User talk:Frukko

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Frukko! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 12:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEBORGA

SEBORGA IS REALLY RECOGNIZED BY 20 NATIONS even though its a micronation --HALLO111689 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources

Micronations: Footnotes of History, Type in how many nations recognize seborga many many websites pop up just please let mine stay up for a week.--HALLO111689 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TALK PAGE

LOOK in the talk page sir, everyone has facts its recognized.... --HALLO111689 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC) PS. U GOT OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY IN TALK PAGE[reply]

July 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Principality of Seborga. 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. Meph^talk 19:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Montferrat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DOC (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) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roero may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

{{World Heritage Site

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stay the Night (Benjamin Orr song - music video screenshot).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stay the Night (Benjamin Orr song - music video screenshot).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) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Frukko. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Frukko. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agnolotti d/al plin

Howdy Frukko,

Thanks for the correction on the Agnolotti article, but the reference (Hildebrand & al, Geometry of pasta, 2011[1] p.20) I used specifically indicates that in Piedmont dialect the name is dal plin (a cursory search also gives quite a few hits for that spelling - as well as for a bunch of variants, e.g. del plin). I suspect your correction referred to proper Italian, didn't it? Cheers, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 07:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it took me a while to figure some things out, and it is further compounded by the millions of dialectal names that sometimes contradict one another. But I'm currently working my way through the mess that is the list of pasta, and since you're here I wanted to ask you to weight in on a duplicate I seem to have found: are you aware of a substantial difference between corzetti and croxetti that would warrant having two articles? If not, then I'll proceed with a merge: all sources I found so far (incl. in Italian) use indifferently one or the other. Thanks! Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 10:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I bought croxetti (with an X) in Veneto a couple of weeks ago (hence the picture), but I agree that the X is an outlier (though the pasta was made in Liguria). The Italian wiki says corzetti, I'll stick with it. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 10:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Frukko. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agnolotti

Hello Frukko, why did you delete the last edits on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan.Alvarez6 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Your recent editing history at Agnolotti 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.
Discuss this at Talk:Agnolotti and come to a consensus. Quit reverting each other. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2023 (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:Frukko reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: ). Thank you. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Agnolotti) for a period of 24 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Agnolotti) for edit warring.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #73683

is closed. Requires further education on not edit warring. There are, of course 6,000,000 other articles available. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I kindly request to be unblocked after months. Wikipedia states that 'A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism.' I have admitted guilt for the edit warring I engaged in on the Agnolotti page. Now, I don't want to make excuses, but the person whose edits I wanted to remove, which were fabricated and without reliable sources, has been indefinitely blocked for acting in bad faith. Next time, instead of engaging in an edit war, I won't react impulsively but will simply report the presence of socks and trolls to the appropriate authorities Frukko (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Sounds exactly right to me. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm Valereee. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Xiaomichel. While you probably didn't intend any offense, this constitutes WP:gravedancing. Please don't do this kind of thing again. Valereee (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Valereee, I'm not clear on what kind of offense I would have caused to Xiamichel. I just told the truth, that his systematic statements against me are not funny and i am not his/her scapegoat and that he should collaborate, but I am not angry with him despite the havoc he is causing. Even though he's blocked, do you think it's fair that he can discredit me in every conversation, on every talk page, when I know absolutely nothing about these edit wars? Every time I open Wikipedia (Italian Wikipedia, by the way), I see that I've been brought up and accused of using sockpuppets (and this has been going on for months) – and there's a long list. Could you kindly point out which offensive phrase I might have said?--Frukko (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the linked essay? Valereee (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. But seriously and honestly, I can't understand where I went wrong, and that's why I was asking for clarification from you. Rather, I went through Wikipedia:personal attacks and it seems to me that Xiamichel's ongoing discrediting of me falls under that category. Now, I don't want to create controversy, but I must point out that it's not fair that just because I was blocked once in my life on Wikipedia in 2023 for an edit war on a single page, where I already admitted my fault and have since been unblocked, this person feels entitled to systematically discredit me in every discussion. Why aren't his attacks on me removed in the same way? Double standard? That said, if I mistranslated any phrase that might seem biased in the message to Xiamichel, I apologize. Obviously, I’m not a native English speaker, and I didn't intend to offend anyone, only to speak clearly. Moreover, I want to emphasize that, so far, in all investigations against me promoted buy him, I’ve been found innocent.--Frukko (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee this [2] seems unacceptable, really. Could you please double check? --Frukko (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You went to the page of a blocked user who is not allowed to discuss anything but his current block, and you baited him to start discussing other things. Just take his user page off your watch list. You are free to edit. He is not. Take the win. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Will do --Frukko (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]