| Revision as of 02:48, 10 March 2007 editEcho16 (talk | contribs)4 edits added RC← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:27, 10 March 2007 edit undoSigma 7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,024 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| === Discussion === | === Discussion === | ||
| *Creator of this RFC has made four total edits to wikipedia, but that's besides my point. The ] page shows the deletion was endorsed, and these links haven't yet added something new to the discussion. --] 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:27, 10 March 2007
Request for Comment / John Bambenek
- John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/ (restore|AfD)
- John C. A. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD 2|AfD 3)
This request for comment is on the article and subject of John Bambenek. Articles on him have been the subject of 3 AfD's (links above) and several WP:DRV. Subject has or is in several articles, until POV pushers explicitly removed him based on an agenda. He's had several media appearances (see below) and some of his own writing is referenced in Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:Press Coverage). Any user who suggests it is time to bring back, or at least consider, an article on John Bambenek is immediatly banned, and the request is reverted and erased. Why exactly is this subject so controversial that even the mere mention of him requires is to be immediately censored?
It's time that this subject get serious discussion instead of the constant whitewashing of the discussion.
Quick list of media mentions
Exclusively about John Bambenek: ABC News Daily Show
Cites his research or other writing: eWeek PCWorld InfoWorld SearchSecurity Consumer Affairs C-Net State of Oregon his own college Seatlle Times LA Times The NYTimes article
Discussion
- Creator of this RFC has made four total edits to wikipedia, but that's besides my point. The WP:DRV page shows the deletion was endorsed, and these links haven't yet added something new to the discussion. --Sigma 7 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)