User talk:LogicalLeaf129

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, LogicalLeaf129, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Alexandria, Virginia seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Introduction and Getting started
Contributing to Wikipedia
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Ashburn, Virginia did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Northern Virginia, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not disrupting anything , You have yet to check the talk page which I have clearly sited circumstances where my map style would be allowed (ie. tourism , communities , etymology) sub topics within a article according to Wikipedia . I removed them from the info/template box which are for encyclopedic maps. I advise you to drop your personal distain and keep in mind this is a shared space , and like I said on the talk page your avoiding, they are strong recommendations for map making but do not explicitly state there is only one style that can be used . Thanks for understanding ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your map

By my count, three editors have removed that map you are adding to so many articles. The map is unencyclopedic and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss with me how it is detrimental to any information presented in the articles I have applied them too, I have seen similar style males posted before , without an valid explanation they will be reinstated , thank you for your understanding LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

maps* LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I’ll also need a definition for “unencyclopedic” which you keep using, the information on the maps can be verifiable by Google Maps LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that. Please see WP:BRD. Your edit has been reverted by User:Drmies, User:Bartzyx, and myself, for much the same reason. I would suggest you start a discussion on one of the article talk pages, and seek a consensus for inclusion. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid if you can discuss the error with my edit it is likely unjustifiable and you along with the “Drmies” simply don’t like the map for your own personal reasons , it’s factual and outlines CDP boundaries and maintains good quality. Like I said , if you don’t discuss with me I will simply reinstate them. Thanks for understanding ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The maps that you have been adding to articles are garish. They are visually inaccessible and overly cluttered, filled with excessive annotation and unnecessary ornamentation. They give undue weight to particular landmarks and roads in the style of a tourist map. Many of the annotations lack the distinct, sharp boundaries that would help color-blind individuals to decipher them. These maps do not follow Wikipedia map conventions, which are designed to produce maps that are accessible and easy to read. I invite you to visit the WikiProject Maps page to familiarize yourself with the standards that are used to create encyclopedic maps. Bartzyx (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it , essentially the "clutter" from my landmarks , As far as the color I will review the page you sent me for map conventions but I have seen maps of various types of colors uploaded on this website. Rarely have I seen a wikipedia map get taken down for the color , this standard seems a bit "nit picky" but it is within policy so I will follow it to the best of my ability. Thank you ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However after reading over the links you and other editors sent me Id like to remind you that those pages contain strong recommendations but they do not explicitly prohibit maps such as mine that you all deem as "tourist style" /// "Maps should be used in Wikipedia to illustrate geographic, historical, and other information, and should be as simple and clear as possible. Maps should be useful and relevant to the article’s subject." This quote directly from the page I was sent supports me using the maps I created in sections where its relevant such as "tourism" , "communities" , "etymology" etc. I will not use them in sections where an encyclopedic map would be used such as the info/template box where i wrongly uploaded them which you have addressed. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your previous statement that you would attempt to follow the conventions cited here, you have continued to add these maps to other pages (Manassas, Virginia, Chantilly, Virginia, Ashburn, Virginia, Fairfax, Virginia, and others). In the case of Manassas, Virginia, you also restored it after it was removed for similar reasons to those cited above.

I would argue that in addition to the issues previously stated with these maps, since they contain references to the locations of commercial enterprises (e.g. 2 Silos Brewery, Ultrazone, the Winery at Bull Run), that they also violate NPOV. Jbholes (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I'd like to clarify that the inclusion of local businesses such as 2 Silos Brewery, Ultrazone, and the Winery at Bull Run in the map is not promotional. These are simply referenced as recognizable landmarks to help orient readers geographically, much like parks, museums, or other notable locations. Their mention is factual, not editorial, and does not violate the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. NPOV concerns apply to how content is framed, not to the neutral inclusion of notable places on a map. If any adjustments are needed for clarity or balance, I’m open to collaboration. Please review the NPOV policy again , Thank you for understanding ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And “for much of the same reason” was simply insulting the map without a reason that wasn’t subjective LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“If you revert, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page.” Directly from the page you sent me, no response with deem the reverts unjustifiable. Have a Good Day ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm Aoi. I noticed that you recently removed content from Alexandria, Virginia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sterling, Virginia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging in disruptive edits , the sources i provided are supported by the following Wikipedia policies WP: VERIFIABILITY ( information is properly sourced so it cannot be deleted without discussion, the content that i provided is properly sources and relevant) . Also WP:PRESERVE (when dealing with minor issues such as sourcing editors are tasked with preserving relevant information rather than deleting 3000-4000 words worth of content like you have) WP:NOTCENSORED: I have double checked my sources and even run them through AI and all have comeback properly source so whatever issue you have open a talk page on your profile and we can discuss , if not I will re instate the content , but i feel you have some editorial bias against the content i am using.) Lastly, WP:BURDEN, this is a share space and what comes with that is responsibly handling information despite us not being the original editor of it . As a Wikipedia editor you are just as responsible for finding a reputable source , especially if you are the one that has a issue with it.

This is not the personal encyclopedia of Magnolia677 , you do not have to like the edit but please refrain from engaging in editor wars especially when what your doing goes against numerous Wikipedia policies. Thank you for understanding !

(BELOW THIS WILL BE THE AI CHECK OF THE INFORMATION) LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Let's review and verify the sources cited in your etymology section for Sterling, Virginia:

----

1. Original Names: Guilford and Loudoun

Source: History of Loudoun County, Virginia – "Sterling Virginia Early History" by John Toler

Verification: Accurate. The village was indeed known as "Guilford" and later "Loudoun" before adopting the name "Sterling" in 1887. The post office was initially named "Guilford Station," and the name "Loudoun" was used briefly due to the proximity to the "Loudoun" station. This information is corroborated by the cited source.

----

2. Name Change to Sterling in 1887

Source: History of Loudoun County, Virginia – "Sterling Virginia Early History" by John Toler

Verification: Accurate. The name was officially changed to "Sterling" in 1887 to avoid confusion with other areas named "Loudoun." The source attributes this change to local historian Eugene M. Scheel, who mentions that the new name had its origins in Norman pennies of the 11th and 12th centuries, known as "sterlings," which later evolved into the British pound sterling. loudounhistory.org

----

3. Development as a Commercial Center

Source: History of Loudoun County, Virginia – "Sterling Virginia Early History" by John Toler

Verification: Accurate. The village of Sterling grew as a commercial center along the Alexandria, Loudoun and Hampshire Railroad, with its economy driven by local businesses and farming. This development is detailed in the cited source. Wikipedia+4Connection Newspapers+4Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias+4 loudounhistory.org

----

4. Impact of Dulles International Airport and Suburban Expansion

Source: History of Loudoun County, Virginia – "Sterling Virginia Early History" by Eugene Scheel

Verification: Accurate. The development of Sterling was influenced by the construction of Dulles International Airport in the 1960s and the rise of nearby communities. The source notes that the advent of the automobile and improved highways gave tourists access to other areas, affecting Sterling's commercial growth. loudounhistory.org

----

5. Broader "Sterling Area" and ZIP Codes

Source: United States Census Bureau – Sterling, Virginia

Verification: Accurate. The U.S. Census Bureau classifies Sterling as a census-designated place (CDP) in eastern Loudoun County. The broader "Sterling area" includes neighboring CDPs and residential communities that share Sterling ZIP codes such as 20164, 20165, and 20166. This extended area encompasses places like Oak Grove, Dulles Town Center, and Potomac Falls. Wikipedia

----

6. Development of Sterling Park and Nearby Communities

Source: Patch.com – "Sterling Park Began as Guilford Station in 1860" by Mark GundermanPatch

Verification: Accurate. Sterling Park was developed from agricultural land and early railroad settlements such as Guilford Station along the Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. The construction of Dulles International Airport and the extension of water and sewer lines to the airport began to change the landscape when construction started in 1959. The development of planned communities like Sterling Park and Sugarland Run in the 1960s and 1970s contributed to the suburban expansion of the area. Wikipedia+1Patch+1

----

Summary: All the sources cited in your etymology section are accurate and well-supported by historical records and scholarly references. They provide a comprehensive overview of the naming and development of Sterling, Virginia. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sterling, Virginia, you may be blocked from editing. Significant portions of your edit were not supported by the sources cited. Please stop adding "stuff you know" to Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sterling, Virginia. Using AI to "check" is not enough to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Text needs to be supported by reliable sources. For example, Patch community contributors are used generated and are not a reliable source. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again the same issue the other guy I just had to prove a point too. Your deletion is not justified without discussion first

Under WP:BURDEN despite not being the original editor wholesale deletion (3000-4000) of relevant information should not happen before the sourcing issue can be resolved (ex discussion), WP:VERIFIABILITY encourages editors to leave citation needed tags and discuss questionable content (which you have done neither) . WP:PRESERVE states that editors should preserve content (ex etymology) and improve on it before outright deleting it, especially since it is useful information. I have corrected the patch.com source and showed Magnolia677 where my information was being sourced from (his issue) which should be resolved as i have not got a response back.

Also threatening to ban someone over a minor sourcing issue especially when Wikipedia policies I have cited protects the edit at least until discussion is had is hilarious. If it is that serious of a issue I would love to get a moderator involved, an unbiased one will tell you I am operating within policy and your disregard for discussion and whole sale deletion are nothing more than editorial bias on your part. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I understand the importance of avoiding edit warring, and I want to emphasize that my intent has always been to work collaboratively.

However, the large-scale deletion of approximately 3000–4000 words of relevant, sourced content occurred without prior discussion or proper engagement on the article's talk page. According to WP:BURDEN, when material is challenged, the standard process is to:

1.Point out the specific source that is allegedly in violation;

2.Allow time for discussion and improvement; and

3.Use ^{[citation needed]} or talk page notices when feasible rather than immediate removal especially for non-controversial, relevant material.

You and Magnolia677 have only completed step 1 in this process which puts both of you in violation of numerous wikipedia policies WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE, thus the ones starting the edit war

Furthermore, WP:PRESERVE states that when faced with potentially unsourced or poorly sourced information, editors should work to preserve and improve rather than delete useful content outright. The wholesale deletion without allowing resolution is, in my view, inconsistent with these principles, which I have stated several times

I have made multiple efforts to explain, fix, and clarify the sources involved, including correcting citations (e.g., the History of Loudoun County website), yet my edits have been reverted broadly without specific critique or compromise. You and Magnolia issuing empty threats of ban when you are the ones in the wrong does not bother me , if you continue to have an issue and refuse to collaborate please contact a moderator so they can be aware of the situation. They will see that I have been collaborative to make changes and operated within policy. Thanks for understanding ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling, Virginia

With this edit at Sterling, Virginia, you wrote, "The choice of the name Sterling was linked to historical references to Norman pennies (sterlings) from the 11th and 12th centuries. These coins were widely known for their value and quality, and the term later evolved to represent the British currency, the pound sterling." To support your edit, you cited this source. Perhaps I missed it, but where is this text supported at the source cited? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you deleted 3000-4000 words of information over one minor citation issue?

“To call the area Loudoun would have been confusing, and evidently such confusion prompted the change to the name to ‘Sterling’ in 1887,” according to Loudoun historian Eugene M. Scheel. “The new name had its origins in Norman pennies of the 11th and 12th centuries; the coins were called sterlings, and the sterling afterwards became the British pound sterling.” By then, Thomas F. Sexton was the postmaster.

source used : https://www.loudounhistory.org/history/sterling-guilford-early-history/

Again a discussion would have avoided all of this instead of the overzealous urge to delete information. I have noticed this trend with you under my edits before , please refrain from editorial bias against me or my work even if you do not like it, this is shared space. Thank you for understanding ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are other examples besides this one. Please note that Wikipedia does not accept original research and unsourced content. You have been cautioned several times. If you are unsure how to source your edits, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. This is your final warning about unsourced content. I encourage you to self-revert your edit to Sterling, and remove all the unsourced content. Thank for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the foregoing and my note above, The History of Loudoun County, Virginia is of dubious reliability. It is not clear from the website (or the county's official website) who administers the site, and there is no indication what the credentials of the authors of the specific articles are, or what the site's editorial policies are. For those reasons, it does not seem to meet WP:REPUTABLE.

The Ray Clark source also has issues: it's not clear what part of the dissertation supports the statement you are making. From what I can tell, the CDP of Sterling is not mentioned in the source in any manner that supports the statement Sterling experienced significant suburban expansion beginning in the 1960s with the construction of planned communities like Sterling Park and the development of regional infrastructure tied to the opening of Dulles International Airport.

Same goes with the zip code site: nothing on that site seems to define the term "Sterling area" and I don't know how the conclusion written in the article text could be made without original research or some degree of WP:SYNTH. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to you again deleting relevant information it will be reinstated until discussion over the minor sourcing issues has ended which is supported by WP:PRESERVE AND WP:BURDEN

Your characterization of History of Loudoun County as a “dubious source” seems subjective and possibly based on editorial preference rather than policy. While the site is not published by an academic press, the article in question is written by Eugene Scheel, a historian whose work has been cited in published books, regional newspapers, and official Loudoun County planning documents. This meets the standard for WP:RSLOCAL, which permits the use of regionally relevant sources for uncontroversial, local historical information — particularly when the source is attributed, as it was in this case.

Regarding the Ray Clark dissertation, I acknowledge that while the statement I made is factually supported by a broader understanding of the area's development, the dissertation does not explicitly draw the causal link I included. I appreciate the feedback and will revise or remove that sentence accordingly, per WP:V and WP:SYNTH.

As for the ZIP code section, the intent was to clarify how the term “Sterling area” is commonly used to refer to adjacent communities within Loudoun County that fall outside the official CDP, but share Sterling postal addresses. This distinction is relevant to the article for geographic clarity. That said, I’m open to reworking the phrasing or supporting it with a stronger source, if necessary.

My broader concern remains the wholesale deletion of substantial good-faith content (3,000–4,000 words) over individual source concerns, rather than attempting to improve or discuss the content. Wikipedia policy — notably [[WP:PRESERVE]], [[WP:BURDEN]], and [[WP:CONSENSUS]] — encourages editors to improve and collaborate rather than delete large sections without prior discussion. A more constructive approach would be to tag questionable claims and work toward sourcing or trimming, rather than mass removal and escalation (this is literally stated in policy for this exact reason) This is not the personal encyclopedia of Aoi you cannot go against policy and delete relevant information in such a large scale(3000-4000) without discussion resolving the issue. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 , as an editor that has an issue with the edit you have to point out the specific examples of sourcing issues that go against WP;BURDEN. Simply saying "there are other examples" especially after I disproved you saying my source was unsupported is not acceptable per WP:BURDEN. You failing to point out specific issues and obvious refusal for a collaborative resolution or any helpful attempt of improvement violated WP:CONSENSUS and once again you have violated WP:PRESERVE AND WP:BURDEN large scale deletion without resolution through discussion so yes it will be reinstated until you provide a collaborative response that falls within Wikipedia policy and not your overzealous urge to delete my edits. Thanks for understanding! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sterling, Virginia. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sterling, Virginia. Magnolia677 has repeatedly removed large portions of Sterling, Virginia content across multiple sections without prior discussion or clear, policy-backed objections. Per [WP:BURDEN], [WP:CONSENSUS], and [WP:TALK], concerns must be raised and addressed collaboratively before such mass deletions occur. Editors must fix issues before deleting content; if content cannot be improved to meet policy, then removal may be justified. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for consensus to include good-faith, policy-compliant content consensus is required for removal, per [WP:EDITCONSENSUS], [WP:GOODFAITH], and [WP:PRESERVE]. The material I contributed is verifiable, locally relevant, and attributed to a reputable regional historian (Eugene Scheel), satisfying [WP:RSLOCAL] for uncontroversial local history. Despite this, certain editors have repeatedly removed large portions of this content without prior discussion or clear, policy-backed objections. This violates both [WP:BURDEN] and [WP:CONSENSUS].

You have failed to cite specific sentences or elements of the edit that allegedly violate policy — vague claims of WP:SYNTH or reliability issues without concrete examples are insufficient. The burden of proof lies with those seeking removal, not the good-faith contributor of sourced material. Furthermore, the formatting changes being made to the "Etymology" section such as improperly demoting it under a broader “History” header — are against standard article structure and lead to visual and organizational inconsistency. “Etymology” is its own distinct section and should not be buried beneath “History,” especially when it's already correctly formatted.

The continued removal of sourced, good-faith content without engaging on the Talk page, presenting policy-backed objections, or working collaboratively toward improvement constitutes disruptive editing and violates [WP:TALK], [WP:DISPUTE], and the spirit of [WP:CONSENSUS]. Please stop edit-warring and engage constructively on the article's Talk page to reach a policy-based resolution. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring

You continue to edit war to restore disputed maps to articles. Before you go in to another long spiel about how you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion better than the editors with hundreds of thousands of edits between them as you have done repeatedly on this talk page, you need to read WP:ONUS. The onus is on you to get consensus for the inclusion of the disputed maps before adding them to articles. That is policy and you need to abide by it instead of continuing to revert all of the editors how disagree with their inclusion.AlsoPonyo (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is also clear from the discussion here that you are well aware that you don't have consensus. If you restore any of the maps without clear talk page consensus, it is extremely likely you will end up blocked.--AlsoPonyo (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to one of my "long spiels" I cited a policy that doesn’t require consensus as a prerequisite for adding good-faith and policy-compliant content, especially since I have proven its relevancy, verifiability, and neutrality on multiple talk pages/discussions (see WP:BRD, WP:V, and WP:NPOV). Once added, those who wish to remove it must provide Wikipedia policy-backed reasoning or consensus (WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS) and cannot base removal on personal preference or, as you tried to demonstrate, editorial seniority (WP:CONLEVEL) Also i never said i knew policy better than any of you , I am quite sure you guys spend far more time on here than me so i am not questioning that what so ever , i was merely reminding. but you brought up a point about how I should not try that with you and the other editors simply because your edit count is higher than mine yet the very policy you cited was 1.. used in correctly (WP:ONUS) and 2. used to invalidate your entire point LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than open to a cooperative resolution but simply insulting my edits , me and whatever else is not the way to go about this , Thank you for understanding ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the characterization of my edits as disruptive. Per WP:BRD, good-faith additions are permitted and discussion should follow if contested. While WP:ONUS places the burden on those adding disputed material, that only applies when opposition is grounded in policy. To date, no policy-based rationale (e.g. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT) has been provided for removing the map, which is accurate, relevant to the etymology section, and hosted on Commons. Consensus must be based on policy, not editor seniority or dismissiveness, per WP:CONLIMITED. I’ve paused further reverts and am open to resolving this through formal discussion or RFC if needed. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. Consensus determines policy on this project. There is no situation wherein a single editor's desire to include a specific bit of content in an article can override consensus not to include that content. I haven't misapplied WP:ONUS, which states specifically "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". You are also wrong about BRD. When a Bold edit (e.g. adding a map) is Reverted (e.g. by editors who don't agree with the inclusion of the map), you are meant to Discuss the inclusion of the content on the talk page and not restore it without consensus. I was glad to see you agreed to stop edit warring to restore the maps that you, yourself, have made, to articles. Except you have again restored a disputed self-made map at Manassas, Virginia despite being the only person to support its inclusion on the talk page. If you add one of your maps to any article without consensus to do so, and despite knowing the inclusion of your maps is disputed, you will be blocked from editing. You are not taking on any of the information that has been explained to you by both editors and administrators, instead digging your heels in on the false notion that you understand policy better. You don't.--AlsoPonyo (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of policy. Per WP:CONLIMITED, consensus must be based on policy-backed reasoning, not subjective opinions or the number of editors expressing personal preferences. The objections to the map have relied on aesthetic judgments like “ugly” or “garish,” without citing relevant content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:OR. While WP:ONUS places the burden of justification on those adding disputed content, it only applies when the dispute is grounded in valid policy concerns. Furthermore, per WP:BRD and WP:GF, good-faith edits do not require prior consensus to be made or reinstated but removal of good-faith content does require both policy justification and consensus. I have paused further edits, opened discussion, and invited constructive input. Reverting without engaging in policy-based discussion is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s collaborative norms, and threatening a block in the absence of any actual policy violation is both inappropriate and disruptive.

I also want to highlight your supporting somebody who has committed unjust whole sale deletion 400-1200+ characters of information which is literally a direct contradiction of the entire revision process of content on Wikipedia [WP:Preserve Content Removal ] but you are here using bias selective perspectives of policy that have not directly countered any point I have made, just rhetorical misuse of policy with no intention of getting a cooperative resolution. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, they really can't seem to stop. LogicalLeaf, besides the edit warring, all these silly links to policy in bold print, and the attempt at formal writing, it really just irritates seasoned editors. We know the policies and the guidelines. And you clearly have not stopped. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you're the ones removing sourced good-faith content and cannot name one policy that it justifiably is in violation of (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR). Like I told the other guy, if I want to add good-faith content and it is formatted properly by Wikipedia I am allowed to and policy supports that (WP:AGF, WP:BRD). Maybe if you told me specific issues with my edit, like what policy it violates or how it can be improved, which is literally what Wikipedia promotes (WP:PRESERVE) then we would have all found a cooperative resolution to the issue. As "seasoned editors" your handling of the situation is very immature. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing article space for a period of 1 week for persistent restoration of disputed self-made images contrary to WP:ONUS. The only reason I didn't block you earlier is that I didn't have immediate access to my admin account and you appeared to have agreed to stop restoring the maps and abide by consensus. That obviously did not happen. You still have access to the article talk pages to make your case for inclusion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block Review

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).

LogicalLeaf129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully request an unblock because the block is not grounded in any actual policy violations and appears to be a disproportionate response to a good-faith content dispute.

The edits I made involved restoring good-faith content such as an etymology section, name origin, and land connection, along with a map highlighting officially documented census-designated communities which were missing from the article. Under Wikipedia policy, this is acceptable for a subsection such as etymology, provided the content is verifiable (WP:V), relevant to the subject (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE), presented from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), and added in good faith (WP:AGF). Maps that help illustrate historical or geographic context are routinely used in articles about places (WP:GEOGRAPHY) and should be improved or discussed rather than removed wholesale (including deletions exceeding 1200 characters) without policy-based justification (WP:PRESERVE, WP:BRD).

The consensus opposing my edits appears to be based primarily on personal preferences rather than established policies. Regardless, content should be improved before deletion as per WP:PRESERVE, especially for location maps that were repeatedly removed by others without citing any core content policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:OR. The stated reasons for deletion were subjective ("terrible map", "poor quality") and not grounded in enforceable policies like WP:IMAGEQUALITY or WP:MOS.

Per WP:AGF and WP:BRD, good-faith content does not require prior consensus to be added or reinstated. The responsibility for reaching consensus falls on those seeking to remove contentespecially when the content is verifiable, properly formatted, and already present in the article. Additionally, WP:PRESERVE encourages improving content instead of deleting it wholesale, yet the content was removed repeatedly with no effort to improve, tag, or open a proper discussion. No attempt at dispute resolution was made by the removing editors or the blocking administrator prior to the block.

I had paused further edits and moved the discussion to article talk pages, where I cited relevant policies and invited collaboration. Blocking me for defending sourced and relevant content, while other editors removed large amounts of content without discussion, seems disproportionate and inconsistent with Wikipedia’s principles of consensus-building (WP:CONSENSUS), dispute resolution (WP:DISPUTE), and talk page usage (WP:TALK).

I remain committed to working collaboratively within Wikipedia's policies and welcome further discussion to resolve content disagreements constructively. Also on my talk page under “Continued Edit warring” you can see that I engaged in discussion with the moderator who issued the block, citing relevant policies supporting my actions and addressing concerns raised. Despite this, I was blocked without further resolution or opportunity for collaborative problem solving.

Thank you. LogicalLeaf129

Decline reason:

You say "Per WP:AGF and WP:BRD, good-faith content does not require prior consensus to be added or reinstated. The responsibility for reaching consensus falls on those seeking to remove content especially when the content is verifiable, properly formatted, and already present in the article." This is flat out wrong. PhilKnight (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2025 (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.