User talk:SocialistDemocrat100

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, SocialistDemocrat100, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Agnosticism and atheism[edit]

Please note that terms like "atheism", "agnosticism", "humanism", etc., should not be included in the infoboxes, as they are not religions. The religion of those who profess such views should be simply stated as "None", if necessary with some clarification as to the views they hold. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You still seem not to understand the issue. Fischer is an agnostic. We all agree on that. However, you are insisting on describing his religion as "agnosticism". That is factually incorrect because there is no such religion as "agnosticism". His religion is "None", and he can be described as an agnostic. I don't know if this is a difficulty you have with the English language, but there is a real difference between the ways in which this is expressed. An analogy: the "off" button on a TV set is not a different channel. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Please read Help:Edit summary, and ensure that in future you do not use summaries like "fixed minor error" for edits which are clearly not minor corrections, but are rather substantial and disputed changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Ghmyrtle. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ferenc Gyurcsány. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Please don't accuse people of trolling for disagreeing with your edits. As far as I know, it is customary to write religion entries for atheists/agnostics as "None (atheist)" or "None (agnostic)". The references you are adding to the article are mostly useful, though. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A copyright-infringing clip from a TV program on YouTube is not a reference. You should cite the TV program itself. If the TV station publishes an archive of its shows, you could link to it instead. Otherwise, a different source would be preferred (mentioning the YouTube link on the talk page would be probably acceptable). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Massimo D'Alema may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Social Democratic Party of Austria[edit]

Please be more careful about editing summaries; "fixed minor error" is not very useful as a reason why you have swapped the infobox entries. (None of the entries was erroneous, was it?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Atheism[edit]

I've raised concerns over your edits at WP:BLPN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Julia Gillard. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please utilise talk pages for contentious additions that have been reverted. AlanS (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Zoran Milanović[edit]

Please refrain from edit-warring at Zoran Milanović, and cease with offensive edit summaries such as this one. I understand you seem to be on a personal crusade of sorts but your personal issues are not something people who donate their free time in order to build an encyclopedia should be concerned with. Also, try reading Wiki policies such as WP:CAT/R. Timbouctou (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Helpsome. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Helpsome (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Labour Party (UK). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ----Snowded TALK 22:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)