Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Anthony Walker: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Redvers (talk | contribs)
Added comments previously used by vandal to blank out page
Redvers (talk | contribs)
Reply to vandal 80.1.180.40
Line 16: Line 16:
== Comments from alleged vandal ==
== Comments from alleged vandal ==
Reverted racially motivated propaganda which preaches one sided race hatred while ignoring other cases. Reverted topic to an encyclopeadic and historical tone. {{Unsigned|80.1.180.40|12:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)}}
Reverted racially motivated propaganda which preaches one sided race hatred while ignoring other cases. Reverted topic to an encyclopeadic and historical tone. {{Unsigned|80.1.180.40|12:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)}}

:You are, by the very nature of the Wikipedia, entitled (and encouraged) to update articles and make them better. This does not include adding streams of unrelated text, adding introductions in ALL CAPS, adding racist emphasis or anything else unencyclopedic.

:What you could do, if you are so concerned about this issue, is properly research and write an encyclopedia article about it (including adding academic citations for your research). We would encourage you to do so.

:However, you should note that we don't allow racism, [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] entries and other abuses. All articles need to stay on the topic they are about, rather than wandering off into a discourse on your own strange views on race and race-hate crimes.

:You should also note that we have a [[WP:3RR|Three Revert Rule]] that says nobody may revert an article more than three times in 24 hours (except in some very limited circumstances). You have repeatedly broken this rule and some of your IP address have been blocked, partially because of this. Administrators will, eventually, block the rest if you continue down this path.

:Additionally, changing the entire subject of an article from one on a murder victim to one on a similarly-named artist causes no end of trouble, for people who have cited our work and for the articles that link here. Your resulting article is great, but it should go under [[Anthony Walker (artist)]] for preference and you should request that this article be moved to [[Anthony Walker (murder victim)]].

:Finally, your use of an anonymous username and changing IP address gives at least the impression of cowardice. If you were to start an account - and thus your edits would be account''able'', you would be more likely to convince more people of your sincerity.

:As I've said before, if you wish to discuss this or any other matter calmly and rationally, please leave me a note on my Talk page (click "Hello" in the signature that follows) and I'll happily discourse with you. [[User:Redvers|Redvers]] ★ [[User_talk:Redvers|Hello]] ★ [[Special:Contributions/Redvers|Doings]] 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:02, 29 October 2005

This article was once nominated for deletion, and kept. For the whole discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anthony Walker.

Punkmorten 21:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Parallel"

The "parallel" cases to the Anthony Walker case are nothing of the sort. they are murders where the suspects were of a different ethnic group to the victim, but it does not follow they are racially motivated. To include them as a parallel to this case is speculation as to their cause. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation so I have removed it. 81.76.45.75 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Christopher Yates,Tracie Cullum,Richard Whelan seem to have been created specifically for racist reasons. I have put NPOV in them yesterday and back in today. They need to be watched.--IanDavies 14:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through Christopher Yates, Tracie Cullum, Richard Whelan and this article, removing the latest attempts to add racism (or racist emphasis) by Special:Contributions/80.1.180.5. I've also warned him/her on his/her Talk page not to put POV pieces on the 'pedia and not to indulge in personal attacks.
Also, I've been in to each article and rewritten them in NPOV terms and marked them all as Unencyclopedic rather than NPOV as this seems more appropriate. If there's a general consensus, Christopher Yates, Tracie Cullum and Richard Whelan could all be sent for AfD - although I suspect only the Yates article really qualifies for deletion. RedversHelloDoings 12:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel McGann and probably others no-one's spotted yet. Rd232 talk 11:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from alleged vandal

Reverted racially motivated propaganda which preaches one sided race hatred while ignoring other cases. Reverted topic to an encyclopeadic and historical tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.180.40 (talkcontribs) 12:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are, by the very nature of the Wikipedia, entitled (and encouraged) to update articles and make them better. This does not include adding streams of unrelated text, adding introductions in ALL CAPS, adding racist emphasis or anything else unencyclopedic.
What you could do, if you are so concerned about this issue, is properly research and write an encyclopedia article about it (including adding academic citations for your research). We would encourage you to do so.
However, you should note that we don't allow racism, NPOV entries and other abuses. All articles need to stay on the topic they are about, rather than wandering off into a discourse on your own strange views on race and race-hate crimes.
You should also note that we have a Three Revert Rule that says nobody may revert an article more than three times in 24 hours (except in some very limited circumstances). You have repeatedly broken this rule and some of your IP address have been blocked, partially because of this. Administrators will, eventually, block the rest if you continue down this path.
Additionally, changing the entire subject of an article from one on a murder victim to one on a similarly-named artist causes no end of trouble, for people who have cited our work and for the articles that link here. Your resulting article is great, but it should go under Anthony Walker (artist) for preference and you should request that this article be moved to Anthony Walker (murder victim).
Finally, your use of an anonymous username and changing IP address gives at least the impression of cowardice. If you were to start an account - and thus your edits would be accountable, you would be more likely to convince more people of your sincerity.
As I've said before, if you wish to discuss this or any other matter calmly and rationally, please leave me a note on my Talk page (click "Hello" in the signature that follows) and I'll happily discourse with you. RedversHelloDoings 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]