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 ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.

Baxter329, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Baxter329! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

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 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 articles about 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.

Please note that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not use article talk pages as a forum to express your own POV on subjects (WP:NOTFORUM) as you have done here and here. I will remind you of the discretionary sanctions that you were altered to at #Discretionary Sanctions Notification - AP2 and BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You'll never beat the hive mind

Very good,

Greglocock (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Baxter329 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have already been warned that post-1992 US politics are under discretionary sanctions. Stop edit-warring, attempting to insert your own synthesis viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being Unable or unwilling to edit in a manner compliant with core policies on original research and maintaning a neutral point of view.

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 ~~~~}}. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 original research. And you failed to recognize any problems with doing so even when I spelled them out pretty explicitly.

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)[reply]