Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 20 March 2010

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to curtail deletions in MK article

03-March-2010: I have been monitoring the numerous deletions of sentences from the MK article, and I think, in the days since you have objected to the deletions, there now is sufficient evidence to begin notifying individual users of a pattern of behavior. As a courtesy, I have finally posted a reminder:

• See "Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Violations of WP:NOTCENSORED"

Although there is no requirement in Misplaced Pages to warn people of violations, such as against WP:NOTCENSORED, I think posting reminders gives people every chance to alter their actions, before escalating the issue. This men-behaving-badly notion that they can delete whatever they dislike has become commonplace in Misplaced Pages, within many articles, and perhaps it is convenient when removing rambling text from seasoned articles. However, in the Kercher article, which is still awaiting an official Italian statement of the latest convictions, the use of large deletions seems to border on harrassment against other editors explaining the murder. This is only my personal opinion, so please feel free to handle the deletions in any manner that you prefer. -Wikid77 06:46, 3 March 2010

Expanding to other articles

After reviewing many new articles, I believe that the admins are now swamped with trying to monitor all the thousands of new articles and cannot afford to spend more time to control the Kercher article. I would recommend to put the Kercher case details as examples in many other articles, and not get hounded within that 1 article. For example, Misplaced Pages matches the legal word "prejudicing" over 7000 times (!), but there is no article (!), and someone needs to write a new article "Prejudicing the jury" with examples of famous legal cases, certainly including the Kercher case as a recent example. Google matches numerous webpages for Prejudicing, so the topic is notable, and many Kercher pages clearly use the phrase "Prejudicing..jury" so no one could claim WP:NOR (the world knows the Kercher case concerns Prejudicing). See Google searches:

• 176 webpages: Google "prejudicing the jury" Kercher
• 249,000 webpages: Google "prejudicing the jury"

I often work on numerous articles, and that reassures me, that there are thousands of other people who are interested in the truth, but only 800 readers, per day, see the Kercher article, while thousands read all the other legal articles and would like to know more actual, legal details. When you mentioned "prejudicing" and other issues, then I realized that the Kercher article would need to be 10x times larger to cover all the important information. The details must be spread into multiple articles: too many people will fight against an intelligent presentation of all the facts in one article. (Don't put all your eggs in one basket.) Perhaps 10,000 people a day could get the facts if multiple articles were updated to mention the Kercher case details, as related to each article: DNA profiling, concealing a deadly weapon, judicial misconduct, crime scene contamination, etc. Again, this is my personal opinion, so feel free to do as you prefer, with the time you have available. For the record, I am not asking you to be a puppet on my behalf, and with that having been stated, no one can accuse you of misconduct (because perhaps some would try). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanding details

03-March-10: I'm sorry I haven't responded to more of your entries on the MK talk-page: I have been busy on other issues plus waiting to see how bad the censorship would get if I stayed away a few days. I suspect that much of my text gets deleted within 5 days if I stay away from the talk-page, as if they are free to ax as they please when I'm not vocal. Hence, I have been mostly watching, from afar, to analyze the bullying, and again, I apologize that I did not defend the issues more. I did not want to warn you that I was secretly watching the activities in silence; otherwise, people might try to get you banned for "collusion or puppetry" involving my plans. That wait-and-see period is over, and now there is enough evidence to report how soon after a user leaves, do they start deleting and censoring that text. Long-term these are my public plans:

• broader evidence of police pressure: it is time to emphasize, from the audio testimony, that they asked "Did you hear...scream? No." which led to fingers-in-ear warped confession; Lumumba's actions must be expanded to note he was arrested same day & claimed extensive pressuring by same police, plus he has suggested Amanda killed Kercher over her being hired at Le Chic, and issued insults such as Amanda's "Queen Bee syndrome" led to the murder or other libelous remarks he made without being sued.
• no sex game evidence: the early testimony of 3 Italian forensic experts concluded no pre-murder sex, then Mignini fires them, and hires others who say "multiple sex attackers", while Mignini is under investigation for judicial misconduct of wiretapping, falsifying evidence, so now perhaps firing people to get the court testimony he wants. Sexual preparation: witnesses say Guede shows up, 3 hours later, at Domus nightclub smelling so bad that people "kept their distance" as if he had not washed. Men, even 20 years old, know to bathe before a date, certainly before an n-way party, so what sex game involves who can smell the worst? Plus, Guede testified he spent the time at home, 15min away, washing off blood but what was he really busy doing that he did not have time to bathe in 3 hours, to pretend a calm night on the town, not busy returning to re-arrange a murder scene and then dart into a nightclub.
• dropped phones evidence: the phones were dropped 1 kilometre away (0.6 miles) along the path to Guede's house. We need to see if those phones were more towards Sollecito's place or more towards Guede if possible. Not original research, just state distances between locations and let readers decide.
• toxicology concluded Kercher had no alcohol: However, Kercher was a frequent(?) nightclub drinker, so what kind of sex game forbids beverages to improve the sexual atmosphere? Where in Italy is there no wine? All these issues line up like 15 holes shot in the sex-game theory. No one reading the article would believe any of those bizarre motives, if the article text covers all the main issues. The libelous sex-game would be completely refuted with no chance of normal people thinking ill of the defendants.

Those are a few of the issues that I intend to add to the article, so I just wanted to see how quickly people delete the minor issues, before adding "acquittal dynamite" to the article. Once the simple evidence contradicts all prosecution claims, it might result in "total doubt" of all guilt, while explaining that Kercher was stabbed wearing clothes and she did not do anything lurid or deviant. For those reasons, I wanted to see how frantically people would censor the truth, because I can just avoid the edit-war time and put such statements in other Misplaced Pages articles that aren't vastly censored every week. Many other articles can emphasize Kercher was wearing clothes instead of some perverted prosecution claims. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikid, you have done an amazing amount of research and know the details of this case far, far better than any other editor. But after all the research time put in, they just delete what does not support their side of the case---which is anti-Knox. The situation is dysfunctional. I am wondering if some sort of dispute resolution/mediation/arbitration would help. I put that question on the Talk page, but I just hope they don't delete that too! Please let me know how you feel about a formal dispute resolution process, when you get a chance. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think posting notices might stop most censorship; see below: #Steps to take. However, regardless of the edit-war conflicts, I will no longer stop composing text, offline, to insert. For example, I plan to find more sources about Amanda's desklamp found plugged under Kercher's door (in Micheli Judgment), then an opinion that using a lamp indicates a nighttime cleanup, not a move-and-shower the next day. From those issues, how would Amanda, in a dark house, leave her desklamp inside Kercher's room during a cleanup, and lock the door knowing she had no light remaining in her own darkened room nextdoor, where she, most certainly, would have placed her handbag, cellphone, and towels in preparation for leaving. If her room also had an overhead light, it could be argued that she forgot, but very unlikely when one room is lit and her room is total darkness. Seems as if someone else used her desklamp, locked behind Kercher's door and unplugged the hallway cord, with no intention to return to Amanda's room, and despite DNA showing Guede was present, no Guede fingerprints were found anywhere in the house (only the palm-print on the pillow), no Guede prints on Kercher's nightstand, door, nor on any lamps. I don't think this case requires Sherlock Holmes to spot a telltale pattern in rare cigar ashes, or such: once the forensic evidence is considered, it is pretty clear there was no pre-bathed nude sex game, nor an Amanda cleanup, and Guede did not spend 3 hours washing to appear innocently clean and relaxed at the nightclubs. If Amanda had not returned to the house to spot the blood in the no-window bathroom, there would be no one home to meet the postal police with the located phone, and Filomena might have delayed returning from her festivals, delaying discovery & autopsy many hours thereby confusing time-of-death. She and the others only came 30 minutes after the post-police because Amanda called her to come. Otherwise, the house might have been in November darkness for Filomena, while Knox stayed a 7th consecutive night with Sollecito. It was in the killer's best interest to stay on holiday with friends, and let others find the body too late for accurate time-of-death so that alibis could not be focused into a 2-hour murder timeframe. I realize this is rambling, but it just serves to show how the article could be expanded, and there are sources for many of those issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Steps to take

03-March-10: After the general notice about WP:NOTCENSORED, then the next step could be to quote the excerpt from WP:BLP about correcting text by modifying any insults rather than deleting all the text. Then for those who still don't quit deleting, I would post a notice to each user's talk-page, with links to various edits where they deleted a sentence or more. By formally listing the deleted sections, that level of notice posted to each user talk-page would let an investigating admin see the exact details of each problem. At that point, an admin might just remind a user that the deletions were not condoned by policies, and a warning from an admin might be last warning they need. If not, then a formal dispute-resolution would be much easier after having listed the deleted sections to each user's talk-page. By trying a multi-step approach, the problem might end sooner than a full arbitration request. As you might know, many arbitration requests end with both parties being asked not to edit Misplaced Pages articles for weeks or months. It's as if the easiest way to end a WP conflict is to throw all involved users into jail at the same time, and thereby no single person could hold a grudge because everyone was punished almost "equally" for not reaching consensus. However, there's a further danger: if one person has already known the admin for months, then they might get banned for only a few days while the other users get banned for weeks or months. Again, some admins think the "devil they know" should get less punishment than "the devil they don't know". Such all-user punishments have been issued for years, so arbitration might result in all users being banned a while, and then even editing of other legal-topic articles might be ruled as off-limits. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking more of mediation than arbitration. Are you saying that mediation could result in everyone being blocked, or is it just arbitration? I have heard arbitration could be strict, but had not heard that about mediation. But of course, I have heard very little about either one. BTW, your level of knowledge of the case is absolutely amazing! Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I'm saying that these admins are not professional judges, not even law-school dropouts. Many of them might be teenagers with their first taste of power, and perhaps friends of other editors. We don't yet know who they'll favor, and it's very risky. Meanwhile, let's explain the murder, not fight the troublemakers. See below. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The lone wolf theory

04-March-10: The Massei Judgment document has been released and, of course, has no explanation of the murder, according to short reviews by the media. Yes, there are 427 pages which could contain crucial evidence, but no one in Perugia could explain a 3-attacker scenario. The evidence just does not fit, so they had to conclude "guilty anyway" despite the evidence. I think we can solve this murder, in parts, to write the results in some articles (perhaps not in the MK article). Primarily, think of the setting as "knife-wielding burglar" (no names please) as in the bartender-house buglary. The knife is intended, to the burglar, as a means of escape when caught. Possibly the door has been left unlocked (or a window left unlocked), so the burglar enters, holding the knife just in case. Wandering through the house, he confronts Kercher, she sees the knife and thinks fight-or-die. From her martial arts training, she instantly fights back, and gets cuts on her hands (no fibers under her fingernails because she is kept back at knifepoint). Then she screams loudly, while fighting, and the knife is used to silence her neck. But perhaps she is still screaming some, so he drops the knife on the bedsheet and tries to strangle her into silence, which succeeds, so he lets go while she grabs her throat. He takes all 300 euros, and perhaps the phones to keep her from calling the police immediately. However, he must flee because of the screams, so he grabs the knife (to ensure his escape against any others), and perhaps washes some blood off hands & shoes, then runs. Hours later, he can't resist, he must return to the scene of the crime: he watches across the hillside, for the police, and to see: did she really die. When the path is clear he returns, but always in danger and with his knife (to ensure escape). He's already washed his shoes, so he enters barefoot to check for death, yes, then decides to fake the event. He takes the desklamp from the next bedroom & plugs into the hall to have light in the dark bedroom. He moves the body away from the window, then using his "escape knife" he removes the bra, places the clothes near the door, and cleans his shoeprints (unaware some of his shoeprints are under the duvet). Instinctively, he wipes all the other blood from the doorway, not just his shoeprints, and cleans the hall into the bathroom where he has left a bare, blood footprint on the bathmat (but it was too dark to notice). He rinses his barefeet, now into his shoes, then quickly closes Kercher's door with the desklamp plugged in the hall socket. In panic, he unplugs the desklamp but the plug won't fit under the door, so he drops the cord. It is still night, and in haste, he leaves some partial shoeprints in the hall or other rooms. He doesn't have time to mop totally (it's not like he lives there), he just wanted it to look like a rape, with none of his shoeprints (as he saw), and then leaves with the front door open, and always with his escape knife. Time is short, so he must try to look like he's been at the nightclubs, and no time to shower now. Unless the event is totally explained as a lone wolf theory, then people will always ponder the 3-attacker viewpoint. Explaining the murder is the focus, not how innocent some people seem, and that's what needs to be written, in part, based on sources for each aspect. I realize that it will be difficult to write that text. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikid, are you perhaps a genius? Just curious. Brilliant analysis. In all the material I have read about this case, no one has raised the theory that Guede HAD to go back to see if Meredith was still alive. She was still alive when he left. Her wounds caused a long, slow death. So he HAD to go back, otherwise there was a witness if she had not died. You just hit the nail on the head! Now its starting to make some sense. It will be very interesting to see if this gets raised in the appeal. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I was just using the extra time I gained, from avoiding the article, while you were very busy trying to keep facts from getting deleted there. Again, I apologize for not helping you defend the balance in the article, but previously, I was unable to learn any details about the murder when being sidetracked and blocked over the simplest insertions to the article. Now, there is a major controversy over my 20-word insertion which listed Senate powers (!) as if I'm warping the article by noting the 220-year-old newsflash that the U.S. Senate decides foreign treaties & confirms ambassadors. Citing WP:SYN, they are claiming the insertion is unfair by "advancing a position" such as, what, a U.S. Senator might be a very important person in international affairs? It's all just a colossal waste of time, and I suspect some invent the conflicts, so I have been much happier spending the time to solve the murder, based on all the various reliable sources. For example, I think the "satanic-ritual" blood image of the Celtic horse, refuted in closed hearings, was finally decided as a smeared blood handprint on the wall, in major sources. So again, you are right about the Halloween-ritual claims, but the time is better spent to get several reliable sources about an issue, then re-add a paragraph with all those footnotes inside, at the same time. Plus, for whatever paragraph you add, I recommend to keep a separate copy of your inserted text, so that you can re-add it 5 more times over the next 6 months. You can't stop the deletions, but they can't stop the re-insertions, either. Also, you are free to join other websites which could post this "💕" text, edited as you prefer, onto other websites which might not be so heavily censored. Misplaced Pages truly is a great resource, and all the information is intended to be shared and copied elsewhere, not deleted. Please don't quit totally, but just avoid the troublemakers from day to day, and regain your valuable time. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of quitting. I smell victory in this case, which is going to make this article all the more interesting to write. I think this is going to turn into a HUGE story. HUGE. I predict that this story is will go down in history as one of the clearest examples of the conviction of innocent people based on prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The "trial by tabloid" of the "she-devil" the "Luciferna" the "promiscuous American" with the "eyes of a killer"--who turned out to be totally innocent. I predict that in the long run this is what this case will stand for. It will be a story that you can tell your grandchildren about someday in the future. Hang in there! Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, and we need to plan text about "crime scene contamination" which derails the DNA claims. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Article of prosecution

Based on the limited text allowed in the MK article, I think it is time to start another article on a highly WP:NOTABLE topic: the Prosecution of Amanda Knox. The topic spans more than just the MK events, because it involves the interrogation stages, plus civil charges with Lumumba, plus the planned new trial about slander against the Perugia police, all beyond the main focus of the MK article. Then there's the aspect of "most watched person on Italian TV" in 2009, and the FoA or other groups related to her prosecution. All of those aspects justify a separate article, with fair-use-rationale photos (because her name is in the title and no one could reject those as off-topic photos). Also, we know that the Misplaced Pages readership is 10x more interested in her name than the others. In such a separate article, perhaps the interrogation could be 10 or more paragraphs with no WP:UNDUE limits, since the article is all about AK prosecution. I recommend to develop the article, in user-space, as "User:Zlykinskyja/Knox_prosecution" until the coverage is balanced enough to copy into article space (with the longer title), or you could start with title User:Zlykinskyja/PAK to thwart vandalism attracted by the name. I can upload fair-use photos for you to link, once moved to article space, if you wish. As always, you are free to think about the idea or decline, and no one could claim you are colluding as a puppet, because it is your own free choice. Also, I recommend you to write most of the wording from scratch so no one can claim it's "the same text slightly modified" as, therefore, a duplicate to be deleted. Long term, there will still be deletions but not justified as WP:UNDUE because the topic would be different now. Things to ponder. -Wikid77 22:47, 6 March 2010

Wikid: I will think it over. But wouldn't something like that be best to do all off-line so the Knox-haters can't trash it? It would take a lot of time and effort to research and write. But they could just come on my page some night and trash it. Is there some reason why it must be written on-line before posting it as a new article? Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The cyber-stalking going on is indeed a problem. I just can't waste more time on the childishness of it all. I could have written about ten sub-articles on this case by now if I did not have to deal with all the nonsense. Recently and up till now Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Malke have been plotting on his Talk page to get me into trouble. They are planning on filing some sort of charges against me and laughing about it. It is extremely distressing to see other editors conspiring and plotting to undermine another editor because they don't agree with the content of the article. This is why I think to get some peace and concentration, it would be best to work off-line, then post on my Talk page for comments before creating a new article. With my background, I could write something of high quality about this fascinating case.Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds good. I often create articles offline then test the formatting by copy/paste while edit-preview of a new empty article named "test777" (just don't save it accidentally). You might want to stay away from the MK page a few days, while I add some text to that page. I've been blocked previously from editing due to being trapped by 2 users goading me into a WP:3RR, and that goes on your permanent record if they find admin friends to block you. That's the wiki-gang tactics I call Clique-ipedia, and they laugh about it while readers wonder why no one is adding valuable content to the article. It's the Law of the Old West: avoid making enemies else leave town for a while. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Meanwhile, I can be doing some outlining on what should go into a new article. I have a lot of research to do on the early part of the case, and where it went wrong. The crucial mistakes were right in the very first days. See you later!Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I wish G. would just be honest about that night, but I don't think he could be believed unless backed by key forensic evidence. First, he claims for 4 months that Knox wasn't there, then in March 2008, he claims he saw her outside "through the window", but the cuts/scratches on the body indicate a long fight, not just arguing "with Knox about money" and then MK gets stabbed as an "Italian man" flees. She had 3 deep knife wounds on her neck/chin, the signs of strangulation for at least a few minutes, and cuts in both hands. So, G. wants us to believe he "told the truth at trial" and heard "Knox's voice" during an iPod song, behind a closed door, through 4 rooms across the L-shaped house. Perhaps, just quote news reports about him claiming an "unknown Italian man" when Sollecito's photo had been all over the Internet and news for months. Some reports note that G. "couldn't describe the knife the attacker held" (!), so I guess that's his idea of truth. Those issues need to be stated in an srticle. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-Keeper: Deleting text while an editor is writing

Magnificent Clean-Keeper: STOP HARASSING ME. STOP DELETING MY WORK. I was simply trying to write on-line. I should be able to compose on-line without this harassment. I was simply doing my writing and researching as I typed. I had good sources for each statement. But it is simply easier to go back and put in the cites when finished composing. I specifically noted that I was intending to add cites to the new text!!!!!!!! It was OBVIOUS that is what I was doing. STOP HARASSING ME. I have as much of a privilege to contribute to Misplaced Pages as you do. Now I don't even know where my text is and I am too upset to continue writing. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I If you continue harassing me I am going to report you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

TO DELETE TEXT WHILE SOMEONE IS COMPOSING TOTALLY WASTES THE EDITOR'S TIME AND IS INTENDED TO HARASS THE WRITER, NOT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF WRITING A GOOD ARTICLE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA. NOW MY TEXT IS GONE SOMEWHERE JUST BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW ME THE DECENCY OF COMPLETING WHAT I WAS WRITING SO THAT I COULD THEN ADD ALL OF THE SOURCES THAT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO FIND AND HAD TO TRY TO TRANSLATE FROM ITALIAN. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY HARASSING ME AND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME FROM PARTICIPATING IN WIKIPEDIA, AS REFLECTED BY YOUR PLOT AND JOKES ON YOUR TALK PAGE ABOUT INTENDING TO SEEK SANCTIONS AGAINST ME. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO INSTIGATE SOMETHING SO THAT YOU CAN THEN FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. LEAVE ME ALONE. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH. THIS IS A TYPE OF CENSORSHIP OF THE ARTICLE.Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Possible Additional Suspect in Kercher Murder

5th suspect in case--first reported by Francesca Bene http://www.komonews.com/news/19361399.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4002791.ece

Deposition video of Alessi, stating Guede said Knox and Sollecito were not at murder scene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR8iafbEYZo

Info Rocks case http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000174-504083.html http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/03/06/news/update-cellmates-deposition-427-page-motivation-document-may-clear-amanda-knox http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/10/world/main6284773.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;3 http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/mystery-man-blamed-amanda-knox-case/story?id=10028590

Guede may have told Nun and Priest that he felt guilty about implicating Knox and Guede. http://cdn.optmd.com/V2/62428/114222/index.html?g=AQADID4=&r=optimized-by.rubiconproject.com/a/7865/12601/22727-20.html?

Prosecution of reporter Francesca Bene, who works for a small Italian paper, Giornale dell 'Umbria, who was interrogated by one of the same police women that interrogated Amanda Knox and was indicted for causing public alarm by publishing false information http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/02/monster-of-florence-and-tragedy-in.html

Mignini to Interrogate Guede, Opens new prosecution case/intimidation tactic http://www.asca.it/news-MEREDITH__PM_ASCOLTERANNO_GUEDE__DOPO_DICHIARAZIONI_MARIO_ALESSI-900665-ora-.html

Trump http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/02/Trump-Amanda-Knox-is-innocent/UPI-95601267562258/

Guede claims man in Norwegian Napapijri & white cap

12-March-10: I have re-read the Micheli Judgment and confirmed Guede also described the man as wearing a black Napapijri jacket (Norway flag logo) and a white cap with a "red stripe in the middle".

A jacket photo: http://www.julesb.co.uk/menswear-1/outerwear-128/casual-jackets-7/napapijri-skidoo-jacket-106249-13145_medium.jpg

The man had light brown (blond?) hair, so the question becomes: did Guede describe the Napapijri jacket before, or after, the news report about the bloodied man from 7am? Possibly, Guede had seen the news, in Germany or prison TV, and thought that guy would be arrested, but later changed to say "looked like Sollecito" to satisfy the prosecution, perhaps to get a reduced sentence.

Here is the excerpt from the Micheli Judgment (a third of the way from the top), where the Judge recaps Guede's description for the Napapijri jacket/cap, from the larger lavatory (original Italian & my translation):

"Il giovane ricordava anche la sequenza dei primi tre brani ascoltati, essendo quella abituale, e mentre era a metà del terzo - malgrado il volume molto alto - aveva sentito un urlo: asciugatosi di fretta, senza neppure chiudersi bene la cintura, si era diretto verso la camera di M., trovando sulla soglia (ma appena dentro la stanza) un uomo che gli dava le spalle."

• Translation: "The youth also recalled the sequence of the first three tracks listened to, being the usual place, and while he was midway through the third - although the volume turned way up - he had heard a scream: exited in a hurry, without even fastening the belt, he was directed toward M. 's room, finding at the doorway (but just inside the room) a man who had his back turned."

"A quel punto, il G. aveva posto la mano sulla spalla di quell'individuo, scorgendo nel medesimo istante il corpo della ragazza in terra: l'altro si era repentinamente girato, vibrando colpi al suo indirizzo con un coltello che teneva nella mano sinistra, di cui non sapeva indicare lunghezza od altre caratteristiche."

• Translation: "At that point, the G. had placed his hand on the shoulder of that person, seeing in the same moment the girl's body on the floor: the other had suddenly turned, quivering strokes in his direction with a knife which he carried in his left hand, which he could not specify length or other characteristics."

"Descriveva il soggetto in questione come di poco più basso di lui, di corporatura analoga, con jeans chiari, una giacca nera marca “Napapijri” di cui aveva notato il logo, una cuffia bianca recante una striscia rossa nel mezzo ei capelli - che si intravedevano al di sotto - di colore castano: non era in grado di fornirne una descrizione migliore proprio a causa dell'aggressione in atto, che lo aveva indotto a prestare attenzione a non essere ferito, anche se l'uomo lo aveva attinto di striscio alla mano destra."

• Translation: "He described the entity in question as a little shorter than him, of similar build, with light jeans, a black jacket brand "Napapijri" of which he had noticed the logo, a white cap bearing a red stripe in the middle, and his hair - which could be seen below - of pale brown : he was not able to provide a better description precisely because of the aggression under way, which prompted him to be careful not to be hurt, even if the man had grazed his right hand."

He claimed that the confrontation had moved into the kitchen, where the nighttime lighting was brighter than the solitary desklamp in Kercher's room.

Questions:

• Did Guede describe a Napapijri jacket & white cap before the news reports?
• Was the bloodied guy (taken to the asylum) left-handed?
• Does the unknown DNA on the severed bra clasp match that guy?
• Do any of the unidentified 13/14 fingerprints match him?

If that guy was really there, it doesn't mean Guede would have left any cash at the scene, but Kercher's mobile phones might have been gone.

All of these issues should be written in some WP article. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there is NO WAY to get the material into the article. I just spent a lot of time last night adding text and many cites to their new section on the defense of Knox, and all that was deleted. They have the "consensus" and it does not include US. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempts by Anti-Knox editors to restrict participation by Pro-Defense Editors

I have added this much needed discussion to the Talk page of the article.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess rather than mediation, Magnificent Clean-Keeper would rather fight. It is all such a waste of time. No one side of a murder case owns an article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, if you want to mediate, go to WP:MEDCAB and open the mediation. You don't have to wait for anybody. You can initiate it yourself.Malke2010 04:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to do the research on how to do that and review sample cases to prepare something. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Linda Carty article

Note: Magnificent Clean-Keeper has apparently decided that trying to drive me off the Murder of Meredith Kercher article is not enough. Yesterday he followed me to a new article on Linda Carty in which he had never been involved and deleted most of my edits, without any prior notice, explanation or justification, engaging in a type of WikiHoundingThe non-bold text below is the discussion that followed after he set me up so that he could use my distress as evidence that I was being uncivil to him, never acknowledging that he had just deleted over a dozen of my edits. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

She was sentenced to death for kidnapping? No murder involved? Please explain this to me like I'm a 4 years old as I have a hard time following you.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Further responding to one of your several edits over there.

Notice that he does not say anything here about the fact that he has just deleted most of my edits on the new article. Then Magnificent Clean-Keeper cleverly posts his "helpful" suggestion below so that my response when I suddenly saw all my work deleted and came back here would look unreasonable. Then he oh so cleverly linked to a page where he is accusing me of being uncivil, using my response to his WikiHounding as an example.Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken your source for your this edit is taken from this quote from timesonline.co.uk:

"A “friend of the court” briefing by the British Government and delivered to the Supreme Court on Thursday, contends that Carty deserves a retrial because Texan authorities and her court-appointed lawyer failed to inform British officials of her arrest, as they were required to do by consular treaty. In another briefing submitted yesterday by a British documentary film-maker, Carty’s new lawyer — from a firm with close ties to both the former presidents Bush — is quoted as saying he will not be able to sleep at night “knowing that she could be killed without having had the chance of a fair trial”."

You certainly could add this to the article with keeping a clear context close to the source.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND. STOP REPEATEDLY DELETING MY WORK WHILE I AM TRYING TO WRITE. STOP HARASSING ME. BY REPEATEDLY DELETING OVER A DOZEN OF MY EDITS WHILE I AM TRYING TO WRITE YOU ARE ENGAGING IN AN EDIT WAR. PLEASE STOP.Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated in my first editsummary, I was following this post as you apparently did too.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But I must say that I'm getting tired of your yelling and kindly ask you to desist doing so further.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-Keeper. You need to start acting like a grown up. You repeatedly deleted my work on a new article in which you have never been involved, while I am writing, after it was made very clear to you that deleting my work while I am writing is unacceptable conduct. It is clearly a form of harassment. You followed me to a new article and deleted over a dozen edits, without discussing it with me first, and without justification. Then, after deleting most of my work twice, you bizzarely post here telling me what quote or information I can add to the new article. Clearly, you are trying to provoke something. You are trying to bait me into a disagreement on an entirely different article. That is very childish behavior. Please leave me alone and stop following me. I have asked you before to stop posting on my talk page, as I do not wish to have any contact with you. I have made that clear, so stop following me around and posting here. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you keep on making false accusations and making up your own rules in your favor while dismissing and ignoring established WP rules you won't get far. If editors wouldn't have as much patience as they showed and wouldn't still assuming good faith (and yes, that includes me) you probably would've be gone by force by now. Yet, editors, (and again, that includes me) are trying very hard to help you with any kind of advise, starting with general policies and even give you links and advise about what steps you can take in content disputes, yet you are attacking them in the worst possible way on a constant bases. You didn't change your behavior not a bit since editing as Pilgrimrose but did quite the opposite. What you call harassment is non and just an excuse for you to keep editing as you wish. This is NOT how WP works and if you think you can ignore it you'll find yourself with editors who've lost their editing privileges before. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to provoke something, by repeatedly deleting my work while I am writing, following me to an entirely new article in which you have never been involved, deleting my work there while I am writing there as well, making threats and other abusive behavior. I am starting to form the impression that you are a disturbed person and I want you to keep away from me. Please stop posting here and leave me alone, as I have asked you over and over and over.Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As I already pointed out above, "I was following this post as you apparently did too."

As for "You are clearly trying to provoke something,...", yes indeed. I'm trying to "provoke" you to adhere to policies. We all have to, as a matter of fact.

Your ongoing personal attacks like "You are clearly trying to provoke something...", "following me to an entirely new article in which you have never been involved" (which I just debunked again in this post) and repeated comments like:"...deleting my work there while I am writing there as well, making threats and other abusive behavior." and attacks like "Magnificent Clean-Keeper. You need to start acting like a grown up."... Do I really need to keep on going?

You kept on attacking me w/o bothering to answer my question I had in regards to the article. See above the very first post I made including the section title. Can I expect a reasonable answer to this from you?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice to Magnificent Clean-Keeper

I have asked you at least twenty times to leave me alone and to stop posting on my User/Talk page. You completely ignore my requests. Then yesterday you went so far as to WikiHound me by following me to an new article and then deleted most of my edits. I am asking you one last time to leave me alone. I do not want you posting in my user space unless it is some formal notice that you are supposed to give, like a 3RR warning for example. Other than such notices, I do not want you posting here at all because you just try to upset me. Thank you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: The ANI complaint someone filed against Magnificent Clean-Keeper earlier today, to which I commented, was immediately marked as "Resolved", without analysis or discusion on the ANI this morning, only 33 minutes after I posted my comment, and now the complaint is nowhere to be found on that page. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask admins for a non-disclosed 2nd username

Many users have multiple usernames, to allow non-wiki-stalked editing, but the multiple usernames should be cleared with some admin to avoid accusations of secret WP:Sockpuppet usage (punishable by a 1-3 month ban). Some of the admins, themselves, have multiple accounts so that they can edit articles without being seen as an admin in the mix of that article's editors. There are so many thousands of articles that need quick updates, by someone of your background, who could add so much detail, so quickly, and hence, it is not worth the risk of being hounded by wiki-stalking. I am sure that admins would allow you a WP:Sock#Legit username to resume editing on other articles. Misplaced Pages is a "psycho magnet" for those who can torment people here, in ways they couldn't in open society, and disappearing with another username is a form of protection. Again, you are free to reject this suggestion, and I don't want you to feel pressured, but your time is too valuable to be wasted here. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Psychomagnet for those who can torment people here, in ways they couldn't in open society..." Sounds about right. I will look into that other user name with an administrator for 'protection', which is badly needed. Thanks for your advice. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than just linking to it, you should both actually read WP:Sock#Legit very carefully. What you are suggesting seems to be directly the opposite of what that policy calls for. If you recall, this is what got you both blocked at the beginning of the year. Please don't repeat it. Instead, why not try actually editing in good faith, collaborating with others? Once you do that, you'll find the "psycho" factor drops way off. User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem being discussed is "Wikihounding". That is when another editor follows someone to a new, different article and repeatedly deletes all or a lot of that person's work, but shows no other interest in the article-- so the harassment motive is obvious. That is what happened to me, and it is against the rules to do that to someone. I will try to find an understanding admin who will help someone who is not part of the "in-crowd" find a way to edit without being fearful of more WikiHounding. To suggest that I was subjected to WikiHounding because I was not editing in "good faith" or "not collaborating" is unwarranted. As for any prior alleged sock-puppeting, no that absolutely did not happen. I was falsely accused during a completely innocent attempted name change(as explained on my front User page), but not given any due process at all, no prior notice or chance to explain before blocking. What I am talking about here in seeking "protection" is something I would do ONLY with an admininstrator's formal okay, so that would not be illegit. I find it ironic how some people can get away with anything if they have admin friends--even WikiHounding--and their victims are the ones blamed. That is not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work, but most unfortunately I am learning that is the way it is. So that means that other options need to be explored, which I need to look into, as noted above. I don't think any editor should have to edit in an atmosphere of intimidation, so I have no choice but to find ways to deal with that intimidation, or give in to it by giving up. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to overestimate the powers of admins, who don't grant exceptions to community policies unless they are ready to lose their admin priviledges. Once again, please read it carefully. If you had done so the first time, you wouldn't have made that error.User:LeadSongDog come howl 04:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I took the time to review the details of the 1-month block, and I agree that those blocks were unjustified. Per policy WP:Sockpuppet, an inexperienced user should have been given a more-lenient block, especially in violating a "sub-clause" of the policy, about engaging in an edit-war while using a 2nd username. I also tried to discuss my block, and I was met with severe, vicious, intense hostility, and I have been an active Misplaced Pages editor, for years, longer than all those admins (who supported the block) had been admins. Because I have been on Misplaced Pages for many years, I was able to continue working offline for 34? days, and quite sincerely, I don't "live for Misplaced Pages" so it was no big deal to me, just highly unfair. It is very important for us to find admins who will be friendly towards us, not as special favors, but just to show some common decency in their analysis of the situations. Some people editing the Kercher article want to delete information, in a murder/theft case, about blood on the handbag, about the blood-footprints, and about the prior arrest of one of the suspects in a knife-carrying, double-burglary incident 5 days before the murder. Given that deletion mindset, imagine trying to add sourced text which shows that the prosecution's measurement of the footprints was clearly wrong (stated in multiple sources), that all the blood-shoe-prints were in the style of one type of Nike shoes, and that no luminol footprints matched Kercher's DNA: the only footprints tied to Kercher's blood were those single-pattern Nike Outbreak 2 shoes and a footprint on the bathmat, across the entire house. That's why we need sympathetic admins who are willing to listen, consider the deletions. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think some people view a person accused of a crime as having no legitimate claim to his or her good name. Obviously, if it is yourself who is being spoken of negatively in the press, media or Internet, you will have a different view. Apparently Amanda takes her right to her good name seriously enough to file a lawsuit against an Italian journalist or publication. The website perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/03/amanda-knox-compensated.html is reporting today that Amanda just won a lawsuit involving damaging press reports concerning her diary and her reputation. It is nice to see Amanda being afforded a little dignity after this Trial by Tabloid fiasco. CBS news is also reporting some sort of "Blockbuster" today, but it looks like stuff we already knew about. That tells me CBS news is trying to keep publicity on this case, with or without recent news. No word in the mainstream U.S. media yet about Amanda's victory in her lawsuit. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The intent of WP:SOCK is not at all subtle. A long established editor like Wikid77 should have no difficulty understanding its meaning. If you think the rules should change, feel free to work to change them, perhaps starting at WP:Village pump (policy). But thinking that it's reasonable to ignore them once again will not bring you any kind of candy-coated goodness. As for seeking special dispensations, you'll need to look higher than an admin. User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the "bombshell" CBS is reporting today, but all this has already been reported and known for a while, I think. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

More spinoff articles: Delayed grief

Because the Knox/Sollecito case has been identified as "the trial of the century" it will have far-reaching impacts. Numerous Misplaced Pages articles will be written, as overlooked subjects, to cover all the topics involved: Prejudicing the jury, Railroading, and now, Delayed grief. Everyone knows that people, suppressing extreme grief, will suddenly burst into shocking behavior unexpectedly, such as sobbing uncontrollably anywhere, perhaps days, months or years later. However, such behavior is seen as "guilt" to some people in Italy. How could they not know this:

"Unresolved grief eventually turns into delayed grief, the effects of which can surface years later as inappropriate reactions/behavior." Sources: "The Three Stages of Grief", CUNY, link: CUNY-3-Stages; "Unresolved..Delayed Grief", web: Nremedies-gr.

I am beginning to think the article "Keystone cops" needs a cultural-impact paragraph about Italian police; I don't want to use the word "incompetent" but their example needs to be added to a similar article. Plus, I'm trying to think of the article title about numbering a person's foot diagram as far too large, when actually, the true measurements fit a blood footprint almost exactly, perhaps: "Falsifying evidence". Hey, that sounds like a good article to write. -Wikid77 04:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

More on The Magnificent Clean-Keeper

Wikid, Thank you for your suggestions. I would be happy to consider working on the articles you suggest, when I have some time. However, when I went to spend a little time on the interesting Delayed grief article as you suggested, I see that The Magnificent Clean-Keeper has already beat me to it. MORE WIKIHOUNDING, just like he recently engaged in on the Linda Carty article as discussed above. He has engaged in further WikiHounding by going to the article you kindly directed me to, and now he has nominated the article for deletion so that I cannot work on it-- unless I try to put up with yet ANOTHER hassle from him. So this is the second article that TMCK has gone to knowing that I would be trying to work on it, and tried to make things difficult. Yes, indeed he is engaging in WikiHounding because he would never have even paid attention to that article if he had not seen your suggestion here on my Talk page directing me t o the article. How childish. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, when he went to the Linda Carty article (after I started to work on it) he repeatedly deleted all or most of my edits while I was trying to write. This was after a similar incident on the Kercher article, where he repeatedly deleted all my new text while I was trying to write, and I had to give up trying to write. Now tonight he again repeatedly deleted all my new text while I was trying to write--even though he knew full well from prior incidents that pulling that kind of stunt would lead to a distressed response on my part. After these recent other incidents where he used profanity at me, and threatened to "get rough" with me, and WikiHounding me and now starting up a new variety of WikiHounding by trying to delete the new article you asked me to work on---BEFORE I even had a chance, and now repeatedly deleting my new text on the Kercher article, it is indeed a very frustrating and stressful situation. No one is supposed to be engaging in anonymous harassment of someone on the Internet. This is just all wrong. Zlykinskyja (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Users who hound others

20-March-10: Unless the people who are following you, from article to article, learn to back off, I suspect they might get banned for 6 months or more. At this point, I think you have written enough about the problem, so now, any admins, who wish to do so, can investigate the abusive activities against you. Since everyone in the world is reading this talk-page, no admin would believe that those culprits were, somehow, totally innocent and unaware of the anguish that they have caused you. A culprit can't first quote from your talk-page, and then claim, "Gee, he didn't know he was being a psycho nutcase and terrorizing other users". Trust me, I have seen such users banned for over 6 months, and the admins can even block their IP-address access from their neighborhoods if needed, plus their real identities can be revealed to the police or authorities in their areas. I don't know how police in Italy or Britain deal with stalking, but all of this is probably good exercise for anti-terrorism, so the police would probably allocate some time to find them. -Wikid77 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiHounding is a very agressive form of harassment. No question about it. It should not be going on. Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Need policies on Hounding and Frivolous AfDs

Now that we are 100% certain that your talk-page is a fish bowl (viewed by "millions"), I think we can work towards creating, or expanding, 2 new policies:

• Hounding - I like that term better than "wiki-stalking" which sounds too criminal for use here.
• Frivolous AfDs - as similar to "frivolous lawsuits" where people are hoping to gain by censorship.

The problem I've seen from many admins is that they don't have a "policy-check-box" to investigate users for "hounding" and currently, few have used the term "frivolous AfDs". Apparently, the admins are so busy that they don't want to debate the issues, they just want some "check-boxes" such as: fought on article 1, followed/fought user in article 2, followed/fought user in article 3, hence yes, it's a case of hounding. I suggest copying a short guideline to create a proposed guideline that indentifies a person as hounding another user, or see if a similar policy already exists. It might seem unimaginable that Misplaced Pages does not have adequate policies, after all these past 9 years, but defining social guidelines is a rare activity, and you are one of the few to so quickly spot the problems. I think they would welcome your guidelines, it's just the lack of current policies that allows wiki-gangs to run wild. This is just a long-term suggestion, and please feel free to think about it a long while. -Wikid77 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like much further refinement of the policies on behavior should be undertaken.Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How to act when sister works for Carabinieri police

In the MK case, I continually find that there is a "non-guilty" explanation for ALL of the suspicious behaviour. Is there a "good samaritan law" in Italy which concludes: if something is suspicious and you didn't call police, then you're an accomplice? So, a guy calls his sister in the military police, noting the local phone-cops are there, and she advises, Oh God don't let those amateurs contaminate the crime scene? Now should he tell the court, that his sister advised, because "all Carabinieri police know", that the phone-cops are incompetent and most prosecutors are corrupt, so pretend to be "on your own" so that they don't link you to any people who the court/judges are targeting with falsified evidence? Not a good thing to admit for gaining popularity in court. Hence: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Things to ponder. I've seen so many "guilty" behaviors explained, such as "Knox didn't cry" but she sobbed uncontrollably when the top policeman said he would find out who killed her Halloween friend Meredith, by talking to the non-existent neighbors about what they didn't hear that night. Can you imagine her despair? So today, I better understood: when they finally announced the verdict, many in the jury cried (unanimous, ya right). I, quite honestly, haven't found a single "suspicious behaviour" that remained after checking the actual sources, and then I see the footprint analysis of Guede's footprint with, at least, 2 obvious errors to make the ball of his foot appear 24% too large, when actually, Guede's footprint is thinner than Sollecito's, and closer to the bathmat stains. Who would want to be linked to anyone targeted with falsified evidence in Italy? "We have ways of making you talk." I don't know them, I wasn't with them, I don't know when they left or returned, we're not together as a couple. There's nothing suspicious about saying that, in Perugia. -Wikid77 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The more and more I research this case, the more and more I see an absence of truly credible evidence that could convict beyond a reasonable doubt. The whole case is saturated with reasonable doubt. There is a new book coming out by Candace Dempsey, a Seattle reporter. The name of the book is "A Murder in Italy", published by Bantam Books. The publication release will be in late April, I think. It should be a worthwhile read, because her blog has been quite insightful. Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

New article: Falsified evidence in Italy

20-March-10: Because of all the controversial court cases, I think there would be ample sources to create a new article "Falsified evidence in Italy". At this point, however, I have to wonder: "falsified evidence", is there any other kind in Italy? Could we get a reliable source, and how can evidence be proven as not falsified? I haven't heard of any, and I was stunned that Mignini would even attempt to push any tainted evidence in this case, but that might be "standard operating procedure" in Italy. Perhaps, old habits are hard to break. Some people might want to villify Mignini, when "it takes two to tango": 19 judges saw this evidence of "luminol bloody footprints" with no test for blood (by Rome!), and that was considered as evidence of them walking through a blood-stained, crime-scene cleanup. We know the defense proved "no blood test" by retorting that luminol reacts to fruit juice or rusty water (and hydrogen peroxide, some soapy water, fish blood, or food sauces?). That sounds quite falsified to me. I wonder if the U.S. State Dept is negotiating: "Free them on appeal, and we won't need an international incident to investigate tainted evidence in every court in Italy". When the "trial of the century" contains falsified evidence, then there might be no limit to the size of a new article "Falsified evidence in Italy". -Wikid77 07:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As time goes on, the worse it looks for Italy. It is an embarassment. Such an article would be a good one, but it would take a lot of research, and I don't have that kind of time right now. Maybe after the appeals court rules in the Fall. Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Censorship Issue

Could you please stop assuming bad faith on the part of other editors (such as here) and claiming that there's someone wishing to censor you?
That's absolutely not true.
Thanks. Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure looks like censorship to me, and over and over and over the attempts to restrict my contributions continue! There is nothing wrong with allowing the new article to progress just a little, but not allowing it is the same as censorship. There is no emergency in eliminating this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)