User talk:Bethana24

I have asked another user to take a look at your edits at Dana Ewell. Your edits imply that Dana had no or a very small part in his families murder while all true evidence and articles points towards the total opposit. Also making unsourced accusations about another persons guilt or not guilt in a Wikipedia article is to be avoided. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not make a major rewrite of an article without discussing it, and reaching consensus, on the talk page of the article first. Your rewrite of the article seems to violate Wikipedia's rules about a neutral-point-of-view, and also introduced errors such as claiming in the infobox that Dana Ewell has been convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, when the sources clearly say that the conviction was for three cases of first-degree murder, a conviction that was upheld/confirmed in higher courts. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bethana24, I would suggest you reading through the guidelines and other articles to see how a Wikipedia article is written. If you continue with your current editing style I will have to report you to an admin. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest taking our advice to heart. You edits was POV and not Wikipedia standard otherwise they wouldnt have been reverted. You are more than welcome to edit the article if you follow Wikipedia guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly your behaviour will soon lead to you being blocked. So please behave. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don' think my last message saved? This is so confusing. I was trying to respond to you but I couldn't figure out how. I'm new to all this. Anyway, thanks for your guidelines recommendations. I didn't realize there were guidelines other than presenting facts about a topic and correcting errors when found. How do you correct false information? Wow. It took me 8 hours to research and gather all of that information and present it in a more neutral way. And then it all got undone. That was disheartening. The articles are actually very one-sided and not neutral at all. So even if the sources are not accurate, the articles on Wikipedia still have to be neutral? Actually, many of those sources showed things that were left out and not neutrally discussed on this topic. I don't think those should be deleted? Some of the previous claims made were opinion and not even in the sources cited. How do you correct the false information then? Thanks.Bethana24 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Bethana24[reply]

You start by discussing it on the talk page of the article, as I wrote above, and then reach consensus, which can best be described as an agreement between the editors who are active on an article about what should be in the article, and why. But before doing that I suggest you read Wikipedia's rules about neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable sources and consensus, which will give you a good insight into how things are done here. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bethana24, I do not want to "pick on you" but you talk about neutrality and the article being one-sided. But it was your edits that made it become just that. Otherwise your edits would not had been reverted. I want you to really read through the guidelines before doing more edits. But I fear you have a certain view of the case that will cloud your editing, I hope I am wrong so please edit again soon :). Happy editing. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict with Thomas) Hi, Bethana. I do understand that you're new, and I don't want to prevent you from editing, but propriety in articles about living people is taken very seriously here. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for such articles, especially Neutral point of view and Biographies of living people.

Also, please read our conflict of interest policy. Do you have any connection to or special interest in the subject of the article Dana Ewell? You're not obliged to disclose it if you have, but it would be helpful. Please reply to me here on this page, below my post. Meanwhile, I have semiprotected the Dana Ewell article (this means you won't be able to edit it), because I definitely think you need to engage in detailed discussion of the changes you want to make, and the sources for them, before editing the article again. Bring up one concrete thing at a time, please, rather than general complaints about one-sidedness. And please share your research with us! The best place for discussion is the article talkpage, but if you're more comfortable on this page (your own), that'll work too, at least to start with. The page protection will expire in three days, and I'm also agreeable to removing it sooner, if you come to an agreement about changes with Thomas and Babba (who are both experienced editors) and anyone else who may want to help. Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, thank you all for the help. Here's the first thing (since you suggested to do one thing at a time).

"Ewell's furious reaction to being cut off (right before the murders) and his lack of grief over his family's deaths led to his uncles informing the investigators about the possibility that Dana was behind the murders." - That statement has 2 references after it, but neither reference says that he was furious. The latter mentions that his uncles said he was upset. In actuality, he had no reaction at all but the uncles made all that up. That reference article was written in 2013, as you can see, and was based more off of the TV spots that dramatized everything for publicity. That claim by the uncles didn't even occur until years after his trial. Is there a way that we can write it to make it more of a "later claim of the uncle that he was upset", which is what really happened. And I still believe that this article on the whole was already one-sided. I apologize if my rewrite made it too one-sided on the other side of the coin, but is there a way that we can actually balance it out to make it more neutral? As in, what they claimed happened and then what Dana claimed? There was never any actual proof that Dana committed the murders, if you read the references - they never say that there was proof. It was actually based solely on the testimony of Ponce and his claims. I feel that to make the article more neutral, it should also be included that the trial's only real witness was Ponce, whom the jury highly distrusted and deemed a liar and a suspect. Or the fact that Dana claimed he was innocent and that the claims were ridiculous. Or the fact that they didn't even allow him to testify or be tried alone. Or the fact that he offered a $50,000 reward for the killer's capture. I think it would make it more fair to present a little of both sides. Instead of just focusing on how the publicity of the trial centered around making him the villain. Whether he is innocent or guilty, I feel that both sides should be presented a little more equally.

Any help or guidance will be appreciated. Thank you so much for your time. Bethana24 (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Bethana24[reply]

OK, I'll leave the content issues to others and stick to acting as an uninvolved admin here. Bethana, do you have any connection to or special interest in the subject of the article Dana Ewell? You're not obliged to disclose it if you have, but I wish you'd respond to my question in some way, otherwise you leave me in doubt as to whether you're deliberately ignoring it, or merely missed it. "I saw your question and don't wish to reply" will do fine, for instance. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bethana24! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]