User talk:Homo logos

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Dear Homo logos: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Thanks! Glen 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey[edit]

it must have been i removed vandalism several times on that ocassion and i must have looked at the edit summary too fast and it looked like you had just cut out a section, i hadnt realised that you simply moved it around, thanks and sowwwy. =) ~!^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history at Template:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. WMSR (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WMSR: I took notice of this, and I agreed already to stop reverting edits in order to comply with wikipedia rules in good faith, at your request. But I must say that I have indeed tried to discuss the issue through the talk page and building consensus, and have instead found multiple people going against what I view as the consensus on the issue, and engaging on edit wars themselves. Kind regards Homo logos (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus you're referring to was to wait for reliable sources to report results, and it was only on the talk page for the Iowa caucuses. If multiple people are going against your view of consensus, then perhaps it isn't a consensus. --WMSR (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WMSR: Well isn't that petty? But no, obviously multiple people disagreeing with the consensus does not change the consensus by virtue of them being multiple. That's why we have elections isn't it? Homo logos (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheConversation ref[edit]

Hi, I couldn't figure out what you meant with the named reference "TheConveration" in your recent edit to Fascism, or if you meant to name the new reference you added. The edit seeems otherwise alright, but it's a page where good referencing seems particularly important and I guess these kind of errors are more easy to fix whith a fresh memory. Personuser (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have fixed the reference. I'm not sure what the problem was. This was taken from the article on Golden Dawn.--Homo logos (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. There were two different references and I added them both. The problem was that one reference was mentioned just by name and defined in a different part of the Golden Dawn article than the one you copied. This seems to happen quite often when moving/copying content and it's difficult to notice the problem in such long articles. Probably mentioning the source article could help (on the other hand it now seems strange that I didn't think about it before). Personuser (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for you continuous helpful edits across a variety of articles in the Politics category. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]