User talk:KathrynFauble

KathrynFauble, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi KathrynFauble! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

Please stop editing against consensus, as you are doing at Dorothy Kilgallen. Please stop edit warring. Please stop adding scans of copyrighted newspaper articles to this Wikipedia article, as these are flagrant copyright violations.

I am trying to be polite, but this is really non-negotiable. Continuing this unacceptable behavior will lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits cause the article to confuse readers. Under Conspiracy theories, you refer to Dr. DiMaio without saying his first name.KathrynFauble (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write a single word about conspiracy theories, so I am unsure what you mean about my edits confusing anyone. We use first and last name at first mention of a person, and just the surname in subsequent mentions. This is discussed in our Manual of Style. Unless there are two people named DiMaio discussed in the article, there is no realistic potential for confusion. There is way too much discussion of the details of her death in the article, which seems intended to advance a conspiracy theory. That really ought to be trimmed way back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you find a similar post I added today to your Talk page, I guess you can ignore or delete it. DiMaio's first name never appears in the article. Can you find it? If you care to add it and you need a source, you can find his full name in one of the article's frequent sources: the 2007 Midwest Today online article. Dominick is the correct spelling.

I see no good reason to include the DiMaio material in the article, as it seems trivial to me. Accordingly, I have no interest in adding his first name. If you want to add it, go ahead. But upon further consideration, it may be that consensus is to remove that paragraph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when readers look at the photograph of Dorothy seated next to her husband and daughter in the photo that appears in the After death and legacy section, they might not know that those two people are the husband and daughter. The caption is incomplete. He was known publicly both as Richard Kollmar and Dick Kollmar, and she is Jill Kollmar.

How does the following sentence from the 1966 Ramparts article, which I tried to add two days ago, add a much stronger conspiracy atmosphere to the Wikipedia article than the sentence that is already there? I'm hoping to add: "Still, she was passionately interested in the case, told friends she firmly believed there was a conspiracy and that she would find out the truth if it took her all her life." It's only one more sentence from an article that contains several paragraphs.KathrynFauble (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits also cause confusion with the caption for the photo in After death and legacy. The readers recognize Dorothy in the photo, but they don't know who the man and younger woman are unless you tell them. They are her husband Richard AKA Dick and their daughter Jill. What are you going to do to me if I add these first names?KathrynFauble (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious doubts about the copyright status of that photo. It appears to be scanned from a book or magazine. Do you have any knowledge about its status? If the use of the photo is legitimate, then the names of the other people in the photo can be added to the caption.

As for doing anything to you, I am not an administrator so can't block you myself. But I feel obligated to warn any editor of the consequences of editing contrary to our policies and guidelines. We take copyright violations very seriously here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any further discussion of the article content should take place at Talk: Dorothy Kilgallen. We can discuss your editing or mine on our respective talk pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. Over the last 18 months you have engaged in a pattern of persistent tendentious editing on the article Dorothy Kilgallen. Despite an endless string of reversions and warnings about editing against consensus, you continue to add material that has been repeatedly rejected by talk page consensus and you are still posting walls of text on the talk page in open defiance of clearly established consensus despite being repeatedly asked to desist. Your inability to accept consensus and insistence on debating settled points ad nauseam has reached the point where it is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Please stop. Further tendentious editing is likely to result in a request for sanctions which may include a topic ban or being being blocked from editing. Your cooperation is deeply appreciated. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]