User talk:AG202

"Kureffi" is just the Hepburn romanization. The Anglicized name for Klefki in Japan is "Cleffy". And there is no Pokémon known as "Cleffy" in English.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, please be careful when you revert. You removed my addition of the movie poster to the page when you restored your version.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Durham, North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elaine O'Neal. 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) 06:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 special powers 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 practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

== Welcome! ==

Hi AG202! 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! Selfstudier (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We're really not supposed to edit archived pages, so I will respond to this here on your talk page.

At AIV, we warn IPv6 IPs on /64s all the time. Yes, there's a chance they won't see it, but if we don't warn them they definitely will not see it. And as at that time it was the only IP doing that, protection would have been more than needed to deal with the issue while denying any IPs who want to edit constructively the chance to do so.

I see now that the article is getting hit by a variety of IPs that a rangeblock would be insufficient for, so I'll take care of that with protection. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Just letting you know Bob Casey has conceded which negates the need for network calls. I will be listing McCormick as Senator-elect. If you still have objections send me a message on my talk page. Wollers14 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This is something that should have been brought up on the talk page as there was a consensus to not update the race until the networks had called it, hence the edit notice. I'm not going to revert the edit though as at this point, there's little reason to. Also, this should be brought up at one of the talk pages, bringing up here isn't the most appropriate. AG202 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You are probably right on that last part and I do apologize for that. Just don't know where the discussions are being held. I'm also surprised the talk of concession didn't come up because normally barring extremely rare circumstances like in 2000 or Valadao's 2018 race is a concession ever retracted and more rare that the leads change. Back in 2020 I only called a race if the AP did or if someone conceded but there wasn't that much argument in 2022 over that. You made a good point over the other networks calling it before which is why I primarily left it alone until someone gave in. But I think its safe to say that with McCormick ahead by thousands of votes after the first count was completed it would take like actual evidence of fraud (Not that I believe there is any kind of fraud btw) to change the lead as recounts very rarely change leaders and with McCormick ahead by that much it will not change. Wollers14 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 119th United States Congress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Agency_for_International_Development&diff=prev&oldid=1281001896

For example, this above edit of mine. We have a reputable news outlet saying it's an issue. And it certainly seems like an issue to me.

You rolled back 3 of my recent edits, which is fine. I welcome constructive criticism.

How would you like this aspect covered, or not covered. And in general, how might you recommend covering the fast-moving Trump presidency?

Yours in all things encyclopedic,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: Hi, sorry I believe you have the wrong person. I did not rollback said edits on the USAID article. It was @Ow0cast who did, in this edit. AG202 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. And thanks for the info. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chad, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Adé and Bao.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello AG202. In 2022, you made changes on Yoruba numerals and provided a source. Unfortunately, I can't access the source, but I want to know if the reference covers the entire table containing the numbers and their base. Kwesi Yema (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for reverting to the wrong edit. I meant to remove the vandalism and didn't see the consensus on the topic. - RockinJack18 03:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Agency for International Development, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skeleton Crew was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, it seems we disagree on the deletion of Alabama from the section on mid-decade redistricting. Perhaps we should discuss this removal? Lj123 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lj123: WP:CRYSTAL BALL (along with WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR) is clear that we should not declare events to take place if they are not certain. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions." Stating that AL will redistrict is at this point a clear violation of that policy. AL is under a court injunction that blocks it from redistricting until 2030. Unless that injunction is lifted, the state cannot redistrict; it is that clear. "Pending legislative action" makes it seem that there can be legislative action taken currently to begin with, when there is not.

We additionally cannot state that the state is expected to add 1 or 2 Republican seats, considering that we do not know if it will be able to redistrict in the first place. It is also WP:OR considering that there is no source provided. AG202 (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

So, as Crystal Ball is concerned, that would necessitate the removal o Lj123 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what happened there. Looks like my comment got cut off. As Crystal Ball goes, this would necessitate the removal of Tennessee as well until the new map is passed and implemented, right?

As for Alabama, why list only half the steps if we keep it? Legislative and Judicial action are both needes as one without the other does nothing. Additionally, both are occurring simultaneously. Lj123 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lj123: One might also remove TN considering they have a law in place that bars mid-decade redistricting, but it looks like WP:RSs are reporting as if they will redistrict nonetheless. Also, the law can just be rewritten by the TN legislature vs AL being under court order. Nevertheless, the situation surrounding TN is very different from the situation surrounding AL, and just because one is there doesn't mean that the other has to be. It's not binding precedent, and one can choose to focus on one issue at a time, though I may choose to update TN later. AG202 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand that, but I'm still not convinced WP:Crystal Ball inherently precludes Alabama's listing. WP: Crystal Ball is grey in political matters to an extent as I've seen debates on listing elections scheduled or legally required to happen which have not yet begun the first steps.

Tangent aside, I believe the phrasing may need to be reworked in general so as to have that section be less prediction and more focused on listing states which began the redistricting process. I do feel listing one side but not the other for Alabama is just picking which step we believe is more important. Lj123 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be grounds for a broader discussion. I don't believe we have guidelines for mid-decade redistricting and what merits inclusion as compared to, say, notability guidelines for listing a potential candidate on an election article. Lj123 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the discussion has moved away from the actual sourcing question and into repeatedly dismissing later developments without fully addressing the updated sources being presented.

The core issue is fairly simple: multiple reliable mainstream outlets now directly reference Nick Shirley in connection with later fraud charges involving a daycare featured in his reporting. Whether that belongs in the lead or body is a reasonable editorial discussion, but characterizing the allegations as wholly “unsubstantiated” no longer reflects the current sourcing landscape in a neutral way.

I would prefer we focus on wording and source interpretation rather than repeatedly reverting to older framing that predates the more recent reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrolen (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You're approaching this mess basically the same way I did. I am usually mostly mobile when I look at WP over the weekend and found the argument prior to my engagement literally unreadable. I asked the disputants to provide me with a list of reliable sources.

This was the result: . My main concern is that prior versions of the page were playing fast and loose with WP:BLPCRIME but that's nipped in the bud for the moment. However trying to even parse the edit conflict beyond that is... challenging. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)