Talk:Archimedes Plutonium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	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.)

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 19, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

An individual covered in this article, Archimedes Plutonium, has edited Wikipedia as Superdeterminism (talk • contribs).

Contents 1 Name 2 Plutonium's assessment of his ideas 3 Edits by Mr. Plutonium 4 Plutonium's claims 5 He's a troll 6 Three cheers for Ludwig! 7 legal name change 8 NOTABILITY 9 Seriously? 10 AfD comments 10.1 Second VFD, 18 Sept 2006 11 Duplicate references 12 Note for Archie 13 Google Groups 14 Request for removal via sock puppet? 15 Usenet posts as references 16 Unacceptable use of autobiography as a source 17 Rearrangement 18 "Fixes" that introduce punctuation and grammatical errors 19 "Arky" Nickname

[edit] Name

The title says Archimedies; It's apparently Archimedes on his own website. -- IHCOYC 21:13 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

D'oh! The Pu atom in my BRANE must have misfired! ...I moved it. Thanks. -- Infrogmation

[edit] Plutonium's assessment of his ideas

Archy is the best person to correct errors, and although Wiki discourages people from editing their own entries, they can do so to correct errors. On an edit he made he corrected text to:

"Fusion Barrier Principle. Fission energy is the highest form of energy that is able to be controlled and surpass breakeven. A Tokamak such as JET or ITER can only reach 2/3 breakeven because 1/3 of the input energy is forever lost in controlling the device."

The last sentence was deleted in a revert by someone, making the claim look completely stupid. Also points of view that "Plutonium reportedly discovered this theory in a graveyard on the Dartmouth campus" are forbidden unless evidence is provided. Anybody could falsely add a sneer of this type. Either you have reliable evidence, or leave it out of Wiki, or the encyclopedia will be a disgrace of unsubstantiated opinions, points of view, and innenundo.

"Unification of the Forces of Physics as a Coulomb Unification. Unification logically and obviously means one force and the only force that is perfect is the Coulomb force, which means the strong-nuclear-force combines with the weak-nuclear to make a nuclear-coulomb-force and that gravity is a fictional force."

Archy added the above correction and it has disappeared in a revert. If you are going to mention theories of Archy, be concise and allow the facts. If you don't want these facts, then don't mention the theory. You can't have it both ways, without degrading Wiki's standards.

"Stonethrowing theory. This theory states that every planet that has intelligent life all came through one and the same channel of events where a creature began throwing of rocks and stones and that throwing behaviour will catapult that species to intelligence and civilization. The likelihood is that every alien intelligent lifeform had ancestors that lived in trees because treeclimbing bone anatomy is a short distance in change to bone anatomy of stonethrowing. And Stonethrowing theory says that throwing created bipedalism, so throwing came first and created bipedalism. This activity gave the ape advantages in getting food and more females for mating purposes by killing other rivals using throwing."

The above correct summary explanation added by Archy has also been removed by a revert, and what is now on the Wiki page looks stupid due to missing out what Archy says and just leaving the points of view of someone who evidently doesn't possess an ancestor who went through the stone throwing phase. You are NOT allowed such points of view on Wiki. Learn the rules! You must be accurate, stuck to what the theory is, and remove your personal pathetical POV.

"Human Overpopulation is the number one major factor that causes most wars and is the number one social evil on this planet Earth. Wars occur periodically of about a 30 years spaced apart due to human generational birthing. USA Civil WAr and Franco-Prussian War and WW1 then WW2 are examples of where human population is beyond its means and violence and war erupt due mainly to human overpopulation. We must correct ourselves of human overpopulation because if we do not then we extinct many species of animals and lessen diversity. We run the risk of nuclear war and thus nuclear pollution. We have conquered Earth's physical environment to lend us comfort but we have yet to conquer our own greed of filling this planet chock full of people. As long as we do not control human population we have the recurring and increasing evils of wars, pollution, terrorism, starvation, crime etc. When we do not solve overpopulation then wars, disease, starvation, pollution, crime, terror ensue and solve it for us. Until we solve human overpopulation we should not call ourselves Homo sapiens but Homo dumbo and we should not be called an intelligent species but a reckless species. I believe this problem is best tackled with a combination of laws restricting the number of babies and a incentive of human cloning to those that obey the law."

The above addition of Archy which was also deleted in a revert does contain a first-person sentence which is against Wiki rules. So it should have been put in quotation marks or the offending sentence removed or rewritten. Simply reverting factual edits which clear up unsubstantiated POV is against the rules. Everyone has a right to edit, don't think you alone have the right to delete other people's corrections. That's against Wiki rules. 172.212.74.16 20:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Mr. Plutonium

Apparently Mr. Plutonium himself has edited the article. Please see Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages such as the Wikipedia:Manual of Style for tips on writing and editing here. Note that encyclopedia articles should not be written in the first person. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 16:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to including his "ideas", but please summarize them and edit them for grammar.CSTAR 16:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hm. Personally I'm conflicted between possible advantages of editing that section as you say or leaving them directly in Plutonium's own words. Other opinions? -- Infrogmation 18:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That certainly is a valid concern. However, the page is currently in a very unusual state: That is one in which much of its content is essentially written by the page's subject. CSTAR 23:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plutonium's claims

I'm not sure I like the idea of including any of this in. But Plutonium is to some extent a cultural icon of the internet and some of these claims are so bizarre and intriguing that not including it would be negligent. Maybe a summary as folows would be approprtiate

Plutonium recently proposed a list of what he termed his most important discoveries. Among these are

1. Plutonium Atom Totality theory. There was no Big Bang, but rather growth from a Hydrogen Atom Totality into our present day Plutonium Atom Totality, in which the galaxies are dots of the electron dot cloud.
2. Stonethrowing theory. This states that the difference between apes and humans resulted some 8 to 10 million years ago from a solo quadraped ape that started throwing rocks overarm and overhead. This activity gave the ape advantages in getting food and getting more females to mate by killing other rivals using throwing.

This does make a lot of sense, it explains why males can through yet girls can't. Because it was the males which needed to to throw to kill the other potential rivals. At last this mystery has been explained! Thanks. Mathmo 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely original with him -- see William H. Calvin's book The Throwing Madonna AnonMoos 16:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Possibility of global warming reversal. There exists a CFC variant or methyl molecule that when produced and released will act as a upper atmosphere Earth air conditioner and reverse Global Warming.

[edit] He's a troll

That we know. Please expand this comment below in the body of the article.

"Discover 23(4) 67 (2002) Plutonium is publicly exposed as a profoundly noisome Usenet troll. CSTAR 00:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

I'm reverting.

Comment Correctly formatting ancient comment of mine from Dec 2004.--CSTAR 16:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Rereading this discussion record, I realized that it is not clear what the origin of the previous sentence about the "noisome troll" is. That text was put into the article itself by an anonymous user which I removed because it provided no references.CSTAR 14:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The section below clearly contradicts it. Also, this setion was

(1) made by an anon

(2) made by someone who didn't even bother to sign their post

(3) about a half a sentence, which wasn't even complete enough to have proper grammar.

I rest my case. Sorry about that anon idiot, Archy. Flip Merav 21 04:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three cheers for Ludwig!

There was many a dreary Usenet night that was lit up by posts from Ludwig! I'm happy to see this cultural icon in WP. That and the contemporanious posts to alt.conspiracy about men in black and the fact that the US Govt. was breeding humans half-the-height in area 51 make up some of my fondest memories of the internet. linas 02:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm pleased to see that he's added a little about his background to this article too. I know it's normally against Wikipedia policy to edit articles about yourself but he has been quite restrained in this case, so I find it acceptable so far. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well it had to be edited (see the history record!). That was controversial, tricky and potentially could set a bad precedent. CSTAR 02:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and I realise that it could have meant trouble but he didn't complain or try to revert the edits as some others would have done, so overall it improved the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:37, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] legal name change

So has Archimedes legally changed his name or not? I've heard both, and the article doesn't say. --Misterwindupbird 17:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NOTABILITY

Seems like a pretty cool guy, but then again I'm odder than that. Flip Merav 21 03:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously?

Who cares about this loser? Wikipedia does not need articles like this. Even though they can be ignored that isn't the point. Everything single thing that happens in the world does not need a Wikipedia article.

I could not agree more. This is a sorry excuse for a subject for a Wikipedia article, and as has been shown repeatedly, attention of any kind just encourages this subject to do unfortunate things. (To verify this, just go on Google groups sci.math and search for articles posted by subject using his current (A.P.) or former (L.P.) name.) Even worse, he has posted many overtly racist comments over the years. The last thing such subjects need is *more* attention.

Do not keep under any circumstances!!!!

I have not signed the above two paragraphs (or this one) because I have seen how bellicose and malicious this subject can be, especially on sci.math, over a period of 15+ years, and I do not wish to be the target of some kind of retaliation. I confess: I am a coward.

This article is only of interest to people who know this guy - that must be what, under 50? People who have not done anything of merit or have any real level of recognition among the general public of any country or area do not deserve wiki articles. This guy deserves one no more than I do.

[edit] AfD comments

Note: This an archive of discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The result was that this article was Kept. Do not add votes; this is not a currently active proposal.

• Keep. This guy is a legendary and inventive crank, and a notable figure within the 1990s Usenet culture. In a Wikipedia world where even minor Star Wars and Simpsons fictional characters have their own articles, this real character definitely warrants one as well. Wasted Time R 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem keeping the article if people feel he is notable (I'm the one who put the delete template up). However, since we're not doing an actual AfD but a proposed deletion, any user may end the deletion proceedings by simply removing the template from the top of the page. Please feel free to do so if you feel strongly enough about it. Vpoko 17:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. One of the great eccentrics, right up there with Emperor Norton of San Francisco.

Tex 18:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If Kibo gets a Wiki article (he does) then I see no reason why Archie shouldn't. I think it only fitting that he writes most of his own article. Greglocock 20:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Keep This article is ridiculous - unfortunately this article may be kept are the only ones looking at it are those who know of him and will therefore vote keep - I happened to stumble upon this and was horrified that a moderator doesn't just delete this on the spot - users of .alt groups or forums have NO need and do not merit a wikipedia article. Stop this nonsense and delete. HenvY 18:37 GMT 01/09/2006

so you are saying that only people who have no interest in a subject should decide on whether an article should be kept? Is Usenet not worth documenting? Like him or hate him, AP is a tiny but significant part of Usenet. Incidentally get your facts straight, he posts on sci.engr.* occasionally, which are probably the most boring and non-alt groups on Usenet. Greglocock 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second VFD, 18 Sept 2006

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium

[edit] Duplicate references

Any idea why my last edit resulted in duplicate references appearing on the article, even though it looks correct under preview? 61.222.161.30 07:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note for Archie

Not that you actually have the authority to make this decision (a person does not own their own biography), but do you want this article to exist? Yes or No? No quibbling, no carping, just Yes or No.

Cheers

Your long term cyberpal Greg Greglocock 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My answer-- Superdeterminism fates everything, even my own desires.-- AP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 18:36, March 22 2007 (UTC).

I think there might be good reason to object to citation of the killfile.org webpage in this Wikipedia biography: http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/why/ap/zantop-murders.html. I think the references for this article do not really support the existence of a Wikipedia biography article. Past deletion discussions did not address the lack of reliable references. Seven of the eight cited sources in the article seem like violations of WP:A#Reliable sources. --JWSchmidt 03:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly support a deletion attempt.--CSTAR 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'd certainly oppose it, same reasoning as before. The primary problem with this article is that the article's subject is repeatedly re-editing it. That problem is easily solved, but if the Wiki community can't be arsed to solve it then we'll just have to carry on rvv'ing Archie's edits. However I suspect that semi protecting it you've probably solved the problem for the time being. Greglocock 04:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The "reasoning as before" is totally inadequate for a biography page and arguably inadequate for any Wikipedia page. Content in the article without reliable references should be removed. If that was done there would be no reason for an article. There might be adequate sources to support one sentence about this "Usenet personality" in Usenet. I am disturbed to find a group of editors acting like some kind of personality cult and insisting that Wikipedia keep an inadequately sourced biography page. This page should be brought before a wider Wikipedia audience for review. --JWSchmidt 14:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. It's survived previous deletion attempts and will likely survive future attempts. As far as I'm concerned, you're right that we need to be careful regarding reliable sources. It's one thing to mention Archie's entry on killfile.org—it seems somewhat notable to me that he appears there. It's another thing to rely on killfile.org as a source for other aspects of Archie's life. In any case, I find Archie to be a notable Usenet character and one of the few that should have a WP entry. Phiwum 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Though I would support article deletion, you should keep in mind that it's a hard case to make for non-notability, since so many people have heard of Plutonium. Moreover, all of the current references to usenet are Plutonium quotes, one could argue they don't violate BLP. But by all means propose deletion and I will be the first to support it.--CSTAR 16:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about this topic, so I'm willing to wait and see if adequate sources can be found by editors who might be familiar with reliable sources about Usenet. As an outsider, I find it hard to judge the reliability of sources about the Usenet community. --JWSchmidt 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• How do you feel about all sources save one (from Discover) being from AP's personal websites or threads he posted in Google Group discussions? Unless I'm mistaken, I think that's where we're at right now. Keesiewonder ^talk 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kw, I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. AP is a usenet kook, of similar notoriety (or notability), albeit for totally different reasons, to James "Kibo" Parry. Since Usenet is fluid and self documenting it is a waste of time looking for formal references, the only formal reference to AP would be in a book about delusional psychology. Nonetheless he is a real part of the history of the Intertubes, and was around when it was small enough that there was an actual sense of community, singular. The killfiles FAQ http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/legends/legends1.html is as close as you'll get to an overview of his behavior, although the archived parts of his website are pretty jaw dropping as well.Greglocock 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel I understand well enough. i.e. it sounds like there are not any of the kinds of resources that I am looking for, and thus, my perspective would be that the topic/person is not notable. Maybe there are semi-unspoken different standards for what can survive as a Wikipedia article under these (i.e. exists only in the world of Usenet) circumstances. Good luck with the article; I'll watch it for a while. --Regards, Keesiewonder ^talk 22:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kook or not, BLP applies. And Plutonium certainly has made our lives more entertaining. And he hasn't led us into wars.--CSTAR 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Groups

If notable enough to survive an AfD, then I think it's time to include reliable sources. My understanding is that arenas like Google Groups (the destination for several external links in this article) are not generally considered a reliable source. Thoughts? --Keesiewonder ^talk 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have no idea what all this is about, other than that an anon turned up at my talk page with a complaint, but we do need to take WP:BLP very seriously. ElinorD (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for removal via sock puppet?

It appears that A.P. is posting to Wikipedia under the account Superdeterminism, judging from the contributions for Bipedalism and Jimmy Wales. He has posted the following request on User talk:DennyColt:

please remove my Wiki page

Hello, I am Archimedes Plutonium. I respectfully request that the Wiki page on Archimedes Plutonium be immediately removed because there is no fair and objective and reasonable editor in the Wiki organization. Wiki page of Archimedes Plutonium has been a ten year old joke and mockery.

Wikipedia does not deserve anything dealing with Archimedes Plutonium, please delete his page immediately and without having to go through any process, just delete

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

The same text was also posted on the sci.math newsgroup, followed by this:

From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: I respectfully requested that Jimmy Wales remove the Wikipedia page on Archimedes Plutonium
:Date: 19 Mar 2007 11:16:00 -0700

[...] It demeans and defames the person. The only reason Archimedes
Plutonium warrants a Wikipedia page is because of his original idea of
the Atom Totality and yet in that information alone, no-one reading
his page would understand why it is there. A proper page of Archimedes
Plutonium would spend the first paragraph explaining what the ATom
Totality is. Instead, Wikipedia spent 10 years discussing what fruit
and candy I eat and what obnoxious nicknames can be used to mock me.
Wikipedia is the furthest away from a true encyclopedia such as
Britannica of the 19th century when James Clerk Maxwell was the
editor. Wikipedia is mostly a gaggle of biased, unreasonable novice
editors.

Example: their bipedalism page has 7 to 12 crackpot theories as to how
bipedalism originated and yet the theory that probably is the true
one-- Stonethrowing was dismissed because Archimedes Plutonium
discovered it. Instead they list crackpot theory of Wading and the
Water Ape. The editors say Stonethrowing is a new idea, yet they
blithely gloss over the fact that Wading and Water Ape is not only a
new idea but a crackpot idea.

So, because Wikipedia is a gaggle of novice editors who have little to
no logical reasoning and science minds, there is nothing but
frustration for anything of Archimedes Plutonium for any entry into
Wikipedia.  It is not worth my time.

PLEASE REMOVE THE Archimedes Plutonium Wiki page.

Thank you, Archimedes Plutonium

— Loadmaster 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Showing up as this was on my talk page for some reason. Is this person banned from wikipedia? - Denny 19:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usenet posts as references

Usenet posts are not reliable sources. Note, therefore, that the Usenet posts that have been cited as references have only been employed for the purpose of cross-checking for correct wording and supplementing to complete sentences the quotations from those posts that are given in Francis' book. Uncle G 13:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable use of autobiography as a source

It is unacceptable to use M. Plutonium's autobiography for facts about other people, including what those other people say about M. Plutonium, including what nicknames they give to him. It is doubly unacceptable given the instability of that autobiography. Checking the Google Web cache of M. Plutonium's autobiography reveals that it contained nothing about nicknames as of 2007-03-13 09:27:40 +0000. The content about nicknames was added by M. Plutonium to his autobiography within the past 12 hours (It certainly wasn't there when I consulted it for this edit.), in order to support then adding it to this article. Wikipedia does not work that way. Uncle G 13:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrangement

I've separated the article into sections, "Biography", "Theories", and "Controversies", and rearranged the text accordingly. This makes the article more coherent, and separates the autobiographical info from the citable facts a little better. — Loadmaster 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've stitched the biography back together again, for the following reasons:
  • The biography as split up was no longer in chronological order. To read a chronological account one had to skip back and forth across three sections.
  • Moving the paragraph, explaining about Plutonium's realization, out of chronological order removed the context for the following paragraphs.
  • It does readers a disservice for the only things in a "Biography" section to be things sourced from the subject's autobiography, and for things sourced from actual biographies of the subject by other people to not be in such a section.
  • It does M. Plutonium a disservice for the overwhelming majority of the biographical content about him to be in a section entitled "Controversies".
• Uncle G 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of this article's existence is the controversial nature of AP. Which I think should be spelled out in a section separate from his biographical info. Besides, biographical info is supposed to be relatively brief and cover only the essentials of the person, specifically what that person did, not what others did to him. The more noteworthy items of his life (the point of the article) deserves its own section. It just doesn't seem right to mix all of that historical controversy info in with his biographical details. — Loadmaster 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• We don't have any rule that "biographical info is supposed to be relatively brief". It is a disservice to the article's subject that you are doing by presenting everything his biography as "controversy". Uncle G 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite, actually. I wanted to separate the purely biographical info from the events surrounding his notoriety. A simple test applies: does a given sentence support the contention that he's a controversial Usenet writer or not? If so, it can be labeled "controversy"; if not, it can be labeled "biographical". I don't think both belong together under "biography". But, hey, you've got the last edit. — Loadmaster 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to call the section "Controversies" because that's what it covers: the controversies surrounding AP and his Usenet postings. The section title itself is a neutral term and does not disparage AP, but rather serves to put a label on the events that transpired. Again, if the historical events of the controversy could be separated from the purely biographical facts about the person, this would make for a better article. — Loadmaster 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The correct label is "biography", because that it what it is, a biography. Uncle G 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fixes" that introduce punctuation and grammatical errors

Square brackets around an ellipsis is a standard typographical convention for indicating omitted text. It is not a punctuation error. Similarly, "from A, through N, to Z" is a perfectly normal construction. It is not a grammatical error. I suggest, to any editor thinking of "correcting" these again, that a good look at a book on copyediting is in order first. Uncle G 00:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bracketed ellipses are standard convention in newgroups, but unbracketed ellipses have been the convention in printed text for hundreds of years now (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ellipses). I made the correction because the original wording sounded awkward. Correct or not, it just didn't sound right, and a simple rewording made it sound better. But be my guest to revert to the original. — Loadmaster 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Arky" Nickname

A. Plutonium keeps removing or changing the bit about his "Arky" nickname (as User:Superdeterminism). A simple Google Groups search, however, shows a history of this nickname having been used fairly often within the newsgroups. — Loadmaster 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)