User talk:81.178.224.140

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have been blocked for three (3) hours for violating the [[[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]] at Pete Townshend. Deltabeignet 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I've suggested a compromise at Talk:Pete Townshend; it basically consists of replacing the sex offender category with Category:Crime suspects. I see you've started an RfC, which is probably a reasonable idea. What exactly did you want me to do with the article? Deltabeignet 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I would be unable to accept that as a compromise since it is my position (and the position of English law) that Townshend has admitted guilt. No matter what evidence I provide of this, User:Davidpatrick refuses to accept that a police caution can only be administered where the offender has confessed guilt to the police. He will not provide any material justifying his position, but since he is wrong this would be difficult for him to do. He seems to think that a caution is not a formal matter, but seems to think it is more like an informal warning. 81.178.224.140 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to sound like a complete idiot, but which RfC thingamajig? I can't find any RfC templates (i.e. Template:RfC). Well, if you don't like the compromise, I won't try to force you into it. Got any barristers handy? Deltabeignet 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to worry, I am a complete idiot so I will accept full responsibility for thinking that there was a template(?) going something like WP:RFC/SOC?? :S
    • There is no need for a barrister - my "point of view" is fully supported by official documents (for example the Cautioning guidlines issued by the Home Office) which state that an admission of guilt is a precondition of a caution. However, User:Davidpatrick ignores this and will not budge from his mis-interpretation of a caution as a formal warning. 81.178.224.140 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Would you be amenable to a less controversial category, such as Category:Criminals? The alleged facts of Townshend's offense would remain in the article -- it's unlikely that any readers would miss them -- and the categorization would still make clear his involvement in what you say his local law has deemed to be criminal acts. Adrian Lamo 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • To be honest, I don't see that the category serves any useful/reputable purpose and I suggested on its talk page that it be merged with Category:Sex offenders... which I then proposed for deletion. I fully appreciate Davidpatrick's position on the prejudicial nature of such a category. For some reason, this category has come to be the main area around which Davidpatrick's miscomprehension of the English laws affected Townshend have gelled. 81.178.224.140 00:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on my discussion page. I didn't take any of it personally. Both of us have been doing our best to put forward what we each feel is fair. Anyway - we seem to have reached a fair compromise that addresses both of our concerns. Let's settle it and move on... Davidpatrick 16:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Townshend

Please leave the categories alone while the talk-page discussion is still ongoing. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, since you have advised Davidpatrick not to "discuss" anything with anyone, and it was his decision to remove the category that started the discussion in the first place, I'll put it back... all as an attempt tp keep the "discussion" going.. thanks. 81.178.224.140 19:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have asked you to leave the categories alone while the talk-page discussion is ongoing. The category was not on the page at the time the page was protected, and it shouldn't be added back until the discussion has reached some sort of consensus. Please take some time to review Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia guidelines on civility as well. Thank you. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The category was removed as part of the actions that got the page protected; it was just a matter of who wrote the page back to the database before the protection tag was added. Your justification is invalid. 81.178.224.140 19:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/1/2E/User_talk%7E81.178.224.140.html"