This user has a life and may not respond swiftly.

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

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. [Soffredo] 03:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Ah, my bad. I was tried at the time. [Soffredo]
• @Soffredo: I'm glad to see you've been unblocked. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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

Hello! This message is to notify you that there is a discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump that may be of interest to you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Timeline of post-Soviet Statehood": The Autonomous Republic of Adjara was disestablished in the aftermath of the Rose Revolution. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Adjara was just an "Autonomous Republic" and not a sovereign state. It still continues to be one, but with a different government. Thank you for telling me though. [Soffredo] 11:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted that the Post-Soviet states article now has the following section for Gagauzia:

 Gagauzia, declared itself the "Gagauz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" within Moldova on 12 November 1989, and the "Gagauz Soviet Socialist Republic", independent of Moldova but still within the Soviet Union, on 19 August 1990, but was reintegrated into Moldova as an autonomous region on 23 December 1994.^[1][2]

It has citations supporting its' declaration of Soviet autonomy, but nowhere does it mention a claim to statehood, de facto territorial control, or recognition. The same is required for Adjara. Until then, I won't include them in my article. [Soffredo] 23:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jin Sanpang. Since you had some involvement with the Jin Sanpang redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 04:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not heads of any recognized state. This is a fact, and we should not pretend that they are. Four countries recognizing a disputed territory doesn't make it a state. They are not UN members and not recognized by a majority of countries, whom still consider the territories a part of Georgia and illegally occupied by Russia. They also are not IOC members and had no Olympic team. Russia occupying foreign territory and then recognizing it as a state should not merit calling the territory a state. It would be no different than if the leader of Dontesk was invited to the Olympics. Frankly, I don't think they should be mentioned at all as the leaders of illegitimate states; I think listing them as leaders of disputed states is a reasonable compromise. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a RfC for further comment by others. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four countries recognizing a disputed territory doesn't make it a state.

Abkhazia has been considered a de facto state before it was recognized by any UN member in 2008. Recognition is not important in this case.

They are not UN members and not recognized by a majority of countries, whom still consider the territories a part of Georgia and illegally occupied by Russia.

You don't need to be a UN member to be a sovereign state, nor do you need to be recognized by a majority of countries. The  Cook Islands and  Niue are not UN members and are widely recognized.  Taiwan is a State that isn't recognized by a majority of countries.

They also are not IOC members and had no Olympic team.

You don't need to have an Olympic team to be a State. See  South Sudan and  Vatican City.

Russia occupying foreign territory and then recognizing it as a state should not merit calling the territory a state.

That is WP:POV which isn't allowed.

It would be no different than if the leader of Dontesk was invited to the Olympics.

The difference would be that the  Donetsk People's Republic isn't recognized by Russia (unlike Abkhazia and South Ossetia) so this event would be very unlikely.

I don't see why we should separate these heads of disputed states on a page about the Olympics. Alexander Ankvab and Leonid Tibilov were invited as heads of states. You don't see a note for whenever someone visits from the  Sahrawi Republic, now do you? [Soffredo] 20:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must have consensus for changes like the one you made at List of sovereign states. Considering your current restrictions, you would do well to discuss on the talk pages before you attempt controversial edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've already done, and these "controversial" edits are old. An editor decided to change it. [Soffredo] 20:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moscow Time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. 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) 14:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to be reminded of your 1RR restriction? You have broken it at Republic of Ilirida ([1] [2]), and have reverts on multiple other articles. Note that you were warned before that the next block for breaking your 1RR restriction will be for a month. Kahastok talk 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. [Soffredo] 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 — ☎ 21:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for violating your WP:1RR restriction at Republic of Ilirida. 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.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore

[Soffredo] 19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of active rebel groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derna. 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) 10:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 — ☎ 13:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother leaving a template here; you've seen them all before and should be well aware of what editing warring is and how the 1RR works. You are blocked for three months; the next block is likely to be indefinite pending some sort of epiphany on your part. Kuru (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not allowed to edit my own notice, I'd like to point out that the rules for WP:3RR say:

The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:

4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language

One of the edits I was reported for was a revert against obvious vandalism. And it seems that my report to the Administrators board didn't include the usual "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" section, as I had done exactly that. Can this be looked into or is this block going to go on? [Soffredo] 14:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to do when one starts a discussion on the talk page is not to continue reverting, but to do discuss. You should not've reverted more than once, but you did. RGloucester — ☎ 14:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted vandalism. That's allowed. [Soffredo] 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That edit wasn't vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. You may not agree with the edit, but that doesn't make it "vandalism". As the guideline says "Edit warring over content is not vandalism". If you can't understand these basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you'll keep being blocked. RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not vandalism if it was the blanking of an entire section? Don't act ridiculous. This wasn't "edit warring" over content since I wasn't edit warring. The definition of an edit war goes:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion.

I did try to resolve the disagreement through discussion, something you choose to not include when you reported me to the Administrators' board. The other editor involved as ignored the talk page and edit warring has continued, but yet I see no reports against them for edit warring. Also, each edit that you reported was unique to another. [Soffredo] 17:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "vandalism", because that editor's intent was not to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, but to improve it. As the vandalism policy says "Even if misguided, wilfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia is not vandalism". You did try to resolve on the talk page, but instead of allowing time for it to be resolved per WP:BRD, you continued to revert. As I've said above, and as numerous administrators have total you, WP:1RR means "one revert per page per twenty-four hours". It doesn't matter whether an edit is "unique". You've been informed of this multiple times, and have been blocked multiple times since. I provided a link in today's report to the last time that you mentioned "unique" edits, when an administrator informed you as such. I didn't report any other editors, because they are not under WP:1RR, and are allowed to make three reverts. If you still don't grasp this, then I figure there is no hope for you. RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding @My very best wishes:

• First revert "South Ossetia recognized LNR and DNR, not Novorossia"
• Second revert "South Ossetia did not recognize "Novorossia", which is the subject of this page"
• Third revert "this is all irrelevant or misleading - fixed"
• Fourth revert "this all irrelevant to international recognition of N (the title of subsection) - N. is simply not recognized by any countries; only DNR and LNR are recognized by SO"

I am unable to report the editor for WP:3RR because of my block.

Also, it's wrong to say that removing an entire cited section while ignoring the talk page and then replace it all with a single obvious sentence isn't vandalism. Everything was changed to "No country has recognized Novorossia as a sovereign state.^{[citation needed]}". This is obvious knowing that Novorossiya doesn't claim to be a sovereign state - what editors who continue to ignore the talk page haven't realized is that the initial section talks about the recognition of the DNR and LNR, not Novorossiya. It has since been edited to say that the DNR has been recognized by SO, but doesn't include LNR's recognition (which came first), the Republic of Crimea's stance, and recognition requests. (And if you believe that Crimea isn't relevant because it is a subnational entity, see here.) [Soffredo] 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soffredo, WP:3RR means "three reverts per page per twenty-four hours". MVBW has not made more than three reverts in twenty-four hours. The first revert you cited was on 22 November, ages ago, and the last was on 3 December. That's a lot more time than twenty-four hours. Once again, read the vandalism policy. That edit was clearly not vandalism. Whether it was misguided or not is another story, but an edit is only "vandalism" if it is an attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I'm sure MVBW would say that he was defending the integrity of Wikipedia, because of the misconceptions that he believed your table created. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you know this, but every sequence of continuous edits counts as a single edit for the purpose of 3RR rule or other similar discussions. I made only two reverts in this page.My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if he doesn't know that by now, it is his fault. It has been explained to him multiple times. RGloucester — ☎ 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Novorossia per se has not been recognized by any country, but DNR and LNR have been by South Ossetia. I guess that it would be correct to either add that recognition in the DNR and LNR articles, or mention it in the Novorossia article, saying that South Ossetia have recognized its component entities. Charrock — talk 15:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's how it was before, but my edits were reverted and I've since been blocked. [Soffredo] 17:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SSB6. Since you had some involvement with the SSB6 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soffredo. Thank you. TDL (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could participate, but I'm blocked. This isn't the first time I've been accused of sockpuppetry. [Soffredo] 02:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have anything to say in the SPI report, you can leave a comment here and someone will copy it over. Try {{adminhelp}} if there is no immediate answer. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (country). Since you had some involvement with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (country) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (country) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.   Mike V • Talk 06:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this block notice as I haven't been using my account since my 3 month block started. I decided to check my talk page after reading this article which talked about recent corruption in Wikipedia's moderating. I'm very disappointed with the decision since I believed I contributed a lot. Though there were edit wars, accused sockpuppetry, and editors who watched everything I did, all my edits were done with good faith. I started participating in talk page discussions, but my efforts went unnoticed. People took their time to insult my beliefs, but I kept editing believing that I was making the world a better place with the information I was sharing.

Is this the end of my account? Can I ever get unblocked? I doubt an appeal would work since I had already been placed under WP:1RR and this is my eighth block. I think I will stop using Wikipedia since my IP or an alternative account would get blocked by those who watch all my edits. Hopefully, I can sometime return.

If any editor comes along this, please leave a reply as I may check it. Tell me how I can get unblocked (if it's even possible). Please edit my userpage to reflect that my account is terminated as of this post. I probably shouldn't hope someone will care enough to visit my talk page and then read all of this!

I guess this will be my goodbye post, so be glad if you were an editor who despised me! If I did my math right, this will be my 4,967th edit.

Thank you Wikipedia. [Soffredo] 04:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{retired}} to your userpage per your request above. If that isn't what you want, let me know and I'll self-revert.

I'm not an admin, so you can take my comments with a grain of salt if you like. If you want some more authoritative input from an admin, perhaps Mike V could comment or you could use {{adminhelp}} to get some outside attention. But here is my advice on how to be unblocked:

You are currently indefinitely blocked, but that doesn't mean permanently. It just means until you can demonstrate that you understand why your behaviour was inappropriate and convince an admin that you won't do it again. Blocks aren't punitive, they are to prevent future disruption. I don't believe anyone wants to see you never able to return, we just want to be certain that when you return the problematic editing is no more.

Your first priority should be to stop WP:socking. That's not helping your situation at all. Beyond that, you need to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Edit warring and understand what they say. Based on your comments above in #Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion_3, you don't understand what a revert is. If there is something that is unclear in the policies, ask questions. Finally, you need to commit to not edit warring under any circumstances. That means not reverting even if you are certain that your edit is correct. Perhaps you should pledge to be under a WP:0RR restriction to demonstrate this commitment. There are lots of methods of WP:DR that you can utilize to avoid an edit war. Once you have done all of the previous, you need to write an unblock request that demonstrates that you understand the policies, why your past behaviour did not comply with them, and that you will follow them in the future. Read WP:GAB carefully first for how to write a good unblock request.

As an alternative, you can look at WP:OFFER for for an avenue for indefinitely blocked users to return to active status. Basically, as long as you don't sock for 6 months you can be unblocked. TDL (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've resumed socking, I've opened a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soffredo. Once again, I advise you to stop the WP:BLOCK EVASION and peruse one of the methods of unblocking I listed above. TDL (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharking. Since you had some involvement with the Sharking redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Brustopher (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multiple Olympic Teams has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2204355. Since you had some involvement with the 2204355 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNobs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Xbox 8. Since you had some involvement with the Xbox 8 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing protests has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of shortest-lived sovereign states requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shortest-lived sovereign states. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kerog and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Kerog until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect I feel just like a purple Pikmin and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 26#I feel just like a purple Pikmin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect THE "NEXT" MGS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#THE "NEXT" MGS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Xbox Loop and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Xbox Loop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mario Kart DX and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Mario Kart DX until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Le Lenny Face has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 13 § Le Lenny Face until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]