User talk:MaximumIdeas

Hello and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a
  reliable sources
  .
• No
  abuse of multiple accounts
  .
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mike Cernovich‎; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. Calton | Talk 01:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that I refactored your comment here because it didn't comply with the

More importantly: this comment was the third time you've added almost the exact same text to the talk page. There's no reason for this. Other editors can see what you've written, and people are less likely to hear you out when you repeat yourself. Please don't do that. Nblund ^talk 20:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thank you for formatting correctly. Just want to make sure my statement is in the correct section.

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-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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 . Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you actually don't know what it is. Note that its chairman is the editor in chief for Reuters. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller -- I don't know why you would assume that. I do know what it is, and consider it reliable. However, other reliable sources have other views about the subject in question. My understanding -- as has been explained to me on other pages -- is that a disputed change should achieve consensus on the talk page first. Is that not correct? Thank you. MaximumIdeas (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no policy that requires editors to gain consensus prior to making changes, although it may be a good idea to seek consensus first if you know that your edits are likely to be controversial. Normally I try to follow the

Bold, Revert, Delete cycle. In this specific case, I broke with that practice because two other editors also reverted you, and because I don't really think you've offered an explanation for your revert beyond personal disagreement with a reliable source. I'm open to discussing this with you on the talk page, but you're going to have an extremely tough time persuading editors to keep out a CJR source. You're probably better off making a suggestion about adding content that might offer additional context. Nblund ^talk 14:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Makes sense. For the record Nblund, I do appreciate your reasonable dialogue and your not casting aspersions. I would prefer to have the discussion on the talk page with the status quo in place, as I don't think other editors reverting is really a fair metric. Also, lest my latest reversion explanation be considered "trolling", I want to be clear that I don't mean it to be. That is how conservatives see it, just as people with other views might see whitewashing on other pages -- even if reliable sources are involved in both. Thank you for understanding. MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's going to happen. In part because you yourself are saying you don't actually object to including the opinion, and your objections aren't really rooted in a policy. Just to be clear:

WP:3RR is a bright-line rule that prohibits editors from making more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. You've already crossed that line. If you revert again, you're very likely to be temporarily blocked from making edits. It's time to open a talk page discussion yourself.Nblund ^talk 15:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You say "that's not how this works" in the edit discussion -- but that is how it worked on the Cernovich page. Does it ultimately just come down to how many different editors revert for a different side as to whether the status quo or the change is put up while discussion on the talk page is ongoing? That's what appears to be the case. At any rate, I won't revert further. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph of Cernovich's entry is a little different: it's been hammered out over a long time with a lot of input from different editors, and it's a

WP:BLP, so there's some slightly more restrictive standards in place regarding the editing. The common denominator in both cases is that you were the lone editor reverting and multiple experienced editors disagreed with your reasoning. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Trump's abuse of the term "fake news" is already covered in the paragraph preceding the content you are pushing. The statement as you prefer it is devoid of the essential context that his claims of "fake news" are pretextual, which is present in the previous paragraph. So you're adding content that actually degrades the accuracy of the article without adding any new information. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't editors use less politically biased language than your first sentence here? This is an encylopedia, not the Democratic National Committee. MaximumIdeas (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biased in what way? It's been likened to Stalin and McCarthy, and unaanimously condened by the Senate. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check sources. That all had nothing to do with his use of the term "fake news". MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per your question at

Thank you! MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some resources:

• The Media Bias Chart, a non-partisan chart. Use only sources that are in the green and yellow boxes, and even then avoid using those near the bottom of the yellow box.

• Poynter Institute

• Poynter International Fact Checking Network

• PolitiFact - website

• Holan, Angie Drobnic (February 12, 2018). "The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter: How we fact-check". PolitiFact. Retrieved October 20, 2018.

• FactCheck.org - website
• Snopes.com - website
• Washington Post fact checker, Glenn Kessler

Resources here at Wikipedia:

• WP:Citing sources
• WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (MEDRS)
• WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources
  . Here'll you find sources that are deprecated. Don't use them at all.
• WP:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content (essay)
• WP:Reliable sources checklist (essay)
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (RS/N)
• User:JzG/Politics

Have fun! --

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Antifa (United States). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I have added a note clarifying that I believe he is in good faith. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not reliably published, ie it has no editorial control and articles can change at any moment. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

It means you are making edits that introduce a risk of a topic ban or other restriction based on your current edits. The first notice was about post-1932 US politics, this one about biographies. Guy (help!) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mike Cernovich; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. Calton | Talk 00:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C 03:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply