MaximumIdeas

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
• 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 living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or 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 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! EvergreenFir (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

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)

Talk pages and repetition

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that I refactored your comment here because it didn't comply with the talk page guidelines. New comments should go at the bottom of a section. You can read a little more about how to use talk pages here.

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)

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

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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)

Columbia Journalism Review

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not really, no.

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)

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)

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)

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

Reliable Sources

Per your question at WP:RSN, there is no master list of reliable sources, rather, like basically everything else here, things are hashed out in discussion. One thing I often do when confronted with an issue like that is to search the archives at the noticeboard to see if there has been a relevant thread -- and often there has, at least for sources which aren't brand new. You certainly aren't bound by whatever conclusion was reached, since consensus can change, but it will give you a sense of where things stand. Anyway, that's just my approach, feel free to ignore! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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.

Fact checkers should factor heavily into how we rate sources for factual accuracy. They are the gold standard, so use them often.

• 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! -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

First, thank you much for this explanation! But, why the link to User:JzG/Politics's political rant? It is very one-sided, and I, and I'm sure many others, disagree. Is this political viewpoint Wiki's official policy, or just his opinion?

August 2019

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)

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)

You can't cite Wikipedia as a source

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)

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

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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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)

September 2019

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)

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 03:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You didn't even try to discuss your changes — just went back straight to reverting the same edits, which I deem to be disruptive. You have been blocked for an additional 72 hours. Failure to discuss your changes will simply lead to increasing blocks, so I'm not sure what your end game is. Wikipedia works on consensus —not by fiat— and the onus is on you to secure this consensus for any material which you are introducing. El_C 19:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I think WP:AE or maybe simply a topic ban as it seems so obvious will be the next step given this editor's last 10 or so edits.

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vox (political party), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Your input is requested on changes to the Illegal Immigration in the United States page

@MaximumIdeas: Please look at the recent changes and discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States and give your thoughts/make edits you deem fitting. Edit5001 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This is what's referred to as WP:CANVASSING and WP:GANG. The editor In question had zero history on the Illegal Immigration in the United States page, and was solely asked to go there to help Edit5001 edit-war. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, wasn’t totally sure about that. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit restriction violation

Hi MaximumIdeas. You violated an restriction on Tulsi Gabbard here

If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.

I opened a discussion which you didn't participate in. Also, please note that the article is under WP:1RR. Please don't violate the editing restrictions again or you may be sanctioned at WP:AE. - MrX 🖋 14:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I saw the 1RR but missed the section on the talk page MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It's all good. I look forward to any comments you have on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 15:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.

Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, could you elaborate? This note you posted speaks of "past disruption in this topic area", but it does not mention what topic area. I am not aware of having disrupted any topic areas lately (with a handful of exceptions from quite a while ago! Which you can see by scrolling up on my talk page.) Anyway hope you are well and just want to see if you can elaborate, or maybe it was an error / has some incorrect text? --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@MaximumIdeas: sorry about that. I gave the code wrong (r+i rather than r-i). I did this because of your revert at Race and intellegence. As the notice says it doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. Its job is merely to alert you that DS is present in the area so you pay extra attention to things like edit notices. I've put the correctly worded alert below. Sorry about the incorrect notice before, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.

Got it, thank you for clarifying. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

1RR

You've now violated it. Simultaneously, you've demanded that someone who has been explaining each of their edits on the talkpage use the talkpage, without using it yourself. Not a good look. --JBL (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi JBL -- I believe you will see you are mistaken; my reversions here are different from the one I had made previously, and thus are not 1RR. Additionally, I did make a note on the talk page regarding the edit in question, no? Thank you. I hope you are doing well in the pandemic! --MaximumIdeas (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I have that page on my watchlist given the recent controversy. JBL is correct it means one revert of anything once every 24 hours, and you can’t do more than one even if unrelated. Consecutive edits count as one revert, but otherwise you shouldn’t be reverting more than once. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    • TonyBallioni I see, thanks. But I made one revert, and then more than 24 hours later, made several consecutive edits. So my edits are valid under 1RR, correct? --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Super-technically there was an intervening edit, but I don’t think any admin is going to block over the timing of a copy edit. I was more coming by to say be careful :) I know these rules can be confusing. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Darryl.jensen Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)