The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Sandifer calls "Brandt, Bagley" "nutjobs", ...odd, B&B's proof shows Sandy's WP friends to be nuttter
Piperdown
post Fri 12th October 2007, 5:04pm
Post #21


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Fri 12th October 2007, 4:58pm) *

Fred can't be that dumb, though.


I'm sure someone at the Col. State Bar said the same thing once.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Fri 12th October 2007, 8:47pm
Post #22


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/082763.html
QUOTE
[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Fri Oct 12 14:28:17 UTC 2007

We possibly erred in deleting the article on him. This latest mention in the Slate article may have tipped the balance with respect to notability. If he is taken serious by mainstream media, perhaps we ought to have an article. Or perhaps we should make an explicit exception for subjects we are too close to, and not have articles for such subjects.

Fred

I predict that they will start another bio on me. This time it's even clearer than it was when Slim started it, that the general context is a feeling among certain admins on Wikipedia that it's time for malicious payback. That means everything in the bio had better be completely NPOV and accurate, or I'll have a defamation case even if the court decides that I'm a public figure.

The important thing, however, is that restarting my bio pushes Florida's two-year statute of limitations ahead, because it has expired now for the original bio.

Oh goody, another two years to find a kick-ass Section 230 lawyer who is willing to do it pro bono.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Derktar
post Fri 12th October 2007, 8:56pm
Post #23


WR Black Ops
******

Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,029
Joined: Sat 11th Aug 2007, 3:37am
From: Torrance, California, USA
Member No.: 2,381

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 12th October 2007, 1:47pm) *

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/082763.html
QUOTE
[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Fri Oct 12 14:28:17 UTC 2007

We possibly erred in deleting the article on him. This latest mention in the Slate article may have tipped the balance with respect to notability. If he is taken serious by mainstream media, perhaps we ought to have an article. Or perhaps we should make an explicit exception for subjects we are too close to, and not have articles for such subjects.

Fred

I predict that they will start another bio on me. This time it's even clearer than it was when Slim started it, that the general context is a feeling among certain admins on Wikipedia that it's time for malicious payback. That means everything in the bio had better be completely NPOV and accurate, or I'll have a defamation case even if the court decides that I'm a public figure.

The important thing, however, is that restarting my bio pushes Florida's two-year statute of limitations ahead, because it has expired now for the original bio.

Oh goody, another two years to find a kick-ass Section 230 lawyer who is willing to do it pro bono.


Oh crap, here we go again.

I predict another 14 AFDs. Hell let's shoot for 50!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Fri 12th October 2007, 9:16pm
Post #24


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



Daniel still has a bio on the Spanish WP.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt


Perhaps some of the more compassionate people on WP will fight this next attempt? Too bad A Man in Black is MIA.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jorge
post Fri 12th October 2007, 10:24pm
Post #25


Postmaster
*******

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 1,910
Joined: Tue 28th Feb 2006, 11:54am
Member No.: 29



QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:16pm) *

Daniel still has a bio on the Spanish WP.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt


Perhaps some of the more compassionate people on WP will fight this next attempt? Too bad A Man in Black is MIA.

But if they have a bio on Daniel, won't they have to mention that he is claimed to have stated on Slate.com that an editor on Wikipedia, SlimVirgin was a likely MI5 agent?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Fri 12th October 2007, 10:31pm
Post #26


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 4:24pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:16pm) *

Daniel still has a bio on the Spanish WP.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt


Perhaps some of the more compassionate people on WP will fight this next attempt? Too bad A Man in Black is MIA.

But if they have a bio on Daniel, won't they have to mention that he is claimed to have stated on Slate.com that an editor on Wikipedia, SlimVirgin was a likely MI5 agent?


Especially if that was the incident that "tipped the balance."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Fri 12th October 2007, 10:35pm
Post #27


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:24pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:16pm) *

Daniel still has a bio on the Spanish WP.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt


Perhaps some of the more compassionate people on WP will fight this next attempt? Too bad A Man in Black is MIA.

But if they have a bio on Daniel, won't they have to mention that he is claimed to have stated on Slate.com that an editor on Wikipedia, SlimVirgin was a likely MI5 agent?


Brandt claimed? I thought Brandt's sources claimed, not Brandt.

By the bye, does Sandifer, Gerard, Baudy, and the rest of the Motley Crew think that John Cooley is a "nut" ? We know that Weiss thinks Patrick Byrne is, and we know that Slim Underground thinks that her old boss Pierre went Nutty (for the Jayjg oversights tell us so!), but I just want to figure out why Brandt and Bagley are nutty. Quoting very reliable sources and showing IP logs = nutty. Hmmm.

I guess if you repeat the wikilie long enough, and threaten any dissenters with banning, you CAN get the wikinazis to salute you. Or be shipped to WR with your carcass!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Sat 13th October 2007, 1:24am
Post #28


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 12th October 2007, 8:47pm) *

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/082763.html
QUOTE
[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Fri Oct 12 14:28:17 UTC 2007

We possibly erred in deleting the article on him. This latest mention in the Slate article may have tipped the balance with respect to notability. If he is taken serious by mainstream media, perhaps we ought to have an article. Or perhaps we should make an explicit exception for subjects we are too close to, and not have articles for such subjects.

Fred

I predict that they will start another bio on me. This time it's even clearer than it was when Slim started it, that the general context is a feeling among certain admins on Wikipedia that it's time for malicious payback. That means everything in the bio had better be completely NPOV and accurate, or I'll have a defamation case even if the court decides that I'm a public figure.

The important thing, however, is that restarting my bio pushes Florida's two-year statute of limitations ahead, because it has expired now for the original bio.

Oh goody, another two years to find a kick-ass Section 230 lawyer who is willing to do it pro bono.


Why not sue the editors who actually write the article, thereby bypassing the section 230 defense altogether?

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:35pm) *

By the bye, does Sandifer, Gerard, Baudy, and the rest of the Motley Crew think that John Cooley is a "nut" ? We know that Weiss thinks Patrick Byrne is, and we know that Slim Underground thinks that her old boss Pierre went Nutty (for the Jayjg oversights tell us so!), but I just want to figure out why Brandt and Bagley are nutty. Quoting very reliable sources and showing IP logs = nutty. Hmmm.


Didn't Slim basically accuse Salinger of working for the CIA in one of her oversighted edits? That's certainly no nuttier than his accusing her of working for MI-5. Can someone point me to that edit?

UPDATE: Here it is: "In January 1989, Salinger began a three-year investigation with ABC News into the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. During this time, according to an article by Christopher Bryon in the American Spectator, Salinger passed confidential ABC News memos on the bombing to the CIA. Salinger admitted doing this to Byron, saying he was only trying to help. Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."

This post has been edited by anthony: Sat 13th October 2007, 1:33am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Sat 13th October 2007, 1:44am
Post #29


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:24am) *

Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."


Hmmm. Didn't Slimmy "worked with Salinger"? So was this "belief" original, first-person research by a wikipedia editor? Or is there a reliable source for that?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Sat 13th October 2007, 2:20am
Post #30


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:44am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:24am) *

Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."


Hmmm. Didn't Slimmy "worked with Salinger"? So was this "belief" original, first-person research by a wikipedia editor? Or is there a reliable source for that?


I always assumed she was talking about herself. It's certainly not a verifiable fact, and it's not in the current version of the article.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Sat 13th October 2007, 2:45am
Post #31


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th October 2007, 2:20am) *

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:44am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:24am) *

Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."


Hmmm. Didn't Slimmy "worked with Salinger"? So was this "belief" original, first-person research by a wikipedia editor? Or is there a reliable source for that?


I always assumed she was talking about herself. It's certainly not a verifiable fact, and it's not in the current version of the article.


How long was that text in the Salinger article? I assume from shortly after his death, when his ex-employ decided to exact some wikirevenge until....when?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnA
post Sat 13th October 2007, 9:03am
Post #32


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



The Daniel Brandt bio on Spanish Wikipedia is accurate, non-invasive and non-controversial - but that's only when I read it just now.

Who knows what the future may hold? ph34r.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th 4 17, 1:27pm