User talk:Elpocoloco

Welcome!

Hello, Elpocoloco, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 06:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Arthurs

From what I can tell, that Daily Mail article doesn't have any picture of any kind. Are you looking at the same one as I was? Anyway, after seeing that the paper is a tabloid (I always have a hard time telling with UK papers), I'd just as soon leave it off. As for the other statement, the UK's permanent anonymity does not apply to the Australian government, police, or media, so I don't see the point of including it. I've removed it again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Arthurs is Thompson, for this to be confirmed would require admission by authorities in the UK, not Australia, that Arthurs is Thompson under a new alias. If Australian authorities ask the UK authorities, "is Arthurs really Robert Thompson?" and the UK authorities, choosing to adhere to the demands of the permanent anonymity order, state that it isn't him, does not mean than from a non-legal perspective ie. one that ignores the permanent anonymity order, that the UK authorities are telling the "truth"? I have not labelled any party as being liars because from a legal perspective they aren't lying as it is possible that the UK is simply acting under the auspices of the PA order. To ignore this as a possible obstacle to the "truth" from a moral, non-legal perspective is dangerous as it suggests that in cases where PA is involved, PA individuals have the right to commit future crimes without their criminal history coming into consideration when being sentenced as they are protected by the justice system that have granted them PA. Elpocoloco 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this is your personal speculation. We should not assume Arthurs is Thomson just because there are rumors. The line is confusing and does not add to the encyclopedic value of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]