User:Fruitloop11/Archive 1

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pure Heroine

Why, hello there! My name is Tristessa, your friendly neighbourhood mediator from the Mediation Committee. I promise that I don't bite! I'll be the mediator handling your dispute over the categorisation of the Pure Heroine article. I've asked all of you a question about the article on the Mediation Committee case page, and I'd be really grateful if you'd come along and have a chat with me about it, at the following page:

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pure Heroine

Please do remember that mediation is completely voluntary and, if at any time you don't want to participate further, you can stop being involved. My job is to help you to be able to solve this together, however, and I hope you'll talk to me if you need to. I look forward to your participation. Thanks, --Tristessa (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Mediation Committee notification

Dear Fruitloop11: I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pure Heroine. I've received no reply from any mediation parties to my message dated 23:19, 26 May 2014. Could you please review what I've written at the case talk page, and respond if you wish to? If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute or this mediation, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Best regards, Tristessa (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The 31 Flavors

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The 31 Flavors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 331dot (talk)

"Quit removing Heavy metal from Black Sabbath albums" - I didn't edit Black Sabbath articles. But Deep Purple are hard rock (and not heavy metal), stop messing these two genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.216.71 (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It can also be easily confused with Baskin-Robbins' 31 flavors. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hard rock and heavy metal are different genres

Don't mess these genres. Never call hard rock heavy metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.216.71 (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I can tell by your edits you are the same person. Deep purple has been Heavy metal since 1970. You have heavy metal confused with extreme metal. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Deep Purple has been Hard rock since 1970. You have hard rock confused with heavy metal.

Read Hard rock articles on the Web, Wikipedia included. --93.80.253.98 (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not?

Different computers - different IPs. I don't hide it. But I'm nou sockpuppet. Don't call hard rock heavy metal. And don't add pop rock where it does not belong.

From Russian version of Wikipedia "Hard rock" article (my translation):

"By the time of early 1970s hard rock bands that became founders of this subgenre appeared: Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath. ...1970s hard rock layed the groundwork for heavy metal that emerged later"

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4-%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA

Wikipedia "Hard rock" article:

"Hard rock developed into a major form of popular music in the 1970s, with bands such as Led Zeppelin, The Who, Deep Purple, Aerosmith and AC/DC"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.216.71 (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:93.80.253.98

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. INeverCry 21:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited If I Didn't Care, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbershop. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Rugrats

Hi Fruitloop11, re: the recent date changes at Rugrats! and List of Rugrats episodes, I see that the final episode aired August 1, 2004. Please note this reference. I've added refs to the articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Reticulated python page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Koresh again

So using children as human shields doesn't count as terrorism? Hmm --RThompson82 (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat 2 release date

Wherever I went to see the release date, on every possible site that is about video games and their dates, the date is listed as June 25th, 1993. (Disturbedasylum)

List of 2016 box office number-one films in the United States

Don't call other editors nazis, as you did at User talk:Sergecross73. It doesn't matter what you think of their edits, calling people Article Nazis isn't going to do anything at all to settle the situation down, is it? It takes two to edit war, and (looking at your reverts) you were inching pretty close to 3RR yourself. Do be more careful going forward, please. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Deadpool became the first film of 2016 to top the box office for three consecutive weekends, and the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016" This is a chart that list number 1 films from week to week and those films' milestones, broken records, etc. from week to week. First off, the information that User talk:Fruitloop11 is trying to enter into this chart (became... the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016) is not correct because Deadpool did not become the highest grossing R-rated film during the 9th weekend of the year, the section of the chart that the information is entered under. Even though I have told User talk:Fruitloop11 and his alter ego User talk:76.107.252.227 that the information entered into the article is incorrect, they continue to replace the information, both saying they have a right to "contribute to the article". I have gone back and checked other pages that list box office number 1 films (down to 2010) and I haven't seen where the milestone of highest grossing r-rated, pg-rated, g-rated, x-rated film has ever been enter into this chart. Mainly because it seems redundant since there is a "Highest Grossing Films of 2016" chart at the bottom of the page. I have told them that as WP editors, we have a responsibility to make sure what we put in the articles are correct, no matter how minute the incorrect information is. I have ask them both to enter the information into the chart where it would be a true statement or just leave it out of the article (which is my choice since it's never been entered as a milestone before in these charts). I am bringing this issue to your attention since the user has come to you two editors (User talk:Sergecross73, User:Ultraexactzz) in the past about this.

Past conversation; User_talk:76.107.252.227#List_of_2016_box_office_number-one_films_in_the_United_States Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No more arguing is needed. It is the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016 end of discussion, But since you can't stand being wrong. How about showing me proof where the first film to reach three weekends at number 1 is a milestone. I put it at the 3rd weekend because those three weekends add to it's overall total, which counts when taking in box office numbers.

And you wanna make a claim like "I have gone back and checked other pages that list box office number 1 films (down to 2010) and I haven't seen where the milestone of highest grossing r-rated, pg-rated, g-rated, x-rated film has ever been enter into this chart."

I have gone back to the 1990s box office number-one films in the United States, and there is no milestone saying First film too reach number 1 for three weekends in the year of 199X WHY??? Because it's not a milestone it's a TRIVIAL statement. Films go three weeks at number 1 all the time in The United States.

Also I never contacted User:Ultraexactzz. He came to you because you were being disruptive and violated the 3RR rule. two different other users reverted your edits User:Mlpearc and User:Lazylaces, but hey they're probably my alter egos too. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Guys, I don't have a dog in this fight - but I'm more than happy to block anyone I see edit warring. So you all need to come to a consensus about how to include accurate (and verified) information about Deadpool and so forth. If there's debate about which week to include Deadpool passing some record, then discuss it on the article's talk page - or add it to the movie's premiere week in the form of "Deadpool would later become the...." so that the relevant information about the film is in one spot, but clearly refers to the week in which the record was broken or whatever. Everyone - HENDAWG229, Fruitloop11, and IP editors - needs to cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, UltraExactZZ. But again, I'm not arguing, getting aggressive or edit warring with anyone, just stating facts and replacing incorrect information within the article. And since Deadpool surpass 13 Hours on February 13 to become the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016, the first weekend of its release (7th weekend of the year), then that's where the information should be enter so that the statement "became... highest grossing R-rated film of 2016" would be factual. I have stated from the beginning that the statement needs to be moved, or just removed since I feel it's redundant since there's a chart at the bottom of the article's page that list highest grossing films of 2016. HENDAWG229 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not true you have been aggressive, before you were blocked you stated and I quote threatening me with being blocked for removing proving false information from a WP article, then I will have to see about reporting you all & having you all blocked. Stop icon This will be your ONLY WARNING! Thank you that sounds pretty aggressive to me. And you were edit warring, you were reverted by four different people and even now you can't stop trying to remove it until we reach a consensus.

On top of that you have nothing that shows me first box office number 1 to go three weekends in the year of (insert random year) is a record. It's only recently been added starting back in 2013 and all statements dating back to 2013 should be removed, unless you can provide a source like I did with my milestone. The thing is you have been making false statements and claims since I've first started having this conversation with you.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm never aggressive. But I don't back down when I know I'm right. And as WP editors, I think we have a responsibility to make sure any information edited into an article is correct and factual. I think that statement with the "stop icon" was copy & paste from a message you or your alter ego left me. And I technically haven't reverted four users since I believe two of them are you. I can also see that admitting you were wrong and just putting the information into the chart on the article's page where it is a true statement, for some reason, is just not going to happen with you, so a consensus with you is near impossible. Because we can stop all this going back and forth if you just enter your edit "became... highest grossing R-rated film of 2016" into week 7 of the chart, Deadpool''s first weekend of release, when the film did become highest grossing R-rated film of 2016, where your statement is true. I mean, this conversation could have been over with 2 weeks ago. I really don't care about a film spending three consecutive weeks at number 1 and I don't know why you keep coming at me with that. Only you and your IP address partner is worried about that. But if the information is correct and entered into the chart correctly and sourced, why remove it, that's my opinion about that. This will be my last comment on the issue. The administrator can give their consensus when they have time. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not only are you hopping page to page trying to get me in trouble, but now I'm a liar and don't post factual information?? You threaten to have User:Mlpearc blocked to be exact. look on your talk page. Don't go around blaming everything on me trying to make me look like the bad guy when you were the user that was blocked for edit warring, violating the 3RR, and attacking other users. Even now you seem to wanna edit war to get your way.

I'm glad you've came to your senses. It's not worth getting blocked again. Maybe we should put something at the bottom of the chart saying which film was the highest grossing R, PG, PG-13, and G film of that year. I think it's something some users might be interested in knowing. I have a source right here (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/mpaarating.htm?yr=2016&rating=R&view=releasedate&p=.htm) I think you've misunderstood me ever since we started this conversation, which is a shame.. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Dispute between User:HENDAWG229, User:Fruitloop11, User:76.107.252.227 arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fruitloop11. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of general sanctions

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello, I'm Legacypac. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. 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. Declaring the most wanted terrorisy in the world dead based on Sputnik news is highly inappropriate. [1] Similar changes have been reverted and discussed on the talk page. If/when Bagdadi is dead, it will be reported in Reliable Sources not a Russian Propoganda site. Please revert yourself. Legacypac (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of The 31 Flavors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The 31 Flavors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 31 Flavors until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Chester Bennington

Please stop removing {{Death date and age}} - FlightTime (open channel) 04:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I didnt look again--Fruitloop11 (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fruitloop11. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello, I'm Stormy clouds. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Toys "R" Us have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for American Politics

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Doug Weller talk 15:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fruitloop11. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Your recent editing history at 2020 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Do not remove the template New Year header template. Some parts are still 2019 that the festivities hasn't finished yet. Be patience. ApprenticeFan work 03:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Go to the talk page.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Bench to Bi*ch

In response to:

"What was your reason for changing bi*ch to bench? Swear words are based on nothing but sexual repression and Wikipedia does not censor"

Uh I was actually trying to change "Bench" back to "Bi*ch". As someone has changed "Di*k" to "Dink" and "Bi*ch" to "Bench" and I was trying to revert those edits. — Macapaka ((talk)) 22:16, 05 March 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a template for ongoing discussions?

Thank you for your good faith work on the List of epidemics page.

I see you mentioned I should have posted on the main article space that there was an ongoing discussion or vote. Is there a template I can use to alert users to this in the future?

Thank you, Ikjbagl (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Talk_header

I'm not 100% sure but I think this is it.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit at List of epidemics

You recently edited the upper limit for the death toll of the 2017–2018 United States flu season. Both CDC references given list the upper limit of the estimated range of deaths due to influenza as ~95,000 (94,987). See Table 1 here and here. The CDC's original point estimate (importantly, not the upper limit on the 95% CI) was 79,400 (that can be seen in the second link in the previous sentence). This originally spurred articles like this one from NYT which stated "over 80,000 Americans died of flu." The CDC since revised the point estimate downward to 61,099; they also revised the range downward to 46,000 to 95,000 (the upper limit was originally greater than 95,000). We previously discussed this in the talk page for the article and even had a dispute request resolved via WP:ANI. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fuzz (Fuzz album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (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) 08:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited In Cauda Semper Stat Venenum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello, I'm TheJoebro64. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Super Mario Bros. have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. JOEBRO64 13:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I was removing an unreliable source as per wp:RELIABILITY--Fruitloop11 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Accusing people of crimes in edit summaries is not allowed. For that reason the edit summary has been removed. Fuzheado | Talk 23:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Creation (Japanese band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zodiac killer. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe my edit was unconstructive there is no reason why DNA cant solve the case--Fruitloop11 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead summarizes article content. The conclusion drawn by the researchers is not broadly accepted, so the lead should not imply otherwise. It’s not up to you to declare it solved. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I never said it was up to me to be solved. I’m saying there is no reason to really doubt it to be honest.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, that’s what you did when you changed the lead of the encyclopedia article to unequivocally state the perpetrator. That’s disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)