User talk:Isaacsorry

Don't misconstrue what users suspect you as a sockpuppet for

Rearranging leads of articles is not "clean up". Stop giving misleading edit summaries. Also, in case you were unaware despite mentioning them several times, Tjdrum2000 was known for routinely rearranging and rewriting the leads of articles, which is exactly what you're doing. Instead, you want to try and minimise the issue and say that you're suspected of sockpuppetry simply because of changing "rapper" to "recording artist", which, might I remind you, is something I raised here, but something that the actual user who reported you for sockpuppetry—TheAmazingPeanuts—did not even mention. Ss112 12:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like a personal issue on your behalf. You seem very serious and obsessed with the thought of me being this user "Tjdrum2000". As I said before, I'm not this user. It's got to the point where it seems like you're using my page as some sort of 'vent place'. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't act self-important like you've been on anyone's radar long enough for them to be "obsessed" with you. Who are you, Mariah Carey? I was telling you to not act all innocent and get things twisted on my talk page. I'll say this for the final time, so please read very carefully: The user TheAmazingPeanuts is the one who reported you for sockpuppetry. I didn't. If I were as obsessed as you claim, I think I'd have been the one who reported you in the first place. In case you haven't seen, I haven't even responded on the sockpuppetry investigation talk page. So obsessed I can't even be bothered to provide evidence! Please make what you say make sense. You come to my talk page after blanking the prior notices to find a section you hadn't even replied in or presumably even knew existed prior to vent at me/the users who responded there, so I think you've got it twisted as to who's using what to vent. Regardless, you need to start listening to what users more experienced than yourself tell you about our guidelines and the way we do things on Wikipedia, or you'll find yourself blocked one way or another, sockpuppetry or no. If you choose not to take that advice and continue to tell users like me that we're "obsessed", venting at you instead of trying to give you advice and meanwhile continue rearranging leads, recategorising artists, using unreliable sources and edit warring with users who've reverted you, then that's your own problem. We tried. Ss112 12:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you thought that the "advice" you've given regarding "clean up" is incorrect? If you actually looked at the articles history, you will see that there was repeated information in the lead and it was all 'jumbled up'. That's why it's a clean up. Also, when it comes to leads they are there to be improved. If you do not think an article like Views does not need a huge improvement to its lead, considering its huge success, then you should look at other album articles where the lead has a significant amount of information in comparison to an article like Views. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I never said leads could not be improved, and this is not regarding one specific article. I didn't even mention Views. You are continuing to assume you know what I'm talking about based on previous examples or specific incidents and I'm tiring of this particular discussion. Ss112 13:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)