User talk:Hzuiel

October 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stefan Molyneux. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Welcome!
Hello, Hzuiel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Stefan Molyneux does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ixocactus (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

How is correcting factually incorrect information unproductive or disruptive? Just because something is printed on a news site does not make it factually correct, papers print retractions and get sued all the time for false information. How can you possibly consider it a viable standard to say if a news site said it, it's absolute fact? What if one news source contradicts what another one says? What if a news site says 2+2=5? If someone tries to edit that and take it off, would you reverse their edits? If a retraction or correction is made on the article but the original article is still there and linked, can the link be removed then? There are news articles that may make opinionated statements about something like nuclear energy, that are directly contradicted by known science from textbooks and engineering guides, but based on your standard, those statements would ahve to stand and cannot be corrected because a journalist who knows nothing about nuclear physics, said so. So if someone posts and edit to the page on nuclear energy that says "all nuclear power is bad and dangerous, and we shouldn't use it" then cites a news report that says that, you can't remove that? If that is how wikipedia functions it is the most broken system in the history of poorly devised systems. Hzuiel (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only summarizes what professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources say, and plenty of experts have noted that Molyneux's ideas on race are identical with ideas held only by racists. For example, Molyneux has said he's no longer skeptical of white nationalism or Identitarianism, argued that white nationalism works, and accused everyone else of trying to pull down "white civilization" and attacking the "white race" because they're jealous of white people's achievements.  If you don't see how that's white supremacist, you lack either the competence or moral integrity necessary to edit.  We do not have to provide you with a platform to make Molyneux look better by censoring facts about him.
 * If you want to contribute to this encyclopedia, you need to accept that's how thing work here (even if you want to find other topics to edit instead). If you don't want to accept that, please let me know and I'll provide you with a reasonable compromise with the community to save everybody a lot of trouble with arguing.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. We do not blindly accept all "news reports" say. An "independent" source is one unconnected to the subject. A "reliable" source is one that meets the criteria outlined at WP:RS.


 * Wikipedia does not require that reliable sources prove, backup or support what they say. If a reliable source says Joe Slugger's batting average was .321, we consider that information to be verifiable and state it as a fact. Independent reliable source -- without proof of any kind -- assert that Paris is the capital of France, NASA landed astronauts on the Moon, Nazi Germany carried out the Holocaust murdering millions of Jews, HIV causes AIDS, and Stefan Molyneux is a far-right white nationalist, white supremacist, banned YouTuber and podcaster, who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views. There are people who disagree with each of these statements. In all of those cases, however, their viewpoints are not significant enough to have shown up in any reliable sources as subject to serious debate.


 * What counts as a "reliable" source will vary by topic. Billboard magazine is absolutely reliable for what the best selling album was in 1995. They are not a reliable source for the surface temprature of Venus, the territorial reaches of the Roman Empire, etc. A published peer-reviewed journal with a high impact score publishing a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of a particular drug in treating a particular illness is far more reliable that a newspaper reporting on "BREAKING! Report Shows New Drug Cures Cancer!"


 * Wikipedia does not examine evidence, conduct experiments, verify statements, determine motives, combine the material, and determine what labels to apply based on definitions drawn from additional sources. If a reliable source says it rained, Wikipedia does not entertain objections that what fell was not "rain", but "sleet".


 * Wikipedia does not give equal time to "both sides". Reliable sources do not give meaningful examination of the idea that the Earth is flat, Denmark does not exist or the Proud Boys are a non-violent group of guys who get together for beer once a month, so neither does Wikipedia.


 * Sources make mistakes? Yes, they do. In case of a retraction, we note it on the talk page and remove the material.


 * Sources disagree? Yes, they do. When there is demonstrated disagreement between reliable source, we discuss both sides in proportion to the weight given by the reliable sources. Wikipedia frequently cites multiple sources for one person's multiple claimed birth dates, two countries claiming one island, etc.


 * Relevant to your current situation: If you boldly make a change (as you did) and someone reverts your change (as they did), it is time to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. We call this the "Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle". It's primary purpose is to avoid edit warring, where an editor (such as you) repeatedly restores their preferred change to the status quo, often against the objections and warnings of several editors.


 * Additionally, as some topic areas tend to attract a disproportionate number of trolls, [[WP:EW|edit warriors, Nazis, etc., some articles have tighter restrictions in place. The next section will make you aware of one set applying to the current topic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. ST47 (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Important notice
- Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)