User talk:Davidpatrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Davidpatrick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Jaxl 03:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This type of censorship makes me sick

Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Townsend

I don't feel strongly enough about it to revert it myself, but the definition of the "Sex Offenders" Category would appear to apply. He WAS put on the Sexual Offenders List. The article does a good job of explaining the situation. John 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But then I would suggest (maybe, I'm new here myself), you propose changing the definition of the category atCategory_talk:Child_sex_offenders. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Townsend is one of favorites and I don't believe he's into the little ones, but I want the category system to work cleanly. John 06:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
gotcha. Like I said, its not a big deal to me and I don't plan on doing more about it. Happy editing! John 07:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

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

I would appreciate your advice in dealing with an issue where someone is repeatedly reinstating a controversial category. The issue has been debated endlessly and the other person keeps reinstating the category on flawed grounds. Advocating that Townshend has conceded guilt for a crime that not only did Townshend NOT concede guilt for - but for which the police elected NOT to charge him - and thus for which there is no conviction at all. I have at all times averred that the information should not be supressed - and rightly belongs in the article itself. But it does not warrant inclusion as a category. Davidpatrick 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that if you want to remove the category, you will have to disprove the criteria at Category:Child sex offenders: namely, that Townshend has been convicted of a crime against a child (obviously, he hasn't), that he has publically admitted offenses (which he may or may not have), and that he has been placed on a sex offender register, (which he apparently has). I can see both sides of the dispute. Deltabeignet 06:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a complex matter - no question at all. I don't dispute that he has been placed on the list OF sex offenders. But even the police acknowledge that he isn't a sex offender per se - because they didn't charge him and he wasn't convicted. The police elected not to charge him (and they certainly would have if they felt they could get a conviction.) The British police are not in the habit of letting anti-establishment rock stars "get away" with something as pernicious as child sex offences - in the full glare of public and media scrutiny. The agreement with Townshend was to give him an official caution - in which the person ackowledges that he/she has engaged in unwise activities (but NOT criminal activity - or else he/she would have been charged) and the person undertakes to use better judgement in the future. A mandatory requirement of accepting the caution is placement on a list of those who HAVE committed offences - even though you haven't. It's like someone being given a mild punishment for having been close to doing something wrong by being made to stand in the corner with those who actually HAVE done something wrong - and been committed of such an act.

This is an extremely controversial practise and could not survive in American law (absence of due process) That is an aside - but it is an important aside.

The peculiarities of English law are not easily comprehensible - even to the English! And certainly not to people outside the UK.

If the category was "People who are ON a Sex Offenders list" (and that was about all those who are on such a list - irrespective of how or why) - then while I might argue whether it was material enough to Townshend's life to warrant inclusion in the category section - there might be some merit for it. But if the category is just Category:Child sex offenders: - Townshend most assuredly is NOT one. He is on a list (as explained above) but his place on the list is a mandatory by-product of his NOT being charged or convicted as a sex offender.

In other words - after 4 months of investigation the police finally acknowledged he was not a sex offender. And refused to charge him. But an aberration in the English law meant that in being cautioned to be careful in future he would nonetheless have to go on a list with people who ARE sex offenders. That was part of the warning. A sort of equivalent to the "scared straight" program. We won't convict you - but we will make you visit a prison to scare you into making better choices so that you don't SUBSEQUENTLY break the law.

If Townshend WAS a Category:Child sex offenders then he would have had to be charged and convicted and he would have been sentenced to serve time in prison. None of those things happened.

It may seem a small point - but I believe that a person's reputation should not be needlessly besmirched. Davidpatrick 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi - first of all thank you for taking up the matter. I looked over at the Talk:Pete Townshend page as currently shown - and your suggestion didn't seem to be there (unless I missed it) right now. But I found it on a previous version. Perhaps it was accidentally deleted when the last few posts were put there? Anyway - I'm not a wiki expert but it looks to be a promising compromise. Townshend certainly was a crime suspect. (Of course many people who have articles about them on wiki - have been crime suspects and such a page may be deluged with links.) I think if it is a page about people who HAVE BEEN crime suspects - then that it absolutely fair. He is not currently a suspect. But he WAS. A legitimate category as it is a distinction that can be made between people who were at one time suspects - but who were not ultimately charged, prosecuted or convicted. I don't know how to express that succinctly as a wiki title. The SENTIMENT of the category title should be: "People who at one time were crime suspects but who ultimately were neither prosecuted nor convicted." (but in 4-5 words!) Category:Crime suspects ultimately not prosecuted ????

That would certainly be fair. We also need to ensure that the body of the article reflects this fair compromise.

In fairness to the person who is opposing me on this - the issue is extraordinarily complex. English law uses terminology that is confusing to English people (let alone those in other countries.) eg Townshend was suspected of "making indecent photographs of children." Any reasonable person would be entitled to think that that meant that Townshend had been posing kids with a Nikon. But it turns out that "making" was in fact English legal terminology referring to Townshend TRANSFERRING an image on a website on to his computer - thus MAKING a photograph. (As it happens the police eventually decided that he had NOT done that.) But the point is that the legal terminology - without careful explanations - could easily and understandably cause mis-perceptions. My understanding is that wikipedia always strives to clarify matters - for a wolrdwide readership.

Thanks Davidpatrick 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean; discussion seems a little deadlocked. The anonymous editor added the page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law, which will hopefully help bring in some more outside help. It's probably best that you refrain from confronting the anon, as that hasn't been going well. Of course, as other editors take part in discussion, I encourage you to talk it over with them. Crazy stuff, this! Here's to it all working out peacably. Deltabeignet 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll second Deltabeignet's comment: Don't bother confronting the anon user. His actions have become increasingly irrational and hostile, and at this point, he's blatantly POV-pushing. Your points are well-made, and the anon user finally undid his formatting changes so your edits are easier to read. I suggest that you keep an eye on the page, responding to talk page comments from other editors, but otherwise consider your points made and let the anon user rant and rave all he wants. Wikipedians tend to frown on behavior like his. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If he continues adding the category, we should just have the page protected again. No single user should impose his will on a page in the presence of an ongoing debate. I might support "sex offenders," but it should come about as a consensus on the talk page, not because some anonymous user says so. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You are quite right, Category sex offenders" should not be there because I say so. However, not should it be there as a result of a "consensus". It should be there because it is right. At every stage I have provided sources so that everything I say can be looked into and verified - Acts of parliament, Home Office cautioning guidelines, etc. Either no-one reads them or no-one stands them. Read the sources, understand them, then come round to my consensus. 81.178.224.140 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the incident takes up too much of the article, but in the short-term, the answer is for someone to bulk up the rest of the article, as trimming the controversial section would inflame the situation. There's no justification for a subpage here, IMO. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Townshend

Thanks for the note on my talk page, but I'm afraid I don't know if I want to enter this minefield. -- Mwalcoff 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the biggest issue is the listing of Townshend in Category:Sex offenders, and that the category is going to be deleted soon. -- Mwalcoff 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I should apologise if this ever seemed to be getting personal. By the way, this area is not complex or difficult, it is just incredibly badly reported and explained. 81.178.224.140 11:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Townshend again

Sorry, I didn't look at my page till now. I think the article is in MUCH better shape now than it was. My point, however, was not only that Townshend's article was unbalanced. This was obvious and has dramatically changed since. It's important always to remember what we do here: We create an encyclopaedia. The sole criterium for mention in an article of some fact is an objective importance of that fact.

One thing should be discussed more thoroughly in the Wikipedia community: We can't evade making judgments what is and what isn't important. Just writing something because it was in the press, because the police investigated or for some similar reason makes Wikipedia dependent on judgments of others, which can be just as well wrong as right. (Not in the moral sense alone, but in the factual sense also.)

"Sex offender", in my view, is a defamating pseudo-scientific tag for people who cross boundaries some people don't like them to cross. Let's just take an example: For all times, there have been cases where people over eighteen slept with people under eighteen. Even more obvious: In the US, there are still homosexuals on the sex offenders' lists in some regions. Some people like to tag some behaviour as deviant. If we want to follow them in doing that, we have to discuss the matter and make a judgment - which can, of course, be wrong. That's the risk with every judgment. But just following the law - which, at all times, has been historically contingent - we secretly affirm its judgments. Just to make myself clear: We might be unanimous about what murder is, and might, for that reason, write: "Jack the Ripper was a murderer." In other cases, we might have to write: "She was accused to be a terrorist (though not being one, if we define a terrorist to be that and that) and for that reason, wrongly condemmed." Just to write in that latter case: "She was accused and condemned of terrorism" wouldn't be NPOV, because it would imply at least a tacit agreement.

Best, --Fountaindyke 19:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Minor grammatical error

I'm afraid that I can't give a detailed response unless you provide more specifics regarding what page you're trying to edit and what you're trying to add. Posting to WP:AN is pretty much the same as approaching an individual administrator, such as myself, when we can usually take care of it without discussion; thus, it shouldn't be needed at this point. If you let me know the details, I'll be happy to help you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that wasn't too minor. We really appreciate people pointing out errors like that - I'm surprised I didn't notice it myself, but it has been a while since I've read the anonymous talk page footer. It's fixed now. Don't hesistate to let me know about any other errors you find in system messages (MediaWiki:) or protected templates. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. That wasn't a grammatical mistake; 'they' was used on that page as the most commonly-accepted gender-neutral pronoun. The new revision works just as well, so it matters not. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I guess I've always been inclined toward the "traditional" grammar, though it appears that it'll be a moot point. Anyways, though, I think the current wording should work; let me know if you disagree. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Popular misconceptions versus historical accuracy

Intersting, again. :-) While I think I understand the gist of your comments, I think I need some clarification. Could you provide an example you were thinking of? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to that above, haven't I? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is interesting. I've never been heavily involved in editing band articles on Wikipedia, but I'll try my best... A quick, cursory look at Category:Musical groups and Category:American musical groups doesn't show any current cases like that. The closest I could find was at Human nature (disambiguation), which disambiguates between two titles, one band, a film, and the main article. My own thoughts would be that the use of "(original band)" should be discouraged, because there's no clear definition of "original", and that the use of either time period or geographic origination, when possible, should be used. The closest guidelines I can think of off the top of my head are at WP:MUSIC, which is more for notability, and the Manual of Style; however, I can think of nothing specific off the top of my head that is listed in the policy. I hope this answers your question. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Openly

Fair enough...wasn't trying to lecture or anything... --Mhking 05:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Miramax Films

That particular IP's attacks on that article and all the others that he targets are definitely vandalism. The user violates WP:VAN and, since he targets the same articles all the time(in between blocks that is) he can be referred to as a Wiki-troll. If you catch him up to no good the procedure is simple: test1, test2, test3, test4..report to WP:AIV..done. He gets extended blocks for his efforts. For this type of troll, I think it has become an extreme case of proving a point. Eventually...he'll get bored(we can hope). Good luck Anger22 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Those insidious salt and pepper shakers

The salt and pepper shakers issue has arisen again -- you'll recall there was some debate on the Glenn Ford article about this. Well I just found the same line in the article for Bob Hope and I have a feeling we might see the line sneaking into other articles. If you happen to spot any other references to salt and pepper shakers, please let me know via my talk page as I'm going to keep track of this as I've seen similar "let's put little falsehoods in and see if anyone notices"-style vandalism before. Cheers! 23skidoo 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Help requested

The user you mentioned is the "Disney/Barney vandal", who targets various articles and lists related to Disney, animation and children's television. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Disney/Barney vandal. She or he uses many IPs, most of which are listed at the link I've provided. Typically we don't indefinitely block anonymous users because doing so would penalize a lot of legitimate editors. In particular, the Disney/Barney vandal edits from some Los Angeles school IPs, along with dynamic IPs from Comcast Cable. Whenever I see this vandal around I file a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, or WP:AIV, including a link to the WP:LTA section above so the blocking administrator will know they're dealing with a repeat offender. Thank you very much for your interest in helping fight this persistent vandal. We need all the help we can get. szyslak (t, c, e) 03:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick follow-up. That particular IP was blocked for three months. [1]. Looking at the WP:LTA entry, I'm sure he will be back. Hang in there. You can outlast him. =) Just to satisfy my own curiosity, how did you find me? I don't recall having crossed paths with you before (but then maybe I have). -- Gogo Dodo 04:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Re your message: Ah, okay. I wasn't aware I ran across this IP before. I was RC Patrolling, reverted and warned him. Then he must have fallen off my radar. -- Gogo Dodo 06:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The list of IP's that is shown above is missing at least one more. Unfortunately it's the only one that ever responded to any messages on the talk page. I can't find it right now but the response was from the editors sister. They claimed that their brother was autistic and they really enjoyed editing Wikipedia. A look at some of the edits these IP's make would certainly seem to have the marks of either a young editor or someone who had a problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filmex

I am just going through articles in Category:Film festivals, fixing categories as needed (moving American ones to Category:Film festivals in the United States & Festivals in [state] right now). I regret that I have no new information on the individual festivals themselves. I should probably list all my category changes as "minor". --Vossanova o< 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amnesty tour infobox

Please see my response at Talk:A Conspiracy of Hope Tour. Wasted Time R 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, User:crashintome4196 figured out how to do the infoboxes the desired way. Wasted Time R 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epstein

I have added a firm reference that the Epstein story is "hogwash" as Spitz wrote. I will now revert... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now put TWO strong references in from Spitz, and from Miles, that Epstein's story was, as Spitz wrote "hogwash", and Miles wrote "not true". If anyone wants to argue with them both I suggest they find a better reference. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So WHERE are your in-line citations, I ask? It looks at the moment that Spitz and Miles agree with your version. I will put "citation needed" on your comments. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Townshend

Hi. I was interested in how your removal of factually correct info from the article fitted with your edit summary: "removed factually incorrect info. Accurately and proportionately dealt with in the article". A look at WP:LEAD might also be in order. Thanks. --Guinnog 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I skimmed the talk page. I cannot see why anything there would outweigh WP:LEAD. You need to be careful with WP:3RR as well. --Guinnog 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors

I am hereby banning SqueakBox (talk • contribs), Davidpatrick (talk • contribs) and Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) from editing this article; I am implementing here a "soft-ban" - as the article history shows the edit war exists only between these three participants, and thus the article may be unprotected in the event of these users being banned from editing. Upon the event of these users violating this soft-ban, administrators may, at their discretion, implement blocks from editing Wikipedia in enforcement of this. This is made in line with ArbCom precedent that editors who perform fixated edit warring upon an article may be banned from editing that article, such as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair. Should anyone have any questions or concerns relating to this, please do contact me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New template created for infobox

Not only did I fix the Human Rights Now! Tour infobox, but I created a new template based off of {{Extra chronology}}. The new template is {{Extra tour chronology}} and was created exclusively to be used with {{Infobox concert tour}}. –Crashintome4196 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha - no, that's referring to the type of template it is. Esoteric is a type of programming language that is used in making syntax templates on Wikipedia. –Crashintome4196 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spitz

"has one or two notes of inaccuracies in the Bob Spitz book. They are the tip of a large iceberg." This is almost slander, and although I no longer contribute to that Beatles' thing, I would like to know if you have actually read the book. I don't think you have, and that is a direct accusation. We could easily prove this by you telling me what the third citation is on the index page. You could also explain exactly how many mistakes he made. The ball is in your court. andreasegde 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDavidpatrick_f52f.html"