User talk:SugarBrother

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

See also this page.

SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see this page WP:COI and see whether you have any relationships that should be disclosed. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

SugarBrother, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi SugarBrother! 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 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

You need to get consensus on talk for content that's been reverted. Moreover, the New York Post is a tabloid that is not a valid source for controversial content involving living people. If there is valid content to be added, you should easily be able to find several mainstream reliable sources from which article content can be drawn. If you find such sourcing, please present a proposal on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked up the definition of edit warring. That is not what has been occurring. Please do not use deceptive titles for your concerns. Furthermore, why is the New York Post not considered a valid source? That's a slippery slope to begin determining what makes a source valid or not. I've seen plenty of sources used on wikipedia that are far less "valid" than the NY Post. -SugarBrother