User talk:Small Arms Collector

Welcome!

Hello, Small Arms Collector, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Paul Helmke does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

June 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Paul Helmke. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Paul Helmke. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Jusdafax  09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Paul Helmke. Jusdafax  09:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We use a system called WP:CONSENSUS. If you make an edit and it gets reverted, you're required to discuss and try to obtain consensus for it before ever trying to re-add it.  This is called the WP:BRD cycle.  We also have the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS document that suggests that just because it happens somewhere, that does not mean it belongs somewhere else.  By adding things the way you were, it adds WP:WEIGHT, and violates the key Wikipedia consensus policy.  You tried to ram your edits through, regardless of consensus, and THAT is why you're currently blocked.  Until you show you understand this key policy, and will always follow it, you will not have anyone convinced to unblock you. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So what your saying is if there's no consensus, even if it's imposible to reach it's not true even if it it's true, is that what your saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Small Arms Collector (talk • contribs)
 * Truth needs to be backed by published, reliable sources. If not, it gets deleted. Full stop. Please read the articles that have been provided.  Davtra   (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But it WAS backed by published, reliable sources, which were all completely ignored, despite my repeated attempts to show them, so I ask again if no one is willing to check your sources, and just deletes what you write without any kind of debate, or discussion of any sort, nor any attempt to disprove the sources, how can you be expected to introduce the truth, or reach any kind of consensus?
 * I checked your contributions history and you never provided a published, reliable source to the article. Your first main edit was this. You added extremest and hate with no source to that at all. Earlier you mentioned the Ku Klux Klan; in this article it says, ... is widely considered a hate group and includes a published source right after this. Visit the Ku Klux Klan article and see it for yourself here. This is what you should have done. It's also best not to use the tag for discussion otherwise you will lose access to your talk page. This tag is used for making only unblock requests.   Davtra   (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop using the unblock template to continue your content dispute. Your ability to edit this page will be deactivated if you continue to misuse it.  Kuru   (talk)  02:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Providing reliable sources (and their details) allow users to find where you got the information from and check if it is written correctly. Read Reliable sources and Citing sources. To help present the sources, use Citation templates. You have been presented with many links to other information above. Read them carefully. And read Simplified ruleset to familiarise yourself with the basic rules. To get yourself unblocked, read Guide to appealing blocks and follow the procedures. If you do get unblocked, I suggest you do not immediately add your proposed changes. Discuss it on the article's talk page first. Once editors have verified and agree to your proposed changes, they will add it.  Davtra  (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)