Talk:Sollog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Peer review 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.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

Archived versions of this page:

Shared watchlist for this page:

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:

  1. Sign all comments with ~~~~. Unsigned comments will be de-anonymized.
  2. Indent your comments appropriately using :, ::, :::, ::::, etc... (added by --Alterego 20:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC))
  3. 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.
  4. No name calling, no personal attacks. Portions of comments containing personal attacks will be removed.
  5. No legal threats. Portions of comments containing legal threats will be removed.
  6. Do not maliciously alter other people's comments, blank the page, etc. This is considered vandalism and will be reverted.
  7. No person may revert the same page more than three times in any 24 hour period; full details can be found here.
  8. Do not post trollish nonsense.
  9. Keep the discussion on topic. The topic is: suggestions for improving the article.

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

Contents

[edit] Summary of previous discussions

I'm adding this section to make it easier for newcomers to get an idea of what issues have already been discussed. Please flesh this out by summarizing discussions from the archives. Please do not add original comments to this section. --MarkSweep 21:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Title of the article

There was a consensus that the article title should be "Sollog". At one point the article was renamed "John P. Ennis" but subsequently moved back to "Sollog". The consensus is that it should stay this way. --MarkSweep 21:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naming issues

There has been debate about whether to use "Sollog" or "John P. Ennis". The article currently uses both in different contexts. Religious or online activities involve Sollog; real life activities involve Ennis.

There has been debate about whether to say that "Sollog" is a "religious name". Other proposed terms were "pen name" (several e-books authored by Sollog exist), "pseudonym", "alias", and "holy name". There was considerable debate about which, if any, of these terms should be used in the article.

There is some consensus that "pen name" should not be used. Sollog supporters prefer "religious name"; others oppose "pen name" because it appears to imply notability as an author.

There is some consensus that the claim that "Sollog" is a "religious name" should be mentioned at least once. Opponents of this argue that referring to it as a "religious name" implies that there is a notable religious organization involved, which has been subject to debate.

Sollog/Ennis himself prefers the use of "Sollog" and considers the use of "Ennis" an insult. However, such personal preferences do not necessarily need to be reflected in an article. Parallels were drawn to Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali; while Ali does not refer to himself as "Clay" anymore, the WP article about Ali refers to him as "Clay" when discussing events before he announced his change of name.

The source of the name "Sollog" is unknown. It is widely thought to stand for "Son of light, light of God", though Sollog denies this. It is conceivable that Sollog himself used the acronym explanation at some point in the past, but there is no independent evidence either for or against that hypothesis. It was speculated that "Son of Light, Light of God" appeared in the ads in the Philadelphia City Paper that Ennis/Sollog took out to publish his prophecies, but this has not been substantiated. It was decided to include both the acronym explanation and Sollog's own explanation.

IMO, given his criminal record, web history and theological credentials, alias would be more helpful than pen name or religious name. Wyss 04:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog's residence

It is a matter of public record that Ennis resided in Philadelphia during the mid to late 1990s. His current place of residence has not been verified, but is speculated to be southern Florida. This is backed up by several observations, including the location of IP addresses, business addresses, and posts by a self-proclaimed "TOH member S. Florida".

[edit] Citing sources

All relevant, verifiable and independent sources should be cited. There is no need to remove sources because of their slant or the views they express.

Well that depends on whether or not you believe that editors should follow the guidelines of good editing as they are laid out at Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons, which state plainly that, "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is negative. If credible sources cannot be found, there may be a problem with the material." Partisan sources generally have a problem with being reputable and reliable as required by the policy of WP:V. I'm not saying that its impossible to be partisan and reputable and reliable, but it is very difficult. Far too often partisans become unreliable by neglecting or distorting information that is damaging to their cause and by overstating or exagerating the importance of information that puts their cause in a favorable light. Vivaldi 04:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It is also worthwhile to point out that WP:V says this about "Sources of dubious reliability": In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun ..."" And of course there are also the guidelines laid out in WP:RS that instruct editors how they ought to edit. These guidelines indicate that we should consider the biases and conflicts of interest that may be in play when evaluating sources. Vivaldi 04:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location of the Pentagon

The Pentagon is located in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. across the Potomac.


What is the mailing address of The Pentagon. Vivaldi 18:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It has a Washington, DC mailing address. Arlington, Virginia, in which the building is located, was originally part of the 100 square mile (10 miles by 10 miles) District of Columbia. Similarly, when soldiers, soldiers, Marines and airmen are overseas, they get APO and FPO mailing addresses, but they are all over the world. Department of State employees may receive mail in whatever post they are working in if it is mailed to the Department of State in Washington, DC. --Habap 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If this is the case, then wouldn't it be prudent to mention this in the article? Since the article criticizes the accuracy of Sollog's prediction of a disaster in D.C. and then makes it seem like he was most positively incorrect because the Pentagon disaster was far away in some other state. Arlington, VA is a suburb of D.C., and the Pentagon has a D.C. mailing address, so it seems like we should allow Sollog's evidence to be presented in its most favorable light, just as his detractors are allowed to present their evidence in its most favorable light. Let the reader decide if Sollog was right or wrong in his prediction by letting them know the reasons why Sollog claims he was right when he says he predicted the DC disaster. Leaving out these details smacks of bias. Vivaldi 05:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Modified to allow the reader to decide. --Habap 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Picture of Sollog?

Does anyone have a picture of Ennis, I tried searching on google but I could find nothing.--207.200.116.136 01:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If anyone had, I could assure you we'd place it on the page immediately. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely; mr. Ennis is a private sort whose presence is mostly on-line, and who prefers to remain incognito behind various pseudonyms. There is a picture associated with the anonymous entities presumed to be under mr. Ennis' control, however, which can be viewed at Template:Sollog. Sadly, it wouldn't make for very encyclopedic material to include in the article. JRM 02:37, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Sollog Fans (like me) have repeatedly stated that no picture of GOD will ever be shown as it is against Scripture. Ever seen a picture of Allah in the movies? Sollogfan 10:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, if some Philadelphia newspaper were to come up with a photo of Ennis and say WP could use it, I suppose it could go in the article too. (Chances of discovering a photo of Muhammad are a lot lower.) Incidentally, I'm not sure it's a good idea to correct other people's comments on talk pages, even fixing simple spelling mistakes. -- Hoary 11:04, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
I've known Sollogfan as a puppet of The Number's since the account's creation (to argue with me in an argument with The Number that no-one else knew about), so he's just tipping his hand, not editing "someone else's" comments. Not that it makes it right.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:53, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
The Sistine Chapel has a picture of God painted on the ceiling. How does Sollogfan explain that? And, if a photograph exists, and we don't subscribe to the Sollogite religion, nothing other than copyright issues stands in our way of placing it on the page. A2Kafir 14:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog Picture

http://www.icestormcity.com/colin_hal/Sollog.jpg

Dude, you got the wrong picture. That's RMS after 10 days of coding straight... Project2501a 17:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ;)

Details of his arrest with mugshots:

http://www.sheriff.org/apps/arrest/details.cfm?ID=500503092

This is the man that claims to be God, and a prophet. He's nothing a but a fat drunk guy.

Interestingly enough, contributed by Colinhal, whose only contribution is to this page. I'm not implying anything, merely observing it. JRM 22:36, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
Let's not get paranoid. Check out the second link and see for yourselves if this sounds plausible. What's the copyright status of mugshots? --MarkSweep 23:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I believe mugshots are public domain, just like any other government work. However, there may be other laws restricting their use. In any case, if this is the correct John Ennis, the arrest record fills in a few gaps in the article. --Carnildo 23:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's the right birthdate. A2Kafir 23:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not correct to say that every government work is public domain. According to Wikipedia:Copyrights, "most state governments in the United States do not place their work into the public domain and do in fact own the copyright to their work." The terms of use page for the site with this mugshot allows noncommercial use, but that isn't good enough for GFDL, so we can't use this photo without getting special permission. Of course, we can link to it. JamesMLane 23:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's also the right place. There has been ample evidence to suspect that Ennis was based in northern Broward county. The posts to this article made in December of 2004 originated from IP addresses that could be traced to Broward county. --MarkSweep 23:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do not be suspicious of colin_hal. He is a pupil at Holland Park School [1](a spoof site) and has often posted [2] about Sollog. The Sollog pic etc [3]was originally posted there. This[4] I suggest is evidence of at least one other fan (or is it Sollogfan) in England as he states his location (Speedy) Bye. The Number
I find it fascinating that all of Sollog's "fans" have the same characteristic patterns of poor grammar and orthography. Is there a course that Sollog fans have to take before they're allowed to speak of their Great Leader?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I cannot help but notice certain remarkably similar people skills and argumentative strategies, as well... Fire Star 17:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The birthday matches so I guess we have a winner. So it might be cold comfort but perhaps Ennis really does have a fan after all. So "sollogfan" / "the number" etc., what do you think of your beloved leader now? I was expecting your glorious leader to be more, well glorious. Instead he looks like he's spent the night in a ditch with a bottle of meths. --Cchunder 12:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone recall the source of the birthdate in the article? Gamaliel 16:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was there from the very first revision, when it was plain advertising. Needless to say, no source is included, and even if it was Ennis himself who wrote this up (likely) there is no particular reason to assume it's correct. OTOH, there's no reason to assume it's not, either. JRM 19:41, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Could someone figure out where the first version of the Sollog came from? Perhaps.....Broward County? A2Kafir 19:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It came from 65.34.173.202 (c-65-34-173-202.hsd1.fl.comcast.net). According to [5] the host with that IP address is located in Fort Lauderdale; according to [6] it's in Pompano Beach. Both cities are located near the Atlantic coast in Broward county. --MarkSweep 20:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the Philadelphia municipal court records again, but didn't find any DOB. Does anyone still have that link to the first page of "Ennis v. U.S.A.", docket number 96-CV-1499 that was supposedly filled in the Federal District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania? I seem to recall that at some point someone posted a link to that (a scan of the first page or first two pages). --MarkSweep 19:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looking through /archive3, the "two page scan" is from Sollog's 1995 arrest by the Secret Service, while 2:96-cv-01499-SD was never linked directly; instead, someone with PACER access described some of the contents. --Carnildo 20:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here is Sollog declaring his own DOB: http://www.1ebooks.com/secret/ apparently he is the chosen one. Its so funny people in his forum think its blasphemous to have his picture because he is God. Idiots. --colinhal
[personal attack removed]. Sollogfan 10:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it was a personal attack. It's distinctly bizarre, and anyone wishing to see it can see it here. -- Hoary 22:09, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
I think that there's a pretty strong argument to be made, even by an atheist (say), that cursing someone is a personal attack. It's just not one of a form that's normally seen online. It's certainly not civil.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
People who blaspheme are CURSED. It's in Deuteronomy. So it's not a personal attack. I understand why you do not follow the Bible but I do not understand why a a TRUTH about a NUMBER (i.e. the person posting had no identity) is a 'personal attack'. You merely prove you do not believe in GOD or his Messenger, Sollog. Believe not in Sollog, it's up to you but to go against God.....very unwise. Sollogfan 12:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wisdom, of course, comes with posting REVEALED TRUTHS to WIKIPEDIA TALK PAGES using LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS. A2Kafir 14:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So, it's not a personal attack because it's true, because someone said it was true over two thousand years ago, and someone else wrote it down. That's the worst reason I've ever heard. It doesn't matter why you made the attack, it's still an attack, and under some religions cursing someone is not merely pointing out a "truth", it's actually making it happen. Some of us here aren't Christian, capice? Telling us it's unwise to go against your god is, in the least, misguided. You know what? You're violating strictures of my belief system left and right, so you get the special, invisible Hypocrisy Barnstar For Demanding People Follow Your Religion While You Refuse To Follow Theirs. Also, you're a sockpuppet, so go away.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Just type "sollog birthday" into Google Groups and you'll get a tonne of hits, e.g. the first hit which is from this delightfully named sock who reveals that their shabby object of adoration has even set up an email address where you might congratulate him, [7]. --Cchunder 11:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"This is the man that claims to be God, and a prophet. He's nothing a but a fat drunk guy."
I find this comment rather objectionable and borderline trolling. I'm no fan of the guy, but he never claimed he was a male model. For all we know, Jesus, Mohamed and (more likely) Buddha were all fat men. WikianJim 13:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but they were more than just "fat drunk guys", albeit that they probably weren't drunk all that often. Ennis appears to be nothing but a fat drunk guy.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Sure, but his failure as a prophet is because he's wrong so often; nothing to do with being fat/drunk. Bit of a cheap shot. Btw, like the TMWRNJ reference :) WikianJim 23:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

"I find this comment rather objectionable and borderline trolling. I'm no fan of the guy, but he never claimed he was a male model. For all we know, Jesus, Mohamed and (more likely) Buddha were all fat men." Quote taken from WikianJim Wikian, Sollog was drink driving when he ran over a police officer. If you look at the picture you will see that he is clearly over-weight. This isn't trolling since its a fact which can be proved. As for Jesus and Mohammed being fat men, (you missed out moses) we have sources to prove that they weren't, but thats got nothing to do with Sollog. I was simply pointing out his appearance. It resembles someone who sits on the computer all day and eats. Similar to "comic book guy" from the Simpsons. Its probably irrelevant, but there is no need to pick out what I wrote and analyse it.--Colinhal 4 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

I can understand why he objected to it, as you used this fact as part of an ad hominem argument about his claims about being God and a prophet, which is fallacious. Being fat and drunk has nothing to do with whether one may be God or a prophet, and can only be seen as an attempt to "disprove" such by pointing out how objectionable the claimant is. Thus, it is borderlining on trolling, but I would personally not consider it a troll, quite.  — Saxifrage | ☎ July 4, 2005 20:29 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog Court Hearing

tinyurl.com/4ez2p

If any of you live around there go and check it out or something. .....Posted at 09:46, 2005 Apr 14 by 172.188.232.242

What an obnoxious website. First, it uses UA-string sniffing, insisting on "Netscape" or "Internet Explorer", two browsers I used to use years ago. It does let in Mozilla, but insists that you allow cookies. The interesting info available free is: (i) this John Ennis has no middle name, (ii) Ennis is appearing at 0830 on 31 May '05, in room 0400 of Broward County Central Courthouse. The "statute" is "MXXD94102", and asking for "Case Detail" requires the payment of money, so no thanks. Oh, Google has no hits for "MXXD94102". (Mmm, Broward County: wasn't that the one where voting machines counted backward?) -- Hoary 10:55, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
And you can't even see the docs without a US credit card. Still, there seems to be some interest on usenet concerning what Mr Ennis has done, so no doubt someone will stump up the dollar or whatever it costs to find out. --Cchunder 11:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ha ha ha ha ...comment added at 11:52, 2005 Apr 14 by 203.143.137.143

What with this and the other link posted above, [8] I guess from the odd police codes and so forth that he is in trouble for crossing state lines, or something similar. "HLD-ST FEL", "OUT OF ST HOLD - FEL", and "ESCAPE / PA" give me the impression that he was supposed to stay within a certain state, but that he did not. Does Florida have a 'three strikes and you're out' law? Perhaps this is part of the ongoing "Operation Falcon" round-up, [9] which has nabbed 10,340 felons, or 'criminals' as we say in Britain. "For all of last year, marshals arrested more than 36,000 people wanted on federal warrants, and worked with state and local authorities in catching another 31,600 fugitives ... / Among those arrested were escaped prisoners and criminal suspects who did not turn up for court proceedings". Incidentally, if I post this message and find that Operation Falcon is a blue link, it'll increase my faith in Wikipedia several-fold, and I'll go to sleep tonight a happier man. If it's a red link, I'll have to make myself happy in some other way; yoghurt might be involved.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, hot damn. Operation Falcon (Federal Dragnet). It's a stub, but it's a start. It must be great being a U.S. Marshal. When people ask you what you do, you can look them in the eye and say "Son, I'm a U.S. Marshal. And I haven't had my dinner. Get your clothes on, you're nicked".-Ashley Pomeroy 20:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I was mistaken in my assumption that Ennis isn't even notable enough to get arrested... Fire Star 00:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With regards the most recent addition - 'since March 3rd, Sollog has been residing in jail' or something long those lines - is it also possible that he was brought to the courthouse, given a charge, and then bailed out again? I know nothing about US law, but it seems more likely that the jails would be filled to overflowing with nasty low-life scum and enemies of the regime etc, although as I say I know nothing about US law. Perhaps he couldn't afford the bail. Somebody should visit there, like in 'The Terminator', where the terminator goes to the police station to find Sarah Connor, except that whereas the terminator crashed his car through the window and shot everybody, whoever goes there should not do that, because it's mean.-Ashley Pomeroy 18:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's possible I suppose, however that site has a bond / release date field which are "N/A" and blank respectively for Mr Ennis. Perhaps person who are escapees or waiting for extradition are not eligble for parole. --Cchunder 18:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The hearing is for a "misdemanour" and "90 day extradition". If Ennis was arrested for not showing up for another court matter then he is unlikely he will get bail, but thats speculation. To get more information I suggest phoning the sheriffs office, or paying to get the case detail, and getting somebody to go to the courthouse on May 31. Gtoomey 16:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At a minimum, someone should call a local reporter and inform them of the potential for a humorous story that the hearing represents, given Sollog's past court performances. A2Kafir 20:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sollog's name is John PATRICK Ennis. The person in the picture is John Ennis with no middlename. How much longer will your behaviour continue? Lift the VEILSollogfan 11:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So, no one on planet Earth omits their middle name from time to time? A2Kafir 13:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've taken the trouble of getting in contact with Howard Altman, the bloke who makes up the bulk of the references section. This was quite hard, because he no longer works for the Philadelphia City Paper, and also because I'm half-way across the world in GMT. However, I am tenacious. Mr Altman says he will see if he can dig up his old papers, although he's a busy man, and the last time he saw John Penis was in the 1990s, at a time when Steven Seagal was a credible, a-list action star.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All you had to do was email him the alleged photo and ask him if that was Sollog (which it isn't) Sollogfan 09:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For once, Sollogfan is right. Ashley, maybe you could e-mail Altman the link to the police record with mug shot and ask him if that's the Sollog he remembers. A2Kafir 16:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here's the link again: http://www.sheriff.org/apps/arrest/details.cfm?ID=500503092 A2Kafir 16:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At this point all I can say is "watch this space".-Ashley Pomeroy 10:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we should clue in CourtTV or at least a local television news outfit to the possible show. I'd love to see Sollog in action. A2Kafir 16:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another Sollog page

Hey, if I get Sollog ticked off at me, will he send more traffic to my web site?  :) On my own wiki site, I've got an entry for Sollog that includes a personal account by a friend of mine of the time she met Sollog in person. (Yes, it's really by "a friend of mine" -- I've never met the guy myself.) See it for yourself at http://www.modemac.com/wiki/Sollog -- praise "Bob!" --Modemac 12:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether Ennis will link to your site. Since he seems to prefer bad publicity to no publicity, perhaps he will. Meanwhile, I notice that you link to his site. I'm more surprised by the way you seem to ascribe common sense to Ennis. -- Hoary 13:02, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
Her description of Sollog as a "short Ted Nugent" fits with the picture and description (5'7" is under average male height) here: http://www.sheriff.org/apps/arrest/details.cfm?ID=500503092 A2Kafir 16:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The WP article on him makes this Ted Nugent person sounds like a fruitcake even by US standards; we learn nothing of his physical appearance. I've revised the link description, which was "Personal account of metting Sollog in person", but I really wonder if this description of Ennis is worth bothering with, particularly as it's anonymous. (Is the informant perhaps nervous about the wrath of "Sollog"?) -- Hoary 13:44, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
The author of that article is indeed a friend of mine, and I'll vouch for her account; she's not especially anonymous, but in this case she prefers to be because of the subject matter. --Modemac 03:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How is the anonymous personal account posted to a webpage owned by Wikipedia editor meet the Wiki Policy requirements laid out in WP:V, which specifically require that sources be from reliable and reputable sources? Does this mean that I can publish any truthful (or not) information I want on my own web page and therefore it becomes a source to be used in an article to defame somebody else? What does WP:V mean to you when it says reliable and reputable published sources? Vivaldi 18:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What's the copyright status of that image? If it can be shown to be John Patrick Ennis aka SOLLOG, can we use it in the article? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 31st May 2005

Just a reminder for watchers. Mr Ennis is having his hearing in court tomorrow. It would be worth checking out his jail [10] & case history [11] in the next couple of days to see the outcome. If the there is a marked increase in the amount of trolls, sockpuppets and general screeching, the outcome will be quite obvious. --Cchunder 09:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

According to the Broward County website linked in the article, he is being held as an out of state felon on an escape charge. Presumably he fled Pennsylvania at some point while still under that state's "supervision"... Fire Star 16:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's this [12] at the Administrator's noticeboard , although looking at the contribution histories of the two miscreants, they seem anonymous.-Ashley Pomeroy 19:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This diff with its vandalism and introduction of blather about a judgement by the "council" (i.e. Ennis) of the "Sollog" religion suggests to me that Ennis is fresh out of pokey and connected to the net. Oh dear, more vandalism reversion ahead. -- Hoary 03:36, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia and DC

This article has "The attack on The Pentagon took place in Arlington, Virginia, not Washington, DC", implying that the two are far enough apart that anything predicted for one cannot possibly be interpreted as a prediction for the other. But when the pentagon article writes that "Even though the building itself is located in Virginia, it has a Washington DC, mailing address and ZIP Code.", it makes this paragraph a bit of a target for critics of the article. Ojw 18:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

He predicted an attack in DC. The building is not in DC. This is an ironic example of how vague predictions set up for later post-shadowing can be self-defeating. Wyss 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the section on the 911 "prediction" is very relevant and should stay, but perhaps the sentence really should say something like "The Pentagon is located in Arlington, VA, not Washington (although it does have a Washington, DC mailing address)" and let the reader judge. My own judgement is that a "prediction" isn't specific enough to allow anyone to take any useful action based on is not a prediction. If the prediction had said "there will be a great emergency within zip code 20050" then I would have been impressed. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Not me. I'd want the date so I could make sure not to be there. :) Otherwise, bad stuff happens all over, often. Wyss 19:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe in order to maintain a NPOV we should mention that the mailing address for the Pentagon is in Washington, DC and we should mention that Arlington, VA is a suburb that borders the city limits of D.C. I used to live in an unincorporated area along with lots of other folks, and when people asked, "Where do you live?", everyone would respond with the town that was in our mailing address. Also, it is not uncommon for folks to say they are from "Washington, DC" or other large town when they are actually living in the suburbs. In fact, I know people that live 30 miles from downtown Kansas City, MO -- way over in another state even (Kansas) -- that would not hesitate to state that they are from Kansas City if they were traveling somewhere. Vivaldi 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Sollog and his supporters believe that he was correct in his prediction of the DC attack because Arlington, VA is a suburb of DC and because the Pentagon has a mailing address in DC. The majority view may be that Sollog was wrong about his prediction because he missed it by 1/4 of a mile, but the minority view still needs to be at least mentioned in the article. And clearly Sollog believes this prediction was right and he deserves a chance for his POV to be explained here. (assuming of course that his detractors also have a right to say he was wrong) Vivaldi 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Sollog

That picture appears to be a copyright violation based on the terms on the Broward Sheriff's Office homepage http://www.sheriff.org/common/termsofuse.cfm unless someone makes a case for fair use. --JuntungWu 13:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Murky. I'm no expert on American "mugshots" but I'm pretty sure they'd be public domain whatever the web site says (wouldn't a state or federal law likely over-ride a generic legal disclaimer on a local website?). Wyss 14:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
US subnational governments can create a copyrighted work. That said, it's probably fair use. Pakaran 14:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I've updated the image page with the new "mugshot" template which claims fair use. I've also moved the mugshot back down to the "legal problems" section where it was placed when I first uploaded it. Putting it at the top of the article creates a negative impression of SOLLOG as soon as the reader looks at the article. silsor 18:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is he still in the clink?

I can't figure out whether he's still in jail. A record appears for him in the Broward County court system, but it's unclear what it means. A2Kafir 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The clerk's website lists the case status as open. On the other hand, the link to the sheriff's office is no longer working. Perhaps we'll see his name reappear in Pennsylvania court records, if he was indeed extradited. --MarkSweep 20:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well sollog.com is offline, it has no name servers. Too busy with the law to pay ISP bills? Gtoomey 02:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes AFAIK he's still in prison system. His visage has been removed from Broward Country Jail because he was being held there pending extradition to PA. He now appears to have been extradited. No photographic evidence of his new quarters but soon after his move from Broward, a certain John Ennis started started appearing in the PA criminal court calendar. As I write this, his next hearing is 20 September 2005. This link should take you there. [13]. --Cchunder 09:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Imagine how many claims of prediction (with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS) he's be spamming us with about Hurricane Katrina if he weren't a guest of the government at the moment. A2Kafir 22:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been a breath of fresh air to get the quiet around here, though now I probably jinx]ed us. Are the rest of his sites besides sollog.com quiet as well? Yahoo groups, etc. - Taxman Talk 22:58, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think he's out of jail: [14]. Gamaliel 03:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. "Intollerances" could be Ennis, but where are the CAPITALS? Incidentally, WP now boasts a "Sollog Fan". -- Hoary 03:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think he's still inside. For a few days after his Sept 20th hearing I thought he'd gotten out because the PA system didn't list him any more. Then lo and behold, he reappears today with a trial set for October 25th [15]. So whatever he's in for, he's not gotten off on some technicality. Interestingly, he isn't listed on the inmate locator site [16], but perhaps he will be if he is sentenced. --Cchunder 18:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The comment I removed about Sollog's sockpuppets

I removed a comment that suggested that Sollog's alleged sockpuppets only posted during Sollog's supposed waking hours. This sounds like original research to me. In fact it sounds like it was a completely made up "fact" to further a POV.

Who "supposes" when Sollog is awake? Where is this information published? Any references for this research or is this only what the author of the claim "supposes"? Who are the people that "concluded" that the alleged sockpuppets were "Sollog"? Is there an outside reference for this claim? Is this just another claim that was made up to in an attempt to enhance a POV? KaitlynAnnCarlson 22:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see the talk archives, the assertion is extensively and thoroughly documented there. There were utterly consistant, roughly eight hour gaps in all the flurries of Sollog "supporter" posts, all of which came from proxies. Wyss 22:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The talk archives on Wikipedia are not verifiable and citable sources. The claim that Sollog sleeps at any particular time is Original Research, something that Wiki doesn't allow. The claim that Sollog supporters only post at certain times is also Original Research. Determining who is a supporter of Sollog based on the edits made is clearly Original Research. Just because you want this Original Research in the article doesn't make it right. According to the official policy of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Verifiability, "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." and "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers" Vivaldi 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This is utterly untrue. Neither the Number nor Sollogfan (both banned without reply) posted from proxies. That is a statement of fact. 81.151.240.72 23:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The Number and Sollogfan are not being referred to with the term "supporter" posts. What Wyss means by that term is the flurries of "mee too" posts that would always appear whenever a lack of evidence for Sollog having any fans (or the lack of ToH members) was pointed out, and these users were nearly always one-edit wonders and were always from proxies. Sollogfan and The Number were created for entirely different purposes and wouldn't have had any chance to try for those purposes had they been traced to a proxy.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note, KaitlynAnnCarlson's first two edits as a user were to this article and its talk page. The next two edits after visiting this page were vandalisations which were immediately reverted. I left a message on the user's talk page, seems to be some sort of Scientology-dispute-related sock. A Google search seems to indicate the username is the same as a child of someone involved in that dispute (sigh). Wyss 00:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: User:KaitlynAnnCarlson is a troll who is using the name of an actual person against that person's knowledge. --AI 23:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few odds and ends

Whatever you want to call this guy, the bottom line is that his followers, in the very small numbers they seem to exist, fall into the category of sect / cult / spiritual entity.

What does this mean? For one thing, I think it means there probably should be some reference to that on the Sollog page. It leads by saying he's a numerologist, a mystic, and a psychic. I don't think that quite covers the territory for someone who believes himself literally to be "God."

Wikipedia is a fairly analytical place, and rightly so, but it's also intended to be open-minded. For that reason, I think that notions of mysticism, psychic ability, and numerology ought to be covered with as much balance and tact as possible. Mainstream science doesn't have a lot of room for such paradigms, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily without merit. True objectivity means accepting that even our mainstream scientific analyticism may have its limitations.

Since Sollog is coming from a spiritual place (at least according to him, and some would certainly say he's just a fat guy with a god-complex), I think editors ought to accept that while picking him apart is possible it may be productive only to a certain extent just as doing the same with other brands of spirituality is likely to offend supporters without necessarily accomplishing very much.

No matter your perspective, it's hard to deny that science can be employed to dissect and unravel various tenets of most brands of religion or spirituality. Catholics and Protestants point out the oddities in the histories of Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, and agnostics say it's the pot calling the kettle black. In the end, though, spirituality and science have always clashed and always will, and I think Wikipedia editors who wander into these spiritual areas must concede this to a degree. (And here I'm using the term "science" fairly broadly; religion may also clash with, i.e., historical account.)

If I worship a telephone pole and I'm the only one on the planet to do it, you can tell me there's no scientific reason to worship a telephone pole. Yet there's no scientific reason to worship Jesus or Vishnu or anything else for that matter. According to Revelations, about 2000 years ago Jesus told us the world was about to end. And a hyper-analytical atheist could say that an article on Christianity could be about a paragraph long and state that Jesus was simply an exceptionally effective crank. Yet this would be an extremely poor quality article on a religion that has shaped the history of the world in fundamental ways -- and it would do little to help us understand the perspective of a Christian.

If Sollog's supporters, as few and far between as they are, think that their perspective ought to be incorporated into Sollog's own entry on Wikipedia, then I agree. The point of Wikipedia is to help people understand concepts, not to attack people who annoy us. And no one, not even Sollog's supporters, can make the case that Sollog's approach to winning followers has been particularly effective, even when compared to Scientology, zoroastrianism, Adventism, or possibly even David Koresh or Heaven's Gate. And the intense defensiveness seems to stir and motivate Sollog and his small, loyal band. Although Wikipedia is somewhat democratic, like a good democracy I think it ought to be cognizant of the perspectives of small groups -- particularly in a Wikipedia entry for such a group.

Although the page is probably too long as it is in proportion to Sollog's significance, as long as there is a page on Wikipedia it would be nice to have some coverage of what Sollog / Ennis and his handful of supporters believe themselves. In short, I'm not siding with "Wikipedia" (I know it's not homogenous) in this little battle and I'm not siding with Sollog. I think both sides have unnecessarily provoked the other. (When Sollog creates a site called wikipediasucks.com, he's mostly just lashing out against the mainstream for failing to see the same reality he does; he's a misanthrope.)

The point of Wikipedia is to provide a balanced perspective. Most people don't take Sollog's word at face value, and that mainstream perspective should dominate the article. But after reading the entire entry on Sollog, a person should have some vague idea where Sollog himself is coming from, and I'm not sure that's the case.

Of course, when a person makes quasi-threats or scary predictions about US populations and government officials (including the president), particularly in this era, we are going to be rightfully wary. And I've looked at some of Sollog's predictions. In general they either do not come true or are too ambiguous to decipher; this deserves coverage and gets it. But I think the tension between science / analyticism and faith / spirituality is going to come up over and over again on here. And I think it's important for Wikipedia to make a conscious effort not to side exclusively with science, even if the spirituality in question only has half a dozen followers and may sound crackpot to the average educated person. While there are clearly some people here and elsewhere who aren't fans of Sollog / Ennis, and it's not hard to see why, Wikipedia is here to illuminate fully and not to argue a case. Thus as long as there is an entry on Sollog, I think Sollog's lonely, quirky cadre of supporters ought to have their views represented.

[I should have an ID on here but I don't and only pop in from time to time. I hope I haven't caused anyone any headaches by adding this.]


--also, one small thing:

The article says, "Supporters interpret this as a specific prediction of the 11 September 2001 attacks, which, however, involved no specific emergency in Washington at all other than the general distress the attacks caused across the United States, and that the presumed target of Flight 93 was the Capitol or the White House."

I would say someone could make a case that 9/11 created an emergency in Washington, DC. I think this could be rephrased. (The larger point I think the author is trying to make is that 9/11 is not best described as an emergency in Washington, DC specifically, and that Sollog has made thousands of predictions, most of which have not come true.)

This was posted 00:29, 26 September 2005 by User:70.18.104.223

Truth be told, the evidence indicates Mr Ennis had a web mining business partly based on his hopes for drawing web traffic to his post-shadowing (Sollog) site. There is little or no evidence he has any followers. For example, according to public records he seems to have spent the summer in jail and there was almost no activity on this talk page or in the article space during that time. Wyss 01:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

A comment on one part: a hyper-analytical atheist could say that an article on Christianity could be about a paragraph long and state that Jesus was simply an exceptionally effective crank. Yet this would be an extremely poor quality article on a religion that has shaped the history of the world in fundamental ways -- and it would do little to help us understand the perspective of a Christian. Wyss has already pointed out that there's no reason to think that there are more than two or three Sollogites in the known universe; therefore, there's no obvious reason to understand their "perspective". And yes, Christianity has indeed shaped the history of the world in fundamental ways -- but there's no evidence that Ennis has shaped the history of Philadelphia, let alone the world, in even the slightest way. On very rare occasions, he's been the cause of very minor and entirely unintended amusement; but his notability, if any, is that of a supreme bore. -- Hoary 02:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the whole of the "Sollog's Supporters" section. Most of that section consisted of allegations of sock puppetry and claims that Sollog has no supporters. Since I am typing this while Sollog is still in jail (you can check he is still in jail by visiting the Philadelphia courts website) and since I have been labelled as being a Sollog puppet in the past, then these allegations have now been proven to be false. It is sad that Sollog had to be jailed before these damaging false claims made against him on this so-called "encyclopedia" could be exposed as lies. It is also sad that the ADMIN and users of this site were not intelligent enough to realise I was telling the truth all along. Arnold1 02:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Such "proof" is as thin as wet tissue paper, and is poor reasoning to boot. I call troll, which is a kindness to you in not labelling your one-subject-edit-history-and-that-subject-is-Sollog account as an obvious and feeble sockpuppet. Note that The Number, a known Sollog sock, used very similar faulty reasoning in challenging someone to come meet him in England. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The allegation was that Sollog did not have any supporters because his supporters were really Sollog himself using different named accounts. This has now been proved false, as I said it was right from the start. And now you are implying I am this "Number" person. When will this stupidity end?
The claims made in that section have been proved false and need to be removed permanently. Arnold1 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe your line of reasoning falls under the prohibition against original research. Gamaliel 03:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that asserting that any of Sollog's "supporters" are sockpuppets is Original Research. That information has to be available in reputable published sources according to WP policy. And if you are going to use Wikipedia itself as a published source, then I would like to add my name to Sollog "supporter" category or list, which should again prove that Sollog is not the only person looking out for Sollog here. Vivaldi 08:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't go there, even jokingly. I can tell you're not a Sollogite/Sollog himself, but if you convince enough people that you are that's an auto-ban for your account. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Saxifrage. You are kidding, right? If my religious convictions tell me that Sollog is God, I can be auto-banned on Wikipedia? What if I just support Sollog as a human being? What if I support him by sending him money? I am willing to test you out on this claim. I hereby declare my undying support for many of things that Sollog has said and done. I support Sollog as a human being, because I feel he is being needlessly smeared and defamed, for what appears to me be the sadistic urges of a few editors. I will act within the framework of the written policies of Wikipedia as they are laid out in WP:V and elsewhere and I will follow the guidelines of WP:BLP and WP:RS in order to make this article a better article and to make Wikipedia a better place. So, Saxifrage, is that enough to get me auto-banned?
I said I support Sollog and now it is "public information" and "published by a reputable source" according to the standards of editing demonstrated in this article as it exists today. So any statements that suggest that Sollog has no supporters should either be removed or countered with a statement that says that I, Vivaldi, am a supporter of Sollog. That is, unless there is some other agenda than presenting a NPOV here.
Thanks for the bit of humor in an otherwise dry discussion! I assume it was humor rather than WP:POINT. Right? --Habap 15:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not WP:POINT nor is my comment (merely) humor, but it is also serious. I'm not disrupting Wikipedia at all, I'm talking on the discussion pages about why we need to make changes to the main article. I do believe that I am a "supporter of Sollog" in that he seems to be needlessly defamed here for what it appears to me to be no other reason than the sadistic desires of a group of ~10-20 people. I don't believe that even loud obnoxious trolls deserve to be treated in this matter by editors of Wikipedia and I believe this type of article is a blight on Wikipedia, a point that is shared by a number of reporters even the mainstream press and at least one other admin that is currently posting to this article now. I believe that a few policies and guidelines were also recently changed here at Wikipedia after the mainstream press reported on the debacle of another defamation article about a living person that was on Wikipedia. Vivaldi 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
From now own, in this discussion and everywhere, I want to be recognized as a supporter of Sollog and a Sollogist (not a Sollogite, that term has been depreciated in our church due to policy S49.14 dated Dec. 12, 2005 (note about last statement regarding policy S49.14: TWAJS). And I think that you may be incorrect in your judgement that we Sollogists can be (or should be) automatically banned because we support Sollog in this manner. Of course I may be wrong. Vivaldi 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This sure sounds like a breaching experiment, which is one of the items in WP:POINT. Personally, I don't think anyone should be banned for believing in Sollog and his prophecies, let alone for having or not having any religious beliefs. Sollog and his supporters other than you have tended to commit acts which led to their being banned and, as such, some Admins may have a low level of tolerance for your fellow believers. --Habap 18:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well hopefully the other supporters of Sollog were banned for their behaviour and not solely because they supported Sollog. I would also make a point that being a Sollogist doesn't require that anyone "believe" anything. If Sollogism works for you then you use it. If Sollogism doesn't work, then you don't have to use it. I know that may appear to be a minor issue to you, but I think its important. I also object to the idea that you would suggest that I might be purposely supporting Sollog as part of a breaching experiement. (Also, wasn't it you that pointed out earlier that CIVIL says editors shouldn't question the motivation of other editors? Do you think that policy only applies to people other than you, or am missing something again?) I said I honestly do support Sollog and I wish to be counted among his supporters, because that is in fact the truth, and I don't appreciate you questioning my support for Sollog based on your mere supposition (or intuition). Vivaldi 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trial Update and a tidbit

Sollog "fans" may be interested to know that the hearings over and Ennis was on trial this previous October 25th. There is no more record of him in the PA criminal trial database [17], or in the PA inmate locator [18]. That in itself may mean nothing since after the last hearing it took nearly a week for him to resurface in the system. Anyway, just wanted to let you know of that. The tidbit was something I found while I was looking for Mr Ennis. Reasoning that perhaps he got deported to Florida to serve his sentence (I have no idea how the US justice system works), I searched for him and found nothing. On a whim I searched for Ensley, as in N/Nic/Nick Ensley [19], as in Nicole Ensley [20], aka Nikkee [21] who is assumed to be his wife. Now look what I found on the offenders database [22]. Oops! Now this may not be her but it seems a little odd that the Nicole Ensley in the FL offender's database just happens to share the same birth date as Ennis. --Cchunder 14:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Update - he's back on the court calendar. The trial continues! Next date is 6 December. --Cchunder 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Any news? Did anything happen Dec. 6, or is there another delay?........A2Kafir 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes there is some news but it's inconclusive. After 6 Dec he had one more trial date (it was about the 20th Dec IIRC) and then nothing more appeared. But around that time a new case with a "John Ennis" listed appeared on the PA criminal database. I don't know if he was acquitted of the first case or if sentencing for that happens after the second case is heard but the latest hearing for the second case is 03 Feb 2006. Here is a link to the search. [23].
I believe that the new and old John Ennis are one and the same (since he would be crowing, boasting, and generally being his obnoxious self if he were freed) but I have no way of telling for sure. Feel free to update the wording as you would with this information. --Cchunder 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
More news, next hearing (wow that's a lot of hearings!) for March 13. I updated the article to the new date and also a little background info from his website, probably supplied by his wife on the reasons he's inside. Discarding the usual ranting, claims to be a political prisoner etc., the info suggests he skipped town while on a work release programme. It also suggests that his prior record may have been discovered by a background check during another investigation. --Cchunder 12:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whatup with the inconsistency

This: Brian Peppers was deleted, but Sollog not? LOL! --Localboy 12:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the article you'd know that Sollog has more going on than a funny picture. silsor 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article and I don't see that Ennis has anything going on. He's a bore and a charlatan who conceivably even believes some of the (liberally capitalized) tripe that he spouts. Have I missed something? -- Hoary 23:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sollog has become (in)famous for his crackpottery, and has actually sought out attention unlike Mr. Peppers. *Dan T.* 00:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Change "(in)famous" to "slightly infamous", and replace "actually" with "monomaniacally and tiresomely", and I'd certainly agree with you about Ennis. (As for Peppers, I've never heard of him. But then I've never heard of Ennis outside Wikipedia.) -- Hoary 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of material that is not verifiable

Material in articles on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable according to policy. Please read WP:REF, WP:RS, and WP:V. It is clearly innappropiate and a violation of Wiki policy to use partisan web sites as a primary reference on a living person. It is against Wikipedia policy to perform original research. Each of the references that is used in the creation of the article must be verifiable and by trusted sources. While I understand that people here want to inform others that Sollog is a fraud, it needs to be done correctly using NPOV sources and verifiable sources. This means that dead webpages can not be used as source material. You need to specify an actual VERIFIABLE source that can be checked. Vivaldi 03:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:V any material that is not verifiable: "If the article or information is about a living person, remove the unsourced information immediately. See WP:BLP" Vivaldi 03:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage editors to please read WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:REF before any new information is added to this article. I will be making updates to this article according to Wikipedia policy and I expect that all future edits to this article be made following these policies. Vivaldi 03:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Just please don't remove dead links that are cited as references. As you will see at WP:REF under What to do when a reference link "goes dead", the policy is to find a replacement or note when they were found dead, not to remove them. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point to keep in mind. If the links are not updated with proper links to existing pages they need to be marked as DEAD LINKS according to policy. I also removed these links because they are invalid to be used as sources for a biography of a living person, even if the links still existed. Vivaldi 08:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article still needs to have a cull because of WP:BLP which requires a "Presumption in favor of privacy". There is also a problem of verifiability with many of the sources, because they are not "well-documented by reputable published sources". POV web pages that are in the business of criticizing new religious leaders are not an acceptable source for doing an encyclopedia article. Also, USENET is not an acceptable source for doing an encyclopedia biographical article. Sollog is not a significant public figure and details about his private life should not be in this article. These facts only serve to besmirch his character, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Even for public figures WP:BLP states, "If writing about a negative incident, redemptive factors should not be overlooked. Strive for balance at all times." Vivaldi 08:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of non-public figures and BORDERLINE cases, such as Sollog, WP:BLP states: "...the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Vivaldi 08:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that people wish to bring Usenet flame wars here to Wikipedia so that they can achieve some sort of self-verification for their POV, but I suggest that this in an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. Yes, Sollog is likely a fraud and charlatan, but he's not a significant public figure. If you are going to write an article about Sollog, you need to write about the parts of Sollog that make him notable -- namely his supposed predictions of the future -- and leave out the titallating details about his private life. Vivaldi 08:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, don't be a bull in a china shop. If you're going to fling insinuations of editors' motives around, do your homework first. Here's a Coles Notes version: Ennis spammed Wikipedia with his typical poorly-written prophecy-press-release garbage, and editors turned it into a half-decent article. For months Ennis waged war and attempted infiltrations in order to either get the unsympathetic article removed or to get it changed back to what he wanted. Nobody brought a Usenet war to Wikipedia. (And Usenet, as a primary source, is entirely valid for documenting what happened on Usenet, which is relevant to Sollog's history. Blanket statements about what is and isn't a valid source are misguided at the best and damaging to the 'pedia at the worst.)


Saxifrage- I'm well aware of the nature of this article and why it is here. It is laughable (almost beyond belief) that you would suggest that this article is in any way comparable to a "china shop". What I am doing is more like cleaning a public restroom that is covered with diarreah. I know that editors felt they were defending the honor of Wikipedia by warring with Sollog about his article, but in the process many editors have created a monster of a defamation article about a man that is not even a notable or significant public figure. You need to read up on Wikipedia policy at WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:REF. Vivaldi 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Usenet is not a valid verifiable or reputable source. According to WP:RS: "Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." This is Wikipedia policy. This means that it isn't an option for you to use Usenet posts as references in articles on Wikipedia at all. It doesn't matter if the post is about Usenet itself, about a prolific Usenet poster, or any other reason. The policy says "NEVER" use Usenet as a source. Vivaldi 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, WP:RS is not Wikipedia policy at all. It's a guideline, which means it it sometimes permissible not to follow it. Writing about Usenet activities is one of these times. Otherwise articles about Usenet groups probably wouldn't exist. Ehheh 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Please, this article could probably use a cleanup. However, if you proceed as you have by casting aspersions on everyone who worked on the article and battled Sollog for the Wikipedia Way, you will make no allies here. You will only inhibit your own ability to get anything done here by encouraging the consensus to go against you. Please, assume good faith of us, for everyone's sake. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that people that have spent a lot of time on this article digging up Usenet posts will have a difficult time watching all that hard work go down the drain. Fortunately, I don't mind too much. You can always post this information to alt.religion.sollog or alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork or whatever other unmoderated Usenet site that you desire, (which is the only place such a ridiculous smear article belongs). However, violating Wikipedia policy in order to "protect" Wikipedia from a troll is not acceptable behaviour. And I would suggest that what you term "protecting Wikipedia" is really just making Wikipedia look like a steaming pile of "you know what". Vivaldi 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You are over the line. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:no personal attacks or you will be unhappy with the destination of the path you have unwittingly turned down. Your behaviour is not acceptable. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I will try to be more civil. However, you will note that you called me a bull, while I did not criticize you, but only the article. Vivaldi 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys win, you've revealed that Sollog does not possess supernatural powers! In this article, it used to say that Sollog had ZERO supporters -- so what is the purpose of this article at all? If Sollog is the only one in the world that believes in Sollog, then why does Wikipedia need to mention him at all? It seems like that sort of logic would indicate that the man is completely undeserving of any attention whatsoever. This man's only claim to fame seems to be that he starts flame wars with lots of people on Usenet, and I'd guess that most of his act is just being a huge troll, and a highly successful troll at that. Vivaldi 08:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I find myself agreeing with you. Well, I always did, and that's why I voted to delete this article in the first place. Look in one of the brown boxes at the top of this discussion page for the link to the deletion debate. Ennis is insignificant. The problem, however, is that (other than in certain areas) significance isn't a criterion for inclusion in WP. And even if it were, there are clear precedents for inclusion of people or organizations whose sole significance is their tiresomeness (see the frequent decisions not to delete the article on "GNAA"). If however you have the stomach for reading through all the materials relevant to deletion and can find within them support for deleting this article, then I'm all ears. -- Hoary 08:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Significance is an important consideration according to Wikipedia policy, which talks about significant notable people at WP:BLP. Vivaldi 09:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ennis is not significant, but Sollog is significant as a prolific and indefatigable troll. Incidentally, responding to your section below, his legal troubles are significant to his status as a troll because being incarcerated is the only thing that has caused any pause in his constant barrage of post-shadowing and linkspamming. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Saxifrage. You will need to provide citations that are both verifiable and from a reputable published source if you want to make these claims. It is original research on your part to claim that "his constant barrage of post-shadowing and linkspamming" even existed in the first place, and it is also original research to claim that the spamming and post-shadowing stopped when he was incarcerated. People that are Usenet trolls do not deserve the kind of personal scrutiny that you suggest here. Please read up on Wikipedia policy at WP:BLP. Vivaldi 17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
He's not a Usenet troll. I don't know where you're getting this. (Also, OR does not apply to Talk pages.) — Saxifrage ✎ 18:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain his nominations for Usenet Kook of the Month? Vivaldi 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I would also point out that "prolific and indefatigable trolls" on the Internet are generally not considered to be notable figures, and certainly they are not significant notable figures, worthy of having their birthdate, arrest records, and such being posted to a public forum. The entire purpose of this article is to harass and defame Ennis, and so far it appears to have succeeded. These kinds of articles are what make Wikipedia less and less useful as a valuable research tool and this kind of article makes Wikipedia look bad in general as a reference tool. I mean really, specifying a Usenet troll as a Kook of the Month? This is encyclopedic? Is "Kook of the Month" on Usenet a significant or notable event? Is "Kook of the Month" a scientific poll? Or is it nothing more than a means to defame people through anonymous voting over Usenet? How many people are required to vote "Yes" for a person to become a "Kook of the Month"? Is the fact that ~20 or so anonymous Usenet folks voting yes on "kookiness" a notable event worth reporting in an encyclopedia? Vivaldi 17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, he's not a Usenet troll. This article survived two votes for deletion. Obviously, he's significant enough to warrant an article. The article is not intended to harass and defame Ennis, but to provide the existing, verifiable facts. Most of these facts are based on primary sources, which your interpretation of WP:CITE curiously seems to fail to acknowledge as legitimate.
Yes, the article is overboard and deserves a cleanup. I merely assert that your sudden appearance as the self-nominated adjudicator of what is and isn't appropriate for the article is not only presumptuous, but misinformed and being done in a way that is in high violation of the spirit of consensus and cooperation. Why don't you step back for a bit, breathe, and engage in discussion that does not assume we're all idiots as a basic premise? Perhaps, if you asked, there would be editors who'd be willing to rationally discuss with you the merits and demerits of the current article. Doing so unilaterally is just... unwiki. Talk, don't dictate. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You are of course welcome to add back any material you think is appropriate. I only ask that you consider WP:BLP when you do. Vivaldi 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to concur with Saxifrage here. While we are all encouraged to "be bold", that doesn't mean "ignore consensus". Ennis' legal troubles, especially in Philadelphia were both a large part in his notability (claiming you are God in a court of law is quite an unusual tactic) and in establishing his "fringeness". You are, of course, welcome to contribute, but condescention is tiresome. --Habap 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about being condescending. I can spend hundreds of hours here making sure I don't step on anyones' toes and I still won't please everyone. I will be bold and I will enforce Wikipedia policy. Vivaldi 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The first problem is that it is not Wikipedia policy. It is wonderful that you are willing to spare some of your valuable time - just as we all are - to help on this article, but many of your comments, such as the one you just made[24] and this one[25] are rude, condescending and un-wiki. By using such tactics, you discourage people from bothering to listen to what have to say.
Similarly, linking to the saem guidelines several times and then posting those guidelines is not particularly helpful. We all either have read them before or read them the first time you cited them.
Since they are guidelines and not policy, they are taken into account, but only used to guide behaviour. --Habap 20:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Habap, I was called a "bull in china shop" by the editor and I responded by commenting about the article itself. I will try to maintain civility, but its clear that different standards exist here concerning WP:NPA. I will try to keep my comments directed to the article itself and I would appreciate it if you would do the same. Vivaldi 20:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am going to delete the section about Sollog's legal troubles

Sollog's legal troubles are just a titillating bit that are only included as a means to further humilate and defame an insignificant, unnotable living person. According to Wikipedia policy, at WP:BLP this in not acceptable. I'm suprised that this article has been here this long with 90% of the referenced sources being Usenet posts with a by-line other than Sollog or Ennis. Usenet is not a verifiable reputable published source. I would even argue that the Philidelpia City Paper is not a "reputable published source", seeing that it is what is termed an alternative weekly paper with articles titled The plight of modern-day eunuchs, and why they come to Philadelphia by Ashlea Halpern. What next? Do we bring out the Jerry Springer to provide insight into Sollog? Vivaldi 09:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Philadelphia City Paper is your standard issue alternative newspaper, one of the better ones even. In fact they have won a number of journalism awards and, believe it or not, they have professional journalists and editors on their staff. They covered Sollog as a local eccentric, but that's hardly the City Paper's fault, and rather, by all existing accounts, an accurate portrayal of Ennis's Sollog persona. They had an award-winning investigative reporter in the court room during one of Ennis's trials. I don't know how one can reasonably conclude that this makes them an unreliable source. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
We can debate whether or not alternative newspapers are considered "reputable sources" if you want. I have thus far not deleted the reference, but I do believe that we should mention that the paper is an alternative weekly and not a regular paper with a huge staff of fact checkers and legal department such as the NYT and Wash Post (or any of the other large dailies). I only make this suggestion because WP states that we should, commenting that newspapers like The Sun, should be mentioned as tabloids if they must be used. We should also mention that the journalist that reported on Sollog is now biased, since he claims to have been harassed by Sollog and because he has reported Sollog to the FBI. This is clearly not your standard issue newspaper story and Wikipedia should make no attempt to cover up that fact. Vivaldi 19:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And to respond to the comment: "In fact they have won a number of journalism awards and, believe it or not, they have professional journalists and editors on their staff" It appears they have won a number of awards that are self-submitted to a state contest in the alternative weekly category of the Pennslyvania Newspaper Association. Suggesting that writing the best article in the "alternative weekly category" in the single state of Pennslyvania qualifies one as being "award-winning journalist" smacks of puffery to me. Since Altman was fired from the City Paper, has he won any awards now that he is writing the court beat for the Tampa Tribune? Vivaldi 13:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
All such awards are 'self-submitted'. Even Pulitzer Prizes are 'self-submitted', so that is but a red herring. Additionally, that is not the only category in which the Philadelphia City Paper has won an award - both state-wide and locally. These categories include the major papers in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and other cities in Pennsylvania. So, it's not as amateurish and comical as you contend. None of Altman's awards came in an "alternative weekly category". It appears, however, that Altman is doing little of consequence in Tampa, as I can't even find him on the Tampa Tribune's website. --Habap 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You better check again with the people who gave him the awards. Because according to the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, the awards won were indeed in categories that limited the competion to non-dailies or alternative weekly newspapers. Without being too cynical, its possible that Altman beat out less than 3 other people across the state of Pennslyvania to win the awards. And I would almost bet you $5 that the number of people he was competing against numbered fewer than 10. These award claims are pure puffery and Altman is indeed nothing more that partisan hack that was fired from an alternative weekly paper that is filled with half-naked pictures of men and women advertising phone sex lines and escort services. To suggest that the Philadelphia City Paper has the same level of reputability as the Pittburgh Tribune-Review of the Philadelphia Inquirer is pure folly. Vivaldi 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Altman still works for the Tampa Tribune. Check out the list of staff. He is listed as "Cops & Courts Team Leader, Howard Altman" Vivaldi 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
but I do believe that we should mention that the paper is an alternative weekly and not a regular paper with a huge staff of fact checkers and legal department such as the NYT and Wash Post That's an amusing quote, given recent routine screwups in those major papers. Anyway, I added a wikiling to the Philadelphia City Paper article, which the interested reader can look at. A2Kafir 22:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I mention those two because of Wikipedia guidelines mention them specifically. Do you maintain that the reputation of the NYT and the Philadelphia City Paper are nearly the same? Really? What do you think about this weeks top headline article about eunuchs in Philadelphia? Don't you believe that this smacks of tabloid style journalism, when a paper for entire city chooses to focus on the plight of eunuchs as the cities top story for an entire week? I'm willing to discuss the reputation of the NYT and Washington Post compared to the Philadelphia City Paper. I am also concerned that the author of articles about Mr. Ennis that paper has personal issues with Mr. Ennis that bias his reporting on the facts. A reputable paper like the NYT would ask that the reporter specifically involved IN THE STORY to recuse themselves from reporting on it in their own paper, whereas the PCP doesn't seem to mind the active participation of its journalists in the smear compaigns against people with whom they have personal dealings with. Vivaldi 23:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay. Now let us get to work

Now I have removed all the parts of this article that are unnacceptable according to Wikipedia policy at WP:V and the guidelines at WP:RS which states that Usenet posts are NEVER acceptable as source material. Also, editors are not allowed to use blogs and personal websites as source materials according to WP:RS and WP:BLP. Before this information is returned to the article, it should follow all the applicable Wikipedia policies.

I have also added the [citation needed] tag to a number of claims on the article that do not appear to have any references cited. These claims need to be researched to try to find a source that meets WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Claims that cannot be sourced will be removed promptly according to WP:BLP.

Specific policy from WP:BLP that editors should consider when adding information to the article:

1) "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job.".

2) "There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and with that power comes responsibility."

3) "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is negative."

4) Presumption in favor of privacy: "there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability."

5) Also from presumption in favor of privacy section, "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

6) Also from presumption in favor of privacy section, With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly more common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt of the notability of the person in question, it is best to err on the side of caution for adding specific birthdates.

7) "We should be careful not to give a dispropotionate voice to detractors, opponents or critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view."

8) "Negative information related to a person's notability should be mentioned if solidly verifiable, e.g. plagiarism by an artist, fraud by a scientist, doping use by a sports person, etc. Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from reliable sources regarding the subject of the article specifically."

9) "Personal websites as secondary sources: Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources..

10) ArbCom ruling: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing mercy to the subjects of biographies, especially when those subjects become Wikipedia editors..."

Specific Wikipedia guidelines from WP:RS that needs to be considered by editors, that has not been followed previously:

1) Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet. Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

2) Personal websites as primary sources: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website".

3) "Partisan websites: Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, " (referencing the personal website and blog entitled "SkepticNews" for example).

4) "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia."

5) "Evaluating secondary sources Have they used multiple independent primary sources? Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident." An example of this is the alternative Philadelphia Weekly tabloid journalist who claims to have been personally harassed by Sollog. This person is clearly biased against Sollog. Also there is of course the general question about whether the Philadelphia City Paper is a reputable source at all, since they appear to be alternative weekly tabloid.

[edit] WP:RS is not policy

Also note prominently on the Reliable Sources page: {{guideline}} It is not policy. --Habap 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP is also not a policy, while we're pointing such things out. Ehheh 19:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You are right. These are guidelines that are advisable to follow. The main policy that is appropriate here is WP:V, which does state that "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Usenet is not a reliable and reputable source because it cannot be verified who the author of any particular article really is. Does anybody here honestly believe that Usenet posts meet the requirements of WP:V? Vivaldi 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Follow the neat little link with the words reliable and reputable sources from WP:V, as shown below:
This page in a nutshell: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Leads us in a circle, doesn't it? --Habap 20:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There are lots of Wikilinks in polices that lead to either guidelines or regular articles. That doesn't mean that the policy should not be adhered to. Do you want to argue that Usenet articles are a reliable and reputable source as that term is used in the Wikipedia policy at WP:V? Vivaldi 20:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think citing Usenet is OK, especially since a lot of this is really a Usenet phenomenon. If that's the only place the info is found, I think we should keep it in this article's case. But... to better comply with the guidelines, some of these could be switched out with similar references from other sources. this Usenet cite could have been cited as this link on Sollog's own web site, for example. Ehheh 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is Verifiability. You can't make that claim that "Sollog said this" and "Sollog said that" based on a Usenet post because there is no way to verify that claim and because Usenet is not a reputable published source. Vivaldi 20:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
According to this same logic Ehheh, all I would need to do is start posting "So-and-so is a convicted pedophile" to a Usenet newsgroup and since that is the only forum on the face of the earth with that information, then we could cite it because Usenet is the only place to find the information. Usenet can be used by editors to "self-publish" information which can then be used to verify their own claims on Wikipedia. Vivaldi 20:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Claims about what they posted on Usenet, sure. That's all we should be using Usenet citations for, in my opinion. Ehheh 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

An interesting note about the "reliable sources" part in the Policy in a Nutshell. That's an addition that is contested, was (and still might be) the subject of an edit war, and is something User:-Lumière has been campaigning to have added for a while. I'm not sure that it will ultimately remain in the nutshell. I don't think it really has much community support, and it's definitely not part of the original formulation of the nutshell. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

An interesting thing about policies, is that they are in fact policy, whether or not they used to be policy or whether they are likely to be policy in future. The policy at WP:V clearly states outside the nutshell in point #1) that reliable and reputable sources must be used. You are correct that WP:V at one time did not mention "reliable", but it has for a very long time maintained that the sources must be "reputable". If you look up reputable and reputation in a dictionary, I think you'll have a hard time convincing people that Usenet and personal blogs are "reputable" as sources of truthful information. In any case, the current policy requires that our sources be reliable, and therefore we should strive to follow that policy. Vivaldi 21:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog's birthday

According to the guideline at WP:BLP we should not include the birthdates for people like Sollog. If an exemption to this guideline is going to be made, then I would like to discuss the reasons why it is necessary to violate his privacy in the manner. Why is this information necessary to this particular article? Is Sollog notable because of his birthday? Vivaldi 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly necessary for this article, but it's worth noting that Sollog apparently publishes the date himself. Check further up the talk page. Ehheh 20:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I was informed by Habab that I had 4 reverts to the birthday information, if that is the case, then I apologize. I thought I had only reverted it twice. In any case, I will not revert it again. However, I still would like to discuss why Sollog's birthdate is important to this story and why this violation against the guidelines of WP:BLP deserves an exemption. (I added this at same time as Habab below) Vivaldi 20:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, please stop conducting multiple, massive reverts. The four reverts exceed the WP:3RR (exact same revert four separate times):
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
Take a deep breath and relax. --Habap 20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Habap- I asked you to explain why you are reverting my work before you reverted it back and you neglected to do so. I explained why I think this information which does not follow WP:BLP guidelines should be removed. If a particular exemption should be made, then you should explain yourself on the talk page. Vivaldi 20:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "massive reverts". This is a specific small revert of a single birthday from the article. I explained here why it was removed and asked an editor to please explain why it should be in the article before it is readded. It seems to me like you reverted me only because you can, and not because you are interested in making a good encyclopedia. I'm willing to discuss the issue here, are you? Vivaldi 20:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Your edits today constitute massive changes, including several that have been "massive reverts" to the way you would like the article written. I see no reason to remove his birthdate. WP:BLP is not policy, but a guideline. Ennis has apparently publicly posted his birthdate in the past AND he is a public figure.
Wikipedia guidelines are actionable. They are standards of conduct we should try to follow unless there is an overriding reason for an exemption to be made for a particular case. I don't believe you can find a source that meets the requirements of WP:V where Sollog has published his birthday. Or can you? Vivaldi 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
As are policies, like WP:3RR, which you seem not to be conerned about. --Habap 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that you follow your own advice about being WP:CIVIL. I apologized immediately for my 3RR and made a note on the talk page of this article and on my user page, so your accusation that I am not concerned about this policy is clearly unwarranted. I do care about policy violations -- deeply . And if I will certainly make an effort not to violate this policy again. Vivaldi 22:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, his birthdate, photo and legal troubles are available on the internet already, so we are not violating any privacy - his information is already public knowledge.
This is a poor excuse for violating his privacy. You are giving material that is only available in unverified sources a measure of credibility by republishing it here on Wikipedia. Vivaldi 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the information is publiclly available, we are not violating his privacy. --Habap 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That is not true. Reputable newspapers consider publishing unnecessary personal details about a person to be a violation of privacy, even if they are "publicly available" by a person that specifically searches for the records at the county courthouse. There is substantial case law in the United States and in Great Britian which sheds some light on what is often considered a violation of a persons privacy. And I'm not making a legal threat here, I'm just pointing out that legal scholars, judges, and justices do not have a standard of "you can publish anything you want about anybody and use whatever standard you want for notability, public benefit, and privacy concern of the individual. In fact, this is why WP:BLP was written regarding this issue.Have you read WP:BLP yet, Habap? If so, do you disagree with the guideline in principle or just specifically in this case, for Sollog? Vivaldi 05:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As stated before, I read WP:BLP when you first cited it. Your condescending writing style is not constructive in this case. I do not disagree with the guideline - Ennis is both a public figure and his birthdate is published by a reputable and public source, which fits in with the guideline precisely. --Habap 11:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
So, are all court records advisable to publish on Wikipedia? Can you explain to me why the policy at WP:BLP suggests that as editors we should err on the side of the subject by not including their birthday? Do you know, and can you briefly explain, why the policy regarding exact birthdays at WP:BLP exists at all? Vivaldi 15:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, before you asked for a reason, I had already stated that it should be kept until the discussion was complete. You ignored that and changed it anyway. Thus, I reverted you (after you'd already reverted that precise edit 3 times).
But you didn't even participate in the discussion that existed. You reverted my edits that I made in good faith according to the guidelines for good editing at WP:BLP. I asked you to participate in a discussion, and you did not do so, but instead chose to revert. Vivaldi 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you not notice me entering the discussion a few hours ago?[30] --Habap 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you not revert the information about his birthdate without ever having discussed it here? Even after I asked you to discuss it? Vivaldi 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Dictating terms doesn't work. Expect any conditions that you place on others' edits to be ignored. Considering that you have taken a revert-first, talk-second approach, you can't expect others to defer when you find yourself on the wrong side of the same. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I explained every single change that I made to this article Saxifrage. I only ask that others follow the same approach. I was reverted on a simple item by someone that was asked to explain why twice. All you have to do is come here and state the reason. It is common courtesy, especially since I have tried to explain each and every change that I made. Vivaldi 22:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from impugning the motives of other editors. It violates WP:CIVIL. --Habap 21:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Habap, you suggested earlier that "I take a deep breath and relax". What kind of suggestion is that, if not one that suggests that I am "out of control" and "unrelaxed"? Is is okay to suggest that I am an hysterical editor? I am willing to discuss it here. Why is the material being readded. I merely pointed out that it appears to me that these reverts are not being made to improve the quality of the article, but it appears to me that are now being made out of spite. So, Habap, was your readdition of the birth date made for any particular reason at all? I haven't asked you to calm your ass down, as you did to me, I merely asked you to explain why you are reverting before you do so, yet again for what appears to be spite rather than a sincere desire to improve the quality of the article. Vivaldi 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
So, the four reverts were not an indication that you were reacting rashly? Were they a calculated, rational violation of WP:3RR? --Habap 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
A similar argument can be made to suggest that your two very quick reverts, without any discussion whatsoever of the topic raised, substantiate the suggestion that you are acting not to improve this article, but merely to spite me because personally you disliked my method or approach. You seem to think it is okay to use people's actions here as an excuse to attack them personally, so don't start objecting when the crows come home to roost. Vivaldi 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Please review Examples that are not personal attacks and reconsider whether my statements that you were acting rashly and that you should "take a deep breath and relax" are personal attacks. --Habap 11:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Habap, you are the one that started complaining here. I don't believe there has been any problem whatsoever on either side. I tried to use the counter-example to show you that you acting like a hypocrite by saying that it is okay for you to criticize me personally because of my editing actions here, but on the other hand, you immediately shout WP:CIVIL, when your own editing actions are used to comment about how you are perceived. I have tried to maintain civility while pointing out that your edit history here seems to indicate that you aren't interested in improving the quality of this article or Wikipedia in general, but rather you seem more interested in reverting my edits out of pure spite. I really don't mind that you call my actions bullish or say that I am acting rashly. My feelings aren't hurt at all. Perhaps you can explain why you felt the need to start swinging WP:CIVIL in here at all? I don't remember calling you any names, like doody-head, I just think your editing actions belie your true motivation for reverting me. I am also willing to admit that all of this talk about us personally is likely a huge a waste of time that could be spent discussing ways to improve this article and Wikipedia. Vivaldi 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with most of your post. I am glad that you changed it from claiming I'd shouted WP:NPA, which I didn't (Saxifrage brought it up and I have only stated that the claimed PAs were not PAs as described on that page). I also don't think I was the first to complain about the incivility of your early comments. Again, I believe it was Saxifrage. Also, Saxifrage (not I) who referred to your actions as being similar to a bull in a china shop, which is far different from saying you were a bull. If you find it incivil that I noted your unintentional violation of WP:3RR indicated rashness at the time, then I apologize for offending you, but I do not withdraw my comment. You needn't provide examples of names you might call me, as that borders on actually calling me such names. --Habap 16:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
God forbid if you got called a "doody-head" in real life. Vivaldi 16:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
My reversion of your 4th revert of the birthdate was performed because I feel that including it is useful and within both the guidelines and policy. I reverted to include it twice because I feel it belongs, because discussion was underway about what belongs in the article and because your 4th reversion violated policy. None of those motivations indicates that I do not wish to improve the article. I find your continued contention that I am against improving the article tiresome. --Habap 16:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I find your arguments to be quite dull as well. Now, would you like to start work on improving this article, or do you want to keep the argument about you and me personally? I think that Sollog's birthday is not related at all to the reason why he is notable and since WP:BLP suggests that we err on the side of not providing birthdays, we should follow it. Is there some reason why we should ignore the advice to err on the side of not providing exact birthdays? Can you provide an example of any person at all listed at Wikipedia that should NOT have their birthday listed? Vivaldi 16:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I re-added the birthdate because it is public knowledge and would serve to explain further who this man is. It separates him from other men named Ennis. It places him in historical context. It gives us more information about who he is and when he did things. --Habap 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there more than one notable Sollog so that differentiation by birthdate is necessary? Is their more than one Sollog that suggests he is a God? I would like you honestly evaluate what you wrote. This same logic can be applied to EVERY article about a person in Wikipedia. It might be "public knowledge" that Sollog lives at 315 Massachusetts Street, and that his home phone number is 660-555-1212, and that his home has a valuation of $82,000 and taxes that amount to $2000 per annum, and that he had a traffic ticket in 1985 that he failed to pay on time, but the fact that information is available and verifiable doesn't mean that it MUST be included in the article. There are clearly standards that should be set to maintain privacy and prevent abuses, especially for living persons. The year of his birth alone is an acceptable means for placing Sollog in "a historical context" if for some reason his age is an issue to his notability. We don't need the month and day. What do you think about the Wikipedia guideline that discusses why we should not use birthdates of non-famous living folks in an Wikipedia article? Do you at least acknowledge that the guideline exists? If so, will you explain what special circumstance here makes it necessary to make an exception to the guidelines so that you can specify the exact month and date of birth of a non-famous person? Vivaldi 05:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your motives are. All I can see is your actions, which constitute removal of a lot of information from a controversial article with little regard for discussion, invocation of guidelines as policies (I'm not sure if wiki-lawyering is the right term?) and condescending treatment of your colleagues. Noe of these impresses me as designed to improve Wikipedia. --Habap 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The WP:BLP guideline on dates of birth is in place because some people believe their date of birth to be private information. Sollog clearly does not, since he publishes it on his own websites. Ehheh 21:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have information from a site that meets the requirements of WP:V that indicate that Sollog published the information at http://www.247news.net/2004/20040926-jeanne.shtml? Vivaldi 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Just compare IP addresses and whois info of the various sites. Or look at his Usenet postings. WP:V doesn't really apply here - this is a discussion on if we should follow a guideline or not - I'm not writing 'Sollog owns 247news.net' in the article. Ehheh 22:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comparing IP address and "whois info" seems to be original research on your part. But in any case, how do you know that Sollog is responsible for the content on 247news.net? Do you have a reputable verifiable source that Sollog is responsible for the content there? Is 247news.net itself a reputable and verifiable source as required by WP:V? -- Vivaldi (forgot to attrib)
Indeed, it is original research on my part. It's a good thing I mentioned it on the talk page, and not in the article. I'd say that 247news.net is more akin to a blog or personal site, which I believe can be cited when writing about its author. But, again, it doesn't matter, because I'm not citing it in the article. If you prefer, feel free to search Usenet for Sollog + Birthday - you'll find him stating it there as well.
I will concede that Ennis may have published his birthday himself. I still don't believe that the exact birthday of someone is a wise thing to publish in an article unless they truly are someone that is enjoying the trappings of fame in return for the lack of privacy or unless they are so infamous that the information becomes necessary for a complete detail on their life. I am suggesting that Sollog is not the kind of person that deserves to have his exact birthdate placed in an encyclopedia article. What is Sollog notable for? Why does his birthdate matter to cover this topic? Vivaldi 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to reiterate that I don't particularly care about the presence or absence of the birthdate in the article. You'll note that I didn't revert that information when you removed it. I just happen to disagree with calling it's presence a violation of privacy. Especially since I'm pretty sure that the date was added to the article by Sollog himself. Ehheh 00:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note: I am only objecting to this information because of the guidelines and policies, so if there is some valid reason that this information should stay, I certainly won't object. Vivaldi 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Has the person in question's date of birth been published by a reputable and public source? The Broward County Clerk seems pretty reputable and public to me. --Habap 21:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
These are court records that you dug up. The whole point being that the legal dalliances of a minor figure are not worthy of being mentioned in an encyclopedia article about him. Can you point out an example in an published print encyclopedia article where they mention a person's DUI case? This isn't why Sollog is notable, and it should not be used to defame him here. Vivaldi 22:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who found it. It's in the links in this article. In the guideline, it doesn't state that the person's name only can be used if it is a favorable light or if it's a article about the person. It only talks about being published by a reputable and public source. How the information got into the public is not relevant to whether it is public knowledge. --Habap 22:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This argument doesn't make sense. Nearly everyone's birthdate is "publicly available" if we search public databases and courthouse information. There is even a webpage at http://www.birthdatabase.com/ that lists over 100 million peoples birthdays in the US in it. The point is that most of these records maintain some degree of privacy because folks have to specifically request such information from a courthouse or other gov't agency rather than just picking up the encyclopedia and seeing ones SS#, birthdate, DL, and address listed. This is a fairly common among journalists and other reporters. Please read WP:BLP to see what I am talking about regarding this issue. I can also go to the courthouse and find out your address, how much your house is worth, how much you paid in property taxes, and how many times you paid your taxes late. This doesn't mean that such information should automatically be put in an encyclopedia article about you, if for some reason you were notable. Vivaldi 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Since one does not have to make a legal request in order to gain this information and we are not publishing any information that is not freely and easily available (his SSN, DL# or address), your argument is invalid. Please refrain from included references to gathering information about me (perhaps as an attempt to make me nervous) - it is inappropriate. --Habap 11:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

--Habap 11:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Habap, One does indeed have to make a specific request to gain the information from the courthouse (until Wikipedia came along). The courthouse records are not "published" to the "public at large" and they aren't submitted to search engines. A specific request to the courthouse must be made before the information is released. Most courthouses also record the IP numbers of people requesting such information. Some like my county and Maricopa County, AZ, will attempt to get the name and address of any person that electronically requests court records. That way if someone uses the information in a ill-advised manner the police can have a record of who has recently been looking at it. Vivaldi 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
But this particular record did not require a legal request from me to see. I don't know how it came into the public domain, but it did. You can follow that link yourself with no special access required. --Habap 15:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I can get people's phone numbers, addresses, date of birth, the value of their house, their amount of property taxes that they owe, and in many cases even their DL# and license plate all without "special access". This information is readily available to people that SPECIFICALLY search for that information. The court records you are citing as "published" are not actually published to the "public at large" in any medium or forum whatsoever. The only way they are ever divulged by the court to a specific individual is when that particular person either enters into the search Ennis's name or if they construct a URL that specifically asks for the records of Ennis. I don't doubt that we have his birthday correct and that the court has it exactly right, but I do wonder why we aren't following the guidelines at WP:BLP that suggest we err on the side of not publishing out of concern for the fact that they are privacy issues involved. Vivaldi 17:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As to your comment Please refrain from included references to gathering information about me. Habap, If you haven't noticed, I am completely and totally against including private personal information in Wikipedia. I will never violate your privacy by actually providing your home address, phone number, date of birth, DL#, your car's licence plate number, and other such information that can be gleaned from state records and from county courthouses across this great land. My point is that your types of arguments here, lay the foundation for these types of attacks on other people, and someday you may be on the other side of the fence. It is something to think about. Vivaldi 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty convinced that anyone can find out whatever they want to about me without even spending the $14 my brother would charge to research police records on me, so I am pretty unconcerned about my own privacy - that is, I assume there is no way to maintain mine. --Habap 15:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. And I partly agree with you that mainting your privacy is often very difficult in the internet age, but that fact alone does not mean that Wikipedia should ignore the basic premise that brought about the guideline to begin with. Namely that personal records shouldn't be published to the public at large and that we should err on the side of NOT PROVIDING such information if the subject of the article is not famous. Vivaldi
And the guidelines at WP:BLP say "When in doubt of the notability of the person in question, it is best to err on the side of caution for adding specific birthdates. It may be advisable to simply list the year of birth rather than the exact birthdate." The reason for this is because Sollog's real name and his exact birthday are not relevant to the reason he is notable. Sollog's real name and birthday are none of anyone's business here. I would ask you to think about why you really want to include this information here and why you feel that it is a necessary part of what makes Sollog a notable person. And then think about why we as editors are not following the guidelines at WP:BLP that suggest that we "err on the side of caution" when dealing with people like Sollog. (and I would also point out that I am now not the only editor who feels this information should be removed. See Hoary's comments from last night down below regarding the birthday issue.) Vivaldi 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur that Hoary agrees with you. --Habap 15:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you also agree with the guideline at WP:BLP that says we should "err on the side of caution" when reporting birthdates? Does there exist any article in Wikipedia at all where this guideline should apply? Can you point me to an example of the kind of article that DOES NOT warrant the inclusion of an exact birthdate (because of the privacy concerns as WP:BLP outlines)? It okay if you don't agree with guideline, but at least we need to be honest if you don't think that in practice the guideline can ever actually be used. Vivaldi 17:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is up to me to provide an example of when the guideline should be applied. I don't know how often it can be applied. Typically, I deal with historical articles and few of those people are alive for us to worry about identity theft. I don't know if the guideline has any cases in which it can be used, but I suspect that's due to the way the guideline is written. --Habap 18:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your honesty. So when you wrote that you support the application of the guideline at WP:BLP, you also believe that the guideline is not even applicable to any particular article at all. Is there some reason that you support the application of a guideline that you believe has either zero or very little application at all on Wikipedia? Usually when someone believes that guideline is not useful or applicable they would say that, "That guideline is silly, it can't ever be used", rather than stating that they support it. Do you understand now why people would be confused about your intentions when your wrote at first that you supported the guidelines of Wikipedia? Why would you support a guideline than you've never even seen used successfully? What was your motivation for supporting the guideline at WP:BLP in the first place? Vivaldi 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that the policy, as written, is reasonable. I don't wish to spend a hundred hours finding examples in which it should be applied. I normally only edit historical articles, so it doesn't surprise me that I haven't encountered an article in which that particular part of the WP:BLP guideline applies. There are dozens of policies and guidelines on Wikipedia and I haven't seen most of them applied. Why is it odd that I would support those? --Habap 14:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your honesty and clarification. I just find it odd that you stated you specifically supported the policies at WP:BLP, when you seem not to know when, or if, the specific guidelines should be used, ever. I'll give you a few examples where WP:BLP is used that I know of: I know Howard Altman's exact birthday (he's the "source" that wrote the Sollog articles for the alternative weekly rag City Paper) and I know of specific instances where Mr. Altman had run-ins with the law. Now someone could add this information into the article and cite the specific court documents from Pennsylvania which prove it, but that would be a violation of the guidelines of WP:BLP. There are a bunch of other minor celebrities that have known birthdays that are not published on Wiki: David Touretzky being one example. Am I to understand by your statement here that you have a default position of supporting all the guidelines of Wikipedia? Vivaldi 14:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just move on to a discussion of the article here instead of my interpretations or implementation of guidelines and policy? --Habap 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to move on. I was only trying to gain an understanding in order to help figure out how to best to improve the article. It was suggested that some editors might not care about these guidelines and that some would willingly choose to ignore them since they are not policy and because exceptions can be made in particular instances. I wanted to find out whether the consensus was to ignore the guidelines and make an exception or whether we should follow the guidelines. I'm still not clear on this point yet, since only a few people have weighed in on the discussion. But let's move on anyway. Sollog's birthday was just the beginning of the problem, we still have the second half of the first sentence to work on. ;) Vivaldi 16:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW-- do we have consensus to remove the exact date of Sollog's birthday and change it to just the year? Vivaldi 16:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I notice that Howard Altman's article on Wikipedia doesn't mention his exact birthdate or any of his own run-ins with the law over the years. And these are available from court records if you care to search. I just want to make a note of the inconsistency in the application of policy, especially since Altman and Sollog are related and Altman is a critic of Sollog. Vivaldi 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I want to improve this article

Okay. Enough for today. I initially thought I had only limited resistence to changing the article on Sollog, so I was bold in my editing. I only tried to follow the guidelines for good editing and the policies set out in WP:V.Vivaldi 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You though an article with it's talk page tagged as controversial, with 8 pages of archived talk, with over 1200 edits to the article would be one on which no one would contest major revisions? I think you must not have noticed those three issues or you are exceedingly bold. --Habap 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I am beginning to see that I may have been very bold. Vivaldi 22:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Aren't there controversies over on the Scientology pages when someone comes in and makes a few dozen changes in a day? --Habap 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There would be if the changes were against consensus or if they did not follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:V or WP:OR and the various guidelines for good editing behaviour. Also, there would be controversy for any edits made without a reason given. Vivaldi 22:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware of how to handle the editing of controversial documents on Wikipedia. For the most part, I will accept any removal of material from the Scientology pages if it can be pointed out that the material is against WP:V policy. So when CoS members come along and blank stuff and write, "need citation", we go back and find the actual copyrighted documents and cite them specifically if we can, or else we leave the material out of the articles. Vivaldi 22:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I was being a over-hopeful that the editors working on Sollog might be of a similar persuasion. It is something that I will keep in mind while I attempt to improve this article and Wikipedia. Vivaldi 22:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to improve this article because I care about Wikipedia and I like being able to refer people to it. I am happy when I see that people are able to find out lots of good information from a Wikipedia article, especially when it is reported in the press.Vivaldi 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not stoop to the level of Usenet posts and flame wars. Encyclopedia's do not report on the DUI convictions of people that are notable for reasons other than their legal problems. Adding the information about Sollog's legal troubles only serves to harass and defame a living human being. Vivaldi 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think people here should read WP:BLP and the other guidelines and policies here and really think about the purpose of this article and why it is so necessary to violate the guidelines for acceptable editing behaviour in order to defame Mr. Ennis. Vivaldi 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

While I respect that this article was determined to be worthy of keeping by consensus, I still believe that this "keep" vote on AfD is not something that justifies violation of guidelines. In fact, the discussion on AfD frequently mentioned that the article needed to be improved. I suggest it really needs to be improved a lot. Vivaldi 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Using USENET posts as a source of material should not ever happen. There is no way that you can say that any particular post belongs to anybody. Claims that come from Usenet sources (if used at all) should be clearly marked as being from a disreputable source that is not verifiable. Otherwise, we get in the trap of having people "publish" their own verification on Usenet to "prove" their case on Wikipedia. That is why we have a guideline in place here at WP:RS and a policy in place at WP:V that requires that every reference come from a verifiable and reputable source. I would like to see people here put forth the argument that Usenet is a reputable source as that term is used in the policy at WP:V Vivaldi 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should limit itself to the things that Sollog is notable for and use verifiable and reputable sources to make its case, and it should strive to present both POV, since he's a controversial subject. Vivaldi 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I've only made 2 or 3 edits to the article before today, so I have nothing personally invested in the content. I am all for improving the article, but you have written and continue to write as though we are ignorant children jealously guarding our work. We're ALL here to make a better article and a better Wikipedia, not just you. --Habap 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm encouraged by your words here, Habap. Vivaldi 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I second that. You come off as staggeringly arrogant, Vivaldi, the self-appointed savior of Wikipedia. A2Kafir 22:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
A2Kafir- I would suggest you follow Wikipedia policy: No personal attacks. WP:NPA Please stick to discussing the article in question and not editors themselves. I won't be calling you any names, and I would appreciate it if you didn't use pejorative terms about me. Vivaldi 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. A staggering amount of work on this article and its Talk page was done by experienced and respected editors. To think that all that is as nothing before the experience of a single editor is just misguided. You have good intentions and you are right—the article needs cleanup—but there are far, far less obtrusive ways of approaching this. For starters, removing everything and dictating terms for their re-inclusion is, put politely, disruptive; the accepted method of doing that is to bring specific things to the talk page for discussion before their removal, to build consensus for either removal, change, or no action. It's not as if the article will disappear and it must be kicking violently into shape right this minute. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, When I started I received the approval of at least one other editor here for my edits, so it is not right to suggest that my edits were completely against consensus. According to my count it was 2 in favor and 1 or 2 against for quite some time while I was making my changes. Obviously, in hindsight, I was misguided in thinking that other editors would soon take up my cause rather than the opposing side. I was hoping that perhaps some other editors that are annoyed with defamation pages about minor unnotables on Wikipedia would soon take up my side in great numbers. I see that I was wrong. Oh well, I was bold and I have good intentions. I will continue to have good intentions and attempt to convince others here why this sort of article is a blight on Wikipedia in general. Vivaldi 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it was only Hoary who had positive comments and he'd prefer the article be deleted entirely. Once your wipes got rolling, it was several to one against sweeping changes. --Habap 22:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer the article be deleted entirely. It is my POV that this sort of article is a blight on Wikipedia and one of the main reasons why Wikipedia is criticized by serious journalists, scholars, and scientists. Biographies of living persons require special treatment. Vivaldi 23:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And again I would point out that by my count it was 2-2 until quite a number of edits were already made and numerous hours had passed. I'm not going to go back and get the exact details, but it wasn't until nearly all of my edits were completed after a large number of hours that the number of people that opposed my changes exceeded even 3. My belief and hope was that even more people were going to be in favor of the kinds of changes that I have proposed here. Obviously I ended being wrong about that, but I made a clear point to discuss each edit and change that I made. Now that we know the score, I realize that I'm going to need to persuade more people here to consider the issues one-by-one and line-by-line. Vivaldi 23:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say they were against consensus, I said you were acting as if your judgement was worth more than that of everyone who has already worked on it by calling it a pile of steaming etc and presuming that you knew better. See, consensus-building is a policy here too, one you won't find in rules or regulations anywhere because it's a fundamental part of the structure of a wiki. Going about correcting articles with long histories to conform to a new guideline with complete disregard for process is much like the State declaring a new law and then just some guy going around enforcing it with vigilanteism outside of the process before the cops have a chance to do their job. Yes, the metaphor is a bit weak because the same people who are the "authorities" to enforce policy and guidelines here are the same who are "just some guy", but really that just means that the line is easier to cross. Ignoring process—consensus-building, dialogue, and accepted standards of non-disruptive editing—is the metaphorical equivalent of strapping on a sword and mask to make sure that justice is done. When Batman takes the law into his own hands, he's saying the officials can't do their job. When you take this article into your own hands, it's like saying nobody else can do the job like you can. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well as I said, I don't presume to think that everyone that put information in the article since it was created still remains here, and I honestly believed that the people here would be open to following the policies laid out in WP:V and the guidelines that are suggested for editors to follow at WP:RS and WP:BLP. I have admitted that I was wrong about that assumption and I am willing to engage in discussion and debate in order to form a consensus for future edits. Vivaldi 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Saxifrage- thanks for this. I understand what you are saying and I will try to keep it in mind for future edits on articles with long histories. My experience with Scientology articles has been that me and a number of other critics of Scientology will accept the wholesale deletion of material for being "uncited", because we are usually able to make the article MUCH BETTER after this happens. This blanking of the material motivates us to find sources that are verifiable, reputable, and reliable. And in the end, everytime someone tries to remove information from the Scientology articles, it ends up with a vast improvement to the quality of the article and Wikipedia. Vivaldi 23:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Saxifrage -- Wikipedia guidelines actually suggest that we should removed material immediately from biographies when it is unsourced. A guideline is something of a standard that we should live up to, unless there is an overriding reason to ignore it. I am willing to discuss why the guidelines are being ignored in this article. Vivaldi 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Guidelines are not policy, and shouldn't be treated as such. They are guides for the community to follow. You are not the community, you are part of it.
I understand that. And again, in my understanding of "the community", I naively believed that the community consensus would be in support of following the guidelines. This has been my experience so far with Wikipedia, and it is only until I came to Sollog that the consensus has been to ignore the guidelines and go for a free-for-all one-sided smear campaign against a minor non-notable non-public person, who supposedly has ZERO followers. Vivaldi 23:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't confuse condemnation of a heavy hand with opposition to your goals. Notice that at every turn I have said that, yes, you are right, the article needs cleanup. Your approach needs to change. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay Saxifrage. I understand you. As I said, I am going to start working for a consensus on any changes, now that I understand that there is more opposition than I presumed. Vivaldi 00:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, the past is past, and what I think most here are frustrated about is that you are defending your previous actions—understandably since you believe them justified, but it is not very reassuring that you are willing to change your tactics. On our part, we are probably frustrating you by attacking what you've done in good faith. Why don't we start fresh? How about you try this: "Hey guys, I think we can make this article better by letting ourselves take some guideance from WP:BLP. What do all y'all think? I have some specific ideas that I'd like to present for discussion." — Saxifrage ✎ 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to change my tactics. Now, I want to build consensus and make improvements to Wikipedia and this article in particular. I won't be engaging in an edit war, but I will want to discuss many of the facts in the article here on the talk page and have it explained why we should deviate from WP:BLP and other guidelines. Vivaldi 23:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Guidelines, again, are just guides. Fanaticism about policy and guidelines when you have already demonstrated a weak grasp of same will get little respect. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't had many problems in this regard until Sollog, and I edit some of the most controversial and most frequently edited articles in Wikipedia. I admit that I don't have all the policies and guidelines memorized by heart, but I do have a fairly firm grasp of them. And from my understanding of the word guideline, we should try to follow it unless there is a specific reason not to. Vivaldi 00:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, let me clarify my intent there. I'm glad to hear that you are willing to start afresh and work on the article collaboratively. However, you, being the one who is desiring an overturning of much history and difficult consensus work, are the one who has to defend your proposals. If you keep assuming that WP:BLP is a non-negotiable, absolute rule that allows you to put everyone else on the defence, then you will keep finding your proposals opposed for reasons you can't fathom. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that WP:V is a policy that is not something that mere editors can subterfuge by consensus or any other means.
Yeah, the verifiability issue is what I'm thinking of when I agree that the article needs cleanup. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I will be happy to explain why WP:BLP should be followed line-by-line and word-by-word in this article if necessary. I'm not afraid to discuss and debate this issue freely and openly. I believe that WP:BLP is a guideline that should be followed unless there are specific reasons given for why it should not be followed. (Why do I get the feeling I am being set up?) 00:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the one where you'll get the most opposition, since not everyone feels the same way about guidelines, specific guidelines, how to apply them, etc... I'm sure you'll come across a guideline one of these days that you won't think should be applied rigidly. That said, specific things can certainly be debated. If you are okay that not everyone will think WP:BLP applies to a given point, then you'll save yourself frustration. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to accept that consensus is to ignore a guideline, because guidelines are more flexible than policy. But first I want to know what I am arguing with. Do the editors here feel that the guidelines at WP:BLP need to have a specific exception for Sollog? Or do you think that the WP:BLP is a guideline that should never be followed for anyone at all? Or is WP:BLP something that should be ignored on the whims of a few editors? Or should people have a good reason for exempting articles from the guidelines? I understand that people may have different amounts of respect for guidelines, but if you can't even explain why this article shouldn't be subject to them or why you don't believe that the particular guideline should ever be followed, then I need to know that now so I can help develop a consensus quickly instead of wasting my time pointing out that Line A is violation of guidelines at WP:BLP, why is this here? If the Sollog editors in general just want to vote away WP:BLP and make a Sollog exception to the guideline, then lets hurry up and do the vote so I can quit wasting my time here trying to point out where the article is messed up line-by-line. Vivaldi 09:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines come about through consensus process as well, so oftentimes editors of Wikipedia can come to a consensus to follow the guidelines suggested for good editing. (It has been my experience at other controversial articles that this is the case.) I have hope that eventually a consensus can be developed to follow the guidelines laid out in WP:BLP and WP:RS. Obviously that process will be more difficult that I thought. However, getting people to follow Wikipedia policy as it is laid out in WP:V should not be nearly as difficult of a problem, since the policies of Wikipedia are not to be ignored just because mere editors feel there is a consensus for ignoring them. Vivaldi 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The notability of "Sollog"

Vivaldi writes above: This article should limit itself to the things that Sollog is notable for and use verifiable and reputable sources to make its case, and it should strive to present both POV, since he's a controversial subject. I'm not at all sure about the last clause; but that aside, I'd agree -- given that there's an article at all. Question: What is "Sollog" notable for?

Links aside, the article now starts: Sollog (born 14 July 1960 as John Patrick Ennis) is an American numerologist, mystic, and self-proclaimed psychic. He is also a self-published author and a self-described artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker. Let's put aside the parenthesis: whether or not it should be there, I think we can agree that his notability (if any) doesn't derive from his date of birth or real name. Now, whatever one may think of the worth of numerology, mysticism and self-proclaimed psych, um, whatever the noun of "psychic" is, presumably these must reach the public in some way. There's nothing necessarily wrong about self-publishing: self-published books occasionally acquire fame. But I have no reason to think that any thinking person takes the books of "Sollog" at all seriously, that any artist of any note takes him seriously as an artist, that any musician of any note takes him seriously as a musician, etc etc. Rather, it seems that what significance he has is that of relentless self-publicizer and irritant, who appears to derive income from pornography, domain-squatting, etc.

The first sentence could read Sollog (whose date of birth and real name are none of our business) is a relentless self-publicizer and irritant. No, no, that's too PoVish. So how about Sollog claims to predict future events? I'd have thought claims for the ability to predict future events would merely be laughable by now, but when I see the claptrap (bracelets conferring good health, etc.) that's advertised in lowbrow magazines I start to wonder. Clearly a significant number of simple souls (perhaps not only the young, the retarded, and the senile) still lap this up. In our effort to avoid PoVishness, should we feign faith in the words of "Sollog"? And if not, how is he notable?

Compare Jim Jones: even before he added the extra magic ingredient to Flavor Aid, he'd got people to follow him (to Guyana, what's more). What has "Sollog" achieved? -- Hoary 05:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the point I was making. If he is indeed notable, then we must not ignore the rules of NPOV, which means that the opinions of supporters and the minority view must at least be represented in some fashion. It seems like this entire article is dedicated to criticism of Sollog, which seems inappropriate and very POVish. NPOV requires that all significant POV be represented, which clearly means that Sollog and his supporters deserve a chance to have their view represented here, and this article can take no stand on which view is the correct view (but we can show that some views are more popular than others if there is a source that meets WP:V Vivaldi 19:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was the point you were making, and certainly what you're saying now disagrees with me. First (and to repeat), I don't see that Ennis is significant; you seem to do so, and I wonder what this significance is. Secondly, I don't see that Ennis has a significant PoV. Thirdly, I have no reason to think that Ennis has any supporters. Fourthly, if the "predictions" of Ennis are worth a mention, then if they were genuine predictions (I mean, clearly and publicly stated before the relevant dates) that turned out to be correct, this would deserve to be said; as they are instead mere flimflam, this deserves to be said clearly, this article thus taking a clear stand on which view is correct. Or the whole article could be deleted as an egregious misexpenditure of kilobytes on a nobody who craves publicity. -- Hoary 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think he is significant, but IF CONSENSUS says he is significant then Wikipedia should at least allow the POV of Sollog and his supporter(s) to be mentioned in some fashion. Secondly, I'm not calling for equal time or space, but you can't just go around pretending that Sollog and his supporters don't have different views than the majority. Ennis's POV is significant (in an article about his beliefs and actions) because this article is about Ennis. I would agree with you that in general having just a few supporters for a POV would amount to being not worth mentioning in an article, but not when the article is a defamation article about the views and beliefs of a single person. That person at least deserves to have his POV laid out honestly and correctly before his character is smeared. Thirdly, there have been people that are not Sollog that have posted here in support of him, however these people are always dismissed as trolls (and perhaps rightly so, but thats a POV). In fact, when I started editing here one of the comments by an editor was something like "Is Ennis out of the klink or what?", the implication being that anybody that takes up for Ennis in any fashion must be Ennis. Other editors have suggested all of the Ennis supporters were either Ennis himself or trolls. However, I am not a troll and I am "supporting" Ennis and Wikipedia by getting this unnecessary defamation page either removed or improved to the point where it is not merely used as a smear tool. Fourthly, the question of whether his predictions are flim-flam is two-sided. Predicting hurricanes along the Gulf Coast, earthquakes in California, tornadoes in Oklahoma, and "general disaster" or "fire" in some large city, is likely to bring a number of correct "predictions" and an even greater number of predictions that are "close" to what was predicted. Many psychics make a living by making these types of predictions. Ennis and his supporters would argue that his predictions were "close enough" to be counted as valid predictions. I certainly don't believe that Ennis is a psychic (nor do I think anybody else in the world is a psychic for that matter), but if someone is going to be defamed for not being accurate with their psychic predictions it seems patently unfair to not let them present their evidence in the same favorable light as granted to the opposition. Vivaldi 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You say: Firstly, I don't think he is significant, but IF CONSENSUS says he is significant. . . If a persuasive AfD were presented, perhaps the consensus would be that (as you and I believe) he's insignificant. -- Hoary 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need appropriate citations placed on a number of claims

I'm going to tag the article with a few citation needed tags according to the accepted policies of Wikipedia and the expressed desire of at least a few individuals to follow the written policy at WP:V. Really, according to this policy these types of unsourced comments should be quickly removed since they are discussing a living person, to whom special consideration should be given, however, I notice that people are not quick to accept this notion, so we can at least start by placing citation needed tags on the article. Vivaldi 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To start things off here is a quote from the article that needed to have a citation provided that meets the requirements of policy at WP:V, "Sollog is widely thought to stand for "son of light, light of God," although the origin of this interpretation is not clear." I would also like it explained how it is useful to this article and to Wikipedia in general to include the unfounded and (unpublished?) speculations of what "Sollog" means, when the person who made up the name to begin with has already provided his reasons for it? Vivaldi 16:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RE this one: "Since the mid-1990s he has been very prolific, publishing his beliefs and predictions in great quantities on the web and Usenet. [citation needed]" I'm not sure what you're after. A cite that indicates he posts on Usenet a lot? Ehheh 20:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I want a source that justifies the statement as it is written in the article. This cannot be Original Research, but must be something that meets the standard laid out in WP:V, of which one part is "they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ieas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." So, if the statement is to be included in the article I want to know the source for that statement that meets these guidelines. Is the source a conglomeration of sources? Which reputable source published the information that said it was "Since the mid-1990s"? Which source classified him as "prolific"? Which source says he published his beliefs and predictions in "great quantities". As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Vivaldi 20:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not necessary to relink the WP:OR and WP:V policies. I've seen them a few times now, thanks. Now that I understand what you're after I've added a link. Ehheh 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't you mention that Sollog is the source of your claim in the article itself if you are going to use his own writings as proof of your claims? Since the whole point of the article seems to be to defame Sollog as an unrepentent liar, I find it odd that you would use him for a source. In any case, this particular "source" does not say that he was "prolific" or published his claims in "great quantities". This language in the article seems to be pushing a particular POV that has no particular justification at all, other than the whims of some editors that mistakenly believe that truth is more important to Wikipedia than verifiability. Vivaldi 22:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As for the SOLLOG = 'Son of Light, Light of God' - there is 'So one could say in a simplistic way Sollog is a Son of Light Light of God. The acronym would spell out SOLLOG, but that is not the true meaning of SOLLOG.' which comes from the link cited in the next sentence. That seems like sufficient citation already to me. Ehheh 21:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The article says "Sollog is widely thought to stand for "son of light, light of God,". However the source you cited is one where Sollog says that one person, namely Howard Altman, mistakenly writes that Sollog stands for "son of light, light of God", and now you want to use this statement of Sollog's to indicate that it "is widely thought"? This "widely thought" thing appears to be a POV insertion, and one that misrepresents the amount of support for that particular POV (unless there are other sources for this claim -- I'm willing to wait). If you want to make some sort of indication for which POVs are more or most popular then you'll need to follow the rules of WP:NPOV and WP:V (and WP:OR). Vivaldi 22:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
And "widely thought" also happens to be a Weasel Word Vivaldi 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, Vivaldi, but I think the only people who'd be sufficiently interested to dig up good sources for anything on "Sollog" are "Sollog" (possibly aka Britney Spears; see below) and yourself. So you could just take it out. -- Hoary 11:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I already removed the claim that it is "widely held" that Sollog means Son of God Light of God (see below). It certainly has been claimed by one person that Sollog means Son of God Light of God, but Sollog himself says that guy is wrong, and wouldn't Sollog know best about why he chose his own name? If we leave this in the article it will make it seem like the only reason for including it, is because Sollog says it isn't true and that Sollog says it makes him mad -- not a very high standard for inclusion. Who else on the planet besides Altman believes that Sollog stands for "Son of God, Light of God"? If Altman is the only one, then I'd say his POV is so insignificant that it does not need to be mentioned. Vivaldi 11:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the reason for referring to videos as "akin to snuff videos"

I would like to have someone explain why this article says that videos of unnatural deaths are "akin to snuff videos". This statement is wrong to include for a number of reasons. #1) videos of unnatural deaths are not illegal. These types of videos are quite interesting to many people and there exists a fairly large LEGAL market for people that are the gawking type, thus "Faces of Death", "Faces of Death II", "Faces of Death III", and "Faces of Death IV" and hundreds of other videos of such things. #2) Videos of unnatural deaths are not "snuff". #3) It does not improve the article or the clarity of what is being sold by Ennis to suggest that his videos of unnatural death are more akin to "snuff videos" than say they are akin to "Faces of Death III" which can be rented at your local Blockbuster Video store. Saying that they are more akin to "snuff videos" is clearly a POV that puts Sollog in a negative light. It would be far more neutral to suggest that his videos are the same sort of videos that are rented by thousands of kids every week at the local Blockbuster Video Store. Lots of people have seen a "Faces of Death" type movie, but very few people indeed have ever seen a real snuff video. So trying to suggest that Ennis is selling anything akin to a snuff film is wrong and misguided. I won't question the motivation for including such types of comments in this article yet, but I would like someone to explain why they think this should comment should remain in light of the policies of Wikipedia at WP:NPOV among others. Vivaldi 16:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "snuff film" reference for the above reasons and replaced it with a NPOV and more accurate reference stating that vidoes of unnatural deaths are akin to the Faces of Death series of movies, rather than saying they are akin to "snuff". I would suggest that even this improvement should probably be removed. I don't see why people reading this article need to have it explained to them what a movie of unnatural deaths is kinda like. And we probably need a source in the article that demonstrates that Ennis actually sells porn and videos of unnatural deaths. It looks like there also needs to be a verifiable source added that demonstrates that Ennis "operates" 1underground.com as it is claimed in the article. Vivaldi 09:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alt.Usenet.Kooks kook of the month

Can someone please explain the process of winning a AUK kook-of-the-month or other award? Then, I want to know how that actually winning such an award is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article? Doesn't the inclusion of this dubious award smack of mean-spiritedness and defamation for the sake of defamation? I mean really, why should we place any value at all on the opinions of thirty anonymous Kooksters that hang out on Usenet voting on who they think is the biggest kook? Vivaldi 17:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to know why AUK or their website (LART) is a considered a reputable source for determining the "kookiness" of someone. Because again according to Wikipedia policy at WP:V the published reference must be both reliable and reputable. Vivaldi 17:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This diff here seems to explain the process. I think the kook reference probably can be removed from Sollog's article. It's not listed on Archimedes_Plutonium or Jack Sarfatti or any of the other winners, so I don't see why it should be here. Ehheh 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you find it amusing that I myself made the edits explaining the way a AUK award is created, but you'll notice that when I made that edit I was trying to make the existing edit more NPOV and by providing a link to the actual information, because the previous edit was terrible. Also, I immediately supported the decision to remove the reference to AUK from the article (after I discussed this IRL with other editors) as I pointed out at [here]. My reason for asking the editors here to explain the process isn't to gain the information for myself, but rather to have the editors here educate themselves about how the AUK process works and then attempt to justify its inclusion here using the policies of V. Vivaldi 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you simply address the matter directly next time you'd like to make that kind of point. In my experience people respond better to that approach. Ehheh 21:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I would follow that suggestion, but in my recent experience editing this article I have been accused of being condescending when I advise that people educate themselves about an issue they are trying to discuss. I thought this way would be more effective. It seems like the only manner in which I would be encouraged to act here is to "just go away". Vivaldi 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So is there anybody here that wishes to argue FOR the inclusion of the mention of the Usenet kook award? Vivaldi 21:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes: I do (though unenthusiastically). To me, Ennis is of extremely minor significance. If a number of Usenet users find a kind of morbid fascination in his Usenet rantings and determine that he's "Kook of the Month", stick it in. Now, if Ennis were to win a Pulitzer prize or some genuine award for a genuine achievement, being dubbed "Kook of the Month" would fade into insignificance. But he has achieved diddly-squat other than to irritate people and, it seems, to unintentionally amuse a few.
Better solution: delete the whole article on this non-entity. -- Hoary 03:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth year

I suspect that his birth year would serve to put him in historical context and provide information about his age. It doesn't definitively separate him from the other John Patrick Ennis' out there, but I suppose not many live in Florida. --Habap 18:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that his birth year is sufficient to put him in a historical context and I believe that Hoary also agrees with you. Now are there any other people that would like to weigh in on why we should keep the exact birth date including month and day of Sollog in the article? The distinguishing feature about this John Patrick Ennis is that he goes by the name of Sollog and he states that he is God Almighty (and perhaps that he is an absolute expert at trolling for attention as an act of self-promotion as this article demonstrates). There exist no other Ennis's that make the claims that Sollog does. I doubt anyone will be confused about which Ennis they have when they get to the article, since it doesn't appear that any other Ennis is even notable at all. Vivaldi 19:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methods section first source

The first citation in the methods section is a Usenet post: here. The particular claim is this, "Sollog prominently uses numerology in attempted predictions of events, using numbers such as 103, 113, 116, 169, and 911". This Usenet post claiming to be from someone named "zorobabe" (but like all Usenets posts is completely untrustworthy on its own or even from the headers since they can easily be forged). So how can use use the unverifiable, untrustworthy, unreputable words of someone that claims that they are "zorobabe" and use their 3rd hand information to justify the particular methods and numbers that Sollog uses? Can someone explain why this claim should stand? Vivaldi 23:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's actually second-hand, not third hand. Third hand would be zorobabe relating that other people say he uses numerology, but instead zorobabe is (apparently) quoting from his predictions and explaining how numerology is used in them. But, since it makes no claims to be Sollog, I don't think a non-reputable source providing analysis is particularly valid. At the very least, "prominently" should be struck from the sentence. --Habap 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's just be honest and write what it is, "A person that purports to be a follower of Sollog one time wrote a post on Usenet under the pseudonym "zorobabe" that suggests that Sollog uses numerology to make predictions". I'm changing it to that now, but I still think the whole thing ought to go. Vivaldi 12:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal section

These 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. What is the point of including this information about Sollog? It was reported earlier that the reason for reporting Sollog's titillating crime details was to show that while he was in prison, everything was calm here at Wikipedia, but clearly his arrest back in 1987 is of no importance to why Sollog is notable now? The guidelines at WP:BLP suggest that editors should NOT include this kind of information in articles about people that aren't truly famous. I would like to know why editors are choosing to ignore those guidelines here. Vivaldi 23:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the article mentions his two outstanding warrants when discussing his trial, some mention of his legal troubles in Arizona and the source of the warrant would seem justified. Perhaps the current details are a bit too much information. --Habap 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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. What is the reasoning for bringing up an 18 year old DUI / assualt case to an article about Sollog? It seems like this is violating WP:BLP which encourages editors not to talk about the sensational or titillating details of peoples lives that they are not notable for, especially when they are only minor notables. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" Vivaldi 23:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This arrest was the one which brought on the "God Trial", which is a good part of his notability. Leaving out what he was on trial for would be somewhat difficult. --Habap 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize he was notable for the "God trial". I've only found one source for the "God trial" and that is an alternative tabloid weekly newspaper, which last week featured a headline story about the plight of self-mutilated eunuchs in the city of Philadelphia. Are we going to include the names of the eunuchs of Philadelphia in Wikipedia as well because they got inserted into a weekly rag? (Or do we have to wait for them to create a vanity page here first?) Vivaldi 04:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Separately, I found no hits for "God Trial" that related to Sollog using dogpile.com (which uses Google and other search engines), so I would think that it shouldn't say that "the press" referred to it that way. I suspect that the City Paper used that term, but don't know if even they did. --Habap 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It was the City Paper that used the term "God Trial": see here Presumably this is because of what Altman witnessed himself in the courthouse, but he doesn't explain exactly who called it the "God Trial" (and I suspect that Altman was one of the folks that started using the term "God Trial" to begin with, because I see a clear pattern of bias in his articles about Sollog.)

[edit] An idea for Vivaldi: move this entire thing to BJAODN

Vivaldi, if you really think this article is bad and is worth preservation at all, then instead of either (a) replacing it with drastically reedited version (which as you have discovered is likely to irritate people) or (b) laboriously arguing point by point (which is probably tiring for you), how about just going ahead and editing it just as you wish, paying attention to WP's rules and guidelines but not worrying at all about other editors' opinions, and posting the result either on this talk page or on a subpage of your own? Perhaps then people will understand what you have in mind, and will agree to the whole thing. (Although I still think that your best suggestion -- well, I think you suggested it -- was that Ennis doesn't merit an article of any kind.) -- Hoary 04:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, that sounds like a good idea and I will certainly consider doing this in the future. For now though, I would like to at least complete the discussion of the few basic points I have mentioned here. (And you are correct about my POV that I believe that Ennis really doesn't deserve an article at all because he isn't that notable. According to many editors here, he has amassed a following of zero people, and the only "notable" thing he has done is loudly, shamelessly, and irratatingly, trolled Wikipedia and Usenet in an effort of self-promotion. The proper thing to have done is ban the troll from Wikipedia and be done with him forever, and never speaking his name again. By granting Sollog this article, it is actually providing Sollog with a large volume of potential customers for his videos of porn and unnatural deaths and his other art and books, which of course the entire reason he came here to begin with. I believe this article exists because certain editors sought to "punish" Sollog for messing with Wikipedia, without realizing that punishing Sollog by giving him an entire article about his life is nothing more than "feeding the troll" and providing him with the attention that he so dearly craves). Vivaldi 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not speculate about the intentions of Ennis or earlier editors. You seem to be agreeing that he doesn't merit an article of any kind: more basic a point than the others you've raised. If I have read you correctly, then why not turn your energies, which seem considerable, toward devising a surefire way to have this (and any) article about Ennis deleted? -- Hoary 08:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas about how I should begin that process? I've seen the AfD process in action, but I'm not sure I should just renominate the article now, especially since people here already are indicating that they think I am acting in bad faith with my suggestions to remove the article. What are the kinds of things you think I would need to do to gain approval to delete the article? Vivaldi 10:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it means a tedious trawl through the various standards, guidelines, etc etc. These emphasize verifiability over everything else. I suppose one approach would just be to hack away at just about everything that's said in the article on the grounds that it's not verifiable; one would be left with next to nothing and perhaps too little to merit an article even in the eyes of those who might be called (other than by themselves) "inclusionists". -- Hoary 13:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are right about that. Once the unverifiable information in the article is removed, there won't be much left (as I demonstrated earlier). I'm not sure if this article can be written at all using sources that are reputable and reliable, and that is one of the reasons I think it ought to be deleted. I was thinking about your suggestion, that I rewrite the article and present it here, and that is my biggest concern, that it will end up being a one line statement something like:

A man who calls himself Sollog, who claims that he is God and has psychic abilities, posted many articles on Usenet and made many edits on Wikipedia to this article in order to gain attention for himself and promote traffic to his webpages.

And this whole article becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sollog is notable because this article exists and thus that is why this article exists. Since Sollog was successful at promoting himself and his webpages by causing such a stir on Wikipedia and Usenet that Wikipedieans decided to write an article about him, he deserves an article about himself. Vivaldi 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not sure about his motivation. I suspect that there's something to this, but very obviously nobody can present proof of motivation. (Moreover, I suspect that the religious angle is to get his outfit recognized as a religious organization and benefit from the attendant tax breaks, but I can't prove that either.) -- Hoary 06:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, another possibility is that Sollog is just completely bonkers and he has no rational at all for doing what he does. I guess you are right. The article will have to be even shorter.

A man who calls himself Sollog, who claims that he is God and has psychic abilities, posted many articles on Usenet and made many edits on Wikipedia.

posted at 06:49, 10 April 2006 by Vivaldi
No, because some rule (or at least guideline) that I can't find right now says that WP articles should normally be about WP. And anyway we don't have proof that it was Ennis who made these edits. So: "Sollog claims that he is god and that he has psychic abilities."
Of course, this idea of cutting cruft goes right against gigabytes of Wikipedia precedent: once somebody has an article, all sorts of National Enquirer-fodder may (should?) be shoveled in. On Britney Spears:
Spears announced her pregnancy via her official website in April 2005. Despite her eagerness to have a baby, she admitted to ELLE magazine that, "I have a feeling I'm going to have an operation. I don't know why. But I hope so. I don't want to go through the pain." On 14 September 2005, 6lb. 11oz. baby boy Sean Preston Federline was born in the Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, California by an elective caesarean section. / Her birth was the inspiration behind a statue by Daniel Edwards Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston which was unveiled in March 2006. The statue[3] features an idealised Spears giving birth naturally in a provocative pose hunched on all fours clutching a bearskin rug. Controversy was further stoked by it being partly supported by the Manhattan Right to Life Committee.
Note that this is not in the "Controversy" section, let alone the "Trivia" section, which provides such heartwarming infotainment as:
Two Texas DJs created a panic for her fans when they falsely reported that she and her then-boyfriend, 'NSYNC's Justin Timberlake, were in a car accident and that she had died in the crash. In reality, they were both alive and well and had not been in any car wreck.
Yes, come to think of it, could Britney "I have a dream feeling" Spears be a psychic? Indeed, can you prove that she is not Sollog? --Hoary 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a great idea! Lets move this entire thing to BJAODN. It's appropriate, no? We get to keep the long and illustrious history of this article, and it also gets to be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! -- Hoary 11:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but will the talk page history still be accessible? --12.192.160.2 16:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It could be done that way. I would suggest moving it wholesale, talk page and all, to a subpage of BJAODN with a link in the "Special collections" section. 'Course, I'd like to see the support of the major contributors to the article first so a move-war isn't started. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I know of at least 10 fairly frequent editors to Wikipedia that have made comments at one point or another that indicated that this particular article should either be deleted or reduced in size substantially. (I don't have my notes with me now, but I can do this later). Perhaps I can give them all a "ring" on their Talk pages and see if they are still interested in supporting such a move. Which editors here would object to moving this article to BJAODN? Vivaldi 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A (non-exhaustive) list of previous editors who should have a message left on their Talk page asking them to offer their opinion would include:
And of course Ehheh and Habap since they've been recently active. I would suggest a message to The Number and Sollogfan, but only because it would make me giggle. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I left messages for Firestar and JRM. Wyss has fled, so I didn't bother. I also left messages for User:Etaonish, User:Indrian, User:Geogre, and User:Tony Sidaway. Each of these are current and frequent editors of Wikipedia that have in the past made comments suggesting that this article be pared down, fixed, or deleted, so we still need to get opinions from people that believe that we should maintain this article in the present form at the present location. Vivaldi 05:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think leaving messages for editors with any presumption of what their opinion would be is a bad idea. A neutrally-worded message to all those editors (even Wyss's, for completeness's sake, and notification should she return) is preferable to anything with even the appearance of selectiveness. Making sure that "both sides" are contacted is kind of missing the point. After all, tell enough people who might care and those that show up to debate will be a sufficiently representative sample. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Saxifrage- You are right. I had my list for a different purpose when I originally created it (which was before this discussion was even suggest). My list included people that were frequent editors of Wikipedia that also held my POV that this article should be removed because Ennis is a non-entity (and other reasons). Of course, all the editors that showed interest with Sollog should be notified that we are considering this option so that we can get a more accurate picture of what consensus really is. Vivaldi 14:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Son of Light, Light of God claim

I left in the claim that Altman made that Sollog stands for "Son of Light, Light of God", but I removed the claim that this view is "widely held", since it appears that only one reporter has ever made this claim at all. "Widely held" belief is a Weasel Word (And really this reporter Altman has a personal bias since his is personally involved with Sollog and even asserts that he has reported Sollog to federal authorities for threatening him, although it appears that no charges have ever been filed as a result of Altman's charges. In the future, I'd like to point out a number of instances of clear bias in Altman's reporting re: Sollog, but I don't have time now). I have added a link to the Altman article where he makes this claim. Sollog, who made up his own name, states that Altman got it wrong and he explains how he derived it. I don't understand the reasoning for including Altman's speculation for the name, when Sollog has provided his own reasons for it on his own webpages. Perhaps someone here can explain why this bit of information is necessary or important to the reason why Sollog is notable? Vivaldi 02:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's "Son of Light, Light of God", not "Son of God, Light of God". --12.192.160.2 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the typo, I fixed it. Vivaldi 16:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methods section claim using weasel words

Critics claim that Sollog is playing prediction roulette, covering enough dates and cities to hit by chance alone.. "Critics claim" is a weasel word. If indeed critics make this claim, then show it. Tell us exactly which critics make the claim and provide a source that is reputable and verifiable that proves it. Vivaldi 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background section more weasels

Major newsmedia, however, have generally paid little attention to Sollog's predictions, though several individual reporters have portrayed him as a notable crank. This "several individual reporters" claim seems very weasel-like. What are the names of the reporters and which "major newsmedia" did they work for? Did they all use the specific terms, "notable" and "crank"? Vivaldi 16:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A2Kafir writes in his edit summary, "They are right there dude" and he adds the comment to the article: "(see articles in Reference section below)", but unfortunately I see only one reporter from major newsmedia that has ever even mentioned the name of Sollog and that is Victoria Shannon of The Washington Post, and Ms. Shannon who does not ever say that Sollog is notable and she does not refer to him as a crank. Vivaldi 17:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are now two cited sources from major media that mention Sollog, but neither suggest Sollog is notable (as was originally claimed). Vivaldi sometime in the past.

[edit] The reference for Ms. Shannon and Wash Post

The claim about Ms. Shannon being the one reporter from a major media source to mention Sollog or Ennis in print was listed in the reference section:

Shannon, Victoria (September 8, 1997). "Diana's Death Brings Out the Good, Bad and Ugly on the Net". Washington Post.

A search of Lexus/Nexis doesn't turn up any other examples and we've spent two years looking for counter examples now. Do you think that the guideline at Wikipedia:Common knowledge may apply to this fact now? The other guidelines like WP:RS and WP:V seem to indicate that as editors we should look for multiple sources to further guarantee the accuracy of the claim presented, but what do we do when only one known source from a major media source has ever made a claim? I'm puzzled about how to handle it. Vivaldi 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if you don't accept the NY Times article that mentions Xinowhatever, there's still the Los Angeles Times reporter he had run ins with. Nexis isn't necessarily comprehensive when it comes to ten year old newspaper stories. Gamaliel 22:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I accept that the NY Times article mentions someone by the name of Leophoenix or Xineohpoel, but this article seems to make the case that Leophoenix is likely or possibly a supporter of Sollog and not Sollog himself. With no other reputable sources to determine whether or not Leophoenix and Sollog are in fact the same person, I don't see how we can claim that the NY Times article refers to the predictions of Sollog himself. (I'm not saying that this can't possibly be shown...just that it doesn't appear to have been demonstrated yet). And I see that the Los Angeles Times reporter's name is mentioned in the article, but I can't see any reference to any stories that the L.A. Times has ever done at all about this issue, let alone any that mention the name Sollog or Ennis. Vivaldi 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea if there are any stories. But since an LAT reporter got on Sollog's shit list, then it is likely there was one. Either way, I don't think it is safe to conclude that Shannon's article is the only one ever based on the limited resources we have, and such a conclusion is too close to WP:NOR for comfort. Just say "little mainstream coverage" or something similar. Gamaliel 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You are probably correct that the LAT reporter Reich might have written something about Sollog/Ennis since it has been reported that he received threats re: a Princess Diana story that supposedly had Sollog quotes in it. Vivaldi 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The references section and why its messed up

Although I personally feel that it is completely and patently ridiculous to cite Usenet posts in an encyclopedia (except in the rare exception where the subject of the article clearly admits to writing the posts). We should never be citing Usenet posts or blogs from a third party that are analyzing the subject of an article. They just aren't Reliable Sources. How do we know who the author of the posts are? How can we find out if the author of the post had fact checkers on his staff. Did an editor oversee the writing of his Usenet post? Did his team of lawyers take a gander at them to insure they were free from libel? This is the reason we have guidelines and policies regarding reliable and reputable sources. I don't mind (much) if you use the Usenet posts that Sollog himself says are his, but the others need to go.

So lets go through these "references" one-by-one:

"Wally Hartshorn" A posting that has been removed by "Wally Hartshorn" from his personal blog criticizing Sollog (February 10, 2004). Skeptic News.

This above source used to be sourced to no author, but someone by the name of "Wally Hartshorn" owns the Skeptic News domain name and he says in the article (that used to exist) that this posting is his and that Skeptic News is his personal blog. However, Wally Hartshorn has chosen to remove this link from his personal blog, because the blog is still running and contains an archive of old posts -- minus this one. I'm not sure how this source fits in with the definition of "reputable and reliable source" as it is given in the policy at WP:V. Does "Wally Hartshorn" have any fact-checkers on his staff? Why did he delete this posting to his blog? Does "Wally Hartshorn" have an editor? Does he have any assets to protect (like the NYT or LAT or Wash Post)? Perhaps someone can help explain these issues.

Mathematical proof of God? Sollog's Creator Formula. A purported copy of a Usenet article posted to an unknown newsgroup. Retrieved January 13, 2005. scienceone.org. (Dead link)

The source cited above is basically what it is. We must assume that it is an accurate copy of an anonymously posted article to an unknown Usenet newsgroup. I'm not sure how this source fits in with the definition of "reputable and reliable source" as it is given in the policy at WP:V. Perhaps someone can help.

"Tom McDonald" (July 23, 2001). Re: OT: My Time in Prison. A posting purportedly from pseodonym "Tom McDonald" to Usenet newsgroup alt.prophecies.nostradamus.

This is a posting presumably by the pseudonym "Tom McDonald" that once used to post to various Usenet newsgroups a number of years ago. I'm not sure how this source fits in with the definition of "reputable and reliable source" as it is given in the policy at WP:V. Perhaps someone can help.

Sollog controling (sic) Hurricane Juan to hit USA? (September 27, 2003). A copy of an article purportedly posted to Usenet newsgroup psychologytalk.org. Retrieved January 13, 2005. (Dead link)

This is an anonymously authored copy of an article that we are supposed to believe was once posted to a Usenet newsgroup a number of years ago. I'm not sure how this source fits in with the definition of "reputable and reliable source" as it is given in the policy at WP:V. Perhaps someone can help.

"Ethin Hines" (translator) (September 14, 2001). Personal website, Xinoehpoel Review, purported to be a German to English translation of a Spiegel Online article written by Frank Patalong. Retrieved January 13, 2004.

This is a posting of what we are told is a translation from German to English of an article that "Ethin Hines" supposedly found on "Spiegel Online". "Ethin Hines" presumably owns "Xinoehphoel Review" and I guess that means we should trust him to be an honest translator and reporter of what was printed in the online edition of Der Speigel. Call me silly, but I'm not sure I'd call a man with a personal website called "Xinoehphoel Review" to be a non-biased reporter on the subject matter. So we have, as a source in a biography of a living person, the German to English translation of what one guy, who happens to have a personal stake in the issue, says he read on a weekly German newspapers online web page. I'd like to know which editors here (if any) think that this is acceptable.

"zorobabe" The Great Sollog Challenge (April 27, 2002). A Usenet posting by pseudonym "zorobabe" to newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus, sci.skeptic, alt.paranormal, and alt.fan.art-bell.

The above is just another anonymous post to a variety of Usenet sites. I'm not sure how this can be used to demonstrate anything at all in light of the policy we have at WP:V.

"Michael" "Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia" (December 14, 2004). Anonymous posting left by pseodonym "Michael" on the blog Slashdot.

The above is an anonymous posting left by someone on a newsblog. I don't know why, but I get the feeling that I can't trust that "Michael" is a reliable source of information. Who the hell is "Michael" and why the heck does his personal views about Sollog amount to anything more than a hill of beans? This is just an anonymous account of one man left on blog. How can this be used as a reputable source? Is "Michael" well known as a reputable and reliable publisher of facts?

"Matthew Mazer". DisDain.tv Coverage on Sollog. Purported copies of "Matthew Mazer" selected anonymous Usenet posts and personal e-mails to newsgroup Disdain.tv and others. Retrieved January 13, 2005.

The above "source" lists a bunch of posts that we must presume are accurate representations of what "Matthew Mazer" may have found posted on Usenet. "Matthew Mazer" also presents what he claims are personal e-mails from Sollog himself. Now I wonder if anyone can explain how these can be used as a reliable source. If I receive an e-mail from Sollog I wouldn't be allowed to use it as a source. But if I post the e-mail to my personal webpage and say it came from Sollog, then I can use it as a reference on Wikipedia? Now this kind of twisted logic makes no sense. What kind of weird pretzel logic was used to justify the inclusion of this source? I'd like to know why "Matthew Mazer" is considered a reliable and reputable source.

And I might note that this "Matthew Mazer" post is really another second hand account because the whole thing is really on the "Ethin Hines" personal web page. I have no idea how "Mr. Mazer" and "Mr. Hines" are related, but perhaps someone can fill me in. I'd like to know what "Mr. Hines" did to verify the accuracy of the information provided by "Mr. Mazer".

"Ethin Hines" Who is Xinoehpoel?. The personal website of "Ethin Hines" called Xinoehpoel Review. Retrieved January 13, 2005.

Some guy supposedly named "Ethin Hines" has a personal webpage that is about "Xinoehpoel" and for some reason this is considered a reputable and reliable published information source for an article about a living person? What do we do next week if "Ethin Hines" claims that Sollog raped his mother and killed his father. Do you just go ahead and add it to the main article?

Vivaldi 06:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent additions by 68.98.21.160

68.98.21.160 (talk • contribs) is attempting to add information into this article that is not following the guidlines given at WP:BLP. We should err on the side of doing no harm for people that are hardly notable like Sollog. Vivaldi (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trial date

"The scheduled date for the trial is 3 May 2006". Given that it is now 7 May, the trial should no longer be sheduled for four days ago. Did it happen (if so what happened?) or was it postponed (until when?) or cancelled (why?). Thryduulf 14:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Ennis redirect to Sollog

I would like to know why John Ennis redirects to Sollog. Especially given the fact that there is an actor named John Ennis (actor) with his own article. It is pretty clear that Sollog is not the actor that is mentioned in IMDb and on other webpages. And a google search for John Ennis doesn't bring up anything about this non-entity Sollog at least not on the first 10 pages. Vivaldi (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the inbound links, if most refer to the actor then change the redirect and add a topline disambig to that article. If not then change John Ennis into a disambig between the two. Thryduulf 18:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the redirect on John Ennis to John Ennis (actor) since the only even somewhat notable John Ennis is the one that appears in IMDb (well...and the pro baseball player that doesn't have an article here). Vivaldi (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for deletion

I just put this on. I have a couple of reasons why I think this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. First, this person is not really very important; (on the other hand if he really could predict the future that would be different :-)). Second, how do we really know anything about him? A lot of the article talks about various Internet postings, some from him and some from his "followers". How do we know who they are really from? Third, there is a lot of personal information about his criminal record and so forth. What is the purpose of giving this information? Is to discredit his powers of prediction? What is the logic of that? Isn't it possible for a person to be a bad person and also have psychic powers? I hope that I am doing the right thing according to the rules here. Thanks. Steve Dufour 11:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. right after I posted this message I noticed that it had been proposed for deletion back in 2004. I'm not sure how I missed that. Anyway I still think it should go. He is probably even less important in 2006 than he was in 2004. Again, I don't want to do anything to break the rules here. sd

Someone removed my notice saying, "references establish notability." I thought a subject of an article should have "importance", not just "notability". But what do I know? Steve Dufour 14:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Notability" is the word used for "importance" on Wikipedia. Sollog was something of an Internet phenomenon. I suspect that as time goes by, he becomes less notable, but I don't think we're there yet. --Habap 14:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Very little, I fear. Wikipedia is stuffed with articles on pseudophenomena that have no importance discernible by anybody outside a particular fanbase. (Consider Category:Star Wars locations for a start.) At least Ennis seems to exist. Personally I don't think that any person, even a real one, should be able to troll his way to Wikipedia article eligibility, which is why I voted to have the article deleted and was happy to see that you had prodded it. But my opinion is that of a small minority, it seems. -- Hoary 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we are a minority. I still like the idea proposed above that this entire thing be moved to the Bad Jokes pages, but if that isn't done, then I would also be in favor of a deletion. Steve, how about crafting up a good deletion proposal for this article and giving it another shot? I think a few more editors and admins have come to respect Jimbo's opinions about biographies of living people and perhaps you may be successful. At the minimum, even if the deletion fails you might get some more people interested in culling out the information that is only sourced to unreliable Usenet posts and blogs. Vivaldi (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I never heard of that guy before, but now I'm very interested :-) And while I'm here, I suggest that someone start Diana Napolis. (better known as "Curio Jones"). --Tilman 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To propose an article be deleted, you have to put a notification on the article and list it with other proposals so that it can be discussed more widley. Follow these three steps to do so. Thanks. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Defour knows how to propose an article for deletion, he has done it before elsewhere. I think he was trying to get a discussion going to test the waters first. Vivaldi (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh! I missed that he'd previously prod-ed it. Sorry about that Defour! — Saxifrage ✎ 02:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I'll go ahead with that. I have nothing against Sollog's fans, or whatever.  :-) Steve Dufour 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is the deletion discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sollog Steve Dufour 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Steve, I moved it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sollog (2nd nomination). Sorry if we were both working on this at the same time. I thought you left it in a broken state and I was attempting to clean it up. Vivaldi (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Now let's see what happens. Steve Dufour 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it possible for a person to be a bad person and also have psychic powers? It's no less possible than for a person to be a good person and also have psychic powers. Either way, the possibility is zero. Still, there could be some notability if the claimed "psychic powers" indubitably cause other people to do something notable (e.g. put on identical sneakers and commit suicide together, thereby making the newspapers). For "Sollog", this hasn't happened. -- Hoary 02:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverted edits

Maybe it was confusing for me to make two separate edits as one; but they were both reverted at the same time. I have re-reverted both. Firstly the paragraph I removed does not include any reference to Sollog or apparently have any link to him whatsoever. The first sentence of the paragraph asserts that certain supposed 9/11 predictions are related to Sollog, but there is no indication or justification as to what this relation might be. If as Habap says this section does deal with the subject, material should be added or clarified to explain the link to Sollog. Or perhaps I am missing something subtle?... (13:01, 19 August 2006 by Via strass

I believe that there should be a verifiable source that links Xineohpoel to Sollog before we include this paragraph. Did Sollog claim to be Xineohpoel? If so, then we can cite that claim and then put the information in. If Sollog hasn't claimed to be the guy, then we need a reliable source that links Sollog to Xineohpoel. Vivaldi (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The Der Spiegel article asserts such a link. There's a translation into english here and I believe some discussion of the article in the talk page archives. Ehheh 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Secondly I feel the sentence pointing out that the Pentagon is not in the DC city limits is an entirely trivial quibble. The events of 9/11 are widely referred to as 'attacks on New York and Washington'. If it could be shown that someone had predicted 'a great emergency in Washington DC' on the correct date, a reasonable person would surely recognise that this statement was fairly accurate, if only by coincidence. Surely there are stronger grounds on which to challenge Sollog's claims of clairvoyancy? ... (13:01, 19 August 2006 by Via strass

I agree with your assessment that stating the Pentagon is outside of D.C. city limits is a very weak challenge. It almost bolsters the claim it is so weak. Vivaldi (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] xineohpoel

Is Sollog xineohpoel? xineohpoel supposedly predicted something bad would happen on Sept. 4 2001 in 6 days. They said that xineohpoel was this Sollog guy. --Rotten 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's [31] the thread. --Rotten 07:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Pretty eerie, the post is entitled 911 (he was referring to september 1st 2001) but he said he'd be back 7 days on September 4th.--Rotten 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any legal updates?

His trial date has passed....... A2Kafir 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] according to his wesite:=======

"Sollog is still in jail. He has been trying to clear his name of the DUI charge but they are not giving him the hearings that would enable him to do that. This is not surprising as the real reason he is in jail is political. The DUI is just an excuse to hold him there indefinitely. As soon as he is able to, he will clear his name of that false charge. Then he should be released.

There is a chance he will have a hearing in October but if that doesn't happen then the next opportunity for release will be in January."

[edit] ===

[edit] Update Tag

If S. is still in jail... shouldn't the article discuss that?

Cheers V. Joe 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The below statements, submitted by Sollog, state he is innocent of the DUI charge and is a political prisoner of the USA. They should be included in the article.
Sollog's Habeus Corpus from his website :
http://sollogs.com/habeus-corpus.html
Sollog's Notice to the court :
http://sollogs.com/notice-and-edict.html
Arnold1 06:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Arnold1 is very clearly another Sollog puppet... just look at his edit history. 216.165.158.7 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/l/Talk%7ESollog_df4a.html"