User talk:Group29
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Group29 19:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer
Synopsis: I reverted an article that had been vandalized. Another user, unaware of the vandalism, attempted to make it look nicer.
Excuse me, I did not vandalize this article. The reference to porn was already there, and if it is true that the company that owns the rights to this material gave permission for those in the adult entertainment industry to make a film about Rudolph, then you have engaged in whitewashing this article. I was shocked to have the word porn there, and if you would have had the courtesy to look at the history page of this article you would not have accused me of being a vandal. Thankyou.--Drboisclair 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at the history myself I noticed that an anonymous user recently made the changes that were also offensive to me as well. I apologize for getting angry here. You were merely changing what the anonymous editor put in there. I appreciate your corrections. Thank you. --Drboisclair 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough, you did not place the original reference to porn. Thanks for the response, I merely reverted back before the original placement. It would appear you have an automated bot in place to change porn to adult feature (adult feature.) Unfortunately the change did not distinguish the vandalism, and in fact made the vandalism appear more legitimate.
- Here is a link on IMDB to the feature in question.
-
- While clearly not an adult feature, the vandalism made it appear as such. Thanks, Group29 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The funny thing was that this morning I just went to the article to find out which came first the song or the story, and then I was shocked to see this reference to porn. I didn't want to whitewash by simply removing the reference; however, I was concerned about children reading the article. I guess I let myself be duped by a vandal. Oh, well. Thankyou for your diligence and help on this website.--Drboisclair 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Collateral damage from autoblock
[edit] User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington vs User:Malber December 21, 2006
Synopsis: Two users are having a dispute about an admin rights question which escalated into a user block by one of the users which made an Wikipedia:Autoblock cause collateral damage to 198.203.175.175, the UHC proxy server. It was eventually reverted by another admin removing the block
I sent this message to User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington,
Your block of address User:198.203.175.175 effectively blocks me and potentially 90,000 other users of the proxy at UnitedHealthgroup. The actual number contributing to Wikipedia is probably far fewer. Nevertheless, 198.203.175.175 is not a DHCP address for a single PC. Could your conflict with User:Malber be resolved without wholesale blocking of the IP address?
Email reply from User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington,
I don't think so, buddy. I suggest you stop his services; cause he is unwilling to listen and is stupid. Thanks.
Group29 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise vs User:SparklingWiggle ("sock of User:Malber") March 23, 2007
Synopsis: A user on the UHC proxy had been investigated and found to be trailing another user in a form of sock puppetry or meat puppetry. This turned into a user block by one of the users which made an Wikipedia:Autoblock cause collateral damage to 198.203.175.175, the UHC proxy server. It was eventually reverted by another admin removing the block
Group29 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
