User talk:MattSucci

This user may have left Wikipedia. MattSucci has not edited Wikipedia since 17 September 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, MattSucci, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Besse Cooper. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

78.26 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity "milestones"

Hi Matt,

I notice in an edit summary for Elsie Thompson that there is a "consensus is that these milestones aren't necessary". I'd be grateful for a link to the discussion on this as I totally agree with the consensus. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that this topic has not been discussed by the wider wiki community. My opinion is that such so-called "milestones" are insignificant trivia unless there is a report in the non-fan-based community. In other words, virtually nothing that is claimed to be a milestone is actually important to enough to be included. I would accept being the oldest worldwide any/male/female, the oldest in a country, probably the top-ten ever and at most top-20 ever. Anything else is just fan fluff. Besse Cooper is probably the worst for this and one which I tried to clean up a while ago, unfortunately there were too many fans and even something as obviously insignificant as becoming the 15th oldest was allowed to stand. I though of raising this at WP:TRIVIA but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing War!

I wondered if/when this might happen. The 110 club and other acolytes of the GRG seem to have extreme difficulty in differentiating between the GRG and wikipedia and also understanding/following wiki guidelines. User CanadianPaul is an experienced editor and I think an admin so when he says that milestones violate guidelines and policies it is safe to assume that the removal of the milestones sections is entirely the correct thing to do. If there is persistence in reverting it can be taken to WP:ANI and I am sure they will concur. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that Optimist117 is a brand new user who has only edited 2 articles, which makes me think they are a 110Club member and/or former wiki editor who created the account specifically for the purpose of editing the articles (perhaps this issue has been discussed off-wiki), while Mjjd226 has a history of disruptive editing which has veered occasionally into vandalism. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to burst in on this conversation, but I was coming here to discuss more or less the same issue. If the reverting keeps happen, I would honestly take the issue to WP:ANI right away rather than wasting any more time reverting back. The more either of you participate in an edit war, the more likely reporting all this to WP:ANI will boomerang back to you. You're making good faith efforts to discuss the issue on the talk page and, whether or not there's consensus is debatable (I would say there is, personally, but that's just me), but I think most admins will agree that as long as discussion is going on on the talk page, people shouldn't be reverting back and forth. If the milestones stay up for a day or two because editors are refusing to discuss the issue, that is better than getting yourselves blocked along with them. And if you do take it to ANI, make sure to mention the arbitration case to provide the proper context for longevity articles. Canadian Paul 21:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice is duly noted! I am somewhat an amateur on here, so I find such advice invaluable in helping myself to become a better editor. Sincerely, MattSucci (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If there are any more reverts we'll take it to ANI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last surviving 1800s-born people

This looks like it is more trivia fanfluff. I suspect it violates various policies/guidelines such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SAL. I wonder if there are sufficient grounds for Afd? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SAL I'm not too sure which codes it breaks, however it is certainly an unnecessary article, everything here is in oldest people, add to that the fact that it was created by that futurist 110 guy. I'm afraid I'm too much of a layman in the codes of Wikipedia to be able to give you a consructive answer. Sincerely, MattSucci (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that the article has little worth as it is! However Instead of the 1800s (Not particularly significant) it should/could have been about the remaining living people from the 19th century (much more significant)! Whatever the outcome, as I said earlier the article contains nothing that isn't already contained within other more refined articles, and has, in my opinion no business being on Wikipedia! MattSucci (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MattSucci. You have new messages at Talk:Elsa Moberg.
Message added 22:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OlYeller21^Talktome 22:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Hennessy

Ah, OK. I'll undo it, then, and redo the edit manually. That should fix the problem. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is odd. I checked the diff, and the only change noted was your removal of the category; nothing else was indicated. What was the error you were seeing? You're not the first person today to tell me that you're seeing an error that I'm not, and I'm beginning to wonder what's going on with AWB. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MattSucci. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Century break, 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. Betty Logan (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the John Parrott page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MattSucci (February 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KGirlTrucker81 was:

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:MattSucci/sandbox/MattSucci and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! MattSucci, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Clarkson

I've added an archive url to the link now on the article. I was going to add it earlier but got distracted so apologies for that. Per the guidelines at WP:YOUTUBE, it shouldn't in general be used as a ref, particularly when it is copyrighted content. I see you added a reliable source and I've added the ref template to your edit so it all looks good now. Woody (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Downhill and Slalom Race Abetone 1968

Dear MattSucci, with reference to your reverting I don't like to add anything furthermore in English Wikipedia. Maybe, users from the UK a.s.o. are not interested in correct data because in the U.K. Alpine Skiing World Cup is strange. My correction was correct - races were held on March 9th (DH) and 10th (SL) but you may believe in the FIS websites which are wrong. There are sources like the Swiss newspaper "Sport Zurich" which is one of the best information regarding Alpine Skiing World Cup. Nice regards: Skiscout (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may also do it concerning Ingemar Stenmark's World Cup titles in the Giant or tied result in the slalom with his team mate Stig Strand or the tied result 1986/87 in the Men's giant - German Wikipedia is better - I would like to suggest that you may read the article about Stenmark and why he is not the winner in a row (Mr. Hemmi di win in 1976/77), and I would like to suggest to read the German Wikipedia articles about the other seasons a.s.o.; but there is no matter if you will not believe - people in the U.K. cannot know about regulations. Nice regards! --Skiscout (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Your draft article, User:MattSucci/sandbox/MattSucci

Hello, MattSucci. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/MattSucci".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

Please read my talks

Skiscout (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MattSucci. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request for Abraham Lincoln

In the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page, I suggest that the words “According to eyewitnesses, his face was fixed in a smile when he expired” should be changed to “According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.163 (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MattSucci. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello MattSucci, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

MrClog (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus information

Hello. Please be sure that when you update the numbers of cases, recoveries, and deaths of the coronavirus that you are doing so accurately. I just had to remove several changes that you made because the numbers that you gave were higher than those given in the source. Also make sure that whatever source you're using is the same one being used in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Please be mindful of WP:3RR at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for explaining so clearly. Surge_Elec (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Heya, sorry for this edit, which undid some of your changes. I was just copyediting the "Cause" section, but it looks like when I switched to the VisualEditor to add a reference it must have also loaded up an old version of the entire page. I didn't mean to make the surrounding changes, which undid some of your work. It's been too long now to undo the edit wholesale, but I'm going to try to manually undo some of the unintended changes that may remain. I'll definitely be more careful and avoid using the VE on that article from now on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MattSucci (March 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:MattSucci and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:MattSucci, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Tanaka

You removed a-lot of information on the article, care to discuss on the talkpage? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm Flix11. I noticed that you recently removed content from Premier League records and statistics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edit

I think that it's a bit exagerated to claim that leap years would be taken into account with the edit you reverted, as they're not at all in the age of death, for which there is no change, but only in the ranking, for which the change seems reasonable since some persons indeed were alive one more day compared to others. Lerichard (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could possibly agree, but as I am only one editor, that has 0% significance. This argument needs to be presented on the talk page and consensus gained. MattSucci (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox timestamps

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.

You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jordan Henderson have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Giant Snowman 21:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Chicdat

Hello, MattSucci. You have new messages at Chicdat's talk page.
Message added 10:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You're free to remove this. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

GeneralNotability (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Picture of Meng Wanzhou

Hello MattSucci, you reverted my picture upload for the page of Meng Wanzhou. I just wanted to ask you what you meant with "Not Constructive", because the picture is better when it comes to resolution (the current one is horrible you must admit). Im not used to the english wikipedia, so i would appreciate if you enlighten me. Bugz000 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bugz000. I admit that the resolution was bad, but is just one photo in the place of another with a caption that was grammatically incorrect. Should you retry to change, I promise not to revert. MattSucci (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, english is not my native language so i didnt mean to vandalism ;) Thanks, ill give it another try. Bugz000 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

May I know how you find my edit as unexplained on Akhtar Raza Khan? 11:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

An explanation needs to be given for any edit, especially when removing images and content! MattSucci (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney as the world's longest city

Are you serious about Sydney being the world's longest city? If you do, please edit the Sydney article with your sources. I have measured Perth, Sochi, and Mexico City's north-to-south length on the Google Map. The Formula One article appears to be a pretty accurate source. 2001:8003:9008:1301:20F2:C605:12F8:6B80 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Review

Hello, I made a small correction on Sidemen (YouTube group) that's under pending review. Would you mind checking it ? Thank you. —2402:E280:2316:74:F5F6:13C3:C6C:2CF1 (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian border

Don't remove the edit Venomwik (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the Current Event WikiProject

Hello Mattsucci! You seem to have an interest in the Portal:Current events, so I wanted to invite you to the WikiProject of Current events! The WikiProject's goal is to manage information put in the portal's daily events as well as improve those articles listed in the portal. I am not sure if you really are interested in current events, but based on some of your recent contributions, I thought it would be a good idea to drop by, say hi, and invite you to the Wikiproject. Have an amazing day! Elijahandskip (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

10,000 edits wow congrats!—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 11:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Rape of males: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. TylerBurden (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Congratulations on being in the top 3 most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Great job. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Knauss

Thank you for providing an explanation upon reverting my edit. I really appreciate it. It never occurred to me that an excessive use of one word was not an improvement to this particular article.

Although I do want to point out that we've got to leave plenty of room for doubt about the longevity claims regarding Sarah Knauss. We really should make that clear in the article, as there are at least a handful of claims of people in the U.S. having exceeded Knauss's lifespan (some reaching very well past 120). I know such claims are unverified, but they might very well be true. Who knows for sure?

I suggest we make a better edit to the article. Classicalfan626 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About your purpose to come here

I strongly agree with the need to remove some unneeded trivia fluff, but please don't remove the scientifically important and well-sourced information of the 4th longest-lived person ever on this planet so far (out of 100 billion people since the first mankind born), at your own discretion and not based on any Wikipedia rules or guidelines.

What are you coming to this encyclopedia site for? I saw your first post in 2012, but your purpose in joining here is primarily focused on only removal of trivia in longevity articles. Isn't it embarrassing?--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Walter Breuning page, he is 5th but even written that "5th oldest". Also why is you're okay to write 3rd place (as Kane Tanaka page) but not in 4th?

4th oldest human on recorded history is clearly notable rank and, as so many other Wikipedia article shown (just like "4th largest earthquake ever" - 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, and also many sportsperson and film articles, etc.), meet WP:GNG. That content is clearly meet WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS and not meet Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (=clearly "trivia" contents).--21:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ayuta Tonomura: My 'purpose' of being here is absolutely none of your business!! I don't edit for personal pleasure, rather, I edit what needs to be edited to help keep this encyclopedia as encyclopedic as possible, and not a fan site where any fool can add any trivia he or she deems noteworthy, whether it is sourced in another article or not! MattSucci (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4th oldest human on recorded history is clearly notable rank and WP:GNG as so many other Wikipedia article shown just like "fourth most powerful earthquake in the world since modern record-keeping began in 1900." - witten in the page: 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. That content is clearly meet WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS and not meet Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (=clearly "trivia" contents). If my content in Lucile Randon should remove, then other page's content about ranking should remove as well.

like this, please don't be too emotional with symbols like "!". It is neither constructive nor encyclopedic, it only aggravates your impression of others.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayuta Tonomura: Given the hyperbole in your edit summaries and your "Isn't it embarassing?" comment above, I'd say MattSucci's response to you was well-measured. I suggest you seek dispute resolution.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr/Mrs. User:Ponyo: I agree, thanks. Sorry for bit heat-up.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr/Mrs. User:Ponyo: MattSucci continue to un-constructive and unreasonable deletion[1] and without responding most of my comments in this page discussion. What do you think?--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are not unreasonable, you just don't agree with them. This is a content dispute, which is why I directed you to follow dispute reolution.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayuta Tonomura:, I have provided an edit-summary with every edit and I have advised you to take this discussion to the appropriate talkpage. I have nothing further to add. MattSucci (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this edit which you saying in edit-summary: "Doesn't belong in the lede. In a subsection possibly." is also disagree and thinking it is unconstructive (You just deleted my contents and do not move it to subsection. Seems like this user's usual practice.). See examples in other similar articles like Sarah Knauss and Kane Tanaka, their all-time ranking (xth oldest person ever) is written at the lead-section, not sub-section only. The same is true for earthquake articles and others.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep ignoring the above my message(s) and continue other edits like [2] a lot? It's the act of ignoring Wikipedia's rules for making consensus.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayuta Tonomura: I ignore your messages because you are an arrogant editor, you are unreasonable, in my opinion rude and your English is at times quite difficult to understand. Sincerely, MattSucci (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayuta Tonomura: If you would like to look at TFBCT1's talk page, you will see an entry for Jules Théobald where I advise him of a potential problem regarding him removing the link/redirect. He was perfectly reasonable and gracious and restored the redirect instantly. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for some of my English was bad (for example: In summany of [3], I want to say "you may be the reason of block or ban from Wikipedia." but forgot to add "Wikipedia"). I apologize for it and I will be more careful from now on.

But it's a quite shame to ignore my opinions as "arrogant editor", even though I've given the right grounds, examples and reasons. It is unconstructive for you to ignore the following my comment, and probably many editors will consider you as editor who deviate from the spirit of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines.:

This edit which you saying in edit-summary: "Doesn't belong in the lede. In a subsection possibly." is also disagree and thinking it is unconstructive (You just deleted my contents and do not move it to subsection. Seems like this user's usual practice.). See examples in other similar articles like Sarah Knauss and Kane Tanaka, their all-time ranking (xth oldest person ever) is written at the lead-section, not sub-section only. The same is true for earthquake articles and others.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to say more about other thing, but for now I have no intention of continuing editing in this area further. Because I'm disappointed in you. But once I'm ready in the future, I'll start participating again in the field of longevity articles.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come back soon! Regards, MattSucci (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sof1a s1ng3r reversions

Don't take this is a criticism, because I know you are an experienced editor, but I notice you have been diligent in reverting this user's unexplained edits, until their impressive outburst here, which I noticed on RCP. In fact all but a handful of their edits this month are tagged Reverted, which is why I started looking at by whom. I think you're right after repeatedly asking for an edit summary, but if I report them on AIV an administrator might interpret all the reverts as stalking. I used a Twinkle level 3 because you had already issued (at least) 2 warnings in handwritten text, so the end is nigh. Just letting you know. David Brooks (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidBrooks: No citicism taken! I may have been a bit gung-ho with reverting everything that wasn't already reverted by other editors, but I just presumed that they hadn't been noticed, and as you correctly stated, I have warned the editor on a few occasions and I'm not the only one to have done so. I'm sure a few of his/her edits contained constructive information, but it would be difficult to sift out the good from the vast majority of bad edits. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bay Airlines Reverts

Hi MattSucci,

I've started a discussion at the talk page for the current events portal relating to your recent reverts of my recent entry. Please help to provide your thoughts on the matter.

I have removed the entry, pending the result of the discussion.

Carter00000 (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at Portal Talk: Current Events

Hi MattSucci,

I noted that you mentioned in your reply to my thread that you felt that the eligiblity of items in Portal: Current Events should be reviewed.

I would like to indicate that I agree with your assessment that the eligiblity criteria should be streamlined. I myself have removed a number of entries since starting to contribute to the portal, so I understand your concern.

I also note the the direction of the eligiblity criteria can sometimes be very arbitrary, with certain regions of the world prioritized, or not prioritized.

Perhaps we could have a discussion here or start a discussion in the portal talk page? Carter00000 (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carter00000: I think a discussion is long, long overdue, but I doubt enough editors are interested enough to make a difference. I started a discussion about Nigerian gubernatorial elections which I believe has no business being on the page, and apart from User:IJBall and the original editor, who is adamant that regional elections in an obscure Nigerian state are of international importance, no one contributed, even after I left messages on many talk-pages of editors who regularly edit the current events portal. So, good luck and I will add my thoughts as and when others do the same. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice (Alsoriano97)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Carter00000 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About your possibility abuse of WP:SOCK

After you said that I'm retired at your user page, there's some of anonymously IP user like "2A02:8388:27C2:3A80:A5B6:38DB:BC22:371E" who similar features and characteristics as you. Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Tekla Juniewicz while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. --Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]