User talk:Baxter329
Welcome!
Hello, Baxter329, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Introduction tutorial
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
.
Baxter329, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Baxter329! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC) |
Discretionary Sanctions Notification - AP2 and BLP
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called
For additional information, please see the
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about
For additional information, please see the
Please note that
Wording
Hello! I saw how you worded your addition of the outage of Amazon's smart home services. How you worded it implied that Amazon purposely locked people out of their homes and prevented their fridges from working, however looking at the source it was merely just an outage of the Smart Home services. ―
Warning
Please do not use article talk pages as a forum to express your own POV on subjects (
ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh my. Thanks for the explanation, warning, and link. I will stop doing that kind of thing. Thanks a lot. Baxter329 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am requesting a clarification. Was the only problem my comments, or was there also a problem with me posting links to Politifact, Forbes, the Star Tribune, Yahoo news, KTLA, and the BLM website? If the former, I understand. If the latter, please explain what is wrong with those sources. Baxter329 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
You'll never beat the hive mind
Very good,
Greglocock (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
February 2022
Your recent editing history at Black Lives Matter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
- OK. Yes. I will do what you say. I will go to the talk page. Thank you for much for your help. Baxter329 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement
See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
March 2022
Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point view, which you cited frequently, states "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
The crucial aspect is the last; views published by reliable sources. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources; personal opinions have no place on it.
The evidence provided at AE included several instances where you added content to articles entirely because you think it's relevant, without appropriate supporting sources. I was initially minded to give you a warning and leave it at that; but your last reply was especially concerning. Your edit implied climate change has enhanced human life expectancy; you provided no further evidence for that besides your own opinions, which is the definition of
I have blocked you indefinitely, but this does not necessarily mean your block is infinite. If you can convince a reviewing admin that the problems I mentioned will not recur, then you may be unblocked. You will have to do a lot better than denying you've done anything wrong. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)