Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Today I added a mention of Holmes' July 10 red light camera ticket (revealed yesterday by TV9), as the receipt of the ticket could have helped to push Holmes over the edge. WWGB then deleted the item, without noting why. I will add it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteininmyownmind (talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And I deleted it again. It has no apparent relevance to the shooting incident. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I added it back. I explained the relevance, above.Einsteininmyownmind (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You explained nothing but a completely unsubstantiated opinion. WWGB (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This *cough* "news" *cough* is completely bogus This Link shows that this Picture was uploaded apparently by the same person who fraudulently forwarded the mail of Holmes and filled those False Motions! please keep the article Clean of any Conspiracy thanks! --Fox2k11 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the item, but not because of the objections above. I looked again at the TV9 video and its image of the ticket showed a mailing date of the 20th, making it impossible for Holmes to have received the ticket in the mail. He possibly could have seen the flashes when he was at the intersection - even though it was near noon the flashes were directly in front of him while the sun would have been more than 90 deg. to his right - and we may get more info about that when the gag orders are lifted and Holmes' electronic correspondence becomes public. Fox2's claim that "This news is bogus" is ambiguous, but if he is suggesting that the ticket is a fake, I would submit that there is no evidence, anywhere, that anyone made up the ticket from whole cloth. I have seen a lot of red light camera tickets and this one looks quite real. And it could end up being newsworthy in another way. The yellow - as measured by the red light camera - was 2.9 secs. long, below the federal minimum of 3.0.Einsteininmyownmind (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not said that the ticket is fake i just mentioned that the picture was uploaded obvisouly by the *same* man who also Forwarded *his* (holmes) mail Fraudulently and also it is obvious that *he* filled those false Motions to the court so I think it's safe to say that these photo or news (you name it) does not meet WP:RS all *he* does is making stuff up out of thin air and can be considered Conspiracy go and read those false motions and you will agree! --Fox2k11 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the history of this talk page if you'd like to know what truly happened in this case instead of being hampered by a Gag Order which causes undue confusion to the public by Blacking Out vital information to the safety of your friends and loved ones. BWCBENCERVS (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

what truly happened in this case we will likely never know maybe when the Trial is over or the gag-order is gone and only then it might be of encyclopedic worth! nevertheless hearsay and gossip is not! --Fox2k11 (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hear say is what prevented the police from investigating information concerning a credible threat because they cannot investigate hearsay. 21:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that there's no reason to include the ticket and surrounding information at present since it's not relevant, I do want to point that this is not because of a hearsay rule akin to that in a court of law. If this incident is discussed in the newsmedia (which constitute the clear majority of sources in this article), then it would be worthy of inclusion with appropriate discussion, regardless of whether it is hearsay or rumor. siafu (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Common police procedure prevents them from investigating hear say or circulating hearsay to other agencies. If you are unfamiliar with police procedure do not remove my commentary from this talk page. James Eagan Holmes is without a doubt a mass murderer. He realized that because of his mental diagnosis treatment of his mental disorder would be an alternative possibility to jail time if he committed this attack. Unlike you, an impartial observer to the progress of this article, I met this man and he described his attack to me. Myself and others on campus reported his threats to the police and the police did nothing to stop this attack preemptively. I do not care for the rules of style of the talk page. All I care about is offering VALID and CONFIRMED information to the progress of this article because this man was not stopped by police because they did not take me seriously. BWCBENCERVS (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No offence, but we have no proof of this relationship. Even if it were to be proven it still wouldn't have a place here, as articles rely on third party reporting. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are in possession of this information, you should be bringing it to the police, the news media, or the prosecuting attorney's office, not wikipedia. This is not the venue to "set things straight" or to "get the word out". The policies of wikipedia are quite conservative in this regard, since the encyclopedia's mission is to report what the verifiable sources are saying, with proper weighting. siafu (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In the judicial system of the United States, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Misplaced Pages strongly attempts to mirror this idea; we can say he is accused of something, but we must not state as a certainty that he committed these acts until a trial proves his guilt. Also, I strongly suggest you stop making threats against other editors to report them; this is highly inappropriate. It is obvious you have very strong opinions against this person, and I can only suggest you avoid making edits whilst in this frame of mind. I don't believe anyone thinks Holmes is innocent, but stating for a fact that he is guilty is inappropriate until conviction. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Meaning that he is guilty"? Knock it off, please. Huntster is entirely right. Meanwhile, you, BWCBENCERVS, appear curiously underinformed about matters of law, especially given the confidence with which you pronounce on them. And as is made very clear in the pink message titled "Notice to editors" that appears when you make an edit, this talk page is not the place for you to express your opinions on Holmes, his actions or his culpability: if you wish to express them, please do so in some other website (perhaps in your own blog). Incidentally, your notion of reporting some editor's actions to "a higher editor" displays a hazy grasp of Misplaced Pages as well as law: Misplaced Pages doesn't have "higher editors". It does, however, have administrators, whose patience has limits. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

O

That logic is certainly sound, but it does not apply to how Misplaced Pages articles should be written. As you said, "you might be guilty". Such guilt must be determined either by an admission of guilt in court or by a jury of peers, not by the general public making statements of facts on such matters. As I said earlier, I don't think anyone has any real question about his role in this situation, but it is not our place to make such statements in what should be an encyclopaedic article on the subject. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

For whatever information you wish to add to the article, why don't you gather some reliable and objective sources for that information and post them here for discussion? Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean regarding "blue editors". Regardless, the suggestion was that you post here, to the Talk page, your suggested additions or changes to the article and include links to appropriate reliable sources. Just remember that what you know, personally, can only be added to the extent that it is backed up by reliable secondary sources. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow the links I have provided from early discussions "also among new evidence release by prosecutors was a statement that Holmes talked to a fellow University Student in March of 2012 about killing people." direct quote from Holmes "when my life was over" referring to his Academic Career. I am that University Student.75.71.183.88 (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Also I was referring to how every other Editor's page has a link to an existing page, whereas mine has no existing page. I do not care to edit very many articles because my edits are usually reverted and my contributions are usually ignored. In this case I am making a personal exception because I swore to Holmes that if he did these things I would ensure that his resulting page on Misplaced Pages would reflect the fact that he meticulously planned and executed a rampage shooting resulting in one of the worst gun massacres in my States history since the Columbine shootings. BWCBENCERVS (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Any user of Misplaced Pages can claim to be anybody. Normally, such claims are ignored, and rightly so. If you do indeed have an unusual degree of direct knowledge of Holmes, offer it to the police. As for Misplaced Pages, please read and digest "Misplaced Pages:No original research". -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah I already did that before and after the attack so no worries there buddy. BWCBENCERVS (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. For a variety of reasons, it is clear to me we're being trolled. Regardless, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not a forum for original assertions by anonymous users. WP:RBI recommended. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)