User talk:Integrityandhonesty
 | This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies. |
Welcome Integrityandhonesty!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Integrityandhonesty, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
|
Hi Integrityandhonesty! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
RCC and NG[edit]
Hi Integrity - on that last wikilinking change, "Religion in Nazi G." is now wikilinked twice (I didnt delete it in last round, I just shifted it to the right - see "about one third" - because I thought it made sense to link to "Catholicism in Germany" in the opening few lines). Ozhistory (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
BVP[edit]
You recently edited opening in Catholic Church and Nazi Germany to read that the "Bavarian People's Party voted for Enabling Act". Is that an assumption, or did you read it? As I don't recall reading of the Bav. People's Party in the Reichstag, I assumed they were a regional Party (ie involved in Bavarian State Govt)? Happy to stand corrected, but I thought I should check this. Ozhistory (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Oz. They did. They were still operational - in March of 1933. They did hold seats in the Reichstag. Read: [[1]] Papen was their 'rep' in the coalition with Hitler - at least in theory. They were harassed like the other parties leading up to the vote. Not all were present as a result. But, those that were, did vote for the Act. Good to hear from you.--Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
May 2015[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I am disappointed, although not surprised, by your extraordinary outburst against me, making claims that I have made disruptive edits and am pushing a POV. I advise you that if you are going to make such accusations then I expect that you do so clearly and with evidence to back you up. Otherwise I will be making a formal complaint with administrators. Looking at your own edit history I see that you have been accused of a number of edit wars over the past year. And I also note that you have removed material from your talk page detailing such disagreements. I also note that you have spent a lot of time editing a small number of articles - among them Same-sex marriage, LGBT demographics of the United States, Demographics of sexual orientation, and Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. All of these edits have involved removing material that can be said to present a positive view of LGBT issues; and removing (or "correcting") material that is perceived as negative or critical of organisations such as the Catholic Church. This looks dangerously like grinding a particular axe to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)