User talk:Luffaloaf

Welcome again!

I love to talk about meaningful things! Please don't be mean or rude, or mean and rude.

I am a mystical tornado of meaning and feelings.

I am sur we'll be the best of friends!

October 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Harry Potter. 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. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Harry Potter, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic whites

Hi there

I didn't go into enough detail why I deleted the paragraph about Hispanic whites.

The main reason is that contrary to the paragraph the population of non Hispanic whites has not sharply decreased. It has not grown as fast as the population of Hispanics so it has decreased as a percentage. That's what I meant about "poorly written", it means something different from the truth.

But mostly the concluding paragraph of an introduction should set the tone for the article as a whole. Keeping this paragraph in the introduction implies that one of the most important things to know about white people is somehow that Hispanics are causing their population to crash.

If we want to talk about relative percentage of white people I think it belongs later in the article, not in the introduction. And I would cast it more as the population of the country is becoming more diverse, not that Hispanics are somehow causing white populations to crash. Let me know what you think. David s graff (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 1764 Woldegk tornado. 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. Use the talk page and stop being disruptive. Breaking the infobox code is not helpful either. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 1764 Woldegk tornado 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at 1764 Woldegk tornado. 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 believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 1764 Woldegk tornado, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:47, 9 December 2024 (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. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. E_F⁵ 13:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing 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 believe that 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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion by Dcasey98

This looks like ban evasion by User:Dcasey98 who was blocked for edit-warring in climate, ethnicity and music topics. Luffaloaf's edit history intersects with blocked IP Special:Contributions/104.181.148.164. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Dcasey98 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98. It has been blocked from editing for a period of 2024-12-23T20:06:20Z to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]