User talk:Falsefactscorrected

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Falsefactscorrected, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Shooting of Tamir Rice does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: 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! ChamithN  (talk)  06:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Well, that's not quite fair, . WP:YESPOV would suggest we could describe the article as both being known as the "shooting of Tamir Rice" and the murder of Tamir Rice, and it's not hard to imagine marshalling sources for both. -- Kendrick7talk 08:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking about WP:UNDUE. --  ChamithN   (talk)  12:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning
Your recent editing history at Shooting of Tamir Rice 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 article's 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. -- Kendrick7talk 07:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate having to unleash a generic template on a new editor; I hope you'll stick around and familiarize yourself with, and not run afoul, our policies (you're doing pretty OK, I think). And if you think I'm just picking on you, please note I recently created Leonard Deadwyler, whose death was a similar incident which I only recently learned about, just the other week. If you need any help, just ping me on a talk page like I pinged that other editor up there, or message me on my talk page :) -- Kendrick7talk 08:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Hello and thank you
LOL, I don't believe for a minute you've been on Wikipedia for longer than a day or two; you are just going to get yourself in trouble with that kind of talk (see, for example, WP:SOCK). Don't worry, seniority doesn't count for hardly anything around here! (As much as I like showing off my WP:Barnstars, when I've gotten too pigheaded they've never kept me out of the woodshed; and meanwhile I can't even get promoted to WP:Janitor around here, not that I, or anyone cares.) I suggest keeping your head down and not kicking up a fuss so quick. Once you learn your way around here, and get a hang of things, you'll be able to make a difference, I promise you. -- Kendrick7talk 08:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Hi! I've reverted some of your contributions in the past for some of the reasons already discussed above, but I'd like to extend a warm welcome to you (unless you really are a collective of (experienced) editors, in which case that may be problematic, due to WP:SOCK as stated above, more specifically the policy against role accounts. If it isn't true, then you might want to remove the "collective" part to avoid any misunderstandings). Also, I suggest using edit summaries, which allow you to explain what you've changed and why. I look forward seeing you around! Me, Myself &#38; I (☮) (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the policy on account use, by representing a group of users instead of a singular user. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Really, ? This was clearly an act of braggadocio. Considering that this account hasn't made an edit since being called out a week and a half ago, this block is clearly gratuitous. If you are just trying to rack up a high score on making blocks, I assure you that this isn't how Wikipedia works. -- Kendrick7talk 22:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kendrick7: This block is done in accordance with current policy, it matters not how absent the user is, if they claim to be violating policy a block is allowed at any point in time. You may be surprised by this, but I happen to make hundred of blocks per week. I'm not sure what you're after here but I warn you to stay out of affairs that don't concern you, unless you actually find some violation of policy in my actions. This is considered WP:HOUNDING. Please review what happens to users who repeatedly do this, and just FYI it won't have to be me enforcing said actions. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just in case you actually aren't aware of the policy, please read WP:NOSHARE. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I made an effort to take this potentially productive new user under my wing,, which you can plainly see by scrolling up. I'm not WP:HOUNDING you; I simply and honestly believe that handing out gratuitous blocks like this isn't good for the long term health of the project which should actually be fostering new editors even if their heads aren't necessarily completely screwed on straight when they first arrive. By what sheer coincidence did you pick this new editor out of the hat for your banhammer; are you, perhaps, actually WP:HOUNDING me? -- Kendrick7talk 03:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I happen to be an (as much as this seems to confuse you) an administrator here. And as such it is my duty to enforce the policies that the community has put in place, regardless of your (or anyone else's) personal opinions regarding the direction this project needs to go. I once again ask you to read WP:NOSHARE, which is the policy being enforced here. If the user or users behind this account decide that they do indeed want to edit productively, I'm sure they will post an unblock request explaining their apparent violation; that point is the only time that this block's status will come into consideration. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)