User talk:Fruitful Frugal
Welcome to Wikipedia!
[edit]
Welcome Fruitful Frugal!I'm Jauerback, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
April 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm Unbinilium-322 Dibromide. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Curb Your Enthusiasm, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't really seem to me like an addition important or big enough to merit sourcing. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Unacceptable edit summary
[edit]This edit summary is unacceptable under Wikipedia's civility policy. I see that you are in a long-running dispute with another editor about content that they would like included in the article. However, it is never permissible to speak abusively to another editor in this manner. The correct way to approach this dispute is to initiate a discussion on the talk page, outlining a policy-based argument for the removal of the content to which you have an objection. If you engage in further incivility, your ability to edit will be curtailed as needed to prevent further instances. BD2412 T 00:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Avatar: The Last Airbender season 2. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 23:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Avatar: The Last Airbender season 2
[edit]Your continued edit warring with AJL1374 on Avatar: The Last Airbender season 2 even after being blocked for 2 days is unacceptable. Discuss the matter on the article's talk page and come to a resolution in a civil manner or both of you will be blocked again for an longer period of time. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was already settled, they backed off. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fruitful Frugal: Frankly I don't care who "backed off" first, I just don't want to see anymore edit warring on the page from either of you going forward. Thank you.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Fruitful Frugal I just wanted to say, I'm sorry for editing so much on Avatar Book 2, I just didn't know you didn't consider Clancy Brown as main voice cast because he doesn't appear until at the 4th quarter of the book so I don't want to cause any harm I'm just apologizing. AJL1374 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's fine. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. But please don't ever call me a little kid or a nuisance again, cause it hurt my feelings and I get real sensitive and ticked off with name calling especially when you said I was using my autism as an excuse cause what I said was the truth, I'm kind of new to wikipedia and I don't know a lot of the rules and have a hard time with conversations, so let's just agree not to mess with each other and just have a friendly chat when we need it, alright AJL1374 (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's fine. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Saruman and the crystal ball source
[edit]Hi, you've now repeatedly gone ahead of the cited source on this article. If a source says something will (probably) happen (and I repeatedly mention in edit comments that you're crystal-ball gazing), then it is not safe to say that the something in question has happened, at least not without a fresh source that actually says so. Why? Because predicted things in the world (pace Madame Za Za with her crystal ball) may or may not come to pass; so Wikipedia quite reasonably says that you can't use an old source to state that something has now happened. Hope this is all obvious. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- But the film is already out. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- In that case you would have needed to cite the new source. You can't support a new claim with an old source, that's fortune-telling. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
May 2025
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at David Irving, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
June 2025
[edit] Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the plot summary of KPop Demon Hunters have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Additionally, I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. this edit summary (admin-only link) was grossly inappropriate. I suspect some admins would have indeffed you for that, but I'm being lenient. And you were already warned for personal attacks above. If you return to editing, you really need to desist from telling people to fuck off, accusing them of being neo-nazis, etc. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- You really, really, really backed the wrong horse here, Pppery. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents~Openly racist editor Shadowfax33]] Fruitful Frugal (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- What's the matter Pppery, no response or any acknowledgement that you unknowingly carried water for a white supremacist? That's okay, I'd be pretty fucking embarrassed too if I learned after the fact that I easily allowed some groyper loser to figuratively stick his dirty fingers in my mouth and tricked me into playing defense for him after his fee fees got hurt because he was accurately called out for what he was. Last I checked, Wikipedia was not in the business of protecting the honor of offended nazis, but I guess you think different about that.
- You should be deeply embarrassed with yourself, and you owe me an apology. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry they blocked you for noticing a nazi
[edit]You didn't deserve the block, but on the other hand, the user you called a nazi is now banned for being a white supremacist. ~2025-31252-16 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 01:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Green Goblin
[edit]Hello,
Despite being blocked for edit warring previously, you have decided to edit war again on this page. When I partially reverted your changes, the appropriate thing to do would be to start a discussion on the article's talk page or on my talk page.
Calling a character "evil" is a value judgment. You might think the Green Goblin is evil, but another person might think differently. The word that was there before, "deranged", was an attempt to express that he had gone out of control and was not his normal self. It's descriptive, not evaluative or judgmental. We could use a word other than "deranged", but "evil" is not appropriate. The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view gives an example about using the word "evil":
"Avoid stating opinions as facts ... For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
If we can't say that something as heinous as real-world genocide is evil, we certainly can't call a fictional character evil. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Get off your high horse and get that broom out of your ass as well while you're at it. Your blatant attempts at intimidating me by trying to dangle my past block in my face and claiming that I'm currently "edit warring" when all I did was change one insignificant adjective to another and I didn't even try to revert anything back clearly shows how you're just another overly possessive, prissy and self-entitled editor trying to throw his supposed "authority" around others.
- Save your condescending, conceited diatribe for someone who cares. And btw, I was last blocked really because I hurt the tender feelings of a self-admitted groyper for calling him a neo-Nazi (which you know, groypers absolutely are) and said individual ended up being blocked permanently for that exact reason soon after. So you know, I'm feeling pretty morally vindicated in that regard. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- I apologize for bringing up your history at the beginning of my post. That was not a very nice way to start a conversation. And I'm sorry my post felt condescending and conceited. I did not intend to bring that attitude, and I'm glad you made me aware. I will approach this type of conversation differently next time.OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the way I exploded at you and hurled insults. I should not have done that and you didn't deserve it. I just became very upset over the accusations of edit-warring when I do not believe I took it far enough on the Norman Osborn article for it to be labeled as such. I changed the adjective "deranged" to "evil" twice sure but if you reverted it a second time after I explained I believed there was nothing wrong with it then fine, that's it. You felt more strongly about it and I did not intend to keep fighting over the subject editing-wise nor do I intend to now; same thing regarding the other changes in the lede's wording I did. I will leave the article alone as one adjective's validity is not some hill I plan to die on. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for being gracious and for your apology. ☺️ OrdinaryOtter (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the way I exploded at you and hurled insults. I should not have done that and you didn't deserve it. I just became very upset over the accusations of edit-warring when I do not believe I took it far enough on the Norman Osborn article for it to be labeled as such. I changed the adjective "deranged" to "evil" twice sure but if you reverted it a second time after I explained I believed there was nothing wrong with it then fine, that's it. You felt more strongly about it and I did not intend to keep fighting over the subject editing-wise nor do I intend to now; same thing regarding the other changes in the lede's wording I did. I will leave the article alone as one adjective's validity is not some hill I plan to die on. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- I apologize for bringing up your history at the beginning of my post. That was not a very nice way to start a conversation. And I'm sorry my post felt condescending and conceited. I did not intend to bring that attitude, and I'm glad you made me aware. I will approach this type of conversation differently next time.OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)