User talk:Hugsruing

Hugsruing, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Hugsruing! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Charles Thomson (journalist)[edit]

Hey, Hugsruing, I hope I didn't take away all your fun. Once I saw the article I just kind of got into the groove. —valereee (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! It’s unclear to me why entries of this type stay. I see a lot of writers enter contests and win and bill it like they were picked from a large pool. Truth is there could be as few as a handful of entries. I’m sympathetic that most unpaid writers have to create an allure around their work. I don’t diminish award or acknowledgement of good in-depth writing or investigation such as by detectives. But if I win an award, does “award winning” goes before my name for eternity? I hope not, that’d feel silly even by well meaning “supporters”.

I feel like some people’s identity is their page here and I’m not trying to discredit their claim to fame, I just feel they should add themselves to the pages where they fit instead of an unremarkable biography. Hugsruing (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On why these things stay: 128,866 active editors (defined as did at least 1 edit in the past 4 weeks), 6,192,005 articles. People edit what they notice/feel like, hence articles like List of Kuruluş: Osman characters. WP:TUTORIAL and/or WP:ADVENTURE could be of some help to you. And WP:BLP. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I’m noticing that many pages are current which could mean most editors don’t watch pages. Much appreciated for the links! I will take a look. Hugsruing (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking guidelines[edit]

I recall hearing that tabloids like The Daily Mirror and The Guardian aren’t allowed to be used as sources. Looking for the information on which links are allowed. Wondering if Medium articles are allowed. Hugsruing (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugsruing, check at WP:RSNP —valereee (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Bananasasas per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bananasasas. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. qedk (t 愛 c) 18:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again. I should have looked deeper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Hugsruing (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC) I don’t have a sock puppet account. One of my edits was reverted with that claim already after I tried to reinsert sourced facts we can all agree are valid. The Talk Page of the reporter above even corrected Hugsruing (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is my only active account. I am not using any one else’s account as a sockpuppet or a secondary account to back up my edits. I have not reverted any edits in any edit war. I’m not aware if anyone else around me is editing here either as it is possible. Tagging me on my Talk Page is considered unfriendly here.Hugsruing (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry, as documented. Yamla (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (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.

You can’t confirm something that’s not true. This is not a sockpuppet account. It looks to be a coordinated accusation. I have supported Wikipedia and have not broken any rules. I am happy to lend my editing skills here when reading the sites although none are technical skills. I’m also fine just to use the site and not volunteer. My co-workers never had difficulties here if editing. I understand new accounts might need a trial period. C’est la vie.Hugsruing (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Not a sockpuppet account. Not a problem account. I wrote a longer explanation before seeing this template requirement.Hugsruing (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, 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. Maxim_(talk) 22:28, 30 November 2020 (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.

UTRS decline[edit]

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see UTRS appeal #37658 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not understanding the accusation other than I used that person’s research which I don’t deny. Their edits were sourced yet still removed. If I’m also being accused of an unconstructive edit, I don’t see it. It would be helpful to know the edits in question. I think my history shows I make constructive and sourced edits. I use the site and would like to give back. My interest is editing what I read not sure I want assignments. The page in question has all the elements of why people see some pages lacking neutrality at times. The editor, Truth Guardians, has committed to rewriting a few pages they seem to want to promote a fan’s point of view. Isn’t this meatpuppetry? It’s not neutral to make edits that takes out anything that doesn’t exaggerate the importance of the subject. Any objective person can see that there is a goal to misinform the reader. Proof is on the talk page and in the edits. Will this issue be addressed? An editor with a problem with another edit believed to be me, returned to rule on my account. Can they be unbiased? Will anyone review my edits? Hugsruing (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This block was based on CheckUser data - Maxim was the CU who connected the accounts acting in concert. Multiple clerks (at least two) have checked your behaviour and found it to match the sockmaster. You have two choices - 1) appeal to the WP:AC, 2) convince us why your technical data and behaviour matched with other editors - your current claim of innocence holds no water. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugsruing, please explain the relationship between yourself and User:Crimsonundercoat. As documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bananasasas/Archive, you are editing the same articles in a similar way, and you happen to edit from the same network. If you prefer you can email me through Special:EmailUser/Maxim or you can file an appeal to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. Maxim_(talk) 13:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim: Have you/the committee received anything yet? If not, feel free to decline the unblock. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK, we've received nothing. Maxim_(talk) 22:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]