User talk:Sucker for All: Difference between revisions

Happy to talk here, but mostly let's redirect to the article's talk page first. That way everyone sees the discussion, and the community benefits. Sucker for All (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Sucker for All! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! AcebulfALT (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

archives

(a thread was deleted in which I was criticized for publishing my unsourced draft of Todd Piro. I'm being more careful here User:Sucker for All/Ashley Strohmier)

A lengthy welcome

Hi Sucker for All. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I know that I was 100% right about talk:Sean Conley not being White House Physician anymore. And I will continue to abide by WP:BLP, even when others want to just cite primary sources. My old account actually had more edits than you, so while I believe of course in WP:AGF, when users do Not add posts to the talk page, and do Not cite reliable sources, I plan to continue being a benefit to the wikipedia community. Rather than berate me, even if that was not your intent, let's talk specifics. Help me make the User:Sucker for All/Ashley Strohmier page. I also made the Todd Piro page. If you would like to help make Ashley Strohmier, Hipal, I will assume your edit on my talk page, rather than the specific topic in question (Seema Verma??), was in fact done with the best of intentions. Sucker for All (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My concern was your use of an unreliable source [1] in a BLP. Sorry if I missed something that indicates this is a new account for you, or that I'm overlooking other interactions I may have had with you. --Hipal (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Okkk, my Japan Times and Forbes links are still good though I really do think Sucker for All (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't look at either at the time, but yes the both look acceptable. --Hipal (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Future Nostalgia has an RFC

Talk:Future Nostalgia has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Logical. Sucker for All (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements Box

Hello there!

About a week ago, I started to put endorsements for 2022_New_York_gubernatorial_election, and It got removed by a certain user who asked me to have a neutral point of view and not be a "genre warrior". I then put something on the article's talk page and had no objections, so I put the endorsements back up. You then removed it, stating,

"1 article each in SUNY New Paltz, the auburnpub, and the yonkerstribune ? some dispute among the claimed endorsees; it's not exactly written on their own website.. let's wait until it's printed in the nytimes or the wall street journal or maybe the washington post or forbes or one of the big broadcasters"

I'm going off of the 2018_New_York_gubernatorial_election box, which included local sources like auburn pub. There is not a chance one of the big media outlets (even the NY Post, which you have had your own dispute over on this article about) would cover local county party endorsements. I understand that maybe these linked articles are not the big shot papers, but since twitter is not considered reliable (a rule especially enforced here by some users), it is all I have to work with. Please take a look at the 2018 article and see the situation in the endorsements box over there (for example, Gary Finch's endorsement of Marc Molinaro links the auburn pub), and realize why I am going to revert your removal, and if by any chance a big broadcaster company chimes in on local county endorsements, I can certainly replace the links.

Not to mention that the article itself says "New York State GOP chairman, Nick Langworthy has stated that the party intends to pick the GOP gubernatorial candidate in June of 2021". Considering it is basically the end of may, there is a sense of urgency, and getting the ball rolling would be nice.

That's not a direct quote from Nick Langworthy and therefore not credible. Which of the 3 sources do you want to re-add? capisred should sign your posts here.. One does not say nyu student news instead of the daily news or the times or the wsj for endorsements in nyc, so the sources, none of the verified by any mainstream outlet, just aren't credible. The state GOP site itself would reflect endorsements. And I certainly don't agree with everything user "BlueboyLINY" says.. Sucker for All (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sucker for All, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

JesseRafe (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

OK JesseRafe, it has been a month and a half.. are you ready to apologize to me for opening an unwarranted sockpuppet investigation?? Thank you to all admins involved in the steady resolution Sucker for All (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Sucker for All's "I didn't hear that" attitude. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok Sucker for All (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Future Nostalgia and Talk:Future Nostalgia) for disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sucker for All (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I haven't even touched the page in 4 days. Why now? And the wording was unclear in the talk page. He was in fact *credited* already in the article multiple times. The question was about where and how he should be *listed*, so I suggested a better rfc. The debate raged on as to whether he was a lead producer for "Un Dia", the only track in which he appeared. He was not, J Balvin was. This discussion about lead producers needs to be had somewhere, perhaps WikiProject Music? I assume editors have the best of intentions always, but sometimes they are just completely wrong. Why am I blocked from editing an article I have not even touched in 4 days? This I find especially frustrating given that I in fact, verified with the admin who closed the rfc that my edits were not inappropriate with my query here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buidhe#tainy_credit_on_Club_Future_Nostalgia . Doggy edited the page dozens of times, LOVI almost twice as many. LOVI made an edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Future_Nostalgia&diff=1019866700&oldid=1019866379 where he eliminated 6 lead producers in favor of 1 who was never a lead producer. I am confused that just because of 1 small dispute of 1 artist, that my contributions are belittled just because I strive for greater perfection inside of wikipedia? Sucker for All (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Okay let me go through this step by step. Taking 4 days off from an article does not absolve a long term pattern of disruption. It took 4 days because there was a discussion at ANI that took some time to complete. You said that you "verified with the admin who closed the rfc that my edits were not inappropriate with my query here" but linked to an editor who is not an admin and in fact said to you "I'm not the right person to ask". Part of this block is that you are unable to accept that consensus has gone against you, this unblock request only reaffirms that fact. Pointing to things other editors did has nothing to do with your block or this unblock request.

I suggest you edit in other areas for a while before attempting to have this block reviewed again. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• SFA, I explained to you at the ANI that 1. Buidhe is not an admin and 2. your characterization of her response to you as 'the edits were not inappropriate' was literally laughable as all she said was you needed to ask someone else and 3. that even if she were an admin and had commented on the content, admins don't deal with content, only with behavior. Once an admin makes an argument on content, they're no longer an admin w/re that content. They become simply another editor w/re that content at that article. You cannot expect admins to warn you your content additions are incorrect. You seem to think admins are going to weigh in on who is right and who is wrong w/re content. They won't, not if they want to keep adminning at that article.

You are going to have to get clear on this concept before anyone is going to seriously consider an unblock from that article. I understand that this may be a difficult concept, as admins at WP aren't the same as at other sites, and I am willing to discuss this with you to help you understand it. Would you like to ask questions to see if I can clarify it for you? —valereee (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Still Waiting for a Jesse apology

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Sucker for All. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Used in the edit summary here. You're building a strong case for proving yourself unable or unwilling to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, JesseRafe, why did you open a sockpuppet investigation on me that was proven false? And then, why do you call me the one committing personal attacks, considering you accused me of being another user? Calm down dude, you're constantly screaming at my talk page, and you are the one instigating here. It's unclear exactly why you're even mad at me. Why are you mad at me? Sucker for All (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You called Jesse, me, and two other users "circle jerks", and then accused us of creating a false narrative that ended in admins getting a wrong impression and wrongfully blocking you, none of which is true, by the way. I'm not going to get into the wrong impression/wrongful block part, because you've already been given the exact same information on why that is not true multiple times, but the first part looks like an ad hominem personal attack, which is not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:WIAPA. So, you made a personal attack, and Jesse warned you on it. This has nothing to do with the SPA that happened a month ago (and I'm not clear on why you're bringing something up that has already been dealt with). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Doggy. A circle jerk involves a series of people complimenting each other without merit. Obviously, I believe you and your friends are wrong about lead producers, so that's the reality of that. Pardon me if you find my vernacular personally offensive; I don't go to your talk page and call you a bad person.. To be clear, I accused Jesse of opening a fake sockpuppet investigation of me that was proven false by admins; I did not accuse you of anything other than making excessive and unproductive edits at Future Nostalgia. Evidently, Jesse has it out for me, and you don't find false sockpuppet investigations as abhorrent as I do Sucker for All (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

WABC (AM)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at WABC (AM), you may be blocked from editing. BlueboyLINY (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You're referencing what exactly?? Sucker for All (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC) @BlueboyLINY:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at WABC (AM). BlueboyLINY (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to. BlueboyLINY (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude, you literally are ignoring the talk page of that article. Sucker for All (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Your recent editing history at WABC (AM) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
BlueboyLINY (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)