User talk:Maximusveritas/Archive 1

John Wilkes Booth

Thank you for repairing the John Wilkes Booth article recently. You saved me the trouble of doing it myself. I thought the information was not only relevant, but interesting as well.Dr. Dan 18:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Howell

I removed the {{POV-check}} tag from Deborah Howell based upon your edits. I liked what you did and just wanted to say "Good job!". -- JLaTondre 18:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

Hey, you seem to have a fairly good reputation as a NPOV person. The cannabis article is in need of some serious work. I think I burned up my good will early there by trying to make too many changes to quickly + a poor word choice in my first edit. If you are willing/interested, I think it could use your help. If you do decide to take a go at it I can provide support both in editing and in arguing for NPOV language.

catskul/Andy 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't think I have quite the expertise or time needed to go through the article since it is very long and involved. However, if you could point to specific instances where you feel there is a problem with NPOV, I might be able to help. By the way, thanks for working on that John McCain article. I think it's important to addresss controversies, even (or especially) when they are baseless, in order to provide a place for the rumors to be dispelled. I'll try to work on that more if I get a chance. - Maximusveritas 07:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

You recently made an edit to the page on Bill Clinton in which you changed the phrase "On August 31 2005" to "In August 31 2005". I had always assumed that the former version was the correct one. Would you mind explaining what the rules are on this? I'm genuinely confused. - Maximusveritas 02:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I had to doublecheck what I actually did. I was trying to rv something else -- and someone beat me to it by a second or two. I don't remember making that change...I'm too much of a grammar nazi to do such a thing on purpose ... but if you go two revisions back that's what I was trying to remove. Thanks ...   _Pit^Shig | @   16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee

You recently amended the entry on Mike Huckabee, specifically with regard to unemployment in the state. While the job base appears to be increasing this is misleading, more jobs are available and unemployment is down in NW Arkansas and to a lesser extent the Little Rock MSA, however in southern and eastern Arkansas the job market is continuing to atrophy. I feel that the entry was perhaps correct as it was. -- Scaife 20:20 04 February 2006 (UTC)

What you've said about the disparity across the state is correct, but the statement I removed was referring to a loss of jobs in the state overall, which is incorrect. If you would like to ammend it to say what you just did and provide a source for it, I would be fine with that. - Maximusveritas 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I found these for you:

• http://www.discoverarkansas.net/admin/uploadedPublications/537_OESpub.pdf
• http://data.bls.gov/map/servlet/map.servlet.MapToolServlet?survey=la

I hope that this helps. --Scaife 11:12, 10 February 2006

Your Defense of the Klansman

The article in question is a matter of opinion. We simply disagree. That you choose to defend a hatemongering klansman is your business. Keep your superior attitude to yourself and don't presume to be the consumate authority. Please refrain from commenting on my talk page and I will do likewise. 24.0.91.81 02:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's fine by me if you don't want to discuss these things or make yourself a part of the Wikipedia community. That's your choice. Good luck with it. - Maximusveritas 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit on Sue Kelly profile

You recently removed the sentence about a review of Sue Kelly's votes that talked about her siding with conservative Republicans every time after inquiring about the source of the review. The information comes from a review that I did using data from the Washington Post. There's a link here: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/narrow-margins/ which breaks down the closest votes for the first session of the 109th Congress. I looked at the 15 closest votes as identified by the Washington Post and created an Excel chart. While the data itself comes from the Post, there is no other independent analysis of Kelly's votes that I'm aware of. Given the edit war on this particular entry, I didn't want to insert this without trying to explain myself first, though I think it should be included.(Scoop845 17:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Socks of Shran/CantStandYa

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa. You have been involved with this editor in several articles. -Will Beback 06:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Lauren B. Weiner

Please weigh in on Lauren B. Weiner deletion if you have a chance. --Tbeatty 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve Nash

i understand that, but i dont really see why individual matchups if relevant like against billups and kidd cannot be put on the page when they show that nash is not at his best when he comes up against other elite point guards. please explain because i think it should be there in some capacity. if its ok for people to write about when nash dominates other players, why not when other players dominate him???

well the whole article is about how nash is so good as a player and does so well, there should be something about how one of his weaknesses seems to be him underperforming against some elite players and his weak defense. 2 or 3 lines is not enough in my eyes to look at the main weakness of his game, given that the rest of the article is about his qualities as a player. i reckon it should be included and you dont need critics to tell you a fact that billups and kidd dominated his this season.

ok i will find some stuff criticiing nash, there is plenty out there. his bad defense is often criticized a lot. its just that somehow now, defense doesnt matter and you get back to back mvp's for just dominating on the offensive side of the ball. my argument is that yeah i respect nash for being an amazing offensive player but when doing a "player profile", one should look at how rubbish his defense is and how other point guards have simply outperformed him. just as its relevant to say that nash is generally amazing against other point guards, its relevant to say that he has struggled against point guards who can play defense (kidd, billups) and that should be noted. the fact that a player cannot perform against other point guards is relevant and i will not go as far as saying that nash is a choker cos he has been good this playoffs, but his lack of performance against kidd and billups has to be noted in my opinion, just like his double digit assists are noted for the rest of the season. nash has many faults and defense is such a huge part of the game and his lack of it should be addressed and i will now find some articles that highlight it and put them on as sources.

You note

Yes. Guettarda 03:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hganesan (yes, again)

After a succession of blocks by numerous admins over the last month, User:Hganesan has returned yet again to Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant. I don't want to waste a bunch of time edit warring with him again, so I'm instead going to try a new tactic. I'd like to get as many NBA editors as possible together on this, so that we can make a single unified push to the appropriate admins. I am at a loss for other tactics we can use to avoid his continued attempts to push his agenda and his unwillingness to compromise. Please contact me at User talk:Simishag if you're interested in helping out. Thanks. Simishag 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

John Edwards

Please let me just explain myself: I removed the category because it is my understanding that Senator Edwards does not actually teach a course at the law school or anywhere else. (One cannot, it seems, take Course X with "Professor Edwards.") Rather he runs an institute associated with the law school. My search of the UNC Law website appears to confirm this -- i.e., that he does not teach a course and thus does not qualify for this category, as it is currently defined. I still think he does not properly belong in this category, but it's not one of those things that really bothers me. Thanks.

New Projects that I need help with

I was wondering, are you capable of rating my articles on Arkansas Politicians?

You said you didn't know what I mean. Well, on my talk page there's a big box about the Wiki project on biographies. Then it says: This article has not yet been rated, would you like rate it -link-. If you don't know here's how-link-. This link goes to a page on instructions of how to rate it. --Robert Waalk 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to you the truth I get what you have to say about more citations completely, but the only thing is that when I said it was extremely difficult to find anythign about Gus Wingfield, I meant it. All of the information on both articles actually came straight from the two sites I cited on each. I really should move onto to new biographies of the New State Auditor, and the New State Treasurer, you know, get on with writing about the rest of Arkansas figures, maybe do some work on La, which seems a little better covered than states anyway. I'm just being too much of a perfectionist over those two little articles. Onto to the new, thanks for your help and advice, and I'll probably ask you to run through the new articles for me when I finish em. I've found you're a great editor, and great at refining things a little. Thanks for your continued help, and thanks for being reliable, and replying right away to my requests. Robert Waalk 22:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I need more help now. There are several things: 1. You know the boxes on the biography pages, with a picture and basic information, ex.

How do you insert the picture into that Box, I can't figure it out.

2. Do you know how to design and template, and if you do, could you help make one for the State Auditors. You'll find the blank template on my user page.--Robert Waalk 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

Barack_Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feddhicks (talk • contribs)

Maria de Jesus

You've always been a great help, I uploaded a picture, and accidentally didn't put the copyright tag on it, and now it's flagged, and I can't figure out how to get to the copyright tag to edit it, could you help me on this subject.--Robert Waalk 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[1]] Jmegill (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CarolineKennedy.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:CarolineKennedy.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

James Cone

Some of the quotes that you deleted as 'unverified' were direct quotes from James Cone's book with page numbers cited. Excerpts of his book are available online at Amazon and you can verify the quotes if you like.

As for the other quote, The Wall Street Journal and The Dallas Morning News are two of the US's best known and most reputable newspapers. To claim that sourcing from them is not sufficient for Wikipedia is to raise the bar for sourcing so high as to be unsustainable. If Cone had disputed the quote, you might have a point but, despite the wide distribution of the quote, he hasn't. Jim2345 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE:

(1) You wrote: "The controversy section did provide citations, but there was no source to show that there actually was a controversy over those statements. Without that, it's clearly just original research and completely unacceptable on a WP:BLP."

Your meaning is not clear to me. Are you saying that those quotes should be in a quotes section not a controversy section because there is no controversy about them? Or, are you saying that Cone cannot be directly quoted because Cone was doing original research? Maybe you could clarify for me what you mean by "controversy" or "original research."

(2) You also wrote: "The citations you provided for the other quote are from opinion pieces or blogs associated with those papers and both reference the Asia Times opinion piece."

The Asia Times cites as the source for the quote: William R Jones, "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press). Jim2345 (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the one quote in accord with your guidelines: it is in a 'controversy' section and the citation to the original source is added with the other citations remaining to show controversy.

"Note that what you're doing is providing only primary sources. This is not allowed"

No. I read that section that you linked: It says, quite reasonably, that primary sources are fine but original commentary on them is not allowed. I am happy with removing anything that resembles original commentary.

While we have been discussing this, someone else has created a lengthy quotes section. Except for his opening sentence, the remainder of the section consists of direct quotes with citations and no commentary. Jim2345 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Sheila Jackson Lee/Super Delegate Issue

I think I owe you an apology for not differentiating between the "booing incident" with SJL and the general, what I see as a false correlation, being made between a Super Delegate's chose candidate and the way the constituents of that Super Delegate voted in the presidential primary or caucus. The booing incident I could almost agree with you on being included. It is the correlation between the SD vote and the constituent vote to which I am generally opposed as I believe its inclusion creates the perception that the two are somehow related. Smart Ways (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick

Veritas is feminine, so it should be MaximaVeritas. Cheers. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Lorenzo's Oil page name

Please consider self-reverting on this issue. The norm, when topics can be distinguished adequately by whether or not the subject is a proper noun (i.e. Lorenzo's oil vs. Lorenzo's Oil), is not to add additional disambiguation in the article title. In particular, given that there is a proper noun Lorenzo's Oil, it is absolutely the case that Lorenzo's Oil should redirect to the proper noun rather than the lowercase, with disambiguation links at the tops of the articles serving to disambiguate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Stacy Keach and Morgan Freeman

Please point out (here) the exact place that you claim the following statement "To this day, Freeman credits Keach with teaching him the most about acting (ref Million Dollar Baby)" is sourced, because I can't find it in your ref. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You have to have the 2-disc Special Edition DVD. I don't think it's on the 1-disc version since it's on the 2nd disc with the Lipton interview. - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The ref you supplied in the article is not to this source. Also, I don't think an oral source that cannot be checked without buying a DVD, counts. You may be right, but on the other hand, speaking as an actor, (and Keach is a friend of mine), it's a big deal to attribute one's talents to another actor. Please come up with a text as a source. Perhaps you can find a transcript of the Lipton interview online. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi Maximusveritas. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William Rivers Pitt

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is William Rivers Pitt. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rivers Pitt (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"POV"

While I appreciate and understand your rephrasing, calling my edits POV is simply not true. There is nothing I wrote that wasn't backed up by what Politico and the Wall Street Journal said, with the additional add-on with Gawker. We could also include The Baltimore Sun. I've been around here for a long time - I know POV. What I added was not it. Please do not wantonly characterize another editor's phrasing as POV when there are multiple mainstream reliable sources that back up what they wrote. Perhaps you just didn't read the sourcing - please do so. Thanks. --David Shankbone 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Nash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Robinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Christie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NRA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

I mean this with all due respect, so please do not read it in a negative tone, I am honestly seeking clarification;that is all. On the page for Crowder, you've made statements such as "YOU would allow it to stay" etc, when the issue has not been debated thoroughly,and when responses to offers of compromise language have not been made. On what basis would you assume the responsibility about what stays/goes. My understanding is we are all on equal standing. In earlier consensus building, everyone was considered to be equal. Your approach that you will allow this or that implies that you feel you have more authority or have the final say. Again, I'm not sincerely questioning this approach, because if we all decide to have "the final say", it would never get resolved. It's clear that a few people simply do not like Crowder, and the history of edits shows patterns of having a bias, as I suppose everyone has. I make every attempt to keep things fact based, and I have not made it a mission to go on many articles always portraying one point of view. I really can see both sides of the issue, which is why I'm so willing to compromise, which is part of the consensus procedure anyway. However, I'm not seeing much compromise on the other side, and for one person to assume "ownership of the article" and decide what stays and goes...I do not think that is supported by Wiki guidelines. I haven't edited many articles; I don't make it a mission of mine to trash people personally (I'm not saying YOU do that) and insult other editors, both of which I've seen in the editing of this article. So I'd appreciate your input as a more experienced editor; I've bent over backwards to be neutral, compromise, offer alternatives, all of the things recommended in the guidelines for resolution. But I feel like others are arbitrarily putting timeframes that suit them or as soon as they've outnumbered someone's partial opinion claimed consensus over numerous entire issues. Other than fixing grammatical errors, I rarely edit other entries. I am more involved in this one having written a fair part of the original article, then having to fight for and parse over each and every word because of some editor's obvious hatred of the subject. (Again, not you, I've received personal notes full of profanity, etc.) I know I do not own the article. But I DO believe that my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, if I understand the guidelines correctly. Why people would be so intent on showing someone in a negative light at every turn; I just don't understand that motivation instead of just sticking to facts and keeping it as neutral as possible. Thanks, JohnKAndersen (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• John, I don't hate Crowder, sheesh, I wrote the article and wanted it to be unbiased, not a HuffPo screed. It turned out the real problem was not turning into a puff piece including unverified resume puffery. As for whether all opinions are "equal," the fact that your account is dedicated to Crowder's article can be taken into consideration by editors. I think it serves us well to listen to editors like Maximusveritas with no "history" over the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Milowent, this msg was intended for Maxiumus, but since you followed me here, you have accused Crowder of: Hate crimes, lying, acting like a 2nd grader, fraud, questioning the place of his upbringing, his wife's name, minor awards and so many other things I can't remember. I don't read HuffPo so I don't know what you mean by that. And obviously you NOW want someone who is less invested to carry extra weight, but I doubt when an editor comes on that agrees with my input you won't have the same opinion. It's very clear by all your edits that you don't like Crowder. And I HAVE edited other articles, as stated above, so you also have lied about me, as you have made accusations in the past. You also have personally insulted me with extreme profanity, threatened me, and used the worst profanity in talk pages as anyone can see. And you did NOT write the article; you wrote AN article that 5minutes completely had to revamp, due to its extreme POV, so as it exists today is mainly due to his template. Now, I'm officially asking you to NO LONGER CONTACT ME personally, (because you do nothing but insult and condescend, and have NEVER had a kind word to say, ever), on anyone's page, or I will report you for harassment.

• Maxiumus, Thank you for your reply. The "allowing it to stay" type comments I think was the issue. In previous edits, we were all told that editing was "hands off" until the final consensus was reached, rather than the ongoing edits which is still seems like you've decided to take charge of, going by your response to me. I've contributed much of the info on this page and have been involved since near its initial incomplete and incorrect inception, dealing with some whose primary purpose is to get as much negative information as possible on his page, and/or get it deleted completely. So I have to deal with that every time there is ANY new information, including merely where he grew up and his whom he married. I was repeatedly asked for a citation to prove that the suburb he grew up in is near montreal. What citation would I use? Google maps? So there has been an ongoing form of bullying forcing to cite even the most simple statements of facts. So I did thoroughly go over the rules of editing and consensus building. Considering this example, I found a quote that said 'obvious facts don't need to be cited'. So I didn't have to cite that Montreal is in Canada, for instance. Also, it suggests allowing enough time for everyone to have their say BEFORE applying any edits. Not as soon as one side feel they have a majority, which is not how it's decided anyway. If you've edited other articles that way and there was no issue, I have no problem with that. But with this page, with someone intent on slandering the subject at every opportunity, I fear that if we all have "rolling edits", it will just be back and forth ad nauseum. So in the case of this article, we had been going by the method that the article be put more or less "on hold" while a consensus is worked on. Even so,I didn't revert your last revision to stop that cycle. I've done EVERYTHING I can do to provide civility, compromise, and consensus only to be largely ignored. In other cases, I've had arbitrary time frames forced on me, like if it's something they agree with, 48 hours. When I tried to use the same format for another edit, I was told "no, we need to allow a week or so because not everyone is on wiki every day, etc." So essentially, I've been made to work with shifting "rules" arbitrarily "enforced". And I've done my BEST, actually compromising more than I should have to get even the tiniest bit of my input included. So compromise being rare, I am usually the one who has had to abandon relevant facts basically due to 'ganging up'. I had to fight just to get his basic biographical information at the top like every other person's page! I offered several examples, and since they feel they are a majority, we spent days just to finally convince that basic info (age, place of birth, etc)doesn't belong at the BOTTOM. Often, my suggestions for re-wording and questions are simply ignored, and as you have seen, someone will go on a rant about how the article shouldn't even exist and attack the subject, that the subject acts like a 2nd grader, adding NOTHING constructive to the discussion other than negativity and actually PREVENTING consensus. So I have to deal with these people as "equal editors". And this time I am sticking with it. I'm following the rules. I've compromised at least 5 times, just on this one sentence, and some obviously just get a kick out of trashing the subject and forcing me to defend each and every word. So, there has been no consensus reached, as it is clearly stated that it is not decided by vote, but when everyone's input has been satisfactorily included or some editors abandon their opinion. So, with no specific time frame indicated in the guide, and after compromising nearly all of my contribution, I have just one thing left to give,which would mean my input had been completely bullied away, again. I know there are other editors, who do want to give opinion, if they get the chance.

Having said all of that, I respectfully ask that since every previous edit has gone through a certain process, that you don't edit anymore until a consensus is finally reached, otherwise it will turn into a daily edit war, which no one obviously wants. Thanks for your understanding,09:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKAndersen (talk • contribs)

• John, your screed against me is AWESOME. I am sorry to have offended you, and won't post on your talk page in respect of your wishes. I may respond on Crowder's talk page, if needed, and as I'm sure I'll never see you anywhere else, that will be it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. If you saw my response to you on my talk page you may gain some understanding, and hopefully, a bit more empathy for others' circumstances.JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen