This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The block is not justified. I'm not trolling. I tried to work together as well as I can but was blokced infinite.
Decline reason:
as a previously uninvolved admin, I have reviewed the whole situation, and in my view the block is justified; I do not believe that unblocking you will benefit the encyclopedia. --Anthony.bradbury"talk"19:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
.
Hello, Max Mux! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DinoBot2 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop leaving bad comments on my talkpage and reverting my edits. This is not acceptable behavior on English Wikipedia. If you stop then we have no problems with each other. --Tocino23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of ban? Gotta tell you, since your a user now, its possible. It's agaisnt the rules to remove comments and undue edits simply because "i don't like him/her/it". Du isst dum und langweilig.--Jakezing (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"bist dumm" - I am impartial, just remark on the German language. By the way it sounds as a severe contradiction of WP:NPA and I am obliged to concede that I disapprove its use. Bogorm (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
look at your edit here and scroll down [2]. You did your edit wrong. I believe it is possible that Portugal may recognise within the next few weeks and that Macedonia may soon too. However how you presented it was all wrong Ijanderson (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We cant make the edits just yet because we need better sources. The Portugal source is not quoting senior Portuguese politicians. The Macedonian sources are from the Opposition leader, we need sources from the coalition parties as they have the power to recognise. If you find some more sources, let me know please. So then i can make the edit Ijanderson (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he doesnt want you to edit his talk page, then theres nothing I can do. Try ignoring him for a while, then when things have cooled down, try later Ijanderson (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hej mos u nervozo pa nevoje. Nese ky person te ka share apo te ka fyer pergjigja me e mire eshte te sillesh sikur ai nuk ekziston. Mos e perul veten sepse e ben qe ai te ndihet me "i madh". Pershendetje.--Poltergeist1977 (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you are an Albanian. Where are you from? Translation: "Don't get angry without any reason. If this person has offended you the best solution is to ignore him. Don't degrade yourself because you will make him feel more "important". Greetings" --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are trying to propagandize the article. China, India, and Russia have made a joint statement and to leave that out would harm the article's credibility. --Tocino19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to eventuly work with me Max, Mein Deutsch(er?) freund, then you must LEAVE. ME. THE. HELL. ALONE. right now, understand, no editing my talk page, any of that, understand? Reply here.--Jakezing (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Than please tell me
1) Why do you hate me?
2) Why shouldn't I write on your discussion page?
2: do not edit my talk page... im tired of undoing them. when i want to talk to you, i will let you edit my talk page. end of discussion--Jakezing (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You both need to shut up and go your separate ways. It's pretty clear you two can't work together, and you both have abused WP:CIVIL on numerous occasions, including personal attacks on each others' userpages, which is against Wikipedia policy. Grow up, get a life, and learn to be mature. I don't want to have to tell you again. I hate seeing people fight for petty little reasons on the Internet, and this is no exception. It's The Internet. Nothing Is Serious! --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 19:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only like to know what he has against me. This nonsense goes that way for days. Now he should bring an explanation. What about this Userpage?Max Mux (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even want to know the meaning of FFS but there must be a reason, a real one. What about the above mentioned Userpage? Give me real answers and I'll leave you alone. But not this unfriendly way. Max Mux (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
your not gonna get a freidnly answer if you make me havwe to keep talking to you, leave me alone, end of discussion, and you wanna know what FFS means, type it into the search, that dosnt work, urban Dictionary works fine--Jakezing (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You both need to shut up and drop it. Jakezing, you're already skating on thin ice as it is - you can't afford another screw up. Oh, and technically, Max Mux is leaving you alone, but you're not leaving him alone, trolling on his userpage constantly. Point is, shake hands and go on your way...both of you. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, and quite frankly, I don't give a shit. I just reverted a change made on Jakezing's talk page by you again trying to provoke him further. Just stop, or you'll be in the same situation he is. Drop the entire issue now, or you won't like what's coming next. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinking dates
I thought I would drop you a note about wikilinking dates. It used to be correct to wikilink just about every date in an article. The policy changed about a month ago and dates are now NOT to be wikilinked unless there are very exceptional circumstances. You have added date wikilinks to Jeri Ryan twice and I have reverted them twice. Just to let you know I am not attacking you or shadowing you....I am just correcting it to the new Wiki policy as per WP:MOS. I hope the information helps you in future edits. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK
Alright. I've given you enough warnings to shut up, and go your separate ways, and to stop provoking Jakezing. I have filed an administrative report on your account for ignoring WP:NPA and harassing other users (such as Jakezing) even after being told to stop. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He says stupid things about me leaves vague comments. I'm asking him why. He didn't answer. And now you say thats vandalism? In which world are you living?Max Mux (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen... i'v decided i dont want you editing m talk page, and yet, you kept doing so... therfor, in my eyes, that is vandalism, and then,. even after a admin told you to stop; you didnt, therfor, it is vandalism as your disobeying a admin order. I cant make it any clearer without being insulting.--Jakezing (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final Warning: Both of you drop this. I believe you have finished this long argument, and there should not be any further discussion. If there is, I can assure you, it won't be pretty. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 20:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't treat me like this. I try to solve the problem with him. I want to know his problem with me but he don't tell me. You better should help me. He said vague things about a userpage but I don't know what he want. Maybe he confuses me with someone else. Max Mux (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Max, I seriously don't give a flying fuck about you, Jakezing, or your attitudes towards each other. What's done is done. What you need to do now is move on. Forget about Jake. You'll probably never see him again on Wikipedia. You've spoiled your otherwise-clean record dealing with that pompous jackass, and you don't need to do any more damage to it. So he didn't tell you why he had a problem with you. Quite frankly, I can't understand why either of you kept arguing with the other for so long. I believe that's just poor judgment, really. In any case, I don't have to help you with anything, nor will I. The only reason I stepped into this was because I was trying to stop you two from ripping each others' throats out, and that didn't do any good, since you two just kept right on. He might have confused you with someone else, but that was no reason for you to keep harassing him about it. You and him both have displayed abuse of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on countless occasions. Now, please, do us all a favor and go on your way. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Treaty of Lisbon, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please read carefully the Manual of Style about dates (WP:MOSNUM).Magioladitis (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Treaty of Lisbon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. (GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 19:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that you're confused about what's going on. Someone put a sockpuppeteering tag on your page. Someone who is sockpuppeteering has multiple accounts which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you did this then your alter accounts are going to be banned. If you didn't you have nothing to worry about.--Megaman en m (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Max
Hello mate, I just want to remind you to log in everytime before you edit wikipedia. Also don't revert edits more than 3 times. Cheers mate. I don't want you getting blocked. Remember to sign in. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion of "Li Gun Mo"
A page you created, Li Gun Mo, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ14:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not again your nonsense. I can`t hear the wrong word sockpuppet. Stop calling it so. I must respond in kind to stupid EU-haters.Max Mux (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Anthony Finigan
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Anthony Finigan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Does not meet WP:NOTABLE
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Max Mux (talk | contribs)
(Biblbroks's talk 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
Next edit →
Revision as of 19:41, 18 March 2009
Warning, stop vandalism and say why you are so stupid nationalist?"
Sorry if you don't get the reply right away. The problem is I am not sure I understand your request. Since it is so, I will take the liberty and divide it into three parts:
.... You want me to stop? Is it vandalism that you want me to stop? If to both questions the answer is yes, then my reply is a question: why do you write that vandalism is what I do?
.... This is the toughest to comprehend. You ask why, and actually I am not sure. You write the syntagmastupid nationalist. If you think that I am a stupid nationalist, maybe you could think over. At least for the "stupid part" of the syntagma. As for the part that writes nationalist, I only could agree with you with the meaning that I'm trying to defend my habitat. Ofcourse, this what I write is from my POV.
Max, you are not supposed to edit my talkpage. You could be banned permanently for your previous behavior towards me, but you have been spared for unknown reasons. I did not post anything inflammatory. It was a joke. And as regards to "propaganda", I would take a look in the mirror. You are constantly posting stories on the talkpage, even if they've already been posted on the article. You have also made many comments about Jeremic, Tadic, etc., that have nothing to do with improving the article. I would suggest that you take a break from English Wikipedia. --Tocino20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny I just wanted to suggest the same to you. Please accept that such edits simply are not acceptable. As I have said we're a team here. Try to work together with others.Max Mux (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Max, careful on the pro-kosovarness. Comments like "they should have" done shit are useless, not to mention.... POV. Countries don;'t have ot do anything, they can say they will, but the arab countries were a testament to that.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just ask them for their current position mate, or you could even suggest to them to recognise if that is what you believe. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Max, please keep in mind the title of the page, which is International Recognition of Kosovo. There is no need to include stories about Jeremic hanging around the OAS summit, Sejdiu saying random things or any other irrelevant information. I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful, but it has become a distraction. Cheers, Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Diana Hazel Brooksbank. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
Please read the naming guidelines for peers. Articles on life peers should be at, for example, Muriel Turner, Baroness Turner rather than The Baroness Turner of Camden. Ironholds (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"nuts"
See, that bit about watching your language wasn't just a throwaway comment, you are actually meant to be civil to other contributors. I moved the articles because they were at the wrong place. I tagged several for deletion because they were about unimportant people. Simply being a peer does not make one notable, unless the peer has done other, notable things with their life. Ironholds (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are members of the House of Lords and therefore members of parliament. And we ever had the articles about other peers as well so please stop this nosnesense.Max Mux (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking nonsense. The House of Lords is a part of the british parliament and its members therefore mebers of parliament even if that phrase is usually only used for the House of Commons. Max Mux (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the House of Lords do not fit the definition of a primary legislative body, it's been discussed to death. I will send the articles to AfD, and we will see what they say. Ironholds (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not, read the policies. If you keep using uncivil language like that and making personal attacks, I'll issue you a warning for violatingpolicy, and that'll eventually lead to a block if you keep it up. You're a good contributor, and I don't want that to happen. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. I hadn't actually meant to leave that since I understand that sort of message can be taken as "taunting", but I forgot to check the "do not notify" box. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. Except in occasional and extremely individual circumstances, we follow those guidelines and policies. That is what I am doing, and both precedent and consensus are against you here. Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand, and I've gone over this repeatedly with you. Please stop making little personal digs - consider this your final warning before I put in for a block. And please, please dont cry threats or blackmail - those are forcing someone to do something unreasonable. I hardly think being polite is unreasonable. Ironholds (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "hard of understanding". I understand what you're saying, but what you're saying flies in the face of established policy. Ironholds (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are clearly not understandiong it. Parliamentarians are part of legislature if elected or otherwise.
Articles like what, for example? And it isn't mad - explain what the hereditary people have done that is notable other than be born. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TThey are mebers of one part of the legislature, not different from the life peers. They have the same kind of work in the same part of parliament. Why should one be important and the other not? That really would make no sense.Max Mux (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because life peers have done something important, or they wouldn't have been made life peers. Hereditary peers ran the massive hurdle of 1) being born and 2) having their dad pop his clogs. Notability is based on media coverage, not work. Ironholds (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told you about the Queen. I can't see those sources, and you need to show third-party independent coverage. Ironholds (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rupert Victor John Carington, 5th Baron Carrington. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
=AfD votes
Hi, Max. I notice that a lot of your contributions at deletion discussions have been just, Keep, Obvious keep, The only answer that makes sense is a strong keep! and so on. However, since such discussions are not a vote, but a discussion, your comments will probably be ignored by the closing administrator. I suggest that you provide substantiated arguments in future... see WP:JUSTAVOTE for more info. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create any further articles without citing a reliable source. I have just tagged about 25 or so of your past ones. Note that your links to the Parliament website do not work ("You do not have permission to view this") and are thus not reliable sources. If you continue producing unreferenced material about living people, you may be blocked from editing. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you before that this is not an appropriate title for articles. Please stop creating articles with titles like this; Doreen Miller, Baroness Miller of Hendon is the correct format. Ironholds (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jonathan Hall (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Paul Annesley Gore, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Annesley Gore. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please note that British peers do not conform to American naming/numbering standards. For this reason dates should be written "1 August 2007", not "August 1 2007" or "August 1, 2007". There is also no need to put "b." and "d." in a set of dates for a dead person; it should be simply (1 August 1900 - 1 August 1980), not (b. 1 August 1900 - d. 1 August 1980) Ironholds (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you are creating articles on people, perhaps it would be wise to add something more than just the person's name and the dates he was born and died. Tryde (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be creating hundreds of articles with the words ...is a british politician – please be aware, and ensure that you are aware of this in every future article that you write, that "British" always has a capital letter as it is a proper noun, or derived from one. Regards, ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion here on whether or not hereditary members of the House of Lords count as automatically notable is underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). This message is being sent to everyone who has expressed interest in AfDs related to this, whatever their opinion on the matter. Please ensure that your comments are well thought-out and based on more than "I like the peerage system" "I don't like the peerage system but it exists so must be important" "I don't like the peerage system" and the like. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? That comment was semi-automated and sent to various people, not directed at you. I was inviting you to participate in the debate. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Max Mux, well done in copying the material I added to these articles and simply pasting it at the articles on the 5th Baron Carrington and 3rd Baron Herschell respectively. That must have been hard work! Tryde (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect with your stubborn behaviour? I was trying to show that material on a non-notable peer can be added to the article on the peerage he held. What you have done is copying the material and then added it to another article like you have written it yourself. Furthermore the references I gave no longer work which makes the two articles look awful. I'm trying to suggest a compromise here. I don't want to delete information on peers, I want to add all material on the non-notable holders of a peerage to a single article. I'm sure that's a compromise you can except as well. Regards, Tryde (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like one has been redirected to the other - all clear. A merge wasn't needed, since all the info in one was already present in the other. Ironholds (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked you for 12h for misc edit warring. Quite which of you and T are most in the wrong I haven't bothered to find out, but please stop William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You should have instead of punishing the wrong one.Max Mux (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has shown his dislike of me for weeks now. I have tried to solve it. But I don't know what this should hae anything to do with it. Max Mux (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His dislike of you is neither here nor there, as I have told you repeatedly, this is not a battleground. Posting unhelpful remarks like "what does that have to do with the article" to perfectly civil and constructive messages he leaves on talkpages, is not appropriate. Or do you think that your message was useful, and likely to produce a positive result?
If you wish to ignore the civility/harassment warning, that is, of course, your privilege, since you are doubtless aware of the consequences of doing so. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 11:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't that be defined as stalking... since the ONLY way he could find out about that is via looking through my contributions (when he has no reason TO do it?)--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into it because you wanted to delete my articles. It's not a crime to do so. You can look into mine if you like. I wanted to end your problem with me and you want me to get punished for that?Max Mux (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You both need to grow the fuck up and get a life. Seriously. As I've stated before, this is the Internet. Most likely, you will never see this person again anyway, so why waste your energy arguing about something that is so utterly ridiculous? --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He can dislike you for any reason he wants. You just have to live with it. Frankly, I don't like you either, and it's because you both annoy the crap out of me and everyone else. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, if you don't stop, I'll open a request for intervention. Seriously. Stop. I hate having to keep patrolling your and Jakezing's user pages to try to keep your asses in check. Grow up, and go edit articles instead of trying to cause arguments. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the final, last and ultimate warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You haven't made a single remotely constructive contribution, to an article, for several days now. Instead, you've been messing about here. If you continue bickering and using Wikipedia as a battleground (and that includes replying to this message with something like, "I just want to know is motives because he hates me and its not fair,") you are liable to be blocked without further dialogue.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. NPeeerbvsesz (Push) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But I expect that you'll be blocked, because most other people think you're trolling. You've ignored repeated warnings to stop abusing the policies I listed above (primarily WP:BATTLE) and your pathetic revert-warring to restore spelling errors and self-published sources is highly disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. NPeeerbvsesz (Push) 08:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's turn this around
Your response to my post at the admin noticeboard wasn't terribly helpful. You've clearly run into some difficulties since you started editing and broken a lot of the policies at Wikipedia. When folks come to your talk page and ask you to stop certain things, it takes quite a bit of effort on their part before you'll agree to abide by the guidelines. This is a chance to step back; if you continue to be disruptive, you will end up with a long block. Shellbabelfish12:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you have run in to at least one editor who has not been nice to you. The best advice I can give you is to ignore them and consider working in areas that they don't. If they continue to be a problem, there's a noticeboard at WP:WQA where you can ask other editors to look at the problem and help sort it out. If the person is making personal attacks (see WP:NPA) you can ask an administrator to step in and the person may be blocked. Even though its difficult, you need to make sure that you don't break rules just because the other person isn't nice.
My other major concern at the moment is when you undo other people's edits. For instance, with this undo [3] you put back a source that's not good enough for Wikipedia's standards. The person who removed it tried to explain this in their edit summary. If you don't understand why someone made an edit, you should try to talk to them first. In this case, your undo would be violating policy by putting back an unreliable source. It is never a good idea to revert someone's edit unless the edit is obvious vandalism. :Another example is this edit. Can you explain why you undid a spelling correction? I'm sure it could be a mistake, but its important to be careful when editing and especially when using the undo link.
Someone mentioned that your first language might be German. Have you taken a look at the German Wikipedia? Not that you have to edit there, but their policies are very similar to here and they might help you better understand what is expected. Shellbabelfish12:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't think you do understand - since the German wikipedia has almost identical rules, that means you should know well enough to understand that edit warring is not allowed, sources for biographies must be of very high quality and fighting between editors is not appropriate. These things need to stop now. Shellbabelfish12:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not referring to thepeerage at all. I'm asking you, instead of reverting (which is inappropriate) to discuss the issue with other editors if there's a concern over that or any other source. Does that make sense? Shellbabelfish13:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. And like I said, if you try to talk with people and anyone is rude or attacks you, either report it to WP:WQA or feel free to drop me a note about it. Also, if you can't agree on an issue, there are other ideas at WP:DR about how to working things out. Shellbabelfish13:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Ich spreche nur ein wenig Deutsch, aber hier ist mein Versuch. Nur weil andere Leute Mord, bedeutet das nicht, können Sie Mord. ThePeerage ist keine zuverlässige Quelle, da die Politik klar sagt. Weitere Artikel zu verbinden sollte es auch haben sie gestrichen.) ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 12:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but that's not the best german. The first sentence was ok. The second one as I suppose should mean the following: "Nur weil andere Leute Morde begehen, bedeuten das nicht das Sie auch morden dürfen". However I already understood that. But why? What makes these sites unreliable?Max Mux (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy and past consensus has ruled them unreliable. Thus our personal opinions don't count.
"Anyone can create a website, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to, but you didn't answer the question. Either you do understand the policies on sourcing and are deliberately ignoring them or you do not understand the policy on sourcing an are accidentally creating problems - either way, you need to stop, right now. An explanation of why you are still doing this would also be helpful. Shellbabelfish13:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a source is just from someone with a website, that's not allowed. If it's a personal blog, that's not allowed. If it's a proper book, published by a reputable company; if it's a government source; if it's a newspaper or media website, that's OK. But anything with no editorial control is not allowed. Easy. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked (2nd time)
I'm sorry that I've had to block you, but despite the discussion above, you've gone right on creating articles without regards to the sources you're using. Especially when dealing with still living people, its very important that reliable, mainstream sources are used. From your latest article it appears that you're just doing a search for the name and throwing up whatever you get there without regard to whether or not the webpage even has anything to do with the subject. Unless you can show that you understand the policies and can follow them, its not likely that you're going to be able to continue editing here. Shellbabelfish16:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using just that last article as an example: the first link is a google search for the subject, the second is a genealogy tree generated by an unknown source and the third is a single mention of the subjects name on an website that covers a separate subject. Could you explain why you felt those were acceptable sources by Wikipedia standards (WP:V and WP:RS may help with this answer)? Shellbabelfish18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are blocking me because of that for DAYS? If I make a mistake I am the first who would correct it and apologize. Shouldn't you block people who have no interested in serious work?Max Mux (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am blocking you because despite many people having talked with you over several days, you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by ignoring multiple policies. If you can show me that you understand and will follow the policies, I will be happy to unblock you. Every time I've tried asking you about these issues, you've avoided the question and that has me very concerned about your ability to follow the rules here. Shellbabelfish18:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irongolds and Tryde wants to delete much of my articles or make redirects tdespite the obviosness of the relevance. What now?Max Mux (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not answering my questions. Can you explain to me what kinds of sources are appropriate for a biography? Can you explain why the sources you used on John Sinclair, 3rd Earl of Caithness were inappropriate? Until you can clearly explain both those things, do not create any more articles. Shellbabelfish13:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can use government or other official sites, non homepages not even from professional researchers. No Wikipedia clones.Max Mux (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - that sounds like you're getting it. I've taken off the block and hopefully cleared any autoblock (if you still can't edit, just let me know). Please be very careful from now on about what sources you use. :) Shellbabelfish14:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Crichton, 1st Earl of Caithness
Rootsweb is not a reliable source. As a general rule, stuff written by random blokes on the internet is never considered reliable. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to need to provide more information. I don't see anything since your unblock that I would have considered harassment or abuse of process - can you explain? Also, you may want to notify the editors that you've started a discussion about them. Shellbabelfish15:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article creation
Hi, I would like to suggest you not to start new articles at the moment. Meanwhile it should have come to your attention, that in this way your work and your behaviour are unfortunately not acceptable. As a start you could instead edit and expand already existing articles to get a feeling when an article is sensible and how one should look.
If you have questions, please give me a shout.
Ich möchte dir vorschlagen vorerst nicht erneut Artikel zu beginnen. Mittlerweile sollte dir aufgefallen sein, dass deine Arbeit und dein Verhalten leider so nicht akzeptabel sind. Stattdessen du könntest doch erst einmal bestehende Artikel bearbeiten bzw. ergänzen, damit du ein Gefühl bekommst, wann ein Artikel sinnvoll ist und wie er aussehen soll.
What links, sorry? Oh, and try adding a : before comments on a talkpage, like I've done here. Otherwise it all appears on one line. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might like to know that at my instigation, Jakezing has been blocked and essentially banned by the community for his harassment of you. Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a good feeling when people with that kind of behavior don't get their will. Thank you.Max Mux (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peerage drafts
I've finished reviewing the initial drafts of your two peerage articles. Comments are below.
George Sinclair, 4th Earl of Caithness
Members of the Scottish peerage should be referred to as "Scottish peers", not "British peers"
[5] is run entirely by amateurs, and is not a reliable source. You've been told before that personal work is not valid.
There are various problems with word tenses (past tense of "hold" is "held", for example) but that's more the language barrier than a direct problem.
There is no need to create separate headings ("Life", "Family") for such short articles. Headings are designed to split up long articles.
You need to add in Inline Citations to source your work properly.
Quick poke; take a look at WP:REDLINK. You shouldn't create redlinks for articles unlikely to ever have articles, and it should go article first, linking second for the rest. Ironholds (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You did it for a series of Baronets, for example - they're unlikely to deserve articles in most cases. Again, if they are going to have articles, write the articles first and link them in second. In regards to your articles - yes, write as many as you want, but you'll need to expand the ones you've already done. Ironholds (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Sinclair, 7th Earl of Caithness for example. It in no way suggests notability, and again the sources are completely inappropriate. You've been told what constitutes an inappropriate source - please apply that knowledge. Ironholds (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Douglas Bunn
As previously mentioned, we follow British dating conventions, not American ones. Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that I have done something with a date there.Max Mux (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh woops, idiot me :P. Please follow my above advice about your drafts - get the ones you've already done up to standard instead of writing new ones. User:Max Mux/James Francis Lindsay, 3rd Baron Lindsay of Birker, for example - he gives no evidence of passing the guidelines, the sources are unreliable and don't cover him in great detail anyway. I can't emphasise enough the stuff about the sources. I've told you repeatedly about what is and is not appropriate - try and follow that advice. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third link is related to parliament. Whats wrong with it? And it clearly shows him as Member of the House of Lords.Max Mux (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it established notability. No, most of the stuff on the page would have to be deleted, because the HoL website doesn't contain (for example) the date of birth that you list. This is not hard. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 18:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way in the mail from the HoL they told me to use Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage and Burkes Peerage. Doesn't that show us that it's reliable?Max Mux (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this page is no good, because it is about a living person, and details such as when he was born, took up a seat in the Lords, what happened in 1999 - how do we know that's true? The source you list doesn't cover it. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand that at all. And how do we know it's true that he took his seat in whatever year you say? You have to list a reliable source. This is not optional. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title doesn't automatically transfer - a letter patent has to be issued. In regards to the above yes, Debrett's and Burkes are both reliable sources, but 1) they're not valid, 2) they don't go into sufficient detail and 3) you're not citing them, you're citing some strange bloke who says he found his info in those books. this and this - I've told you, stop creating near-useless stubs and start getting the ones you've made up to a standard where they can go in the mainspace. Otherwise I'll be forced to assume you have no interest in doing so and I'll just have someone delete them. Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the email, you cannot cite emails. You can use Debrett's and Burkes, but you cannot use some website written by an amateur who says he is using Debrett's and Burkes. I note you have created a stub in the mainspace, which I've moved. You are not allowed to create articles in the mainspace at the moment, and I have told you to cease creating more stubs until you have done something with those you have already written. Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but see my second point - work on the ones you've written instead of writing new ones. You need to get a grasp of the reliable sources standards, and quickly, because I haven't yet see you write an article with valid sourcing. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and yet you just don't learn. Consider this a final warning, alright? You were protected from a block on the grounds that you'd validate articles and post them through me. I've seen no attempt at this - all I see is you creating masses of near-useless stubs in your userspace with the same errors and problems over and over again, despite multiple users telling you what is wrong with them and repeated warnings to stop. Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I try to do my best and as long as they are in my userspace they must not be perfect. I listen to your advice but I prefer to work on more than one think. If I think an article is ready then I tell you so and you can decide if I'm right or wrong. But don't want to argue, I like to work with you well.Max Mux (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have created eleven articles, with no attempt to amend them per my points. They do not have to be perfect, but if you want them to be posted they must meet certain standards. Despite my comments you have made no attempt to meet those standards. Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Max, you need to stop creating new articles in your userspace and fix the one's you've already made. If you can't fix them, then request that they be deleted. You can't just go on creating more as if there weren't a problem. Ironholds is correct, the only reason you are not blocked is because you agreed to this - if you aren't going to do it, then you will be blocked. Shellbabelfish19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop
I note you've been filling in dates of birth and death based on the equivalent articles at the German wikipedia. This is not acceptable, because the German wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. The contributor may have got the dates from a reliable source - or they may have made them up on the spot. Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I'm not sure that's really true Ironholds. If you have any specific dates you consider a problem, that's one thing, but in general we tend to give a lot of latitude toward importing from other language Wikipedias. Shellbabelfish23:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Importing from something that wouldn't be considered a reliable source even if it was referenced (which in many cases it isn't) is acceptable now? Ironholds (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've translated quite a few articles from the french Wikipedia to here and vice versa or updated an article in one place based on another, that's not the same as using another Wikipedia article as a reference. Do you happen to have a diff? Maybe I'm not understanding what's going on. Shellbabelfish08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In articles like this he's been adding DOBs/DODs based on the de-wiki article. Using that one as an example - the de-wiki article itself is completely unreferenced. We've got no way of verifying the information, which is a bit different from translating one of their referenced, spiffy articles onto en-wiki. Ironholds (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so this really isn't a case of it being unreliable because its from another Wikipedia, but because its not sourced. That makes a lot more sense :) Max, Ironholds is correct, if there is a source for the information at the German Wikipedia, that's likely to be fine, but you cannot keep putting unsourced information in articles. It is very frustrating to be back here every day or so with yet another problem with how you handle articles. I'm starting to worry that you really can't understand the policies for some reason - someone should not have to point out every other day that you need sources for articles. I'm going to think on this a bit, but I believe at this point its clear that you're not going to be capable of following policy and the community ban should be put in place. Shellbabelfish09:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First you say so and second you say otherwiese. I'm tired of your threats. I try to work for wikipedia and you try hard to work hard against me. If I have made a concrete mistake then say so and I correct it. As I have mentioned some time ago I would like to make real teamwork not this "everyone against everyone"Max Mux (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I'm not working against you. I can't see any contradiction in his statement above, so I don't understand the "First you say so and second you say otherwiese". You've made concrete mistakes, I've told you - and then you keep on making them. You've had the reliable sources policy explained to you at least ten times, and you still don't seem to grasp it. If you find threats of a community ban such a problem, maybe you should do what you're meant to do - follow the advice given to you by your "mentor" and other users instead of complaining that they're pointing out your mistakes. Ironholds (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is against you - many people have tried many times to help you understand. You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of sources - every sentence in Wikipedia must have a reference - every, single sentence. I'm sorry Max, I fought for you, but you were only allowed to continue editing if you could respect Wikipedia policies. At this time, I'm putting in place the community ban. Shellbabelfish09:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sanctions Max was put under were on article creation, not edits to existing articles. I'd say the sanctions and proposed community ban don't really apply to that situation, although I'm sure you'd have consensus to ban if you unblocked and opened a new ANI thread. Ironholds (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the statements above. You've consistently failed to grasp the policies on sourcing despite it being explained to you a dozen times. You've made no attempts to follow the conditions of your mentorship, or correct any points brought up, instead accusing any editor who brings concerns to you of acting against you. Hint: when multiple people take issue with your actions, and an ANI thread narrowly misses a community ban for you, the problem isn't the community, it is you. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could just have said that. You've been repeatedly told to do certain things - you have not. You'll have to come up with a concrete reason for an unblock that takes into account the statements above, but since it's the enforcement of a community ban I don't think you've got particularly high chances. Ironholds (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"apologise"? So you want a guideline which will excuse your actions and get rid of a ban? There isn't one. The community as a whole (or those bits that hang around the Administrators' Noticeboard) have decided that your actions merited either a mentorship or a ban. Since your mentorship failed horribly, the ban comes in as a default. Community consensus trumps guidelines, and short of opening up a new thread at AN/I nothing can be done in the near future. Your best bet is either a) to appeal, using me as a proxy poster (I post your comments to AN/I, since you can't) which is unlikely to work, or b) come back in a period of time (six months? a year?) expressing an understanding of what you did wrong and a promise not to repeat it, similar to what Jakezing is doing. Ironholds (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just an explanation for an action that was wrong in my eyes. Why has it failed? I don't see whats gone wrong. It worked as it should. What is Jazeking doing? I don't want him around to throw insults at me again.Max Mux (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jakezing is banned, with the idea that he'll come back in a year and we'll see if he's got a better grasp of what is/is not acceptable. You want an explanation for your block? I've given you one. The community decided if you didn't get a grasp, we'd ban you. You didn't get a grasp, so we banned you. That's how consensus works, which is the model of governance Wikipedia uses. The mentorship worked? You continued to use unreliable sources, and no sourcing at all, despite multiple people telling you multiple times to do so. You refused to apply points that your mentor (and others) brought up. That's about as close to complete failure as possible. Ironholds (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree all you want - you'll still be banned. You've yet to provide any evidence or even a decent argument on your side, while this entire talkpage serves as a permanent record of your failure to act and the problems that caused you to be banned. If you can't come up with a decent argument (and you probably won't) then the ban is going to stay in place. Ironholds (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I repeatedly violate policy, make personal attacks at everyone who trys to help me and fail to get a clue while under the threat of being banned, sure. Where is this "argument" then? All I've seen so far is me go "you failed to change, evidence is everything on this page" and you go "I did change". No evidence, no "argument" per se, just a statement, and one without any evidence to back it up. If you're referring to "Why has it failed? I don't see whats gone wrong. It worked as it should" I already replied to that. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Max, we have no idea what you're talking about. I expect that's just because you're using the wrong English word (I'm sure you don't mean "apologize") – but that's hardly our fault. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 15:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? We've given you a dozen reasons - failure to follow the conditions of your mentorship, refusal to get a clue, so on, but fine. I'll add a section to the noticeboard if it will satisfy you - consider this an official notification. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest we all just leave it? You're not getting unblocked - people at AN/I have agreed that. Continuing to argue is a waste of time. Ironholds (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PLease bring the following message to the noticeboard:
Why are you want to exclude me? I have tried to work in a team and reminded others of that. I have worked with a mentor whi is not completely accepting me and some people here seem to prefer if I just shut up. But what have I done? Am I a troll? No. There's simply no reason to block me forever. So please review your decision.Max Mux (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You consistently failed to listen to others, which is kind of a key part of working in a team and of being mentored. You were blocked from de-wiki, so I assume you know enough about the general policies to know that you don't have to "troll" to be a nuisance who causes more harm than good. Key rule: if people spend more time clearing up after your edits than you do editing, you're not a helpful contributor. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Max, your English just isn't good enough to be a productive editor at the English Wikipedia:
– Max, Dein Englisch ist einfach nicht gut genug, um in der englischen Wikipedia produktiv mitzuarbeiten:
"I like to talk to Shell Kenney." = "Ich spreche gerne mit Shell Kenney."
"I like to talk to her." = "Ich spreche gerne mit ihr."
I realise that getting unblocked at the German Wikipedia is probably not a realistic option for you anytime soon.
Not so sure about that. But are you spying on me?
But it just isn't fair that now you have completely exhausted the patience of a community where your cooperation might have made sense, you are getting on the nerves of another where it doesn't. – Mir ist klar, dass Du wohl auf absehbare Zeit keine Chance hast, in der deutschen Wikipedia entsperrt zu werden. Aber es ist einfach nicht fair dass Du jetzt, wo Du die Geduld eines Projekts, wo Du sinnvoll hättest mitarbeiten können, vollständig verbraucht hast, einem anderen Projekt auf die Nerven gehst, wo Du das wohl sowieso nicht geht.HansAdler00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wo Du das wohl sowieso nicht geht? Und ich soll derjenige sein, der sich nicht ausdrücken kann? Mein Punkt ist Fehler kann jeder mal machen.Max Mux (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Max, I do have your talk page watched still so I will probably see a message if you put it here. If you'd like to talk privately or make sure you can get my attention faster, I do have other contact information available at User:Shell Kinney/Contact. And TreasuryTag, lets try not to rub salt in wounds. Shellbabelfish04:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Max Mux! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 10 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 20 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
