Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! RoryReloaded (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--It looks like twice you have reverted my addition of Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics to Wage slavery. Any reasons why? (It would also be helpful to explain your upgrading of quality and importance.) Probably responding on the article talk page would be best, so others can see as well. CRETOG8(t/c) 11:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise to Police. I'm not going to get into a content dispute, but I will offer an opinion, which is that the article as written is not intended for a political analysis. I'm not going to revert you, but you may find other editors will. --Rodhullandemu 16:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Police, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You will be blocked, if this continues. Trust me

[[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Police. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Take it to the Talk page, please. --Rodhullandemu 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Police. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. Please note: On the talkpage you should format things properly [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Police. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I've noticed that you have been editing the talk page of our article on wage slavery, changing it from B- to A-class. On Wikipedia, A-class articles require a review before they can be raised to A-class (that is, you can't just change it yourself). Please stop changing it to A-class. If you believe that it deserves A-class, please contact one of the associated WikiProjects and request a review. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make this quite plain to you: your proposed edits to this article have not achieved consensus, and your most recent edit is contrary to that. Whereas it is legitimate to argue changes to the article, the way we work is by achieving agreement amongst editors, and you have not managed that. Accordingly, I have no problem in regarding your edits as disruptive, and blockable. As I see it, you either persuade other editors to your point of view, or you give up. Your choice. --Rodhullandemu 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Police. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. StaticGull  Talk  17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, your personal viewpoints do not belong in Wikipedia articles like Police. Even if you can quote a historian who holds this viewpoint, unless they are clearly the consensus of the community such viewpoints are not to be added to articles as if they were fact. It is possible to add such viewpoints, properly attributed to a reliable source who holds them, in other parts of the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were not aware of it, your attention is drawn to the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, which orevents multiple reverts in a short space of time. Please discuss changes on the talk page of the article in question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Police. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Police. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Rodhullandemu 18:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• Four reverts in little over half an hour is unacceptable, and I see you've had notice. You've also been advised that the proper venue for discussing contentious changes to the article is on its talk page. --Rodhullandemu 18:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: 99.2.224.110, this is not the way to act. If you would have got your way, your information would have been included. However, you did not, the thing is, if you got your information included. And I did not agree, I would not wage way against the page to get them removed, if it was the other way around, I would cut my losses, maybe you should do the same. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Wage slavery. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shirulashem (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Wage slavery. Shirulashem (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Self-ownership has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\byoutube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVjRjQPhMt4) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

You are edit warring, breaking the 3 revert rule, and asserting ownership over the text. Please stop. Your essay on wage slavery is well written, and I encourage you to get it published. But as it stands it does not reflect a general point of view, and does not reflect concensus. Please stop reverting to it. LK (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have just broken the 3 revert rule for the second time today. To follow community guidelines, please self-revert your changes. LK (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]