User talk:Adecoratingmom

Welcome!

Hello, Adecoratingmom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Hello, I'm WikHead. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Robert O. Young without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dr Robert O Young
Thank you for your message. My apologies for the recent goofy wording changes in the warning template above. Though you may have explained your edits in one of your summaries, there is absolutely no reason to completely blank out the entire reflist like you did, and this is why you were reverted. Feel free to return and continue editing, but please be more selective with what you remove. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a lot of referenced content you just removed. Explained or not, I'm expecting to see someone else revert your changes. I would highly recommend starting a thread on the article's talk page to detail the reasons for your edit, and seek further feedback from those who regularly watch and edit that article. Regards, -- WikHead (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Robert O. Young. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please use the article talk page to discuss your proposed improvements to the article, and remember any changes you want to make must be backed up by verifiable and reliable sources, not personal knowledge. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Robert O. Young, you may be blocked from editing. Use the talk page, OK? ~Amatulić (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Robert O. Young
I undid your edit as it directed to a non-existant image. Avoid using "Dr." - see wp:honorifics Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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 should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comments at Teahouse
Hi! I just read your reply to some very sound advice you got at Teahouse. I am sorry if this offends you, but it appears that you are the one not listening.
 * Throwing around terms like "libelous" in your edit summaries is definitely a violation of the "no legal threats" rule. Please don't argue about it. It is what it is.


 * All Wikipedia does is report what others have said in reliable published sources. As Jayron told you, if you can reference a retraction, do so and reinsert material that can be referenced by that.  What you know, or what you think you know, does not matter a whit.  It is what you can prove by referencing reliable sources that matters.


 * I notice you are not directly disputing his conviction for practicing medicine without a license. Or are you trying to say that the State of Utah "retracted" that?  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that medical claims made by someone who has been convicted of practicing medicine without a license need to at best be taken with a grain of salt.


 * You are also posting as User:173.16.53.116. This needs to stop immediately.  You are not allowed to have multiple accounts on Wikipedia.


 * Lastly, Teahouse is not the place for you to bring your content dispute battle. It is a place for advice on technical and style issues, not a forum for you to air your views.  As far as that goes, neither is Wikipedia.  Prove it with reliable secondary sources, or go start a blog.

If you want to be a part of Wikipedia, a cooperative project to advance the dissemination of knowledge on the internet, you are welcome. But you need to understand the idea of cooperative. If you want a forum, start a blog. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with biographies of living people – Robert O. Young
The content of your comments on Wikipedia suggest that you may have a close affiliation with the article's subject. If this is the case, I suggest you read Biographies of living persons/Help. It is a page providing information for people who have concerns about their name being mentioned on Wikipedia, whether in a biography or elsewhere. Voceditenore (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, I've asked for some outside input to help resolve the dispute at Robert O. Young. I've placed my request at the administrator's noticeboard; you are welcome to click over there and offer any comments if you'd like. The request should be near the bottom of the page; you can find it by searching the page for "Robert O. Young". MastCell Talk 18:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar for all of you that have posted comments as I am new to Wikipedia about your website and its policies so with that being said, I asked questions because that is what I was told to do. When I write, you don't know my inflection or my tone so it is hard to gauge what I a saying or what I mean. The word libelous was used because off of wikipedia the reliable source was quoting inaccurate information and was informed that it was inaccurate and yet still sited it on wikipedia.

I am going to stop and review all the WONDERFUL information and suggestions, read, read some more and try to figure how to get this done without people jumping down my throat. I have all these people who say they want to help and then I say what I need help with only to be blasted for asking for help. I am extremely NEW to this media and I am trying to make my way through it and have said repeatedly that coming to wikipedia only AFTER we were dealing with this issue outside of this site. I will refrain from using words that you have addressed.

As far as signatures, Adecoratingmom (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC) signs and IP Addresses and confirming, I am reading and trying to work it out. I am stating my truth whether you understand it, it is upsetting to be attack because I am new and using wrong information or format. I think the tone set off in the first post was civil but the rest were condescending. I am going to walk away and not respond until I have a better grasp of what we can do

Can anyone tell me specifically how we can go about getting the whole article deleted. It was requested back in 2006 but nothing happened. I am sure there is some protocol that I am unaware of and will violate so if you could send me the post without rude comments that would be appreciated. Adecoratingmom (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the multiple identities. I am logging into my moniker and I have no idea why other then I have a floating IP address why you are getting other information.

Please slow down
I am here in response to the request at ANI; my best advice to you is to slow down and read carefully through the helpful post by Gtwfan52, above. Your editing is problematic and may lead to a block if you keep ignoring the information people are giving you. While I understand your desire to ensure accuracy, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. While we wish to avoid unsupported negative information in articles about people, we do not ignore well sourced information, however negative. Please work with other editors and take the time to learn Wikipedia's rules. KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your civility in your post. I do appreciate it. As someone with a law enforcement background it is difficult to read things that are not not truthful and are NOW not verifiable yet are listed. So I will take your wise and best advice and take the time to review everything and anything that has been addressed. I would suggest that anyone who makes a snarky or rude comment, please consider those who are new and are wading through all the policies. I was told that you can edit falsehoods and inaccuracies but now are told if those falsehoods can be verified, they can be included. My law enforcement background bells are just set off by that information. So forgive me if you see my posts, edits and actions as being in violation. We all have our backgrounds, knowledge and BAGGAGE that we bring to our everyday journeys. I just happened to be outraged by lies and more lies. So I will settle the dispute off site with the erroneous information, then once that is done I will post all my written documentation and request a third opinion about it. I think someone suggested it to me, maybe it was an email but nonetheless it seemed reasonable. That is all I am out to do here is to be reasonable and knowledeable. I am not hear to be a verbal punching bag. Half the emails to me off the site were RUDE, most were informative. Adecoratingmom (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome; the old adage "patience is a virtue" applies on Wikipedia, for several reasons. It takes time to learn the rules; we only include that which is verifiable, not that which is true (see Verifiability, not truth) and unfortunately one reason you need patience here is that sometimes editors here are less than patient or civil. We have an essay for that, too, called Please do not bite the newcomers but unfortunately you've run afoul of a number of policies in a short time, which tends to result in less-than-patient responses, especially since it looked like you weren't paying attention to those who were trying to help you see where you were going wrong. Please remember that you can always paste helpme on your talk page and someone will come to answer your questions, or you can ask a friendly experienced editor on their talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Adecoratingmom. I would suggest trying to gain consensus for your edits on the talk page of the article here before you make any more edits. You cannot get your way here by brute force; you have to convince others you have a reliable source to change already sourced material. Just proclaiming it false is not good enough. '''You need to show any retractions the newspapers have made publicly. Otherwise, what the sources say goes, even if it doesn't reflect your truth.''' See WP:TRUTH. Thanks, Ultra Venia (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

Jonathan and Sarah, Teahouse hosts 02:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)