User talk:Tommypowell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sourcing on James Stacy

Hello. I saw your note over at WP:AN/I. Firstly, this source you are adding here, is actually a mirror of Wikipedia, so is useless as a source. The usenet post is also not a very good source. It may nor may not have reproduced the People magazine accurately, we have no way of knowing this. I think, if this is being challenged, then it would be better to leave it out, until such time as someone can track down that issue of People, or find this in some other reliable source.

This is especially so as he is a living person and our policy about biographies of living people applies.

Morwen - Talk 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have physically read the article in PEOPLE magazine. It is available on microfilm at major libraries. This information was on the E! True Hollywood Story seen by millions. To allow anonymous users to censor it is absurd. Tommypowell 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This molestation conviction was also reported in the Los Angeles Times of March 6, 1996. "Actor Stacy Sentenced in Molestation"- Here is the link: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/16678389.html?dids=16678389:16678389&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+6%2C+1996&author=PAUL+ELIAS&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition=&startpage=1&desc=Actor+Stacy+Sentenced+in+Molestation Now can I get semi-protection so the vandalisers at least have to show their faces?

That link does indeed appear to be valid. Can I suggest you construct a sentence or two based around that information there, cite that as the source. It would be good to do due diligence to see if there was a succesful appeal, as well. If they remove actually well-sourced information repeatedly and often, then there may be a case for semi-protection, but not now.

Nobody is trying to "censor" anything, but we have to be very careful about reporting such allegations and insist on cast-iron sources. Morwen - Talk 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Ben ownby.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ben ownby.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Hornbeck

Please be careful in the way you phrase comments. "...you people nuts?" might be mistaken for incivility Regards, Navou ^banter 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Ben Ownby

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. John Reaves 05:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And PLEASE refrain from adding the dates of birth for Ownby and Hornbeck; minors who have involuntarily become known as a result of being crime victims are not public figures, and maintain some right of privacy (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays). MisfitToys 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exscuse me-they have had world-wide press conferences and interviews. They have been on Oprah, Today, CNN, etc. voluntarily. they are public figures just like Elizabeth smart Tommypowell 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hornbeck pointedly did not speak at his press conference, thus maintaining his privacy. MisfitToys 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hornbeck pointedly gave an interview to Oprah and appeared on the Oprah show, stood up and took a bow thus acknowledging his public standing. The Hornbeck family website itself has the birthdate on its website: http://www.shawnhornbeck.com/aboutshawn.cfm We also have Elizabeth Smart whose birtday has continually been listed. Tommypowell 13:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading files

Look under the search bar on the left hand side of your screen, there is a link that says "Upload file". It should easy from there. Make sure you are not violating a copyright and that you tag the pictures with appropriate licensing information. John Reaves 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy for the guidlines and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the actual tags. I'll be gone for a few hours soon, so be patient or ask someone else if you need more help. John Reaves 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the images. Be sure to answer the question listed on the two pages. I f you don't, they will most likely be deleted. To add them to the article, use [[Image:image name]]. If it doesn't look right just leave it and someone else will probably fix it. Also, be sure to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. John Reaves 15:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Shawnhornbeck2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shawnhornbeck2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn Hornbeck

Please cease edit warring. See WP:3RR. Ward3001 03:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Will you provide the specific Wikipedia regulation used to censor these Oprah show public figures dates of birth. If not-please cease vandalising.Tommypowell 12:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you are in danger of violating the Revert policy. Included is a link to WP:AN/3RR where your edits are notated. Regards, Navou ^banter 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for breach of 3RR on Shawn Hornbeck

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am making an effort an the discussion page. The vandalisers refuse to respond.Tommypowell 14:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Please don't accuse others of being vandals when they clearly aren't.

2. See these responses, as they are the same on both pages. Prometheus^-X303- 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but someone who repeatedly reverts the date of birth of an obviously public figure whose date of birth is readily available to the public isn't vandalising? If I were to repeatedly delete oprah's date of birth would this not be vandalism? Tommypowell 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, there is nothing in Wikipedia which suggests that only minors who are actors can have their dates of birth listed. If there is please inform me of such a link. Regardless, their ARE minors who are not actors whose dates of birth are listed: Princess Vittoria of Savoy and Princess Luisa of Savoy to quickly pick 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdays clearly provides for the inclusion of dates of birth where "well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public" No exception is made for ages and certainly no exception is made for profession (actors only). Regardless, I have just provided 2 non-actors, both under 18, whose birth dates are listed: Princess Vittoria of Savoy and Princess Luisa of Savoy. Neither of these girls have been interviewed on the Oprah show, Today show, CNN and a worldwide press coference as Hornbeck has. He is clearly a public figure. Furthermore, his "exact birthday is widely known and available to the public". I have posted 4 links to his date of birth, available to the most casual net browser. One of them is Cbs.com; another is the government website fbi.gov. Upon posting these I am told they are not good sources! Is this anything but trolling-a government site and Cbs.com deemed "not good sources". Just so there is no confusion here are yet MORE links to his birthday: http://www.shawnhornbeck.com/aboutshawn.cfm-this his own site! and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=68556 and http://www.alostchild.com/ecard/index.cfm?viewCard=307&password=y1usk4eKMn and http://serenityunveiled1.tripod.com/ and http://www.sssalas.com/MissingChildren.html Is this not "widely known and available to the public". If the subjects own web site lists the date of birth who are we to censor it. In addition: Infanta Leonor of Spain and Juan Valentín Urdangarín y de Borbón and Pablo Nicolás Urdangarín y de Borbón and Miguel Urdangarín y de Borbón and Irene Urdangarín y de Borbón. If there is some Wikipedia provision prohibiting birthdates based on age PLEASE PROVIDE IT. Tommypowell 13:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, and of course we have fellow kidnap victim Elizabeth Smart Tommypowell 13:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Additionally we have Kara Borden a living crime victim who is in Wikipedia complete with picture and date of birth. Any comments from the procensorship crowd? Tommypowell 14:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to stem from a vague policy on DOB. There is a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shawn_Hornbeck#DATE_OF_BIRTH-July_17.2C_1991 . Please make you case known there as soon as your block expires. When a policy is not clearly defined, different editors will take different approaches to it, hence the crime victims with complete DOBs. Perhaps this episode will persuade the policymakers to make improvements to the WP:BLP. Prometheus^-X303- 15:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Ownby

I've sent this to the Admins board and you can comment here [1]. I'd also like to point you in the direction of WP:BLP most notably this section [2] and this section [3]. If I may quote directly:

Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

Do not accuse me of being a vandal. He is not a celebrity, he is not a public figure. He's a child who is the subject of a painful and potentially embarassing news story. This article will not stand the test of time and it will most likely be merged. No one needs extraneous personal information about these boys. I'm going to request page protection until we get this resolved. AniMate 23:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Cbrown1023 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be careful here WP:NPA

Regarding calling others "weepers". Regards Navou ^banter 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Fair enough.Tommypowell

[edit] Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby

Policy is a very important thing and is the "supreme order for Wikipedia". Policy says that because we are "in doubt about the notability of the person in question", we should "err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date". That is what is currently on the page. Elizabeth Smart and the others you mentioned, are currently over 18 or are "famous people" such as actors and musicians, in which case, they are not the same. The smart thing to do would be to just include the birth year or the month, which is what was done. As I am an administrator, my only opinion is policy, and I am, therefore, quite neutral on this topic. Cbrown1023 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that you continually repeating the information is also making it more "widely available" and is not a smart thing to do when that is the information that is being evaluated for inclusion. If you say it once more until this discussion is over, I will have to block you for BLP reasons and violation of policy/privacy (posting personal information). Wait until this discussion is over and consensus has been reached before typing the date of birth again. Cbrown1023 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This was placed on the articles in question and your talk page. Cbrown1023 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD Vote

You recently voted keep for the article on Kara Borden as seen here [4]. That discussion, however, is closed and has been November. The current debate can be found here [5]. If you want your vote to be counted, that's the place to put it. AniMate 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC) http://crime.about.com/b/a/182495.htm

[edit] Citing

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kara Borden, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! --Yamla 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ka/kara_borden.htm is a mirror of the Wikipedia article itself. Please reread WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a reliable citation of itself, particularly when you are using the article to cite itself. There are many sites on the Internet which mirror Wikipedia content. This includes allexports.com and answers.com. --Yamla 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You said: "All right-here is a newspaper article from the Lancaster New Era newspaper dated November 22, 2005. You must sign up for the archive to read the complete article. http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/18762 Or you can go here and read the first result: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=lancaster+new+era%22+kara+borden%22+ludwig+2+06+91&btnG=Search"

Great. Read WP:CITE to learn how to add this as a citation and feel free to add the information back. Thanks! --Yamla 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

A discussion regarding your edits is underway at admin noticeboard. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

I must strongly urge you to please address the edit and not the editor. Violations of the No personal attacks could result in blocking. I would recommend striking your comments regarding "self appointed censors" and "handful of censors"..

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please reconsider your comment. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 20:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP Noticeboard

I've asked for some outside opinions over your reinsertion of exact birthdates of underaged victims of crime at the BLP Noticeboard. I welcome your opinion on the issue as well. AniMate 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Those birthdates were put up in 2005 by other users and have been up for 2 years without complaint. I have asked you many times for language in the BLP which distinguishes between birthdates for people of different ages or different occupations (actors/musicians only as you have claimed). You have been unable to respond. Birthdates, where available, are routinely included on Wikipedia pages-there is NO exception in the BLP for alleged crime victims. Tommypowell 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Censorship"

This is the policy: Privacy of birthdays Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date. I obviously don't agree with you on several key points, so let me just say this. I am not trying to "censor" anythings. I'm trying to follow policy. I don't think these kids are public figures, and you obviously do. That's fine... we are interpreting the policy differently. I think most people, when asked who Kara Borden is, aren't going to know right away. That's marginal notability in my book. However, here's another policy that I strongly urge you to follow: WP:AGF. Your accusations of censorship are mean spirited and insulting. Please stop and try to be civil. AniMate 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me where in the above is some distinction made on the basis of 1. Age 2. Occupation (actors/musicians only) or 3. Alleged crime victim status. The concern above is clearly with "identity theft". Since these birthdates are available globally to anyone who can use google that concern is moot. When someone tries to delete widely available information which has been on an article for 2 years I don't know another word to use other than censor-let me know what word you prefer be used. You have already tried to remove this entire article on grounds of non-notability. You were voted down. You tried to remove the Shasta Groene article on grounds of non-notability. Again you were voted down. You have stated that the BLP makes distinctions on including birthdates on the basis of age, occupation and crime victims status; distinctions which just do not exist in the BLP.Tommypowell 00:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't voted down. There was no vote. There was a debate on the articles that ended in no consensus. You seem to be taking this very personally and I would argue that you need to read WP:AGF again. I don't see why the ongoing debate has to take the form of a conflict. I'm not censoring, I'm attempting to edit the article in accordance to my interpretation of WP:BLP. The way I read it, when a person's notability is in doubt, editors should err on the side of caution and not include the date. I'm not sure any of these people are in fact notable. True, they were involved in sensational crimes, but what have they done that makes them notable? I'm not sure where I stated that there are distinction on birthdays on the basis of age, occupation, or crime victim status, rather I am arguing that these are not public figures. Certain occupations do indeed make someone a public figure, but my threshold is whether or not they live their lives in the public eye. I don't believe any of them do. I'm not sure how this is going to play out, but WP:BLP is the most contentious area in the encyclopedia. It's the part that where editors must be the most cautious as well. In the end, this all comes down to policy, which is ever changing. As you know, Navou is going to instigate an RFC, which is a request for comment. It's one of the first steps in dispute resolution. While I guess this is a dispute, I think this is more of a chance to get other members of the community to comment and help establish a firm policy and set of guidelines for us to follow. AniMate 01:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments

I am considering filing a RfC regarding this WP:BLP issue, any objections? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know what an RfC is.Tommypowell 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, they are at WP:RFC, if you have any questions, let me know on my talk. Best regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

I have warned you more than once about posting information that may violate the WP:BLP everywhere when it is being discussed. In edit summaries is definitely one of them. If I see it doen again, I will block withouth further warning. Cbrown1023 talk 03:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• You have now repeatedly threatened to block me for re-posting information which has been on the articles for 2 years-posted by other users not me. There is no Wikipedia policy barring birthdates that are globally available on the internet. If you want such a policy then propose it. In any event the discussion has now been terminated by Navou so any blocking by you would be improper and result in the proper complaint being filed. Tommypowell 14:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please note, that I never terminate discussion. If ever anyone feels I am in error, please correct me on those talk pages. I am always open to discussion. So I am reopening? discussion on every topic that does not directly violate policy. Especially on Talk: Kara Borden where we can not make progress until all editors involved come to an agreement. Sidenote: Tommy, consider feedback given here. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 14:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, there is... see WP:BLP, particularly the section on due privacy.--Isotope23 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Use quotation marks from the BLP to make your argument. Birthdates are allowable for "widely known people" whose birthdates are "available to the general public". the words in quote come directly from the BLP.Tommypowell 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tommypowell, I am formally requesting that you apoligize to all here due to your violation of BLP and inserting a source that did not exist. Were I an admin, this would be one thing I would immediately block you indefinitely for. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What source are you talking about?Tommypowell 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't play games, we have told you on many pages (I think more 3+ so far) the policy and quoted it directly. You have not stopped. Cbrown1023 talk 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You were warned:

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Cbrown1023 talk 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You-I will be filing constant complaints to get you removed as an administrator for your grossly improper actions.Tommypowell 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm warning you that improper complaints will result in this page being protected so you may not edit it. Constant and inappropriate complaints will result in an abuse report being filed to your ISP. Thank you, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can file a request to be unblocked by posting {{unblock|REASON}} on this page or you could e-mail the unblock mailing list with the information given when you try to edit any page (other than your talk page). Cbrown1023 talk 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that the consensus of several administrators on WP:ANI today was that including information such as exact dates of birth of minor crime victims is inappropriate, and that edit-warring to include such information and including it in all caps edit summaries to ensure that it receives maximum publicity is completely unacceptable. The administrators' reaction here was appropriate and I suspect the only chance this account will be unblocked is if you promise to stop doing these things. Newyorkbrad 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I requested time and time again for language in the BLP authorising differential treatment for "minors" or "crime victims" concerning birthdates. No one has provided such language. It does not exist.
• Given the travesty of my blocking anyone can now delete any date of birth on any article and give some bogus, generic reason-"libel", "privacy", "caution", "notability in doubt", "not a public figure", etc.-all of which have been used against me. To post a true and verifiable fact is no longer enough when a single rogue administrator can issue a retaliatory ban the same day a user requests the procedure to file a complaint against him. Coincidence-of course! Tommypowell 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cbrown1023 has done an excellent job as an administrator and your characterization of him is grossly unfair. In any event, if he had not blocked this account, another administrator soon would have. Other than contending that there is no written ironclad absolute prohibition against inserting the birth dates of child crime victims into articles, at no time have you explained why this information would add any intellectual or other value whatsoever to this encyclopedia, much less have enough value to outweigh the self-evident privacy interests involved. Your attempts today to render inclusion of the information a fait accompli, while the matter was under discussion and consensus was against your position, by including the birthdates in all caps in edit summaries (now deleted) were outrageous. At this point, this account is practically a single-purpose account edit-warring to include child crime victims' birthdates in Wikipedia while calling the editors and administrators who try to persuade you to stop a variety of names. The consensus is clear that this block was justified. Nonetheless, as noted above, you have the ability to seek review by a previously uninvolved admin by posting the unblock template with a civil explanation of the reasons you think you should be unblocked. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again I must note that the Kara Borden and Shasta Groene articles and birthdates were put up in 2005 by OTHER USERS-not me. It was only in 2007 with the advent of self-appointed censors who took it upon themselves to begin a war against these articles that I tried to preserve their integrity. If Wikipedia wants to censor birthdates based on age then it should do so-right now it DOES NOT. In any event Wikipedia seems destined to degrade from a libertarian bastion to a fascist cesspool; not unlike the rest of "click it or ticket" America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommypowell (talk • contribs).
  • I see no reply to the substance of my response, which was intended as a serious if in retrospect unnecessary attempt to engage with your concerns. You just make a pronouncement that omitting the birthdates of child crime victims from articles as a matter of common decency starts Wikipedia down the road to fascism: a clear example of the "slippery slope" as fallacy. Newyorkbrad 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)