User talk:Ites76

Welcome!

 * }

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Green syndicalism has been reverted. Your edit here to Green syndicalism was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://ecowobbly.blogspot.com/2011/01/green-syndicalism-alternative-redgreen.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Witch-hunt, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Your edit here to Witch-hunt was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://historicalunderbelly.wordpress.com/manufacturing-scapegoats-moral-disengagement-in-history/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral pov
Its important to edit neutrally which you have not done on this article Anarcho-syndicalism recently. Please review what neutral presentation means. It hurts the article to inject obvious bias and takes away the idea of an encyclopedia article presentation. Example dif. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Earl, but without pointing out specifically what I've done that isn't neutral you're passing off your own opinion as fact, which in and of itself hardly suggests that you yourself have a good understanding of what neutrality looks like, and makes me wonder whether it's not the content you disagree with. If that's the case, what are your motivations for being on the page in the first place exactly? Ites76 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Its best to discuss content and not other editors. The talk page is the best place for that of the article. I gave you the diff. and explained about your presentation not being neutral but more like lecturing a p.o.v.. Beyond that there is not much to say now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm discussing your conduct, which is haughty, heavy handed and autocratic. Where did you explain to me what you thought the difference was? You simply stated an opinion as if it had the same weight as fact; if it's so obvious then it shouldn't be any problem to explain, should it? Why is it my fault if you refuse to distinguish between bias and approaches you don't happen to like? Ites76 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

 * Warning. Do not make any more personal attacks against other editors as you did in the edit summary here. Calling another editor a troll is unacceptable. This series of edits combines a personal attack with a threat to edit war in the article. If you continue in this vein, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How is describing a manner of conduct a personal attack? I am following the description of Earl's conduct as outlined in the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVandals_versus_Trolls Ites76 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have no basis to call Earl a vandal or a troll. So, don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. I didn't call Earl a vandal. I attempted to describe his behaviour; perhaps I showed poor judgment in the way I chose to go about trying to do so. I confess to beign outraged by his conduct. I will attempt to conduct myself with regards to my outrage over Earl's conduct in a way that isn't tantamount to reducing myself to his level in future.Ites76 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)