Motthoop

Welcome...

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

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username 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 ask your question there.  Again, welcome! Sweet xx^Talk 11:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maria McKee

You made a few statements in this save summary removed copyrighted image. Maria McKee herself expressed that the photo should be removed and replaced on her Facebook page. Let's deal with them one at a time.

1. The image is copyrighted, but was reviewed and found to be acceptable for use on Wikipedia. If you, or anyone, have an issue with the legality of its use, the correct place to voice that concern is at the image, not on the page of articles using the image.
2. I assume that the second sentence means that Maria McKee commented on her Facebook page that she would like the image to be removed. I just checked bother her personal page and one of her fan pages and see no recent comment to that effect. Could you point-out where that comment is?
3. If she requested that it should be replaced, does she have a replacement image?

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

December 2016

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Keddie murders , but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Keddie murders.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Silverfish (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Keddie murders. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --GouramiWatcher^Talk 17:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Motthoop reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I am closing this report with no action. While screaming FUCK OFF in caps generally isn't a good idea, you are right that removing unsourced or poorly sourced information connected to living people (and assume that the surviving members of the Keddie community are all still alive and hoping for eventual justice) is acceptable via the exemptions to edit-warring. Have a beer or three and chill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Motthoop: I'm sorry I had to go to the noticeboard over you, and I'm glad Ritchie333 gave you the result you deserved  ;) the problem was, though, at the time, that it seemed difficult to talk to you (exotic edit-summaries notwithstanding!), or even to edit the article properly when you kept reverting everyone. Anyway- that's not important right now. I apologise to you for the edit-warring report. Now- moving on. I'm going to remove a couple of the most contentious aspects of the article, and then, can we leave it until an admin has a chance to cast an eye over it for anything else that needs to be done. You are right though- it's a rotten article. But- you now how it is- we've got our own ways of dealing with these problems. We might be slowm but we're sure! Great username, by the way  :) Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Keddie murders— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Keddie murders. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Waddie96 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Keddie murders, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Keddie murders seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 09:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Keddie murders has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 09:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Keddie murders. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lupin VII (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the reversal of my edit was, I believe, in fact the wrong decision. At the time, you only mentioned that my edit 'seemed less than neutral', which is simply not the case. I've been working LE's chief investigator in the case, Mike Gamberg, since 2014 and, outside of LE, I'm the reigning expert on the case by miles. When I air opinion, which is rare, I try to make it abundantly clear it is mere opinion. However, the facts are out there for people to find, which is why it pains me to see so many editing the article to include fiction posing as fact and using discredited authors and other equally-disproven sources.

As such I've only corrected errors in fact. Opinion does not compete with proven fact. As nobody was specific about what errors I made in the summary but made no mention of anything being wrong with the actual changes I'd made, I will again restore my version but will go in and try to see/change what may have flagged the changes for clear displeasure. As I recall, I did my best to explain who I am and how I know what I know and why some of the sourced writers I flagged as pulp-fiction merchants.

Thanks for the tip on sandbox! I completely fogot wiki offers that, but I very rarely visit the site, much less edit.Motthoop (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)motthoop aka dmac

OK, I've spent the last few hours redoing all the edits. None of them can be considered superfluous if you're familiar enough with the case.My edits certainly cannot reasonably be considered 'unconstructive' (sic) or 'disruptive'. Any such claim is merit-less and extremely disrespectful. You should know better, Lupin. And you certainly should know enough about the nuts and bolts of the case in order to even attempt to make such a baseless claim. Which you clearly do not. Therefore, a hapless attempt at humor: 'Editor, correct thyself'.

54129, thanks for the suggestions. I always thought the summaries were meant more for editors than surfers. I've read several over the years which weren't the mundane "just the fact, ma'am", faceless, mundane, lifeless remarks most make, so I usually aimed for the former over latter. Add to this the fact I know this case as well as only a couple people on the planet, so seeing so many errors in this Keddie article is rather insulting to me and, quite frankly, to almost anyone of reasonable intelligence.

(Redacted)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Motthoop, I haven't read all of what you wrote above but an editor should not need to be "familiar enough with the case" to be able to evaluate whether your edits are helpful or not. They should be able to read the reliable secondary sources you've cited and see whether what you wrote is supported by said sources. They can also check anything you removed, and see whether it's supported by whatever reliable secondary sources it cites. If you fail to cite reliable secondary sources and instead rely primarily on primary sources or far worse original research including any synthesis from sources or conjecture, you should expect your edits to be reversed. While I have not looked at your website, I have doubts it qualifies as a reliable source. Still, if you believe it does based on our policies and guidelines, you're welcome to seek confirmation at WP:RSN. Note in any case, if you're citing yourself, it's probably best to instead propose changes on the talk pages due to the WP:COI that arises. BTW, you're correct edit summaries or intended for editors not readers. Edit summaries should be used to help other editors understand what changes you're making and why you're making said changes. Finally, note that while you are free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you want to, if your belief of conspiracy theories shows up in your editing, this is a problem due to the aforementioned reasons. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sheriff resided at the cabin prior to the Sharps

I can't recall the source from which I learned this - and it is likely just a coincidence - but the Sheriff at the time of the murders, Doug Thomas, resided in Cabin 28 prior to the Sharps. If anyone finds the citation, it might be worthwhile to add this info to the article. 108.4.5.60 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It was my original research that uncovered the fact the corrupt sheriff lived in 28 just prior to the victims. I alerted the investigator on the case, Mike Gamberg, and he verified this info from one of the still-living owners at the time of the murders. This info has been disseminated through many different "sources" since, including the award-winning 3-piece article done in the Feather River Bulletin in 2018.

Here's the link to confirmation that DT lived in 28:

https://www.plumasnews.com/keddie-murders-revisited-part-3-hypnosis-counselors-revelations-mob-connections/

"Also, Smartt went on to tell the counselor that allegedly he and Sheriff Doug Thomas were friends. Thomas lived in cabin 28 prior to the Sharps’ arrival, both Gamberg and dmac learned. It was an easy walk along the Keddie Resort Road from cabin 26 to cabin 28. They could have met in the bar, or allegedly been involved in nefarious activities." Motthoop (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)