User talk:PietroLegno

Welcome!

Hello, PietroLegno! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Footwarrior (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Low Copy Number and Murder of Meredith Kercher

Hope you don't mind that I undid your recent edits on these two articles. On the Low Copy Number article, the opinions you inserted were unattributed and unsourced. The factual information that LCN is not used in most countries appeared unsupported by the source you provided.

In the Meredith Kercher article you provided information that Knox was "not the mastermind" which was sourced, but just repeated the information in the prior sentence. The addition of the phrase "contrary to the prosecution theory" did not seem to be supported by the source already given at the end of that sentence.

Many thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher‎

The text Black Kite removed from the talk page is still in the history.[[1]]

If you notice, it starts by pointing out an unsupported claim in the article and shows that it's false.

I found his deletion of this text and the warning issued to the creator to be rather odd. WP:BLP doesn't apply to information where there is a RS backing the claim. BLP does apply to talk pages, but removal of text from talk pages is normally used only in cases where it's a clear, usually obscenity laced, violation of WP:BLP. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your personal attack on the talk page

Since you appear to be referring to MLauba and myself as "pro-guilt administrators", I would suggest you remove that personal attack as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I will raise it at ANI to let a neutral administrator deal with it. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Do anything like this again and you will be blocked. --John (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the obvious strength of your convictions, may I ask that you provide some evidence to back up your "suspicion" that PhanuelB "is being attacked more for his view than for his actions"? "The attacks that continue against him here amount to an extended rant by the same handful of people over and over and over as if mere repetition magically makes a thing so" — I'm sorry, you've lost me: just who is the one "ranting" and "repeating" in that particular diff? If you have an interest in retaining your editing privileges, perhaps now would be a good time to consider withdrawing the lies that you have posted about other users — starting with that completely baseless accusation of administrators being "pro-guilt". Please reflect carefully before posting more unfounded allegations. Thank you, and regards, SuperMarioMan 12:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Rudy Guede break in history of

A rather amusing post I had on this way back when (the Bob Graham article had come out recently). http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5981643&postcount=18 And here is a katy_did translation of the RS appeal section on this http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6099654&postcount=3337 . I don't think the full story behind this has yet been told, Dr. Waterbury believes Rudy was a police informant. My guess is that more on this will be proven or dis-proven before too long.RoseMontague (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment rose. Being a newbie, I responded on your talk page. I guess I was supposed to respond here. PietroLegno (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't

Making reverts without explanation is a bad idea. Please make your justifications in talk and try to improve others' text rather than reverting a poorer version back. --John (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I did explain. But I agree in principle. You got too itchy on the trigger finger and should have waited for others to weigh in. It would be possible to fill up the lead with language excoriating the verdict and everything about the trial. Is that what you want? The language that was there was a good faith effort at compromise and you should not have changed it. PietroLegno (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What was the compromise? Why should I not have changed it? --John (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to get in an extended argument with you. Dreamguy clearly has the right ideas and has answered you effectively. My point is that the language that he has insisted stay there for now is an excellent compromise. The pro-guilt crowd will no doubt favor your deceptive blandness; I would prefer something stronger. The language there now hits the sweet spot. PietroLegno (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned you had sources to justify this wording. I imagine you'll be posting those sources soon. I look forward to that.--John (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

John, you are an WP:INVOLVED administrator and should not be appearing on users' talk pages to make demands of other users. It's especially odd that you claim he made reverts without explanation when they were explained in both the edit comments and the talk page and it was you who ignored consensus there. Your presence here, whether it's inadvertent or intentional, suggests you are issuing some official warning when you gave up the right to do so when you stepped into the dispute as a participant. DreamGuy (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, quite the pile on above

From comments above I see you have had a number of threats against you in the past for trying to point out bad behavior on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I do think you need to be more careful in how you word things, but considering now that User:JimboWales has stepped in to express his belief that the article was biased things are looking up. Jimbo also made comments suggesting that the problem at least partially happened by poor administrator action and unfair blocks. Up until this point I had no idea who that might have been, but now I see a few strong candidates. At this point, as long as you play everything by the policies, you should not have to worry about rogue admins. If the problem persists there are dispute resolution processes that can be followed, and there is always direct appeal to Jimbo. The latter should be used extremely sparingly, as he is very busy and often does not have the time or inclination to get directly involved, but since he has already taken part he seems willing to help clean this mess up. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I am getting an idea of how Wikipedia should work and it is very enjoyable. Don't worry about me saying any more intemperate things. I am actually pretty easy to get along with. I did get too angry the first time around but resolved the problem by walking away from Wikipedia for six months. There seemed no hope of correcting a badly biased article so long as a fanatical group of editors and three administrators were arrayed against me. When some of the same people reappeared to attack Jimbo and you and others for what seemed a common sense approach that was discouraging. Unlike some people I make no bones about my biases. However, I do fully understand that it is not Wikipedia's mission to reflect them. My goals for the article would be for people who consult it to realize there really is controversy and that strongly credentialed people have taken issue with the evidence, the quality of police work, and the media coverage. We can't resolve these issues here and should not try to. But readers of the article should know that controversy exists and why it exists. I would only add that Wikipedia should follow reality not create it. The bias in the article would have been much more respectable in late 2008 than it is today. But a lot has happened since then, including the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case. Similarly, the appeals are on going and there will probably be more news requiring adjustments in the article as things unfold. I stand ready to help as much as I can. If it is best for truly neutral editors to try to hash things out that works for me. I kind of like that idea because I think we need a common vision of how the article might look and feel before we worry too much about the finer details. But I can pitch in and start to edit too. I have few illusions about how much work is involved but this is a challenge and I believe we can create an article that any fair minded person would be proud of. PietroLegno (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Query

I'm interested in your take on how this post you made squares with our policies on civility and personal attacks. --John (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea that we might actually get along if the subject were good novels or the poetry of Bobby Burns. I am sorry that you are so thin skinned. What I said was fair commentary by any real world measure that I know of. In any event, I am hardly the only one to take issue with your comments and actions. PietroLegno (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I am being thin-skinned. I would merely request that you restrict any future discussion we may have to sources and suggestions for article improvement, and to raise any concerns you may have about editors in user talk (as I am doing here). Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you seem excessively thin skinned. I was talking about your heavy handed tactics not attacking you personally. What I said would not have caused even a raised eyebrow in most forums. In any event, as a neutral observer recently said: "John, you are an WP:INVOLVED administrator and should not be appearing on users' talk pages to make demands of other users." You must pardon me if I decline to respond in the future. PietroLegno (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you still didn't notice that WP is no Forum, has no Forum and WP is no place for forums talk. Free knowledge for you and sure, you're welcome.TMCk (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As TMCk points out, this is not a forum but an attempt to write an encyclopedia. We have our own rules and you may find that behavior which is acceptable in a forum will get you into trouble here. Please bear this in mind in future. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of rules, John, we have rules for WP:ADMINs as well. You are aware of these, because you have been warned that you are not following them, both on this page and your own. A huge crowd of editors, admin or otherwise, with partisan opinions on this dispute should not be posting to this talk page with aggressive posts like this. Frankly, your own behavior and that of the other complainers here have not followed policies and you should stop bullying this user. DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher talkpage

Please be more careful when posting so you don't cut into other editor's comments. I've just removed one of your edits here. Thank you.TMCk (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your high mindedness. I am sure you were just protecting the sanctity of the talk page and not gratuitously harassing me. I reposted in a way that I hope will not offend your delicate sensibilities. PietroLegno (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Next time I don't bother to inform you and just remove your post if that is what you'd prefer.TMCk (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I really must insist that you inform me if you are targeting my posts. If I find that you make a habit of removing my commentary without explanation I will be forced to find out what administrative remedies may be available to me. Your politeness is an example to us all.PietroLegno (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good luck then.TMCk (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi Magazine a reliable source

I asked the administrators at the reliable sources noticeboard if Oggi is a reliable source for the information about Nara C. This was their response:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Italian_news_magazine_.27Oggi.27_a_reliable_source_within_Wikipedia_rules.3F

Let's get the information added to the article. Cheers, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)