User talk:Sumausa

July 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Larry Elder have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Larry Elder was changed by Sumausa (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952104 on 2021-07-21T10:28:53+00:00

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try 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's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.   Acroterion   (talk)   14:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Waukesha Christmas Parade attack) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You are warned to stop attacking other editors in edit summaries or anywhere else - if this continues, youi may face a full site block. Use the talkpage, and stop characterizing other editors as antagonists.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Again - any more attacks against other editors for daring to disagree with you will result in a site-wide block. You're not the first person to show up with a POV-based agenda that violates Wikipedia policy, and immediately complaining about "censorship" is a red flag for blindness for any POV but one's own. Consensensus is required, and the six millioon-odd articles on Wikipedia are evidence of its attainability. Diving into culture-war topics with an agenda and deafness to other editors is a poor way to gain experience with how the encyclopedia works.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on your intransigent response at ANI, I have extended the partial block to a week. If you start doing the same thing again when the block expires, it may become indefinite or site-wide.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You are free to have any conclusion you wish, but investigators have not stated what they believe the motive for the attack is. Until they have done so, we are not at liberty to speculate. We are to document reliable sources, not come to conclusions on our own. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sumausa speaking.

I want to thank you for the help you gave me on seeing where/what the rules are. When I asked Andy in my original edit what rules he claimed I broke, he use some odd acronym I have never seen before and could not identify what it meant.

I should clarify though that I don't have a "POV agenda". I only have one agenda: To inform the public of the truth. My contribution was well-worded, point-of-view neutral, and well-sourced from credible sources.

When Andy deleted my entire contribution, I asked him to tell me exactly what was wrong with my post. Instead of giving any details, he referred me to the talk page. That didn't seem helpful. Andy came across to me as less interested in helping me and more interested in not allowing my contribution to be visible to the public. When I asked him specifically to tell me what rules I violated, among them he cited the "reputable sources" rule, but did not specify which source of mine was disreputable, as I had cited several sources. Then I discovered that on the talk page that he referred me to that Fox News was mentioned by another editor as a "partisan right-wing tabloid". Though Andy did not specify Fox News was the source he objected to, when I asked him which source is disreputable, he did not answer. This felt evasive and unethical to me. For him to delete my contribution on the claim that one or more of my sources are not reputable, but then not to specify which source he has a problem with, is not right. I think if Andy wants to claim my source is not reputable, he should state which source(s) are the problem and why.

Andy also claimed that my contribution violated the "biography on living persons" rule. I have researched this page now. It essentially says that claims or descriptions of a living person must be verifiable, have a neutral point of view, and not contain any original research. My contribution to the page contained no original research, had a neutral point of view, and had numerous sources to verify the claims made. It was completely substantiated. I don't see how my post violated the BLP rule. When I asked Andy how my contribution violated this rule, he did not specify.

I am not sure what a "culture war" is. I don't know what you mean by that.

A man killed six people and the police called it an intentional act. All my contribution accomplished was to inform the public of Darrell Brooks' own beliefs and statements from his own words, to allow the public to understand the totality of Darrell Brooks' character. Which an encyclopedia should give that to the public. My contribution did not declare or assert a motive for his actions or alleged actions. It came to no conclusions. My contribution explicitly stated that a motive was not definitively confirmed.

But yet, based on technicalities, my valuable contribution has been censored. I don't think this is fair.

I will not be editing the Waukesha Parade Car Attack page again. I want to thank you Acroterion and Andy for letting me know what it is like to put time and effort into trying to add a contribution to Wikipedia. It's not easy.

God bless you both. ​

- Sumausa


 * Consensus is not a technicality, nor is the BLP policy something that can be ignored. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the news, and the perpetrator's actual motives will be established in time and sourceable from a broad cross-section and consensus of reputable sources. In the meantime, until there is a broad consensus of sourcing within the media and a consensus for inclusion within Wikipedia, a de minimis approach is called for, not a blunt-force demand that consensus and policy be ignored. Remember Richard Jewell?  Acroterion   (talk)  

You're totally right. Consensus is important. In the case of Richard Jewell, a consensus of experts in law enforcement and the media at the time concluded that he was the bomber. Fortunately for Richard, they turned out to be wrong. In the case of Kevin Strickland, a consensus of 12 jurors (and a judge, and a prosecutor) concluded 43 years ago that he committed three murders. Though he has just been exonerated and released from prison. A consensus can still be factually wrong.

I don't call for ignoring consensus. But I do note that it is an imperfect system. A large number of people can be wrong about something. Sometimes only one voice speaks the truth.

All that I ask for is consideration that Andy did not handle this in the best way. By refusing to specify which sources I used in my article, which he claimed were "not reputable", I don't think that's a productive way to handle a dispute. If I deleted a contribution that Andy made and vaguely claimed that he didn't have reputable sources, and then refused to specify which source had an issue, and then complained to you or another moderator asking to ban Andy rather than simply making my case directly to Andy for what exactly is wrong with his contribution, then that would mean I would not be trying to reach a consensus with him. I would be pulling rank on him rather than treating him with dignity. Yet when he does the same to me, it seems like the mods on here don't see things that way. All I ask for is to be treated fairly.

Have a blessed weekend.


 * Stop focusing on individual editors - it's expressly discouraged. Stick to content, and listen to experienced editors, like Andy, who explain policy. Most of all, don't use blunt force to try to insert content.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Have a good day.

It is a fact police have not stated any motive yet. Until then we can't speculate. News media have speculated based on social media posts, but those are typically tabloid style sources. Wikipedia is not about finding some abstract "Truth", but rather we're here to summarize high quality sources, not tabloid speculation. It's scholarship rather than investigation. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Krystle Matthews.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Krystle Matthews.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.postandcourier.com/news/berkeley-county-democrats-looking-to-hold-two-seats-in-republican-districts/article_4ced8968-09b5-11eb-8851-238a3daa4404.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Sumausa! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Mikaela Conley (June 3)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Murder_of_Mikaela_Conley Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by TheTechie was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wholly negative article, non-notable.

thetechie@enwiki :  ~/talk/  $  01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This poor innocent murdered woman had numerous articles written about her by major publications, but somehow in your biased mind she "wasn't notable" despite being front-page national news. Sheesh. Just because you personally never heard her name doesn't mean other people haven't. Also, an article being "negative" has no bearing on it's worthiness. One could make the argument that the Hitler Wikipedia page is 'negative', but is still worth having up so people know what evil looks like. Who even are you to say this page cannot exist? I demand the right to appeal this to a higher authority instead of some anonymous guy who is entirely unaccountable. Sumausa (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)