User talk:SSIISS

SSIISS, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi SSIISS! 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

16:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The topic is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conflict of edit/autobiographical/potential sockpuppet issue at Paige Brooks --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello, I'm Antonioatrylia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Paige Brooks, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for vastly improving this article. I appreciate your help in making it better. Today, I made some formatting changes, which I think are improvements and make it easier to read, etc., and I also added a few more items to the titlebox. Certain sentences needed to be relocated to the appropriate topic area. (i.e. L'Vegue should appear under Modeling as opposed to Film and Television.) Since it will be very difficult for me to re-add the improvements individually at this juncture, (and I do think you will agree that the formatting changes are making the article better), I will just do a revert and then an immediate edit to remove the added sources that you mention above and make sure that your sources stay. I think that way, we both can keep our good edits. I am only doing a revert because it is so much easier, not because I do not like or agree with your work and research. I hope you find this agreeable since it is so much easier for me. Thanks, again, for your help! SSIISS (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again, Antonioatrylia. I was in the process of removing sources that you thought were unreliable, but then I realized that I have no idea to which sources you are referring. Could you please provide a list of sources that you think I should remove and I will do so? Or, I will provide more information on those sources so you can judge for yourself. All of the sources that I am using are verified (newspapers, magazines, legitimate websites, etc.) However, please let me know if it is done correctly. I will list the sources here for you and you can tell me which ones you think need more research, etc. I do strongly prefer the formatting and clean-up and hope that you like it, too. SSIISS (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources for your perusal: "Hall of Fame - Miss Alabama USA/Teen USA USA Pageants". Miss Alabama USA/Teen USA USA Pageants. February 15, 2014. Retrieved March 21, 2017. Amo, Gary. "In Store Summer Fashions for Her", Beverly Hills 213 Magazine Press, D. (2004). Your Modeling Career: You Don't Have to Be a Superstar to Succeed. Allworth Press. p. 251. ISBN 978-1-58115-986-8. Retrieved March 21, 2017. "TPIRModels.com" Willis, J.; Monush, B. (2004). Screen World 2003. John Willis Screen World. Hal Leonard. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-55783-526-0. Retrieved March 21, 2017. "IMDb Men In Black II Full Cast & Crew "IMDb Salutes Hollywood Blondes - Paige Brooks" "Official Website of Paige Brooks" "Official Website of Paige Brooks" "L'Vegue Magazine Aug 2016 issue". issuu. August 17, 2016. Retrieved March 21, 2017. "Official Website of Paige Brooks" Amo, Gary. "In Store Summer Fashions for Her", Beverly Hills 213 Magazine SSIISS (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paige Brooks. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Antonioatrylia (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very disappointing and unnecessary post, it seems... I would like to get your help. The changes that I made objectively improved the article (formatting, sentence topic placement, etc.), but I really would like your assistance with the sourcing, as I asked in my above posts. Please do not revert my changes. Instead, please help me improve them. The entire idea is to have an improved article. I am certainly not in an editing war with you. I just think that my changes should not be reverted because they are good. Please discuss with me prior to reverting to your edits. I really think that we both can reach an agreement on how the article should appear. I want to work WITH you (not in opposition to you)! Please let me know your thoughts on the sources, as I asked in my above conversations, and I will make the changes. Thank you so much for your help. It is appreciated! :) SSIISS (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SSIISS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Inaccurate accusation

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the overlap in edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Missalusa. Yamla (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide 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.

I am being inaccurately accused by another editor and have been blocked. Multiple people live in my household, so there might be an issue with an IP address mix-up???

I have tried to reason with User, Antonioatrylia, to no avail.

My editing changes are reasonable, factual, verified, and improved his editing (and formatting) of the article. As opposed to helping make the article better, he requested for my account to be blocked. This was an inappropriate request, and I am therefore requesting for my account to be unblocked.

Also, please tell me how to deal with an editor that refuses to listen to reason and continuously reverts my good faith edits. Does Wikipedia provide a recourse for editors making malicious accusations and reverts? What recourse do I have against that type of behavior?

Thank you! SSIISS (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]