User talk:Wrmattison

I have changed the definition of "Jury Nullification" to show that less than a full jury can effect the doctrine. This fact was not presented in the original definition of the phrase.

Your recent editing history at Jury nullification shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Famspear (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! The following links may be informative.

WP:Five pillars

WP:POL (official policy)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies (list of policies)

"Neutral Point of View": WP:Neutral point of view (official policy)

WP:Neutral_point of view/FAQ (official policy)

"Verifiability": WP:Verifiability (official policy)

"No Original Research": WP:No original research (official policy)

Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no edit warring

You were cautioned before about edit warring. This edit summary is an admission of your intent to edit war. Do not revert the Jury nullification article again. If you think the introduction needs changed, you can discuss the matter at Talk:Jury nullification and see if consensus can be achieved to change it—but you have to discuss the matter, not repeatedly revert the article. If you revert again, you will be blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, statements like "The power of "Jury Nullification" of jurors in criminal prosecutions is virtually our last defence against Tyranny without the use of violence" are expressions of your opinion, and don't belong in an encyclopedia article. See WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. You might believe that jury nullification is "our last defence against Tyranny", and someone else may not, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia itself to express an opinion one way or the other. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of important site guidelines and policies you should be aware of

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key)
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology. Anyone looking to publish their own thoughts and promote their own ideas should go to another site.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Jury nullification with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dusty777 18:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

You should read this, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Pay particular attention to the top of the page there is a box that says this page in a nutshell. GB fan 19:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing

Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox for your ideas or your courtcase. If you continue to push your ideas and courtcase I will block you from editing Wikipedia, consider this your final warning. Also when you add information to articles please provide reliable sources for the information. Do not add unsourced material to any more articles. GB fan 01:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Law that Never Was

I removed your edit to The Law that Never Was as it was unsourced. Please see reliable sources and citing sources. Also, please use an encyclopedic tone Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]