Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:46, 2 September 2014

This user has a life and may not respond swiftly.

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/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. 16:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 14:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Got it. Crossed that out instead. 04:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Soffredo_reported_by_User:TL565 (Result: ). Thank you. TL565 (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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? 03:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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. 23:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

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)

Unblock

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

• Donetsk People's Republic
• Lugansk People's Republic

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)

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? 14:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Actually, I only just realized that when I did my last revert. Revert once again unexplained... are you trying to lure me into 3RR? 14:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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. 14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

14:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

I'll be sure to move the page once I can. 22:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

As in, once my 2 weeks are served, I will move User:Soffredo/Bans to User:Soffredo/Blocks and change the article accordingly. 22:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Didn't know I had a block log, and it probably isn't as appealing to the eyes. 23:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Thanks. 23:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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. 02:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Unblock (attempt 2)

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

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. 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 a 2 weeks and escalating from there
• after 6 months, this restriction can be appealed. Usually this is done through conversation with the blocking 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)

• 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)