User talk:Geebee2

Killing of Travis Alexander

You need to discuss major changes such as removal of reliable sources and the pagename elsewhere. We don't title articles about murders/resulting court cases as a court case. I agree with your edits re: sources like HuffPost and RadarOnline, but ABC News, the Associated Press, etc. are undisputably reliable sources. polarscribe (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News may be reliable, but it is not neutral POV.

I'm fine with articles based on court reporting published by ABCnews, but not with opinion type articles which are slanted, and have inflamatory titles. In support of my assetion that ABCnews are not neutral, they have become involved in the court case. See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032013/m5696286.pdf Geebee2 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting access to the court via legal channels does not make them "involved" in the case, any more than a member of the press who files paperwork to access a Supreme Court proceeding becomes "involved." Making requests for public records is a standard procedure for reporting. polarscribe (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, after reading through this whole sordid mess, I'm not sure it even deserves a Wikipedia article. If you were to nominate it for deletion through the Articles for Deletion process, I would support such a motion. polarscribe (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will deserve an article in due course, to document what you correctly describe as "this whole sordid mess". This is highly notable. In the mean time, the current article is not too inaccurate, and most of the assertions can be supported by references to neutral sources ( generally Associated Press reports ), or of course by references to the televised testimony. I am quite happy to help work towards this. The change of name was brought up some time ago, with no objections. The notablity of the article is based on the trial and it's coverage in the media. The death (killing) of Travis Alexander is not notable in itself. The trial certainly is. Geebee2 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your documented POV canvassing off Wikipedia shows that you do not have an appropriate NPOV view of the subject to be making major edits and changes. Please suggest your changes on the talk page before making any signfigant alterations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Killing of Travis Alexander. 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 try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Welcome

Hello, Geebee2, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to become a productive contributore. 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, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding your advocacy sites

Hello, I'm TheRedPenOfDoom. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section to the talk page. Let's discuss each of the 4 links you deleted, and the reasoning, there. Ok? Geebee2 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop building Camm's case

You need to stop building Camm's case on the article page. Advocacy is not allowed at Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. I think the article is much improved, but is stil weak in the treatment of the first trial. That's partly because thre are few news sources for the first trial, the only source is the book, and I wish to rely too much on that ( which parts to pick? ). If you feel I am showing a less than neutral point of view, please say why and make some suggestion as to how the balance might be restored by the addition of balancing material Geebee2 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Murder of Travis Alexander may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Murder of Travis Alexander. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Restore the BLP violations again and I will report you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Final warning for disruptive editing of various kinds, including BLP violations, copyvio, POV editing. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Murder of Travis Alexander may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. At this section. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You have violated this rule, any further reverts will see you reported to ANEW and most likely blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid-fire editing

For chrissake, Geebee, if you want to avoid the impression that you are editing too fast and that other editors can't keep track of what you're doing, at least do two things: (1) use the preview button more often and think twice before you press edit, so you don't need to go back over your own edits tinkering and correcting them quite so often; (2) always use informative edit summaries. That one is really really a must. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are ignoring my advice. Please don't. If you continue to edit in this style, in the face of widely shared concerns over your editing, I will block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will slow down? Which article are you referring to? How many edits am I rationed to per day? Is there somewhere I can read about this? Geebee2 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I was referring to the edits you just made at Trial by media. Of course there is no "rationing" – please don't resort to red herrings like that. It's a matter of using reasonable edit summaries (most of your edits don't have any), and of making a reasonable effort at thinking ahead while editing, so you can avoid the unnecessary minor tinkering that obfuscates your actual changes of substance and makes it difficult to keep track of what you're doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't quite see your point, I made two edits there, in different sections, since you made your request? Is that excessive? What is your expectation? Sure I did too many saves yesterday when I was building the tables there (which didn't exist before yesterday).Geebee2 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will have seen my edit to that article, and my explanation on the article talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I saw it. The trouble is (and perhaps this means the article is doomed from the start), there don't appear to be any reliable sources that give an overall history. You have reduced it to a single example ( Bill Clinton ). Not sure how you justify that particular selection, But I will leave that to you.Geebee2 (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For that I don't really need much justification--it's simply the ad-hoc result of removing the list. Any editor, including you, is free to remove it with an argument. As for "there don't appear to be any reliable sources", ten seconds with Google Books gives me this, this, this, this, and this. Anyone genuinely interested in an encyclopedic article on the topic should go there first, before perusing the newspapers and blogs. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]