User talk:Max Rays

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Max Rays, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sheppard[edit]

You are now edit-warring at the article and are the subject of a WP:ANI discussion here. You may participate in the discussion. Akld guy (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last 30 years, I have extensively researched the Sam Sheppard case. My additions, that have been regularly taken down, are historically accurate and I have not posted them lightly. When I return to my studio later in the week, I will include the specific bibliographic citations. While one can argue for more complete references, the editor(s) who have continued to remove my text do not have the depth of research experience in the Sheppard case to question the accuracy of the new material. Max Rays (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise will make you a valuable asset to Wikipedia, because the Sheppard article isn't all that good right now, and someone who really knows his way around the subject is sorely needed. But everything you add must be cited to a reliable, published, secondary source, and particular points are only covered in proportion to the attention they receive in such sources. The conclusions of your own unpublished research just can't be used, and relatively obscure theories can get only brief coverage, if at all. Please see what I posted in next thread below. E Eng 13:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may find more here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Sam Sheppard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Max_Rays. I understand your frustration, but there are good reasons that Wikipedia has the rules it has. Please read the additional post I just made at the article's talk page, and read the links there to Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully that will help you understand what's going on. E Eng 04:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you're still not getting what we're trying to tell you. If you won't work with us on what should be in the article, you'll simply be blocked. E Eng 13:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]