Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Easter Bradford and its associated pages that were listed on VfD in November 2003 and again in January 2004

The result of the debate in November, shown below, was to keep Easter Bradford, but delete all other related pages. The result in January 2004, following a take down notice, was to delete the page.

November 2003[edit]

RE: Discussion of deletion of page. I don't understand why there's a desire to delete this page. Do you have to be a huge million-selling celebrity in order to be relevant enough to warrant an entry on the wikipedia? I think there is enough evidence on the web that at the very least Easter Bradford is a currently working entertainer with a reasonable fan base. ( I can find at least two fan pages, and at least one "we hate Easter" page; so he's even popular enough to have vehement NON fans!) If you look at the links at the bottom of this talk page you can see he's performed in front of the White House, so it's not like he's never accomplished anything. And maybe more importantly, because of this entry I can count over 50 other entires that have been added to the wikipedia. (Among them actor "Blayne Weaver"'s entry, created due to the "Peter Pan Players" entry.) Peter Pan Players is simply a children's acting group in Shreveport, Louisiana - but it has spawned several successful entertainers. So since most people have never heard of it, does that mean it doesn't deserve an entry? Weaver's claim to fame is as the modern day voice of Peter Pan. Hardly a nobel prize winning accomplishment - should HE be deleted?

The main arguement for deletion seems to be that Bradford started the page himself, but I see evidence of contribution and editing by countless others who have come across the page. So my vote is for NON-DELETION.

I've altered the talk page to reflect this deletion-debat,e as it were, and divided the bottom section into other weblinks that assert Bradford's relevance (and disprove at least some of the claims that statements in the entry are non-factual.)

  • Your points would have more weight if you actually signed off on them. Just use the four tildes (~) thing. Lisiate 06:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • NOTE: 66.157.94.151 *IS* Easter Bradford. A quick check of his revision history shows nothing but revisions of pages that Easter is involved in, or has interest in. Any opinions expresssed by 66.157.94.151 should be taken with a few grains of salt. 12.40.61.2 20:08, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Patrick Jennings[edit]

  • Patrick Jennings is a vanity entry. I didn't Google him (I figured the name would be too common), but the entry doesn't mention anything notable other than he's a pedophile. —Frecklefoot 19:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • There is a whole series of new entries connected with Easter Bradford of which this is one. I guess these are vanity entries as he seems very minor Secretlondon 19:55, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Easter Bradford's vanity creations are getting out of hand. RickK 20:00, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This page is a vanity entry. It doesn't list any notable contributions to society by the person. In short, this person is not famous enough to merit an entry. If Patrick Jennings wishes to create a Wikipedia account, he is free to put the information in this article on his user page. —Frecklefoot 19:56, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • I agree. Should wikipedia contain pages for every ex-convict whose slept with someone almost famous? I don't think so. Lisiate 06:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Alexa ranking of 798,497 for the movie site. Movie site fails alexa test. Martin 20:43, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Patrick Jennings is a real person, and the slanderous information about him appears to have been added by someone else in some personal vendetta. I have deleted it before on Patrick's request and will do so again now.—Eloquence 00:43, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Easter Bradford[edit]

former discussion on mailing list, circa Aug 9 2003 - [1], etc

I would say that the bulk of that entry fails the confirmability test. It does appear that someone with an axe to grind is doubting the veracity of the information given, and without some independent sources, my feeling is that the article should be removed or at least cut back to a stub of confirmable information. Jimbo Wales 14:24, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • Easter Bradford and related pages (such as Mnemosyne's Lounge The Sugar E.P. Consummate Professional Relationship Destruction Machine Heart Like an Artichoke Sloe Eyed Detatchment The Story of the Nail Suck My Disco The Peter Pan Players Far From Kansas The Insanely Twisted Rabbits and others), appears to be vanity on a massive scale. Wikipedia isn't free webhosting for self-promotion. Maximus Rex 20:02, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete them. RickK 20:21, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • [2] is very informative on this matter. Muriel 20:23, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree to delete his related pages as they are mostly non-noteworthy, but I remember a huge battle not too long ago (probably at the Pump about whether to delete Easter Bradford. The consensus was eventually "no" since he does come up with some Google hits (he has two fan pages, but he may have created them himself). So go ahead and delete his other vanity creations, but leave his article intact. Though his article is rambling and was created by him, I don't want to re-hash the same battle again. I don't really think he deserves an entry, but I don't know everything. Perhaps he really does have some fans. —Frecklefoot 20:30, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • All of the pages should be deleted. If the main page remains it will make wikipedia look foolish and encourage other vain self-important individuals to write long rambling tomes about themselves too. None of the above articles add anything positive to wikipedia, and therefore all of them should be deleted. Maximus Rex 00:31, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If "his article is rambling and was created by him,", doesn't it suggest that it's contaminated by POV. Delete it, or let someone verifiably not Easter Bradford or his sock-puppet write it. orthogonal 15:31, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This is the third time (that I know of) that this stuff has come up, but it has always been kept...(but I still say delete). Adam Bishop 00:33, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I hate to say this (and I could be wrong), but I think he may be skirting along that very fuzzy boundary between famous and not (if the musical/acting accomplishments are true). If everything in Easter Bradford is true, I say keep, but someone other than Easter should do a lot of trimming (his boyhood and moves seem unnecessary history). But the massive forking to everything he wrote, sang, fell on, or regurgitated should go - either back into the named article or better just delete - Marshman 00:56, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Length, rambling, and extra links do not change the fact that it's a vanity page. Tempshill 01:38, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete after merging information into user page(s), each Bradford-initiated article (not counting page moves and refactoring by others) about his own products needs to go. This is clear self-promotion and advertising and is against guidelines. I doubt those guidelines (which evolved out of the Daniel C. Boyer discussion) existed last time this was brought up. Daniel Quinlan 03:35, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't understand any of the arguements for deletion at all. The only justification for people's claims that the Easter Bradford entry is "clear self-promotion and advertising" (et. all.) is that he isn't a mega-celebrity. Nobody would even consider this debate for, say, the Madonna Cicconne page. The only thing I agree with is that there are resources for verifying facts about Madonna's life. However, there are a reasonable number of links in the TALK page for Easter Bradford that show fairly solid verification of many of the facts related to Bradford's music career, and it seems unlikely that his biographical information is false as it's hardly written to sound flattering or impressive. So I vote for a reasonable edit but to keep the page. Also, RE: the entires about his music projects; does this mean that every entry describing an album that isn't a platinum selling, well-known project will also be deleted? The entry for Rilo Kiley's "The_Initial_Friend_E.P." is incredibly similar in content and writing style to Bradford's album entries, just as an example.
      • Verifiability is only part of the reason. The other is that Madonna Cicconne isn't using Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle. It's one thing to correct facts and add to articles near and dear to your heart. It's another thing when you're pushing your own products. We wouldn't want Jeff Bezos (or his Amazon employees) to add articles about new Amazon products and features either. If we start allowing advertising on Wikipedia, it would violate NPOV, severely damage its reputation, and probably only get worse as more and more people come here to push their products. Finally, Rilo Kiley had a hit song with The Frug and, as far as I'm aware, that page was added by someone who did not have a financial interest in Rilo Kiley. Daniel Quinlan 10:04, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • More than half of his 99 Google hits are: pages that say that there are no such thing as "Easter Bradford"; encyclopedias that use wikipedia material. Muriel 11:51, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Here's an excerpt from the Easter Bradford page:
Moving back to Maryland to be with family, Bradford began taking classes at Montgomery College of Maryland and participating in college theater productions (among them "Jesus Christ Superstar" "Guys and Dolls" and "Crazy For You"). His father took a job in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and his sister married a Buddhist and continued living in her own home in Virginia.
    • Apparently Bradford didn't even star in any of these college productions, but it's lovingly recorded here. Even the Madonna Ciccone entry doesn't detail her supporting roles in college. Nor do the jobs, moves, marriages, and religions of Easter's various relatives seem pertinent to anything, or useful to anyone other than Easter. This is stuff that belongs on Easter's Geocities or AOL page. orthogonal 15:47, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It just seems that for every argument made against the page there is another page on wikipedia that contradicts that arguement. It's all so double-edged, and I feel like, being the lone Easter Bradford fan in the discussion, I'm heavily outnumbered. But just to make some more points:

  1. Wil Wheaton was the first to add the "Wil Wheaton" page, so obviously WHO added the page isn't important. Of course, his page also isn't so long and cluttered with biographical information.
  2. No one can seem to decide if the arguement for deleting the page is: A.Because most of it is "unverifiable";B:Because Easter isn't important enough to include;C:Because Easter started the page himself.

I still agree that it should be chopped down to the basics, but I don't want to do it because I'll be biased. But I am also still wholeheartedly against removal, if for no other reason than the claim of alleged "vanity" page spin-offs. For every page someone claims is useless to the WIKI there are two that have spun off from the Easter page that, in my opinion, are valid and factual important contributions.

Easter Bradford=>Chesapeake Bay Bears=>Bear Community
Easter Bradford=>Peter Pan Players=>Blayne Weaver

(and so forth). 66.157.94.151 16:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The only argument of the three above that makes sense to me is the first one: that much of the information cannot be confirmed to be true. Importance is a subjective matter, and because wiki is not paper, the fact that a subject is only of interest to a small minority is no reason for deletion. Who started the page is irrelevant, and in most cases unknowable, because no-one is made to prove their identity before submitting material to this project, so that can't be a reason for deletion either. The first argument is a strong one, however. If we don't ensure that all the statements in an article are true, then of course a lot of untrue statements will get in. If you can cut the page down to whatever parts of it can be confirmed from published sources outside Wikipedia, and Cite your sources, then the page will be defensible. -- Oliver P. 00:59, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A real musician (Easter is clearly not a hoax like the person who submitted that "Jamie Stevens" article) should be kept. Non-fame is for people whose most remarkable accomplishments are what elementary school, high school and college they attended and what degrees they got, clerks at your local Target or K-Mart store (unless something happened to them that got them into the news), amateur archaeologists and non-founding employees of large companies who get no Google hits, schmoes at Evansville Day School, people posting their résumés on Wikipedia even though nobody here has ever heard of them, and people who are only going to be a great pianist, going to be a great author, going to be an astronaut, going to grow up to play on Broadway (think of the Jay Evans article that was on VfD a while ago). From recent discussion on VfD, it also seems that people whose biggest claim to fame is being the 1,627,837th person murdered in the Holocaust are examples of non-famous people. There's just not the clear-cut utter non-famous-ness that would allow this Wikipedia article to be deleted. Wiwaxia 05:47, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think Easter Bradford should be kept. That he may have entered his own page is irrelevant. It is too long, but that can be fixed. He seems (just barely) to rise to an acceptable level of fame to be included. David Stapleton 23:04, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

January 2004[edit]

Apparently originally a vanity page, and now Jimbo has forwarded an email from him to the mailing list in which Bradford is demanding that it be deleted. Apparently this is entry has been controversial for a long time because of the unimportance of the topic, so if we add that the topic himself no longer wants the page... Katahon 22:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Delete. Apparently the guy was trying to start a career in the music business and it didn't work. According to his blog[3] he now works as a temp, and has given up singing. According to some websites[4], and some people who have posted on the talk page, Bradford has ripped people off (I have no idea if this is true or not). Please, just get rid of it. It is unverifiable, and in fact people have directly questioned the accuracy of it. A google search on "Easter Bradford" turns up about 200 hits [5], however half of those are directly related to wikipedia [6]. Maximus Rex 22:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Easter Bradford, Talk:Easter Bradford/delete. Martin 23:52, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I suggested we start a list of probably not famous people to discourage this sort of thing, but the idea didn't grab anyone else. So just delete, finally. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If the staff of Wikimedia decide there are legal problems, they can remove it [preferably not the entire page - AD]. Anthony DiPierro 05:33, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Why do you think it should be kept? This is not a discussion about the takedown notice. The page genuinely shouldn't be here as it is an unverifiable vanity creation. Maximus Rex 05:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I think all pages on people should be kept. Anthony DiPierro 05:55, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • That would be nice, but I doubt there is room. Delete. SpellBott 08:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is not paper. "The most obvious difference is that there are, in principle, no size limits here." "I agree with this one completely. --w:Jimbo Wales" There's plenty of room. Anthony DiPierro 18:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • What, keep all articles on people even if they're vanity nonsense? Ridiculous. Delete it and have done with it! Arwel 18:45, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • The nonsense should be removed, of course. But this article contains several paragraphs of information about the person. Anthony DiPierro 18:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, finally. Even though this means I'll have to change my userpage. Bmills 11:54, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • As the sysop who implemented the decision to keep Easter Bradford after the "last before this" vfd-round, and deleted the whole bunch of "related" pages created by the same source; let me now go on record as my own view that the decision should have gone the other way--that is to delete Bradford, but some of the ancillary pages I thought, at the time, had more merit. But as much as it was an algism in my rectum, vox populi and all that... Delete, finally. (but somebody else implement the decision, whichever way it goes :-| -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 13:31, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • This should not be deleted because of these legal threats. But if the material cannot be verified, then that's another matter. If it should have been deleted before the legal threats (because unverifiable), then it should still be deleted now. But we shouldn't think that there is more reason to delete after this legal notice. -- Toby Bartels 16:39, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:42, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. 166 Google hits, many of them from sites which use Wikipedia as a source. Optim 19:47, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity page. Tempshill 22:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del, "" --Jiang


From Talk:Easter Bradford[edit]

Obviously some very much NON fans of Easter Bradford have discovered this page as little flippant NPOV comments keep being added. THIS is the place to add these little snide remarks, people, if you really feel immature enough that you need to do it. And by the by, since it was mentioned twice, I contacted the postmaster general in Washington, D.C. and there has never been (nor is there currently) an investigation of this individual for mail fraud.

No, there probably isn't a fraud case against Easter Bradford. Ask about Jaymes Warnock. He's the one who the fraud case is filed against. -anon

We must have the most incompetant postmaster general in the entire world, then, because they still have no record, and further, if they did, it sure has taken them a long time to press charges.

Could someone rewrite the first paragraph? I just can't quite figure out what happened. Tuf-Kat

I'm actually very happy you shut off the page. Jaymes has been a bane to the Tori Amos Community for over 10 years now, and, like a chameleon, he keeps reappearing, trailing a new string of lies behind him. That bio is 9/10 lies, as has been most of his life. -anon

I'm sorry I just had to add the comment - over 10 years? So since he was 13 years old? Just how much of a Tori Amos "community" was there 11 years ago anyways? Didn't her first album come out in 1992?

ah, maybe I'm mistaken- I can only find records of his shady business dealings going back to late 1996 (Ref [7]), but I seem to recall him being a pain much before that. And there was a TA community back in 1992. I was part of it, and rec.music.tori-amos dates back that far as well.

(and also, I'm pretty sure his listed birthdate is a lie as well. I think he's closer to 28 than to 24. Just another of his trail of lies...)

-anon

According to the Office of Vital Records in St. Louis, MO (where both birth and adoption records are currently housed for a James Bradley Warnock) he was born on February 6th, 1979. It seems that you just enjoy starting drama and pulling "lies" out of your rear-end in an attempt to bad-mouth someone you don't like. Also, links to ancient newsgroup flame-wars don't serve as proof of criminal activity. You clearly don't belong on Wikipedia as you have no understanding of how it works, and I think you should leave.

(to the above poster, who "confirmed" the birthdate info, and claims that there are no impending legal charges)

Y'know, you almost had me there. But then I looked at your revision history, and noticed that not only have you revised a large number of entries that closely match Easter Bradford's interests, you've also added things like discography to Easter's entry. Which proves that either you ARE him, or know him personally and are defending him. So much for a "non-partial entry".

He has used dozens of fake names and identities in order to "sell" nonexistent items, among them, "James Warnock", "JB Warnock", "Jet Bradford", "James Bradley", "Easter Bradford", "David" or "Dave Warnock", "Addison Beauvais", "yicktar@aol.com", "yktr1988@aol.com", "purplefuzz", "Fleshfish", and most recently "Sherryontherock" where he actually claimed to be a black woman. This is confirmable by doing a seatch on "Jaymes warnock" on groups.google.com


sidenote: "James Warnock" birth name; "JB Warnock" initials; "James Bradley" first and middle name; "Easter Bradford" stage name; "David Warnock" father's name; "Addison Beauvais" former stage name - all actually discussed in the bio on this very entry and hardly a dossier of secret bad-guy identities.


-anon

On the other side of the coin, there has yet to have been a single criminal charge brought against James Warnock, nor has he ever been arrested or sued. A representative from RAINN has stated full out that there was never any proof that anything was stolen from RAINN by Bradford(and in fact the accusation of a theft was made only after countless weeks of volunteer work when someone called RAINN to alledge Bradford's trading offenses.) The only thing that is totally clear is that although he might have made mistakes, and very well may be a complete piece of filth, no one has ever proven it, and this is an encyclopedia where=in entries are based on fact.

So as members of this oh so very prestigious "community" that you avow yourself a part of continue to trash-talk him (ex: 9/10ths lies? At least 4/10ths of the entry is biographical information that you'd have to know him personally to know is false, and from which no personal gain would be achieved by falsifying!) we at Wikipedia will continue to preserve a non partial entry. -anon

If a statement is controversial, please cite exact references.—Eloquence

Oh, and guys, if you plan to stick around for a while, please do create an account (only takes a few seconds) and sign your comments (type ~~~ to do so).—Eloquence

Could you add a NPOV dispute while the page is protected? Martin


Well, whatever all the hulaballoo is -- Ive just started cathing up on email -- looks like this is fairly resolved. :) -戴&#30505sv 19:51, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

In comment located at User_talk:Zoe/archive_3, "Easter Bradford" says, "I am also known by my birth name, James Bradley Warnock, and once used the stage name Addison Beauvais." This is directly contradictory to the information on the entry that states "Easter Bradford was born James Martin Blackford." Few adopted children mistake their adopted name for their "birth name."

In a September 2001 post to the newsgroup alt.books.poppy-z-brite, [8], James Warnock introduces the author's fans to Easter Bradford in the following fashion:

This is interesting. Apparently there's an up and coming singer from DC who has named his new album (according to the article his second, but his first was shelved by a record label?) after a line in a Poppy

book.

He seems quite unfamiliar with his own recording history.

This "PR Release," http://www.prweb.com/releases/2002/8/prweb44893.php, makes the extraordinary claim that:

In late 2001 he wrote 12 short stories to accompany the songs and photographs of friend Tori Amos’ album “Strange Little Girls.” They would be compiled into a promotional booklet that was given away with the album, and passed around the internet like lightning. Only good things are expected from Easter Bradford, an artist who has come a long way in a short time, and can only come further, faster, but hopefully…soon.

No such promotional booklet exists. However, there were 12 short stories written to accompany the songs and photos by well-known author Neil Gaiman, which was distributed in the Strange Little Tour tourbook. It goes without saying that, above claims notwithstanding, Easter's stories that "passed around the internet like lightning" are nowhere on the internet to be found.

I wonder if Cyndi Lauper, Tori Amos and Madonna would remember making those statements about Mr. Bradford.

Bradford posted his stories on a Tori Amos web discussion site called "at forumz" under the guise of Easter Bradford before the people within that community who dislike him realized that Easter Bradford was the same person as James Warnock. They were then copied and posted on a website called "www.strange-little-girls.com", and highly praised. However, AFTER the same group of people who are attacking this site found out that Easter = James, they began the same campaign of bashing and the stories were taken down. They still remain on his fan site at www.geocities.com/nicestslice/page2.html. The booklet was compiled along with drawings by artist Paul Elia and it was given away at the Tower Records store in Washington, D.C. Of course it was produced and donated to the store by Bradford himself, but nobody writes an entertainment industry bio with extensive and unflattering details. But that doesn't make the statement false, and I have a copy of the booklet myself.

The "statements" about Bradford by various celebrities have been in question by several detractors. It is known that the one by Margaret Cho is factual, as it was part of a reply posted by her to Bradford's letter in her "AskMaster" column on gay.com. There were also witnesses to Amos' comment which was made in Baltimore when he gave her a copy of his music. So at least some of them are true. Again, it probably boils down a lot less to dastardly nastiness than it does to clever P.R. and the taking of comments out-of-context.

And as for the first comment here, I can only presume that what Bradford was inferring is that he is known by his adoptive name. Many adopted people refer to this as their "birth name" in casual conversation rather than go to the extent to say "my adopted name" which opens things up to extensive conversation. Further, most adopted individuals' birth certificates are changed at the time of adoption to reflect the newly given name.

Just some responses to show that Easter Bradford DOES have some fans and friends. If this is *SO* important then here are some contact references that you can use to verify bits and pieces of information:

www.morelworld.com - Record Producer Richard Morel who produced the shelved album "Mnemosyne's Lounge" and who currently owns the sound recordings

www.mp3.com/easterbradford/ - a place where you can download several of the unreleased tracks from "Mnemosyne's Lounge"

www.geocities.com/nicestslice/ - a place where you can buy the limited edition remix E.P. "Suck My Disco (E.P.)" which is an internet-only release made available to people who purchased the new album of the same title

by the way, if this page is supposed to be protected, there are still little covert insertions of slanderous comments that should be removed. "This is where he learned to forge the autographs of..." and so forth.
I think it should be reverted to the last 'trusted' edit (ie, by a logged in user apart from me), which was Camambert I believe. I don't want to do this myself as I was the one who protected the page, p'raps another sysop could oblige??? quercus robur 15:44, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Here's at least one URL that proves that two of the claims in the entry are true. It's the "vault" for photographs of former "celebrity guests" on Ester Goldberg's "The Feud" gameshow. Under the "Far From Kansas vs. Three Fruits and a Fly" section, first photo, second row, there's a photo of Easter with a microphone to his mouth. He appears in several other photos as well. This would seem to serve to prove that A: he was in fact a member of the improv group Far From Kansas, and the B: he was in fact a contestant on this show. Here's the URL:

http://estergoldberg.com/feud_vault.htm#013003

"Ester Goldberg" is a drag "personality" whose shows play at gay bars. It ain't Hollywood, and it's little known outside the gay community. orthogonal

Here's another one. A scan of a page from MetroWeekly Magazine in Washington DC from their Millenium Pride edition. To the right is Easter Bradford singing on the main stage. You can see the capital building in the background. The man in the photograph to the left is Jimmy Summerville, for whom Easter was the opening act.

http://www.geocities.com/neworleans24cub/mwpic.jpg

Yet another, in it's own way. Apparently he is now working as the DJ at Rawhide 2010 in New Orleans, which is one of the most famous bars in the world. He's listed on their staff page.

http://www.rawhide2010.com/

Mention of Hypofixx's remix of "Relationship Destruction Machine" on his official webpage. Hypofixx is yet another very popular but not-super-famous musician with an entry on wikipedia. I've seen his videos on MTV2 and MUCHMUSIC.

http://www.hofrec.com/hfx/bio.shtml

I feel that the Easter Bradford article is lacking in essential detail: will someone please add a detailed list of what Easter had for breakfast today? orthogonal 21:09, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are far too many backlinks to this non-person; I'm about to start excising them. Evercat 01:30, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is the information about Bradford's father's job and Bradford's sister's marriage really necessary? Could the article be cut down to the essentials?

As it stands, the Bradford article is 1544 words long, only 35 words shorter than Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, 85 words longer than James I of England, and 614 words longer than James Joyce. orthogonal 20:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As Jimbo said above, it needs to be cut down to whatever's actually verifiable... Evercat 21:03, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Quibble on my part: I'm sure one could verify facts about Bradford's dad and sis. We could verify (I've got a camera, and can find a notary public) that I'm currently wearing blue and grey socks. Of course, verifiable or not, it hardly belongs in Wikipedia. orthogonal 21:09, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've done a revision of this page, at User:Orthogonal/temp. Comments are welcomed! orthogonal 00:12, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Citations for changes to article. Information from Easter Bradford's blog at http://www.livejournal.com/users/neworleanscub/ orthogonal 06:28, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • From blog entry of Wednesday, August 20th, 2003:
"Today is the first time in a very, very long time that I am getting a paycheck which is, for all practical points and purposes, completely disposable.... But then I do have $450 rent on the 1st due. But I'm SUPPOSED to be bartending during Decadence. Only the guy in charge wont frigging call me back."
  • From blog entry of Tuesday, August 19th, 2003:
"I just got a glimpse at the bill sent by my temp agency to where I work. They get paid $15.50 an hour for every hour I work. $15.50 AN HOUR. That means They're making $6 more than me to just have me here. That annoys me a lot."
I'm not sure what these blog entires are meant to dispute? It says on the page that he's taking a break from recording to work on writing, and that he's working as a DJ at a bar in New Orleans (which can be verified by visiting that bar's page, www.rawhide2010.com). So clearly he quit whatever other job he was doing. Can only throw reference back to Wil Wheaton again; he stepped out of the spotlight to work for a computer company in middle America for several years, but that doesn't invalidate his previous accomplishments. 66.157.94.151 17:38, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can the discography be verified? Evercat 13:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mp3.com versions of "Mnemosyne's Lounge" and "Suck My Disco" can be purchased online at www.mp3.com/easterbradford/ . The rest seem to be relatively obscure releases of his own making. The only "proof" of their existance would be their mentions on fansites, unless you stumble across a copy yourself or attempt to order one by emailing Easter from mp3.com. 66.157.94.151 17:38, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Wasn't part of the debate over this page an attempt to prevent a lawsuit against Wikipedia? It might be advisable, then, to discontinue constantly re-adding the reference to the page alledging federal crimes by Bradford, unless Wikipedia intends to be a supporter of those allegations and stand beside whoever is making them...? 66.157.94.151 17:54, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note, IP 66.157.94.151 has been previously used by Bradford or Bradford sock-puppets. If This user won't log in, I'm inclined to evaluate skeptically. Nor is Wikipedia making any allegations against Bradford. The article only makes reference to an existing controversy about Bradford/Warnock, which is addressed in considerably more detail on thedent.com and in usenet archives. Were Bradford/Warnock to sue, he's sue those sources. That he has not is telling. orthogonal 21:00, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Takedown Notice[edit]

Quoting email under fair use (we're discussing it, no indication of being copyrighted or confidential, no financial damage, necessary for the purposes of Wikipedia, etc)

Forwarded message from beatnickblanket at bellsouth.net -----

From: <beatnickblanket at bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:34:25 -0800
To: <jwales at bomis.com>
Subject: Wikipedia: Easter Bradford page, and all related pages - immediate action required.

Greetings,

This email is being wrtten to demand that the Wikipedia web page for "Easter Bradford" as well as all related pages (including but not limited to the "Talk" page) be deleted from your web servers immediately. All current and former edits of this page are to be deleted. These pages contain libelous content which, if maintained, can and will result in litigious action against Wikipedia and it's owners.

If this action is not taken within 48 hours of the time this email was sent, a certified and registered letter will be sent via United States Post. You will then have 7 days from the reciept [sic] of that letter to take appropriate action.

I would prefer to avoid these measures, but can no longer tolerate inaction in this case. This is not the first time I have contacted you about the situation. If you are NOT the person to contact about the issue, I suggest you inform me of who that person is at once.

This is the last email that will be sent in this matter,

James Warnock (aka "Easter Bradford")

Jimbo forwarded what looks like an official "takedown notice" signed by Easter Bradford, for the article and associated pages. I'm not sure why, considering that he himself contributed to the page.

See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009529.html

What should we do about the notice? Reverting the article to Easter Bradford's last edit, might not be enough. --Uncle Ed 22:33, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On a not-so-wild guess, I would say that the takedown notice is related to the lengthy charge of fraud posted on this talk page by User:Mathew (since removed, but check the history). —MIRV (talk) 22:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm perhaps the current page and it's talk page should be deleted to eliminate the history (I take it that is what is being objected to) and then replaced with a stub, or possibly Easter Bradford's own version.

I know practically nothing about this Easter Bradford person by-the-way. Although if there are allegations against him it should probably be mentioned in the article G-Man 23:09, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do we have to care about threats of libel this vague? For some reason I figured James would have to say what exactly was libelous, and why. Incidentally, James might be objecting to the version written by user:Easterbradford, so that approach might not actually solve the problem. Martin 23:12, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You think he doesn't like this version? Well, it's a possibility. But then, why demand deletion of "all related pages" and not just the talk page. And what on earth does he mean by "all related pages" anyway - he wants us to wipe everything that links here, perhaps? Well, that's one way to get rid of "votes for deletion"... Martin 23:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I should think he means User:Orthogonal/temp
Note that User:Orthogonal/temp was a distillation of the Easter Bradford wiki (not user) page as it existed at some point. Basically, I thought it to be a vanity page (which consensus was eventually reached by the Wiki community), but some members of Wiki were at that time on the fence. As a attempt at compromise, I boiled original page down to what seemed verifiable. At the time the original page -- as far as I could tell -- appeared to have been written primarily by James Warnock a.k.a. "Easter Bradford", with certain allegations against him added by members of the Toti Amos fan community who had had dealing with Warnock. I added some information gleaned from a blog page written by Warnock, information that though written by Warnock himself, made him seem less of a celebrity. So other than the allegations by the Tori Amos fan community -- which were indicated to be allegations -- most of what I put into User:Orthogonal/temp was Warnock's own words, with (what I judged to be) extraneous detail elided. orthogonal 10:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Until he specifically notes what his complaint is, we should just ignore his threats. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Useful links[edit]

  • The Communications Decency Act, which provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" [9].
  • CDA case: Carafano v. Metrosplash.com (2003), Metrosplash carried content which caused Crafano such distress from repeated phone calls that she felt forced to leave home to avoid the threat she felt to her safety. Metrosplash as carrier was not liable.
  • CDA case: Zeran v. AOL [10]. AOL was held harmless after repeatedly saying that action would be taken to remove the offending content and completely failing to do so.
  • Barratry
  • Malicious prosecution

Jamesday 06:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Easter_Bradford

Leave a Reply