User talk:ChazMclopez

Conflict of interest

Hello, ChazMclopez. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Charley McMillan-Lopez, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fake information

The information that you are writing is you're just facing your opinion on a player with no evidence on anything that you are writing. I don't have relationships with this player. Where are you getting your information from ChazMclopez (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are now using a username ChazMclopez and you seem to think I am supposed to not believe you are not the player or closely related to the player in question? Kindly provide *verifiable* (i.e. independently sourced) links. NFT and Transfermkt are not reliable sources - frankly anyone can get stuff added to those, and then those were used as the initial source for the wikipedia article. I have now found evidence that this player has named on the bench (and may have played) for one match for Braintree Town in an August 2020 pre-season friendly and have added it. This is the way wikipedia works - sources are needed - and sources have been provided for all of the entries - not my opinion. Zanoni (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello, I'm Zanoni. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Charley McMillan-Lopez, 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. Zanoni (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your information from ? The information you have provided is incorrect. The player Charley McMillan-Lopez is a current international footballer for the Britsh Virgin Islands and the BVI FA has a recond of the clubs this player has played for. What is the issue with the page in question? ChazMclopez (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Charley McMillan-Lopez, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. SunDawn talk 13:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Charley McMillan-Lopez 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. SunDawn talk 13:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ChazMclopez reported by User:SunDawn (Result: ). Thank you. SunDawn talk 13:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]