User talk:Soup business

March 2013[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.

Do what you want mofo. I will leave this fucking site anyway. How you bully users is documented all over the Internet. Try monitoring my offline ass.

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. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic Wars[edit]

Du hast meine Änderung ohne Begründung revertiert. Das tut man nicht. Dabei sagt der Artikel klar, dass es um Germanen gegen Römer, also nicht nachrömische Briten geht. Siehe das hier -- Zz (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Erwin Hymer.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Erwin Hymer.jpg, which you've attributed to hymer.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Have you ever made any useful contributions to this encyclopedia? If not, better start soon. The next time you post obscene abuse on my talk page, you can expect to be blocked.Deb (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring, as you did at Germanic Wars. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. m.o.p 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deaths in 2013 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Woge[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert Woge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Combie Tractor (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Robert Woge, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Combie Tractor (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

No vandalism account! The people are former East German spies. Read the articles in German if you are able to! I am translating from the German. Please unban me.

Decline reason:

You're merely alleging that they were spies. If such information was true, it would be in the article itself first, with appropriate references (not to any Wikimedia project). Simply adding a category does not make it true, nor is it acceptable. As such, all these edits are pure vandalism (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:08, 26 June 2013 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I made a mistake. So what! What you want to hear? Stop terrorizing me for a mistake. Unlock this account or I will leave this site like all the other pissed off editors.

Decline reason:

Unblock your account or you will leave? That you were blocked means we want to leave. No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:34, 23 July 2013 (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.