User talk:Hugsruing

Charles Thomson (journalist)
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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

Seeking guidelines
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)
 * , check at WP:RSNP —valereee (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:Bananasasas&#32;per the evidence presented at 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:.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 18:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 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)

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)

UTRS decline
 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 " . Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 23:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 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)
 * This block was based on CheckUser data - 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)
 * Hugsruing, please explain the relationship between yourself and User:Crimsonundercoat. As documented at 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)
 * 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)
 * , we've received nothing.  Maxim (talk)  22:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)