User talk:TheTruth-2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome![edit]

Hello, TheTruth-2009! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Hyphenation[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheTruth-2009. You have new messages at Chris the speller's talk page.
Message added 14:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Danielle van Dam case[edit]

The-Truth2009, if you'll pardon my saying so, you have been on a years-long quest to include in Wikipedia, in minute detail, every possible quibble about the evidence against David Westerfield - starting with your very first edits in January 2009. (Your fourth edit here, posted on a talk page, was a table of ambient temperatures, as if we are supposed to evaluate entomology evidence like experts;[1] but Original Research is a no-no at Wikipedia.) You really got into it in 2012, after the book Rush to Judgment came out; you began citing it or calling people's attention to it - "available on Amazon!" - with almost every edit. You have inserted massive amounts of detail from the book and your other sources (which you clearly had long before the book came out) - not just at this article, but in numerous other articles all over Wikipedia. Your edits often amount to argumentation or original research or synthesis. You are basically a POV warrior, doing everything you can to cast doubt on the guilt of David Westerfield, and your edits need to be viewed as such.

As for myself, I am not a defender of any particular viewpoint on this case; I am a defender of Wikipedia's core principles including Neutrality and Verifiability. Those principles also encompass Reliable Sources and No Original Research. I will be applying those principles where appropriate. I notice that you discuss rather than edit war, and that's good. I feel sure we can find ways of working together.

I have looked at some of your edits about this case to unrelated articles, and have treated them on a case-by-case basis. Some I have left alone if they seemed appropriate for the article. Some I have trimmed, to be consistent in scope with other cases listed at the article, or to remove original research/synthesis. I deleted one entry in its entirety; it had been previously deleted by someone else and restored by you, so I felt the other editor and I amounted to a consensus that it should not be there.

I haven't really started looking at the main article for the case. It may take more research than I have time for, to bring it into neutrality. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There were factual errors about the Danielle van Dam case, so I corrected them, quoting acceptable sources (mostly media articles). I also added some accurate information, again quoting acceptable sources. I’ve made hundreds of edits, most of which were nothing to do with the van Dam case. With regard to your recent edits, I have merely given my opinion, but with facts from independent sources to back it up.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)