User talk:Boomchickensoup35

Welcome

Hello, Boomchickensoup35, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Missvain (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

November 2020

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Doug Jones (politician). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notice - Abortion

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 abortion. 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.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:16, 28 November 2020 (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.

You have shown interest in post-1932 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.

Doug Weller talk 13:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm HaeB. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Amy Coney Barrett, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HaeB (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boomchickensoup35! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Abortion in Puerto Rico that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Abortion in Puerto Rico has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. That was another edit changing to pro-life. You're about to be topic banned from anything to do with abortion if this continues. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4 December 2020

Hello. You've made 40 edits since you started editing on 9 November, of which all but 8 have been reverted by other editors because they do not conform to Wikipedia policy. You have not attempted to explain your edits on talk pages, and instead you have engaged in edit-warring (see WP:EW). Please read the relevant policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CONS, and WP:BRD. Be aware that editors who continue to engage in disruptive editing after being warned may be subject to sanctions. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Stacey Abrams

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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to the FACTS on Stacy Abrams page are being done by the same crowd who seek to censor anything that is inconvenient for their own political opinions. She never conceded, and her claims of voter fraud were never proven. Let them have it Boomchickensoup, these small minded people like their echo chamber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.59.243.158 (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Past accounts

Have you edited with other accounts on Wikipedia? If so, disclose them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not Boomchickensoup35 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Stacey Abrams. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Robert Byrd, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Abortion-rights movements. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, You cannot fight facts on Wikipedia which is a site for facts if you disagree with the facts go on the talk page and debate them do not just delete my edits, Boomchickensoup35 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gun politics in the United States. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hashs^talk 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Robert Byrd. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]