Re: Who is David Tuttle

• From: Kyle Hill <atlashill_at_atlashill.yahoo.invalid>
• Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 05:51:17 -0000
• Message-ID: <e1nd8l+6kqo_at_...>

Using IP lookup <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=140.180.144.31> 
this evening, the anonymous IP was traced to a computer at Princeton. 
This is unfortunate, as said obscenity-laden edit to the article itself
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_Bowl&diff=48239533&ol\
did=44771870>  won't help bring a Neutral Point of View to the CBI
article.  I do concur that edits made by David Tuttle and Mary Oberembt
were apparently to remove unpleasant facets of CBI's history and should
not occur either.

I cleaned up the talk page this morning, so hopefully the plurality of
us will agree to refrain from Wikipedia edits disruptinve to the
building of a strong quiz bowl community.

Good night and good luck.

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Kyle Hill" <atlashill_at_...> wrote:
>
> --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, ater31337 no_reply_at_ wrote:
> >
> > and why does he keep censoring legitimate discussion about CBI's
flaws
> > on Wikipedia?
> >
> > P.S. Wikipedia sucks, stop writing about it.
> >
> > (Also view the CBI entry on Wikipedia to see his activism in
deleting
> > anything that might oppose his interest in CBI... He's been editing
> > since 1984!.)
> >
>
> Legitimate discussion does not include obscenity-laden edits to the
> article itself, whoever that anonymous twit was. That said, Tuttle
> did counter an edit made four months before by a David Levinson.
> Tuttle said on his user talk page that he's worked with CBI before,
> helping at regional tournaments in California and Texas, as well as
> assisting at nationals. Though his edits appear to be saving-face, I
> would recommend finding outside sources to verify what he erased.
> Given how disorganizaed the talk page is, a "Request for Comment"
> might be in the works if such vociferous debate continues.
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]