Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:16, 3 July 2022

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)

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)

Any lingering animosity Jesse? I just want to know if you're still adamently in favor of my being blocked by valeree and at fn... Sucker for All (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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 00:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Hey Doggy54321, do you think I should be banned from namespace still? If so, explain your logic Sucker for All (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I've tried to distance myself from this situation, and being inactive on Misplaced Pages for almost a month straight definitely helped with that. Keeping with that theme, I don't really have an opinion anymore. If your edits suggest that you're ready to edit in mainspace again, I agree with that, and if your edits don't, I also agree with that. Basically, I agree with whatever's best for the Misplaced Pages community. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 03:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Would you mind helping my talk page, by deleting any conversations that we've had here that you no longer consider relevant? I believe we are having a more mature conversation, and I do appreciate the sentiment behind your last post here. Sucker for All (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

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/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/search/?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 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.

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 think my talk page access should be restored. For the most part, my edits to the article were constructive and the issue of where and how a single producer, who was only on 1 track and was not the lead producer of the track, should appear ballooned inappropriately. I still believe I deserve to access the talk page to discuss how to improve the article as I have already done by crediting Jeff Bhasker, Jason Evigan, SG Lewis, Lindgren and Take a Daytrip with this edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Future_Nostalgia&diff=1019867001&oldid=1019866700 . Ultimately, the article got better due to my edits, and if I'm not editing the main page, I cannot do any harm to the article. Per request above by highinbc, I have not asked this be reviewed for more than a month. Also with this edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Future_Nostalgia&diff=1022014237&oldid=1021951658 for TMS.

Decline reason:

This page is littered with warnings from this month. Rather than heading toward your block being lifted, I'm afraid you are heading toward a more significant block. Yamla (talk) 17:20, 28 July 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)

Could I get unblocked from the talk page? I believe Doggy, LOVI and I have a bit of an understanding now. I don't like weird circlejerks, and I thought adding 6 relevant producers and deleting 1 who barely appeared was appropriate. Evidently the wiki swarms of Future Nostalgia Moonlight Edition have deemed the Tainy credit necessary. I thought it was just always evident that Jeff Bhasker, Jason Evigan, Junior Oliver Frid, Ian Kirkpatrick, Koz, Lindgren and SG Lewis should be credited for the moonlight edition given the masters they have for different tracks, whereas the userbase are apparently fervent support of Trainy. I will not reference Tainy again in the talk page if my access becomes restored. Sucker for All (talk) 21:15, 14 July 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Misplaced Pages articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at WABC (AM). BlueboyLINY (talk) 19:17, 14 July 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. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sucker_for_All reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: ). Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:WABC_(AM)#Tag_at_Top_of_article Why didn't you respond? Sucker for All (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@BlueboyLINY, you need to stop leaving warning templates and start discussing. You've been pinged to that article talk.

SfA, it's often helpful to ping people when responding to them on your talk unless they tell you it isn't necessary. When you simply respond without pinging, there's a chance they don't realize you've responded. You've responded to BBLINY here multiple times without pinging them and received no reply in return, which is a pretty good indication they need a ping. —valereee (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I tagged BBLINY in the talk page (( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:WABC_(AM)&diff=1033805611&oldid=1033800374 )) of the article in question, but he doesn't respond at that location =/. I am very perplexed by the behavioural patterns of he and JesseRafe Sucker for All (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know you've pinged BBLINY in other places and that they haven't responded. JesseRafe is probably a bit irked with you for saying they and others were in a circle jerk, which is a personal attack and also is assuming bad faith. It's best not to use such inflammatory terms to describe other editors' behavior, and it's best not to talk about other editors' motivations at all. —valereee (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Policy

Hey, SfA. I wanted to make a few comments on how we work here. You seem to be misunderstanding some of our policies and guidelines.

• On talk pages, open a new post to respond to others instead of inserting your comments inside of theirs. When you insert your comments inside of someone else's comments, it makes it confusing for other editors to see who said what. There's more information at Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines.
• Articles are tagged because someone thinks there's a problem with that article that needs to be addressed. If you aren't clear on why an article needs a particular tag, open a discussion on the article talk and ask. In the case of WABC (AM), there were still many, many unsourced assertions. All assertions need to be supported by whichever citation most closely follows it. Ideally every paragraph has at minimum on citation at the end of the paragraph, which indicates all assertions within that paragraph are sourced to that reference.
• We never remove a tag because some other article has similar problems but no tag. Instead we fix or appropriately tag the other article, too. There's explanation of this at Misplaced Pages:OTHERCONTENT.

—valereee (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for the information. However, I am wondering about @JesseRafe:'s behavior. He falsely accused me of being a user I don't even know (Serolls?) and then insinuated LINY's edits were appropriate at WABC whereas mine were not. He has tagged my talk page with excessive and unexplained "warnings" despite his not being an admin. Seems that HighinBC and Chris are likely to ban LINY if he doesn't explain his behavior. Is Jesse different? Sucker for All (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I discussed JesseRafe in the section above; if I were you I'd drop that.

What I'm trying to deal with here is your editing. You are pretty new here, and Misplaced Pages has a steep learning curve. Normally I tell newer editors to edit at non-contentious pages, but you've been editing at pages I'd normally consider noncontentious, and you've gotten into trouble at them. This is a bit unusual. I'd like us to focus on getting you up to speed rather than focussing on other editors.

I'm willing to help you improve your experience here, but only if you're willing to work with me. If you aren't, say so now, as while I think you're well-intentioned, I'd prefer not to waste my time on someone who isn't willing to listen. —valereee (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Dragging someone to ANI should always be the last resort, and for inexperienced editors it is almost always a terrible decision. I'd recommend you withdraw that complaint. —valereee (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

With respect, I need to be heard here. It's always a good idea to voice rational complaints. And I have very rational complaints against Jesse's behavior. This user has stalked out several of my edits and reversed them, all beginning with falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry. And rather than discuss on the article talk page, he adds template warnings on my talk page, insinuating that I am not in the talk page finding consensus. I try to WP:AGF, but he has a "holier than thou" approach to editing where having a discussion's unacceptable. Sucker for All (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Best wishes to you, I'm done here. —valereee (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You were certainly unfairly and falsely accused of sockpuppetry and the arguments on that SPI were terrible as they so often are (I've had a similar experience, with people making nonsense claims that my style was similar to someone else's), and I think in a fair world there be a penalty for such false charges because they can be so damaging, but there aren't. It's true that you were owed an apology that you never got, but that's not actionable. On rationality, I advise taking a look at WP:STICK. There are people who are very good at using the rules here in a "lawyerly" way that is irksome, to say the least. Try not to let them push you to do something to your disadvantage ... believe me, I've been there. -- Jibal (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Languages of Belgium

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Languages of Belgium, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

With respect sir, I have remade that edit because none of that content is sourced. I am a Jewish man myself. I have visited Antwerp and integrated myself into that community. The information contained in that section is just false; Yiddish isn't spoken among us all. Per WP:Truth matters, I would be neglecting my own duties as a Wikipedien if I allowed that false content to remain on that site, unsourced and filled with citations needed as it already was. If you have sources contradicting my edits, by all means add them Sucker for All (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The source was already there: "The Jewish Community of Antwerp". ANU - Museum of the Jewish People. Retrieved 6 August 2021.. If you want to earn some respect, don't just revert--it's rude. And don't insert your own experiences into Misplaced Pages articles--that's original research. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sir, the source was not "there", you added the source just now. Additionally that "source" is outdated and seemed to reference the 2nd half of the 20th century, ignoring the fact that today, Yiddish isn't spoken in that territory. Beyond that, I added an additional source to another article, showing the population decline I previously articulated. I am worried you are doing too many things too quickly without carefully considering all details of the sources you are referencing. Your statement above, for example, claiming the source was already "there" is evidently false, given that you just added that source. Everybody makes mistakes sometimes, so maybe you should lean on me, a Jewish man, for information regarding a Jewish community one county away from my current location. Sucker for All (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

SfA, if information is outdated, the answer is to update it, not to remove it. If Yiddish was indeed once the dominant language in an area, but no longer is, find a reliable source that states that and revise the paragraph. —valereee (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content to Misplaced Pages, as you did at History of the Jews in Antwerp, you may be blocked from editing. "attacks on Jews, particularly by Arab immigrants" is clearly not in that source. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The source you insist on using, despite it being outdated, clearly says "In the early 2000's there was an increase in physical attacks on Jews and Jewish property especially by members of the Arab immigrant community of Antwerp." You called this edit libel? Try to be more careful sir as it's in the source you insist upon using.. Sucker for All (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That source came before your text, and it doesn't say that the population decreased because of those awful attacks. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I think the article wasn't perfect. My edits weren't perfect. The article's definitely better sourced now that we had a discussion. Sucker for All (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

• Valareee, I've kind of had it with this editor. The Arab immigrant thing is just way out of line. And their most recent edits are to add POV tags to articles that really need nothing more than maybe a tweak or two, at most--and they did not explain either in an edit summary or on the talk page why these articles are so wrong. I'm going through them one at a time. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm almost done. Others who have reverted these drive-by tags are SPECIFICO and Martinevans123. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind sir, could you clarify your specific complaints here? I believe several articles aren't written in a neutral point of view and others lack inline citations. I am clarifying my edit with Martinevans123 below.. Sucker for All (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Can you please stop with the "sir"? You can just call me Drmies. Thanks. I looked at all those articles you tagged: none of them had POV content that was so egregious that a tag was warranted, but more importantly, a POV tag really needs to be explained on the talk page. In other words, you should indicate the specific complaint. And, if you look at the articles you tagged, you will find that I made some edits to some of them and in some cases removed promotional or otherwise improper content--but I provided explanations for that. Again, the burden is really on you when you place a tag. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, Drmies, I have previously referred to valereee as sir and believe it to be a respectful way to address someone with whom a discussion is being had. I think that these specific individuals, the French Rothschilds, are treated like they are fundamentally good people based on these articles, when all have sketchy ties to banks which aren't mentioned. If you feel that not one of these people is controversial, this perplexes me since all have in fact courted controversy in the past. Whereas it's your opinion that my tags were "drive by", you have thrice made claims on my talk page that are objectively false. For one, you claimed that Arab attacks against Jews in Antwerp was defamation when it was in fact supported by the source you insisted upon using, you misspelled valereee above and you claimed that a reference to the Yiddish language being spoken in Antwerp already existed in that article when it was clearly unsourced. I understand an admin like yourself has a lot on his plate but perhaps give others a chance to make edits as you might be going a bit too fast. Sucker for All (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, since you are now blocked and have requested an unblock, I suppose I need to answer your specious comments in full. First of all, I think using my name is more respectful than "sir"--if you want to use some sort of formal title, you can call me "Dr", since that's what I am, but you might as well just stick to Drmies. So, not necessarily in order:

1. I don't care about the Rothschilds, but your tags were over the top, and "sketchy ties to banks" is just an antisemitic canard. Yes, those were drive-by tags: editors who don't just drive by take the time to a. improve the article and certainly b. explain the tag on the talk page.
2. The "Arab attacks", you added those in this edit, and that is wrong: first of all, you added that text and you added a source right after it, and that means that that information is in the source you put at the end of your text. That information is not in that source. It's also not in the source that preceded your text: there is nothing in there that says "decreased to about 15,000 today due to attacks on Jews, particularly by Arab immigrants". It says "In the early 2000's there was an increase in physical attacks on Jews and Jewish property especially by members of the Arab immigrant community of Antwerp", but there is nothing in there about a decrease due to such attacks: that's your own conclusion, and you can't do that here. Never mind the fact that that number, 15,000, is also not in that source.
3. "the Yiddish language being spoken in Antwerp" refers to this edit (you keep jumping around), and yes it was unsourced in that article and I cleaned that up--but I did not say the reference "already existed in that article". I said "the same source you disregarded earlier has the information"--referring to this source, which you disregarded in in this edit. "Disregarded": the article made a claim about Yiddish being spoken in Antwerp and contained a number, and you just removed that information and stuck in your own made-up information.

   It's the latter two points, not the tags, that are the most disruptive: you disregard sources claiming they're outdated without offering any evidence; you stick in your own original research; you add a source for some alleged information which isn't there, and then supposedly it's found in the source before the text (and it isn't); and you don't really seem to know what's going on. That's the disruption, and I hope that any admin who looks at your unblock request will take this into account. But more than that I hope that you will take the opportunity to cool your jets a little bit and not confuse matters--and to take the whole "collaborative" part more seriously. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC

August 2021 2

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 understand two very specific articles that have long leads and no sources are pointed to below. But this is clearly not ordinary. Almost every other article at Misplaced Pages has sources in the lead section. Again, per WP:Lead, "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads". And yes, I missed a detail in a source for Zac Goldsmith, I apologize for that. I certainly did NOT violate WP:3RR in my 2 different edits made to this Zac Goldsmith page (nor have I ever violated 3RR), and that Zac's considered a Libertarian and Brexiteer are certainly to be challenged. This clearly proper edit was reverted by another user who wasn't even reprimanded. I also obviously made a WP:BOLD set of edits indicating that biographies of the French Rothschilds lacked WP:NPOV, which were reverted by the same user who made 2 proven false accusations against me above and also misspelled Valereee's name when he was pinged. I am accused of being reckless for adopting the mantra "go for it". I certainly did not get upset when my bold edits got reverted and did not revert even once. And based on this block, I certainly cannot "instead improve the encyclopedia.. in the time it takes to write about the problem". The fact of the matter is not a single one of these French Rothschilds has a word in them indicating criticism against them's rampant among the populace, indicating that these articles are not neutral. I have made nearly 1000 edits here, the vast majority of which were objectively constructive. And while I sometimes disagree with other editors, I do so in as respectful a fashion as possible. If every editor were identical, we wouldn't have the diversity needed here to make Misplaced Pages great. The admin who banned me accuses me primarily of not bothering to verify elements in Zac Goldsmith's article when he himself says "I'm not going to go through and check.." other details he said led to this block. I stand accused of WP:Disruptive Editing, although I am not guilty of pushing a single point of view, original research, advocacy, or self-promotion. I am also not guilty of adding anything that isn't information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view. I am asking to be unbanned from articles to continue to improve Misplaced Pages, and that any user who disagrees with me take the time to discuss my edits rather than just revert something that isn't immediately understood. Thank you for your consideration. Sucker for All (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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.

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

Request reason:

HighInBC, I was in the middle of responding to Drmies point by point as can be seen at my most recent post. Are you able to see that my user account was in the middle of a post or is that above your capabilities from your admin level? I clearly "understand and accept the advice being given" by Drmies and am responding to his concerns. I added, WP:OR for a point, and then had to loop back. If my edits for the specific article referenced are in fact problematic, the current page of that article's problematic. I also considered a "citation needed" as reason for deletion of an area, which was his other concern. Again, my behavior is WP:BOLD; however, my behavior at Future Nostalgia has never been replicated. I have never reverted a single edit I've made once since that encounter. I am not "just assuming that (I am) right an everyone else is wrong" because I have NEVER made a single edit more than one time since the Future Nostalgia edit. Sucker for All (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC) :Update. It has been nearly a month since my unblock request. I have had a productive conversation with Alex B4, who previously chided me, at the Goldsmith talk page addressing my concern of this article; namely, he isn't an ardent Brexiteer and this claim needed to be sourced (it has now been deleted). I also believe that the Singha article has tags that aren't necessary and have expressed this; however, it's very slow moving to actually improve the article, or making my well sourced point at Donald Sussman talk page into the article. I believe that the behavioral patterns leading up to the block have ended and am ready to continue to edit Misplaced Pages productively. Sucker for All (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC) @Arbcom:

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:09, 24 October 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, the lead sections of our best articles are always unsourced or nearly unsourced. The sources for the assertions are in the sections. You are causing other editors time, energy, and patience when they have to clean up behind you. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The Goldsmith article, to which I believe you are referring, has a particularly long lead section with 0 sources. Whereas most claims are factual, at least a few require clarification, and my next edit was proper. I am not edit warring, and I believe my edits are appropriate. Regardless of whether my edits in fact correct, I believe they are not "dirty", as you seem to imply, and that instead a healthy discussion is being had. I am, of course, always listening to constructive criticism. Sucker for All (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sucker for All, you're been blocked from Future Nostalgia and Talk:Future Nostalgia. These have nothing to do with Zac Goldsmith. But you still need to explain why you've added those three tags to the lead section of the Goldsmith article, in the thread above. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I concur. I double checked and all the material is cited in the main text per WP:LEADCITE. I would personally like to see this user blocked from editing the Goldsmith page as well to avoid wasting our time because they haven't read the relevant policy you linked to or bothered to use a simple CTRL+F. Alex (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: could you clarify here? Per WP:LEADCITE, "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads", which contradicts your claim that a 4 paragraph long lead should be "always unsourced or nearly unsourced". I tried to add a source to the lead but was apparently blocked from doing so. I have made my points in the talk page, but cannot improve the article. The claim that Goldsmith has always been an ardent Brexiteer seems to be just false. Though it's largely in generality, 4 unsourced paragraphs, even in the lead, isn't up to the Misplaced Pages standard. I am also a bit confounded by this blanket block. I certainly was not edit warring, and my edits at the Jews of Antwerp and Languages of Belgium definitely led to improvements and more accurate information in both articles. Which articles am I not allowed to edit and why? Sucker for All (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

SfA, yes, an assertion in the lead can need a tag if it's actually likely to be questioned -- that is, if we find that regularly someone is coming in and tagging or questioning something in the lead, sometimes the editors working at that article will decide it's a contentious assertion and will provide a source within the lead. But the simple fact "entire lead is unsourced" is not a reason to banner an article or to add multiple cns to the lead. Almost no well-sourced articles will have something so contentious in the lead that it needs a source. Donald Trump is one of the most contentious articles on the site. It has zero sources in the lead. Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor is a featured article, which means it has been gone-over with a fine-toothed comb by dozens of experienced editors expert in various areas of policy; it has zero sources in the lead.

The entire lead section being unsourced is not a reason to banner an article. It's a reason to scroll down to see if the article itself seems to be well-cited. If you see something that seems incorrect in the lead, that's a reason to check to make sure the assertion is covered and hassources in the body. If it's covered in the body, but you don't think the prose in the body matches the assertion in the lead, that's when you drop the citation needed tag in the lead and open a talk section explaining why you think this isn't correct. Or if you have time and interest, it's a reason to read the sources, figure out what they're actually saying, and make a revision to both the body and the lead.

More specifically at Zac Goldsmith, a B-class article with 170 sources, when someone objected and removed the banner, you placed citation needed tags on three lead assertions, two of which were definitely cited within the sections. You clearly hadn't bothered to check whether these things you were questioning were in the body before you placed those tags. That time your edit summary was "3 important claims made in lead section unsourced. I would prefer if you ping in the talk page or add sources rather than revert."

You spent yesterday morning in rapid succession placing various banners and tags on multiple articles. I'm not going to go through and check which of those that weren't immediately reverted by someone were actually helpful. I'm sure you're well-intentioned, and that some of your edits do lead to positive change. But many of your edits just cause other editors extra work to go in and fix what you'd done, which means your work may be a net negative here. I'm very concerned that you are managing to get yourself into conflict with others so frequently when you aren't editing in normally-contentious places, and that it seems to be a fresh kind of trouble each time, and that you don't seem to be taking advice from more-experienced editors.

The block allows you to edit anything except articles, which you can still edit indirectly via their talk pages. —valereee (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I'm a woman. You can enable Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing>Navigation Popups, which will allow you to hover over a username to see if the editor has specified their pronouns, which I have. If an editor hasn't specified, it's generally best to go with the singular 'they'.

Yes, many articles do have sources in the lead. But not our best articles. Almost none of them do, and few of our best have more than one. Go look at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/August 2021. You will see that it is in fact normal to have zero citations in the lead. The reason an article has citations in the lead is usually because no one has yet improved the article to the point that everything in the lead is included in the body with a citation (and so the citations are no longer needed in the lead.) —valereee (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Admin, if you are going to respond to the unblock request, please see also this comment. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies. I responded above. How important are interactions I've had with JesseRafe? Jesse sent a lot of negative energy here, falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet. blueboyliny argued that I, not he, was guilty of not hashing things out on the talk page first? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:WABC_(AM) He opened an ANI on me and wound up getting blocked for about 48 hours by CrazyCOmputers and valereee https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=1034256826&oldid=1034256761 . My edits are WP:Bold, no question. I realize valereee and jesse are friendly, and I did not heed valereee's advice with regard to an ANI against Jesse. However, on other points I have heeded. And I am falsely accused from time to time, just like at the blueboy case .. Sucker for All (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Re the addition to your unblock request above: I don't think the behavioral patterns have changed at all, actually, based on this diff. Saying things like and While "due to" might be construed as WP:SYN, it certainly is not OR and I am alarmed that you deleted a legitimate source do not indicate to me that you either fully understand Misplaced Pages's policies around sourcing or are prepared to edit collaboratively. Perhaps that's just me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Writ, I confessed that the wording of my edit could be construed as WP Syn and suggested an alternate wording; I was disappointed to find rather than comment on my suggested wording, that you insinuated my edit was deserving of being blocked. The facts were sourced, and you deleted that source. The point I was making was that none of the facts expressed came out of thin air. All (both) claims were paraphrased from the sources in question. I also expressed concern that you were conflating a "denomination", Orthodox Judaism, with a "religion", Judaism. The differences are quite clear. I understand we have a disagreement on 1 specific article, but I would WP:AGF with you and implore you to do the same, especially considering the fact that we have never interacted on another article. Sucker for All (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating that you deserve to be blocked for it; you already are blocked. I'm not making a judgment on whether your style of editing is worthy of being blocked or not; that judgment has already been made, and since as you say, we have a content disagreement, it would absolutely be improper for me to make a judgment as an admin about whether you should be blocked. If another, uninvolved admin decides that you should be unblocked, I have no objection to them. But what you're saying here is that you feel that you have changed your style of editing, and I just don't see the change; it still looks like you're doing the same thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I respect your lack of objection to an uninvolved asmin's decision to unblock me; however, I do believe I am being more courteous and proper than before. Sucker for All (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have also worked to reconcile differences and discussed to reach accepted middles with users that others may have seen animosity with in the past. Sucker for All (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

certain details, such as " Jillian Mele serves as a cohost" (should be served) and others need to be changed to improve the site, and I'm more than willing to do so. I have added many discussions to talk pages, but users don't want to engage with me given my ban from namespace. I know Yamla added a procedural denial because the community wants to deal with unblock requests in under 2 weeks, so I implore you all to reconsider the block given my request above. Thank u Sucker for All (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC) @Yamla: @HighinBC: @Valereee:

SFA, you're currently arguing with multiple other editors about what qualifies as significant coverage in reliable sources here below, at a draft, and at an AfD, and the arguments you're making show you are misunderstanding multiple issues. For instance, in Special:Diff/1051711217 you say "It would be good to get an admin's point of view" on whether being on air makes a person notable. It doesn't , and admins don't make those calls, which is something I've been trying to get that through to you for at least four months. Consensus is what makes those calls, and consensus has already decided that question. Admins only deal with behavior. Are you even reading this? I personally have told you this multiple times. Admins only deal with behavior. I don't know how to make this clearer for you. Admins do not provide some sort of court of last appeal on whether a source is good. They just don't.

In that same edit you're also providing the Daily Mail as a source; the Daily Mail is deprecated. The discussions you're having here below, at Draft:Ashley Strohmier, and at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carley Shimkus are not making me think you should be editing article space. Multiple editors are telling you that your understanding of sourcing is lacking, and you just keep trying to make the same invalid arguments instead of learning what good sourcing actually is.

Can you give me an example of another user not wanting to engage with you on talk pages because of your block from article space? —valereee (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I am currently in agreement with @Patapsco913: that Carley Shimkus being promoted to the most viewed news host in the world every week for 10 hours increases her notability (and she's already more notable than Julie Banderas), and arguing against points made that are, in my opinion, less valid. Misplaced Pages talk pages are for arguing points and finding common ground. Still, only at Ashley and Carley's pages, could any of my edits be construed as an argument. Admins are figures of authority. With regard to another user not wanting to engage with me on talk pages because of my block from article space, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Andy_Grammer#Article_Doesn't_Mention_post_2019 is the clearest example. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:James_Mayer_de_Rothschild might be another, but I'm not 100% clear on why no one has had a discussion with me on that page.. It'd be healthier for everyone if I just got unblocked. I'm having productive arguments at Caarley and Ashley's pages and discussions everywhere else. My point made at Talk:Johnny Depp, for example, was also ignored, and proposals I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Fantastic_Beasts:_The_Secrets_of_Dumbledore can't go forward until I'm unblocked. I implore you or Yamla or HighinBC to just unblock me, so that I won't be bothering any further on the many reasons by which I believe I should be unblocked. Sucker for All (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

SfA, all you need to do is make WP:Edit requests, like the two editors who posted after you at Johnny Depp. That notifies other editors that someone who can't edit a particular article is asking for a change to be made. When you just post on the talk page, other people may not see it or may not realize you can't make that edit. You have the ability to create drafts, so you don't need to be unblocked w/re Secrets of Dumbledore. Your question at Rothschild would be better asked at Teahouse. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ashley Strohmier (October 19)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Sucker for All/Ashley Strohmier and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Misplaced Pages's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Sucker for All/Ashley Strohmier, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Misplaced Pages's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hmm, I've dug deeper on sources.. If I added an adweek and Columbia Missourian link, would that be enough notability? Sucker for All (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic:

AfC notification: Draft:Ashley Strohmier has a new comment

AfC notification: Draft:Ashley Strohmier has a new comment

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ashley Strohmier (October 23)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ashley Strohmier and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Misplaced Pages's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ashley Strohmier, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Misplaced Pages's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

@Timtrent:, I only resubmitted after @Theroadislong: indicated that his comment of lack of notoriety existed before the Columbia Missourian and adweek links were added, in addition to an imdb with more than 90 entrees, so your assertion that "one news medium feeding from another" isn't valid. I would like to point out that Carley Shimkus' article is virtually identical.. @Worldbruce: did not delete the newly added 3 sources, so perhaps he can comment as an unbiased middle. Since March 2020, she has has been credited at least once every month, and often appeared every day in a week, sometimes as a host. Sucker for All (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

IMDb is totally useless for establishing any notability, it is not a reliable source as it is user edited see WP:IMDB. The number of appearances is also irrelevant, what we need is significant coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is full of poor articles. There are only so many editors, so sometimes we have simply not found all those that fail our criteria. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy.

To be clear here, Theroadislong, I did NOT *cite* imdb, I added it as an *external* source.. You previously indicated you considered adweek and Columbia Missourian and Fox News to be reliable. Do Theroadislong believe that the Carley Shimkus article should be deleted? I certainly do not believe that Ashley Strohmier nor Carley Shimkus should be deleted. Sucker for All (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not consider the adweek and Columbia Missourian sources to be reliable, I thought they were press releases, which are also not suitable for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release" comes from WP:RS. This isn't an academic topic. You said "my comment came before your addition of adweek and Columbia Missourian", heavily insinuating that the addition of adweek and Columbia Missourian sources made an impact. I expect more clear communication than that. Sucker for All (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

There are two choices here for the route forward: Argument or Work.

Of the two, we know that argument will never succeed. Past experience has shown this to fail every time, and there is no reason to believe that the outcome now will be any different. Work may succeed if reliable sources can be found.

To remind you, For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Your job, if you wish to have this draft pass review (or, if moved to man space without review, to survive a deletion process) is to find those references. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. This is why it has been pushed back to you. I'd like you to find those suitable references, please. Find them and it will give any reviewer pleasure to accept the draft. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The way to get a draft accepted is to find credible sources that meet our standards. This one does not do so at present. There is work to do here. Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you consider BeerAdvocate and RateBeer to be credible? You've already cast aside Heavy.com, adweek, Columbia Missourian, The Morning Journal, .. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources clearly states that "This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Misplaced Pages are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages". All of the 4 sources mentioned have wiki articles and are Not considered unreliable Sucker for All (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC) @Timtrent:

I refer you to my reply immediately above. Ping me again when you stop arguing and start working please. Fiddle Faddle 18:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Tim, your comment does not make sense. I put in the work and added adweek and Columbia Missourian and then You attacked the Carley Shimkus article citing Heavy.com and The Morning Journal are not credible. These are both prominent members of Fox News, who are on the air often. If you would like to open a discussion of these 4 sources' crediblity I encourage you to put in the work and do so Sucker for All (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Attacked"? No. I nominated it for a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. The community is greater than either of us, any of us, and will decide. If I am incorrect I will learn something. Fiddle Faddle 18:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

While I can't comment on Columbia Missuorian as it is not accessible to me, the adweek article is simply an announcement about her starting to work at a different company – that's run-of-the-mill stuff, not counting towards notability. There is another source in the draft now, lakeozarknow which appears to be a local publication, and that is certainly a press release, so still no indication that she is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 20:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea, the Columbia Missourian is routine local coverage; the article is a short announcement of her leaving Columbia's ABC affiliate to go to Fox. SFA, the reason we're pointing out that both Lake Ozark Now and the Missourian are local coverage is that generally we'll only consider local coverage when assessing notability is if there are also multiple other non-local sources. So even if both the LON and the Missourian article were significant coverage (neither of them are), we'd still want to see at least a couple other sources that were non-local, significant, reliable, unaffiliated, and represented significant coverage of the article subject. —valereee (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

See my post above about press releases. Yes, press releases are announcements. WP:THREE means this article should exist. Sucker for All (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It does not say what you appear to hope it says.

You quoted Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release".

Interpreting this correctly says that regurgitated PR is useless. A press release is WP:PRIMARY and is not WP:RS, nor is it significant coverage however long it is, and is most assuredly not independent of the subject if the article or draft. Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sucker for All, you just posted to the user talk pages of several people including myself, asking if a new press release about Carley Shimkus would change our minds about her notability. This makes me wonder if you have really read and understood the comments and information in this section. Please take a moment to re-read the comments here, and the linked information. You might want to re-read the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carley Shimkus as well, since you still seem to be under the impression that merely being a news anchor makes a person notable, if the news network is important enough. That is not the case. --bonadea contributions talk 08:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Bonadea, she was promoted to full time host of Fox and Friends First. Did you read the press release? Certainly it doesn't diminish her notability. She's been far more prevalent over the course of her career than Julie Banderas for example.. Her becoming full time co-anchor clearly makes her more notable. Explain your logic saying that I don't understand the comments that were made before she became the official co-host of Fox & Friends First? (replacing Jillian) Sucker for All (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I never said it diminished her notability. It does not make her more notable, as four or five different people have explained to you. Sorry, but it does feel a bit like talking to a brick wall, especially when you also made the completely absurd claim the most viewed news host in the world (about Shimkus, above). --bonadea contributions talk 18:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The claim that Carley's the most viewed news host in the country from 4-6am est is just 100% true. https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/FOX-CORPORATION-57672112/news/FOX-NEWS-CHANNEL-DELIVERS-RECORD-BREAKING-QUARTER-ACROSS-TOTAL-DAY-AND-PRIMETIME-AS-WELL-AS-HIGHES-30854617/ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-channel-reigns-top-183800979.html . Now if you know of a show at that timeslot that's more viewed in Germany or the UK, then I might have exaggerated a little bit, but the claim's certainly not absurd, since it's definitely the most viewed show in the country at that timeslot. Sucker for All (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sucker for All Press releases are irrelevant in showing notability in a Misplaced Pages sense. Reading them or not is unimportant, because they have no value. Show a reference that passes WP:42 and that is a different story. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Tim, the sources are definitely varied, reliable and independent. Sucker for All (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not ''about Shimkus'', thus they are irrelevant

They are Press releases/PR pieces, thus they are irrelevant.

That's all that needs to be said about them. Repeatedly saying more displays a tendency to disruptive editing. I note that an ANI discussion has been opened. I hope you participate in that well and that you learn a lot from it. I fear that you may approach it in the same spirit you appear to be approaching Shimkus and Strohmier, and find you lose editing privileges. WP:ICANTHEARYOU is one of the things you are displaying. It's a shame, since I think, hope, you have potential to be a good contributor Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request Oct 25

Moving this for ease of navigation.

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

Request reason:

first of all, I appreciate Yamla's acknowledgement that this is a procedural decline only. I do have a tendency to be WP:Bold, which is useful in less controversial edits I made at InBev and Johnson & Johnson, but was considered abrasive elsewhere. I believe "drive by tagging" that occurred in the past is over though. I have already and am engaged in respectful discussion at Carley Shimkus, also getting in touch with my page creation roots with Draft:Ashley Strohmier (I created Todd Piro). Furthermore, I made peace with Martinevans123, an editor with whom I irrationally clashed with previously, and I don't believe any lingering animosity exists between myself and the community. My attention would be focused on eliminating tags on articles where they are no longer necessary by continuing to add relevant sources to all articles. Sucker for All (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request is now moot. El_C 23:11, 30 October 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, you keep asking to be unblocked but you're continuing to completely misunderstand everything you got blocked for doing. Like literally you're still arguing that being promoted to full time host automatically confers notability. It doesn't, and multiple people have told you that, and you continue to argue about it. And that we should be using press releases to prove notability. By long-standing consensus, we do not do that, and multiple people have told you that, and you continue to argue about it. You still seem to think admins have some authority over content. They do not, and multiple people have told you that. I do not know how to make this any clearer to you, but no admin is likely to unblock you while you are still misunderstanding all of these things and wasting people's time arguing and arguing and arguing about things you clearly have not bothered to even try to understand. Your entire approach seems to be that if you disagree with policy, you can just keep arguing that the policy doesn't mean what it means. You did the same thing with insisting that article leads need citations, even after I explained over and over.

As the blocking admin, I cannot support an unblock at this time. —valereee (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Valeree, you are one of 3 blocking admins, @HighinBC: and @Yamla: among them. I am Definitely arguing that getting promoted to full time host confers a degree of notability. Talk pages are for discussions and hashing out problems, and I believe I am doing so courteously. I regret calling others a Circle Jerk earlier and am certainly NOT doing that now. Also, I am not the only one positing that Carley Shimkus is notable. Admins have the authority to block and unblock. That gives them a lot of leeway over content, perhaps more indirect than I've said, but still. You said "misunderstanding all of these things", and I would like clarification. Misunderstanding that I'm not allowed a point of view that's shared by at least one other editor? I have not argued on any page other than Carley and Ashley since the block occured. I'm obviously arguing in favor of the article I took care to make and disagree with the AFD at Carley. As stated in my block, I have acted courteously to every editor. I do not believe I disagree with any specific policy here, and, for example, I reached an agreement with User:Martinevans123 and User:AlexB4, with whom I previously clashed that involved a compromise with regard to the lead section at Goldsmith. I am aware that I am learning about certain details, such as a lack of requirement for sources in the lede. However, I did not violate the 3RR at Zac Goldsmith (my point that he's not known for his support of Brexit made it into the lead section), and sources are certainly allowed in the lead section. If you would like to direct me to a location where I can read up on additional policies, I plan to continue improving upon my editing abilities. I think that inevitably everyone has an opinion and an interpretation and dialogue's a helpful thing. Sucker for All (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yamla and HighinBC have declined to unblock, but the original block was made by me, so I'm the blocking admin. Are you going to argue that you understand this, too, better than an experienced editor? —valereee (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Valereee is correct, there is only one blocking admin. I did decline your unblock request. I am not going to decline you twice, I will leave this review to another admin. However if I felt you should be unblocked I would have accepted this request, I have not because I share Valereee's concerns. HighInBC 22:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carley Shimkus, you may be blocked from editing. Disruptive editing, wasting other editors' time, argumentative, refusal to hear at Special:Diff/1052733132 —valereee (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

With respect ma'am, that specific post referenced WP:BIO. WP:BIO does not say "press releases do not count towards notability neither does amount of viewers"; I'm therefore unsure why my specific edit stating exactly that would be construed as disruptive. I see that you have posted a link to various parts of wikipedia, and I plan to read them diligently before adding further comment. I've noticed, however, that regular users often misconstrue information stated on such pages, and while I don't wish to step on too many toes, I also feel obligated to eloquently articulate my point of view without pretending to be someone else. Sucker for All (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

SfA,

• So when you say about a policy page that "I've noticed, however, that regular users often misconstrue information stated on such pages", you're saying that experienced users are the ones misconstruing policy? And that you are interpreting policy better than people with tens of thousands of edits and a decade's experience? And that your arguing and arguing and arguing about that would not be disruptive?
• I asked you to read WP:PRSOURCE for info on press releases. Have you read it? The fact press releases aren't specifically covered at BIO means zero.
• I have no idea what "I also feel obligated to eloquently articulate my point of view without pretending to be someone else" means. Please stop. Just go read for a month or so, and stop arguing.
• You are wasting other editors' time. —valereee (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sometimes experienced users misconstrue policy. I have been a diligent reader for a while and have a firm understanding of many policies that users who have perhaps posted a lot but never been elevated to admin could miss. As I said previously, I am not trying to post on any other part of the site until my own page is in order, so I'm dismayed at the ANI Sucker for All (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

But they are not misconstruing policy, if yo don't know that press release don't contribute to notability then you obviously don't "firm understanding of many policies that users who have perhaps posted a lot but never been elevated to admin could miss" as that is part of WP:GNG point 4. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—valereee (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite sitewide block

El_C 23:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

A lot of time has passed since my block. I have been seeing a therapist at Catholic Charities Glendale regularly. I've learned to listen more carefully and articulate myself more clearly. Until a disagreement about sources, the vast majority of my edits were deemed credible, and I got too frustrated with opposition to some of my edits. Building a consensus and listening to consensus are Necessary, especially since I have been WP:Bold; I understand that now. I have noticed, for example, that Anwar Hadid has an es.wiki but no en.wiki. I would want to help, as I have recently expressed, in translation and not insist upon edits deemed controversial. I therefore believe my block is no longer necessary Sucker for All (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline to stop the unblock request staying open for an extended period. I see consensus that you should wait until 30 April, then take the standard offer. Ritchie333 12:37, 26 March 2022 (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.

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Today, May 3, I am requesting the ] to any admin willing to unblock me. I am looking to help clean up and better source articles that already exist such as ] this month I hope. The 2 admins below seemed to see my likelihood of getting unblocked as "promising", and I just want to be a productive wikipedien again. ] (]) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Update: It's now July 1. I believe that I was blocked in large part because I belittled the opinions of users when I disagreed with them and was rude in certain chat pages about which sources were deemed most reliable. In the time since my block, I have not sockpuppeted, I have discussed issues with various users, and my primary occupation would be to fix up pages that have refimprove tags in order to make the community better such as with ]. I believe in the format and style of[REDACTED] and that articles should all have appropriate inline citations in a way that leads to more articles being considered up to the standard for an untagged article. In summation, I believe I am now ready to contribute in a positive way to the wiki community by cleaning up articles. <span class="template-ping">@]:</span>, I would appreciate if you posted a request to ]. Thank you ] (]) 13:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Today, May 3, I am requesting the ] to any admin willing to unblock me. I am looking to help clean up and better source articles that already exist such as ] this month I hope. The 2 admins below seemed to see my likelihood of getting unblocked as "promising", and I just want to be a productive wikipedien again. ] (]) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Update: It's now July 1. I believe that I was blocked in large part because I belittled the opinions of users when I disagreed with them and was rude in certain chat pages about which sources were deemed most reliable. In the time since my block, I have not sockpuppeted, I have discussed issues with various users, and my primary occupation would be to fix up pages that have refimprove tags in order to make the community better such as with ]. I believe in the format and style of[REDACTED] and that articles should all have appropriate inline citations in a way that leads to more articles being considered up to the standard for an untagged article. In summation, I believe I am now ready to contribute in a positive way to the wiki community by cleaning up articles. <span class="template-ping">@]:</span>, I would appreciate if you posted a request to ]. Thank you ] (]) 13:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Today, May 3, I am requesting the ] to any admin willing to unblock me. I am looking to help clean up and better source articles that already exist such as ] this month I hope. The 2 admins below seemed to see my likelihood of getting unblocked as "promising", and I just want to be a productive wikipedien again. ] (]) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Update: It's now July 1. I believe that I was blocked in large part because I belittled the opinions of users when I disagreed with them and was rude in certain chat pages about which sources were deemed most reliable. In the time since my block, I have not sockpuppeted, I have discussed issues with various users, and my primary occupation would be to fix up pages that have refimprove tags in order to make the community better such as with ]. I believe in the format and style of[REDACTED] and that articles should all have appropriate inline citations in a way that leads to more articles being considered up to the standard for an untagged article. In summation, I believe I am now ready to contribute in a positive way to the wiki community by cleaning up articles. <span class="template-ping">@]:</span>, I would appreciate if you posted a request to ]. Thank you ] (]) 13:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Promising, though I must say I am inclined to wait six months before unblocking you, especially given the voluminous amount of text written for your expense. I really do think people change, but sometimes it takes time. I am glad you were able to spend some time away in the first place and had some time to think about your actions. But I still think more time away would be better. CaptainEek ⚓ 08:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Per Captain Eek. I would prefer to wait till April 30, 2022 myself. That's pretty standard. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the commentary. I think I'm ok to wait until April 30. Although given how long it's been, sooner would be cool. Just trying to progress certain[REDACTED] articles so they no longer need headers. Sucker for All (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just please keep in mind that if your block is removed, your edits may be scrutinized given your history of edits. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Seems I've made progress with my unblock request in its entirety. In consultation with the standard offer, I am curious, given the volume of admins involved, which I should consult. Although given that it goes to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard in all likelihood, this may not be overly necessary to obsess over which is pinged. Sucker for All (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Ritchie333: and @Deepfriedokra: (and any other admins watching), I believe I have waited until the date in question and taken the standard offer. 6 months has elapsed (and that's a long time!). My focus once getting unblocked will be on cleaning up articles that need citations rather than and to eliminate the need for "article needs improvement" headers by improving the articles themselves. Would appreciate any and all input here on progress with regard to my block being removed. Thank you! Sucker for All (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing seems to be happening here, so I can post a request to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard for community review if you want. I suggest that you think carefully, craft the perfect unblock request, and then ping me. At that point, I will copy-paste it to the noticeboard, and users will decide whether to unblock you. Your request should clearly and concisely explain why you were blocked and why you should be unblocked. 100-200 words would probably be best. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Seems like El_C's not against an unblock and that valeree believes an unblock would be helpful. writ keeper then linked to 2 threads where I explained my point of view. While I agree that a misinterpretation of distinguishing between religion and denomination happened, I was acting in good faith and did not edit war. Further, with regard to the Carley Shimkus article, I was defending an article's existence that was made by someone else. I did not edit content in an improper way. The assignment was to use just 100 to 200 words in my defense making it difficult to reference every specific issue in detail. Since writ keeper criticized my discussions, not my edits, I implore admins to unblock. Sucker for All (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Todd Piro for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Todd Piro until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Fiddle Faddle 08:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm.. He's been lead anchor of the most watched news program in the country from 4-6am M-Fr for more than a year. Sucker for All (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Nonetheless he does not have references to show that he passed Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)

I am not about to go over this ground yet again. You have been told this by many editors on may occasions. In part this has resulted in your most recent block.

If my nomination for deletion is incorrect I will learn by it. The community judged me to be correct with regard to Shimkus, but they may form a different view own Piro. It is their right to do so. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Geez. Between The Independent (green), The Hill (newspaper) (green), Hill Reporter (unlisted), Patch (website) (unlisted, but used relatively often), adweek (unlisted, but used relatively often), The Daily Beast (no consensus) and Fox News (green, but non-independent), I disagree. And perhaps additional sources can be found (I'll scour later). We'll see how this turns out Sucker for All (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(see link above). The following users contributed to the Todd Piro page, so I would appreciate comment from any and all Sucker for All (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC) @Extraordinary Writ: @Mccapra: Luciapop @Kuru: @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: @Onel5969: @Novem Linguae: @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: @Shoestringnomad: @AnomieBOT: Tuckerlieberman @Schazjmd:

I only fixed a typo in the Todd Piro article. I don't have opinions about whether the article should exist. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A good question to ask here: does Todd Piro article "fail WP:BIO" as postulated? Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Valeree, for example, accidentally pinged me at an article dealing with Korea. And Timtrent, below, claimed that a "press release is a Primary Source", which just isn't supported by the link. Todd has been lead anchor of the most viewed news program in the country for 10 hours a week for well over a year now. He has tons of power in shaping the narrative to anything he wants given that Daily Caller, NYPost, Daily Mail, CNN, The Times of London, The Washington Post, MSNBC, The Federalist, Newsmax, Townhall, The Sun, OAN, Axios, The Daily Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, among others, are always pivoting as a result of Fox News' broadcasts, so I just disagree that he fails WP:BIO given that he's both incredibly powerful and incredibly public. Sucker for All (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Flesh out your arguments please @GoodDay:

You're currently blocked & therefore can't be a part of the AfD-in-question. This includes disallowing proxy-style. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Why was I pinged then? Your explanation "if he fails bio" in support of the person who insisted I be notified of this discussion is lacking Sucker for All (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC) @GoodDay:

I didn't ping you. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent pinged me by starting this thread. Your entire explanation is still just "if he fails bio"? You don't have anything else to add? Sucker for All (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

While you're blocked, the AfD is irrelevant to you. Your talkpage is suppose to be used for 'only' getting yourself unblocked. Not for proxying in any form. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• GoodDay is correct, this conversation should end now. —valereee (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it seemed like I was invited to discuss this AfD and pinged relevant parties, although I will end this conversation now. I remain confused, however, by GoodDay's explanation for deletion as I do not feel he has clarified his point of view. Sucker for All (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Doing a lot of Reading

As per the suggestion of other users, I have consulted many many pages at[REDACTED] in order to improve my behavior.

Per El_C, I have consulted WP:Disruptive Editing. While my behavior at Future Nostalgia a long time ago could be construed as a violation of point 1, none of the other points apply and even that one hasn't applied for a very long time. Also, I consulted WP:BLUDGEON. I have been told a blanket "you violated all of these things", so I'm trying to look for specific examples of how to improve my behavior. I posted thrice on the Carley Shimkus AFD, and also informed 3 who posted against that she received a promotion on those persons' talk pages. I received a lot of ire for pointing out that WP:BIO does not mention press releases being things that can't be used; however, after re-reading, it still doesn't mention press releases being unusable. Even WP:PRSOURCES says that these types of sources are considered OK, and they are certainly very present in many Misplaced Pages articles. Again with WP:IDHT, I long ago at Future Nostalgia was the only person who was making certain edits; however, that behavioral pattern ended and as Writ Keeper noted, I do not pursue identical edits when another user disagrees. Despite disagreeing with some editors as to the notability of Ashley Storhmier and Carley Shimkus, I presented my point of view without denigrating others. With regard to over 100 other edits made over the last 2 and a half months on all other topics, I have re-engaged and established cordial relations with users I previously disagreed with and made points that were adopted in most cases (aside from the instances of being ignored as pointed out above). As far as WP:TE, everyone has a point of view. However, none of the 17 characteristics of problem editors seems to apply to me. Again, I would like examples, so that self improvement becomes possible.

Per Timtrent and KylieTastic, I consulted WP:RSPSOURCES and found that the sources I used for Ashley Strohmier nor the other 30+ proposed weren't mentioned one way or another. Some of the proposed sources were from wikis, but most were by an independent publisher. Because these sources aren't listed at that area one way or another, it's open to interpretation which sources are considered notable. Per statement "she is not "explicitly *not notable*", if several independent reliable sources have significant coverage", the current Draft:Ashley Strohmier is quite close to passing all barometers. The independent bar is passed, and it does have a lot of traction from various different sources. The reliability factor's open for interpretation, although adweek, lakeozarknow, Columbia Missourian and the Associated Press (in addition to the bio at Fox News) are considered reliable as they, and similar sources, are included in many other articles. With regard to WP:THREE, only the AP mention's in passing. Of course, because I spnet a lot of time making a sourced article (and only resubmitting once adweek and Columbia Missourian seemed to confer notability), I continue to argue for its notability; however, I took careful effort to do so respectfully and not in a disruptive fashion. If someone would like to point out a specific edit that was disruptive, I am more than happy to learn from past mistakes.

Per Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Carley_Shimkus, I have consulted WP:BIO, WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG, WP:DAILYBEAST, WP:Notability (people), WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:N, WP:Secondary, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SELFPUB, WP:PRSOURCE, WP:NEWSORG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BLP. "fails BIO" was said twice, but the page itself is vague about saying that something definitely does or doesn't count towards notability; the 2nd time it said "press releases do not count towards notability and neither does amount of viewers", which isn't stated in BIO. BEFORE was theoretically conducted, although additional sources for her were very easy to find. GNG was taken out of context; a press release written by a person close to the person in question isn't considered ok -- it does not insinuate that every press release ever isn't worthwhile (think of how many articles cite a press release about an important event). Daily Beast again is sometimes conferred as notable. It isn't 100% clear. Notability (people) was brought into the mix, mentioning again that press releases are non-notable, which isn't stated in the article; which part of Notability (people) she does not pass wasn't pointed out. NOTINHERITED says "zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject", which just isn't the case here; multiple independent bios exist and are sourced. Notability was referenced without pointing to anything specific, while many Secondary sources do exist that are considered generally reliable or mostly reliable such as BusinessWire, Yahoo, THR, Variety in which she is given significant coverage. Not one source was primary nor was a single source self published, so it's unclear why these were brought into the equation. PRSOURCE's header indicates that because Variety or THR are not directly connected to Carley, that these sources are OK to justify notability. NEWSORG also isn't a problem since the content is factual and not opinion (ie Carley's the host of Fox & Friends First; this isn't an opinion). Now I'm not saying that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but the case was clearly not cut and dry and fair arguments clearly exist on both sides. SIGCOV's points were similar to Notability, and the concession that she's well known's true; not a ton of secondary coverage but certainly several exist (requirement's 3). BLP clearly does apply, but it's not entirely clear how that's grounds for deletion. My edits at this AFD were in line with Patapsco913 in the belief that because she's always the most viewed correspondent in the most powerful country in the world (and often the whole world) for 10 hours a week that confers notability. Whether that confers notability is perhaps a question, but the fact that she's the most viewed in the country was called into question and she just is. Other users criticized me greatly a long time ago at Future Nostalgia for insinuating that 2 users constantly complimenting each other constituted a circle jerk (and I do regret the characterization), and yet in this thread I was called obtuse, and then again twice at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sucker_for_All . It feels like a WP:PERSONALATTACK.

I would appreciate guidance from others to point out to which specific edits are violations of which specific policies. Although I have posted less than many other users, I have been a long time stalker and admirer of such admins as User:zzuuzz, User:Ponyo and User:Bbb23. Although my edits may not be proper, the notion that the creation of Draft:Ashley Strohmier or my defense of the Carley Shimkus article are to be construed as "trolling" and "incompetence" (another WP:PERSONALATTACK) is difficult to comprehend. Sucker for All (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:Notability describes the basic criteria for a source to contribute to notability. One of those is that the source must be independent of the subject. It then defines it: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. (bold added by me) Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry it has come down to a block. I was trying to work with you with advice to seek to avoid that, but it has, at present, proved not to have been successful.

Blocks are stated as "indefinite" and this does not mean "For ever". It means that the blocked editor is able to present reasons why they have understood the block and what they will do to avoid a behaviour that caused a block. One key thing is what you are doing, which is reading the material.

If I may offer you advice, please do not seek to argue with a block. Instead show true humility and show how you will alter your behaviours. I counsel against Wikilawyering, something that proves counter-productive every time it's deployed.

Please understand the fact that your behaviour is disruptive because you have created a big time sink by choosing or appearing not to understand points made to you. None of us is greater than the community. Like it or hate it, the wisdom of crowds trumps the individual every time

That a source is not referred to specifically does not matter. Roads do not all have notices exhorting you to look out for traffic before you walk across them either. The great majority of cliffs do not suggest that you do not leap from them.

Fiddle Faddle 17:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to emphasize this, as it may be helpful: That a source is not referred to specifically does not matter. There are a very limited number of good sources, but bad sources are innumerable, and hundreds more pop up daily. We can't list them all, it would be an absurd waste of time to even try, and it would be absolutely unreasonable to expect it.

For you, I would recommend adopting the default setting that if a source isn't in green at WP:RSNP, don't use it. —valereee (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment Timtrent that you approve of a more thorough reading and analysis I have done above and I certainly hope the block isn't forever. The thing I can't get around is that users, multiple times, started issuing the WP:Personal Attack on me by calling me obtuse and once that my posts were "just trolling" because my interpretation was apparently different from theirs. Even if you disagree with my POV, I do present an earnest, logical case so that was below the belt Sucker for All (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you have been a recipient of frustration. Equally, you have been frustrated. It is correct to have criticised the behaviours you have exhibited, but absolutely not to criticise you as a person. If I have done this I apologies unreservedly. It is the behaviours that need to change. You as a person are who you are and that is absolutely fine by me.

The behaviours have been those of not accepting, perhaps not understanding, the community view, coupled with repetitive assertion that your view should prevail. That repetitive assertion has happened so often that it is viewed as combative.

The block has happened (in my view ) because the community has become frustrated by those behaviours. They have put it down to a competence issue because the view is that competence will see, eventually that a stance is incorrect.

As part of your reading please consider these points. I see you as a potentially valuable editor with attention to detail once the learnings about reliable sources have been absorbed and acknowledged. Obviously you will need to present a brief and simple set of reasons why your block should be lifted, and a brief acknowledgement of the faulty behaviours as you (then) understand them.

I wish you well, good reading, good learning, and a speedy return to editing by showing the admin team that your block has served its purpose. It is intended to prevent behaviours not punish them. I understand how it feels the other way around. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRSOURCE

SfA, where in this section does it say "these types of sources are considered OK"?

Here is the section, in its entirety:

A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually written either by the business or organization it is written about, or by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization (e.g., a spin doctor). Press releases commonly show up in Google News searches and other searches that editors commonly use to locate reliable sources. Usually, but not always, a press release will be identified as such. Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release (a practice called "churnalism"). Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article.

In general, press releases have effusive praise, rather than factual statements. A press release about the Bippledorp 9000 effect pedal by its manufacturer might call it the "greatest invention in the history of electric guitar"; in contrast, an independent review in Guitar Player magazine may simply make factual statements about its features and call it an "incremental tweak to existing pedal features".

Literally the first sentence of the section says "is clearly not an independent source". That means it cannot be used to prove notability and probably should only be used with caution for anything else. How are you getting "considered OK" from that? —valereee (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

On the assumption this particular misunderstanding is based on a very, very literal interpretation of policy, I have added a line to the section in question that I hope makes it clearer. —valereee (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The header of that very section ( https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Non-independent_sources ) says:

Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. i.e. "The organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not. Similarly, it is undesirable to say "Pax-Luv is the top tranquilizer" (without attribution) instead of "Pax-Luv's manufacturer, Umbrella Cor., says Pax-Luv is the top tranquilizer".

In the above, "'The organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest.' is OK" I interpret to mean that a THR article that says (paraphrasing) "Fox News says that Carley Shimkus has been promoted to full time host of Fox & Friends First" would also be an ok source to use especially as WP:THR indicates "There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures." While I might be wrong about that interpretation, the idea that I was accused of "trolling" and called "obtuse" for championing that interpretation not something I fully comprehend. Sucker for All (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As a point of emphasis here regarding the THR source presented at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carley_Shimkus penned by Alex Weprin: "A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is *usually* written either by *1* the business or organization it is written about, or *2* by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization"; however, Weprin does not work for Fox News nor was he hired by Fox News. So, again, while press releases *usually* aren't independent, this one just was given my interpretation of the section you posted. And even if it wasn't considered independent, the link posted does say specifically that non-independent sources may be used as sources. It's therefore my interpretation that it being unclear that when following WP:RSNP for sources such as Variety (green), BusinessWire (unlisted but often used) and THR (green), the benchmark of WP:THREE has already passed. Sucker for All (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No. WP:THREE is about showing notability. Press releases do not do that. --bonadea contributions talk 23:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

With respect Bonadea, my interpretation is that Press Releases do show notability sometimes; so Yes that's my interpretation. I have re-read every single link above (see Doing a lot of Reading), and not a single one of the links posted say that press releases do not show notability. Sucker for All (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sucker for All The problem is that a press release is a Primary Source and is also Self Published, a thing that holds true even if republished by a seemingly well respected media outlet. Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

SfA, your interpretation is incorrect. The wording 'usually' here does not mean 'but can sometimes support notability'. Affiliated/non-independent sources, including press releases, can never be used to prove notability. The word 'usually' here is to acknowledge that affiliated sources such a press release can, for instance, be used to fill in noncontroversial details after notability has already been established.

Not everything in policy is stated point blank. Our policy pages are already too long. Some of WP policy is stuff you have to interpret. If that's not your forte, you'll have to be willing to accept that others understand these nuances better than you do. If you can't do that, you should probably find another hobby. I'm sorry, but that's basically where the rubber meets the road, here. —valereee (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it is point-blank stated, at Special:Permalink/1053078665#Relationship to notability: Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability. Period, full stop. —valereee (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A press release is a primary source? Where is this stated? That sounds illogical to me. Also, I see it said once in passing at WP:SELFPUB that press releases are self published; however, this might be a typo. Perhaps they mean a press release sometimes or often is self published? If, for example, WSJ, Politico, NYT or WP issues a press release, that's considered self published? Sucker for All (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The press release article says "A press release is an official statement delivered to members of the news media for the purpose of providing information, creating an official statement, or making an announcement directed for public release. Press releases are also considered a primary source, meaning they are original informants for information." and WP:PRSOURCE clearly states "Press releases and articles written from press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability " Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, I just added that line (referenced above, second post by me in this section) because of the discussion in the previous section. I thought maybe the many editors who need things to be very, very literal, including SfA, might need that clarification. —valereee (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A press release cannot be other than a primary source. It is created by the entity about itself. There can be no other definition than that it is primary. It is also self published. It is always self published, whether issued by a PR contractor or the entity itself directly. There can be no other definition. Fiddle Faddle 15:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

So Valeree's literally rewriting the rules?? If a press release is issued to declare someone the winner of an important electoral seat or appointed to a key position within a systemically important company, for example, this does not confer notability? If a press release announces a phenomenal new invention, for example, again the press release confers no notability? The lines she added seem like agenda pushing Sucker for All (talk) @Zzuuzz: @Bbb23: @Ponyo:

Yes, that is correct; a press release announcing a "phenomenal new invention" does not confer notability. The inventor (or their PR team) is not the person who gets to decide whether their new invention is "phenomenal" or not, because they obviously have a vested interest in declaring it so. (Indeed, if a person were an authoritative source on whether their own actions were noteworthy, then pretty much everyone on the planet would be noteworthy by self-definition.) Instead, you would need disinterested third parties who are knowledgeable enough about the topic to declare that an invention is noteworthy. Or, as the policy on notability puts it: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Press releases are written by the subject of a potential article or their employee/close associate (even if they're republished by someone else); thus, press releases are not independent of the subject, and so do not contribute to notability. This is long-standing policy; if Valeree has changed a policy page to spell that out, that is not a change of policy, merely a clarification to align with what is already long since praxis. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sucker for All Let me try once more.

It's a press release. Therefore it has no value in verifying notability. That is none. No value whatsoever. None. Not now, not ever, never.

You are mistaken in your continued search for the holy grail of a press release that verifies notability. Like rocking horse droppings they do not exist. Give up this fruitless quest. Fiddle Faddle 12:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

OK Writ Keeper. If a "phenomenal new invention" is made, how is notability conferred to it? Sucker for All (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

By exactly what I said: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A journalist for a major newspaper writes (writes, not republishes a PR or ad copy) about it. A scientific journal publishes a review of the literature around it. If the hypothetical invention is as phenomenal as you claim, then people other than the creator will talk about it, and once they do, then a Misplaced Pages article can be created. Not before, and if that never happens, not at all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if this is construed as "trolling", but I genuinely don't understand.. More than 90% of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter articles, for example, are press releases. Yet according to WP:RS/PS, these sources are good sources. Both of these sources were proposed in the AFD to confer notability to Carley Shimkus, so even if they are considered acceptable, shouldn't WP:RS/PS be amended to note that these (apparently) cannot confer notability? Sucker for All (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This actually comes back to WP:NEWSORG, which you referred to above. A press release is a statement released to the press (just like the name implies), and various press outlets may publish the same PR, including generally reliable and generally unreliable publishers. Variety is generally reliable when it comes to its own content, and when it publishes independently about a topic, it might show notability for that topic. ("Might", because that isn't only based on the reliability of the publisher). It also publishes press releases, which are never independent, and thus don't show notability. That's what the line "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release" from NEWSORG refers to. We treat a press release in Variety just like we'd treat the same press release in PR Newswire. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: & @Timtrent: Please stop 'contacting' Sucker for All. He's only allowed to to use his talkpage, to get himself unblocked. You're both gonna end up getting him barred from his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying to help this editor understand the policy that got them blocked is helping them get themselves unblocked. The proxying mentioned below, no, but what @Writ Keeper and @Timtrent are doing could be completely helpful if this editor is sincerely confused. IMO these conversations aren't violating unblock policy. —valereee (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Proxy editing and canvasing

You have been using your talk page to make arguments by proxy for an AfD as well as pinging people about the AfD. This is not appropriate use of a talk page while blocked. Please see WP:PROXYING and WP:CANVASS. You have talk page access in case you want to appeal your block. Further inappropriate use of this page can result in loss of talk page access. HighInBC 06:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

timtrent pinged me asking for my opinion. Feel free to unblock me or warn him for encouraging proxying Sucker for All (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about this and this. You may or may not have noticed that simply denying your behavior and blaming others does not insulate you from the consequences of your actions. Going forward I am considering you to be aware of the appropriate and inappropriate uses of your talk page while blocked. HighInBC 01:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for responding to Timtrent by pinging people who have expressed interest in the article in the past Sucker for All (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Learning and Developing

I understand that a lot of time has passed since my block from namespace (an extension of my behaviour at Future Nostalgia I am truly ashamed of), and a significant number of time passed also from my block at other areas (largely due to my commitment to lobby on behalf of the standalone Carley Shimkus article), and I want to prove here that I'm a useful editor. In viewing other articles, I notice that the only non-press release article was a 30 minute video ad from NYT at the HFZ Capital Group that looks like HFZ paid for, which shouldn't qualify it for WP:THREE in and of itself, and the article also has several sources in the very short intro.

I understand that enforcing perfection at every article's just not possible; however, I believe the vast majority of my edits have been constructive, and I just want to hear from blocking admins about how to prove I'm a productive editor again, and which sorts of articles need to be edited. Because I believe misunderstandings happened despite genuine good faith, most of my edits have been deemed productive, and I am now concilliatory, I would like to hear from blocking admins about how to get unblocked and the types of articles, like HFZ, which need improvement to prove notability. Sucker for All (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC) @Yamla: @HighinBC: @Valereee: @El C:

Concern regarding Draft:Ashley Strohmier

Hello, Sucker for All. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ashley Strohmier, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock