User talk:2601:983:827F:6B20:0:0:0:3353

Hi there, this is Maia. While I understand your reasoning behind including my full name, I ask that you also try to understand that I keep my last name off of the internet for a reason and have multiple sources/interviews that explain that exact reasoning or keep to the sentiment of only being referred to as "Maia." My last name's presence in various places across the internet have been used without my consent to do so. While I'm aware that information is online, it makes me deeply uncomfortable that it has been used in the first place. I ask that the Wikipedia article for mxmtoon stay with the consensus that was reached previously that "Maia" be the only information accessible for the reason that my own life and career have continuously stressed the importance of keeping a level of privacy in regards to my name.


 * I disagree with you being blocked, simply because you didn't edit your own page. But I think you have given up your right to encyclopedic privacy. Your name is relevant to an encyclopedia. 2601:983:827F:6B20:0:0:0:3353 (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit summaries suggest now may be a good time for you to step back and not personalize this. Whether the name is included or not is a matter of consensus, not just your opinion, and you shouldn't act in the absence of a clear consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't need to step back from nothing. You have someone wanting to be a celebrity but still demanding privacy? NO. It doesn't work that way. You are either public or you are private, you don't get to be both. She doesn't get to pick and choose what gets put out there. Also, for the record, my latest edit was adding yet another source to a piece of data that someone keeps reverting. How many very public sources, which originated from her, do we need before we determine that it is public information.
 * She signed up with a music publisher to print and to sell her sheet music. Every page has this top secret name printed on it. She agreed to it and she profits from it. Her name in an encyclopedia shouldn't be an issue. 2601:983:827F:6B20:0:0:0:3353 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, it's a matter of editorial consensus. You seem very upset about this, when it isn't really a big deal one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think everyone should be pissed. Not because someone's name is or isn't printed. But because people toss around the term 'privacy' and expect everyone to cater to it without question. Most of us want privacy. I agree with that. But she has 93million views (according to the article), she willingly gave up her privacy. She profits from willingly giving up her privacy. She doesn't get to now say "I want privacy". 2601:983:827F:6B20:0:0:0:3353 (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, the esteemed manager of this IP is a user sock and is sabotaging.

Talkback
I couldn’t directly ping you, so a talk page notification is best. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)