User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:31B5:246A:5626:EDCA

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

In addition, please read the John Giuca talk page to better understand the positioning of this article. This article is about Giuca's involvement in the murder of Mark Fisher. It is NOT about the case. It is not a place to plead for his innocence or write non NPOV content. Please note that his co-defendant does not have a page which calls into question this page's existence. Also, please do not remove properly sourced information from the page - including NYTimes references. Thank you. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson[reply]

1. What do you believe constitutes vandalism? Nothing I have added does. 2. There is no "positioning" of this article. It is a Wikipedia article, subject to WP rules. It is not "positioned." 3. The murder and the case are intertwined. Inextricably. This is consistent with other wp articles of this nature. 4. Where have I pleaded for his innocence? 5. Where have I added NPOV content? 6. Please read OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And if you think this subject is not notable, bring it to AfD. 7. What NYT references have I removed? 8. What other properly sourced information have I removed?

Your message is quite inappropriate. Please answer my questions with the precision lacking in your note. --2603:7000:2143:8500:31B5:246A:5626:EDCA (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1)Vandalism is: The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

• Removal of criminal history and cited by the NYTimes: In July 2004, 9 months after Fisher's murder, Giuca was arrested for a shooting at a group of men, while he was on vacation, at a Florida nightclub.^[1] The Florida charges were dropped.^[1]

What are you talking about? I never removed that. You are incorrect.--2603:7000:2143:8500:64B4:727:F4EB:67B5 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2/3) There is positioning with pages like this because the two are intertwined. This page is about Giuca NOT the case. The information is about HIS involvement in the murder. If you want to discuss the case in more depth a Wiki is being created about the case.

The page is about Giuca, which includes the case. This is normal on WP. Show me where it is not. You are are making up a non-existent rule. And all I have done in that regard is fill out - and not that much - what is already there, and what a number of other editors of that page have already indicated by their edits is an appropriate topic. --2603:7000:2143:8500:64B4:727:F4EB:67B5 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4/5) NPOV: This is not neutral language and is sourced from the defendants personal website:

Prosecutor Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi appointed herself judge and jury in order to win a conviction at all cost. She appeared in drug-court alongside a drug-addicted, jailhouse informant (John Avitto) facing years in prison. That junkie's testimony was used to seal Giuca's conviction when Nicolazzi used him as the trial's final witness; hiding the truth from the judge, the jury, and Giuca. The addict later came forward to apologize to John, admitting he cut a deal with the prosecutor and lied because was scared of going to prison. Two other witnesses came forward as well, stating under oath, that they were threatened and coerced by Nicolazzi. She is also accused of burying a recording of her interview with a jailhouse snitch who said Giuca didn't kill Mark Fisher. There are also suspicious questions surrounding other witnesses in this case. ^[2]

Are you drinking? I deleted that. Someone else put it in. --2603:7000:2143:8500:64B4:727:F4EB:67B5 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6) There is consensus being sought for the page to be moved to The Murder of Mark Fisher. Right now it is unclear if he is notable enough for a Wiki. If consensus is met - we will move the namespace and or request deletion depending on other editor input.

He is notable enough for this page until and unless there is consensus to delete it or move it. You think he is not? Bring an AfD. --2603:7000:2143:8500:64B4:727:F4EB:67B5 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7) The reference to the shooting in Florida

What about it. I added it. I did not delete it, as you imagine for some unknown reason. --2603:7000:2143:8500:64B4:727:F4EB:67B5 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8) None that I can see.

Of course. Because there is none. Please stop it, revert before the admins block you, and be more careful. You have my edits confused with those of other people, or you are imagining them, but your revert was completely - and I mean completely - incorrect. --2603:7000:2143:8500:64B4:727:F4EB:67B5 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think many of your edits were helpful but with such non neutral content added - additional case information, sources from the defendants personal website, attacks on individuals involved, naming the relationships of people NOT prosecuted (i.e., a prominent Republican's daughter) adding unsubstantiated information (i.e., supporters believe Fisher with shot by someone with a left hand), removing referenced facts about the defendants criminal history, etc., is too much, incorrect, biased information to sort through line by line. I will make some of the edits you had committed that are reasonable (e.g. early life + removing the Amicus curiae.) I hope this helps.

Sheesh - you are so confused. I did not add sources from the defendants personal website.

I did not engage in attacks on individuals involved

I don't recall whether I named anyone new - but names reported in the press are of course appropriate to name .. nobody is being accused of anything new in what I have written.

I did not add unsubstantiated information (i.e., supporters believe Fisher with shot by someone with a left hand). Are you drinking?

I did not remove referenced facts about the defendants criminal history.

I did not add incorrect, biased information.2603:7000:2143:8500:64B4:727:F4EB:67B5 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drsammyjohnson (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson[reply]

Read the above. An apology - and immediate revert - is in order. 2603:7000:2143:8500:64B4:727:F4EB:67B5 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You have once again - without reason - deleted swaths of edits. You have continued to make unsubstantiated (and quite frankly - bizarre) accusations. I responded to all of your points above. Your assertions are either reflecting a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works (Entire page reverted without notice; continued editing by unconfirmed editors; The reverts were not endorsed by an Admin on the talk page). Or flatly incorrect (unsupported statements, Biased information regarding the presence of "notable" individuals, location of victim, time stamps, continued removal of arrest records, cannot find any sources supporting that Russo accompanied Fisher to the ATM, Citations are incorrect). Your continued reversions coupled with your lack of understanding as to how wp works - that is not reason to revert - and flatly incorrect accusations make working with you impossible. FYI, I commented on all your objections and waited for days - no more response. You do not get further "notice". Editing as an IP is perfectly fine. My reverts were based on comments posted for days - they did not require endorsement by an Admin. This is all quite disruptive I fear. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]