User talk:RichardWeiss/Archivehistory

User talk:SqueakBox/history

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Haley Paige

What definition of 'trolling' are you using here? How is it you feel the category you removed does not apply? Valrith 23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You can't go around accusing people of trolling. It puts users on the defensive. Had you told people the category was deleted and that's why you're removing it people may have been more understanding. The assumption of good faith works reciprocally. I'm sure the person who made the category was not trying to "out" anyone like you say. The majority of articles under that category was of people who are already dead, so BLP is invalid. Oh well, that's a different topic. Fighting for Justice 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

She's alive. See WP:BLP, the category has been deleted as a hopeless blp nightmare that should never have existed, the cat was, IMO, trolling which explains my thought out edit summary, and even dead people deserve our consideration. If the person was being well intentioned it still created a bad product whose end was precisely to out people. Online is real life too and we all have to behave responsibly. If you are really on the side of victims and their families I hope you will support blp on this project, SqueakBox 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to people who are dead. Fighting for Justice 01:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But the cat wasnt specifically about the dead, and if it were my wife/child/parent who was dead dead I wouldnt want that eternally made public on wikipedia, SqueakBox 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if they are WP:NOTABLE and we can write about them in Wikipedia, there is nothing you can do to stop the world from knowing about it. Facts is what we write in Wikipedia not someone's fantacy as to what and what should not be. Thanks Taprobanus 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that someone erroneously added it to an article about the living doesn't mean the category is wrong. I realize people misused it and for that I'm glad the category is gone. It appears like no one set any strict rules for the category, and some people went carte blanche using it. That's unfortunate. The name of the dead can be included so long as there is fact, supporting they were raped and murdered, and there is secondary reliable sources. What you or I want is not important here. What is important is enforcing and following wikpedia's criteria and policies. Wikipedia is not censored, nor does it have to change itself to make sensitive people happy. Fighting for Justice 05:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat:Rape victims

I have rectreated it and have asked an ANI finding that it should be listed for XFD, not a speedy. Just that you know [[1]]Taprobanus 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat deleted from article

Hi there, I've noticed that you have deleted the category "child molestation victims" from the Axl Rose article a few times with the rationale that it is a blp vio. I do appreciate your concern for wanting to keep blp violations out of Wikipedia, but I don't think that this qualifies as one. Rose himself has stated in several interviews, cited in the article, that he was abused, he's talked about it onstage, he's written lyrics that refer to it, and he has also stated that by going public with it he hopes to help others. I would say that because he has been open about it in major media outlets, it wouldn't qualify as invasion of privacy, and that because the information comes directly from him and there's proof of that, it's not unsourced either. If there are thoughts I'm missing on this and a rationale for leaving it out of the article, please share them. Thanks and best wishes, DanielEng 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think it shouldnt be in a category though I agree that in this case to mention it in the bulk of the article is okay. At the end of the day I got rid of any doubtfuls and if this isnt a doubtful I guess you can return it, SqueakBox 21:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dru Sjodin

Instead of calling the addition of Category:Rape victims to this article "unsourced spec" you could have simply asked for a source. A source has now been provided which specifically states that this woman was a victim of kidnapping, murder, and rape. Simply asking for a source or providing one yourself is certainly better than labeling something as "unsourced spec." --MatthewUND^(talk) 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds nice but contradicts our policies and I am not willing to see people labelled as rape victims here for even 1 minute without a source. We are in the real world and we must all start behaving more responsibly in these delicate issues. if it were my sister/mother/daughter I would be appalled especially with a wrong label, SqueakBox 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Attacking

Wikipedia is neutral. It does not attack, nor does it coddle anybody. Get over yourself and stop trying to act like a victim's advocate. Fighting for Justice 23:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Get over yourself? What gibberish is that? How old are you? You may believe that wikipedia is neutral and therefore we can stalk or out whoever we want but many people dont believe such superficial stuff, hence our BLP policy. Its you who are claiming to be a victim advocate while acting in ways that troll victims and their familes. I am not a victim advocate (although I am a serious crime victim having been macheted a few years back and nearly died from the skull fracture) but I am an experienced wikipedian and I absolutly believe that we must be careful and sensitive towards the subjects of our articles, and many, many others believe this as well. Heard of Daniel Brandt? He is the individual who has drawn the stalking nature of wikipedia to the attention of many like myself who were unaware of it before. That you havent got to that point yet is lamentable and hopefully you will do eventually and that you wont damage too many people in the process. By coddling are you actually admitting you dont care about victims and their families? So no wikipedia is not magically neutral, it may be so if we make a huge effort but to assume it is so anyway is naive, and dangerously so, SqueakBox 23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The information in my user page refers to the notion that criminals are held accountable and deserve a punishment befitting their crime. The only people, who attacked or hurt the victim are the criminals. I find your use of the word "troll" to be highly offensive as it suggest that you think I'm on the same level as their perpetrator. I'm not a stalker and I don't know any stalkers. You're going all carte blanche on this term and it is way out of line. You are being way more offensive to me then anything I'm saying about crime victims. I did nothing to them, and these are articles are doing nothing to them. As far as the category is concern it should only apply to people who are dead and if there is credible evidence to support that they were raped. Fighting for Justice 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do not mean to imply you are in any way the perpetrator of any of these nasty crimes, apologies if you really think that. I dont feed real trolls and am trying to dialogue as your user page stronlgy implies good faith. But we have genuine issues here at wikipedia. People like Brant consider that articles on people who dont want them is itself stalking those people and I am genuinely trying to minimize harm done and not sensationalise these cases or violate the privacy of victims and their families. To have a child raped and murdered and then for that to appear on wikipedia (which anyone with access to the interent can edit) must be extremely distressing, dont you think. Its taken me years to get to this position, others here feel the same (hence Zscout deleted it as a blp nightmare). If it survives the deletion debate will you then support me in changing the name to decesaed rape victims or some such so we can ensure no living people are involved. This is an important area in which you have an interest and your help would be apprecuated. Same with changing bios to x murder case, this is all donme to protect victims and their families, SqueakBox 00:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict policy on what makes a person or event notable. So long as they meet that they can have an article and I find your term "stalking" as exaggerating. We are not giving away their address, we are not giving away their phone number. Wikipedia does not advocate making articles on people who don't want one. None of the article's are sensationalized and if you find one that is; change it. I've written some of them myself and I always use very formal wording. Furthermore, plenty of victim's families have gone publicly and spoken about their loved one's murder. Some have written books or formed victim advocacy groups, so you're partly wrong if you think these people don't want their stories to be told. Marc Klaas, Mark Lunsford, Erin Runnion, Sharon Rocha, John Walsh, Magi Bish, and more are people who've made books or established foundations about the death of their loved one's. Fighting for Justice 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons you outlined I dont oppose the rape victims advocacy category which is appropriate for these cases. It's not me who coined the term stalking for wikipedia articles and it took me a while to agree that this is the case. Wikipedia may not actively advocate articles on people who dont want them but cases such as Don Murphy and Barbara Schwartz indicate these do happen in spite of peoples objections. As I said yesterday I got started on this by wikipedia review, and I am trying to protect the privacy of individuals and their families, SqueakBox 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, whoever it was that coined the term is very wrong. All it did is allow people such as yourself to abuse it and describe people who are innocent of stalking. Fighting for Justice 01:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sharply disagree and if you think I am abuising anything I am wasting my time and we are getting nowhere. How trying to get rid of an outing/stalking cat like rape victims is abuse is completyely beyond me and I dont kn ow how you can say this if you really are a good faith user. I think this conversation is over, please dont continue it on my talk page, SqueakBox 01:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your redirect of Megan Kanka to the Timmendequas article

A few months ago I proposed that it be done the other way around, but now I see that your way is best. Thank you. I have changed the Timmendequas article to get rid of all the 'allegedly's and bring it more into line with Megan's. --CliffC 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah right

changing the title of articles or making redirects, and removing categories is not proof you are on the side of crime victim's. None whatsoever. Fighting for Justice 03:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My overall edits are, whatever you claim. And you clearly are not on the side of victims, you seem obsessed with outing them and I have wasted too much time trying to persuade you otherwise. using wikipedia to advance yoyur lets out victims agenda is not acceptable behaviour on wikipedia. I believe there are going to be efforts to contact the press and organisations like AI (not by me) by people pissed off with this trolling of the victims of crime. Ya basta. IMO the sooner trolls like yourself are outed the better, SqueakBox 03:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The only one pushing an agenda is yourself. You obviously came here thinking you can censor wikipedia. This outing stuff is your opinion, not a fact. Fighting for Justice 04:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sock

Maybe, maybe not, but it sure is awfully suspicious how he suddenly jumped in specifically to make a controversial edit that you were arguing for just moments before. It's even more suspicious how quickly you noticed his sockpuppet label.

Regardless, you accused me of being a sockpuppet on far less substantial grounds than this. I will be going through all typical procedures to determine whether this "new user" is a sock of yours or not. Mike D78 04:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No I didnt and I am a far more experienced user and cos Im not in the first world it woulod be harder for me to have a sock anyway, SqueakBox 04:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)