User talk:Alumiiniseos

Welcome!

Hello, Alumiiniseos, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...a certain page is repeatedly vandalized by persons who do not follow Wikipedia guidelines and seem to be political or ideological opponents of the subject. Is there any recourse?

Alumiiniseos (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than beating around the bush, it's best if you simply name the article where you have been editing: Augustus Sol Invictus.

That page has been placed under full protection in the past because of contested edits. That may have to happen again.

Whether that happens or not, you need to try to come to an agreement on the talk page Talk:Augustus Sol Invictus with the other editors about what the page can say. Arguing through more than one cycle of edit summaries is not usually productive and you have to work through the discussion on the talk page first.

You have to treat this as a content dispute, even if, in your mind, the other editors' changes seem like vandalism. When you reach an impasse on the talk page, you need to follow the procedures in dispute resolution to get a wider scope, with more editors involved.

Someone will likely decide that the page falls within the discretionary sanctions regime regarding U.S. politics. This means that you have to be particularly careful not to engage in any edit warring.

So far, the Invictus page seems to be the only place on Wikipedia you have edited. That's going to bring up questions of whether you are a COI or POV editor. You should be prepared with an explanation. While it's allowed to be here with a very narrow range of interests, you are still obligated to be as neutral as possible in your editing. Most disputes are "won" by the editors who a) have the best sources and b) manage to remain civil. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Your removal of well-sourced content and insertion of unacceptable sources into Augustus Sol Invictus is not permitted. Invictus' personal blog cannot be used to source negative claims about other people or entities. Your apparent disagreement with mainstream viewpoints of Invictus are not relevant. Please use the article talk page if you believe significant changes need to be made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created specifically for editing the Augustus Sol Invictus page, and I edit other articles under a different user name, but on much less controversial topics. The intent is to follow the Wikipedia guidelines specifically. Two sources were used to illustrate the subject's views on the Holocaust, but both referenced the same interview with Rachel Janik in August 2017. One could argue that both are blogs but there is little else to illustrate the subjects views on the Holocaust outside the single interview in question. One is a complete transcript and one is a very abbreviated synopsis. However, there is no need to have a disagreement over content, when essentially the same sources are bring used. The disagreement seems to be *how much* of the interview should be in an encyclopedia entry.