Talk:Murder of Anthony Walker

"Parallel"

The "parallel" cases to the Anthony Walker case are nothing of the sort. they are murders where the suspects were of a different ethnic group to the victim, but it does not follow they are racially motivated. To include them as a parallel to this case is speculation as to their cause. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation so I have removed it. 81.76.45.75 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The articles Christopher Yates,Tracie Cullum,Richard Whelan seem to have been created specifically for racist reasons. I have put NPOV in them yesterday and back in today. They need to be watched.--IanDavies 14:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been through Christopher Yates, Tracie Cullum, Richard Whelan and this article, removing the latest attempts to add racism (or racist emphasis) by Special:Contributions/80.1.180.5. I've also warned him/her on his/her Talk page not to put POV pieces on the 'pedia and not to indulge in personal attacks.

One of Yates's murderers shouted "we have killed the white man". That sounds like a pretty strong indication that the crime was racially motivated. It's hard to see why else such a thing would have been shouted.

Did you delete the articles about Yates and the others you name above? That seems like an incredible reaction - they are all fairly notable cases and I would have thought merit a presence on wikipedia. If you think the articles were written with impure motives then wouldn't it be better to edit them to bring them into line rather than to censor them? Apologies if I have misunderstood what has gone on previously.Shiresman (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've been in to each article and rewritten them in NPOV terms and marked them all as Unencyclopedic rather than NPOV as this seems more appropriate. If there's a general consensus, Christopher Yates, Tracie Cullum and Richard Whelan could all be sent for AfD - although I suspect only the Yates article really qualifies for deletion. Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 12:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel McGann and probably others no-one's spotted yet. Rd232 ^talk 11:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There are still links in this article asserting that those other murders were racially motivated, when there doesn't appear to be any evidence that they were. 80.41.105.113 22:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments from alleged vandal

Reverted racially motivated propaganda which preaches one sided race hatred while ignoring other cases. Reverted topic to an encyclopeadic and historical tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.180.40 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC).

You are, by the very nature of the Wikipedia, entitled (and encouraged) to update articles and make them better. This does not include adding streams of unrelated text, adding introductions in ALL CAPS, adding racist emphasis or anything else unencyclopedic.

What you could do, if you are so concerned about this issue, is properly research and write an encyclopedia article about it (including adding academic citations for your research). We would encourage you to do so.

However, you should note that we don't allow racism, NPOV entries and other abuses. All articles need to stay on the topic they are about, rather than wandering off into a discourse on your own strange views on race and race-hate crimes.

You should also note that we have a Three Revert Rule that says nobody may revert an article more than three times in 24 hours (except in some very limited circumstances). You have repeatedly broken this rule and some of your IP address have been blocked, partially because of this. Administrators will, eventually, block the rest if you continue down this path.

Additionally, changing the entire subject of an article from one on a murder victim to one on a similarly-named artist causes no end of trouble, for people who have cited our work and for the articles that link here. Your resulting article is great, but it should go under Anthony Walker (artist) for preference and you should request that this article be moved to Anthony Walker (murder victim).

Finally, your use of an anonymous username and changing IP address gives at least the impression of cowardice. If you were to start an account - and thus your edits would be accountable, you would be more likely to convince more people of your sincerity.

As I've said before, if you wish to discuss this or any other matter calmly and rationally, please leave me a note on my Talk page (click "Hello" in the signature that follows) and I'll happily discourse with you. Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved the anon's version of the page which was solely about the eighteenth century artist to Anthony Walker (artist). Further attempts to make this page solely about him are clear vandalism. We can discuss whether to make this a disambiguation page (there are probably other notable Anthony Walkers). Rd232 ^talk 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been protected to stop excessive vandalism. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to try unprotecting again. Rd232 ^talk 09:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd wait to see what happens if/when the AfDs on Tracie Cullum and Christopher Yates go through. If they remain un-recreated for 24 hours, say, then we can unlock this one with confidence. If they reappear sharpish, then we'll know that this needs to be locked for a bit longer. Loathed as I am to leave any article locked, I'd just rather we didn't have to waste time doing battle again for a couple of days! ●REDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal details

User:RD232,

Thankyou for illegally releasing my personal details on this page, a result which has enabled me to receive several disturbing communictions, one which constitutes as a death threat. I will be notifiying YOUR local Police Department, and mine and also my ISP provider to take immediate action. I have obtained the locality of YOUR IP address which I will be passing on to the relevent authorities along with a log of all these pages, which will no doubt will help to link the dubious communications I have been receiving in the last 48 hours. You have abviously abused your position as a 'self appointed' editor, but Unlike you, I will not lower myself into illegally spreading it around the internet inciting radical individuals and groups into making serious threats against someone for purely expressing facts which are avialable in the public domain and via respected News organisations. I Also note that you are are hiding behind your 'registered status' and witholding your IP address. At the moment, I do not hold Wikipedia responsible, but YOU and several other 'self appointed moderators' who do not respect free speech, privacy and factual incidents have an obvious sinister agenda which has no place in a true democracy. You are obviously frightened of what REAL people think and wish to take away that privilege from ordinary people, so they get a one sided view. BY the way, these incidents all refer to the UK. What country are you pontificating your ill researched views from? No surprise that respected journalists see Wikipedia as a joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.176.6 (talk • contribs) 21:02 30 October 2005 (UTC).

No legal threats, please. Your comments are also meaningless in cyberspace; you are blaming the wrong person for whatever it is you are blaming them for; your personal details have not been and cannot be compromised by anyone on the Wikipedia; you have made edits from an unregistered account, chosing to reveal your own IP address and therefore your ISP and other contact details after you were advised by me that you would be better to register an account with the Wikipedia; you have broken the law in the United Kingdom on Incitement to Racial Hatred; you have broken various easily understood Wikipedia rules that you automatically agreed to when you started editing; you have ignored warnings, advice and attempts to mediate.

I understand your frustration, but again state what I stated to you before -

What you could do, if you are so concerned about this issue, is properly research and write an encyclopedia article about it (including adding academic citations for your research). We would encourage you to do so.

However, you should note that we don't allow racism, NPOV entries and other abuses. All articles need to stay on the topic they are about, rather than wandering off into a discourse on your own strange views on race and race-hate crimes.

If you are not willing to do this or are not capable of doing so, then that, respectfully, is your problem. You should get over it as stress is damaging to your health and your complaints are wasting the valuable time of many others.

If you want to discuss this calmly and rationally and are willing to leave your preconceived notions at the door, then please edit my talk page (click "hello" in my signature that follows) and I'm happy to discourse with you.

Warm regards

●REDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 21:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The anon in question appears to be referring to my attribution of his unsigned comment, using the details available in the edit history [1]. Since he appears to have a dynamic IP, I'm mystified as much as disturbed by his response. I fail to see how, without substantial effort and know-how (I wouldn't even know where to start) anybody could contact him on the basis of that information. In any case, it is information that he chose to reveal by failing to get an account, something which takes less than a minute. Finally, he claims to have got my IP address; I fail to see how, if he has it (which I doubt), he could plausibly have got that information legally. Rd232 ^talk 22:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Of course he doesn't have my IP - if he did, he'd know that I'm based in the UK. Rd232 ^talk 22:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Update

This article now being unprotected, have I updated it with the lastest information on the criminal cases and also carefully checked the language used. Therefore I feel it safe to remove the NPOV tag. However, anyone who disagrees should add it back immediately (for newcomers, add {{POV-check}} to the top of the article when editing). I've also put the flux tag on it as there is current news that may or may not change over the next week or so. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've substantially rewritten the article; it still needs quite a bit of work, and could stand to be expanded, but I hope you'll agree it's better than the previous rather messy article. DE 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest Merging the article with articles on Michael Barton and Paul Taylor, as they are all linked beyond separation from each other and all are notable for virtually the same reason( bar barton due to joey barton but this is minor). THe quality of the article would also be dramatically improved with a merger.--Lucy-marie 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What would the title of the article be?--Doc^g 09:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The merge has gone through and we allready have an article title.--Lucy-marie 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Indy.jpg

Image:Indy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Indy.jpg

Image:Indy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Indy.jpg

Image:Indy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Walker's race

I'm intending to add a mention of Anthony Walker's race to this article. I know that in our PC world, any mention of a person's skin-color is an absolute no-no, but considering that this was a racially-motivated attack, I feel that this is important information that should be included for completeness.

If you feel different, please feel free to revert and discuss, but I don't foresee any problem with adding this information, so I'm going ahead and doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullie (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)