User talk:Alessiorom13

Welcome!

Hello, Alessiorom13, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as UFL (video game), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JeepersClub (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of UFL (video game)

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 UFL (video game), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, 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. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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 "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. JeepersClub (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jaafar Jackson (February 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I don't see much independent notability from Jermaine yet. Needs more external news sources. Do not cite genius, discogs, or own website. Maybe WP:TOOSOON until he charts and he has more lead roles besides the biopic.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jaafar Jackson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alessiorom13! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

Yamla (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2023 (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).

Alessiorom13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand why I suddenly got blocked. If you check all my edits are just fixing small errors or misspellings and are all well sourced. Theres not even one example of me behaving or making a inaccurate edit these last years.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for making inaccurate edits, you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. You need to address that reason specifically for any appeal to be considered. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 8 November 2023 (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.

You are believed to be the same person behind Awardmaniac and other such accounts. This is backed by both behavioural evidence (the type of edits you make) and technical evidence. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What bad "behavioural" edits have I made in recent years? It's all been straight forward and non controversial normal edits. What do I have to prove to be unblocked? You for example just reverted my revert of a disruptive edit on the Invincible (Michael Jackson album). Now the album tracklist on that page is completely wrong. How is that not a "bad behaviour edit"? - Alessiorom13 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every single edit to Michael Jackson related articles is in violation of your WP:TOPICBAN. Every single edit in general is in violation of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I banned in particular when I haven't done a single disruptive edits in years? It seems like you have an agenda against me for some reason. So it would be better if un unbiased account answers my question. - Alessiorom13 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Alessiorom13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

5 years ago I made disruptive edits and if remember correctly went into an edit war with another user. It resoluted to me being blocked. Quickly after I made a mistake of lashing account out and making another account which lead to me being blocked indefinitely. I don't even have the login of those accounts, it has been so long. After all that I stopped using Wiki for some time and I came back with this current account and I have since then been making safe, non-disruptive edits: I have since not contributed to anything negative or made any disruptive edits. It's been so long and I have changed my attitude and how I edit and contribute in a positive way. What can I do now to prove myself? I completely understand what I did years ago was wrong and technically what I still did with this current account was also wrong, even though my edits in itself wasnt. I can only request a unblock on this particular account since I have no way to access my previous ones. Please let me know what I should do.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=5 years ago I made disruptive edits and if remember correctly went into an edit war with another user. It resoluted to me being blocked. Quickly after I made a mistake of lashing account out and making another account which lead to me being blocked indefinitely. I don't even have the login of those accounts, it has been so long. After all that I stopped using Wiki for some time and I came back with this current account and I have since then been making safe, non-disruptive edits: I have since not contributed to anything negative or made any disruptive edits. It's been so long and I have changed my attitude and how I edit and contribute in a positive way. What can I do now to prove myself? I completely understand what I did years ago was wrong and technically what I still did with this current account was also wrong, even though my edits in itself wasnt. I can only request a unblock on this particular account since I have no way to access my previous ones. Please let me know what I should do. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=5 years ago I made disruptive edits and if remember correctly went into an edit war with another user. It resoluted to me being blocked. Quickly after I made a mistake of lashing account out and making another account which lead to me being blocked indefinitely. I don't even have the login of those accounts, it has been so long. After all that I stopped using Wiki for some time and I came back with this current account and I have since then been making safe, non-disruptive edits: I have since not contributed to anything negative or made any disruptive edits. It's been so long and I have changed my attitude and how I edit and contribute in a positive way. What can I do now to prove myself? I completely understand what I did years ago was wrong and technically what I still did with this current account was also wrong, even though my edits in itself wasnt. I can only request a unblock on this particular account since I have no way to access my previous ones. Please let me know what I should do. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=5 years ago I made disruptive edits and if remember correctly went into an edit war with another user. It resoluted to me being blocked. Quickly after I made a mistake of lashing account out and making another account which lead to me being blocked indefinitely. I don't even have the login of those accounts, it has been so long. After all that I stopped using Wiki for some time and I came back with this current account and I have since then been making safe, non-disruptive edits: I have since not contributed to anything negative or made any disruptive edits. It's been so long and I have changed my attitude and how I edit and contribute in a positive way. What can I do now to prove myself? I completely understand what I did years ago was wrong and technically what I still did with this current account was also wrong, even though my edits in itself wasnt. I can only request a unblock on this particular account since I have no way to access my previous ones. Please let me know what I should do. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note that this user remains under a WP:TOPICBAN, imposed by the community, from all edits related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This includes related articles and talk pages. This is logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Archive/Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community and has not been lifted. This user is additionally under a WP:1RR restriction for all other articles. Pretty easy to see almost every edit from this account violated that topic ban, not to mention the violations of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. This unblock request should be declined and talk page access revoked. The user is far closer to a complete community ban under WP:3X than they are to being unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would obviously happily request an unblock from the topicban aswell if possible. If not, I would definietly have no problem editing in articles not releated to Michael Jackson, which I have done plenty of times in the past. I sincerely want to make positive edits and not be disruptive in any way. I'm willing to do better more than ever. What can I do to better myself and prove myself to this community? - Alessiorom13 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]