User talk:Yoyohooyo

Welcome!

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

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Murder of Meredith Kercher

I think it is entirely inappropriate for this article to contain any evidence or opinions regarding guilt or innocence found in any RS, including the Massei report, Micheli's report or any report, News article, etc, due to the possibility of this article impacting the upcoming legal process. This is not a court room.

Many people are not aware that the articles in wikipedia are not regarded by wikipedia as a RS, and in my opinion they are not reliable due to the subjective nature of the process. The use of guidelines which are only recommendations with the word should constantly appearing can not in any way sufficiently control the process. Guidelines are not rules.

Instructions are rules and the use of the words shall, should and may dictates managements decisions.

For example: The Events surrounding the murder should only contain information regarding Meredith movements on Nov 1-2, 2007 and should not include anything that could imply guilt or innocence of anyone. This is not a court room.

All evidence should be deleted or the entire article should be blocked from public view pending the completion of the legal process. This is not a court room. Yoyohooyo (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your edit here. Unfortunately, your edit was reverted as it introduced unsourced speculation into the article. You can read the link for more details. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your later edit was also reverted, as it was not supported by a source. Any fact which may be contentious needs to be supported by a reliable source. Please read this page for details of how to source your edits. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Murder of Meredith Kercher. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Murder of Meredith Kercher. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Everard: Actually I did add a source to my last attempted edit which was rejected as an unreliable source. Maybe I didn't do it right or something. Wikipedia seems a bit difficult to learn to use. Yoyohooyo (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable. However, don't vandalize Wikipedia.

This is not my impression of wikipedia at this time. I feel threatened while trying to learn my way around. My mistakes have resulted in the rude warning from Everard Proudfoot shown above. Yoyohooyo (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll give it a go.--Yoyohooyo (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoMK events around 8:55

Hi Yoyohooyo and thanks for the message. I've no objection to the wording as you have stated it. Or, to be more accurate, I don't think the paragraph reads very well, but I'm happy with the way the timing is recorded. You've proposed a revision to the text and you have given people a chance to comment (people here donate their time for free, so you can't expect that everyone will be online all the time, but you've given them a couple of days). I should take silence as assent and make the edit. Of course, someone may revert it, in which case, we're into a cycle of WP:BRD, but that won't be me! Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight change of procedure, since the article is locked, simply propose the same wording you were about to add anyway with {{editprotected}}. You'll make sure everyone sees the proposal and gets a chance to comment without it being lost in an overly long talk page, as these requests tend to stand out. Excessive caution here is... excessive :) MLauba ^(Talk) 22:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.....................................................................

I have been blocked because I protest the use of Wikipedia as a platform to publicly prosecute Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The following is one of many example of the public prosecution I found in the MoMk article:

FROM THE ARTICLE: "Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[25]:373[53] Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the footprints and elsewhere in the apartment.[54]" The truth of the matter found in the Massei report is as follows,

Masssei rep page 256-257:

"With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (pages 73 and 74): ("Dr. Stefanoni confirmed that to prove that blood is present, you have to test for it. Dr. Stefanoni claimed that no testing was done. In July 2009 the test records revealed otherwise. The luminol findings were tested using tetramethylbenzidine, and the tests were negative for all tracks. The luminol findings tested negative for blood."): So why did the editor not present all the information know about the "bloody footprints" unless the editor's intention was to present only information that would cause Amanda and Raffaele to appear guilty? Yoyohooyo (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I threaten and when? This is not true. I see you guys are still talking bloody foot prints. I showed you where in Massei's report it said test were performed that provided negative results for blood in the corridor, Knox's bedroom and Filomena's bedroom. Yoyohooyo (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being unable to edit collegially without threats over the content of certain articles, per your recent edits to the talk page of the only article you have ever edited. You may be unblocked if you indicate that this behaviour will cease. Any admin replying to an unblock request is asked to contact me first by email. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yoyohooyo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked because I protest the use of Wikipedia as a platform to publicly prosecute Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The following is one of many example of the public prosecution I found in the MoMk article: : "Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[25]:373[53] Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the footprints and elsewhere in the apartment.[54] The truth of the matter found in the Massei report is as follows, : Masssei rep page 256: "With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the : Masssei rep page 257: "Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (pages 73 and 74): ::: ("Dr. Stefanoni confirmed that to prove that blood is present, you have to test for it. Dr. Stefanoni claimed that no testing was done. In July 2009 the test records revealed otherwise. The luminol findings were tested using tetramethylbenzidine, and the tests were negative for all tracks. The luminol findings tested negative for blood."): : So why did the editor not present all the information know about the "bloody footprints" unless the editor's intention was to present only information that would cause Amanda and Raffaele to appear guilty?

Decline reason:

An unblock request only deals with the block on an account and the circumstances that directly surround the block itself. This means that any article-related issues are not considered in any circumstance, since they are outside the scope of this request. As of such i i will be basing my response solemnly uponyour edits and your block reason.

First and foremost i would note that this section on the article talk page makes it pretty clear that you are mostly pushing your own point of view, without backing anything up with reliable sources other then what you think and wrote yourself. At the same time your semi-legal threats and attacks towards wikipedia and other editors are intolerable. Comments such as I hope you don't have the misconception that I think I am currently discussing this issue with people that actually matter clearly show that you are not here to edit alongside other editors in order to create a better article, and your statement regarding the removal of statements concerning innocence or guilt is simply a poorly veiled legal threat against other editors and Wikipedia.

Unless you can support your arguments with reliable sources as requested many times on the talk page, and unless you change your stance towards other editors i see no reason to unblock you, since the unblock request does not inspire confidence that you understood the block reason, or that unblocking you would prevent future occurrences of the issues i just raised. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Who did I threaten and when? This is not true. I see you guys are still talking bloody foot prints. I showed you where in Massei's report it said test were performed that provided negative results for blood in the corridor, Knox's bedroom and Filomena's bedroom. Yoyohooyo (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]