Zlykinskyja (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
* 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 "free encyclopedia" text, edited as you prefer, onto other websites which might not be so heavily censored. Wikipedia 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. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 13:28, 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 "free encyclopedia" text, edited as you prefer, onto other websites which might not be so heavily censored. Wikipedia 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. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Zlykinskyja|Zlykinskyja]] ([[User talk:Zlykinskyja#top|talk]]) 22:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:55, 5 March 2010
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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:
Although there is no requirement in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 "free encyclopedia" text, edited as you prefer, onto other websites which might not be so heavily censored. Wikipedia 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)