SpiritOfBanquo

Welcome!

Hello, SpiritOfBanquo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! CtP (t • c) 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

The article <redacted> has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. CtP (t • c) 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. §everal⇒|Times 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

You have created articles naming the alleged attackers in this case, which is a blatant WP:BLP violation as their names cannot be found in mainstream media sources and were protected by a court order. These articles should be deleted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. We know what names led to the contempt of court motion. Hence, we know the names of the confessed (not alleged) perpetrators, with or without a mainstream media reference. I don't think that it's reasonable that such information should only count once it has been mentioned by a mainstream media outlet. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tweets, blogs etc are not reliable sources, see WP:SPS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The reaction of the lawyers speaks volumes about the authenticity of the reports. Using your criteria, secret government documents should not be designated as authentic, unless the government officially declares that they are authentic. No, their response, which is to try to take down the secret government documents, comparable to the attempt of the lawyers to get the names removed (which they would not have done, were the names not actually the names of the perpetrators), which has been reported on by the mainstream media, is as good as an official report that these are the two perpetrators. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the names are still covered by a court order, regardless of what you may have read elsewhere on the web.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You acknowledge that these are the actual names, that we can objectively know that these are the names of the perpetrators (due to the actions of their lawyers), but that the names should nonetheless be removed, because they are "covered by a court order" and thus still 'officially secret'? Good luck with that, going around and deleting everything that is 'officially secret'. The bottom line is that we know that these are the names of the perpetrators, because of the actions of their own attorneys, which has been reported on by multiple credible, mainstream media outlets. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

SpiritOfBanquo; Please read WP:BLP carefully. PKT(alk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should read it. The name has been widely disseminated. It has been intentionally concealed, but the rules only say that it is "preferable" to not mention it in such cases, when it does not result in a significant loss of context. Well, it does. The revealing of the names is the whole raison d'etat of this controversy. It's also not an innocent third party, which the rules suggest one avoid naming. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read it, and WikiPedia won't support this endeavour unless reliable third party sources can be quoted. PKT(alk) 17:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You have read it? Good, it didn't look like it. Now, as for reliable third party sources: the victim and the attorneys of the perpetrators. Why did they make a motion for contempt of court, if these were not the actual names of the perpetrators? If I have 10 fake guns, and one real one, will I freak out if you grab a fake one and point it at me? --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Amigo, I'm not saying your intentions are bad. I am telling you that WikiPedia won't support this endeavour unless reliable third party sources can be quoted. PKT(alk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither did I dispute your intentions, even though I don't really understand this argument. You're probably just enforcing some arcane, obscure technical rules no one pays any attention to unless they're out for blood. What, the victim and the attorneys of the perpetrators are not reliable sources? Who is? Newspapers? Of course, suppose that this is reported on in the future, whence do you think the newspaper will get the names of the perpetrators. What does not count as a 'reliable source' here on Wikipedia, that's where. Of course, as soon as a news outlet puts 2 and 2 together, it suddenly becomes a "reliable third party source" - even though the origin of the claim of the "reliable third party source" is not reliable. It's enough to make one's head spin. Amazing. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of truth, it is a matter of verification by reliable sources and possibly a matter of law. Your edits expose the Wikimedia Foundation to legal risk. I must ask you to stop immediately in posting he information you have been posting. We can mention that she tweeted their names, but the names should not be published. In addition to the court order, the defendants are minors and juvenile criminal records are not made public. This is not the place to crusade for exposing the identities of the defendants. This is an encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk)|

Finally, someone with an actual argument that isn't bizarre. Even though I disagree with you, I must thank you for being able to hold your own. Suppose it were conclusively demonstrated that the Wikimedia Foundation faces no risk, zero, nada, if the names were to be posted, what would you say then? Also, you might say that this is an encyclopedia (I was well aware of that), but similar cases, both in terms of criminal activity and the Streisand effect that has once again been shown to apply in such cases, are included in the encyclopedia. So the only legitimate concern you have, is whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation will or can potentially face liabilities if the names were openly posted on this site. If that issue were resolved, then there's no reason not to post the names. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From your comments I gather that their names are already all over the internet. Is it really so important that Wikipedia join in? In any event, I am not a lawyer and I am guessing you aren't either. Without a reliable source, not Twitter or any other type of user-created site, there is no way this information will be acceptable for Wikipedia. There is a reason responsible news sources are not mentioning the boys names. The same reason we aren't. If you would like to discuss this with actual representatives of thw WMF you can email them at info-en@wikimedia.org. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that e-mail address. Well, yeah, completion is important. You can't have the article on how their motion to punish the girl backfired monumentally, if you don't include their names. If things are excluded on grounds that court documents are officially secret, then a lot of other things can go out, too. In any case, should reliable sources like the New York Times, or CBS, name the boys, then this issue will be moot? --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I wolud think so, although having articles on them as individuals would probably still be inappropriate as amatter of WP policy. An article on the case itself would be better. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I considered doing that, but I didn't want to name the victim. Thanks for your contribution, at least you have some substance. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PKT(alk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PKT(alk) 17:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC) {hab}}

Contested deletion

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Talkback

Hello, SpiritOfBanquo. You have new messages at Writ Keeper's talk page.
Message added 01:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Drop it

Hi SpiritOfBanquo. I've spotted you Writ Keeper's page. I'm an admin here and I'm willing to debate the ins and outs of the encyclopedia with you, here. However, I do request that when an editor says they've had enough of a discussion, you accept that. Administrators are required to explain their actions, but not debate them to the nth degree. Everyone has the right to end conversation on their talk page, by removal and request that you desist. Please respect that. Cheers Worm^TT(talk) 14:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. You appear to be arguing just for the sake of arguing at this point. Discussion is sprawled out over half a dozen talk pages, the right to end or remove discussions has been explained to you over and over. You need to drop it. Continuing to go on and on about this could be considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, a point you are not even making anymore. You are arguing with people so far removed from the original issue that they don't even know what this about. To what end? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)