User:LogicalLeaf129

Hello , you were likely directed here by myself because you have deleted an edit of mine which I feel was unjust. As an active editor and map maker I get this a lot , below are common claims I get for deletion. Under the drop down you will find supported reasoning for my edit that is reinforced by Wikipedia policy. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia encourages the idea of discussion to avoid destruction, policies are put in place to avoid issues that can lead to edit wars. If you still feel your reasoning for deletion is justified address it in my talk page but I remind you that continued deletion of a reinstated edit without discussion is prohibited and makes you liable for starting an edit war and moderator intervention will be requested

Supporting polices

WP:EW – Repeatedly reverting edits without attempting to reach any form of resolution or at least consensus constitutes edit warring and may result in admin action

WP:BRD – If you revert a bold edit, discussion is expected. Continuing to revert without engaging is prohibited.

Need for etymology/justified information

You may have removed or questioned the inclusion of an etymology subsection related to an areas city name and or its boundaries. However, the inclusion of etymological or naming background is standard encyclopedic practice. According to WP:NOTDICT, while Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it does support the inclusion of etymological content when it provides encyclopedic context or aids in reader understanding especially for places with complex or evolving geographic identities due to no real municipal government but instead solely defined by CDP boundaries . In areas like Sterling, Virginia, where administrative boundaries (CDPs) and common name usage tied to ZIP codes do not perfectly align, providing this context is crucial. It helps clarify why certain areas are identified under a shared name despite differing official designations. Additionally, WP:NPOV supports including widely used regional terms and perspectives, provided they are verifiable. When the naming of an area involves shared ZIP codes or overlapping cultural and postal identities, explaining this through an etymology or background section is both appropriate and necessary for accuracy and neutrality.

decorative and unencyclopedic image

You may have deleted a file formatted such as this File:Insert Name Map.png|thumb|Map of Insert City, Insert State (Insert County if applicable)

This map is not decorative but adds geo-encyclopedic value by illustrating the overlapping CDP and ZIP code boundaries in fragmented regions such as cities and dense suburbs where such visuals enhance reader understanding due to area name through address (zip code) and CDPs lines slightly differing depending on the area. Its placement in a subsection like “Etymology” is appropriate and aligns with Wikipedia’s image use policy, which permits relevant, non-decorative images that clarify complex topics.

There is also no set restrictions anywhere in Wikipedia policy on maps that can be used , just because it is not in the Wikipedia format (which is just a recommendation/reference) does not mean it doesn’t add encyclopedia value

postal boundaries are irrelevant ; city boundaries are unrelated to ZIP code

You may have deleted information that explains boundary complexities due to you questioning its relevancy

this information is supported by reliable sources such as the U.S. Postal Service and U.S. Census Bureau, which despite having different boundaries both follow roughly the same geographic location which reinforces my position, it is not a coincidence that despite being different CDPs (or other defined area) they share the same area name. Although city and ZIP code boundaries are technically distinct, acknowledging how they intersect is vital to reflecting the area's real world identity, which aligns with WP:NPOV by presenting a balanced and accurate portrayal of local naming and community identification