User talk:Ufufcguc

Welcome!

Hello, Ufufcguc, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Giant Snowman 08:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

November 2016

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. An edit that you recently made to Marco Paixão seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Giant Snowman 08:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Warszawa panorama 2016.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Warszawa panorama 2016.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit style WP

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--Joobo (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to England, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Increase icons

Could you place them to the left of the figure (rather then the right)? This is consistent with the ones adjacent to GINI and HDI. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-European (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) 11:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Ufufcguc, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Eastern Europe have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Netherlands. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Silesian stadium, 2017.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Silesian stadium, 2017.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ufufcguc. 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]

June 2018

Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Spain, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 14:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Batternut. Your recent edit to the page Europe appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Batternut (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can talk about adding Berlin at Talk:Europe#Largest cities list in infobox. Batternut (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

I see that you edit-warring in Saint Petersburg. Please start discussion at the talk page of the article, otherwise your account will be blocked from editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to 50 euro cent coin. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Same for all your recent euro edits. Batternut (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Euro banknotes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Batternut (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on List of metropolitan areas in Europe. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Batternut (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Bundesliga. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Jaellee (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Competence is required, and take more care with your edits. Incompetent editors can end up being banned. Batternut (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Housing in Europe has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Sport in Europe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Chelsea, PSG, Spartak Moscow and Red Bull Salzburg

FIFA (video game series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alan Smith

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jacek Laskowski

The article Jacek Laskowski has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cahk (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at United Kingdom. Likewise your edits to Poland and Germany. Why are you randomly changing these figures? Batternut (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for these...but United Kingdom have area of 243 not 242 really...Ufufcguc (talk) 16:54 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You have to get into the habit of reading the sources, and if you have a better source then providing that source. Without the sources these articles will degenerate into a collection of any old hogwash that people heard from their mates; and that will be worthless. Your "but United Kingdom have area of 243 not 242 really", without a source, is worthless. Cite your sources and your edits will be taken seriously - carry on as you are, and you will end up being banned. Batternut (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and general

In addition to the discussions above about you not respecting and using sources correctly, and some other generally disruptive editing, I notice that you still refuse to use edit summaries despite the length of your tenure on the project. If you edit without edit summaries then people have no context to judge your edits and they will be more likely to be reverted. Changes to figures without sources will be labelled as vandalism. if you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia as a member in good standing and good faith you need to do the following:

Use edit summaries for your edits
If you're going to change something that has a source, provide a new reliable source or don't touch it
If you're going to add something new then supply a source

Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 17:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were warned not to make changes without sources and to use edit summaries, but you continued to edit in the pattern that many have spoken to you about to this point (such as this edit). As a result you have been blocked for disruptive editing. You are welcome to return once your block expires, but if you continue to edit in your current pattern I fear it will only be a matter of time until you are blocked again. Canterbury Tail talk 01:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been blocked again for continued disruptive edits. You are still refusing to engage with other editors, refusing to use edit summaries despite being told you should do so and are still adding unreferenced material. If you continue this behaviour, considering that a large percentage of your edits are reverted by multiple users, I'm afraid your next block will be indefinite. For now it's a 2 week block. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

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

Request reason:

Why you blocked me for 2 weeks? Yes i know several of my editions were bad, not real or unsourced, but is it the reason to block me for 14 days? I think its is a too large block for me, I didnt vandalise or change text in article, only added not real unsourced content, i broke some rules but this is a so strong block for these "events", I usually make a good detalied editions, I have no bad intentions.

Decline reason:

Adding unreferenced material and not communicating with other editors are both serious matters. As an encyclopedia, all content must have appropriate references, and communication is required on this collaborative project. Instead of arguing the length of the block, please address these behaviors by explaining what steps you will take to act differently in the future. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2018 (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.

What exactly is this "address these behaviors by explaining what steps you will take to act differently in the future"? I dont understand Ufufcguc (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be unblocked before the end of your block, you need to convince a reviewing administrator(which will be someone else should you choose to make another request) that your behavior will change if you are unblocked. This usually involves explaining what you did wrong, why you won't do it again, and telling what it is you will edit about constructively instead. I've explained why you were blocked above, so please explain how you will act differently. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did some bad not real unsourced edits and im blocked now for some time, if i will be unblocked i will act differently, i will think more before doing edits, these bad edits resulted from my recklessness...i won't do more not real edits. I dont want to mislead people, i will read more content before doing edits and more contact with other editors. Usually i make good edits i have no bad intentions but sometimes i think stupidly and do some not real things...But if you see bad not real edit from me in the future, if will not mean that i have bad intentions, it could be a mistake or information from bad source... Ufufcguc Ufufcguc 22:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having taken a look at your edits, it's very clear that you do have bad intentions and that you do want to mislead people. Furthermore, it's very clear you don't understand WP:CITE and WP:RS. I agree with Batternut, below, and have extended your block indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2018 (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.

Can you explain your edits to Poland and Germany? The random changes to these figures suggest that you really do "want to mislead people", and are certainly not WP:Here to build an encyclopedia. Batternut (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a play I was stupid sorry for that Ufufcguc (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just two "bad edits" perhaps, but it isn't just two, it's many more than that, which is a right nuisance to "encyclopedia building" editors, who like me have laboriously checked the sources or otherwise verified your edits. Personally I think, rather than cancelling your current block, extending it to indefinite would be best. Batternut (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more bad edits but I don't want to be blocked without strong reason, these edits aren't so strong "bad" to block me indefinite, I don't Wanda Lise, I want to edit more and if you will see more bad edits then you will block me again.

Ufufcguc (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

User has engaged in block evasion as of November, 2018. --Yamla (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]