Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sollog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result of the debate was - kept

Sollog

Note: The VfD notice has been removed from the article with a comment that the VfD was resolved with a consensus to keep. Isn't it traditional for the admin who does the counting to mark the VfD page with what the result was?

This is mostly advertising and lists of websites. Non-encyclopedic. Beyond that, I'm not sure if it's merely shameless self-promotion or an elaborate hoax. --MarkSweep 04:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I favor "C", severe mental illness. He claims to have invented the Fibonacci algorithm. Delete. My vote changed to Keep given the improvement in the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Piffle. Delete. -- Hoary 04:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Please delete this nonsense. The Sollog promoters are all over Usenet, they're hideously persistent and, to put it bluntly, absolutely barking mad. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog discovered a 24 deep number sequence within the Fibonacci Sequence, the same number sequence he also found in primes. He did not discover Fibonacci, he discovered the hidden number sequence within it that is also within primes. There are close to 100,000 pages about sollog in usenet (see deja.com search now google.com groups search) James Randi has 30K and Uri Geller has 20K. Sollog has been at times one of the most searched for terms in search engines. I am a sollog fan and not sollog. KEEP

Sollog is a top subject for discussion on the net, that is why he needs a neutral page. While some like Geller and Randi have 20,000 or so pages in Usenet, Sollog has almost 100,000 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sollog&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

Sollog claims to have put info into usenet with time-stamps to prove he is psychic, the links below prove he is.

Sollog on 911 three years before it hit

http://theparanormal.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144 Note: 63.164.145.85 altered this link to http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6tb7rp%24gvr%241%40winter.news.erols.com


Sollog on March 11th Madrid Massacre two years before it hit

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

Lycos reporting Sollog was one of top search terms after 911

http://50.lycos.com/091701a.html

NY Times calling Sollog's 911 warning LUCKY GUESS

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D17FC3C5F0C748DDDA00894D9404482&incamp=archive:search

Therefore, due to immense interest in Sollog as usenet posts and national news references show, he should have a simple page with neutral info on it. Not slanders and insults like some have posted here who have done no research.

  • The above anonymous comment by user:65.34.173.202, who also wrote the entry. Well, "Sollog" does have a certain degree of fame; see Full Canvas Jacket: Noteworthy Unhinged Lunatic Rants. He certainly has a huge appetite for publicizing himself. It's all piffle, but if Wikipedia is to include a Pifflopedia, "Sollog" perhaps deserves his little place. -- Hoary 05:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Note: 63.164.145.85 altered this comment, changing the IP address to user:65.34.173.666.

This is silly. Encyclopedias need to be open to a variety of information. To censor a particular person from it merely because his views are unconventional is entirely inappropriate. I have been on Sollog's email list for a couple of years. Even though I may not always agree with him, I always find him to be relevant. At times, he is voice in the wilderness - pleading for sanity in a world which has gone mad. In some ways, his style resembles that of Rajneesh (Osho). - Mark Foster -- Note: This is User:69.240.249.153's only edit.

  • Delete. This "Sollog" stuff should remind us all to take our prescription medication exactly as our doctors prescribe it. A2Kafir 05:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quoting crackpot pages isn't a NPOV source. Sollog puts out public prophecies each year and he has done what no other alledged psychic has, that being to give precise info about future events. KEEP SOLLOG and please don't make it quack page. Stick to the facts, Sollog releases prophecies and they keep hitting and hitting. Sollog has publicly challenged Randi to test him and Randi refused to set up a test. The fact is Sollog is a very popular modern day Nostradamus type psychic/seer etc. He is also the founder of TOH which has over 100,000 members. KEEP SOLLOG -- anonymous post from User:216.74.127.98 at 05:23, 4 Dec 2004, the first edit from this IP. All other edits are concerned with this article

  • O urger to "keep sollog" (in full caps, twice) and user of IP number 216.74.127.98, if you want to be more persuasive you might register and use an ID here. Doing so is simple and free of charge. -- Hoary 05:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Note: 63.164.145.85 altered this comment, changing the IP address to 216.74.127.980.

Sollog's followers needs to learn some grammar and take an elementary composition class. Their contributions make no sense. A2Kafir 05:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, our anonymous editor, the one who created the Sollog article, blanked this page in an act of vandalism. Another good reason to DELETE article. A2Kafir 05:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Or in a bit more detail: the Sollog fan has repeatedly blanked the page. (See the history.) -- Hoary 06:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • PS he/she has also been repeatedly dicking around with the page Sollog itself. Suggestion to any administrator here: freeze out the IP number, at least for a few hours. -- Hoary 06:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if he's a noteworthy lunatic (a la Archimedes Plutonium or Time Cube); otherwise delete. —No-One Jones (m) 06:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I dunno how noteworthy he is, but I've seen some of his posts on Usenet. Ben Standeven 08:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • He's only noteworthy because he's notorious for disrupting forums to promote himself (qv). I suggest that a glance at the page's history is a small taste of things to come if this page is retained. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup. Has got national news coverage and significant fame on the net as demonstrated above. The article needs to be cleaned up, but is a valid article topic. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:54, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • "National news coverage" has not reached the New York Times, and thousands of fruitcakes and hucksters manage "significant fame on the net". -- Hoary 13:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • NDC777 vandalized the page, removing much of the above and adding the following stuff ("How can you leave Sollog out" etc. etc.). -- Hoary 13:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • How can you leave Sollog out?!!! Sollog is great! His prophecies show what a great talent he has. Shame on all those Jesus-loving morons who are TOO BLIND to see the TRUTH. You'll be SORRY if you delete him!!
WAKE UP! SOLLOG IS THE REAL DEAL! NDC777 12:58, 4 Dec 2004
  • Keep and clean up - Sollog is certainly noteworthy (over 12,000 Google hits), and a staggering 74,000 hits on Google's Usenet archive. --Rlandmann 13:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Hack-magnet (meaning that it is inherently POV because of the adherents) and ongoing self-promotion using all free Internet media, and that includes us. We are not an advertising medium (i.e. it is not of sufficient worth in itself to go through NPOV wars). Subject is snake oil. Geogre 15:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed on all counts, but IMHO none of that is a reason to delete the article. If we had a neutral, factual article on this individual, it could be protected if and when that became necessary. Wikipedia manages to cope with far more controversial topics - most of them far more consequential than this... --Rlandmann 00:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It's silly trying to ban him just because you don't agree with him. Much of what I've seen from anti-sollog comments here are childish insults - a sure sign of a lost argument. The fact is Sollog has more references on Google Groups than "Pope John Paul II" and he's in here. I'm not Sollog, I'm just a fan and I know his prophecies have come true, eg his prophecy/warning about 911. But there is so much more to him than that.
Please include a neutral page about Sollog. -- unsigned edit by Arnold1 at 16:50, 4 Dec 2004. This user's first edit. His/her only other edit is a minor corection to this vote
    • Note that there's a major flaw in the metric there - Usenet has, fundamentally, no authority control (or similar, since it's not actually dealing with authorship), so there's no way of being able to restrict such a references search to one term. "Sollog" is a search term which will catch all forms of reference to this chap, but "Pope John Paul II" will only get those which reference JPII in that specific form. "Pope John Paul" gets more references - and you can imagine how many "the pope" throws up. Shimgray 18:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The lunatics that put sollog down are usually wanna bee's that cant be. I say leave sollogs page alone, at least its thought provoking and he has the balls to say what he thinks. To often his prediction have merit more than you can say from the knockers of this world. -- Note: This is User:203.79.112.60's only edit. Note: 63.164.145.85 altered this comment, changing the IP address to User:203.79.112.601.
  • Delete. Whenever a group of vandals get together in an attempt to destroy the VFD process, it confirms in my mind that the topic in question should go. Indrian 00:10, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • In its present form, keep. Whoever made this a normal-looking article did a good job. The question would be: how much effort would it take to keep it that way, and not have the Sollog kool-aid folks keep vandalizing it with insistent, grammar-poor and CAPITALIZED devotionals to their leader. A2Kafir 02:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The article is in much better shape, thanks to User:Rlandmann, than it was when I nominated it for deletion. We should definitely keep it, more or less in its current form. However, given its extensive history of vandalism in its very short existence, would this be a case for proactive protection? --MarkSweep 02:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep based on updated version of article. Gamaliel 03:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • And keep to annoy anonymous editors who make legal threats. Gamaliel 08:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not link to the false article by altman stating Sollog and his family are pornographers, you'll be sued promtly if you knowingly link to that article. If you want to see wikipedia sued monday morning in federal court link to altman's false story. Sollog and his family are not pornographers. end of subject, you can find better skeptical articles than that, a 20 year old DUI that was over turned is not a major sollog item. How about the WP article on Sollog and diana's death? That link shows a bias, as the top of the page stands, it's fair, the links, well some need to be pro and some con. Links don't need to be to what is obvious slander. Calling a religious leader a pornographer is nothing but an attempt to defame and harass the person. Also, since Sollog has authored over 30 books you need to show the link to www.1ebooks.com/sollog that way people can see the huge volume of work Sollog has done. So there are now two pro sollog links his web site and FAQ, and two skeptic links skeptic news and altman. If you put up the sollog book link and say the WP article on diana (washington post) that would be considered fair imho. thanks -- anonymous edit from User:65.34.173.202 (author of original article) at 08:02, 5 Dec 2004
  • lam a member of TOH ,TEMPLE OF HAYAH and l'm very very Offended by the altman articles that are linked to his lies. Please remove them as lies and liars shouldn't be Allowed Here.ToraH -- 08:36, 5 Dec 2004 - note: first edit by this user

*Delete - The article should either mention this guy's criminal record and self-admitted past involvement in the porn business (last time I heard, it was possible to sell porn legally), or be dropped. Another justification for deleting the article is that some of his current victims are creating a nuisance for Wikipedia that far outweighs the benefits of keeping it (this isn't the JFK assassination, for example). There are plenty of citations available on the web referring to his past, along with the utter hollowness of his claims as a prophet. Wyss 83.115.15.49 08:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Note: 63.164.145.85 altered this comment, changing the IP address to 83.115.15.491.(then lined-out by the original user Wyss 13:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC), revised delete vote is below)

  • A 20 year old dui isn't news. Oh what a criminal record. Plus it was overturned, the cop lied on the stand exactly as the article implies. Sollog and his family are not pornographers. Quoting a lunatic like altaman twice in the Sollog page is not fair and unbiased. Okay you quoted the altman article that is false about sollog being alexander. Now why don't you link to the audio interview of sollog and alexander proving altman is a liar. You have an article in the washington post that you ignore, there are many other legitimate news articles on sollog you could use. The city paper is a free give away that is used for sex ads, anything they have to say is bs. Anyway, if you just do a fair and balanced piece the sollog fans will leave you alone and probably promote the heck out of wikipedia.com So far the anti articles on Sollog are well sollog said tragedy connected to 113 and the 113th shuttle mission blew up, i can't see the connection (so says the skeptic) and CNN and a bunch of international media called me about Sollog I wonder why (must be the 911 hit he made duh) anyone more than 1 link to altman is biased, why don't you link to the 911 article by altman where he laughed at Sollog for warning of major terrorism in NYC in september, it's there if you want it. Anyway, 1 link to altman is enough now find other skeptics that don't like sollog, altman isn't an authority he's a biased loon who has admitted mossad connections -- added by 216.74.127.98 on 08:50, 5 Dec 2004
  • Keep Where there's this much smoke, it doesn't matter whether there's fire or not. --Wetman 08:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think that you'll find that the smoke is generated by a small number of people. Course, if "Sollog" predicts the end of the world and triggers mass suicide among his followers, he'll become newsworthy. -- Hoary 12:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I am a member of TOH, I find the links to city paper nothing but harassment to TOH members. Please remove the links that are an insult to TOH members since they have been proven to be lies. Why do you want to harass TOH members with your links to obvious lies? Please remove the links now. PS In the TOH forum there is a movement to join a class action against the owner and networks that host this site. In the past such lawsuits have been used to make people remove lies about TOH and Sollog. I thought you would like to know the lawyers for TOH are already moving to sue Wikimedia and their hosting companies. Again, I find your links to lies about the religious leader of TOH to be harassment. I find them offensive. Now stop harassing me over my religious views, as a member of TOH I do not like to see people promoting lies about Sollog. Remove the city paper links and keep the rest of the Sollog info. - anonymous comment posted at 11:18, 5 Dec 2004 by 207.44.180.48.
  • Oh, why not keep SOLLOG? I am neither a fan nor a anti-fan, but I think that people should have a place to look up famous (and infamous) folks connected with the net - and this SOLLOG fellow is certainly one of those! As long as the wiki presents both sides of the discussion in a non-emotional manner, why not keep it? -- anonymous post at 14:31, 5 Dec 2004 from 68.63.32.7. This is the only edit from that IP


  • After reading the article that the Sollog folks are threatening LAWSUIT over, I think it's a great link. It's a story of one unusual man's encounter with the legal system--one worthy of an episode of one of those lawyer shows. And it also shows that Sollog threatens EVERYONE with lawsuits. So, no biggie if he threatens us. A2Kafir 15:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I am also a member of TOH and the Altman link is offensive to me as it contains lies about Sollog. As a matter of fact, the whole tone of that article is offensive to me. Please remove that link. -- anonymous edit from User:81.7.58.122 at 16:13, 5 Dec 2004. First edit from this IP since March 2004
  • Anonymous dude, if we removed all the outside links from Wikipedia that one or two people took offense to, we'd have very few left. You claim the article contains lies, but present no counter-evidence. It appears to be one reporter's take on an unusual trial. Reporters are by no means always correct in every detail (*cough* Dan Rather *cough*) but linking to news stories is common througout Wikipedia. It does not mean the article is perfect; it does mean it is relevant. A2Kafir 16:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • See also Carl Cameron. But seriously, keep. With this much self-promotion going on, it's entirely possible that average people might hear of this individual and seek out information on him--more likely, in fact, than some of the articles we have in here. However, it needs to be saved from POV. I think we should work up a neutral version and watch it for a time, with hair-trigger protection if necessary. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:51, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've heard of the great Sollog and his predictions before. Everyking 17:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Current article is reasonably NPOV although it could use some work. I agree with Dpbsmith's suggestion on the talk page. Some of the information in this VfD discussion should also be added. Keep "offensive" links. We should of course be fair to Sollog and his adherents, even if he is barking mad. For example, if Sollog did make the claim referred to near the top of this discussion, then the article could say, "Sollog claims to have discovered a 24 deep number sequence within the Fibonacci Sequence, the same number sequence he also found in primes." JamesMLane 18:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unimportant.--Etaonish 18:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am a member of TOH and I find the Altman links offensive. That way we can sue the fucking bastards for harrassing TOH. NDC777 -- 18:30, 5 Dec 2004
A. Why the profanity?
B. On what grounds would you sue someone? Who exactly would you sue? Being offensive to some people isn't sufficient grounds; ask Howard Stern.
C. What does TOH stand for? A2Kafir 18:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • KEEP I think Sollog is one of thee greatest minds to walk the earth. His views about GOD and his prophetic, Nostradamus-like abilities are sure to make him a famous figure in the future. He's predicted important events such as the 9/11 attack, Oklahoma City bombing, famous deaths, major earthquakes and hurricanes, etc...
Also, his simple mathematical proof of intelligent design of our solar system is what humans have been waiting for. It is proof that the universe was designed by a higher intelligence(GOD). There should definitely be a Sollog article on Wikipedia because he will undoubtedly be a key figure in history.
Altman is a biased moron. He proves that those against Sollog are usually childish and petty. Remove the link to that article! unsigned edit by Aries31 at 18:52, 5 Dec 2004. First and only edit by this user


Once again, an anonymous user simply states that the link to a newspaper article should be removed, but giving no reasons. Listen carefully: just because you don't like something doesn't mean Wikipedia can't link to it. The article is an example of one reporter's view on Sollog, based on his observations of a trial. It's just as good a link for the Sollog page as the first link, the one to Sollog's own site. A2Kafir 19:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • A mathematical proof of intelligent design? If viable, that's notable. Forget next week's lotto numbers, this is something I'd like to see discussed in an NPOV article on Sollog, not to mention a link to the proof itself. Mind you, there's some pret-ty intelligent people here capable of taking it apart if it's not what it claims to be. Inky 22:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Uh huh. No, sorry. I was really hoping for a mathematical proof. This is more numerology than anything. The whole bit with the planets looks like the Titius-Bode Law mixed with some of Richard Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics," and I'll bet Clifford Pickover et al, have been aware of the deep repetition all along. Nothing new here. Not disputing his eligibility for an article, just disputing his claims to godhood. Inky 04:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • SOLLOG DISCOVERIES
1. 24 number deep repeating sequence hidden within primes and fibonacci numbers. also the 137 Sequence (related to Fine Constant Number 137 of electromagnetism
http://www.sollog.com/base9numberreduction.shtml
2. 24 number deep repeating sequence hidden within primes
http://www.sollog.com/primes.shtml
3. Sollog inner planet ratio alignment
http://www.sollog.com/creatorproof.shtml
4. Sollog PDF formula (Planetary Distance Formula)
http://www.sollog.com/PDF.shtml
Article on how Nasa found two objects beyond pluto after Sollog released his PDF formula. PDF accurately predicted the orbits of the new planets
http://www.247news.net/2004/20040222-newplanet.shtml -- anonymous edit by User:65.34.173.202 on 23:14, 6 Dec 2004]]
  • Keep, provided that more is made in the article of Sollog's predictions, which are self-evidently ludicrous, and also of Sollog's habit of making up badly-written press releases (although this cannot be stated openly, the article could go "Many of Sollog's predictions are accompanied by press releases written by (name) of the (X news agency); however, there is no evidence that this agency has an existence independent of Sollog"). I liken this situation to that currently prevailing in Iraq. The Sollog article will act as a magnet for Sollog's supporter, who will wreak havoc with the page; and as he does, he will be banned, excluded, removed and blocked from Wikipedia, until there are none of him left. Of course, he'll just end up saying that he was banned from Wikipedia for getting too close to the truth, or something equally silly, but that seems the lesser of two evils. Note that Sollog's supporter has already (a) erased this VFD listing and (b) added nonsense of the top of the VFD page (c) at least twice. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Even if he is psychic(?), he is a wanna-be cult leader. He obviously creates false names, then rants about himself in the 3rd person. Here are some predictions, now here is my famous corpse photos website and 3rd person news site? -- anonymous edit by User:172.172.189.54 at 03:44, 6 Dec 2004. First edit from that IP. Blanked by User:172.136.234.252 at 03:47, 6 Dec 2004.
  • Keep. The coverage in a range of newspapers demonstrates ample notability. Jamesday 18:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sollog isn't the leader of anything. More bs from sollog haters. Here is what I put in TALK about the article, it should be here to point out how hoary is harassing sollog and his fans that bother to waste their time posting in this crappy web wanna be resource.

From TALK:SOLLOG

Hoary is carrying on a one person campaign against sollog. Even the original person who suggested removal is now for keeping the page. So why is hoary so intent on harassing and defaming sollog? Why is hoary harassing sollog fans by posting their IP addresses. Get a clue hoary sollog is a huge story on the net and he has been written about by many in the media, yet biased assholes like hoary keep linking to an article by a wack job nut i.e. howard altman. Why has altman written a half dozen or more articles on sollog? He's an unbalanced jerkoff that's why. Just like hoary, a person that hates sollog due to his religious beliefs. Get a life hoary and get a clue wikipedia, your mods have shown a complete bias in harassing sollog and his fans. Sollog fans post dozens of links to many sources, yet wiki things altman is the definitive source for sollog. This whole event is showing why wiki will never be a major source for anything. The mods remove relevant info and link to crap that is obvious libel. I've been in the various sollog forums and they are signing up people to sue the shit out of wiki. The grounds are sollog, wiki is knowingly posting to what is known libel. Altman claims alexander is sollog, anyone with a brain can see the 247 news article where an audio interview is given proving sollog is not alexander. Wiki claims to be unbiased yet hoary is a simpleton that is obviously biased and harassing sollog fans and sollog with his bullshit about this article.

Hoary is an absolute liar, he says no major media has done sollog articles. BULLSHIT. Oh no look I made a remark in all capital letters, well guess what, BULLSHIT is appropriate, that is an accurate description of what hoary has done. That is what wiki is due to assholes like hoary who make false remarks and then edit out proof they are nothing but liars.

These are sollog facts and since I've never wasted my time on a piece of crap like wiki, hoary will respond look this is their ONLY post from IP whatever. So what hoary, wiki is a piece of shit resource and intellects don't use it. Now here are sollog facts that prove hoary is nothing but a liar.

Hoary says no media and the NY Times has done sollog related articles. WRONG and a LIE.

1. Leo Phoenix aka Xinoelpoel was featured in a 911 article about how he had a 'lucky guess' as to his famous 911 warning. Leo Phoenix has publicly stated the reason he knew 911 would occur was due to Sollog's prophecies. After 911 occurred the Leo Phoenix story broke first in der Spiegel the largest paper in Germany, they did three articles on Sollog and his connections to Leo Phoenix. See

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,156988,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,157197,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,157198,00.html

English translations of these german articles from September 2001 are at

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

Now it is a FACT that the NY Times did a sloppy bullshit article about the Leo Phoenix connection to 911, so this is IN FACT an article about the Sollog 911 warnings at the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/17/technology/17CRYP.html?todaysheadlines

So there you have the largest paper in Germany doing three articles on Sollog and the subject matter then hitting the NY Times with a well he got 'lucky' spin.

Now hoary the liar says the major media has no sollog info, as you can see the NY Times article is all about a well known Sollog connection to 911 and the largest paper in Germany did three articles about it. Now 911 was not the first and it isn't the last major story on the net involving sollog. Sollog appeared on several major radio shows in 1997 due to the internet buzz about how he predicted Diana's death in a US Federal court case. He was even on Alan Colmes radio show, he predicted Seattle would be hit with a quake and that week it was. Anyway, here is the Washington Post on Sollog, another hack article that leaves out all the facts. I guess hoary doesn't think the WP is a 'major' media source.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/diana/stories/net0908.htm

Another major Sollog hit was in regards to the DC Sniper, Sollog predicted such a rash of shootings in a prophecy. Even Fox News did a story and misquoted their source who later denied he called sollog crazy. Here's that article

http://www.247news.net/2002/20021012-fox.shtml

Wiki should do a fair article with links to relevant info about why sollog is so popular on the net. Sollog isn't famous for a 20 years old dui that was overturned, he is famous for 1. his prophecies 2. his books 3. his math theories

If wiki continues to harass sollog fans with multiple links to garbage by altman then it will end up in court and also face repeated vandalism.

Altman is not a fair and balanced source for sollog

I suggest wiki does somethingn like this

Sollog is a controversial figure well known on the internet with some mentions in main stream media as to his claims of paranormal abilities. Sollog's predictions or 'prophecies' have been released via usenet since 1996 or so. These are some of the predictions of sollog that has gathered interest around the world.

Sollog on 911

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

Sollog on Madrid Massacre (March 11th event)

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

Sollog on Great Bam Iran Quake 9(Hit Christmas Day at 9PM EST)

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

Then perhaps links to say the WP about Sollog's Diana Prophecy claims and Fox News about Sollog's DC Sniper Prophecy and the NY Times about the famous Sollog fan that hit 911

There is no valid reason to link to altman, it only makes sollog fans furious and it will make wiki have to undo all the vandalism such a link will generate and possible lawsuits it may manifest.

I suggest the mods censor hoary for his attacks and lies, I suggest the stop the voting for deletion since the original person has stated they think the article is fine now. The only questions are how can a neutral article about sollog be managed and what are proper links that won't end up in vandalism and lawsuits.

As you can see, there are plenty of major media references to sollog that do not give a full understanding on why he is so popular on the net.

For the few who will argue sollog is not popular, the sheer amount of web pages and usenet posts about him prove he is hugely popular and warrants a major article at wiki that analyses why he is so popular. Here is another good mention of Sollog in the major online media, Lycos noted he was a major search term after 911.

http://50.lycos.com/091701a.html

Here are recent mentions of Sollog in a major UK paper

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/02/fotw_0212/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/06/lady_di_inquest_scrambles_black/

Hoary now SHUT UP and get lost -- Note: The preceeding 'commentary' was from 208.54.95.129 at 15:10, 6 Dec 2004, whose only contributions since November 16th have been Sollog-related edits.

On lawsuits, please read the decisions in Carafano v. Metrosplash and Blumenthal v. AOL and cease. The Wikipedia is thoroughly protected against such suits by the Communications Decency Act, as demonstrated by those (and all other) CDA-related decisions. Trying one would just result in a counter-claim for bringing the meritless action. Worth remembering also that the articles need to cover the negatives as well as the positives, even though that's not always appreciated by the subjects. If you've data (court records, for example) to prove something is inaccurate, please point to it on the article talk page so that those who are not involved in the for or against camps can adjust the article as necessary. Thanks. Jamesday 18:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well put, Jamesday. I have asked multiple times for the Sollog dudes to give a good reason why the newspaper articles about Sollog's court case, etc. should not be used. The response has been lacking; mostly they just SCREAM about being offended, which is not a valid reason not to use a link. They also threaten to sue, as you noted. They are also quite profane and rude. It should be noted that in the newspaper article about Sollog's court case: http://citypaper.net/articles/050996/article016.shtml Sollog repeatedly threatened EVERYONE with lawsuits. SO we may be dealing with the man himself with multiple IDs. Or his followers could be like Scientologists, suing everyone to a ridiculous extreme in the hope of suppressing criticism.
None of that changes my vote: I still say keep the article. But it may need to be almost permanently protected if the Sollog folks keep attacking each time any link criticizing their leader is included. A2Kafir 21:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sollog fans have stated what they object to, LIES, the article says alexander is sollog, he isn't. The article says Sollog's family are pornographers, they're not. Why has altman done over 7 articles on sollog? He's biased and obsessed a nutter. With all the articles in real media about Sollog the posts to whatever altman says is harassment. The way the net works you aren't liable for libel on your network until you get notice. The owner of this place got notice his network is being used to harass members of a religious movement i.e. TOH. The upstream provider of this site got their legal notice. So now this network and their upstream KNOW they are being used to defame and harass a large amount of people. They stop it or they get sued. Networks are responsible once they get notice of abuse on their network. --anonymous edit by User:65.34.173.202 on 23:03, 6 Dec 2004
  • Please read the decision in Zeran v. AOL. AOL repeatedly received defamation complaints, repeatedly assured the complainant that the allegedly defaming material would be removed, didn't remove it and was protected by the Communications Decency Act. The "owner" of this place visited the upstream in person today and if the upstream considered this worth mentioning I'm sure the matter was resolved suitably, since that upstream has many customers who distribute erotic material over the internet and seems somewhat unlikely to regard mentioning their doing so as defamation. It's just part of the business world these days, with cable companies, hotels, phone companies and many others in the business. If there are factual corrections to make, particularly supported by documentation, please mention them, with sources, on the article talk page so that neutral parties can consider them, compare to other sources and adjust the article as necessary. Thanks. Jamesday 06:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    On the pornographers matter, the Altman article says "His first business, he said, was working for Arizona's largest porn purveyor, Peeps, a family-owned venture". It does not say that it was Sollig's family, simply that it was owned by a family. Jamesday 06:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hoary is a jerk. Sollog Rules http://www.Sollog.com --This comment is by 63.164.145.85 at 16:39, 6 Dec 2004, who also vandalized this page, altering the comments of other users.
  • Comment: If Sollog's fans feel "harrassed" by having their IPs displayed, they should either create accounts for themselves, or should not edit Wikipedia. His fans should be aware that whether their IPs are displayed on the page itself or not, they are easily available to the whole world via the article history for this page. --Rlandmann 21:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Longish comment regarding the anonymous suggestion: "Hoary is carrying on a one person campaign against sollog. Even the original person who suggested removal is now for keeping the page." No, User:Hoary deserves the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for sorting through the edit history and telling us where the various anonymous contributions came from. Posting anonymous personal attacks is simply no way to advance your cause. The person(s) making such posts don't seem to realize that their efforts to support Sollog are thoroughly misguided.
    First, the VfD is not a vote on Sollog -- it's a vote about an article in an encyclopedia. I originally nominated the first version of the article because it was a badly formatted incoherent list of shrill claims that sounded more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. It is only because User:Rlandmann graciously replaced that text with a viable stub that I changed my vote. To repeat, we're voting primarily on an article; and Hoary's notes on anonymous contributors help that voting process.
    Second, the anonymous posters, let's call them "Friends of Sollog" are friends of the kind "with friends like this...". If you really want to advance Sollog's cause, you could start by naming -- in a polite and constructive manner -- on Talk:Sollog up to three of Sollog's most striking predictions. Not the most horrible disasters he claims to have predicted, but the three most specific predictions together with a verifiable date they were made/announced, or perhaps an outstanding prediction of something that is predicted to happen on a specific date in the near future. You need to realize that unquoted statements like "Sollog is the real deal" will never make it into a neutral encylopedia article; what could, and perhaps should, be included are specific predictions, which can then be discussed in a neutral fashion (and, yes, that means that skeptics will weigh in too). If you're sure that Sollog is "the real deal", try to convince the world with facts and let everyone make up their own minds. --MarkSweep 21:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The poster of the long article gave excellent links to time-stamped articles in the google archive. One can go back to these usenet posts and see many posts in the archive proving they were placed there when the google time stamps show. Since 1996 sollog's prophecies and quake warnings have all been archived by first deja and now google. They have generated tons of responses, so the links above to the famous 911 warning, the madrid warning and the bam quake warning are excellent links to show sollog's prophecies. --- NB: The last paragraph was added by User:65.34.173.202 at 18:03, 6 Dec 2004. That user is identical to "The poster of the long article" (the original creator of the "Sollog" article), i.e. this is an instance of someone talking about themself in the third person. --MarkSweep 00:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Notice how all the Sollog folks' entries are in a very similar style to each other? It's amazing someone could get through life being that rude. And what's with the petty vandalism, page-blanking and manually trying to change IP numbers? It all seems so weird. The more I see it, the more I'm convinced that the Sollog article should link to the newspaper articles about his court case and other past events. If the Sollog folks want to dispute it, cite articles that we can look up (either online or at the library) that dispute it. Then the information can be included, with a proper citation. But I suspect that if Sollog's claims of LAWSUIT had any teeth, that newspaper website wouldn't have all those stories critical of Sollog available on-line. Another thing: time-stamps in electronic media? Please. They can be forged. A2Kafir 00:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Notice that everyone else calls it 9/11 but "all" of Sollog's "different" supporters always call it "911"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's see last time he threatened to sue a public company he crashed their stock. It went from 300Million to 50Million in a short time when some morons tried to steal one of his many trademarks. As soon as 247 News broke the story the stockof ADAT fell like a lead ballon. If Sollog sues Wikki he'll put this company out of business. No network can be used to harass or defame a person or a religion. Here's an article about the company that made the mistake of using Sollog's trademark. Guess who owns the name now? SOLLOG
http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2001/04/16/daily11.html
http://www.247news.net/2001/20010414-cybersquat.shtml
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ADAT&t=5y
Who owns http://www.authentigraph.com now? SOLLOG -- anonymous comment by User:65.34.173.202 at 01:29, 7 Dec 2004
    • (Interjection: albany.bizjournals.com link is to minor article about copyright owned by a Mr. Ennis that a company chose not to try to buy. Second link is to press release, so it's irrelevant. Both from Spring 2001 timeframe. Third link is to 5 year stock chart for ADAT, which shows no significant movement outside its normal range in the Spring 2001 timeframe, and has increased in value since. So the anonymous poster's point makes no sense. Surprise. A2Kafir 01:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC))
      • You're a liar, chart shows news of Sollog claims against ADAT stock 7, within 30 days it is 4, within 1 year it is 2 within 18 months it is 1. Sure it's gone up now, people think the Sollog claim is over, it's not. When he decides to actually sue for damages ADAT will fall like a rock. ADAT damaged Sollog and he will eventually sue for those damages. Going from 7 to 1 in 18 months is not normal. Damn you are stupid. -- anonymous comment by User:65.34.173.202 on 05:09, 7 Dec 2004
Oh, he's about to hit that company with a huge damage suit now, since AIS has to deal with all the false certificates they issued in his trademark. More news to come about ADAT and Sollog soon. The damages are on going. -- anonymous comment by User:65.34.173.202 at 01:29, 7 Dec 2004

Google time stamps faked, you don't know what you're talking about. There are two dates on usenet posts archived by Google. One date can be faked, that is the date the poster puts on the post, however, the internal date when Google archived it can not be faked by anyone outside of google. Most skeptics ADMIT the sollog posts are real. They just say they see not connection to 911 in this post.

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

If you think you can fake a Google time stamp do it. Then link to the fake time stamp. Put the info above in a time stamp BEFORE 911 occurred and add your wiki handle. Guess what IT CAN'T BE DONE, you can get a fake stamp into usenet but not the Google archive.

Also, there is plenty of other posts about any sollog post by his fans and skeptics so you have tons of supporting posts.

Also, the most accurate 911 Prophecy isn't even the link above it is the link below which is supported by an article done by scumbag altman where he laughs at the Sollog warning for TERRORISM in NYC in SEPTEMBER, that warning was issued 9/02/1997 four years before 911 struck or 1470 days i.e. 147 is Sollog's birthday!

Here is that post with the Google time stamp saying TERRORISM NYC SEPTEMBER

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3413381B.64AE%40whatshotin.com

So a dumb person says it's fake. Then why did altman do an article on it dated 9/11/1997 laughing about how he notified the whitehouse and NYC mayors office.

Here is the article note 9/11/1997, I can see you saying now that altman is part of sollog's group, hahaha.

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/091197/article024.shtml

Now why don't you link to that altman article and note how on 9/11/1997 altman laughed at Sollog's TERRORISM WARNING for NYC in September and how altman spoke to the whitehouse about it. The reason is it proves the US Gov knew Sollog said TERRORISM WAS COMING TO NYC IN SEPTEMBER. They would have to admit that Sollog is the same person they detained for the OK city bombing.

So come on now let me see you write how the date of Sept 1997 is fake on the google post and the date of 9/11/1997 is fake on the altman article laughing at sollog saying MAJOR TERRORISM WAS TO HIT NYC IN SEPTEMBER.

You put the Sollog DC 911 warning together with the Sollog NYC warning and you have 911 to a T. --anonymous comment by User:65.34.173.202 at 01:43, 65.34.173.202

    • LOOK AT YOUR OWN LINK! There is no reference to terrorism in September! It DOES give specific dates for people to die--in 1997: "It's all over for the Pope on Oct. 15. The death of Bill Clinton will occur Nov. 13. Howard Stern? Rudy Guiliani? Rush Limbaugh? One of them will drop dead between now and Oct. 4....Even world leaders DIE when I GUARANTEE they will," [Sollog] wrote." All are still alive. So what was your point again? And I notice the same capitalization style in the quote as in your writing. I think you're all the same person. That is the only problem facing us if Wikipedia keeps a neutral article about Sollog here: that a persistent, patient person will continue to try to alter the article to make it an advertisement instead of a dispassionate encyclopedia entry. A2Kafir 01:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • altman used the 902 prophecy as his source for the article, you know the PROPHECY that stated
 The 16th day of the 9th month is recorded as 16/9 in Euro dating.

   169 is the square of the 13, the number of death.

   This 16th day of the 9th month will be another day for TERRORISM!

   A big bang in a big building.

   I warned that 169 would die in Oklahoma city the month before it

happened. For ONE YEAR that was the number given in that BIG BANG.

   WATCH FOR THE BIG BANG on the 16th day the 9th month. It is

GUARANTEED.


So in the PROPHECY Sollog clearly states SEPTEMBER is the date for the big bang, he said a major NYC media personality would be struck in October, what happened after 911? The NYC media was struck. Nothing happened to Rush? He went DEAF in October after 911, two Octobers later he gets fired and has to go to rehab for drugs. Both Stern and Guiliani got divorced from long term marriages, Guiliani got cancer. The Jew From NBC got killed/fired in October 1997 that was Marv Albert.

Now morons who can't read say the pope is alive, guess what, there was no direct mention of Pope John Paul II. It says pope know as john paul, pope john paul is a DEAD POPE, it says POPE OF SATAN, guess who died in October 1997? Anton Lavey aka POPE OF SATAN and POPE OF THE DEAD you know the founder of COS church of satan

Now clinton was struck after that prophecy he died/impeached due to guess what, stuff he did on 11/13, that was the key date in the lewinsky scandal when he started his affair with monica

One year after the prophecy was written flight 111 crashed in area with 902 as it's area code

And on 9/16/1997 a major act of terrorism did occur

Around that same time the Egypt Massacre occurred

The 902 Prophecy is the source and it lists all the people altman named, except he got confused like you, he saw Pope John Paul II, he's not there, the POPE OF SATAN was anton lavey who died when the great sollog said

There are thousands of posts in usenet about THE 902 PROPHECY since he has had tons of hits, you're the only person saying it is a hoax, altman even wrote about it way back on 9/11/1997 hahaha

Til this day the 902 Prophecy is working it's magic, let's see 9/02/2004 the 7th anniversay of the Prophecy guess who had a HEART ATTACK? Clinton hahaha

Sollog fans consider the 902 Prophecy one of Sollog's greatest Prophecies since it had so many hits and like the everready bunnie it keeps on going and going and going

Just like the 113 prophecy, it keeps hitting and hitting

Shuttle 113 destroyed

11/3 Madrid Massacre

Plus a ton of other major tragedies all connected to 113

    • Like any prophecy, it's easy to find prophesied events after the fact. All it takes is a little stretching and padding. With as many "important" people as there are in the world, for any given date, you can find somebody who had something bad happen to them on that date. Anybody can do that. And even still, Sollog's off. For example, LaVey died on 29 Oct, not 15. Hardly a prophet. Ezekiel had more accuracy. Inky 04:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The above screed was contributed by the ever vigorous Special:Contributions&target=65.34.173.202 at 02:13, 7 Dec 2004. -- Hoary 02:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Good lord. It's like arguing with a lump of depleted uranium. A2Kafir 02:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Careful, A2Kafir. You could be exposing Wikipedia to a lawsuit by a lump of depleted uranium, which would justly resent the comparison. Anyway, these anon diatribes strengthen my opinion that we should keep the article. It should cite some of Sollog's predictions, then note what actually happened, then quote some of the more contorted rationalizations from (non-Wikipedia) posts trumpeting his alleged accuracy. Even aside from his notability, such an article would be an instructive example of how the True Believers (not just Sollog's followers) will go on believing, regardless of the facts. JamesMLane 04:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've got articles on such notable nutcases "psychics" and "religious leaders" as Uri Geller and the Reverend Moon. If he's big enough to have been refuted by the New York Times, I'd say he's worth at least a paragraph or three, but it needs to be NPOV, just like everything else here has to. For all you sockpuppets, that means we list the good and the bad. Inky 22:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Inky, Ennis isn't sufficiently significant to have won any attention from the New York Times. Not as "Sollog", anyway. See for yourself in the NYT's search engine -- searching is free, even though reading isn't. The Washington Post and LA Times have heard of him, but merely as a pest -- the WP archive has nothing on "Sollog" since 1987 [though see below], the LAT archive nothing since 1985. The Skeptic's Dictionary (or anyway the English version thereof) doesn't bother with him. The Spiegel coverage mentioned here doesn't take him seriously. He seems to have managed a minor notoriety in Philadelphia, again as a figure of fun and an irritant. As for the much touted books, bookfinder.com lists none whatever as available new or used from any normal bookstore: I'd guess they're just downloadable vanity publications though I don't claim to have investigated this. Conclusion: Ennis's only noteworthiness is as yet another waffly prognosticator and serial harasser via email (and occasionally worse) and ludicrous threats of lawsuits. Oh, right, and he thinks he's divine. The analogies with Geller and Moon presented above don't work, as both have impinged on the public consciousness other than via usenet spamming and rants, a criterion that would also grant articles to purveyors of "generic V!@gra", etc. Tony Sidaway is right. -- Hoary 09:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) ..... PS The indignant defense of "Sollog" above was so long that I didn't read it; I've just now noticed that it includes links to the NYT and WP within it. Well, the WP article mentions "Sollog", though dismissively, and the NYT article seems to do the same for Ennis under a different and longer nom de guerre. So now it seems that the argument for coverage of "Sollog" is that Ennis has gained a couple of column inches of dismissive coverage in newspapers. I'm still underwhelmed. -- Hoary 10:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I believe that his greatest noteworthiness is as a usenet phenomenon, but since that's where I discovered him, I may be biased. He's usually found in alt.prophecies.nostradamus and his postings have won him two of alt.usenet.kooks' "Kook of the Month" awards. He doesn't have the fame of Archimedes Plutonium, but his usenet activities and his few references in print media make him definitely noteworthy enough for inclusion here IMHO. --Rlandmann 13:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If I were an administrator, I might view the recent antics of 65.34.173.202, especially as shown here but also in the history of the article on James Randi, as grounds for an IP block. -- Hoary 03:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I concur. Our various anonymous contributors should consider themselves warned that any further vandalism of this page, such as (but not limited to) blanking comments, changing IPs displayed here, or changing other users' names in their signatures will be considered disruptive behaviour under Wikipedia's blocking policy and will result in a 24-hour ban in the first instance. Any user who continues to vandalise this page after a previous 24-hour ban will have their IP banned until the end of the VfD process --Rlandmann 04:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep 12 Delete 4
hahaha
Sollog wins
  • That was another contribution (at 04:54, 7 Dec 2004) by the ever vigorous 65.34.173.202, whose opinion on the minor issue of "Sollog" is I think already well known to all. -- Hoary 05:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • And let me redundantly repeat and reiterate once again that this is not a vote on Sollog, but a vote on an article. Sollog did not win, he wasn't even on the ballot. --MarkSweep 05:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • concurs with Mark First off ... why are people being given the right to edit pages within this type of Encyclopedia? I'm curious about the purpose for that, perhaps someone can elaborate. Also, doesn't this discredit how wikipedia presents its' information? I mean there isn't any approval process? Perhaps having wikipedia review the contents that wish to be edited before going through with the editing? Do administrators go through each particular page with detail and review of the editing to see if it is truely facts? Doesn't the value decrease if there is this constant battle of editing vs. non editing.. Delete vs. Keep. People are so indecisive and when one is offended the other isn't. So this constant struggle doesn't do justice for the information being provided. I believe it is important to review and see that the information is up to date and relative to the topic at hand, but this is disturbing. I mean if this is a means of allowing people the opportunity to have a hand at editting facts.. then those facts no longer exsist. They become opinion until backed up with research and valuable sources of facts. My point is I think there needs to be a better administrative process then letting people run around deleting , editing.. without really knowing it it could be damaging to someone who has never viewed the material before. From what I understand, as an encyclopedia, isn't it important to present as much information as possible for a particular topic regardless of how controversial it is? I feel there is an injustice.. a deception a for a censorship perhaps? Well, regardless of what people may feel, it is important to see the bigger picture. I am glad that there is a discussion concerning this topic, but I do hope that through this.. there will be more then just improvements of the page being made. As an advocate for education.. it is important that we take into account that this could lead to other things..people twisting information to their own liking.. (which already happens..sadly enough). With this said, I conclude for now. Thank you (well I suppose I am too late with the conversation then hmm..)--pragmaticmoose12:33am, 7 Dec 2004 (EST) --first and only contribution by this user - Rlandmann 05:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That's how this encyclopedia is being written - including by trying to resolve disagreements between those with strongly held views on different sides of controversial topics. Sometimes it's contentiooous, sometimes it provokes outbursts like those here but in the end the result is a neutral article. Jamesday 06:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • To elaborate, even a quick glance at most wiki articles shows that they're for the most part neutral, informative and reliable. The wiki way is at its weakest with topics having enthusiastic supporters of non-scientific (or even non-rational) perspectives (like the Kennedy assassination and UFOs), and of course current politics (which are largely irrational whatever one's outlook may be). For example, I think wiki's JFK assassination page is a complete mess and I freely admit I think Sollog is a scammer like thousands of numerologists, fortune-tellers and evangelists who have come before him. I see these problems as glitches, not systemic flaws. Wyss 19:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It's clear that this article will be a vandalism/revert war magnet. I'm of two minds on what to do with it:
    • 1) Keep the article, delete Sollog.
    • 2) Find the most NPOV version of the article in its history, and keep it under permanent protection.
--Carnildo 01:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Low Man's Lyric: I am a member of TOH and the Altman links are very offensive to me. Please remove them, thank you. -- anonymous contribution from User:216.211.57.110 at 01:32, 8 Dec 2004. First edit from this IP

  • Hi - what's under debate here is not what the article should contain, but whether it should exist at all. If you have some constructive ideas for how to improve it, you should post them on the article's talk page when and if a decision is made to keep the article. --Rlandmann 04:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice For advertising, vanity, inaccuracy, edit warring, flaming, blanking and changing other users' entries on this page. Wyss 12:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • As I said four days ago in voting for delete: "The Sollog promoters are all over Usenet, they're hideously persistent and, to put it bluntly, absolutely barking mad." They'll create sock puppets and hold imaginary edit wars over inconsequentualities. They're indefatigable and they only care about one thing: that the name Sollog should be mentioned as often as possible in as many forums as possible. That is the only thing that makes Sollog at all notable, and frankly I think we're better off not giving them an excuse to come and play on Wikipedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You people look like nothing but fools, the same handful barking about Sollog. You jerks can't handle the simple truth, Sollog is the only psychic/prophet in the world that hit 911 DEAD ON.

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

Sollog has many fans and if you dare to keep a sollog page at wiki it will be neutral or Sollog fans will deface it over and over and over. Plus wiki will end up getting SUED for trying to harass and defame members of TOH. You morons have shown you can't be 'neutral' so this whole idea 'wiki' is bullshit. It's a waste of time and it will be sued and put out of business.

SOLLOG RULES http://www.sollog.com that's what his fans say and the reason is simple HE KNOWS THE FUTURE you morons

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6tb7rp%24gvr%241%40winter.news.erols.com Note: The above was posted by 65.34.173.202, who has made a number of other comments on this page, Sollog, and Talk:Sollog

If he knew the future, then why couldn't he predict that working in the pornography business would come back to bite him later? I could predict that, and I'm hardly psychic. --Carnildo 19:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • One more thing: keep the article protected indefinitely. There is already plenty of evidence that this will be a magnet for vandals, and the above announcement that "if you dare to keep a sollog page at wiki it will be neutral or Sollog fans will deface it over and over and over" is another silly, counterproductive threat. The Friends Of Sollog seem to have a different conception of what "neutral" means anyway. --MarkSweep 19:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Hear, hear! Yes, I'd recommend not only protecting the page, but the talk page too. Do these Sollogites actually think that what they've been doing makes us have more respect for their cause? oh, yeah, when someone's argument boils down to "I can vandalize your pages and I can call you 'morons' and I can spam the same links over and over", sure, really, I respect that person's opinion ever so much. Much, much more than if they demonstrated some understanding of this new-fangled "civilization" thing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't much like that idea; to work towards NPOV it's generally necessary to have the other side's view represented in the editing. If Sollog's followers are outraged at the content of the article, it may be for a good reason. Just because they believe Sollog knows the future doesn't mean they can't be good Wikipedians. Everyking 21:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • No, the fact that none of them have shown any signs of understanding any Wikipedia policy, and most of them have shown a disregard for the basic tenets of civilized discussions like "don't threaten people, and don't call them morons" means they can't be good Wikipedians. I wasn't completely serious when I said that the talk page should be protected, but if you think a year from now that talk page is going to see a single pro-Sollog post that isn't "HOARY IS A JERK SOLLOG RULES YOU MORONS Sollog predicted 911 Take down the City Paper links or Sollog will sue you to destruction" then I think you're being wildly over-optimistic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I was only referring to the article, which is protected now, and should stay that way IMHO, whereas the talk page should remain relatively open. I don't see a shred of evidence that Sollog's followers make good Wikipedians, but isn't the editing process for protected pages supposed to work precisely in those cases where some people don't play by the rules? There are already some reasonable suggestions on the talk page about what could be changed (like expanding acronyms, listing specific claims), and someone with the power to edit protected pages could implement those suggested changes in an NPOV manner. But for that to work, the talk page has to remain active. (I don't know of any instances of protected talk pages anyway.) --MarkSweep 22:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't like to see the talk page protected - if it were, there would be really no hope of evolving the article into anything better. Unfortunately, the behaviour that Sollog's friends have exhibited so far indicates that it will have to be routinely monitored for vandalism, but that's nothing new for the 'pedia. If the consensus (in a few hours!) is to keep this article, then someone could work up a Temp article incorporating some of the suggestions on the talk page. --Rlandmann 22:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep, this guy seems notable but like Marksweep I am worried about the possibility of presenting a NPOV picture about him because of the enthusiasm of his fans. Andries 20:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep article in its current form. Do not protect indefinitely, that's preposterous. ("Sure, we can keep George W. Bush sane, but we're out of our league when it comes to Sollog...") And protecting the talk page is beyond the pale. Don't do that, just delete the page then and admit we can't hack it. Don't put up a page that only the reluctant cabal can keep up-to-date. I'd rather have nothing than such an egregious violation of the wiki principle. Zero-tolerance block anyone who violates the 3RR. Ban with extreme prejudice any vandals who keep it up. But Keep. If a million idiots on a million typewriters are out to vandalize an article that meets our standards, it's still an article that meets our standards, and by Jimbo we shall not cede it. JRM 22:06, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
    • I'm puzzled. What's the difference between banning "with extreme prejudice" and plain old banning? (OTOH if this is a reference to some old Schwarzenegger flick or similar, my apologies.) Secondly, banning is going to be tricky in a world of DHCP and a W'pedia of instantly-created user IDs. Thirdly, in view of the recent lack of "Sollog" boosterism here I suspect that these "Sollog" fans are actually no more than a single fan; perhaps Mom has pointed out that homework assignments are grievously behind schedule. Oh yes, and while protecting a talk page does indeed seem a preposterous idea, since (a) the talk page is already so long (and intermittently informative and even unintentionally amusing) and (b) the "Sollog" fan is so fond of vandalism, perhaps -- if the article survives -- earlier parts of the talk page could be "archived" and protected. -- Hoary 02:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      I was just thinking the same thing - in particular, given that the "friends of Sollog" have repeatedly vandalised this page, this discussion should be protected once it is closed. I too feel that we are only dealing with a very small number of individuals, and that almost all the vandalism has been perpetrated by a single one of them, which bodes well for the future of the talk page and (to a lesser degree) the article itself. As for other vandals faced with the ease and speed with which their work can be reverted and their IP ranges blocked, the game has to get old fairly fast. --Rlandmann 03:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      I'm puzzled. What's the difference between banning "with extreme prejudice" and plain old banning? About the same difference as the one between strong delete and extreme delete, I'd say. And "with extreme prejudice" is stock hyperbole—well, in some circles (about the same circles where "open fire with extreme prejudice" draws the response "I'd rather open fire with my gun", so it's not even on the level of a shot at action movie dialogue, I'm afraid). "Shot" pun unintentional. No, really. JRM 23:30, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough, but I partially agree with Mikesweep...I think the page should be protected forever. It might not be wiki to do so, but I can't help suspecting we'll have hordes of vandals adding 'LOL!!!SOLLOG RULES!!!LOL!!one!one' to the page daily. Sillydragon 01:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That could well happen. If it does, we recruit cabal members to patrol the article, and we just keep reverting the junk. JamesMLane 02:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but protect the page indefinitely, for the reasons stated above. I see no reason for further substantive edits, unless/until this guy dies, gets convicted of a major crime, flees the country, or takes over a major company or media outlet. However, I do NOT favor protecting the talk page as well. Let users see for themselves the insanity that is Sollogism, so that they will understand WHY protection of the article was necessary. Edeans 17:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding? It's only three paragraphs long. I guess it's a nice summary, but it needs a lot more info. Everyking 18:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Three paragraphs is more than enough info on this nutbar and his followers (but wait, is there an Ashlee Simpson connection? That might be worth another 8-10 paragraphs right there). Keep, but protected indefinitely or rigorously patrolled. --Calton 00:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm beginning to get the feeling that Calton doesn't like me. Everyking 01:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep. I think the guy is a fraud, but I predict that this discussion has brought enough attention to the issue from conscientious editors to prevent it from becoming mere advertising for him in the long run. Fire Star 18:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Another reluctant Keep, but going by the history, indefinately protect; if something notable happens, an Admin can be contacted to update, or something. Reccomend linking to this discussion (once it's archived) on the Talk page. Sockatume 18:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Recycling Troll 20:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd have to say keep. Mark Richards 22:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Please Keep if he's really notable, despite the hassle. Include some specific examples and critiques of supposed predictions, then protect as much as necessary. Kappa 00:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_Sollog_7b08.html"