User talk:MaxxFordham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Olympic articles[edit]

Hi Maxx. Before moving a series of prominent pages it is a good idea to raise this through WP:Requested moves first, so as to get community support for that decision. I've started a conversation here, but don't be surprised if your moves are quickly reverted by someone in the meantime. Thanks. SFB 08:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh my freaking HELL! Why do you guys INSIST on going aginst the grain from how the ORGANIZATIONS that own and run them have it written? Who says you're the authorities on the matter?



Uhh, babba, despite what you think, it's not a "tantrum." I never said that I was the "authority," but I don't see why you guys/wiki guidelines suppose that putting the name parts out of order from the way their organizations have them is supposedly "better." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxxFordham (talkcontribs) 10:24, 13 March 2014‎ (UTC)

I already learned that a long time ago. We don't have to do it every time (especially if a robot already takes care of it.) Also, how do you get an alert for a message that was left on someone else's talk page instead of your own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxxFordham (talkcontribs) 10:28, 13 March 2014‎ (UTC)


Oh really? No, you're the one having the tantrum. How is it supposedly a "tantrum" for me to have written what I wrote on the other user's page? And why, if you're not that user, do you even know about it?

Since when are my edits now anything like the ones you think you talked to me about last year? You and I haven't even talked last year. Where are you supposedly getting that?


How is writing on YOUR talk page supposedly "vandalism," but your putting stuff here on mine supposedly "not"? You think you're the king or something?


It's not vandalism. If you think it is, then you are WAY too picky! I guess you need to learn not to throw tantrums too, then, babba.


Paralympics too[edit]

Your unilateral moving of Summer Paralympic Games to Paralympic Summer Games is not constructive - there is no WP:Consensus for such a move, the move breaks thousands of Wikilinks, Templates, etc. and the English Wikipedia's WP:Article title policy does not compel us to use the same name as the official body so your rationale for the move is not valid in the first place. The entire system of articles and other bits and pieces concerning the Olympic and Paralympic Games have been developed through consensus over many years - one editor suddenly arriving from nowhere and making large arbitrary changes is highly disruptive to Wikipedia - in other word you are damaging the project, please stop and first discuss the what and why of the changes you want to do. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well when you move an article, the robotic system eventually cleans up those links, just as it tells us it will. But no, my edits are not "arbitrary," and not "disruptive." Why wouldn't we want to use the same naming scheme as the official organizations use, themselves?
The point is moot - your move has been opposed thus, by definition, it does not have consensus. To gain consensus you must discuss the proposed move on the article Talk page, only if the proposal is then formally accepted can the move be done. This is in line with the WP:Consensus and WP:BRD rules. As for the choice of title not following the "official" name, it's not our fault that the IPC is ignorant of proper English grammar - modifiers come before rather than inside a noun phrase. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Well why is it that when my edits get opposed, they are supposedly "against consensus," but that when the other editors' editions get opposed (either as they existed previously, or as they are put back--say... by me), they don't get hit with that same accusation?
And I'm not talking about just the IPC. There's the IOC, too. Okay, how is it that you don't consider "Olympic" one of the TWO modifiers? Both "winter/summer" and "Olympic" are modifiers. ("Olympic" is the modifier that means these games are based on the system that was originally developed in Olympia, Greece.) So why should the season come before the term "Olympic," despite the IOC's and IPC's preferences?
And then if your logic that "it's not our fault that they're 'grammatically incorrect'" were followed, then why was the Wikipedia not consistent with that when the B52s were still called the "B52's,"? Why didn't the Wikipedia ignore that apostrophe right from the beginning?

March 2014[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg And this is your last warning, too, since "vandalism" is the smaller part. Please stop your unilateral moves of major articles, combative behaviour as seen above, also here, here, and here — in fact I'm having trouble locating a single civil, collaborative post by you on talkpages — and userpage vandalism.[1] (You blanked BabbaQ's userpage, so your arguing about it above seems rather irrelevant.) If you persist in such behaviors, I will block you. Considering your February block for edit warring at United States, it won't be a short one. Please try to get along with other editors without fighting every step of the way. Refusing to sign your posts makes you look bad, by the way. When you get good advice, you should consider taking it. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC).


I'm not still editing those other pages! Geeze!

Why did you suddenly get involved now? I already told the other guy that when I wrote on bab's user page, it was an A C C I D E N T ! How many more times do I have to say it? I only blanked it to ERASE my error of writing on his user page! I should have just reverted my typing there (not just retyping his "hi," because the robot might've signed it as from me), but I didn't think of that soon enough. Geeze LOUISE!

Now how do I get one of you two warning guys to put a warning on his talk page to stop vandalizing MINE?


  • Hi, Maxx. It's not necessary to respond both on my page and yours; we might as well keep it here. I accept your explanation of your blanking of Babba's page; I don't think you're a vandal. My other criticisms remain though: you have been very disruptive, please stop. Stop making personal attacks, for one thing — for instance, stop accusing Babba of "vandalism". I have reviewed his edits to this page, and there's nothing remotely like vandalism in them. That said, Babba, I suggest you stop posting here (as you said you would, a while back), unless you have something that really needs saying, as it obviously has an inflammatory effect. (And stop calling him "my friend", in any forum.) Bishonen | talk 12:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC).
P.S., Maxx, if you're finding it difficult to sign your posts, there are simple instructions in the "Signature" section above. Please follow them. The bot doesn't always sign for you, and when it doesn't, as on Babba's page and mine, the lack of signature is very inconvenient for other people. Please think about it. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC).



Oh my heck, I know how to sign, okay? Look: 4 tildes: MaxxFordham (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC). There ya go. Happy? Or I can just type my user name: "Maxx Fordham." Big deal. But if we're going back and forth, it seems pointless to sign every time.
So, Bish, why is it supposedly considered a "personal attack" if I say he's vandalizing my page, but you don't consider it a personal attack for him to falsely say that I'm "vandalizing" his page? If someone says I'm supposedly "vandalizing" their stuff, then that's a personal attack on me.



babba, I do have a clue about WP guidelines, but apparently you're the one who has no clue how to have a normal conversation. Look at all the false accusation you give me, yet think you're immuned to be given those same things. You wrote on my page again after I have asked you not to. I will now report you to an admin for that.


  • No, Maxx, just typing your name is less good. The four tildes give a link to your userpage and talkpage. That's for the convenience of other users. For instance, when you wrote on my page without a proper (=linked) sig, I had to go to my page history to find a link to your talkpage, in order to respond there. There's a reason sigs are linked. And now that you've told me you do know how, well, I don't know what to say to you. You have ignored lots of requests for proper signing. Please just start doing it. And no, Babba accusing you of vandalism when you blanked his userpage was perfectly reasonable, and you starting to call his posts on your page vandalism in retaliation is frankly childish. As I said above, I do accept your explanation of your blanking of Babba's page. But before you explained it, it looked like vandalism. It might be more relevant for you to apologize for the accidental blanking than to go into "Geeze Louise" routines about how wronged you are. OK? Bishonen | talk 12:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC).


No no no, now you're getting "user page" and "talk page" mixed up, too. First he accused me of vandalizing his user page, which I can understand (but thankfully you believe my explanation). I already told him that I did not mean to touch his user page, and that I just meant to move what I errantly wrote there over to his talk page.
--But then babba started wrongfully accusing me of somehow "vandalizing" his TALK page, too. And it is that which is as much of a personal attack as you believe it is if I say that he vandalized my talk page right here. Is it not?

MaxxFordham (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


THEN YOU MUST STOP TALKING ON MY TALK PAGE!
MaxxFordham (talk)
My posts on your page were in no way "nonsensical." I haven't responded on your talk page until you have just now done it again.



Oh, haha, the edit conflicts "MY" supposed "scattershot posts" cause? Nuh-uhh! I was getting them before you ever complained about them. You and babba firing back and forth right here so fast that several times I had to copy, cancel, and paste in order for my responses to hit! No, that's not me causing those!


I have not been rude to you "again and again" ever since you told me not to post on your talk page. The only things I've said to and about you is that I wondered why Launch noticed what I was writing on your page if you didn't tell him, and that he needed to warn/block you for writing on my page. Neither of those things is "being rude to you again and again." But your problem is that you keep acting like you have some kind of admin. privilege here when you do not. (If you did, then you wouldn't need their help with warnings/potential blocks, would you?) You need to stop acting like the boss that you really are not. You may know if you have time or not, but you can't make that judgment call for bish or any other admin. Stop vandalizing my page!

Some advice[edit]

I have seen the controversy that you have got into, and I thought it might possibly help to give you an outsider's view. I am very much an outsider, as I have not been involved in any editing on any of the pages where you have been involved, either articles or talk pages. Obviously, it's up to you to decide whether to take my advice or not, but I will offer it in the hope that it may help you. There are various issues over which you have disagreed with other editors, but from where I stand it seems that there is just one fact which has caused those issue to get out of hand, and become major quarrels, rather than friendly disagreements. That is the fact that you approach any disagreement with a battleground attitude, rather than a collaborative attitude. Rather than saying, "I understand what you say, but I disagree with you, because ********. What do you think about it?" you angrily attack the person you disagree with. Wikipedia works by editors cooperating. Obviously, with thousands of different people editing, there are disagreements, but we have to try to work together to work out our disagreements. I see that there are other issues too, such as the fact that you disagree with Wikipedia's naming conventions for articles, and think we should change the guidelines so that we always use the "official" name for something. However, those disagreements could be dealt with in a more constructive way if you didn't have a battleground approach to anyone you disagree with. For example, you could propose a change to the naming convention if you like, and give your reasons for the change. Others would then give their opinions, and you might succeed in getting the change, or you might not. Overall, you woudl probably get some of the changes you want, but not all of them, but the way you are going about it you will almost certainly not get any of the changes you want. The king of the sun (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As another uninvolved editor, I endorse what User:The king of the sun has written and hope you will consider it carefully. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
How did you guys hear about this? MaxxFordham (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
As do I. Please listen to Bishonen and KOTS. Bear in mind that posting on Bishonen's talkpage will attract attention, as her talkpage is on lots of editors' watchlists. Please remember also that any editor may warn or admonish another: that is not an administrator-only privilege. Admins have the ability to enforce such admonishments by blocking, protecting and deleting. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors, and please remember that Wikipedia is a highly public site. Everyone's contributions may be scrutinized and commented upon by anyone. The question is not "how did you guys hear about this?", it's "what should I do to improve my interactions with other Wikipedia editors?" so that we might all improve the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh shoot, I forgot that Bishonen was a woman--or never learned it. That's a name that could go either way. I guess the name "babba" sounds more male to me, as does "Launchballer." I can't quite guess what sex the name "Acroterion" would be for, if not both.
I do urge you to re-read Bish's and KOTS's advice. Please remember that we're all here to build an encyclopedia. It's best to avoid focusing on individual editors and disagreements, and to remember to get back to cordial discussion of content with the aim of getting a consensus, rather than focusing on who's doing what and why. This is an episodic text-based medium, it's easy to misinterpret words and motivations and to end up in a misunderstanding that would never happen in a normal face-to-face conversation. Acroterion (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey, will you guys offer this same advice that is well-needed by babbaq? Thanks, if so.


I'll bring you up if I want. You've disregarded my instructions too many times. Why should I heed you? And you need this advice anyway.


BabbaQ, please avoid this page. Maxx, stop poking BabbaQ here or anywhere else. Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
babba, I don't have some stupid "fascination" with you! FAR from it! I just expect a person who tells me not to do something to them to play by the same rules. You don't do that, which is the problem. Yes, my INSTRUCTIONS. It's not "taunting."

MaxxFordham (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

BabbaQ shouldn't post here if you wish to avoid interaction, and I expect you to reciprocate and to focus on de-escalating, regardless of what your perception might be concerning other editors. However, I don't see a reason to admonish BabbaQ: they appear to be frustrated, no more. Please remember that for better or worse, there's a steep learning curve to editing productively on Wikipedia, and that you appear to need some time to assimilate the social and technical environment, which is why you're frustrated. A little lurking and observing is often advisable in these situations until you find your feet. Acroterion (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What did I just say about poking BabbaQ here or anywhere else? I've asked BabbaQ to stop posting here. Please do your part. Acroterion (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Watch Lists[edit]

Well, how do you guys set up an alert for things on your watch list besides those things that go to your talk pages? I've known about clicking "watch" for a long time, but have never known how to set up an actual alert for other things, so I've often wondered how some people notice changes to some articles so quickly, just as if they had gotten an e-mail like they do for their talk page. How do you do it?
MaxxFordham (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:WATCH lets you know about watchlists, including about notifications Face-smile.svg --Mdann52talk to me! 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not unusual to get genders wrong based on pseudonyms, and few people take it amiss (for the record, I'm male). We all have watchlists which we check for unusual activity: subject lines are often a clue. There are no alerts per se, except when our own usernames are linked in another thread, a new feature that is somewhat useful. Most experienced uses review their watchlists for activity over the past few hours on articles or pages of interest. Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look into it.

Back to the crap from up there![edit]

Please, please sign your posts with ~~~~: It makes it so much easier to follow, and timestamps it. Acroterion (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I've already been signing! Look up there! MaxxFordham (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're doing much better, it's definitely appreciated. BabbaQ has undertaken to avoid you, by the way, so I suggest we call this settled, yes? Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not really about how supposedly "well" I'm doing with signing. Sometimes I just refuse to because it seems pointless to do it every time. If I don't sign this response, I bet you'll still know whom it's by.
Good, I'm glad babba is finally getting a little granule of sense now! But I still feel cheated about how many times he sent me crap without regard for his own request, while still feeling threatened by his little friend launchrocket up there, like I would get blocked even if babba wouldn't. That's pretty lame. I wish rocketlauncher would block him for at least 3 days or something like that.
~~Unsigned!

Warning[edit]

I have asked BabbaQ to stop posting here, since it does no good. But as for you, if I see you post in even remotely a battlefield manner on Babba's page again, I will block you. Indeed, if I'd noticed the vandalism template you posted there before I gave you the warning above, I would have blocked instead of warning. Don't post there at all. You're sailing really close to the wind now. P. S. I guess you never noticed I told you above that Launchballer isn't an admin. You're more of a writer than a reader, aren't you? Stop talking about Babba here. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC).

Seconded. You've ignored my direct request to stop talking about BabbaQ on this page too. No more BabbaQ posts. Acroterion (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, wait a minute, now. I was already in the middle of typing a set of follow-up questions to Bish when your little add-on here came in. At least let me finish that stuff up with her, OK?
MaxxFordham (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Final warning: leave Launchballer alone, and stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Any further activity of that kind, aimed at anyone, will result in a block. Acroterion (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
And while we're on warnings, it is not permitted to remove other editors' contributions to a talk page discussion as you, Maxx, tried to do on Launchballer's user talk page; see WP:TPO. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
dave, I did that because I started the section and was embarrassed later that my stuff was still in there after finding out that that kid is not an admin. and leaving the other person's stuff in there without mine wouldn't have made sense.

Acro., am I the only person you're telling that to? If so, why didn't you even it out by also telling the other person that? Also, please at least le me finish the follow-ups I was writing to Bish just before you chimed in before, OK? Then if you don't like it, just say so without blocking, OK? Because I almost got to send it, but then your edit came in and conflicted with me. OK?

Yes, you're clearly the user who's being disruptive and combative. No "evening out" is required. Your course is clear. Stop arguing and listen to other users. And just copy your text so you can paste it if you're edit-conflicted. Acroterion (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I was asking for permission first just to ensure that I had a chance to finish without being blocked.
Yeah, I do the copy/paste thing.
Well I just wanted to ask Bish and you why it was supposedly "only me" who, according to you, was supposedly the "combative" one, even though in reality the other person was doing the same things to me even while telling me not to. why should it all be on me?
And then I just wanted to ask you 2 why it's supposedly "OK" for one non-admin. to use those warning templates if he doesn't have the authority to use them, but "not OK" for me to do that. Why?

This has gone on long enough[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is How many "final" warnings is a user allowed to ignore before action is taken?. Thank you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm NOT ignoring final warnings; I'm asking some carefully written follow-up questions. Why did you enter this picture, anyway?

I "entered this picture" because I am interested in defending the integrity of Wikipedia. You can read the particulars of the matter at the ANI topic linked above. I have no further interest in discussing this matter here as it has now been reported to ANI for their consideration. Thank you Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Since when is just wondering and asking why it's supposedly "okay" for two people to do to me what you admins and they are telling me that I supposedly "shouldn't do" "ruining the integrity of Wikipedia"?

Try this...[edit]

Walk away and leave this whole issue. It isn't helping you and it may well be time to just live and let live.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

NO, because I want to have questions answered as to why I'm being treated UNFAIRLY! Why should I not get that like other users can?

Maxx take an internet break this is not worth you getting blocked over as your edits are getting to be disruptive See: WP:POINT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Uh, FYI, I've already stopped doing those so-called "disruptive" edits. We've moved on now, and I am asking follow-up questions about why I'm being treated unfairly from someone else who did the same thing to me as I did to him but doesn't get threatened with trouble like I was.
MaxxFordham (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Maxx, you have to face a few things here that are not going to please you. One, not everyone here on Wikipedia is treated equally. This fact is something we must all face in the real world as well as on Wikipedia...but, the truth is, our perceptions of our treatment is what holds us back. Not being able to let go is a brick wall and causes more frustration than is needed. Taking a break is not admitting defeat. Letting go is not admitting defeat. What is admitting defeat is the belief that a situation like this is unfair. Fairness does not play into the fact that many see you as unable to move on. Unable to see the situation from a few feet away and how your own actions play into the issue. I urge you to find a subject and dive into it as a Wikipedian should. - research, adding references and improving the encyclopedia. Not everyone is able to collaborate effectively, but that is a major part of Wikipedia. Trying shows far more than being stubborn and digging in your heels. Surely there is more here to interest you than defending yourself against an almost impossible situation. Stop, step back and breath. You must have wanted to contribute here and no one is stopping you. No one is holding you back but you, yourself at the moment. This may sound harsh, but sometimes a harsh reality is better than the future possibilities. Take some time for yourself. be with family, friends and others that support you. Trust me when I say...I have been down this road and it leads to a lonely place and you, my friend, have the ability to stop this now, take real control of your own activity and be a worthwhile contributor to the project. But it is for you to decide. It is your actions that determine your own fate. I am serious. I know this well. Wikipedia is a special place for me and others because it enables us to contribute to the worlds database of knowledge but there is a set way to do it. Perhaps you may benefit from something I did......take a few months to review all of our policies and procedures and look deeply into your own actions from the guidelines and policies you view. See yourself as another and aim your criticism at yourself in order to understand where the problems arise. If you really enjoy working here...it would surely be worth the time. Happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please stop using talk pages such as WP:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Please do not rant on noticeboards. Your extended wall of text at WP:ANI appears to be a rant, and is a way to get blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Uh, Rob, can you suggest a way to supposedly be able to make it shorter while still showing all the information that needs to be there in order to make the report complete?

Blocked[edit]

I have a nice evening with friends, look in on Wikipedia and see you not only resuming your shotgun complaints against everyone you've come into contact with, but turning the dial up to 11. I'll follow up with a discussion of why this is a problem and what needs to be done to establish enough credibility for you to edit productively, but not tonight. You've been given a whole lot of room for redemption, and you've wasted it and the time of a lot of other people. The week-long term of the block is provisional: if I see no progress toward productive interaction with other editors, I will change it to indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm shocked by this and feel it was jumping the gun. I would love to say more but...I don't wont to ruin your "nice evening with friends". Credibility is not something I would have EVER thought was a blockable offense. Frankly I feel you, Acroterion have wasted my time and your credibility is something I begin to doubt with this block.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Just my two cents but I feel the block was justified, multiple editors had tried to help for hours and I could see little progress being made. A week block is not indefinite and will give time for Maxx to cool down and think things over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can see some logic in that...just not the implementation of it at this moment. It seems more than slightly punative, but Maxx has the opportunity to appeal and if they can put together a good reasoning, perhaps the week long block could be shortened, but I still strongly disagree with this block.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
In this context "credibility" means that other editors can have confidence that they can interact productively and collegially with this editor in writing an encyclopedia. You're free to disagree about whether the block is warranted - I personally felt that blocking was not warranted earlier today and resisted demands that Maxx be blocked. In reviewing the ANI discussion I see no acknowledgement that this editor understands how to work with other editors, and instead see a desire for some form of symmetrical retribution against those he sees as opponents. That's disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that. I think YOU reacted as badly as the OP. But I invite you to my talk page if you wish to discuss this further and not take up further space here.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Acro, Mark is right. Thanks, Mark! Acro, you blocked me wrongfully because you told me that if I talked about a certain other user again in any "battlefield" sort of way, I would be blocked. If I wrote on that person's talk page again, I would be blocked. If I edit the Olympic article names again as before, I would be blocked. Well, I have done neither of those now, yet you still blocked me. And did I write on that person's page again? No. Did I talk about that person in a "battlefield" sort of way again? No. But I have the right to talk about someone's ACTIONS that deserve CONSEQUENCES the same way as mine might if I continued them, do I not? And any member has the right to report someone or something at the ANI just like anyone else does, do they not? Oh, AND you did not threaten that person with a block for doing one of those things to me (writing on my talk page against my wishes). Your block was wrong.
MaxxFordham (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Maxx I think you should appeal the block and an uninvolved admin look over the case. I stand by my thought but feel a third opinion would be useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You used the wrong venue and did soapbox, but you are correct as the warning given was not about using ANI in this manner and frankly I think Acroterion should have just told you to stop using ANI for that purpose. To Acroterion just lost patience and that does not suggest credibility on their part. Of course...that is just my opinion.
From up the page, some hours ago: "stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Any further activity of that kind, aimed at anyone, will result in a block." That was a final warning. The behavior continued, and even amplified, hence the block. Any admin is free to reverse the block without consulting me, as always. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


  • Thanks, KK87. Maybe I'll try that. But as for ANI, I didn't know you couldn't use it for asking why you were being treated unfairly (meaning more threatened with punishment than someone else even though they did the same thing as you did), etc. But I guess I could write up a report with him mentioned specifically now, couldn't I? And just as a report, it would fit within the grounds of what ANI is for, wouldn't it?
But acro, using the ANI to report someone for doing the same thing as I got threatened to be blocked for doing, and then asking why I was being treated with an unfair amount of scrutiny--shouldn't be something that can count as a blockable-for action. If I posted on ANI with the wrong idea of how it works, then I'm sorry. But I should have the right to post at least the same kind of report there as anyone else can without repercussion. Is that not right?
MaxxFordham (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way, but I understand your frustration. For that reason I feel the added info of this template may be of help:
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Mark Miller (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. In cases like this I prefer a handwritten note, but the template is helpful too. Maxx, tomorrow I'll try to set down a concise discussion of a way forward to get you back editing productively. In the meantime, I strongly advise you to read and re-read WP:WIN, as it seems to me that you've become more focused on winning conflicts than with helping out the project. We want to get you back to a focus on the encyclopedia project. Acroterion (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Now this is extremely important. What Acroterion stated was very, VERY good advice. The need in all of us to come out on top can be overwhelming and it is, of course, because we don't want to feel defeated. But this is something you need to find within yourself. We don't NEED to win every fight. Sometimes it is far better to learn from the experience. Take the hit and use it to better yourself.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at my block log. It ain't pretty. It took time for me to understand my mistakes, but more importantly, it took others to have patience with me. But more important...it took time. A good deal of time for me to see what I was doing wrong and how it clouded the perception of others. Has it all been a bed of roses since my last block? Oh hell no. ;-) But...when I figured out that my behavior was what clouded others perception of me is when I let go and decided what was more important was those that saw me as worthwhile. I will do for you what Dennis Brown did for me. Check out WP:WER and join us in trying to help others to find a path to a better experience. I found that helping others was far more enjoyable than criticism at every turn. you don't have to give up criticism altogether...but the focus here is to improve the project, find alternative routes for your attention and turn a bad situation into a good one for as many editors as possible. We can't save everyone, but what Editor Retention focuses on is trying to find ways to RETAIN editors. You seem like a decent editor even though there have been rocky circumstances. Let yourself find a route. Don't stop yourself from finding the potential to be a positive force. You can turn the situation around but, it is you that needs to do the work.
Take a good deal of time before you attempt an unblock request. Read the guide to unblocking and don't worry about others, just center on yourself and what you can do to be the best you can. I am not a motivational speaker or even trying to be. I just want you to see that your own actions can be helpful and not detrimental.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Maxx, I hope you take the time and work with Mark, whom I respect and trust. I was hoping to prevent a block, but I do think that Acroterion acted in good faith in doing what he felt was the best short term solution. Please slow down a little, get to "know" Wikipedia and the culture that already exists. It is a big place, well established, it can't adjust to you. Instead, you have to first learn and adjust to how things are already done. It is best to lurk a bit more, work on things that are not controversial at first, and get some experience before moving too fast. Like all of us, I'm sure you will find a niche here, and discover your own way to help us all build an encyclopedia, and hopefully take pleasure and pride in those contributions. It just requires a little patience, willingness to trust others, and time. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


@Maxx. Maxx, in my experience you're not the most careful of readers, so I want to emphasize what the "block notice" Mark posted for you is for. (Even though he has also told you himself.) It contains instructions about how to appeal your block. You need to follow those instructions, because appealing the block in the right way will put your request for unblock on a page where an uninvolved admin will see it and come to review your block. Especially, and I can't stress this enough, you need to read the guide to appealing blocks. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

United States[edit]

Hi again MaxxFordham. I see from above that you attempted to edit the lede of the controversial article United States. That is a tough article to attempt changes on, especially the lede...and even more so for the first sentence. How do I know this? I helped write that lede and referenced the first sentence myself.

What the hell is a "lede"?
MaxxFordham (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL! OK...that made me laugh because I never know whether to write "lead" or Lede". Either one is correct but it just means the introduction to an article. It is how we refer to the first section in a Wikipedia article. Yeah...that threw me for a loop the first time I saw the "Lede" spelling.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
How was "lede" ever supposedly "correct spelling" anywhere?
MaxxFordham (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It is possible you just forgot about the edits but our history sections contain every edit we make.

You first edited the article "United States" at 22:46, 9 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-16)‎ . . m United States as seen in the history of your edits and the history of the article as linked above. You then went on to make about ten more edits there that were basically just reverts of editors who reverted you.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I know the system keeps track of all that. But I just forgot about that one. I guess I'll read the rest of your response now. I thought you were trying to be "adminly" and catch me in another one of those so-called (non-)"problems" just like an actual admin. might think they should.
MaxxFordham (talk)


The lede went through a huge discussion. It was a very difficult and very long discussion and ended up at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I think I know what you were trying to say. I am familiar with much of the controversial issues around the countries name and how it is referred to in general. I myself would prefer "United States of America", but I have never brought this up. Why? Because the way we name articles is to use the most common name the subject is referred to as. There have been so many hot discussions about article names that they have sometimes spilled over into the real world and picked up as stories in the media. Some discussions go so badly that edit wars erupt and the duration and difficulties become pretty "lame". Some, in fact, were so lame that editors decided to immortalize them on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. You have to read that article. It is one of the best ways to understand how things can get out of hand quickly. I can't even say that I was not involved with at least one of these "Lame Wars".

With the US article, the issue has always been with varying opinion and lack of sources and when sources are presented, disagreements on whether they are reliable or not. Your particular addition would be an etymology inclusion, if sourced properly and worded neutrally. There indeed has been controversy about calling the US "America" but exactly how that would be included and whether it should or should not be included must be discussed if your bold edit is reverted. And it is likely to be reverted even with a rock solid reference formatted correctly as an inline citation. Our standard approach to article editing is called BRD. When someone makes a bold edit and then someone else reverts it, a discussion is made on the talk page and the edit is talked through, refined and the either agreed on or a different edit is made to the article. Now, you have to be careful with any edit that alters any of the current content or deletes or reverts any content already present. You can add different content all one want that is not already there as many times as you wish (as long as it is relevant and properly sourced)...but once it is reverted, you cannot add it back without it being an edit war without consensus. A change to, or revert to, any existing content in the same article, whether it be the same content or any other content may only be done 3 times in a 24 hr period. This is called the three revert rule. Editors can be blocked for breaking this as it is called a Bright-line rule, meaning once you cross that line, you have broken the rule. It is one of the very few strictly enforced "rules" Wikipedia has. Wikipedia consist of guidelines and policies. Some of these have exceptions but all of them have long and detailed reasons for existing. It can be difficult to understand it all so...this is what I did. One summer when I was employed at a location that took a good deal of time I decided to stop writing almost altogether and just read. But I wanted to have everything in one spot as much as possible so I created my own little "summer camp" just for me. Then I shared it with a few others. So, I invite you to "Camp Wikipedia", or more accurately I have brought the camp to you. Feel free to take it and add it to a subpage if you like: User:Mark Miller/Camp Wikipedia --Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Ughh, I'll tackle this later. I've gotta go put my head down on something soft for a while! MaxxFordham (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller[edit]

So many people have written so much crap, including that babbler babbaq, WHOM I HAVE TOLD TIME AND TIME AGAIN NOT TO VANDALIZE MY TALK PAGE BUT HE JUST DISREGARDS IT, that I don't even want to read it. It's so much! Maybe I'll get to it eventually.

Let me just start clean with you here: I didn't touch that article "USA" for a long time, if ever. I'll go look and see if my name's there, but it's been a long time, if ever. So all that stuff you wrote (whatever it is, because I didn't read it)--well, I don't want to insult you just yet, so never mind.

I thought you were against acrophobia for blocking me, and he said you could remove it any time you liked without consulting him. So why have you still left it on? MaxxFordham (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Clean starts are good. As for asking an editor to stop vandalizing your page...as yet no one has so, you may just want to ask the editor in question to just refrain from any further postings on your talk page. You are allowed to do that but it must be unambiguous. Yes...telling someone who is not vandalizing your page to stop vandalizing your page is not asking them to stop posting, Just say it clearly and they will stop. That is our way.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
By "clean start," I didn't mean "forget the past, bubba and acrophobia, let's just move on." I meant "let's skip what they wrote for now because I just want to ask you, Mark, some questions, temporarily without worrying about the things you said before (about the other article) at the moment.
Uhh, YES, dumb "babbaq" HAS vandalized my talk page, merely by writing anything on it, because he thinks that's how I have supposedly "vandalized" his page. Did you not read what I wrote in all-caps up there? I already HAVE told him to stop posting on my page!
MaxxFordham (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I did not read what you are talking about. I admit that, however you seem very to very much wish them to stop posting here so this is clear now. I checked and yes, you are correct. BabbaQ you have been told to stop posting here. Do so again for any reason and you will have blatantly violated talk page behavioral guidelines and may be guilty of grave dancing. There is now a witness to this declaration and you really should NOT be baiting editors in this manner! Any further violation of this could gain you a temp block as well. I can't block editors, but I can report the violation to admin. Just stop.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
What violation? Mark, BabbaQ stopped posting here several days ago. Please don't ping him on this page, especially not with such a message. That approaches baiting, and teasing him to come here after all to reply. Unintentionally so on your part, I'm sure, but it presumably comes from your taking Maxx's description of events as gospel, which I think you know it is not. (I'm as sure as you are that he posts in good faith, but he persistently gets stuff wrong.) Why Maxx thought my post above was from Babba[2] is baffling but not untypical. Compare my new section below. Bishonen | talk 17:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
Why are you asking "What violation"?. I didn't say there was a violation. I really don't appreciate being told NOT to do something that was perfectly acceptable and violates no policy guideline or procedure. I wanted to be sure the editor saw the message. That's all. And I am not taking sides or believing someone's word as gospel. The biggest error I made above was saying that the other editor was baiting, but that is basically what they believe when there is indeed at least some demonstration above that they did ask the other to stop posting and then they posted one last time. Now that did look like baiting but clearly is not what the editor had intended.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Why am I asking what violation..? Because you wrote "Any further violation" etc. My italics. That's as well as writing "you really should NOT be baiting editors in this manner!" Your exclamation mark. This to a user who last posted to this page at 14:13 13 March (UTC); 12 hours before Maxx was blocked, 43 hours before you wrote to Babba above; wrote with those accusations, and warning him against grave dancing. It was not perfectly acceptable. I thought the explanation was that you must have picked up a notion from Maxx's ongoing complaints and this edit that Babba had posted much more recently. Bishonen | talk 18:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
Yep. You're right. That was out of line on my part and worded far stronger than it should have been. I was in a rush this morning with a repairman at the house and didn't even read what I wrote last night. I am posting again here to acknowledge that and strike that out.
Oh, and what the admin said was that any other administrator is welcome to revert his block. I am not an administrator. I don't have those tools.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, it looked like you were one. Well then why did you write all that stuff about the USA article as if you were an admin.? And why did you show me that block sticker as if trying to reinforce it? And why did acrophobia talk to you as if you were one?
MaxxFordham (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot of misunderstanding in your perceptions and I understand that, I really do. You see, while I am not an administrator, one does not have to have to be one to post on ANI (it is for experienced editors as well to intervene where they can to help assist in the running of Wikipedia) or assist others. That is why I suggested WP:WER. You see, I don't have to have the tools of an admin to do a non admin closing at ANI, or assist in a discussion there. I don't always have the right words or take the right side. Many times administrators will contact me afterwarss and tell me where I strayed from policy. And I welcome that, as you should. Why> Because Wikipedia is like a university and there are many an editor with enough experience to make an impact.
I will never be an admin. I don't want to be one because there is a great deal of obligation to the job...and it really is a "job". That...and my block log would never pass through an {{WP:RFA]]. But then...I don't want to be one so I am safe there. It was Dennis Brown that, at the same time as pissing me off to the point of nearly screwing myself really badly (very similar to the way you are reacting to other admin) but was also the one who opened my eyes to the fact that any editor can have a major impact on this project. it is a matter of knowing what is acceptable (even when that line is pretty blurred). Gosh...I can't tell you the amount of rants I have made, the embarrassing crap I left on Jimbo's talk page and the frustration of being unjustly blocked (in my opinion....and in hindsight, even by Wikipedia policy). I was blocked once and the admin lied. That is right and I will challenge anyone that dare tell me I am wrong. I have the diffs....but I also let it go. I did that because it doesn't matter anyway. Holding a grudge is difficult, time consuming and...hard to keep up with. What I discovered is that solutions do not come from our policies and guidelines MaxxFordham....they come from us little guys, us....editors. Now, administration works very hard, give up a great deal and have obligations that can suck the joy out of being here....but the good ones shine through all of that because it is...well....something they excel at. It comes naturally to some of our best admin and they manage to contribute to articles and still manage at ANI and other places.
The block "tag" was added because it has instructions on how to appeal the block and the correct format to use when you are ready to request unblock. As the admin said, he prefers a hand written note, but I like to make sure everyone I see get blocked has the best information they will need to request unblock. Had I not had that "template' placed in my user page I would probably still be blocked today.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Also we have something we try to avoid that I apologize for. We call it TLDR. or Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. That's just an essay, which is the opinion of a bunch of editors and is not policy or a guideline. It's just advice and I guess I am really bad at short posts. I like to write a little too much. LOL! Sorry. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll probably get to it eventually, but only after I've checked it to see why you think I was there and when.
MaxxFordham (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Oh...one more thing. (see I told I was bad at short posts). Please understand that if you begin to get out of hand with your postings on your talk page here....admin will block your IP from editing from even this space. You should be able to log in and post as MaxxFordham on your own talk page. I don't see any notification showing that your have been blocked from editing your own Talk page as yet. But I see it happen often.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I know about being able to still write on your own talk page while still logged in unless they want to be even bigger asses and block you from that too. But even if you aren't logged in, they get you with that stupid IP crap (but that still doesn't block you from writing on your own talk page without being logged in, unless they did that extra blocking crap). Well, too bad that by the time someone's dynamic IP address changes, it might be longer than the block itself lasts. Anyway, I merely forgot to log in when I sent those other postings in. I'll go sign them now.
MaxxFordham (talk)


  • Hey, just a side-note: there's a Mark Miller here in Utah who owns an auto dealership: Mark Miller Subaru (maybe you can see one of his commercials on YouTube; I'll have to check). "3734 halfway south down State; Mark Miller... SUbaruuu!" :-)

I don't know if--or then how closely he might be related to--the more famous Utah Millers, the Larry H. Miller Group, who also own auto dealerships, though.

MaxxFordham (talk)
I have actually been researching my genealogy. Now, Mark Miller is a very common name. It is, in fact, the German version of "John Smith". Seriously. But I am related to the Millers of Hawaii. The surname can be traced back as far as 1795 and just before when King Kamehameha first took over all of the islands of Hawaii. This is one reason I hold Wikipedia so dear to my heart....it gave me the experience I needed to keep researching until I discovered a treasure of information. I am very proud of the heritage I discovered. Maybe I shouldn't be but...knowing that my 5x great grand uncle struck the first blow, killing Captain Cook and that there were actual reliable sources to show this and demonstrate it is why Wikipedia is something I feel I must defend. History must be saved and we have very set ways to do that.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I will not be returning to this user page for the duration of the block. All I believe I am accomplishing is pissing off editors more. While I am pretty good at that it seems...I don't like doing it much.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, Mark, for your commentary about family history. What's famous about some Millers in HI? Well, I can look that up, I guess.
Where I live, I'm surrounded with people who feel a strong responsibility to do family history research and then take certain important future-based actions regarding their findings, if applicable. My dad's been big into that (but sadly is in the hospital now; the good thing from that being that he's almost out of the hospital now).

MaxxFordham (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning: you may lose talkpage access[edit]

You're allowed to remove other people's posts on this page, but not to mess them up.[3] I have removed your disruption of my post. Please don't do something like that again, or your access to editing this talkpage may be removed for the duration of the block. Incidentally, what on earth did you mean by ascribing a properly signed edit by me to BabbaQ, saying he had thanked Acroterion for the block? Do please, for the nth time, try to actually read things before you reply to them, or rather before you go off in all directions. BabbaQ hasn't edited this page recently, sensibly enough. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

Good thing I have permission to delete your entire erroneously rude, in-your-face, "take-that" "thanks for blocking him" posting, then.
As for reading issues: well, I wish everyone would insert blank line-spaces between responses. Just these indentations aren't really enough. I apologize for skimming, in this case, then because at first I did think you were the one who errantly thanked acrimony for blocking me, but then I thought I saw a "divider" in the form of someone's signature, which now I see was just your having mislabeled bab as a "constructive editor," including making his name linkable. On the speed-read, it looked like a signature! So then I thought you response was next in line. You're right, I didn't read carefully enough.

MaxxFordham (talk)


  • I've blocked the underlying IP for a week for technical reasons. Maxx has forgotten to log in before, so I am going to assume good faith that he simply forgot to now, rather than assume it was intentional sockpuppeting. The one week block of the IP simply forces him to log in if he wants to edit. Any admin should feel free to reverse this block if they think it is best to, without my permission. Dennis Brown |  | WER 17:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You don't have to do anything to get that IP address blocked. The system does it on its own. I just forgot to log in, and was still able to post in IP mode because that was just here in my talk page. I wouldn't have been able to IP-post in other pages, though. You'd better not have made that manual IP-block for a new week. Just undo it and the system's IP block will be in place anyway, and end "on time" (as if there as any amount of right time for me to have been blocked, anyway).
MaxxFordham (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Also MaxxFordham, you need to address everyone by their actual username. You have demanded it yourself so, respect everyone else's name please.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Where did I ever supposedly request that someone call me by my actual user name?

MaxxFordham (talk)

Constructive editing[edit]

I've been looking through your contributions for examples of constructive editing that you might continue, but it's been a discouraging effort. I see many examples of thoughtless, disruptive or taunting behavior, editing other peoples' comments, and changes to formatting, spelling or naming that run against consensus.

  • Refactoring or correcting other peoples' comments since at least 2008 [4], [5]
  • Uncivil edit summaries since 2010 [6], [7]
  • The "America" issue, since 2010 [8]
  • Remarkably poorly-considered posts on ANI [9], [10] with follow-up intent on retaliation and a refusal to sign ("You know whom you're talking to...), [11]
  • Focus on getting even [12]

These behaviors have recently resumed:

Earlier versions of this talkpage are revealing: [21] and [22]. I see a clear pattern, unchanged from 2010 to today.

You were blocked twice for edit-warring over the America issue, in 2010 and 2014. You won't even sign your posts consistently. I approached this with an open mind, thinking I was talking to a relatively new user, but I find that's not the case. Is there a way forward? Acroterion (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I never realised his pattern of disruption was so extensive. Fordham has already been blocked, so I wouldn't bother extending it, but he can consider himself on his final warning; one more unconstructive edit and I'd block for three months with all communication disabled.--Launchballer 21:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, there you are again, talking big like you think you have admin. powers though in fact you do not. "Nice work" there, big-talker.
MaxxFordham (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
My only experiences thus far with this user have been negative, I hesitate to think there is a lot to salvage here...
Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There is plenty to "salvage" here. In fact, "salvage" is the wrong word to use, since nothing was "lost" in the first place!
MaxxFordham (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
...not saying this to be mean but to work here you have to be able to work with people and the history here clearly shows that he can't. Hell in a Bucket ::(talk) 22:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


@Acroterion:, if you aren't sure about a unilateral indef, you can always make an indef proposal at WP:AN, although I don't think that is necessary. The more I see of the history, the more I begin to think that the disruption is not a temporary problem or simple lack of knowledge. This behavior appears to be core to this individual, thus irreversibly inconsistent with Wikipedia. Whatever you decide, I am confident I will support it. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
WHY the hell are you talking about moving to a stupid indefinite blockage, when I HAVE NOT DONE ANY MORE ARTICLE EDITING OF ANY KIND EVER SINCE THIS WHOLE STUPID ARGUMENT STARTED?
Editing things in here don't count towards what you guys errantly call "disruptive editing." You shouldn't escalate a blockage when nothing additional is being done to warrant it!
MaxxFordham (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Good grief, @Acroterion:. I'd gone into the user's history some, but not that far back. I spoke above to how much time he wastes,
You guys are the ones wasting time, not me. I'm just defending myself against all your silly little nonsense arguments here!
MaxxFordham (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

...but I didn't realize what an unpleasant atmosphere he spreads (though I was aware how much he was unfortunately upsetting BabbaQ).

You guys are the ones spreading an unpleasant atmosphere. Also, babbaq was being a hypocrite and upsetting me at least as much by posting here after I told him not to even though I didn't keep posting at his little "precious" place there. True, he's not still posting in here. GOOD!

There's some unbelievable stuff in your diffs, and just simply no improvement to be seen.

How can there BE supposed "improvement" if there can be no articles to edit during a blockage?

For instance, I didn't know he had been so extensively warned against changing other people's posts; and still he did it with mine five hours ago, during a block.[23] I recommend an indefinite block.

That would be a wrong recommendation then, because all you guys are doing in here is just giving more CRAP for me to defend against. The more of your CRAP you throw out here about all this, the more it just riles up the person you're CRAPPING about! You're just throwing CRAP to try to have a good excuse to extend the blockage! And it's only from things that are being said in here!

MaxxFordham (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If he is here to create an encyclopedia, he doesn't seem capable of learning how to do it. Bishonen | talk 23:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

I'm not in that stupid condition you guys call "nothere." I DID, in fact, make those correct changes on the Olympic articles IN GOOD FAITH! Ohhh, but NOO, you guys all had to throw big FITS over it for nothing! We had ALL THIS CRAP just because you are so ADAMANT about a few simple word order changes!

Whow, talk about people who have too much time on their hands! Its been days since I made those "so-TERRIBLE" changes, yet you're all still in here fighting about it! Talk about freaking OVERKILL! GEEZE! MaxxFordham (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Again I feel way too much time is being wasted on this user...
Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, too much time giving me so much undeserved CRAP instead of just doing the right thing and undoing the block and letting it go and watching me not "destroy" articles!
MaxxFordham (talk)
...I believe in good faith but the history speaks for...
Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
So just as an example, changing someone's "thanks" into a "NO thanks" is one thing. ::::Okay, I get that. But then you're saying that even if I fix an error like this:
MaxxFordham (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
..."its-self"
Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
into the correct...
MaxxFordham (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
"itself"
Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
...then THAT'S gonna be a so-called "problem," too?
WELL WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE WIKIPEDIA, THEN, IF EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE SO BRATTILY OFFENDED WHEN ONE OF THEIR ERRORS GETS STRAIGHTENED OUT?!
My hell, guys! If that's how everyone's gonna be, then we might as well shoot Wikipedia out with a hail of bullets and then go home and call it a day!
Just.... WHOWW!
MaxxFordham (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

Stop x nuvola.svg

Do you really make a virtue of not having edited articles during your block? Yes, things on this page do count towards what we call "disruptive editing", and instead of replying constructively to Acroterion's ("Acrimony's") final appeal, you're as combative and as uninterested in advice and information as ever, on the theory that you know better. I note especially your continued attack on Launchballer. You have been blocked indefinitely for not being here to improve the encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. For that purpose, I'm (a little reluctantly) leaving you talkpage access, but if you continue to abuse it, it will be removed. Bishonen | talk 06:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

Whow, you stupidly act as if editing a talk page--including merely giving someone a new nickname--is all as supposedly "TERRIBLY" the same as "destroying an article"! What the hell does one's OWN TALK PAGE have to do with EDITING FREAKING ARTICLES? How is any of this stuff supposedly contributing to either improving or not improving the wiki? Who, as a public reader, would give a crap about what's going on inside a person's talk page? This isn't what improving wiki is about. This is just a handful of people--some admins, some not--talking crap on a talk page! This and the wiki in general are too separate for you to feel like my reactions here are so "detrimental" to the wiki as a whole!
Besides that, telling someone--launch--that he sounds like he thinks he's an admin when he's NOT one is hardly "attacking" him!
What a bunch of overreacters!
  • For the record, I fully support the block and removal of talk page access for reasons that should be apparent. Dennis Brown |  | WER 12:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • A postscript: my block was provisionally for a week, to be adjusted or allowed to expire if this user undertook to reconcile with the community. That was before I reviewed their editing history and found consistent problems dating to 2010 and beyond, indicating a repeating pattern of unwholesome interactions with other Wikipedia editors. I was prepared to extend the block to indefinite, but wanted to allow Maxx an opportunity to respond to my detailed review. I note that he has ignored my review, choosing instead to decisively reject any sort of reconciliation, and making his continued participation in this collaborative work impossible. Maxx has made his choice. I endorse the indefinite block and removal of talkpage privileges. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)