User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that the mediator reserves the right to refactor/organize comments when they are posted incorrectly.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

  1. Florentino floro (talk · contribs)
  2. Maxschmelling (talk · contribs)

[edit] Articles involved

  • Both parties, please list all articles involved below.

[edit] List of articles involved according to Maxschmelling

bolded articles in this list have talkpage discussion between us:

[edit] Previous discussions

  • Both parties, please list permanent links or links to archives to all previous debates.

[edit] List of previous discussions according to Maxschmelling

Our first encounter [1], and then this is when I first became concerned about his editing [2], then he was adopted the first time [3], [4]. Here is an example where I tried positive reinforcement [5], but then [6], [7] and [8] happened. Other incidents were discussed on our two talk pages, [9], [10], [11], [12]. And elsewhere, [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. I would also recommend reading all of User Talk:Florentino floro (including the archives) because I am not the only one making these points. As well as these two AFDs [19], [20]

The following about his problems with understanding NPOV is copied from what I previously wrote on Diligent Terrier's talkpage: There is blatant NPOV violation, like these, [21] (note: if you look at the news story, you will see that he significantly exaggerated the seriousness of the accident, and look at the talkpage note accompanying it [22]), [23], various posts here [24], [25] (the whole article was later merged with this one[26] because the whole premise of it was in violation of NPOV) not to mention the deleted article [27] which was originally a list of bad things happening to people that Floro had allegedly predicted or caused, later filled out with bad things happening to other people so that it would be less biased.

And then there is the less blatant method of seeking out of unflattering news about people he feels have wronged him, like these:[28], [29], [30] goes with this[31] for context, and these for emphasis[32], [33]. It’s edits like this one [34] that led me to figure out that he was making biased edits. maxsch (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of previous discussions according to Florentino floro

I am Florentino Floro and I respectfully submit my evidence / proofs, to block, ban, suspend, or the very least, to permanently enjoin this user from editing any and all my edits. This editor has no agenda here, but uses his account, solely and, not only to concentrate, single, and focus on my daily edits, by reverting, deleting and editing almost all of my daily edits, from the time this editor got mad on me, starting from baseless allegations of my unproven news editing, not notable, inter alia, but this editor miserably failed to get the neutral and unbiased views of other editors and more importantly to notify to join, the creator of the articles concerned. Further, this user, per contributions, never created a single article like any other users here, nor had this editor added new edits to any article/s, but daily, this user continuously edits or reverts / deletes only my contributions. This is the best evidence of fraud or badges of fraud in using an account in Wikipedia. Even if such actuations may not fall within the ambit of vandalism, such use of account above-described, is not only tantamount to vandalism, but it is sheer vendetta with hidden agenda of personal attack and discourtesy to another co-equal editor. Here are the pertinent links:
User:Florentino floro[35]
Notice [36]
Deleting my Edits on Filipino Article[37]
User:Florentino floro's petition to ban you[38]
Paul McCartney[39][40]
Your style of editing, Please review the Rules[41]
Neptune statue[42][43]
Libel case[44]
Miriam Defensor-Santiago Disbarment Case Dismissed and Head Fall, not Notable?[45]
Blocking, Judge Floro[46]
Everton[47]
UP Charter of 200[48]--Florentino floro (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Statement by Florentino floro

Best evidence to block this use

I submit this, today's, this editor's glaring error, on deleting Big Brown's my added 2nd jewel of the Triple crown video, on the false ground of redundancy: "Why did you delete the video on the 2nd Win of Brown at Preakness without even knowing that the 2nd win was the 2nd jewel of the trio: Kentucy, Preakness and Belmont on June 7. This is already intentional and bad faith plus wrong edit on your part. Why redundant? Kentucky is the first derby, this is the 2nd, at Preakness, Pimlico. Please study horse racing first, I am in this sport since 1972. This user in bad faith removed this You Tube link on the 2nd win the other day, the link due to alleged redundancy, without even looking at the video: the You tube link is the only link about the 2nd leg of the T. crown, while the first link I added last time was the Kentucky derby, the first jewel. This editor does not even know that there are 3 parts of the Triple Crown, the last will be on June 7 at Belmont: 20:45, 19 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Big Brown‎ (→External links: rem redundant video link and news link per WP:external links) I have to re-add it. More importantly, the entire world is now with bated breath, unwilling to wait for Belmont June 7, since, it was only in 1978 or 30 years ago that a Triple Crown won, and Big Brown's 2nd win, the video shows, the 3rd of only 3 horses that won 2 of the jewels. this is fabulously rare since 1978. This user deleted this:*BIG BROWN PREAKNESS 2008 WIN--Florentino floro (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Maxschmelling
Floro put this video back in the Big Brown page and it was promptly removed by another editor [49] for being a copyright violation. maxsch (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Florentino floro
That is why I put a notice in the talk page, asking for a very good or better and proper video, to replace it, like the Kentucky video I put there, since I could not find a better one, and Preakness website did not provide one like the Kentucky web. Got the point. Please refer to the talk pages. And you deleted it not because of copy vio but on redundancy. Also, in my talk page, I was told by the administrator that external links section is not for that. --Florentino floro (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Maxschmelling
So you knew there were copyvio issues with the video you added but you put it in anyway? Are you serious?!? I admit, the reasoning I gave was wrong, but generally there are too many external links that don't really help the articles they are in--removing the questionable ones is my policy. Often there is not enough space in the edit summary to explain all the problems with content you add, so sometimes I just pick one reason. maxsch (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Florentino floro
Alright, next time, please submit the correct reason on the talk page of the article, and do say sorry for your mistake or submission of wrong reason, so that other editors may contribute to the better expansion of the article. Now, if there is really copyright violation, it is for YouTube itself to remove that, and unless removed, then, it is not yet adjudged copy vio. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Maxschmelling
For the record, YouTube does not have the same stringent copyright policy as wikipedia. It is wikipedia policy not to use copyrighted media, whether youtube chooses to or not. You cannot trust that a youtube video doesn't have copyright issues (especially if the NBC logo is in the corner of the image). maxsch (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Florentino floro
Again, and again: if you read the talk page, I announced my problem of having a hard time to get a clearer and better video of this great horse. Kentucky Derby website provided but Preakness did not at that time. So, I asked some editors and of course the creator to contribute to delete my temporary video. I stress, that Big Brown is just one of 3 of 90, since 30 years ago that won 2 of the Triple Crown races. It's immortal now. - --Florentino floro (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
On Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. article

I suggest the participation of User:Anyo Niminus, who is the most respected creator of Philippine Supreme Court Justices' articles. Any opinion or edit of this user who is a respected lawyer, would greatly contribute to the expansion and neutrality of this article, which I created. This user would for sure, be, in the best position to make this article better, since, this user created most of the Justices' articles. --Florentino floro (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Temporary restraining order

I hereby petition the authorities concerned in this battle, discussion, debate and case, that pending resolution of this dispute, maxsch be enjoined from editing, adding, deleting or contributing in any manner, to all my created articles and daily edits or contributions, until further orders. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Maxschmelling

I'm not the only one

Here are a few recent examples of other editors reverting Floro's edits [50], [51], [52]. It would be nice if he could learn from these kinds of incidents and start making more edits that are useful. maxsch (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Florentino floro
3 only, and there was discussion on Elizabeth I. How many of my 4,000+ edits were all reverted? Since you edited my contributions, how many editors did edit my works, in the same manner and with continuity like you did? You can take a good look at all my 4,000 edits, and it is very safe to say that: like all editors here, my contributions are least reverted, and only you solely reverted many of them, on your own, without even consulting other editors. The mere fact that one or even 100 of my edits were reverted by other editors, is not proof that I am a poor editor. But if 95% of my contributions were edited by one person, that is suspect, and a true badge of fraud, and ill motive is existent in the act. Can you please show me edits of any editor here that were reverted continuously by just one editor? It is only you! And like in law, motive is very material, if not, to be the basis of acquittal. Why not expand and edit many vandalized works, and empty stubs, like Philippine movie star articles? --Florentino floro (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Maxschmelling
These are 3 in the last few days. Very many of your "4000+ edits" over the last few years were reverted by other users. And in addition, nearly half of your 4000+ edits consist of you putting the same information in the talkpage. That is not helpful, not something other editors do, and not something you are supposed to do. I follow your edits because a lot of pages in wikipedia are not carefully watched, and edits that most editors would revert don't always get caught. Sometimes I do expand on edits you make, when there is useful information in them. But I do think that a pattern of reversions by numerous editors, as the examples I have given show, does indicate that you are often not editing in a productive manner. maxsch (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Florentino floro
3 is not evidence of scheme, habit, pattern, etc. Very many of my 4,000 edits were reverted, according to you, but not according to any editor here. Allegation is not proof. Submit to me specifics of your accusations on this point. Read all my 4,000 edits, and show me any evidence that what you are alleging now, is somehow true. It is very easy to say that the world is full of dogs, but how many? I started putting in the talk page, reasons of my edits or contributions, only from the time you challenged me to prove my allegation that I do not contribute news but encyclopedic articles. Since you revert almost all of my edits without any opinion from the creators and contributors of the articles concerned, I, in dire wisdom, opted to ask intelligent and impartial editors and authors of articles, regarding my edits vis-a-vis your reverting my adds. Why don't you listen to my advise: help edit those Philippine movie stars and articles which have no references like Bong Coo, etc. You will drain yourself, and will have sleepless nights if you, on daily affair, concentrate on my works. It is not good for your health, and I care for your wellness. Be a good Wikipedia editor, by controlling your anger and emotions. Alright, read all my 4,000 edits so that you will learn how to ... --Florentino floro (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Cma (a.k.a. Migs)
I'd like to make my own interjection on behalf of maxsch, who doesn't seem to have been responding as of late. At least 2 of Floro's edits today alone were reverted, here and here. Yes, 2 may be a small number, as he says, but that's just today, and though they were made in good faith, this is the exact same mistake he's been making for the last two years--despite numerous editors telling him not to add irrelevant links. I believe maxsch has already linked to several examples above. Not all of Floro's edits may have been reverted, but I suspect that this is because he gives the impression of being relevant by repasting his content on the talk page, and because few people bother to check the external links he adds, especially when the articles affected are watched by a very small number of people. The people watching Bigfoot and Monkey, the two most visited articles he's edited today, noticed almost immediately that his links were irrelevant. I'm certain that many of the people who are up to date on the more obscure topics would see fault with a good deal of his edits.
Also, Floro, please stop telling people to read all 4000 of your edits. Nobody is going to do that. In fact, we'd appreciate it if you stopped bragging about your edit count in general, as edit counts are not some status symbol that prove your worth. I realize completely that my most recent edits pertain to you, but that does not invalidate anything I've said. I am not involved in this nonexistent conspiracy against you that you keep accusing Filipino Wikipedia editors of being involved in. I fully admit that I have been keeping a close eye on you, not because of crab mentality, but because of your long history here on Wikipedia. --Migs (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Florentino floro
Evidence to be believed, must not only be true, but should conform with the norms of human reality, that is, evidence must also be credible. First, I accused Migs of using Wikipedia account, by solely concentrating or discussing my own contributions, or saying "Wtf" to me, in my talk page (which word is shocking to the conscience of Wikipedia editors). Such actuation by an editor to a co-equal / fellow editor, is unthinkable in Wikipedia. It has no place in this noble online book. Second, Migs, by circumstantial evidence of his/her contributions vis-a-vis his/her argument in talk pages, is conclusively shown to be an alter, dummy and partner of maxsch, for reasons: i) both rarely contributed, but to edit or discuss about myself / my edits; ii) both never created any article, and iii) both rarely, if ever, added any positive edit, like adding an encyclopedic event or fact. Third, res inter alios acta or their scheme, habit, or design, with concerted actions to concentrate on just one Wiki editor, myself, proved beyond reasonable doubt, the badges of fraud, hidden agenda, ulterior motive and utter bad faith by them, upon a fellow editor. Fourth, both users, never recognized the good edits and good articles made and submitted by myself to make Wiki a better one. Fifth, what have 2 edits of mine which were corrected, amended and reverted by co-editors anything to do with news or accusations against me? Precisely, in this talk page, both of these users, and all others, who might be able to, were asked to lay down the cards on the table, but these 2 users could hardly define and submit or prove that, since this talk page was created, I did add news or violated any Wiki rule. Both were continuously digging for, and resurrecting the dead edits, making dire fishing expeditions in my 4,100 edits. But they rarely found any. Finally, I would like to repeat my question: What are the main reasons, per their contributions, these 2 users, are here for: or - are they using their accounts, in combination, to take a daily scrutiny at any and all of my edits amid the appointment of 2 adopting parents (one who resigned due to the email message to me that I am being muscled)? Veritas semper vincit. The truth always conquers. The best damning evidence against these 2 users, is the email of my adopting parent User:Ianlopez1115, there is no better one. Let us join hands to keep Wiki a better one, and to put off by the botton these 2 users, if they violated Wikipedia rules on using Wikipedia account for abuse, against a fellow editor. There is not other way. --Florentino floro (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Cma (a.k.a. Migs)
For the record, I emailed Ian, and received this response:

Sir/madam, I'm no longer inviolved with this. For the poast 5 months or so, I'm experiencing more trouble than ever. I've never emailed Mr. Floro that there was a conspiracy against him by the Tambayan community.

Please stop namedropping him and this email he sent you, as he has clearly flat-out denied any sort of conspiracy. --Migs (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Florentino floro
User:Ianlopez1115
This talk page is a discussion (and presentation of evidence). Do not prevent me from submitting my own argument, critical facts or proofs to ferret the truth. If you received an email from my former adopting parent, then, I will now confront you, to impeach you by contrary evidence: let me quote hereunder in full, his email to me: "Ianlopez1115 <ian_lopez_1115@yahoo.com> wrote:I am now concerned. Here are some of my instructions: Retire before they can have the muscle to ban you, so that you have the time and energy and concentration to do your . Also, I'm now resigning indefinitely as your adopter to prevent collateral damage. But I will be there to protect you in Wikipedia, until we are banned. I also give you the explicit approval to invoke Psalm 109 and Psalm 73. However, I will not be happy because one of my distant relatives will be involved in your actions (My grandfather's mother is also a Brion from San Pablo City). Although this could be painful, I HAVE LEARNED TO EXPECT AND ACCEPT TRAGEDIES that I shall soon encounter. I appreciate the security and guidance of Luis, Armand & Angel, and I am willing to accept them as a part of my family. I am also considering my indefinite leave of absence here, but I have to defent the meek, the weak, the opressed users & editors here. I am now saddened that some of our kababayans are trying to treat you like an animal. Now is the time for you to leave Wikipedia, write a note on your userpage that you are leaving Wikipedia for good, invoke Psalm 109 & 73, and "serve" justice to those who have (or had) wronged you. And I do not consider the people whom you called "geniuses", the persons who removed and/or deleted your edits in various articles, as friends. I'm also removing my crab mentality not only for your sake, but for the sake of this nation. Please consider this, since this is a way of saving ourselves. I also hope that we can meet in real life. Please DO NOT send any messages on my talkpage, send it instead via Yahoo! Messenger and/or my email address (the email address that I use to send this message) May God have mercy on this Wiki, and tis nation. Ian Lopez" (Reply of Judge Floro, Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:41 PM). Now, since, I had been very careful of contradicting you, with damning and solid evidence, as precaution against lies and cover-ups, I sent this message to my adopting parent, to prove to you, that he went off this problem, due to persecution, if and only if, he continuous to be with the truth.[53](Simply Amazing). Wikipedia account of any user or editor cannot in any manner be used solely to attack any fellow editor, directly or indirectly, by conducting "fishing expeditions" alone or with another, called co-conspirator or accomplice (specifically, by digging all my contributions, searching for errors). If I myself, had been adopted once, and now, twice, and take NOTE, this second adopter is no nonsense, being a former Wikipedia administrator, sysops (system operators), it is a shocking insult to this 2nd adopter to be bypassed in my edits. Wikipedia has many administrators and editors. I had never been intensely scrutinized, more and more, than by these 2 editors. It is a sad day for Wikipedia, when 2 editors, upon cursory perusal of their edits, would do nothing in Wikipedia but solely (daily) scrutinized and participate by reverting or discussing any and all edits of myself their fellow editors. As former administrator and tons of experience, may I respectfully ask my adopting parent, Diligent Terrier, if, in "the" stint here both as editor and administrator, had you had any occasion to have found any editor in Wikipedia, who like these 2 editors, ever contributed daily and solely, by merely discussing or editing ONE editor's edits? I lived and devoted my entire life for the truth, no matter what. I admit that I am not the best or the worst editor here, but I tried to learn and did have experiences. But I curse lies and hypocrisy. There is nothing more hateful in this world, that anger, bitterness and vendetta folded in hidden agenda. For this reason, Wikipedia, is not advanced and had created rules and policies to put off these problems. But there are some which are so difficult to solve: the evil of human nature and bitterness. We call it road rage, and insanity. I respectfully submit my case, against these 2 editors. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Cma (a.k.a. Migs)

Floro, I recommend you read this. I speak completely objectively and with no malice when I say that except maybe for the first item, you match every characteristic listed under "problem editors," exhibiting several of them even right here on this very page. --Migs (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply of Florentino floro

What is the relevance, pertinence and materiality of Tendentious_editing in this discussion page? Specifically, can you please submit clear and convincing evidence that such section would apply to me? Allegation is not proof. You know that. My adopting parent, and the incumbent adopter have had no problem with my editing. I stress that I had been corrected in some health edits by an admin doctor, and I admitted the mistakes, as I made many mistakes, duly amended or rectified by other editors (but there is no such thing in Wikipedia history, as this - 2 editors, staying in Wikipedia, just to edit or discuss Florentino floro). I am not under indictment here. You are: I had squarely accused you and Max of using and abusing Wikipedia account for the sole purpose of (according to my submitted evidence of your twin contributions) scrutinizing, editing, reverting, and discussing, by conspiracy, habit, scheme or modus operandi, and with damning evidence of email by my former adopting parent Ian against both of you, inter alia. Please do not muddle the issues here. You came into this discussion to cover-up the truth. Is Ian lying? Why did Ian, who is a very very good Wikipedian, resign? --- According to Ian's email, were it not for your, and other Filipino editors' "muscle"? Please rebut this submitted email evidence: both of you were caught in flagrante delicto. Please, please, read my Petition to an administrator and my adopting parent to email Ian to verify the authenticity of my quoted full text email; who is lying, you or me? This is very material in blocking both of your accounts. Finally, please examine all of my edits, and/or my articles created, expanded, and lately all of my painfully researched positive contributions. Please note, that I spend 10 hours daily to leave in Wikipedia good contributions for the better future of readers. I examined your and Max's contributions, and they are bare of positive contributions, but measly sums of edits, full of anger, hatred and vendetta. I, too, can edit daily, by easily correcting spelling, grammar (as I corrected Howard Ducks' UST edit-error). I can also edit like Max, by easily checking the notability and news errors of edits by editors. News is a gray area in Wikipedia, and it is easy to revert for Wikipedia has a 3-revert rule. I am a jobless judge in pretend world until today, renting a house and begging for food. There is no sense why Filipino editors like you would waste time on me. Why not give a chance to my adopting parent and Ian, plus the other foreign admins to take care of all these. Both of you do pretend that you and Filipino editors are very worried because, majority of my edits (4,200) are so bad and poorly written. Then, daily Max would conduct 'fishing expedition' on my edits to dig mistakes, then revert. I suggest that you expand Philippine movie articles, since most of them are advertisements, spams, and without any references. Please rebut by substantial evidence all of my accusations against you, by contributing positively as I and Ian, inter alia, do, and, unlike you and Max, do daily in this great encyclopedia. Please do not tarnish the image of this great book. --Florentino floro (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions by mediator

[edit] Question One - for Maxschmelling

You had previously stated Florentino floro was making personal attacks. I am asking this question to ensure that this has not turned into an anti-editor battle. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't say so. He questions my motives, and cites Psalm 109. But the personal aspect is that he tries to make it about himself, his biography, his powers, and his personal struggles against oppression. maxsch (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, how about in this very discussion page, where he says (about me) "...this editor miserably failed to get the neutral and unbiased views of other editors..." I think the "miserably failed" is excessive, and borders on a personal attack. But you must have seen that, so I wonder what you are trying to do here. Your question is a little vague, you could mean personal attacks against other editors too. And you ask if I "feel" that he made them. I think it's time to take my feelings out of this, and for you to just look at the record. I am getting impatient with your pace of involvement. I wonder if you are waiting for me to get frustrated and lash out so that you can castigate me as well. Are you? maxsch (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want this to turn into a series of personal recriminations. I think the issue is one of content. I think that Floro has a basic misunderstanding of what kind of content belongs on wikipedia. I think he could learn to do a better job. I hope he can. But as far as I am concerned, the less we make this personal, the better. maxsch (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
A cursory perusal of all my 3,960 edits reveals that I never attacked any editor here, specifically, the persona. Wikipedia is a place where all editors are co-equal. I learned this when I edited Queen Beatrix and saw Vatican who were both caught editing their own articles. But then, if any mediator here would take a microscopic look at the edits of maxsch, while this editor might not have desired to personally attack me, however, the critical fact remains, that this editor concentrates on all my edits daily. This is not only shocking to the conscience of Wikipedia editors, but it never happened here in Wikipedia's history. I hate personal attacks, and I will be the last to attack a fellow editor. It is the most terrifying idea to concoct, and if an editor is scared with envelopes of fear, edits will never be in rose blood, but would be felt by global readers, to be anemic and tainted with leukemia. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question Two - for Florentino floro

  • Do you stand by all of the contributions you have made to Wikipedia? Are there any that you regret making? Are there any mistakes you would like to admit? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do, and am honored and proud to be part of this great encyclopedia. I made all of my contributions in good faith, hoping that readers will benefit from my works while other editors would, in the future, expand my articles created, and add more or enhance my edits. I remember that I made mistakes, when I was new here and until now, despite 4,000+ edits, I am still new here. Specifically, I made health edits which were corrected by a doctor administrator, inter alia. But from the time that this user attacked or contradicted my news edits, I studied the rules on notable, and added only those that are really notable and not merely news. --Florentino floro (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Floro repeatedly expresses a pride in the number of edits he has made. It seems to me that indicates that he is proud of all 3960 of them. maxsch (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
...waiting for Mr. Floro to respond. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I was very respectful and submissive of many foreign user, who are very very objective and work-dedicated. There are lots of editors here, who contributed more than 4,000, like the French doctor admin who added 25,000. I maintain respect to all editors, but I have to defend my edits against these kinds of concentrating on my edits without even asking the opinions of the creators of articles of other users who added. --Florentino floro (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my break, since I am finishing a court pleading on my own case. It is tough research. --Florentino floro (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So, you do not regret making any edits? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I remember having contributed articles on Philippine coconut virgin oil and gamet. These are very good articles that the world must know on the potency of these, but due to the lack of links that are verifiable etc. Rhikito re-directed them. Well, I just lament, that, maybe in the future, Wikipedia policies may be relaxed on the sufficiency of links. When I was at my early stage here, I made some mistakes in editing but little by little I learned from many editors, and gained experiences. --Florentino floro (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by administratorUser:Rkitko

If I may interject with links, the articles Florentino is talking about are coconut healing oil, Coconut charcoal, and Gamet:Philippine Black Gold. The problem with those was not the lack of verifiable links (though that was an issue), it was simply a copyright violation. But that was a while ago. I believe Florentino has learned the difference between copying and pasting sources and re-writing them in his own words. --Rkitko (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
for the record, we also now know that Floro was trying to market "his coconut charcoal." See the discussion in User talk:Florentino floro under Big Brown advice. So another problem with these articles is/was conflict of interest. maxsch (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
2nd Objection: I do not market coconut charcoal, since I have no business with this. When I created the article on coconut charcoal, I added a link on a Philippine winner of charcoal competition here, duly sent abroad for its company's prize. What I wanted to contribute in coconut, is about Philippine coconut healing oil, since I, as healer found this oil superior to others, but it cannot be sold due to th gift, as St. Paul teaches. So, I want Wiki readers to benefit from the medical effects of these. However, administrator Rkitko was so kind enough to re-direct some of my created articles, and taught me so compassionately how to make Wikipedia a better one. Another point, regarding what this user maxsch mentioned "Big Brown" advice, |I contradict it, by: a) my scholarly made edit, was praised in the talk pages, b) since I had been in horse racing since 1972, and I explained or utterly predicted as, horse rider, the twin reasons, the twin jinxes, why skeptics, like us, do not believe that Big Brown and Casino Drive would have any damn chances to be in the June 7 Belmont race. As predicted and as I edited, Drive was scratched, and as I foretold, I made history, when Brown was dead last, having been eased off, yes, the only Triple Crown aspirant to arrive last at the pay off wire. I accurately predicted these by DIRE OMEN. It is not the use of psychic phenomena, but the scientific analysis of the corruption in the industry: game fixing. Here is my very outstanding edit / talk page praised: "Very significant edit, from my experience of [quarter cracks] it most certainly won't heal before saturday, hopefully the patch up remedy is effective. we will have to wait and see if it affects his performance, great racehorses can run with pain, the drug laws in the states are very liberal compared to the rest of the world, what pain relievers are permitted?Craig rd (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Forget about Big Brown. My money's on Dire Omen. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC) [edit] Twin Dire, Dire and Dire Thorns in the 30 years voyage" --Florentino floro (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to item b) in the 4th post in User talk:Florentino floro#Big Brown link, and some advice, where you said "I am here because I accidentally met a CEO of a charcoal (small) company who wanted to market my coconut healing oil to help very poor Filipinos" When you used the personal possessive ("my coconut healing oil"), it seemed to indicate a personal financial interest, even if your ultimate interest is in helping poor Filipinos. Either way, it violates wp:coi. maxsch (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This shows that I have no business with coconut charcoal. Since 1999, I had been using coconut healing oil and had freely given it to all. How can I have financial interest in oil and charcoal, when I do not trade or deal with these? Your accusations and allegations are not only absurd but defy logic (in argument and debate of discussion). I personally met and talked to this CEO who exports charcoal, and he wanted to know more about my coconut oil, to help the poor. So, where is the financial aspect? Besides, if you read the posts of the administrator, he re-directed my oil and charcoal articles due to copyright violations. You are diverting the discussion to irrelevant issues. The only issue here, in this page, is whether or not you used your account and Cma's, to abuse Wikipedia rules. That's the only relevant point. Please do not deflect the discussion, since this would be a waste of time in this page. Be terse or if you want to prolong this, then submit concrete evidence. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question Three - for both parties

What kind of conclusion are you willing to come to? Specifically, what edits would you like to see reverted back to how you want them? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see Florentino Floro greatly reduce the number of edits he makes--at least for a training period. He would make no more than 3 edits per day, and discuss each one with his adopter. In this way, I think he would be forced to pay more attention to what kind of edits he is making. maxsch (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any edit wars or debates the Florentino floro has won that you would like to see changed back to your revision? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing specific. My requests are really more general. That he stop adding GMA news videos as external links, that he generally avoid adding news items as content at all, and that he not try to validate his reported visions and prophecies by putting what he sees as evidence of his powers into wikipedia articles. maxsch (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
With my submitted argument hereunder and above, I respectfully submit to my adopting parent, the wise and fair opinion, course of action and just conclusion, regarding edits. Considering, as I said before, that my previous adopting parent resigned by emailing me the conspiracy to muscle me, and since the present adopting parent, already read all the evidence and argument herein submitted, there is nothing left, but verdict, judgment or conclusion, which ought to be fair and just for Wikipedia's future. --Florentino floro (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Objection, on the grounds of immateriality, irrelevance and impertinence. It is not the number of edits that is being discussed here, but - the very lis mota or pivotal issue is: whether or not I had made wrong edits, which should have been amended, revised or reverted by any editor, impartial or biased, other than maxsch, whom I accused herein, with tons of evidence, of having used Wikipedia account, only to edit almost all my contributions, to the irreparable damage and prejudice of Wikipedia.--Florentino floro (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Cma

On this score, let me introduce or proffer a very strong evidence of using Wikipedia accounts just to concentrate on one user, myself. Conspiracy is not difficult to prove in this case, if only any editor would just have a cursory perusal of the twin contributions of User:Cma[54] vis-a-vis Maxschmelling's[55]. By virtue of this submitted evidence, I accordingly made a case for verdict or conclusion in my favor, since I squarely and without any reasonable doubt, presented unrebutted evidence or proofs - clear, convincing and substantial evidence, not only preponderance thereof, regarding conspiracy and twin uses or abuses of Wikipedia account, as I said and repeat, of editing only my contributions. --Florentino floro (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to my adopting parent (since I stressed this before), let me state, as closing argument, that: my adopting parent, is a diligent former administrator, and had adopted lots or tons of Wiki children. It behooves, or it is imperative in Wikipedia fair play and justice, that maxsch should rather respect this diligent parent, trusting that - this parent, during the tutorial period, would, exert all best efforts, if not, to give just preference to this Filipino dwarf Wikipedia user, specifically, checking each and every edit, with due diligence, and daily ... all edits contributed by your servant. There is no better Solomonic solution to this controversy, it is ... the sole remedy in the ordinary course of Wikipedia law. Regarding, my having previously written in talk pages words and phrases, about my beliefs, religious or otherwise, suffice it to say, that: even if talk pages are not blogs, etc., still, Wikipedia's policies / the spirit and clear intents of its Rules, do not in any manner, put masking tapes or Plasterof Paris on any Wikipedia users or editors' mouths, within the limits of Wikipedia's fairness. Wikipedia is not martial law or Inquisition that would burn editors who freely express their lamentations and ideas, to expand Wiki in a more intelligent way, than the weird and conspiratic ways of editing by Cma and Max. A final word. Wikipedia's best article is Psalm 109, since it is the most frightening song in the Bible. What is the use of this article if it will not be utilized by any editor here? If I pray and sing this article at midnights for the better edification of these users, why should I be prevented from expressing my religious beliefs? Wikipedia follows the constitutions of civilized democracies. It cannot punish any editor who would sing or use Wikipedia's Psalm 109 in favor of or for the benefit of another kind editor. Amen--Florentino floro (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get too involved in this discussion, but I'd like to add my observation that a large majority of Florentino Floro's edits, while surely made in good faith, are often poorly conceived and executed, and he does deserve the scrutiny that other users like Cma and Maxsch are giving him. TheCoffee (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply of Florentino floro

By way of "Rejoinder", let me respectfully state my stance / Master thesis: First, I do not claim to be an advanced editor, since my 4,100 edits are too few compared to the 25,000 by a doctor / administrator who corrected my wrong health edits. Second, even if I took pains to write good articles[56], or to expand so much, some very good articles created by others[57](and maybe, my forte, is in creating Philippine legal articles), still, I readily admit my mistakes (example - in creating an article on a Filipina who was abused by a priest; due to laziness, I copied partly verbatim, the link, and used another link, thinking that editors would not discover the same, since under our Philippine laws, copy pasting just 20% of the link is not copy vio. So it was deleted). Third, I created coconut articles which were very scholarly written, but the problem was: the links I used were not verifiable and some of them were promotional, since today, there is hardly any good link on coconut articles. It was then, the kindness of administrator User:Rkitko to have guided me, and fairly re-directed and / or deleted my articles on Coconut oil and "Gamet": "The problem with those was not the lack of verifiable links (though that was an issue), it was simply a copyright violation. But that was a while ago. I believe Florentino has learned the difference between copying and pasting sources and re-writing them in his own words. --Rkitko (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)". Fourth, this is the best evidence, therefore, that the accusation against me, of putting NEWS, is utterly baseless. While it is plausible for any editor to scrutinize any editors' edits, still, daily and almost 90% of my edits were continuously edited and / or discussed by these editors Max and Cma, in concert, harmony and by habit, conspiracy, so to speak; we cannot find any editor doing these horrible things in Wikipedia but Cma and Max. Fifth, these are the critical facts: a) Wikipedia:Meetup/Manila 2, Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines, (its Tambayan roster of) Filipino editors participated in my edits and works, but, it is shocking that only 2 - Max and Cma did a monopoly of editing or discussing my edits. b) User:Howard the Duck took very close scrutiny also of my edits; but not to the extent of Max and Cma: take for example this gray area edit, inter alia, of Duck: [58] Duck moved my edit from top to bottom of History, and in the course of the edit, deleted "95th", since I edited Fr. De la Rosa as 95th rector; OK, I did not fight, but it was so funny that Duck made a grammatical and palpable error, not vandalism, of course, and not poor editing, but careless editing, since Duck wanted to edit more; so I corrected Duck's wrong edit: "UST would install Fr. Rolando dela Rosa as rector at the beginning of the 2008-09 academic year. Dela Rosa formerly served as rector and Commission on Higher Education chairman."[59]. Sixth, let me submit the following modus operandi of these 2 editors Max and Cma, in the light of my adopting parent User:Ianlopez1115's a) email of resignation vis-a-vis his reasons why he resigned, accusing in the email to me, these Filipino editors (of the NOW did happen acts of scrutiny which Ian called "muscle)". b) Ian never stated the reason why he resigned, and did resign without a note in Wikipedia, but in my email; c) The conspiracy which Ian stated in the email began when I wrote 2 articles on 2007 events which contained my predictions, d) the articles were well written and supported by links, but the Filipino editors accused the article I created of lack of neutrality; I was deceived when an AFD was inserted in the articles, and the Filipino editors asked me to insert neutral events so as to balance my created article, e) then they lost; f) now, a 2nd AFD was inserted, setting up a new and forgotten not newly discovered indictment: my article allegedly duplicated an existing one; and after days of my working to neutralize the article, I seemed to have been fooled, having lost the articles, by being outvoted in AFD. g) I thought it ended there; but the problem was, these Filipino editors consulted legal luminaries here, and they found that all my edits and messages are protected by all Constitutions of the world: h) freedom of religion / belief (since in my links - my written predictions about these top Justices, inter alia, impeccably happened - 800 of them, deaths, illnesses, etc.) i) some of the Filipino editors were or are related to many of the most powerful Philippine Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and top Philippine officials, against whom I had predicted in writing in court pleadings and forums to have had surgeries, deaths, accidents, inter alia - j) User:Ianlopez1115 in his email to me admitted that he is related to Arturo D. Brion, husband of my classmate Tonette, both of whom I cursed under Psalm 109, and I told Ian, that he will be off the curse; k) Alfredo Benipayo, current Dean of the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, (UST is Howard Duck's alma mater - and while the discussions in AFD, inter alia were firing, and while I was repeatedly writing thereat, Psalm 109, Alfredo Benipayo fell and was rushed to the Iloilo hospital)[60]; a cursory perusal of my replies to these Filipino editors, were terse and direct to their points (theirs diverted from the issues); l) kidney transplant of Raul Gonzalez (Philippines), colon cancer of Corazon Aquino, the death of Dulce Saguisag, the wife of my lawyer of the 75 pages world famous dwarf case, Rene Saguisag who remains invalid today. m) I brought the matter of resignation of my first parent Ian to administrator User:FisherQueen, but she was busy at that time, and instead advised me to travel, but I had been traveling a lot. IN SUM, I respectfully submit point blank the damning evidence of my adopting parent's email, which User:Cma belied or contradicted. I petition therefore, that a) my adopting parent, as former administrator and expert on verifying the truth of emails, b) and administrator User:Rkitko who interjected above, to EMAIL my former adopting parent User:Ianlopez1115 <ian_lopez_1115@yahoo.com> and ask him in camara, if the email I quoted above, and in full by Ian, is true, correct and authentic. If it is, then this case is easily closed: Block the accounts of Cma and Max, on the grounds of violation or abuse of a User account. This is the best or Solomonic solution to this case. Respectfully submitted. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not you make any sense, no one is going to read your majestic replies unless you keep it under a reasonable length. I know that people have told this to you before, but you do not seem to listen. TheCoffee (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do amend or edit my rather long replies, since I had a difficulty, in explaining to Max and Migs, the problem of Ian's email to me regarding this "muscle", specifically on its authenticity, due to Cma's alleged receipt of denial or alibi allegedly from Ian.--Florentino floro (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Maxschmelling

I'm sorry that I haven't been very present lately, I'm on a real life vacation and mostly away from the internet (blissfully). BUT, I'm not sure what else there is for me to add. Floro clearly needs help understanding how to add content to wikipedia in a helpful, productive manner. How he can not realize this himself is unfathomable to me. But without his cooperation, there are few solutions that will work to the benefit of Wikipedia. Either he accepts help and agrees to listen and to change his editing style accordingly, or he is asked not to contribute anymore (in other words, he is blocked). In the end, if the forces of sanity cannot come together and stop this kind of behavior, wikipedia is well and truly doomed and a big waste of my time. maxsch (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply of Florentino floro

By way of reply, I respectfully state, that: a) the above-comment of Max is just a rehash, repetition and rewording of the unsubstantiated, unsupported and utterly irrelevant allegations / accusations submitted above by this User; b) I am under the tutorial of my adopting parent, and administrator User:Rkitko succinctly stated that I learned how to edit and create articles by not just copy pasting; Max’s sole charge against me is adding “news,” or not notable edits, and I submitted tons of evidence that I had scholarly edited, and added positively / constructively encyclopedic matters; c) a cursory perusal, examination and comparison between my contributions of articles created to WikiPedia[61] plus the articles I expanded, revised or improved with major edits[62] vis-à-vis Max’s ZERO positive article created and expanded[63] (when compared), would easily result in a verdict in my favor, to be forthwith promulgated here as CONCLUSION, that – Max’s account must be duly blocked, or at the very least, suspended in animation, until further orders by administrators. Max had been a continuous problem of other editors due to his style of editing – continuous reverting edits of other expert and advanced editors, without even reading the links and importance of the edits. I am not saying that my today’s 4,309 edits is the primary basis of all of these. Number really does not count if the edits are merely corrections of spelling, grammar, reverting, and the like. I can easily do what Max does, in just 30 minutes (reverting edits on shaky grounds of news, not notable, etc., and without asking the opinions of the authors and other editors). But daily, it takes me at least 10 hours, to scholarly research, and add good edits, like this, recently: ITN[64] where User: BanyanTree (have administrator privileges both here on English Wikipedia and at Commons) messaged me. This edit of mine is historical, since I am the first Wikipedia editor to add this Yasuo Fukuda censure motion, which had never happened since World War II.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia – which does not weigh the time spent by editor to add or create good / positive edits and articles; since I opened my account here, I learned little by little, until I made very good edits, only to be reverted en masse, by Max destructive editing coupled with Cma’s support. This is a very very sad day for Wikipedia: I, an editor, who had been well respected by many editors, encountered lately, in my daily diligent works in this great encyclopedia, negative editing by sole and unique user Max. There is no place for Wikipedia for destructive editing. Max must cut, and cut clean, lest other editors also suffer what I did suffer under this editor. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:BanyanTree

I humbly beg your indulgence to share your thoughts before conclussion, considering that your page stated that: "I have administrator privileges both here on English Wikipedia and at Commons. Feel free to bring any needed moppage to my attention." With all due respect and regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion