User talk:Hannahxo

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Hannahxo, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Hannahxo, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Jenna Marbles[edit]

Hello, please refrain from edit warring. "Higher quality" is objective, whereas "better looking" is subjective. When available, higher quality images should obviously be used on articles. Here, you have a professional photograph against a blurry/compressed YouTube video screenshot. The choice should be clear. If you still disagree, instead of reverting, you can seek consensus for your edit on the article's talk page. Thank you. Throast (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Ken Tony. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Christina Grimmie, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly cited in the infobox with the subscriber number. I believe this is a wrong revert. Hannahxo (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing my warning; don't worry about the edit on Camila Morrone. That revert was because the diff showed up incorrectly for me. Your edit's fine. Have a good one here! jp×g 10:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much JPxG :) Hannahxo (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored the KSI talk page discussion and continue to make inaccurate reverts, this is your warning before report[edit]

Your recent editing history 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. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Bobby690 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby690. 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 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:33, 22 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'll be honest, yes i know i have used multiple accounts but they were never with ill intent or for vandalism. All the edits i have ever made are just trying to improve an article. My problem was that i constantly got into conflicts with other editors and got my accounts banned because of it and kept making a new one to keep editing. I hope one of my accounts will get unbanned after looking at my history, if not that's fine and i understand. Thank you. Hannahxo (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Each time you make a new account in order to get around a block, you are doing so with ill intent. In fact, you've been so abusive that your original account is now globally locked. It will be very hard for you to come back from this. Your best hope is to follow WP:SO which requires at least six months with zero edits. Even then, you'll need to show substantially more understanding of how disruptive you've been. Yamla (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2021 (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.