User talk:MaximoolianOne

MaximoolianOne, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi MaximoolianOne! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bop34 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

April 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Adolphus79. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sugarmill Woods, Florida, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm MaximoolianOne. If a link went inactive, the content remains relevant, except the source citation needs updating. I would have appreciated "Citation Needed" (updating) instead of deleting the work entirely. Citrus County Sheriff's Office does not, and did not, publicly state it that cannot separate Sugarmill Woods for crime statistics. I contacted them personally, therefore cannot cite hearsay. In the absence of relevant information, you will find it reasonable and helpful to explain an official absence referencing official government sources deemed to be reliable, regardless of personal politics or opinion. Third-party data provider links may or may not be reliable however, without an official guideline referencing a source as unreliable, it is often helpful to include the source ("According to...") and let users judge for themselves, and/or add a disclaimer if the Wiki community questions but cannot specifically and/or officially debunk it.

The FBI rhetoric and citation link have been updated.

BTW, "peacocky" "reads as spam" is editorial in nature and potentially insulting when referencing others' work. Please refrain from this sort of commentary. Many of your edits are indeed helpful. The goal is to provide as much relevant information (see The Villages and other large community pages for reference) to existing and prospective residents, including the information that might be inconvenient to interested parties.

Cheers,

/M MaximoolianOne (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you are wrong. We have policies and guidelines in place here that require such things as reliable sources to be able to verify any and all content. I'm sorry that you are "potentially insulted" by Wikipedia policies like WP:PEACOCK and WP:SPAM. But blindly reverting my changes because you think the WP:BURDEN is on anyone other than you (the person wanting to add the content) is simply wrong. That being said, I advise that you read the assorted links that have been provided to you before again restoring a bad revision of the article and catching a WP:3RR. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it is not up to you to interpret the guidelines in any way you see fit regardless of you credentials, including abuse of guidelines to fit your interpretation. Wikipedia has not determined the cited resources as unreliable. The cited link was repaired and noted. As a courtesy, I've reported your reversals for executive review and intervention.

Good Day MaximoolianOne (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sugarmill Woods, Florida. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be well-versed at wiki jousting, granted, however you tend to insult and pontificate without real justification, hiding behind rules you yourself interpret. Anyone can block or edit, which is why Wikipedia itself has become unreliable. You should ask yourself if the information provided is actually unreliable or untruthful, or if you simply don't agree with it because of personal interests. These unwarranted reversals of yours speak to the latter. MaximoolianOne (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are incorrect. I don't have to ask myself any questions other than "where is the reliable source that proves this statement is true?" If there is no reliable source provided to verify the statement, then the statement does not belong on Wikipedia. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI was cited and properly linked. Likewise the third-party stat source.

The third-party source )to note, NOT the FBI or CItrus County) was not deemed unreliable on it's own wiki, therefore your interpretation was plainly incorrect.

Your interpretation of WP's guidelines is therefore wholly incorrect. MaximoolianOne (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Adolphus79 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Sugarmill Woods, Florida) for edit warring.

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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23,

You've implied that I didn't attempt to communicate when I clearly did within the edits and via DM. Tisk. MaximoolianOne (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block notice is standard for edit-warring, and the point is for you to discuss and not revert. Just out of curiosity, what is "DM"?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Messaging (or whatever you prefer to call the act of directly addressing a user via Wiki messaging -- forgive if the proper name isn't on-hand. I am infrequent user)

The point is that I *did* contact this user about their serial undos -- their reversions (I am the page's original creator and author, not them). An Admin was also requested by me. I must also underscore that the user did not contact me before unilaterally decreeing a source as unreliable and repeatedly delete an entire 1900-word block that discussed more than the one source in question. They are guilty of their own accusations, regardless of their very fine Wiki credentials. Further, there simply is no veracity to their claim of unreliability, a fact omitted in their discourse. MaximoolianOne (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Messaging doesn't exist on Wikipedia. I don't see any evidence that you contacted an administrator, not that it's particularly relevant. Your first edit to the article was in December 2021; the article was created years before that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, you do not own or control the article in question, no one needs to contact you or get your permission to make any changes. Yet another policy you seem to be choosing to ignore. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to clarify, your claim of being the "creator and author" of the article in question is also very blatantly not true (unless you are a sock?)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To comment, there is a very good reason why authors are discouraged from providing content and editing wiki pages.

I received a message and responded. Do not conflate Direct Messaging (or whatever semantic you wish to employ) with Private Messaging, which is not the case.

Regardless of your insult (sock), clearly you have little concept that a username could have been deleted for lack of activity, and a new one created. "Maximoolian" was my former moniker, and not my first.

Point being, when I began adding useful content to Sugarmill Wood's page a few years ago, there was no visible content for it besides a two sentence geographical reference. While it might have a back-n-forth history dating 20 years ago, 90% it's current content is by my doing, and that's a conservative estimate which the editing records will validate -- and yes, of course I understand it's not 'owned' by me -- how ridiculous. But let's not let your ire for my verbiage distract from the facts in dispute with A79. You continue to avoid their serial undos and unilateral, unwarranted adjudication.

Clearly, some of Wikipedia's editors barricade themselves behind procedure and not actual truthful, relevant content. This is quite evident. When A79 generalized that Wiki's pages aren't reliable, I completely understand why. Inconvenient facts deleted for ANY reason, not an honest one. MaximoolianOne (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the two we now know about, what other accounts have you had?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize if you are offended again by yet another of Wikipedia's policies, but WP:SOCK is a very serious one. Why did you stop using that account after only 26 edits? Have you declared that this account is a sock as you are supposed to do? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my previous response. It directly answers your question. MaximoolianOne (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking me to recall Wikipedia-specific usernames from over 10 years ago, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I remember having a couple previously and having them sequentially wiped due to inactivity (definitely not abuse!) and not recoverable due to WP's policies. I've only maintained one account at a time.

Seems you're focused on my validation (or disqualification if at all possible) and not on the actual facts of this debate regarding targeted omissions. What of it? MaximoolianOne (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts are not "sequentially wiped due to inactivity". Also, as long as you have an e-mail address associated with an account, you can always "recover" it if you forget the password. In any event, you are the one who brought this up. This "discussion" is not productive. You are prevented from editing the article. If you wish to discuss your edits, do so on the article Talk page. Otherwise, go do something else.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Please answer my question. MaximoolianOne (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]