User talk:Soffredo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unblock (attempt 2)[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Soffredo (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I understand that constantly reverting was wrong. Even though I may have been right (obviously POV), I should've brought it to the talk page and discussed it with other editors. (You can see I'm able to do that here) As suggested by RGloucester here, I'm willing to be put under WP:1RR but only for a limited time that I can agree to. (I was told it's not permanent.) Let's say 6 months or less? That's basically a third of the amount of time I've been around here. Thank you. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Editor has accepted conditions:
  • they are limited to WP:1RR across the entire project indefinitely (ensure you fully understand a WP:REVERT)
  • violations will be met with reblocks, starting at 2 weeks and escalating from there
  • after 6 months, this restriction can be appealed. Usually this is done through conversation with the blocking (Bbb23) AND unblocking admin, or through WP:ANI
  • these restrictions should remain listed on this talkpage while they are in effect the panda ₯’ 09:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
  • I support this unblock request, which is fairly obvious given that it was my idea. Soffredo has had these troubles for a while, and I've been on the other end of them multiple times. However, I think that WP:ROPE should be thought of in this case, rather than continued blocks. Soffredo has acknowledged what he did wrong, and 1RR will give him WP:ROPE under the principle of the discretionary sanctions for Eastern European articles, of which he was notified in July. If he cannot handle WP:1RR, he will be swiftly re-blocked, and that's that. If he can, however, that will be proof that he is able to edit constructively and to use the talk page. He is not a bad editor at heart, even if he has trouble with reverting. I believe that it is best way forward is to continue to allow him to edit, but to hold him to account. WP:1RR is the best way forward. Please unblock Soffredo in good faith, in the spirit of his acknowledgement here. RGloucester 03:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Soffredo, with respect to your edit of your user page, six months from now is March 2, 2015.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, my bad. I was tried at the time. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2
  • @Soffredo: I'm glad to see you've been unblocked. RGloucester 00:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: ). Thank you. RGloucester 15:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 days for violation of WP:1RR restriction. This is a reinstatement of the original 14 day block, minus 2 days alread served. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   the panda ₯’ 20:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: you agreed to editing restrictions. This is a clear violation of those. The next block in the escalation phase will be 1 month: please ensure this doesn't happen again the panda ₯’ 20:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft edit[edit]

Please ignore.

Add this here when unblocked:

The Ice Climbers didn't return as playable fighters in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U because the development team couldn't get them to work on the Nintendo 3DS version. There wasn't a high priority to include them since the Ice Climber series was "unlikely to have another installment" at the time.[1]


References[edit]

  1. ^ Brian (September 16, 2014). "Sakurai addresses Ice Climbers’ absence in Smash Bros. Wii U/3DS and more in new Famitsu column". Nintendo Everything. Retrieved September 16, 2014. 

[Soffredo] Yeoman 2 23:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)