This discussion on ANI is all that remains, plus the talk pages (linked from ANI discussion.)

I see another Lyndon Larouche reference. Why does everybody care about this guy? Did he test his own nuclear bomb?

You should post links to the deletion logs.

Sort of. He and his organization have a knack for ferreting out intelligence material that is highly embarrassing to the powers that be, such as during the period of the Iran-Contra scandal. If you look at some of the long-standing threads here about SlimVirgin, you will discover that one of her first orders of business upon arriving at Wikipedia was to assert [[WP:OWN]]ership over LaRouche-related articles, and turn them into soapboxes against him. She works with Cberlet, Dking and Will Beback in this regard.



Believe it or not, I don't know how to do that.

In the article not found page there is a button that says "Deletion log". Click that and there you go.

E.g. Request for comment/User conduct/Cberlet -> Deletion log

08:03, 3 August 2007 El C (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet" (evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute lacking has proven below par)

Request for comment/User conduct/Dking -> Deletion log

08:26, 3 August 2007 El C (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking" (looks too closely like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet; increasingly appears like an attempt to game the system)

If you are looking for the page, you can go to El C's user page -> Logs -> Deletion log and look for the Request for comment bits and link them here.

I have only just learned how to press "+" to add a new section on a page, so don't feel bad. I had never done that, even once, in my editing of Wikipedia. Just figured it out the other day, when someone's talk page said that.

Political/economic activist/theorist/writer. He has an incredibly devoted core following, but pretty much everyone else thinks he's nuts. In my book, he's a conspiracy theorist's conspiracy theorist; someone can ramble at length about MJ12 or ODESSA or Brazilian Nazi occultists or whatthefuckever else, then say, "At least I'm not as crazy as LaRouche!"

I don't know much about Lyndon LaRouche. I know he wrote something about PA, and I significantly disagreed with it, and was quite offended about it. It was all good and fine that he agreed, as does 95% of the population, that the official story was a coverup. I mean duh. But his conclusions were ones that I couldn't take seriously, and I found them quite offensive.

But I am not going to say that anyone who follows him is bad. At least he is trying to find out the truth, and that is a moral and right thing to do. Whether he comes to the wrong conclusions sometimes or not, it doesn't matter.

Actually with PA I find it offensive for any non-Australian to make up theories about it.

Pardon my ignorance, but PA?

The Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the sheer mindless violence of which is credited with changing the climate for gun control Down Under.

Think "Virginia Tech", but in a public park instead of a college -- and with more doubt as to the identity of the shooter.

EDIT: I didn't link to the WP article intentionally, given blissyu2's take on it (below)...

More specifically, the link is: Port Arthur massacre (Australia)

Sorry, I say PA because I refer to it so much that I thought it might be getting boring. Its my thing, if you like. My single greatest problem with Wikipedia is the inaccuracy of that article.