User talk:BazingaFountain42

December 2019[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to I Don't Know How But They Found Me has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: I Don't Know How But They Found Me was changed by BazingaFountain42 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954704 on 2019-12-18T01:12:23+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, BazingaFountain42, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to I Don't Know How But They Found Me seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy—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 Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Andrew Breitbart. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Breitbart News. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

— Newslinger talk 01:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musk[edit]

Elon Musk did not revoke his endorsement of West. Read this. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter endorsements[edit]

Please do not add any further twitter endorsements. If you have any questions please let me know! Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Child[edit]

There is ongoing discussion which as of yet has absolutely no consensus. Do not move the article again, as it is now, you've made a huge mess that required full protection of the article and two admins to untangle the damage. Don't do it again. Praxidicae (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (The Child (Star Wars)) for a period of 48 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

BazingaFountain42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think that characters should be referred to based on their official name. Grogu should be the name of the page and how he is referred to throughout it. However, I do understand why I was blocked. I thought that it was a mistake that someone had forgotten to change the name to Grogu, so I decided to do it myself. I did not realize there was a debate over this. In the future, I'll be better about this and make sure that it won't happen again. Please unblock me. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, block is expired. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 2 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.

December 2020[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Antony Blinken, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antony Blinken; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Antony Blinken, you may be blocked from editing. [1] – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that is engaging in disruptive editing by putting someone as the presumptive nominee when they are the official nominee.BazingaFountain42 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Antony Blinken. What are you doing with this type of edit? That is clear vandalism. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems that there was a misunderstanding. You see, until just now, I had a browser extension that changed every instance of "Trump" to "Drumpf", so that was the cause of dispute. I apologize for that.BazingaFountain42 (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)E[reply]

You are still edit warring against the consensus at WP:BLPN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

Well, you're at war with common sense. "Presumptive nominee" implies that it isn't official, even though it is and has been for weeks. For literally EVERY OTHER ONE of Biden's nominees, it has them as "Nominee", not "Presumptive nominee", there's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY Blinken should be different. Please stop changing it. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giraffer ^munch 15:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring without engaging in discussion[edit]

There are several places where articles like Anthony Blinken are being discussed. I repeatedly invited you to participate in the RfC at the BLP Noticeboard, which you never did. You were just brought to ANI yesterday about your edit warring on multiple articles. Please actually contribute to the ongoing discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop leaving templated warnings on my talk page. If you are not going to engage in a discussion about the article, then do not post on my talk page at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't cross the three revert rule. Please engage in discussion and stop reverting edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muboshgu Listen, you started edit warring, I'm just following protocol. If you have an issue, take it to the talk page and make sure a consensus is reached before you make any drastic decisions like that. As I've said, my big problem wasn't that you were removing a nomination, though that was a problem, my big issue was that you messed up the formatting. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edit at Antony Blinken, however I disagree with you edit at Cabinet of Joe Biden. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit on 117th United States Congress[edit]

Hello, you seem to have just added Sen. Patrick Leahy as the to be President pro tempore of Senate, but there are no laws requiring the senior most Senator to hold the position. It's only a precedent. They are actually elected by other Senators.

Moreover the Senate control wouldn't flip Democratic unless Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock & Alex Padilla are certified by Governors thereof and are sworned in. It's already January 19 but Ossoff & Warnock aren't yet certified by Georgia Secretary of State. They need to be certified by Georgia Governor also before swearing in. Thus, Leahy may not get elected as President pro tempore on January 20.

Therefore, I'm going to edit it, to not mention Leahy as the to be President pro tempore. You can always edit it again when he is actually elected to the position. The discussion about the same is at Talk:117th_United_States_Congress#Regarding_President_pro-tempore_of_Senate. Please do take part in this discussion and let us know about your references. Thank you. Cheers! CX Zoom (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Vice President of the United States, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Per the Article, the Vice President does not take office until noon on January 20th. We appreciate your edit, but please keep the article accurate until the change of power takes effect shortly! Crashdoom ^Talk 16:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2024 United States presidential election. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Los Angeles Chargers, you may be blocked from editing. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]