This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on July 15, 2007. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I saw that you did a bunch of deletions today. Have you tried WP:CSDAR? I stumbled across it today and it makes CSD chores much easier.-- Kubigula ( talk) 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all that you have done! Your unspent heart a message sends Thank you so much, dear Nihiltres! :) |
This article had been fully functional. A few administrators have changed titles and capitalization to the point that the talk page is not now functional. I have tried to correct this but the system asks for an administrator to do the fix. Please help. Rlsheenan
Hi there. I see you're willing to adopt. Don't suppose, umm .... you'd like to maybe give you-know-who a go? He seriously needs mentoring and I think under the expert eye of someone like you, could become a productive and happy editor. Just suggesting, mind :) - Alison ☺ 04:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It was at 710.5px with one flag. I toned it down to 355.25px with two flags. And you toned it down more please don't do it agian. The other's were pleased with it!-- Hornetman16 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I know there one God and on God alone. He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. You should read up on the Christian Faith some.-- Hornetman16 05:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Testing spiffy ( ?) new signature. Nihiltres( t. l) 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Diaz Pertini school raid.
Indymedia has just informed me of what you have done to what was left of that page. please put it back. my name is Mark Covell. i am an indymedia imc-uk journalist who nearly died there. I have tried to write my account of the raid as it most seriously injured victim but that was taken down by another wikipedia editor who did not believe i was actually mark Covell. If you don't you will face the full wrath of indymedia i can throw at you, ok? you are somebody who knows absolutely nothing about the Genoa G8 2001, so who made you the judge of what is history or not?
Since i cannot seem to actually post an article about the facts and history of the raid (and the trials)and about myself that agrees with wikipedia editorial management(you + others), i want the links restored at least. Or do you intend to completely delete any existence on wikipedia of what happened that night?
I really do suggest that you find the links deleted and read the Genoa prosecutors report into the raid (i hope you find them acceptable as an authoritative author) into who i am and what happened to me.
13:39, 25 June 2007 Nihiltres (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Diaz Pertini School Raid" (CSD G8: Talkpage of non-Existent Article content was: '== Essay from Mark Covell ==My name is Mark Covell. I was the indymedia UK journalist who almost died during the Diaz Pertini School Raid during the...')
i also have six lawyers in reserve. I am not joking. i am sick and tired of Wikipedia management editors butchering everything about Genoa and the Diaz raid. i want this settled amicably. just leave that page alone. if in doubt about who i am watch the report from channel4 news.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/genoa+summit+police+on+trial/581717
have seen your homepage. 'I scored as -4.92 on an economic scale of left versus right, and -5.25 on a social scale of libertarianism versus authoritarianism'. you might of studied it, i have lived through it. another thing, i score 9/10 for living through the nightmare of Genoa and Diaz and i specialize in legal arguments since i have dealt with a great many lawyers in the six years since the raid.
Mark Covell - London
I was prepared to use my lawyers to first prove my identity to you and to other wikipedia management to prove i am actually Mark Covell. I was then going to write an indymedia article for the central column of IMC-UK outlining how Wikipedia has been failing for a long time. I was then going to talk to my lawyers again about the power you seem to have to go around deleting stuff. I am not put off by your threat to ban me. my lawyers can still find you. However i will do none of this.
whilst i consider (and the 131 other victims of Diaz)that a wikipedia page is very important to maintain the struggle for our case, you didn't seem to think it was important. However i am glad you have responded now and that you do realise that it really is me. this is what i look like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4229777.stm.
As for the main article that was written, i wrote it partially from the heart (because being the victim, this is the only way to tell what happened) with as many facts as possible. I was aware of some of these 'rules', however i never expected the entire article to be taken down, for me to be accused i was not mark covell and then for you to come along and delete what was left. The story of Diaz is still ongoing through the courts. it has no end yet.
how can be neutral as the writer if i am the victim the story is about? the Diaz case cannot be told in an unbiased way because it is impossible to separate. both sides are biased. wikipedia should learn this fact. It seems that according to you rules, the person who the page is about cannot write or intervene in what is being said because i cannot be neutral because i am the victim.
taken from conflict of interest guidelines....
This page is considered a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
---the Diaz raid is the exception to your rules.-----
There are no tidy criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. ----
can you please quote what criteria you are applying to Genoa and the Diaz raid?
Legal antagonists
If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts and/or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.
The problem is that Genoa and the Diaz raid go right to the heart of the debate on Globalisation. Many other users are posting inaccurate and false information about what happened (some by the police defendants). A wikipedia page on the event and trial is essential to lay out the facts using already public information that has cone through the courts. Is wikipedia going to take the decision to wipe out any reference to the Diaz raid because it is not happy with its format? Diaz is a massive international human rights case and its outcome effects Italy in a very big way. 300,000 people(you might disagree but you were never there so how would you know) demonstrated at Genoa.
I would like to post another writeup of the Diaz trial but this time it has to stay there. i told mind a debate about words and sentences but i don't want it taken down again. Finally, only valid experts on the history of the demonstrations and the raid should comment and debate. you obviously have none.
on the subject of....
Notability. Wikipedia articles that do not demonstrate the notability of their subject are deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7. It is advisable to cite reliable sources to prove notability: dubious un-sourced claims of notability are often ignored. Your article might be deleted regardless - I do not know anything about the event's relative notability.
i would only use facts from the appointed lawyers, from the Genoa prosecutors office and from video experts who have worked on the case.
If you had done some research, you would of found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_G8_summit
....Numerous police officers and local and national officials have been ordered to stand trial in connection with the event. In one trial, 28 police officials are standing trial on charges related to the two night raids, charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, use of excessive force and planting evidence. In other proceedings, 45 state officials, including prison guards, police and medics, are being tried for abusing detainees in their custody who were arrested during the raid. Detainees reported being spat at, verbally and physically humiliated, and threatened with rape.
Police conducted nighttime raids upon centers housing protesters and campsites, most notably the attacks on the Diaz-Pascoli and Diaz-Pertini schools shortly after midnight on July 21. These were being used as sleeping quarters, and had also been set up as centers for those providing media, medical, and legal support work. Police baton attacks left three activists, including British journalist Mark Covell, in comas. At least one person has suffered brain damage, while another had both jaws and fourteen teeth broken. In total, over 60 were severely injured and a parliamentary inquiry was launched [2]. It concluded no wrongdoing on the part of police.
Ninety-three people were arrested during the raids. In May, 2003, Judge Anna Ivaldi concluded that they had put up no resistance whatsoever to the police and all charges were dropped against them. During the inquiry, Pietro Troiani, the deputy police chief in Genoa, admitted to being involved in the planting Molotov cocktails in order to justify the Diaz School raids, as well as faking the stabbing of a police officer to frame activists [3][4].
In 2005, twenty-nine police officers were indicted for grievous bodily harm, planting evidence and wrongful arrest during a night-time raid on the Diaz School. The Molotov cocktails were reported in January 2007, during the trial of the policemen, to have disappeared [1]
last year, there was an invitation to write my story, so i did.
anyway.....
I am glad that you accept my identity and you now realise how important that there is a page about the diaz raid. I am also glad you may have shown me a path through this mess. I hope that if when i can write the article again, you will help me get it accepted since you are an 'administrator'. i would like you to flag my complaint as a point of serious issue to one of these wikipedia reiewers and that i find a way so that an article can exist outlaying the basic facts of the event and of the trials.
Mar Covell - London.
"I was prepared to use my lawyers to [...]", "my lawyers can still find you. [sic]"
"I was then going to write an indymedia article for the central column of IMC-UK outlining how Wikipedia has been failing for a long time."
"[...] going to talk to my lawyers again about the power you seem to have to go around deleting stuff."
"whilst i consider (and the 131 other victims of Diaz)that a wikipedia page is very important to maintain the struggle for our case [...] [sic]", "As for the main article that was written, i wrote it partially from the heart [...] [sic]"
"how can be neutral as the writer if i am the victim the story is about? [sic]"
"the Diaz case cannot be told in an unbiased way because it is impossible to separate. both sides are biased. [sic]"
"It seems that according to you rules, the person who the page is about cannot write or intervene in what is being said because i cannot be neutral because i am the victim. [sic]"
taken from conflict of interest guidelines....
This page is considered a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
---the Diaz raid is the exception to your rules.-----
"There are no tidy criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs." (as quoted from the
COI guideline), "can you please quote what criteria you are applying to Genoa and the Diaz raid?"
If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts and/or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.
The problem is that Genoa and the Diaz raid go right to the heart of the debate on Globalisation. Many other users are posting inaccurate and false information about what happened (some by the police defendants). A wikipedia page on the event and trial is essential to lay out the facts using already public information that has cone through the courts. Is wikipedia going to take the decision to wipe out any reference to the Diaz raid because it is not happy with its format? Diaz is a massive international human rights case and its outcome effects Italy in a very big way. 300,000 people(you might disagree but you were never there so how would you know) demonstrated at Genoa. [sic]
"I would like to post another writeup of the Diaz trial but this time it has to stay there. i told mind a debate about words and sentences but i don't want it taken down again. [sic]"
"Finally, only valid experts on the history of the demonstrations and the raid should comment and debate. you obviously have none. [sic]"
"i would only use facts from the appointed lawyers, from the Genoa prosecutors office and from video experts who have worked on the case. [sic]"
"If you had done some research, you would of found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_G8_summit [sic]"
"I am glad that you accept my identity and you now realise how important that there is a page about the diaz raid. I am also glad you may have shown me a path through this mess. I hope that if when i can write the article again, you will help me get it accepted since you are an 'administrator'. i would like you to flag my complaint as a point of serious issue to one of these wikipedia reiewers and that i find a way so that an article can exist outlaying the basic facts of the event and of the trials. [sic]"
In addition, I noticed that some recent vandalism to my userpages by logged out (anonymous) users includes IP addresses which map to the United Kingdom, one clearly to London. I trust that this isn't you - if it were, it would damage your credibility.
Further, I hope that you will accept that the Wikipedia guidelines are here to stay. I do not mean to antagonize you, but rather only to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to further the creation of an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view.
Thank you, Nihiltres( t. l) 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
you asked for peace, i gave it and then you accuse me of vandalising your site. not i did not. since i have gone to great lengths to identify myself, would i attack you? its a very stupid accusation.
I am gone. i don't want to be part of this mess. you can ban me if you like. i am not interested. but just before you do ban me, i want to say this. if i see inaccurate information about Diaz and myself, i will take wikipedia to court (this is not directed at you). If what is printed has an effect or impact on whether the trial gets a parliamentary inquiry, it will be particularly bloody in the legal sense on both sides. i also suggest, since i cannot be the author, the author is agreed by all sides as an unbiased expert. you are not the only interested party looking for an authorised unbiased expert to write the Diaz page. If wikipedia allows a nobody who has no facts to be the author of the wikipedia page on the Diaz raid you are asking for legal trouble.
"Remember that legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia. Do not mention your lawyers again". Wikipedia cannot hide behind a bunch of guidelines and think itself immune from court action. I really do hope you do foreword this on to someone higher up in wikipedia so they can understand the views of the plaintiffs and lawyers involved in the case.
I guess that my main complaint was that an article that was taken down before you arrived deleting the links. It was well sourced. If you know the italian legal system, the prosecutors report into Diaz and lays out the basic facts of what happened that night. the court cases are about applying charges to individual officers for individual crimes. most of the fact are not disputed by either side. Dr Enrico Zucca, a prosecutor from Genoa is the world most authoritative unbiased expert on the Diaz case and the other events surrounding it. You deleted his link. sections of the report were reprinted in the article. yet this was deleted. So were BBC sources, Guardian, Reuters and Associated press. even the BBC has reported on Zucca's report into Diaz. however, wikipedia decided to take it down.
a typical line in the new article would of been....
A Reuters report quoted public court testimony that a police defendant described the Diaz 'as a Mexican butchers shop'
probably the only valid non biased person who could possible fit into 'your rules' is BBC journalist Bill Hayton.
I guess you were probably thinking that this was written by indymedia, from an indymedia point of view with loads of links. Despite being an indymedia journalist (london NUJ registered), i naturally would well source it.
Anyway, half of plaintiffs of Diaz are meeting for the sixth anniversary. i will tell them that the wikipedia page is no more and gauge their reaction.
I am leaving wikipedia with great disgust to how i and the diaz case have been treated. However, the plaintiffs, the lawyers and me will be watching what happens next.
goodbye
Hi, there were a couple of fair-use images on your userpage. We're not allowed to have fair-use images in userspace, so I replaced them with text (which admittedly makes them look like #@$%!). Just figured I'd let you know, and warn you to not do it in the future :). Thanks, Nihiltres( t. l) 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you have recently deleted an article about CoinTalk. It was claimed that it's significance was nonexistant. This is not true. CoinTalk is a very important website. It is the biggest coin forum that exists today, with over 9,500 registered users. I'm not even a registered user of CoinTalk and I am writing a page on it. At any given time, there is at least 3,000 non-users reading numismatic posts. I understand that you have deleted it. Understanding the circumstances that it was created under, would you be willing to allow it to be written agian (with revisions, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witeandnerdy ( talk • contribs) 15:59, July 10, 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on July 15, 2007. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I saw that you did a bunch of deletions today. Have you tried WP:CSDAR? I stumbled across it today and it makes CSD chores much easier.-- Kubigula ( talk) 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all that you have done! Your unspent heart a message sends Thank you so much, dear Nihiltres! :) |
This article had been fully functional. A few administrators have changed titles and capitalization to the point that the talk page is not now functional. I have tried to correct this but the system asks for an administrator to do the fix. Please help. Rlsheenan
Hi there. I see you're willing to adopt. Don't suppose, umm .... you'd like to maybe give you-know-who a go? He seriously needs mentoring and I think under the expert eye of someone like you, could become a productive and happy editor. Just suggesting, mind :) - Alison ☺ 04:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It was at 710.5px with one flag. I toned it down to 355.25px with two flags. And you toned it down more please don't do it agian. The other's were pleased with it!-- Hornetman16 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I know there one God and on God alone. He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. You should read up on the Christian Faith some.-- Hornetman16 05:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Testing spiffy ( ?) new signature. Nihiltres( t. l) 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Diaz Pertini school raid.
Indymedia has just informed me of what you have done to what was left of that page. please put it back. my name is Mark Covell. i am an indymedia imc-uk journalist who nearly died there. I have tried to write my account of the raid as it most seriously injured victim but that was taken down by another wikipedia editor who did not believe i was actually mark Covell. If you don't you will face the full wrath of indymedia i can throw at you, ok? you are somebody who knows absolutely nothing about the Genoa G8 2001, so who made you the judge of what is history or not?
Since i cannot seem to actually post an article about the facts and history of the raid (and the trials)and about myself that agrees with wikipedia editorial management(you + others), i want the links restored at least. Or do you intend to completely delete any existence on wikipedia of what happened that night?
I really do suggest that you find the links deleted and read the Genoa prosecutors report into the raid (i hope you find them acceptable as an authoritative author) into who i am and what happened to me.
13:39, 25 June 2007 Nihiltres (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Diaz Pertini School Raid" (CSD G8: Talkpage of non-Existent Article content was: '== Essay from Mark Covell ==My name is Mark Covell. I was the indymedia UK journalist who almost died during the Diaz Pertini School Raid during the...')
i also have six lawyers in reserve. I am not joking. i am sick and tired of Wikipedia management editors butchering everything about Genoa and the Diaz raid. i want this settled amicably. just leave that page alone. if in doubt about who i am watch the report from channel4 news.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/genoa+summit+police+on+trial/581717
have seen your homepage. 'I scored as -4.92 on an economic scale of left versus right, and -5.25 on a social scale of libertarianism versus authoritarianism'. you might of studied it, i have lived through it. another thing, i score 9/10 for living through the nightmare of Genoa and Diaz and i specialize in legal arguments since i have dealt with a great many lawyers in the six years since the raid.
Mark Covell - London
I was prepared to use my lawyers to first prove my identity to you and to other wikipedia management to prove i am actually Mark Covell. I was then going to write an indymedia article for the central column of IMC-UK outlining how Wikipedia has been failing for a long time. I was then going to talk to my lawyers again about the power you seem to have to go around deleting stuff. I am not put off by your threat to ban me. my lawyers can still find you. However i will do none of this.
whilst i consider (and the 131 other victims of Diaz)that a wikipedia page is very important to maintain the struggle for our case, you didn't seem to think it was important. However i am glad you have responded now and that you do realise that it really is me. this is what i look like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4229777.stm.
As for the main article that was written, i wrote it partially from the heart (because being the victim, this is the only way to tell what happened) with as many facts as possible. I was aware of some of these 'rules', however i never expected the entire article to be taken down, for me to be accused i was not mark covell and then for you to come along and delete what was left. The story of Diaz is still ongoing through the courts. it has no end yet.
how can be neutral as the writer if i am the victim the story is about? the Diaz case cannot be told in an unbiased way because it is impossible to separate. both sides are biased. wikipedia should learn this fact. It seems that according to you rules, the person who the page is about cannot write or intervene in what is being said because i cannot be neutral because i am the victim.
taken from conflict of interest guidelines....
This page is considered a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
---the Diaz raid is the exception to your rules.-----
There are no tidy criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. ----
can you please quote what criteria you are applying to Genoa and the Diaz raid?
Legal antagonists
If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts and/or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.
The problem is that Genoa and the Diaz raid go right to the heart of the debate on Globalisation. Many other users are posting inaccurate and false information about what happened (some by the police defendants). A wikipedia page on the event and trial is essential to lay out the facts using already public information that has cone through the courts. Is wikipedia going to take the decision to wipe out any reference to the Diaz raid because it is not happy with its format? Diaz is a massive international human rights case and its outcome effects Italy in a very big way. 300,000 people(you might disagree but you were never there so how would you know) demonstrated at Genoa.
I would like to post another writeup of the Diaz trial but this time it has to stay there. i told mind a debate about words and sentences but i don't want it taken down again. Finally, only valid experts on the history of the demonstrations and the raid should comment and debate. you obviously have none.
on the subject of....
Notability. Wikipedia articles that do not demonstrate the notability of their subject are deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7. It is advisable to cite reliable sources to prove notability: dubious un-sourced claims of notability are often ignored. Your article might be deleted regardless - I do not know anything about the event's relative notability.
i would only use facts from the appointed lawyers, from the Genoa prosecutors office and from video experts who have worked on the case.
If you had done some research, you would of found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_G8_summit
....Numerous police officers and local and national officials have been ordered to stand trial in connection with the event. In one trial, 28 police officials are standing trial on charges related to the two night raids, charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, use of excessive force and planting evidence. In other proceedings, 45 state officials, including prison guards, police and medics, are being tried for abusing detainees in their custody who were arrested during the raid. Detainees reported being spat at, verbally and physically humiliated, and threatened with rape.
Police conducted nighttime raids upon centers housing protesters and campsites, most notably the attacks on the Diaz-Pascoli and Diaz-Pertini schools shortly after midnight on July 21. These were being used as sleeping quarters, and had also been set up as centers for those providing media, medical, and legal support work. Police baton attacks left three activists, including British journalist Mark Covell, in comas. At least one person has suffered brain damage, while another had both jaws and fourteen teeth broken. In total, over 60 were severely injured and a parliamentary inquiry was launched [2]. It concluded no wrongdoing on the part of police.
Ninety-three people were arrested during the raids. In May, 2003, Judge Anna Ivaldi concluded that they had put up no resistance whatsoever to the police and all charges were dropped against them. During the inquiry, Pietro Troiani, the deputy police chief in Genoa, admitted to being involved in the planting Molotov cocktails in order to justify the Diaz School raids, as well as faking the stabbing of a police officer to frame activists [3][4].
In 2005, twenty-nine police officers were indicted for grievous bodily harm, planting evidence and wrongful arrest during a night-time raid on the Diaz School. The Molotov cocktails were reported in January 2007, during the trial of the policemen, to have disappeared [1]
last year, there was an invitation to write my story, so i did.
anyway.....
I am glad that you accept my identity and you now realise how important that there is a page about the diaz raid. I am also glad you may have shown me a path through this mess. I hope that if when i can write the article again, you will help me get it accepted since you are an 'administrator'. i would like you to flag my complaint as a point of serious issue to one of these wikipedia reiewers and that i find a way so that an article can exist outlaying the basic facts of the event and of the trials.
Mar Covell - London.
"I was prepared to use my lawyers to [...]", "my lawyers can still find you. [sic]"
"I was then going to write an indymedia article for the central column of IMC-UK outlining how Wikipedia has been failing for a long time."
"[...] going to talk to my lawyers again about the power you seem to have to go around deleting stuff."
"whilst i consider (and the 131 other victims of Diaz)that a wikipedia page is very important to maintain the struggle for our case [...] [sic]", "As for the main article that was written, i wrote it partially from the heart [...] [sic]"
"how can be neutral as the writer if i am the victim the story is about? [sic]"
"the Diaz case cannot be told in an unbiased way because it is impossible to separate. both sides are biased. [sic]"
"It seems that according to you rules, the person who the page is about cannot write or intervene in what is being said because i cannot be neutral because i am the victim. [sic]"
taken from conflict of interest guidelines....
This page is considered a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
---the Diaz raid is the exception to your rules.-----
"There are no tidy criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs." (as quoted from the
COI guideline), "can you please quote what criteria you are applying to Genoa and the Diaz raid?"
If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts and/or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.
The problem is that Genoa and the Diaz raid go right to the heart of the debate on Globalisation. Many other users are posting inaccurate and false information about what happened (some by the police defendants). A wikipedia page on the event and trial is essential to lay out the facts using already public information that has cone through the courts. Is wikipedia going to take the decision to wipe out any reference to the Diaz raid because it is not happy with its format? Diaz is a massive international human rights case and its outcome effects Italy in a very big way. 300,000 people(you might disagree but you were never there so how would you know) demonstrated at Genoa. [sic]
"I would like to post another writeup of the Diaz trial but this time it has to stay there. i told mind a debate about words and sentences but i don't want it taken down again. [sic]"
"Finally, only valid experts on the history of the demonstrations and the raid should comment and debate. you obviously have none. [sic]"
"i would only use facts from the appointed lawyers, from the Genoa prosecutors office and from video experts who have worked on the case. [sic]"
"If you had done some research, you would of found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_G8_summit [sic]"
"I am glad that you accept my identity and you now realise how important that there is a page about the diaz raid. I am also glad you may have shown me a path through this mess. I hope that if when i can write the article again, you will help me get it accepted since you are an 'administrator'. i would like you to flag my complaint as a point of serious issue to one of these wikipedia reiewers and that i find a way so that an article can exist outlaying the basic facts of the event and of the trials. [sic]"
In addition, I noticed that some recent vandalism to my userpages by logged out (anonymous) users includes IP addresses which map to the United Kingdom, one clearly to London. I trust that this isn't you - if it were, it would damage your credibility.
Further, I hope that you will accept that the Wikipedia guidelines are here to stay. I do not mean to antagonize you, but rather only to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to further the creation of an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view.
Thank you, Nihiltres( t. l) 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
you asked for peace, i gave it and then you accuse me of vandalising your site. not i did not. since i have gone to great lengths to identify myself, would i attack you? its a very stupid accusation.
I am gone. i don't want to be part of this mess. you can ban me if you like. i am not interested. but just before you do ban me, i want to say this. if i see inaccurate information about Diaz and myself, i will take wikipedia to court (this is not directed at you). If what is printed has an effect or impact on whether the trial gets a parliamentary inquiry, it will be particularly bloody in the legal sense on both sides. i also suggest, since i cannot be the author, the author is agreed by all sides as an unbiased expert. you are not the only interested party looking for an authorised unbiased expert to write the Diaz page. If wikipedia allows a nobody who has no facts to be the author of the wikipedia page on the Diaz raid you are asking for legal trouble.
"Remember that legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia. Do not mention your lawyers again". Wikipedia cannot hide behind a bunch of guidelines and think itself immune from court action. I really do hope you do foreword this on to someone higher up in wikipedia so they can understand the views of the plaintiffs and lawyers involved in the case.
I guess that my main complaint was that an article that was taken down before you arrived deleting the links. It was well sourced. If you know the italian legal system, the prosecutors report into Diaz and lays out the basic facts of what happened that night. the court cases are about applying charges to individual officers for individual crimes. most of the fact are not disputed by either side. Dr Enrico Zucca, a prosecutor from Genoa is the world most authoritative unbiased expert on the Diaz case and the other events surrounding it. You deleted his link. sections of the report were reprinted in the article. yet this was deleted. So were BBC sources, Guardian, Reuters and Associated press. even the BBC has reported on Zucca's report into Diaz. however, wikipedia decided to take it down.
a typical line in the new article would of been....
A Reuters report quoted public court testimony that a police defendant described the Diaz 'as a Mexican butchers shop'
probably the only valid non biased person who could possible fit into 'your rules' is BBC journalist Bill Hayton.
I guess you were probably thinking that this was written by indymedia, from an indymedia point of view with loads of links. Despite being an indymedia journalist (london NUJ registered), i naturally would well source it.
Anyway, half of plaintiffs of Diaz are meeting for the sixth anniversary. i will tell them that the wikipedia page is no more and gauge their reaction.
I am leaving wikipedia with great disgust to how i and the diaz case have been treated. However, the plaintiffs, the lawyers and me will be watching what happens next.
goodbye
Hi, there were a couple of fair-use images on your userpage. We're not allowed to have fair-use images in userspace, so I replaced them with text (which admittedly makes them look like #@$%!). Just figured I'd let you know, and warn you to not do it in the future :). Thanks, Nihiltres( t. l) 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you have recently deleted an article about CoinTalk. It was claimed that it's significance was nonexistant. This is not true. CoinTalk is a very important website. It is the biggest coin forum that exists today, with over 9,500 registered users. I'm not even a registered user of CoinTalk and I am writing a page on it. At any given time, there is at least 3,000 non-users reading numismatic posts. I understand that you have deleted it. Understanding the circumstances that it was created under, would you be willing to allow it to be written agian (with revisions, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witeandnerdy ( talk • contribs) 15:59, July 10, 2007 (UTC)