User talk:MaineBenchmark

December 2021
Your editing at History of the Jews in Maine is disruptive. It is unsourced, undue, and certainly does not belong in the lead. If you wish, you can take the issue to the article Talk page. Otherwise, if you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at History of the Jews in Maine, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Sorry it is not at all clear why the addition of a state-wide summary table and other state-wide data should be considered 'disruptive'. I have moved the current state-wide section from the header into the body of the page, but would appreciate it if the historical summary table could remain at the top. All the information can be referenced many of these references are in www.mainejews.org
 * I have never seen large tables in the lead of any article. It's simply unacceptable, not to mention ugly.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about the location of the large introductory table. Could it go in the text under a new subhead of 'state-wide Jewish Information'. This new section could also contain information on state-wide cemeteries, Jewish historical archives, and organizations. Is this ok ? References for each section could be to specific pages in www.mainejews.org or to other secondary sources.
 * I don't think of mainejews.org as a secondary source. What you want to add is unwieldy, and putting in a new subheading in an article that is broken down by community is a major change to the article. I suggest that you propose your changes on the article Talk page and gain a consensus from other editors as to what would be appropriate and what would not. I'm not at all familiar with the article. I noticed your edits kind of by chance and, as an administrator, am more focused on editor conduct than content disputes. The article was just created recently (moved from draft space to article space), and it appears like it has had relatively little activity except by a few editors, some of whom are WP:SPAs. Nonetheless, you need to move far more cautiously. The article is already very large and fairly messy. If I were you, I'd focus on trimming the article, not expanding it, and cleaning up the existent messiness.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)