User talk:Theinsidefacts

Welcome!

Hello, Theinsidefacts, and

welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Death of Shane Todd does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV)

. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Zhanzhao (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

June 2013

novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Death of Shane Todd. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Zhanzhao (talk

) 14:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I need to edit your comment "The Todds also appeared to have been caught out in an apparent untruth" - this is your assumption and not based on source material. Either you change it or I will. Theinsidefacts (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theinsidefacts, would you please state your relationship to Shane Todd? Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theinsidefacts (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I have no relationship to Shane Todd[reply]

I only just realized now you posted a comment to my post above. I suspect your opinion of me got colored somewhat by that line above which you though I wrote. Just to clarify, the person who posted that ""The Todds also appeared to have been caught out in an apparent untruth"" line on Death of Shane Todd was Rightsandwrongs, not me, as can be seen by the diffs here [[1]]. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies toZhanzhao Theinsidefacts (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Self-Published Sources on Death of Shane Todd

Hi there, I have reverted some of your edits on said article as you were using what basically looks like something you uploaded yourself as a reference/sources. As per

WP:SPS, this is generally not allowed as there is no way to verify the reliablility of he information; or else anyone can simply type something up, upload it,p then claim it as a reliable source. However, if another reliable third party news source were to use said info in their reports. I see that you say you have no relation to the Todd family, so I would assume that you picked up this link from somewhere else. If you could provide the source, that might be a better alternative, though that still subject to wiki policy. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Your assumption is incorrect. This is an independant report in the public domain. Under WP policy there is no requirement for a source to be referenced specifically by a news agency. The source is quite clearly the author of the report and that has been cited. You were therefore incorrect to revise the edits and that is a violation itself of WP policy. Theinsidefacts (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but the links provided, especially the first, does not seem to be an independent report, but rather a correspondence between the doctor and someone else. Would have been EXTREMELY unprofessional for the doctor to have included his personal correspondence and missed that out when uploading his report to public domain. It also seems to have been edited, as I see nowhere in the document identifying the 2nd party the doctor is addressing, meaning this has been edited. That's precisely the reason why Self-published documents are not allowed, because there's no way to verify the authenticity and the originality of the document. There's a thread on the talk page of the Todd article, lets bring the discussion there so that other editors can weigh in. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Here. Thank you.