User talk:Lasvegasnewsman

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Croonerman, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what their is to "investigate." Wikipedia requires a referenced source (as the Las Vegas Sun is). You were provided with a link to that story that "backs up the statement." Clearly, you have something personal against this artist to refusing updates, and from the history as I've read it on his page, you've been following this artist for quite some time, determined to undermine his work). I'm just calling it like I see it, or else why continuously remove factual statements that are supported with references by bonafied journalists, as Robin Leach clearly is?

I can understand why you feel that way Croonerman, you've said something identical almost everytime you get caught. I wonder why User:Bbb23 patrols that article too, or maybe why User:Hirolovesswords does? Clearly we all have conspired with everyone else that has attempted to hold you down in the last 20 years. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Get caught doing what? Providing accurate information that is properly sourced, which you then remove for absolutely no valid reason?

I guess I find it rather interesting that you say you don't know much about wikipedia and you are just learning the ropes but you know what proper sourcing is. That's a pretty good indicator you aren't what you are trying to portray. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Uhm..."Hell In A Bucket"...I'm at a loss. Would you like to see ID? Your response is absolutely ridiculous. The addition you've removed was from a bonafied and credible news source. I feel at this point I'm merely documenting your clear personal issues over this subject so that someone above your intellectual paygrade eventually supercedes what you're doing. Regardless of who you "think I am," the addition was relevant, and your removal of it baseless. What does it matter who I am anyway? It was a proper addition, correctly sourced, and are indeed facts based on the information Wikipedia requires. You've clearly had little concern for the actual truth with some of the items you've permitted (for instance, one cannot "sue a hospital" "pro se" in Massachusetts, but you claim it anyway when you say that Mr. Evans could not afford the filing fee (a case being represented on contigency by a law firm...who pays the filing fee themselves).

So your argument appears to be, ridiculously, that as I'm learning the ropes...it's "Aha!" that I happen to know a few of the rules. It appears someone needs more to do with their time. For my part, I accurate referenced a new article, properly sourced, and you've removed it for no valid reason. I would ask that an editor above you review what has transpired here. No matter who I am, the removal of that new piece of information related to this subject is relevant and accurately sourced. This "editor" removed information solely for personal reasons. Otherwise, I'd ask another editor to ask him why he has removed the statement that he did.

It was removed for the same reason Bbb23 removed it the first time you added it using the Ip from Vegas, it's trivial promotion. It also matters as you know because we value honesty here, you have a proven track record of being less then honest and again like to point out that you are providing yet more evidence against yourself as Croonerman. Thanks for that, also if you are concerned about the newspaper that reported you were on welfare I'm sure if you ask them to print a retraction we would be happy to amend the article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, this makes no sense. Wikipedia is supposed to provide the public with information that is substantial. There is a historic element to the submission, as any editor there can see (including yourself). This is the first time a music video has been allowed to be filmed at The Bates Motel at Universal Studios, home to the iconic horror film, "Psycho." That is an important piece of information, is recent, and shows that the guy has "got up again" after losing his mother. The article is a reliable source, and Lords knows there are wikipedia pages by the thousands that list far less interesting information than that. Personal attacks aside, how do you recommend us updating this very big part of his career in a way that meets your personal standards. This is not "self promotion," it is listing a new career achievement that no other entertainer before him has ever accomplished before him. That's not self-promotion, it's documented history by a reliable source, that being Robin Leach of the Las Vegas Sun. It's no different a listing than "At Fenway."

Incidentally, you refer in your last response "...you were on welfare." Sir, I am not the subject. I'd be more than happy to sign a notarized statement to that fact along with my ID.

It doesn't matter what my personal standards are, the first thing is be honest. The administrators deal with sockpuppetry everyday and they make the decision to make those blocks. I report the evidence you provide and it's studied both technically and then behaviourally. I highly doubt even if you were unblocked on your main account would you ever be allowed to edit your own article. . The main thing that is different in "At Fenway" is that's in the baseball hall of fame, the new music video hasn't even made a ripple yet. When it becomes notable we will include it but a trivial mention in one article, is not something wikipedia will cover. As far as your identity or being on welfare the best response I have is contact the paper and talk to them but they are who we consider the reliable source and it stays sourced because they reported it that way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)