Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

(I have disabled these templates since only the actual talk page should appear in the categories)
{{WPBiography |living=yes |class= |priority= |auto=yes }}
{{Selfpromotion}}

Request re biographies

Let's try again. Please respect Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for. Fred Bauder 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Sources perfectly acceptable everywhere else have been rejected out of hand, one editor has basically assumed ownership of this article and has now removed its history completely, all this without any explenation other than patronising referals to Wikipedia policy? Best to just delete the article entirely. --Martin Wisse 14:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we have some guidelines please please please?

Hi Fred - I assume that your recent deletion, and recreation has a motivation, but I'm a little unclear as to what it is.

Over the last several weeks, various editors have posted links to reliable sources from the UK media, and from the US court records. In my most recent post I collated these sources. Is this ok? - Can I repost the list?

Further, I attempted a revision with a specific sentence for discussion, which has now also been removed (it's probably sensible to assume that the page deletion and recreation was in part required because of that sentence). Of course i won't repost it, but could you give some kind of indication as to the terms of this discussion, to avoid productive discussion being curtailed repeatedly by page deletions like this?

What do you think about using the template William Pietri suggested a little while ago? - that would seem to make sense to me at this point. Thanks, Privatemusings 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As Fred says, please respect Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As this is an article about a controversial living person, we must be especially careful that everything in the article must be supported by very reliable sources. The standard is higher than for other types of articles. -- Donald Albury 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC) -- Donald Albury 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that - believe it or not, I'm asking permission to simply discuss the sources. For example, there is a US Court of Appeal finding on this matter (previously ref.d by Fred) which casts light on the matter - can I mention it? Privatemusings 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Mailing List

I've raised this concern on the mailing list, but am not smart enough to figure out how to link to it. A courtesy 'heads up' here seemed appropriate... Privatemusings 04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the mailing list post on this, but have to say, at this point, it's absolutely impossible to figure out what the under discussion is. :) I expect others who came here from the mailing are having similar feelings. --Alecmconroy 06:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry - it is a strange one. Basically, this talk page is a recreation of a page deleted earlier today which contained productive discussion (imo) including specifically, links to 8 reliable sources that I happen to have noted (there are certainly more, but I can't recall them). By reliable sources I mean US court records, and UK broadsheet publications (and i think the BBC was in there too).

I think that mentioning those links has led to the page deletion and recreation, but I've received no more info on that point than is on this page. See below for another heart warming indef block threat. This is depressing. :-( Privatemusings 06:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A reversion

I see donald has reverted my bunch of changes. That's cool - but could I encourage a note here too? - I really do think that 'my' version is a little better - with some more current information, and a smoother flow. I hope we can talk about that aspect at least out in the open! Privatemusings 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert back to my version tomorrow in the absence of discussion here - no big deal, I just think it's better. Privatemusings 05:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be asking for a indefinite block, if you keep on. Fred Bauder 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred-- don't threaten blocks, talk about what you don't want to have happen and what exactly would be inappropriate for him to do in this situation. PM claims, and I see no reason to doubt him, that he has no problem complying with the rules, but you DO have to take the time to lay out what you think needs not doing. --Alecmconroy 06:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

huh? Why? - see Alec's post above for how confusing this is! I'm trying extremely hard to communicate with you, and you apparently keep telling me that I am crossing what seem to me to be invisible lines all over the shop.

I have eight links to reliable sources, previously posted by Geni, Will Beback and yourself (from memory - I can't of course see the productive discussion that has been deleted). Can I at least post them here?

And responding to a rewrite of an article with the threat of an indefinite block is almost too hard a thing to respond to. Way, way, way not cool. Privatemusings 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you email me the links, I'll be happy to look over the sources and see if I think they meet reliability. Ideally we could just post all the ones, even the unreliable ones, for the purposes of discussion, but BLP issues are important-- it's a real human being (who i've never heard of) under discussion, so if someone has a lunatic hate site about the guy, perhaps best discussed in private. --Alecmconroy 06:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A guess

Okay, I looked over the links PM emailed me-- seven are from journalistic sources we almost always consider reliable sources in other contexts. The 8th is from a district court ruling, a primary source that probably shouldn't be in the article, but might have utility on discussion.

But, Fred seems ambivalent about listing the sources here, so let's all remember There Is No Deadline, and not reintroduce something that was just deleted until Fred's had time to explain what exactly the deletion motivation was and what previous content should not be reintroduced.

There isn't going to be glut of people desperately seeking information on Giovanni di Stefano descending on the encyclopedia anytime in the next day. :)

I didn't see any of the page before it was deleted, but I suspect there's probably a very legitimate BLP concern running around. I know you and he were on opposite sides of the BADSITES thing, but Fred didn't make his first edit yesterday, and I expect there is an actual landmine here we want to avoid stepping on.

The people who recreate the page will just need a little bit more direction from Fred and others as to what exactly the problem is.

For example, just one scenario off the top of my head-- it could be that the 1980s event of di Stefano's life, although widely attested, is in fact a myth, urban legend, or an error in reporting. Thus, even though the links might normally be called "reliable sources", in this specific case, they would be unreliable. That probably won't actually be it, but it's one "for instance" of why to proceed slowly. --Alecmconroy 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG-- the mailing list discussion suggests I actually guessed right! go me.  :) --Alecmconroy 09:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I might add that one of the ways to get to the bottom of this would be for one of the foundation or OTRS peeps to contact the relevant papers and request a statement. Di Stefano claims that they are currently publishing something defamatory-- the foundation could ask if they stand by their stories (which the published and are still publishing). If they don't , they should issue a retraction we can visibly quote in the article, so that Wikipedia can be a tool to help Mr. di Stefano put the false rumor to rest. On the other hand, if they stand by the story, we can surely say "A number of news organizations report ..." which would be verifiable and true.

(I'm sure whoever it is who looks into these things is probably way ahead of me here, and may already being doing that anyway) --Alecmconroy 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The slightly silly thing happening here is that this was discussed at quite some length, and quite productively on the talk page which was deleted with no rationale provided. From memory, my role in that discussion was kind of putting forward the perspective that the more we avoid even any smell of original work, and just reference the reliable sources (in the exact way Alec suggests above) - the better article we'll have. A sensible discussion ensued which I would undoubtedly paraphrase inaccurately - sorry.

A point I haven't raised yet, but which does occur to one immediately, is that in behaving in this way, we are actually sending very clear signals to lawyers of clients with controversial pasts about how to deal with such material on wikipedia. This is very serious in my view, and very bad. Privatemusings 09:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah-- it'll all come out in the wash, just you watch. We aren't being bullied by a random potential lawyer, we're just taking it slow. Give the foundation peeps time to do their thing, and I bet you dimes to doughnuts, we'll either be quoting a news article or a retraction. --Alecmconroy 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's refreshing Alec - and made me smile! - You're right of course, and rather worryingly 'it'll all come out in the wash' is one of my overused phrases. There'll be accusations of us of being the same person soon... thanks for the thought! On the down side, (and again from memory), this has been a 'foundation issue' for about 9 months or so (?) - it's true that there's no rush, as long as we're moving forward, even microscopically! best, Privatemusings 10:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

GFDL vio

As it stands the page is in violation of the GFDL. The history needs to be restored.Genisock2 07:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know the why or how, but I'm sure that history deletions does not violate the GFDL. We delete history all the time, and although I can't explain to you precisely why it is that that doesn't violate GFDL, you can bet that it doesn't. --Alecmconroy 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."

While it is possible in some cases to delete the history without violating the GFDL (basically when the existing version is not a derivative of any of the historical versions) it is not possible in this case.Genisock2 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Always unhappy when asked a question I can't totally answer, I asked about this at the help desk, and got a very useful response.

I was recently asked a question I couldn't answer-- when our admins delete page histories, how is it that we don't violate the GFDL by no longer providing that deleted material? I'm positive we aren't GFDL violators, but not sure of the specifics. --Alecmconroy 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a violation if any derivatives of the deleted versions still exist, but admins should be careful about this when deleting. For instance, if I delete all revisions after a certain date, all the derivatives of the deleted versions were also deleted so there was no violation. If a revision is reverted immediately, and that revision is then deleted, again there is no violation because there are no derivatives of that version in the nondeleted part of the history. There are ways to do history deletions and violate the GFDL, but also ways to do them without violating the GFDL, and admins should always be careful with partial deletion for this reason. Hope that helps! --ais523 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [To be clear, AIS's comment was NOT posted on this talk page, it was posted at the help desk, and he was responding only to the above query. --Alecmconroy 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC) ]

So, if I understand-- since Fred reverted to a previous version, and deleted all the derivative works subsequent to it, it's NOT GFDL violation. --Alecmconroy 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a GFDL violation. The version fred reverted to is itself a derivative of a number of versions all of which fred has deleted. Thus the article in it's present form is in violation of the GFDL.Geni 14:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiping of talkpage and absence of the court report sources

So who was big enough to wipe the talkpage? Where are those court sources that were reliable? The US court judgement on Stefano practicing over there, + the UK one. etc --maxrspct ping me 10:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is the one source which I recall Fred has used in a post of his, I'll take the chance that it's within the unwritten rules to post it The US District Court finding. I won't paraphrase it, and would recommend that you don't either until the strange rules of discussion are made a little clearer here. Privatemusings 11:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The legal dispute template

I thought William's template was a good idea, so tried it out. It's been reverted by Guy. No mention as to why. Privatemusings 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's not in template space. I suggest you discuss article this with Fred and Jimbo by email, rather than making everybody go round the loop one more time. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On an abstract level, is there any objection to putting it into template space, or putting it in this article, or both? It seems like a useful template we might want to get in the habit of using round these parts. --Alecmconroy 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to move it to template space if there's any demand for it. I left it in my own space because it was a proposal that eventually became moot in its original context. William Pietri 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

It is recommended that all additions to the article itself of a controversial nature be specifically attributed to their source, for example, "in an article in The Guardian dated July 3, 2001 blah blah blah". Editors based in the UK are strongly discouraged from editing this article. Familiarity with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is recommended, especially the provisions which permit libel liability. The main problem with the use of references is that while the sources themselves have probably avoided liability by cleverly implying, rather than stating false or misleading information, our editors have not been so clever. Nor would we want them to be. If you think a practicing attorney is a felon, that somehow slipped through the cracks, find a source. Likewise, if you think a European lawyer is not qualified or permitted to practice in the UK, find a source, don't just quote some report that hints around that he's not. Fred Bauder 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are an editor located in England and Wales, or otherwise wish to read the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the official Statute Law Database contains the text of the Act as amended. Sam Blacketer 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The act also applies to Scotland and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 applies similar restrictions to Northern Ireland. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain where the implying is going on in this article?Geni 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not adequately address his current status. The implication, absent an adequate treatment of his current status, is that he is a unreformed convicted felon. Fred Bauder 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

His current status appears to be running in the EU elections.-- Geni (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

politics

Talk of an EU run:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhmhgbeyqlkf/

Geni 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

pov

Any objections to tagging the article with this? WAS 4.250 23:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the tag for now - it seems self evidently suitable to me, although I would prefer to use William's template. Privatemusings 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

An improved version?

I believe this to be an improved version of the page, and would like to stimulate discussion. The B bit of BRD is a little out of bounds for me at the moment, so I've substituted this note - I'd like to restore this version. Thanks, Privatemusings 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I also have two short paragraphs drafted which deal sensitively (imo) with the two unmentionable issues. If terms for discussion can be forthcoming, I'd like to post them - thanks. Privatemusings 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No - this "improved version" that you link to omits many of the detailed citations from recent versions (see e.g. avvocato section, the football section, Strachan footnote etc.) -- it looks as though you have gone back to an old version and modified that rather than made gradual changes to the current and fairly stable page. --mervyn 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Mervyn, I've incorporated the new football info, and the ref that I mistakenly removed - I also readded the Crippen info which I think is quite good - providing something interesting, and a bit lighter than some of the other material.

We now have the standing para re : qualifications in the article - and I'd like to suggest a slightly different draft here, using some of the sources previously discussed - I'll wait a while to post it in case specific, sensible restrictions on talk page postings can be clarified.

I also have a draft para (shorter than the existing 'qualifications' para) referring to the other unmentionable incident, and using sources previously submitted - I'll hold off 24hrs or so on that too to be cautious.

Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind noting a reversion here, Mervyn? I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning, and it would be helpful to discuss matters here... Privatemusings (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the intro para of the current version -- it is very precisely worded and every point and quotation is fully cited, your version missed out some of these and introduced some sweeping statements. You also did away with some useful subsectioning in the biog, and a large part of the well-cited football material which seems fine as is. --mervyn (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the link to European lawyer is completely unacceptable. Not understanding that a lawyer licensed in Italy is allowed to practice in the UK has been a source of confusion. Once confused, much follows. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

per the above (and below), I've moved one sentence from the lead to the body of the article, and reinserted the Crippen info - thoughts most welcome.... Privatemusings (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to all, and thanks to Bastique, who fixed my mistake - I had messed up the edit intended, which is now in place. Thanks Privatemusings (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources and proposed new section

Okey dokey - I understand the above, and if I get the chance will try to rework the article in such a way that improves the structure and flow from my perspective, and maintains the important info. referred to above... no moving on for a mo...

Can I repost the newspaper sources, for the purposes of discussion, at this point? I think you'd agree that they are all far more circumspect than the NZ herald article linked to above.

Also, would it be ok to post 2 proposed paragraphs incorporating some references (in a very non-committal way) to certain incidents? I'd really like to show you my ideas for how this article can be improved. Thanks Privatemusings (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Youtube and reliability

from WP:SPS;

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources

I'm not sure if, in removing reference to di Stefano's application for a pardon for Dr. Crippen, Donald is asserting that the information is contentious, self-serving, not posted by di Stefano, or for another reason.

It would be clearer for me if an editor were to assert that the information is dull and irrelevant, rather than removing something quite clearly in my view within the scope of our sourcing policies. Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise the additional removal of further YouTube links - could you please at least assert why this material is unsuitable, thanks... Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with that one, and I hope it's clear that I'm not suggesting YouTube is a good reliable source. What I am asking is the (required) rationale beyond it's reliability for removing the material, which remains unclear to me. Privatemusings (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And to be very clear, I assert that the links, and material, removed have taken out interesting (not terribly, but enough) material from the article, and am minded to return them, I shall hold off to encourage discussion here. Privatemusings (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the incident is truly notable, then you should have no trouble finding it covered in a reliable published source. -- Donald Albury 00:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well this may be progress - it seems you're removing the material because it's not notable, not because the source was unreliable - I really am just asking for a clear rationale, which enables discussion. So to state clearly - you don't believe either of the YouTube links to be notable enough to warrant mention? Privatemusings (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still saying YouTube is not a reliable source. I am also saying that if the incident is notable, then you should be able to find coverage of it in reliable sources. If the only citation you can provide is from an unreliable source such as YouTube, then the incident does not belong in the article. -- Donald Albury 01:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think from your post that you're also asserting that the material is contentious (ie. not allowed under the WP:SPS guideline above, "it is not contentious") - I don't think it is - do you really? Privatemusings (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - because I don't think I clearly explained my thinking - if your position is that any link to YouTube requires additional mention in a reliable source, then I don't think that that represents our policies or practices currently. If you are saying that this particular YouTube link requires mention in a reliable source, then you simply have to say why. My reading of the above is that if material is contentious then it's unsuitable, and I have therefore presumed that to be your rationale - sorry for being clouded, and hope that's clearer.. Privatemusings (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring to the point of protection?

I don't even think there's an edit war at all! Let alone one that requires protection. Oh well - no note here, no discussion, just a 'pop by and protect' - I don't think that's either necessary or helpful :-( Privatemusings (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Durova^Charge! 02:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain you're acting in good faith, I just think you may have made a mistake - would you mind unprotecting? Privatemusings (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer certain at all that you're acting in good faith, and yes I would mind unprotecting. I don't like to repeat myself. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the user was blocked arfe you know going to unprotect?Geni 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Politics section

The link to this, which is given in support of the statement that di Stefano registered himself as the leader of the Radical Party, does not show the Radical Party as a registered party. I would have gone ahead and removed that statement, but as the article is currently protected, I have held back rather than appear to abuse my admin status by editing content without input from others. It looks like we need more information on this. If the Radical Party is no longer registered, I would question whether it is even worth mentioning in the article. -- Donald Albury 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Last reports suggest he's running in the ROI rather than the UK.Geni 12:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think that a short notice in a newspaper about him starting a party that doesn't seem to exist anymore is not important enough to remain in the article. I'll go ahead and remove it. -- Donald Albury 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot it is protected. I'll wait until protection is lifted. -- Donald Albury 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't starting a political party be a significant event in somebody's biography, especially if he subsequently announces a run for office? William Pietri (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He announced the new party in Great Britain, but it is no longer registered, and I do not know that he ever did anything else in connection with it. He apparently is now planning to run for office in Ireland, so there is no connection. -- Donald Albury 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Radical Party of Great Britain website is still active [1], giving the details of the party, although given the context, I'm not sure it meets criteria as a source, if you see what I mean. I think this is a more fundamental problem with this article. There's a lot of sections that read something like... "Di Stefano announced X (source 1), but because of Y, this didn't happen (source 2)". I guess my point is, although a person might be notable, their every announcement might not be, and we need to be a bit selective, particularly where there might be a bit of self promotion going on. Anilocra (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

can't say

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2774304.ece WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there truly a legal issue involved with posting the name of the member of British royalty who was supposedly blackmailed in this case? Avruch^Talk 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it probably depends whether you are in the UK or not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested version to handle conviction claims.

(refs replaced with simple links for now) : "According to the New Zealand Press Association, the Guardian, and Variety, di Stefano was in 1986 was convicted in Great Britain for fraud charges. According to Yahoo News, the fraud involved totaled $75 million and he served five years in jail.[2] [3][4]. The Scotsman stated that this conviction had also occurred but said that the fraud at the time was only $25 million [5] di Stefano has said that the person convicted was in fact a cousin, but according to Yahoo, this claim was not true, as determined by fingerprinting. The Scotsman also determined that the claimed cousin, John di Stefano had the same birth date and place of birth as Giovanni di Stefano. di Stefano has also alternately claimed that his conviction was overturned. The Scotsman, however, published records which they say show that di Stefano's attempt to appeal the conviction was dismissed.(cite Scotman again) Moreoever, according to the 9th circuit court of appeals in the US di Stefano was deported and subsequently denied entry to the United States due to his conviction.[6]

What do people think? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have made a second successful appeal, but it is hard to show that with the references we have. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a BBC article that reflect that he's made that claim: [7] -- Kendrick7^talk 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so just add at the end of that an additional sentence "di Stefano has since asserted that another appeal was accepted." followed by that BBC source. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lot of other digs in that BBC article. Yellow journalism, really. They don't bother to investigate and resolve the issues they raise. Fred Bauder (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If we use just that detail we should be fine. In any event, given that this is the BBC I'd be surprised if anything they said there would be that questionable. If anyone is vulnerable to British libel suits its going to be the British news agencies. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Accusing the bbc of yellow journalism? Okeeeeey.Geni 02:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I think yahoo were just republishing a New Zealand Press Association article.Geni 02:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but it is citable. Sorry, I thought I had changed that so it said "New Zealand Press Association" not Yahoo when someone had pointed that out earlier. So it should say NZPA and then cite the Yahoo reprint as the link. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We also don't know which currency the NZPA is ueing. Athough the scotsman was reporting in £ and the exchange rate at that date of the NZPA article was about 2.5NZ$ to the pound Geni 03:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. We may want to just leave out the NZPA number. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, do we have a consensus for this version leaving out the NZPA number? JoshuaZ 15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There do not appear to be any objections.Geni 18:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to add that in then unless I hear in the next 48 hours or so that I really shouldn't. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect

How 'bout unprotecting this article, or moving it to semi-protection? The editor who inspired the protection has retired, and people currently discussing BLP and sourcing issues seem level-headed and unlikely to edit war.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, we still have the same problem, just toned down a bit. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

The source is not reliable. It is the transcript of a tv interview in which Stefano claims to be Hussein's legal representative. When asked when he will be going to Bagdad, Stefano fumbles and says 'I didn't hear the question', then when the question is repeated he says vaguely 'very soon', and tries to bluff that HIS arrival in Bagdad will be a matter of secrecy for security purposes! Now if anyone can source a trial transcript that mentions Stefano, it might be possible to let this stand. Otherwise, references to his being Saddam Hussein's legal representatives should be deleted. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Look on YouTube to his diaries and see how the US Military Protect him in Baghdad. There are lots of news articles. There is also the application filed by him in the US District Court. Barking up the wrng tree again on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.216.126 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The aplication and news articles are located where?Geni 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The response below my initial posting does not really make sense - looking on Youtube to 'his' diaries? Does that mean Hussein's or Stefano's? and how can a diary be on YouTube? Even if he were 'protected' by US military, this wouldn't be evidence of his representing Hussein. The reference to the one application filed by him in the US district court is not supported at all. If 87.7.216.126 or anyone else can come back with supporting evidence for his being Saddam Hussein's legal representative, then this should be reinstated in the article. Until then it should be omitted. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to this, the BBC listed the legal team here: [8] as Khalil Dulaimi, (Iraqi lawyer, lead counsel), Abdul Haq al-Ani (UK-based advisor), Des Doherty (Northern Ireland-based solicitor) and Anthony Scrivener QC (UK human rights barrister). DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, he repeats the claim that he was Saddam's lawyer in his most recent interview -- with Dublin's Hot Press (magazine) -- a pdf version is viewable at G Di S's website here: http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/news/20071128HotPressDiStefano.pdf --mervyn (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Complaint received from Giovanni di Stefano

The below is defamatory, wholly innacurate and please remove the whole section as I have NO convictions. Please supply the full details of "JoshuaZ" by return.Fred, Jimmy, I am only holding off taking legal action in the US, and Italy purely out of respect for both. In case anyone has forgotten I am not dead yet and should this matter go to court not only will damages be sought but exemplory damages because you both have all the documents to disprove these rubbish claims and the time my staff are occupied on policing this matter. I am kindly requesting you to fully protect BOTH the article and TALK page asap. With respect GDS

"Suggested version to handle conviction claims."

(refs replaced with simple links for now) : "According to the New Zealand Press Association, the Guardian, and Variety, di Stefano was in 1986 was convicted in Great Britain for fraud charges. According to Yahoo News, the fraud involved totaled $75 million and he served five years in jail.[9] [10][11].

The Scotsman stated that this conviction had also occurred but said that the fraud at the time was only $25 million [12] di Stefano has said that the person convicted was in fact a cousin, but according to Yahoo, this claim was not true, as determined by fingerprinting. The Scotsman also determined that the claimed cousin, John di Stefano had the same birth date and place of birth as Giovanni di Stefano. di Stefano has also alternately claimed that his conviction was overturned. The Scotsman, however, published records which they say show that di Stefano's attempt to appeal the conviction was dismissed.(cite Scotman again) Moreoever, according to the 9th circuit court of appeals in the US di Stefano was deported and subsequently denied entry to the United States due to his

conviction.[13]

"What do people think? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)"

I don't understand why he doesn't get our sources to print retractions, or updated clarifications, etc. We are a tertiary source which has a duty to report what secondary sources say. Why can't he understand that duty? How would he feel about someone hounding some poor lawyer to violate attorney-client privilege? It's unfortunate if he can not respect our principles. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Zee problem is that we are the second google result for his name. Finding the original aricles in some cases is pretty tricky and not something you are likely to causualy run accross thus they are of little concern.Geni 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So, look, we pull an Abbie Hoffman/Jerry Rubin. GDS puts out a trial balloon that he is going to sue wikipedia by calling various news desks. Five minutes later, Jimmy Wales calls (completely by total coincidence and if I'm lying may God kill the neighbors) the same news desks stating his fear/outrage that wikipedia might be sued. What does that create for the average lazy reporter? Anyone? Bueller? That's right: a reliable source. Then GDS faxes his materials to the eager beaver reporter, the article gets printed showing he was never actually convicted of anything, all our previous sources are moot, and everyone lives happily ever after. How hard is this people? It would take like an hour. I know that's like two months in lawyer billing terms but still, after which, there would be great rejoicing. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ALL THE MATERIAL IS WITH JIMMY WALES AND FRED LONG TIME AGO! I HOLD RESPECT FOR THEM NOT REPORTERS THAT ARE HAPPY TO BE SUED SO THEY CAN SELL MORE NEWSPAPERS! SCOTSMAN AND GUARDIAN HAVE IN FAIRNESS NEVER REPEATED THEIR DEFAMATION AS NEITHER HAVE ROSIE COWAN OR MARTIN HANNAN OR THE IRISH INDEPENDANT. IF ANYONE WISHES TO PUBLISH DEFAMATORY MATERIAL THEY WILL BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW IN ITALY AND SUED IN THE CIVIL COURTS IN WHICHEVER JURISDICTION I DEEM EXPEDIENT. THOSE THAT WRITE RUBBISH ABOUT ME TRY AND USE THE COVER OF WIKIPEDIA AND ARE AFRAID OF USING THEIR OWN NAMES, ADDRESSES AND FULL CONTACT DETAILS. IF ANY EDITOR WISHES TO PUBLISH RUBBISH HAVE THE COURAGE TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF/HERSELF PUBLICLY. EVERYTHING I DO IS PUBLIC AND OPEN-GOOD/BAD/SUCCESS/FAILURE. AS I HAVE STATED ALL THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN WITH JIMMY WALES AND FRED AND ANOTHER EDITOR WHO HAD THE COURAGE TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF IN PERSON. ANYONE WANTS TO CONTACT ME gds1955@tiscali.it GIOVANNI DI STEFANO (+39 3401537770 Mob Number)!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, you gave documents to Jimbo Wales that may be relevant to your ability to practice law. The section you seem to be taking with above has nothing to do with that but instead has to do with your criminal history. (Also, please refrain from using all caps it is considered to be quite rude). JoshuaZ (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The phone number of Soundmakers in rome?Geni 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have NO criminal history and your comment is defamatory suggesting that I do. Please have the courage to e mail me your full name, address, and contact details or publish your details on this page as I have published mine. Mr Wales and Mr Bauder have the evidence I have no convictions. Publish your name if you stand by what you cowardly publish under protection of identity. I have seen more courage in informants in the US/Italy when confronted than by you so far and they have more to lose. Publish your contact details! GIOVANNI DI STEFANO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The above comment may reflect a small language barrier issue- at least here (in the United States) colloquially speaking prior trials whether or not they result in convictions and whether or not the convictions are overturned would be spoken of as part of one's "criminal history". Now, do you have documents that in fact show that the fraud conviction was overturned? That is at present the only matter we're dealing with. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Publish your full contact details. Mine are GIOVANNI DI STEFANO, Largo G Tartini 3-4, Roma 00197 Italia. Giovanni Di Stefano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

9th circuit court ref

I'm having trouble formatting that ref. If someone could get the formatting to work right I'd appreciate it. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's because of the equals sign in the URL. I used to know this one, let me poke around the template talk page a sec.... -- Kendrick7^talk 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Nevermind, turned out to be a simple extra carriage return in the title. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotsman ref, legal action

The Section marked 'conviction' has been removed. Your source 'The Scotsman' have very wisely and correctly deleted the link. The section is defamatory and legal action has been commenced against a number of Trustees of Wikipedia Foundation as well as a number of editors who have written the article. pp GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.172.247 (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: the Scotsman, is this a working link?[14] -- Kendrick7^talk 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT working because it was removed!!! pp GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.172.247 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope it was moved.Geni 17:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)