User talk:Chimichangazzz

Chimichangazzz, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Chimichangazzz! 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 Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hi Chimichangazzz! I noticed your contributions to Nick Cannon and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cannon[edit]

Hello! I noticed you keep trying to insert that Nick Cannon is a "black supremacist" in his lead: [1]. Unfortunately, I read through the cited NY Times article and they never referred to him as a "black supremacist." Do you have another source where it might say that? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert[edit]

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.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Nick Cannon. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

Please discuss on the talk page, and don't revert anymore! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Volteer1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nick Fuentes 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. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Nick Fuentes. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. RacoonyRE ^{Message me}_{Contributions} 19:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your current edit-war spree[edit]

It would be wise if you cease doing this immediately, both at CNN and MSNBC, as multiple editors have reverse your changes. Discuss your concerns at the respective talk pages, or risk being blocked. ValarianB (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaged in edit warring[edit]

on CNN and MSNBC articles by repeatedly adding unsupported content. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just come off a block? Just askin' soibangla (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your long-term history of edit warring across multiple articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD: once your edits are contested you should seek consensus for them at the relevant article's talk page instead of restoring. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to CNN does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --Renat 00:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert[edit]

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.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aasim (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Aasim (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]