User talk:Rogpat

Welcome

Welcome!

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

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islamism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

clarified to be, "the desire to impose any given interpretation of Islam on society". <ref>(Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris. ''Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue''. Harvard University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vox Day, 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. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Vox Day. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 08:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation. I added no "commentary", none of "my own point of view", or "my own analysis" in my edit. It is simply what the book is about. I have read it. I own a copy. It is what the book says. Explain to me what I added that breaks Wiki rules.

As the above was a standardized message, it doesn't apply perfectly in all cases. You were warned about not adhering to our neutral point of view policy. Take your concerns to the article talk page. I will not comment in this thread further. Additionally,

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 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 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. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 08:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the Talk page.