User talk:Fighting for Justice/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome, Fighting for Justice/Archive 1!

➨ ЯEDVERS 20:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 77

Please assume good faith. I never said anything about vandalism. Quite the contrary, I said "re: taxi photo (will find another link)". Also, there was a minor problem with the formatting of the references. I know the taxi photo is available many other places on the web, including the DOD itself. With some time to find it, I will put it in. Thanks. And welcome to Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than finding another link, I put the taxicab photo directly in the article. (since it's public domain, from the DOD) Hope this is satisfactory. Without your edit and talk page comment, I don't think I would have noticed the bad link. Thanks for bringing it to attention. --Aude (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

David Westerfield

CHILD PORN?

“stop trying to soften up child porn 196.15.168.40.You won't do it. Child porn at ANY level is deplorable. No one in law enforcement said "1%".Those are YOUR words.You are misrepresentin the facts”

Extract from the Court TV article: “... the "questionable" images, which numbered about 80, as well as 8,000 to 10,000 other nudes ...”.

You do the math: 80 out of 8,000 to 10,000 is what percentage?

But you needn’t do the math: it’s already been DONE for you. Extract from trial testimony, Feldman’s recross-examination of James Watkins, June 26:

Q: WHAT PERCENTAGE IS EIGHTY-FIVE OF I THINK YOU TOLD US EIGHT TO TEN THOUSAND?

A: ABOUT ONE PER CENT.

Watkins was the prosecution’s computer expert. He worked for the San Diego Police Department. So someone in law enforcement DID say 1%..

But WAS this child porn? Watkins merely said it was “questionable”. So it MIGHT have been but might NOT have been. It’s very subjective. Another member of law enforcement, Detective Chris Armstrong, considered NONE of the images to be child porn. But he wasn’t allowed to testify to that. (So much for a fair trial.) A former member of law enforcement, Marcus Lawson, who was retained by the defense, implied they weren’t even close to being illegal. (See the archived Westerfield Talk page for more details.) I didn’t see any of that in the media coverage.

In stark contrast, the media REPEATEDLY described them as child porn, as can be seen from the headline of the Court TV article: “Jury sees graphic child pornography taken from Westerfield's home”. So the media appointed themselves judge and jury. I wonder what affect that had on the public?

We must also look at the bigger picture. What is more important is not this MISDEMEANOR charge, but whether this MINUSCULE proportion of POSSIBLY under-18/sexual images REALLY proves a motive for the two FELONY charges.196.15.168.40 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kelly Marie Ellard

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that preventive administrative action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Rama's arrow 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - please be calm. Please read WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL - some of your statements are within the category of personal attacks. Let's settle this issue amicably. Cheers, Rama's arrow 13:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael

THANK YOU so much. Finally someone who doesn't jump to conclusions about poor Michael. It's good to see that there are still people in the world who can think for themselves, and don't have to be fed by the media. Rock on man! --Paaerduag 11:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Samir's talkpage

Hi - I never wished to interfere, but its clear to me that you're making this personal. Please note that you accusing Samir of being a "reverse-racist" is a blatant personal attack. Be calm - after all, we were able to resolve the dispute once both sides calmed down. On a personal note, I've known Samir for quite some time and he's not prejudiced against anybody. And I do agree that "reverse discrimination" is a serious problem in the Western world today, but you need to be cool and don't fight real-life battles here. Please read WP:POINT, WP:NOT, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV. Thanks, Rama's arrow 13:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please don’t vandalize the David Westerfield article - and your repeated removal of my edits IS vandalism.

What I added is TRUE. It contained statements made by an Assistant US Attorney and a prosecutor in the case - the very sources one would expect you to RESPECT. You didn’t dispute the truth of those statements, but nevertheless simply deleted them - and were insulting in doing so: "your favorite child-killer", "shut your pie hole", and previously, "your rants". Insults are no substitute for rational arguments. This creates not only a bad impression of you personally, but also casts doubt on your viewpoint. It suggests you are UNABLE to refute what I have written, and KNOW it.

I was responding to a quote (NOT added by you) that is defamatory - and probably ISN’T true. I COULD have simply deleted it, and would have been JUSTIFIED in doing so, but I don’t generally approve of that. I prefer to give the facts - ALL the facts - and let people decide for themselves.

Your emotional reaction is significant, and likely provides insight into the reason for the jury’s verdict. So I would point out that the prosecution produced NO evidence of a CAUSAL link between possession of such images and the commission of such crimes.196.15.168.40 04:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

V.A.

Why do you keep changing it, who the hell do you think you are! I took the personal bit out, which I was going to do anyway from the start, so explain how it doesn't comply now. I have put reasonable stuff in it, and I know I have. Answer me!

Mazito - Monday, 06 November, 2006; 21:01 (GMT)

Maybe the day she was born on and her age I should get rid of, but stating the country where a place is is completely necessary, and saying she's a friend of another actor is ok for to be there! And if I asked most people round where I live do they know where New Jersey is, they probably wouldn't have a clue, the reason I know is because I am quite a clever person and like to know a lot of stuff, and I know loads about America aswell, and also, most people know where it is if they're from America, but not everyone's from America, and that's the reason why most people round mine, if not all, wouldn't have a clue where it is, because they've never even heard of it. A lot of people probably haven't even heard of Jersey, or have no idea where it is (whether they know it's in the UK or not), which is in the UK! So I should be able to keep them stuff, shouldn't I!

Mazito - Monday, 06 November, 2006; 21:12 (GMT)

Actually, I would do that, but point out exactly where I violate the NPOV policy or any other policies for that matter first, because I don't see it violating. By the way, the friendship isn't with just anyone, he is an actor, so to link them up with a friendship (when it's true) with two people like Veronica and James is like an interesting fact, and should be there. I am desperate to put it back, I repeat, put, not revert, for the record! So I am not breaking the 3RR rule either. So come on, tell me what's wrong, because this just ain't fair! FFS!

Mazito - Monday, 06 November, 2006; 21:31 (GMT)

No, don't. I will take the friendship out of it then if it makes you happy! But that's it. There's nothing else wrong, even that's not wrong! And you can't keep moaning! This article has got nothing to do with you! You shouldn't've even came across it man! You best not report me, I'm one of the good Wikipedians, and I'm the kind of person who is good and doesn't deserve to get reported as if I'm bad. You know I'm trying to sort the Veronica page out for the better! :@ Now don't report me! That would be injustice, and bad for Wikipedia (and me) and I would've thought you of all people least want injustice to occur! And I have a lot of stuff to sort out, so don't bloody get me reported and blocked and all that, man! I'll take the friendship part out of it you fool!

Mazito - Monday, 06 November, 2006; 22:49 (GMT)

Well I wouldn't have to if you didn't keep changing it, and I don't keep violating the terms, and I am a good Wikipedian. So just remember, you're the cause of all this, and it's pathetic. And when you said 'then', it should've been 'than'! So as you can see, it isn't really my fault at all!

Mazito - Monday, 06 November, 2006; 23:02 (GMT)

Listen, I never break promises. In the end, we (I) settled on just removing the friendship part, which I'm not happy about, but you are not happy with it. I understand about the personal rererence bit, and that's gone now, and sorted, and I was always going to remove it anyway, I just wanted to show Veronica it first (personally). But I really don't want to have to remove the friendship, and I tink she prefers it there aswell ya' know.

MAZITO - Monday, 06 November, 2006; 23:16 (GMT)

We did, didn't we. Yeah I know it doesn't have to do what the person says just because it's about them, but I was just saying how Veronica would prefer it. And I also tink the same, because I think people would rather see it on there than not on there (about the friendship). If I put she is a good friend of Em (one of her non-famous friends), then there would be a point, but James is famous, or at least partially, because he's an actual actor. And I don't like the way you was going on about how she can't do anything about it!

MAZITO - Monday, 06 November, 2006; 23:42

Vandalism of David Westerfield article

Warning: Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Reply to your latest justification for removing my edits:

My edit didn’t place the 1% in quotes, so it’s irrelevant that the article I referenced didn’t contain those actual words. Watkins DID say 1%, and the figures he gave which are quoted in the article work out at 1%. THAT’S what’s important. It’s irrelevant that the judge didn’t allow the JURY to hear Armstrong’s professional expert opinion in the main trial: Armstrong DID say that, he put it in an official police report, and it WAS heard at the preliminary trial. As you yourself have said, Wikipedia is NOT the courtroom, this article is about the TRUTH - VERIFIABLE truth. One can even argue that, because the judge didn’t allow the jury to hear it, it’s all the more important that it be included in the Wikipedia article. What’s important is not the NAME of the Assistant US Attorney - a rose by any other name would smell as sweet - but that person’s official legal DECISION. I CAN quote from the transcripts - they are PRIMARY sources. It’s called “source-based research”, and is “strongly encouraged” - see WP:NOR.

To sum up, you are using the PETTIEST of reasons, any excuse will do to try to suppress the truth. Your removal of my edit is clearly therefore VANDALISM. Please STOP it.196.15.168.40 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your latest justification for removing my edits:

Vandalism warning: Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You previously said I couldn’t quote from the transcripts, but you have now done just that yourself. In your eagerness to remove my edit, you also removed the source for the Judge’s ruling which you added. And the way you have worded it implies that the experts are not familiar with the law! I am actually surprised that you added the fact that the judge wouldn’t allow the jury to hear expert evidence that would benefit the defendant, as it puts the judge in such a bad light: it suggests he was biased. So thank you.

Quote: “revert; your edits ARE original research which strong discourage in wikipedia. The name of the US Attorney does matter! You are the vandaliser not me.”

What I was doing was “research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources”, which “is, of course, strongly encouraged.” Why do you consider the person’s name to be more important than their official legal decision? What specific type of vandalism are you accusing me of?

Quote: “You have no right in the world to explain away discrepancies or comment on the media. Why aren't you defending other child-killers? I thought you cared about accuracy and neutrality.”

What’s important is that there ARE discrepancies - and that should DISTURB you, given how influential the media can be. And if there’s a likely explanation, for which I have a verifiable source, then what’s wrong with giving it? Surely that’s the sensible thing to do, it’s part of organizing the information from my sources. This case was heavily covered in the media, and the media is the MAIN source for the Wikipedia article, so the media is “fair game” for this article (to quote the judge’s words (July 29)). I am “defending” Westerfield because the evidence indicates that he is NOT a child-killer. (At worst, it shows there is considerable doubt over his conviction.) It would actually be more accurate to say that I am trying to ensure that the Wikipedia article on him is neutral, i.e. gives both sides of the story - which it should do anyway.

Quote: “Pornography - I've conceded enough to you. It's time for you to shut your mouth once and for all!!”

You have conceded hardly anything to me. But it’s not me you should be concerned about, but the TRUTH. I have no intention of “shutting my mouth” as you so rudely put it. The truth isn’t going to just go away.

Quote: “Pornography - removing POV statement. It is NOT wikipedia's duty to sway the public in favor if it was child porn, or if it wasn't child porn.”

Then why haven’t you also removed the claim that it was child porn? If you are going to remove POV statements, then you should also remove the jury’s verdict as that is merely their POV. It might not be Wikipedia’s duty to sway the public one way or the other, but it IS Wikipedia’s duty to present both sides.196.15.168.40 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Final vandalism warning

This is your last warning. The next time you remove content from a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I'm sorry but...

Doesn't the phrase you put and I quote "the boy explodes" sound more explicit than "the boy masterbates"? You know that's what he was doing which was implied in the video; he didn't "explode" at that point because he was caught by Stacy before he finished. The definition for "explodes" or "exploded" also has a real meaning right here. I honestly think that it was better before and was more specific. Comment below here. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia is not censored policy regarding your edit to Stacy's Mom which has been reverted. (He didn't "explode" as you say. Just to remind you, watch the music video for reference) Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: My talk page

I suspected as much. -- Steel 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

DW Article

I noticed that you unprotected the David Westerfield article. You stated that there was no discussion. That is because discussing anything with User:196.15.168.40 is futile. He believes the article is the "David Westerfield is innocent" article. He includes bias and controversial statements that contain no secondary source. He wants Westerfield to sound innocent and that we should feel sorry for him. User:196.15.168.40 edits are in bad faith and he will continue to engage in the same behavior. You will notice that he doesn't care about any other article too. There will be another revert war between us. [[User talk:Fighting for Justice|<sup>(talk)</sup></font>]] 04:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it does restart, let me know and I'll reprotect. (If the warring editor is an anon, it should have only been semi-protected anyway). BTW, what is wrong with your signature? It's all mangled. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My signature is just "—Wknight94 (talk)" and it works fine. Anything would be better than that ASCII art now, no offense. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re, the signature. You might have forgotten to check the "Raw signature" box in "my preferences" – it's something I did myself not so long ago! Bubba hotep 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Bio section about DW

...er, no. I assume you aren't exactly current on internet lingo. I implied that your arguments made the anon poster who was arguing against your points look immature and foolish. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, 3RR vio on Eric Robert Rudolph

Greetings Fighting for Justice, being that you know what it means to be in breach of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule I thought I'd give you the opportunity to self-revert and thereby not face blocking for 4 reverts in under 24 hours. (→Netscott) 07:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblocking

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 205.250.4.65 lifted or expired. Request handled by: WinHunter (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am Fighting for Justice and William concluded not to block me, because I self-reverted by own edit to the Eric Rudolph article. Please somebody unblock me. Thank You. Fighting for Justice 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Image of VA

FFJ, what ya' doin'? There was no source because she gave me direct permission for it. Hell, she practically took it for me! So what d'ya expect, man? FFS! So when I put it back up, don't take it down again. I did mention that it had been taken by herself (and with permission required)! Bloody 'ell man!

MAZITO - Friday, 8 December, 2006; 21:46 (GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mazito (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Vincent Marella Image?

I'm curious as to your reverts, in particular after I put copyright information on the image for Vincent Martella. You reverted without leaving any comments - please respond. The image page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vincent_martella.gif

~Discojesus

You keep removing the image from the page. Why not take this discussion to the image page itself? Why is NORAD's Santa Tracker not part of the government? Or is it because it's joint with Canada? Or is there some other reason? Either way, it seems like there is a better forum for this discussion than your User page.

Jaycie

It's not as simple as you put it man! It's not just about some trying to get a reputation! She already is known out there, and read the more detailed one for what I'm trying to get across! FFS! No-one is right deleting it, fuckin' fools!

MAZITO - Tuesday, 26 December, 2006; 03:21 (GMT)

Bonny Hicks

Hi there! I've completed your deletion nomination for this article. If you want to nominate further articles for deletion, the procedure is given at WP:AFD. Tevildo 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Marie Ellard

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Kelly Marie Ellard, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Kelly Marie Ellard. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Argyriou (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Karla-tucker-lg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Karla-tucker-lg.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

V.A.

Ok, but don't change the 'especially the latter bit. Just put enjoys instead of loves, but don't change anything else. Anyway someone else fucked it up, which even more made me decide to change it in the end. That's pathetic, I didn't want the last edit to be in 2007, but there's nothign we can do now, FFS!

• MAZITO - Tuesday, 2nd January, 2007; 03:34 (GMT)

• • Yeah, I will. It was that other guy who put it there anyway, not me, I never wanted it there.
  • MAZITO - Tuesday, 2nd January, 2007; 03:39 (GMT)

Reena Virk

Hi there, I'm not sure if the edit message I included with my last revert came through properly (sorry, mishap with the autorollback function). So just to repeat what I was trying to say then - just having some references only at the bottom is not best practice for Wikipedia. Articles should have inline citations (references footnote-tagged to specific statements) - especially where there are controversial and/or legally serious and/or large-scale claims/statements which should be referenced individually.

Statements that are in the article that currently use phrasings like "sometimes described in the media" and "it has been said that" suffer from weasel wording problems. Specific sources need to be found and noted in the sentence.

Another issue is that the second line of the article is highly problematic - a major claim that the case brought worldwide attention to bullying/female on female violence. None of the external links currently in the article prove this assertion, as far as I can see. An initial Factiva news database sweep indicates that this murder case did not receive much attention in news sources outside Canada - a few stories in US newspapers but not much else. I'm still looking for evidence to support this major claim. If there is nothing substantive to support it, the claim should be removed. Another major claim with a similar need to be sourced properly (or else toned down) is this:"This murder became front page news that shocked many Canadians. There was a nationwide outpouring of sympathy and grief, along with calls to educate students about preventing youth violence." What does this mean exactly? Did this case receive a level of public attention comparable to the assassination of JFK or the death of Princess Diana? Or something less?

I tagged the article to help myself and others to reference this article properly, and to remove unsupported claims. At the moment, the article is not satisfactorily referenced. There are many many articles in such a state on Wikipedia, but this does not excuse this one. I hope this explains the situation well enough to you - I'm interested in helping to improve this article to Wikipedia standards in collaboration with others. I appreciate your own interest in the article and hope you will join in too Bwithh 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

king of pop

I'm really angry that the king of pop argument failed on the Michael Jackson page. Oh well, looks like people are just so stubborn these days. I mean they've never even met the man; i hate people who are blindly judgemental. --Paaerduag 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

Are all marked as minor. Review Help:Minor edit if you get the chance. You have added siginificant discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Hornbeck as a minor edit, however, the edit was not minor. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD

I'm a little confused, why are you moving/reordering comments on the AFD? Navou ^banter 20:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Woops

Woops, I didn't mean to revert so much with this edit. Sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Josh Hutcherson

The image had an unknown copyright status for over 7 days and was thus met the criteria for speedy deletion. -SCEhardT 22:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)