User talk:SammyWaffle!

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Marjorie Taylor Greene, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, Ain lina (box)? 19:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SammyWaffle!! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Cabinet of Joe Biden 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. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Cabinet of Joe Biden 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet of Joe Biden

Hello, I'm Sdrqaz. An edit that you recently made to Cabinet of Joe Biden seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Faithless electors in the 2020 United States presidential election (December 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SK2242 was:

What is the point of this? See WP:CRYSTAL

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Faithless electors in the 2020 United States presidential election and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Faithless electors in the 2020 United States presidential election, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

SK2242 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SammyWaffle!! Having an article 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! SK2242 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 . 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.

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2020 (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:SammyWaffle! reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2020 (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 ~~~~}}. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

The Reason those edit were made on mo brooks and collin peterson were my son was on my computer I changed the password he will not be on my computer again SammyWaffle! (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you are saying that someone else accessed your account, it is now a compromised account and no longer eligible to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2020 (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.

I understand that but can you re enable my rights to a new account as this one is comprimised SammyWaffle!

please partially Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here so my last request was denied but I have questions My first unblock request was met with If you are saying that someone else accessed your account, it is now a compromised account and no longer eligible to be unblocked.from 331dot however I was also blocked from creating a new account can you atleast lift that block so I a create new account with new password SammyWaffle! (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2020 (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.

It would mean nothing if we blocked this account but allowed another one to be created, as we have no way of knowing who is sitting at the computer operating your account. We don't know if you are you, or your son. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Faithless electors in the 2020 United States presidential election

Hello, SammyWaffle!. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Faithless electors in the 2020 United States presidential election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Faithless electors in the 2020 United States presidential election

Hello, SammyWaffle!. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Faithless electors in the 2020 United States presidential election".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]