Talk:Harold Covington/Archive 1

Edits by User:Haroldcovington

This article is being repeatedly changed to a version by a user who judging by his username claims to be, and presumably is, the subject. These new versions break many Wikipedia guidelines, particularly to do with neutral POV and sourcing of facts. If you want to edit the article, I'd suggest you start by reading the Help section. Meanwhile, I'm reverting again to the preceding version. As that makes my third reversion today, any further edits will mean the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule kicks in and we'll have to move on to requesting page protection, which will make this article a lot harder to edit.

If you have any particular challenges to facts in the article, here would be a good place to discuss them. Dogville 10:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I going to have to hire an attorney?

If you want to simply remove the article, fine. If not, I need to know who to speak to at Wikipedia about this. Guys, I know you think you're just doing your job, but the article you are publishing about me contains extreme inaccuracies and I WILL HIRE A LAWYER AND FILE A LAWSUIT FOR LIBEL if it is not corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldcovington (talk • contribs)

Not at all. There's no desire here to publish an inaccurate article. Known facts and published allegations are sourced and cited as such. You can certainly cite any denials of allegations, and if any of the published claims have been the subject of court action and retractions that would be very material and justify their removal from the piece. But it would be a lot more helpful to go through the existing article and point out what you think is wrong than to keep replacing it with a self-penned encomium.

Basically, your rewrite covers a lot of the same history (Greensboro, Collin) and, apart from heroising your involvement, doesn't seem to differ that much.

The problem with your rewrites are twofold. First, you need to cite published sources: you cite none. This is particularly important where, for example, you differ with generally accepted history, as in your claim that the Greensboro massacre was a "gun battle".

Second, you fail to stick to the required neutral point-of-view, though I notice your last version tries a bit harder on that front than the earlier "dead Reds" version.

It would be more productive if you edited the existing, sourced version rather than rewriting it wholesale.

It's against the rules for me to revert this again, so I've had to request page protection in the meantime. Dogville 10:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing my previous comment. Although I am familiar in a general sense with what Wikipedia is, I've never used this site before, just opened my account, and I am unfamiliar with its navigation.

I wish to point out that the existing Wikipedia article purporting to be about me is willfully inaccurate and malicious to the point of being libelous, and while I would rather not become embroiled in a long and expensive process that will probably take years, I will do so if necessary.

Bluntly--I have been putting up with this crap for years, and my patience with it has reached an end. It's defamatory and it's not true.

The "sources" cited are all of an extreme-left nature and are written by people acting out of a wide assortment of ulterior motives and hidden agendas, as paranoid as I know that sounds. But just because you're paranoid don't mean they ain't out to get you.

One of the biggest problems in the article is with citing the Southern Poverty Law Center of Morris Seligmann Dees as if it were an unbiased and legitimate source. It is not. I could go into Tolstoyan length as to why the SPLC is not a legitimate source (or a legitimate anything,) but suffice it to say that anything emanating from the SPLC is highly suspect. If you want "sources" on that I can probably track you down some really juicy stuff from the Montgomery, Alabama Advertiser. They know Morris Dees and his works.

I substituted what I believe to be a fair and accurate short appraisal of my own career. This is admittedly a stopgap, the purpose of which is to remove the libelous material. The "source" for this is the best of all sources, the horse's mouth, so to speak.

If this version is unacceptable, I will be glad to work with someone at Wikipedia to produce a more balanced article. Or better yet, why not simply remove the whole thing? I'm not that important an individual and I don't think that the world's storehouse of knowledge will be in any way diminished if I don't have a Wikipedia entry.

Guys, I REALLY don't want to screw around in courtrooms, but as far as my simply letting these lies stand--ain't gonna happen. Not under any circumstances.

-HAC

It wasn't a very long article and you clearly don't disagree with all of it as it has a lot of crossover with your version. And I don't think many people would agree with you that Time magazine or academic books are "extreme left". The Searchlight source could easily be substituted with several mainstream British newspapers of the time, as you must know.

I can assure you the article is not wilfully inaccurate or malicious, as I was the one who wrote it. I'm entirely open to correcting any inaccuracies. Why not take a couple of minutes to list which parts of the original piece you take issue with? Dogville 10:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the founder of Wikipedia has become so disgusted with what has been done to his creation that he is now founding his own new online encyclopedia. The kind of egregious and defamatory statements contained in this absurd article are a classic example of the way that left-wing kooks have taken over Wikipedia and ruined what might have been a really useful source of knowledge.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.147.99 (talk • contribs)

Southern Poverty Law Centre

Not that I wish to support your claims about the SPLC, but it was not cited as a source in any version of this article. Dogville 10:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it was. The SPLC was cited right after the phrase "Covington is the author of a number of novels" in the version of your original article which I just looked at.

The original version of the Wikipedia article purporting to be my biography contains a number of significant inaccuracies of fact regarding dates, organizations, and events. The OVERALL EFFECT of the article is defamatory, as of course it is intended to be--for example as when British leftist Larry O'Hara's false allegation that I am a "state asset" is left unchallenged, but the high incidence of factual inaccuracy demonstrates that the people who compiled it don't have a very high regard for the truth in general.

This is not just poor scholarship; it is a violation of one of the historian's primary intellectual goals as Barbara Tuchman defined it, the attainment of "Wie Es Wirklich War"--how it really was. History is more than just a collection of facts, of course, but if the facts are inaccurate then any analysis is faulty and the sum total of human knowledge suffers accordingly. Okay, off my soap box.

1. I did not "emerge" in 1979. I first became involved in National Socialism in 1972. By 1979 I had already run in two election campaigns in North Carolina and I was widely known locally. The implication that I just sort of "appeared" on the morning of Greensboro, common among left-wing conspiracy theorists is false.

2. Glenn Miller was at that time a member of the NSPA. His own White Patriot Party did not come into being until 1983 or so, if memory serves, but in any case, some years after Greensboro. For the writer to claim that White Patriot Party people were involved in Greensboro shows a disregard for facts which is sloppy at best. It shows they just plain don't know what they're talking about, and can't be bothered to check.

3. Mordecai Levy is/was insane, and was generally recognized to be such by everyone including his own Jewish Defense League colleagues, who expelled him from their group. Even Gerry Gable refused to have anything to do with him. His subsequent "Jewish Defense Organization" consisted of exactly one member--Mordecai Levy. When I say that he is/was insane (I don't know if he's still alive) I am simply repeating what a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation determined many years later after he was involved in a shooting affray in New York City with his former Jewish Defense League associate, Irv Rubin. I can also personally attest, from hundreds of obscene and threatening phone calls that Levy made to me down through the years, that the man is mentally and emotionally unbalanced. To treat Mordecai Levy as a legitimate source for anything is simply ludicrous. Five minutes of conversation with him would show anyone how ridiculous that idea is.

4. I have never seen any bona fide proof that any such "press conference" on Levy's part ever took place. Basically, it seems to be an ex post facto attempt by Mordecai to get in on the Greensboro action. This canard has become an apocryphal case of left-wing conspiracy theory, one that has been repeated so often that it has become generally accepted as fact. And yet I can tell you that nothing of the kind occurred; back then, when my name was mentioned in any context I always got called by the media for comment, and not one reporter ever asked me about it. I can also tell you that the FBI agents in charge of the Greensboro case had no knowledge of any such "press conference," and that they considered Levy to be a kook. They came by my office on Hargett Street every week or so for some months after November 3rd and did Clint Eastwood impressions, and they never mentioned any such "press conference." They didn't know Levy from dog doo.

5. Berkeley Press is a source as left-wing as Berkeley University was back in The Day, and I believe still is. It is said that outside of North Korea and Cuba, the only remaining bastions of Marxism in the world are American University campuses. Anything coming out of Berkeley is going to be as Red as a London double-decker bus, and everybody with two brain cells to rub together knows it.

6. There were sixteen defendants in the Greensboro case, not six. Six of them went ON TRIAL in Greensboro--an important distinction, because the D. A., Michael Schlosser, knew from the beginning that it was a clear-cut case of self defense and his case against the other ten was so shaky he didn't dare bring them into court. I know, this is a nit-pick, but you are purporting to tell a story here, and you're telling it wrong if you play fast and loose with the facts.

7. The contents of the "dirt box" regarding Mr. Collin were not found by me, but by members of the Chicago NSPA unit, nor have I ever "claimed" that I found them as your article asserts. Another factual inaccuracy which you may claim to be minor, but it IS an inaccuracy. If Wikipedia can't get its facts right, why should anyone use it or trust it as a source?

8. I did not "go underground" in March 1981. This implies flight of some sort and is a completely inaccurate and defamatory assertion. I moved to Charleston, South Carolina where I continued to publish a newsletter and maintained full contact with most of my previous friends, comrades, and associates, as I did when I was in Europe. There has never in my life been any mystery as to my whereabouts, among those who have some right or need to know. I have never "gone into hiding" and to assert that I have done so is defamatory.

9. The assertion of British leftist Larry O'Hara that I am a "state asset" is scurrilous, defamatory, malicious in intent, is based on no personal knowledge, and is completely without foundation of any kind, now or in the past. O'Hara is a left-wing kook and I don't take him seriously, but constant repetition of this kind of disinformation and treating people like O'Hara as if they were legitimate journalists or sources is what I have to take a stand against at some point.

Any fruit loop can publish an authoritative-sounding article on a web site or in a loony-left publication claiming that George W. Bush is an extraterrestrial being who is directed by microwave signals beamed at his brain from the planet Neptune. Would you allow something like that to be used as a "source" in the case of someone whom you knew darned well had the capability to compel correction?

This is running way long, but to sum up: the article which Wikipedia posted about me is based on untrue information, much of it published with malicious intent, from illegitimate sources which are politically and personally biased and who are in some cases as crazy as loons. I am not an important public figure by any stretch of the imagination, but I would suggest to you that it is important for Wikipedia to establish and maintain a reputation for factual accuracy and truth. Otherwise your web site is useless as a research tool or resource and there is no point to any of what you are doing. My impression was that you want your site to be a bona fide source of information for the public. If that is the case, then you're way, way off the mark and you're going to become just another internet joke along with rotten.com etc.

-Harold A. Covington

Thanks for the detailed response. I'll try to separate out the helpful corrections, matters of dispute, and entertaining rhetoric, and update as appropriate when I have more time. The article was compiled from sources that I did my best to reflect but there's really no attempt to misrepresent the facts (you must understand that from my perspective the most damaging thing is your white supremacism, over which there is no dispute, so defamation is kind of beside the point). You don't, in the above, contest the C18 associations that were widely reported in the mainstream press and the subject of a television documentary; do I assume that's not something you consider defamatory? Dogville 12:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

C-18 I don't mind. There's a lot of crap been written about my involvement with C-18 (most of it by Gerry Gable) but that's one of those "if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen" things. Besides, they were some fine lads I was proud to know and assist. Tommy Atkins at his best.

Actually, I'm not a White supremacist, I'm a White separatist, and the difference is roughly that between a Tridentine Roman Catholic and a Muslim imam, but I understand most people don't get that.

What I will NOT stand for is any allegation, implication, or insinuation that I am some kind of informer or government agent, or ever have been. This allegation is completely untrue, and since to make it is to imply that I work or have worked for a government which now legally and openly practices torture, detention without trial, racial profiling, and which commits war crimes and atrocities without number, I would say that is most DEFINITELY defamatory.

'Tis a strange world we live in, Master Jack.

-HAC

May 9th, 2006 - Yesterday I posted a shorter version of the article with suggested legitimate news sources instead of weirded out left-wing kooks. I've removed that because it was just adding more wordage, and because apparently this has been referred to "NPOV Dispute" which will take a while to resolve. In the meantime, my hastily cobbled-together autobio seems to be staying up in place of the lefty rant, which is fine by me.

Let me make this offer to Dogville. He wants "verifiable sources". I am not sure how some fringe-left self-appointed "journalist" who has never met me in his life, and who clearly knows nothing about my life or my work can be considered a "verifiable source," especially when he offers nothing except pure personal opinion based on politically-motivated malice, i.e. Larry O'Hara's mendacious assertion without proof of any kind that I am a "state asset." Nor can anything whatsoever from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a private organization which raises millions of dollars by assaulting and destroying the civil rights and liberties of Americans of European descent, be considered in any way a legitimate source of information or validation. Trashing people like me is how Morris Dees makes his millions.

My e-mail is harold_covington@hotmail.com. If Dogville wants to do an article on me, rather than using neo-Marxist nuts as sources, why not simply go to the horse's mouth? Why not just ASK ME?

-HAC

Apologies for the delay: real work is getting in the way of finding the necessary time and probably will for a few days more. You'll notice I've left your versions in place with the NPOV note until I can find time to do a redraft. And thanks for the offer -- unfortunately, while it sounds pretty reasonable on the face of it (ignoring the issue of how we know you're really HAC; I kind of assume you are) -- Wikipedia rules don't allow "horse's mouth" sources to trump published ones. In fact, original research is flat-out not allowed, and verifiability (against published sources) is more important than truth. It may sound crazy but I didn't make the rules -- for more detail see here. (If you were say to publish a book of your memoirs, those would obviously be a valid source.)

You must of course know that the competing claims to truth of the SPLC versus you will be less straightforwardly judged than you assert above by those not of your political persuasion. It's a common problem with writing articles in this field -- the only publications who cover it in detail are ones like Searchlight, who the subjects then insist can't possibly be used as sources. [Yes, I know Searchlight is flawed, has an agenda, can't always be believed; on the other hand a lot of what it prints does turn out to be true, and blacklisting it wholesale shuts out a huge amount of detail.] I hadn't found the SPLC source mainly because I'd used it to backup my claim that you've written novels, which you don't dispute.

By the way, as you were a member of the American Nazi Party and used the phrase 'national socialist' in your own draft, why do you seem to object to the descriptor 'neo-nazi'?

Again, apologies for the delay. (God, this is surreal.) Dogville 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Covington says: "I did not "go underground" in March 1981."

What contemporary newspaper accounts say is that Covington announced that the NSPA was going underground and preparing for violence. At that time Covington also stepped down as the president of the NSPA. I have not read that he also resigned from the NSPA, but it would be strange behavior to declare an organization's future course and then resign from it, waving farewell as the organization sails off to its doom. It seems a reasonable interpretation that Covington himself was to participate in "going underground" but it is an interpretation. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the article this hoaxer, cyber-stalker, and identity thief refers to. It appeared in the Raleigh Times or News and Observer, I forget which, back in '81, if memory serves. The reporter simply made that "going underground" part up, of out of whole cloth, as is often the case with us. Like on Wikipedia.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It was an Associated Press story, apparently, yes, originating in Raleigh. But there is some context for "going underground" given. It quotes Covington: "The Feds can't find what they can't see." "N.C. Nazi Chief Quits" (AP), The Sumter Daily Item, March 27, 1981 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VYgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nqoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5063,4821415&dq=harold-covington+underground&hl=en Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another news-report from a few days later, this one an AP story originating from Nebraska, that even quotes Covington as using the words "going underground": "Going underground will stop the infiltration. From now on you don't join the Nazis. We join you." http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=j6grAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Bv0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5711,44068&dq=covington+going-underground&hl=en Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Haroldcovington's edits

I went ahead and reverted the edits to a version before Haroldcovington (specifically to Dogville's latest revert). Hope this was alright *crosses fingers* Ash Lux ^{(talk | Contribs)} 22:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NSWPP/ANP

Removed statement that the latter-day "National Socialist White People's Party" headed by Harold Covington had formerly been the "American Nazi Party". See http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/longtime.asp, which states: "Following Rockwell's assassination by a disgruntled party member in 1967, Matthias (Matt) Koehl took over his American Nazi Party, renaming it the National Socialist White People's Party....In 1982, Koehl dropped the name NSWPP in favor of the name 'The New Order,' and Covington's NSPA disbanded. In 1994, Covington founded a new group using the old name once used by Koehl: NSWPP." The latter-day NSWPP was a new organization, distinct from the organization of the same name descended from the American Nazi Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Goldman (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't relevant for the entry on Covington, but just for the sake of correct information, it was not Koehl (as the ADL says) who changed the name from American Nazi Party to National Socialist White People's Party. Rockwell himself changed the name in January 1967. You can read that in an AP story of December 12, 1967. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zM1NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RooDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5169,2099789&dq=national-socialist-white-people%27s-party&hl=en Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Poorly Informed Sources

"Myrna Estep, ph.D." confuses "The Order" led by Bob Mathews with Matt Koehl's New Order, which is the successor organization to Rockwell's NSWPP.

"The Order, headed by one of Rockwell's foremost Stormtroopers, Matt Koehl, has been involved in numerous criminal violent acts of terrorism across the U.S."

Now, it is true that Estep is not used as a source for that claim in the article, but it shows nonetheless that this "ph.D." has less than sterling credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.0.41 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

02:23, 28 November 2010 Will Beback (talk | contribs) (12,062 bytes) (rv- unsourced POV , too much detail for lead) The addition of 3 lines of text is not "too much detail for lead". Nor is the information I added an "unsourced POV". It is taken directly from the public domain Covington Northwest novels, which are linked in another section of this article; and from Covington's own sites, which are also linked in this article. Wasp14 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit.[1] The introductions of articles should summarize the contents. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Also, assertions about living people need sources. I suggest adding some of that material to existing sections of the article, with adequate sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I read it, and what stands out the most about it is it's own top section, which states, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.". So the first thing it establishes is that it is nothing more than an ambiguous, vague guideline, subject to interpretation, and which may even be disregarded at the whim of an admin, such as yourself. As far as the length or detail of an article's lead, it states specifically that it should not be more than four paragraphs, or in other words, it may be up to four paragraphs long. My edit did not violate that. Your edit of the lead centers around Covington's African period, which is only a brief early part of his life. Your edit of the lead hardly touches on any of the other sections of the article at all. There is an existing section of the article pertaining to Covington's "Northwest" material and activities, which is arguably the most important part of his biography, but your edit makes no mention of it in the lead. My edit corrected that flaw in this article. As far as citations, every sentence of an article does not have to have an inline citation link, particularly if the source of the information has been cited elsewhere in the article. In any case, if you felt that citations were needed, you could have made a "citations needed" annotation, rather than a blanket revert to the previous edit. Wasp14 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nowadays we don't wait for "citation needed" tags on bios. If we don't have a source then we probably shouldn't add it. What sources are you using for your changes? Could you add your material (with a source) to the main body and then put a very short summary in the lead?   Will Beback  talk  09:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd claim to make concerning this article, considering that there is only a single citation in the entire lead; which ironically is a dubious claim that Covington never fought on the side of the White supremacist forces in the Rhodesian Bush War, while he was in southern Africa. Not one other claim in the lead has a citation. In the body of the article, you have let stand as "citations" links that are nothing more than anonymous posts on Blogspot blogs and Yahoo! Group email lists. Wasp14 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to fix it or do you want to complain?   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If a second opinion is needed here, I find the reversion appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia guidelines regarding MOS and BLP. I also agree with the recommendation to properly source the content and find a place for it within the body of the article. Location (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede

The only source in the introduction disputes the claim that the subject served in the Rhodesian military, contradicting the current text. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Elizabeth Wheaton says in Codename Greenkil that she got documentation from the government of Zimbabwe that Covington was a low-level employee of an engineering firm and not in the Rhodesian Army. On the other hand there is a photo of Covington supposedly in Rodesia wearing a Rhodesian Army uniform with Eric Thomson. Could it be a charade? Maybe. I don't know the answer to this. A related dispute is about what he was supposed to have done in the Rhodesian Army. Sometimes he has claimed that he was a combat soldier; other times he has admitted that he was merely a cook. Maybe the "engineering firm" was really a mercenary outfit that staffed military mess halls? Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Covington addresses this issue on his blog at http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com for 19 July 2011, since he is not allowed to address it here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forky1138 (talk • contribs) 21:16, (UTC) Covington posts the photo of himself wearing camouflage and a beret with Eric Thomson, which I already mentioned. Nobody doubts that Covington was in Rhodesia or that he met Eric Thomson there. Covington gives a lot of details, but the problem remains that Covington's narration of how he spent his time in Rhodesia has no credibility until it is corroborated, as anybody that tracks his claims over the course of time will learn.

Some aspects of Covington's activity in Rhodesia can be corroborated by referring to Eric Thomson.

There is an alleged letter by Eric Thomson about his acquaintance with Covington that contains the strange detail that he was introduced to Covington "by an acquaintance of mine in the Rhodesian Special Branch, which is the Brit equivalent of the U.S. FBI. Soon thereafter, we helped to establish The Rhodesian White People's Party."

What was that about? You could infer that Thomson and Covington were introduced so that they would embarrass the Rhodesian government, which subsequently did ask both of them to leave. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, this is just silly.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This Page And It's Discussion Have Been Repeatedly Vandalized

I've added the posts that were deleted by the vandal.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the last external link which alleges to be Mr. Covington's personal web site is in fact a hoax perpetrated by the person responsible for the vandalism of the past week. This site has no connection whatsoever with Mr. Covington. It is SO clearly and obviously fraudulent that the continuation of this link on this page indicates either incredibly sloppy editing and supervision, or else collusion or at least approval by Wikipedia staff of the vandalism, presumably out of ideological motives. This is why Wikipedia has become virtually useless as a source of information on the internet. - H. A. Covington

The "vandal" was 24.113.172.237 and also the same person who removed the comments. It seems someone may have made a mistake and linked to a fake website that they thought was original.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, sir, there was no mistake. It was deliberate and malicious. There are two vandals operating here, possibly in tandem, due to their common belief that I have recently injured them, one by refusing to allow him to join the Northwestfront.net forum and post tirades against myself and others on the forum, and one an adolescent who is upset because I will not allow him to post obscene and sexually explicit material in the comments section of the Homeland blog. This kid is also illiterate, and the misspellings on the hoax site indicate to me it is his work.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check your facts before reverting edits!

I made several edits a few days ago that were entirely justified and now seem to be all gone. Even where I corrected a glaring problem, the glaring problem was mindlessly restored.

1. The section on the "National Socialist Party of America" ends with some sentences that are clearly out of place. The NSPA died in the early 1980s. It was Covington's unauthorized use of the name "National Socialist White People's Party" in the 1990s that led to his Web site being taken away. If you would read the article before editing, you would notice that there was a problem that I fixed -- which is now reverted to something that makes no sense.

2. While Covington these days likes to imply that he alone was responsible for the exposure of Frank Collin's illegal sexual activities, contemporary news reports do not support that version of events. Reports at the time stated that "party members" had discovered the photos etc. I sourced this fact to a contemporary newspaper report; yet it was reverted to Covington's own spin.

3. Glenn Miller's White Patriot Party really did not exist before 1980. That is a fact. While I would not rely on Harold Covington as a source, he happens to be right on that point. If Glenn Miller and the White Patriot Party are to be mentioned at all in the context of the Greensboro Incident, he should be called Glenn Miller, future leader of the White Patriot Party. I sourced my edit to Miller's book, A White Man Speaks Out; if you just peruse the chapter titles you will see that the WPP came long after Greensboro. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that there was an edit-war a couple of days after I added this information, but that edit-war seems to have been mainly a dispute between two unidentified users (one in the Seattle area) over whether Covington served in the Rhodesian Army. I understand the idea of reverting to a pre-edit-war version, but the current version is pre-pre-edit-war. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not solely responsible for Collin's exposure, no, and I have never claimed that. I WAS responsible for bringing in the Chicago Police Department and causing Collin's arrest and imprisonment. This is a minor falsehood, but while I'm at it....

-HAC

Repeated Vandalism And Defamatory Material

This article has been repeatedly vandalized, and false and defamatory material has been posted here by two Induhviduals. One of these is a long-term cyber-stalker of mine who, judging from his past behavior, I believe to be mentally and emotionally disturbed. The other is an adolescent who is angry because I will not approve his obscene sexually oriented comments to the Homeland blog. I would name both of these Induhviduals but I suppose that would be a violation of some Wikipedia rule or other.

I deal with the issue of my Rhodesian military service, which was quite real, on my blog Thoughtcrime at http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com Those are the facts. Period. End of story. The alleged "personal web page" which is listed in external links is a palpable fraud and this should be obvious to anyone who bothered to look. Either you didn't bother, which is sloppy and unprofessional to the nth degree, or else you don't give a damn about honesty and integrity. Take your pick.

I would like to make a suggestion to Wikipedia: just drop the whole article. I don't need one; I am not that big a fish in anybody's pond, and there is no point in having it if we are going to have to monitor the goddamned thing 24/7 to make sure it isn't monkeyed with by people who are cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

This kind of infantile behavior is why Wikipedia is useless as a source of legitimate and accurate information. Nobody in his right mind accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything. Why would anyone take seriously an enterprise that tolerates and in fact seems to encourage this kind of behavior?

-Harold A. Covington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not an administrator here, nor have I ever worked on your article, so I apologize for not knowing the history of the article. However, I have been an editor here for a number of years and knows fairly well what is permitted and what isn't on Wikipedia.

The general rule we have is that the information in the article must be available in reliable sources. Anything that is not quoted in a reliable source is not allowed to be published in an article. This is especially the case with BLPs. With that said, I do see that there is no indication of a valid source for some of the information in the article, so I would encourage (from another editor, not you yourself as there is a conflict of interest involved when editing your own article) that the unsourced information be removed. Another of our principles is that an article must have a neutral point of view. It cannot simply be just an entirely negative and scathing account, nor may it necessarily be all sunshine and lollipops (if I may use a figure of speech). Any information presented from valid sources must be presented neutrally and without opinion from the contributing editor.

Those are our two main principles, I'm sure another editor can tell you more. What I would like to know is what specific information you are upset with in the article; we can definitely source who added the information through the article's history. I also hope that an administrator will be along to further ensure that any major problems are rectified as expediently as possible. This has been raised at the administrator's noticeboard, so trust that this will not simply just be ignored. You are also welcome to contribute to the discussion there as more administrators follow that than the article itself.

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope we can address your concerns here. CycloneGU (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The apparent attack site was added to external links by an unregistered editor back in June. I've just removed it. This article is currently semi-protected, but only for another day or so. Given the controversial nature of the subject, and the tendency for material that breaches our WP:BLP policy to be inserted, I think longer semi-protection may be appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit-war was entirely between Covington and another unregistered editor over whether it should be accepted as fact, based on Elizabeth Wheaton's book Codename Greenkil, that Covington never served in the Rhodesian Army. I don't know the truth of that question, but there is a middle ground. It is certainly true that Elizabeth Wheaton says what she says, and I think the fact that she SAYS that according to the Zimbabwean government Covington was never in the Rhodesian Army should be included, and people can decide whether to believe what Elizabeth Wheaton says or not. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope that this article is not going to be made difficult to edit, because there is a lot here that needs to be fixed, and there are some important facts that have not been included. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that unregistered users were doing things like including attack sites in the External Links section, and registered users were doing nothing to remove them, such that they were there for several weeks, then yes it's likely that the article will be made more difficult to edit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Wheaton is not a reliable source; she is a fanatical neo-Marxist and her book is so biased that it is completely useless as a source.

It appears that I am now going to have to devote a lot of my time preventing Wikipedia from telling lies about me. I suppose that's the whole point of the exercise. Lovely.

"Northwest Volunteer" is not a sock puppet, it is an account I opened, nor have I ever claimed it to be otherwise.

-Harold A. Covington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet More Vandalism

As I've pointed out before, this talk page has been vandalised, and it seems it will continue to be. Someone who is looking out for a favorable image of Harold Covington repeatedly has deleted two posts. Those are "There is no evidence that Harold served in the Rhodesian Army" and "Harold has been known to self promote". I've added them back and will continue to do so. Harold, a link to your blog where you said that you had served in the Rhodesian military is not a reliable source showing that you actually served. All that proves is that you claim to have served. Wheaton (a credible author) wrote a book (published by a major and accredited company) with evidence showing that you didn't serve. Stop insulting every Wikipedia editor's intelligence by using a link to your own blog as a credible source. If for whatever reason you don't agree with Wheaton, you should direct your complaints towards her, not Wikipedia. If you have any evidence proving you did serve (that hasn't come out of your own mouth) please include it. Wheaton's book was written several years ago and it would seem that if you disagreed with her information, you would have settled this with her a long time ago.

The same person who has been vandalizing the article and it's talk page have been using multiple accounts. Two of them are NorthwestVolunteer and 24.113.172.237. This seems to coincide with what other website admins have purported to experience with Covington. http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/04/11/briefly-noted-northwest-novel-5-freedoms-sons-harold-covington-northwest-front/comment-page-1/#comment-200809 Take from that what you will.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Your Buddy Fred Lewis made some very insightful edits, and I think that when this page is corrected, it should include that edits he made. And Harold, this page isn't going to be removed.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Covington (or the person claiming to be him) is welcome to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AfD. However, a Google search suggests that Covington is notable, so such a nomination would be unlikely to succeed unless some other grounds for deletion under Wikipedia policy were found.

I've removed the claim in the lead that Covington served in the Rhodesian army, since it was sourced to the book by Wheaton which says the exact opposite. Regardless of whether Wheaton is a reliable source or not, they don't support that statement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, there has been suggestion elsewhere that the notability is borderline and that therefore the deletion of the article might be best if it can be confirmed that its subject prefers that; I can see the sense in that suggestion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So whether it's true or not doesn't matter either to you or Wikipedia? All you need is some idiot to SAY it's true in a privately published book?

That opens all kinds of interesting possibilities.

-Harold A. Covington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, on the contrary, Wikipedia policy makes very clear the fact that anyone can pay to publish anything they like in a book, and therefore something being in a published book does not automatically make it a reliable source. The issue here is that the claim about Covington being in the Rhodesian army is disputed, and a reliable source stating it to be true has not been put forward; therefore it's been removed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I can live with that, especially since as I said I see no need for an article on me at all.

I warn you, though, from long experience, that it is a mistake to give these weirded-out cyber-stalkers and obsessives even an inch. They will be back and they will want more and more.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haroldcovington. Editors of this article should remember that the use of multiple accounts to disrupt discussions is forbidden. That includes using more than one account to edit the same talk page while not making clear the connection between the accounts. Editing while logged out can be regarded the same way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to "investigate". I opened that account when you blocked me from defending myself against false and defamatory material which was posted in this article.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haroldcovington about why you were using the Forky1138 account at the same time as the NorthwestVolunteer account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not underestimate my determination to prevent false and defamatory material being published about me on Wikipedia. The present article is bullshit and draws on left-wing sources almost exclusively, but there don't seem to be any outright lies. I don't care what your rules are. You have no right to publish false, scurrilous, ideologically motivated lies, especially not lies originated by sick people whose mental and emotional balance is open to serious question.

I have checked with some friends and they will provide funds for an attorney if necessary. I really, really don't want to go that route. But all the false and defamatory stuff has to go.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears you are making a legal threat with the above post. Please note that if you choose to contact an attorney, it will be perceived as making a legal threat and you will be blocked indefinitely from editing per WP:NLT. Therefore, please do not consider that route or not only will you be blocked, but you will be unable to communicate with us regarding issues on your article. CycloneGU (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No threat. Just making sure you understand that I will do whatever is necessary in order to prevent scurrilous, malicious, false and defamatory material from being posted about me on Wikipedia. Now you know.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced negative statements on talk page

I've removed one set of highly negative unsourced comments about Covington from this talk page. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as just articles; if you want to discuss negative aspects of Covington here, then cite your sources when doing so. This doesn't, of course, justify the removal of sourced material or legitimate comments from this page, as has also been happening. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, That's A LITTLE Better

Okay, fine. You want to remove any reference to my Rhodesian military service, I can live with that. You are giving the mentally disturbed individual at least part of what he wants, which is a mistake, and I guarantee you he will now want more and more, but fine.

I would also like to thank whoever had the sense to realize that the alleged "personal website" posted in external links was a hoax, and remove it.

"Northwest Volunteer" is me; I opened the account when it became obvious that Wiklipedia, out of ideological bias or simple arrogance, had no intention of removing or allowing me to refute false and defamatory material about me posted to this site.

I understand and accept that like everywhere else in the media, Wikipedia is riddled with left-wing and liberal political bias and where their politics are concerned, Wikipedia personnel are sloppy, unprofessional, and determined to shape opinion rather than simply present verifiable facts and allow others to form their own views. That's a given. White Nationalists of any stripe simply do not get a fair shake. Ever. But I will do whatever is necessary to prevent left-wing creeps from telling outright lies about me.

-Harold A. Covington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice you did not comment on Forky1138. A checkuser has confirmed it to also be you, so ATM it must be blocked as a sockpuppet. And since you are also editing right now as an IP, that could also be considered a sock of the NorthwestVolunteer account (which I should note is not blocked at this time, it expired yesterday). CycloneGU (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note I am not posting this to be combative with you (after all, I offered the friendly greeting above), I am just pointing out how your account usage violates Wikipedia policies regarding account usage. CycloneGU (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am posting however the hell I'm posting from because I'm not familiar with Wikipedia. I will doubtless become more so, as Wikipedia continues to allow the posting of false, scurrilous, and defamatory material about me and I do whatever I need to do to remove that material so people who do not know me will not be told lies about me.

I don't care about your rules or policies, since they seem to be designed to aid, abet, and facilitate cyber-stalking by mentally and emotionally disturbed persons, two of which have repeatedly vandalized this article in the past week by posting false and defamatory material.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That could not be further from the truth. Wikipedia is not a place for cyber-stalking and such an action is not condoned on Wikipedia any more than unconstructive edits, vandalism, or intentional sockpuppetry (I get that in this case it was unintended, but you must admit by using the other account you evaded a block, which is considered a serious offense on Wikipedia). If you need help learning how to get around Wikipedia, I and many other editors are more than happy to help. But at the same time, the practice of evading blocks to continue posting must be stopped. Can you agree to only use one account? If you prefer to edit as an IP, you can do so, and we will block all accounts created by you. Otherwise, choose one account and edit only from there, and agree to stop editing while not logged in (as an IP).

I want to help you help us, if you can get that meaning. But constantly trying to tell me Wikipedia attempts to "aid, abet, and facilitate cyber-stalking by mentally and emotionally disturbed persons", among other comments I've seen here, is going to do more to suggest that you are indeed planning to sue Wikipedia, in which case no one here - myself included - will be able to help you at all. So please be civil with us and we'll be civil with, and further, help you. CycloneGU (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Your Buddy Fred Lewis" Isn't

For the record, if anybody cares (a dubious proposition, I know) "Your Buddy Fred Lewis" isn't. Fred Lewis, that is. Fred Lewis is a reference to Eric Thomson, my fellow Rhodesian deportee along with Jeff Spencer, who is presumably up next for the Wikipedia smear campaign conducted by A Certain Induhviudal who is obsessed to the point of clinical insanity with me.

Fred/Eric is in fact one of these wise people who simply refuses to have anything to do with the internet. He still writes his lengthy, Old-World letters on a manual typewriter so old he has to hand-ink his ribbons because they're commercially unavailable.

Any chance of a Wikipedia investigation being opened into "Your Buddy Fred Lewis"'s identity theft?

Thought not.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has rules about not pretending to be (or appearing to be) someone that you're not. But if Eric Thomson's real name is Eric Thomson, what's the connection between Fred Lewis and Eric Thomson? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomson's only pseudonym that I know is Eric Campbell. I am not pretending to be him. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no need. I know who you are.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Some Documents

I mentioned in an earlier post here some facts about Harold Covington's experience with courts. My post was deleted for lack of supporting documentation. These are the key documents in Williams v. Covington. http://imageshack.us/g/651/wvcoriginalcomplaint.jpg/

The last two pages comprise Wake County Court FILE Mo. 96 CVD 11027. It states that an injunction was issued prohibiting Harold Covington from making any public statement about the plaintiff.

http://imageshack.us/f/18/haccontempofcourt1.jpg/

You will see here in the last paragraph that on 2 December 1999 Covington was sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment for violating the injunction. http://imageshack.us/f/98/haccontemptofcourt2.jpg/

I assume that this was the negative statement about Covington that Demiurge1000 thought required documentation. It's a matter of public record. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a very silly incident and a lot of utter tripe has been written about it, but hey, whatever floats your boat. What I object to is the propagation of outright lies.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This Is Cyber-Stalking

Guys, let's take another run at this.

What we are seeing here, what you call "vandalism," is in fact a form of malicious harassment called CYBER-STALKING. I have been subjected to it ever since I went on the internet in 1995.

The cyber-stalkers in this case appear to be two Induhviduals. I know because I had a friend with more Wikipedia knowledge and more admin rights or access or whatever than I have take a look at this for me. Unless, of course, word is getting out on the Looney Left and more cyber-stalkers are being attracted to this page like blowflies. If this goes on, there may be more as the buzzards drop down from the sky.

One is a long-term stalker associated with a number of left-wing web sites in the past; he may or may not be getting paid to do this, or he may be genuinely obsessed with me. I don't know. For some reason I have never understood, I seem to have the ability to inculcate strange and obsessive behaviors in certain people. Whether this guy is officially attached to any group or not, I can tell you from reading his history of posts that he is definitely cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

The second Induhvidual is an adolescent, 15 or 16 years of age, who is angry because I refuse to allow him to post obscene and sexually oriented material to the comments section of the Homeland blog. The hoax web site which was listed in external links here, claiming to be my own, was clearly his work because it contained his common style of illiterate misspelling and some of his content.

Whether these two are actually working together, I have no way of knowing.

Yes, I'm probably violating all kinds of Wikipedia rules and policies by daring to defend myself against the posting of deliberate, malicious, and defamatory lies. Try to look at this from my point of view, all you Wikipedia bods. Suppose someone was telling a lie about YOU, that you were a child molestor or drug dealer or registered sex offender, or a registered Republican? How would YOU handle it?

I'll make you a deal. I'll stop violating your policies on posting and you stop facilitating crazy people to tell lies about me. How's that sound to you?

-Harold A. Covington

P.S. The four tilde signature thing doesn't seem to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you email the email address at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject), establish that you are indeed Harold Covington (which may sound silly, but who knows, perhaps there is some opponent of your views who wants the article about you deleted), and inform them that your personal preference is that the article about you on Wikipedia is deleted? We can then have a deletion discussion, which may or may not get the result you want. Even if it doesn't get the result you want, the email contact would still give you the opportunity to express your concerns about the article somewhere other than this talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will add I actually did not know about that page, thanks for posting that. I definitely agree that would be the best thing to do at this time, so that people in the back office (I think) have that record. CycloneGU (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that, on the condition that the article page is locked down MINUS all false and defamatory material, including the horse shit on this page, until this is settled.

Believe me, I don't want to have to spend hours every day on this any more than you do. But you're not going to post or propagate things about me that aren't true.

May I make a suggestion? Why not just blow the whole thing back to the way it was, oh, say, three months ago, and then lock it down?

That old article drew almost exclusively on wild-left sources like Wheaton and Larry O'Hara. It was just as malicious and anti-Covington and anti-White Nationalist as the most passionate liberal could wish for, but it contained no outright falsehood. It was good enough for five years or so before the funny little men playing with their computers showed up. Why can't it be acceptable again?

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look at the article later, but I can't promise that it will be reverted to the exact revision that you want restored. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and just because you ask for the article to be locked down also won't get it locked down; it has to be the target of repeated valdalism to the point that it's difficult to even edit the article.

Also keep in mind we are all volunteers; none of us is paid to maintain a certain version of every one of the 3.6 million articles on Wikipedia. If infactual edits are being made (as not being in reliable sources), we will attempt to remove them. We're not perfect, however, and just because we miss something doesn't mean that we support the infactual version, nor does WMF support the infactual version. I want to make that aspect clear. So again, as a volunteer, I'll take a glance at the article later and remove unsourced information from it as necessary. But I can't lock down the article as that would violate one of Wikipedia's core principles, and it's not the subject of enough vandalism to warrant it (from the sounds of it, just two cyber-stalkers). CycloneGU (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fine. So here's how we roll:

Publish anything you want about me, including slander by implication--I'm used to that, I know it's what you do, and I expect nothing else. Implicitly accuse me of being the Man on the Grassy Knoll if you want. (No, really, somebody did that once. I was ten years old at the time, but it honestly didn't seem to make any difference. Facts don't, to these people.) Malicious and defamatory through manipulation of facts and style I'm used to.

You publish anything that is a just plain LIE, and I will do whatever I have to do to remove it.

And that's the name of that tune.

-HAC

If anything published by another editor is infactual and not referenced in reliable sources, trust that another editor will be along to remove it. As you are the subject of this article (have you followed Demiurge1000's suggestion yet, BTW?), you are strongly discouraged from editing your own article per COI. However, you are welcome to raise any issues on this very talk page and they will be investigated, and if necessary, they will be removed. As I posted above, help us help you. Violating WP:COI could get you banned, and I do not want that to happen. Work with us and we'll work with you, and that means not directly editing your own article to remove something that may very well be published in reliable sources (and one of your stalkers' blogs, I should note, is not a reliable source). Can you agree to this?

Also, I would strongly recommend - again, I'm only recommending, not mandating - that you choose one single account and start editing only from that account. You can set your browser to remember your login for 30 days at a time so you don't always have to log in (I do that!), and relogin again after that. We'll excuse occasional IP edits as a mistake of not logging in (I've done that too!). Just make sure we can identify who you are every time you post something here. We want to help you, and this would be a GREAT way for us to help you if you can do that. =) CycloneGU (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will do nothing that allows falsehood to remain up one second longer than necessary. If you don't want me or my people attempting to remove it, DON'T POST FALSEHOOD or allow anyone else to do so. Simple, really. Not hard to understand at all.

I am beginning the procedure to try and have the whole article deleted. If you want this nonsense to end, try to expedite that process.

As to being banned, hey, I'm kind of the cyber-town drunk. I get thrown out of all the bars sooner or later, but there's always a back door or a window I can stagger or crawl through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Something Odd with this Article

Most articles have a lead that summarizes the article, then the article goes into more detail. For some reason, this article has a lead going to about 1980, then jumps to 1989 below the TOC. This is not a typical article format at all. I'm not sure how to reorganize it entirely, me intent right now is just removing unsourced information. CycloneGU (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone:

I know this is probably hopelessly naive, but if you want to re-write the article about me then might I suggest that you--uh, I know this is very daring, not Wikipedia at all--but might you possibly, ah, actually ASK ME to answer any questions you might have?

No, no, can't have that, no, no, not at all.....

-HAC

While it would be nice if it could work that way, it doesn't. For instance, I am someone who likes to play Poker and chess. If an article were written about me (with my actual name of course), that information would not be permitted in the article in part because it's not encyclopedic (it sounds more like what would go in a personal bio or dating profile) but also because it would have to be included in a reliable source before it could be published in an article. It's both the beauty and inherent evil of Wikipedia, in that there may be holes in the subject but we're presenting the information that is available to be presented, and we can't just go to the subject to fill in the holes because, again, it has to be published in a reliable source. CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have located a book source for the bit in the lead about the Rhodesian White People's Party and can confirm that it appears factual at this point. I'll add more sources as I go and remove information I can't find later. CycloneGU (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the sources cited are not what they should be either. That Myrna Estep seems to make a lot of mistakes. For example she calls Matt Hale "Matt Helm." I would not rely on her as a source. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm trying my best, but I'm not especially good at the book sources yet. It's the closest thing I found to something regarding the subject, and otherwise we pretty much have to cut out the 1976 section. Do you have another possible source? CycloneGU (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any book about Covington other than Codename Greenkil. This book by James Saleam looks decent but it seems to have very little about Covington. hhttp://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/nazis_in_america.htm

I always look for information in Google's online newspaper archive. That information is more immediate and more likely to be undistorted than anything in a book. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This (hostile) essay by Ben Klassen from 1989 gives some chronology and some details. http://creativityalliance.com/articles_covington-hypocrite.htm Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Boy, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black!

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is Harold. I try to rely on newspaper articles, and I give links.

Some of the claims sourced to "Myrna Estep ph.D" are really not even in her piece.

This section from the article on Covington is referenced to Myrna Estep but I don't see any of it there:

"In 1979, Covington found, at the NSPA offices, "films, pictures and addresses of some little boys", as a result of which "we handed Frank Collin to the cops on a silver platter," and by the time of the trial Covington had replaced Collin as the head of the NSPA."

I made an edit several days ago in which I corrected the facts in that account and sourced them to a newspaper article, with a link.

She says that White Patriot Party leader Glenn Miller was in the Greensboro shootout but doesn't clarify that the WPP only came into existence in the 1980s. This is wrongly taken as documentation that Miller was the leader of the WPP at the time of the shootout. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally resent you stealing the name of a fine soldier and a brave man, who is also a good friend, but I suppose that's why you did it, and of course Wikipedia will continue to allow you to do it.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, gentlemen. I'm still in the lead. Let me get to it and I'll look into it, I don't want to see an argument start up here. I'll take both of your viewpoints into consideration. I don't normally devote a lot of time to things like this, but I'm making an exception today. =) CycloneGU (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of sources, I have found this book source by Elizabeth Wheaton where sentences state, for example, "Covington claims he...". This is not factual, and this is not a valid book reference for the subject, so I will recommend that if this reference is used anywhere in the article that it must be removed. Once again, I'll analyze this as I go. CycloneGU (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On page 46 Wheaton says that according to the government of Zimbabwe there was no evidence that Covington had served in the Rhodesian Army, as a mercenary or otherwise, but that the record showed that he had worked for an engineering and construction firm. http://books.google.com/books?id=kbKJU3e59MsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Greenkil&hl=en&ei=wHkoTsefBM63twfW69y7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Zimbabwe&f=false I wonder if she reproduces a letter from the government of Zimbabwe elsewhere in the book. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about the "Fred Lewis" thing. It's disgraceful, but I expect nothing else from his kind, and your "policies" won't let you do anything about it.

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I Have Officially Requested Page Deletion

I have officially requested that this whole article just be deleted. I am simply not that notable and it rather surprises me that anyone should think I am. I presume those who wish to continue to use this article and this page to defame me will resist the loss of their sand box.

By the way, Wiki guys, you know these two cyber-stalkers are just LOVING all this, right? At long last they have successfully intruded themselves into my life and my work, and they get to immerse themselves in all the lovely Harold want, all they can fantasize about, or whatever is going on in what passes for their minds. Finally, it's all about THEM! JOY UNSPEAKABLE!

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will carry this particular discussion to the IP talk page. I'll close this section momentarily. CycloneGU (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the IP talk page?

-HAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have a notice now about a new message. If not, click the "talk" link next to your IP above. If you were logged into your account (see CycloneGU for my user page), you would have your own personal talk page (see NorthwestVolunteer), which is better than an IP talk page which could be used by another person someday. CycloneGU (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Some More Interesting Information

While doing some research I came across this interview with Harold Covington's brother, Ben Covington, about Harold's Early life when they were growing up. I think some of his claims should be mentioned in the article. Some of these include Harold being discharged from the United States Army in 1972 for being diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder. I will be looking further into this and see if I can find some definitive sources as to whether this is true or not. However, being that this information came from his brother, I think it denotes mentioning at least, even if not stated as fact. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/winter/little-big-man --SlapChopVincent (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• More vandalism is coming from GuyFawkes1603 and 4.243.49.168 which I have reverted.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Trace on 4.243.49.168 shows Seattle. You can make a reasonable inference about who that is. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Slappy: it'll continue with different IPs and accounts, I'm sure. If you see vandalism and thing it's Harold again, file a sockpuppet investigation (in the case of accounts). I'll be honest, however, YBFL; he considers you a stalker of his, and I'm trying to follow why he is making such a complaint loud and proud on the Wiki. CycloneGU (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Harold Covington has been claiming for years that he was being stalked by various people. The past couple of years he has also frequently accused people of being "cognitive dissonance operatives" working for Cass Sunstein. Check out, for eample, the case of Hunter Wallace.

The only criterion for winning this kind of label from Harold Covington is that you contradict Harold Covington on any point. If you call attention to the fact that anything that Harold Covington says is not exactly the truth (and that happens a lot), you are a stalker. Covington was diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder (source: his brother Benjamin, in an interview on the SPLC's site, now cited in the Wiki article on HAC). If you compare the description of ppd with this behavior, you will see that it fits. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the SPLC's interview with Benjamin Covington and I think you'll understand. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)