User talk:Contentcreator

Hello, Contentcreator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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! Vsmith (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been on wikipedia for awhile my old account was just lost.

I signed my last one with with three because I just wanted to leave my name.

Contentcreator (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Strongjam (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I did not know.Contentcreator (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with that website. I simply believes it works as a citation for the above sentenced. I think it is excessive to add a citation to the talk page. You are welcome to add your own

Contentcreator (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It's obviously an advertisement and clearly does not meet WP:RS - it is linkspam. MrOllie (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't add it. I just reverted your revert which seems like a good faith edit. Quit engaging in edit warring. You have broken wikipedia WP:WAR 3RR rule.

Contentcreator (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Also please use wikipedia formatting, to properly ident comment using a colon

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of differences between the former and new systems, see WP:CTVSDS.

Please allow me to explain the proper procedure here. Your recent reinstatement of content to List of concentration and internment camps is in violation of this topic area's standard restrictions, specifically, the "the "'enforced BRD' restriction". This requires you to engage on the talk page and find consensus before reinstating any challenged edit. Your edits removing material were challenged when the content was reinstated. Before you may proceed with removing the content again, you must engage in the so-called BRD process (linked in the quote above). To keep from being on the wrong side of these restrictions, please immediately self-revert to reinclude the challenged material, while it is discussed on the talk page.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Again subject matter was added without consensus and sourcing from opinion pieces or politicians. I will discuss just to demonstrate good faith but you edit warring everyone out kills any idea of a consensus when no one wants to deal with it Contentcreator (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Fortuna, imperatrix 07:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The content of the article is the least contentious part for me. How strongly wikipedia guidelines are not being followed is quite frustrating.

The lead neither functions as a proper summary nor is it cited, and from my perspective appears structured to justify the inclusion of a particular section. This has greatly diminished the quality of the article. Contentcreator (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Contentcreator: I am telling you so you understand, removing a template is breaking a Wikipedia guideline clear as day. In a dispute a template is always added to the article. You removing that is a clear violation of policy, and I am asking that you stop. When the dispute is over, then you can remove the template but until then you cannot remove a disputed template. Des Vallee (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Dispute templates aren’t meant to be added unilaterally or used as leverage in a content disagreement. Per WP:DISPUTE, broad dispute tags should follow a clear explanation of the specific issues and be accompanied by talk-page discussion identifying what is disputed and why. Contentcreator (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no "leverage" being used here, I don't even understand what you are talking about. They do follow a clear explanation, I added a specific reason for the tag. Des Vallee (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You are still unilaterally adding it over a small content dispute. Contentcreator (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

All options have been exhausted, and there is clearly no consensus, that's when dispute tags are added. To generate discussion for the content present. I am also asking that you not call me childish. Des Vallee (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You haven't even added it on talk page for the reason you are talking about. There was a discussion and consensus about adding the line about texting. As mentioned, I was adding it back but you didn't even go to the talk page to discuss it.

I didn't call you childish I called that action childish and I stand by that. Contentcreator (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

In addition to that, I didn't even disagree with adding it. I just disagreed with why. I was working on adding it back because I value other editors; and after thinking about it, it wasn't enough of it reason to disqualify a good faith edit. it wasn't that important but instead I am dealing with cleanups. Contentcreator (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't call you childish I called that action childish is still a personal attack. I also have no clue what you are talking about. You apparently didn't even disagree with adding it and now you apparently reverting it. It was described on the talk page why the template was added., and again your breaking how you handle disputes. What "consensus" are you talking about there was discussions and none of them resulted in any consensus. Des Vallee (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

No I disagreed with the reasoning of it qualified because of the length of time instead of relevance.

You actually have to talk about it first because adding some sort of dispute tags. Why not just add a dispute tag every time someone reverts and there is a disagreement then? Contentcreator (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I want to make this incredibly clear you breaking policy by removing a template during a dispute. Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_not_to_remove There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue. You are making up policy. There is an active discussion on the talk page and this dispute on the lede has been active for months. I haven't been involved with it for months but you have and you have exhausted all options keeping your exact same position for months. There is a dispute, there is no consensus you cannot remove the tag. Des Vallee (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

"When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue, and you are reasonably implementing those changes." Contentcreator (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I am reverting. If you want to file a report on this you go ahead.

You made personal attacks when there was a consensus. You then did not respond to the discussion. Now you are adding the tags. After that you made a mass-revert. You are just edit warring Contentcreator (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I am just going to make the report myself. Contentcreator (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Contentcreator,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 03:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 03:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of concentration and internment camps shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

funny, I was going to post the same thing on your page after you reverted again but I decided to escalate and I went to the talk page.

The fact that you violated revert policy by reverting two edits at once which were changed for different reasons shows both engaging in edit warring and a lack of good faith. Contentcreator (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

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. Thank you. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Contentcreator_reported_by_User:Very_Polite_Person_(Result:_) — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (List of concentration and internment camps) for a period of 2 weeks 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2026 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I wasn't even given a chance to respond. I didn't violate the 3RR Contentcreator (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The comment below, and the lengthy response in the section below, give me no confidence that lifting the pblock here before its expiration would lead to positive results. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 14 February 2026 (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.

I didn't mention the three-revert rule anywhere but ... , , , ... that statement was easy to disprove. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree was unaware it was by page not material — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contentcreator (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

User:The_Bushranger That's fine because I wasn't seeking it anymore. Hence, why I removed my response. Why would I spend more time editing here, esp when apparently a thorough response it looked down. uponContentcreator (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Contentcreator, I also notified you ( a few sections above, back in December) of the contentious topics designation for post-1992 American politics. Under that designation, administrators also have the discretion to hold editors to a 1RR restriction, often to keep edit wars from breaking out in the first place. To be clear, that did not happen in this case. You should however be aware that your reversions and unwillingness to acknowledge consensus against your view are causing problems in a contentious topic domain. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It isn't about consensus. It is about the confusion in your statements that lead to belief of your not remember or reading prior discussion. The first two reverts were simply because I believed the guy had not read the prior discussions and his second revert came from adopting someone's logic who also forgot prior discussions

For instance reconcile these two statement you made.

In a revert comment you said, "The sourcing under dispute at Talk are not opinion pieces, but instead firmly qualify as WP:RS", however, how do you reconcile that you defended them as opinion pieces and qualified, despite that current comment suggesting that opinion pieces aren't RS.

Both of these are from you

"would note that opinion pieces written by content experts are absolutely within WP:RS guidelines"

"The Nation and The New Republic are both reporting it as a concentration camp from the news side of their orgs. And Pitzer's opinion on this subject (what is and isn't a concentration camp) has been very highly regarded in the past (looking through this page's archives), so her op ed at MSNBC carries a lot of weight too. I am unsure of who Reyes is in the LA Times, but his byline states he is an immigration attorney, which I argue is an expertise qualification here. The Guardian op ed is harder to definitively rely upon, but with two news orgs, the person who literally wrote the pop history book about concentration camps, and an immigration attorney seems to be enough to me to includ"

You don't respond to discussion. The lede is unsourced and suggest that it is arbitrarily determined what is internment. A nice set up for a brigade to just ignore discussions and revert anything you don't like.

I am not editing again. The articles quality is poor because of the above. I am moving on. Contentcreator (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pinchme123

p.s the fact you came here to talk crap and show the continued lack of good faith shows the quality of your character. Truly what was the point of coming here to post this.Contentcreator (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)