User talk:Redvers - Wikipedia
1 person in discussion
for the * ! NawlinWiki 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I deleted the vandalism about you being gay for you. Who did that, anyway? Block time? For sure.The mann hu new 2 much 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I found out! The vandal is none other than user:MONGO! Block time? I think it'd be best. The mann hu new 2 much 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I feel that it is better if the public can read it:
"I an truley sorry for my homophobic, racist, and incivil comments, and i hope we can forget them, and build a stable freindship using a new account"
Dear REDVERS:
I see that the old Wikipedia entry for ‘Jay Mariotti’ has been deleted (“Logs”); that it was David Monniaux who undertook this action (17:41, 30 August 2006); and that the reason he gave is that “Almost all the sections in this article had big warnings complaining about lack of sources and contained potentially libelous material.”
What I myself had noticed about the old ‘Jay Mariotti’ entry, and have pointed out to different Wikipedia administrators in the past (including you), is that content-wise and organizational-wise, the entry read very much like a smear of its ostensible subject matter.
In fact, I noticed this the first time I ever looked at the entry (around June 24-25), and have tried to call it to several people’s attention.
Now I do not know whether Wikipedia archives the history of entries that are subsequently deleted. But if Wikipedia does, then I strongly urge administrators to take a look at the history of the now-deleted ‘Jay Mariotti’ entry. As I wrote to you on August 22 (“Merging ‘Jay the Joke’ into ‘Jay Mariotti’”), of the approx. 178 different versions of this Wikipedia entry that had existed through August 22, the entry remained tolerably accurate and fair through 06:58, 15 June 2006. But this ceased to be the case at 18:08, 21 June 2006 or shortly thereafter, and the entry ever since then had become so riddled with biases against its ostensible subject that it read like an expression of these biases, rather than an entry about the individual under whose name it appears.
Presumably, this kind of basic objection is what David Monniaux had in mind when he executed the decision to delete the entry in its entirety.
On a related matter, I am very intrigued by David Monniaux’s comment to a user named “Shermerville” that he regards “Shermerville” to be a “sockpuppet” (17:41, 30 August 2006). As I’ve also mentioned in the past, Wikipedia’s “anyone can edit” philosophy makes this project just as vulnerable to what we might call negative (or black) sockpuppeting as it does to the other, more positive self-promotional kind. Much of the history of the now-deleted ‘Jay Mariotti’ entry after 06:58, 15 June 2006 struck me as the product of negative sockpuppeting.
If there is any validity to this judgment at all, then David Monnaiux did well to delete the entry. Since its post-June 15 revisions paralleled very closely a negative publicity campaign that has been carried out against the Chicago Sun-Times’s sports columnist Jay Mariotti in recent months, Wikipedia might consider studying the post-June 15 revisions in this light.
Should you (or anyone else among the Wikipedia administrators) wish to pursue this with me further, feel free to email me at davidepet@comcast.net.
Thanks.
Thank you! :) michael talk 03:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your help with that IP block. If this happens to me again, could I contact the admin and have him/her do the block the other way? --P. B. Mann 03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll stop my discussion with him/her. My hope was, as Golbez's was initially, that the user would calm down and actually want to have a rational discussion. It kinda worked that way, but not really. Anyway, I'll take my leave from making comments to the user completely. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
No problem. It doesn't count as a wheel war, I think, if you *amplify* my ban instead of negating it. ;) You have a point, he did not immediately withdraw the threat, until he does there can be no quarter given. And the funny thing is, I'm usually very draconian - I probably am in the top 10 of admins dealing out permabans, so the one time I decide to give the guy a chance... Oh well, I can still hope. You did the right thing. --Golbez 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Just to let you know, I've unblocked him, after he retracted all of his statements, but I suggest we both keep a close watch on him. --Golbez 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi.
Just logged on to add some more content to a thread I produced yesterday (about the radio station 99.9 Radio Norwich) and I see it's been edited. Not only this but someone/some people have been editing it to the extreme. Can anyone shine any light on this and explain whats been going on?? This station is very close to my heart and I thought the information was constructive and informative, yet it appears to have been vandlised. It doesn't encourage me to spend the time taking part in this site and sharing my wide and indepth knowledge of the UK radio scene. I suppose a few spoil it for the rest.... ;(
Cheers, Sean Sean Cooper 21:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Further to my posting above, is it possible to delete the whole page please? I've just been reading through all the edits and think to avoid further silly actions, edits, etc that it would be better to delete the whole page. It's quite discouraging to see so much silliness on a page I thought would be useful and informative, especially since I spent much time researching the details and double checking them. Think this would probably be best. Shame a few spoil it though...
Thanks, Sean Sean Cooper 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) ;(Reply
Hi Redvers. I would like to ask you how you made the graphic for CelestianPower that he put on his page. I really like it and I would enjoy it if you would make one for me or tell me how you made it so I can try. Thanks.--Chili14 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Even though you had declined my unblock request,I appreciate your taking time to give it a a thought.I am not perturbed by being blocked but exercising block on first impression when you really haven't cared to look into the matter is arbitrary and it happened with me second time in sucession even if I discount 1st block which was equally dubious.For reasons as asked by you plz see here.[1].Thanx HW 08:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Super appreciate the barnstar...I also thank you for all your excellent work, and for supporting my efforts!--MONGO 23:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Reply
Hi Redvers! Thanks for giving me my first barnstar :)-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs 10:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
- And thank you for mine too. Appreciated. :D The JPStalk to me 21:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
[2]. Thanks :) Mangojuicetalk 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Any chance you could take a look? --Guinnog 21:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank-you so much for sorting this out. -Kieran 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
65.184.18.231 has put on my talk page that Im a sockpuppet for TripleH1976 as if this is fact. its entirely wrong and the association is slanderous. what is clear is that 65.184.18.231 has been making these personal attacks previously as WorkingHard and his sockpuppets - just look at the edits made for both and associated ip addresses and you can see hes been doing this for a long time. This user is a constant nuisance to Wikipedia. Please look into it. Cumberbund 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy. I think the design would be a clear background with my sig exactly like it looks now. Thank you and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sorry once again for the delay!--Chili14 23:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You may be surprised to know you are dealing with a few of the people intimatley involved with this case. All edits to Wiki have been shown verifiable via links such as cnn, msnbc, as well as links to the actual court documents. For some reason you must have fallen in love with the user Cumberbund, who is in fact a webmaster that wanted the webhosting job and we decided NOT to hire him because of his criminal history. We DID in fact hire Charlotte Web Hosting, which you can plainly see in the supporting links, (CNN has a TON of them) This user Cumberbund has erased anything on the Jessica page he does not agree with. The unfortunate thing about it is, everything we post is FACT and verifiable via affadavits from court and coroner's reports. Cumberbund may choose to disagree with them, but he is doing nothing more then vandilising Wiki, using the tried and true "troll" way of arguing, (Act like the victim in the argument) We may not be as Wiki inclined as he is, that does not mean our points are not valid as much, or in this case way more then his, as we actually hold in our hand court released documents. Cumberbund is in fact a 34 year old person with a very extensive criminal history, you may leave us an email address for more information for conclusive PROOF. Cumberbund has NO reason to be on wiki except to take off any mention of webhosting whatsoever, like the spoiled child who didn't get a lolipop, he whines, and you so far have been doing an EXCELLENT job of helping him. Instead of going in gun ho, read the links, do the research, THEN come to Wiki to have your say. He says the webhosting is not relevant to her story, then ask him why for months he has ONLY made edits to remove the webhosting part and leaving everything else untouched. If he had been hired to host the site, you can BET he would be all over wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lunsford
Look at every one of his contributions, he is using wiki for nothing more then a personal harrassment tool. Feeding into him isn't what we'd expect from this kind of person Nicholas.
If you have ANY doubts at all of his sockpuppetry, run an ip search for his postings all over Wiki, you might be very amused. He has already been told by OTHER admins to LEAVE information that has been verified on the jessica lunsford entry, which he has refused to do. I'd also like to mention, he says that the webhosting is not important part of her story, it was VERY important, it DID do a verifiable 9 million unique hits in 10 hours, Alexa DOES show it, and yet once again, google this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=charlottewebhosting+lunsford+&btnG=Search
Of course, you know, for him it's (If I didn't host it, no one will) He has spent the last YEAR making websites all over the net talking about Jessica Lunsford, putting DOWN Mark Lunsofrd AND Jessica, as well as trying to libel/slander Charlotte Web Hosting in any way he can. I'm sure he's found a friend in you on Wiki.