Talk:St Marys Church, Clophill/Archive 1

Deleted Text
I have deleted the text from the Undesirable Activity section, which read:

''there has only ever been one case of paranormal activity. some say they have spotted a girl dressed in white walking across the grounds drinking vodka. It is alleged that this ghost is named 'sophie deans ', a boy who died at the age of 16. she previously lived in clophill and died in a tragic accident. her ghost has been sighted sitting in the bell tower of the church''

My reason is much the same as a similar deletion that I made on the Talk:Clophill page, where a user (in this case User:82.7.33.38 has added potentially libelous content relating to a current living resident of the village. User:Subfonic 14.06.2007

A reference to the church being built on the site of a leper colony has been deleted. There is no historical truth in this.

Hicksan (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

November 2012

Logistics Speaker, please stop adding links to an as yet unreleased film to the page. If the film is ever released and adds something to the subject, please build a consensus on the page and the information will be added. If you are one of the filmmakers, please engage a PR agency to promote your film rather than vandalizing Wikipedia to do so. Gwenlen (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Gwenlen, please stop vandalizing Wikipedia by removing clearly referenced links to a forthcoming documentary film on the old church. I am in no way connected to the filmmakers, I am a resident of Clophill. Logistics Speaker.

Logistics Speaker, once (if) the film is released and it adds something to the subject, the reference will be valid. Currently, it is not. Please stop vandalizing the page. Logistics Speakers (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there is no indication from either source that the film will be out soon. A cursary bit of research shows the film does not even have a distributor yet, so is unlikely to be released any time soon, if ever. Gwenlen (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Gwenlen are you the Zombie Diaries wikipedia page troll? The documentary is clearly referenced. Resident_Stan —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Resident Stan, are you one of the filmmakers who seems to have continually edited that page to promote their film? You certainly seem to be following the same behaviour here. I suggest that if you are Michael Bartlett or Kevin Gates that you let your work speak for itself rather than use Wikipedia as an advertising tool. If your Clophill project gets beyond a trailer and is released by a distributor (which I am sure it will be if it is of sufficient quality), then it may add something to the subject. As things stand, there is no evidence that the film will be troubling theaters or DVD stockists anytime soon, and your attempts to plug it on here do not add to the subject. Gwenlen (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been informed that Gwenlen is a sockpuppet account for the banned wikipedia user Bradswanson2010 aka Factfindergenerallol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Factfindergenerallol Resident Stan —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Resident Stan, Logistics Speaker, Going under1967, IP address 81.105.0.14 and 217.33.166.226 are all sock puppets used by one or both of the films directors, Michael Bartlett and Kevin Gates, who are known to attempt to use Wikipedia to promote their films. As I have said; if your film gets a release and adds to the subject, it may warrant an inclusion in the article. As things stand; it does not. Please stop vandalizing pages in your attempts to promote your film, and stop attempting to insert incorrect information in an effort to make the contents of your film seem more credible. Gwenlen (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gwenlen I would suggest that you stop with your trolling and vandalism campaign as you have been banned before. There is no evidence to support any of the claims made above and they have no place on wikipedia. The Clophill Church page is about providing information on the church, both historical and present. Cultural references such as a forthcoming documentary is very relevant as it has been featured on several credible film websites. Logistics Speakers (talk)

Michael/Kevin, there is no evidence that the documentary is "forthcoming" as it has no plans for release. Once you secure a distributor and they schedule an actual release, then it may become relevant. Gwenlen (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am amused that you think I might be the director of the film, maybe I'll make a film one day though. However, the links are valid and it seems you have some kind of agenda with the director, for which I would suggest that wikipedia is not the place to vent your little hate campaign. Logistics Speakers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You clearly have an agenda on behalf of the film, like your other accounts had agendas for your Zombie Diary films. If your work is any good I am sure it will speak for itself. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia in attempts to publicise your films or make their content seem more credible. Gwenlen (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bradswanson2010 aka Gwenlen, you have been banned before for vandalising Wikipedia with your agenda against the film-makers and trying to paint them in as negative a light as possible (I've read your Bradswanson2010 talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bradswanson2010 where you have clearly been trying to paint them in as negative a light as possible). Please take your issues up with them directly and not use wikipedia to vent your frustrations. As well as removing links to a documentary on the old church, you are also vandalizing the 'undesirable activity' section by removing links to other websites. Resident Stan —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Gwenlen seems to have issues with anything added that has a connection to the filmmakers mentioned above. That is clearly evidenced from his banned BradSwanson account, where he appears to have cyberstalked the filmmakers for nearly three years. He also shouldn't be removing referenced links to incidents that did occur at Clophill, such as the much talked about 1963 incident. User:Logistics Speaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logistics Speakers (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael/Kevin/Logistics Speaker/Resident Stan/All the same - Looking at those pages it is clear that you have spent that time attempting to edit the pages to portray your films better than the generally negative light they are seen in. Now you are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your film (that still does not have a distributor so will not be released any time soon) and to attempt to legitimize claims you have presumably made in your documentary. If your work is good then I am sure it will stand for itself, but maybe that is why you are worried and need to resort to these methods? Gwenlen (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like Gwenlen/Bradswanson is someone who has fallen out with these filmmakers and is resorting to stalking them over the internet. Gwenlen, can you explain why under your factfindergenerallol account you went and vandalized the Zombie Diaries page after you were banned? Are you bitter about something? [Resident Stan] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resident Stan (talk • contribs) 08:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi people. Yes this Gwenlen is the same Bradswanson2010 troll who was previously banned. Wikipedia page contains clear references that are of interest to the discussion, so he is simply trolling again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.166.226 (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi people, as evidenced from the Zombie Diaries edit history, IP 217.33.166.226 is one of many sock puppets used by Michael Bartlett/Kevin Gates, along with Logistics Speaker/Resident Stan and various others. As you can see, they edit Wikipedia to attmpt to make their films look better and/or more successful than they actually are. In this case, referencing their documentary that does not have a distributor and therefore is no way near being released, and trying to re-write the history of the church to presumably make claims made in said documentary seem more valid. Gwenlen (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So providing links to newspaper sources as well as a number of websites all saying the same thing is re-writing history? Gwenlen you know absolutely nothing about Clophill and are only here to follow these two filmmakers around the internet wherever there is a reference to one of their films, which is rather disturbing behaviour. You've been banned before under your other sock name Bradswanson2010 - do you not understand edit warring will get you absolutely nowhere and just ultimately waste your life? [Resident Stan] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resident Stan (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)