It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Portugoal
! Curious, I just went over to Wayne's Facebook page and saw this!!
He wants you guys to disprove this. Just posted 30 minutes ago. Get on it.
-Wayne Herschel- Oh I want to see the folks at ATS try and spam this story as a fake... things are happening in the UFO subject faster that I can find them!!!! thank you Becky Andreason for sending this to me
about an hour ago · 2 people
Originally posted by moaningmartel
YOU ARE THE LIARS, FORGERS AND THE SCAMMERS AND NOT WAYNE AND JUDY!!!!!
This whole thread is just about YOU lot trying to INTIMIDATE, DEFAMATE, SLANDER and HUMILIATE Wayne and Judy with your LIES, DISINFORMATION, FORGED DOCUMENTS, PHOTOSHOPPED FOTOS, and FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS.
Cmon! How much are they paying you lot for this?
Given the off-wiki attempt to vote stack, and the admission of AstronomerPHD that he would use sock/meat puppets to circumvent any blocks I would also endorse the page being SALT-ed. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
* Not Delete - As the author in question here and treated as I have been treated so far by a wikipedia group determined to stop my work being listed, I will provide every single query and reference requested. The page yesterday was reduced to a meaningless garble and the anger I express on the Dan Brown Facebook page was justifiable since all the text was reduced absolute nonesense and fabrications. I appologise for the expression of anger. From here forward it is just my online rights I will defend and within the fair specifications that all other authors are subject to. If authors like Richard Hoagland and self published authors without valid measurable discoveries and wild theory like David Ike are listed here then I should not be treated differently.
To add here I acept the self published entry and have no choice being the author to make sure a simple page far shorter than the David Ike page.
People have tried to do this for me but were walked over. I am aware of conflict of interest but will upload neutrally and accurately and since there are so many trying to delete any false entries such entries will soon be removed any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) 09:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC) — AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"I have been treated so far by a wikipedia group determined to stop my work being listed" I think you misunderstand how wikipedia works and what we do here. The first thing to understand is that many of the people editing that article will have never of heard of you and have no interest in your work. I have never heard of you, I have no interest in your work or what you do, and therefore have no interest in preventing your work being listed because of some perceived slight or grudge. How I (and other editors) judge if an article should be on wikipedia is via reliable sources - 3rd party independent mentions of you and your work. When a claim is made "X did Y", we look to see if a reliable source exists to support that claim. It's not about what you write, it's about what other people write about you. As the article currently stands, it does not provide sufficient evidence that you or your work is notable enough for an article. David Ike has an article because he has been discussed by many many reliable sources and we can use those to construct an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
# Note about Facebook campaign Herschel (under his real name) has posted to Dan Brown's Facebook iste this request with a link to here: "please copy and paste the code there for Not Delete and add your own personal reason in this final debate. i have pledged to present all the requirements for the page and will prevail. Please join me in this last stand on this wiki debate here..." Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
# They can bring a thousand single purpose accounts to this page, it will not change the merits of the article, or lack thereof... Darrenhusted (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The page has just been Reverted to next to nothing... the false claim by Ove von Spaeth is back and it is not true.
there is somthing drastically unbalanced here and it is about to go online on where others can see the manipulation is rife here!
I will give moderators here an hour to provide a solution to this then i have no other choice other than taking astand against the moderators names who claim all is fair here. I have a full page put together that will upload in an hour... if I have already been blocked it will come from another party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"I will give moderators here an hour", What are you talking about? There are no "moderators", this is not a chatroom forum. "it is about to go online on where others can see the manipulation is rife here" I don't understand what you are talking about, all changes to Wikipedia articles are live. "if I have already been blocked it will come from another party" are you threatening to use sockpuppets? If so that could lead to you being blocked. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete and Salt A good-faith search turned up none of the multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources that we require to support claims of notability, and AstronomerPHD's conduct suggests that he'll keep trying to create an article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete and salt - This article is a concerted attempt by a group of people trying to promote a non-notable fringe personality and his non-notable books. Salting will avoid future drama when his group inevitably tries to recreate the article. -- Atama頭 17:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete due to failing all relevant notability guidelines, and salt due to ricoculous campaign. Verbal chat 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Arakunem, I have read the talk page, I have read Dan Brown's wall at Facebook, I have done a number of searches, and I have even clicked on all the links supplied by you, and yet I cannot find a few solid, third party references that would pull this guy (or his book) over the GNG bar. I understand that foreign (that is not US or UK) authors sometimes find it difficult to show the necessary sources, and sometimes that is because their work is obscure or only in translation. That is not the case here, the guy has self-published a book, and no one has been interested. On the Dan Brown page when he implores people to come here it is so the book can have the maximum exposure. If the sources were there, for a book published in the last five years, in English, then we would have found them. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Something to be aware of in regards to the scans - at least one of them has been photoshopped to change it from the original (see article talkpage for more information). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete His sole book is self-published. Googling turns up pages that seem to all be linked to what appears also as self-promotion. Is this self-generated notability? BashBrannigan (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right, you don't have to be an author or a scientist to be notable, but you do have to do something notable. Herschel's only claim to any notability is his book, which is self-published, not itself a bar to being notable, but his book has not sold in any significant numbers, not has it been covered significanctly by the press, outside of a puff-piece (which has been doctored on Herschel's website) in his local paper. So to sum up: he is a self-published author whose book expounds a fringe theory, and who has been interviewed by a local paper, but whose only coverage comes form his own website, and has been doctored. As for the facebook campaign, having looked at the various pages it is Wayne Herschel encouraging SPAs to come her to register a keep vote, and he has also edited his own page as AstronomerPHD, in an attempt to make himself seem notable... Darrenhusted (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Turning to Wikipedia, I've been very active in a discussion on the notability of this random pseudo-scientist from South Africa. This guy touts this nonsense about how all the pyramids in the world are starmaps and, well, the whole ancient astronauts thing. Anyway I seem to have angered his fan club and they are now accusing me of having a vendetta against him.
A little hint to the "pyramid power!!!" people: I don't even remember this guy's name when I am not looking at it on my watchlist. That is how unimportant he is to me. I don't know him, don't care about him, and don't have anything against him. He could very well be a very sociable fellow in real life. But his books should be shelved in Sci-Fi / Fantasy. And apparently a very small number of people think his hair-brained theories are actually real! And that is just silly.
L. Ron Hubbard silly.