User talk:Whyohwhy

Welcome!

Hello, Whyohwhy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Your edits to Coyote Shivers

Personally, I have no strong views on whether the Fox news report should be included or not. The fact that a police report has been made is a fact; however a police report is a one-sided allegation and is much less useful as a reliable source than a judgement (or a restraining order resulting from the report, for example). Likewise the two ex-wives told tales to a reporter; this is a fact. However the tales have not been specifically verified in the way that other statements reported as "news" generally are.

However, I must warn you about your conduct. First, edit warring without discussing content on the talk page is discouraged; you are prevented from making more than 3 reverts in any 24 hour period and I will block you for violating the 3 revert rule if neccessary. Second, the use of inflammatory personal attacks ("stalker") in your edit summaries is strictly prohibited by the no personal attacks policy, and it is tedious and time consuming to remove them. I will block without warning the next time any user inserts personal attacks into the edit summaries (and this goes for the use of the word "liar" by the other side as well). If you have a dispute about the content there are various methods of resolution, including negotiation, mediation, third opinion, and request for outside comment, available through the dispute resolution process. Edit warring through blanket reverting is not a valid editing method and may result in blocking. Thank you. Thatcher131 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word stalker was not meant as an attack but a matter of fact. If you wish I will provide references privately to you but not on a public forum. However, if that statement of fact appears to be an attack by others, I will heed your wish and not mention that particular fact. On the contrary, I would note, there is no proof of the "police report" you speak of at all. As for allegations, there is no room for all the allegations in many instances, this being a prime example. To include them all would see this quickly turned into a gossip messageboard with allegations fflying back and forth filling many pages on many sides. The facts are all that matters. Again I quote "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." The referenced "article" was written by one of the parties best friend, and is CLEARLY labeled at the top of the page "Celebrity Gossip." As is with any subject with disputed facts, it is not an encyclopedia's place to print each and every wild rumor or accusation, only to publish facts after the dispute is settled, and certainly so when living people are involved.

Look at the talk page for Coyote Shivers. Ckessler 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked: I have blocked you for 48 hours for leaving personal attacks in the edit summaries at Coyote Shivers after I warned you not to. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Leave your off-wiki business off wiki, please. Thatcher131 16:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my response to you I explained to you that what you were referring to was NOT a personal attack, but a matter of legal fact, and offered to send you documented verification in a non-public manner. And further, EVEN having said that, I also said that I would refrain from including those documented facts if for some strange reason you didn't think those like those particular facts. So I cannot possibly understand your stance, having been offered proof you are mistaken and ALSO deferring to your whim of not including said facts.

For the record, I also very much agree this is not the place for personal wars, which WAS MY POINT FROM THE BEGINNING. I'm trying not to be insulting here, but to come around to my original point of view and then claim the higher moral ground is absurd.

Also for the record, you recently edited claiming it was from "Shivers' point of view" but the FACT that he left both wives and filed for divorce is a matter of public record and is also verified in Ms. Buell's own autobiography, as suspect as that may be, so I can't imagine where the discrepancy comes in. I am his neighbor, so if you need any documentation sent to you I will do so, but only privately, as Mr. Shivers' is very much against humiliating anyone publicly.