Welcome!

Hello, Beaconmike, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Calmer Waters 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, welcome to Wikipedia. If you wish to thank someone for helping you, you can leave a message on their talk page, much I have done here. If you have questions about how to do something, experienced editors are generally very happy to help. Just post a question on their talk page. You can also post a question on Wikipedia:Help desk as you did earlier. You can also put {{help}} or {{helpme}} on your personal talk page. --Dan Dassow (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remove facts from the article that I do not like as you suggest. I may remove 'facts' that do not agree with the Historical record, which you are free to dispute with me. Any edits that I have inserted are not considered plagiarism, as they are all footnoted correctly and attributed to the authors. In the event that I have inserted information that I did not attribute correctly, just advise me as to which ones they are and I will foot-note it at once. Your opinions regarding that I have inserted quoted information that sounds "ridiculous, flowery, and sugary and reads like a high school history paper" has been discussed on this very talk page with an administrator. I did not write those words that you are critical of. I inserted a quote that goes to the character of the singluar key witness in the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, Sanford Clark. Those exact words that were quoted were required, as many believed that Sanford Clark,is an accomplice to the murders, versus an unwilling participant. That quote was inserted to help those whom were critical of Sanford Clark to better understand how the State of California viewed Sanford Clark and their interpretation of him. There was a reason that Sanford Clark was not prosecuted by the State of California, and that quote simplified the State's perspective on a maligned Sanford Clark. Administrators on this page, have reviewed the information and let it stay on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders page without edit changes. I am satisfied that they understood why the quote was inserted. I am sorry that you do not understand the meaning and the context of the quote and why it stands. I don't expect anyone to "run things by me" as they edit the article. I will challenge any edits that do not agree with the Historical record though. The talk page that you claim I have ruined, is exactly created for the purpose of discussing (off of the article page), differing opinions. My opinions line up with the historical record and the Cecilia Rasmussen articles that I dissected, while you may disagree with my findings, do shred her two articles to pieces. Cecilia had no idea that years later a film and 2 books would be published that debunk her theories in her articles. She wrote based upon flimsy information that has now been replaced by historically accurate findings. If you disagree, please write your own possibilities on the talk page and we can discuss them at length. Feel free to revert anything of mine you wish to. If you have information that is different than the historical record, please bring it forward. I for one, would love to hear of any new information presented. I do wish you would quit shrieking when you write. All you have to do is to ask and I am happy to accomodate back up any statements that I have made. Beaconmike (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a note here regarding the page Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and 23 edits that have been placed from the dates of August 6th, 2012 through August 12th, 2012 by user 76.21.120.70 I have written a note on that users talk page to please provide footnotes and any relevant sources for the edits that have taken place, with no response in over 2 weeks. Also an administrator has already flagged the edits in question, asking the user to provide factual data to support the claims being made, with no response either. I do not want to get into a edit war with this person over their claims and changes that they have made, but unless they can provide source documentation, their claims are false in certain edits that they created. That is why I am asking for an administrator to become involved in this particular case. I am an expert in the differences between the film 'Changeling' and the historical matters of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I have edited and re-edited the page over a few years time so that it accurately and correctly represents the truth of the Wineville case, as reflected by the State of California in their prosecutions and convictions of subjects in this case. I have personally spoken with the Riverside Historical Society and author James Jeffrey Paul, 'Nothing is Strange with You' (of the Gold Standard book regarding the Wineville murders). There is much that I would like to visit with an administrator about, what edits need to be removed and why, according to the historical record in this matter. Unfortunately, many people whom saw the film 'Changeling' came to believe that the film was a documentary on the Wineville Chicken Murders and nothing could be further from the truth. The film was the film and the Wineville Murders were a different subject, although much of the film was taken in part from the facts of the Wineville Murders, but Hollywood license was added to the film for dramataic purposes. Most of my edits in the past 2 years on this page, have been to prevent the people who saw the film from posting (what they believe from the film) were facts in the actual Murder case at Wineville. My comments to you will be regarding the same thing that keeps happening in this page. It is the most controversial in nature, as created by the screen-writer for dramatic purposes, but the testimony of the trial in 1928 and the murder convictions from the State of California, tell us the real truth of the matter, which needs to be re-inserted. Let's make contact, and I will continue my discussion on why certain edits need to take place with the support of an administrator, versus, he said, she said. Beaconmike (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm not an administrator, but it may be better to request help for this type of situation at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Most administrators check that much more often than for admin help templates. This way you can also get numerous admins' opinions and the discussion on it will be in a centralized location. If you do decide to post a request there, please change {{admin help}} to "<nowiki>{{admin help}}</nowiki>"  Joe  ₪  18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This request for assistance is now being addressed at AIV. Accordingly, I've removed the help template here. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 20:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Talk:Wineville Chicken Coop Murders has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beaconmike, are you disputing all of their additions? I can restore the revision of the article from before they began editing and that may be simplest. The onus is on them to provide citations once challenged and they have not done this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to the nuances of how to respond. Should I respond to your question here on this talk page, or go to your talk page and respond? I will leave it here and see what happens regarding your response back to me.

I only object to certain edits, but your idea is the simplest...........to simply edit the page back to where it was prior to that editor making the changes. That would certainly provide me with the simplest and most complete solution. I like your recommendation and that would solve my concerns.

I have a question for you.

I strongly believe that once that editor sees that their edits have been removed, that they will come back and attempt to restore those edits. I monitor the page 'Wineville Chicken Coop Murders' on an almost daily basis. I have an incredibly strong passion (too long to explain to you here) for this page being Historically correct, and that the page consistently reflect the historical record as rendered by the State of California in 1928. If the editor comes back and attempts to re-store their edits; would Wiki prefer that I simply restore the edits to what the Historical record reflects, (which would probably start the back and forth dreaded "edit-war", which I am vainly attempting to avoid at all costs), or would Wiki prefer that I (as I have done here) get administrators involved in restoring any future edits to reflect the Historical record?

Just noticed that an administrator(s) has reverted all edits I was concerned about back to the way that the page was originally. Complaint resolved. Thank-You too any and all administrators involved in helping me to resolve this situation.

It has been reverted although it wasn't me. With regards to your question above, if an editor returns and attempts to impose uncited edits which have been challenged, then that is edit-warring. They will need to discuss that with other editors. You should revert them once, possibly twice but beyond that, you should get help. To report 3RR violations and other forms of edit-warring then report them at the edit-warring noticeboard.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beaconmike, I have restored the threads that you removed from the talk page. Please do not remove them; we keep them as a record and later archive. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]