User talk:Adelia Audi

==

July 2018
Hello, I'm CataracticPlanets. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ron Hevener seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CataracticPlanets (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ron Hevener. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. CataracticPlanets (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)'


 * The commentary and point of view is in your edit summary. You cannot remove text that is verifiable from reliable sources just because you don't like it. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. It avoids poorly sourced, negative statements about living persons to the greatest extent possible, but will include verified facts pertinent to a biography.


 * As further information, please see What Wikipedia is not and Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site or advice site. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish rumors, personal opinions, commentary, advocacy, original research or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also Biographies of living persons, Five Pillars, Identifying reliable sources, Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, No original research, Manual of Style/Words to watch and Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Referencing for beginners; Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Simplified ruleset; Simplified Manual of Style; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is a page on which you can get a review of whether the material is within or outside Wikipedia guidelines in the event of a dispute. Donner60 (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In response to your message on my talk page, I see that you have a sincere and reasonable argument, although I will not revert the sourced content on my own initiative. However, I will not revert any further deletion of that paragraph that you may make. I will give you the benefit of the doubt since the article is about a living person. You may need to make the explanation again, however, since I cannot speak for other editors, which is why a more conclusive resolution on the noticeboard might be best, as you may reach a more conclusive resolution without having to deal with other possible individual editors. I know you are trying to be strong and persuasive but I strongly suggest giving up on the legal threats. Wikipedia does not permit those to have influence and encourages other forms of dispute resolution in house before getting to that extreme. It won't help your position to pursue that threat. I again strongly suggest you read No legal threats. Donner60 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this understanding. Very much.


 * Please note this summary reply from my talk page. I don't think it is inconsistent. It is not intended to be. I do want you to see all of my comments: "I have replied on your talk page. In summary, while I will not revert your edit further, I will not restore the previous text myself and I cannot speak for other editors. I am not an administrator and this is not the noticeboard so no final resolution can be made if this continues to be controversial and is considered questionable by other editors. You seem to have an argument which may be good enough under Wikipedia guidelines about living persons biographies which is why it suggests to me that I should exercise discretion and not continue with editing this article. I note that your assertion that the news articles are inaccurate are based on their incompleteness and not on public facts. So I think you should take this to the noticeboard for a more conclusive resolution. I also strongly suggest you read No legal threats." Donner60 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My suggestion about the noticeboard is, of course, not mandatory and you can take the easier course of just editing the article again if you think it can be left in place by others. If you do that, and if you have not placed a more specific explanation on the talk page, I suggest you put a more detailed explanation there and refer to the placement of that text in the edit summary. As you know, the whole explanation will not fit in the edit summary. Having your rationale on the talk page could help if you need to pursue this further. Donner60 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Ron Hevener, you may be blocked from editing. ''I don't see any BLP issue or any unwarranted personal information in that material. Please stop removing it. Discuss it onthe talk page if you wish. And it certianly is not a minor edit to continue removing material which has already been undone. '' Meters (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ron Hevener ‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meters (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

== Thank you for this information which I find to be complicated and difficult to understand. Can you honestly believe saying on Wikipedia that a warrent was issued for someone's arrest is not slanting readers' opinions and affecting the safety of that person? Do you report every bench warrant issued for every other living person you write about on Wikipedia? From anything I read about it, Mr. Hevener was not represented in court by legal counsel of any kind. Your paragraph appears slanted in favor of prosecutors who had a trial in absentia. As for your sources, no, they are not reliable: For one thing, Mr. Hevener has never owned any real estate in South Carolina. And while, yes, he did own them on paper, he was not taking care of the animals himself and authorities never seized any animals from his home 10 miles away. Adelia Audi 10:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Adelia Audi (talk)