User talk:Giorgio Forelli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giorgio Forelli (talk | contribs) at 02:24, 10 March 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

user Roscelese deletes my contributions and I get blocked? My edits: adding a counter argument to the claim that abortion allows women to "walk away from parenthood like men can." What I included: men are legally obligated to provide child support, otherwise they can face penalties in fines and imprisonment; and that there are estimated 50,000 people in jail that for failing to meet child support payments. Thus, the argument that is presented in the Wikipedia page is clearly false. The other thing I added is a PEER-REVIEWED study (despite user Roscelese's claim that it isn't) that demonstrates that maternal mortality rates in Chile has nothing to do with the legality of it, a claim that is presented in the Wikipedia article. Maternal mortality rates in Chile declined after abortion became more restricted as well. Also, other counterexamples include Poland, Ireland, Qatar, and Malta -- all countries with strict abortion laws and low maternal mortality rates. It's obvious that user Rosceles is trying to push a one-side view in this article.

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=user Roscelese deletes my contributions and I get blocked? My edits: adding a counter argument to the claim that abortion allows women to "walk away from parenthood like men can." What I included: men are legally obligated to provide child support, otherwise they can face penalties in fines and imprisonment; and that there are estimated 50,000 people in jail that for failing to meet child support payments. Thus, the argument that is presented in the Wikipedia page is clearly false. The other thing I added is a PEER-REVIEWED study (despite user Roscelese's claim that it isn't) that demonstrates that maternal mortality rates in Chile has nothing to do with the legality of it, a claim that is presented in the Wikipedia article. Maternal mortality rates in Chile declined after abortion became more restricted as well. Also, other counterexamples include Poland, Ireland, Qatar, and Malta -- all countries with strict abortion laws and low maternal mortality rates. It's obvious that user Rosceles is trying to push a one-side view in this article. |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=user Roscelese deletes my contributions and I get blocked? My edits: adding a counter argument to the claim that abortion allows women to "walk away from parenthood like men can." What I included: men are legally obligated to provide child support, otherwise they can face penalties in fines and imprisonment; and that there are estimated 50,000 people in jail that for failing to meet child support payments. Thus, the argument that is presented in the Wikipedia page is clearly false. The other thing I added is a PEER-REVIEWED study (despite user Roscelese's claim that it isn't) that demonstrates that maternal mortality rates in Chile has nothing to do with the legality of it, a claim that is presented in the Wikipedia article. Maternal mortality rates in Chile declined after abortion became more restricted as well. Also, other counterexamples include Poland, Ireland, Qatar, and Malta -- all countries with strict abortion laws and low maternal mortality rates. It's obvious that user Rosceles is trying to push a one-side view in this article. |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=user Roscelese deletes my contributions and I get blocked? My edits: adding a counter argument to the claim that abortion allows women to "walk away from parenthood like men can." What I included: men are legally obligated to provide child support, otherwise they can face penalties in fines and imprisonment; and that there are estimated 50,000 people in jail that for failing to meet child support payments. Thus, the argument that is presented in the Wikipedia page is clearly false. The other thing I added is a PEER-REVIEWED study (despite user Roscelese's claim that it isn't) that demonstrates that maternal mortality rates in Chile has nothing to do with the legality of it, a claim that is presented in the Wikipedia article. Maternal mortality rates in Chile declined after abortion became more restricted as well. Also, other counterexamples include Poland, Ireland, Qatar, and Malta -- all countries with strict abortion laws and low maternal mortality rates. It's obvious that user Rosceles is trying to push a one-side view in this article. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Hello, Giorgio Forelli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! – Lionel (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Abortion debate appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Please do not change the wording to equate the many instances of anti-abortion violence with the very few instances of pro-choice violence. Making the two cases sound identical when they are not, is not neutral. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, abortion debate, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Specifically, articles related to abortion are under strict sanctions to prevent edit-warring. Any editor who reverts more than once in a 24-hour period may be blocked from editing. A "revert" in this context means any edit that undoes part or all of a previous edit. You've already reverted several times and technically broken the limit, but since you weren't notified I don't think you can be faulted.

Consider this a notification, though - the article should not be reverted more than once in a 24-hour period. Since you've already exceeded this limit by quite a bit, please don't revert any further. The best approach is to go to the article talk page (Talk:Abortion debate) and discuss the changes you think are appropriate, along with your reasoning. The goal is to reach some sort of consensus on the article text. There is also some advice in our dispute-resolution policy.

In any case, please don't edit-war; you're not going to be able to "force" the changes you want, and you'll likely end up blocked from editing. MastCell Talk 18:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

  1. Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
  2. Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
  3. Free subscription to our informative newsletter
  4. Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
  5. Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
  6. Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
  7. Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve

– Lionel (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EWN

Reported here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

To enforce an arbitration decision,
you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violating WP:1RR at Abortion debate. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giorgio_Forelli&oldid=543131400"