User talk:Fluffy89502: Difference between revisions

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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]