Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikid77 (talk | contribs) at 03:36, 24 May 2011 (→MoMK talk-page edits by User:Jimbo_Wales: new topic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

June 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Eleuthera, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please see WP:SOURCE and WP:OR Bento00 (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

MOMK Talk Page

The article you are editing is contentious, and making large scale changes that might be controversial do risk getting reverted - if that occurs you must go to the talk page to discuss the issues and reach a consensus. In fact you need to read the talk page and the archives to get a handle on the various disputes and areas of contention. It really is essential you participate in discussion. --Errant 21:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you had read the talk page archives you would see why the name is not used. We err on the side of caution in naming tangentially related people, in this case it was discussed and agreed not to name him. Please do not add his name back to the article as this is a BLP violation. --Errant 22:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a BLP violation. The info is correct. BLP violations occur when there is a risk of defamation, such as by presenting false, damaging information. How is this information about Curatola false in any way? Please explain how this info is false or potentially defamatory. It reflects his own statements at the trial. That is it.

This entire article is a BLP violation since it presents Mr. Sollecito and Ms. Knox as guilty of a terrible crime. You and others on that article are defaming two innocent people and violating BLP by blocking exculpatory information from being included and presenting info in the most damaging light. I have read that Mr. Wales has concerns about this article and I can see why, given that neutralizing information is being blocked and skewed. Mr. Wales needs to come back and look again at what is still going on, despite his initial intervention.

I can see that, unless Mr. Wales intervenes, the participation on here by anyone who is not out to hang Mr. Sollecito and Ms. Knox is useless. Did he say that he would come back or follow up? How did he leave things on this article? It was reported on a news site that he was reading books about the case and would follow up. But that was April. Where is he now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs)

He is here, if you have questions why not ask directly?. pablo 22:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked him the same a while ago and I only see a lot of talk (on several pages) about what he intends to do but no actions follow. He's human and a regular editor after all.TMCk (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The name of the witness is immaterial to the information about him. We do not name him on the grounds of privacy. As to the rest.. if you are here to soapbox please don't. No one here should have an opinion on this case whilst editing, and instead should be working to reflect content in reliable sources. If you are here with the aim to exonerate these two individuals via Misplaced Pages then it is not in keeping with our ideals and you must stop. --Errant 23:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I would suggest taking a look at WP:GREATWRONGS. SuperMarioMan 23:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to update MoMK

Hi. Wikid77 here. I want to thank you for trying to update the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" with the latest information, and I think you are about 95% correct in your views, in interpreting the current Misplaced Pages policies. An article that understates the lack of evidence against people would be a violation of WP:BLP (by implying guilt) and WP:NPOV (by omitting the viewpoint of reasonable doubt), when those people are currently on trial, but the article pretends that "they are convicted" when actually still being judged by a jury of 8 people during a re-trial. The issue with naming the witnesses is still being debated, because there were over 200 witnesses, and unless named, it would seem purposely misleading to not identify specific witnesses. I think it would be allowed to use "A. Curatolo" rather than the full name, but this can be debated at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher. Here, some people might try to suppress your views by claiming you are WP:SOAPBOXing, but you, definitely, are allowed to express your views on any subject and your opinions of policies, as related to writing articles on Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, people who try to badger, and attack you, are violating the guideline of "Be Welcoming" which has been elevated, recently, to highest importance, this month, and so people WP:HARASSing you are subject to repercussions for their continued, hostile attitudes and violations of many policies, while you seem to have done little wrong. Please do not feel offended: the managers of the Wikimedia Foundation do not condone the actions of people being so rude and hateful against you; the problem is there are so many hostile people in some areas, and others are getting tired of dealing with them. Normal people do not have time and just prefer not to be around those people. I just wanted to confirm, as a reality check, that managers are aware of the conflicts and are trying to find solutions. So, this is just a friendly notice, and no reply is necessary. Thanks again for trying. -Wikid77 03:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course people can express their views. What they can't do is present them as fact in the article.
Wikid77, are you suggesting that Knox and Sollecito were not convicted of this crime? pablo 05:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

I've tried to impress on you that you really need to participate in talk page discussion; a lot of your content seems ok, but this is a contentious topic and all that will happen is people will start to revert you, an edit war will ensue and people will get blocked. It's happened a number of times before. Working on this article is treacle slow; you try something, then it gets reverted then we discuss it to reach agreement. It might be a pain but that's just how it is for now. Because you simply do not seem to be hearing me I have asked for help on the admin noticeboard to get someone uninvolved to come and help explain this. --Errant 23:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• RockSound: Misplaced Pages doesn't make editing decisions based on public opinion, as you seem to believe based on your referencing an op-ed article at WP:ANI. Misplaced Pages's articles are edited based on consensus, and consensus requires discussion. Reviewing the article's Discussion page, I see exactly ZERO comments from you. And, for the record, I also see ZERO comments from anyone named "Mr. Wales", which calls your argument into doubt. As has been stated many times by many other people, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And the facts do not support any "cabal of pro-guilt editors" existing on Misplaced Pages. That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Wales was on the back talk pages and there was media coverage. He was definitely involved and said he would help but never came back.

Participation in talk pages is not optional

I want to be clear about this - I am not telling you to stop participating in Misplaced Pages or to change your mind about the Kerchner case.

With that said - your participation to date at Misplaced Pages is missing one of our core values, and your ongoing participation is at risk. I urge you to listen to what I and others are saying and modify your behavior.

Participation in discussions on article talk pages and editor talk pages is not optional. It is how Misplaced Pages deals with disputes, questions, and concerns. We require everyone to participate in discussions if there are legitimate concerns or conflicts. This is not optional.

Misplaced Pages is often labeled "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but that's false to some degree. It's really "the encyclopedia that everyone edits, together". That means that you have to participate in the community discussions and so forth.

This is not optional. It's mandatory. This does not mean that you have to give up your opinions or your work on this topic. But you must discuss it in good faith with others, not just edit war on the article.

Please take this advice and start engaging in the talk page discussions.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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 could 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) 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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 could 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. --John (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

MoMK talk-page edits by User:Jimbo_Wales

I read the above distortion about "no edits by Mr. Wales" so this links some of those edits, by User:Jimbo_Wales, which is the common username for Jimmy Wales on the English Misplaced Pages. He had posted several comments in March and April, but took a break on May 3, 2011, after suggesting to cite pages from both Nadeau and Dempsey books, to attempt a balance.

His last 4 edits to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (to May 3):

• 14:38, 3 May 2011 - Read blogs to find links for hard-to-find reliable sources: diff-link-425.
• 14:35, 3 May 2011 - Request to cite pages in both Nadeau & Dempsey books: diff-link-039.
• 22:47, 27 April 2011 - Lack of sources about fruit juice in Guede's version: diff-link-459.
• 21:57, 27 April 2011 - About false, unsourced information in article: diff-link-616.

He also made some edits to the MoMK article, and responded at WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents to try to get hostile editors to acknowledge that unfair blocks had been used against new editors, and to try to get editors to become less confrontational with other users. The 2 former blocking admins backed away: User:Black_Kite resigned (Jan. 2010) due to family issues, and admin User:MLauba stopped commenting. There was just so much petty bickering by the same core group of people, and other admins were reluctant to help defend the addition of sourced material to provide a neutral balance. It seemed that Jimbo was the only admin who actively stated how adding text was important to provide a fair view; however, he did not use his "admin powers" to block the hostile editors (Hipocrite, SuperMarioMan, etc.) who continued to delete sourced text, and no other admin came forward (publicly) to defend his viewpoint. This is just an FYI, and no response is necessary. The events show that he tried to help and was almost "alone" among the admins.
It might be that most admins believed the British tabloid rumors that an American she-devil, having gatlin-gun fun, tortured her British flatmate and tried to "bleach" away the evidence. Those admins didn't read about a U.S. honors student who worked 7 jobs to save $10,000 for Italy, and attended short Italian classes with Meredith (at Stranieri) to help her learn Italian. If the alleged bleaching had not been refuted in court, it would be understandable how few would care then. Because the article does not refute the left-over rumors, most people continue believing the initial tabloid claims. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)