Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 2

message: Can we keep the text of the article without the history? Avruchtalk 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of libelous information is probably a sufficient argument. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deja vu all over again. You can can it libel; I call factual information we should be presenting to our reader as part of our duty as an encyclopedia. I'll throw the NPOV tag on there for now, but I seem to recall a perhaps more accurate template being thrown on here previously (though it was nixed for being in user space). Any thoughts Fred? I'm thinking of calling it something along the lines of , after the well known sin -- Kendrick7talk 20:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Couldn't the offending revisions have been removed and the rest restored? Time consuming, I'm sure, but isn't that a not uncommon solution? Avruchtalk 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting claim you have there fred. Do you have any reading of fair use or US caselaw where it makes sense?Geni 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well?Geni 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Anyone who comes to this page due to the NPOV tag to figure out what the issue is, should do a web search (eg google) as it appears we are not allowed to say due to concerns about lack of funds to defend against a lawsuit. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problematically, even saying that could itself be libelous? That's my chief concern; well, that and the foundation should either WP:GROWAPAIR or admit they don't actually share the ideals of writing an encyclopedia anymore. The publicity from such a lawsuit would obviously garner ten times the funds of fighting the lawsuit, so one really has to wonder what's really going on here. Once every living person in every third world country realizes they can file a lawsuit in their local kangaroo court and force wikipedia to say whatever they want about them, the damage to the project could very well be the end of it. Kim Jong Il is a god among lesser mortals and president of the greatest country on Earth.... etc. Sorry, couldn't afford the lawsuit! -- Kendrick7talk 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you presume the Foundation had anything to do with this?  To my knowledge unless there is something I don't know about, the Foundation neither asked for nor condones this latest deletion.  I personally certainly had nothing to do with it.  I think it is absolutely critical that we maintain neutrality and due respect for WP:BLP issues.  The best way to do that is to have Wikipedia assert essentially nothing about controversial subjects itself, and to rely exclusively on top-notch reliable sources in problematic cases.  Having said that, Fred has been around for a long time and knows what he is doing, and so I also recommend that we WP:AGF here.  No need for dramatics.  It's just an edit conflict.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize then. It seemed like a reasonable assumption as Fred had done a similar reset a few months ago, and, like Sisyphus, we worked back through to a version I had thought everyone but Mr. Stefano could live with. This reset was deja vu like I said above. Since Mr. Stefano was still squawking, I just imagined something had changed higher up the ladder. I'm happy to hear things aren't as bad as I had thought and that my pessimism was misguided. -- Kendrick7talk 08:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's about avoiding unproductive litigation. The notion that we could raise money by courting litigation may be correct, but is nevertheless a waste. What's wrong with letting the media take the lead? We can wait til they do. Fred Bauder (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Kendrick7, feel free to ask around for a grant/liability insurance/or the equivalent with regard to this single article or the more general issue. It would be wonderful if some well funded freedom of information oriented person or organization legally committed themselves to the defense of WikiMedia and its editors when quoting content previously published by a major news outlet. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that someone with deep pockets can bankrupt someone with more limited resources, even though no wrong was done. As far back as Roman times, litigation has been used as a weapon to crush those with fewer resources. It is not just the money, but also the time. How many hours do you wish to give up over the next two years over this? WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hours I can sacrifice. Money, not so much. Well, I could put in a beg up the genetic chain, but thats cheating. Avruchtalk 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best long term solution is to find someone like the ACLU who will agree to be legally liable for some specific class of edits such as quoting content previously published by a major news outlet. But starting with some organization merely willing to sign a document being responsible for all legal liability for a specific claim on this specific page might be a way to bring the issue to the attention of whatever white knight might choose to protect Truth Justice and the American Way - so to speak. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, legal damages are something that an outside entity can cover - but injunctive relief or non-money damages can't be born by anyone other than WMF. I think WMF just has to take a stand that legal content shouldn't be restricted for fear of frivolous lawsuits. Avruchtalk 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WMF stood up to lawsuits in both Germany and France (and won). I have every confidence it is all about money and picking one's fights based on timing and resources; so that if someone could sign up a deep pockets for the money part, WMF would be willing to stand up for the non-money liabilities. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't know that your legal analysis there is accurate... But I do prefer the new template. Avruchtalk 01:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new template is an improvement also. The "legal analysis" seems to me to be a preemptive strike against a similar legalistic stretch in the opposite direction. Good strategy. I like it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't think we should be stating publicly that the foundation would be bankrupted or outclassed by di Stefano litigation, it certainly isn't my understanding of the situation at all. It seems to me that di Stefano was talking about threatening various individual editors with litigation, not the foundation, anyway. Besides, we have a living persons policy and Fred appears to have been acting on that, and I think he has done the right thing in order to protect our editors from off site attacks, even ones they doubtless would have won. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: The omission tag is inappropriate. We have omitted nothing which we have a reliable source for. What we have omitted is material which implies facts but are not sufficient sources for them. Fred Bauder (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP that erased Jimbo's comment (temporarily) resolves to Rome. Avruchtalk 15:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest somebody add this information to the article and then remove it from the talk page. I don't think there are any doubts about who removed the Jimbo thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to remove it from the talk page. Avruchtalk 16:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did but won't complain if somebody reverts me (didn't think I would ever be reverting Jimbo). Thanks, SqueakBox 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission tag 

message: Can someone please move this article back to Giovanni di Stefano.  I can't seem to do it myself.  Someone replaced that page with a disambiguation page, but as I commented on Talk:Giovanni di Stefano (disambiguation), that move makes very little sense given the relative obscurity of the two non-lawyer di Stedanos.  I have since moved the dab page to Giovanni di Stefano (disambiguation), and would like to restore this article's original title as well.  I wonder if this move from GDS to GDS (lawyer) wasn't done in a odd attempt to affect future Google search results (in response to the subject's complaints?); if so, is that appropriate--let alone effective?.  Please discuss here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, undo the move. Avruchtalk 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this needs to be discussed.  I've asked an admin to undo the move. Regards, Mercury 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm.  I think that having the dab page at the root might actually be more prudent, per WP:BLP, although that is really a very minor thing. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The section I just removed contained as a source a link to http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071030/3/287t.html .  But at least at this moment, this is a 404 not found!  The topic of the removed paragraph has to do with the question of whether or not Mr. di Stefano has claimed that the John di Stefano convicted in 1986 was a different person (a cousin).  I find this question poorly covered in the remaining sources, and actually of very minor importance in any event to his overall biography.  Mr. Giovanni flatly denies that he has ever made this claim.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is the NZPA not yahoo. Did you even try to find the other coppies out there?Geni 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried and failed.  Did you look at the other references you restored?  Two of them do not even mention the name "John" that I can see!  Can you check them to double check my work?  And if the other two references are not valid, remove them?  Notice, too, that in your restoration you have Wikipedia asserting as fact something which is very much in dispute.  It will be better to simply leave it that the New Zealand Herald makes the claim.  Giovanni denies it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The version you are asking for exists. Since you can see deleted revisions you can even go look for it. A version (with yahoo rather that NZH as a source so you would need to update that) would appear around the time as my most recently deleted edit.Geni 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we must have a miscommunication.  You added some text to the article which cited 4 sources for the "John/Giovanni" aspect of the story.  For 2 of those sources, I was unable to see any reference to the "John" name.  So I wanted to know why you added those into the article.  And I wanted you to check that the sources are actually valid before adding them back.  Possibly you have a very good reason and I just overlooked it.  I am not asking for any other version.  I am asking you to do good work if you are going to edit the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: again what you ask for exists. Should be in the history of this talk page November to December. You can see this.Geni 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Geni, please.  I am asking you a simple question.  Why did you add back those references that, apparently, have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand? Is there an answer to that question?  If so, please just state it for me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There answer is the result of a month long debate. You can see it. I can't and I would rather looked at what was actualy writen at the time rather than rely on my memory.Geni 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the WP:UNDUE argument. I don't think we need to detail every twist and turn of the scandal here. -- Kendrick7talk 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was tried. The accusation came that insufficient sources were being provided and that we were talking about someone else. Again see the deleted talk page history.Geni 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems like a relatively minor point overall.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the surface maybe in reality it isn't. The denials we have either been based on a successful appeal or mistaken identity. Again you will be able to find this covered in the talk page history.Geni 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah all that has been kinda done several times. see the deleted history of the talk page.Geni 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. In the absence of any known response by Mr di Stefano to my December 29 invitation, editors are invited to carefully review the sources *listed here* for conformity with our policies and guidelines.-- luke (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: GDS responded to me and I will edit the article to help create an NPOV version, so probably not good to say he isn't responding, but yeah I am not hurrying. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, and thanks for the reply SqueakBox. I'd asked for GDS's documentation (supplied to Jimbo Wales) to be made public if Mr di Stefano cared to do so. You are acting as an intermediary, so do you know if he has a problem with that and, if so, would he be prepared to say why? There is also the question of Jimbo Wales's recent contacts with Mr di Stefano, and whether any points from those discussions should be considered here. Thanks again for your help. -- luke (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section I just removed 

message: I'm having trouble seeing how the first one is NPOV. If anything, it is misleading to someone looking at the table of contents for the article and needlessly emphasizes a single quote from him. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sense of Injustice" v. "Personal Legal Issues" 

message: Let's try again. Please respect Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try Again 

message: I posted this before, but the page has been re-created. There does not seem to be any evidence that Stefano acted for Hussein. The reference cited previously was to an interview in which Stefano claimed that he represented him. The news reports of Hussein's trial make no reference to Stefano in their list of his legal representatives. Stefano himself supported his assertion that he acted for Hussein by a) reference to his video diary in which he confirmed that he acted for Hussein and b) referring to the fact that he had bodyguards when he visited Bhagdad. If anyone can cite a reliable source that states that he acted for Hussein then he can be reinstated in the list of clients. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish, there is masses of evidence that he acted for Saddam, you need to make the effort to research before unilaterally deleting easily sourced material in a controversial article that merely ruins the little NPOV we have. eg  . Thanks, SqueakBox 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is this: If there were ANY evidence that he acted for Hussein, wouldn't he have cited it previously? Or shouldn't another editor cite it if they believe there is any? Squeakbox, I would be quite happy if you found a reference for this from a reliable source such as BBC News, and by evidence, I don't mean "Mr Di Stefano says he represents Saddamm Hussein". DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still a problem with the article as it is using the CNN transcript as citation for his acting for Hussein. Is there no independent corroboration of this? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: How about  and . Thanks, SqueakBox 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Hussein 

message: I can't find any evidence Di Stefano acted for Nicholas van Hoogstraten. The reference for this was a 2002 Guardian article in which a hopeful Di Stefano turns up at the Old Bailey on the day of his sentencing claiming to have "received a phone call saying that he, Mr Hoogenstraten [sic], sought advice on the outcome of his trial" - there being no mention that Mr Hoogenstraten made the call himself, and even admitting "I have never met him before in my life". He claims to be due to lead van Hoogstraten's appeal, whereas the BBC report on the appeal in 2003 states that the much more probable figure of Geoffrey Cox QC represented the jailed property tycoon.
Once again, until anyone can find a reliable, first hand source for the assertion that he represented Van Hoogstraten, this should be kept out of the article. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian is a reliable source. Why are you so anti di Stefano? That is the real quesion. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not anti him - I think he's a colourful character and I quite enjoy his contribution to our media. If anything, I am anti sloppy journalism. I just think that the article needs to be accurate. I was not questioning the reliability of The Guardian as a source, in fact I was using its article to support my suggestion that there was no evidence that Di Stefano acted for 'Mr Hoogenstraten'. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This personal attack has been brought to you by an anonymous IP. -- Donald Albury 12:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to summarise what I was saying originally, the statement that he acted for Van Hoogstraaten was not supported by the article cited as its source. Rather than call someone a wally, wouldn't it simply have been better to have replaced the reference to the Guardian Article with a reference to the Belmarsh Prison one? There is no need for anyone to get cross, why not just improve the page? That is after all what we are all here for...isn't it? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I do feel there is work pending on this one and that we must treat di Stefano sympathetically and trust sources that abundantly say he was Saddam's lawyer, is Van Hoogstraten's lawyer etc. I have been planning on doing stuff and got distracted (by work and another issue on wikipedia). Well I will try and get something together, possibly using a temp. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is being treated sympathetically. No one is trying to use private eye as a source.Geni 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think GDS thinks that, and re our living biography policy I believe we have a duty to treat him sympathetically. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His opinion is an irrelivance. Given what the article currently excludes it is currently sympathetic to the point of being in violatation of NPOV.Geni 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We don't have a duty to treat him sympathetically. We have a duty to insure that the article about him has a neutral point of view, that it does not give undue weight to minor or peripheral issues, and that it does not contain unsourced or poorly sourced material that is detrimental to him. -- Donald Albury 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Soon enough, this article is a disgrace and some people call that NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempts to make it NPOV have been met with repeated deletiion of both the article and the talk page (in violation of the GFDL mind). Still if you insist on trying you might want to start by looking into that gap between the late 80s and 1993.Geni 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Hoogstraten 

message: I have requested that this page be protected again to forestall anymore edit warring. This article is a minefield of BLP problems and edit warring over controversial issues just simply can't be allowed. Avruchtalk 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be wise. It would be helpful if editors could plough through checking the facts, because I just picked two points at random that I was interested in and followed them through, and found them to be built on very shaky ground. This shouldn't turn into another Pedro Lopez. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How long for. I certainly wish to keep working with this article, adding new information to it. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its protected for a week. Avruchtalk 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested protection 

message: Does registering yourself as leader of a political party with the Electoral Commission mean the same thing as founding a political party? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone who went to private school and is a self professed know it all Mr F you actually know very little and seem incapable of proper research save trying your silly best to defame my father so why don't you have the courage to e mail my father your full contact details as others have in the past who have had the courage to do so and assume your own responsabilities for your petty little actions that frankly amaze even a young man as me. MSDS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.217.3 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could we confine ourselves to discussion on the article please? There are rules here about civility. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strictly speaking, absolutely, after all how else would one found a political party other than by registering it with the electoral commission, I am at a bit of a loss as to what you mean, David. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wondered whether this was an idea that was just proposed but never came to fruition, particularly as there weren't any candidates in the 2005 General Election. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well when that is sourced we can re-add it too. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Your comments seem based on original research based on your opinion of the matter whereas what interests us is verifiable reliable sources. Can you, for instance, back up your claim that "all sorts of groups are registered, but don't exist as political parties in any meaningful sense", I take it your absurd isnt verifiable but if you can do so then please do. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided references to substantiate my comments. The first link shows that any two people with £150 can register a political party, and the second (if you look down the list and check out the parties there) shows that there are loads of "vanity" parties there - just see if you can find any sources to substantiate the real-life existance of most of them. For the fact that there was no statutary recognition of political parties in the UK before 2000 see "". Do you deny that political parties existed in the UK before this act? If not then there clearly are ways to "found a political party other than by registering it with the electoral commission", and all of the major UK political parties were founded in these other ways. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the original research is in how you interpret the information, not the information itself, for instance assuming that vanity parties are not legitimate political parties or assuming that because the procedure for founding political parties was different before 2000 that this should somehow affect the way parties are founded since this date. If 2 people can found a political party for 150 quid that means that "founded" can refer to 2 people with a few quid who register a party and doesnt say have to refer to the way either parties were founded before 2000 or how well known parties such as the SDP or Goldsmith's party were found. Is this clear? Hope so. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll give you "founded", and I've changed the wording in the article to clarify how the party was founded. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a particularly delicate article on a living person so we have to make sure the sources back up our statements. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He also has founded a political party" 

message: This not only confirms him as Saddam's lawyer but also brings up this interesting case of the UK gov trying to take assets of suspects rather then convicted criminals, and shoulsd certainly be added when and if the article gets unlocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be a press release by someone close to di Stefano so probably not independent enough to decide the saddam thing.Geni 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug dealers 

message: Now is the time for interested parties to step forward and resolve any differences, not afterwards when the article becomes unlocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about jimbo.Geni 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Uh, your last two edits - what are you talking about? There was a discussion on this page that found "Personal legal history" or "Personal legal issues" to be preferable to "A sense of injustice" which is an editorial and not encyclopedic style heading. Additionally, the last part is unsourced - and I didn't remove it after it was reinserted, I simply asked for a source in an edit summary of an unrelated and minor edit. I don't know that my edits were a "blatant vio" of anything, and I'd prefer if in the future (particularly on this article) you think before you write. Avruch  T   01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was actually a discussion prior to that one, in which Jimbo expressed support for "A sense of injustice" and myself and one or two others disagreed. Avruch  T   15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mr di Stefano has a huge "sense of Injustice," I see no problems with its inclusion. Giano (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't dispute that he does, but section titles should be neutral, not a reflection of what the subject of an article thinks. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SqueakBox's edits 

message: (I moved 91.125.171.246's comment from a section at the top of the page where it was replying a comment by Fred Bauder from 8:39, 28 December 2007, to a new section on the approximate place where it belongs by chronogical order) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You normally need a WP:V verifiable WP:RS reliable source to include information on an article. In this case the article is about a living person, and the WP:BLP Biography of Living Persons policies says that "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully". Feel free to provide a source for a link between Giovanni and Ford Open Prison that meets the BLP terms, but notice that you will have to justify why the information should be included on the article in the first place. I suggest that you carefully read WP:BLP, specially Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Open Prison 

message: The finding of FACT that he is an Italian lawyer is a finding of fact permenantly! My dad is NOT a member of the law Society or the bar council and he does not have to be because ec directive 77/249 makes it only necessary to REGISTER with the law society or the bar council if any EU lawyer wishes to practise PERMENANTLY in the member state. Mr Justice jackson found that dad, of course, IS a lawyer and thus IF dad wanted to practise FULL time in the UK he has to register but as dad does NOt he did not register. That is what it is all about. The finding of fact that dad is a EU lawyer was NEVER challanged. The Crown wanted him to register. he did not want to because the law said he never had to unless he wanted to live and work in UK FULL TIME which he does not. He was right and got his costs. Dad can thus work in the UK 'from time to time' but cannot do so FULL TIME unless he registers. That is actually clear from the transcripts and juidgement I sent you. Why you wish to represent something that is clearly not is obviously a matter for you but it shows your prejudice towards him under a pretence of wanting to write a proper article....read the article. everything is prejudicial from football aspect to law. I agree with SqueeqBox its a frigging disgrace and people like you are the cause of it. MSDS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Rules from the UK SRA are on point here, and I don't see a requirement to register only if someone intends to practice permanently in the UK. Whether he is required to register or needs some other credential in order to be considered a lawyer in the UK or a "European lawyer" anywhere is not the point - the point is that, true or not, it is currently referenced by something that does not support the contention. If you, or anyone, can calmly address that point in light of what I have written above I would appreciate it. The next step, if these issues can't be addressed here, is a request for additional input - on the issue of this reference, the other references used in this article and the sources currently not used in this article via either a request at RS/N or an RfC. Avruch  T   16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree we need to ramp this up via dispute resolution of one sort or another if it cannot be resolved here on talk. NPOV cannot be trumped by anything else and the real problems here are making an NPOV article that fits our BLP policy. While arbcom cannot comment on content they most certainly can comment on the insertion of POV into the article that harms GDS and that has been inserted on numerous occasions. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be very happy to make a statement if you file an ArbCom case over attempts to correctly quote a cited source. Avruch  T   16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If I file a case it will be concerning our NPOV policies. You seem to think that a reliable source trumps both NPOV and BLP and I find that extremely worrying, though this is not about you or I but about di Stefano, his reputation and an Rfa would try to get arbcom rulings about enmforcing BLP when it concerns the reputation of a living person. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of a BLP policy that isn't intrinsically linked and, actually, totally dependent on the reliable source policy? Reliably sourced negative information trumps dubiously sourced positive information - NPOV doesn't require us to have a nice article about di Stefano, just an accurate one. Avruch  T   19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that is a recipe for a BLP violation and needs resisting both here and in the article of every living person but especially living people who are dependent on their reputation in the real world, and our BLP and NPOV policies do demand that we do not paint these people in a black light and your failure to understand that is why I am at least reflecting on where to take this (possibly to arbcom to comment on the issues (not the editors). Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do, so far you haven't proffered an argument that convinces me that BLP trumps a neutral point of view (NPOV is a core policy). Neutral doesn't mean artificially balanced positive vs. negative, it means that our article must reflect the balance demonstrated in reliable sources. I'll continue to edit this article, and all other articles, on the same basis. If you feel that this requires an Arbitration case... Well, feel free. Avruch  T   19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: European lawyer (break 1)

message: It was brought to my attention by User:Rgoodermote‎ that the article has instances of lowercase and capitalization when the last name is used alone. Common convention, based on a quick Internet search, appears to be to always use capitals at the beginning of a surname. I am going to be WP:BOLD and change the lowercase ones to uppercase. If anyone has an opinion, please post. Enigma message Review 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sources say it is we can not go against it. But also the article's title itself contains that very same error. Which is why the whole conversation started. Rgoodermote  01:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The article is correct. I think you misunderstood. When the name is written in full, it's Giovanni di Stefano. When only the surname is written, then the issue is whether to capitalize the di or not. Enigma message Review 01:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...my stupidity at least helped to point out an error. Sorry about that. Either way..the sources still say capped. Rgoodermote  02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it hasn't been done already I am going to go through and star capping every instance of Di that does not have Giovanni in front of it. Rgoodermote  17:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some one already did most of the work. But missed one instance. Rgoodermote  17:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am going to be WP:BOLD and change the lowercase ones to uppercase." That was me, above. :) I did it a few days ago. My bad on missing one. Enigma message 02:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the son came in and changed the name back to "Di" with capital letter on all instances. I notice that his law firm website always writes it that way. Shall we write this down as "most common usage is Di with capital letter and the subject always refers to himself that way" and let it stay that way to avoid reverts and wikidrama? --Enric Naval (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Di Stefano/di Stefano