User talk:Truthrus33

Welcome!
Hello, Truthrus33, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Katherine Kelly Lang. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 16:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Edit warring notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Katherine Kelly Lang. 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, 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.Please read WP:BLP, particularly with regard to undue weight. While the film involved would be appropriate to include in a complete filmography for the actress, it may not be emphasized in text without reliable, independent sourcing indicating its significance in the actress's career. Your subjective belief that an actress's nude scenes require special attention is neither sufficient nor appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

KKL starred in this movie in 1996..I have cited several sources. The nudity content has been removed and it is simply a filmography credit. It is even listed on Turner Classic movies. Further removal of this career credit would be inappropriate since miss lang did star in this movie which is backed by several independent sources including IMD which other contributors used as a source for Miss lang's work And furthermore that stance is highly suspect since Hunter Tylo's page is missing half of her career credits in favor of bias based controversies.. If it is not a tabloid source..then Miss tylo's page should contain her career and charity work and not her plastic surgery allegations and lawsuits. We need to keep it real here about who we cherry pick to babysit..KKL made the movie and turner Classic movie is an independent reliable source to collaborate IMD. again to remove it is to do a disservice to Miss Lang who starred in it with Ian Ziering.

February 2014
Hello, I'm This lousy T-shirt. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Hunter Tylo because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — This lousy T-shirt —  (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok not sure why you removed it all..I have one editor telling me this isnt a tabloid site but Hunter's page reads like one..If the bottom section was a bit messy which I was coming back to work on why remove the whole edit..Im getting my information From hunter's publicists so the information is correct and listed on her site here https://www.facebook.com/OfficialHunterTylopage/info. It is hard to decide what is appropriate here or not since there seems to be different sets of rules..I am going to undo you edit and rework the content of her personal life. Otherwise her career information was taken right from Hunter's own website and charitable organization hunter's chosen child. Hunter's page has been edited to remove most of her career information in favor of restraining order tabloid stories and affairs..I was slapped on the hand today for listing a well known movie Katherine kelly lang starred in but including Hunter's actual career information gets deleted in favor of crap..and do you guys sit and guard these 24/7? And if you do why was Hunter's page allowed to be a nonsensical mess for so long? And one of the problems i had with her page is happening here..where my content is boxed in some kind of formatting that does not make sense!! Also I have submitted a request to Hunter Tylo herself..the Wikipedia page that was here was a disgrace really in comparison to her REAL accomplishments. I don't it would be fair to revert her page back to affairs, lawsuits and restraining order especially given the fact that a lot of her work was left off in favor of gossip. And the pic used here? Whoever put it up claimed it was their work? I am also getting permission from hunter for a different photo.

COPYVIO and 3RR warnings
Your addition to Hunter Tylo has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You are also continuing to edit war on this article in support of inappropriate content, this time with multiple editors. Repeated edit warring and WP:3RR violations are also likely to lead to loss of editing privileges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a lie..Katherine kelly Lang's wikopedia is from her official website and it is copyrighted also and you have not said one word in fact you seem to be guarding it for her. Every source that someone used to write Hunter's wikopedia is copyright protected and it is nothing but tabloid garbage. Most of her acting credits and modeling credits are missing in favor of tabloid trash like her restraining order against a former boyfriend and an affair on the set of All my children. Hunter's page read like a national enquirer article instead of a Wikipedia which is supposed to highlight a person's accomplishments. You have made it your mission to help trash this actresses page instead of encouraging actual acting credits and accomplishments be named. I am tired of you stalking me. I want an administrator to help. I also have sent Hunter and her publicist a note..I have known her for years as i have been a very active and supportive fan of Hunter's spanning decades. I am reverting Hunter's page back to the one that actual tells you something about Hunter other than affairs, lawsuits and restraining orders. if you have a problem with that we will get an administrator. The Bio was written by Hunter herself and can be found at several places on the net including her own site AND the IMD. Now quit stalking me and let this actress have a nice Wikipedia.
 * Since you're acknowledging that you're posting copyrighted material written by someone else to Wikipedia, you've admitted that you're violating Wikipedia copyright policy. You need to review the copyright policies mentioned above, as well as our civility policies and guidelines, especially WP:NPA, as well as WP:COI. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at Hunter Tylo. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC) This is a blatant lie about actress katherine kelly lang. This movie was noteworthy as it was her only starring role in a film and is also credited on turner classic movies which i sourced. When it was explained to me that I could not mention the controversy over the rating then i edited my inclusion of the movie to only give her the acting credit and named IMD and TCM as my sources. It is the opinion of Hullaboo that the movie was not note worthy. I am almost sure miss lang would disagree. I don't know how this Hullaboo would form the opinion that I have a strong dislike for miss lang..I did not know adding a movie credit to her bio showed dislike for the actress. I would rather think the actress would find quite the opposite! Hullabollo however seems to be the one with the intent of gardening these 2 actresses, who happen to be co workers pages. Hunter's page consisted of tabloidish material such as a restraing order against a boyfriend..her son's death and her filing a lawsuit...They gave her acting credit for All My children but was quick to point out she was fired for an affair with a co worker. There are several instances of

Tylo rumors being used instead of her actual acting credits. Her career highlights were not included in her Wikipedia..She was well Known as the pantene girl..she was voted one of people's most beautiful people twice..she starred in a hallmark movie with ann margartet she also starred in a Sci fi movie..Hunter has a degree in pre med..You wouldn't know any of that reading her page..what you would know is she had a fight with her boyfriend..she may or may not have been having an affair..Hunter has denied some of the information that was included. Hunter's publicist is in process of helping me write her Wikipedia..so there is no copyright infringment here..Hunter's bio can be found at IMD and her site Hunter's chosen child ..Wikopedia should read like a bio..thats why people read them..to learn about the actress. Hullaballo seems intent on making sure no mention of anything that could be viewed as negative appearson Miss Langs page but has no problem with Hunter's page leaving out mostof her acting credits in favor of affairs and restraining orders. She seemed to show up rather quickly to both ladies pages to undo the edits. I was told a fan of katherine kelly langs who have been known to bethe nastiest fans on the net goes by the nickname Hulaballoo on a soap message board. I dont know if true ot not and do not care. All i am trying to do is create a nice Wikipedia for miss tylo one that highlights her accomplishments and th reader learns about her as an actress! it appears Hulaballo isintent on them learning about the restraining order against a boyfriend. That is where the frusteration on my part is coming from. hunter deserves to be given her credit instead of half informative garbage and Hulaballo is intent to the point of gaurding the page to make sure that isnt going to happen. I sent Hunter and her publicist an email..I also have several people working on a more positive informative page for hunter. I would appreciate guidance from a more neutral nonfan of Kathertherine kelly lang.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who either of these two people are, but saying you are contacting a lawyer constitutes a legal threat so I have re-blocked you. I haven't checked as to the copyright in the Lang article but your inclusion of copyright material in the Tylo article was obvious. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Read again..I said Hunter's lawyers should look into it..Why is her page being reverted back to trash instead of her actual acting credits and awards and achievements..no one reading what Hullaboola and you are protecting would learn anything about hunter and what shows she has been in..Again..Who said I have broken copyright laws..Not hunter..You can even find that same info at IMD..It is all over the web..hell so are the movies. and you may not know the actresses but Hullaboola seems to definitely have a dog in this fight. Hunter tylo has the right to have a page on this site that actually reflects what she has accomplished and not fights with boyfriends. Your defense of hullaboola who it should also be obvious to you is stalking my edits regarding these actresses is unfathomable. She has lied to you and said I have a strong dislike for Miss Lang..Based on what? Am I to conclude that you, hullboola and whoever wrote hunter's wiki have a strong dislike of her since all that it consists of is barely concealed slams. Where are her movie credits? Where are her modeling credits? Where are her multitude of accomplishments? You need to read the version there now..and the version I wrote and tell me which one is an informative article on the actress and which one sounds like back handed slaps..Example..Hunter was on AMC but was fired for an affair..Really?? Katherine kelly Lang's husband got a co worker fired because she had an affair with him and it was reported in the same magazines they quoted as their source for Hunters material..But that would not be appropriate to usewould it and I am sure Hullaboola would strongly object. This Hullaboola has made it her personal mission to make sure hunter's page does not reflect Hunter's true identity..If it was a matter of being worried about copyright but wanting to do right by Hunter she had ample opportunity to step in and offer to help me and guide me. Instead she acted in an aggressive manner never giving an explanation or pointers as to what I was doing wrong and how to correct them Instead she only kept reverting without an explanation until I forced her into one. People who have the best intentions at heart offer to teach and guide. They do nt write BS lies to justify their actions such as I dont like Miss lang.

I also noticed that Hullaboola used they word "They" have a strong dislike for Miss lang.. When she uses the word They..what others is she referring too? And it makes little difference if you block me from editing because you have twisted my words. Hunter has many other fans who will be glad to write a fair true reflection of Hunter's work. and trust me, we will have permission to the material as I do now and Hullaboola will have to desperately clutch at straws to remove it! Keep me blocked I don't care but Hunter's page will be done by someone in a professional manner. The way it stands now days are numbered. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0878950/bio information by  IMDb Mini Biography By: chosenchildorg@gmail.com another independent source I used..where is the copyright infringement..there is none! IMD did not see one and again using Miss lang's page as an example the author also used IMD and a copyrighted CBS Biography..which was self promoting.

I am seeing that i should have been left a message by PamD here..I see nothing other then her apparently revising my personal words here?? Im confused and keeping screenshots!


 * The fact that Tylo's biography has been copied to IMDB and is posted all over the web does not make it OK to copy it here. As to Lang's biography it appears right now that they may have copied from here rather than the other way round.


 * The sentence beginning "I am also going to ask hunter's lawyers" indicates that you are contacting them and has a chilling effect on other editors. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh please chilling effect?? Maybe if they were not working overtime to prevent a positive page they wouldn't need to worry. I have heard from team Hunter and they will be looking into this. And the statement was..I am going to tell hunter her lawyers should look into it..Please reread! I noticed that not only did they undo my changes they also undid the positive information that the previous edit did trying to straighten out what he called a nonsensical page. It seems to me someone is working overtime to keep hunter's page a tabloid style mess. The objections to listing her career accomplishment and screen credits is beyond all reason. I have never seen such an effort frankly to exclude a woman's career in favor of a poorly written trashing of her. If someone wanted to research and learn about her..what would they take away from her Wikipedia? That she was on B&B ( not that she was also an integral part of a decade longs storyline along with katherine kelly lang) you would learn she was once on AMC however she was fired for an affair..She was offered a job on Melrose..but was fired and sued. That was what her career info amounted to. You would not learn that she was in several movies including one for Hallmark and Sci fi. That she had several guest starring roles on numerous TV shows. That she is an accomplished author and helped pave the way for legislation for equality in the workplace. That she was well known for her work as The pantene girl for Procter and Gamble..What you do learn though is she filed a restraining order against boyfriend once (who cares)). This seems odd to me that you would all work so hard to keep the trash..and bar this women's acting credits. there is no copyright infringement here as this information is widely available including the same sources whoever did Lang's did. it is a little suspect to claim KKL and CBS stole your material when you actually listed them as the source for her Wikipedia..Again I did not threaten anyone with a lawyer..I said I would suggest Hunter did. It is hullaboola after all claiming Hunter has suffered copyright infringement and that her own claims of acting credits and career were unverifiable. Im sure hunter was quite surprised to learn that her work in an assortment of shows and commercials cannot be verified even though you can find many of them on youtube. And I would think any mention of a lawyer would not chill anyone..it is you all claiming after all it is only Hunter's material you are looking out for. since you believe it is I who committed the infringement shouldn't I be the one worrying? You and hoolaboola are only protecting hunter from me vandalizing and stealing her work correct? And since that is the case we will get permission from hunter although we should be able to use any source other people use,,but we will make sure there is no infringement and then we will redo the page in a professional manner that is a true reflection of Hunter and informative in a positive way to the reader..should be no problem right?
 * You're blocked now and likely won't be unblocked unless you retract the very clear legal threat you made but I'll post this here any way in case you calm down and grasp the policies here. First, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (not "hollaboola") is likely not "protecting" any page here except to keep out unsourced content or copyvio'ed content. I doubt the editor has that much invested in any actress to do that (just a wild guess). Second, you cannot copy content from an actor's website and copy it here. Full stop. End of. I get that you want to include more content about Tylo's career but you should rewrite that content in your own words and use reliable sources (not the subject's official site, an IMDb biography or the subject's Facebook page) to source what you write. It doesn't matter what site copied what, who did it first or what some other article has or doesn't have. Just rewrite what you want to include in an encyclopedic manner - that means avoiding phrases like "accomplished equestrian", etc. and including bits of trivia about the subject liking martial arts. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. What is interesting and "cool" in regular sites usually isn't going to fly here. All that said, I have taken the time to rewrite some of the article to include a bit more about Tylo's career. It's a jumping off point and (in my opinion) better than what was there before. There's no deadline here and the page can always be updated and rewritten. None of this is as serious as you're making it to be. Lastly, alluding to conspiracies, accusing people of wrongdoing and even mentioning that you are going to "talk to a lawyer" will get you nowhere fast as you have undoubtedly discovered. No one here gets paid to edit or enforce policies and no one should have to put up with someone threatening to get lawyers involved over something that happens online, especially if no one is being bullied, threatened or harassed. Go back and seriously put this situation into perspective and then read WP:NLT. It's a policy for a good reason. Assume good faith of people unless you have solid reason to believe there is something dastardly going on. I can tell you just from looking at this situation that you don't have a solid reason because no one acted improperly. I'll also go out on a limb and guess that Ms. Tylo and her publicist have better things to do than worry about her Wikipedia page. She has children, a husband, a career, charity work and a life to lead after all. Ms. Tylo also has her own site which can provide any information a fan could want and I'm sure she's used to unfavorable things being written and said about her (though none were included in the article to begin with). If you are her friend or associate, you're not doing her any favors by acting like this situation is lawsuit or even "talk to a lawyer" worthy. 199.15.104.149 (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that Hullaballo or whatever his fake name is (I'm sure that isn't his real name) seems to have had a lot of trouble here that he pointed out was basically everyone else's fault in his "long history" of editing. He called other editors aggressive but my 2 edits I did do here he just happened to be the editor hanging out babysitting these 2 actresses Wikipedia page. I had a long response written out but reread your note to me and decided that you left the door open for this to be rewritten and changed to be more informative if done within the guidelines of using your own words and proper sourcing. My thing is what sources you allowed for lang you are not allowing for Hunter. I noticed in Miss lang's an opinion of a soap opera magazine was included and worded as fact. I's things like that, that makes it appear there is a bias..one set of rules applied here..one set of rules applied there. If the rules are not applied consistently you will continue to have these battles. Hullaboola though seemed much more interested in protecting the KKL page then he did the Tylo page. That is my problem and then when I told him I was requesting an admin he flew here to start bawling and I was banned before i got to present MY side and i was the one that told him I was going to an admin. Trust me, he is the aggressive one and strikes me as someone who feels they have been given a smidgen of power and they want to Lord it over people. Mark my word they will be continuous problems involving him. An experienced editor would not follow a a person around looking for every reason in the world to undo an edit..power freaks do that..an experienced well meaning editor would have guided me and offered help..period. It was more important to him to bully,cry and flex his muscles and that is pathetic. I did not threaten to talk to a lawyer..I stated hunter's lawyers should know. It is YOU after all claiming, that I have committed copyright infringement off her. Correct?? An illegal crime was committed against her in your opinion yes?? I will go ahead and remove it, but you are greatly over exaggerating and assigning false motives. Lawsuit worthy?? Where did I say that? My response concerning that was in regards to material being edited out by Wikipedia because of copyright infringement,,I think that would be important to them to know and decide if i had. I am having someone else do the page within your guide lines. I would like a way it could be submitted before hand for approval. That would avoid an edit war and ensure that no controversy arise from the new writing. The guidelines though about sourcing seem to be though..one set of rules here..one set of rules there. If you allow Lang's page to use a source such as CBS Bio then we should be allowed to use it. I did inform Team Hunter and I believe in my opinion that hunter would want a fair and accurate encyclopedia page in favor of a tabloid page. You state she has better things to do then worry about this but to me that is just belittling Wikipedia as non important or relevant. But anyway..we will make sure it is in our own words and within guideline. Sally Fields has a nice one and maybe we can use that as a guideline. Anyway if there is any possible way to submit it for prior approval i would appreciate that way we avoid problems and clear up problems before they get put up on the site. By the way..You do realize that the source used for the Restraining order information was taken from soap central an internet message board ??I would not exactly call them a more reliable source than Hunter Tylo herself. The information was taken from a post at Soap Central and used here as a source. For as nit picky as you all are getting over her acting credits be unverifiable (even though they exist on DVD's) I would think taking a post from soap central and calling that a good verifiable post is a crock and the reason we are having issues here. So much time and concern you have put into Tylo's page it seems important to you that copyright infringement is you up most important concern here, however what permission do you have from the person who posted that at soap central? Even if the facts are indisputable concerning the restraining order ! I have been told here source matters and so does copyright infringement. Like I stated before, it does seem like great effort is being taken to include negative information and great effort is being taken to exclude informative information. The story about the fight with the boyfriend is really not what i would call notable..It seems to be thrown in there as a negative as it really does not tell the reader why this would be an important ting to learn from an "encyclopedia" For example KKLang's husband gave an interview claiming he had a co worker fired of lang's (Sean Kannan) because they had an affair. This is in print and has been discussed on soap central..would you feel that it would be an appropriate item to include on her page?? There are news articles where KKLang went to court and had a restraining order put on her ex husband..would that be just as noteworthy as Hunter's tid bit? So before we start claiming I am making a big deal over nothing please look at how the rules are being applied. Are we free to update lang's to include that restraining order against her husband? Are we free under personal Life to include a story from message boards and newspaper that kkLang's son is a gay internet pron star?? If not why? Why is it you feel Hunter's one indecent with a boyfriend in note worthy but KKlang filing one against her husband isn't?? Why is a message board post more reliable then the IMD or Hunter's own Biography? KKL's own CBS bio was used on hers..Hunter has a Bio on CBS also stating all the same facts as her bio on her very own facebook and charity site. Here in lies my problem with all you and where the accusations of bias are coming from. Hullaboola thinks one restraining order is noteworthy but KKL's one and only starring rle in a film is not noteworthy?? Thats the problem..You are using judgment calls instead of rules. I feel the movie would be the most noteworthy because it was something she starred in..the restraining order is a piece of personal business sourced from a message board. So we need to clearly get on the same page here as to rules..and judgment calls ..I get your criticism of copy and paste and plead guilty because of struggling with construction. I do not get your claims that hunter's biography is not reliable but Soap central message board is..or posting someone's elses information from a post there is NOT copyright infringement but sourcing the IMD for movie credits is..especially considering their are thousands of Wiki pages on here sourcing the IMD..lets apply the rules equal..and shy away from judgment calls such as something not being noteworthy as a removal for removing and we will have a better understanding of what you are looking for. we are trying to write this such as sally Fields but that page used sources you block us from using!

By the way..Do you know your information about Hunter's family is even wrong?? or were you guys so quick to make sure her page was reverted back to BS that you never even fact checked it or looked at the sources that were actually used. And did you know there is no copyright infringement when you make footnotes to the source? It is done in college essay papers all the time. It is only copyright infringement when you use the material and do not footnote where it came from. If that was not so you would need written permission from every source you use here! I committed NO copy infringement! I clearly sourced hunter's official site and charity and IMD. You let a source be used from a message board post who sourced his information to TMZ..You used a source with third and forth hand information. You may have given credit to the person on the message board for his post..but o credit was given to where he took the information. Which then leads one to believe a deliberate attempt has been made here to block Hunter's page from being revised. You have claimed I am making a big deal out of it but it was i who wanted nothing but to make her a nice page,,It is you throwing everything up against a wall to see what sticks with false copyright infringement claims in an attempt to discredit me and keep me blocked.

WP:AN
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Truthrus33". Thank you. --CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And to whom it may concern reading this or my talk page..I did not make a threat..I was told I broke Copyright laws which i did not..I said hunter tylo's lawyers needed to look into that..meaning I had been blocked and accused of breaking the law that wronged Hunter tylo..It was sarcasm as in..I will tell them to look into that..meaning my alleged crime!

There is not copyright infringement when you give credit to your source. It is how every college essay in the world is wrote using information from every source known to mankind..You give credit to the source of the information so the reader can then check out the actual sources information to see if it was cited correctly.

Secondly Sources were used on Hunter Tylo's page from a Soap Opera message board. They would not allow me to use IMD which is used in thousands of profiles on Wikipedia but they allowed a gossip item from a message board to be used, where the poster credited yet another source for their information. Hullaballo and company seem to have nit picked this to death in an attempt for the page to be edited to include more of Miss Tylo's acting credits and less gossip from dubious sources.

Having said that, it matters not to me if you unblock me for whatever reason. I asked for help and pointers toward the goal of making Hunter tylo an informative page about the actresses career. Not only were they unwilling to guide a new editor they also have twisted my words. I didn't ask to be unblocked as someone else will be redoing the page. What i asked for was an administrator to proof read the finished product to ensure it was done properly and within the rules so we could avoid problems updating miss tylo's page. I nether got an answer nor an offer to guide through the process. I do feel great effort was taken by Hullaballo toblock any edits. They appeared to undo a addition to one actresses page claiming had astrong dislike for the actress based on my wanting to include a movie she starred in. I had cited that the movie had a controversial rating and she claimed i could not state that. So i removed it put it back up without the comment and she removed it again claiming the movie was not noteworthy which could not be farther from the truth. I put it back up again and cited Turner classic movie as the source and she finely left it alone but complained to an Admin about adding it..why?Then when i went to update hunter's page the same editor undid not only my revisions but a editor's revisions who had stated the page was basically a mess and they added a few positive career credits..Those were removed also even though they were not my revisions but were done a couple months ago. I find it quite bizarre that of all the editors here at Wikipedia the same one would show up within minutes of my edits to undo them on two actresses from the same show. On one page she undid anything that could be seen as a negative, and one to undo anything that could be viewed as a positive in favor a one indecent restraining order story sourced from a soap opera board. I do agree however with the Admin that gave instruction that my edit sounded too copy and paste. Agreed and that is why i sought out a better writer to help collaborate with me. What i disagree with is being told I committed copyright infringement by citing IMD Hunter's own bio and cbs bio. Hunter's page was sourced for some of the information that was here long before i came along. If it was copyright infringement then everyone on Wikipedia is guilty of it. I objected to the vagueness of the rules and the different application of them based on Hullaboola apparently monitoring those two pages. I do not care about reinstatement..what I care about is Hunter's page being fair and informative so when people google her they get information that would matter to them. when i use Wikipedia Im usually looking up to see if they were in a particular movie i was trying to recall. I could care less if once in their life they filed a restraining order against a boyfriend. But the 2 editors fighting my revisions apparently do not agree. End goal..Nice page for Hunter..I wont be writing it..but I will be helping collect information for sourcing and I am trying to get on the same page that we get to follow the same rules as everyone else. Asfar as the block..It does not matter lifted or not.It is not a huge deal to me.

Signing posts, etc
Two points. One is please sign your talk page posts with ~ so that we know who is writing. The other is please read WP:TLDR. Posts that are very long blocks of text are likely to not be read very thoroughly. Posts that are brief and to the point have more chance of being read closely. Thank you. Peridon (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

How does 20:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC) identify me?? I saw this and was confused. And longs blocks of text not being read thoroughly is the fault of the reader not the writer. However I get your point, and Know you are just giving me a pointer. This is why I have asked for help in re doing Hunter's page, from someone better with writing. I'm a math girl. We are in process of writing a new page for hunter staying within guidelines. As someone pointed out earlier, there is plenty of time to do it.

More confused..testing truthrus33 Truthrus33 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

AHHHH!!! LOL truthrus33 Truthrus33 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)