Jump to content

User talk:Sollog/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Unlocked page 31 Dec.

Maybe things have settled down, and with this talk page archived we can keep track of our prognosticating friend a bit better, one hopes. Fire Star 03:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected archives

I've protected all of the talk archive pages, since they shouldn't change (being archives and all), and pro-Sollog types might vanadalize those when nobody's looking. But I've left /fullarchive unprotected, since it just transcludes the other archives.-- Khym Chanur 05:19, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

You say "pro-Sollog types" like it's a plural. Is that PoV?  :-) Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tohes

I warned the editor on their talk page to stop the POV pushing. We'll see if that does any good. But since he has been asked to substantiate his edits here first, it is justifiable to undo his revert edits if needed. - Taxman 18:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Ok I protected the page to stop the reverts. Any necessary changes need to be discussed and substantiated here. If substantiated, the edits will certainly be allowed to stand, so that is not the point. Avoiding multiple reverts by sockpuppets is. - Taxman 18:15, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
You a liar, Toh members editing this article. Wiki no want to put right info in article. Wiki want to harass sollog. For instance, Sollog is Sollog, that is his famous name. Sollog is only known for his prophecies. All the rest is junk. Sollog creator info important, yet not in article. Sollog predict many quakes yet no in article. You put in phrases like 'indirectly' connected to porno, that is junk. You base whole legal section on crazy man altman who runs a sex magazine for homosexuals. Remove the wacko stuff it is not POV. Wiki claim POV info removed, yet in this article wiki wants POV info and no NPOV info. Add 247 pages, remove all the pages to city paper. Look at the article you lock in, it is a joke and not POV. You no let in most important Sollog info, you put in garbage no one cares about. Fix page or remove it. Sollog if you read this please sue wikipedia for lying about you and harassing you and all members of TOH.
Tohchina
Me Chinese so excuse my bad english.
I'll just let the absurdity of the above stand on its own without further comment. - Taxman 04:45, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your article is doodoo

You people only want to harass Sollog and his fans as well as members of TOH. [...]

Sollog is Sollog, that is how he is world famous. [...]

Who cares what [...] at wiki thinks is Sollog method, that is pure junk. Sollog Creator Info is important. Sollog clearly predict Xmas quakes that is important. You people only want crap info [...] in article.

You lock page when fans change to right info. Wikipedia is joke. You run this site like joke. Wiki is joke. Sollog is Gods prophet.

Tohchina

I'm not sure about sanitising this kind of attack; it makes Tohchina look relatively reasonable without all the 'homos' and the 'fatso Altman'. Also, the way that the original version wrapped made it look as if Tohchina was writing "Sollog clearly predict Xmas", which was both funny and relevant (because (a) Xmas is easy to predict, it happens every year and (b) it's been and gone). Also, I believe 'Nashville', one of Robert Altman's greatest films, is being shown at the NFT in London. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Damnit! I tried to edit the article, but by the time I hit "save page" it had been protected again. Dbenbenn 18:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note that Dbenbenn reverted an additional rant from OSF that repeated arguments already addressed several times before. We normally don't censor talk pages, but OSF's edits are spam/vanity/trolling, take your pick. Unless constructive and sanely phrased criticism comes from the Sollog corner, I'm not at all opposed to reverting these things. JRM 18:54, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
Addendum: OSF = Our Special Friend (coined by Wyss, I believe) AKA Sollog, AKA John P. Ennis, AKA Tohnl/Tohde/Tohes/Tohchina/Toh*. JRM 18:55, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
[this is not true], me chinese fan of Sollog and chinese member of TOH. Me no Sollog. [...]. Tohchina
Ennis attempting to imitate non-native English is as futile as it is insulting. Word of advice: non-native speakers generally don't use "me" in place of "I". It's a literary device and cliché (think, "me Tarzan"), but the real difficulties of second-language learners are quite different. --MarkSweep 19:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Everyone knows the owner of Wikipedia stated he got calls from all over the world about the Sollog article. So all these crazy people saying we are all Sollog is just crazy people. They are WCP (Wiki Crazy People) Tohes
Discussed and debunked before. It's been suggested that Ennis has done impersonations in the past. --MarkSweep 19:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this: Sollog did not predict the "Xmas quakes". The date he gave was 2005-01-01. Claiming that this is "accurate" within a certain window is useless to the point of being cynical and macabre: the tsunamis hit within minutes or hours of the quake, so for a prediction to be useful merely giving the (wrong) day is not enough, it should have mentioned the precise time, the exact minute. Mentioning a location would have been nice too. I'm disgusted that Sollog claims to have psychic powers, yet he felt it was beneath him to use his alleged powers to give a precise warning. --MarkSweep 19:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[removed spam contributed by Fuckwiki^G ]Wyss 18:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV problems with Sollog page

(wiki keeps removing this because it is true)

That is not accepted by anyone except Ennis. - Taxman 04:40, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is POV problems with Sollog article.

Sollog is known as Sollog. All the crap about his name is garbage. Sollog is Sollog it is real simple.

The son of light stuff is garbage that came from city paper editor altman. City paper is free sex mag for homosexual market, it is well known homosexuals hate Sollog and attack him over his religious views. Sollog says bible condemns homosexuals as abominations. Some of the people editing Sollog article openly declare they are homosexuals on their users pages.

  • Sollog's authority to interpret theological texts is, to say the least, disputed. Wyss 19:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Look at the history of this page to see how wyss is deleting any and all pro sollog info Fuckwiki^G
  • Wikipedia does not claim that Sollog ever referred to himself as "Son of Light Light of God". It is, however, correctly reported that some people claim that this is the origin of the name. --Rlandmann 07:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All links to altman should be removed as POV rants from a sex magazine.

  • Sollog advertised heavily in that same "homosexual sex magazine" until Altman exposed him. Wyss 19:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Show where and when Altman 'exposed' Sollog, you're making stuff up again wyss, look at the history of this page to see how wyss deletes all pro sollog info
  • Wait a minute. Doesn't Sollog say that everyone is God, and that ToH members should be called God during legal proceedings? That doesn't sound very Biblical to me... - Khym Chanur 00:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Legal section is POV it is based on article from altman.

  • Perhaps it is, but without any other reliable source, we are in no position to tell. Simply put, Altman's articles are the best reference we have. If you are aware of others, please supply citations. --Rlandmann 07:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Activities is false info, you say 'indirectly' because the info is POV and put there to harass sollog.

Article needs quake info, Sollog hit Xmas Quake warning two years in a row, Bam and Sumatra quakes were on Xmas Day using Sollog time of EST. He has many quake predictions with exact times for 7.0+ quakes all used EST.

  • Note, the evidence indicates that Sollog's published commentary regarding earthquakes is a form of cold reading and post shadowing, unrelated to scientific description and of no predictive value. Wyss 19:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Note, wyss is a sick person who is deleting all pro sollog info just look at HISTORY of this page and see what wyss is doing.


No links to 247 News article the top source on Sollog, yet you have 7 links to sex mag City Paper.

  • The consensus is that 247 News is entirely written and edited by John P. Ennis, aka Sollog, using the alias D.E. Alexander. Wyss 19:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • And whether it's written by Sollog or not, it doesn't seem to be a credible source, unlike Philadelphia City Paper, which has things like premises, staff, and the capital and capability to print things on paper. --Rlandmann 07:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having 'according to altman' for legal section shows legal section is POV and should be removed.

  • Rather, it's an statement of Wikipedia's neutrality. We acknowledge that we're relying on one source, and naming that source. Again, if you can provide the other side of the story from some verifiable source, the legal section will be rewritten to refer to them.

Having lies like Adoni Publishing is 'indirectly' related to porno site is POV and should be removed.

  • In this editor's opinion, the term indirectly is incorrect. The evidence, including IP addresses, server locations and configurations, domain registrations and contact names suggests that Ennis is directly involved in websites marketing pornography and death images. Wyss 19:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wiki article should be short, state facts, Sollog is famous for prophecies, that's it. The rest of stuff is not important to readers. Put simple links to famous Sollog prophecies and no opinions, let reader judge for themselves, did Sollog predict 911, Xmas quakes and such.

  • Ennis aka Sollog is more famous for his spamming activities and sockpuppetry than his "prophecies." Wyss 19:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog if you read this sue wikipedia for their lies.

  • I think he's read this once or twice. Perhaps he should pursue that $10 Million judgement from mid December? Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tohchina

  • There is no evidence of any membership in TOH (the "religion" founded by Ennis aka Sollog). Rather, the consensus is that Tohchina is more than likely a sockpuppet of John P. Ennis. Wyss 21:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
wyss is lying, there are Toh members in almost every country in the world, email the contact info at http://www.templeofhayah.com and discuss Toh with a member in your country. Just look at the history of this page to see how wyss is deleting all positive Sollog and Toh info. BAN WYSS Fuckwiki^G
The evidence indicates that there are no TOH members, anywhere. Wyss 18:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS Wiki keep removing this section because it is TRUE

You tell the truth Tohchina. People harassing Sollog at this site openly declare they are homosexuals like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fvw Others harassing Sollog here also declare they are homosexuals. Homosexuals have been attacking Sollog for years. They don't like his stance on the bible saying homosexuals are abominations. The city paper is filled with sex ads for homosexual prostitutes in Philadelphia. Everyone knows that, yet to Wikipedia that is a good source for their article. Tohes
  • Open any major mainstream newspaper and you will find "sex ads for prostitutes", both male and female and both heterosexual and homosexual. Are you suggesting we stop citing newspapers altogether? - Mark 15:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that AIS/Adoni (controlled by John P. Ennis aka Sollog) is at a minimum a hosting and design service for deathporn sites. Wyss 19:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • However Sollog chooses to feel about homosexuality, it's true that some of us on this page are non-heterosexual, and some of us mention this on our user pages. If I was going to go after someone for being a homophobe, I'd choose someone a bit more notable than Sollog, and honestly I have better ways to spend my time on WP. Looking around briefly on the City Paper's webpage, it didn't look like a "sex rag" but I didn't spend that much time on it. I personally don't happen to feel attracted to dead people, so I don't visit Ennis' death porn sites. If Ennis is a homophobe, honestly I could care less. There's much better reasons for spending time on this article and why I, personally, feel that the public should know about Ennis' history. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, one can safely assume that Ennis has mentioned this topic for strictly self-serving reasons. I suspect that if he thought promoting freedom of choice along these lines would help in his spamming activities (or in swaying the content of this article), he'd do it without a flinch. Wyss 17:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With regards the $10million judgement mentioned above, note that if you enter 'John Patrick Ennis' into Google, it appears as the first result (with Wikipedia as the second, and an anti-Ennis page as the third). I imagine Ennis is cackling with glee at this, although it hardly helps him. Also, is there space in the article to mention that John Patrick Ennis is nothing to do with John Ennis, a genuinely talented and technically gifted painter? [1] -Ashley Pomeroy 17:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog email club

The only reason the UK based email discussion group was removed was because it was proof that 4 years ago Sollog was being discussed in the UK.

Surely Wikipedians, dedicated though they may be, have to give a reason why they remove links?


This is the address for the email discussion group referred to above. It is disappointing that the address was previously removed as it is to a UK group and I cannot see why this reference should be removed.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sollog/


I've been inducted into the honorary "offensive email from Sollog" club. What a pleasant person he is: 

[headers removed]
Received: from mail1.0web-hosting.com (mail.0web-hosting.com [216.240.142.188])
	by [me]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:22:06 -0500
Message-Id: <[removed]>
Received: (qmail 32985 invoked by uid 399); 31 Dec 2004 20:14:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (216.240.138.3)
  by mail.0web-hosting.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2004 20:14:12 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: AnonymousMailer@beHidden.com
To: [me]
Subject: Shut the fuck up faggot
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SpamProbe: GOOD 0.1736548 507418b9dac2217f39d0260cd637dc81

You're one ugly faggot.

http://www.[my web page]

SOLLOG RULES

Dbenbenn 20:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Better keep that, in case you need to complain to an ISP. --MarkSweep 01:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How dim is this guy?

He can't disguise his obvious writing style, even though he has a huge incentive to; his latest attempt was an offensive (yet lame) attempt at Asian English. He can only resort to obvious falsehoods (City Paper as "sex rag") and vicious insults to get his point across. He vandalizes high-traffic pages repeatedly, knowing they'll be caught in under five minutes.

I actually find his attempt at Asian English extremely extremely offensize as i am an Asian who speaks perfectly well english and know other people who do as well as he is obviously trying to use the stereotype to such an extent it is blatantly obvious that it is not an Asian which would lead me to believe he is mocking the accent more then trying to hide his identity... anyway, this guy is just plain old dumb and is one of the great examples of post-shadowing.68.149.125.176 09:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is he so threatened by? He obviously thought he could post a fanboy treatment of himself here and have it unaltered. Now that it's balanced with information he doesn't like, he's full of impotent rage. Why doesn't he just give up and move on? Other negative stuff about Sollog is online, so Wikipedia is just one more source. Is he worried that the Wikipedia article will turn up high in the Google search for Sollog? And that his life will be affected by this fact how, exactly? A2Kafir 01:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hum. This is only very tangentially related to the article, but still. I don't think he's mentally capable of "moving on", regardless of what actual impact this article has on his endeavours. He just can't live with the notion that Wikipedia is portraying him in a light he doesn't consider flattering enough. It bothers him, and it'll keep bothering him. If he wasn't so annoying, you might pity him, really. He must know what he's doing has no effect, and that Wikipedia will simply last longer than Sollog. He's not so stupid that he believes he can "win". It's a matter of "honor" now. Or mindless, relentless indignation, rather. He has to do this to support his ego, as much as you or I need to breathe. I'd really like it if he could put this behind him and move on, but I doubt it. Perhaps if something more important comes along, but that's pretty unlikely too. My amateur attempt at psychoanalyzing the mind of a kook. JRM 01:32, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Ennis is obviously using his proxies from different countries to register "Toh" this or "Toh" that with different countries' names or abbreviated names suffixed to them as sockpuppet Wikipedia accounts. And to make weak parodies of ESL Chinese AND to transparently talk to himself in order to accuse everyone who disagrees with him of homosexuality. My theory is that the article gets to him because deep down he indeed has a vestigial sliver of guilty conscience and that he hopes against hope that somehow that if he screams loud and long enough, he won't have to take responsibility for his unfortunate career choice. Happy New Year everyone! Fire Star 02:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And the same to you :-). I suspect that his actions on WIkipedia, and probably most of his prophecy attempts, are an exercise in pagewank (is that a word?) aimed at gathering attention for his commercial sites. And yet he feels the need to point out what everyone has known for years - that Jimbo operates/operated adult sites. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't know that. Yes, Sollog has taught someone something he didn't know! Perhaps that's the most amazing thing of all. :-) JRM 14:28, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)


Here's the famous email curse:


Subject: CURSE UPON THE DAMNED! Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:54:49 -0500 From: LORD GOD ALMIGHTY <G...@theeunderground.net> Organization: UNIVERSE To: flags...@erie.net, chris.sivewri...@which.net


BEWARE!


LUCIFERIUS ET TU DOMINUS!


THIS CURSE is upon the list of TOWLAH within this CURSE!


You have been WARNED who you MOCKED!


You are the SCUM that is now known as TOWLAH!


Your LIFE and SOUL is NOW CURSED and shall be TERMINATED!


You have MOCKED the CREATOR of CREATORS!


So the FORCES of the UNIVERSE that BOWS to the MASTER have been SUMMONED UPON THEE!


The NAMES on this LIST are the TARGETS of THIS CURSE!


They are INDEED CURSED by the CREATOR of CREATORS for ETERNITY!


Their SOULS shall be BE TERMINATED!


The rest of their short lives shall be HORRIFIC!


Their SEED shall also be CURSED upon!


Their MORTAL LIFES and their SOUL TERMINATED by the WILL OF ONE!


COME FORTH SERPENT OF DEATH!


From the SHADOW OF THE ABYSS!


DIRECT YOUR VENOM OF SUFFERING UPON THE TOWLAH upon this LIST!


Let the MIND of the TOWLAH be TORMENTED with these WORDS from the MOST HIGH!


The OFFENSE commited by these TOWLAH upon the MASTER is most grievious and must be BALANCED with the CURSE OF THE DAMNED upon the list within this CURSE!


Let the TOWLAH squirm for a short while upon this sphere!


Then the TOWLAH shall be GONE!


Their SOULS ERASED by the WILL OF ONE!


There is NOW a chill upon the spine of the TOWLAH that DARED to MOCK the WORD OF ONE!


Their FAMILIES shall also BEAR THESE CURSE OF ONE throughout ETERNITY!


DAMNED are the SEED of those that chose to MOCK THE ONE!


TOWLAH BEWARE YOUR SOULS ARE NOW DEAD!


You have been written out of the BOOK OF LIFE by the MASTER!


THE MASTER of MASTERS who speaks and TOWLAH ARE TERMINATED from his mere WORDS!


THE TOWLAH upon this LIST whose FAMILY is NOW CURSED THROUGH ETERNITY is Patrick Campbell of Erie PA who plays upon the net of erie.


Chris Sivewright of the net of the which!


YOUR BLACKS SOULS are NO MORE!


The mere breath of THE MASTER blows out the candle that is the light of your SOUL!


For the MASTER CREATED THEE to LEARN!


And you have now FAILED your EXAM!


You shall not be tormented with the bowels of Sheol since you are too repulsive to even be PUNISHED with the LOWEST DIMENSION!


Enjoy the WRATH of ONE that is now UPON your FAMILIES!


You shall see the YOUNG STRUCK with vile diseases!


You shall see all around you, HORRIIBLE SUFFERING!


For your MOCKERY has TURNED the POWER of the CREATOR upon thee will FULL VENGENCE!


Now TOWLAH, thee shall know, I AM THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY!


THE ONLY ONE!


THE MASTER OF ONE!


THE HOLY ONE!


Come forth ANGELS of PAIN & SUFFERING!


I have prepared a FEAST for my ravenous vultures of TRUE SUFFERING!


The PREY of the FEAST is the FAMILIES of the TOWLAH that have been NAMED!


Now my VULTURES of PAIN and DISEASE enjoy the FEAST THE MASTER has given thee.


NOW from the depths of the ABYSS, I call forth my KEEPER of the GATES!.


I command my keeper of the GATES, that when thee see the TOWLAH upon this LIST, their SOUL shall be TERMINATED!


I have entrusted thee with the ENTRANCE for the return of all souls.


But, the TOWLAH upon this list must NOW be TERMINATED!


Now ANGELS of PAIN & SUFFERING embark upon the PREY!


And, Hear these words my KEEPER of the GATES!


Thee art forbidden to allow the TOWLAH upon this list to enter again any dimension within MY KINGDOMS!


BANISH THEIR SOULS TO THE ENDLESS ABYSS OF NOTHING!


When THIS CURSE upon the TOWLAH starts to PENETRATE the PREY of my CURSE, then their SUFFERING shall be so immense, they shall cry upon MY NAME to release their PAIN!


I shall REFUSE to HEAR THEIR CRIES!


For I told them both I AM HE!


No go forth spirit of MY WORD!


Let all within my DOMAIN know of the PLIGHT of the TOWLAH that have been CURSED!


Let all within the KINGDOM KNOW!


THE JUDGEMENT has now BEGUN!


THE FIRST TWO SOULS TO BE TERMINATED for ETERNITY have been DESTROYED!

Here's the link: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_thread/thread/376f70564700ba92/6480d665f9752203?q=curse+sivewright&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dcurse+sivewright%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#6480d665f9752203



Recent reverts on the talk page

Guys, I realize he has no credibility, but try to only remove the vandalism and patent nonsense. If he tries to make valid points, leave those. The recent edits have removed a few that could be considered in that category. So far they have all been easy to refute, but this article is not NPOV so we need to get back to the point where it is improving. Removing valid discussion on the talk page doesn't help. - Taxman 17:40, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

He's only re-posting post-shadowing and other spam that has been discussed and debunked endlessly on this page. I interpret that as straight vandalism (and harassment), and delete it accordingly. Wyss 17:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Face it wyss you are deleting any and all pro sollog info.
No, Ennis, I'm deleting spam. Try saying something original? Wyss 18:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Wyss here. Virtually all of the information posted by by the Toh* family recently has been debated before and can be found in the archives. Unless there are new facets to this debate, it's just more junk that will clutter the talk page. I'm in favor of more aggressively shaping the debate: talking about an alleged conspiracy that's trying to suppress information which is part of the history and the archives is unproductive trolling, IMHO. --MarkSweep 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Now I'm listening, if they keep posting the same repetitive crap that has already been debunked, then we don't need to keep it. Just make sure it is the same old thing and note that in the edit summary. Then if people test for open proxies those are fair game to ban on the spot. - Taxman 20:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Given that 'Tohde' and other aliases of Mr P. have stuck around for longer than a day, and given that they're extremely disruptive 'users', is there a case of listing them on the 'Problem Users' page? Probably pointless, but the inevitable result would give whomsoever challenges the hydra some kind of glowing sword of justice. A glowing, hot sword, with which to cauterise the necks of the 'hydra' (which is a metaphor) and also a rock, to bury the 'immortal head' (another metaphor) - and then, we could dip our 'arrows' in Ennis' 'blood', and use them to kill Nessus, although unlike the real-life Hercules we should take care not to come into contact with this blood otherwise will we have to metaphorically 'kill' 'ourselves'. With 'it'.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone has been around this page for far too long. And "the real-life Hercules"? :-) JRM 22:20, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Quake Predictions

I wonder if we should really add a section on Sollog's predictions of quakes around this time. After all we have a lot of timestamped evidence of his prediction process. We can include:

  • The original prophecy;
  • Sollog's enthusiastic claiming of the Antarctic quake as the fulfilment of it;
  • His sudden change of mind when the Pacific tsunami happened

DJ Clayworth 18:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this worth it? His post-shadowing has already been debunked as unpredictive and of no value. He's trying to pull the discussion in circles, hoping to gain even a shred of positive commentary in the article, after which he'll keep on with his strategy of attrition and vandalism. Wyss 18:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He'll just bring this up and up and up and up until it so resonates in our collective minds that we're deluded into thinking it's notable, at which point we will do our readers a big disservice by giving Sollog's specific misgivings more attention than they deserve. We must violently resist the temptation to turn this into a biography.
Sollog will claim success for some prophecy on every major disaster that will happen. None of these claims should be mentioned unless external sources give them some sort of notability (the 9/11 prophecy being the hallmark). JRM 18:47, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
But it can be used as a concrete example of why he is percieved as a quack. Everything that can be documented regarding that is important. Currently the article just says his claims are not accepted, evidence showing why would be valuable. The quake claims he keeps pasting in show no date claimed in one, but still claiming a successful prediction. So document it with sources and that is closer to NPOV than we are now. - Taxman 18:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
The article already does rather an effective job at that, which is why he continues to vandalize it. Even discussing these individual post-shadowing incidents skews PoV to a noted crank and spammer (and in my personal view, something of an obscenity, given the 120,000+ human beings killed by tsunamis in the Indian Ocean). Wyss 18:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To simply state a representative "prediction" chain or two and the commonest statistical interpretations of their validity as evidence should allow people to make up their own minds. Ennis' spamming, viciousness and other eccentricities of expression (and their mention) should fill in the gaps for most people of good will, which is the most we can hope for with such a dog's breakfast. Fire Star 19:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would agree on this level... If his recent post-shadowing is to be dissected in the article, then mention should also be made of the hate-email he's sent to Wikipedians, the ridiculous "Decrees of TOH" he's promulgated, the reptitive spamming and vandalism of many Wikipedia articles, and a more in-depth discussion of evidence for the following: 1) His deathporn marketing activites, 2) Lack of any membership in TOH, 3) His long history of abusing other websites and 4) His sockpuppetry. Wyss 19:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog quake info wiki is hiding (No hiding going on)

Just look at the history pages of talk and article to see all the factual information about Sollog hits on quakes and other prophecies that wiki has intentionally deleted.

Sollog Quake info Wiki is deleting

  • No one is hiding it. It is in the page history. It is just that no one believes it. Lets consider the evidence: - Taxman 23:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

1. Sollog predicted major killer quakes for Xmas before Bam Iran Quake hit last Xmas. The Great Sumatra quake was also an Xmas Quake. Bam hit at 9PM EST last Xmas and Sumatra hit at 8PM EST on Xmas. Wiki deletes all edits that post this info. The famous Sollog Xmas killer quake warning is here [1] (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=f2967f4e.0312161736.30a9ca3c%40posting.google.com)

  • Post-shadowing previously debunked. Wyss 23:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There are no specific predictions there, just generalities that would be expected to happen in any given year. No Dates are given, so no accurate predictions can be claimed. Therefore no prediction. - Taxman 23:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Clear hit. 1. Prophecy is about Xmas 2. Prohecy warns of 'killer quakes' since it was written two biblical killer quakes have hit on Xmas Day using EST, the bam quake and the sumatra quake, the prophecy is clear. So put a section in Sollog fans claim this prophecy predicted xmas quakes in bam and sumatra and then put what your skeptic claim is
Show us a prediction that gives the time, date, strength, and place of the earthquake, along with a warning to those affected. Anything else or anything cryptic is useless, and actually insulting to the dead (by saying that you warned of the quake that killed them).A2Kafir 17:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence of any Sollog fans, but plenty of evidence of John P. Ennis sockpuppets. The "skeptic claim" is that Ennis is post-shadowing events to non-specific "predictions". Wyss 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I find a skull in the ground and show it to you, then that could be said to be 'evidence' of the skull. If you then hide it, you could legitimately say, 'there is no evidence of any skull'.

You'd be wrong as there is evidence but you've hidden it.

The same could be said of Sollog Fans.

Let me list some:

a. Amin. he has posted on the UK Sollog Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sollog/ and from his comments and the way he writes it is almost impossible that he's Sollog.

b. T-EL-C. He used to post on alt.prophecies.nostradamus. He was disgusted by the email-porn-fake-headers controversy a few years ago and tried to help trace the originator. He was still a 'fan' though he did not seem impressed by the behaviour of 'fans' - but impressed by Sollog.

c. Jahiro. If you look at the tone of his posts, they are very different from the posst by SOLLOGFAN and a number of other aliases.

d. Truthseeker. Much the same can be said of him.

That's four, for a start.

Even if there are only 4 in the whole world that still disproves the 'no fans' statement. Plus there can be many supporters of someone, lurkers if you will, who do not post for fear of abuse.

Look at the most recent flurry of UK based posts. It seems to me the posters were rational and sensible. What happened? Mass deletion - institutionalised vandalism IMO - and absurd comments that even when the poster stated exactly what was next to where he was posting from in a pub in Lyndhurst, he only got smart-ass comments about the fact he could have telephoned the pub and asked what was on the wall.

As if someone from USA is going to phone a small pub in a small village and ask what is on the wall! For a start how would they even know there WAS internet access there?

I am sure wiki people have the right aims but surely you have also to have an amount of common sense?


2. There is no link to the clear hit for Sollog this year about a holiday killer quake. The simple fact is Sollog named a date for rare great quakes to hit this holiday season 01/01/05 and two great quakes have hit very close to that date. It's a fact that 'windows' of several days are used by all quake predictors for lesser and more common quakes like 7.0+ quakes. Article should link to the recent quake warning of Sollog and note his fans say being six days off for a rare great quake is a hit while skeptics think missing a rare great quake by 6 days is a miss. This quake warning is at [2] (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/99de7ac658525a4c). The fact is Sollog predicted a rare seismic event (a great quake is defined by the USGS as over 8.0+ and they occur historically less than one a year) and it struck days from when he said a killer great quake would hit. It was a major quake hit.

  • Post-shadowing previously debunked. Sollog did not predict a "holiday" quake. Wyss 23:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • To be useful this prediction would have to have been much more accurate. Simple statistics show that if you make 100 "predictions" about events that may occur, chances are that some of them will. Claiming later that this was some form of prediction is not valid. - Taxman 23:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Clear hit, sollog only releases a few prophecies each year IF ANY at all. He said killer great quakes would take many lives and the sumatra quake hit 6 days from his exact date during the 2004 holiday season. He pointed to a key date in the 2004 holiday season, that being news year day. Put in Section Sollog fans claim it is significant that a 9.0+ quake hit during 2004 holiday season and put skeptics claim missing the sumatra quake by 6 days is a miss.
What taxman said. Even if one were to say that a prediction is "accurate" within a certain window (and given the size of the windows we're talking about here, I'm not even sure one can call it "accurate"), what good did Sollog's prediction do? Did they save a single life? To do that, the prediction should have included the precise location of the quake, a warning about tsunamis, and the precise minute the quake would occur, given that the earliest tsunamis hit within minutes after the quake. You don't get the privilege of saying "I told you so (if you squint really hard)" unless you provided precise, actionable information earlier. --MarkSweep 00:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Even as geologists in North America and Japan were trying to notify Indonesian authorities of the tsunami risk, Ennis was silent on that topic. Wyss 00:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The Sumatra quake did not hit on the day Sollog predicted. Moreover, given the statistical inevitability of seismic activity on earth (as previously referenced on this page), Ennis would have "settled" for any old 6.5 within a few weeks of his prediction. Wyss 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


3. Sollog issued 10 quake warnings in 2000 to 2001, the first five he hit an exact date over 30 days in advance for a rare 7.0+ range quake to hit. The odds of anyone hitting an exact date for just one 7.0+ range quake is ~30 to 1. To do it five times in a row like Sollog did is a major quake prediction hit. The second five quake warnings hit an exact area Sollog named within 30 days of when he issued his warning.

  • Post-shadowing previously debunked. The fuzzy "hits" he claimed were statistically inevitable and not predictive. Wyss 23:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I see you don't provide links to these predictions. If any exact dates were hit, surely you could provide evidence of thse predictions that shows they were made well ahead of time. If you had such evidence and it was reliable, then maybe we have something worth adding to the article. - Taxman 23:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Posted anonymously by 203.110.14.212

In these quake warnings sollog gave an exact date with time for a rare seismic event. He hit all 10 with either the exact day or an exact location. There was no post anything, the quake warnings were specific for single events with time and location. Hitting exact dates for rare 7.0+ quakes is a major thing and hitting exact locations where future 7.0+ quakes then occur within 30 days is a major thing.
Again, unable to give any evidence of these "exact dates", because they didn't happen. - Taxman 18:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Notice he doesn't give the source (because the quake was "predicted" for Jan 1 and Mar 1, 2005. No exact time, no exact date, no location... statistically certain he'd find something to match up. These assertions are circular and unhelpful in the extreme. Wyss 00:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You see, you are going to have to convince a consensus of the editors here that the above are actually predictions. So far, no one here has been so persuaded. Since absolutely no one here but yourself seems to think that you actually are predicting these events, and your threats and invective aren't working to convince any of us either, perhaps you should re-evaluate your positioning relative to this article? Fire Star 23:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You people erase all posts over and over by fans of Sollog claiming they are all one person. The consensus shows there are way more Sollog fans posting here than the few editors that are trying to control this article and talk page. The history shows that. Sollog is a famous quake predictor, put in a section and link to the above predictions, then let people decide.
  • Not. The evidence indicates that you're John P. Ennis, post-shadowing and spamming as you have done for many years. Wyss 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The people here have decided. You have yet to provide a shred of reliable evidence that there is more than one recruit in your sockpuppet army. Sorry. Fire Star 00:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firestar, please read my comments above. Look at the recent mass deletions only today of someone I assume is a UK poster. The reason for deletions - even though the vandal admitted they were moderately interesting, was that he hadn't time to go through them!

So what happens if 'fans' appear?

They are deleted/reverted or their 'proof' is dismissed as being fakable and yet.....well, enough has been said about Ashley already!

It seems to me there is sufficient evidence that Ashley IS Sollog that his posts should all be reverted, even if they are 'moderately interesting'.


  • I agree that Sollog hit these quake predictions Tohfin
  • Yes Sollog did predict these earthquakes. Porttoh
  • Se, senor Sollog hit his earth quake warnings. Tohmx
It's si, Ennis! Yawn. Wyss 23:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And it's "señor". Other than that, good job. Pakaran 03:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ohmygawsh, he's resorting to blatant stereotypes to bolster his claims? "Gotta pretend to be Chinese so they'll think I've got support there." "Gotta pretend to be Mexican so they'll think I've got support there." Too funny. And few Mexicans I know actually say "si," they all say "yeah". Inky 00:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
All it would take is for someone to check the open proxies these sockpuppets are editing from to show it is all the same person. - Taxman 18:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
tohmx probably meant sē which means he said "I know", he hit his quake warning. Why are you harassing Sollog fans so much. Porttoh
Because you seem incapable of contributing to an encyclopaedia? Fire Star 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh. Right. Lashing with apologies. I take it all back then. By the way, Ennis, why did you harass Jimbo's wife and kid? Wyss 00:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I believe that all conversation with this Ennis character should end with "By the way, Ennis, why did you harass Jimbo's wife and kid?". That might up the chap shut. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I love the way all the Sollog "fans" invariably put "toh" and their country in their username. From such a wide and diverse church as the esteemed Temple of Hayah, you'd think there would be more, ah, variety in the thinking of its followers. Maybe some "normal" usernames supporting Sollog would have a bit more (shadow of a chance of having) veracity? It makes me wonder why there is only one "fan" per country, too. I, for one, would welcome the chance to talk to tohes1, tohes2, tohes69, and all the other creative Spanish fans of Sollog.
(To make this comment on-topic,) maybe the article should mention the extreme ineptitude and frequency of Ennis' sockpuppetry? As one of the two things he's notable for (spamming and socking), it might belong. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Yet again, all those Sollogites across the world have been asleep during the same period (the last few hours). Extraordinary. Or again, not extraordinary at all. Hoary 09:48, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Also as amazing that they come in and say the exact same thing at the exact same time. For a guy trying to make it look like a lot of supporters, he's not very creative about it. - Taxman 18:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I see two predictions made in the "famous Sollog Xmas killer quake warning": many deaths in the "Great Blizzard of 04", and a collapse of the United States stock market sometime between December 16, 2003 and January 16, 2004. The stock market has been relatively motionless, and now that it's 2005, it's clear that there was no "great blizzard", so the "famous Sollog Xmas killer quake warning" looks like a clean miss. --Carnildo 01:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I see many things in Xmas Prophecies. 1. killer quakes (Bam and Sumatra killer quakes hit on Xmas Day back to back) 2. plane crash in Benin's capital over 100 dead last year on xmas day 3. one of worse winters in history hit USA and many did die from cold 4. Major drop did hit stock market from mid january to november the market was way down. So Sollog Xmas Prophecy had two killer quakes kill thouands on xmas day one year apart, a major plane crash hit on xmas day, historic cold hit USA and many died and major drop in stock market hit as he said. I see four hits Tohmx
Of course you would see that, you are the same person trying to make it look like another supporter. Again, provide evidence for these supposed predictions. If they are so far off that the prediction can't help anything it is not a prediction. People die somewhere in the world from an earthquake every year. Later claiming that is a valid prediction is invalid. People also always die from the cold, again, not a prediction. You can claim you see whatever you want, it doesn't make it so. - Taxman 18:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to paraphrase: "Just because I am the only one who understands my own random symbolic language doesn't mean my ravings in it aren't evidence of psychic ability. You just have to solve my cryptic riddles, and if you don't you're an idiot incapable of judging me!" So, all we need is a Sollog to English dictionary. How about it, Ennis? It would make your "predictions" a lot easier to predict, after all... Fire Star 21:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page protected 1 Jan. 05

Protected again. Ennis, please obtain consensus before editing in future, thank you. Fire Star 23:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parapsychological, or not

The very first sentence of the article now ends by saying that Ennis/"Sollog" is a "psychic", sending the reader off to [[Psychic]], which is a redirect to Parapsychology. At the least, this needs to be fixed to "[[Parapsychology|psychic]]". But, quite aside from the fact that the "parapsychological" is transparently piffle, does The Scourge Of Wikipedia even claim to be a psychic? It's possibly a complex question as I believe he calls himself god and thus might claim to be omniscient and omnipotent, which presumably would include knowledge of precisely which playing card I am now holding between my lips as I type with both hands. (Or even that that was a lie; I have no playing cards anywhere.) Well, aside the piffly claims made for parapsychology in general and the omniscience and omnipotence of Ennis in particular, is there any reason to call him a psychic? Paging Wyss, who has incomparably greater stamina than I for reading all the TOHdyism. (I nod off after mere seconds: Ennis's logorrhoea doesn't even have enough redeeming unintended-comedy appeal.) -- Hoary 01:36, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I think the article would most accurately refer to Ennis as a noted spammer and sockpuppet who claims divinity as a marketing tool, legal shield and tax dodge with manifestly limited success, 'cause that's how I interpret the evidence. Hey Ennis, can you "predict" which finger I'm holding up... oh, never mind, one wouldn't have to be a psychic to "hit" that one :) Wyss 01:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As long as we're exploring that avenue: The only notability I can think of for Ennis would be as an entry in a Wikipedia-specific article "Great Bores of Today" (cf that in Private Eye). But it would be in a different namespace: in the real world, he doesn't even hack it as a Great Bore, as (despite the best efforts of Weekly World News, etc.) the masses' appetite for minatory obscurantism is seldom enough to get them looking through the nuttier, sollogized reaches of Usenet. Hoary 02:06, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
The problem here is the word psychic, which is colloquially interpreted as "person who claims to see the future" — which he obviously does. I don't know why Merriam-Webster lists the noun as synonymous with medium, because that's typically taken to mean a person who purportedly communicates with "the other side". To me, this doesn't seem to match the actual use of "psychic". The redirect to Parapsychology is only appropriate if you take the adjective; the colloquial "sees the future" meaning isn't adequately covered by that. I think the Sollog article gets it right and the redirect does not. (Wyss, you can put that finger down now, if it's tiring you out. :-) JRM 02:16, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
I voted against keeping the article to begin with ;). The only reason I solloged through his poxy predictions was because a discussion of them was being tolerated at all on this page and I wanted to ensure they were debunked cleanly. It's all cold reading and post-shadowing, utterly un-notable, and Ennis knows it is, although I do think he's somewhat deluded as to his expertise at anything having to do with math. I mean it when I say, after getting to "know" this character, he should be referred to in the article as, John P. Ennis, noted spammer and Internet sockpuppet. Wyss 02:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know, that sounds rather POV to me. :-D Though you'd probably claim it's "the earth is round" kind of POV, right? JRM 02:35, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Quasi-spherical, if you wanna get picky about stuff ;) Wyss 02:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another slight tweak: John P. Ennis, vigorous and unscrupulous self-promoter (as "Sollog"), and energetic internet sockpuppeteer Hoary 09:53, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Biggest Quake since Sumatra Killer Quake hits New Years Day Sollog Hit - Uh, no. See below

http://www.247news.net/2005/20050101-sumatra.shtml

"The largest quake to hit anywhere in the world since the day the Super (9.0+) Sumatra Quake has struck. It was a 6.5+ quake and it hit in the same area as the Super Sumatra Quake. It struck New Years Day." http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/usstak.htm

Sollog says big quake on New Years Day and big quake hits Sumatra, where thousands died days before. Sollog hit. Tohmx

But he got the first one wrong, the really big one. For purposes of proving that he is actually psychic, Sollog missed. Sorry. Fire Star 18:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Um, the USGS CAN'T "lie" about earthquake magnitudes, because universities and other governments who take similar measurements have the same data and can calculate it independently. Duh. A2Kafir 00:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sollog hit the quake warning. The prophecy first says thousands will die in quakes to celebrate the anniversary of the Creator Formula. Then Sollog says on this day a major quake will hit. So both things happened, thousands died in a quake and on the exact date he gave a rare quake hit. The quake that hit struck the exact area where thousands died a few days earlier in the largest seismic event in 40 years on the planet. 194.65.156.242
  • This conflicts mightily with Ennis' past post-shadowing insistance that he'd predicted a "great" quake (USGS definition of 8.0+ richter magnitude). It does however, conform to this editor's past assertion that he'd settle for "any old" 6.5, since many of these per month are a statistical certainty. Wyss 21:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait, wait. So sollog's prediction for the New Year's Day quake predicted two different events? If an aftershock creates more tsunamis and kills more thousands of people, will that be another hit, for three events covered by a single prediction? -- Khym Chanur 01:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't forget that he claimed the Antarctica 8.0 as a hit, so that's three hits so far on this one prediction. --Carnildo 05:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ennis apparently has "forgotten" that one, since he assertively claimed it as his "hit" before Sumatra and the many aftershocks. It's all in the archives of this talk page. Wyss 05:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course ;) In effect, he'll claim anything, anywhere as a hit. Ennis' post-shadowing has two basic features... his "windows" are way fuzzy, and he uhm, grossly misrepresents his original predictions when bragging about his hits. For example, his "anniversary" prediction said nothing about a "holiday season" quake... nor any location, and the word "great" was in a "religious" sounding bit of padding (nothing to infer any USGS definition or other restrictive preciseness)... just Jan 1 and Mar 1 2005... giving him lots of "Ennis style" wiggle room if things had been seismically quiet during the holidays. My impression is that essentially nobody anywhere believes him for more than a moment (The USENET and Internet are littered with posts ridiculing him)... but the "publicity" and endless spamming evidently drive a trickle of visitors to the deathporn and other sites for mining purposes (as noted several times before on this page). Wyss 02:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it does appear to be the case that he is hit mining. Fire Star 03:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyone do a cursory percentage calculation of John P. Ennis' false positive and false negative rates? That should put an end to the debate (positively) over hit mining. Encyclopedias should inform the gentle reader as to what it means to be a fraud. --Iosif 06:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ruffkuh

Note that this page was listed as a 'Request for Comment' by the oddly-named "195.187.51.200" on 1 January, with the rambling, familiar complaint that there is a "massive delete of NPOV info on article and talk page, a few wikians who admit they are homosexual are using the article and talk page to attack a religious leader over his position on homosexuals in bible. Excessive links to City Paper smear articles (City Paper is a known homosexual sex mag) any mention of the fact the person hit 911 and recent great quake in his prophecies is censored or slanted with non facts. Percentage of gays using deletes and reverts is almost 50 percent of wiki users attacking person", twice. Inevitably this has been toned down, which unfortunately removes the spirit of the original complaint. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obviously Ennis. He will exploit every opportunity he can think of to harass Wikipedia over this article. Wyss 17:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see John is on the way to becoming a productive Wikipedian. Now all he has to do is get a handle on policy and tone down the stark raving delusional obsessiveness and he might be fit for... no, on second thought, I can't think of anything positive he could contribute. JRM 17:36, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

I should add that Ennis' recent "anti-Sollog" edits to the article (including that blunt reference alleging Sollog's affection for goats), were undoubtedly part of an inept, "stealth smear" campaign "against" WP users, never mind the link-spamming (see below). Wyss 18:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ennis would be well served to take Dodgson's Duchess' advice: "Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." Fire Star 01:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firestar. I strongly suggest YOU remember: "One should not aim at being possible to understand, but at being impossible to misunderstand"

Sollog dead

From a lurker...

I certainly wouldn't put faking death past the guy, and from my understanding he's done so before, but can anyone confirm his death/cynical attempt to snooker us?

There's an easy way to find out. If the vandalism stops, he's dead. --Carnildo 21:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If he's a psychic, shouldn't he have given us some advance notice? -- ChrisO 21:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tuesday's LA Times reports Sollog death Sunday in Thousand Oaks, CA. JRM 16:16, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

The above was posted by anon IP 68.229.240.32, a Cox Communications user in the Atlanta area. -- ChrisO 17:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've met User:JRM's, and you sir, are no User:JRM. Furthermore, for those who take an interest in these matters, have a look at a google usenet search for sollog died. He seems to make a habit of dying. --fvw* 16:59, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I'm flattered my name is the one to fake when you need to appear reliable, but really... This is a new low.
For the record (superfluous, I'm sure), I'm always logged in; in the rare event that I'm not, you'll see a static IP address that traces to the Dutch XS4ALL network. I'd actually post it here, but I'm pretty sure John would take that as an invitation to test my firewall. I'm pretty sure it'd hold, but I can do without such attention. JRM 18:38, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
He seems to have fooled the California Highway Patrol pretty good. --Hootienads 17:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Another comment from 68.229.240.32

"He's dead, Jim." Ennis, get a grip. You're not dead. A2Kafir 18:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zombie Sollog - what an image... -- ChrisO 19:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is wondering that maybe Sollog is dead: a search for "thousand oaks" at latimes.com reveals no news on Sunday Jan 2nd or Monday Jan 3rd, and the (current) three articles since then (including the Tuesday cited above) are about the tsunami, some rankings, and a mall needing expansion. Ugh. Taking this stuff seriously enough to debunk makes me feel... dirty.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

A quick check of the obits doesn't show a listing for either "Sollog" or "John Patrick Ennis". --Carnildo 20:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why revert edits by 80.237.203.93?

An anonymous anti-Sollog poster 80.237.203.93 has made a few edits highlighting Sollog's dishonest prediction techniques, through the example of the recent earthquake predictions. Each time, these edits were reverted, with one rv edit summary actually accusing this anti-Sollog poster of being another Sollog sockpuppet! Do you guys take the trouble to read the changed articles before you revert it, or are you just revert happy? P Ingerson 17:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This has already been admitted today that the answer is 'No'. A whole load of sensible posst were reverted en masse by someone who admitted he had little time to read them!

That's 'Institutionalised Vandalism' - does he work for NHS?


Of course they were read. These anti-Sollog additions to the article used Ennis' well-known syntax, and each contained a link back to his "prophecies". It was a new tactic is all (note that there was no other vandalism during that time), an attempt by Ennis to link-spam the article. Had it worked, he would have continued to litter the article with more bits of drek. Moreover, he would have used the clear anti-Sollog tone of the additions to later accuse Wikipedia of "hate", etc. Wyss 17:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, if I understand things correctly, one can criticise Sollog provided you do not link to the aspect of him you're criticising. BUT if you defend him you must support your defence.

Wow - that's sensible.

You've opened the door to a whole shed-load of unsupported assertions - which of course allows the moderators to revert as and when they so decide without any rational explanation.



I agree with Wyss. The way I see it, this is Ennis trying out a new strategy. Keep in mind that he will do almost anything to push his POV. In this particular case, why add a link to his earthquake predictions now? There are many other predictions that are equally timely/relevant, e.g. his Superbowl "riddles". But the Indian Ocean disaster perfectly fits his pattern of trying to attach his name to anything with a lot of media attention. Adding "Sollog claims he predicted it but he missed by 6 days, here is the link" is, IMHO, his attempt of saying "Sollog did predict it within a window of 6 days", hoping that the "anti-Sollog" tone will allow him to slip this one by us. We already have enough examples of Sollog's many spectacular failures. Allowing him to associate his name in any form, positive or negative, with the present disaster would, IMHO, be in extremely bad taste, to put it mildly. --MarkSweep 17:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also, leaving it is asserting that his even missing the prediction is all that noteworthy, which it is not. P Ingerson, at first I was with you, but the article already discusses the post shadowing and so forth that Ennis does. Other than being exceedingly persistent and annoying, he is not really that noteworthy for the actual predictions, especially not specific ones. - Taxman 18:14, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
It's Ennis again. 80.237.203.93 is an open proxy in Germany, which I'll permanently block in a second. -- ChrisO 18:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll take this opportunity to gently re-assert that Ennis' only notability is as a prolific, well-known spammer and sockpuppet, and my opinion that his continued harassment and vandalism have at least provided more evidence and justification for the article to more clearly describe him as such. His websites mine wayward visitors with content which includes deathporn. Even his sockpuppets have repeatedly admitted that at a bare minimum, AIS/Adoni, controlled by Ennis, provides hosting and web-design services for them (see the talk archives for excrutiatingly detailed evidence of Ennis' outright control of those sites). Wyss 18:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The most recent attempts, as pointed out by MarkSweep, do seem to show that Ennis' interest in Wikipedia is more mercenary than religious, and that is worthy of note in the article, IMO. Fire Star 21:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but as a matter of policy, Wikipedia should avoid referring to itself. I think the general feeling is that Wikipedia is automatically not notable in most articles. - Taxman 21:29, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
But hasn't Wikipedia effectively become part of the story? After all, we appear to be the first people (since Altman, anyway) who've tried to systematically document Ennis's career, such as it is - his reaction to that is what made this article such a focus of interest in the first place. -- ChrisO 21:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The very existence of the article shows that, so we need not be self-referential about WP documenting his career. As for his tactics in attacking WP, those should be, IMO, covered in a non-self-referential way.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:54, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
As the reverted who accused 80.237.203.93 of being a sockpuppet: yeah, what they↑ said. Ennis has tried before to plant edits that would make Wikipedia look bad.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Manufacturing jesters

How Sollog and his fans is making fools out of the earnest people who work for Wikipedia.

OK first of all check this IP. You'll see it's UK so at the very least read through this properly before rejecting it through your invisible hands.

This IP looks more like an open proxy in the US. --MarkSweep 20:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wyss. You offered that observation immediately without any substantiation at all. Please post any justification at all you have for that view. What are the characteristics for the 'openness' of the proxy and also the location? I am sure the poster posted from the UK but because you simply cannot believe that could be the case you quickly trashed it and used your authority/power here to revert it.

This is exactly what has been happening here for some time.

If a sensible - but anonymous (you prefer 'Mickey Mouse' apparently even though several people could post as Mickey Mouse) poster posst then it is reverted without being considered.


And how could I prove otherwise? See comment at end about Daily Star.

Here are a series of points that exposes Wikipedians.

1. You say Sollog has no fans or at least that the fans have not proven their existence. As 'proof' you refer to the times that anonymous people post.

That's not the way to check. Check the HISTORY. You'll see that in SOME cases people who have posted in support of Sollog have posted edits to Wikipedia for a long time BEFORE the Sollog section even came into existence. Think about the recent vandalism where someone posted a load of vaginas and penises on your pages. Check his posts and you'll see he has previously posted - sensibly - on a variety of other pages. He has posted on programming sections for example. Now, think. Is it likely that Sollog would post on non-Sollog pages without even mentioning 'Sollog'? Of course not so this is proof that there are several (many?) people posting on pages in Wikipedia, on subjects they are interested in AND they also happen to be supporters of Sollog.

Uh, nope. More likely just open proxies or dynamically assigned IPs, which Ennis happened to share with other posters. --MarkSweep 20:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2. Next. You say that Sollog/Ennis/Jogyo/NMRK posted impersonating a Chinese fan and pretended to write simple Chinese/English and it was a blatant attempt at sock puppetry. If you've looked at PDF, ELS etc you'll know that at the very least, Sollog is no fool. Therefore is it really likely that Sollog would pretend so abysmally to be a Chinese poster? Give the guy some credit!

Yes, quite likely. The guy will do anything. There's a long list of strategies he's tried so far, and this one is consistent with the general pattern. --MarkSweep 20:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You say that posting as an imitation - a very poor imitation' is somehow 'consistent. Where is your evidence for that.


3. Next. You make much of Sollog and his alleged porn sites or links to porn sites. Yet you have as a moderator Ashley Pomeroy. Look at his own pages - he has invented different words for the sexual parts. Does this make him a pornographer? Look at his home page - the same picture of him looking at the screen and yet it says 'son of the soil' (or similar) 'only yesterday. So he's a liar too - but does that mean you should dismiss him? Get the beam out of your own eyes, I suggest.

It wasn't that we were making "much" of Sollog's links to deathporn sites for its own sake or as some kind of moral argument. It was more because he accused WP and some of its members of being pornographers, trying to discredit the editors by tarring them with the pornobrush. We were just trying to point out the hypocrisy inherent in Sollog making such an attack. Inky 01:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Theer is a hypocrisy in dissing Sollog owing to porn links when Jim Wales.....not to mention Ashley's sexual words, non-address, non-employment, non-email address, non-current photo etc etc. Plus phrases about how he won't bow unless you bow to him - very Sollog!


To deal with these points in order (1) I'm not a 'moderator', I'm just some guy (2) I believe that our genitals are cursed with ugly names, and that poetic names such as 'globulon' and 'shoomwand' are more appropriate [2] (3) I am remarkably consistent. Hey, Ennis, why did you harass Jimbo Wales' wife and children? -Ashley Pomeroy 12:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ashley - you seek to trick people. Do you or do you not have the power to revert posts?

If yes you therefore have the power to moderate.

If so then ipso facto you are....

Explain this: a poster posst from the UK and you address him/her as Ennis.

Why are you trying to trick people?


4. You do not seem to have investigated Sollog properly on what used to be www.dejanews.com. There are other areas of note. For example look at the infamous CURSE he put on two people - Siveright and Pat - which, if you show to any Christians, is a REAL curse. That alone is noteworthy.

And how does showing it to Christians prove it a "real curse"? Most Christian denominations don't even believe in such things anymore, and those that do claim that they're harmless to the truly faithful. Furthermore, if Sollog is having to resort to competing religions to do his juju, he can't be much of a prophet or god, can he? Inky 01:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inky: please substantiate your comment "Most Christian denominations don't even believe in such things anymore, and those that do claim that they're harmless to the truly faithful."

If I post to contradict your point my post will be deleted as it's anonymous!


Now to balance this....

1. You recently posted from a TOH person that Siveright supported Sollog and that Siveright was an Oxford Professor. There is NO Oxford Professor called Siveright.

Amazing how this post which exposes a Toh person as being wrong is seen (and reverted as such) as being a pro-Sollog post!

I agree with the post - it is amzing how irrational these Wiki people are!

Amazing also that a genuine question about email contact was edited out.

Yes, i thought that strange too.


The above screed contributed by 205.234.170.130

(for the record, I don't think it's a Sollogpuppet—doesn't write like him. I would just call it an "anon" poster as we're not really interested in more mundane species of socks these days, are we?)  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure. This is much more coherent and less rambling than before, but still talking about Sollog's "fans", singling out individual registered editors for special attention, using capitalization for emphasis, and generally adopting Sollog's POV. It's either Ennis on medication, or perhaps he's trying a new strategy: maybe he thinks that if he can pass this one IP off as a neutral third party, this would allow him to make future edits that won't get immediately reverted. I'll remain skeptical. Nah, I'll say it's still Ennis. --MarkSweep 20:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"For example look at the infamous CURSE he put on two people" Sounds like Ennis to me. Dbenbenn 21:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How so? What experience do you really have of Sollog?

Dbenbenn, I put 'curse' in capitals because the original is in capitals! If I was Sollog I'd have put a link! Have some sense. I give up. You just dismiss everything as puppetry even though I have proven that at the least there is room for doubt.
OK final proof. In today's Daily Star the cover girl is the winner of Hell's Kitchen. This I could NOT have found out from the internet!!! (Check with Ashley) Oh yes check also postings of Jahiro and TruthSeeker; check the anti-Sollog posts in alt.uk.a-levels in Google groups. And don't be so dismissive! contributed by 205.234.170.130
Okay, I've changed my mind. I was never very sure you were Ennis. I just suspected you were; now I suspect you aren't. But what does it matter? If you have something good to contribute to the article, it'll be kept, regardless of who you are. The fact remains that there is no evidence whatsoever of any Sollog "followers". Furthermore, you seem to be unaware that the standard of conduct here on the Talk page is quite different from the standard for contributions to the article. We're NPOV there, but let our bias show through here. Dbenbenn 22:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
MarkSweep, if he can pass himself off as a neutral contributor, let's let him contribute. Anything not neutral or that's vandalism will be dealt with on its merits, like at any other article. We don't need to automatically revert anything but obvious vandalism to maintain the article, and that's taken care of by standard Wiki procedures.
And, still, I don't think this is Ennis. He's using (half-?)decent logic, proper English grammar, refraining from linking his prophesies, and he's not obsessively repeating the same message whenever he posts. I think it's just a contributor who thinks we're being overzealous, and we're demonstrating it, too. We're on a hair-trigger here, aren't we?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:52, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I remain skeptical, but I agree that we should deal with all edits on a case-by-case basis. Regarding the specific anonymous comments above, I still don't think there is anything substantive here. (1) The fact that Ennis shared some open proxies with more legitimate posters was alread known. There is no evidence of any real supporters.

If you read this page carefully you will see that there is less evidence of ashley Pomeroy being alive than there is of Sollog supporters.

You will see there is less evidence of Ashley Pomeroy living in Salisbury than there is of Sollog being alive.

There is MORE evidence that Sollog is Ashley than that he is not.

Sollog is often accused of posting to Sollog groups. Well here is a post in which Ashley features:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_thread/thread/467a491329749bd2/a902218608c9c2dd?q=sollog+Pomeroy&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dsollog+Pomeroy%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#a902218608c9c2dd

Funny how he's suddenly started appearing there...








(2) These impersonations are well documented. (Also "PDF" presumably refers to one of Sollog's formulas.) (3) Is this supposed to be an attack on Ashley Pomeroy? (4) I don't think that putting a curse on someone is particularly notable. Finally: "You recently posted from a TOH person that Siveright supported Sollog" - I have no idea what this is referring to. I'll stop now. --MarkSweep 22:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see substantial claims that haven't already been dealt with (sometimes many times) before.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:09, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok then try goingto a search of yahoo groups and you'll see there is a discussion group about Sollog and NE posts that Sollog is retired and living in the Cayman islands

Also look for the JP Essene interview with Professor Ionescu where the Professor criticses Sollog's Nosty translation BUT agrees he has divine powers of prophecy. Go look on google for this interview If I linked to it I would be described as a sock puppet.

Where am I? I am in Lyndhurst looking for Ashley Pomeroy who claims to live in Salisbury - you see, I don't believe that.


  • I'm assuming Ennis has "killed" himself and come back as a troll. Wyss 15:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been to Salisbury and cannot find Ashley so I believe he is a sock puppet. He has sex names on his site.

In fact this is a misprint; I have six names on my site, including my own. Furthermore, every Wednesday at 20:00 (GMT), I actually have sex on my site, thanks to my webcam - it's a purging experience. By the way, Ennis, why did you harass Jimbo Wales and his wife and child? Given that he is The Man, what were you thinking? Given that I live in England, how come I've heard of the breatharians, the time cube bloke and Dan Rather, but I haven't ever heard of 'Sollog'? They seem to be much more successful than you. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look like Ashley has betrayed himself again, too. Odd isn't it that to 'prove' he hasn't heard of Sollog (when he IS Sollog, until he proves otherwise) he refers to Dan Rather who of course features in articles about Sollog:

http://www.theeunderground.net/Features/features114post.shtml

Caught again Ashley/Sollog!


This comment was deleted previous for the rather facetious reason that I didn't have an ID. And yet you accept posts from other anonymous users and also from the real person (yeah, right) Ta bu shi da yu

Where is the proof that the person who admits he is arrogant, admits he is rude, admits he wants people to bow to him (I am quoting from Ashley) exists?

If he cannot prove he exists then why are UK based posts all dismissed as being a Sollog proxy?

Why is the UK Yahoo discussion group edited out?



Anyway I digress - though not really as there is more evience of Sollog Fans than there is of Ashley.

1. You can hear Nikkee on Sollog radio, 2, You can see posts by Glen Main (Amin) in alt prophecies Nostradamus 3. You can see arguments between L9 and ProphetLaw on the UK based Sollog discussion group hosted by Yahoo. 4. You can see many posts by Jahiro on talkboards. 5. Those of you old enough may remember Starcon5 - he will testify as to the existence of Fans.

But Ashley?

BT have never heard of him His picture on his page is not updated He does not state the hospital where he works - Irang 3 and they had not heard of him

So, I submit, there is MORE proof of Fans of Sollog than there is of Ashley so youshouldnot dismiss Fans' existence so easily as you accept Ashley's existence - so youshould accept Fans' existence.

Go to the UK discussion group.

Track this post - it is from Lyndhurst near Southampton, UK

So, be consistent.= 


FINAL PROOF

Ashley phone the Fox and Hounds in Lyndhusrt 023 80282098 and ask them what is on the right of this machine - it's Prick4prizes

PROOF

Unsolicited "Proof" provided by 62.69.39.224

  • Yawn. Hi Ennis. Been making calls to newstands and pubs in the UK, huh? You are so too inept. Wyss 16:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wyss: you really believe Sollog, in Florida, telephones a small pub in Lyndhurst and asks what is next to the Internet machine? Oh, he uses his God-like powers...whoops! Wyss is a sock-puppet. Delete his posts en masse. Don't read them though!

That's Ashley and Wyss 'outed'.

Who's next?


Even if it isn't Ennis his arguments are no better. 62.69.39.224, you'd be much better off in a psychic chatroom trying to make your case for multiple "fans" of Sollog's divinity than stalking contributors to the talk page of an encyclopaedia article. Fire Star 17:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's Ennis. His usual syntax and bravado began leaking out again during that last post. Wyss 17:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree. He has shifted anonymous IP from 205.234.170.130 to 62.69.39.224 in the course of this "discussion." Fire Star 17:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I want to stress that, despite emerging onto Wikipedia at a similar time, I am not Sollog myself, nor am I the result of an automated process. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Or could it be that Ennis is on vacation in the UK? He's very confident that his IPs check out. --MarkSweep 18:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's not so hard to find a proxy in the UK, nor (if one is truly obsessed) to open up an access account there with a credit card and dial into it long distance. Nor is it hard to call a pub or a newsagent and pump whoever answers for some tidbits about the day's paper or the lotto machine on the wall. Ennis has a long history of impersonation (albeit not terribly clever). Wyss 20:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note that the cover of each day's Daily Star is posted right on their homepage. [3] Today's has Davina McCall and some model/actress types from Hollyoaks, and some football people pointing. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ashley: where is the proof you are in the UK?

Everyone ignores this - I wonder why?

Observer Article

Someone posted this link to alt.paranormal. This Wikipedia article in The Observer (Sunday version of the The Guardian) [ http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1386027,00.html] contains a bit of some relevance here:

Then a well-known crackpot wrote a Wikipedia page about himself, only to have it, er, rendered more objective by other contributors. This drove him wild. Again the page was locked (in what seemed to me to be an admirably detached state) to prevent further vandalism.

Sounds familiar! Except for the "well known" part since Sollog is anything but. --Cchunder 15:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is clever, because it denies the unnamed crackpot the satisfaction of seeing his name in print. However, can we be sure it refers to Sollog? Or were there other incidents like the Sollog affair in the last couple of months? --MarkSweep 15:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Concur.  ;-) I also liked the bit about "eminent boobies".  :-D Edeans 22:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Compare this with the current flap over QuakeAID, which is listed as a VFD and also in the 'Request for Comment' section. QuakeAID seems very similar to the Sollog affair, albeit on a professional level, and therefore much darker and more unpleasant - if you can believe that. It started as a puff-piece for a 'charity' of dubious provenance, although regular Wikipedians have subsequently 'done a Sollog' on it, albeit that it's now much too negative. For further press coverage of Wikipedia's controversies, there's a link to a news article near the top of 'Vandalism in Progress' in which the writer openly invites readers to vandalise Wikipedia, painting regular users as time-spare misbegots (!). -Ashley Pomeroy 20:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog discussion group in UK:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sollog/message/127


(Why does it make a difference if I am anonymous or not? You have accepted posts from other people who are anonymous? Is this because, applying your own logic, I prove Ashley is Sollog? You ask 'What is Sollog frightened of?' I ask, 'What are you frightened of?')

OK so I go and get a Yahoo address saying (for example) AshleyisSollog@yahoo.co.uk and you'll let me post if that is my ID?

Come on!


People, can we please seperate the "References" and "External links" section? Please keep external links for further sources of information and references for citing material that you have used in this article. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to resolve this. Please verify and fix if incorrect. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverting after changes by 81.86.68.162

My entries were deleted. I am accused of deleting a few signed and dated comments.

This is blatantly untrue - go look.

So how many of the people who enter comments use 'real' names?


81.86.68.162 made a series of changes in various places, some of them looking moderately interesting. He/she didn't sign any of them, and deleted a few signed and dated comments that others had made. I could have spent thirty minutes or longer working out what he/she had done, attributing it, and restoring bits that he/she deleted, but I decided that my time was too valuable to do that. So instead I simply reverted all the changes. 81.86.68.162 is welcome to restore those of his/her comments that he/she thinks are worth restoring.

OK so in the interestes of trying to create a mature and sensible online encyclopedia you delete en masse without giving one reason whatsoever.

What does that tell us?

The reverter admits to deleting 'moderately interesting' posts as he hasn't time....isn't that 'institutionalised vandalism'?



81.86.68.162, if you want to add comments, go ahead. Here's how you sign them: "~~~~". (Actually this is pointed out at the top of the page.) In the process of adding your own comments, don't interfere with or delete others. Thank you. -- Hoary 14:02, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)


So all unsigned comments are deleted?

So if I go and get a Yahoo address (for example) in the name of Mickey mouse, then you'll allow my comments?

So Mickey Mouse is more acceptable than anonymous?


Explain the logic in that.

  • Mickey Mouse will have a user history, which can be viewed. Users who helpfully edit more than one or two articles are much more likely to be listened to on a talk page. Wyss 14:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What proof do you have that a) Ashley exists and b) he is in the UK?

  • Ashley posts, therefore Ashley exists :) Ashely (as far as I know) has not vandalized any pages, nor is there any evidence he's a sockpuppet (a user who misleadingly posts under two or more identities). Finally, WP assumes good faith. With no sign of bad faith from Ashley, there's no burden of proof for much of anything. Wyss 14:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting. You carefully ignored the questioner's second point about the UK and yet if you look through this discussion various wiki people jumped all over 2-3 posters for claiming they were from the UK. And yet when the same point is made about Mr Pomeroy....

  • I'm from the UK. I could prove it, and yet have no need to. What need has Ashley for needing to prove he is in the UK? People's countries of origin are irrelevant in this context, surely its their actions that most matter? Contributors can be anti- or pro- Sollog, though vandalising this page will get them nowhere. Whether or no the contributor is a sockpuppet or not. - Estel (talk) 20:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is easy to dissect.

You say you're from the UK - and that statement has to be taken on evidence of...what? The poster in Lyndhurst said he was from UK and even told you exactly where he/she was sitting, which pub etc and gave you the phone number. What happened? people said he was a fake.

OK then I call you a fake.

I call you sollog (why not - everyone else is!). I suggest to you that you cannot prove you're in the UK. To suggest you can is deceitful.

Ashley (Sollog) - same number of letters, haven't you tumbled to it? - doesn't have to prove he is in the UK (he cannot anyway!). I am criticising the criteria for judging whether or not someone is a sockpuppet/Ennis/Sollog.

By the criteria used by others I conclude Ashley IS Sollog. he has the same characteristics:

a. his site has sexual words, porn! b. He admits to being rude and arrogant c. he wants people to bow to him

Jim Wales sells porn, it is alleged.

Ashley posts on Wales's site and defends Wales.

I therefore submit that Wales is Ashley is Sollog. Just using the criteria used by other people in Wikipedia!

You say country of origin is irrelevant. Then WHY have so many posts been deleted when they are posted by UK people?

You say vandalising the page gets them nowhere.

OK then look at the very polite posts posted anonymously today. Where was the vandalism?

Ah, yes, it was as I have already identified Institutionalised Vandalism i.e. vandalism by those in authority - as in the NHS.

Also vandalism without any explanation.

As said, it is not possible to have a discussion with such behaviour. Who would not want a rational discussion?

Ah yes, you're ALL Sollog because you ALL want to prevent discussion.

Familiar with the Sollogites and LOTR?

You are the LOTR - and I see the connection to Sollog. So, let's see. Sollog goes respectable. Sollog is Jim Wales. Ashley is JP Essene. Wyss is Nicole. Estel is Truthseeker. Ingerson et alle are Amin and Jahiro and SOLLOGFAN.

It's all clear now - using your criteria.

Did you know that 'Ashley' is male AND female? Yin and Yang. Good and Bad. The Creator and the Destroyer. God. Ashley is Sollog is God. Ashley is from a surname which was originally derived from a place name which meant "ash tree clearing" in Old English.

Just following your logic.

Let's dig a bit deeper using Kabalarian Philosophy.... Although the name Ashley creates the urge to be reliable and responsible, I emphasise that it limits self-expression and friendly congeniality with a moody disposition. This name, when combined with the last name, can frustrate happiness, contentment, and success, as well as cause health weaknesses in the heart, lungs, bronchial area, worry, and mental tension.

The name of Ashley creates a quick, clever mind capable of grasping and assimilating new ideas. He is rather studious, mentally challenging each new idea before accepting it. Because he learns so quickly he has little patience with those whose mental processes are somewhat slower, and he could become supercilious or somewhat "know it all" in his attitude. This characteristic could make him rather unpopular with your associates. Although he is very knowledgeable and intelligent, he often finds spontaneous verbal expression difficult. He crave friendship, (see his post about '(Now I know I have friends') understanding, love, and affection about his reserved manner appears forbidding to others.

For Ashley read 'Sollog'.



    • You didn't respond to the point about "bad faith" with regards to Ashley either. He doesn't need to prove that he lives in the UK. - Estel (talk) 20:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Why did ther poster from Lyndhurst or the one from London or me for that matter, need to prove it either. There is no record of vandalism from any of us - and yet all that happens is our sensible and constructive posts get deleted with no explanation.


You offer three 'reasons':

a. Ashley posts (so have all the people posting/claiming to post from the UK)
b. no evidence he is a sockpuppet. Well....according to what I have read above the telephone company say he doesn't exist under that name; the hospitals say he doesn't exist. Salisbury is a small place - Pomeroy is an unusual name. They'd know if he did work for them. So there is no evidence that there is an Ashley at all therefore it is reasonable he assumes another ID and therefore he fits the sockpuppet criteria.
c. No evidence of vandalism. Well again if sensible points are reverted isn't that vandalism?
d. You assume good faith. Fair enough - so why not assume it over the UK based posters - especially as, from what i have read, substantial evidence has been offered in the form of newspaper and discussion group links going back over several years.
e. PLUS there is no doubt that there is a parallel in the type of person the internet presence of Ashley is - the admitted rudeness, the 'bow to me' stuff and the sexual names.

It seems to be as an interested observer that you have deleted valid posts far too quickly and been inconsistent with your assumptions about veracity.

I tend to agree with the other anonymous UK based posters. There is more evidence that Ashley is at the very least, a Sollog acolyte than not - and character traits suggest that he is indeed Sollog.

Other Wiki people may find that laughable as an idea BUT reading the above rationally, it does make sense.

  • What you seem to be missing here is that Ashley is not the subject of this talk page. More likely however, you keep bringing it up in order to distract and distort any discussion pertaining to John P. Ennis, a known spammer, deathporn merchant and sockpuppet on these pages. Wyss 16:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Do not try and distract impartial readers. You well know what you are writing is wrong. The reason I am bringing up Ashley is to illustrate the inconsistency in the Wiki approach. You (collectively) dismiss certain posts as being 'sock puppets' on reasoning that if applied consistently would expose Ashley as Sollog.

I keep bringing up (as do others) your lack of coherence because your behaviour does, as you say, "distract and distort any discussion pertaining to John P. Ennis, a known spammer, deathporn merchant and sockpuppet on these pages."

If you were consistent in your behaviour then we could indeed discuss "discuss John P. Ennis, a known spammer, deathporn merchant and sockpuppet on these pages."

We could discuss the employers telephoned by Sollog Fans that lead to anti-Sollog people losing their job.

We could discuss the nervous break-down precipitated by the actions of Sollog Fans when they impersonated someone and sent out pornographic emails in that person's name.

We could discuss the threats to Reading University which stopped a well known anti-Sollog person from posting.

These are all legitimate areas of discussion that give context to Sollog Fans' behaviour - behaviour which you dismiss as 'cranks' rather than seeing it for the malevolent danger it really is.

However, as you dismiss posts - even anti-Sollog(ite) posts - as being merely 'sock puppets' or 'anonymous proxies' then no such discussion can take place.

Above tirade posted by User:217.43.103.220, an anonymous IP from somewhere near Preston, England (added by Estel (talk) 20:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC))
  • In addition to being one of the most notorious sockpuppets on the Internet, and a veteran abuser of open proxies, Ennis is also well-known for his harassment and impersonation techniques. Wyss 20:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes he is but that does not mean that I am a sockpuppet. Sollog or his cronies are known to have caused severe harm to some individuals and great sadness to their families. He is no fool and he is not to be so easily dismissed as a crank or a buffoon. He is malevolent, and does not take kindly to being ignored or contradicted. I suspect you do not know what you are dealing with. Wait until the law suits arrive!

BUT that does not mean you should act in such an immature fashion and automatically dismiss every non-identified poster who does not post on other pages as a sock puppet. You look at the Messenger and not the message - this is a fault of yours Wyss, as I have already pointed out on your personal Talk Page.

If you are going to treat Wikipedia as a serious enterprise as opposed to being amateurish despite its noble aims, then you should think before you delete; listen before you revert and apply consistency instead of making ad hoc decisions.

Sollog(ites) are exceptionally nasty - rememebr the pictures of Mrs wales and daughter on their wikipedia sucks pages. Plus the urging of Sollogites to harass by phone and email. Plus the competition to get the best edits.

Extremely nasty BUT that does not mean you should abandon NPOV. By doing so, though that was not the intended result, your actions discredit this section of Wikipedia and you become the object of contempt that Sollog, in some circles, also is.

Sollog is not the only critic of Wikipedia - but that doesn't make all critics Sollog.

Equally when I say I am posting from UK and yet there is disbelief, when others do the same they should not be dimissed - especially by someone who no employer knows, no telephone company knows, who has sexual words on his site and is a self-admitted vain, arrogant, rude working-class bully!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sollog/Archive_6&oldid=1086000657"