Real Computers & Free Diagnostics/Restoration Project

This page is for discussing the contents of Real Computers & Free Diagnostics.

Restoration Project:
Purpose: To go through both titled pages of this business and sift through the edit histories to discover whether comments and information have been deleted/altered/changed throughout some wiki edit wars.

Page: Real Computers - Status: DONE.
Page: Real Computers & Free Diagnostics - DONE

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

1-20: All edits by RC and JW, 1 by JP. Nothing lost.
21-40: RC, JP, JS, JA, WL, BL. Nothing lost.
41-60 MB, JL, EW, JP, CP. Nothing lost.
61-80: RC, CP, BD. Nothing lost.
81-100: RC, WH, noblesavage, ES, RC, pontus, JP
101-120: JW, RC, JA, JP. Nothing lost.
121-140: MM, RC, JP. Nothing lost.
141-160: MM, RC, JW, ES, SS,

Comment potentially lost:
http://daviswiki.org/Real_Computers?action=diff&version2=156&version1=155
"As far as adward, malware, other gook, you could also download and install, Sypbot or Ad-Aware. Just Google these names and you'll find their websites. Try these first before paying to get rid of these nasties..."

Deleted by RC in edit 158. Edit 159 was RC starting that computer ask a question page though. Personally, no objection to this deletion (it belongs on a general computer page anyway, not specific to this business).

161-180: BL, JA RC, WH, EW, JW. Nothing lost.
181-200: JW, RC, PN, WL, JA, WH. Nothing lost.
201-220: RC, BarrelRoll, ES, JA. Nothing lost.
221-235: 221-240: JW, RC , ThUn

ThUn: lost comment chain? How much does it cost to have a laptop key reattached at this place? My "h" key fell off.
http://daviswiki.org/Real_Computers?action=diff&version2=233&version1=229

Edit 235: redirect to Real Comp & Free Diag

edit 236: "xe" http://daviswiki.org/Real_Computers?action=diff&version2=236&version1=235
about a store in orangevale — RC didn't have a store there... diff company, same name. this continued onto the new page rename.

237: final edit by RL, page closed.

initials used: RC-Real Computers JW - JabberWokky. JP - JoePomidor. JS-JimStewart. BL-BrentLaabs. JA-JasonAller. EW-ElleWeber. CP-CovertProfessor. MB-MyaBrnes(jsogul). JL-JonathonLawton. BD-Bluedot. MM-MasonMuray. SS-SolidSender. PN-PhilipNeustrm. WH-WesHardaker. RL-RobinLaughlin. RF- RFrazier ES-mmeeee!

"Lost comments" from Real Computers page prior to rename. Only two:

• Thun's small chain on cost of replacing a letter on keyboard. Should we reinstate?
  

• Yes; useful information re: the repair and pricing. —TomGarberson
  

• Reinstated 2.19.10
  

• SolidSender recommending to use adaware. Should we reinstate? I vote no on this one.
  

• I also vote no, although I do think it might be worth adding a "Do It Yourself" or "Helpful Links" section to Computer Repair with a mention of some of the antivirus and anti-spyware products out there (especially the free ones), among other things. -tg
  

Real Computers & Free Diagnostics, ~250 edits

1-30: JS, RC, JP, JW, ES (readding Xe) Nothing lost.
31-60: RC, WH, Mono, Keepingitlegal, MC, CP
edits of note: keepingitlegal was more of a wiki issue. JW integrated the info later on when Brian did get a license. Nothing lost with that exchange.

This chain regarding a failed store in Orangevale in 2002, Responded to, later deleted/integrated as he never had such a store. I don't think this is an issue, as it's integrated into the entry under 'history.'
http://daviswiki.org/Real_Computers_%26_Free_Diagnostics?action=diff&version2=37&version1=36

61-90: RC, JW, PN, WH,
Small chain removed: http://daviswiki.org/Real_Computers_%26_Free_Diagnostics?action=diff&version2=89&version1=88
Regarding whether his business license is under RC or RC & FD. We could re-ask the question, if it's relevant to integration into the entry. But we don't usually list business license info on pages.

91-120: JW, RC, WH, WL,
Comment added, later is removed by it's author:
http://daviswiki.org/Real_Computers_%26_Free_Diagnostics?action=diff&version2=126&version1=125
No issue here, can delete your own comments.

121-150: CP, RC, JW, WH, JP, WL: Nothing lost.
151-180: WL, RC, JP, JW, CP, WH, Tosh123, Spiritgal. Nothing lost.
181-210: RC, JW, ES moving comment from the talk page by Mr. Mateo, CP, PN, RF, WL. Nothing lost.
211-240: RC, WL, JW, CP, RF, ES. Nothing lost
241-249: WH, CP, RC, TG. Nothing lost.

"Lost comments" from Real Computers & Free Diagnostics page

• 1 comment self-deleted by WH. No issue.
  

• 1 comment about a store in Orangevale; irrelevant/wrong business, info integrated into entry. No issue.
  

• 1 comment about "what will your business license name be?" Worthy of integration? Don't think there's anything on any business wikipage about the license name.

Overall summary by ES (revised): There wasn't actually much, if any, deliberate foul play here (In terms of sweeping things under the rug). The bulk of the edits were revert wars, unnecessary revert wars. To be honest, I lost a little bit of respect for a few wiki editors - when you go through over 550 edits one by one, and watch the entire thing play out, it's painful. I'm not excusing Brian's part at all, merely saying I expect better from the wiki community. I seriously think over 100 edits were dedicated to adding a line about "brian's a bad wiki user" to the entry. Justified or not, a lot of the stuff came out pretty petty :( Anyway, I think part of the reason this ended up being cleaner than many people thought before I went into it is because the entire ordeal was rather hectic. The chaos played out onto various user pages and talk pages and so on, and so it seemed like an even larger task to unravel it all. I don't think there's anything to gain by going through the talk pages and other sidepages - I had recovered both "xe" and "Mr. Mateo"'s comments when they were on the wrong page and transferred them over at the time they were left. Anyway, once again, going through both page titles didn't reveal any fake comments planted or deleted for the most part. There were the few deletions as I've pointed out above, but I think most of them actually had some rational and weren't malicious. As I said on the other talk page yesterday, the comments were unedited as well; the single comment with bold in it was left that way by the user. To respond to JW below, Brian's tendency to spin every edit piece by piece was quickly evident when you fast-forward through 500+edits, but I think it's been winding down. I think that's why I've been sticking up for him a bit, although S.O. used to do similar things, I think it was SO's clear intent and attempt to purposefully manipulate that used to drive me crazy. Brian's not even close to the ideal wiki user, but I don't think he's being malicious, merely overprotective and stubborn. -ES

• Wow, impressive work. Thanks for doing that. -tg
  

• Definitely impressive work! There was previous discussion about the "integration" of the comments you mentioned above because they were not just "integrated" but rather "made nicer". IE, it seemed the point of the integration was to soften the complaint. EG, the initial complaint about a missing license was actually rather negative but the "integration" makes it sound all nice and warm. There were comments on the talk page (if I recall) where people complained about this. The general thought was that the comment should have been left in place, and the owner should have responded inline about it rather than removing it entirely. Same thing for the orangevale issue, which I think actually was responded to but deleted afterward anyway. I removed my comment mainly because it was clear that Brian didn't want comments on his business unless he controlled the content, so I removed my "nice" comment (I doubt he would have had a problem with it) to avoid it being changed. —WH
  

Nice work. I was wondering myself how many hijinks were really going on in the comments (I knew his user entry was hell on the wiki for comments, but I didn't recall anything hideous done to the comments on the entry). Honestly, the iffy thing I saw was a sub-24 hour spin every single edit somebody made to the body of the entry. I know that happened, because it was repeatedly done to edits I made to try and characterize and add context and specifics to the entry. Tiny little adjective removal or addition or clause changes that slowly accumulated into a quite different writeup over time. It's not a bad technique; it's one I've used with good intent (although I usually hit the entry all at once rather than one word every few hours). It also can alter substantially the wording. There was a fierce push against it for awhile, so I am not sure what the net result was over time. -jw

2010-02-12 09:22:40   Thank you, ES. A monumental task. I'd just ask you to keep this page up for awhile — I'd like to look it over, but I'm not up for the task at the moment. Feeling a bit wiki-ed out. I'm sure it will pass. —CovertProfessor

2010-02-19 10:45:12   Are you serious? We dont need this page. Everything is fine as it is. —RealComputers

2010-02-19 10:49:55   When you go hiking do you throw stones at hornet's nests? Are you in the habit of spitting into the wind? —JasonAller

• I just dont see why this is here. No one is complaining about the page so who does this serve?
  

• Of course you don't see why it's here — you refuse to admit you've done anything wrong. But what I see is that this page has been whitewashed... "spin" as jw puts it above. You have fought every word, every change that every other editor has made, even though those editors have just as much of a right to make changes as you. The page has suffered as a result. —CovertProfessor