Hello, I'm JudgeRM. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ron Kouchi without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Aliso Niguel High School. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file was renamed deliberately; you don't need to change the name back. (The bot will revert you anyway.) My fault for not updating the catalogues after renaming, though. Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited State highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change your username, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Don't worry, you've done nothing wrong. I'm adding this because it provides links on how to change your username, which you mentioned on your userpage. BilCat (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Superior Court of California County of Sacramento a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kern County, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bakersfield Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fluffy89502. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Paradise, California, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've had to undo a number of your edits to SCOTUS opinion cases, typically because you keep adding laws or constitutional provisions to the infobox or categories that the case is not actually about (and sometimes even that the opinion does not even mention). I know you get a notification every time an edit is undone, and I've always explained in the edit summary what the issue was, yet I'm continuing to see the same pattern of drive-by edits that don't demonstrate familiarity with the subject or careful reading of the opinion or secondary sources. In one instance, you even removed a word as "ungrammatical" that the Court itself used in its opinion to describe the issue, only to replace it with your own personal choice of awkward phrase. I think you should start asking on an case article's talk page before you make such changes, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases where you can raise some questions from experienced editors in this area that could improve your understanding. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit [1] FYI, there already is an article for California State Route 14U. Dave (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Gamble v. United States. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. A number of your recent edits to Supreme Court cases have either been uncited or appear to be original research. I see that another editor has already raised the issue of your SC edits, please make sure that your additions to infoboxes are supported by reliable sources and are not just your thoughts on the matter. Even if it seems blindingly obvious that the 14th amendment may have been applied, if we don't have a source that says it we can't put that in an article. Happy editing! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juvenile delinquency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has some good tips that might be helpful as you're improving California road articles. --Rschen7754 19:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Vagueness doctrine, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Terrorist96 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that in the edit summary for this edit, you said that you were fixing a link. I understand the instinct to consider a link to a redirect page to be "broken", but it isn't; there are actually good reasons why a direct link to a redirect is better than piping the link to the redirect's target, as you did. You can review WP:NOTBROKEN for an explanation. Thank you for trying to improve the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fluff. I notice that it is your habit never to cite a source for an edit you make to WP. You make a lot of edits. Unsourced edits are a nasty problem for other editors. Ergo, you are making many nasty problems for editors as a long-standing habit. This must stop. WP is not a collection of factoids from the brain of Fluffy. It's a collection of published assertions from WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Got it? You may find yourself blocked or even banned for ignoring warnings about your editing behavior. Please cite sources; here is an article for your benefit: Wikipedia:Citing sources Citations are not that hard to make, and they will help you to retain your editing privileges.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Quisqualis. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Quisqualis (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. See also the template cite map.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we do cite alternate names, but the citations go in the main article, at the place where the alternate name is discussed. Alternate names also don't go into the infobox unless it applies to the entire route. --Rschen7754 18:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Quisqualis (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have broken the map for this article with your recent edit. I have restored the old version.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added this sentence to this article: "Nevertheless portions of the statute were voided by the court due to such statutes being too vague."[2] The Court's opinion, however, plainly states that "the petitioner has not alleged that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise." 542 U.S. at 184. We're really well past the point where it's been demonstrated that all of your edits to SCOTUS articles need to be reverted on sight. You have repeatedly proven that you are not competent to edit in this area, as you have consistently added misleading or even blatantly incorrect content, all without even an attempt to provide sources for your changes. postdlf (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, MacArthur Boulevard (Orange County, California), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Fluffy: You've added Template:United States constitutional law to several articles over the past couple days; I've reverted a few of them, as the template–article connection was secondary or tangential. You might want to look at the others as well and open a discussion on the template's talk page concerning where (in which articles) the template ought to be used. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just reversed "wikisource|Marbury v. Madison|Marbury v. Madison on Marbury v. Madison, as it already exists under "External links". I then saw that you've made many similar additions. Could you please return to those pages and reverse your own duplication errors? Easy mistake, and remedy is much appreciated, Lindenfall (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest withdrawing those nominations. There are large portions of uncited material that will cause the GA to fail. --Rschen7754 03:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article California State Route 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Imzadi1979 -- Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article California State Route 2 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:California State Route 2 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Imzadi1979 -- Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the comments at Talk:Washington State Route 99/GA1. If you want to pass the review on to another editor, please follow the instructions at WP:GAI#Asking for a second opinion to request a second opinion, so that it properly shows up on the GAN listing. SounderBruce 01:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add blank parameters to city and county infoboxes unless the information is absolutely crucial and can be standardized across the board (e.g. GNIS). Highway/transit/airport data should not be displayed in this way, with the use of prose or simple lists in the Infrastructure section preferred per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties. SounderBruce 20:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been reverted as incorrect; Thomas did not join Ginsburg's concurring opinion. Please explain why you nevertheless made that change. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The concurrence indicates so Fluffy89502 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just don't know how to read legal materials. Ginsburg cited in her opinion to a concurring opinion of Thomas's from another case. That's why "THOMAS, J., concurring" was in a parenthetical at the end of that citation; that is never how joining votes to an opinion are noted. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad I’m stupid. Thanks for informing me about my mistakes though. Fluffy89502 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop making them. Not only has this been a persistent problem from you in this topic area of SCOTUS case law, where time and again you have proven yourself not competent to understand the subject matter, your talk page is also full of complaints from other editors in other subjects about your WP:OR edits and other changes being made without reliable sources. And in most instances, there has been a complete failure from you to respond or otherwise acknowledge the problem. Your carelessness and lack of communication are merely creating a mess for other editors to clean up. Continuing in this regard will ultimately get you completely blocked from editing. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and honestly, I don't know why we shouldn't just block you right now given this. Incompetence and deliberate disruption ultimately look the same. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that the Court in this case ruled that the challenged policy violated the Vagueness Doctrine. The Court, however explicitly stated that "we do not reach the merits of Saxe's vagueness claim." 240 F.3d at 214. This is yet another instance of your contributions to a case law article being blatantly incorrect. postdlf (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I agree completely with Postdlf. I see no reason for this to continue.

John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. .

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 ~~~~}}.

I am sorry, but competence is required to edit this encyclopedia, and far too many of your edits do not meet that standard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah even I can understand from all your guys' point of view about how annoying my editing has been. I'll just stick to converting files into svg and fixing citations on Wikipedia without adding any additional content to the site if that's fine with you guys, withstanding John from Idegon and Postdlf. Fluffy89502 09:33, 02 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. You'd need to be unblocked to do that too, and you've not made an unblock request, you're addressing this message to the wrong people and you've illustrated yet again you are incapable of following simple instructions. John from Idegon (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I need to submit a request I just want to know what you guys think of that idea. Fluffy89502 00:11, 3 May 2019 (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).

Fluffy89502 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For forthcoming edits, I will make sure to start a discussion on the talk page of an article for the proposed edit. Otherwise, I would only do SVG conversions and reference formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy89502 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2019 (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.

• Question: Will you stop editing while stoned?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not editing while stoned is one of the things, among others, that I am going to commit to if I get unblocked. I'm just going to try lay low and be more of a maintenance person and build up competence with others during such period by engaging in talks, etc. while refraining from editing. Fluffy89502 16:39, 13 May 2019 (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).

Fluffy89502 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have primarily moved over to Commons and am no longer interested in major edits on Wikipedia. The main reasons I am requested that I be unblocked is so that I may be able to update superseded images on Wikipedia (i.e. change a page from displaying a png image to a svg image whenever I upload a SVG replacement) and to have the ability to move files in the public domain to Commons (for example, File:Seal of Clark County, Nevada.svg is in the public domain contrary to what this site says per the template PD-GovEdict over at Commons. On Commons I have gained enough trust from the community to be granted rights to AWB, Autopatroller rights, and filemover rights. check rights. And yes, I will (and have) stopped editing while stoned. Thank you for taking your time to consider my unblock request.

Decline reason:

You've been evading your block. Wait six months without block evasion and maybe we'll reconsider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2019 (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.

This would seem to be an attempt to circumvent the block, using their talk page as a back door to making edit proposals. They also continued their usual carelessness by categorizing their talk page as part of that edit that just dumped in a whole article's text... They had also failed to follow very clear unblock request instructions.[3]

@Cullen328:, I'm thinking blocking their talk page access would also be appropriate here, otherwise they're just going to be a continuing waste of time. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: @Cullen328: I created the edit proposal because such, as indicated by the wikipedia guides, states that you may edit a page on your talk page to show others that you can comply with guidelines. Fluffy89502 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, Fluffy89502, your use of your talk page is for one purpose and one purpose only: to submit a well-formulated unblock request that addresses the reasons for your block, and convinces an admistrator that unblocking you would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Is this sufficient? Am willing to unblock under the condition user sticks to image work.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are still demonstrating by how they posted this request that they are unable to follow simple instructions and are still not addressing the reasons for the block. We have plenty of editors who can do those things competently, we have no need for one who can’t just to do image maintenance work, a limitation that can’t be enforced without continually monitoring their edits. postdlf (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, I agree with Postdlf in this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that the permissions granted to me over at Commons would help indirectly indicate that I am competent and can express that on this site. --Fluffy89502 (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been even three full months since you were blocked here, so that's not a long time to build up a contrary track record. And it remains to be seen that you are competent even at Commons; this block warning was posted on your talk page there recently. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least I acted on it unlike how I used to ignore it previously here, but hey at the end of the day it is up to you guys to decide if I should be unblocked and if the consensus states that I should not be unblocked for the time being so be it then, I understand why you guys would be skeptical, and I am willing (and pretty much have no other choice) to work with the community on unblocking and the terms of conditions thereof if there be any. --Fluffy89502 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"At least I acted on it..." Three Commons editors had to tell you four times, one finally threatening to block you if you didn't stop nominating meritless FPCs, as you had continued to do it even after promising not to. postdlf (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for elaborating, I guess? You literally just provided an example of me at least improving in terms of competency over the period of time so thanks :). --Fluffy89502 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The block warning was six days ago. So again even if you've refrained from posting any more meritless FPC nominations in that time (which I don't know), that's not especially meaningful. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:MacArthur Boulevard (Orange County, California), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fluffy89502. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "MacArthur Boulevard".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Fluffy89502 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It has been over a year since I have been blocked on this project which has given me time to reflect on my mistakes and errors, letting me realize what I have done wrong and how not to do the same again. During that time I have been incorporating those changes in my behavior on Commons, with it being successful enough that I have been granted privileges, such as being a file mover, among other things, by the community on that project. I have been doing minor edits and file uploads from time to time on Commons and I hope to have the privilege to do the same within this project. Thank you. Fluffy89502 (talk) 7:45 pm, 25 July 2020, Saturday (26 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Accepting per standard offer and discussion below. only (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain, in your own words, what your "mistakes and errors" were and what it was that you did wrong? If unblocked, what kind of edits will you be making here? only (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: In general my mistakes were comprised of my general lack of competency on this project. In particular, I would be oblivious to discussions and well-established doctrines on various projects on this site and continue to edit in ways that conflicted with the aforementioned discussions and soctrines. If unbanned, I will mainly be doing minor edits, such as fixing incorrect snippets of information, along with archiving references. Fluffy89502 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: any objection to an unblock here? Over a year since the block and last appearance on this talk page, and I don’t see any major concerns glancing over at Commons where they’ve been editing. only (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Only. I refreshed my memory about the circumstances of the block and took a look at participation over at Commons. I do not object to an unblock, but I want to advise you, Fluffy89502, to take feedback from your fellow editors seriously, and to discuss any disputes productively, with the goal of reaching consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy89502, I assume you can agree to that? only (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: @Cullen328: Yes I do agree to that. That is the primary concept that I have understood the importance of during this period.

In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. That said, do you want to be adding "The Honorable" to so many BLP articles? —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eyer: It seemed okay to me to add those prefixes since they are used. The first exception listed in WP:HON is quite subjective and I am unaware of any community stance on US government, legislative, and judicial officials. If there is any source of consensus about this subject in particular please direct me to it so I can abide with it. Thanks! ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source at The Honourable does not support many of the offices you have tagged articles for. Also, you seem to only be doing it for members of the current administration, which raises a red flag. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: I've been doing people who are currently in office and was planning to do others afterwards. I'm still confused about the those members do not have "The Honorable" listed but I am not going to change anything else till I have a better understanding of this subject. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fluffy. FYI, I have reverted the additions of "The Honorable" to the articles. We have not usually added these to infoboxes for U.S. politicians, and I think it conveys very little substantive information to the reader. It also raises all sorts of needless/avoidable questions (e.g., is a person is "The Honorable" after he/she leaves office? What about after they die? What if they are convicted of a serious felony?). I think if you wanted to discuss the matter further, I think it would be very worthwhile to try to get a centralized discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government or Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Neutrality^talk 00:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: Alright. Thank you for clarifying the situation for me. I won't add "The Honrable" to the infobox's of politicians. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit three reverts in order to make sure Eisenhower's forgotten Thai and Philippine honors are crammed into his infobox. Would appreciate you looking at the 44 other presidents and letting me know what their pages look like. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - There is no need to add prefixes and suffixes to the titles of military biography infoxes. Rank and awards already appear further down in the infobox as well as to the left in the first line; please compare with other military biographies. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fluffy89502, you recently reverted one of my edits on the grounds that "hiding the maps just makes this more difficult for readers", but the maps were merely moved in sections more relevant for them. You also removed sourced infos I added about the clemency process. I understand that modifications made by IPs are usually suspect, but I think this one is good if we see the details.

Thank you, and excuse me if my edit summary did not explain enough what I did. 2A01:CB1C:E2C:8400:1DDF:9836:210C:8589 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2A01:CB1C:E2C:8400:1DDF:9836:210C:8589: Okay I won't undo your edits but I do think that those maps should be at the top of the page or at the very least in their relevant sections and the top of the page since only a fraction of users who end up on the page actually scroll down far enough to see those maps in question. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you're making a number of edits to change the location of a comma or period in relation to quotation marks. Please see MOS:LQ for Wikipedia style: On the English Wikipedia, use the "logical quotation" style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Capital punishment in California, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reprieve, Mark Stone and David Chiu. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linear settlement, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Line and Settlement.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC ongoing about a topic which you have previously been involved in here. --FMSky (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Texas Heartbeat Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contractor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Food desert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fats.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Minimum wage in the United States

added a link pointing to Vincent Gray

Stampede

added a link pointing to Media

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Indian Ocean Territory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contractor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Henry Nicholas does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico and Oregon need to be changed on the map. Needforspeed888 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Uniform Congressional District Act, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited White primary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2014 Gambian coup d'état attempt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the big map that you added to two articles that claims to show places in the United States where slavery is legal is a gross mischaracterization of the current reality and a trivialization of the concept of slavery. I have removed it. Please see my further comments at Talk:Slavery in the United States#Infographic map POV. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metrolink (California), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metrolink.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy – I'd like to apologize for reverting your updates to the Weimar Reichstag article without having contacted you here first to discuss my reasons for wanting to do it. That was more than a little presumptuous of me, especially when the update has nothing factually wrong with it. But – on reflection, my main objection is that the "seating chart" diagram was tailored for articles on elections and is redundant / unnecessary in this article given the table in the "Election results" section that has a full tabulation of all Weimar Reichstag elections.

As to the other points, I think that displaying the last Reichstag's makeup at the top of the article creates an impression for the readers that puts too much emphasis in the wrong place – the Nazis.

The creation of the Weimar Reichstag was (for Germany) a revolutionary step that broke the absolutist and monarchist threads that had troubled it under the Empire and became acute during the war. It was a huge, good faith step towards a parliamentary democracy – something that wasn’t at all inevitable after the collapse of the empire and the attempts in 1918 – 1919 to establish a soviet style government. The men and women who created the Weimar Constitution (even with its in the end fatal flaws) and the majority of Germans who supported it deserve a considerable amount of credit. And that's where I think the emphasis should lie.

As for what I said about the Reichstag being "compromised" by 1933, I stand by that. There was a great deal involved in the eventual breakdown of the Reichstag besides the Nazis, such as the party deadlocks, the presidential cabinets, the flaws in the constitution that helped fuel the breakdown, etc. That "the Reichstag as a free and democratic institution ceased to exist following the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933" is true, but only on paper. In actuality it was by then no longer functioning at all the way its framers had envisioned.

I also have a larger problem with many Wikipedia articles about the Weimar era (my focus of interest and expertise) that spend too much time on the Nazis. The original English language article on the Weimar Reichstag that I replaced with this translation from the German was a prime example, and I think that having the makeup of the last, Nazi-dominated Reichstag at the front of the article is a step back in that direction, away from focusing on what the Reichstag was for most of its short life when it had no Nazi members.

Summing up: I think the chart you added should be removed as out of place in the article and putting the emphasis on the wrong end of the Reichstag's story. But if you don’t agree, how about this as a compromise – either (preferred) swap the chart of the last Weimar Reichstag for the first one since it would give what I think is a much more representative picture of what the body was; or if you really want to keep the last Reichstag, move it to the bottom as part of the "End of the Republic" section.

Sorry this turned into such a book. Let me know what you think. GHStPaulMN (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GHStPaulMN: I appreciate hearing your opinion to this matter and it is just as valid as mine or another's. However, at least for people such as me who are not so necessarily interested in the history that surrounds the legislature but the legislature itself, I just want to know what the composition of the last legislature was. I want to know what the partisan breakdown and composition of the aforementioned was before it dissolved, which is why I added the composition of the final Reichstag, the final Supreme Soviet, the final House of Commons (Parliament of England and Parliament of Great Britain), and the National Convention to such articles respectively. Personally, I do not think that such a diagram does not put too much emphasis on the Nazi's either as it just shows the final composition before the Enabling Act, as it should be noted that the Reichstag was not dissolved after 1933 but continued to exist until 1945 even though Wikipedia treats it as two separate legislatures when they were the same.

As to the compromise, I was already planning on adding in the infobox the composition of the first Reichstag with the option to choose which composition to see (such as those pushpin maps where one can select if they want to see where a city is on the state or national level), along with adding the composition of Weimar National Assembly and the Reichstag (German Empire) to their respective pages, and to do the same pushpin method with the National Convention, Legislative Assembly (France), National Constituent Assembly (France), and the National Assembly (French Revolution) once my university restores my access to JSTOR, it's just that I have not yet had the time to do it as I have work and school, although I should be able to start doing it tonight. Does that sound fair? Fluffy89502 (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I basically still disagree pretty much across the board. Leaving aside the Nazi issue, everything you say you want to know about is available with a click on the link to the election articles that are the "homes" for the election detail (at least in the Germany articles -- all 3 of which btw I upgraded by translating the more detailed German-language articles). What you're proposing simply duplicates existing information, which in my mind is something virtually always to avoid. I don't have the interest though to fight over it. I'd just like to request respectfully that you leave out the 3 Germany articles and concentrate on the other areas. Thanks. GHStPaulMN (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited California's 24th State Senatorial district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malibu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Danny Masterson, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Brian Schoenjahn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bryan Fletcher (American football), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2024 California Proposition 1, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fluffy89502. Thank you for your work on Gangs in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of rail transportation in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profit.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]