User talk:Maxime Martyr

Welcome!

Hi Maxime Martyr! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. No one is required to consult with you before editing, reverting, or tagging an article. MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Good evening. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my behavior but you did misinterpret my behavior because I never thought of any Wikipedia page, not even the specific one that I have been working so hard onto, as my page, quite the contrary, I have been fighting Wikipedia's restrictive bureaucracy because Wikipedia's raison d'être to begin with is to be a free open collective knowledge resource and as such it needs to be permissive and not restrictive since it is a common resource which belongs as much to anyone as to everyone and restrictions are antagonists to openness and freedom, which demonstrates that Wikipedia has been turning wrong somewhere somewhen during its history.

As to my WIP, I never thought of it as my private property, which I can't claim as much from how Wikipedia's administrators demonstrate how they think of Wikipedia as their dominion from the excessive amount of restrictive rules that they have been enforcing onto a free open collective resource making it grow less and less free and open as well as their unwillingness to dialogue with users, rather cancelling their contributions without talking to anyone, which is a plain dictatorship as the administrators behave like rulers more than overseers as they should.

However I did open dialogue with Masem after he kept blocking my contributions for days and therefore wasting days of my life that I chose to dedicate to contribute to a page which was undeniably lacking of everything and that no one cared about, pushing the carelessness as to classify it as a "good article" when it was the bare minimum and even its chronology was a confusing mess to read since it was disorganized before I volunteered to make it better because I do care about it.

So I did open dialogue with Masem onto his talk page, which he never bothered to reciprocate surely because he is too high in the hierarchy to waste his invaluable time with a low level such as me, right? 😏 And I explained to him that my contributions were not complete when he cancelled them because I took upon myself to completely revamp the "good article" which barely shared any knowledge since it was the bare minimum lacking of everything and not even in the right chronological order while no one paid attention and no one cared, which makes Wikipedia appear as a joke of an encyclopedia which I have been exhausting myself to improve on my own initiative and I would appreciate that people who didn't care before I volunteered to actually make a good job of it stop hindering my progress not only because it is getting on my nerves but also because it prevents me from improving a collective resource which will be useful not only to myself but to everyone who will learn from my shared knowledge.

Now, I don't mind that Masem, or anyone else really, edit my contribution if to improve it, and I have actually thanked everyone who have edited to improve it, however, and I quote yourself here, "Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia.", which is specifically the issue here is that Masem, and you too now, have not contributed constructively but destructively as all that you have done is to destroy what I have been constructing while not actually constructing anything yourselves therefore from my point of view, you are nothing but destructors since destroying is all that you have done to "contribute" so far, isn't that true? 🤨

I will quote you once more because you went out of your way to provide more ammo on a silver plate to me since you offered me a link which specifically states that "All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say.".

There you have it, your own link specifically states that "No one has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say.", which implies that Masem has been violating Wikipedia's rules by dictating what I may say or may not say into the article that I have been expanding, and you too since you supported him into his destructive initiatives, didn't you? 😼

Since you went of your way to provide so many ammunition to me to return against you by filling your message with statements which contradict your own behavior, here I quote yourself once more again: "should respect the work of their fellow contributors" so how about it? Did Masem and yourself actually respect my work as a fellow contributor by contributing to it in no other way than to destroy my work? Hmm? What do you say? 🤨

Finally, did you actually read my justification for cancelling Masem's edit and did you actually review my last edit after it or did you undo my undoing of Masem as soon as you noticed it without actually paying attention to what I added after it, hmm? 😏

Anyway, I will now proceed to restore my contribution that you cancelled for no justified reason or rather for reasons that you justified against yourself as I demonstrated into this answer to your message and I suggest you to actually read it before you destroy it. Maxime Martyr (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You have to reach agreement with Masem (or others who comment) to keep your additions in the article (see WP:CON). Filling up talk pages with personal attacks is not going to help, and is in fact against policy itself WP:NPA. Edit warring to keep tags off the article or your contributions in the article will only get your account blocked. You must work collaboratively with others. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that so? Then if "I have to reach agreement with Masem", then why did you interfere between us? 😼

I actually did talk with Masem, which made your interference even more pointless, did you merely want to suck up to him to be into his good book? 😏

And what you claim to be "personal attacks" are merely me demonstrating that you violate the rules that you keep attempting to enforce on me, which I still don't even understand why as you are not even an administrator and yet you uncannily behave as such, are you fulfilling a fantasy? 😏

Actually, I just checked whether you are an administrator or not and I did find something interesting which is that I am not the first who reminds you that you are not an administrator because you have been pretending to be one with more than only me, which makes it understandable that you claim that any opposition against your despotism is a "personal attack" as you are definitely biting more than you can actually chew and you lack actual counter-arguments to oppose me which leads you to rely on victimization since you can't actually stand for yourself, go ahead, prove me wrong and use actually valid counter-arguments if you can. 😼

All that I have left to say to you is that if I have an issue with Masem, then don't meddle into other people's business and let us settle it between us as you never concerned to begin with, no matter how much you want to be important and noticed, understood? 😼

Ooooooh, would you look at that, "Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly."

So, how many times did you revert already again? 😏 Maxime Martyr (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at First-person shooter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)