User talk:MattSucci
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Hello, MattSucci, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions, especially what you did forBesse Cooper. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your messages ontalk pages using fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place{{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
78.26 (talk)14:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matt,
I notice in an edit summary forElsie Thompson that there is a "consensus is that these milestones aren't necessary". I'd be grateful for a link to the discussion on this as I totally agree with the consensus. Cheers,DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)23:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if/when this might happen. The 110 club and other acolytes of the GRG seem to have extreme difficulty in differentiating between the GRG and wikipedia and also understanding/following wiki guidelines. User CanadianPaul is an experienced editor and I think an admin so when he says that milestones violate guidelines and policies it is safe to assume that the removal of the milestones sections is entirely the correct thing to do. If there is persistence in reverting it can be taken toWP:ANI and I am sure they will concur.DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)07:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it is more trivia fanfluff. I suspect it violates various policies/guidelines such asWP:V,WP:OR,WP:SYNTH andWP:SAL. I wonder if there are sufficient grounds for Afd? Cheers,DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)01:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OlYeller21Talktome22:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I'll undo it, then, and redo the edit manually. That should fix the problem. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.05:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MattSucci. Voting in the2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mBetty Logan. I noticed that you made a change to an article,Century break, but you didn't provide areliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like toinclude a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see thereferencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Betty Logan (talk)16:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 | Hello!MattSucci,I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!KGirlTrucker81huh?what I've been doing12:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply] |
I've added an archive url to the link now on the article. I was going to add it earlier but got distracted so apologies for that. Per the guidelines atWP:YOUTUBE, it shouldn't in general be used as a ref, particularly when it is copyrighted content. I see you added a reliable source and I've added the ref template to your edit so it all looks good now.Woody (talk)15:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MattSucci, with reference to your reverting I don't like to add anything furthermore in English Wikipedia. Maybe, users from the UK a.s.o. are not interested in correct data because in the U.K. Alpine Skiing World Cup is strange. My correction was correct - races were held on March 9th (DH) and 10th (SL) but you may believe in the FIS websites which are wrong. There are sources like the Swiss newspaper "Sport Zurich" which is one of the best information regarding Alpine Skiing World Cup. Nice regards:Skiscout (talk)20:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MattSucci. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "sandbox/MattSucci".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simplyedit the submission and remove the{{db-afc}},{{db-draft}}, or{{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions atthis link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.Legacypac (talk)07:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Please read my talks
Skiscout (talk)16:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MattSucci. Voting in the2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page, I suggest that the words “According to eyewitnesses, his face was fixed in a smile when he expired” should be changed to “According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired”.— Precedingunsigned comment added by80.2.20.163 (talk)09:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MattSucci. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 | Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello MattSucci, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
| Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use ofgeneral sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are describedhere.
Broadly,general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This meansuninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, ourstandards of behaviour, or relevantpolicies. Administrators may impose sanctions such asediting restrictions,bans, orblocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is loggedhere. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
MrClog (talk)23:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please be sure that when you update the numbers of cases, recoveries, and deaths of the coronavirus that you are doing so accurately. I just had to remove several changes that you made because the numbers that you gave were higher than those given in the source. Also make sure that whatever source you're using is the same one being used in the article.Display name 99 (talk)04:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful ofWP:3RR at2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 | Thanks for explaining so clearly.Surge_Elec (talk)16:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
Heya, sorry forthis edit, which undid some of your changes. I was just copyediting the "Cause" section, but it looks like when I switched to the VisualEditor to add a reference it must have also loaded up an old version of the entire page. I didn't mean to make the surrounding changes, which undid some of your work. It's been too long now to undo the edit wholesale, but I'm going to try to manually undo some of the unintended changes that may remain. I'll definitely be more careful and avoid using the VE on that article from now on.GorillaWarfare (talk)22:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a-lot of information on the article, care to discuss on the talkpage? -Knowledgekid87 (talk)18:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
| Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello, I'mFlix11. I noticed that you recently removed content fromPremier League records and statistics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use yoursandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thanks.Flix11 (talk)22:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's a bit exagerated to claim that leap years would betaken into account with the edit you reverted, as they're not at all in the age of death, for which there is no change, but only in the ranking, for which the change seems reasonable since some persons indeed were alive one more day compared to others.Lerichard (talk)10:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could possibly agree, but as I am only one editor, that has 0% significance. This argument needs to be presented on the talk page and consensus gained.MattSucci (talk)11:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mMattythewhite. Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within theinfobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.
You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the|club-update= or|pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the|nationalteam-update= or|ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMYdate format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.
If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you,Mattythewhite (talk)21:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mGiantSnowman. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions toJordan Henderson have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use yoursandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theTeahouse. Thanks.GiantSnowman21:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to remove this.🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!10:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located atSpecial:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located atSpecial:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
GeneralNotability (talk)13:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MattSucci, you reverted my picture upload for the page of Meng Wanzhou. I just wanted to ask you what you meant with "Not Constructive", because the picture is better when it comes to resolution (the current one is horrible you must admit). Im not used to the english wikipedia, so i would appreciate if you enlighten me.Bugz000 (talk)17:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, english is not my native language so i didnt mean to vandalism ;) Thanks, ill give it another try.Bugz000 (talk)17:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I know how you find my edit as unexplained onAkhtar Raza Khan? 11:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Are you serious about Sydney being the world's longest city? If you do, please edit theSydney article with your sources. I have measured Perth, Sochi, and Mexico City's north-to-south length on the Google Map. The Formula One article appears to be a pretty accurate source.2001:8003:9008:1301:20F2:C605:12F8:6B80 (talk)12:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I made a small correction onSidemen (YouTube group) that's under pending review. Would you mind checking it ? Thank you. —2402:E280:2316:74:F5F6:13C3:C6C:2CF1 (talk)05:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove the editVenomwik (talk)17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
| Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello Mattsucci! You seem to have an interest in thePortal:Current events, so I wanted to invite you to theWikiProject of Current events! The WikiProject's goal is to manage information put in the portal's daily events as well as improve those articles listed in the portal. I am not sure if you really are interested in current events, but based on some of your recent contributions, I thought it would be a good idea to drop by, say hi, and invite you to the Wikiproject. Have an amazing day!Elijahandskip (talk)07:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10,000 edits wow congrats!—It'sCtrlwiki •talk •11:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made toRape of males: you may already know about them, but you might findWikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards thesandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to avandal when they've been previously warned.TylerBurden (talk)16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 | The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Congratulations on being in thetop 3 most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Great job. –Novem Linguae(talk)14:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Thank you for providing an explanation upon reverting my edit. I really appreciate it. It never occurred to me that an excessive use of one word was not an improvement to this particular article.
Although I do want to point out that we've got to leave plenty of room for doubt about the longevity claims regarding Sarah Knauss. We really should make that clear in the article, as there are at least a handful of claims of people in the U.S. having exceeded Knauss's lifespan (some reaching very well past 120). I know such claims are unverified, but they might very well be true. Who knows for sure?
I suggest we make a better edit to the article.Classicalfan626 (talk)19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Istrongly agree with the need to remove some unneeded trivia fluff, butplease don't remove the scientifically important and well-sourced information of the 4th longest-lived person ever on this planet so far (out of 100 billion people since the first mankind born), at your own discretion and not based on any Wikipedia rules or guidelines.
What are you coming to this encyclopedia site for? I saw your first post in 2012, but your purpose in joining here is primarily focused on only removal of trivia in longevity articles. Isn't it embarrassing?--Ayuta Tonomura (talk)21:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
InWalter Breuning page, he is 5th but even written that "5th oldest". Also why is you're okay to write 3rd place (asKane Tanaka page) but not in 4th?
4th oldest human on recorded history is clearly notable rank and, as so many other Wikipedia article shown (just like "4th largest earthquake ever" -2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, and also many sportsperson and film articles, etc.), meetWP:GNG. That content is clearly meetWP:NOT,WP:V,WP:RS and not meetWikipedia:Patent nonsense (=clearly "trivia" contents).--21:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
4th oldest human on recorded history is clearly notable rank andWP:GNG as so many other Wikipedia article shownjust like "fourth most powerful earthquake in the world since modern record-keeping began in 1900." - witten in the page:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. That content is clearly meetWP:NOT,WP:V,WP:RS and not meetWikipedia:Patent nonsense (=clearly "trivia" contents). If my content in Lucile Randon should remove, then other page's content about ranking should remove as well.
like this, please don't be too emotional with symbols like "!". It is neither constructive nor encyclopedic, it only aggravates your impression of others.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk)22:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ayuta Tonomura: I ignore your messages because you are an arrogant editor, you are unreasonable, in my opinion rude and your English is at times quite difficult to understand. Sincerely,MattSucci (talk)14:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ayuta Tonomura: If you would like to look at TFBCT1's talk page, you will see an entry for Jules Théobald where I advise him of a potential problem regarding him removing the link/redirect. He was perfectly reasonable and gracious and restored the redirect instantly. Regards,MattSucci (talk)14:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit which you saying in edit-summary: "Doesn't belong in the lede. In a subsection possibly." is also disagree and thinking it is unconstructive (You just deleted my contents and do not move it to subsection. Seems like this user's usual practice.). See examples in other similar articles like Sarah Knauss and Kane Tanaka, their all-time ranking (xth oldest person ever) is written at the lead-section, not sub-section only. The same is true for earthquake articles and others.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Please don't come back soon! Regards,MattSucci (talk)22:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this is a criticism, because I know you are an experienced editor, but I notice you have been diligent in reverting this user's unexplained edits, until their impressive outbursthere, which I noticed on RCP. In fact all but a handful of their edits this month are tagged Reverted, which is why I started looking at by whom. I think you're right after repeatedly asking for an edit summary, but if I report them on AIV an administrator might interpret all the reverts as stalking. I used a Twinkle level 3 because you had already issued (at least) 2 warnings in handwritten text, so the end is nigh. Just letting you know.David Brooks (talk)14:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MattSucci,
I've started adiscussion at the talk page for the current events portal relating to your recent reverts of my recent entry. Please help to provide your thoughts on the matter.
I have removed the entry, pending the result of the discussion.
Carter00000 (talk)09:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MattSucci,
I noted that you mentioned in your reply to my thread that you felt that the eligiblity of items in Portal: Current Events should be reviewed.
I would like to indicate that I agree with your assessment that the eligiblity criteria should be streamlined. I myself have removed a number of entries since starting to contribute to the portal, so I understand your concern.
I also note the the direction of the eligiblity criteria can sometimes be very arbitrary, with certain regions of the world prioritized, or not prioritized.
Perhaps we could have a discussion here or start a discussion in the portal talk page?Carter00000 (talk)05:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Carter00000 (talk)12:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After you said that I'm retired at your user page, there's some of anonymously IP user like "2A02:8388:27C2:3A80:A5B6:38DB:BC22:371E" who similar features and characteristics as you.
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits toTekla Juniewicz while logged out. Wikipedia'spolicy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account beingblocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals yourIP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. --Ayuta Tonomura (talk)06:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onMargaret Romans. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.slakr\ talk /23:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiyo_Miyako put it thirugh afd at the very least like what happened whenNabi Tajima was restored atleast we can gain a consensus thats from editors who still edit in the topic and even back then the "consensus" to delete only happned after a afd that was overturned as keep was ignored and another was started 3 months after said drvSteven547 (talk)13:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk)14:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanamonde93 (talk)23:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]Fantastic news!!!
I, for one, am very glad to see the back of you. Now I can get back to repairing and tidying all of Wikipedia's supercentenarian articles.MattSucci (talk)15:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
all i want is for there to be a discussion regarding the page why am I being attacked for just asking for a discussion. But youweren't "just asking for a discussion", and I know you know that. You were block evading, you were trying to unilaterally overturn a deletion discussion, you were edit-warring, and you were belittling the editor you were edit-warring with. If you want to be able to get this discussion going, ever, at any point in the future, you're going to have to stop doingall of those things. You're going to have to engage with other editors in patience and good faith. Do you think you can do that? --asilvering (talk)15:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Please consider taking the standard offer, so that you can return to the community and go back to editing." Go back to editing what, exactly? Using his two accounts and IP address, it would appear that 99% of his edits were purposefully disruptive or at the very least, totally nonconstructive. I have taken approximately an hour to read through the talkpage of Wwew345t, and to be honest, I am completely shocked that he was allowed to get away with so much, for so long. His tone was arrogant, obnoxious and extremely unfriendly, and let's not get into the spelling, grammar, and punctuation. To get to my point, I am astonished at the conciliatory language that has been used by some administrators, there and here, when addressing this "editor". I have my own faults, but I am completely innocuous in comparison.MattSucci (talk)21:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have beencanvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. Whilefriendly notices are allowed, they should belimited andnonpartisan in distribution and should reflect aneutral point of view. Please do not post notices which areindiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certainpoint of view or side of a debate, or which areselectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle ofconsensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.Katzrockso (talk)08:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason you decided to turn her page into a redirect? I don't recall seeing an AfD or a discussion on her talk page. It was also approved by Articles for Creation from a draft.EytanMelech (talk)01:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 | A barnstar for you! |
| Congratulations on being the top 3rdpending changes reviewer during 25 September—24 October 2025, accepting over 150 changes. :)[source/credit]randomdude121 16:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you recently performed a reversion and like to seek consensus.
moved to article talk |
|---|
There are 3 main questions I have:
|
MetalBreaksAndBends (talk)23:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another commentary like your previous ones ([4]) and you will be blocked. Consider this a final warning.Isabelle Belato🏳🌈14:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?14:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MattSucci(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If stating one's opinion in a couple of talkpage replies is grounds for a permanent block, then so be it, however, I sincerely believe what I wrote and diversity of opinion should be nurtured and not stifled or hindered. Also, I was warned and apart from a sarcastic "too honest for you?", I haven't written anything else that could be considered problematicMattSucci (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)MattSucci (talk)15:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Your conduct onTalk:Killing of Renee Good, withSpecial:Diff/1332202012 being the most egregious example, constitutesbattleground conduct and falls far short of the"behavioural best practice" expected for a page covered under multiplecontentious topics, includingWP:CT/AP (post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people) andWP:CT/BLP (living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles), both of which you havepreviously been made aware of. Your block is indefinite, not permanent, and a successful appeal would require you to acknowledge your policy violation and convince the reviewing administrator that you will not repeat your polemical comments. I find it unlikely that you would be unblocked unless you are, at the very minimum,topic banned fromRenee Good as anunblock condition. — Newslinger talk16:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Sak SURE~2026-38296-2 (talk)13:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]