Talk:Moors murders

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Brady's general election rant

This is in the news, although it probably isn't notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That won't stop some editors trying to add it. Kind of fits, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is notable enough for a single lineAusLondonder (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Then you need to look up the definition of "notable", clearly. Cassianto^Talk 20:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It fails WP:10YT. Brady has ranted about all sorts of things in letters in the past.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cassianto - and you need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NNCAusLondonder (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I did once, and I vowed never to read it again. Cassianto^Talk 20:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Charming. I can tell. AusLondonder (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As indicated above, Brady mentioning the election is not sufficiently notable to be worth including in the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be more notable if he was a Green supporter. Currently, of course, he can't vote. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with User:Sagaciousphil, this is not notable and should have never been inserted in the article. David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't help but me amazed by your dictatorial attitude User:Sagaciousphil - what gives you the right to declare 'Brady mentioning the election is not sufficiently notable to be worth including in the article'? AusLondonder (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But it's not just Phil, is it. At my count it's currently 5:1 against. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Make that six against; this is just fucking ridiculous. Eric Corbett 21:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• (The above edit generously sponsored by the Northern Party.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not so ridiculous when you look at his contributions which seem to be all geared around the May elections. This user seems to be on a campaign trial on behalf of UKIP. Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not *fucking* arguing for inclusion stringently User:Eric Corbett, I just said it was notable then I left it. Do you think your behaviour is WP:CIVIL?

User:Cassianto - are you saying I'm for or against UKIP in your paranoid mind? I cannot believe you have the brass neck to post the link to my contributions and blatantly lie that they are 'all geared around the May elections'. I have created several pages not related to the election and the majority of my contributions are NOT election related. AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Paranoid? Why would I be paranoid? What makes you think I give a fuck about your political leanings? My point was that you have spent a lot of time working on political articles only to then drive-by a featured article to deposit a piece of non-notable trivia in a section that has nothing to do with Brady on a subject for which you have written a lot about previously. Are you saying that that was a coincidence or are you trying to make a point? Cassianto^Talk 01:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• 'What makes you think I give a fuck about your political leanings?' - er, you questioned them by saying 'this user seems to be on a campaign trial on behalf of UKIP'
• Why is it non-notable trivia? Why did the media cover it then?
• Why is it a 'drive-by' to add sourced material to the article? Is this article yours?
• How does it having nothing to do with Brady when he himself made the comments?
• Why couldn't you just be decent about it? Why all the swearing and accusations?

AusLondonder (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ephemeral nonsense posted just before a general election is ephemeral nonsense and is not acceptable at Wikipedia. Someone with a three-week old account should do more listening. See WP:NOTNEWS, wait three months, and then propose an edit to this article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, I know more about WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BITE than many others. You guys don't really like new editors that much, do you? By the way, are you saying we wait three months for everything? 2011 England riots? September 11 attacks?AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to understand the situation please ask me later when things have calmed down. In brief, CIVIL is not intended to stop an editor from saying what they think about a situation, and the Moors murders case has nothing to do with the current election. If you stick around you will find that Wikipedia is based on pragmatism—things that help the encyclopedia are good, and things that don't aren't. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• AusLondonder, please don't start with the bullshit OWN accusation; this has nothing to do with ownership and more to do with protecting the article from non notable trivia. Also, I like the way how you take the moral high ground accusing me of incivility whilst at the same time assuming I have a "paranoid mind". Cassianto^Talk 01:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Brady's opinions on the general election are irrelevant to this article. They may be relevant to something like Convicted murderers and their opinions on General Elections though, so get writing if you'd like to see that. Parrot of Doom 09:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Brady knows that letters he sends to members of the public or the media always get published, no matter how infantile or non-notable the content. This is why his views on UKIP (or anything else for that matter) are not worth mentioning in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess the situation could be worse - at least we don't have to monitor for Maghull IP addresses? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)