User talk:RoseMontague

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, RoseMontague, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Ocaasi

Again, welcome! Ocaasi^c 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a great help, thank you.RoseMontague (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Requests on MoMK article

I suspect you can make edits on this article yourself. Check "My Preferences" to see if you have autoconfirmed status. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some point I may give that a try, perhaps on another article. I would prefer not doing that on this one simply because my obvious belief that Raffaele is innocent. RoseMontague (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I see you already making detailed contributions and just want to offer a piece of advice. Our sourcing standards don't let us directly interpret primary sources--either side. Instead, we should almost always use secondary sources which have already described events. This can sometimes be 'augmented' with quotes from primary sources, but the overall interpretation should be done by another reliable source, not us. You can read about this at WP:SOURCES, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ocaasi^c 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'm learning. RoseMontague (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I WP:INDENTed your responses. If someone uses 3 (:::), when you respond, use one more (::::). If it gets too many, just start over at none. Also detailed at WP:TALK. Please read WP:SIMPLE as it gives a nice overview of the most important policies and practices. Cheers, Ocaasi^c 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Your Comment

I realize Dr. Waterbury thinks Guede may have been a police informant and there was an article in the British press suggesting much the same thing. Indeed, it seems a reasonable hypothesis. How else to explain the leniency with which he has been treated? It may be hard to get into that in the article because it is probably for now an unresolvable issue. The main focus in this article has to be on the powerful, un-contradicted evidence against Guede and his history of break-ins exhibiting a similar modus operandi. One suspects too that the reason the authorities have been so adamant about not testing the stain is that it might make Guede lone responsibility more apparent. Again, my speculation.

This is one of a number of oddities to this case. For instance, why did Stefanoni not do a true confirmatory blood test (I gather TMB is not)? I can think of no answer that makes her look good. Also, if Amanda and Raffaele were out and about that night, why did no one respectable see them? Why did they not get picked on any security camera? Perugia is reportedly full of them. PietroLegno (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]