User talk:OnlyJustTheFacts

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Fade In has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://kidsisinhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/07/fade-in-magazines-allegedly-non-paying.html, http://payupfadeout.blogspot.com/, http://rockyworldstudios.blogspot.com/2008/12/fade-in-magazine.html). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

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 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) 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content warning

Please do not upload unsourced material onto wikipedia, as you did here [1]. Wikipedia articles must be properly sourced. Dayewalker (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I have reported you as a vandal for recreating this page as an attack page. Please revert your edit, and take your discussion to the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the facts and supported by Case Numbers.

It's a violation of our neutral point of view and biographies of living persons guidelines. Do not revert the article again, or you will be blocked. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, SUPPORTED BY FACTS and CITED BY LEGAL CASE NUMBERS

No, bringing a claim into court does not equate to a reference - the case might be thrown out. Only a conviction would quantify a complaint. Oh, and Tony blocked you for 31 hours - I was going to block you indefinitely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring, let me try to explain the problem here. Your addition to the article is not neutral; it attacks the person in question, on an article that is not about that person, but is about the magazine. It is not based in reliable sources; while you may have provided case numbers, court dockets are not really a reliable source, as the case documents must be interpreted by someone to be used as a reference, and are thus a problem due to that being original research. Plus, there is the case that your edits are a violation of the biographies of living persons guidelines. If you have valid reliable sources that discuss the magazine - and these do not include the ones noted by the bot that reverted your edits above - then you may wish to discuss them on the article's talk page, but do not, when you're unblocked, continue to add the violations that you have been using thus far, or you will quite likely be blocked permanently. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]