User talk:Ideloctober
Welcome Ideloctober!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Sincerely, Dominoooo's (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Mentioned at Administrative Incidents Noticeboard
[edit]Due to your continued uncooperative behaviour and failure to listen with good faith to your fellow editors or read basic wikipedia policies, I've raised your name at the Administrative Incidents Noticeboard. The thread can be accessed here: [1] --Jobrot (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
A strange connection
[edit]I would be fascinated to know how you can claim that someone can be both a liberal and a marxist. Marxism is highly illiberal, indeed quite unambiguously opposed to liberalism, and Marx's writings frequently castigate his political opponents for being liberal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ask Jobrot, he's the one who stated he was a Liberal while expressing very favorable views on Marxism. Modern Feminism, Progressivism, and Liberalism all blend Marx's views with their own agendas, ignoring the fact that Marx himself would've laughed at them at worst, considered them useful idiots at best. I guess capitalism is awful and the ideology that's led to the deaths of over 100,000,000 innocents is the true path of enlightenment. Ideloctober (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- No I didn't (for starters I wouldn't describe myself as "a Liberal"). Stop claiming I'vs said things that I haven't. --Jobrot (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please provide sources for your claim he stated he was "a Liberal". If you are unable to do so, please withdraw your claim, and don't repeat such similar unsupported allegations again. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
[edit]
Your recent editing history at George Lincoln Rockwell 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
You have exceeded 3rr on the article. Also, you CANNOT use blogs as sources on Wikipedia. Especially about fringe theories. Dave Dial (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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:Ideloctober reported by User:DD2K (Result: ). Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Some important site policies and guidelines
[edit]- "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
- 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). -- This does not include blogs, no matter how influential you think they are.
- 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.
- We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
- Assume good faith as much as reasonably possible, and then about half-way past the border for unreasonable possibility.
Your best bet to avoid a block is to promise on the Administrator's noticeboard thread to avoid political topics from now on, and not make comments on any of the editors you've encountered there -- and demonstrate it by editing in other topics. Actually, to avoid more trouble like this, you might want to ask yourself "might the mainstream media present this idea as a conspiracy theory?" Not even the History channel, but some station like CNN or ETV.
Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 12
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suppressive fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Firebomb. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)