User talk:Calinurse

Hi- so I have taken the trouble to proofread and correct the copy that I reverted from the article. It reads far better now and I have corrected a lot of things but not changed the content itself. There were several spelling mistakes and grammar issues, as well as some paragraphs that I have made more readable (I hope). There are still some more sources to add but if you'd like to add the section for the community to analyse, the fact that it's now fairly well-written (I hope) should mean that it's adapted and improved, rather than removed entirely. Please do not change the copy back to how it was before, you will just have to trust me that mine is a significant improvement grammatically. It is below. Good luck. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Simpson hired a team of high-profile defense lawyers, initially led by Robert Shapiro and then subsequently by Johnnie Cochran.^[1] The team included F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Uelmen, Carl E. Douglas and Shawn Holley. Two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, were hired as well. Simpson's defense was said to have cost between US$3 million and $6 million; the media dubbed the group of talented attorneys the Dream Team.^[2][3]

−

Hi. You have I'm afraid not put in the proofread copy that I put on your talk page. I was flabbergasted to see that errors I had corrected were reinstated. Please go back and ensure that the changes are made properly. The changes are important. Nearly there!NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

OK great. Please go ahead and add what is above to the article. I know it seems like I'm being pedantic but major edits won't last if there are lots of errors. I think this is a good addition and the fact that it reads well now (please take great care ensuring that the version above is added, do not restore the last one) will mean that editors keep it. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the latest edits you have made. I found the formatting of the DNA evidence section very odd and the conclusions you drew were inappropriate. You crossed the line and entered editorialisation territory. The next edits simply aren't needed and your passion and interest is spilling over and making the article too long. Can I suggest you step back from the article, give it a good read and allow other editors a chance to review? NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. My research is saved in the talk page for now so I'm going to take a break from making any more edits and let other people have a chance.Samsongebre (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice one. For what it's worth I think your work on the article has definitely been a net positive.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barry Scheck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited O. J. Simpson murder case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Shapiro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited O. J. Simpson murder case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Motive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case. For such a new editor, this is a massive and quite complete undertaking, especially from scratch. Keep up the good work! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations and well done! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate it!Samsongebre (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your continued efforts. May I ask that any further edits on the article make it shorter, not longer? It is unquestionably too long, still. Please focus on making it more concise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a short reference to Cooley et al. 1996 in there, but no long reference to go with it. Would you mind adding it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/players/S-Z/index.html

Singular, Stephen

Denver author who brought information to defense that police sources had told him Mark Fuhrman sprinkled Simpson's blood on crime scene and planted the glove on the morning of June 13th. See AP story on Friday, April 28th. Kayjewel (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edited comment about the jurors being mostly African American and uneducated is still rooted in racism, whether you realize it or not. Kayjewel (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. El_C 02:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep it up, and I will take you to WP:ANI. I've had enough of your WP:Single purpose account behavior. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lets do that. I did exactly what you asked. Previous word count was 358, the new one is 325. The additional text the edit history is showing is the citations I used. Lets have an administrator decide who is wrong here.Samsongebre (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm already here. You need to review and observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I listen. I read the article on WP:ONUS, WP:EVERYTHING and WP:CONSENSUS. I’ll take my proposed edits to that section to the talk a page and list all the reasons why i believe it warrants inclusion. I will also explain the reasons why the content that I removed from that section was removed (I.e., it is already mentioned somewhere else, unsourced...etc) and I will try to gain consensus. Sometimes, however I feel like Flyer22’s opposition to my additions aren’t about WIKI policy but due to him being one of the original editors of this page and he doesn’t like anybody changing what he wrote. Samsongebre (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I meant WP:NOTEVERYTHING Samsongebre (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No. My issue with your editing of that article is stated in this section on the talk page. And my arguments are clearly guideline and policy-based. It is also clear that you don't have a good grasp on our policies and guidelines, which is usually the case with single-purpose accounts. I have barely edited that article, which you would know if you would check the data -- the "Find edits by user" and "Page statistics" options in the edit history. When it comes to that article, my involvement has mainly been reverting vandalism, unconstructve edits, POV issues, and other problematic edits.

And I am a she. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Fixed page statistics link. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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 noticeboards.
• 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, as you did at Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial, you may be blocked from editing. Your unexplained reverts in this awful article are severely disruptive. Get off your hobby horse. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Flyer22, I am getting more than a little tired of this, this single-purpose editor whose sole agenda point is to fluff up everything related to OJ. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'll bring it up on the talk page like you said then on that article and you can justify why you removed that factually sourced information. Rantala quotes directly from the trial transcripts and the book Foreman. If you have a problem with the book, then I will just quote the primary sources instead so there is no issue. I did my research and only used reliable sources.Samsongebre (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't care what Rantala quotes, and you shouldn't quote primary sources. What you need to do is prove that Rantala is a reliable source. And after that, you need to start trimming down these ridiculously long articles. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I am going to revert your comments. You can put them back, but only if you format them properly and if you do NOT interweave your comments into mine. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the book actually says that it was to avoid a perjury charge? If so please provide a page number. If it only says "Fuhrman's refusal to answer was more a matter of legal strategy and did not shed any light on whether he had planted or manufactured evidence" you cannot make any claims that he did it to avoid a perjury charge. Meters (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The page number is 250 and it says specifically "to all the questions, Fuhrman - now facing prosecution for perjury - asserted his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer." The same page also states that "beyond the evident perjury revealed by the tapes, the defense had presented no credible evidence that Fuhrman had planted any evidence in this case." I've changed the language on the article to reflect this and added a subject on the talk page there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 07:31, August 28, 2021 (UTC)

You have not done either of things since I raised this.

I still don't believe you can state why he took the fifth. The author of that book may be implying that is why, but that's not the same thing as us knowing. The author does not claim to know why he took the fifth, and neither do we. We don't guess or make assumptions. Meters (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with you adding a good reference, just with the "for perjury". Meters (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I added a reference to Murder in Brentwood, Fuhrman's book on the trial, where he states specifically on page 247 that he took the fifth because of the possibility of being charged with perjury. I'll also change the language to say "Fuhrman, facing the possibility of being charged with perjury, was instructed by his attorney to invoke the fifth amendment." Does that work because that is directly what he said?Samsongebre (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, if Furman himself stated his reason for taking the fifth as being to avoid a perjury charge that's an acceptable ref. With the addition of that ref you can go back to the original wording even. Thank you for clearing this up. Meters (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

O. J. Simpson murder case

added links pointing to Fifth Amendment, Robert Baker, Willie Williams, Robert Shapiro and Henry Lee

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dred Scott v. Sandford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)