Ericsean

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

richmond rape article

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the feedback on the article. I think it is very important too, though others think it is not a big incident.

Please visit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape to lodge your opinion on whether it should be deleted. This link is on the main article page too.

Some of the BLP concerns were about including the names of people arrested and charged, my opinion is that these are good to include if they are mentioned in other publications (there is much precedent for it) but will defer to consensus.

If the article survives it would be great to have you on board as a fellow editor!

Richmondian (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help when I can. I know that the Wikipedia process can work very well when people operate in good faith. However, I really feel like some people are not. At the very least, since the article has been cleaned up, it should be kept at least until we can determine if this case has staying power. It is my gut feeling that the trials will bring up many racial issues, not unlike Rodney King, though probably not as violent. Just a gut feeling, but I think this will be a major social issue. Ericsean (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

the media has kept quiet about the victim's ethnicity, it came out but only a week or so after the rape. i sort of doubt the media will bring up race there is some sort of riot after the trial, but the victim is probably one of only a very small number of caucasian girls at the school (~10?) so it looks ugly. i hope the victim and her friends get out of that school, they're going to be targets. Richmondian (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW we are supposed to "assume good faith" but, yeah, sometimes you really wonder what compels people.. Richmondian (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more. On the talk page I posted this link:http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/29/california.rape.victim.friend/index.html. Apparently, some of the white students do feel that there is a racial problem. The school may deny that, but how many times have there been white suburban schools that have said there were no racial problems when there is obviously one. I can't speak to what that kids should do or anything like that, but the presence of a racial issue should be addressed in the article. I actually have a gut feeling that that is why some people want it deleted, because they do not want any mention of the racial issue. Ericsean (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

article survived! Richmondian (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just a quick observation about your behavior at the 2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape AfD. It's always a good idea to foster debate in a frank manner at AfD to help sort through issues, to establish consensus or to increase clarity on vexatious topics. Even sarcasm can be effective (although in limited quantities and usually with editors you know.) However, at a certain point, insistently responding to every editor's opinion can backfire; the need to provide multiple rebuttals is rarely necessary, particularly in high-trafficked AfDs. While it may be difficult to desist from comment upon matters about which you clearly feel strongly, restraint is sometimes the better part of valor. Eusebeus (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well to tell you the truth, Eusebeus, I think I'm done with this article and possibly with Wikipedia as well. I have been participating on two discussion mainly trying to work towards consensus. However, it seems as if there are many editors who do not actually wish to have a discussion. I am getting progressively more frustrated. I do not feel that I can ask admins to mediate, because on some groups admins are actually bullying. People are making changes without engaging in discussion. When people try to discuss things, they get ridiculed sometimes by admins. I've been trying to be helpful, even going through ever CNN anchor's page looking for plagiarism from their website after I found one obvious case. What is wikipedia really about? Ericsean (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I do also apologize for my sarcasm before, but I really think that many of the editors are hypocritical. I have a personal connection to someone who is mentioned, not in a wikipedia article about a crime, but in a referenced article. During the late '80's the crime was sensational, but in Google News the most recent mention of the incident I could find was a book review from 1999. However, the section of the article is still there with the link, so in effect a person who was convicted of a lesser offense than what he was charged with and has completed his sentence. However, if anyone goes to look at the page for his home town, the incident is right there along with a link. If that can stay up there, why not his article. As Gamaliel stated, there is plenty of precedent for articles and sections like this. And this case has indeed garnered international headlines for instance there was an article in the Belfast Telegraph (evening newspaper of Belfast, Northern Ireland) on 10/29/2009. I just got frustrated with what I see as the hypocrisy on Wikipedia and I unfairly tarred you with it too. I'm sorry. Ericsean (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC Mark Levin

Hope you had a good honeymoon! I would appreciate it if you'd take some time to review the talk on the Mark Levin article and comment on the RFC I started on Sunday. Many thanks! Malvenue (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)