User talk:Soffredo/Archive 2014

This is all the messages that have been left on my user talk in 2014.

Re: broken ref

From what I can see the ref you removed at Gallery of sovereign state flags‎ as broken works fine for me. Try Refreshing the page.--Auric talk 19:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on ISIL/ISIS

I agree what you are trying to do in the case of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, but let the sources come in more, and the Iraqi government did say they were going to plan a major attack on Fallujah. I would think to wait until then, or wait for more sources to come in, just take it easy, wait a few more days for things to unfold, then start a discussion for whether or not the ISIS should be included in List of states with limited recognition. —SPESH531 Other 02:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of states with limited recognition shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Kahastok talk 21:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes at List of shortest-lived sovereign states. Kahastok talk 21:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multiple Olympic Teams

Hi Soffredo. I see your point about New Zealand and Realm of New Zealand being different things, but if NZL/COK do not belong in the template, we would also have to exclude Bermuda, BVI and Cayman, since they are British Overseas Territories and as such not part of the United Kingdom. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are territories of the United Kingdom. The Cook Islands are a state in free association with New Zealand, not a territory. [Soffredo]

15:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that distinction is self evident for people who see this list. In that way Cook Islands will be the only NOC that neither is a UN member or observer state nor belongs in this template, which seems a bit odd. I have, nevertheless, removed the template from the NZL and COK pages. --T*U (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cook Islands are a member of multiple UN specialized agencies, so it does have some involvement in the United Nations. [Soffredo]

16:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice expansion of my humble effort at NOC! Thanx! --T*U (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fête de la Musique may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

13140 Paris, France. ''Marais: les gays privés de Fête de la Musique?'', Tetu.com, 21 june 2008).]</ref>
France au Royaume-Uni |publisher=Ambafrance-uk.org |date=2007-06-19 |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref>)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:2013 Kaesong agreement.png

A tag has been placed on File:2013 Kaesong agreement.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Kenneth Bae on Facebook.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kenneth Bae on Facebook.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Yoshi's New Island logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yoshi's New Island logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Cyprus dispute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:08, 12 February 2014 (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.GreyShark (dibra) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus

Soffredo, when an edit it objected to, you need to discuss on the talkpage. I linked you before to WP:BRD, which you should read. You should also read WP:Consensus. You're edit warring in your opinion over multiple pages, which is not good conduct. CMD (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Euromaidan

I notice you keep adding the flag icons back into the template. The template is already cluttered beyond belief, and adding more clutter doesn't make it any better. If you want them to be there, please discuss this on the appropriate talk page. DDima 01:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea's recognition

I had to revert your latest edit to the Republic of Crimea article and supplied an explanation on the talk page. Please comment there if you have concerns (or know of other, more recent sources). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 12, 2014; 20:15 (UTC)

Providing an edit summary may limit you being reverted.--Alcea setosa (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Crimea (country)

Please do not revert a change produced as part of an WP:RfC at Talk:Republic of Crimea. Please discuss first, at the talk page or with the closer User:Dennis Brown. RGloucester — ☎ 01:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crimean referendum, 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{See also|International recognition of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lugansk Parliamentary Republic

I have reverted your edits as the republic was never declared, it has only been planned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Lugansk Parliamentary Republic, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lugansk Parliamentary Republic. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2014 Ukrainian states

Template:2014 Ukrainian states has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Львівське (говорити) 15:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kharkov Republic flag.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kharkov Republic flag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lugansk Republic flag.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lugansk Republic flag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
	Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as Ri Sol-ju. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 09:01, Friday, November 22, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 09:01, Friday, November 22, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Coloring of Pokémon titles within the table

Hi, I have started a discussion on Talk:List of Pokémon video games#Coloring of Pokémon titles within the table regarding your edit that added different colors to the table and I think it would be very helpful to have your input as to why the text should be colored as such. I have also reverted your edit for now due to my reasonings expressed on that talk page as well as the fact that your edit did not explain why you were undoing my previous edit. Let's come to a consensus on the talk page. Thanks! Artichoker^[talk] 00:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has got a spelling error in it!!!!!

File:Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg Please look at the writing in the above image. It spells Donetsk (Донецкая) wrong!

Please do not re-add wrong images to articles like you did in Donetsk People's Republic--Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

You can't move content from the title it started at. You are destroying the edit history, with a WP:CUTPASTE move. If you want to move content, you must start a requested move. You can't do it the way you are doing it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remade the insurgency to be about the state, which you reverted. So I took the content I made and moved it to a new article. [Soffredo]

21:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that. IT KILLS THE WP:Edit history. READ WP:CUTPASTE. RGloucester — ☎ 21:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In either case, you both went absurdly far beyond WP:3RR in this. You both ought to know better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Luhansk People's Republic a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. For future reference, this will provide links as to why what you did wasn't appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dogecoin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Much feedback pls.|quote=Yep, Japanese for puppy, but also plays nicely with the English Coin :)|date=April 4, 2014|accessdate=May 18, 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

A user has stated concerns that you may be misusing multiple accounts or distorting consensus via "meat puppetry" (see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy). Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soffredo for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. User:RGloucester (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2014 (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.

May 2014 (Block 2)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Elizabeth II. 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.

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. Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig redux

Heya again Soffredo, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news again but your signature currently, or at least last I saw, has a file embedded in it (File:Journeyman lv4 small.jpg) which unfortunately goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on signatures (WP:SIG#Images) which says "Images of any kind must not be used in signatures...". Besides that keep up the good work. Cheers, v/r — dain omite 00:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coup d'état, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding consensus

Soffredo, I am the admin that blocked you in May for edit warring on Elizabeth II. I am dismayed to see that you returned to the article and made the same edit again when your block expired, but I'm glad that you are now at least attempting to discuss the matter. From my cursory review of the discussion, it appears that consensus is firmly against your position, and I encourage you to drop it and find something else to do; continuing this battle will likely result in your increased frustration and another possible edit war, which will get you blocked for a longer period of time. Editing here is much more relaxing if you understand when there is no support for your position, and just move on. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Super Smash Bros. Brawl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sheik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Stop re-adding the table of characters to Super Smash Bros. Melee. It's un-necessary and falls under WP:CRUFT. The table is included on Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U based on the current consensus and is actually temporary until the games are released. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were actually blocked twice for edit warring. You should know better by now. If you insert the table again, I will not hesitate to report you. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding an unsourced flag against consensus at Lugansk People's Republic, stop reverting my edits for no reason. I removed the citation needed template because, as per WP:LEADCITE, we don't need citations in the lead for information that is cited in the body. Furthermore, the DPR has nothing to do with international recognition, and doesn't belong in the recognition section. New Russia is already mentioned in the body. Your continued disruptive editing in Ukraine-related topics is getting tiresome. RGloucester — ☎ 17:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Country data Lugansk People's Republic

A tag has been placed on Template:Country data Lugansk People's Republic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history at List of states with limited recognition shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. TDL (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2014 (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. CMD (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AN3#User:Soffredo reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: ). If these assertions are correct you've been trying to force your edits in against consensus for a long time, and in a variety of places. When blocks are issued at this noticeboard, they are usually in proportion to how long the problem has been going on. In your case, a block of at least a month would seem appropriate. You can avoid the block if you will make an appropriate response at the noticeboard and agree to follow policy in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Super Smash Bros. (series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Remember: Talk pages exist. If you have disagreements, use them. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition

I've created a section at Federal State of Novorossiya for your chart, and added it there. There is no need to create a new article, as that would be a fork. Thank you for your cooperation. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I was just thinking of doing the same thing. [Soffredo]

02:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a link to international recognition on Template:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine - the link only led to a redirect to Federal State of Novorossiya, which is already on the template. Filling the template with links to the same place only discourages users from trying the links.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in the Campaignbox Post-Soviet conflicts

Please see MOS:FLAG and WP:ICONDECORATION, there are policies against using icons like that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 27 July 2014 (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:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: ). Thank you. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VideoGameHSlogoTransparent.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VideoGameHSlogoTransparent.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014 (Block 3)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at War in Donbass. 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.

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. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled message

Hi -- much respect on the idea you have a life and this isn't too important --

Just wanted to fix a grammar error on the Ferguson page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson,_Missouri). Under the section for Notable People who live(d) in Ferguson, it says, "who's death caused riots" -- this should read "whose death caused riots..."

Many thanks for your work maintaining public information.

~ Jeff Tarbox

Ah, thanks. [Soffredo]

16:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Super Smash Bros.. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Quinn

Sorry about the unfortunately necessary ambiguity. I was referring to the phrase that is widely used on the internet to slur the subject of the article. There's no need for that on the talk page, please remove it. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Crossed that out instead. [Soffredo]

04:36, 22 August 2014 (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:Soffredo_reported_by_User:TL565 (Result: ). Thank you. TL565 (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh

I wonder now, given your insistence to add DPR and LPR as sovereign states, if Nagorno-Karabakh should be listed at all! It's not even recognized by its irredentist country of Armenia. Maybe it should be removed, and considered as an occupied land of Azerbaijan! In the sequence of your non-sense edits about Donbass.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you talking about the

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic being included in the List of sovereign states? Because I didn't add it. You can talk about its inclusion here, but there are many sources discussing its de facto sovereignty. You may as well consider China as occupied Taiwanese land, right? [Soffredo]

03:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semirelated: "Neither the Federal State of Novorossiya, or the DPR or LPR are sovereign states, as you'd wish them to be, along with ISIS, Sofferedo! That has been discussed in the List of sovereign states Talk Page and it's concluded!!!!!!.; Adding this here since you wrote that. You undid the edit that caused me to most recently get blocked. You really didn't get my point, do you? Though you may not see the DNR and LNR as sovereign states, they claim to be so. Russia also claims to be a sovereign state (obviously) so it should be listed equally. Novorossiya does not claim to be a sovereign state, so why list it with Russia? Looks like you're still upset about my failed proposals over at this talkpage. [Soffredo] 23:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014 (Block 4)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at War in Donbass. 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.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Soffredo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was lured into 3RR, which would've never happened if the user who reported me didn't make unexplained reverts. I went on to explain my edits, while other editors would simply remove it without explanation. I believed that it'd be a waste of time to go to the talk page and discuss and simple misconception; if anyone had any sources that actually go against my edits, I would've brought it to the talkpage and suggest they rewrite the Novorossiya article.

This is how the belligerents were and currently are listed at War in Donbass, the article in which I was blocked for:

Novorossiya

Russia

Note how Novorossiya and Russia are listed at the same level. This is incorrect. Despite being called the "Federal State of Novorossiya", it doesn't claim to be a state. It's simply a confederation between its two member states. (If you're going to go against this explanation, would you say the "Union State" is a state?) However, Donetsk and Lugansk do claim to be sovereign states, which Russia is. This means Donetsk, Lugansk, and Russia should all be represented at equal level since they all claim to be states.

Donetsk People's Republic

Lugansk People's Republic

Russia

Decline reason:

In the future, this is the type of conversation that should occur on the article's talk page once you have been reverted once. You may not continually revert to your preferred version in lieu of resolving a minor difference of opinion through conversation. I see no evidence that the group of editors you were in conflict with "lured" you into the violation. Kuru (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TL565 has reverted my edits here and here and doesn't give an explanation. They then went on to report me for 3RR. If they had never done these reverts, I wouldn't have been reported. Is this not obvious enough? [Soffredo]

14:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the matter is that you knew that reverting more than three times was going to result in a block, and you still did it anyway. It doesn't matter what the content of the other editor's edit was. I think I might propose that you be placed under 1RR by discretionary sanctions, as that might teach you not to constantly revert. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only just realized that when I did my last revert. Revert once again unexplained... are you trying to lure me into 3RR? [Soffredo]

14:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you have reported me at Bbb23's talk page. I'd love to participate in the conversation there, but can't because of my block. [Soffredo]

14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't report you. In fact, I was trying to get you unblocked in lieu of another sanction. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soffredo - even though you were right, I do not think there is any point appealing the block. Here is some advice for the future:

If you make an edit that you realise afterwards was mistaken, it is possible to self revert. An edit summary explaining that you are self-reverting a mistaken edit can help.
If you believe you are reverting vandalism, it is worth using the template messages.
If you are reverting POV edits, try not to do two reverts in a row in 24 hours on an article. Do one, and then leave it to another user to do the second revert. You can then do the revert after that. If no second user comes along, maybe the issue was not so serious as it seemed in the heat of the moment. If nobody else has come along, you can always do the second revert the next day.

Best of luck.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Future update to ban list

Since I can't edit my list of bans, I'll put the future entry here:

Click 'show' to view

	Date reported	Date banned	Ban time		Page	Info on edits
4	August 30, 2014	August 30, 2014	336 hours	2 weeks	War in Donbass	Removed Novorossiya since it was listed as a state (It's a confederation between two "states"; read article)
			624 hours

[Soffredo] 14:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soffredo, bans and blocks are not the same thing. You have been given a block. A ban is something like a topic ban.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to move the page once I can. [Soffredo]

22:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. You're going to move what page to where?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As in, once my 2 weeks are served, I will move User:Soffredo/Bans to User:Soffredo/Blocks and change the article accordingly. [Soffredo]

22:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it now, thanks, but just out of curiosity, why do you want to keep a page on blocks? Isn't your block log sufficient?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know I had a block log, and it probably isn't as appealing to the eyes. [Soffredo]

23:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's very funny. Anyway, just in case you have trouble finding it, here it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. [Soffredo]

23:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

I do not think you need to be blocked. All that you need to do to be unblocked is show that you understand why you were blocked, and that you shan't act that way again. You should draw-up a new unblock request that apologises for breaking 3RR. You should also say that you understand now that reverting is not the way to solve any dispute. Talk page discussion is. Personally, I recommend that you volunteer to be under WP:1RR. That is, you volunteer to revert only one change on an article within 24 hours. This will go a long way towards showing that you are capable of being a constructive editor. Do not accuse others of your own crimes. Take responsibility for your actions, understand why what you did was wrong, and provide a remedy. RGloucester — ☎ 00:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can wait 2 weeks instead of placing permanent sanctions on myself. And I don't think the admins would buy my apology, since this is the fourth time I've been blocked. [Soffredo]

02:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "permanent sanction". It is an acknowledgement that you have made mistakes in the past, and that you won't make them again. If you can't do that, then you will end-up in the same place again. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]