User talk:Truthbtold112

Nomination of John P Brosnahan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John P Brosnahan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John P Brosnahan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Donald Albury 22:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE don't delete, I'm adding all references citations, facts- they are all true and able to be verified!!!!

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to John P Brosnahan appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 23:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 161 Grove St


The article 161 Grove St has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unremarkable crime scene

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Your addition to John P Brosnahan has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Brosnahan
You have argued on Talk:John P Brosnahan that there is more information that will come out of this event. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't base decisions about the notability of an event on outcomes that might happen. If such outcomes occur in the future, the article can be recreated from the point of view of the event's role in generating the eventual outcomes. Until such outcomes occur, this single event does not appear to pass the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:47, 29 March 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) 20:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More specifically, some of your edits changed people's votes, and you've created the impression that you're voting more than once. I've fixed the formatting problems and the multiple votes.   Acroterion   (talk)   19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page John P Brosnahan has been reverted. Your edit here to John P Brosnahan was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpsC1TFldks, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpsC1TFldks) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. 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) 19:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

-Comment-I didn't edit or delete other peoples comments, I took credit for a comment I made from a different computer because of the comment above asking me to sign all of my comments, if I did it incorrectly, I apologize. I'm not trying to break rules or cheat- I'm not trying to vote multiple times. I will continue to add references to the page to support the facts listed. I'm not trying to break or infringe Copyright laws, all of my references are credited to their sources. Thank you. Truthbtold112 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand: we don't expect you to learn all of the 10,000 rules right away (though it may seem so), and many people start out not understanding copyright policy around here.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Civility
This edit breeches the civility rule of Wikipedia. Do not make personal attacks at other editors. Also, identifying a user's real name is called outing, and is also a violation of Wikipedia rules. Either action will get you blocked. As you have been told before, Wikipedia is not a place for you to engage in your own campaign for the truth. Since the article already as the attention of several uninvolved editors, your best course of action is to just leave it alone and let cooler heads prevail. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, will leave it, hopefully there won't be additional vandalism on the page.

Conflict of interest?
Hello Truthbtold112. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article John P Brosnahan, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Since you (claimed to) have taken photos of the family and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, this implies that there is some connection between you and the family. Any time there is a relationship of any nature between an editor and the subject—family member, organization they belong to, employer, etc.—the editor must be very careful to remain neutral about the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have take public photos and posted them, nothing with copyright, nothing I personally took- the last photo was added by a family member, the one of a victim. I don't have a COI, just posting truthful information, like on the John Wayne Gacy page, there are photos of his family and early life and people related to the crimes are identified. Someone keeps removing facts in order, it's the remover with the COI. It's fine, deleting the words won't undo what happened.
 * Just because a photo is public doesn't mean it isn't under copyright. Anything someone creates is automatically copyrighted and it is up to them to waive any claims to copyright. Copyright isn't automatically waived when a photo is published in a newspaper or on the Internet. As for conflict of interest, you do have it by your own admission, and as can be seen by some of your edits which show a lack of neutrality or are unsourced or personal opinion, e.g. naming relatives who have nothing to do with what happened or claiming he was given a head start to make his escape. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources
In this edit you restored a reference citing a highly non-neutral source. This citation was removed because Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, which generally means sources that present a neutral set of facts with a proper level of editorial review. The site you cited appears to be one persons campaign to get out the word about what she sees as a great ill in the world. That's great -- the internet is the perfect platform for such people to get the public ear. But that doesn't mean that ever site on the internet can be considered a source of valid, well-thought-out and peer-reviewed reporting. That is why this citation has been removed, and will likely continue to be removed. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)