User talk:MattIPv4

Howdy! Regarding the edit you reverted, I'm wondering why you chose to revert the edit instead of just editing the YouTube stats, I meant to do so as well. Nigel757 (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nigel757, I reverted your change as it was a partial update to the stats, rather than a full update (I did not have the YouTube stats to hand to do a full update on your behalf), and because you removed and blatantly disregarded the comment asking you to ensure you properly update the information (<!-- PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT UPDATING stats_update BELOW -->).

I will revert this again to restore that comment and undo the partial update of the stats as the value you've changed does not align to the date shown for the stats in the infobox. I won't engage further beyond that, and I leave it to you or another editor to properly update the full set of stats and the date, respecting the instructions left by previous editors.

MattIPv4 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

So, I'm not sure what happened here or what the disconnect is but I was just trying to update Maya's stats and missed the YouTube stats and was checking why the entire edit was reverted. I see you work for Alveus, which I guess would explain why you immediately jumped to correcting it (but saying I blatantly disregarded the comment when it was obvious I missed it by it's deletion, along with your comment about disrespecting editors violates Wikipedia's rules on editor conduct), and it was meant as a good-faith edit, as can be seen in my contribution history.

As an FYI, Wikipedians are expected to disclose conflicts of interest, which you have from making edits to the article now. Again, not sure what happened to warrant bad-faith editing accusations, but there was zero bad faith, just a fan trying to update Maya's stats. Nigel757 (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I reverted the entire edit originally as you’d only updated the Twitch stat, and had not updated the other YouTube stats nor the date. As I did not have that other information, the easiest option was to revert the partial update to avoid mismatched information in the infobox, and allow for you or anyone else to then come back and make a full update.

While I did assume your initial edit was in good faith, once my revert was then reverted, restoring the partial stats update again and removing the comment again, my assumption switched to it being bad faith. My apologies if this was still in good faith and that you’d just not understood why I’d reverted the change.

I disagree with your indication of CoI here… I’m also a community member that happens to volunteer my time to help Alveus with their open-source software development. I’m not paid nor would I say directly affiliated with / part of their team. I don’t believe my volunteering presents a CoI for the reverts here to Maya’s page.

as I said before, I’m not going to engage further on this edit. I leave it to you or anyone else to make a full update to the stats as the inline comments request. MattIPv4 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit history, I absolutely can see where you got that assumption, I didn't actually remember making the revert that day, but it was in good faith, otherwise I wouldn't have posted to your talk page just asking for clarification. Overall, I think this entire thing was just a misunderstanding, I'd just ask that you not jump to making accusations in the future as it's not cool, and there's a policy against it. We're all volunteers here just trying to make Wikipedia great. I would've taken zero offense if you replied back just letting me know why without making accusations, that's the entire spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks!

Also I'm not an admin so I don't particularly care about the CoI, but it doesn't require you to be a paid editor for the CoI to arise. Nigel757 (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)