User talk:Maxeto0910

Hello, Maxeto0910 and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC) re 80.43.81.130 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

EEZ

@Mason.Jones: (see you're helping the article today as well) - I'm assuming you guys notice I changed the chart..... Was looking into the history ... I realize a random IP changed the order here. Was going to restore the old stable version of the chart prior to this edit. However when I think about it.... why are we talking about two/three sometimes evaluations of territory in this one article? I've done some basic research I don't these three "territorial evaluations" discuss it at the same frame very often. What do you guys think?.... What is best for our readers? Restore the old chart.... or cuddle everything back in the article to just deal with EEZ classifications. We even have a section on territorial disputes.... that is mainly filled with sovereignty zone rather than EEZ zone. The more I look at the article the more I see different definitions all over....instead of one focused on EEZ classification that is clearly defined by the United Nations. Moxy🍁 20:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

"Land of poets and thinkers" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Land of poets and thinkers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Land of poets and thinkers until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion

Just noticed this edit summary of yours: it takes just as much time to copy-and-paste this nickname along with "Sun Diego" into a search engine to verify that it is popular as it takes to check his article, so it would have been more appropriate to address the absence of "Sunny" in his article on the talk page than to simply revert, at least in my opinion

1. WP:SUMMARYNO
2. WP:CHOICE
3. takes just as much time Bullshit.
   1. A revert is two clicks. And you're misrepresenting what is required to fix an entry that fails WP:DABMENTION. Looking up a source is the easy part of the job. The point is that the article needs to discuss the term. Adding that is at least one to two orders of magnitude more than reverting. You can check it with a stopwatch if you need to.
   2. If it was that quick and easy, why didn't you do it yourself before you added the entry? You're familiar with MOS:DAB, aren't you?

The above is not my opinion. It's policy and facts, at least in my opinion. Paradoctor (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The question of whether it would've been "way" more effort is ultimately a subjective one. I neither blame the user who reverted my edit nor expected him to do it like I wrote, I just think he could've very easily solved the lack of a reference with minimal more physical and virtually zero mental effort. Copy-and-pasting the name along with "rapper" into the search bar, clicking on an article, scanning it for the name, copy-and-pasting its URL, generating a reference via the auto function and placing it after a "also known as Sunny" text is a matter of mere seconds, perhaps 30s. Your reference to orders of magnitude is vastly exagerrating in this context, as such small quantities grow way smaller and therefore remain negligible for longer; walking 1 meter is arguably several orders of magnitude more physically demanding than just lying in bed, yet both is an absolutely negligible effort for the average human.

"If it was that quick and easy, why didn't you do it yourself before you added the entry?"

I just hadn't thought that something that easily verifiable needs a source. I don't have all Wikipedia guidelines in my head, sometimes I just try to act from common sense. Why don't we have a reference in the Michael Jackson article that verifies that he's also referred to as "MJ" when he's linked at MJ? Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

1. WP:NOCOMMON
2. Michael Jackson has multiple refs that use "MJ" right in the title, and it mentions MJ the Musical. "Sunny" was not mentioned once.
3. perhaps Stopwatch. It's amazing how often data disagree with you.
4. small quantities are not "negligible". Common error, especially when they add up.
5. don't have all Wikipedia guidelines in my head Nobody does. That doesn't give you licence to complain about fellow editors doing their work. Again, WP:CHOICE: Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians.
6. hadn't thought that something that easily verifiable needs a source WP:V says otherwise. But you're missing the point here: WP:DABMENTION: If a topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page. Whether editorial consensus at the target requires an explicit citation for that mention or not is not at issue for disambiguation. The mention is what is required, and that was what was lacking.

Paradoctor (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed that it's a good idea when everyone uses their common sense for everything and puts it over Wikipedia guidelines all the time, as your reference to WP:NOCOMMON would suggest. I simply stated that I sometimes try to use common sense for pragmatic reasons when I don't know of a guideline. Also, probably everyone on WP uses some amount of common sense occasionally; Your explaining for the Michael Jackson article not directly mentioning "MJ" as an abbreviation of him while still being linked at MJ arguably incorporates some of it as well.

Like I already explained: I never blamed the user nor did I expect him to do as I wrote. It was just an alternative approach of how I had done it if I was him. When I see something without verification that a quick search shows is notable and true, I search for a source or use a cn tag instead of simply deleting the content because it keeps the obviously true and notable content with minimal more time and effort.

As for your argument that small quantities can add up depending on your editing style and your reference to ableism: I do acknowledge that there are people differing from the norm. However, I don't generally expect them to unless it's obvious or they state it themselves, as this would undermine the argument from pragmatism. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

🤦 Paradoctor (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: negligible effort for the average human I disagree. But let's say, for the sake of discussion, that was correct. Then this statement is still horribly ableist. Many people are not "average", and nobody is average on all metrics. Try to imagine editing using a screen reader, if you can. Editor capabilities come in a wide variety, and demanding "average" performances from them is as gross a violation of WP:CHOICE as they come. Paradoctor (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Maxeto0910. Thank you for your work on Magdeburg Christmas market. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"UKCF" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect UKCF has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 13 § UKCF until a consensus is reached. RadiculousJ (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)