Talk:Kevin Martin/Archive1

He has arrived!
Careful what you say about Kevin in here. This is hosted in the United States and you can get in a lot of trouble if crossing the line. I also had this ED rip off site. Why? What a ripoff --EnoughIsEnough (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Kev, eat all the poo!-- Token Conservative/ Feminist Bouncer 04:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not Kevin at all, but you fucktards need to learn what a real life is. If not, kill yourselves now. --EnoughIsEnough (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're totally Kev. You're totally the only lunatic stupid enough to think to troll and vandalize our little wiki.-- Token ConservativeFeminist Thought Police 07:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, Cleve Blakemore tried a while back. (Who? Exactly.) Kevin, on the other hand, is just bringing his asshattery over from the RW Facebook page. Little fucko doesn't give up easy, it seems. Of course, we don't have any pet firebugs around here, at least that we know of. EVDebs (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I like that the first thing that comes up when googling him is our article on him. That warms my heart. I, strangely, want someone to sue us, so that when they get crushed we get a lot of free publicity.-- Token ConservativeFeminist Thought Police 07:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you're making a classic mistake TC. Google knows who you are and thus offers you hits on sites which it knows you visit often. Google plays up to your confirmation bias. The same search on duck duck go will give you a more honest result.--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering I'd never heard of the guy before he started going after us, it just amuses me to have one more idiot freakshow to read about. Being a skeptic is about educating others, but that doesn't mean laughing at idiots is in any way forbidden or even discouraged. Especially when they're arrogant and dumb enough to get their entire field of interest to hate them. EVDebs (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus, criticizing Internet buffoons is the whole reason this site exists. Trying to get us to stop is like trying to convince Microsoft to stop selling software.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  07:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Off-Topic: "trying to convince Microsoft to stop selling software." I like company competition as much as the next guy, but if I could convince Microsoft to stop selling the crap they're always pushing, I would. Nullahnung (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotta specify search terms Kevin Martin + weather or else you get hits for the basketball player. RW comes up about 2/3 down the page among dozens of folks unhappy with Kevin. - Leuders (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just done my own Duckduck on Kevin Martin + weather & RW's second after Amazon Sponsored link. (screengrab available if wanted) Scream!! (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When you add the term "weather" to "duck duck" then RW is on the first page.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm his twin brother Brian and you mothers keep this up I swear to God I will fucking END YOU. WHO THE FUCK GIVES YOU RIGHTS TO HARASS SOMEONE LIKE THIS. YOU NEED TO DIE NOW --EnoughIsEnough (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Kevin, you so funny! Scream!! (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, shut up. Between the three of you (I include Brian's worthless attention whoring parasite of a wife), you're a laughing stock across the Internet to anyone who's actually heard of you. Get lost. EVDebs (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We aren't harassing, we're criticizing. And as to what gives us that right, it's a little thing called the First Amendment, which provides for freedom of speech.  (Just FYI, I don't believe death threats are covered.)   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  07:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of this guy before but he does come across as rather pathetic with his repeated plaintive death threats.--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So Kevin/Brian, which parts don't you like? A lot of it is just summarizing info found in newspapers, archives and webpages. Oh and Facebook chats. Leuders (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking that. He keeps whining but he has never says "Part X is factually wrong."--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * EVDebs, I suggest you shut the fuck up. By wife, KEVIN has a wife thats already been concluded but never and I mean NEVER fucking tell me I have a wife because I don't. I take my shit serious so you best realize the boundaries here forth you hear me? I also know exactly who you are, and you best back the fuck off. You're not welcomed here if you are going to act like a fucking DOC DROPPING prick. You try and guess people's personal information thinking you're right. Well you're wrong, so kindly fuck off. As for the rest of you, you aren't nearly as bad as some people i've seen so i'll keep an eye out on the page and we'll go from there. EVDebs - watch who you're talking to, pal. You don't jump websites and harass me, i'll knock your fucking teeth out. Stalking me and my family and friends for three years is punishable so you better watch it. I'll get a court order on this site and then we'll see who you really are this site will be forced to give me ALL of your information in which I will get. Hands down (Mirror boy) watch your tone or it will end in Hell. --EnoughIsEnough (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is stalking you, you sad little fuck; you've spread your shit around the Internet so far that your drama isn't a secret. Anyway, I may not be clear on the exact relationships, but you know exactly who the fuck I'm talking about, and the three of you are all wastes of space. So, yeah. Fuck the fuck off. EVDebs (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kevin/Brian: which parts of the article do you not like? (Can someone translate my question into "gangsta" language so he'll understand?) Leuders (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm… "Yo dawg, so you be hatin' on dis shit, but yo ain't got no tips fo' keepin' it fresh. Where do y'all wanna see more swag in the 420 yolo slappin' bitches up SnapBack gangsta #swag?" Is that "gangsta" enough? Because I really have no idea what I just wrote. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But in all seriousness, has this fucker been banned? Are we sure he's the real Kevin? Because it seems to me that he's just a douche bag troll, a psychopath, a racist, hate-filled, aggressive, misogynistic, hate-filled scum-bag, who can't stand that somebody would DARE to disagree with his bullshit. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, did I really fucking write that? Ehh… but anyway, how can we be sure that it was him? MESSIAH OF DOOM  Deserved doom shall be unto you Dolan.png 01:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's how we know: He gives a shit about Kevin Martin.   02:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Actual thingey
The section about the Facebook conversation seems silly and not up to the same standard as the rest of the article. There's also no proof or citations for it. Can we lose it?--talk 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Took a whack at adding a ref and consolidating the section. Feel free to repair or fix if the file format is wrong. Or just move the whole Facebook section to RationalWiki:Fun. - Leuders (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was about to also edit it... calling a racist-flavored mafioso-anarchist a "right-wing libertarian" is __such__ a gross violation of *some* kind of universal taboo that all right-thinking folks in this world ought grok. :-)      Support wiping the section, unless you have links (or preferably undoctored screenshots from multiple independent sources) that prove the guy actually said such things.  Danke.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen it would certainly be in character for this sort of rather deranged individual.--The soul of the unicorn (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Arson Part Needs To Be Removed
The Arson section needs to be removed. Libel with even mentioning I had anything to do with that is NOT acceptable and will be taken as libel. Remove it altogether as this section has no relevance to the rest.
 * Seeing as you once accused this site of hosting child porn, you can fuck off. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I said remove it now. You want this site to have SOME FACTS on it REMOVE IT NOW ... I could care less what happened in the past. That article was removed. Now do the same or it'll go back up.


 * Go fart in a bucket, crybaby. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 18:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you mean to Kevin?  He's one of the best racist weather forecasters in the world, maybe the best who ever lived.  Plus he owns HARP.  --Marlow (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Change Title To This Link
The National Weather Service considers Martin to be an irritant and trademark plagiarist

This is found in External Links -

This is not even what the statement is about, therefore this needs to be changed. The statement is not even an attack on me. It states right there I can do what I feel like and have the right to do it. Therefore change the tile to "NOAA Public Information Statement"

Anything else will not be accepted.

Change your name to Captain Crybaby. Anything else will not be accepted. Sophie Wilder  18:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Kevin whines - "Anything else will not be accepted." Not accepted by whom?--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Kevin, please DIAF. After our two previous run-ins with you, I'm amazed you're dumb enough to show your face around here again. EVDebs (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

*Ahem*
"If this is not taken care of we will put an article out with libelous stuff on it about your company, including hosting child pornography. We are connected to Google News at TheWeatherSpace.com and we will most certainly make your site a living nightmare for not listening to us.

You are to REMOVE what we tell you, and I am the CEO of the company and I have that power to publish a libelous article about your site. We will accuse all staff members of child pornography and it will go on the top search engine searches for your site. We will further encourage all to not associate and/or donate to your site.

Do you really want to start a war with me, son?

Kevin Martin TheWeatherSpace.com CEO"

It is gold. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Beautiful iron pyrites.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 03:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "want to start a war with me, son". hey, how does he know if you are a boy?  ;-) [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  17:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * His first name is Trent?--Token Conservative (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The butthurt is strong in this one. He's just applied to join the RW Faceache page. -- PsyGremlin 話しなさい 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

More gold:

"So you Fucked up... I told you to remove the page "Kevin Martin" ... If it is not removed this will not be removed.

In 10 minutes it will be on Google Searches and Google News...

http://www.theweatherspace.com/2013/08/07/rationalwiki-site-admins-host-child-poronography-under-investigation/

Do the right thing or I'll destroy you ... Is it worth it? No ... It shouldn't be if I am going to destroy you."

Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone should screencap that bad boy in case it's needed down the road. 198.168.27.218 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will turn it over to capturebot. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From a legal standpoint, admitting you intend to "libel" someone is just funny as all hell.[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  19:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't do much for the credibility of a 'news' site either. 19:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He was, just now, all over facebook, James something, whining and moaning about how he was going to get us, and how dare we talk to him this way, and oh by the way, personally to me, "women have no right in this conversation, I shall ignore you till you get back to teh kitchen". seriously. lol.  ahhh, fun times![[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  19:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's now just an Error 404 page, gone but not forgotten and back up again. - Leuders (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What took him so damn long? - Leuders (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He had to find it first. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He wears a fedora. I'm... less than shocked. EVDebs (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove TheWeatherSpace.com as it is officially trademarked
RationalWiki is hearby ordered to remove "TheWeatherSpace.com" wording from this article as it is now trademarked. "TheWeatherSpace.com" mark may not be used without explicit permission.

Word Mark 	THEWEATHERSPACE.COM Goods and Services 	IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Providing a non-government issued private weather alert website. FIRST USE: 20100112. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100112 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code 	(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 	86214532 Filing Date 	March 7, 2014 Current Basis 	1A Original Filing Basis 	1A Owner 	(APPLICANT) Martin, Kevin INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 941 Cimarron Lane Corona CALIFORNIA 92879 Type of Mark 	SERVICE MARK Register 	PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator 	LIVE

You may search here - http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4810:4o4m7x.1.1

Under registration/serial number 86214532 -

Failure to comply with removing all "TheWeatherSpace.com" marks from this article will result in trademark violation, and even so a libel lawsuit is being given so to you like Kent's lawsuit. It's not worth it to continue this with me because you will go down if you do not comply. &mdash; Unsigned, by: This knob again / talk / contribs
 * I'm pretty sure that's not how trademarks work. Trademarks protect their holders from people using their names/titles/etc from engaging in commerce with those names/titles/etc. They don't prevent people from writing about or talking about those names/titles/etc. I cannot start a band called "The Who" and sell records/concert tickets with that name. Nothing in trademark law prevents me from writing a blog post, newspaper column, or book that refers to "The Who" by name. TeenageWasteland (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok then I'll just do what Kent is doing and sue for libel. There are way too many things on this 'article' that is not true. In fact, RW is officially satire. Never-the-less libel is not allowed and I've repeated said what to fix without it being done so now it's time to pull a lawsuit on RW and it'll be around the same damages as Kent due to potential new viewers being led the wrong way with this libel 'article'. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Who do you think? / talk / contribs


 * Kevin, FUCK OFF. EVDebs (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So the man who threatened to invent a libellous article accusing members of this Wiki of being paedophiles in a blackmail effort - and who then went ahead and created such an article which he himself described as libel - now wants to sue RW for libel? Have I got that right?
 * So I love Kevin's comment "Never-the-less (sic) libel is not allowed". However, in contrast to Kelvin's own cold-blooded, deliberate and confessed libel this all looks OK to me, and it's still not clear which particular facts he is disputing. --Coffee (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, going to get that lawsuit kicking soon. Problem is you have to PROVE I wrote it other than screenshots etc. Since any article such is not on my server, that will be tough to prove in court. However, this satire article site having stuff about people that is not true is plain as day. I will be having my lawyer send a lawsuit complain/summons over within the month. I hope RW goes down hard from what I'm about to do to them. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 108.185.144.157 / talk / contribs
 * So after threatening to write the article, emailing to say you had written the article and then putting the article on your site - you now say you didn't write it? Are you such a coward that you won't admit things that you've done? I didn't take you for a coward.--Coffee (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad some of the grownups showed up to comment. The rest of this page is a serenade to getting sued. Way to go. 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-lawyer who's dealt with Internet legal sabre-rattling on and off over the years, I would suggest nailing down every claim in this article - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC) While RW is all about snark and all that, am I the only one who thinks that David's suggestion is a far better response to a legal threat than attacking the individual doing the threatening? No matter how spurious the claims may be, goading someone into suing the RMF doesn't seem like a sound idea. It's not like legal defences are cheap. - Grant (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good advice. I've gone through the article before with exactly the same thing in mind, although I didn't see anything problematic, i.e. except for occasional snark, everything's just summarizing what's in the source. But feel free to scrutinize each citation. Leuders (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that there's some irony in an editor using an anonymous name to taunt someone over a subject he's threatened to sue on when someone else would foot the bill for hiring counsel to defend the suit, no matter how frivolous it is. RW has a disappointing coterie of cowardly and irresponsible big mouths with bad judgment. Yes, I'm talking directly to several of you. 16:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I got this same text sent to me by one "Meteorologist Kevin Martin" on Facebook. I assume other users have as well, or maybe just ones with the same name on FB and RW? Sophie Wilder  16:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The message was sent to me to everyone that comments here and on the RW FB Group Admin List. There are a ton of things on here that spells a lawsuit. Defamation is very hard to prove unless the article is live. Being the article I'm accused of is not live and hasn't been since it came out, RW is not being directly affected. However, this article being you are actively using SEO on search engines can be defamation/libel with major points on it. There are SOME true statements on it as I stated before that were never fixed. But I'm done getting this fixed. This article has remained active with libel on it in order to deter my new viewers to my work. What RW is doing is taking away from my site. I wouldn't have 50,000 people on my Facebook page for weather if I was "fake" etc etc. I know what I am doing, regardless ... and have been doing it for EIGHTEEN YEARS. So I'm telling you now RW keeping this article up will show any court that ACTIVELY you have been detering people from my sites, including my name and affiliation ON PURPOSE. Your article is there to purposely damage my business and name ... and that is what the court will find you guilty as. Removing the article now will drop it from search engines and I will drop a future lawsuit. It may be costly an expensive for RW to go into said lawsuit with me, but I have plenty of money in the business accounts for such a retainer with my lawyer. Do you? Since you are fighting the KENT vs RW lawsuit, do you really need to enter another one? ... one where I have NO ACTIVE articles on RW for libel/defamation nor will a search show such ... and you do to me ... As I said before, the choice is yours, but you need to make it soon because now-comers to my site are being steered away from potentially life-saving weather forecasts I put out and I put price tags on that. Make the right choice, I'll be meeting with my attorney in about a week to discuss filing against your site.
 * Get the page about RW hosting pedophilia removed from search engines, including the waybsck machine, and proceed from there. It strongly undermines your case. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 09:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Noy necessarily. Though I'm not sure how valid his claims are, or even if he's actually the real Kevin Martin, but either way, I don't think that him going "I'm gonna post libel" is enough to completely disprove his case. 11:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So, wait, is this actually happening, or…? 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "This knob again" needs to learn how to spell "hereby". Then go and take a long walk off a short pier.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 04:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's get serious now
Okay, so a genuine legal threat has been made, and we should probably actually do stuff about it. Kevin, could you please point out which parts of this article you believe a libellous, with evidence, so that we can start actually fixing this up? 12:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Y'all might have wait a while for a reply... 12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would anybody mind if I turned that block around for a while? We can't just go "lol bye" and hope that nothing happens. 12:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it - he might be a crank and troll but he's at least deserving right of reply.  PsyGremlin undefined 12:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All done. Seriously, we need to stop dismissing him and actually addressing what he says, because if he speaks the truth, there's a possibility that we could be in some degree of shit, which I would rather avoid. 13:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the number of other "lawsuits" Kmart has threatened and what actually became of them.... I'd say wait and see. The guy has a long history of being what is called around these parts "all mouth and trousers". Placeholder (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wayback I cannot control nor is it a searchable link on Google. Active links are only visible because 99.99% of the public do not know how to use the wayback machine and even so RW CP would not be searchable on any search engine anymore at the top. Once I was asked to remove it, it was removed and on no longer than a day. IT is not on search engines anymore. I've given what wasn't correct on here and RW told me to F off, etc and not fix it. This is why RW to many is a satire site. RW polls across the internet blatantly call this a satire site. Yes, I was suing NOAA/NWS but I dropped the lawsuit because my resources are now going to go onto something else, and that is RW. I am sick and tired of commenting on Facebook or any other site under my name and affiliation and having THIS linked back, steering people away. I will let RW decide to remove what I stated before but until then this is libel/defamation. My attorney is advising we move forward with a lawsuit and direct all resources. Hell I have to spend $5000 for a retainer with the attorney to get this on paper and move forward with it so if you think I'm happy about doing that you are crazier than you think of me. RW doesn't need to change anything anymore. That time has passed. I've now grown threatened in my business because this is on top of any search engine that I have to take measures into my own hands. You make this sound like I am a fake weatherman. When you know dang well if you followed my work in weather that I am very good at what I do and again 50,000+ on TheWeatherSpace.com Facebook would not stick around if I wasn't helpful. Many unlike pages to begin with if the person isn't correct. So that alone is a hint on what is libel/defamation on here but again I won't mention any lists because I gave you a very long time to change it. You were advised by your legal and law enforcement to not reply back to me via emails ... and that is fine ... But I will be working on that complaint and summons served to you guys in the next month. This is the last message I will give RW but you can expect that summons/complaint within the next month. - KM -108.185.144.157 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ruh-ro he's going to file a lawsuit now guize we are in so much. truble. Kevin, you are a joke and a pathetic man-child. We all know you are full of crap and empty threats, which is why no one takes you seriously. Please do actually pay money to get a lawyers advice so he can laugh you out of his office and perhaps you will actually learn something. FailDeadly (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the kind of statement that we shouldn't direct to someone threatening legal action. The fact of the matter is that no lawyer will "laugh [Kevin] out of his office" if he really decides to sue. If this talk page ends up full of vitriol directed towards Kevin, it's all the more likely this could actually go to court. I will remind everyone here that lawyers are not cheap, and someone is footing the bill. If the RMF runs out of money defending against even frivolous lawsuits, say goodbye to RW. - Grant (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He has no grounds for any sort of legal action at all. Mean words on the internet a lawsuit does not make. He makes empty threats like this every other week. Relax. FailDeadly (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any lawsuit that isn't resolved with a summary judgment costs money to defend, and summary judgment does not come as easily or as often as one might expect. Regardless of whether his threats are empty, any lawsuit that does come through costs the RMF a significant sum of cash to defend. Is it really so hard to just not respond to him? I'm not suggesting we tear down the article and cower, but many of the responses to him on this talk page seem (largely) pointless, useless, and antagonistic. - Grant (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested changes?
Said KM: "I gave you a very long time to change it." Both of his previous requests for changes to the articlehere and here were taken care of, so I'm not sure why the sudden ultimatum. Could this have anything to do with his currently publicizing his business on Facebook as featuring the "Country's craziest ROGUE Meteorologist"? archived copy. Leuders (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Previous requests & demands were mostly for the article to be deleted outright (see further up the page). This is not a reasonable request as Kevin Martin writes web content for a public audience and so should expect people to comment on it, as per freedom of speech.  If any aspect of our article is indeed libellous, it should and will be amended or corrected accordingly.  Can Kevin Martin or one of his people please identify clearly & specifically what statements in this article he considers to be libellous?  Can anybody else who just wants to jeer, sneer, or otherwise disrupt this dialogue as in sections above please consider not doing so.  Thanks.  20:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requesting is over. 1. You do not have the right to harass people or judge what they do online. That can be and will be entered in the suit. If I or anyone else does not directly affect you with our work, you have zero right to speak about us anywhere. There is no such thing as "Freedom Of Speech" when it comes to person to person. Freedom of Speech only works with the government vs the people. It does not and never will work with citizen to citizen, which is the case here. If I want all of this removed, I want all of it removed for good. That will be the only way I will not file a lawsuit for false light, invasion of privacy, damages to my business and image, and other such things I'm sure the attorney can find.

You can have your fun up until the person you are talking about finds out and if they tell you to remove something about them, you do it. There is no question about it nor does it violate any freedom of speech issues you may have ... because as stated above, freedom of speech does NOT protect you from citizen to citizen lawsuits. If I was a government employee then you can write about me, but since I am not ... and I say remove the entire article and be done with it ... it will be used against you. &mdash; Unsigned, by: The IP Kevin Martin guy / talk / contribs
 * Guys, I'm not gonna get involved right now, because I'm busy. But I would like to remind you all to be calm and not act like dickheads. Thank you. 01:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, MOD, I do have to say that the anonymous lawsuit threatener has some very interesting interpretations of the US Constitution. "There is no such thing as "Freedom Of Speech" when it comes to person to person." made me laugh, literally out loud, for about ten minutes.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 04:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Question. What difference do you think it would make if people do or do not act like dickheads? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for MoD, but I can offer my perspective. For one, someone acting like a dickhead and not being careful about it could actually stray into libel territory, and that would offer some credence to a lawsuit. Despite the "open" rules about talk pages that RW keeps, there's no reason a judge would make any real distinction between an article and a talk page. Furthermore, antagonizing someone threatening to sue is like goading someone to hit you; they may just end up more likely to take you up on that. When the common argument used to support acting like a dickhead is that the target is basically just making threats to get attention, how does giving them attention help? As far as I see it, in most cases, simply not responding would be an adequate and likely effective response to these legal threats. - Grant (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The other thing I notice is that some people seem to be under the mistaken impression that Kevin would be laughed out of his lawyer's office trying to press this suit. Filing a lawsuit is complicated, time-consuming, and not exactly cheap, but it's not rocket science either. Even if, by some crazy happenstance, no lawyer takes his case, he can always file pro se (and that's unlikely - there are plenty of lawyers who would take cases they can't win; they often still get paid for it). Summary judgment doesn't happen as often as some people might think, and any case that makes it past summary judgment costs money. Why should we goad people into suing us if it stands a chance of costing the RMF money, win or lose? - Grant (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I mean, instead of just pissing him off even further, I think we should minimise the chances of anything happening. 05:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're derailing this again. Please try to keep it about what KM is saying, not other people acting like dicks.  07:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but right now, he's not really saying much, and the stuff he I saying, I'm to lazy to address. I've tried talking to him, he just said "delete all of it", and so I'm done here, and I'm just reminding people that when they go to sort this out, they should not go trolling and inflaming him. 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked the question because here's how I see it: If he's serious about suing for the article content, and his statements in threatening the lawsuit have been honest, then he'll be suing regardless of what happens on the talk page. If he's not serious, and is merely bluffing to remove information he doesn't like, he's unlikely to sue regardless of what happens on the talk page. We don't know how likely he is to sue, but that's a different consideration from evaluating whether or not any particular action would make him more or less likely to sue. Further, my understanding of current law is that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 protects websites from liability for the individual comments of their users in situations like this. So while the RWF could in principle be sued for the article's content, any lawsuit for talkpage material would have to be directed at the individual responsible. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So either a person is definitely going to sue or they definitely aren't going to sue and either way there's nothing that anybody else can do about it? That seems like a strange dichotomy.  20:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, if someone comes to you and says that they're definitely going to sue unless you do a particular thing, they've probably already decided whether or not they're going to sue if you don't comply. Since I'm proposing that the decision has been made already, the dichotomy isn't strange at all. In a different situation, such as people from RW going to one of his pages and taunting him, dickheadedness could reasonably be expected to influence the chances of a lawsuit, but that's not what we're dealing with here. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete the article & don't buy this stuff about there being no protected freedom of speech. Can you cite what laws you're referring to when you say that? Again, can you also identify what aspects of the article you consider to constitute defamation or false light? Statements and quotes in it are cited from publicly visible online sources, including your own websites. 07:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While it would be great if these anonymous IP editors (or even logged in editors) were to specify exactly the points that "Kevin Martin" has issues with I think that we need to remember that - as far as this talk page is concerned - we have literally no idea whether or not these threats are being generated by "Kevin Martin". It could easily be some internet troll seeing how high he can make us jump.
 * I'm not saying that I believe this to be the case, I'm just pointing out that - as far as this talk page is concerned - we don't know. It might both be Mr Martin and malicious IPs. Whether or nor Mr Martin is in contact with the RW foundation over this issue is another question on which they might or might not wish to comment.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, it could be anybody, but since nobody is exactly jumping to placate the BoN & capitulate to his/her demands, I don't see that it makes much difference to this discussion. Contrary to the nonsense posted above, there's no obligation to remove content just because the person it's about tells us to, while there is an obligation to remove anything that's genuinely libellous, regardless of whether it's the article subject who identifies it or a third party.  17:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Actually I wasn't really addressing my comments to you. But as you have responded I would say that it does make a difference to this discussion as it it the BON who is carrying out the other side of the discussion and making complaints.
 * Clearly, however, if the article is genuinely libellous that should be corrected irrespective of the BON's comments. So we would seem to be saying the same thing.
 * My only point is that we don't really know who we are communicating with.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging by the IP location and the writing style, it's most likely him. And usually when he's threatening legal action he'll put something up on his various web and FB pages asking people to DONATE to the cause. Then again, nothing is certain, and KM tends to change stories like the wind changes directions, e.g."I didn't write that, my employee John Smith was using my computer without my knowledge". Leuders (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure it sounds like him. Like where the IP above claims that nobody can prove the libellous article written about RW was written by KM. But it's not really a difficult style to imitate.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I get the feeling we're not gonna get a straight answer on this, so, in case he does file a lawsuit, I'd suggest that we all start looking through the article and the sources, and removing any claims that are unsourced and potentially libellous, unless you can find a source which proves them correct. 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of us already did. I'm not sure about keeping the 'threats against RW' and RW Facebook group in, not particularly because of legal intimations but just because it all looks a bit self-referential & circle-jerky.  Otherwise I think the article is pretty much up to standard.  00:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The FB chat stuff is plausibly deniable since he used an alias, but the blackmail threats were I assume messages received by Trent and verifiable. Leuders (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I guess there isn't much else we can do, for the time being. 06:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Setting Capturebot2 on every reference page is probably a good idea, he's already tried to hide evidence - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great suggestion and catch, David!  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 03:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Stuff To Remove Completely, Stuff to ADD, and Stuff To Keep
WHAT YOU REMOVE

Entire THREATS AND CONFLICT SECTION All of them need to be removed. Screenshots don't count, nor do quotes ... Audio does not count either. That entire section needs to be removed.  External Links - Ohio Weather and Northeast Weather .. .removed. As well as the video link threats as those are LifeInATent aka My twin brother's video work and not me. So that does not belong here. Remove the parody TWS Facebook Page link - Has nothing to do with me and they are violating my trademark by using the name TheWeatherSpace -

Remove the following; Martin threatens to show up at Google and pound on a desk Martin threatens someone else with a lawsuit Martin threatens Encyclopedia Dramatica with...dildos Martin threatens to not pay taxes to the IRS Martin threatens people going to VidCon Martin threatens to beat the shit out of people The-Weather-Space", a FB parody of Martin's TheWeatherSpace.com ohioweatherauthority.com ( not my site ) www.northeastusweather.com (not my site )

First Intro - Remove this link in the intro - "the National Weather Service Headquarters issued a press release advising the public not to confuse official NWS or NOAA warnings with Martin's made-up stuff.[5][6]"

This was NOT what that was about. They are not official to the public and the public chooses who to listen to as their official source. The write-up was NOT anything against my work or telling people what is official and what is not ... Reword it differently if you don't remove it so it doesn't make my work look bad when I'm extremely accurate.

First Sentence(Self Proclaimed Senior Meteorologist)- Put "Kevin Martin is an Internet Weatherman" - And do not quote 'weatherman' and disrespect who I am. You leave it as that sentence without the judging.

TheWeatherSpace.com Section mentioning Daily KOS ... REMOVE IT. That storm hit and that 'article' was very libelous all the way around. Do NOT mention them again. No credibility comes from Daily KOS when it comes to my work. Another weather person jealous of another weather person will not be tolerated on this page as any 'fact' or consideration of such.

Career - "Lacking a Degree" needs to be removed. Do not judge people without degrees. Remove Lacking a Degree in Meteorology completely. This sentence can stay - "Martin considers himself a "weather savant". He has stated he suffers from "autism and obsessive compulsive disorder"[7] and that Asperger's syndrome makes him "gifted" in meteorology and gives him an "ability to understand it without studying it."[8]"

WHAT YOU KEEP - HAARP Status, Chemtrail, Global Warming - All can stay. Those seem to be the only true things in this entire 'article' on your site. That reflects what I am doing currently and that isn't being denied here.

WHAT YOU ADD ... - "Kevin Martin has autism, which enables him to forecast the weather.  Why?  Because someone with the disorder focuses on one subject their entire life.  That is why people with the disorder can be good at music, math, numbers, and various sciences.  Albert Einstein was said to have this disorder.  Here is your link reference to this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2988647.stm On top of that, Martin is a strong believer in God.  Attending Church weekly,  Martin believes he was born with a gift from God to forecast the weather and save lives."

Southern California Weather Authority - Anything Ricky Lukacs needs to be REMOVED completely. Do not disrespect a person and a friend of mine who died last year of a heart problem ... nor will I allow it on a page about me. Keep my personal friends and family OUT OF THIS PAGE ... There is NO negotiation, remove anything about Ricky.

-

My messasge to RW - Doing this will prevent any type of lawsuit to you because then your article will contain stuff that is 100% true, even from me. The only things that should be kept on a personal 'article' about someone is quotes from them that they can verify. Never take anyone else's word over someone else's, whom lives the life you are writing about. Their word (in this case mine) is always above yours or anyone else's.

-

I've given you what to remove completely, what to add, and what to keep. I'll watch for those changes to be made as that is all I will accept for this to be 100% non-libelous. 108.185.144.157 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't given a single legitimate justification for removing anything from this article. Please come up with something reasonable. You may have to research what the Lanham Act actually says and consider whether, under the standards you're stating here, any newspaper, encyclopedia, or public forum could ever mention a living person or extent corporation. For example, by your reasoning, why isn't Coke suing Wikipedia over its article. What about Ted Turner? 20:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Asuming that this is indeed Mr Martin I think that we could reasonably add the "WHAT YOU ADD" section along with a note that he asked us to include it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To protect the RWF (and Kevin Martin), please don't add things to an article suggested by some anon IP. You need to ensure it's actually Kevin Martin first. Leuders (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well he has demonstrated below that it's him. I just think that the "WHAT YOU ADD" section would be reasonable. I'm particularity impressed by: "Martin believes he was born with a gift from God to forecast the weather and save lives."--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If he honestly wants his religious beliefs noted in the article, he'll post them publicly somewhere on the web that's citation-worthy. His "publish stuff I anon post to the Talk page" game is bullshit. He's just crazy enough to deny the IP was him and then go for a religious discrimination angle.Leuders (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Because everything I stated is what will not damage my company or image enough to sue RW for it. So it's best to do everything I said and avoid the lawsuit. I don't know if RW has money to spend for this but I sure do and this isn't a bluff. Re-read everything I stated and do exactly as that states. 108.185.144.157 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You really need to identify this "you"/"I" person beyond an IP. Otherwise you are just some spammer.  Oops, even if you are the idiot you claim to be, you are just a spammer.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 06:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Because I said so" isn't a great argument. All of the above looks like things you just don't like about the article rather than identifying anything in it that is demonstrably false.  21:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this strategy ever work for you? As I've said, you haven't given any legitimate justification for removing anything from this article. I suggest actual analysis instead of bullying, emotion, and inaccurate statements. 22:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin, we are not your personal hagiographers, and (especially given your past behavior when dealing with RationalWiki and the widespread pattern of similar behavior elsewhere) you have no right whatsoever to dictate what's considered an acceptable source. If you continue to behave like an unhinged thug, you will be treated like an unhinged thug. (In fact, we might have a case against you for attempted extortion.) EVDebs (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

First things first, could you please offer some proof that you are actually Kevin Martin? Because, for all we know, you could be Baron von Holeshwinger from Buttfuckistan- there is not enough evidence to prove you are actually KM, and we want to be certain before we even start to consider removing huge portions of this article. Thank you. 23:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is how you know I am who I say I am. I uploaded it to my server, at TheWeatherSpace.com - http://www.theweatherspace.com/iamkevinmartin.jpg -

And no, this is not extortion. I'm not giving an ultimatum for money or services. I'm giving RW a chance to fix it correctly before someone that is NOT in prison (like Kent) throws a lawsuit on it. And yes, I will dictate what goes in here because only I KNOW what should go in here and only I KNOW about me ... You know NOTHING about me ... do not even think you do. All the mentioned above needs to be fixed because the article can be 100% with truth. After that is fixed, don't harass me anymore. I am not a public figure on TV ... I am a private citizen and writing about such CAN BE held against you if they deem it harassing and also hurting one's image ... Be very careful on this and your decision not to comply will reflect on the future of this site because as I stated before, I have more than enough money for a retainer and a legal battle ... My question to RW is ... DO YOU have enough to spend on a lawsuit? And before you go into the NOAA Lawsuit. I dropped that about a week ago because it's been since 2011 and it really didn't affect me. I payed $400 up front to the CA Court System to file it. Losing $400 to me is nothing. I gave $400 to a homeless person whom followed SCWXA ... the other day ... to help her. Money is NEVER an issue with me. You want people to stop calling RW satire then you start listening to those who tell you what is and what isn't okay to put on the site. If you continue this path, you'll be another Onion like site ...

I told you what to keep, what to remove, and if you want ... what to add ... to correct this page the right way in order NOT to get in the way of my business or personal image ... My business is weather forecasting and I'm damn good at what I do. This kind of crap is libelous to the extreme if it says otherwise. Your SEO is on the first page searching me and I will NOT ALLOW such things on here that will direct future viewers from my lifesaving information ... and of course my business. 108.185.144.157 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You sure do like talking about money. 00:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Enough. Made a donation to RMF to help with smacking down this pest. Leuders (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we seriously still paying this tin-hat any attention? TokenSkepticMagician Talk, comments, and 'UR a fag lol's 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin Martin. Let me explain this to you. You don't get to decide what's true, or what's not. You don't get to decide what is on this page. And you do not make demands of anyone. So let's get this straight. You will not muscle me around, and I get the feeling that you aren't going to muscle anyone else on this wiki around. So you can leave it at that, and go away. Or you can push this issue. But I can guarantee you this wiki will push back harder than you. So it is my suggestion you leave it be.ZeroIsLogic (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest this may be an unhelpful attitude for this situation. Best thing is to quietly make the article as good and useful as possible - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "You will not muscle me around. ..." Ok buddy. You're not even part of this discussion, so nobody is muscling you anywhere, so drop the Internet tough guy nonsense. If you were very angry, how would you react to some anonymous self-righteous twerp popping up out of the blue to aggressively run his mouth? In other words, you're not helping. 16:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A wiki is a community. If he threatens the wiki, he is threatening everyone that is part of it. That means he's threatening me. I don't know about you, but I don't like being threatened. I've always stood up to those who try to bully me or those I care about, and I care about this wiki. I'm not being an "internet tough guy", I'm just telling him he isn't going to be able to scare me into giving into his demands. Maybe I shouldn't have worded it to make it sound like the wiki shares my view on that, but I really thought that's how you all would feel.ZeroIsLogic (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What ZIL said! Scream!! (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No single one of us is Spartacus. least of all Nutty. I don't recall the part where he was proclaimed the adjudicator of this discussion. I've stayed out of it until now, for the reasons anyone with their head out in the open air should recognize, but I will be fucked several times sideways if I let legalistic bureaucracy dictate what anyone says, here or anywhere else. Most of us should STFU, especially Kevin, and right after this is an example of me doing just that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The private citizen argument might have some weight to it, except that Mr Martin's incorrect weather warnings were sufficient activity in the public sphere to (a) generate a National Weather Service press release specifically naming his coverage as problematic, issued in the public interest (as cited) and (b) for this to be a noted event in other weather media (as cited). If someone goes out of their way to attract attention in a given area (e.g. weather coverage) and there's considerable evidence this has attracted attention (which there is), to the extent a government service warns the public about them ... this makes problems for the claim to be a "private citizen" - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, what I think that everybody is asking for is proof that the article statements are false and libellous, because from what we can see, they are all true. So if you could do that, that'd be great. 08:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Time For Talk Is Over
I gave what needs to be done for this not to border harassment / libel to my image or business. Harassment is a big thing. Since I am in California let me point RW to this - http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Crime/CaliforniaPenal646-9.pdf - CA Penal Code for Cyberstalking and harassment. This page is evidence of cyberstalking and harassment. It's best to remove it completely or I will also file with my attorney against the owner of this page on this penal code + a lawsuit for damages. Regardless, if the ENTIRE PAGE now is not taken down, under CA law ... I will have a summons/complaint filed and delivered to RW within the next month. 108.185.144.157 (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC) - aka KMartin
 * Please see our guide for individuals or companies we cover and legal FAQ if you haven't already consulted these. 11:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We will consult the "guide" for the address for your summons/complaint. Since I feel this is cyberstalking/harassing, it is in violation as well. See you in court unless you remove this page altogether before it is filed. If not, I'll force you to remove it and sue you for the damages caused. This is the last contact from me as advised from my attorney yesterday that he will handle it from here. 108.185.144.157 (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC) UTC)
 * Look, we have not violated a single part of that law. We have not cyberstalked or harassed you. We have not threatened or libelled you. We have just presented facts, with evidence, regarding yourself and your business. This is done for the purpose of, essentially, academic criticism. But you know what, I'm done here. I'm not trying to help deal with this situation anymore. 12:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When did telling the truth about who you are and what you do turn into "cyberstalking/harassing"? You are obviously insane.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 06:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't listen, he continues with empty threats; just ignore this self-victimizing high-horsed attention whore. Even if this article is full of lies, tabloids and gossip magazines are legal, so he's not any more special. LEFTY GREEN  MARIO 07:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that we should be clear however that, as far as we are aware, the article is not full of lies and if it were we would remove them a soon as they were identified. So whatever gossip magazines may do is not really important to us.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Even is a key word here. I'm trying to make an analogy here.
 * Wikipedia:"There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen"
 * Is the statement false? If so, where's the proof? Is the proof valid? So far, those that accuse the article of being hazardous still have made no valid evidence to back it up. LEFTY  GREEN  MARIO 07:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is shitty & unhelpful. Tabloids & gossip mags aren't immune from libel proceedings, and neither are websites, but I don't think we need to be tarred with the same brush.   10:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd very much like to help Kevin correct any inadequacies in the article. Could you point them out, please, Kevin, so that we could correct any errors? Thanks! Hipo crite 11:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And if he could do that without threatening to sue us on every other line that would be nice. Of course, the article is tight and clean, and KM is neither. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 03:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Kevin whines again about how being written about truthfully sucks if you are a bit of an idiot
Bring it on, child. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  03:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer
Would like a disclaimer on the very top of this page before the content.

Disclaimer should read ... "This page contains events written by third-party, which may or may not contain facts, so read at your own risk or belief."

In bold ...

That should hinder any lawsuit I would give RW. A simple link at the bottom like you have it will not work. I need it to be the first thing read before content is read on this page because no one clicks that small link you have on the bottom of a page. Must be on the top, before the content, and in BOLD. 76.90.46.5 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The first rule about lawsuits: Do not threaten them, file them first. As you have no motivation to do so, I will suggest that nobody honors this request. Zero (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a stupid attitude. Please don't encourage people to sue the RWF.  There's far too many of these kind of comments on this page.  18:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I do have the money and motivation to do so but that line I said above is the only thing that will stop me from doing it. A bold disclaimer before that would be okay with me to maintain anything on the page. 76.90.46.5 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the purpose of the disclaimer outlined above. We have articles on many subjects, and this one isn't a special case.  All info in it is factual to the best knowledge of the editors who wrote it, and is cited to external sources wherever appropriate.  I don't think readers are at "risk" from reading it, but are of course welcome to believe or disbelieve it as they wish and read other things as well or instead, this being the normal prerogative of anybody reading anything and not something that needs to be covered by a disclaimer.  18:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems pointless when that is, essentially, already covered in our general site disclaimer. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't factual and I am the source so when I say it isn't factual then it isn't. The only thing you go by is either my words OR court documents. Those are the ONLY things that will be deemed "factual". And no, it does not cover in the general disclaimer because NO ONE scrolls to the bottom to read that. I want a disclaimer before the content because this will not be the first thing people read and deter MY REPUTATION for businesses, clients, and future jobs. What I say stands, put the disclaimer in BOLD on the top before any content is read. 76.90.46.5 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Last week you said "This is the last contact from me as advised from my attorney yesterday that he will handle it from here." So what's this new thing about? Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 18:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Because I know I can probably shut the site down when I sue you guys and I asked my attorney if adding that would stop the need to do so ... and it was agreed on that it would since I agreed on it. Little bottom link disclaimers never get read by the people ... I JUST saw it on the bottom. No one looks there ... bold on the top, before the content ... This is about refuting pseudoscience... Refute that all you want, haarp, chemtrails, etc, but LEAVE MY PERSONAL SELF OUT OF IT ... 76.90.46.5 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Also this link in "TheWeatherSpace" - In 2014, a Daily Kos weather blogger refuted Martin's warnings of a blockbuster winter storm, calling TheWeatherSpace.com an "infamous conspiracy theory website" and Martin "a fake "meteorologist" who thrives on creating hoax weather forecasts in order to drive page hits to his website for ad revenue".[20]

Add ... "However, judging by the comments section's comments, Martin was correct and a major storm did hit the Eastern United States" -

Yes, that is clearly seen in the comment section with people calling the 'writer' out .. -

Don't hide those things from people if you want me to think this article is anywhere near okay. 76.90.46.5 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this? I'm going through the comments now. I've got as far as "Can I do the same for Kevin Martin, who for a good part of this evening, filled Weatherdude's inbox with lawsuit threats? People who are right tend not to do that." I haven't got to the bit where people say you were right yet. They must be further down. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 19:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, looks like the weather info you passed off as your own turned out to be correct. By the way, have you aver actually sued any of the people you threatened to sue? If so, what was the outcome? Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I dropped the NOAA lawsuit because a friend of mine now works for them and I don't need to take money from resources that may save lives ... doesn't solve anything. Other than that others I was going to enter in a lawsuit I found ways to prevent it ... I usually find ways to prevent it. As I am doing here ... It's the only way it will be prevented ... And also as you stated, I was correct about the storm even if that nobody said I was a hoax on it... It did happen .. so it should be written on this page as such 76.90.46.5 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Our article is reporting criticism of you and your work by a Daily Kos writer. People who put themselves in the public eye are often subject to criticism. Leuders (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Then fix it and add I was correct. It doesn't swing ONE WAY here ... I want that added immediately or this is nothing but an attack article, SIMPLE AS THAT. Daily Kos is not even credible at this point. 76.90.46.5 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (If this is really Kevin Martin and not some kid in Corona trolling RW) Can you point out where the Daily Kos writer retracted his criticism and said you were correct? Leuders (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point! He is NOT CREDIBLE because we are in the same forecast field. That is called a hit article, period. The comments toward the bottom clearly show those people were against him saying it was NOT a Hoax ... The 'writer' has ZERO credibility at this point. No HIT ARTICLE is credible. 76.90.46.5 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the deal Kev, nothing you say or do will make any changes to this article whatsoever. End of story. Acei9 21:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Then RW will have a very painful end to their site when the lawsuit hits. I hate putting people out of business but if you don't play by the rules, you get burned. 76.90.46.5 (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you care so much-- Mikal |  lakiM  22:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's an unfavorable article about him that apparently ranks highly on Google. Are you really this big a moron, Mikal? Kevin, The RMF pulled in less than 10 grand last year. We do, however, defend lawsuits. We have no assets beyond a few grand in the bank and some domain names. Everyone, you suck at this. Just stop and let Kevin either sue the RMF or go away. It's his choice. There's now nothing else to discuss once he's made a threat. Trent will be implementing a policy similar to Wikipedia's No Legal Threats. It would have foreclosed all this inane discussion. You can discuss the merits of the article, but none of you has any business taunting Kevin to sue. You suck. 00:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've inserted your disclaimer, as requested (and edited). Please don't sue anyone, but please do go away. <font color="Red">Hipo <font color="Teal">crite 12:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's now been removed. And a good thing too. None of our articles about living people were written by the subject himself or herself (at least, they shouldn't have been). We've got plenty of other pages that say unflattering things about living people and none of them have such a disclaimer. There's no good reason to add one here. Spud (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As someone who recently started browsing this site instead of doing homework, I would encourage you not to make changes to the article or add disclaimers based on threat of legal action. If the community at RW believes the article is in line with RW standards (personally I see nothing wrong with the article) it would compromise the standards by changing them because of, well, butthurt. Even if a suit was filed, publicity about the ridiculous nature of the suit, as well as the erratic behavior of the filer of the suit, would most likely end up with RW getting some coverage from at least some news sites/organizations, and if RW asked for donations in such a case, I for one would donate. I'm also sure that I would not be the only one donating. 199.19.95.160 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

SEO Purposes
http://www.rational-wiki.org/ - That'll have stuff added to it and climb the SEO charts like you morons are doing to others.


 * TK, is that you again? <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 03:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer.
Put the disclaimer BACK ON THE PAGE. No one who isn't an RW admin mess with it either. You want to get them sued then you put that GD disclaimer back on the page on the top.
 * No, I don't think so. 00:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * RW Admin... so... does that mean sysops or moderators? -- Mikal |  lakiM  00:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have bigger things you should be spending your wealth of free time on. 198.144.156.137 (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone who would be directly affected by a future lawsuit.
 * The only people qualified to discuss a future lawsuit are the RMF board. See our legal FAQ page for contact details.  As mere editors, the rest of us can discuss issues with the articles and any proposed changes.  Sorry, but there is no reason for it to include any kind of disclaimer other than the standard ones linked at the bottom of the page.  This is one of our many articles and is not a unique or special case.  00:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage disclaimer
Perhaps we can add a disclaimer to this talk page reading "Kevin Martin frequently posts legal threats to this page - please ignore him"? Acei9 01:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would rather see a lulz ahead warning. At least he isn't on ED, yet. He probably will be if he keeps up this qq and then he will really shit bricks. 198.144.156.137 (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, he already is 198.144.156.137 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't know he have a ED page until now (and ED is down). Anyway, I found this link from the FTC that Martin brothers's services is not legitimate as well as this Yahoo! Answers hinting the Martin brothers's involvement in it in California. If you want to add it in, be my guest. It seem somewhat essential. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing essential about any Yahoo Answers page. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Daniiieeeel why you write so funny it seem you not have english as native language. Leuders (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, but I glad that you found it to be humorous. You can go ahead and fix it if you find any mistakes. Oh and I have recovered old Citation #45, National Weather Service confidential letter goes public, Kevin Martin responds, old Citation #47 NOAA Vs Kevin Martin Lawsuit Fundraiser Plea For Help, and old Citation #48, Fraudulent activity in the chaser community that use to be in Section Threats to NOAA and NWS. I also found a bonus Citation of him having to revise his life story on his site two times. Threats to NOAA and NWS could use a expansion again --Daniiieeeel (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your fine research. Have you read the sections above? The ones where Kevin has been threatening legal action against RW? And how someone will have to pay out real money just to respond to his frivolous legal fantasies? The article has been scrubbed of anything that's not bulletproof for a reason. I invite you to chill out for the time being rather than look for hot sticks to poke up his ass. Cordially, Leuders (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that Daniiieeeel stop editing the page? He just added a bunch of stuff, some of which is dubiously-sourced, such as from an internet forum where it appears that Martin posted (which may be fine, but then it should be stated as "someone claiming to be Kevin Martin posted stating..." - a statement of fact). Also, it's rife with typos.  Given that there have been lawsuit threats, the references and language should be kept pretty solid.  I just signed up, so I'll leave it to the veterans to decide whether to revert or edit the changes.Belfrey (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "his brother made banters of "love my brother's ass" ?? Yeah, so maybe the next time KM arrives on the Talk page demanding the article be cleaned up, we can make a big show of removing Danieeeeel's ED-caliber additions and come off like great guys. Leuders (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Realistically, it most likely is KM+BM posting at that site. They do crazy shit like that in efforts to influence internet perception. I would agree that *if*, and only *if*, an issue is made out of it, we add the "someone claiming to be KM/BM" part. Removing the additions all together would allow the info to slip away, rather than retaining it in a modified form to further illustrate the character of this public figure.ROPChain (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even more realistically, I think the question is "how much is too much?" If you trawl through Facebook and various other internet forums and comment sections you'll invariably find that KM changes his story or threatens to sue or injure people on a weekly basis. The frantic "he change his site again" reporting is better suited to WIGO. From what I understand, the folks who pay for and manage RW allow a certain amount of latitude to people who want to write articles refuting batshittery and foibles of the loonies perpetuating it, but that latitude isn't infinite. Leuders (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do agree that this page does not need constant updates about the current state of/changes to his various websites ROPChain (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Facebook shows him the door
Looks like he's gotten booted off of Facebook (again). No surprise that he plans to "sue" Facebook. --Marlow (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt it, he have hidden his page from the public. If he is booted off, his Facebook will look like this, not like that. That exactly the same trick someone pull off. Shame that most of the people will fall for it though. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

His sites/facebook are down, so some citations need to be re-sourced to archives of those pages
Specifically citations 32,39,40,41,46 now go to dead pages. Considering the level of scrutiny this article is under, we need to resource those citations, to either screenshots of the content, or some archived copies of the content.


 * His Twitter, FB, and theweatherspace.com are all 404. Could be he got forcibly taken down or could be just another one of his intentional drama shenanigans. Let's wait and see. Leuders (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything should already be an archive link and every page should be image-captured - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Beware, Kevin been messing with the page (obvious because he can't even provide us any good citations to back up his claims). If you use ip2location.com on 108.89.100.22 and 156.3.107.253, you will see both of them originating from Southern California, the place where both him and his brother live at. Daniiieeeel (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I bet it is another one of his intentional drama shenanigans to drive hits to his yet-to-be-discovered new website. (And records show that weatherspace.com isn't down until May 13, 2014.) After all, he took down all of his Twitter, FB, and theweatherspace.com after Josh Soma tweet to him about getting a lawyer to help him in suing Facebook over his chemtrails page and probably everyone who see his tweet start laughing at him. Words also go around that he use "like" bots on his new yet-to-be-discovered Facebook and that he plan to have his brother release bots on all the folks talking about that and many "embarrassing" moments. (As well as spreading this article around.) --Daniiieeeel (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like theweatherspace.com is up for grabs. If I felt like being an asshole, I'd buy it up and redirect it to RW's page on Kevin Martin. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You must as well redirect publicweatherservice.com to RW's page for the lulz. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to spend the $69.99 plus commission. RW's page is the second hit on Google search. Who knows, it may soon be #1. Leuders (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, so he moved everything over to publicweatherservice.com and now is going by the name Joshua Tyler. If his plan is to keep changing pages, sites, domain names and personal names so often that's it's impossible to have an accurate article about him...then he may just succeed! Leuders (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to run around changing everything each time he tries to wipe his trail? --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Naw we don't need to, but since some of the content in this page uses those citations to "prove" the content in the page, and this article should be bulletproof, it might be a good idea to just replace those cites with archived copies.ROPChain (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those citation numbers I posted were not archive links, they were direct links. Someone went ahead and changed them to archives, thanks.ROPChain (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Issue has been taken care of, someone switched them to archives, thanks. ROPChain (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

He made it on the news
On the 12th paragraph, in Gawker news article, it mention his involvement in the chemtrail circle. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The following are nice things to do rather than cyberstalk Martin and be an irritating single purpose editor on RW: take a walk outside, write a paper letter to an old person, tell someone you love them, bake a cake, volunteer at an animal shelter so you can pet lots of kittens, read a classic book, take up a hobby, make new friends, etc. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They make you clean up cat shit when you volunteer, or wrangle the adult cats, not play with kittensROPChain (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how it is called cyberstalking when someone share with me this article on Facebook and I look into it. In fact, I wouldn't know of the article if it isn't on my News Feed when I log in to Facebook this morning. Thank you for the helpful suggestions though and I apologize if I cause any inconvenience. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Updates?
Anybody have any more information on what's up with his apparent vanishing from the internet? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The information I got from observation about his apparent vanishing from the internet is most likely 1.) his attempt in covering his spotty tracks to start anew or 2.) keep a low profile so he can better infiltrate Facebook and issue them an ultimatum letter demanding his pages back or refund him so he can start anew. This is not a hunch. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is great: . Did not know he'd been chased off by the Menlo Park police before, and now he's broadcasting from there today at 9:30 PST? Stay sober. Leuders (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage in The Vane (a pretty cool weather nerd blog): Of course, Mr Martin has also threatened the writer - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Massive Protest!. tmtoulouse 14:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is looking more and more like a comedy. Leuders (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Facebook supports child pornography!"
 * Audio of ‪Kyle and Josh‬'s‪ security lobby protest‬: "Hi there. Doing good? We got these for you. Thankyou."
 * Facebook must be pissing itself. <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 15:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like BeforeItWasNEws took down the links we had. Did anybody jaunt down the new URLs of his webshites? They were listed in that article. We need to update them to the article ASAP. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't update it yet. His new weather websites aren't really permanent. They keep getting shut down, he keeps changing them. "Public Weather Service.com" was the last one, I think... Leuders (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Public Weather Sevice.com is not the last one, it actually evolved into Alternate Weather Service. Going by the date it go down, it eventually become WeatherAlertCentral.com. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thanks to someone who archived the BeforeItWasNEws page, we can see his URLs as of yesterday were WeatherAlertCentral.com, and Southern California Weather Central.com...but these too are now dead. Leuders (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Cash gifting scheme reborn?
His latest GoFundMe thing solicits "investors" who wish to "double their money" e.g. if you pay him $500 now, in 6 months you get $1000. Mmmmright. Leuders (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Double your money back, guaranteed!! Fortunately it looks like it got shut down. Even a few people in his facebook group where skeptical.  Someone earnestly asked him, why he was offering 100% interest when he could just get a loan for a few percent... hmm I wonder why? --Marlow (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Legally problematic postings on this page
[wearing my RMF board member hat] As someone whose problem it actually is to deal with legal threats surrounding RW, I (after discussion with other board members) just revision-deleted some recent discussion and speculation on allegations surrounding Kevin Martin on this talk page. You know we wouldn't do that if it weren't serious. Many of us on RW have opinions about Mr Martin, but we do ask people that they keep things decorous on the topic. We really can't just talk shit on RW about people, even by implication - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)