Thu 2nd October 2008, 1:35am
A WP'ian in good standing did some venting today on a WP talk page:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=242371441
It was out-of-line for WP and appropriately reverted by another WP'ian in good standing.
I now call on Wikipedia to review all of the edits, and they are many, made by the following WP'ians in mysteriously good standing and some no longer welcome, that unjustly violate the public standing of Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne. The edits are many, are stunning, and are to quote slimmy, legally actionable should Judd and Patrick ever bother with them. Remove from WP all edits made that accuse Byrne of being crazy, unstable, criminal, etc, and Bagley ditto.
I can remember the following editors making such edits, mostly on talk pages related to naked shorting, overstock, the ban review of moi, and other pages:
Tony Sidaway's sock farm
Gary Weiss's sockfarm namely Mantanmoreland and Samiharris
...and many more.
If i get some time, I'll go fishing for specific edits, or just look through Cla68's recent arbitrations.
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Wed 1st October 2008, 8:19pm)
Gary Weiss considers The Register a Reliable Source. Good enough for me, add today's El Reg into Wikipedia lore:
An editor removed this external link:
* "The bizarre world of Patrick Byrne's Overstock" - The Register
With this comment:
* I'm sorry, The Register is not a reliable source
However I don't see how it violates WP:RS. Why is this not a reliable source? -Will Beback 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me answer this way...if you think that article belongs here, then I assume you'll back me up when I add this to Jimbo Wales.
Deal?--Beware of Cow 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That article is obviously a joke. You haven't answered the question. Why is the Register not a reliable source? -Will Beback 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
He isn't responding because it is obviously a reliable source. I have reverted.--Mantanmoreland 14:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)