User talk:Maxl/Archive1

Archive

This is an archive. Do NOT make any edits!

Welcome!

Hello, Maxl/Archive1, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

This is a bit late, so you'll know all the above — but better a late welcome than no welcome at all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Giovanni Cardinal Canestri

Hi Maxl, you removed the pending delete from this page. I restored the note because the page has to be deleted due to copyright issues.

You may still re-write the article, just click on the temporary subpage link in the copyright violation notice.

--Duk 18:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Sizonenko

Hi - I moved the article you created to Alexander Sizonenko, which seems to be the correct spelling (rather than Sizomenko). I'll update the references as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni Cardinal Canestri

Yes, you're right, the link is gone - its been a while! You can click the link above (the section header on this note) to start a new article. Glad to see you are back. --Duk 02:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Walmarting

There's a vote to delete this article and since you weighed in on the debate article, thought you might want to weigh in.--Beth Wellington 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in and for pointing out I hadnn't signed my comment. Went back and added the signature manually from the history. I've only voted in an AfD once before. How long does it take and is it simply numerical? (There are a lot of "deletes" and only 3 of us so far who voted to "keep" and change in some way.)--Beth Wellington 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alan Aycock, the prof whose site I quoted, has now contributed to this article. Pretty neat, huh?--Beth Wellington 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad for the outcome. And even before the cancellation of the AfD, Rhobite, who had been for its deletion made good edits.--Beth Wellington 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of Wal-Mart

Thanks for the alert. don't really have time now, as the library closes soon, but maybe later...--Beth Wellington 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

HP7

Maxl,

I'm sorry if I offended you by removing your edits to Harry Potter 7, but I stand by my actions. Your contribution about the DA makes no sense because it is not written in grammatical English and makes speculations which are not appropriate for Wikipedia. All we can have in the article are definite facts; we can't have everyone's personal view about what will happen. Same thing with the part about Dumbledore's hand -- it's just speculation that it will be important. The other parts of the article only mention definite passages from the book and leave conclusions up to the reader. Also, I do not appreciate the insinuation that I am somehow "biased." That being said, if you have some sort of proof that Dumbledore's hand is important or the teacher will be someone from the DA, please add it. --PKirlin 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7 again

May I ask you why you reinserted the speculative material which I removed? At the very least, I'd like some sort of discussion on the talk page. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections

Trivia sections, and the problems that surround them, are not improved by being renamed to "notable facts." The issues continue to exist, regardless of the section name. Please consider the purpose of the {{trivia}} tag, and work to integrate the facts rather than disguise the lists as not trivia. I don't want to go through and revert all the edits you made, but maybe I'll take the time to write prose from those sections. Leebo ^T/C 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The only problems that surround so-called trivia sections are these stupid tags added by some people who seem to have too much time. The tags are absolute useless while the trivia sections aren't. Whenever I'll come across such a tag I'll remove it. It's jusst a nuisance, nothing else. --Maxl 13:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Everybody works on different things here at Wikipedia, please don't dismiss others' work simply because you don't agree with them. Trivia sections, while not worthless (no one's saying they're worthless) would be much better presented as prose. The tag serves as a reminder to change the section to prose, which flows much better than a list. Leebo ^T/C 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure that someone created an automated process to add trivia tags. It's not "someone with too much time" since it might not be a someone at all. Leebo ^T/C 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maxl, I want to join Leebo's call to stop changing the titles of these sections to "Notable facts" ... that only unnecessary clutters up the edit history of the article, does not change the fact that they are "Trivia" sections and contain trivia that falls under Wikipedia guideline, and does not prevent the tags from being re-added. If you have concerns about the tags or the handling of trivia sections, please raise them at Template talk:Trivia and Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Thank you, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing Trivia tags from articles. They are not a condemnation of the article or the facts contained within the section. They are only a reminder that the information contained within the trivia section should be incorporated into the main body of the article. Bryan26 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing trivia tags from article. This could be construed as vandalism by some editors. --Oscarthecat 15:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Oscarthecat 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please stop changing the names of Trivia sections. Indoles 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The trivia tags are the vandalism. I'm working hard to remove that vandalism. --Maxl 16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The trivia tags are established tags on Wikipedia. Please use the talk page for the trivia tag to discuss your disdain for them, but do NOT just remove them from pages. Pats1 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would consider what you are doing vandalism. Indoles 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you remove the trivia tag on Carolina Panthers again, you will be reported for WP:3RR. Pats1 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to blackmail me??? --Maxl 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If it means stopping your vandalism of Wikipedia, yes. Pats1 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have misinterpreted the wikipedia guidelines on this, please take a look at WP:TRIVIA. Such tags are deemed as suitable for such content. I'd like to enter into a dialog with on this page before you continue any any further such edits please. Best regards, --Oscarthecat 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It is not appropriate to merely rename Trivia sections "Additional information", as you did to Howard Webb. No article information is additional, it's just part of the sum of information in the article. And the guidelines currently ask for anything which resembles trivia to be integrated into the article. It is possible, with a little hard work. See Sheffield United F.C. and its edit history to see an example of how. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

N.F.L. teams

You may find it informative to participate in a dialog concerning the content of the main page of not only your team but all the N.F.L. teams. Please come and share your thoughts on the subject of content and help form a consensus on that topic.Talk:San Diego Chargers "Epic in Miami -Freezer Bowl" is where you will find the debate and we need you to help us to avoid edit wars. Thanks RMANCIL 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 15:40 3 June 2007 (UTC).

Hi, I have already explained the basis of how SmackBot works, which you would have seen if you had looked at the edits or read its user page. I don't mind it being stopped in error, but a second stop borders on vandalism. You seem like a dedicated editor, don't waste it fighting unnecessary and unwinnable fights. Rich Farmbrough, 16:20 3 June 2007 (GMT).

Hi Max, please name an article which it has tagged as trivia. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29 3 June 2007 (GMT).

Omar Sharif

Hi - see see you're still switching trivia tags to other names, despite the warnings. This edit been reverted back to its original state. --Oscarthecat 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you just stop harrassing and blackmailing me???? :/ --Maxl 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is harassing or blackmailing you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project -- users must be able to discuss changes with you. Leebo ^T/C 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes on Tony Blair and Gordon Brown

Please don't remove the hidden comments from the infoboxes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, they're there for a reason. Tony Blair is still the PM and if you put the date he leaves office in, the incumbent banner is removed from the box. Please don't remove the hidden comments from the Gordon Brown page either as he could be knocked down by a bus tomorrow, in which case he wouldn't become PM. Also, there is no such term a Prime Minister-elect or Prime Minister-designate in the United Kingdom and so Brown remains Chancellor until 27 June. --Philip Stevens 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

going over table for Billings (metric stuff)

Monthly Normal and Record High and Low Temperatures
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Rec High °F | Rec High °C	68 | 20	72 | 22	80 | 27	92 | 33	96 | 35,5	105 | 40,5	108 | 42	105 | 40.5	103 | 39.5	90 | 32	77 | 25	69 | 20.5
Norm High °F | Norm High °C	32.8 | 0.4	39.5 | 4.2	47.6 | 8,7	57.5 | 14,2	67.4 | 19,7	78 | 25,6	85.8 | 29.9	84.5 | 29.2	71.8 | 22.1	58.9 | 14.9	42.7 | 5.9	34.5 | 1.4
Norm Low °F | Norm Low °C	15.1 | -9.4	20.1 | -6.6	26.4 | -3.1	34.7 | 1.5	44 | 6.7	52.5 | 11.4	58.3 | 14.6	57.3 | 14.1	47.1 | 8.4	37.2 | 2.9	25.6 | -3.6	17.7 | -7.9
Rec Low °F | Rec Low °C	-30 | -34.5	-38 | -39	-19 | -28	-5 | -21	14 | -10	32 | 0	41 | 5	35 | 2	22 | -6	-7 | -22	-22 | -30	-32 | -36
Precip (in) | Precip (mm)	0.81 | 20.6	0.58 | 14.7	1.12 | 28.4	1.74 | 44.2	2.48 | 63.0	1.89 | 48.0	1.28 | 32.5	0.85 | 21.6	1.34 | 34.0	1.26 | 32.0	0.75 | 19.1	0.67 | 17.0
Source: USTravelWeather.com [1]

Your Wisdom has been Noted

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Maxl. You have new messages at Redthoreau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rename on Wikimedia commons

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is username MaxM and I wish it to be the same as my SUL account (this one), Maxl. --Maxl (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cleopatra (1912 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[Harry Knowles (actor|Harry Knowles]]: Kephren - Captain of the Guards to the Queen

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Inge Landgut may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] and as the first German dubbing voice of Miss Ellie Ewing ([[Barbara Bel Geddes]]) from [[Dallas (TV Series|Dallas]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

April 2014

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit thick when the person who made that vandalism claims that the edit he or she made is not vandalism. And it's a bit odd when the person in question does not manage to talk to someone else in their own words and needs to use a template. That's either laziness or disregard of the person adressed. --Maxl (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please stop assuming bad faith? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So it's "bad faith" if I dare utter criticism against you? Well, your last comment here has not really contributed to changing my opinion about you. --Maxl (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Image of Kim Jong-un

There is currently a vote about this on the Talk Page. As you commented earlier this year, I thought you might be interested.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Maxl. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Wreck-It Ralph 2

An article that you have been involved in editing—Wreck-It Ralph 2—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:100 Years (film) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

It is relevant to the article since the topic was brought up there. --Maxl (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, do NOT elete other peoples' edits on discussion pages even if you disagree with what the user wrote. Discuss but do NOT delete!!! --Maxl (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO.

Article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it.

You don't like WP:NOR. Venting your feelings on the article's talk page will not improve the article. Feel free to take the issue to the village pump. Perhaps you will be able to build a consensus to change this core policy. Until then, it is a core policy.

You think the film does not exist. Your opinion will not change the article. Feel free to take this issue to your personal blog. Until someone presents your argument in a reliable source or Wikipedia changes its core policies, your opinion on the article's topic is not appropriate material for the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who said so. And while an opinion might not change the article several might. Plus, it's totally legal to speak your opinion. And, once again, you have NO AUTHORITY to delete other peoples' discussion posts! --Maxl (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:100 Years (film) for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. 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. Per WP:TALK: "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above." Your comments are your opinion as to whether or not the film exists which is general discussion of the article's topic. SummerPhD^v2.0 15:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from telling me what I am, in your opinion, allowed to say and what not as this exceeds your autority. I do NOT violate any wikipedia rules simply by disagreeing with you, and that's all this is about. And you have, so far, failed to contribute anything sensible to all the discussions we had. Instead of sticking with actual topic you tried to force on me your interpretation of the rules. Do you really think you should complain about others' posts being allegedly off-topic when yours don't have anything to do with the topic discussed? By the way, your attitude of assumed authority is very annoying. Please remind yourself that you do not possess more authority than any other user on the wikipedia and please DO change your tone.

Please do NOT post this or any other pre-fabricated text on my discussion page again. If you wish to tell me something please do so in your own words.--Maxl (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:100 Years (film) to state your opinions, thoughts or feelings about the article's topic. They are for discussion related to making the article better; not for you to talk about your opinions, thoughts or feelings about the article's topic. If you want to talk about why you think it isn't a film, feel free to use a blog, Internet forum or social media to do so, instead of on article talk pages. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines explains this. WP:TALK makes it clear that it is common practice to simply delete comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article). Your comments are your opinion as to whether or not the film exists which is general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You haven't read what I wrote on the film's discussion page, have you? I took in question that this film does not exist. We have no proof it does. This is about the film and is within the rules. I do not care whether this pleases you or not. Let me remind you, you are trying to force your point of view and your interpretation of the rules on me but, as I said, doing so exceeds your authority. As to the opinion, like everyone I AM permitted to say my opinion, whether you like it or not. We are not in North Korea! Well, I noticed before that talking to you is like talking at a wall since you do not listen and just keep forcing through your point of view. I see no sense in continuing that discussion since you are not ready to discuss anything but your personal point of view which you never take into question. There is no point discussing anything with a person as obtuse as yourself. --Maxl (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not North Korea? True. Nevertheless, Wikipedia's article talk pages are limited to discussions on how to improve their associated articles. Your opinions, thoughts and feelings are off-topic. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines allow me, you or anyone else to remove such off-topic chat from article talk pages. It is also why we have the consensus warnings (which you dislike) warning against such behavior.

The core question here is what article talk pages are for. My "interpretation" of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines is that talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. What is your interpretation of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines? - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation is that it is completely all right to discuss whether a film for whose existance there is no actual proof warrants an article or not and that's what I tried to do. Apparently you did not like that discussion and that's why you claimed it was against the rules. --Maxl (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your original comment -- the one you are backpedaling to defend -- does not say anything about the article. It is essentially two parts: A rant against WP:NOR (one of Wikipedia's core policies) and your opinion that the film does not exist.

Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Byelection is a typo

'Typo' is an abbreviation for 'typographical error'. I made no error in spelling it that way. I do not understand your reference to British English since the term is not used in any other variant. It started off in the nineteenth century as "bye-election" (previously they were generally known as 'single elections' as almost all places returning Members to Parliament had two Members, so an election for one seat would happen if a vacancy occurred mid-term). The hyphenated term was once usual but is now less common than the unhyphenated one.

It was no error. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course it is an error. I consulted my Oxford Dictionary of English which has an entry for by-election but none for the word without a hyphen. This means that "by-election" is spelled with a hyphen. I suppose that you are ready to accept the Oxford Dictionary of English as an authority in English spelling, especially insofar as British English is concerned. I don't understand why you are so attached to the word without the hyphen when it is definitely wrong. --Maxl (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries do not prescribe usage, they report on it. If it is wrong ever to refer to a "byelection" as such, then there are a great many people who are also getting it wrong: The Guardian, The Times, and Justice of the Peace Ltd. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Maxl. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Apache OpenOffice

Hi. I invite you to participate in the polite ongoing discussion. :-) --Entalpia2 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Opened RfC at Talk:Apache_OpenOffice#Current_options

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Apache_OpenOffice#Current_options . Opened RfC Entalpia2 (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Maxl. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein

Hello, I'm Sandstein. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Harvey Weinstein have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sandstein 14:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather say such a revert is whitwashing. The image clearly shows an OVERWEIGHT Harvey Weinstein. So what I added was the truth. The truth is not "libelious" or "defamatory". Therefore you used the wrong pre-fabricated text bit. In a world where people like Donald Trump can become President of the United States truth has, apparently, lost its value. Anyway, Sandstein = Weinstein, isn't it, Harvey? Editing in your own interest is not what we want on the Wikipedia and is frowned upon! --Maxl (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not Weinstein. I'm a Wikipedia administrator who will block you if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia like that and violate our policy WP:BLP, which directs: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Weinstein may be overweight, but it's not our business to comment on the appearance of our subjects. His weight is not relevant to his notability as a film producer or as an alleged sexual offender or anything else in his biography. Highlighting it in a caption makes us appear tabloid-like, petty and biased against him. That is definitely not what we, as a neutral encyclopedia, are about. Sandstein 15:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

And whitewashing as you did makes it look as if Wikipedia is biased in favour of him. As I said, looking at the picture, it is true that he is overweight. You cannot deny this, as much as you wish. And, as I also said, the truth is not "libelious" or "defamatory" even if it isn't flattering. It doesn't have to be. Please alo remind yourself that Freedom of Speech is a very important good to people all over the world and a right that is denied to people in many countries, which makes it just the more important. It must not be impeded! Anyway, don't you think calling one single edit an "interruption of Wikipedia" is a gross exaggeration? --Maxl (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We do not write everything that is true. See WP:NOT. We edit our articles so that they are neutral and unbiased. See WP:NPOV.

You do not have freedom of speech on Wikipedia. See WP:FREE. If you want to write what you want, make your own blog. If you want to write here, follow the rules. You clearly lack the competence or inclination to do so. If you make one more edit that similarly violates our policy WP:BLP, you will no longer be able to participate here. Sandstein 18:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Your patronizing way of talking to me is beginning to annoy me. I have been a contributer to Wikipedia for more than 15 years and I haven't ever been blocked. So I can't be as screwed as you seem to think I am. And since we have never talked before you are hardly in a position to judge my competence, so leave it. The last sentence, by the way, is tantamount to blackmail, not anything I would expect from a sensible Wikipedia admin. And you are certainly not in a position to deny me my right of free speech. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. --Maxl (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sandstein 15:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Harold Lloyd

Please note that it is inappropriate to remove a request for a citation on the grounds that a linked article verifies the information, per WP:CIRCULAR. Linked articles can change, and just because they verify information currently does not mean they will do so in the future. As such, it is vastly preferable to copy any appropriate citations to the linking article. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you just do what you suggested? :) --Maxl (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Because I don't currently have the time to do so. In the meantime it's inappropriate to remove the tag without providing a source. If you remind me, I'll try to get to it when I have more time available. Until then, please leave the CN tag, in accordance with WP:BURDEN. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

But you've got the time to check any edit in the article and to revert my edits claiming that they are inapropriate. Interesting! --Maxl (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

My apologies; I've become confused as to whether you wanted me to try to help or not. Please let me know if you would like me to take a look. DonIago (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Message from a bureaucrat (1)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been a member of the community for more than 15 years and don't fancy being treated like an ignorant newbie. Even a new user, though, might find your approach as patronising. Please rethink how to communicate with fellow Wikipedians. Thank you. --Maxl (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Message from a bureaucrat (2)

Hi Maxl! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Descendants 3 that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing a tag is a minor edit. It does not change the meaning of the article. --Maxl (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Maxl, WP:MINOR "What not to mark as minor changes:" "Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article" "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances" Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently not true. Otherwise maintenance tags wouldn't be so liberally spread all over the Wikipedia, the majority of them unnecesssary. Anyway, such decisions as to whether an edit is minor are made edit by edit. Also, removing a tag is, as I said, minor per your previous post since it does NOT change the meaning of the article. --Maxl (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Message from a bureaucrat (3)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Maxl. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Elizium23 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone. I just told you not to revert edits on my talk page. Reverting edits on another user's talk page, especially the edits of the user whose talk page it is, is vandalism. You did it again. I think you're the one who should be reported.

Please, from now on, refrain from posting on my talk page as I will just delete your messages. We will never agree anyway. --Maxl (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ariana Greenblatt

Please do not delete or edit talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Ariana Greenblatt. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not edit or delete comments - instead my last comment was deleted. Please stick to the truth! And please don't yell at others for allegedly doing something while you did it. --Maxl (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems decidedly odd that someone takes offence of something I didn't do (I never edited the text of another user) and which he himself did anyway by deleting mine - twice! --Maxl (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the discussion from the discussion page of Ariana Greenblatt:

Redirect over article

Don't redirect! If you're not content with the article improve it instead! And the "depreciated" link is, firstly, a personal opinion of the person who says so, and, secondly, a "depreciated" link is no reason for a redirect. Remove the link you deem "depreciated" and the problem has been solved. --Maxl (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how it works, at all. Articles, especially on WP:BLPs, have to meet notability guidelines like WP:BASIC – otherwise, an article cannot exist. You should follow the suggestion of the hidden note, and try to make a draft article at Draft:Ariana Greenblatt, and demonstrate there that this article subject meets notability guidelines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's your personal opinion. There is, however, more than one way to achieve a goal. For example, the article can be tagged as requiring improvement. That's how it is normally done. If you just change it into a redirect it will be overlooked and the article will never come back as an article in its own respect. Anyway, there are ongoing claims about this article not meeting certain guidelines but no reason is given why this is alleged to be the case. I've been a Wikipedian for a long time and I've seen people fight certain articles with all kinds of odd arguments for the simple reason that they didn't like the lemma. And I've seen people claiming that articles "do not meet" the notability guidelines for the simple reason that they didn't know anything about the topic. --Maxl (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it's actually policy. You've been told what you need to do – if you ignore this, either the page will be protected, or you will be blocked for WP:DE, or both. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

While you say this is policy the question is still open why it might apply here. Just to say it's "policy" is insufficient. Whatever policy there is, it does not always apply or can be falsely applied. Neither you nor anyone else has stated why this "policy" should apply to this article. Anyway, as you might have seen, I have not again restored the article even though I might have been in my full rights to do so since neither you nor the user who restored the redirect, explained WHY the article, in their opinion, does not meet a certain "policy". And you did not answer to my arguments, you chose to threaten me instead. That's not the spirit of a true Wikipedian, I'm sorry to say. --Maxl (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Article tags are useless. The majority of the time they are simply reminders for yourself. Amaury • 22:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Another personal opinion.... --Maxl (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

And, to be clear, this doesn't cut it – one WP:RS "passing mention", three almost certain WP:NOTRS (see: WP:DAILYMAIL), and two WP:Primary sources that do not contribute to notability – the only source that actually contributes to WP:BASIC there is the ABC 11 source, and that one looks like it's not "in depth" enough coverage either. So, no – you have absolutely not demonstrated that this subject is notable enough for an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to demonstrate anything. You claimed the article does not meet the "notability guidelines" You have to prove it's true. And you see, the way you call Ariana Greenblatt "this subject" very clearly shows your attitude towards her... and don't delete my posts!! --Maxl (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC) BTW, we're done here. You've been told what to do: if you think we are wrong, create a Draft article, submit it through WP:AfC, and see if they accept it into Mainspace. I'll be hard money that the version I linked to above would not be accepted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you complained about me allegedly editing texts of others which I did not do. Instead, you deleted my last post, apparently because I disagreed with you. Yes - I think a further discussion with you dows not help since you don't seem to be ready to accept different opinions. --Maxl (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Staci Keanan edit - yet another message from a buerocrat

I have reverted your addition of a date of birth to Staci Keanan. In addition to Wikipedia's basic principle of citing sources (Wikipedia:Citing sources), a special need for citations applies with regard to elements of a biography of a living person (WP:BLPPRIVACY). Feel free to add a date of birth when it is accompanied by a citation to a reliable, published source. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't you try to find a source instead of deleting important info from the article without discussion? Wouldn't that have been the sensible thing to do? By the way, 3 people so far restored the date of birth and each time you deleted it again, not realising that your opinion obviously isn't the majority one. --Maxl (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If what I wrote were only my opinion, you would be correct. However, Wikipedia:Citing sources is "... a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow ...". (WP:BLPPRIVACY) is "... a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow ...". Both of those standards go far beyond the opinion of any one editor. If you disagree with either or both of those standards, you should propose changes at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons.

As for your questions:"Why didn't you try to find a source instead of deleting important info from the article without discussion? Wouldn't that have been the sensible thing to do?", WP:BURDEN specifies, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

My question in this and other cases where an unsourced date of birth is added is, "Why didn't the editor who added the date add a citation at the same time?" I think that would be "the sensible thing to do". Eddie Blick (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Actually, I guess not everyone knows that things on the Wikipedia should best be sourced. So you can't expect everyone always to provide a source with new info. Unsourced info isn't necessarily wrong, however. Yes, obvious nonsense needs to be deleted immediately but there's no hurry with a date of birth. Anyway, Stacy's date of birth was there for ages and no one ever complained. To me just deleting info instead of trying to source and thus preserve it it seems to be destructive. Before you delete an info you should ALWAYS try to source it. Or at the very least you should tag the "unsourced" info and thus give it a chance - and time - to be sourced. Deletion should always be a last resort. --Maxl (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I often add a "citation needed" template to unsourced content in articles. However, if I were to do so with a date of birth for a living person, that would violate the standard of WP:BLPPRIVACY because the date would still be published. In contrast to your comment, "there's no hurry with a date of birth", I think WP:BLPPRIVACY indicates that an editor should not hurry to publish a date of birth until he or she can include a citation to a reliable, published source with that date. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that rule usually only applies to non-famous people. Famous people can't expect to receive as much privacy as non-famous ones. Just look at what the media are doing - they're publishing much more private things about famous people than just the date of birth.

As I mentioned before, the birth of date of Staci Keanan was on the page for years and can easily be found by looking into older edits, so what's the point of hurrying the deletion? In addition, often enough it happens that someone provides a source and then someone else claims this source is "not reliable". (By the way, I don't generally check the rulebooks before I make an edit. There are way, way too many rules on the Wikipedia, so if you check all rules that might or might not apply you never get to do the editing. I prefer to rely on common sense. Ok, that puts me in risk that someone who drops by might claim that my edit might violate some more or less obscure rule and revert it, but so what?! Let's just take it a bit easier!) --Maxl (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for removing the date and for taking up your time. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

July 2023 - another message from yet another buerocrat

Hi Maxl! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. It is disruptive to continue misusing the minor edit tag after being informed of its misuse. DrKay (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@ DrKay: Thank you for your good faith message. I know of course that I am not to mark larger edits as minor. I agree with you that that can be disruptive. The edit, however, which we are discussing here was definitely a minor one as it did NOT change the "meaning" of the article. The article is still about Edward VII. Nice to know that you have sufficient time to teach other people about your opinion on certain edits and even to look up things from their archive (the guy who sent me the very same template message as you was erraneous too, as I had only deleted an unnecessary tag wich also didn't change the meaning of the article). It was unnecessary, though. You may want to find better use for your time! Thank you anyway. :) --Maxl (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

See Help:Minor edit#What not to mark as minor changes. Adding content[2][3][4] is not a minor edit. Before your edit the replacement of Gibbs was not mentioned. After your edit the replacement of Gibbs was mentioned. The meaning of the article was therefore changed. Removal of tags[5][6] is not a minor edit. The help page says explicitly do not mark addition of content or removal of tags as minor. If you continue to disrupt wikipedia by abusing the minor edit check box, you may be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't disrupt Wikipedia. What is disruptive is when you are receiving patronising comments about your edits. No wonder fewer and fewer people edit on the wikipedia when you just do an edit and then you've got someone who thinks he or she needs to tell you what to do. It's your OPINION that my edit wasn't minor. You are, of course, free to state your opinion but please realise that your opinion is not the only one in the world and that people might be in their full rights when they disagree with you. Anyway, this heip page on one hand says that edits which change "the meaning" of an article are not minor edits. On the other hand a tag does not change the article at all and should, therefore, be a minor edit. These rules are contradictory, like so many on the Wikipedia. And your last sentence sounds, to me at least, like blackmail. Better don't write something like that. --Maxl (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The removal of a tag is a change of meaning. "Citation needed" means something different to "No tag here". Therefore addition of a tag is a change of meaning; removal of a tag is a change of meaning. "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Tags are usually added because someone disputes the content. You removed tags because you disputed the need for them to be there. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the addition or removal of tags to be the subject of a dispute. DrKay (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Just for your information, Mr Gibbs was mentioned before my edit, only you had deleted him for no reason at all. I simply restored something you had deleted. And also, a tag is not a change of meaning, a tag does not change the content as such. And I don't think tags would be the centre of a dispute. If someone believes the tag is necessary when deleted they can just restore it. Don't make more of things than they are. As I said before, you seem to have very much time to make so much fuss about someithing so minor. But I understand... it's your opinion that counts (to you) and no one else's. --Maxl (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Added by you this morning. My partial revert was explained in the edit summary. DrKay (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

And my partial revert was explained in the edit summary as well. So all should be in perfect order. No need for more fuss. --Maxl (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)