User talk:Thistechworkertoo

December 2021
Hello, I'm Ifnord. Your recent edit(s) to the page Ifeoma Ozoma appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Although sponsors of proposed legislation normally are legislators, in California, outside parties lobbying for legislation are referred to as "sponsors". (This note is in the text you removed and is referenced.)'' Ifnord (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for pointing out my needing proper citation - my bad. Citizens can't "sponsor" bills and Ifeoma is not listed as a sponsor on the bill's page here: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB331/2021. An idea from a bill can come from anyone, but using the word sponsor here is incorrect. I'll edit again and include appropriate references.Thistechworkertoo (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is explained in the footnote in the article: . GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I missed the footnote that was recently added to help clarify. Unfortunately though the article referenced is under paywall and was written over ten years ago. Is there another supporting artifact stating that in California citizens can be "sponsors" of bills? Thistechworkertoo (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ifeoma Ozoma. 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: 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. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Hello, Thistechworkertoo, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SPA with edit warring and neutrality issues at Cher Scarlett#Sock?. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked
Hello. The usual policy is one person one account, especially when one's edits are contentious and under increased scrutiny. I have decided that your original shall be your account. This block can be appealed if you think I'm wrong (WP:GAB), though I wouldn't bother as your main account isn't currently blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)