Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23

Crystal Gail Mangum (moved discussion on comment)

It's hard to think of a whole hell of a lot of good things to say about a drunken, drugged out, lying prostitute though. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Were you involved in writing the article, perchance? --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that kind of crap out of this discussion. If you want to libel Magnum, start a blog. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is an absolute defense against libel ... everything I said is verifiable. Nice try. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if even her mother attests to it, keep your "truth" to yourself. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duke53, I think it's fair to say that your conduct now is at the far end of what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia. Please leave your personal opinions about this person at the door when you come to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 06:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that I said is verifiable, which is what WP is all about; what you say or 'want' doesn't trump WP policy. Don't use the false claim of being afraid of Wikipedia being held libelous to bolster a weak argument. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a code of conduct. You don't have to abide by it, but you will be blocked if you violate it. I suggest that you retract your offensive remark about the article's subject. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're way WAY out of line, Anetode. You're not fooling anyone. You're de facto threatening this user for making verifiable and according to some OVERSOURCED claims. Ikilled007 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More serious examples include:

Taunting
Personal attacks
Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
Profanity directed at another contributor
Lies
Defacing user pages
Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove vandalism
Calling for bans or blocks
Indecent suggestions

I haven't done any of the above items listed at your link. Everything I mentioned is verifiable. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are well aware of exactly why your statement was offensive and uncivil. I don't care that you hold these opinions of Magnum, I don't care whether they are verified by journalists. The problem is that you introduced an inflammatory, belittling, disrespectful statement into a deletion review discussion. This is a forum for providing overview of the deletion process, not a soapbox for your personal bias against controversial figures. To allay Ikilled007's concerns, I'm not trying to fool anyone and I am not trying to get in any sort of argument about what Magnum did or how she should be judged. The warning was overt, but so was the indiscretion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep calling his claims "opinions" and say you don't care if they're verified by "yellow journalists" (you then edited out "yellow"); are you being intentionally obtuse or are you really ignorant of the facts? The Attorney General of North Carolina is not a journalist, yellow or otherwise, nor are his staff. Duke53 is repeating their findings of FACT. FACT, not opinion, findings of FACT. That you don't like the FACTS is a matter for you to hash out on your own personal blog, not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopedia, and the Attorney General's findings of FACT do not constitute an editorial by a yellow journalist. Again, let me repeat, you are WAY out of line. There has been pro-Mangum POV pushing from the word go and it has finally culminated in the deletion of the entire article in an attempt to suppress findings of fact. Check your biases at the door. Ikilled007 07:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither a pro-Magnum or an anti-Magnum POV. I have no intention of disputing any of the accusations leveled against her. No "FACT" may excuse Duke53's conduct in taking taking an offensive pot shot against the living subject of a Wikipedia biography. You may think that I am out of line, but your reading of the situation presupposes that I have some sort of stance on the Duke Lacrosse controversy. This is not the case. The spirit of Wikipedia policy - both WP:CIV and WP:BLP - is that editors should refrain from insulting controversial living persons in editorial discussions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true, you would not have described Duke53's sources as "yellow journalists", would you? Your latest claims here are betrayed by your earlier statements. It is my opinion, for whatever it's worth, that you might be too passionate about this issue to be NPOV about it. You might want to consider recusing yourself from the entire matter until you can be objective about it. Ikilled007 08:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so far that I have recused myself from commenting about anything other than Duke53's behavior. There's an irony in your accusation that I am too passionate about this issue to maintain a NPOV, I hope you realize it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree that there is a difference between facts and opinions, okay?.

It is a fact that she was drunk (at least two 40 oz. beers just before the party) on the night in question, that is not my opinion.
It is a fact that she had numerous drugs (both prescription and street drugs) in her system on the night in question, that is not my opinion.
It is a fact that she lied about being raped (NC Attorney General's investigation) on the night in question, that is not my opinion.
It is a fact that she was a prostitute on the night in question (over 25 tricks turned that weekend), that is not my opinion.

Yellow journalism? You just labeled all of the MSM as Yellow journalists, but don't ever let the facts stand in the way of a good story. My comments were in no way either 'offensive' or 'uncivil', I was just stating facts. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that there was a reason why I almost immediately removed that label. I am not contesting any accusations that you have cited, but your comment was crude, offensive and most certainly a statement of opinion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"your comment was crude, offensive and most certainly a statement of opinion" And that, sir, is most certainly your opinion. I figured the reason that you 'almost immediately removed that label' was because you had inadvertantly exposed your bias in this matter. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would be correct, but my bias against sensational journalism is completely unrelated to your actions. Please try to comment in a manner that does not inspire others to perceive your tone as crude or offensive. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to not read things that are not there. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you two please take this to your user talk pages? Horologium talk - contrib 08:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindented) "It's hard to think of a whole hell of a lot of good things to say about a drunken, drugged out, lying prostitute though." Five points if you can figure out why this comment is inflammatory and offensive (not just to me). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]