User talk:534edits

August 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to White House Rose Garden have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: White House Rose Garden was changed by 534edits (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.880635 on 2025-08-29T13:23:01+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

If you're not changing content, leave the content alone rather than replacing with "[unchanged content here …]" –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi 534edits! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. — Newslinger talk 17:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 17:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hello, I'm Newslinger. An edit that you recently made to Oenocarpus seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 18:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

534edits, edits such as Special:Diff/1308279263 and Special:Diff/1308733929, which added citations of fake references to articles, are unacceptable. Also, please note that LLM-generated comments (such as Special:Diff/1309719657 and Special:Diff/1309721827) may not be posted in discussions on talk pages or noticeboards, especially without proper disclosure. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 19:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for pointing this out. I’ll make sure that any future edits are based only on reliable, verifiable sources and avoid introducing draft text that could include errors or unverifiable citations. 534edits (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Hello, I'm Kuru. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in one of your recent contributions to Keith Edwards (media personality), you cited a link to a source that may not be reliable. Sources considered unreliable should generally not be used to support statements. Information from an unreliable source can be challenged by other editors and removed. Reliable sources are generally those with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Self-published material, user-generated content, and certain other outlets such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites or publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking may not meet these standards. If you are unsure about which sources are appropriate, there is a list of sources that are considered generally reliable. Additionally, some WikiProjects have their own lists of sources that are considered reliable for that particular subtopic. If you are still unsure about a source's reliability, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add sources directly to the claims. "FamousFix", as noted, is a user-generated garbage site. Please point to the parts of the New Yorker article you noted in the edit summary that contain his birthdate and his birth place in Oakland. In the future, you must add reliable sources to those claims before reverting them back into the article, and using garbage sources is completely unacceptable. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you've not responded, I've again removed the material. Provide direct and reliable sources before adding it again. Please ensure that you read WP:BLP before continuing. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Keith Edwards (media personality). This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:534edits reported by User:NatGertler (Result: ). Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Keith Edwards (media personality)) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]