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)[reply]

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

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

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

(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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

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

---

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.

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

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

---

Request reason:

I 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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at WABC (AM). BlueboyLINY (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sucker_for_All reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: ). Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

I tagged BBLINY in the talk page (( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:OTHERCONTENT.

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia articles--that's original research. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content to Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• I'm almost done. Others who have reverted these drive-by tags are SPECIFICO and Martinevans123. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, yes, Sucker for All, your edit summary here was "entire lede section unsourced". Could you please explain that? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first 3 paragraphs are unsourced sir. Per WP:LEADCITE, "the verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation". I have clarified a bit with information in the lead section I find to need citations. Sucker for All (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the first three paragraphs of Zac Goldsmith that "is challenged or likely to be challenged". And there are no direct quotations. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your discussion about the specific issues here sir. I don't type as fast as some of you and have pointed out the specific points I feel are challenged, particularly that Goldsmith's a long-time supporter of Brexit. If you find inline citations to verify these claims, I accept that the tag should be removed. Sucker for All (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Political positions" section says this: "Goldsmith is a long-standing Eurosceptic and supporter of Brexit. He first announced he was in favour of the UK leaving the EU in 2013^[1] and has consistently voted against UK membership of the EU in Parliament.^[2]" Why is that open to challenge? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And he is given as an author of the Conservative Quality of Life Policy Group 2007 report in the "Bibliography" section? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His voting record on Brexit isn't out of step with the Tories in general. The one link shows he missed the first vote, an important one, and the other article claims "the Tory mayor (were Goldsmith to get the job) might be pushing to get out", indicating rather a luke warm position. You are correct in noting that I originally did not point to specific points that needed to be addressed in the lead section, so I was more specific in my follow up edit. I believe certain claims about Goldsmith are untrue; however, better referencing (I haven't read everything ever written of course), could prove me wrong. Sucker for All (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you challenging these two lead section claims? If so, you will need to open some discussion thread(s), as appropriate, at Talk:Zac Goldsmith and get consensus for any change. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have also tagged "Goldsmith announced his resignation as an MP following the government's decision in October 2016 to approve construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport.". This is supported in the article main body by this: "He stated that he was confident that the Cameron government would reject Heathrow expansion but that if they did not then he would resign as an MP and trigger a by-election.^[3]" and this: "Goldsmith had promised, as far back as a June 2012 edition of the BBC's Sunday Politics programme, he would not stand as a Conservative candidate at the next election if the Conservative Party backed the expansion of Heathrow Airport, an issue to which he was strongly opposed.^[4][5]" This seems factual and perfectly well-sourced to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Future Nostalgia and Talk:Future Nostalgia) and certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  —valereee (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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 edit's 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]