User talk:Anonymouselz777

May 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Benny Johnson (columnist), 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at James O'Keefe, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. The BLP concerns you mentioned do not hold water when Forbes is one of the sources cited in the deleted material. Please discuss the matter on the talk page to see if consensus can be reached about removing the material. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Boetto Park in Wickenburg, AZ (May 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Grabup were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Boetto Park in Wickenburg, AZ and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Grabup (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anonymouselz777! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! Grabup (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Boetto Park in Wickenburg, AZ (May 15)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Taking Out The Trash was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wikipedia is not a travel guide or directory.

Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Hi Anonymouselz777! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at James O'Keefe‎ 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; read about 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. McSly (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I suggest you quickly restore your last revert. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have a complete misunderstanding of what vandalism actually means on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000[edit]

* {{Vandal|Objective3000}} Repeatedly tried to vandalized the James O’Keefe page several times by reverting to a slanderous version of it. ~~~~

Anonymouselz777 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

Anonymouselz777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was protecting the James O’Keefe page from vandalism by Objective3000. For this reason, according to Wikipedia’s policy for edit warring, I was not edit warring, but rather it was Objective3000 who was edit warring. Anonymouselz777 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The edits you were reverting were in good faith and backed by sources. The block is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2024 (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.

Anonymouselz777 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]