ChiCubsfan44

July 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Max Muncy. 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. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Lighten up a little😂 but yeah understood👍🏻 ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Aoraki / Mount Cook, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.-gadfium 22:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Very sorry about that! Just started wiki. Not even 20 minutes before I saw this, I just read that editing a page is very much like going into someone’s house and rearranging their furniture. So my apologies! ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

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.

- MrX 🖋 16:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing restictions

You violated the editing restrictions at Racial views of Donald Trump by reinserting material after it was reverted. You also added original research. Please self revert and remove the original research. - MrX 🖋 16:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

The next time you disrupt Racial views of Donald Trump with code-breaking nonsense edits like this, you will be blocked. Also please don't add your own unsourced opinions, as Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. And don't attack people in edit summaries. Bishonen | tålk 18:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at One America News Network. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on One America News Network. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Newslinger talk 02:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger. But your sources are absolute trash. ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 II

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One America News Network; 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/one-america-news-network-media-bias ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Look at the source i have sent you and stop reverting the changes. This news network is classified as right leaning, not far right. ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 ~~~~}}.  GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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).

ChiCubsfan44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Bias admins =I was unfairly targeted by the admins for adding irrefutable sources to a page they have vandalized with bias sourcesChiCubsfan44 (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring. You didn't address that in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

No, you were blocked for edit warring a change to the page which contradicted formal consensus to include the descriptor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but mob mentality doesn’t create justification. So that’s how you left wing morons get your way huh, get into groups, make a bias decree and then act as if that’s then objective truth. You guys are an insult. Their source is bias. You don’t use vanity fair or some left wing source to check a right wing source. That’s so wrong for obvious reasons. Check my source if you’re impartial.

Hitler and his men also had a formal consensus to kill ethnic minorities. They were the supreme law of the land. That doesn’t mean it’s justified....

ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

seeing that you brought to prominence the page “incel” isn’t doing yourself any credibility favors. Just because you left wing fools are admins doesn’t mean you get to bully and dictate things your way. The inherent bias and corruption of this system is trash. And I’m glad teachers push for students to use sources other than Wikipedia:

ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If you continue in this abhorrent manner, your block will be extended indefinitely and your access to this talk page will be revoked. I want to be incredibly clear, you have had your only warning on this point. --Yamla (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare and Yamla: ChiCubsfan44 appears to be engaging in block evasion as Biaskiller9000 (talk · contribs) in Talk:One America News Network § The use of bias sources. — Newslinger talk 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's not a sock, it's a self-admitted meat puppet. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the two are  Confirmed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

After thought and consideration with my daughter; We would like to apologize for her actions of the past couple weeks, especially her edits on OANN. I allowed her to use my wiki page to have fun and make constructive edits but after seeing the adherent actions she made I would like to agree with your ban. I would plead with you to reconsider it being indefinite, as she is not the account owner, I am. And after seeing all the accounts she made to get around it, I will be working towards teaching her to be honest and dignified.

I would however like to say that being an Admin does not make you god. And that the edits on OANN are objectively inaccurate. However my daughter should have talked to the admins of that page and debated it in a civic manner.

I understand if you refuse to lift the ban. Just know that if you do, she will not be the one editing on here anymore.

Thank you, have a great evening. ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)