User talk:Robyn MacEachern

July 2015
Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ann Rule, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. '' Please see the article talk page as well as the embedded instructions re:editing the birth year. If you have any questions or concerns, please discuss on the article talk page. Sources vary as to the year of her birth - at this time, we are waiting for her obituary to be released by the family and/or the funeral home to confirm. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Ann Rule. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ann Rule 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 get 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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ann Rule. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.'' Last warning. You. Need. To. Stop. Now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Ann Rule's date of birth
Hi there. I'm not meaning to war against you by any means. I do believe however, that Ann Rule's daughter does in fact know her own mother's date of birth. I would not edit this page at all if I thought otherwise. I believe that Leslie's Facebook page would be enough proof of this. Thanks so much :) Robyn MacEachern (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You may not "mean" it, but that is exactly what you were/are doing, hence the warnings you received (and subsequently ignored). I have explained several times why and how we do things here regarding reliable sourcing.  A Facebook page is NOT "proof" of anything, as it is not considered a reliable source.  It would be appreciated if you would return the page to the state it was in before you started edit warring there.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe what you believe, MacEachern, and believe we'll all believe it soon. It's just plain believable. But yeah, when these disputes happen, it's best to just wait it out and discuss. If someone claims a Facebook page isn't proof of anything, shoot down their use of a Photoshop pic on another, non-family Facebook page, reasoning the authors "probably have the information from the daughter". But on the Talk Page, not the edit summaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So helpful you are. Not.  Way to encourage a new editor to continue edit warring and violating policy.  Need I remind you that we are not on a deadline? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat, it's best to just wait it out and discuss. That's not edit warring or rushing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But encouraging a new editor to return to edit warring is a solution? Because that's exactly what you've done.  Enjoy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. I think you're imagining things. If I wanted to encourage edit warring, I'd have said "But on the edit summaries, not the Talk Page".
 * You're teaching a new editor that a family member's Facebook page isn't reliable, but a local news station's Facebook page is, because they probably got the info from that same family member. That's a hell of a mixed message on reliable sources. Are you standing by it? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In your snarky tone and edit summaries. Editors like this new editor who is going on fandom rather than wanting to build encyclopedia don't need much in the encouragement department.  You've given them just what they wanted: to play two editors involved at the article against each other.  Note she went to the editor who opposed me on the article talk page rather than anyone else. Classic "I'm new and don't know what I'm doing, help me!" tugging at the sympathy strings behavior.  She wouldn't discuss on the article talk page but picked someone who would go her way.  And you enabled what she was looking for.  Do I think she's right about the age and birth year?  Yes.  But that's not the point.  The point is we go by reliable sources, period.  The reliable sources conflict.  So we wait for a better reliable source.  Leslie Rule's FB page sure as he'll isn't that.  Like I said, enjoy.  You won.  WP:IAR and all that.  Feel better? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  06:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. I was against your idea before she showed up. She's not playing me against you, I'm just playing against you. I'm a sociopath, I have no heartstrings. If you think the birth year and age are correct, and we have The Los Angeles Times (a reliable source) agreeing with you, me, her and the rest of the reliable sources, what's the problem? The reliable sources conflict with your Facebook picture and Zap2It, not each other. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding
In regard to the following left at Inedible's talk page:

"I won't edit anymore. This person is obviously on a huge power trip weilding his authority around and has had the page locked down by somebody else. I don't understand why people can't edit the page with full knowledge they are correct on an issue. He obviously had the need to be right or politically correct. I will keep my account open but I will never again attempt to edit the pages as I now see the Hell a person can get for attempting to do so. I appreciate your stepping up and attempting to see my point in the matter. I don't see how it was an issue in the first place; over an author's birth year. Good God. Never again will I try to edit a Wikipedia page."


 * No one wants you to not edit anymore. That said, if you do return to edit, there are a few things you need to realize.  First, if editors leave warnings on your talk page or comments directed at you in edit summaries, you need to pay attention.  Wikipedia is a community -- no one is really "over" another editor.  Administrators mostly clean up messes and make blocks or lock down articles where disruption is occuring.  They aren't supervisors and they don't police other editors.  When warnings are left, it's typically because policy and/or guidelines have been violated.  Yes, we have policies and guidelines that need to be followed.  A few very important ones are WP:VERIFY, WP:REF, and WP:3RR.  You violated all three, in spite of the comments left for you to read and consider and the warnings left for you to read and heed.  You bypassed them all and acted as if because you had some kind of inside knowledge, all of Wikipedia should stop and listen to you and allow your edits to stand.  Read all three of the links left above -- hopefully, you will see that isn't how Wikipedia works.


 * The page was locked because you were being completely and carelessly disruptive with your editing actions and attitude. Please see WP:DISRUPT for more.  Page-protecting an article (especially full protection) occurs when the disruption is a real problem, keeping normal and collegial editing from occurring.  Your actions and inability to understand and heed the warnings given to you were what caused the involved administrator to fully lock the article.  It's called "protection" for a reason.  I didn't ask for full protection, by the way.  Just for temporary semi-protection.  The administrator saw the situation as more dire than that.  And the reason why is because of your aggressive and continued disruption.


 * You want to know why people can't edit a page when they know they are right on content. As Mandruss stated to you on Inedible's talk page, "In a nutshell, the reason is that many people have full knowledge they are correct on an issue, and yet are incorrect. Not saying that's you, but we have to have one set of rules for all".  This is spot on.  Whether the content you added is correct or not was no longer the issue when you totally ignored what was being said to you, what notes were imbedded in article (which you kept removing, so I know you knew they were there), and that you should have followed WP:BRD and gone to the article talk page rather than edit warring.  And you were edit warring.  Do you realize how lucky you were to not receive a block as a result of the continued edit warring and disruption?  As Mandruss said, you could be correct content-wise but at the same time incorrect in your behavior.  We have rules/policies/guidelines for a reason -- and they are there for everyone.  Including you.


 * The "hell" you believe you went through was of your own making.


 * As far as your accusation of my need to be right or "politically correct" -- that's not the case at all. Further, your personal attacks left on my talk page and the comments above at the other editor's talk page are a violation of both WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.  Such behavior is taken seriously and if unchecked, can also lead to a block.  A group of us had already discussed the issue of her birth year just a few hours before you showed up.  The entire discussion was then and still is on the talk page.  The consensus we arrived at was to wait for the family's published obituary to come out because there are several reliable sources that vary as to the article subject's year of birth and age at the time of death.  This is not unusual when someone has just died.  Hence, the reason why we decided to wait for better information to be released and for what Wikipedia considers reliable sources to finally agree on those two points being disputed.  As has already been pointed out to you, a Facebook page is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes -- it doesn't matter who the Facebook page owner is (or claims to be).  Further, Wikipedia is not on a deadline.  Wikipedia is never really "finished" -- content changes all the time and over time.  Getting the exact birth year is important, but it's not the end of the world if it's not there for a day or two (or a week, for that matter).

Hopefully, after reading what I've written here and looking into the links I've provided you can better see what really was happening and why. In the future, when someone reverts your edit(s) and tells you to go to the talk page of the article to discuss, do that. It's part of the process and it's the first step to building the trust of other editors as well as doing the right thing for Wikipedia -- helping it to run smoothly and without drama. What happened at the Rule article was unnecessary drama and disruption. Neither are conducive to enjoyment in editing (for anyone) or building an encyclopedia (which is what the goal is here).

If you can return with the policies and guidelines and a pleasant editing experience for all in mind, you will have a better go at helping to build Wikipedia. If you return with the same battleground mentality and complete disregard for policy you showed last night, then things will not go well for you. I hope you try again while choosing the former over the latter. We want new editors. With the right attitude and approach, I think you could have a lot to offer.

-- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)