User talk:Londonblue

Hi welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for trying to expand the article on Hope not Hate. Unfortunately I've had to revert your changes. I am a supporter of the group, but please bear in mind that a key philosophy of Wikipedia is that information should be presented from a WP:Neutral Point of View reflecting the balance of material as presented in WP:Reliable Sources. Please bear in mind that both those policies I have linked mean something different from what most people new to Wikipedia think they do. I suggest you read them so that you understand what might be acceptable.

Please also makesure you do not lose formatting and references when you make the changes. In particular, Wikipedia does not have sections called introductions. Instead it has what is called a WP:Lead paragraph or Lede that does not have heading and is automatically placed above the table of contents.

I hope that you are not put off by these initial difficulties. All of us were once novices. I'm goign to post one of the standard welcome messages below. It contains links to various advice and policy pages. Do feel free to contact me by posting to my talk page if you have any questions.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Londonblue, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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 {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Peter cohen (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hope not Hate. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hnh[edit]

Hi,

I've replied on the article talk page to your post there. I think if you read what I've written and then put up one section or one paragraph or section in the talk page as a draft, then we can discuss it there and reach a mutually agreeable version and insert that in the article. Once we've done one or two of these together, then you should have a better idea of what's expected and be able to insert material directly into the article without being reverted.

BTW, I've noticed you're using the capitalisation "Hope not hate". The email "VIDEO: A shocking truth" I received late last month uses "Hope not Hate". Unless you know of a recent change that I'm unaware of, then I'll stick to the form in the article name.

And just to let you know how I knew you were a new user, if you click on Toolbox to the left of this screen, you should see a number of options listed including "User contributions". Clicking on that shows all your edits that haven't been deleted. I did look at your changes to Searchlight (magazine) and decided to let them stand. I don't see the need to mention in the lead sentence that Gerry Gable was in the CPGB nearly 50 years ago, though it might have a place in a section giving the detailed history of the magazine. Anarchist distrust is certainly real but there is plenty of "interesting" material on the internet to suggest that Larry O'Hara is not necessarilly the most reliable of sources. A one or two sentence mention that Searchlight, Green Anarchist and Class War etc. have had times of mutual dislike might be appropriate in the section about relations with other anti-fascist groups but the separate sectio was over-blown.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]