseeker. Much the same can be said of him.

That's four, for a start.

Even if there are only 4 in the whole world that still disproves the 'no fans' statement. Plus there can be many supporters of someone, lurkers if you will, who do not post for fear of abuse.

Look at the most recent flurry of UK based posts. It seems to me the posters were rational and sensible. What happened? Mass deletion - institutionalised vandalism IMO - and absurd comments that even when the poster stated exactly what was next to where he was posting from in a pub in Lyndhurst, he only got smart-ass comments about the fact he could have telephoned the pub and asked what was on the wall.

As if someone from USA is going to phone a small pub in a small village and ask what is on the wall! For a start how would they even know there WAS internet access there?

I am sure wiki people have the right aims but surely you have also to have an amount of common sense?

2. There is no link to the clear hit for Sollog this year about a holiday killer quake. The simple fact is Sollog named a date for rare great quakes to hit this holiday season 01/01/05 and two great quakes have hit very close to that date. It's a fact that 'windows' of several days are used by all quake predictors for lesser and more common quakes like 7.0+ quakes. Article should link to the recent quake warning of Sollog and note his fans say being six days off for a rare great quake is a hit while skeptics think missing a rare great quake by 6 days is a miss. This quake warning is at [2] (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/99de7ac658525a4c). The fact is Sollog predicted a rare seismic event (a great quake is defined by the USGS as over 8.0+ and they occur historically less than one a year) and it struck days from when he said a killer great quake would hit. It was a major quake hit.

Post-shadowing previously debunked. Sollog did not predict a "holiday" quake. Wyss 23:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To be useful this prediction would have to have been much more accurate. Simple statistics show that if you make 100 "predictions" about events that may occur, chances are that some of them will. Claiming later that this was some form of prediction is not valid. - Taxman 23:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Clear hit, sollog only releases a few prophecies each year IF ANY at all. He said killer great quakes would take many lives and the sumatra quake hit 6 days from his exact date during the 2004 holiday season. He pointed to a key date in the 2004 holiday season, that being news year day. Put in Section Sollog fans claim it is significant that a 9.0+ quake hit during 2004 holiday season and put skeptics claim missing the sumatra quake by 6 days is a miss.

What taxman said. Even if one were to say that a prediction is "accurate" within a certain window (and given the size of the windows we're talking about here, I'm not even sure one can call it "accurate"), what good did Sollog's prediction do? Did they save a single life? To do that, the prediction should have included the precise location of the quake, a warning about tsunamis, and the precise minute the quake would occur, given that the earliest tsunamis hit within minutes after the quake. You don't get the privilege of saying "I told you so (if you squint really hard)" unless you provided precise, actionable information earlier. --MarkSweep 00:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even as geologists in North America and Japan were trying to notify Indonesian authorities of the tsunami risk, Ennis was silent on that topic. Wyss 00:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Sumatra quake did not hit on the day Sollog predicted. Moreover, given the statistical inevitability of seismic activity on earth (as previously referenced on this page), Ennis would have "settled" for any old 6.5 within a few weeks of his prediction. Wyss 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3. Sollog issued 10 quake warnings in 2000 to 2001, the first five he hit an exact date over 30 days in advance for a rare 7.0+ range quake to hit. The odds of anyone hitting an exact date for just one 7.0+ range quake is ~30 to 1. To do it five times in a row like Sollog did is a major quake prediction hit. The second five quake warnings hit an exact area Sollog named within 30 days of when he issued his warning.

Post-shadowing previously debunked. The fuzzy "hits" he claimed were statistically inevitable and not predictive. Wyss 23:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I see you don't provide links to these predictions. If any exact dates were hit, surely you could provide evidence of thse predictions that shows they were made well ahead of time. If you had such evidence and it was reliable, then maybe we have something worth adding to the article. - Taxman 23:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Posted anonymously by 203.110.14.212

In these quake warnings sollog gave an exact date with time for a rare seismic event. He hit all 10 with either the exact day or an exact location. There was no post anything, the quake warnings were specific for single events with time and location. Hitting exact dates for rare 7.0+ quakes is a major thing and hitting exact locations where future 7.0+ quakes then occur within 30 days is a major thing.

Again, unable to give any evidence of these "exact dates", because they didn't happen. - Taxman 18:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Notice he doesn't give the source (because the quake was "predicted" for Jan 1 and Mar 1, 2005. No exact time, no exact date, no location... statistically certain he'd find something to match up. These assertions are circular and unhelpful in the extreme. Wyss 00:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You see, you are going to have to convince a consensus of the editors here that the above are actually predictions. So far, no one here has been so persuaded. Since absolutely no one here but yourself seems to think that you actually are predicting these events, and your threats and invective aren't working to convince any of us either, perhaps you should re-evaluate your positioning relative to this article? Fire Star 23:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You people erase all posts over and over by fans of Sollog claiming they are all one person. The consensus shows there are way more Sollog fans posting here than the few editors that are trying to control this article and talk page. The history shows that. Sollog is a famous quake predictor, put in a section and link to the above predictions, then let people decide.

Not. The evidence indicates that you're John P. Ennis, post-shadowing and spamming as you have done for many years. Wyss 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The people here have decided. You have yet to provide a shred of reliable evidence that there is more than one recruit in your sockpuppet army. Sorry. Fire Star 00:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firestar, please read my comments above. Look at the recent mass deletions only today of someone I assume is a UK poster. The reason for deletions - even though the vandal admitted they were moderately interesting, was that he hadn't time to go through them!

So what happens if 'fans' appear?

They are deleted/reverted or their 'proof' is dismissed as being fakable and yet.....well, enough has been said about Ashley already!

It seems to me there is sufficient evidence that Ashley IS Sollog that his posts should all be reverted, even if they are 'moderately interesting'.

I agree that Sollog hit these quake predictions Tohfin

Yes Sollog did predict these earthquakes. Porttoh

Se, senor Sollog hit his earth quake warnings. Tohmx

It's si, Ennis! Yawn. Wyss 23:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And it's "señor". Other than that, good job. Pak aran 03:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ohmygawsh, he's resorting to blatant stereotypes to bolster his claims? "Gotta pretend to be Chinese so they'll think I've got support there." "Gotta pretend to be Mexican so they'll think I've got support there." Too funny. And few Mexicans I know actually say "si," they all say "yeah". Inky 00:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All it would take is for someone to check the open proxies these sockpuppets are editing from to show it is all the same person. - Taxman 18:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

tohmx probably meant sē which means he said "I know", he hit his quake warning. Why are you harassing Sollog fans so much. Porttoh

Because you seem incapable of contributing to an encyclopaedia? Fire Star 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Right. Lashing with apologies. I take it all back then. By the way, Ennis, why did you harass Jimbo's wife and kid? Wyss 00:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that all conversation with this Ennis character should end with "By the way, Ennis, why did you harass Jimbo's wife and kid?". That might up the chap shut. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I love the way all the Sollog "fans" invariably put "toh" and their country in their username. From such a wide and diverse church as the esteemed Temple of Hayah, you'd think there would be more, ah, variety in the thinking of its followers. Maybe some "normal" usernames supporting Sollog would have a bit more (shadow of a chance of having) veracity? It makes me wonder why there is only one "fan" per country, too. I, for one, would welcome the chance to talk to tohes1, tohes2, tohes69, and all the other creative Spanish fans of Sollog.

(To make this comment on-topic,) maybe the article should mention the extreme ineptitude and frequency of Ennis' sockpuppetry? As one of the two things he's notable for (spamming and socking), it might belong. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, all those Sollogites across the world have been asleep during the same period (the last few hours). Extraordinary. Or again, not extraordinary at all. Hoary 09:48, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Also as amazing that they come in and say the exact same thing at the exact same time. For a guy trying to make it look like a lot of supporters, he's not very creative about it. - Taxman 18:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I see two predictions made in the "famous Sollog Xmas killer quake warning": many deaths in the "Great Blizzard of 04", and a collapse of the United States stock market sometime between December 16, 2003 and January 16, 2004. The stock market has been relatively motionless, and now that it's 2005, it's clear that there was no "great blizzard", so the "famous Sollog Xmas killer quake warning" looks like a clean miss. --Carnildo 01:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see many things in Xmas Prophecies. 1. killer quakes (Bam and Sumatra killer quakes hit on Xmas Day back to back) 2. plane crash in Benin's capital over 100 dead last year on xmas day 3. one of worse winters in history hit USA and many did die from cold 4. Major drop did hit stock market from mid january to november the market was way down. So Sollog Xmas Prophecy had two killer quakes kill thouands on xmas day one year apart, a major plane crash hit on xmas day, historic cold hit USA and many died and major drop in stock market hit as he said. I see four hits Tohmx

Of course you would see that, you are the same person trying to make it look like another supporter. Again, provide evidence for these supposed predictions. If they are so far off that the prediction can't help anything it is not a prediction. People die somewhere in the world from an earthquake every year. Later claiming that is a valid prediction is invalid. People also always die from the cold, again, not a prediction. You can claim you see whatever you want, it doesn't make it so. - Taxman 18:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to paraphrase: "Just because I am the only one who understands my own random symbolic language doesn't mean my ravings in it aren't evidence of psychic ability. You just have to solve my cryptic riddles, and if you don't you're an idiot incapable of judging me!" So, all we need is a Sollog to English dictionary. How about it, Ennis? It would make your "predictions" a lot easier to predict, after all... Fire Star 21:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page protected 1 Jan. 05

Protected again. Ennis, please obtain consensus before editing in future, thank you. Fire Star 23:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parapsychological, or not

The very first sentence of the article now ends by saying that Ennis/"Sollog" is a "psychic", sending the reader off to [[Psychic]], which is a redirect to Parapsychology. At the least, this needs to be fixed to "[[Parapsychology|psychic]]". But, quite aside from the fact that the "parapsychological" is transparently piffle, does The Scourge Of Wikipedia even claim to be a psychic? It's possibly a complex question as I believe he calls himself god and thus might claim to be omniscient and omnipotent, which presumably would include knowledge of precisely which playing card I am now holding between my lips as I type with both hands. (Or even that that was a lie; I have no playing cards anywhere.) Well, aside the piffly claims made for parapsychology in general and the omniscience and omnipotence of Ennis in particular, is there any reason to call him a psychic? Paging Wyss, who has incomparably greater stamina than I for reading all the TOHdyism. (I nod off after mere seconds: Ennis's logorrhoea doesn't even have enough redeeming unintended-comedy appeal.) -- Hoary 01:36, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I think the article would most accurately refer to Ennis as a noted spammer and sockpuppet who claims divinity as a marketing tool, legal shield and tax dodge with manifestly limited success, 'cause that's how I interpret the evidence. Hey Ennis, can you "predict" which finger I'm holding up... oh, never mind, one wouldn't have to be a psychic to "hit" that one :) Wyss 01:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As long as we're exploring that avenue: The only notability I can think of for Ennis would be as an entry in a Wikipedia-specific article "Great Bores of Today" (cf that in Private Eye). But it would be in a different namespace: in the real world, he doesn't even hack it as a Great Bore, as (despite the best efforts of Weekly World News, etc.) the masses' appetite for minatory obscurantism is seldom enough to get them looking through the nuttier, sollogized reaches of Usenet. Hoary 02:06, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

The problem here is the word psychic, which is colloquially interpreted as "person who claims to see the future" — which he obviously does. I don't know why Merriam-Webster lists the noun as synonymous with medium, because that's typically taken to mean a person who purportedly communicates with "the other side". To me, this doesn't seem to match the actual use of "psychic". The redirect to Parapsychology is only appropriate if you take the adjective; the colloquial "sees the future" meaning isn't adequately covered by that. I think the Sollog article gets it right and the redirect does not. (Wyss, you can put that finger down now, if it's tiring you out. :-) JRM 02:16, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I voted against keeping the article to begin with ;). The only reason I solloged through his poxy predictions was because a discussion of them was being tolerated at all on this page and I wanted to ensure they were debunked cleanly. It's all cold reading and post-shadowing, utterly un-notable, and Ennis knows it is, although I do think he's somewhat deluded as to his expertise at anything having to do with math. I mean it when I say, after getting to "know" this character, he should be referred to in the article as, John P. Ennis, noted spammer and Internet sockpuppet. Wyss 02:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, that sounds rather POV to me. :-D Though you'd probably claim it's "the earth is round" kind of POV, right? JRM 02:35, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Quasi-spherical, if you wanna get picky about stuff ;) Wyss 02:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another slight tweak: John P. Ennis, vigorous and unscrupulous self-promoter (as "Sollog"), and energetic internet sockpuppeteer Hoary 09:53, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Biggest Quake since Sumatra Killer Quake hits New Years Day Sollog Hit - Uh, no. See below

http://www.247news.net/2005/20050101-sumatra.shtml

"The largest quake to hit anywhere in the world since the day the Super (9.0+) Sumatra Quake has struck. It was a 6.5+ quake and it hit in the same area as the Super Sumatra Quake. It struck New Years Day." http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/usstak.htm

Sollog says big quake on New Years Day and big quake hits Sumatra, where thousands died days before. Sollog hit. Tohmx

USGS lying about magnitudes of quakes again, Chinese Gov says New Years Day quake was 7.0+ http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1178809,001301540004.htm 194.65.156.242

But he got the first one wrong, the really big one. For purposes of proving that he is actually psychic, Sollog missed. Sorry. Fire Star 18:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, the USGS CAN'T "lie" about earthquake magnitudes, because universities and other governments who take similar measurements have the same data and can calculate it independently. Duh. A2Kafir 00:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog hit the quake warning. The prophecy first says thousands will die in quakes to celebrate the anniversary of the Creator Formula. Then Sollog says on this day a major quake will hit. So both things happened, thousands died in a quake and on the exact date he gave a rare quake hit. The quake that hit struck the exact area where thousands died a few days earlier in the largest seismic event in 40 years on the planet. 194.65.156.242

This conflicts mightily with Ennis' past post-shadowing insistance that he'd predicted a "great" quake (USGS definition of 8.0+ richter magnitude). It does however, conform to this editor's past assertion that he'd settle for "any old" 6.5, since many of these per month are a statistical certainty. Wyss 21:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wait, wait. So sollog's prediction for the New Year's Day quake predicted two different events? If an aftershock creates more tsunamis and kills more thousands of people, will that be another hit, for three events covered by a single prediction? -- Khym Chanur 01:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't forget that he claimed the Antarctica 8.0 as a hit, so that's three hits so far on this one prediction. --Carnildo 05:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ennis apparently has "forgotten" that one, since he assertively claimed it as his "hit" before Sumatra and the many aftershocks. It's all in the archives of this talk page. Wyss 05:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course ;) In effect, he'll claim anything, anywhere as a hit. Ennis' post-shadowing has two basic features... his "windows" are way fuzzy, and he uhm, grossly misrepresents his original predictions when bragging about his hits. For example, his "anniversary" prediction said nothing about a "holiday season" quake... nor any location, and the word "great" was in a "religious" sounding bit of padding (nothing to infer any USGS definition or other restrictive preciseness)... just Jan 1 and Mar 1 2005... giving him lots of "Ennis style" wiggle room if things had been seismically quiet during the holidays. My impression is that essentially nobody anywhere believes him for more than a moment (The USENET and Internet are littered with posts ridiculing him)... but the "publicity" and endless spamming evidently drive a trickle of visitors to the deathporn and other sites for mining purposes (as noted several times before on this page). Wyss 02:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it does appear to be the case that he is hit mining. Fire Star 03:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyone do a cursory percentage calculation of John P. Ennis' false positive and false negative rates? That should put an end to the debate (positively) over hit mining. Encyclopedias should inform the gentle reader as to what it means to be a fraud. --Iosif 06:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ruffkuh

Note that this page was listed as a 'Request for Comment' by the oddly-named "195.187.51.200" on 1 January, with the rambling, familiar complaint that there is a "massive delete of NPOV info on article and talk page, a few wikians who admit they are homosexual are using the article and talk page to attack a religious leader over his position on homosexuals in bible. Excessive links to City Paper smear articles (City Paper is a known homosexual sex mag) any mention of the fact the person hit 911 and recent great quake in his prophecies is censored or slanted with non facts. Percentage of gays using deletes and reverts is almost 50 percent of wiki users attacking person", twice. Inevitably this has been toned down, which unfortunately removes the spirit of the original complaint. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obviously Ennis. He will exploit every opportunity he can think of to harass Wikipedia over this article. Wyss 17:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see John is on the way to becoming a productive Wikipedian. Now all he has to do is get a handle on policy and tone down the stark raving delusional obsessiveness and he might be fit for... no, on second thought, I can't think of anything positive he could contribute. JRM 17:36, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

I should add that Ennis' recent "anti-Sollog" edits to the article (including that blunt reference alleging Sollog's affection for goats), were undoubtedly part of an inept, "stealth smear" campaign "against" WP users, never mind the link-spamming (see below). Wyss 18:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ennis would be well served to take Dodgson's Duchess' advice: "Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." Fire Star 01:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firestar. I strongly suggest YOU remember: "One should not aim at being possible to understand, but at being impossible to misunderstand"

Sollog dead

From a lurker...

I certainly wouldn't put faking death past the guy, and from my understanding he's done so before, but can anyone confirm his death/cynical attempt to snooker us?

There's an easy way to find out. If the vandalism stops, he's dead. --Carnildo 21:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If he's a psychic, shouldn't he have given us some advance notice? -- ChrisO 21:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tuesday's LA Times reports Sollog death Sunday in Thousand Oaks, CA. ~~JRM 16:16, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)~~

The above was posted by anon IP 68.229.240.32, a Cox Communications user in the Atlanta area. -- ChrisO 17:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've met User:JRM's, and you sir, are no User:JRM. Furthermore, for those who take an interest in these matters, have a look at a google usenet search for sollog died. He seems to make a habit of dying. --fvw * 16:59, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

I'm flattered my name is the one to fake when you need to appear reliable, but really... This is a new low.
For the record (superfluous, I'm sure), I'm always logged in; in the rare event that I'm not, you'll see a static IP address that traces to the Dutch XS4ALL network. I'd actually post it here, but I'm pretty sure John would take that as an invitation to test my firewall. I'm pretty sure it'd hold, but I can do without such attention. JRM 18:38, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

He seems to have fooled the California Highway Patrol pretty good. --~~Hootienads 17:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)~~ Another comment from 68.229.240.32

"He's dead, Jim." Ennis, get a grip. You're not dead. A2Kafir 18:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zombie Sollog - what an image... -- ChrisO 19:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is wondering that maybe Sollog is dead: a search for "thousand oaks" at latimes.com reveals no news on Sunday Jan 2nd or Monday Jan 3rd, and the (current) three articles since then (including the Tuesday cited above) are about the tsunami, some rankings, and a mall needing expansion. Ugh. Taking this stuff seriously enough to debunk makes me feel... dirty. — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

A quick check of the obits doesn't show a listing for either "Sollog" or "John Patrick Ennis". --Carnildo 20:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe God called him home for failing to raise ten million dollars, perhaps? Or maybe he tried to breach the wall of fire on Operating Thetan III? Inky 00:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why revert edits by 80.237.203.93?

An anonymous anti-Sollog poster 80.237.203.93 has made a few edits highlighting Sollog's dishonest prediction techniques, through the example of the recent earthquake predictions. Each time, these edits were reverted, with one rv edit summary actually accusing this anti-Sollog poster of being another Sollog sockpuppet! Do you guys take the trouble to read the changed articles before you revert it, or are you just revert happy? P Ingerson 17:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This has already been admitted today that the answer is 'No'. A whole load of sensible posst were reverted en masse by someone who admitted he had little time to read them!

That's 'Institutionalised Vandalism' - does he work for NHS?

Of course they were read. These anti-Sollog additions to the article used Ennis' well-known syntax, and each contained a link back to his "prophecies". It was a new tactic is all (note that there was no other vandalism during that time), an attempt by Ennis to link-spam the article. Had it worked, he would have continued to litter the article with more bits of drek. Moreover, he would have used the clear anti-Sollog tone of the additions to later accuse Wikipedia of "hate", etc. Wyss 17:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, if I understand things correctly, one can criticise Sollog provided you do not link to the aspect of him you're criticising. BUT if you defend him you must support your defence.

Wow - that's sensible.

You've opened the door to a whole shed-load of unsupported assertions - which of course allows the moderators to revert as and when they so decide without any rational explanation.

I agree with Wyss. The way I see it, this is Ennis trying out a new strategy. Keep in mind that he will do almost anything to push his POV. In this particular case, why add a link to his earthquake predictions now? There are many other predictions that are equally timely/relevant, e.g. his Superbowl "riddles". But the Indian Ocean disaster perfectly fits his pattern of trying to attach his name to anything with a lot of media attention. Adding "Sollog claims he predicted it but he missed by 6 days, here is the link" is, IMHO, his attempt of saying "Sollog did predict it within a window of 6 days", hoping that the "anti-Sollog" tone will allow him to slip this one by us. We already have enough examples of Sollog's many spectacular failures. Allowing him to associate his name in any form, positive or negative, with the present disaster would, IMHO, be in extremely bad taste, to put it mildly. --MarkSweep 17:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, leaving it is asserting that his even missing the prediction is all that noteworthy, which it is not. P Ingerson, at first I was with you, but the article already discusses the post shadowing and so forth that Ennis does. Other than being exceedingly persistent and annoying, he is not really that noteworthy for the actual predictions, especially not specific ones. - Taxman 18:14, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's Ennis again. 80.237.203.93 is an open proxy in Germany, which I'll permanently block in a second. -- ChrisO 18:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to gently re-assert that Ennis' only notability is as a prolific, well-known spammer and sockpuppet, and my opinion that his continued harassment and vandalism have at least provided more evidence and justification for the article to more clearly describe him as such. His websites mine wayward visitors with content which includes deathporn. Even his sockpuppets have repeatedly admitted that at a bare minimum, AIS/Adoni, controlled by Ennis, provides hosting and web-design services for them (see the talk archives for excrutiatingly detailed evidence of Ennis' outright control of those sites). Wyss 18:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The most recent attempts, as pointed out by MarkSweep, do seem to show that Ennis' interest in Wikipedia is more mercenary than religious, and that is worthy of note in the article, IMO. Fire Star 21:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but as a matter of policy, Wikipedia should avoid referring to itself. I think the general feeling is that Wikipedia is automatically not notable in most articles. - Taxman 21:29, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

But hasn't Wikipedia effectively become part of the story? After all, we appear to be the first people (since Altman, anyway) who've tried to systematically document Ennis's career, such as it is - his reaction to that is what made this article such a focus of interest in the first place. -- ChrisO 21:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The very existence of the article shows that, so we need not be self-referential about WP documenting his career. As for his tactics in attacking WP, those should be, IMO, covered in a non-self-referential way. — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:54, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

As the reverted who accused 80.237.203.93 of being a sockpuppet: yeah, what they↑ said. Ennis has tried before to plant edits that would make Wikipedia look bad. — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Manufacturing jesters

How Sollog and his fans is making fools out of the earnest people who work for Wikipedia.

OK first of all check this IP. You'll see it's UK so at the very least read through this properly before rejecting it through your invisible hands.

This IP looks more like an open proxy in the US. --MarkSweep 20:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wyss. You offered that observation immediately without any substantiation at all. Please post any justification at all you have for that view. What are the characteristics for the 'openness' of the proxy and also the location? I am sure the poster posted from the UK but because you simply cannot believe that could be the case you quickly trashed it and used your authority/power here to revert it.

This is exactly what has been happening here for some time.

If a sensible - but anonymous (you prefer 'Mickey Mouse' apparently even though several people could post as Mickey Mouse) poster posst then it is reverted without being considered.

And how could I prove otherwise? See comment at end about Daily Star.

Here are a series of points that exposes Wikipedians.

1. You say Sollog has no fans or at least that the fans have not proven their existence. As 'proof' you refer to the times that anonymous people post.

That's not the way to check. Check the HISTORY. You'll see that in SOME cases people who have posted in support of Sollog have posted edits to Wikipedia for a long time BEFORE the Sollog section even came into existence. Think about the recent vandalism where someone posted a load of vaginas and penises on your pages. Check his posts and you'll see he has previously posted - sensibly - on a variety of other pages. He has posted on programming sections for example. Now, think. Is it likely that Sollog would post on non-Sollog pages without even mentioning 'Sollog'? Of course not so this is proof that there are several (many?) people posting on pages in Wikipedia, on subjects they are interested in AND they also happen to be supporters of Sollog.

Uh, nope. More likely just open proxies or dynamically assigned IPs, which Ennis happened to share with other posters. --MarkSweep 20:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2. Next. You say that Sollog/Ennis/Jogyo/NMRK posted impersonating a Chinese fan and pretended to write simple Chinese/English and it was a blatant attempt at sock puppetry. If you've looked at PDF, ELS etc you'll know that at the very least, Sollog is no fool. Therefore is it really likely that Sollog would pretend so abysmally to be a Chinese poster? Give the guy some credit!

Yes, quite likely. The guy will do anything. There's a long list of strategies he's tried so far, and this one is consistent with the general pattern. --MarkSweep 20:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You say that posting as an imitation - a very poor imitation' is somehow 'consistent. Where is your evidence for that.

3. Next. You make much of Sollog and his alleged porn sites or links to porn sites. Yet you have as a moderator Ashley Pomeroy. Look at his own pages - he has invented different words for the sexual parts. Does this make him a pornographer? Look at his home page - the same picture of him looking at the screen and yet it says 'son of the soil' (or similar) 'only yesterday. So he's a liar too - but does that mean you should dismiss him? Get the beam out of your own eyes, I suggest.

It wasn't that we were making "much" of Sollog's links to deathporn sites for its own sake or as some kind of moral argument. It was more because he accused WP and some of its members of being pornographers, trying to discredit the editors by tarring them with the pornobrush. We were just trying to point out the hypocrisy inherent in Sollog making such an attack. Inky 01:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Theer is a hypocrisy in dissing Sollog owing to porn links when Jim Wales.....not to mention Ashley's sexual words, non-address, non-employment, non-email address, non-current photo etc etc. Plus phrases about how he won't bow unless you bow to him - very Sollog!

To deal with these points in order (1) I'm not a 'moderator', I'm just some guy (2) I believe that our genitals are cursed with ugly names, and that poetic names such as 'globulon' and 'shoomwand' are more appropriate [93] (3) I am remarkably consistent. Hey, Ennis, why did you harass Jimbo Wales' wife and children? -Ashley Pomeroy 12:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ashley - you seek to trick people. Do you or do you not have the power to revert posts?

If yes you therefore have the power to moderate.

If so then ipso facto you are....

Explain this: a poster posst from the UK and you address him/her as Ennis.

Why are you trying to trick people?

4. You do not seem to have investigated Sollog properly on what used to be www.dejanews.com. There are other areas of note. For example look at the infamous CURSE he put on two people - Siveright and Pat - which, if you show to any Christians, is a REAL curse. That alone is noteworthy.

And how does showing it to Christians prove it a "real curse"? Most Christian denominations don't even believe in such things anymore, and those that do claim that they're harmless to the truly faithful. Furthermore, if Sollog is having to resort to competing religions to do his juju, he can't be much of a prophet or god, can he? Inky 01:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inky: please substantiate your comment "Most Christian denominations don't even believe in such things anymore, and those that do claim that they're harmless to the truly faithful."

If I post to contradict your point my post will be deleted as it's anonymous!

Now to balance this....

1. You recently posted from a TOH person that Siveright supported Sollog and that Siveright was an Oxford Professor. There is NO Oxford Professor called Siveright.

Amazing how this post which exposes a Toh person as being wrong is seen (and reverted as such) as being a pro-Sollog post!

I agree with the post - it is amzing how irrational these Wiki people are!

Amazing also that a genuine question about email contact was edited out.

Yes, i thought that strange too.

The above screed contributed by 205.234.170.130

(for the record, I don't think it's a Sollogpuppet—doesn't write like him. I would just call it an "anon" poster as we're not really interested in more mundane species of socks these days, are we?) — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This is much more coherent and less rambling than before, but still talking about Sollog's "fans", singling out individual registered editors for special attention, using capitalization for emphasis, and generally adopting Sollog's POV. It's either Ennis on medication, or perhaps he's trying a new strategy: maybe he thinks that if he can pass this one IP off as a neutral third party, this would allow him to make future edits that won't get immediately reverted. ~~I'll remain skeptical.~~ Nah, I'll say it's still Ennis. --MarkSweep 20:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"For example look at the infamous CURSE he put on two people" Sounds like Ennis to me. Dbenbenn 21:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How so? What experience do you really have of Sollog?

Dbenbenn, I put 'curse' in capitals because the original is in capitals! If I was Sollog I'd have put a link! Have some sense. I give up. You just dismiss everything as puppetry even though I have proven that at the least there is room for doubt.

OK final proof. In today's Daily Star the cover girl is the winner of Hell's Kitchen. This I could NOT have found out from the internet!!! (Check with Ashley) Oh yes check also postings of Jahiro and TruthSeeker; check the anti-Sollog posts in alt.uk.a-levels in Google groups. And don't be so dismissive! contributed by 205.234.170.130

Okay, I've changed my mind. I was never very sure you were Ennis. I just suspected you were; now I suspect you aren't. But what does it matter? If you have something good to contribute to the article, it'll be kept, regardless of who you are. The fact remains that there is no evidence whatsoever of any Sollog "followers". Furthermore, you seem to be unaware that the standard of conduct here on the Talk page is quite different from the standard for contributions to the article. We're NPOV there, but let our bias show through here. Dbenbenn 22:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep, if he can pass himself off as a neutral contributor, let's let him contribute. Anything not neutral or that's vandalism will be dealt with on its merits, like at any other article. We don't need to automatically revert anything but obvious vandalism to maintain the article, and that's taken care of by standard Wiki procedures.

And, still, I don't think this is Ennis. He's using (half-?)decent logic, proper English grammar, refraining from linking his prophesies, and he's not obsessively repeating the same message whenever he posts. I think it's just a contributor who thinks we're being overzealous, and we're demonstrating it, too. We're on a hair-trigger here, aren't we? — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:52, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I remain skeptical, but I agree that we should deal with all edits on a case-by-case basis. Regarding the specific anonymous comments above, I still don't think there is anything substantive here. (1) The fact that Ennis shared some open proxies with more legitimate posters was alread known. There is no evidence of any real supporters.

If you read this page carefully you will see that there is less evidence of ashley Pomeroy being alive than there is of Sollog supporters.

You will see there is less evidence of Ashley Pomeroy living in Salisbury than there is of Sollog being alive.

There is MORE evidence that Sollog is Ashley than that he is not.

Sollog is often accused of posting to Sollog groups. Well here is a post in which Ashley features:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_thread/thread/467a491329749bd2/a902218608c9c2dd?q=sollog+Pomeroy&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dsollog+Pomeroy%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#a902218608c9c2dd

Funny how he's suddenly started appearing there...

(2) These impersonations are well documented. (Also "PDF" presumably refers to one of Sollog's formulas.) (3) Is this supposed to be an attack on Ashley Pomeroy? (4) I don't think that putting a curse on someone is particularly notable. Finally: "You recently posted from a TOH person that Siveright supported Sollog" - I have no idea what this is referring to. I'll stop now. --MarkSweep 22:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see substantial claims that haven't already been dealt with (sometimes many times) before. — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:09, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok then try goingto a search of yahoo groups and you'll see there is a discussion group about Sollog and NE posts that Sollog is retired and living in the Cayman islands

Also look for the JP Essene interview with Professor Ionescu where the Professor criticses Sollog's Nosty translation BUT agrees he has divine powers of prophecy. Go look on google for this interview If I linked to it I would be described as a sock puppet.

Where am I? I am in Lyndhurst looking for Ashley Pomeroy who claims to live in Salisbury - you see, I don't believe that.

I'm assuming Ennis has "killed" himself and come back as a troll. Wyss 15:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been to Salisbury and cannot find Ashley so I believe he is a sock puppet. He has sex names on his site.

In fact this is a misprint; I have six names on my site, including my own. Furthermore, every Wednesday at 20:00 (GMT), I actually have sex on my site, thanks to my webcam - it's a purging experience. By the way, Ennis, why did you harass Jimbo Wales and his wife and child? Given that he is The Man, what were you thinking? Given that I live in England, how come I've heard of the breatharians, the time cube bloke and Dan Rather, but I haven't ever heard of 'Sollog'? They seem to be much more successful than you. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look like Ashley has betrayed himself again, too. Odd isn't it that to 'prove' he hasn't heard of Sollog (when he IS Sollog, until he proves otherwise) he refers to Dan Rather who of course features in articles about Sollog:

http://www.theeunderground.net/Features/features114post.shtml

Caught again Ashley/Sollog!

This comment was deleted previous for the rather facetious reason that I didn't have an ID. And yet you accept posts from other anonymous users and also from the real person (yeah, right) Ta bu shi da yu

Where is the proof that the person who admits he is arrogant, admits he is rude, admits he wants people to bow to him (I am quoting from Ashley) exists?

If he cannot prove he exists then why are UK based posts all dismissed as being a Sollog proxy?

Why is the UK Yahoo discussion group edited out?

Anyway I digress - though not really as there is more evience of Sollog Fans than there is of Ashley.

1. You can hear Nikkee on Sollog radio, 2, You can see posts by Glen Main (Amin) in alt prophecies Nostradamus 3. You can see arguments between L9 and ProphetLaw on the UK based Sollog discussion group hosted by Yahoo. 4. You can see many posts by Jahiro on talkboards. 5. Those of you old enough may remember Starcon5 - he will testify as to the existence of Fans.

But Ashley?

BT have never heard of him His picture on his page is not updated He does not state the hospital where he works - Irang 3 and they had not heard of him

So, I submit, there is MORE proof of Fans of Sollog than there is of Ashley so youshouldnot dismiss Fans' existence so easily as you accept Ashley's existence - so youshould accept Fans' existence.

Go to the UK discussion group.

Track this post - it is from Lyndhurst near Southampton, UK

So, be consistent.=

FINAL PROOF

Ashley phone the Fox and Hounds in Lyndhusrt 023 80282098 and ask them what is on the right of this machine - it's Prick4prizes

PROOF

Unsolicited "Proof" provided by 62.69.39.224

Yawn. Hi Ennis. Been making calls to newstands and pubs in the UK, huh? You are so too inept. Wyss 16:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wyss: you really believe Sollog, in Florida, telephones a small pub in Lyndhurst and asks what is next to the Internet machine? Oh, he uses his God-like powers...whoops! Wyss is a sock-puppet. Delete his posts en masse. Don't read them though!

That's Ashley and Wyss 'outed'.

Who's next?

Even if it isn't Ennis his arguments are no better. 62.69.39.224, you'd be much better off in a psychic chatroom trying to make your case for multiple "fans" of Sollog's divinity than stalking contributors to the talk page of an encyclopaedia article. Fire Star 17:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's Ennis. His usual syntax and bravado began leaking out again during that last post. Wyss 17:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. He has shifted anonymous IP from 205.234.170.130 to 62.69.39.224 in the course of this "discussion." Fire Star 17:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I want to stress that, despite emerging onto Wikipedia at a similar time, I am not Sollog myself, nor am I the result of an automated process. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or could it be that Ennis is on vacation in the UK? He's very confident that his IPs check out. --MarkSweep 18:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not so hard to find a proxy in the UK, nor (if one is truly obsessed) to open up an access account there with a credit card and dial into it long distance. Nor is it hard to call a pub or a newsagent and pump whoever answers for some tidbits about the day's paper or the lotto machine on the wall. Ennis has a long history of impersonation (albeit not terribly clever). Wyss 20:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note that the cover of each day's Daily Star is posted right on their homepage. [94] Today's has Davina McCall and some model/actress types from Hollyoaks, and some football people pointing. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ashley: where is the proof you are in the UK?

Everyone ignores this - I wonder why?

Observer Article

Someone posted this link to alt.paranormal. This Wikipedia article in The Observer (Sunday version of the The Guardian) [ http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1386027,00.html] contains a bit of some relevance here:

Then a well-known crackpot wrote a Wikipedia page about himself, only to have it, er, rendered more objective by other contributors. This drove him wild. Again the page was locked (in what seemed to me to be an admirably detached state) to prevent further vandalism.

Sounds familiar! Except for the "well known" part since Sollog is anything but. --Cchunder 15:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is clever, because it denies the unnamed crackpot the satisfaction of seeing his name in print. However, can we be sure it refers to Sollog? Or were there other incidents like the Sollog affair in the last couple of months? --MarkSweep 15:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur. ;-) I also liked the bit about "eminent boobies". :-D Edeans 22:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Compare this with the current flap over QuakeAID, which is listed as a VFD and also in the 'Request for Comment' section. QuakeAID seems very similar to the Sollog affair, albeit on a professional level, and therefore much darker and more unpleasant - if you can believe that. It started as a puff-piece for a 'charity' of dubious provenance, although regular Wikipedians have subsequently 'done a Sollog' on it, albeit that it's now much too negative. For further press coverage of Wikipedia's controversies, there's a link to a news article near the top of 'Vandalism in Progress' in which the writer openly invites readers to vandalise Wikipedia, painting regular users as time-spare misbegots (!). -Ashley Pomeroy 20:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

References and external links

Sollog discussion group in UK:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sollog/message/127

(Why does it make a difference if I am anonymous or not? You have accepted posts from other people who are anonymous? Is this because, applying your own logic, I prove Ashley is Sollog? You ask 'What is Sollog frightened of?' I ask, 'What are you frightened of?')

OK so I go and get a Yahoo address saying (for example) AshleyisSollog@yahoo.co.uk and you'll let me post if that is my ID?

Come on!

People, can we please seperate the "References" and "External links" section? Please keep external links for further sources of information and references for citing material that you have used in this article. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to resolve this. Please verify and fix if incorrect. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverting after changes by 81.86.68.162

My entries were deleted. I am accused of deleting a few signed and dated comments.

This is blatantly untrue - go look.

So how many of the people who enter comments use 'real' names?

81.86.68.162 made a series of changes in various places, some of them looking moderately interesting. He/she didn't sign any of them, and deleted a few signed and dated comments that others had made. I could have spent thirty minutes or longer working out what he/she had done, attributing it, and restoring bits that he/she deleted, but I decided that my time was too valuable to do that. So instead I simply reverted all the changes. 81.86.68.162 is welcome to restore those of his/her comments that he/she thinks are worth restoring.

OK so in the interestes of trying to create a mature and sensible online encyclopedia you delete en masse without giving one reason whatsoever.

What does that tell us?

The reverter admits to deleting 'moderately interesting' posts as he hasn't time....isn't that 'institutionalised vandalism'?

81.86.68.162, if you want to add comments, go ahead. Here's how you sign them: "~~~~". (Actually this is pointed out at the top of the page.) In the process of adding your own comments, don't interfere with or delete others. Thank you. -- Hoary 14:02, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

So all unsigned comments are deleted?

So if I go and get a Yahoo address (for example) in the name of Mickey mouse, then you'll allow my comments?

So Mickey Mouse is more acceptable than anonymous?

Explain the logic in that.

Mickey Mouse will have a user history, which can be viewed. Users who helpfully edit more than one or two articles are much more likely to be listened to on a talk page. Wyss 14:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What proof do you have that a) Ashley exists and b) he is in the UK?

Ashley posts, therefore Ashley exists :) Ashely (as far as I know) has not vandalized any pages, nor is there any evidence he's a sockpuppet (a user who misleadingly posts under two or more identities). Finally, WP assumes good faith. With no sign of bad faith from Ashley, there's no burden of proof for much of anything. Wyss 14:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting. You carefully ignored the questioner's second point about the UK and yet if you look through this discussion various wiki people jumped all over 2-3 posters for claiming they were from the UK. And yet when the same point is made about Mr Pomeroy....

I'm from the UK. I could prove it, and yet have no need to. What need has Ashley for needing to prove he is in the UK? People's countries of origin are irrelevant in this context, surely its their actions that most matter? Contributors can be anti- or pro- Sollog, though vandalising this page will get them nowhere. Whether or no the contributor is a sockpuppet or not. - Estel (talk) 20:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is easy to dissect.

You say you're from the UK - and that statement has to be taken on evidence of...what? The poster in Lyndhurst said he was from UK and even told you exactly where he/she was sitting, which pub etc and gave you the phone number. What happened? people said he was a fake.

OK then I call you a fake.

I call you sollog (why not - everyone else is!). I suggest to you that you cannot prove you're in the UK. To suggest you can is deceitful.

Ashley (Sollog) - same number of letters, haven't you tumbled to it? - doesn't have to prove he is in the UK (he cannot anyway!). I am criticising the criteria for judging whether or not someone is a sockpuppet/Ennis/Sollog.

By the criteria used by others I conclude Ashley IS Sollog. he has the same characteristics:

a. his site has sexual words, porn! b. He admits to being rude and arrogant c. he wants people to bow to him

Jim Wales sells porn, it is alleged.

Ashley posts on Wales's site and defends Wales.

I therefore submit that Wales is Ashley is Sollog. Just using the criteria used by other people in Wikipedia!

You say country of origin is irrelevant. Then WHY have so many posts been deleted when they are posted by UK people?

You say vandalising the page gets them nowhere.

OK then look at the very polite posts posted anonymously today. Where was the vandalism?

Ah, yes, it was as I have already identified Institutionalised Vandalism i.e. vandalism by those in authority - as in the NHS.

Also vandalism without any explanation.

As said, it is not possible to have a discussion with such behaviour. Who would not want a rational discussion?

Ah yes, you're ALL Sollog because you ALL want to prevent discussion.

Familiar with the Sollogites and LOTR?

You are the LOTR - and I see the connection to Sollog. So, let's see. Sollog goes respectable. Sollog is Jim Wales. Ashley is JP Essene. Wyss is Nicole. Estel is Truthseeker. Ingerson et alle are Amin and Jahiro and SOLLOGFAN.

It's all clear now - using your criteria.

Did you know that 'Ashley' is male AND female? Yin and Yang. Good and Bad. The Creator and the Destroyer. God. Ashley is Sollog is God. Ashley is from a surname which was originally derived from a place name which meant "ash tree clearing" in Old English.

Just following your logic.

Let's dig a bit deeper using Kabalarian Philosophy.... Although the name Ashley creates the urge to be reliable and responsible, I emphasise that it limits self-expression and friendly congeniality with a moody disposition. This name, when combined with the last name, can frustrate happiness, contentment, and success, as well as cause health weaknesses in the heart, lungs, bronchial area, worry, and mental tension.

The name of Ashley creates a quick, clever mind capable of grasping and assimilating new ideas. He is rather studious, mentally challenging each new idea before accepting it. Because he learns so quickly he has little patience with those whose mental processes are somewhat slower, and he could become supercilious or somewhat "know it all" in his attitude. This characteristic could make him rather unpopular with your associates. Although he is very knowledgeable and intelligent, he often finds spontaneous verbal expression difficult. He crave friendship, (see his post about '(Now I know I have friends') understanding, love, and affection about his reserved manner appears forbidding to others.

For Ashley read 'Sollog'.

- You didn't respond to the point about "bad faith" with regards to Ashley either. He doesn't need to prove that he lives in the UK. - Estel (talk) 20:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Why did ther poster from Lyndhurst or the one from London or me for that matter, need to prove it either. There is no record of vandalism from any of us - and yet all that happens is our sensible and constructive posts get deleted with no explanation.

You offer three 'reasons':

a. Ashley posts (so have all the people posting/claiming to post from the UK)
b. no evidence he is a sockpuppet. Well....according to what I have read above the telephone company say he doesn't exist under that name; the hospitals say he doesn't exist. Salisbury is a small place - Pomeroy is an unusual name. They'd know if he did work for them. So there is no evidence that there is an Ashley at all therefore it is reasonable he assumes another ID and therefore he fits the sockpuppet criteria.
c. No evidence of vandalism. Well again if sensible points are reverted isn't that vandalism?
d. You assume good faith. Fair enough - so why not assume it over the UK based posters - especially as, from what i have read, substantial evidence has been offered in the form of newspaper and discussion group links going back over several years.
e. PLUS there is no doubt that there is a parallel in the type of person the internet presence of Ashley is - the admitted rudeness, the 'bow to me' stuff and the sexual names.

It seems to be as an interested observer that you have deleted valid posts far too quickly and been inconsistent with your assumptions about veracity.

I tend to agree with the other anonymous UK based posters. There is more evidence that Ashley is at the very least, a Sollog acolyte than not - and character traits suggest that he is indeed Sollog.

Other Wiki people may find that laughable as an idea BUT reading the above rationally, it does make sense.

What you seem to be missing here is that Ashley is not the subject of this talk page. More likely however, you keep bringing it up in order to distract and distort any discussion pertaining to John P. Ennis, a known spammer, deathporn merchant and sockpuppet on these pages. Wyss 16:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do not try and distract impartial readers. You well know what you are writing is wrong. The reason I am bringing up Ashley is to illustrate the inconsistency in the Wiki approach. You (collectively) dismiss certain posts as being 'sock puppets' on reasoning that if applied consistently would expose Ashley as Sollog.

I keep bringing up (as do others) your lack of coherence because your behaviour does, as you say, "distract and distort any discussion pertaining to John P. Ennis, a known spammer, deathporn merchant and sockpuppet on these pages."

If you were consistent in your behaviour then we could indeed discuss "discuss John P. Ennis, a known spammer, deathporn merchant and sockpuppet on these pages."

We could discuss the employers telephoned by Sollog Fans that lead to anti-Sollog people losing their job.

We could discuss the nervous break-down precipitated by the actions of Sollog Fans when they impersonated someone and sent out pornographic emails in that person's name.

We could discuss the threats to Reading University which stopped a well known anti-Sollog person from posting.

These are all legitimate areas of discussion that give context to Sollog Fans' behaviour - behaviour which you dismiss as 'cranks' rather than seeing it for the malevolent danger it really is.

However, as you dismiss posts - even anti-Sollog(ite) posts - as being merely 'sock puppets' or 'anonymous proxies' then no such discussion can take place.

Above tirade posted by User:217.43.103.220, an anonymous IP from somewhere near Preston, England (added by Estel (talk) 20:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC))

In addition to being one of the most notorious sockpuppets on the Internet, and a veteran abuser of open proxies, Ennis is also well-known for his harassment and impersonation techniques. Wyss 20:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes he is but that does not mean that I am a sockpuppet. Sollog or his cronies are known to have caused severe harm to some individuals and great sadness to their families. He is no fool and he is not to be so easily dismissed as a crank or a buffoon. He is malevolent, and does not take kindly to being ignored or contradicted. I suspect you do not know what you are dealing with. Wait until the law suits arrive!

BUT that does not mean you should act in such an immature fashion and automatically dismiss every non-identified poster who does not post on other pages as a sock puppet. You look at the Messenger and not the message - this is a fault of yours Wyss, as I have already pointed out on your personal Talk Page.

If you are going to treat Wikipedia as a serious enterprise as opposed to being amateurish despite its noble aims, then you should think before you delete; listen before you revert and apply consistency instead of making ad hoc decisions.

Sollog(ites) are exceptionally nasty - rememebr the pictures of Mrs wales and daughter on their wikipedia sucks pages. Plus the urging of Sollogites to harass by phone and email. Plus the competition to get the best edits.

Extremely nasty BUT that does not mean you should abandon NPOV. By doing so, though that was not the intended result, your actions discredit this section of Wikipedia and you become the object of contempt that Sollog, in some circles, also is.

Sollog is not the only critic of Wikipedia - but that doesn't make all critics Sollog.

Equally when I say I am posting from UK and yet there is disbelief, when others do the same they should not be dimissed - especially by someone who no employer knows, no telephone company knows, who has sexual words on his site and is a self-admitted vain, arrogant, rude working-class bully!

Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Trollish nonsense?

Why do you characterise steps that expose Wikipedians' fallacies in logic as 'trollish nonsense'? I have simply applied the same criteria used to dismiss UK posters as being 'Sollog proxies' to someone else. I am therefore criticising the methodology and it was reverted the very first time (when it could not have been trollish nonsense by definition). Why do you not instead have the confidence in your own position to counter what I write instead of deleting. This is a TALK page after all and your 'talk' seems to be one way and others are not listened to. Hayah.

Personally, I don't bother countering what you write because it's too boring. It's gotten old over the last few months. Dbenbenn 22:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well as today is the first day I have ever posted I naturally counter your point about 'the last few months'. Secondly, until recently, no-one had used 'Ashley = Sollog' as a parallel to the dismissal of NON-sollog-fans as being sollog or sollog fans. I have used your own criteria to show you how ludricuous it is. Even when I post without exclamation marks someone 'trollishly' says it is a 'tirade'.Hayah.

You have to understand that you're not coming into a fresh debate, you're coming into one that's cold and mostly dead, now that Sollog & "fans" are not actively vandalising. It is understandable (from where I sit) that people have jumped the gun and called you Sollog and a troll, because everyone is hypersensitised by weeks of concerted attacks on this article and this talk page. So, dude, relax! If you keep slinging mud around, you will get mistaken for a troll and/or Sollog here. So, be civil, be careful, and watch what you step in.

However, you bring up a good point about that paragraph on open proxies and active times (though your method of bringing attention to it stinks.) See the section I just added below for my view on that (and take it as an example of how to proceed next time). — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the reasoning behind the response - in fact it has been said before by people from the UK - they used the phrase 'knee-jerk' reaction. You say I am slinging mud - no I am not. Look beyond the people (Ashley/Sollog) and see that I am in fact calling the criteria for deletion into question. Hayah.

I don't want this to escalate further into a revert war, which is why I reply here, against the usual principle of DFTT. Claiming "Ashley P. is Sollog" is trollish nonsense. It's trollish because it invites the response "No, Ashley P. is not Sollog" plus ensuing discussion. However, such a debate would be pointless and off-topic: the question who Ashley P. and Sollog really are is irrelevant. No independent third party has made such a claim, so the issue does not need to be discussed in the article or on the talk page. For all I know, Ashley P. may be one of Ennis's online personas, but that doesn't change the fact that User:Ashley Pomeroy is a valued contributor whereas the usual Slogpuppets are not. For all I know, you may be actually travelling in the UK at the moment, which is why you're so sure that your IPs will check out. None of this matters. There is nothing to discuss here. Starting a spurious debate is trolling, pure and simple. --MarkSweep 23:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No it does not invite the response 'Ashley is not Sollog' The reason is that I have made it ultra clear that my posts are not really Ashley =Sollog UNLESS (capitals for emphasis not for volume) you subscribe to the view that 'Sollog has no fans. You say you're in UK. That's impossible. You're Sollog' viewpoint. If that is your considered view i.e. that a poster cannot be in the UK and also not be Sollog and also write about Sollog, then Wikipedia as a whole is clearly too deep for you. Hayah. - - Ashley is a valued contributor. Slogpuppets are not. But I and others in the UK fit into neither category i.e. no history so not regular contributors BUT equally, and most certainly, not Sollogpuppets. And yet...numerous posts have been deleted. Hayah. - - Stating a spurious debate is trolling, yes. Deliberately misreading a debataing point is creating a straw man to knock it down. To repeatedly do it, as you and Wyss do on behalf of Wikipedia, is Institutionalised Trolling. Hayah. - - I'll say it again. I am in the UK. Others have (and I have no reason to doubt this) said they're in the UK. Collectively we have either posted observations or pointed out some anti-Sollog things. The 'reward' has been...deletion usually without explanation. Hayah.

Your methods (so far) for exposing the methods in use as Wikipedia are inappropriately disruptive and combative. I, personally, don't think you're Sollog and never did. I have more patience than some editors. I've tried to dissuade you from the combative course you've set and I urge you to do so one more time. You will be dismissed by many people as a-pain-in-the-ass shit-disturber if you continue as you are. Amend your methods and continue your message, and you will have a much better likelyhood of being heard. You do want to be heard, yes? I hear your message, but do you care if anyone else does?

If you wish to adopt other methods, a good first step would be to stop arguing about what you did, and move on. If you belabour whether your methods were right or wrong, how do you ever expect to get around to talking about whether your message is right or wrong? — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:23, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Do I want to be heard? I have assumed that those who delete or revert do read my prose first. Maybe it's enough just to register objections rather than having to sanitise to the point of oblivion. I don't swear. I don't accuse others of being sock-puppets. I draw interesting analogies between Sollog and Ashley. Hayah.

I think that's enough if readers are mature. Hayah.

I note the continual use of 'I am in the UK' rather than 'I am British' or 'I am from the UK' (the poster claims that others are 'from the UK', but not himself). It's an odd, ambiguous thing to say. -Ashley Pomeroy 09:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ashley should stop trying to fool the Americans - of course Preston: http://www.jiwire.com/wi-fi-wireless-hotspot-preston-victoria-au-le-croissant-connection-1056551.htm has the internet! Next you'll be selling London Bridge!Hayah.

It's an odd thing to have a picture on your Talk Page that is never updated and yet a timeframe is given for it. Life is full of oddities - just as your public work (a 'descent into madness') is. I am English. I live in England. Hayah.

Well, I believe that this link here [95] quite conclusively proves that Preston is not yet internet-enabled, and possibly not yet connected to the telephone network; it's in the North of England, after all. As a purported native of the country you should know that already. As for your (cough) proof, it is clear from the use of the word 'croissant' that you are confusing Preston, Lancashire, with Preston, Loir et Cher [96], in France. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You really shouldn't mock the Americans that way Ashley!! They will read this: "I am assisting a lady in researching her husband's family. She does not have the internet and we do not have access to the BMD index in England. I wonder if there is SKS who can look up two marriages so that we might order the certificates. " (http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ENG-LANCS-PRESTON/2001-09/1001575004) and think that BMD is a typo for Broadband - mind you they probably think people in Salisbury have outdoor toilets - and people up North all work down t'mine. You have yet to provide any proof whatsoever that you're in the UK, BTW. Still...you're probably a Southampton supporter and so have enough problems. Hayah.

'BMD' stands for 'Births, Marriages and Deaths', although it is also the designation for a series of wheeled Russian armoured cars. Nonetheless, it is clear that, not only do the people of Preston not have the internet, but also that they don't even have access to government records. I have relatives from Liverpool, and they have never once spoken to me of Preston's telecommunications infrastructure. Not once. Huddersfield, yes, they are effusive on the subject of Huddersfield's electronic enablement; but not Preston. I give you full marks for correctly guessing that Southampton is in the south of the country, however. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I give you full marks for conforming to the Kabbalian persona.Hayah.

Here is a lifeline for you: http://www.salisbury.gov.uk/council/press/2005/2005-01-13-a.asp

Hayah.

Paragraph on open proxies

The observations about open proxies and about Sollog and his "fans'" active periods seeming to coincide seems awfully close to original research and narrowly skirts self-reference. I don't think this section should be kept unless someone can dig up non-WP observations on this, and non-WP speculations about open proxies. We know it's true, sure, but what we know doesn't count—only what we can document outside of WP. — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

What Saxifrage said. Dbenbenn 23:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does Sollog's own news release count as a source? --MarkSweep 23:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reference to open proxies seems pretty damning to me. --Cchunder 23:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal Chunder should join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sollog/ instead of wasting his time on alt.prophecies.nostradamus where his usual comment is simply 'Take the Meds kook'. Hayah.

Okay, we have a reference about open proxies. How about the "Sollog's presumed waking hours" bit? Dbenbenn 01:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my first (and probably last) visit to a sollogite site. Ah that inimitable prose style. . . . But wait -- isn't JPE supposed to be a web impresario or similar? The "source" reveals the hideous truth: he's using Turd as an HTML editor. Ugh! -- Hoary 11:54, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I agree on removal; although it is likely that Sollog used/is using this tactic elsewhere, we cannot confirm it. Keeping this paragraph, we could also rename this article to WP vs. Sollog. - JohnyDog 11:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A question about IP addresses. http://www.247news.net/ says the following:

"Wikipedia has a policy of ‘Open Editing by ANYONE’ that is the problem. Some who have edited Wikipedia have had their IP Address put into pages and that is a no no, since a hacker could hurt you if he knows your IP address. Wikipedia’s answer is “well a user can ‘join’ wiki and hide their IP address”. So the owner of Wikipedia is making people join his site if they want to edit the pages, if you don’t ‘join’ then your private IP address info will be exposed."

Is the risk identified genuine and if so shouldn't you warn people? Hayah.

Nah, it's FUD. Your IP address is available 1) to all servers/routers your connection passes through or you're connecting to 2) to all admins of web pages you had visited. That's tons of people. Hacker can only 'hurt' you if you have unsecure system, and if you happen to, you've been probably hurt already anyway, as many worms are scanning aggresively through the whole IP space. - JohnyDog 15:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is Independent? Government? Newspapers? er, no. So why not also quote 247news.net?

The Sun urged people to vote Blair...after Murdoch had had a meeting with Blair and won concessions....Hayah.

The above bits by Hayah. Inky 01:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

247news.net is not a respected news source, or even a recognised one. We don't cite the National Inquirer, either. Beyond that, it's known to be written by Sollog and misrepresents itself as being specifically not written by Sollog, making it unreliable at absolute best. — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't cite it as evidence in favor of Ennis. But is it fair to cite it as evidence against him? Dbenbenn 03:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right! Good point. We usually can rely on people to be truthful when the information is wholly to their disadvantage, yes. — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:42, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Even if we could take it as respected and reliable source, what exactly would you cite ? Literally every sentence in that article (including that about open proxies) sounds in favor of Sollog. - JohnyDog 11:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Sollog's alleged supporters often post via open proxy servers located in many different countries around the world." If I recall correctly, the 247news article supports this sentence. Though I can't check it at work right now. Dbenbenn 14:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is what you mean:

"Many people who have found fault with the concept of Wikipedia have been using open proxies to edit ‘protest’ pages into Wikipedia. Wiki editors consider such posting behind proxies to not be a valid post. So thousand of pages with edits from anonymous users are being deleted as soon as they appear, well it takes a few minutes to hours depending on what was edited by an anonymous user." Hayah.

http://www.247news.net/

Is there any truth in this:

"Since Wikipedia started attacking TOH and Sollog, there have been two court orders issued to Wikipedia to remove the offending pages. Wikipedia has refused to remove the slanderous pages and there is being formed a class action against Wikipedia on behalf of TOH members around the world."

http://www.247news.net/

Posted by Hayah.

No. Fire Star 16:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But...it could be argued that ANYTHING with the word 'Sollog' in - however derisory - is to his advantages as it increases web presence.

That's why a few of us prefer to use his name, "Ennis." Fire Star 16:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Don't think that this post isn't monitored by Sollog et alle, though. Never relax.Hayah.

Please sign all comments. Fire Star 17:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that if people are unhappy with what others say then they are urged to post on the User's Talk Page. Who posts on mine? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?Hayah.

???

I post on Ashley's pages but, in complete contradiction to the persona he tries to portray on his own page he simply deletes rather than engages in discussion. This seems to be the same approach you take with the Sollog(ites) i.e. delete rather than engage.Hayah.

Let me give an example. No-one seems to have followed up the fact (recorded in alt.prophecies.nostradamus) that someone in the Sollog camp sent out emails in the name of someone who criticised Sollog, and did so including porn. That person (i.e. the genuine person, not the sender) was then deluged with priests etc offering their help for his - supposedly - porn addiction.

His family were shocked, traumatised etc.

Is this the behaviour of a 'love is all' person 'above God?

I think not and yet where is the discussion on this?Hayah.

If you want to start a discussion, I suggest that 1) you remove the personal comments about Ashley Pomeroy above, and 2) you start a new section, with a constructive comment. See Saxifrage's comment at the top of this section. Dbenbenn 14:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The comments about Ashley are not personal - I was using the 'unable-to-prove-his-existence' as a parallel to your lack of acceptance of some poor sap sitting in a pub giving you his exact location and phone number and still you wouldn't believe him!Hayah.

Ashley's probably a decent guy - even though he tries to trick Americans about Preston!Hayah.

For a discussion to happen the knee-jerk deletion policy of certain Wiki people has to change.

Contributed by Hayah.

==Sollog - a new beginning==Hayah.

Before people read this they should be made aware that even several years ago people were cataloguing Sollog's identities:

Staff ASSI Staff Nostradamus Fan WHI staff WHI staff- Legal Department Sollog Immanuel Adonai Adoni What's Hot Staff Legal Department SIA JPE JGD Sollog Fan The Pope worships SATAN Nostradamus of the 90's Arbitrator e7x9@juno.comxx nospam@aol.com elNINelnine Editor "M.Nostradamus@juno.com" TLC@nmrk.net (T~EL~C) J Essene JESUS CHRIST legal@theeunderground.net sollogrules@theeunderground.net NG < ng@theeunderground.net> El Shadday < elshadday@juno.com> EOS < elhadid@juno.com> legal@theasi.net JP < jp@whatshotin.com> lotr9@juno.com lotr9@juno.com.x Admin < admin@theasi.net> lolita2002@hotmail.com eLnIn < NIN@hotmail.com> FOS67@mydejanews.com sollogfan@my-dejanews.com Andrew Baldo < ABALDO@prodigy.net> Gates is Satan < billy_gates666@hotmail.com> Ln1ne@hotmail.com Impeach Clinton < clintonsucks999@hotmail.com> FUT < fut999@hotmail.com> WARNING POSA < posa@hotmail.com> School Shootings < shootings@hotmail.com> SCHOOL SHOOTINGS < shootemdead@hotmail.com> CHS2 < tcmsp2@hotmail.com> SF < sf9999@hotmail.com> Sollog Rules < fuku2@hotmail.com> JAMES < bond@mi007.uk> FOS < fos@sollogrules.com> JFK Curse MN Fan mnfan@nostradamus.com> FAN FU HS PS BOO fos69@my-deja.com e1n1ne@hotmail.com SOLLOG RULES SF HOHO amin SOLLOG RULES < sollogrules@my-deja.com> FVCKYOU NINES < 9_9_9@my-deja.com> EL NUEVA < elnueva@my-deja.com> nospam@nospam.com (999) nospam@nospam.com (ALTERT) nospam@nospam.com (WARNING) nospam@nospam.com (COOL) nospam@nospam.com (FLASH) fvck@fvckyou.com (Fvck You) nospam@nospam.com (DETH) nospam@nospam.com (DT) Fvck You Too

Source: http://xinoehpoel.united.net.kg/xinoehpoel/sollog-news_disdaintv.htm

You may think Sollog's interest is temporary etc. You'd be wrong. Sollog's been 'doing his thing' for 7 years at least. In fact if you read his e-book where he talks about the point of creation, you'd realise that he's been 'like this' for many many years.

Contributed by Hayah.

I think people should discuss/be made aware of:

a. How Sollog(ites) faked emails in the names of his/their accusers and distributed porn everywhere causing great sadness and chaos to his detractorsHayah.

Do you have a verifiable source for that? --MarkSweep 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what a 'verifiable source' is but there are many.Warning much of the language you'll see (if you follow the links) is obscene. The type of fighting you have seen here on Wiki has been going on for eight years' on alt.prophecies.nostradamus.

If you have the energy these are some links worth investigating but you have to read the complete thread - take a post out of context and you'll draw incorrect conclusions.

Here we go:

[97]

and

[98]

but before anyone else spots it, to allow my post about Sollog(ites) posting porn by fake emails could be construed as libel - after all libel accusations have been made before:

"SOLLOG doesn't post here.To accuse him of posting porn is a LIBEL unless you can PROVE to a JUDGE he did. A bunch of nitwits have gotten themselves and their ISP's in trouble here. ISP's are to be considered PUBLISHERS of NEWS GROUPS if they allow someone with a history of defamatory posts to continue to post through their service, that is recent internet law as decided in Wisconsin, Sollog's case is the first internet case to use that decision to sue an ISP for allowing people like Newmill, Roncraft, etc et al, to post defamatory remarks about Sollog here. In LIBEL the person saying something has 100% burden of proving what they said is FACT! Can anyone prove here Sollog posted porn to this NG? Can anyone prove here Sollog posted to this NG? " [99]

So I am not setting out to trap you but...you could be walking into difficulties. Just bear that in mind...Hayah.

Plus remember how followers view Sollog:

"Sollog created this planet, dillweed. All laws are inferior to the LAW OF ONE."

Source: [100] Hayah.

b. How Sollog(ites) caused people to be censored at work and/or lose their jobsHayah.

Source? --MarkSweep 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

David Patrick of Reading University was frightened off by Sollog(ites). The initial thread is here:

[101]

Note how Sollogites urge people to telephone his employers....similar to urging people to phone Jim Wales.....

David Patrick posted this: "I don't think I've ever managed to touch off such a venom-filled post from Ennis, but even so I'm very glad that I'm at least two heavily guarded airports away from this freak."

Source: [102]

He was forced out because of phonecalls from USA to his employers. He had to stop posting. Hayah.

c. You have already seen how Sollog(ites) tried to humiliate Jim Wales (and his wife and children) and yet you dismiss Sollog as a crank when in fact he is a malevolent evil (or a source of Good who is not to be trifled with - according to you POV)

And I'm still waiting to see an apology for that. If and when that happens, we can talk about this sad episode again. --MarkSweep 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How did you get Mrs Wales' pic taken down from Wikipedia sucks?Hayah.

Please sign all comments. Fire Star 17:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

d. The Sollog translations of Nostradamus and the subsequent discussions with Ionescu

Source? --MarkSweep 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This has already been given but here it is again:

http://www.nostradamus-icns.org/Vlaicu/sollog.html

I quote:"I fully respect Mr. Sollog for his talent in predicting and divination power, but I don’t understand his wish to be a Nostradamian exegete too. One must know his limitations and concentrate on the gift given him by God. A transgression of his own vocation could compromise him, or worse, he could fall under the Nostradamian curse of VI-100 quatrain (Qui aliter facit, is rite sacer esto!"). And it would be a pity. "Hayah.

e. The various formulae such as the 137, PDF, Creator Formula.Hayah.

The mathematical discoveries have been debunked already in the archives. I'm not sure a public airing of this is necessary, since they seem hardly notable. --MarkSweep 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have you covered all of them including Fermat's Theorem condensed to one page? the Planetary Distance Formula? Using ELS in the Torah etc?Hayah.

Please sign all comments. Fire Star 17:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think:

a. anonymous posters should automatically be dismissed

Agree. Comments should be judged more or less in isolation to see if there was any substantial contribution. I don't quite see that yet in your posts. If you were to back up your claims with independent source (not just links to Sollog's site, we have plenty of those in the archive), you might get heard more easily. --MarkSweep 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous posters should at least try to follow the discussion etiquette. Routinely not signing your posts so that people have to go to the history to see who they are dealing with is one trait which tends to show a certain lack of consideration, and therefore such posters aren't shown much consideration in return. Also, your singling out and focussing on someone whom Ennis singled out for a clumsy, previous spam attack doesn't do much for your credibility, either. Fire Star 16:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It makes no difference to me who I am dealing with. I look at the message, not the messenger. This is a point I tried to explain to Wyss who posts that qualifications make him listen, not necessarily the content. I beg to differ. It's what is posted that is important, not the identity of the poster.Hayah.

Your accusation I am singling out and focussing on someone again misses the point. Check my own Talk Page for a clear explanation - accepted by one of your colleagues.Hayah.

You sound irritable - suspend such an emotion. Hayah.

And...the 'clumsy spam attack' (I assume you mean Ashley?) well, as he doesn't post his email....Hayah.

But you have stated that you believe the message is more important than the messenger? Why then the obsession with Ashley? I'm sorry that you feel the need to project that people who question you are "irritable," but since you've opened the door to personal comments you seem to have an Ennis-like double standard when it comes to discussions with and consideration for your fellow editors, insisting upon respect while showing little but irritated condescension on your part. And again, please sign all comments. Fire Star 17:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you think I am showing 'irritated condescension'. You infer incorrectly. Hayah.

Please curb your enthusiasm to constantly bracket anyone who is not anti-Sollog to either be Sollog or at least to have his characteristics. I have already used Ashley to demonstrate startling parallels between him and Sollog - not to say he is Sollog but to show that the reasoning employed here means he is...Hayah.

Again, I have explained until others must be tired of reading it (eg Mark) why I have been using Ashley as an example.Hayah.

I don't think I have ever linked to Sollog's site but I have given www.247news/net simply as a source of a quotation.Hayah.

Please sign all comments. Fire Star 18:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

b. Pages should be reverted without due consideration. If there is blasphemy, defamation, obscenities then yes, without reading but if the posts are politely aggressive then read first!

If an edit violates the rules, it will probably get reverted. Obscenities are right out, but so are many other things. --MarkSweep 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

c. Posts in support of Earthquake divination should automatically have been revertedHayah.

There was ample discussion and a consensus that Sollog lacks the ability to predict earthquakes. But not only does that mean that it would be wrong to add passages to the article claiming that Sollog does have this ability, it's also wrong IMO to state that he specifically lacks it. His general prediction patterns are already discussed in the article and backed up with enough examples. --MarkSweep 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A 'consensus'? From what I have read (and have experienced myself) any post even remotely not-anti-Sollog, gets reverted.Hayah.

Reverted by a consensus of our editors, look at the history. So far, pro-Ennis arguments, and Ennis' own behaviour, do not impress the majority of Wikipedian editors as having any encyclopaedic validity. Please sign all comments. Fire Star 17:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have read all the posts from people who say they're from the UK and many have been reverted, without, IMO, good reason.Hayah.

I have seen that the yahoo group's address was reverted several times, for example even though it is a UK address and would be used to counter the accusation that Sollog/Ennis has no 'fans'. Hayah.

In other words I think Sollog's actions should be fully aired - looking at the good (if there is any) the bad and the interesting. Contributed by Hayah.

The consensus here is that that has been done. Ennis has clearly shown himself to be a vicious, dishonest charlatan who makes up the rules as he goes along. So far, any "good" Ennis may have done in his weird little life has not been demonstrated to anyone but himself and his religion of one. Predictions that no one, not even he, can explain ahead of time so that people may benefit from them aren't really very useful for the common good. Fire Star 16:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firestar: You've missed the entire point of Sollog's work. I can explain it - but I fear I'll immediately be portrayed as Sollog or a sockpuppet and reverted without due thought.Hayah.

I honestly don't think that I have, but thanks for your concern. Please sign all comments. Fire Star 17:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am exercising my right to be known by a number. My identity, pseudonym or not, is totally unimportant. But henceforth I shall be known as Hayah.[103] Hayah.

I wish you would reconsider. You should at least sign with your IP number. If you read the top of the page, by consensus your unsigned posts are going to make you appear disruptive to the other editors at large. Unsigned posts make it difficult to follow the thread of discussion. It is, by established Wikipedia policy, considered rude and even borderline vandalism by some administrators, as at the top of this page. You may certainly exercise your rights as you see them, but we can (and will) exercise our right therefore to disregard you, completely. Fire Star 18:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not listen to Ennis: http://www.theeend.com?Hayah.

As Ashley says, 'God has the good things, Man' Contributed by Hayah.

Sollog Discussion Group in the UK

That's here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sollog/

brought to your attention by Hayah.

If you read the posts (the group is/was moderated) you'll see there at least was an 'attempt' at sensible discussion.Contributed by Hayah.

Fair enough, though irrelevent. Unless someone wishes to point out that it idicates support... (just responding to a question to save *anyone* asking it) I'd have to say it doesn't, with a reletivey small number of posts all more than 4 years ago, and there were only a small handful of posters. - Estel (talk) 18:45, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe but it's something that may be of interest to people afraid of the policies (perceived or otherwise) here. There have been two newcomers joining this week. Posted by Hayah - who has only contributed that. (Estel (talk) 19:25, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC))

Do you count yourself as one of those newcomers? Or have you been quietly observing this page; as it seems a good 90% of all of the recent new Wikipedia users have been - heading straight for this article.

I'm not sure why thst group is so of interest, because there is little regarding Wikipedias policy there. Unless it is a reference for a serious debate, which I feel can also be seen here and Google groups. If you don't feel that the Wiki article is NPOV, then compare it to any other single source - nowhere will you find such an encyclopedic entry that looks at some of his claims, as well as things that people believe not to be so accurate. - Estel (talk) 19:25, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to many because this site will eb a test case for a class action brought by Sollog. Hayah.

- My mistake, Hayah is apparently a recently signed up User:217.43.103.220, who has been active as poster of most of the not mainstream posts, and also some discussion of user talk namespaces of Sollog editors at large. - Estel (talk) 19:44, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced our new friend User:217.43.103.220/Hayah isn't our old friend Ennis trying yet another identity switch to disrupt this page. Comments? Fire Star 21:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I strenuously defended my right to stay anonymous. I kept on and on about not wanting a name. So I was then threatened with deletion/reversion.

So, against my better judgement I become Hayah.

What happens?

Yet again accused of being Sollog

No doubt some bright spark is going to realise that TOH is Temple of Hayah and therefore I am Sollog. In fact you would be better learning from this: [104]

So it looks like despite me falling into the Wiki line it's going to be back to : "This is really a sockpuppet"

OK OK OK I'll revert back to Ashley IS Sollog - I'll play your game

(Sighs in exasperation)

Would it help if I told you what happened in EastEnders tonight? No...I don't suppose so after all I probably telephone people in England to tell me what is happening on television!

This is becoming increasingly pointless! Hayah

"This is becoming increasingly pointless!" I'll second that. I haven't accused you of anything, I said that I wasn't yet convinced. There is a difference. I'm not yet convinced that you are Ennis, either. I was merely wondering. There are similarities (eccentricity, touchiness; remember, you opened the door to personal comment) and obvious differences (some evidence of good manners) in your discursive style. If you paid more attention to what other people are actually saying here, it would help you build consensus to your point of view. Most people prefer being convinced to being lectured to, unilaterally assigning attitudes to your interlocutors isn't convincing. Fire Star 21:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. 'Unilaterally assigning' - oh, like to anyone and everyone from the UK who anonymises their posts. Ipso facto they are Sollog.

2. Similarities? A whole shed-load of similarities about Ashley/Sollog but they were dismissed.

3. Lectured to? 'If you don't get a name you'll be reverted!' yes......

Hayah

1. You have unilaterally assigned motivations and attitudes to me, several times. I'm not talking about your signature here.

2. Ennis has demonstrated strenuous homophobia, Ashley Pomeroy has not. That convinces me at least that they aren't the same person.

3. I actually implied that if you didn't stop disrupting this page you would be reverted, and possibly blocked for a time. This isn't me talking, it is Wikipedia policy.

It says at the bottom of every Wikipedia page "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." There are no guarantees here, only the good will of one's fellow editors in the community peer review process preserves one's input. You can choose to make valid, respectful contributions or you can be labelled a troll and be at best ignored and at worst banned. It may seem hard to you, but that is the way it is. And I'm still not convinced that you aren't Ennis. Fire Star 21:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May as well continue to beat you to it

Quoting Sollog: "You have been commanded to terminate all

                          NUCLEAR DEVICES IMMEDIATELY!

                          These events must be to show that this
                          command is to be OBEYED!

                          The HOLY ONE is HAYAH.

                          HAYAH is the eternal name given to Moishe on
                          the mount with the tablets of stone with THE
                          LAW!

                          The TEN COMMANDMENTS are the LAW.

                          I AM the LIVING WORD of HAYAH!"

[105] Hayah

As I have repeatedly said, look at what is written, not on what name the person chooses!

Hayah

Your filibuster is in aid of what, exactly? Fire Star 21:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually Sollog/Ennis' claims are original research and not encyclopedic (never mind they're based on ancient cold reading and post-shadowing techniques). His reputation as a prolific spammer and sockpuppet, however, may be. Wyss 19:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Sollog line

So far the only media links have been to ridicule Sollog.

This article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/massacre/Story/0,,204756,00.html at least mentions it without a value judgement. This was 5 years ago - funny how the line is still accurate.

Of course, some say it was stolen: http://dan_pressnell.tripod.com/tiggerlines.html Contributed by Hayah.

More on Sollog's Residence

He is in the Cayman Islands Hayah.

Above line moved out of the "summary" section as it has been requested not to post things there. Inky 20:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog is everywhere - especially if you're in the UK

If anyone - and I mean 'anyone' - posts here anonymously there will be pressure put on them to get an identity. If they don't comply they will be threatened with reversion/deletion and/or accused of being Sollog/a sockpuppet.

So they will either withdraw or comply and get a name.

When they get that they'll be accused of being in Florida posting through a proxy and...yes, of being Ennis. Any proof they offer - such as living in Salisbury and working at a hospital - will be dismissed as yet another 'Ennis Impersonation' Hayah

Revert

I don't know the protocol for talk pages, but could we just revert this mess back to the previous archive, at 20:50 yesterday? It's good that the cruft is kept to the talk page, but it seems that the 'discussion' today has achieved nothing, and indeed has been entirely content-free. Hayah (cough) isn't making any suggestions related to the article itself, and our replies are a waste of time; it's devolved into minor semantic points on minor semantic points, as if the Cold War was repeating itself, albeit on the talk page of a man who would clearly love to be the modern version of Emperor Joshua A. Norton. I assume Ennis' strategy, if there is one, is to gain some sort of notability on the talk page, and thenceforth use the sheen of legitimacy to justify vandalising the article. If we wind time back he'll no doubt moan about being censored, but I for one have no moral qualms in suppressing a 44-year-old ex-convict, one who has repeatedly threatened and belittled the owner of this website and his family. If 'Hayah' is not Ennis, then he or she has jumped into a big pot of hot water, and would be advised to jump back out again. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And just what has 'suppressing a 44 year old convict' got to do with reverting what I have written? Do you always try and mislead people? You're not anti-gay and that convinces someone you're not Sollog. I'm not anti-gay either but somehow consistency is suspended. Still if you think that by suppressing me you're somehow suppressing Ennis (when it is me who has done more to expose what he's been doing for 7-8 years than most) then that's fine - continue to make a fool of yourself - which of course is why you deleted me from your own pages! No wonder you're ex-Directory! [Hayah]

I second the motion to revert. There is some content worth preserving, though. This has to be done delicately. --MarkSweep 22:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you follow 'are-puh's suggestion then my charge of 'Institutionalised Vandalism' sticks. I toed your policy, I gave sources, I stayed polite despite blatant provocation and still there is a 'suggestion' I am Sollog(ite) and a 'suggestion' my cause is not good. Beware the person who urges massive reversion instead of critical acumen - therein lies the descent into madness of a typist named 'are-puh'.

Still delete as you wish - Wiki is 'yours'.

Just before you do, i.e. before you 'fall' for what Ashley is proposing, let's consider (BTW this is Hayah reverted - it seems safer) what you miss:

a. Mark (who seconds the revert, conveniently forgetting the work I put in sourcing answers to his questions)asked for sources for the 'fake email/porn' and the 'job loss/threatened'. I gave them to him.

b. I gave references about Ionescu.

c. I reminded you - in case you'd forgotten - how Ennis has been 'attacking' people for 7-8 years so don't think he's gone away...

d. I gave i.e. sourced evidence as to how some 'fans' 'see' Sollog.

e. I gave 30+ aliases to support the 'multiple ids' claim.

But, like I said on my Talk Page, you seem to want to revert rather than genuinely accept contributions.

Yeah, paint this as a tirade if you wish; say I'm a sockpuppet if you must.....insist I am in USA...I wonder if I have missed the East Enders repeat on BBC 3...fancy Den sleeping with Zowie...and Mo fancying Alfie!

Yep...it's Two Pints of Lager now...

'The Number'

Let's just keep all of it here and move on to more productive discussions. It will all disappear into the archive soon enough. Gamaliel 23:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a god

Folks, let's wrap up this debate for good. It doesn't matter who Hayah is or where (s)he is. There is no need to prove or disprove various identity-related charges. The only question is whether Hayah can contribute here in a constructive manner and in accordance with the rules. Let's assume good faith as usual and focus on the positive. --MarkSweep 21:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ennis responds to charges of sockpuppetry by accusing others of being sockpuppets. IMHO these identity rants are drivel, since user histories do establish strong WP identities, and anon WP posters are, statistically speaking, likely to be (but aren't by any means always) vandals, socks, or trolls. Wyss 23:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of what Wyss has written except I am not sure who Ennis is accusing here of being a sockpuppet therefore I infer (perhaps wrongly) that Wyss thinks I am Sollog(ite)/Ennis/John/JP etc etc.

I hold out hope for the caveat of (but aren't by any means always).

the number

Well, number old man, for us to assume good faith means you aren't accused, as I said before. You said that you were accused when honest suspicions were expressed. You are watched, however. The consensus seems to be that you may or indeed may not be Ennis, and that your behaviour will eventually indicate that one way or another. Anonymous IPs in this debate are usually sockpuppets, but Ennis has also registered many sockpuppet accounts as well. If Ennis himself (in an actinic mood, no doubt) were to come here, apologize for his behaviour and edit civilly, he would be as welcome as you are for my part, as I have consistently been willing to meet you halfway. Fire Star 23:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is something I just cannot understand. You seem convinced that the probability is high that Ennis/Sollog/JP/etc etc is in USA.

I tend to agree.

So just what am I supposed to do to prove I am in the UK?

Stand outside Ashley's house and shout at him (always assuming he does indeed live in Salisbury...I do have my doubts)

Mark says it doesn't matter where I (or anyone else)is. But it does once you accept that Ennis is not in the UK!!!(Surely if he were then Channel 5 would have snapped him up by now or he'd be on a Chris Evans radio show?)

And the same applies for the other people posting in/from the UK - whereever they are. I have counted at least three on these pages. It's this 'Wikipidean mindset' that only 'sollogites' post on these pages...unless they're anti-Sollog. I don't know if individual pages have hits but if so I bet the hits for this page are high compared to what factual content is actually here.

Also, if I was Ennis/acolytes of... then I would enrol here in some nondescript, innocent name and slowly but surely would subvert the site. And, if I was planning long term I'd befriend Wikis here and eventually get their trust (and their email addresses) and then...............

As it is, I posted here in good faith and urged people to look at what I write rather than meandering about who I am etc. Why don't you go and look at my Talk Page (for 'the number' not Hayah) - I have posted on Wyss's, Ashley's and Mark's (I think) - helpful soul that I am.... Anyway, here's to Tottenham winning tomorrow!

Ennis, you're throwing in way too much easily gleaned Brit cruft, your syntax and spelling are American and Ennis-like, though calmer, and you can't seem to avoid confrontational, negative and threatening thoughts, can you? One more thought... (responding to a message you left on my talk page after you said you'd already done so here), I've never reverted any of your posts when you've appeared as the above sockpuppet. I guess you're thinking of reverts I've done on some of your other, more vandalistic socks, huh? ;) Wyss 00:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Funny, funny. I don't know who is trying to trick whom. First Ashley tries to convince people there is no internet in Preston. Then you try to convince people I spell the American way.

Oh dear, oh dear.

OK here's 'almost' proof BUT I accept I could have telephoned someone and found this out. However, I have in front of me the Monday issue of the Daily Mail (a UK paper. There is a website www.dailymail.co.uk)

On page 2 there is an article by a journalist in Ramallah. The article is in three columns. In the middle column the middle paragraph begins with: "Two exit polls..."

Now, this is not on the Internet. So either you really do think I telephone people in the UK to find this out (it's 12.47am here now BTW) or you finally control your prejudices and believe I am in the UK.

Oh yes, on page 10 top left is an advertisement for Car Insurance. (Again, not on the net)

You do realise how your stance weakens the credibility plus the Sollog(ites) must be laughing their heads off at you!

Oh yes I suppose the absence of American spellings is 'proof' I am deliberately writing to sound English?

What a joke!

The Number

Must we continue this argument until the end of time? It doesn't matter who is where. Everyone let this silly matter drop please. And 217.43.103.220, please start signing your posts in the proper manner. Gamaliel 00:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed not. As the page is longer than 32 Kb, I am going to archive it now. dbenbenn | talk 01:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What's Encyclopedic about Mr Ennis?

He fills this page with irrelevant gibberish for the express purpose of clogging it, rendering it unreadable (and more lately, provoking archiving events, which effectively "hide" productive discussion). He then cries "censorship" in order to further distract the thread.

I strongly doubt whether Ennis has ever posted here so this isa baseless accusation. Where is your evidence - as you seem to think evidence is so improtant - for your accusation that Ennis posts here at all?

The Number 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, to summarize. After over a month...

There is still zero evidence of even one actual member of TOH.
There is zero evidence of any actual "fan" of Sollog.
It is widely accepted that John P. Ennis is Sollog
John P. Ennis has a history of sockpuppetry and impersonation on the USENET, Internet and "offline" extending back for years.
Ennis has been a prolific USENET spammer for many years.
There is evidence of only scant serious discussion of Sollog "prophecies" (which have been clearly shown to be a rather mundane form of cold reading and post-shadowing), but there are thousands of USENET and Internet forum posts ridiculing him.
There is overwhelming evidence Ennis mines random visitors to his Sollog site by diverting them to at least dozens of interlinked websites (most of which, in early January, seemed to be in or near the same rack in New Jersey) selling everything from used exotic cars (always by linked proxy to non-Ennis sites) to pictures of dead bodies (most of which can be seen elsewhere for free if one knows how to use a search engine).
His "music" contains no meaningful, polyphonic harmonic elements or structure, and there is no evidence it has ever been independently reviewed, much less distributed.
His "mathematical" commentaries have been shown to be either unremarkable, error-ridden restatements of long-published work, or plain nonsense.
There is no evidence any of his many books have ever been independently reviewed or published.

The only (even marginally) encyclopedic topic about John P. Ennis is his well-documented history of prolific spamming, impersonation and harassment. I do hope the article will eventually express this more clearly (and as briefly as possible). Wyss 03:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is zero evidence of any actual "fan" of Sollog.

Someone posted today saying they were a 'fan'.

Naturally their post was deleted.

The Number 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fans from UK post but then get deleted. What proof is required? The Number 03:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, why be so harsh? You say: There is still zero evidence of even one actual member of TOH. Yes there is: Ennis/"Sollog". There is zero evidence of any actual "fan" of Sollog. Yes there is: Ennis/"Sollog". Also, you fail to acknowledge the artistic work of "Sollog".

As for the rest, though, I agree with you. Essentially, he's an energetic and vindictive bore. -- Hoary 04:18, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

:) I have serious doubts Ennis believes any of his own propaganda (even his claim to divinity is semantically hedged or fuzzed), which is why I hesitate to count him as a "member" or a "fan". I did forget to mention his scribblings of genetalia, along with his self-comparisons to Picasso which have gotten him laughed off at least one art forum (as in banned). Wyss 04:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I hereby vote for inclusion of this sentence: "The only (even marginally) encyclopedic topic about John P. Ennis is his well-documented history of prolific spamming, impersonation and harassment."
OK, so it's far too late over here. Shoot me. There are only two ways I can see to express his notability properly:

Delete the article. Hah, I think not. We didn't save it just to now conclude our work should be all in vain after all. Nominate it, if you will. I predict any such nomination will be easily shot down. And that's not because all our contributors are vile inclusionists.
Trim the article to the barest minimum, mentioning, in essence, only "his well-documented history of prolific spamming, impersonation and harassment". Sure. But what's he spamming about? How do we know he's impersonating? Who has he harassed and why? So let's expand the article... Hmmm.

An encyclopedia article can mention the notability of its topic directly only when that notability is independently established. The Beatles are clearly big, and you can find ample reason why. Sollog is clearly not big, but apart from newspapers dismissing him (which is in the article), nobody goes to lengths to establish absence of notability, for obvious reasons. Is Sollog of any importance to anyone but himself and the few people unfortunate enough to have run across him? No. Can we still afford to have an article on him that mentions everything known, in an accurate, neutral way, a way that, I point out, gives him not an ounce of credit more than he is due? Yes, of course. Could this article conceivably be reduced and merged with something else? I don't see how. Conclusion? Keep this article, remind everyone that Wiki is not paper, that you must be be bold in editing if you think that's what it takes, and that the only responsibilities you have here are the ones you assign to yourself — stay cool, and step away if the topic itself starts to repulse you. Finally, send a box of WikiLove to Wyss, and wish everyone a happy Wikipedia Day. And John, if you're listening? We have not been trolled. YHL. HAND. JRM 04:48, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

And with the crew of conscientious editors here, I doubt we will be. There are a few other cranks and inept cult leaders with articles on Wikipedia; Mantak Chia and Li Hongzhi for example. Ennis is seemingly of a piece with them spiritually, if not materially IMO. They actually have followers, after all. Perhaps we should have a crank or maybe a spammer template? Due to the distinct lack of meaningful support for Ennis or his idiosyncratic temple, and being increasingly persuaded that he harasses just to garner more deathporn hits, if the Sollog article were to go back on VfD at this point I'd vote to delete it. Fire Star 05:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Readers might take a look at those two examples to see how short they are. I wouldn't mind seeing the article deleted entirely, but given the unlikelyhood of that, I think it could do with an assertive trimming down to a mention of his spamming of unremarkable post-shadowed content which links to his many web mining sites, along with some brief reference to his long history of impersonation. I see no reason to mention his "other" activities at all, since he's plainly not known or recognized by anyone but himself as an author, musician, artist, mathematician, religious leader [sic] or whatever. Wyss 05:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favor of revisiting the last issue Wyss brought up. We discussed this point before (someone in the art business weighed in, remember?) and I thought there may have been an emerging consensus that the labels musician, artist, etc. should be removed. How about changing the first paragraph to "John Patrick Ennis (born July 14, 1960), also known as Sollog, is an American numerologist, mystic, psychic, and self-published author.", removing the bit about "self-described artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker"? --MarkSweep 06:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For me, a partial trimming would be much more misleading, since it would only lend added credibility to the remaining labels. numerologist, mystic, psychic, self-published author, self-described artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker is rather self-explanatory as it is, don't you think? In my opinion, these unfounded claims should be removed entirely as unencyclopedic, or left as they are. Wyss 06:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given that we're going to have the article at all, it should be as informative as possible. That means including every verifiable fact that is either "actionable" or "interesting". Just because he isn't known for his music doesn't mean it isn't an interesting fact about him. dbenbenn | talk 06:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so let's re-open this debate. Is it fair to say Sollog is an artist? There is no evidence that his art has ever been exhibited by a reputable gallery, or that professional art dealers, journalists, or critics are even aware of his existence. So it would be misleading to call him an "artist", and we don't call him that. We do call him a "self-described artist", but now the question is, how is that notable or actionable? An argument for it being actionable could be made by noting that his works of art are for sale on his website. On the other hand, many other things are offered on his website(s), and cataloging these different kinds of items is not our job. As for notability, Sollog's notoriety does not derive from his artistic output. At least not unless you consider his entire act a piece of performance art. --MarkSweep 07:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The two criteria at Wikipedia:Informative are interesting and actionable. That's the whole point. I agree that Ennis' art is not at all notable, but I personally find it interesting. In particular, his "artistic" antics are one way in which he is "distinguished" (see the last paragraph of Informative) from other people. dbenbenn | talk 18:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...and taken together, the "actionability" of all his potential roles (represented by the myriad of things and services he at least offers to sell on his many sites) adds up to almost random noise, which describes him rather well: Objectively, John P. Ennis is a noisemaker, a spammer, an impersonator. The evidence does indicate he impersonates a religious leader, a psychic, an artist, a musician, a mathematician... even his role as a deathporn merchant is a sort of impersonation. None of that particular "product range" seems unique or acquired professionally, but more likely nicked from other websites over the years. Whether or not this noise is encyclopedic I suppose depends on how much it has influenced the surrounding culture. Wyss 07:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I AM A FAN HOW OFTEN MUST I SHOUT THIS AND WHAT PROOF DO YOU WANT? Sollogfan 09:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Sollogfan", you are indeed the username of somebody who likes to proclaim that he or she is a fan of Sollog. But I don't see any more reason to believe you really are a fan than to believe that, say, the self-proclaimed members of the extremely tiresome so-called Gay Nigger Association of America are, well, gay niggers. Also, I note that all your "contributions" to WP are Sollog-related, suggesting to me that you are less than three dimensional. But perhaps you have a point, and the article should say something like "Sollog appears to have one fan (whose predilection for CAPITALS when agitated suggests that he may be Sollog himself)." -- Hoary 13:45, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Comments pertaining to the article

Note: JohnyDog moved the following comments made by The Number to the top section here at 18:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC). (Thanks!)

Sollog/Ennis's name in legal proceedings

Sollog/Ennis was charged under the name 'God' in court. The Number 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[See] [t]he article: [106] The Number 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not at all clear from the article what name or names were actually used in court. The definitive source would be the court documents, but people here have tried and failed to locate them. --MarkSweep 18:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog/Ennis's current residence

OK:[107] The Number 19:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice, number, if you could indent your comments with a * or : at the start of any response, so that conversation can be better followed... But, I don't really think that I post on Yahoo groups is the most reliable of sources known. - Estel (talk) 20:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

But it isn't 'just a post'. It's the Founder of the Group quoting from an email from Sollog/NE etc. That's a big difference. It is also supported by a post from 'Legal' on another group at another time. The Number 21:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"In case you haven't heard, Sollog is a recluse that lives in South America. There's three people that run a company Sollog is an owner in. " Source: [108] See posts by 'Legal'. The Number 19:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add original comments to the top section. - JohnyDog 21:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Link to Guardian article

Thanks to The Number for adding the link to the Guardian article. That is a useful reference from a verifiable source. Now we're getting somewhere. --MarkSweep 18:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have put this reference twice before The Number 19:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had structured this more clearly. The way things were going before, the signal-to-noise ratio was low and useful information got lost. All the more reason to keep the talk page tidy and on topic. --MarkSweep 19:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The tone of that brief mention is totally dismissive, and uses the adjective outlandish. Wyss 21:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interview

Mind you I can see [109] why some automatically assume Sollog posts here under an asumed name...but not UK surely? Here is a link that you'd claim I assume, is Sollog talking to himself. Others say he is being interviewed by someone else thus proving Sollog is not, for example, DE Alexander:

Sollog interview with Alexander that city paper claims is Sollog [110]

Real Audio of Alexander and Sollog interview proving the city paper lied [111]

The Number 19:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The audio file doesn't prove anything, certainly not that the city paper lied. It's an edited interview provided by an Adoni web site. It's possible, even likely, that this is just one person talking to himself, thanks to voice modulation. --MarkSweep 21:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As previously discussed, he probably used something called a harmonizer (which can change the pitch of something in a recording). These can be had in lots of audio software programs. It's obvious because the pitch of the background noise is raised along with the voice, then drops again when the other cuts back in. Also, the two characters seem to talk with the exact same regional accent and vowel sounds, with none of the slight variations one would hear even between two people from the same neighbourhood. Wyss 21:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I should add, Howard Altman reported that Ennis once impersonated D.E. Alexander in a telephone call. Wyss 03:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog's supporters

On the articles page it is suggested that Sollog has no supporters. I would suggest that 'supporters' includes people that agree he has predictive powers but may well disagree about his abilities as a translator of Nostradamus.

Assuming you agree then i would suggest that the Romanian writer Ionescu is a supporter. Here's why:

From the International Centres for Nostradamus Studies Ionescu [112] writes:

"I fully respect Mr. Sollog for his talent in predicting and divination power, but I don't understand his wish to be a Nostradamian exegete too"

This seems to be to be support for predicting but not for translating. A supporter does not have to support everything about him. I 'support' Manchester United - but I don't support Roy Keane. The Number 00:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Hmmm. From the article, it seems he's not a supporter at all.

it plainly states he condemns Ennis for his translating abilities but respects his powers of divination.

81.86.68.162 11:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But Mr. Sollog ignores what even a beginner knows: that Nostradamus very often changes the form of a word in order to suggest new meanings. Some of the most frequent of his figures are: Apheresis (reducing the beginning of the word), Apocope (reducing the termination), Syncope (missing from the middle of a word) Epenthesis (intercalation of one of more letters). And what about the Metaplasme, by which two words are melted together to form a single one? Ex.: "Mont Gaulsier" (a mount in Provence) suggest the combination "Montgolfier", the name of the inventors of the hot air balloon ("la montgolfière"). Here is a word completely invented by metaplasme: NORNEIGRE, which hides: NORIcum + monteNEGRO = NORNEIGRO.

In my work of 1976, I presented not only the 19 figures of occultation studied by Le Pelletier, but many others discovered by me, including the "cabala hermetica" (the secret language of the alchemists), never used by my predecessors, but which allowed me to find many solutions (not interpretations!), even for the future events.

To say, as Mr. Sollog did , that, if a term from the quatrains doesn't exist in the dictionary, this means that we have a "typo", is not only a mistake, but it proves an inexcusable ignorance in the field of Nostradamian exegesis.

He doesn't know that Nostradamian exegesis for obtaining solution, not only interpretations, is like the geometry of Euclid. You have to find first the solution of every enigma, figure of speech, analyzing thoroughly every word, and secondly, to see how each of them responds to the unity of intention which underlie the text, considering that the Prophet himself stated that each of his quatrains has only one "intelligence" or meaning and is intended to only one event or a couple of well connected events.

Then near the bottom (after lots of criticism of Sollog), we get:

My opinion is that Mr. Sollog could be a very good psychic, like Edgar Cayce. There have been thousand in history. In Romania, from where I recently came, there are two of the most outstanding kind. But all the Psychics or clairvoyants have nothing in common with the prophetic phenomenon.

That's right. He could be a very good psychic. He doesn't say he thinks he is. I do not find this to be support for Sollog. In fact I find it to be quite the reverse. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like polite ridicule to me... Wyss 05:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog attack on Wikipedia at h2g2

I've just noticed that, last December, Sollog (or, conceivably, one of his alleged followers) posted his standard anti-Wikipedia screed as an h2g2 entry: [113]. I posted a response with a brief summary of his Wikipedia history. The same hootooite (h2g2 Researcher), NDC777, has also written entries on Sollog's prophecies, the Temple of 'Hayah, and "How Society Is Destroying Itself". You can see the up-to-date list here. h2g2 is not a wiki; you can't edit any of these entries. JamesMLane 01:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back on Track

Of late I have been reading through this forum, here. [114] It's on a website where people trade domain names, and makes for fascinating reading; the post by 'Namedropper' towards the bottom (search for 'imposter') neatly encapsulates Ennis' method, particularly in the final paragraph. It would appear that Ennis fancies himself as a domain name broker, and has registered lots and lots of them primarily for the purposes of selling them, such as www.g-0-d.com, although that seems to have fallen into disuse. There is also mention of credit card fraud seven posts down. Tangentally, I have acquired a copy of 'Jesus is Not God', which reveals amongst other things that, in 1995, Ennis wrote everything in CAPITAL LETTERS, although it does not explain why. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you look at www.whatshotin.com and look at Ennis's original screed about LOTR etc etc you'll see he always wrote in capitals. The original Creator Formula was in Capitals. The Number 17:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your apparent familiarity with all things Ennis is very impressive! Have you ever met him? Wyss 02:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can safely say that I am more familiar with Ennis/Sollog than any other contributor here - including Cardinal Chunder. I have not personally 'met him' as in 'seen him face to face'. I am in the UK and I 'don't think' Sollog has ever been to the UK. The Number 03:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Going on the theory that Ennis is just a domain name broker, I will not visit 'whatshotin', as he presumably uses hit counts as a means of adding value to his stock of domains. Perhaps that's his entire methodology, and the 'prophecies' and porn are just attempts to build up hits to his website for the sole purpose of selling the domain names, in which case he reminds me somewhat of Hans Gruber from Die Hard, using a dramatic fake crime to hide a simpler, more mundane crime. This would explain a great deal of Ennis' behaviour. The url in question also begs the reply, 'what shot in what?' -Ashley Pomeroy 22:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How much did you have to pay to acquire JiNG? dbenbenn | talk 13:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not a single one of our British pence; as per the convulted terms of international copyright law I downloaded it via the ever-excellent Emule, strictly for the purposes of research and review. The fact that it was available suggests that at least one person has actually bought a Sollog e-book, albeit that (a) on a network which contains several songs by the ultra-obscure DJ Hellshit, 'Sollog' returns one hit and (b) one of the two people sharing it might have actually have been Ennis himself. There is a sample copy here, as a PDF, on its own dedicated website [115] -Ashley Pomeroy 14:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have skimmed through 'Jesus is Not God'. On Ennis' criminal record, he states that the policeman he crippled was in fact a liar, and that "as soon as the cop was caught in his lie we rested our case, yet the jury which was filled with minorities convicted the rich white boy who condemned them all for being on a jury since their lord Lucifer had told them Christians should not Judge anyone".

The actual book is only 18,000 words long; there is as much again made up of poems and screeds of the 'you ignored me / now you will pay' variety, and articles about him. Throughout, he mis-spells 'Der Spiegel'. On economic matters he predicts disaster for "THE TRIANGLE CONTINENT OF THE RED PEOPLE", which by a process of elimination must be India. I don't think that Sollog is virulently racist; I just get the impression he hasn't met many non-white people, or indeed (pause) people.

The impression I receive is of an extraordinarily narcissistic chap who would benefit greatly from spending time in prison and/or in the army, or indeed anywhere where he is forced to interact with other people on a personal level. I cannot believe this man has any regular contact, social or otherwise, with other human beings at all. Given that he once drove and owned a car - which must at least have required personal contact with the man selling the car - it is possible that he was once relatively normal, and that he has deteriorated.

I couldn't find any interesting quotes, although "I personally told the Secret Service that I came to terminate Jesus Christ in 1995" is quite good. Most of the book's content is padding, available in the sample posted above. The few 'prophecies' are, as noted elsewhere, only decipherable after the event which they supposedly predict. The numerology attempts to divine universal, universal truths by manipulating the values of the Earth's circumference in miles, ignoring the fact that miles are entirely arbitrary, human-created dimensions. I know that the British Empire is undergoing a mild cultural rehabilitation, but I don't think even David Irving has yet argued that God himself designed the universe with Imperial measurements and/or 2'6" gauge railways.

Elsewhere he argues that the United States of America is a lot less safe now than it was before 1995 on account of the threat from nuclear terrorism, totally forgetting the entire Cold War; an impressive feat for a man approaching fifty years old. Sollog's style is considerably cruder and less persuasive than Gene Ray's Time Cube stuff; and whereas Ray's philosophy seems cheerfully zany, Ennis' worldview is filled with resentment, egoism and hatred. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment on Ashley's Enni's social liaisons thoughts. Ennis is, according to his own website, married - his wife Nikkee, whom he refers to as a Goddess of Victory, has been a subject of a dedicated (same abstract style) musical piece. So, if he was married, he would have most certainly been more socially active than dealing with a car reseller. (from 193.217.123.180)

That's a big if; and Fred West was married, too. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your point being...? Oh, yes, you are suggesting Sollog is a mass murderer and that Nikkei (Mary) has sex and tapes it for Sollog (Fred) to watch? The Number 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sollog and Nostradamus

The TOH (Temple of Hayah) claims to have made a movie [116] that proves the 1568 Edition of Nostradamus is a fake. This is something that, presumably, can be checked and authenticated, or not. TOH is run by Ennis/Sollog. Adoni Films is run by Ennis/Sollog. The author of the film is Ennis/Sollog.

Therefore there are three possibilities:

a. it is a fake for several reasons [117]and no-one has previously pointed this out. I tend to agree with this view. b. it is a fake but this has already been proven c. it is not a fake

The Number 02:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As fascinating as the logical puzzle you present is, The Number, Wikipedia does not do original research and the question of which of (a), (b), or (c) is the case is of no relevance to this article. Removing the logic puzzle from consideration, the only thing that remains is that Sollog/TOH has made a movie about a book about Nostradamus. As this fact isn't particularly notable, it's probably sufficiently covered by the lines "self-described... filmmaker" and "[h]is ebooks explore a number of paranormal themes, including... Nostradamus". Perhaps "ebooks" could be changed to "publicatons" if it doesn't sufficiently cover films. Perhaps the only thing that could be added to the article is something about how Sollog self-identifies as a Nostradamus scholar, but if that's all there is to the point you're making, go ahead and add it to the article somewhere appropriate yourself. — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

CASE

Are the capital letters on the top of the main article necessary? They look to me to be quite messy, and notably unencyclopedia. It is the fact that there are capitals that attracts the readers attention on immediately opening this page. Can it not just be noted that the phrase was CAPS? - Estel (talk) 22:27, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

The capitals ARE necessary as they are all part of the Sollog code. He has been writing in code since 1995. The capitals appear in all prophecies and are just indicative of the layers of meaning of his work. The Number 03:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In code? Ah -- so it just looks like bull, but actually it makes sense when you crack the code. Suggestion: Ennis should cut the code mumbo-jumbo and just say clearly what kind of disaster (he seems fond of these) will occur when. If we're impressed, we (well, some of us, and probably not me) become "fans of Sollog" and thereby work up some kind of appetite for decoding the layers of coprolite encasing his Wisdom. Till then, let's just take ramblings as ramblings. -- Hoary 06:20, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

We now read:

An alternative explanation, as set out in his eBook Jesus is Not God, is that "L LOGOS OR THE WORD OF GOD IN GREEK IS A GREEK PI OR WORD JUMBLE OF THE WORD SOLLOG! SOLLOG IS A HIDDEN NAME THAT MEANS THE WORD OF GOD!". For reasons so far unexplained, during 1995 Sollog communicated exclusively in upper case.

Maybe he thought he'd sound more impressive that way. And maybe a bit later it dawned even on Ennis that ALL CAPS makes you come off looking like a Nigerian soi-disant widow, etc.

An eminent scholar of my acquaintance always uses Times New Roman. Maybe he admires the slightly earlier typography of The Times; maybe the large number of graphemes in the Windoze edition is useful for him; maybe TNR is how his word processing software came set up and nothing about it irritates him to the point where he wants to change it. He never comments on it; I've never asked him: there are more important things to discuss. If I quoted him in Wikipedia, I wouldn't slap in <style="font-family:'times new roman', 'times roman', serif"> or similar. Should I?

Ennis aside, who the hell cares about his OrtHOgrAPHy? This is just Sollogcruft. -- Hoary 03:32, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Agreed—the orthography is independent of the content. It looks butt-ugly and should put in sentence-caps. — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:44, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep it all caps, that's how it was written, and it provides insight into the character of its author. Wyss 03:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's still butt-ugly and hard to read. Would parenthetically mentioning that the quote has been sentence-capped from all-caps be enough? I think that would actually make a more pointed statement of character than simply leaving it in all-caps would. — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:52, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think leaving it in all caps is more pointed and more accurate. Wyss 03:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So if I were to quote this acquaintance of mine (all of whose books are set in Times New Roman, or something pretty close to it) in Wikipedia, I should do so in Times New Roman? Or do we only pay such a degree of attention to the writings of self-styled religious leaders? Yes, quoting Ennis' FULL CAPS makes it slightly more obvious that he -- how should I put this NPoVly? -- has a certain kind of personality, but readers will get a bellyful of other evidence for this elsewhere in the article. I propose that his purported prognostications (etc.) should stand or fall on their accuracy and precision, not on their orthography. -- Hoary 04:21, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Capitalisation and punctuation transcend typefaces. Anyway what objective method could you use to convert to lower case letters? Where exactly do we draw the line at editing the capitalisation of quotes from an articles subject? :) Wyss 05:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My objective method would be to limit caps to the start of sentences, names, individual letters, etc. Thus "L logos or the word of god in Greek is a Greek pi or word jumble of the word Sollog! Sollog is a hidden name that means the word of god". But I wouldn't object to "L Logos or the word of God in Greek is a Greek PI or word jumble of the word Sollog! Sollog is a hidden name that means the word of God" or similar. Hard to be really sure, because (as so often in the oeuvre of "Sollog") it doesn't make much sense -- which is another good reason to cut the whole thing. -- Hoary 06:13, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

About the capitalization: note it's the same situation as the 911 quote given later in the article, which was changed to lowercase.

Frankly, I feel the quote should be removed. It basically says that "Sollog" comes from "Logos", but that fact is already covered in the previous sentence. The bit about communicating exclusively in upper case is kind of snide; whereas NPOV requires a "positive, sympathetic tone".

Anyway, if the quote is to stay in, we need 1) an entry in the References section, and 2) a page number citation.

dbenbenn | talk 02:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing the caps is an improvement. Mentioning Ennis' graphic idiosyncrasy is fine, but reproducing it was mildly off-putting. Whether someone is or isn't Ennis is immaterial, what is ultimately material (and actionable by an admin) is their interpersonal style. I'm satisfied that following Gamaliel's lead with The Number will take care of things with a minimum of fuss. Fire Star 05:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ashley, we still need a PAGE NUMBER for the QUOTE from SOLLOG. I'd do it, but it doesn't APPEAR in the SAMPLE you provided. dbenbenn | talk 21:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I've put in a citation, with a page number, although it's an eBook and thus each page is only about 250 words long. I'll tone down the bit about him communicating in upper case; Ennis actually says "In 1995 I wrote almost everything I created in all capital letters. It was an intentional style I used that year. In later years I often used capital words as a hidden code within some of my prophetic warnings. If one connects the capital words in many of my later prophecies, the hidden meaning of some of my writings is then very clear to the reader. I have not changed the uppercase appearance of these writings. So hopefully, you won't find the usage of all capitals too annoying". -Ashley Pomeroy 21:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that bit sounds interesting. It would be a good tidbit in a "Writings" subsection of "Activities". dbenbenn | talk 22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Editing and Zapping

Please feel free to edit my comments as you wish (including this section)! I understand the urge to do it, and accomplished what I wanted. Thanks all for your patience with me, it is truly appreciated. Wyss 05:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The same goes if anyone would like to to delete my "debates" with The Number. He wasn't listening, and the rest of you seem to post and edit conscientiously as a matter of course. Fire Star 05:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the meta-talk here (comments on the handling of comments on the article), but I was surprised by Ashley Pomeroy's snipping of a largish chunk of comments (which I have just reinstated). In general, comments added to talk pages stay, don't they? If comments are blatantly irrelevant, offensive or asinine, yes, go ahead and zap them, but if they're mildly irritating they should surely stay. And being rendered obsolete by changes to the article is, also, I think, no reason to delete them -- they show why the article is the way it is. However, even I can't get too worked up about AP's change. Some of the comments (certainly including some of mine) are certainly longwinded. -- Hoary 10:50, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Sorry about that; no malice intended. I was looking over the edit history, which seems to have had a lot of trimming recently, and the red mist descended etc. For the record I removed the 'CASE' section, which could perhaps be replaced with "Although many of SOLLOG's pronouncements are in upper case, the article should quote them in sentence case for the sake of readability" - is there a Wikipedia 'quoting style' guideline somewhere? I also removed the the 'Nostradamus' section, which seemed to be a pointless argument, and what appeared to be some unfortunate 'The Number'-baiting. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some of the material above was later cut by Sollogfan, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASollog&diff=12035792&oldid=12030882 this unexplained edit] (with no edit summary).

Well said. And as I reread or anyway re-skim-through the stuff you cut, it strikes me as boring indeed and inherently cut-worthy. Meanwhile, I like your summary of the Work of Sollog that you perused. -- Hoary 14:02, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

You must remember that each new discovery Ashley makes is heralded by hyenas whereas in fact if he bothered to look more carefully at what Sollog(ites) say and do then a lot of his half baked opinions would flounder. The Number 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Psychic or self-proclaimed psychic?

I re-added the "self-proclaimed" qualifier before "psychic". Compare Uri Geller ("alleged" psychic) and Miss Cleo ("self-proclaimed" psychic). Dictionary.com says a psychic is someone "apparently responsive to psychic forces". Sollog's "responsiveness" is not apparent; hence self-proclaimed. dbenbenn | talk 22:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, many people do not think psychics exist, therefor any claims of someone being psychic need to be qualified. --fvw * 22:13, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Eh? If you'd said "Many people actually think psychics exist, and therefore any claims of someone being psychic need to be qualified", I'd understand. As it is, I'm lost. (Just a typo perhaps?) -- Hoary 02:42, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

I agree too. There's nothing special about the term "psychic" that makes it evident to all our potential readers that it's guff. — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK, no argument from me. I'd have thought that otherwise sane people would realize by now that ESP etc etc doesn't exist, and thus that a "psychic" is either deluded or a charlatan. But yet the newspapers tell me that thousands -- for all I know, tens of millions in the US -- subscribe to "creationism" and all sorts of bizarre notions. So yes, maybe it all has to be spelled out for the public. -- Hoary 02:42, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

I find it rather sad, that one cannot assume the term "psychic" (or even "creationist") conveys the idea charlatan or superstitious to almost all the readers of any encyclopedia. Wyss 16:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if you don't believe in psychics, the point is that the word psychic means someone who can sense things supernaturally. By calling him that, the article claims these people exist. Just as if Mama Cass had claimed to be an invisible pink elephant, we would write that she claimed to be an invisible pink elephant, not that she was one, even though anyone can logically deduce invisible pink elephants cannot exist. --fvw * 17:15, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I removed it because there was already two self- in the introduction. So I thought that removing one in front of psychic did not alter the meaning that much, for the reason that most of them are self-proclaimed anyway. One has yet to discover a real one! Glaurung 14:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Scholar"

One thing we haven't mentioned in Sollog's laundry-list of professions is his self-description of being a Biblical and Nostradamus scholar and translator. The mention of Nostradamus and Bible codes as topics of his writing in the Activities section gets at that very tangentially, but it doesn't explicitly state that he has (seemingly) put a lot of effort into claiming his expertise in these areas. Does it deserve a short sentence in Activities? — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:20, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

A lot of effort into acquiring expertise? Or just a lot of effort into claiming expertise? The article already makes it pretty clear that he's a tireless self-publicist and attention-seeker, and that his expertise in anything is minimal. -- Hoary 02:47, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Sollog/Ennis is a Nostradamus "scholar" (although his sockpuppets would certainly disagree). Ennis is a spammer, who, like many others, vastly misquotes and invents freely from the allegorical poetry of a medieval French physician. Wyss 03:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My consideration is whether a significant activity of Sollog is claiming to be/masquerading as a Nostradamus scholar, not that he is one. The evidence so far seems to indicate that he is worse than a neophyte when it comes to interpreting Nostradamus, but that he has gone to considerable lengths to stake a claim, no matter that it's illegitimate, to expertise might be worth mentioning. I'm sure the people at alt.nostradamus (or whatever the newsgroups actually is) would appreciate a sentence for the grief he's caused there. — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

"music composed by him"

We read of "CDs of music composed by him". Didn't someone say earlier that it sounded like generic porn-video muzak, or anyway the aural equivalent of clip-art? (Never having heard any music allegedly composed by him, let alone having watched any porn videos, of course, I can't start to judge.) -- Hoary 02:53, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

Look, I don't wanna seem like a polarized Sollag/Ennis-basher, but his "music" is nothing but endlessly cycled, single "riffs" played rather ham-handedly on a keyboard with no polyphony, no harmony, no musical structure, no fluidity. I've posted this URL before... http://www.sollog.com/music/ ...one can download two MP3 files and hear for oneself. Calling it "generic porn-video muzak" is amazingly generous IMHO. Wyss 03:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, Sollog/Ennis as a minimalist composer? Nah. --MarkSweep 18:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've downloaded it, and listened to it. To even call it 'muzak' is IMNSHO extremly generous. The very idea of listening to a CD full of it makes me want to hide in a corner with my hands over my ears.

Then you won't want to miss the music video of 'Nikkee'. It's a interminable montage of NASA stock footage that I'll Bet Sollog thinks is profound. http://www.1adoni.com/trailers/nikkee.rm APL 02:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However, fair is fair, it's actually not painfull to listen to. In some ways, it reminds me of a child just learning to play the kayboard. WegianWarrior 08:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These reactions by WP users, along with no evidence of CD sales or distribution, or any shows, or any other musical background. If his "musical" activities (or claims) are encyclopedic enough to be mentioned in the article, how might they be characterized? Wyss 22:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a nice big sales chart in a sidebar, with colourful bar graphs for the official sales figures of his works in each of the categories "books", "music", "films", etc. Of course, the colourful-ness of the graph would be completely lost, since each bar would be riding flush with the bottom of the chart.

Or maybe we can just say that no evidence of a sale of any of his works has been found. — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:29, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sollog's Superbowl prediction

Hey, has anyone seen Sollog's Superbowl prediction for this year? DJ Clayworth 04:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Number posted a superbowl prediction, but he didn't deign to say where it came from or what year it was supposed to predict. I rather suspect that it was this year's prediction, if this is any indication. It's in the history (I don't think it got archived) if you really want to look it up and google for it. If you can't find it online, perhaps we can ask The Number to divulge his priviledge source. — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sollog's Super Bowl 39 Prediction - i tried to replace that TheNumber's post with this google link but Saxifrage was faster with deleting :) - JohnyDog 10:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could be worth including as he predicted that the Steelers would make it past the Pats. Dead wrong! Any moron could see the Pats are going all the way again. hfool/Roast me 03:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yes you should include it as it will be proof that what Sollog says is right. You'll be able to learn at first hand that his prophecies are correct. I am not talking about anyone's interpretation as that may be wrong but after the event you will see very clearly how it was correct. Sollogfan 13:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. If the obvious reading of the "prediction" is not fulfilled, Sollog will issue an alternative interpretation. Notice how only Sollog can interpret his predictions, and everyone else's interpretation may be wrong. Sounds to me like Sollog talking to himself, or perhaps the world's smallest in-joke. --MarkSweep 15:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see sweep can tell the future - or thinks he can. The honest and ethical approach would be to wait and see the result and when Sollog explains it, then you might realise how accurate it was. Do you think others can interpret Nostradamus's prophecies better than he? Of course not - and so it is with Sollog.Sollogfan 11:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's only a prediction if it predicts stuff. If one can't tell what is being predicted, it's entirely useless. Which is the whole point of the Randi challenge: it has to be patently clear to an untrained observer what the prediction is and how to tell whether it has been fulfilled. The honest and ethical approach would be for Sollog to spell out exactly what is being predicted beforehand, and to see if the predictions are borne out by real events without further comment. --MarkSweep 17:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some might say it's unethical to assert psychic or "prophetic" abilities when the overwhelming evidence shows these to be misleading labels for cold reading and post-shadowing. Readers may wish to consider that if Sollog really could predict the outcome of sporting events, Sollogfan might be too busy making money on wagers and loathe to publicize his source of "information", since if everyone could listen to Sollog and know the future with any useful accuracy, casinos and betting houses (for starters) would have no reason to be. Wyss 16:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Post from The Number at 17:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) removed by Fire Star. Please no personal attacks as, per policy, they will be removed on sight. If they continue, the poster's account can be blocked. Fire Star 17:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apropros of nothing, I had to do a double-take when I read this article, [118] which is currently near the top of the Drudge Report. Man Accused Of Threatening Super Bowl With "Big Bang" is the headline, and it's about a cranky Florida resident who telephoned a local dignatory and had a lot to say. "In the message, the man said Jacksonville didn't deserve the Super Bowl and said he wanted the mayor, city council and members of law enforcement to resign. He said police had tried to kill him several times. In the message, the man described himself as a scientist intent on stopping the Super Bowl, that he believed in the Big Bang theory and was "obsessed with the size it needs to be." It's about a man called Albert Strickland, who is older than Ennis, but it's spooky. Perhaps the article could mention something about how Florida is filled with strange people. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yup. We're all crazy down here. Me and Jimbo pass out handbills down at the streetcorner about the end of the world every week. Gamaliel 23:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog's Super Bowl riddle told you the Patriots played LAME. They didn't cover so you won betting the Eagles like Sollog's riddle suggested. See http://www.247news.net/2005/20050206-superbowl.shtml I won a ton taking the Eagles just like other Sollog fans did. You bet the Eagles like Sollog said you were a WINNER, the Patriots played LAME they didn't cover. haha

Err... sorry. He said they would play against the Steelers. Did you forget that part? Looks like 247news forgot that too. Vivin 22:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is his best yet. The Patriots were 'predicted to win' because they were mentioned first and last. He might have written "The Patriots are complete crap, so the Eagles will beat them; bet on the Eagles rather then the Patriots" and this would have been a prediction of a Patriots win!. DJ Clayworth 23:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

old news

just some bored lexisnexus surfing:

HEADLINE: Diana's Death Brings Out the Good, Bad and Ugly on the Net BYLINE: Victoria Shannon , Special to The Washington Post

The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has brought to the fore the very good and the very bad of the Internet. ...

Still another interprets Diana's death as vindication for an oracle named Sollog who is said to have forecast it:

"Sollog has been GUARANTEEING major world events in US Federal court records and on National US radio shows, to prove what he says about the future of 13 large cities is real. He says 13 cities have been GUARANTEED to be destroyed by the year 2001!"

As has been noted countless times before, online services and Internet software make everyone a publisher. Sollog can get the same screen space on your computer that Dan Rather does, but the resources, the quality and the degree of the sources are at opposite ends of the spectrum. LOAD-DATE: September 08, 1997

HEADLINE: Web sites question air safety

BYLINE: Edward A. Mazza II Special to The Daily Yomiuri ; Yomiuri

In the lunatic file, a self-styled seer claims to have predicted all the recent air disasters at a site called "What's Hot" (http://www.whatshotin.com/features.shtml). Solog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni has even written a book about it. It seems that either "the government" or the number 113 is behind the spate of recent air disasters. Sollog has also predicted that Clinton will die in office, and the United States will come to an end by the year 2001. LOAD-DATE: December 3, 1996

...at 04:15, 2005 Jan 29, Alterego forgot to add four twiddles to the above

Irrelevant comment coming up: Sollog can get the same screen space on your computer that Dan Rather does, but the resources, the quality and the degree of the sources are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I disagree. When I last heard, CBS News had farcically few resources in most of the world (no office in Seoul, for example). It would marshal them for anything immediately involving or threatening to involve US citizens -- especially (All stand to attention, please!) the Commander in Chief -- but matters that primarily involved people whose first language wasn't English (and whose relatives didn't wield major power within US politics) were largely ignored. CBS News was respected because ... well, it had always been respected, and of course it wasn't as obviously as farcical or superficial as Fox or CNN. Of course, there's a case for saying that TV watchers get the news they want: for month after month, O J Simpson seemed to be of more interest to many Americans than did the populations of entire nations. And now, back to regularly scheduled sollogy. -- Hoary 04:46, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Yeah, U.S. news is tacky window dressing for corporations busily making money elsewhere. CBS' parent company makes nukes for Dubya's armies, for example (which perhaps undescores another motive for Rather publicly falling on his sword to Dubya's great benefit). Fire Star 05:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CBS news lost most of its integrity and authority about the time See It Now became CBS Reports, or, as wags called it, "See It Now And Then." The last really important piece of reporting to come out of CBS News was probably Harvest of Shame. When television was new and exciting, the Paleys and Sarnoffs of the world wanted respect from their New York friends and felt that the prestige of television reflected on their personal prestige. Can you imagine any modern-day commercial television network having its own symphony orchestra, as NBC did? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've read rather a lot about Paley and Sarnoff. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century broadcast news struggled to achieve a level of professional acceptance comparable to that of news in print. Quality news reporting was and is way expensive. CBS' news division lost tonnes of money for decades, being subsidized mostly by the entertainment side. For whatever reasons, the majority of people who watch TV aren't too interested in deep, high quality news content, so the economics tend to inevitably drive commercial news coverage into mediocrity. Wyss 14:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These pages are not for 'irrelevant comments'. Please desist. The Number 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen that second headline before, but the first is already in the external links section. --Cchunder 11:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sollog templates

FYI, the Sollog templates have been listed for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Sollog. Though they may have been misapplied once or twice, they have been useful, so please consider registering your opinion there. But only if you want to vote keep ;) Gamaliel 18:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request withdrawn by submitter (me) as it is a unanimous keep. Vacuum c 02:54, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the sock puppet tagging template to User:Sollog/Puppet. Seems like it belongs outside the template space, since it related only to this one god-being. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

That may be inappropriate as the consensus was that User:Sollog was in fact an opportunistic prankster, not Sollog himself. I can't think of a good place to put it, though, not being familiar with the in-and-outs of templates and the various namespaces. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:07, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why not keep it right here? --MarkSweep 04:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've no opinion where to put it, but it may be useful to recall that this family of sockpuppets has been responsible for vandalism all across Wikipedia (centered to be sure around this article). Wyss 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sollog Postshadows

HAHA I sure bet the EAGLES. Thanks to Sollog saying the Patriots played LAME. I got 7 points, the Patriots were LAME they didn't cover. Once again Sollog gave the winner for bettors. See http://www.247news.net/2005/20050206-superbowl.shtml

He hit the exact score of the Patriots too.

Did Sollog somehow manage to say the Patriots would win even though they played LAME. The first and last team Sollog named were the Patriots the winners. Yet all his fans were betting the Eagles.

Once again Sollog hits his Super Bowl riddle. If you bet the Patriots you were a LOSER. You bet the Eagles like the Sollog riddle suggested YOU WON.

Sollog rules.

... at 04:25, 2005 Feb 7 216.74.127.98 omitted to add four twiddles to this contribution.

Worst. Post-shadowing. Ever. --MarkSweep 05:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're talking about betting the spread. If you wanted to back the Eagles and win the maximum amount of money, the way to do it would have been to bet the money line. When you bet the underdog on the money line, you don't "get" any points, so the underdog must win outright for your bet to win. As compensation, however, when you do win, your profit is more than the amount you bet, whereas with a point spread you win less than the amount you put at risk.

So, did His Eminence (or however ToH protocols call for addressing Sollog) ever caution his followers to avoid this trap? Did he take time out from the execrable poetry long enough to say something useful, like, "Take the points"? Or did he not bother, figuring that his disciples wouldn't have any working capital left anyway after the shellacking they took in the conference finals? JamesMLane 05:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When you bet Football you get or give points, that's the whole point of the line. If you bet the Eagles like the riddle said, you won since you got 7 points. Anyone betting Football and not getting or giving points isn't betting Football. The riddle was for the Super Bowl not anything else. Does it say conference game riddle? No. Face it, the Patriots didn't cover the point spread so if you bet the Pats you gave 7 points and lost. Like Sollog said the Patriots play LAME, they won but didn't cover the spread. Exactly as Sollog wrote. What two teams were joined from the same state? Eagles and Steelers both lost to Patriots.

If you sincerely believe what you're writing, then it's a clear example fo the tunnel vision that helps Sollog and so many other charlatans stay in business. The tunnel vision is manifest in your ability to ignore inconvenient facts. Read what I wrote. You can bet the point spread. You can also bet the money line. Here's an example from one of tonight's NBA games, Indiana at Washington. I checked an online sports book that's offering Indiana getting four points at -110. That means if you bet $110 on Indiana, and they win the game or lose by fewer than four points, you win $100. The same book, though, is also offering Indiana straight up at +160. That means you can bet on Indiana without getting points. If you bet $100, and Indiana wins the game, you win $160. You can also bet the favorite, Washington, at -180, meaning you bet $180 to win $100. (I'm not giving you a link for this online betting site because I don't want to give them a free plug on Wikipedia. I'm sure The All-Knowing One can find a way to get his money down, whether he likes Indiana or Washington -- assuming that his mystic powers extend to basketball.) I don't know what the money line was on the Super Bowl but I'd guess it was at least +200, meaning that if you had $1,100 to bet on the Eagles, you could win $1,000 if you bet the point spread but you could win $2,200 if you bet the money line. Anyone who really believed that the Patriots would "play lame" would have gone for the extra dough. And, by the way, "lame" is not an adverb. JamesMLane 13:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you read before you speak, Sollog has given super bowl riddles for 11 years in a row, his fans know who to bet in the game each year. The riddle was clear to Sollog fans bet Eagles, that was the talk for three weeks in Sollog forums. Now, if you read all the Sollog Super Bowl riddles for the past 11 years on his site and all the news articles on several sites about how to understand them, you would have known too BET EAGLES. In past riddles Sollog did the same thing when you had to bet a certain team due to points. So the riddles are constructed according to how to bet. You bet the team that will win according to the line. That is how football is bet. You play the line on your bet. That's how over 90% of the action on the super bowl is bet with the line. Sollog hit the riddle and all his fans knew to bet the Eagles, it was all over his forum for three weeks. Sollog says EAGLES. Sollog fans betted the Eagles and they all got 7 points, they all won. You should have read his previous riddles and all the articles and you would have won like all the Sollog fans did. Guess what I BET THE EAGLES AND WON BIG. Did you win on the Super Bowl? NO. You're a loser. You didn't bet the Eagles and got 7 points.

Posted by 216.74.127.98 who once again forgot the pair of twiddles

Out of curiousity, why haven't the IP numbers 65.34.173.202 and 216.74.127.98 been banned yet? Their contribution history consists entirely of vandalism and I assume they're open proxies. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At least one of them was banned for a month in December, but that block has since expired. --MarkSweep 20:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sheer codswallop and as implied above, mind-numbingly inept post-shadowing by Ennis. Wyss 19:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, didn't the "prediction" mention the Steelers a lot? And that the Patriots would play against the Steelers? Notice how his eminence skipped that part... Vivin 22:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Utterly the most pathetic yet of all your alleged Super Bowl "predictions". --Cchunder 23:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sollog's darker side

It has come to me as a great surprise that nobody here seem to have been to Usenet groups reading the original Sollog messages from 1998. On alt.paranormal, where his famous 9/11 prophecy was posted on September 11 1998, his nickname was eLnIn. This post is considered the best proof ever on the supposed "big hit". Apparently, Sollog wrote under several accounts. All of his writings are easily recognizable by heavy usage of CAPITAL letters as well as his XTIANS abbrevation for Christians. Click on show options right to the nick and find more posts by same user. What you will discover is a series of vulgar, highly offensive language usage, threats and swearings, made by eLnIn. Here, for isntance [119] Sollog gives impression that he strongly believes Clinton won't survive his second term. In fact, I believe no one would disagree that Sollog expected, way back in '98, a precocious end of Clinton's 2 nd term somewhere on 13th August or November [120]And when that happens, according to Sollog, it would 'prove' that, quot "ALL CHRISTIANS are BRAINWASHED SATANISTS". Curiously enough, Clinton fulfilled his term. What does that proves, then? Apparently, Sollog ceased using vulgar language for a while ago. However, his notorious writing style is still highly relevant. Also, consider this interview on Sollog's twin site: (snip) Here he further reveals his deep antipathy for the Christian Faith. Quote:

JP: Ennis isn't that the hidden name to mean NINES as well.

Sollog: Yes JP, as I have explained in my writings, I AM ENNIS as I AM SOLLOG. Both names fulfill prophecy. Sollog is LOGOS L or WORD OF GOD the hidden name mentioned in Revelations as is ENNIS. NINES is 999 or 666 upside down. I have indeed come to DESTROY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. It is corrupt. It is not of GOD EL SHADDAI. The other paths are of ONE. In the future there is NO CORPUS CRISTI. That is my entire mission. DESTROY THE FALSE PROPHET OF ROME.

Although Sollog claim he is merely anti-Jesus, not anti-Christ; and that all religions lead to God anyway; and that the number 666 are signs of miseries and misfortunes (wich is also a sign of Jesus, see link below) - Sollog nonetheless ascribe both numbers to himself, that his entire mission is to destroy Corpus Cristi, wich strongly contradicts to the alledged "non anti-christian" stance (Corpus Cristi - Body of the Savior). Please also keep in mind that occultists and the Illuminati often refer to Lucifer as "The One", "God", etc. According to Sollog again: [www.sollog.com/666.shtm]

I SEE THE PUBLIC RISING UP AGAINST THE CHURCH AND POPE. THEIR SHRINES TO LUCIFER SHALL ALL FALL IN A SHORT TIME! THAT IS THE WORD OF GOD! THE ANTI CHRIST IS GOD!

Which then clearly implies that Sollog view himself as the Anti-Christ, as well.

When Sollog claims all religions (as well as everything else) comes from God, yet Christian church "is not of GOD", we have a terminal contradiction wich, in my opinion, should leave no further doubt of Sollog's state of mind. I hope this little section gives some grasp on Sollog's picky way of 'logic'.

Note: the above was contributed by User:193.217.123.180, who signed as evirated12345 --Carnildo 18:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One can't help but think a real anti-Christ would have a greater ability to attract followers, I mean "fans." The thing is, most of us have concluded that Ennis' ravings are actually in aid of driving up hit numbers on his websites. That is to say, personally, I believe it is all a sham and Ennis doesn't believe the twaddle he spouts any more than we do. He only seems to be doing it because he thinks he can make money by getting people curious enough to visit his deathporn sites. So, it isn't that no one hasn't seen the obscure messages he wrote in 1998, it is more like they aren't notable enough to mention in the face of all the other manufactured blather he generates. Fire Star 15:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that's about as spot on as need be. Wyss 18:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When will you people realise there is a difference between the Anti-Christ (Mabbas of Palestine) and being Anti Christ? Still, you revere Ashley for his corrections and yet on his own pages he refuses to admit that 'cowardy' is not a word. Who cares - Wikipedia is beginning to be acknowledged not as a resource but a game for University people. 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)The Number

And as you enjoy the inevitable block you'll receive for referring to everybody except myself as a 'hyena', I direct you here [121] - albeit that it's used in this context as a pun on Noel Coward's name, 'cowardy' is to 'custard' as 'niece' is to - MOTHER? DAUGHTER? AUNT? UNCLE? Or DREADNAUGHT? -Ashley Pomeroy 21:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be signing yourself as The Reverend Ashley Pomeroy? Fire Star 22:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The inbred reverend Ashley Pomeroy, no less [122] -Ashley Pomeroy 23:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Insult removed by Fire Star 23:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Fire Star, but that's still important (ie his earlier mistakes and abuses). Few mention his Clinton prophecy (or, should we say, very strong assumptions) mistake, or his failed Olympics prediction [123]. Or much of his swearings. Although we might not believe in the blather, some people certainly get carried away with it [124] reffering to his forum (can't find the link right now, but been there yesterday) with users addressing him as "Dear" "God" etc. In my opinion, one has to look no further than Sollog's recent past to get the whole picture. Not to mention his ring of related money-draining sites.. All this reminds me much of the Sara Freder scam [125], a fake clairvoyant figure who's at times extremely impressive with her automated "readings". It has later come out that "she"'s 100% fake, never respond to personal replies, and in fact, doesn't even exist. However, the readings has such a profound psychological influence that scammers manage to drain out 100's of $ of each month, before their victims realize the catch - wich is, by then, too late (Money back guarantee on their sites, of course, doesn't work). This in spite that quick googling on Sara Freder reveals the scam [126]. Yet, new victims comes in every month, and the site has never been closed - though it was several times reported to FBI and their host ISP. I believe we should spread as much info as possible about such scammers. That's a decent way we can prevent others entering the trap. Authorities doesn't care anyway. evirated12345 03:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And if Wikipedia were a scammer-awareness newsletter rather than an encyclopedia, that might be relevant to the article. As it is, Sollog's methods have already been thoroughly (very, very, unfortunately, thoroughly) reviewed and weren't considered encyclopedic.

Besides which, there's no indication that the "money-draining" websites try to scam anyone—the only people they're going to suck in are people who want to read his drivel or see his porn, and they're probably going to get exactly what they pay for. — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:12, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Wyss 02:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English style

I've just gone through the article, tidying up the English and style. That mostly consisted of making usage consistent — both in terms of the use of different stylistic preferences (e.g. ebook–e-book) and of U.S. vs British English. (Such inconsistencies are almost inevitable when many people are involved in editing, of course.) I couldn't make out what the original intention was, so I standardised it to my own style & usage. It doesn't matter much, I'd have thought, but if anyone feels strongly that I made the wrong choices, perhaps we could discuss it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wyss: why did you change my corrections in the list of newspapers? The version you seem to prefer uses the definite article for the first and last papers in the list, but not for those between; why?

As for the change from the Temple believes to the Temple states the belief, the latter is clumsier and makes no more sense (Temples can neither believe nor state anything, unless what's referred to is the membership of the Temple, in which case the former is still correct and the latter clumsier and possibly PoV). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think your revisions are for the most part quite awkward and would prefer if you would revert them. Wyss 13:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, religions (even fake ones) don't believe anything, their believers do. Wyss 13:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you please clean up your duplicated comments in this section, then revert your changes to the article so we can discuss them here? Wyss 13:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peculiar; after I saved (after the Edit Conflict), I saw only the second version of my comment, yet on returning I found both. Anyway, I've reverted the changes, but left in your excision of the definite articles in the list of newspapers (I think that awkwardness is in the ear of the behearer, but let it pass). I've tried to find out enough about the Temple to tell me how one should refer to it, but have failed. The definite article is surely needed, unless Sollog or the Temple insists on non-standard English. The question as to whether temples can either believe or state beliefs is a fair one, though if the temple is a religion, then certainly common usage includes statements like: “Christianity believes that...”. I didn't write the original formulation, and I'm not committed to it, but I think that a change should actually improve the sense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd say we agree about ears of behearers :) So far as the "Temple" goes, my personal opinion is that it's a scam for mining Internet traffic, which further complicates the syntax choices. I don't agree it's correct to say Christianity believes... rather the bible states that... or Many Christians believe... or whatever. As I say, when discussing Ennis, the question's even dodgier because words chosen can lend more credibility to the scam than any evidence suggests. Wyss 15:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the “Christianity believes that x while Buddhism believes that y” usage is odd, but I come across it fairly frequently (Religion is one of my professional interests as a philosopher). Without knowing what exactly the Temple is, though, I can't work out what best to put in its place (I'm sure that you're right about its being a scam, but is it a fake-religion scam, a fake-Temple scam...?).
It feels odd trying to get the article right when my gut feeling is that it deserves to be no more than a short entry in a list of kooky con-men. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a web-mining scam (IMO, from the evidence we've seen so far)... I think we totally agree about the odd feeling one gets when making any word choices for this article, and why that is so. Wyss 18:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I've just removed this peculiar sentence from the article, posted by an anon. user to the end of the 911 prediction section: “The fact that Sollog actually posted the prediction on the internet AFTER the event is considered by his "followers" to be irrelevant to the beliavability of the prediction.”

I'm assuming that it's simply a mistake caused by careless reading of the story there; if I'm wrong, I can recast it into decent English and put it back. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just now saw this, but I think the only problem with that statement is the complicated grammar. This is all checkable, but if I recall correctly, the details of Sollogs prediction were posted after the event. Alleged Sollog followers dismiss that as unimportant. They say that does not make the prediction unbelievable. Actually from what I have seen is they claim that he really made the prediction before, but can't provide any evidence of that. That is essentially what the above sentence is trying to say, although the dismissive POV could stand to be toned down a bit. The facts are so clear that the dismissiveness isn't needed or helpful. - Taxman 22:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

$10 million fine

This may be of some interest to people contributing to this article. Arno 08:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's old news. Guess where we got the ToH logo? --Carnildo 08:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is now a page, www.wikipediasucks.com (I won't link it because I won't give it the credit of a PageRank increase) which cites the 'religious hate crimes' against Sollog as as basis for Wikipedia's suckiness, among other things. --Saforrest 12:54, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

That's where I got that page from. The site itself is something that I came across yesterday, and until then I hadn't heard of Sollog or this wikipedia article. Of special interest is its claim of "New Info added Daily ". Of what, I wonder?Arno 06:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nothing, so far as I can see. It seems to have been dormant for the past few months. Which is to say, that Sollog abandoned it, shortly after creating it as a personal soapbox and quickly learning that it wouldn't get us to change the article one whit. He seems to think that it would create credible bad press for Wikipedia, somehow. — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Check out the members list on the wikipediasucks forums. I'd estimate at least 2/3rds of the list are sockpuppets of wikipeidans monitoring the forms or slashdot vandals and not Sollogites, if there are any. Gamaliel 18:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What else did you think the latest Wikipedia fund drive was for :) --Cchunder 23:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gee, can this site raise 10 million dollars??? Arno 06:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably not easily, but it certainly wouldn't be given to Sollog if it could be. Note that Cchunder was being facetious. :) — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sollog the jailbird?

One of the socks (or could it be an actual follower?) has posted a couple of times to his Usenet haunts claiming the Feds have gotten him. [127], [128]. The sock / sole fan neglects to mention why the FBI might have him but a lot of ideas spring to mind. Does anyone know why? There might be something said in his forums if anyone has the membership to see. Alternatively, could it be related to his Wiki outbursts? His wikipediasucks site sailed perilously close to the wind but seems have been toned down a bit recently --Cchunder 19:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If he's been arrested by the FBI, it's probably for death threats, most likely against the president. He keeps predicting that important people will die violently, and the feds seem to take a dim view of that. --Carnildo 20:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sollog has not been arrested - it's a publicity stunt.The Number 14:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please cite your source. Wyss 15:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I can safely say that Ennis would have a hard time getting arrested in any town.

Fire Star 16:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks like John Ennis has been arrested. Here is a link to a John Ennis being held in Florida and it does seem to be the one this page is about. [129] Don't know what this is all about yet, though.Lazi

User:The Number asserted that Sollog has not been arrested and that this claim is merely a publicity stunt. Despite being asked repeatedly by several other editors, The Number has refused to document his assertion or state if this was a fact or an opinion and instead has chosen to taunt the other editors. I have removed a couple days worth of trolling for the sake of sanity. Gamaliel 17:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Database searches?

I'm new to Wikipedia but I found this article and I think it's quite good. I'm curious, has anyone looked through newspaper and magazine databases such as Lexis-Nexis and EBSCO host? I can do a hunt through the services provided by my university but I don't know how far back the records go and which newspapers are indexed. I would imagine just searching for "Sollog" would probably turn up anything on Ennis that's in the databases. orporg

I think that might be interesting; why not give it a shot? (I really miss being at a university and having access to the resources of a university library). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is good. Indeed, it's hugely better than it needs to be. "Sollog" should really fade back into the well-deserved obscurity enjoyed by most usenet monomaniacs and nutballs. If you have those search engines at your command, great -- but why not use them for some worthier Wikipedia end? You say you love cats and game consoles, and I must confess that I don't share either enthusiasm -- but surely there's something there (or elsewhere) that's underrepresented on Wikipedia and more significant and interesting than poor "Sollog". -- Hoary 03:04, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Well said, Hoary! :) Wyss 03:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(er, 'cept that crack about cats... good thing ours was downstairs doin' his job- eating friskies- when that scrolled by on the screen, heh heh)Wyss 03:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrites. :-) JRM 03:38, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Hey, I'd still vote to delete this one... but I'm glad it's well written and based on the evidence. ;) Wyss 03:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shall I put it on VfD, or shall we skip that experiment? :-) JRM 03:45, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Ha! Won't touch that one, even with a rolled up Philadelphia City Paper! Wyss 03:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It narrowly escaped being a featured article. I'd love to see what happens when someone nominates a featured article for deletion. I wonder what the maximum length of a VfD discussion has been? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMO, Sollog never stood a chance of FA-hood, even if you think it was "narrow". If an actual FA was put up for deletion, however, the nomination would be considered bad faith, and rightly so. By the time it gets to FA, you do not get to argue it shouldn't exist anymore. I'm sure this is written in stone somewhere. JRM 03:57, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

I ran a couple Nexis searches and nothing came up other than the Washington Post article that's already in the article and an article (9/4/98) about the Swissair 111 crash in the North Bergen (NJ) Record that briefly mentions him: "Sollog, the notorious on-line numerologist, quickly claimed to have predicted such a disaster a year ago. It is only logical that it involved the Swissair plane, Sollog's Web site said. Here's the reasoning: Sept. 2 is 9/02, or 209 in reverse, and the sum of 902 and 209 is 1111, which is close to the Swissair flight number." Gamaliel 15:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

headings level change

I'm nothing like brave enough to jump in and edit this article, so I'll make my suggestion here:

The headings are currently:

Activities
Sollog's supporters
Predictions
  Methods
The 911 prediction
  Xinoehpoel
Sollog and his critics
Legal problems
References
External links

I think "The 911 prediction" should go under "Predictions", as such:

Activities
Sollog's supporters
Predictions
  Methods
  The 911 prediction
    Xinoehpoel
Sollog and his critics
Legal problems
References
External links

WikianJim 12:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Be bold? Wyss 01:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- OK, the big red BOLD's spurred me on! WikianJim 12:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political beliefs of Sollog

A good chunk of the stuff Sollog puts out is political, so it seems if Sollog is notable at all, the things he preaches should be mentioned.

Some notable snippets:

The website godsayskillfags.com, which seems to be ran by Sallog, advocates murder of gay people. [130]
Anti-Bush on religious grounds "GEORGE W. BUSH IS A PRACTICING BLACK MAGICK OCCULTIST! ... GEORGE W. BUSH IS A SATANIST!" [131]
Anti-Israel "ISRAEL means literally I WANT EVIL GOD" [132]

A rare falsifiable prediction: "[Surface Air Missile] is how Saddam will attack ISRAEL when the USA attacks him. He will unleash SAM's with chemical weapons and NUKES on ISRAEL." WikianJim 13:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mine's only one opinion, but I think Sollog's statements amount to advertising noise. If he's at all encyclopedic, it's as a spammer. The SAM bit is funny but everything I've seen of his is a post-shadowed miss. Wyss 13:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the SAM prediction is worth mentioning under Methods because it does not fit in with any of the methods we document there. To imply he only gives vague predictions is not quite true (in this case he also give a very specific, albeit wrong, one)

Something like:

Sallog will occasionally give predictions relating to specific people and events which are falsifiable within a reasonable time frame. Without room for later interpretation or post-shadowing, these are often simply dropped from Ennis's repertoire if they do not come true. Such an example is his prediction that "Saddam will attack ISRAEL when the USA attacks him. He will unleash SAM's with chemical weapons and NUKES on ISRAEL"[133]. Since this prediction, Hussein has been taken into custody, and there is no sign he has ever been in control of nuclear weapons.

WikianJim 13:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sollog does give specific predictions but not often because they are always so monumentally wrong that he looks an idiot. Instead, his modus usually (aside from the usual vague numerology) is the shotgun style where he reels off a whole bunch of things and hopes he can steal some momentary glory if one lightly brushes against reality. Last year he was loudly proclaiming Athens to be the "games of death", complete with some lurid and awful prose warning people to stay away [134]. Just count the number of contradictory lines in that one "prediction". It's shotgunning pure and simple. As usual for Sollog nothing at all happened, so he fell back and claimed hits for a fires in a school in India and in a supermarket in South America [135]. Why? Because one line said 100 would be slaughtered and he dragged in a '13' connection. Never mind that the deathtoll in both events was not 100 (it was over 400 for one of them) or that the people weren't slaughtered, or that it didn't happen in Athens, or that it had nothing to do with the Olympics in any way whatsoever. This is (after all) Sollog we're talking about. Reality and he are ships that pass in the night. --Cchunder 17:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Users who have edited the Sollog article and talk page might want to have a look at this RFC regarding The Number. Wyss 13:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latest reversion

I've removed the following addition: To date, no person has ever identified himself, and claimed to be a follower of Mr. Ennis. The consensus opinion of usenet participants is that Ennis himself is indeed his only supporter.

There's been an agreement to refer to Ennis within the article as "Sollog". (I disagreed, but I was in the minority.)
On various occasions, persons have claimed (i) not to be Ennis/Sollog, and (ii) to be followers (fans, devotees, or whatever) of Sollog. I suppose that you could say they've identified themselves about as well as people normally identify themselves on Usenet, etc. Still:
This paragraph says nothing that isn't in (other than possibly an oversimplification of) what came slightly above it.

-- Hoary 11:59, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/l/Talk%7ESollog_fullarchive_fb73.html"

Categories: Talk archives | Wikipedia controversial topics

Talk:Sollog/fullarchive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Archive 1

Name

"Son of light, light of God"

DO NOT REFER TO SOLLOG AS ENNIS

Suggestions for improvement

Annual TOH Toy Drive

TOH members ask that this page be removed

REMOVE HOARY WYSS MARKSWEEP

Civility, and the discussion

Archive 2

Introduction

Name

Notability

Status as deity

Status as book author

Status as film maker

Status as musician

Status as mathematician

Status as artist

Status as netizen

Prophecies

Media coverage

Connection to Leo Phoenix

Religious movement (and tax exemption), meaning of "TOH" and "'Hayah", TOH Toy Drive

POV issues

Unprotect?

NDC777's posts about Sollog were deleted

Sollog Rants About Wiki On His News Site

Sollog Denies He's a Sockpuppet on his 24/7 News Site

Why I unprotected it

NPOV tag

Congratulations

Alleged NPOV dispute

Please delete this page

TOH Elder at 208.54.95.129

Know thy special friend

"Wiki assholes"

Comment from Sollog mailing list subscriber

A Lonely Spammer

AIS as peddler of titillating images

TOH Members reporting Wikipedia and Jim Wales to FBI

Major revision suggestions

Prepare to be Slashdotted

John P Ennis??

where's the bias?

Bias in the Article

someone has set up this topic the bomb!

Wikipedia

In case I forget

Minor editing change suggested

comment from someone new to wikipedia...

POV wording

Re: could you change this sentence

Deistic Claims

Sollog's spree

"all pro sollog posts are sollog is a lie", and "wyss is harassing sollog," claims Sollog

Slash Dot and Wikipedia named in Class Action

Sollog gets confused...

TOH?

My prediction has come true!

Archive 3

Court order to remove sollog article

It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt

Silly idea

Skepdic link

Gammy's revision

Be careful

Refactoring again

Barcodes?

Let's declare victory and go home

This guy is hilarious

Article Move

POV/NPOV

Unfortunate naming

We're being set up

Muslim Scholar embraces Sollog's Book Jesus Is Not God

a2kafir "censoring" important sollog info