User talk:Justthefacts 101

Say hello

Welcome; please say hello

Welcome

Hi, Justthefacts 101. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Justthefacts 101/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Karyn Kupcinet. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Karyn Kupcinet. Thank you. 2help (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Karyn Kupcinet. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. 2help (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Karyn Kupcinet. 2help (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Karyn Kupcinet. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. KrakatoaKatie 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Karyn Kupcinet

Hi. I would like to specifically address the issues with your edits so you can avoid encountering similar reverts by editors in the future. Due to Wikipedia's strict Neutral-Point-of-View policy (see WP:NPOV) you may disagree with some statements on the web site or find them untrue. However, as long as there is significant coverage a theory such as the one we are discussing, it is reasonable for the theory to be mentioned in the article. Introducing statements such as "but this claim by Ellroy was just a baseless claim" hurts the neutral aspect of the encyclopedia. This is why your edits were reverted. I will now adjust your revision in the article to what I think is agreeable. If you have any issues, please bring it up in the article's talk page, rather than reverting (see WP:3RR). Thank you, 2help (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Karyn Kupcinet. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to grasp that your personal perspective on this case is irrelevant in terms of what can or cannot be added to the article. No matter how many times you revert and change the wording, your point of view has no place in the article, only content supported by reliably vetted third party published sources may be used. The fact is, a great many other items regarding Kade were not included on this article, including later issues regarding autopsy errors, personal issues with alcohol and a hyoid bone broken by him during an autopsy was removed some time ago. You cannot include your defense of a person based on your personal perspective and it will be reverted and removed. If you cannot discuss this on the article talk page and continue, you will find yourself blocked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock block

You're a sock, so I've indef'd you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]