User talk:ChaimRosenberg222

Hello, ChaimRosenberg222, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

November 2023

Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Douglas Murray (author)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Read it. Do not edit war contentious descriptions into the lead section of articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Douglas Murray (author), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Geardona (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though the above messages are sincerely meant not to imply that there have been issues with editing, I'll add personally that the edit warring you're engaged in at Douglas Murray (author) is problematic. Right or wrong, you'll need to step away from the undo button and discuss your proposal at Talk:Douglas Murray (author). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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.

This edit warning is for repeatedly removing context from the article Matt Petgrave that he was subject to online racial attacks in the aftermath of the death of Adam Johnson, such as this edit and this edit. Wikipedia is not censored and your personal opinions on the topic are of no relevance for how to improve the article. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are still edit warring without demonstrating why that irrelevant sentence should be in the wikipedia page. The fact you are butting heads with me, someone that is biased in favor of your own political aisle shows you are a blatant bad faith propagandist and part of the reason why many people do not take wikipedia as a valid source for information. ChaimRosenberg222 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Douglas Murray (author)) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm being extremely generous here by only blocking you from this one article, because if you continue editing the way you are, you're going to be well on your way to an indefinite block from all of Wikipedia. Learn to use a talk page and build a consensus for your proposed edits rather than reverting to your preferred version. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am to seek consensus for every edit while people are constantly changing information without consensus, and getting away with it for free because it aligns with the particular administration's narrow views. This is not a new problem to wikipedia, every editor that doesn't fit into a particular fold that admins want needs receipts and consensus on everything. ChaimRosenberg222 (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, then you pull crap like this with the laughable edit summary of refusing to respond to consensus when you have yet to particpate in a talk page dicussion of any kind to build a consensus to your point of view or even argue against another. You're clearly not here to build a encyclopedia. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And do explain why the situation happening in reverse does not lead to the editing removal of others? I am honestly so shocked by your blatant bias I can only assume it has to do with my name. Its nice to see that wikipedia has literal antisemites for admins that are this poor at hiding their motives, you just had to let it out. ChaimRosenberg222 (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I don't even know what your exact position is on whatever it is that you're trying to add/remove/change from any of the articles you've been disrupting. To blunt, I really don't care, either. All I know is that you're going about it the wrong way. Instead of using the the talk page to discuss the issues you have and try to build a consensus, you chose to do slow edit wars to your preferred version. It looks like you're here to soley WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That's not how Wikipedia works. Trust me when I say that I don't agree with a lot of the biased shit that gets added here citing some of the supposed reliable sources to justify it. However, I pick and choose my battles and that's an area that I avoid because it's not worth the headache that comes with it. So, in the end it doesn't matter whether I agree with you or not, because as an admin, it's my job to stop disruption, which is pretty much the only thing you've done so far in your short time here. My opinion on the content has nothing to do with it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, casting aspersions of users having a bias really won't get you far. You've done that a few times now. I'd suggest dropping that line of argument pretty quickly if you ever hope to be unblocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:25, 29 December 2023 (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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]