User talk:ProloSozz

Speedy deletion declined: Frisco (disambiguation)
Hello ProloSozz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Frisco (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page had more than 350 page views last month; still a useful redirect. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's a highly questionable and pure bureaucratic argumentation! Please consider: the disambituation for Frisco is now to find under Frisco itself, as one of the cities was the former user of that lemma - and everyone who was looking for another Frisco had mandatorliy to view the disambiguation page. That's why that number is so high - and that's finished now! I bet within the next months, the page views will be fall to zero or at most to something below 10 in the next years. With placing the disambiguation for Frisco to Frisco itself, the former disambiguation page is really obsolete.--ProloSozz (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right, and next month may be a better time to ask for its deletion. Or you can try WP:RfD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe next month - if that is not forgotten til then ... I'll bring that to discussion on WP:RfD on situations like these where the disambiguation page was moved to the lemma itself; how to generally deal such cases.--ProloSozz (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=611648960 your edit] to Commuter rail 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * though these trains may include city centre metro sections and/or circular or partly circular lines, Train de banlieue in French, Příměstský vlak in Czech, Elektrichka in Russian,

WP:INTDABLINK
Greetings! Please do not make direct links to disambiguation pages, as this is disruptive to the efforts of disambiguators to find and fix errors. Please redirect such links through a  Foo  redirect, as required by WP:INTDABLINK. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

April 2017
Your recent editing history at Windows Mail (Vista) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, you've already passed it, but since I don't see any kind of warning on your page, consider this your one and only warning. Stop reverting. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... but now the two pages are in a "not intended" state (left over by the blocked user) ... may I fulfill my work or not? On both pages (Windows Mail and Windows Mail (Vista)) a re-revert should still be done. -- ProloSozz (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, leave it and discuss it further on the talk page. I know it's the WP:WRONGVERSION, but any further change by you (in this case it would be a revert), will result in a block. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, darn ... now I was slightly too fast ... in both I addes several (small) things and put it to the last verstion ... hope I don't get blocked by that ... :(

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My "one and only" warning didn't really need clarification. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a misunderstanding ... btw. could you please add the "WRONGVERSION" mark to both and add both pages to the dispute of such cases, as now nobody knows and assesses that dispute? --ProloSozz (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "WRONGVERSION" mark to add. I think you should read the links to understand. I would strongly suggest not reverting any edits as soon as your block ends. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please consider: I am not asking to be unblocked, but only asking to be able to mark my notifications as read. --ProloSozz (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Cannonball Beach" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cannonball Beach. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 13 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Windows Mail (Vista); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. --John B123 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Challhöchi Pass moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Challhöchi Pass, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what you write here is just a bad joke. this article was on the wrong lemma before my correction: it was describing Chall Pass with the photo of Challhöchi Pass - but Chall Pass is a different pass than Challhöchi Pass. Both geographical objects can be found on the official swiss map, part of the official website of Swiss Confederacy. It absolutely makes no sense that Chall Pass has an article/lemma and Challhöchi Pass does not. The result will be that people cannot distinguish them. --ProloSozz (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Challhöchi Pass moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Challhöchi Pass, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. Currently, it has zero sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Challhöchi Pass
Please protect from moving to draftspace (that was done just twice (today/yesterday) - cf. my discussion page) or deleting (even if "only stub"); the object is crosslinked with the same objects in german and alemannic WP. Btw: it is important to have this article visible to not confuse it with the also existing Chall Pass which is another pass, also connecting both swiss cantons of basel-landschaft and solothurn - and that article is the same kind of stub. --ProloSozz (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Not about to interfer with the new page reviewers or AfC reviewers. Please discuss with them.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 16:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Agree with Deepfriedokra about not interfering with the article review process. But the issue may be moot, since I see that administrator Malcolmxl5 has now edited and short-described the article; that suggests he has accepted it. MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(copied from Requests for page protection)

I request a circumstantial explanation of the purpose and meaningfulness of moving an article directly to the draftspace (leaving a bunch of red links on other pages) without any kind of substantial (and not only boilerplate) discussion — even if explicitely also referring to the substantially same article Chall Pass (as it was just a carbon copy of it with corrected data); and that other article was not objected and complained about. As stated: this particular pass is necessary to be mentioned (even in a small stub) as it is often confused with Chall Pass (to where the former article was moved to — as it is more important (swiss common main road #274); it was corresponding to the elevation in the original text). That other pass is near Challhöchi ... but in that case Challhöchi is a mountain (not a pass) — and a different one. The article does not consist of a lot more than other small mountain passes. Btw.: it was me to add references. Please explain the procedural method of no substantial talk (only boilerplate) and directly move it to draftspace — as it was exactly the same text as for Chall Pass (that is existing for more than a decade). --ProloSozz (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

April 2023
Hello, I'm Schazjmd. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, John Anthony Castro, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Schazjmd  (talk)  14:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Plaease google for it (with quotes); the result is not to ignore: ballodpedia.org, medium.com, thegatewaypundit.com, idcrawl.com, patriots.win, needtoknow.news, survivalmagazine.org ---ProloSozz (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)