User talk:Odomjm

Welcome!
Hello, Odomjm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * 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).
 * 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.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * 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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Josh Hawley 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 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions
Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Logistics of using an article talk page
Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put your comment below the comment you are responding to.

Also, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on.

At Talk:Josh_Hawley, what I did there was show the diffs (see WP:DIFF) of the changes you had made. I posted the diffs there, only to show the edits you had made and the way you had explained them, so that they were easy for everybody to see.

Another editor and I each took steps to format your response in the normal way (here and here). Please follow the normal way of using talk pages, in the future. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you. 18:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2021
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Darren Bailey. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are reminded of the discretionary anctions notice farther up the page. Your views on Chicago and the politics of Illinois are not appropriate content for articles.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not, except that you reveal your untruthful and non-neutral bias. You do not understand the things you falsely assert about Darren Bailey. The things I wrote were truth, and verified, by the very sources (plus one within Wikipedia's parameters) in the original. You are fake media. Your views (and they are views, though you change definitions to remake truth in your own image) are not appropriate content, and they are false witness. I think it is time to give up on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say.

24.100.7.137 (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please log in to edit, and understand that our patience is limited. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views on the media.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)