Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 21 June 2021

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Misplaced Pages: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages community.

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

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Vanguard Group. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Dude, aren't you the guy that claimed I was a sockpuppet just because I consider Gothamist to be a left wing analog of Breitbart? We should be having a productive discussion about Gothamist and whether or not it will be formally added to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources . However, instead you are re-editing an article that has clear problems with WP:SYN given the actual quote contained in the source. Do not revert my edits without discussing in the talk page first. Sucker for All (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at The Vanguard Group. Don't act like you you don't know who I am as you're following me to the Vanguard page, but I highly suggest you self-revert your changes. You are moving the goalposts about your arguments everytime you make it. Nobody cares what you think about Gothamist, and literally no one has ever called it either left-wing or the equivalent of Breitbart, let alone together. Self-revert on the page in question, and read-up on the WP:BRD cycle, please. I'm under no obligation to discuss on the article talk page, you, however, are under the obligation to determine consensus since you made the bold edit and (multiple) editors reverted it. JesseRafe (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not disrupting[REDACTED] User:JesseRafe. You should Visit this talk page here > https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Vanguard_Group#talk_about_lead_section_here_shoestringnomad before editing here > https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Vanguard_Group&action=history . You previously called an admin on me falsely claiming that I was a sockpuppet. You are making edits without having a duscission and then accusing me of disruption. Quote the sources in question before you make the edits you make. Sucker for All (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at The Vanguard Group, you may be blocked from editing. You have not reached consensus of your changes and yet continue to make them. I suggest WP:BRD. The edits in question have been reverted by multiple editors because you have not convinced them of your position. Futhermore, you are tagging articles inapporpriately (see WP:RSPRIMARY). Shoestringnomad (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah ok. You made the edit without responding on the article talk page. Just saying. Sucker for All (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I have responded to your section on the talk page multiple times and even added a new source addressing one issue you found problematic. I should point out that other editors did not find the original sources to be problematic or that your characterization of them fitting. Shoestringnomad (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at The Vanguard Group. Conensus has not been reached. Review WP:BRD. This is your fourth and final warning. Shoestringnomad (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Consensus* has NOT been reached. You and 1 other user with pre conceived notions against me from other articles are disrupting[REDACTED] by using WP:SYN. Also, you are not addressing the issue in the article talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Vanguard_Group&diff=1028162581&oldid=1027411890 . I quote the sources in question. You do not. If you would like to elevate the issue to an admin then you can claim consensus has been reached. Sucker for All (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, please read WP:BRD. I have also found Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing to be very helpful and recommend it as well if you haven't already read it. It's something that all editors should refer to from time-to-time. Stating that editors have "pre conceived notions against me from other articles are disrupting Misplaced Pages" appears to me to be an accusation of malice. That is also addressed in the article I just shared. Shoestringnomad (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Seems you were warned more than me. I have the last edit on the article talk page, so don't edit the article until you address the issue where you are adding to the article things that aren't supported in the source. Sucker for All (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

And how do you figure I was "more warned" than you? Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

excuse the typo in the talk page. You were more warring than me because you were not participating in the talk page discussion. And you were ignoring the fact that the thing you tried to add was explicitly NOT stated in the sources. Sucker for All (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Then your description of "more warned" was inaccurate, a display of synthesis, biased, and/or original research? I've seen you engage with myself and others re: The Gothamist, and that was enough. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk on the article talk page. OK? Sucker for All (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

OK Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Future Nostalgia, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree and have reverted back. Consult an admin or a mod, Ponyo or Bbb23 maybe, if you disagree still. Tainy remains credited on the 1 track with which he contributed a small part on the Moonlight Edition re-release Sucker for All (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but consensus was made at Talk:Future Nostalgia#Rfc - Tainy's producer credit to include Tainy. Your edits are WP:IDHT, and, therefore, are disruptive. Just accept the fact that you lost, and move on. D🐶ggy54321 00:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Apology accepted. However, your inferences are wrong. Tainy's still credited, as per consensus, at the track in which he contributed. Escalate to Ponyo or Bbb23 if you disagree. You are not an admin Sucker for All (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sucker for all, you were probably the most active user in the rfc for Tainy's credit and you were the only one who disagreed with it. The rfc could have probably been considered WP:BALL by the end and considering that you stopped discussing it, I thought this matter had been resolved. I have done some investigating and it does not look like you have contacted Ponyo or Bbb23 (pinging them if they would like to add to this discussion) on this matter. I have reverted you edits again as Doggy54321 said, they are WP:IDHT. Can you please just accept that Tainy should be credited? These edits are disruptive and just yelling at us to stop reverting them in the summary is in violation of WP:BRD. Additionally, please see WP:DR because administrator intervention is one of the last resorts in a dispute. Considering we have already had an rfc, this should be put to bed. LOVI33 04:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Tainy's credited 5 times in the article already. Does not mean he should be listed as an album producer though because he's not. I have never removed credits for him as 3rd person on Un Dia Sucker for All (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, let me make this crystal clear for you so you understand what you are doing. An RfC was held to come to a consensus on if Tainy should be added to the |producer= field of the Moonlight Edition Infobox. Consensus was that he should be added, and he was. Therefore, any further repeated instances of someone removing Tainy from the |producer= field of the Moonlight Edition Infobox (which is exactly what you are doing), also known as ignoring/defying the consensus, is seen as disruptive. Yes, I'm not an admin, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm doing, and that does not mean you get to reject my argument solely based off of that fact. D🐶ggy54321 12:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Dude, you pinged 2 mods. I already pinged 1. None has told me to stop my behavior. You're being caddy about whether Tainy's listed 5 or 6 times and where when he was only on 1 track of the remix album and not the lead producer of that track. The consensus was that he should be credited for "Un Dia" and he is - he remains mentioned in the article. A discussion was not had on where he should be listed. If an admin or mod insists that I not remove his name in that fashion, I will not. Until then, you are just wrong to obsess over an irrelevant occasional beatmaker. Sucker for All (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)