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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]