User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-10

This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on July 15, 2007. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

CSDAR?

I saw that you did a bunch of deletions today. Have you tried WP:CSDAR? I stumbled across it today and it makes CSD chores much easier.--Kubigula (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I've heard of the autoreason script (on facebook) but never seen it - thanks for the pointer. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Roded86400

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User talk:Roded86400, by Roded86400 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User talk:Roded86400 fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Death Penalty

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User talk:Roded86400, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate User talk:Roded86400 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, but I have nothing to worry about. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)`

Bot error fixed. Thanks for pointing it out to me on my talk page and sorry for the bad tagging. --Android Mouse 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :)

Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun. Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends! Thank you so much, dear Nihiltres! :) Love, Phaedriel 07:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrugated fiberboard

This article had been fully functional. A few administrators have changed titles and capitalization to the point that the talk page is not now functional. I have tried to correct this but the system asks for an administrator to do the fix. Please help. Rlsheenan

I'm sorry, but you just reverted what I did, without talking about it at all, and then came to me for help reverting my own actions - I'm a bit frustrated. My plan right now is to leave it alone for a while to avoid making a misguided decision. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Adoptions?

Hi there. I see you're willing to adopt. Don't suppose, umm .... you'd like to maybe give you-know-who a go? He seriously needs mentoring and I think under the expert eye of someone like you, could become a productive and happy editor. Just suggesting, mind :) - Alison ☺ 04:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I might, but I admit a certain specific lack of patience for overzealous Christians. I deal with you-know-who by having watchlisted his talk page... occasionally stepping in and closing off the argument is probably the only way to easily deal with it. Eventually he will either reform or be blocked. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* - I think we can see where this is going, somehow. Thanks for remaining civil throughout - Alison ☺ 06:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

It was at 710.5px with one flag. I toned it down to 355.25px with two flags. And you toned it down more please don't do it agian. The other's were pleased with it!--Hornetman16 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was still pretty big, and I note no comments from other users being pleased with any change by you. Besides, I didn't do anything with the rest of the page, which carries some pretty nasty violations of WP:NOT. Consider yourself lucky that I didn't simply list the page for MfD - that would be a simpler solution. I left the majority of the page as is to accomodate you, and I hope that you will appreciate that and express your love for your Trinity through improving the encyclopedia rather than by plastering expressions of your belief over your userpage. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 04:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

God(s)?

I know there one God and on God alone. He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. You should read up on the Christian Faith some.--Hornetman16 05:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hornetman - he's a transcendental pluralist with Buddhist leanings. Show a little respect. I have the sneaking suspicion that Nihiltres already knows quite a bit about Christianity - Alison ☺ 06:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I went to a Jesuit private high school (excellent school) and got better marks in the religion classes than the Catholic students themselves, so Alison's right. Besides, this has no bearing on the discussion at hand; I'm not about to convert. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 12:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As noted on Hornetman16's page, I realized that this comment was directed at the way I phrased something, which suggested I had little to no understanding of Christianity. As a misunderstanding, I'm letting this go. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Self message, test

Testing spiffy (?) new signature. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Diaz Pertini school raid

Diaz Pertini school raid.

Indymedia has just informed me of what you have done to what was left of that page. please put it back. my name is Mark Covell. i am an indymedia imc-uk journalist who nearly died there. I have tried to write my account of the raid as it most seriously injured victim but that was taken down by another wikipedia editor who did not believe i was actually mark Covell. If you don't you will face the full wrath of indymedia i can throw at you, ok? you are somebody who knows absolutely nothing about the Genoa G8 2001, so who made you the judge of what is history or not?

Since i cannot seem to actually post an article about the facts and history of the raid (and the trials)and about myself that agrees with wikipedia editorial management(you + others), i want the links restored at least. Or do you intend to completely delete any existence on wikipedia of what happened that night?

I really do suggest that you find the links deleted and read the Genoa prosecutors report into the raid (i hope you find them acceptable as an authoritative author) into who i am and what happened to me.

13:39, 25 June 2007 Nihiltres (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Diaz Pertini School Raid" (CSD G8: Talkpage of non-Existent Article content was: '== Essay from Mark Covell ==My name is Mark Covell. I was the indymedia UK journalist who almost died during the Diaz Pertini School Raid during the...')

i also have six lawyers in reserve. I am not joking. i am sick and tired of Wikipedia management editors butchering everything about Genoa and the Diaz raid. i want this settled amicably. just leave that page alone. if in doubt about who i am watch the report from channel4 news.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/genoa+summit+police+on+trial/581717

have seen your homepage. 'I scored as -4.92 on an economic scale of left versus right, and -5.25 on a social scale of libertarianism versus authoritarianism'. you might of studied it, i have lived through it. another thing, i score 9/10 for living through the nightmare of Genoa and Diaz and i specialize in legal arguments since i have dealt with a great many lawyers in the six years since the raid.

Mark Covell - London

First of all, do not make legal threats, or I will immediately and perhaps indefinitely block you on those grounds as per Wikipedia policy. Second, I have no issue with the importance (or lack thereof, if applicable) of the events. I deleted the article itself (N.B.: not the discussion page, which was where your essay was located) because it had been tagged with a proposed deletion template for the required length of time. Anyone could have removed that template at will. Furthermore, although it was not tagged as such, I noted in my deletion summary (for the article) that it (the article itself) qualified for speedy deletion criterion A3.

Once this was done, the talk page (or discussion page, where your essay was located) qualified for speedy deletion criterion G8. I ignored the essay as present there because it was not part of the article content and the page itself had been deleted.

I have no personal problem with your essay, and I among most other Wikipedia editors and administrators appreciate, to an extent, your efforts to add to the encyclopedia. I don't doubt that you are Mark Covell - I extend that trust to you (on the other hand, I have never heard of any Mark Covell before today). Please assume good faith, I hope to address your concerns, not fight you. In addition, you call me a part of "management". To be sure that you are aware (you may be, that is ambiguous), although I have been granted administrator priviledges to delete and protect pages and block users (and reverse those actions), I do not represent Wikimedia in any official sense. Further, what you quote from my userpage is a statement of my political position as determined by a standardized quiz - you appear to misunderstand what it is, as it is not (as far as I can tell) analogous to the score you attribute to yourself.

You can create an article on the subject (since you have an account), although as a Wikipedia article, there are a number of criteria that must be met. Below are the two criteria I think have the potential to be the most problematic for you in your goal to create such an article.

1. Notability. Wikipedia articles that do not demonstrate the notability of their subject are deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7. It is advisable to cite reliable sources to prove notability: dubious unsourced claims of notability are often ignored. Your article might be deleted regardless - I do not know anything about the event's relative notability.
2. Neutral point of view. All articles must conform to an objective neutral point of view. This means that facts are presented objectively and major viewpoints presented dispassionately. This is one of the core policies of the encyclopedia, and is listed as one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. You might want to note that your great involvement in the events predisposes you to certain attitudes about those events - you are biased, something which would not be accepted in writing about the subject. Further, your involvement means that you may have a conflict of interest with the subject. I recommend you read about the Wikipedia guideline on conflicts of interest, because your involvement with the subject is evident in your essay.

I recommend that you file a request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation for your article to be reviewed by another Wikipedia editor before posting - this would help ensure that your article is not deleted again. I will not restore the previous content, but you are free to write another article. I hope that you can understand that I mean well - I hope that your efforts lead to a well-written article (that conforms to policy and guidelines).

I have copied this message to your user talk page, although I would appreciate discussion to be kept central at my user talk page - please post at User talk:Nihiltres rather than elsewhere.

Respectfully yours, Nihiltres^(t.l) 03:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you have responded instead of running away.

I was prepared to use my lawyers to first prove my identity to you and to other wikipedia management to prove i am actually Mark Covell. I was then going to write an indymedia article for the central column of IMC-UK outlining how Wikipedia has been failing for a long time. I was then going to talk to my lawyers again about the power you seem to have to go around deleting stuff. I am not put off by your threat to ban me. my lawyers can still find you. However i will do none of this.

whilst i consider (and the 131 other victims of Diaz)that a wikipedia page is very important to maintain the struggle for our case, you didn't seem to think it was important. However i am glad you have responded now and that you do realise that it really is me. this is what i look like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4229777.stm.

As for the main article that was written, i wrote it partially from the heart (because being the victim, this is the only way to tell what happened) with as many facts as possible. I was aware of some of these 'rules', however i never expected the entire article to be taken down, for me to be accused i was not mark covell and then for you to come along and delete what was left. The story of Diaz is still ongoing through the courts. it has no end yet.

how can be neutral as the writer if i am the victim the story is about? the Diaz case cannot be told in an unbiased way because it is impossible to separate. both sides are biased. wikipedia should learn this fact. It seems that according to you rules, the person who the page is about cannot write or intervene in what is being said because i cannot be neutral because i am the victim.

---

taken from conflict of interest guidelines....

This page is considered a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

---the Diaz raid is the exception to your rules.-----

There are no tidy criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. ----

can you please quote what criteria you are applying to Genoa and the Diaz raid?

Legal antagonists

If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts and/or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.

The problem is that Genoa and the Diaz raid go right to the heart of the debate on Globalisation. Many other users are posting inaccurate and false information about what happened (some by the police defendants). A wikipedia page on the event and trial is essential to lay out the facts using already public information that has cone through the courts. Is wikipedia going to take the decision to wipe out any reference to the Diaz raid because it is not happy with its format? Diaz is a massive international human rights case and its outcome effects Italy in a very big way. 300,000 people(you might disagree but you were never there so how would you know) demonstrated at Genoa.

I would like to post another writeup of the Diaz trial but this time it has to stay there. i told mind a debate about words and sentences but i don't want it taken down again. Finally, only valid experts on the history of the demonstrations and the raid should comment and debate. you obviously have none.

on the subject of....

Notability. Wikipedia articles that do not demonstrate the notability of their subject are deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7. It is advisable to cite reliable sources to prove notability: dubious un-sourced claims of notability are often ignored. Your article might be deleted regardless - I do not know anything about the event's relative notability.

i would only use facts from the appointed lawyers, from the Genoa prosecutors office and from video experts who have worked on the case.

---

If you had done some research, you would of found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_G8_summit

....Numerous police officers and local and national officials have been ordered to stand trial in connection with the event. In one trial, 28 police officials are standing trial on charges related to the two night raids, charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, use of excessive force and planting evidence. In other proceedings, 45 state officials, including prison guards, police and medics, are being tried for abusing detainees in their custody who were arrested during the raid. Detainees reported being spat at, verbally and physically humiliated, and threatened with rape.

Police conducted nighttime raids upon centers housing protesters and campsites, most notably the attacks on the Diaz-Pascoli and Diaz-Pertini schools shortly after midnight on July 21. These were being used as sleeping quarters, and had also been set up as centers for those providing media, medical, and legal support work. Police baton attacks left three activists, including British journalist Mark Covell, in comas. At least one person has suffered brain damage, while another had both jaws and fourteen teeth broken. In total, over 60 were severely injured and a parliamentary inquiry was launched [2]. It concluded no wrongdoing on the part of police.

Ninety-three people were arrested during the raids. In May, 2003, Judge Anna Ivaldi concluded that they had put up no resistance whatsoever to the police and all charges were dropped against them. During the inquiry, Pietro Troiani, the deputy police chief in Genoa, admitted to being involved in the planting Molotov cocktails in order to justify the Diaz School raids, as well as faking the stabbing of a police officer to frame activists [3][4].

In 2005, twenty-nine police officers were indicted for grievous bodily harm, planting evidence and wrongful arrest during a night-time raid on the Diaz School. The Molotov cocktails were reported in January 2007, during the trial of the policemen, to have disappeared [1]

last year, there was an invitation to write my story, so i did.

---

anyway.....

I am glad that you accept my identity and you now realise how important that there is a page about the diaz raid. I am also glad you may have shown me a path through this mess. I hope that if when i can write the article again, you will help me get it accepted since you are an 'administrator'. i would like you to flag my complaint as a point of serious issue to one of these wikipedia reiewers and that i find a way so that an article can exist outlaying the basic facts of the event and of the trials.

Mar Covell - London.

I'll make a full reply in the morning - it's 2:00 AM here. Nihiltres^(t.l) 05:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Point by point response

"I was prepared to use my lawyers to [...]", "my lawyers can still find you. [sic]"

Remember that legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia. Do not mention your lawyers again, they're not the issue here. If you mention them again at all, I will block your account for 24 hours, and more extreme threats will result in an indefinite block. I will not tolerate legal threats against either me or Wikipedia. This isn't personal - you must not do so, and I have already given a link to the relevant policy outlining why I will take the actions towards which you push me.

"I was then going to write an indymedia article for the central column of IMC-UK outlining how Wikipedia has been failing for a long time."

That's been done already (if not necessarily by Indymedia) - see Criticism of Wikipedia. Besides, whingy, retaliatory journalism like that is in bad taste. Don't lower yourself.

"[...] going to talk to my lawyers again about the power you seem to have to go around deleting stuff."

I was granted administrative tools by the community, with nearly unanimous support (see the request). I am only permitted to delete articles and other pages in ways outlined by Wikipedia's deletion policy, and I have not strayed from that policy in this case.

"whilst i consider (and the 131 other victims of Diaz)that a wikipedia page is very important to maintain the struggle for our case [...] [sic]", "As for the main article that was written, i wrote it partially from the heart [...] [sic]"

I must note that this is a blatant violation of the conflict of interest guideline and the neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox upon which to promote your ideas or point of view, and this is also a blatant violation of that policy.

"how can be neutral as the writer if i am the victim the story is about? [sic]"

You can't be neutral, and that is why I have told you about the conflict of interest guideline. What you can do is help other Wikipedia editors by giving them information with reliable sources, suggesting text for review and inclusion et cetera.

"the Diaz case cannot be told in an unbiased way because it is impossible to separate. both sides are biased. [sic]"

That is why the Diaz case cannot be told, on Wikipedia at least, by users who are directly involved. The story (as it were) needs to be covered by giving an objective history with any controversial facts referenced to reliable sources. For example, I have a conflict of interest with myself: I believe that I am intelligent. If I wanted to write about how I am intelligent, I would ask on the talk page for another user to review a sentence such as "Nihiltres has an IQ of about 150" and provide a reliable source, such as an approved, published test from a third party, to source that statement. I should not add the sentence myself because it would violate the guideline. Note that the phrase is objective on its own, but could be used in a subjective way if used wrongly.

"It seems that according to you rules, the person who the page is about cannot write or intervene in what is being said because i cannot be neutral because i am the victim. [sic]"

You can comment on the talk page, where discussion is being held about the article, but it is inappropriate for you to change the page yourself. Yes, as a victim you cannot be considered neutral. It may be frustrating, but it is policy.

taken from conflict of interest guidelines....

This page is considered a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

---the Diaz raid is the exception to your rules.-----

That boilerplate text doesn't really apply here. I'm afraid that common sense demonstrates your strong bias - who wouldn't have a bias after being beaten into a coma? The exceptions are more users, like, say, an author I once gave a quick warning to to make sure that she was aware of the guideline. Since she was only correcting dates, ISBNs, external links, grammar, and typos, it wasn't a problem and the exception applied - common sense shows that it would not be a problem in her case. Your strong bias and evident will to write an article with your point of view invalidates the claim to an exception of the conflict of interest rules.

"There are no tidy criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs." (as quoted from the COI guideline), "can you please quote what criteria you are applying to Genoa and the Diaz raid?"

As the guideline mentions, there are no hard and fast rules to be applied. I don't want to lawyer about on this - this rule is one where common sense must apply: the spirit of the guideline, rather than the word, should be followed. It is, decidedly, extraordinarily unlikely that someone who was treated with such violence would not have a strong opinion on the subject, and by coming to me you have demonstrated multiple times how strongly you feel about the subject. It is clear that you have a major conflict of interest with writing objectively and neutrally about the subject. This guideline is true and should be applied for every editor who may have a conflict of interest on Wikipedia - even Jimbo Wales, the founder.

If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts and/or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.

The problem is that Genoa and the Diaz raid go right to the heart of the debate on Globalisation. Many other users are posting inaccurate and false information about what happened (some by the police defendants). A wikipedia page on the event and trial is essential to lay out the facts using already public information that has cone through the courts. Is wikipedia going to take the decision to wipe out any reference to the Diaz raid because it is not happy with its format? Diaz is a massive international human rights case and its outcome effects Italy in a very big way. 300,000 people(you might disagree but you were never there so how would you know) demonstrated at Genoa. [sic]

The debate on globalization isn't so much the issue. Yes, the Wikipedia article should "lay out the facts", but it can only quote reliable sources, and must avoid anything considered original research. I must stress this original research policy since a lot of the information you wish to provide doesn't measure up - your analysis in particular is problematic for multiple reasons. Wikipedia will not wipe out any reference to the Diaz raid without good reasons, but format issues can be a problem that occasionally warrants deletion - anything that pushes a point of view, attacks someone with unsourced information, or is otherwise unacceptable and (this is a necessity) unfixable might be deleted, either for good policy reasons or by community consensus. I did a little research earlier, and yes, the Diaz incident is notable, so there isn't much to worry about on that front. By the way, thrusting numbers at me doesn't mean I should violate NPOV (neutral point of view policy acronym) - even if a billion people believe that monkeys are evil and can fly (they aren't), or for that matter that the sky is blue (it is), it does not mean that Wikipedia should treat the subjects differently aside from noting, objectively, that a substantial number of people have the view, that people particularly important for other reasons have had the view, or that there are particularly important proponents of the view.

"I would like to post another writeup of the Diaz trial but this time it has to stay there. i told mind a debate about words and sentences but i don't want it taken down again. [sic]"

I would advise you to not post a write-up of the trial yourself - assuming that it is a blatant violation of multiple policies and guidelines, it will almost certainly be deleted. I am confident that other Wikipedia administrators will agree. It isn't an issue of what you want - I have deleted many articles created by schoolchildren about themselves who wanted the articles to stay up. It is instead an issue of what is appropriate.

"Finally, only valid experts on the history of the demonstrations and the raid should comment and debate. you obviously have none. [sic]"

Wikipedia is open to editing by everyone except banned and blocked users, who have been denied their editing privileges for reasons set in policy. Anyone can comment and debate, and limiting comments to particular people is not an option - free editing is one of the core policies of the encyclopedia. As for my personal expertise, who cares besides you? Insulting me will get you nowhere.

"i would only use facts from the appointed lawyers, from the Genoa prosecutors office and from video experts who have worked on the case. [sic]"

As long as you cite reliable sources and avoid original research, using objective facts is perfectly OK as long as you aren't using them selectively to push an opinion.

"If you had done some research, you would of found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_G8_summit [sic]"

Actually, I found and read that after responding to you, and I think that it is really that article, if any, which should be expanded to include the information you wish to be presented. By the way, the article seems to present a reasonably neutral story, so you can probably ask users to review and insert facts which you think are important, by posting on the talk page.

"I am glad that you accept my identity and you now realise how important that there is a page about the diaz raid. I am also glad you may have shown me a path through this mess. I hope that if when i can write the article again, you will help me get it accepted since you are an 'administrator'. i would like you to flag my complaint as a point of serious issue to one of these wikipedia reiewers and that i find a way so that an article can exist outlaying the basic facts of the event and of the trials. [sic]"

Accepting your identity is easy - I don't see why someone might want to impersonate you, particularly on Wikipedia. I'm glad to help where possible. What I cannot do is use my administrative status to help you - you might want to see Wikipedia:What adminship is not: administrative status doesn't give me any extra authority besides an indication of the trust the community has put in me to act appropriately. Besides, I don't want to make it be arbitrarily accepted - it must conform to Wikipedia rules. I cannot flag the complaint as a serious issue - your complaint is one among many and the flag which would most likely be noticed by people would be a link to this discussion, which I doubt would help your cause. If you want to add to the 27th G8 summit article, you can post on its talk page and request people make changes for you since you are constrained by your conflict of interest.

In addition, I noticed that some recent vandalism to my userpages by logged out (anonymous) users includes IP addresses which map to the United Kingdom, one clearly to London. I trust that this isn't you - if it were, it would damage your credibility.

Further, I hope that you will accept that the Wikipedia guidelines are here to stay. I do not mean to antagonize you, but rather only to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to further the creation of an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view.

Thank you, Nihiltres^(t.l) 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

the last word for the time being...

you asked for peace, i gave it and then you accuse me of vandalising your site. not i did not. since i have gone to great lengths to identify myself, would i attack you? its a very stupid accusation.

I am gone. i don't want to be part of this mess. you can ban me if you like. i am not interested. but just before you do ban me, i want to say this. if i see inaccurate information about Diaz and myself, i will take wikipedia to court (this is not directed at you). If what is printed has an effect or impact on whether the trial gets a parliamentary inquiry, it will be particularly bloody in the legal sense on both sides. i also suggest, since i cannot be the author, the author is agreed by all sides as an unbiased expert. you are not the only interested party looking for an authorised unbiased expert to write the Diaz page. If wikipedia allows a nobody who has no facts to be the author of the wikipedia page on the Diaz raid you are asking for legal trouble.

"Remember that legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia. Do not mention your lawyers again". Wikipedia cannot hide behind a bunch of guidelines and think itself immune from court action. I really do hope you do foreword this on to someone higher up in wikipedia so they can understand the views of the plaintiffs and lawyers involved in the case.

I guess that my main complaint was that an article that was taken down before you arrived deleting the links. It was well sourced. If you know the italian legal system, the prosecutors report into Diaz and lays out the basic facts of what happened that night. the court cases are about applying charges to individual officers for individual crimes. most of the fact are not disputed by either side. Dr Enrico Zucca, a prosecutor from Genoa is the world most authoritative unbiased expert on the Diaz case and the other events surrounding it. You deleted his link. sections of the report were reprinted in the article. yet this was deleted. So were BBC sources, Guardian, Reuters and Associated press. even the BBC has reported on Zucca's report into Diaz. however, wikipedia decided to take it down.

a typical line in the new article would of been....

A Reuters report quoted public court testimony that a police defendant described the Diaz 'as a Mexican butchers shop'

probably the only valid non biased person who could possible fit into 'your rules' is BBC journalist Bill Hayton.

I guess you were probably thinking that this was written by indymedia, from an indymedia point of view with loads of links. Despite being an indymedia journalist (london NUJ registered), i naturally would well source it.

Anyway, half of plaintiffs of Diaz are meeting for the sixth anniversary. i will tell them that the wikipedia page is no more and gauge their reaction.

I am leaving wikipedia with great disgust to how i and the diaz case have been treated. However, the plaintiffs, the lawyers and me will be watching what happens next.

goodbye

I'm sorry that you decided to leave - though this won't reach you. I didn't mean to accuse you of vandalism - I mentioned it as a possible concern. Further, I was not aware of other articles - if there was something well sourced which was deleted, I might have been able to restore it for you if appropriate. The "author" of a Wikipedia article, is not one, but many - and people can work together to ensure it follows policy. Wikipedia can't be held responsible for any lack of content - we have no obligation to produce it. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by links - I deleted one article and its talk page for appropriate reasons. Further, I have treated you civilly, addressing your concerns by with policy. You could not expect more - we have no formal bureaucracy to deal with people no matter their importance or lack thereof. I'll move on, and I hope you can - get on with your life, don't waste it on the past. I'm still willing to help you if you have questions about Wikipedia again. I won't bother blocking your account as you leave. Nihiltres^(t.l) 07:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Respnse: Fair-use on images on your userpage

Hi, there were a couple of fair-use images on your userpage. We're not allowed to have fair-use images in userspace, so I replaced them with text (which admittedly makes them look like #@$%!). Just figured I'd let you know, and warn you to not do it in the future :). Thanks, Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can give a link to wikipedia's policy on this? without proof i'm going to revert it.→041744 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Replying on user talk where discussion started. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

CoinTalk

Hello, you have recently deleted an article about CoinTalk. It was claimed that it's significance was nonexistant. This is not true. CoinTalk is a very important website. It is the biggest coin forum that exists today, with over 9,500 registered users. I'm not even a registered user of CoinTalk and I am writing a page on it. At any given time, there is at least 3,000 non-users reading numismatic posts. I understand that you have deleted it. Understanding the circumstances that it was created under, would you be willing to allow it to be written agian (with revisions, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witeandnerdy (talk • contribs) 15:59, July 10, 2007 (UTC)

If you can show that the website meets the WP:WEB notability requirements, go and recreate the article with that proof, and I, at least, won't delete it again. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)