User talk:Adesterre

FOR MRAND: You seem to me to be a fair and open-minded person. I wonder if you have read the dicscssion page relating to the entry for Gerry Ryan. If you have I would value your opinion. (User: Adesterre).

Howdy Adesterre, I believe that you did the correct thing by reverting the recent unsourced opinions. My only suggestion is that you try to make your point on the discussion pages in a slightly more direct manner and simply stick to the facts - in the end, they usually prevail. I can see and understand your frustration with some things, but the last 8 paragraphs of your recent edits on that discussion page are about Rwxrwxrwx - by any measure, that is a lot of writing - and that I could tell, all it really does is rehash your points from previous many paragraphs, this time with you directly or indirectly attacking Rwxrwxrwx. This type of thing is strongly discouraged - all it does is feed the fire of disagreement and actually make people question if you are more interested in correcting the article, or attacking another editor. Without those last 8 paragraphs, it is obvious to anyone who matters who and what you are referring to. No need to "spell it out". Again, I understand your frustration at some of the edits, but rise above it all and be as objective as you can be - independent of what others do. Wikipedia is a completely decentralized entity that is governed by written principles (see my original welcome note below) - it is up to each member of the community to uphold those principles the best that we can. Have fun! —Mrand ^T-C 12:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. It seems like good advice to me - which I will try to follow. I suppose the truth that I did not try to conceal my disgust and anger at Rwxrwxrwx referring to Ryan as a racist and a semi-literate - highly abusive and emotive language, which lacked any supporting evidence whatever. "Adesterre 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I regret that my comments should have upset anyone. However, they are very mild in comparison with the vitriol that is directed towards Gerry Ryan in the article about him that appears on Wikipedia.

Quite frankly, I am at a loss to understand how anyone could read that article and not be struck immediately by the intense and personal loathing for Gerry Ryan that it expresses. I have made some changes to the article - correcting some of its more obvious factual mistakes, and trying to moderate some of its blatant aggression towards Ryan. However, each time I do so, it reverts to the original text within a matter of minutes.

You state that your ambition is to present the facts "warts and all" - but this article is full of basic factual errors - which you have clearly made no attempt to check. Given that I have drawn your editorial attention to some of these basic errors, as well as to the extremely partisan and offensive nature of the article - perhaps you could explain why its author is still permitted by you to keep publishing this untruthful material?

I have already posted a list of some of the many falsehoods and weaknesses of this article. Here are just some of them:

The article states that Ryan has presented four TV talk shows on RTE and lists these shows. In fact, only one of the four shows listed was a talk show. The article states that none of his TV series have ever run for longer than two series. That is also untrue. The two current TV series that he presents have now run for five seasons - and both are about to begin their sixth seasons later this year.

The author also states that his TV series proved unpopular with viewers - "even at the height of his popularity in the late 80s." In fact, Ryan's first TV series was produced in the following decade. It was seldom out of RTE's Top Ten programmes, and ran for three seasons.

The article states that Ryan's "listernship" (sic) is "concentrated in the lower-socio-economic classes". The truth is that his show draws the largest audience of any radio programme in Ireland, and could not attract such huge numbers if it were restricted to any particular class. The show also demands the highest advertising rate of any radio programme in Ireland - and, once again, would not be able to do so, if it were only (or even largely) appealing to those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale.

The article also claims that the "listernship" (sic) is mainly "amongst those with pre-University standard education". It does not seem to have occured to the author that this represents the majority of the Irish population. Does he believe that you need a qualification in a democracy to have or express an opinion?

The author claims to have heard Ryan "laugh mockingly in the background" during sensitive interviews. By any standards, this is an utterly subjective judgement. If it were true, how does he explain the large numbers of listeners that continue, day after day, to tune into the programme? He must have a very low opinion of the Irish people if he thinks that such crass behaviour could prove popular for long.

The article also suggests that Ryan has a "derogatory" attitude towards Irish people. As evidence of this, the author claims that Ryan normally uses the term "the Irish" - instead of "the Irish people" which the author clearly prefers. Once again, this is an entirely subjective - not to say eccentric - judgement. In any case, if the author listened to the programme regularly, he would also hear Ryan refer to "the British" and "the French" - and even "the Americans". Since when did these terms imply contempt or abuse?

The author claims that Ryan refuses to speak Irish - "even on St. Patrick's week". There is no compulsion for anyone in RTE to speak Irish during St. Patrick's week, and it is simply untrue to claim that Ryan is the only one in the station who does not speak it during that week.

Ryan comes from a mixed religious background, and in this context, accusations of him not being "Irish" enough take on an unpleasantly sectarian sub-text.

The article also makes several crude and offensive references to Gerry Ryan's personal appearance. At one point, the author claims that Ryan's "facial expressions are completely at odds from (sic) his voice." This inept insult suggests to me that, perhaps, this author is not the best qualified person to make dismissive comments about other people's lack of education.

This is just a small sample of the highly questionable content that appears in this article. I believe that it is a disgrace to Wikipedia that you continue to allow it to appear under your name.

Howdy Adesterre, it is not the work of one author... many people from around the world have contributed to the article and/or monitor it and many other pages. While admittedly I have not studied every single edit that you've made, the vast majority of them seem to involve deleting the majority of the article (including the one you did today, replacing a huge portion with the word "citizen"[1]). Most editors, upon seeing this, will label it as vandalism... which is why it gets reverted immediately. The above comments help immensely, however. I have tried to address every single one of these changes into the article. Could you please review it now and either make additional edits, or make comments on Talk:Gerry_Ryan? Regards, —Mrand ^T-C 19:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the points you make here are very reasonable - and so is the tone in which you express them. Let me again express regret that I assumed the response to my intitial criticism was automatic - and also thank you for the open and flexible way in which you have responded to my comments.

"I regret that my comments should have upset anyone" You seem to be the only one upset here, and you still haven't apologised for your personal attacks on your fellow editors.
"listernship" You seem perfectly capable of vandalising the article; are you not capable of correcting a spelling mistake?
"his show draws the largest audience of any radio programme in Ireland" False, by a long shot. Check the references in the article.
"accusations of him not being "Irish" enough take on an unpleasantly sectarian sub-text" Don't be ridiculous!

Rwxrwxrwx 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Rwxrwxrwx

Do you actually regard the above as a considered, objective and balanced response to my previous comments? But how could I be surprised by the dismissive tone of your remarks? In a previous response, you claimed only to be driven by your editorial concern for the objective facts. I find that to be, frankly, unbelievable coming from someone who saw no problem describing Gerry Ryan in Wikipedia as a "semi-literate". Do you regard that description as one of your precious facts? How on earth have you the nerve to lecture me so pompously about the need to present the truth - "warts and all" - when you have shown yourself capable of such crude and juvenile abuse?

Let me reply to the few specific points that you manage to raise in your reply.

It is not true for you to state that my claim that Gerry Ryan's show draws the largest audience in Ireland is "False, by a long shot". In fact, his show averages more than 300,000 listeners for three hours every week day. That represents, by far, the largest cumulative audience currently listening to any programme on Irish radio. Check your own figures if you doubt me - and you will find that I am right.

I drew attention to some of the misspellings and the consistently sloppy grammar of this article simply because a part of it, at least, was written by someone who chose to sneer at those who had not had a University education. I find this attitude not only to be pathetically snobbish, but also to be extremely ironic - given the dismal quality of much of the writing in the article in question. To put it simply, the author of this article shows a poor grasp of basic English syntax - yet goes out of his way to criticise Gerry Ryan's use of English. For me, at least, that suggests a breathtaking degree of personal arrogance.

The author of this article, for example, makes a disparaging reference to Gerry Ryan's use of "American slang". In fact, his own article contains several English language expressions which are of American origin. Why is it acceptable for the author of the article to use them - but not acceptable for Gerry Ryan to do the same? The answer is probably that this author was - literally - ignorant of the history of the words that he was himself using. How inappropriate, then, for him to pass judgement on anyone else's use of English.

The overall tone of the article seems to me to be informed by a narrow, chauvinistic and mean-spirited view of what it means to be Irish. You do not have to wear the Irish language on your sleeve to be considered Irish. However, the Irish language has sometimes been used as a sort of ideological weapon to question and undermine the "Irishness" of those who do not speak it. In my opinion, that sort of low-grade cultural bullying is what lies at the despicable heart of this article. I usually do not speak Irish on St. Patrick's Day - does that mean I am not fully Irish?

The reference to Gerry Ryan "admitting" to reading British comics, when he was a child, falls within the same xenophobic parameters. How many other Irish children did the same? What other comics were readily available to children in Ireland at the time he was a child? We are told that Ryan has also "admitted" to watching British telvision. That is true of the vast majority of Irish people. On a typical evening, around half of the available audience in Ireland is watching British TV channels at any one time. Since when did this become an offence that needed to be "admitted"?

A few years ago, Ryan was awarded an honorary degree from the Open University for his contribution to greater cultural understanding between the British and Irish peoples. I cannot imagine the author of this diatribe ever receiving a similar honour. But, then again, I doubt very much whether he would want one - it might, after all, involve him opening his mind.

The question of ethnic allegiance is, perhaps, felt most acutely in Irish people who come from mixed religious backgrounds. In this context, to dismiss summarily my view on this matter as being "ridiculous" is not only an inadequate, offensive and unacceptable response from an editor of Wikipedia. It strikes me as yet another expression of your own arrogance. I don't know how long you have functioned as an editor with Wikipedia, but I suspect it has been too long. It may be time for you to take a break, to stop lecturing other people on the morals of journalism, and to cultivate some personal humility.

In your reply to my comments, I note that you have not bothered to dispute the bulk of the points that I made. Wouldn't your indignation be better directed to the source (or sources) of the many false claims and subjective assertions which this article contains - rather than to the person who has pointed some of them out to you?

I made the complaint below earlier to-day. I am not at all satisfied with the response I have been given. Nothing has been done to remove any of the false and prejudicial claims that are being made in the article about Gerry Ryan, the Irish broadcaster. Why is that? Instead, I was told that some of the more objectionable references had been deleted - that turned out not to be true. It was obvious that this repsonse was an automatic one and did not take any real cognisance of the specific complaints that I had made. Why is the system of making complaints about entries so complicated? Why is it so difficult for mistakes to be corrected?

It is not difficult for mistakes to be corrected. If you find mistakes in the article, then either go ahead and fix them, or discuss them on the article's talk page. Vandalising the article and attacking fellow editors will only get people's backs up and make it even more likely that your future edits will get reverted. Remember that bona-fide Wikipedia editors are neither supporters nor denigrators of Gerry Ryan or anybody else, but simply strive to present the facts, warts and all, no matter how unpalatable those facts may be to some people. Be constructive, co-operate with your fellow editors, and you will find that a reasonable balance is in fact quite achievable. Rwxrwxrwx 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm heart broken that you called my response an automatic one! I actually did use my valuable time to remove a few items and flag one section of the Ryan article. As for answering your questions - it is not difficult for you to correct mistakes - simply click edit and, in a neutral manner, re-write the offending sections. Also, I can not find the specific complaints that you've made - could you point them out to us? Thanks! —Mrand ^T-C 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a complaint about the use of WIKIPEDIA. Can anyone out there tell me how to make one?

Welcome[edit]

Howdy Adesterre,

Belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been having some trouble with the Gerry Ryan article. Please be aware that deleting or over-writing a whole article is considered vandalism and is likely to result in the change being reverted, which is what you've found with the Ryan article. If there are inaccuracies in the article, or you feel they are not written from a neutral point of view, please feel free to fix them. This goes doubly true for biographies of living persons. I've already deleted some of the most grossly point-of-view statements in that article, but please feel free to continue cleaning it up.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Thanks, and if you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page (click the "T" after my name). Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Lastly, please be sure to sign your name on talk/discussion pages by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Mrand ^T-C 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007[edit]

Your recent edit to Gerry Ryan (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Gerry Ryan. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see[edit]

Adesterre, have you nothing better to do in the early hours of the morning on St. Valentine's night than obsess about other people's opinion of Gerry Ryan? You shouldn't be altering your previous comments on talk pages; it violates WP:REDACT. By the way I'm planning some really juicy "improvements" to the article. His Late Late disaster produced an avalanche of complaints, his listenership is tanking yet again, and his "pay cut bullshit" comments revealed his greed and arrogance yet again. Hehehe! Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to rain on the parade of spite and bile that you are planning, Rwxrwxrwx, but you're already off-target and you haven't even started writing your "juicy" little article. The Late Late Show that Ryan hosted got the highest rating of this season - apart from the Toy Show - according to RTE's own viewing figures. (Go on -check them if you don't believe me.) And you obviously didn't read the latest JNLR results which showed that the listenership to Ryan's show actually went up. In fact, his was the only show on 2FM that registered any increase in its listenership. (If that is what constitutes "tanking" in your eyes, it speaks volumes for your lack of understanding of the real world.) As regards Ryan's "greed" and "arrogance" - that is your opinion and you're obviously entitled to hold it. But please, don't pretend that it is anything other than an expression of your own slavering prejudice. I still regard you as a disgrace to the whole Wikipedia project, and as someone who consistently allows his petty spite to inform his editorial judgement. In that context, I find it quite ridiculous that you should choose to lecture me about my alleged obsession. Look back over what I have written, and consider the number of simple factual errors that I have corrected. Then, look back over what you have written about Ryan, and consider your own contribution to a catalogue of inaccuracy, innuendo and smear. You have not even had the grace to apologise for any of the numerous false claims that you had previously endorsed. (And you are someone who accuses Ryan of arrogance!) In fact, you appear to have no concept of journalistic integrity, and have tried to turn Wikipedia into some sort of personal hate mail service as far as Ryan is concerned: your entries read like Bevis and Butthead - without the laughs. You draw my attention - in a childishly gleeful way - to a minor violation of Wikipedia protocol, while you continue to flaunt your own disregard for its founding principles. No wonder that Wikipedia is currently in the process of reviewing the policy towards biographies of living people - with editors like you, they have no option. "Hehehe!", indeed. (Adesterre) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.68.187 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. — Cargoking talk 16:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]