Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:26, 21 July 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is Elonka's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Dispute resolution

It's been now a week, and you have refused to answer my questions regarding your rationale on your decision to ban me. I think it's time to take this to some dispute resolution that involves others, as I'm not going to wait further or try harder to coax responses out of you. What do you suggest as the next best step?

Further, because of this ongoing dispute resoltion, I refuse to accept the terms of your lifting your ban on me. I don't believe your ban was proper, so you placing terms on lifting it is not proper either. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't placed "terms" on your ban, I just gave advice on how to avoid future bans. If you are banned again and you wish to appeal, you could take things to WP:ANI or WP:AE, depending on which case that you are banned under. But as long as you follow basic rules, such as to stay civil, to assume good faith, and to comment on content rather than contributors, no future ban should be necessary. --Elonka 17:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I don't believe your ban was proper. You've refused to explain your rationale for it. I'm asking to find a way to work this out. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I am a patient woman, but you are exhausting my patience. Even the most casual glance over the discussions in the above threads, will show that I have made many efforts to explain my rationale to you, so it is disruptive for you to keep repeating that I "haven't answered your questions" or that I have "refused to explain". To repeat again though: You were uncivil. You were asked to stop, you didn't stop, and you were then banned from the topic area for one week. If you continue re-asking the same questions on my talkpage, I may regard that as disruptive, and that may result in further bans, and/or a block. So it is my strong recommendation, now that your ban has expired, that you simply resume editing. You are not under any special restrictions at this point: You can edit where you want, you can participate on any talkpages that you want. Simply abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and there probably won't be any further problems. --Elonka 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said, I think we need a third party to help here. Sorry that you find this so frustrating. I'm finding it similarly frustrating. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you articulate what exactly it is that you'd like to change? --Elonka 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply, I want to change our behavior. I don't understand nor agree with your interpretations of policies and guidelines, and am unable to get you to clarify those interpretations. I had hoped to get you to clarify your viewpoints, but was unable to get you to do so. Now, I want to find a way to continue editing without being subject to interpretations that I don't agree with, don't understand, and am unable to get clarified. Realistically, I expect that we'll have to get a third party to clarify what the policies and guidelines actually say, and both of us will have to change our behaviors to be in line with them. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a personal dispute between the two of us. This is me, as an admin, offering course corrections when your behavior violated Misplaced Pages policies. As long as your behavior stays within policies in the future, there won't be any need for further communications. My recommendation is that you simply continue editing. Stay civil, assume good faith, keep comments focused on article content instead of contributors, and there's no problem. --Elonka 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is about your personal interpretations and extrapolations of policies and guidelines that I disagree with and refuse to be held to, especially when I cannot get them explained. Either we get someone to mediate, or I continue on, expecting you to excuse yourself from further involvement in my editing. That of course creates a problem for you, because any other editor should be able ask the same from you for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about mediation, it's about you abiding by policies, while you are communicating within the Misplaced Pages wiki. As long as you abide by policies such as "be civil" and "no personal attacks" (for details on the policies, click on those links), there's nothing to worry about. If you violate policies, you risk having certain restrictions placed on your account, from a ban on editing certain articles, to having your account access blocked. Any uninvolved administrator can take these actions. If you disagree with such a restriction, you can request a review of a block, by adding the {{unblock}} template to your user talkpage. If you disagree with a ban, you can appeal it by going first to the imposing administrator, and then to the appropriate administrator board. In the case of a ban that is imposed from an arbitration case, you could appeal it either at WP:ANI, or WP:AE. But again, as long as you stick to Misplaced Pages policies, none of this will be necessary. Keep your communications civil, be polite to other editors, and there is no need to worry. --Elonka 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, we're talking past each other. Let me put it another way: I don't think your interpretations of Wiki policies and guidelines are accurate. You don't appear to follow some of them yourself. My attempts to get you to clarify these interpretations have failed. I don't believe that I, nor anyone else for that matter, should be held to your interpretations when they do not appear to follow consensus, you are unable or unwilling to explain your interpretations, and you don't appear to follow some of them yourself.

I'm getting frustrated here. I'm sure this could all be worded better. I don't think we're making any progress though.

Please excuse yourself from any involvement in my editing, and we'll be fine. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is uninvited advice, so delete at will: I really think you two need a 3rd party mediator. Ronz, you are being aggressive in your questioning. Elonka, you are not answering the actual questions that he has been asking. Even if you don't think this is a dispute, which it probably isn't, it would still strike me as useful to get a third party involved who can help each of you "translate" into questions and answers that each other will understand. Regards to both of you, Antelan 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, I appreciate your comment, but things are not as they seem. Ronz is engaging in a standard intimidation tactic. It is commonplace that when certain editors are disruptive, and are then blocked or banned by an uninvolved administrator, that the editor then tries to intimidate the admin away from future actions, by charging bias, corruption, inappropriate application of rules, etc. etc. In Ronz's case, he is trying to state that this is a personal matter by repeating over and over that I need to stay away from him, or repeating over and over that I am not applying the rules properly, or repeating over and over that I am not answering his questions, even though I have answered them in great detail. But the fact is, that I am just an uninvolved administrator who is keeping an eye on pages where Ronz is participating. He says that I have not answered his questions, when in actuality a brief glance at conversations on both my talkpage and his, will show multiple communications. Note that you will probably have to look at the history on Ronz's talkpage, since he has a tendency to delete messages. Also, a third party administrator, Shell Kinney, has reviewed the communications and come to the same conclusion, that Ronz is just repeating the same question over and over. The bottom line though, is that Ronz needs to abide by Misplaced Pages policies. If he does not, then I or any other uninvolved admin will take action to protect the project. See also WP:UNINVOLVED. That said, if you (Antelan) feel that you wish to try to communicate with Ronz, be my guest. --Elonka 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't mean to pick sides, but I stand by my original statement. He has been aggressive. You have answered questions, but often not the questions that he has asked you. This is why I'm proposing mediation. I know it's usually used for interpersonal disputes, but in this case I'm suggesting that it be used to get someone to translate between the two of you. I can give it a shot if you'd like, but I'd bet that experienced mediators would give you a better outcome. Antelan 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Which questions do you feel that I have not answered? --Elonka 17:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The questions that you have not answered are actually just the same question twice (oops!) so I'll just link to the most recent diff: . The question was about how you felt about his intentions when he made a certain edit, and your reply was about how he felt when he made the edit. Obviously, I empathize with you, since his approach has been aggressive enough that if this question were posed to me, I wouldn't necessarily answer the precise question asked, either. That said, it seems that you feel as though you've explained yourself thoroughly enough, but he feels as though you haven't. Because I feel that both of you are, in good faith, misunderstanding each other, I suggested enlisting someone skilled in mediation. Antelan 18:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And my answer is the same, that I have no way of telling how Ronz "felt" at the moment that he made an edit. My responsibility is not to judge his off-wiki mental state, but to review on-wiki actions. Ronz was calling another editor a troll, on an article talkpage. How he felt while he was doing it, is irrelevant. He was being disruptive and making personal attacks, he was told to stop, he didn't, he was therefore banned from the topic area for a week. If he violates Misplaced Pages policies again, he's going to be told to stop, and/or banned or blocked, by any uninvolved administrator who observes the behavior. If Ronz wishes to avoid further problems, then he needs to be civil, he needs to avoid personal attacks (such as calling other editors trolls or vandals), and he needs to focus his article talkpage discussions on the article content, and not on opinions about the editors. Based on my recent review of his edits, he seems to be doing very well. He is engaging in constructive contributions, and he is treating other editors with respect. That's great stuff, and he should continue. I see no reason to mediate anything, because there's no action to be the result of mediation. He's not blocked or banned in any way, and is free to edit wherever he wants. --Elonka 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. I just thought I'd offer it as a suggestion. If the two of you have worked this out satisfactorily, then cheers to you both. Regards, Antelan 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka's actions. She has explicitly explained a number of times why she took the action she did. It's fast becoming a childish argument between Ronz and Elonka, with Ronz being the one at fault for aggressive actions and violating wikipedia policy. Ronz should just accept that what he did was wrong and move on, but I agree with Elonka that Ronz is attempting bullying tactics in order to escape the oversight by judicious administrators such as Elonka. Qq-sweeper (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What next?

Yes, I've been aggressive in my questions. I'm happy to refactor, rewrite, take a different approach, etc. I think I've been clear on this, and think a third party is needed to make any further headway. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quakwatch restrictions

I would suggest that if your restrictions impossed on Quackwatch are to work, they must be applied accross the board to all sides of the dispute. Allowing Jossi to make a massive revert because he didn't see that seems absurd (and then he goes on wikibreak?). Enforce your restriction fairly and immediately or don't make 'em. I've reverted Jossi's recent edits as the initial revert he did was a direct violation by an involved editor. Now, on with the show. Vsmith (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jossi (talk · contribs) had made no edits to the article since the restrictions were put in place, and it was reasonable to assume that Jossi did not know about the restrictions. ArbCom was clear that editors need to be informed: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Jossi has now been informed about it, both at the article talkpage and at her user talkpage, and has not made any reverts since she has been notified. If any editors had concerns about her edit, they could have gone in and changed the text, and then the editing continues from there. I do not think that your reverting of her edit was wise, as it gets you too involved in the content wars. However, since you are an uninvolved admin, you made a decision that you thought was fair and I'm of course not going to revert you. In the future though, please remember that just like when imposing a block (see WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings), that the standard is to warn first, and then impose restrictions. Everyone usually gets a free pass for the first infraction, unless they've done something truly egregious or vandalistic. Jossi's edit did violate the restrictions, but it didn't rise to the level of vandalism. By the way, just curious, how is it that you heard about the edit in the first place? --Elonka 14:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. Vsmith (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I should be noted that what started all this is Levine making a revert to a QuackGuru edit, and Levine's revert was re-reverted by Ludwigs, II and Jossi. All without reply so far - except for gigabytes of discussion on why the dodgey blocks/restrictions on SA and Ronz were <koff> justified... Shot info (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Shot info (talk · contribs), judging by your contribs, it's been awhile since you actually edited an article. I recommend that you remedy that situation. You might also enjoy reading this: WP:IAD. --Elonka 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Awhile = 50 or so edits presumably? I appriciate the recommendation and also enjoy the subtle irony of it :-) Shot info (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What the Bleep

Hi Elonka, I would like to unprotect the article, but considering the intensity of the disagreement in the past, I think it would be best if I asked on the talk page if the main editors were amenable to unprotection. Would this be alright with you? Thanks, Keilana| 22:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My own feeling is that four months is much too long for an article to be at full protection. I also have a concern, from looking at the history, that some of the editors have been using protection as a weapon. Meaning that whenever the article is unprotected, they would deliberately edit war intensively, to get the article re-protected at their preferred version. So I would rather unprotect the article, and then deal with the edit warring editors directly if they try to start up again. But it's your call, so if you'd like to post a note at the talkpage, I guess it couldn't hurt. But if the response of the editors is, "No, keep the article protected forever," then I think that's a problem we're going to have to address. --Elonka 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. I'm not sure if it would be preferable to just block those who are edit-warring, in order to allow those who may be working constructively on the article to continue. The problem with that is that it could lead to tag-teaming or much controversy, which I think should be avoided. My next thought is to unprotect it as sort of a test, to see what happens and if the edit-warring starts up again. What are your thoughts? Keilana| 22:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy doesn't scare me.  :) But I understand your caution, especially about tag teaming, since I agree that that is very likely at that particular article. I'm perfectly happy to help monitor things, especially as I'm helping out at other articles that may be being targeted by the same team (see Talk:Quackwatch). If we do unprotect, I recommend leaving the article unprotected for at least 24 hours. If it gets hectic, I say let it be hectic, to see if that bleeds off any of the built-up pressure. We can also try posting notes at the editors' talkpages who are edit-warring, to try and apply course corrections. You may also be interested in this page that I've been working on: Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. --Elonka 22:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate an extra set of uninvolved admin eyes looking at it, as it can get pretty crazy. I'll unprotect now, and hopefully it'll work out well. :) Thanks for your help. Keilana| 22:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks, and I'll definitely help keep a close eye on it. --Elonka 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Break

See . Plus comments on TofT's talk page. No wonder wiki is such a mess.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kish Island

Sure, no problem. Unprotected. We'll see how things go. Khoikhoi 22:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist

Thank you for leaving the note on his talk page. I can kind of see where he is coming from on it (God knows it drives me nuts to see 'Broil' being used for 'Grill') but his behaviour in pushing it was getting out of hand. I think the whole thing reminds me why I stay away from the middle east articles. Narson (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh

Hi Elonka. I'm here since you have warned Nick previously that civility is required in IP articles. I would like to report the following link where he has once again been incivil. The discussion has been heated, but telling me to "quit whining" when I'm making valid requests, suggesting that I will compromise and getting shat upon for my trouble is really beyond the pale. Thank you for your consideration. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce

Hi Elonka,

I was wondering if you wouldn't be averse to having a look at RedSpruce's recent activity, particularly in regards to the Film noir article and talk page. I wasn't sure whom to ask, but you seem to already be familiar with some of his other recent activity. Any help or assistance in where to seek help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

His comments were way out of line, and he has been warned. If the behavior recurs, let me or some other uninvolved admin know. Also, a good tactic to use with these situations in the future, is that as soon as an attack occurs, to diff it to the user's talkpage, with a clear edit summary like "Civility" or "personal attacks". That way any admins who are watching that user's talkpage (but who may not be watching all articles where the user is participating) can be alerted that there is a problem. What you did here, leaving a note on my talkpage, is fine too. The only risk though, is that if I (or whichever other admin you contacted) isn't on Misplaced Pages, it could be a long wait. But usually multiple admins are watching various talkpages, so it could be a faster way to get a response on a specific user who has been blocked for disruption in the past. --Elonka 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will keep that in mind. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for my incivil behavior a few days ago. It was wrong of me. I hit my wikistress point--an explanation, not an excuse. I do still feel my refactor of his comments was correct though. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Elonka. I am glad you are keeping an eye on me :). Actually I don't know how to move it or I would. Re: the bot-thing. I see you have it on your page. I wouldn't mind that but can one choose an amount of time perhaps a bit more than 7 days of inactivity? Shouldn't one at least have a certain amount of activity before one archives? My talk page isn't all that busy. ;) But while I have your attention, I wanted to ask you about the possibility of moving the Zionism and Racism page for deletion. It was nominated once before --over a year ago --and the decision was "keep". It seems to me that there is nothing on that page that would not work by transferring it to other pages, such as a section on the Zionism page. And most of it is a rehash of Israel and the apartheid analogy (redirected from Israeli Apartheid) anyway. I started something on my computer as to the reasons I believe it should be deleted. Maybe I will try to put it on a subpage. Could I get your considered opinion and if you agree will you walk me through the process? Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would love it if you would move it for me and do the bot thing for maybe a month of inactivity instead, if it isn't too much trouble! Thank you. I put (what I consider my policy-related) reasons on the sandbox here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Tundrabuggy/Sandbox , plus I have been doing quite a bit of complaining on the associated TALK page as well. I would appreciate your input. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I saw that you suggested to seicer that the protection he placed may have actually been correct. You're neglecting the fact that his edit, which was known to be disputed from a previous tittle-tattle and lengthy resulting discussion, caused the upset today in the first place. If seicer had had the sense to keep his hands off the POV tag, all would have been well until such a time that an appropriate addition to the article could have been made. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Anytime that there is a back and forth edit war, protection may be an option to restore stability to the article. However, if one of the editors involved in the war is an administrator, it is not appropriate for them to use their tools to "freeze" the article on their version. If some other uninvolved administrator may have come along at that point though, protection may have still been the proper option to stop the war. In any case, I strongly recommend civil talkpage discussion at this point, to try and find a compromise. --Elonka 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Dura, again

I wonder if you could have a word with ChrisO. Fresh off his article and talk page ban, he’s back with extremely uncivil, condescending remarks such as this. Your editing conditions stipulated very clearly “Bottom line: Stay civil”. If ChrisO can’t edit within those conditions, perhaps he should not be editing at all. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

When you have concerns about something that ChrisO is doing, please start by raising the issue with him directly, such as on his talkpage. If he does not respond in an adequate manner, then let me know, thanks. --Elonka 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. We'll see how that works. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested that he strike out the comment. He has seen my request, and ignored it. Also, note the clear violation your 0RR by Liftarn, who undid my last 2 edits with a false edit summary.Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/79.75.232.178

You might want to check out his contributions. I don't know how to fix that stuff. I know there is a tool for it but it says it is not for beginners. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like things are handled at this point. I looked at the anon's contribs, 79.75.232.178 (talk · contribs) and used popups to hover my mouse over the "hist" link next to each of the pages that they'd edited. On each one, I saw that other editors had already reverted the anon's changes, so all is good. And the anon has been blocked for 24 hours.

If you'd like to help out more with vandal fighting, that would be a wonderful way to participate in the Misplaced Pages culture. See WP:CUV for more. Or if you just want to report the "occasional" vandal, just list them at WP:AIV and they're usually dealt with quite rapidly.  :) --Elonka 18:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, I made a note of it for next time. Question-- you told me how to fix my preferences to warn if I do not do an edit summary and that seemed to work for awhile then quit. I thought I would go check it & make sure it was still checked but now I can't seem to find it. I really really like it and I can kick myself when I forget. Is there any way of going back short of doing another edit, and where the devil is that thing anyway? ]:( --Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Click on "My preferences" at the top of the page, then the "Editing" tab, then ensure that the checkbox is checked next to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". As for fixing old summaries, nope, once they're posted, they're pretty much in stone. But lots of people forget them, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. :) --Elonka 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Quotes

User:Jayjg has inserted text that to my eye appears to include an outright lie. Would you consider correcting this? RedSpruce (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring it up at the talkpage there, and see what other editors think? --Elonka 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Please see your e-mail. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano

Giovanni De Stefano: what BLP violiations do you claim? There are multiple authorative sources that indicate that Mr De Stefano is not a solicitor/lawyer/barrister/attorney or whatever phrase you want to use in any country in the world including Italy and England which are the states he is most associated with; that he once claimed to have a PhD at a university that does not have any knowledge of him, that he has mutliple-convictions for fraud,is barred from the USA and New Zealand and was certified insane whilst in prision in Ireland in the 1970s. It is also easily established from a number of sources of record that he has claimed to represent people without basis and that he has often used the smoke and mirrors tactic of threatening to sue people who reveal his bizzare background. It is truely absurd to threaten a slander action against the Chief Justice of Ireland for comments Justice Murray made in court- but Mr De Stefano purported to do this. Please read amongst other sources: http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/features/devils-advocate-the-worlds-most-notorious-lawyer-defends-himself-859032.html, http://news.scotsman.com/comment/Defending-the-indefensible.2495512.jp and http://news.scotsman.com/giovannidistefano/Giovanni-Di-Stefano-The-Truth.2469479.jp Whilst the article makes some reference to some of these articles it doesn't comment on all issues raised by these newspapers, nor place appropriate emphasis on those parts of the articles it does mention. --89.19.88.161 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, Misplaced Pages is very cautious when it comes to negative information about living persons. See WP:BLP. If you feel that you have sufficient reliable sources, I recommend adding them to the talkpage at Talk:Giovanni di Stefano and making your case there for whichever information that you would like to add. It is also my strong recommendation that you create an account. Currently the page is protected from edits by anonymous and new users, but if you create an account and establish a constructive identity for a few days, you should be able to edit the article without much difficulty. You may also wish to start a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. --Elonka 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't set out a basis for locking the page. My contention is: if someone posts within the rules of Misplaced Pages the mere fact their name is not used is not here or there. All edits relating to Mr De Stefano's criminality and the like were sourced on the article you reverted and locked. He is a Walter Mitty character who seems to have money so he threatens legal action against people and the opening of the article is not appropriate. Number 1: he isn't a lawyer. A lawyer to my mind is a man or women who has been admitted to practice law in a state by the relevant institution in that country. He doesn't fall into this category. The 3 articles I cite above are enough of a basis to accept that fact. --89.19.88.161 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the facts of Di Stefano's case, and I did not revert the article. The simple matter is that the article is about a living person, and the article was in the middle of an edit war. In order to preserve stability, it's usual practice to protect an article that is in an edit war, regardless of which side is "right". In this case, I did not "full protect" the article (meaning no one except admins could edit it), I just "semi-protected" it, meaning that edits are only prevented from new and anonymous users. If you wish to edit the article, please obtain an established account. It costs nothing. See WP:LOGIN. --Elonka 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good one, Elonka. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)