User talk:Theoallen1

Welcome!
Hello, Theoallen1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions 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, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below 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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 16:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Demagogue
Hi, Theoallen1. I'm sorry to see that your first edit on Wikipedia got reverted within minutes. Clearly you put a lot of honest, diligent work into it, but the reversion was indeed appropriate. This can be very discouraging to a new editor! Wikipedia's strict policy on maintaining a neutral point of view can be frustrating at first, but it's one of the main reasons for Wikipedia's success. I just posted something on the talk page for Demagogue that you might find useful. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * And for that matter, Theoallen1, please have a look at WP:3RR. You're on your way to a policy violation and if you keep it up, you'll get blocked and the article will remain the way it is. Explaining yourself in your edit summaries where you revert others is not enough. The thing to do now is discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. As you can see, BenKovitz has already begun this discussion so all you need to do is reply. Once the discussion is settled, the article can be edited accordingly. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled section
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but please do not delete entire sections without giving a proper justification. There may certainly be good reasons to remove entire sections from articles, but doing so requires justification. Valid reasons for blanking sections include (but are not limited to):
 * Violations of the Biographies of living people policy
 * Violations of the Neutrality policy
 * Violations of the No Original Research policy
 * Information that does not rely on Reliable sources

Please note that I don't like it is NOT a valid reason for removing information from Wikipedia.

You may cite your reasons in the edit summary, or in the article's talk page if you need more room than the edit summary affords.

Thanks again,

Zlassiter (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC) *Moved from Userpage. Please place your comments on talk pages, not user pages. Thank you. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding editing without consensus going on, section blanking. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016".The discussion is about the topic List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Zlassiter (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

February 2018
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 01:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections‎ 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.''In this case the one-revert rule applies: please read the American politics AE warning on the talk page of the article. If you revert again you will be immediately blocked.'' &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 01:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)