User talk:Neddyfram

January 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Special Air Service, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - wolf  17:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your revert
You've been here a week and have a total of 23 edits. So how about not getting into any editing disputes until you know your way around a little better, sound good? Start with the 'welcome' template I've added above. Read through it... all of it, including the links it contains. There is plenty of useful information for a new user like yourself. Then read the notice I placed about sourcing (including the links). We don't use forums as a source to support our content. I took a quick look at the page for the image, and there may be sourcing issues there as well, but that is different from the SAS article. If, after doing all the reading I've suggested, you still wish to contest the revert of your edit, then do not revert again, start a discussion on the article talk page. Continued reverts, especially of improperly sourced content, can lead to your account being blocked for edit-warring and disruptive editing. Slow down and learn your way around. - wolf  17:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!
yum Neddyfram (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Your edits at the "Rhodesian Front" article
One of the main principles of Wikipedia is that we use reliable sources, see WP:V and WP:RS. When you repeatedly use as an argument in your edit summaries that the Rhodesian Front is not a white supremacist party and similar, that is your personal opinion, which of course you are entitled to have. But in Wikipedia we report what reliable sources say, not what we personally know (or think we know). This is called original research, see WP:OR. In the case of Rhodesian Front, there are many reliable sources describing it as a white supremacist party. This has been established in the talk page discussion here.

Another main principle of Wikipedia is that its content is decided by consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. In this case, there has recently been a thorough request for comments discussion in the talk page, and there was a clear consensus: The consensus is that "White supremacy" should be included in the "Ideology" list of the infobox based on how reliable sources have described the political party. Repeatedly removing this from the article constitutes edit warring, see WP:EDITWAR, which may lead to removal of editing priveleges.

I will give you the chance to self revert. Regards! --T*U (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Hello from a fellow supporter of Rhodesia! I think we have a good deal in common, and I hope we can get in touch! OctaviusMagnusDux (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)