User talk:Jfaia

Welcome!

 * }

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sante Kimes has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://santekimes.webs.com/. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia guideline: Official links

"An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[4] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template is optional.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline, e.g., Links to consider #4."--Jfaia (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: XlinkBot is a wp:Bot, a software program that automatically reverts links to certain sites. It can't read the response you made.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/WPUCU1 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sante Kimes
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sante Kimes. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide a link to the campaign of a convicted criminal to "game the system" for their benefit when there is no dsicernable public concern over the justness of the conviction, and no notice of a public controversy in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, and your organization has no right to have a link present in the article -- but even if it did, there is no justification for your editwarring to put the link in the article.  You must instead discuss it on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia guideline: Official links "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[4] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template [http:// Official website] is optional.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline --Jfaia (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Request
Given the situation, we'll need some independent verification that this really is her own official web site. This site looks a lot like a fake, and there have been a surprising number of users lately trying to make some very strange edits related to Kimes, so we're being extra-careful to verify the accuracy of information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you verify that the site isn't legitimate, it should remain.--Jfaia (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't how it works- you need to find the newspaper articles that reference it, and verify that it is legit. How on earth would one verify that it isn't legitimate?  Newspapers don't write articles with headlines like 'Some guy made a fake web site.'  But if this site is the real official web site, at least some of the news coverage will be mentioning it, so it'll be easy for you to confirm.  I know you wouldn't want the embarrassment of accidentally adding a bad link. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How ridiculous, newspapers do not write articles about new websites.

Sante Kimes' page lists Bedford Hills Correctional Facility as where she is located. Write a letter to her and ask her if it's her official website--Jfaia (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine why her official web site would be new. She's been in prison for a decade.  And if it were new, how would you have heard about it?  No, it must be at least ten years old, so the newspapers will have mentioned it.  If a high-profile murderer found a way to start a new web site from prison, that would definitely be news, so if you're right, just watch the newspapers the next few days, and I'm sure there'll be at least a blurb.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Where does it cite this website is "new"? Please state fact. --Jfaia (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. If it's important, I'm sure the necessary verification will appear eventually.  Wikipedia is planning to be around for a long time, and there's no deadline. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for obvious sockpuppet of User:Sktruth, with no reason for editing Wikipedia other than pushing a point of view. I let it go for a bit, but it's becoming annoyingly disruptive. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)