"

Thank you, CrohnieGal!
I'm still learning and guidance is much appreciated.
Yes, I had attempted to replace the Facebook like to the Sante Kimes article because it is an external link related to Sante Kimes, however, I have now read that Facebook pages are not allowed as external links. So I will no longer attempt to add it.

Also, if you could please help regarding the Sante Kimes article. Apparently, because I am a scholar of that case, along with many other court cases, I'm being perceived as a person attempting to alter the integrity of the information on that page.
I have read that a user that insists on updates to only a certain page(s) is frowned upon, but is it not valuable to have a person who has extensive knowledge of a subject help construct an accurate article on that subject?
In my opinion, the Kimes article is rather biased and one-sided as to all the facts and available sources about the case.
Several of the sources listed in the ""References section"" have statements by Kimes that are apparently being ignored, in favor for statements by judges or third parties quoted in newspaper reports. Likewise, the sources named in the ""References section"" is, in and of themselves, biased. One very important aspect to the Sante Kimes cases has been her consistent plea of innocence and current appeals, however, that point is virtually ignored on the Kimes article. 
I'm glad you mention the pillars, because from what I understand, Wikipedia wants to display a neutral point of view on article subjects. However, the Sante Kimes article has a biased point of view throughout it. Several of which I have noted on the discussion page for the Sante Kimes article. It appears to me that because of who she is, her Wikipedia article is being influenced by public opinion. If you have time, please read the Sante Kimes article, and let me know if you share my interpretation. Sorry for writing so much, but I'm just trying to explain my actions.
Thanks for reading and for your help!   "