View Full Version : phil elmore invades Wikipedia

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

4/18/2005 6:54pm,
Far be it from me to suggest folks go and sabotage phil's work there. :laughing1


'edit link' ->


And folks, let's show some creativity okay?

4/18/2005 7:05pm,
Don't forget about adding your creative talents to this link as well. I'm sure phil will really appreciate your help.


4/18/2005 7:11pm,
Okay, which one of you wise guys did this? ->

Phil Elmore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Phil Elmore, A crazy paranoid gun and knife nut who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Elmore is a pretender and egomaniac and an idiot.

For shame!

4/18/2005 7:29pm,
Somebody beat me to it :laughing6

4/18/2005 7:31pm,
I expected greater effort.

4/18/2005 7:36pm,
Somebody beat me to it :laughing6

You guys should probably keep an eye on this page, no doubt phil will spend a lot of time each day correcting the damage done to his monument.

Wounded Ronin
4/18/2005 7:40pm,
**** like this makes me hate wikipedia.

4/18/2005 7:41pm,
Did you only just notice his Wikipedia presence?..

4/18/2005 7:43pm,
Did you only just notice his Wikipedia presence?..

Yep, I periodically like checking up on the wanker.

4/18/2005 7:44pm,
**** like this makes me hate wikipedia.

phil's worried about Bullshido ->

Discuss changes to article here.

Please discuss changes to this article here first. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia where consensus rules, see WP:WIN. The article can be protected if undiscussed reversions continue. Fire Star 16:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit OTT? Most editors make most edits without explanation or discussion on the Talk page; it's only controversial edits that need to be discussed first. I agree that, if we get to the point that Elmore (or as we fondly know him here) keeps reverting, we might have to get heavy, but I don't think that we've reached that yet. I doubt that a decent case for page-protection could be made yet. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The only changes I've made are A) honest editorial disagreements with Mel; and B) responses to and removals of hostile and biased comments inserted by my "fans" at Bullshido. I've tried to retain the most current version based on some unspoken consensus between Mel, Fire Star, and myself.

Drat, it didn't sign me. I made the above comment. - Phil Elmore

Greetings Phil! Thanks for responding. We can certainly help with a "Bullshido watch." As I said, I think the concept of martialism is notable enough for a good article for people curious about the subject. I don't intend any disrespect to your group or Bullshido, and Wikipedia is certainly big enough for all of us. Cheers, Fire Star 17:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4/18/2005 7:49pm,
I just made an NPOV edit. It doesn't help to **** on Wikipedia. Instead, make an edit in the guidelines or vote it for deletion.

4/18/2005 7:49pm,
and here ->

Critical FAQ
I agree the FAQ is biased against the subject of the article, but it is outside of Wikipedia (which means it doesn't have to be encyclopaedic) and I see such public criticism as evidence establishing Martialism's and Phil's notability. For Wikipedia's sake, it is much worse to not be talked about at all than to be talked about critically. Fire Star 02:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-- That's fine by me; I ask only that my response to the FAQ be included if the FAQ is going to be included. - Phil

Definitely. I also think that your response to Bullshido's review of your website should be appended to the Bullshido article. Fire Star 14:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For that to happen, they'd have to be better at pretending to be objective. - Phil

I should be able to keep it linked there. If they don't let it stay, that would be tantamount to admitting that their article is simple advertising, which would allow us to eventually delete the entire article, again. Fire Star 19:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4/18/2005 7:51pm,
vote it for deletion.

How exactly do we do this? I'm sure Bullshido could get a petition going.

4/18/2005 7:52pm,


4/18/2005 8:13pm,
Phil Elmore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Phil Elmore, author of the novel Demon Lord (http://www.philelmore.com/fiction/demonlord.htm), has been published in a variety of on-line and hardcopy publications, primarily in the field of martial arts. Elmore's work was featured in the book Warriors: On Living with Courage, Discipline, and Honor. He promotes martialism and is an outspoken opponent of pacifism.

Elmore's opinions about self-protection and asociated politics are controversial and do not represent the mainstream of the martial arts community or even of the subset that ascribes to realistic training methods. For instance, he has claimed that Mixed Martial Arts are not necessarily street effective and that leftists cannot truly practice martial arts in a self-defense context. Critics also note Elmore's lack of instructor-level credentials (a black belt or equivalent) in a widely recognized mainstream martial art.

Phil Elmore has no qualifications upon which to write about self-defense, martial arts, fighting, politics, philosophy or any of the other subjects he writes about. His "experience" comes exclusively from being a gun and knife enthusiast. Which would be fine, except that his writing implies a wide range of official expertise, which he does not possess. He has never served in the military or as a law enforcement officer. He has never held a rank in a martial art, fought in a match or tournament.

Whoever wrote this deserves a gold star! :phil:

4/18/2005 8:17pm,
I added to the part about him not being recognized bb i "or even an unknown unrecognized zany weird martial art. All anyone actually has here is Phill's opinions. "Elmore," by the way, is becoming a verb in some martial arts circles. And that's not a complementary usage of his name."

and to say the least to: Elmore's opinions about self-protection and asociated politics are, "to say the least," controversial