User talk:Solopiel

Welcome to Wikipedia
Mushroom (Talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comparative photo of digital manipulation in Return of Jedi article
Hi, I had recently uploaded an image comparing the digital manipulation in new editions of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi film, however you have removed the image citing that The change is not such an important issue in this article, I wish to discuss the matter further at the talk page of the article. Your inputs would be highly appreciated. LegalEagle (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Xnacional (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Halloween Horror Nights (Orlando) and Halloween Horror Nights (Hollywood)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Halloween Horror Nights (Orlando) and/or Halloween Horror Nights (Hollywood), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. --Kiwisoup (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.

You especially owe user:Kadrun an explanation why you reverted his troop strength updates here and here. If the explanation can't fit into an edit summary, you can always say "see talk page" and put the explanation there. Thundermaker (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to International Security Assistance Force.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both  and one or more   referring to it. Someone then removed the  but left the , which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining  with a copy of the  ; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add  to your talk page.

International Security Assistance Force
Hi,

I've noticed that your engaging in a bit of an "edit war" with User:AnomieBOT, where you remove a reference because you feel that it is not a proper source for information and the BOT re-added it because it is a named reference. Named references are special type of references that are named in order to be used more than once in an article. In this case the reference you are removing is such a named reference and your removal causes other reference links on the same page to be broken. As AnomieBOT is a computer you will not get it to not keep reverting your edits. The only way to end this is to manually move the full reference to another place in the text where it is used and then delete it where you think it is inappropriate. If you simply deleted it, it will get re-added by the computer over and over gain. To simplify things, I have done this myself, but you should check the page history to see how it is done, in order to avoid this happening again in the future. Travelbird (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you. Solopiel (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Iraq war
Hello, please stop removing the flags of the coalition forces that served in Iraq. Thank you. V7-sport (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The British are still there. Solopiel (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but that is a list of belligerents, not just people who have left or stayed.V7-sport (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And once again, stop removing the flags of the coalition forces that served in Iraq.V7-sport (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please leave the United Kingdom as belligerent. Solopiel (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are removing the flags of all the withdrawn forces. Again, cut it out. V7-sport (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still not OK to remove the flags of the coalition forces, stop vandalizing the Iraq page.V7-sport (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a list of all nations who fought in the war, not just the ones with troops currently deployed. Stop deleting them. Czolgolz (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why remove the United Kingdom, if they still have forces there, as I demonstrated with sources? Solopiel (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not just removing the UK, you are removing all the flags of all nations who fought in the war. V7-sport (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. Solopiel (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a box for "belligerents" defined as "waging war; specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war". The UK is no longer fighting in Iraq. Regardless, you are removing ALL the flags of ALL the withdrawn forces. You have been asked by at least 3 editors to cut it out. V7-sport (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, the U.S. should be removed, then. Solopiel (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the flags of the withdrawn forces should remain. If you want to move the US flag to the withdrawn forces go ahead, otherwise stop removing the flags. You have done this about a dozen times now and been reverted by several different editors and had it spelled out to you repeatedly. I don't want to have to make time for an ANI, cut it out. V7-sport (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you move it? You know they're in the same situation as the British. Solopiel (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's YOUR edit. Look, you have had 4 other editors reverting your removal of the flags. There's no excuse at this point as it has been explained to you that you are removing the flags of all the withdrawn forces. V7-sport (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Re continued vandalism
This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Iraq War, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. V7-sport (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Xnacional
He or she edits similar articles in a similar way and removes the dablink from WWIV.Sjö (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Xnacional for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.Sjö (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Investigate as much as you like. Solopiel (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Iraq War. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ΔT The only constant 03:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Disruptive editing: / edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 03:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

On the Iraq War article
Your edit has been reverted several times. Maybe it is time to realize that in some articles, you simply cannot have your way, when the consensus is against you. It can be frustrating, I know, but that is the way it is. Maybe you can try editing other articles, or try helping improve the article, but leaving list of belligerents alone. I am sure your intention is to improve the article, but you need to do so within the confines of the community's consensus. Unflavoured (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Edit warring: directly after release of block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 06:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In case you did not already know ; read the source you provided yourself: the 150 Brit troops are now part of United States Forces - Iraq. MNF-I disbanded some two years ago. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please cut this out.
Solopiel, you have been blocked twice for this. What did those little flags ever do to you? The next time it catches an admin's eye it will probably be it. Come on in off the ledge Solopiel, those little flags aren't worth it. V7-sport (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Iraq War. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ( Hohum @ ) 17:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Iraq War, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please stop removing belligerents from the article. They *were* belligerents. We wouldn't remove the list of belligerents from other conflicts once they were over.'' ( Hohum @ ) 16:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Solopiel,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 17:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Solopiel, you have been edit warring some of the same material for quite a while now, but I do not see where you have explained your points at Talk:Iraq War. I strongly considered blocking your account for a significant period of time since this is some of the same material you were edit warring over earlier. Given the mutual lack of discussion by other editors, however, I am simply going to request that you do not make any further edits that another editor objects to unless there is a strong consensus at the relevant talkpage. If you resume edit warring, you will be blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Solopiel,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 23:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Edit warring notice
As explained in this report, you have violated Wikipedia's policy on edit warring at the Iraq War article. The next time you revert another editor's edit without discussion (e.g., the next edit you make like any of these ) you will be blocked. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Iraq war article
I reverted your recent edit. The community consensus is that this information should stay. Perhaps your efforts would be more fruitful if you tried to go for a compromise solution that all editors agree on ?! Unflavoured (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan
You editing in War in Afghanistan page is not working properly. You are causing the deletion of the datas by just moving section of the whole thing. Please double check after your edit. The part you want to edit has some complicated texts that you may want to watch out. In addition, I recommend you to leave that as current state, because every page usually has main combatant or the nation with the most casualty on the top. Kadrun (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on War on Terror. 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. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to edit war despite previous warnings and blocks. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)