User talk:Clent225

November 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Texarkana Moonlight Murders, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Per WP:BRD you should have discussed this on the talk page after I undid your edit the first time. You have given no sources for anything you have added. I can see that the book really has been published, but the rest of your material is suspect. It needs to be neutral, and verifiable. It's hard to believe that the powers that be are saying that there will be a board of enquiry to lay the blame in this 70 year old case based solely on the contents of this book, Meters (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you undo your latest addition of this material and discuss this on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am the starter and primary author to this article. I have already addressed this in the lead. It does not need to be under the complications. If you keep editing this page I will have you blocked from editing it. JeremeK (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Everything I posted is accurate to a T. The new book introduces evidence not previously published and it ties the murders to Swinney. The TV interview is public information and is accurately stated. I am personally privy to conversations about the Board of Inquiry that Mr. Glen Owens stated about in his interviews with KLRT-TV.

These facts are not addressed in previous version. The public has a right to know this new information and the processes that are at work. Therefore I see no reason to not publish each detail in my posting. Clent225 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've started the discussion on the article's talk page. See the many problems I have listed there. Again, I suggest you remove your addition until this has been discussed. Meters (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

edit warring infraction

I have stated truths of which the public should be informed. I have stated references to those you requested. It is improper for you to remove the additions by deletion. I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring as information. Just because the new information does not meet your criteria is no excuse for deletion.

Your recent editing history at Texarkana Moonlight Murders‎ 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've closed your report and protected the page from editing for a week so that you can address the concerns raised about your edits on the article's talk page. Please note that any future reversions to re-add your material will result in an immediate block unless you have obtained a consensus to make your edits. Kuru (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Prohibiting the public's right to know

It is against the public's right to remove content showing that there are people who intend to pursue a Board of Inquiry regarding the Phantom Killer. Your addition does nothing to properly inform people on what is going on. Just because you do not believe that a BOI is warranted does not make the issue go away. Criminal Profiler and retired law enforcement office Glen Owens, a retired local Texas DPS officer, a justice of the peace, and several others are in discussion about carrying out a BOI. Your efforts deny the public to know this.

Dr. Presley is a documented expert whether you like it or not. Several online reviews have so stated. He is a Professor of History, a proven journalist, and well known for his objectivity in the issues he researches. It is important that you relent from trying to control this forum. Wikipedia does not want mirror sites, so this site is to carry the information for now. You nor I now own this site, and the public has a right to know. It is important that you relent and see the published information left intact. If you want to discuss some wording, I'm all ears.

If you want someone to get a message, you need to leave it on their talk page, not yours. If you have something to say about an article, say it on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Texarkana_Moonlight_Murders), not yours. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to "right great wrongs" from. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Clent225, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Clent225! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)