User talk:Adriano.93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2012 DA14. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Kheider (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Titanic (1997 film) , did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Jesse V.. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! • Jesse V.(talk) 14:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

St Peter's[edit]

I undid your edits because the picture that you put at the top is already in the article, along with several other similar views of the exterior.

The reason that the Panini picture has been used as the lead is that it is one of the highest quality depictions of the interior, showing the details and the grand scale better than any photo does. Good external views, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen. Every tourist has them.

Another reason why the painting is in top place is that it doesn't fit conveniently into the tightly organised text of the article. The interior views that are reproduced, further down, have been carefully selected as a "set" of images. To a graphic designer, making the layout and sections look good is part of creating a successful article.

Amandajm (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Top Crime (TV channel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold blood (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) 11:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

coliceum[edit]

why is the coliseum so big cause they would fight tin it so they needed space — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.215.17 (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Amphitheatre[edit]

I removed the Colosseum photo - and shall do so again - because it's uninformative and overcrowds the article. It shows only the outside of the building; the details are further concealed by darkness and the shape is completely distorted by the wide-angle view. One might say that it's all atmosphere and little substance. For the most part, article lede sections are best supported by very clear, well-chosen images that illustrate the topic. The Arles amphitheatre picture is particularly clear, well framed and appropriate - it offers a vantage point that reveals both the inside and the outside of an ancient amphitheater building still in use. In other words, it's both ancient and modern, and covers the topic rather nicely. Please could you also remember to always use edit summaries when editing articles - when you simply revert like you did, it starts to look like edit warring. Thanks for reading this. Haploidavey (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurasia Tunnel[edit]

Hello, I noticed your valuable edits on Marmaray. Please have a look at Eurasia Tunnel. Thank you, Yozer1 (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Doing the right thing[edit]

Adriano, you have been editting for two years now. And after two years you are still not looking carefully at the articles that you edit. You have to start looking at the way that articles are put together. They do not start with a quote, regardless of how good the quote is. Every single article starts by telling you what the subject of the article is. That is because this is an encyclopedia, not a work of creative literature.

Secondly, as I have said to you before, look before doing. If you had looked, you would have found a section specifically for quotations.

Also, "Without having seen the Sistine Chapel is not possible to form an idea of what a valuable man alone is able to obtain." The quotation is wrong in two places. The word "valuable" is incorrectly translated, and the word "obtain" is incorrectly translated. You are most welcome to add the quotation, if it is not somewhere in the article already. But firstly, find a good English translation of the German, because a man is not usually referred to as "valuable", and the word "obtain" means to "get something", not to "do something" or "achieve something".

Amandajm (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Adriano, your conduct is really odd! You have an explanation as to why the quote doesn't go at the top of the article. You have a direction to look for the quotation section, which is the right place to put it. And you still put the blinking quote at the top of the article. What is your problem? Amandajm (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italian food products, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PGI and PDO (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) 08:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Nuclear Security Summit 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • nucleare - Il Presidente del Consiglio Matteo Renzi partecipa al Vertice sulla sicurezza nucleare (Data: 24 Marzo 2014; Luogo: L'Aia (Paesi Bassi).|work=Italian Government|date=March 18, 2014|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Quirinal Palace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Tivoli, Evangelists, Francesco Mancini and Vatican

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyrighted text removed[edit]

Hi, Ariano.93. Copyright problem icon Your addition to Quirinale Palace has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without 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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions 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. The material appears to be identical to this .pdf. If you have added other copyrighted material to Wikipedia, please remove it yourself. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

Please source your edits[edit]

Hi. You have been editing Wikipedia for two years, and your contributions are appreciated, but I noticed you have added content in several places without verifying it by citing a reliable source. For instance, this (no, Nanjing wall is longer) and this very recent edit (surely that's Rome, not Jerusalem?) have been reverted, as not only unsourced but apparently not factual. To be frank, I can't find anywhere where you've actually added a source; please correct me if I'm wrong. These edits seem made up. No canals on Bornholm! Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

  • Re you latest edit, here: Yes, I said the Nanjing wall is longer, but *I*'m not a reliable source. And I don't know if it's the longest. You need a source before you say that. I repeat, read Wikipedia:Citing sources and don't add material without sourcing. Please. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

August 2014[edit]

And again. You have given no reference for that edit, and the reference that was already there doesn't support it. Also your change doesn't fit with the article title. Look, you'll have to stop making these unsourced and dubious additions. Since you never respond to comments here, I don't even know if you're aware that you have this talkpage. I'm sorry, but the next unsourced edit you make, I'm going to have to block you from editing. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

September 2014[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to America's Stonehenge. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Warning icon Hello Adriano.93, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Quirinal Palace has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without 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 your sources to avoid copyright or 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 a cited source. 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 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 designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk 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 without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in 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. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for two weeks for your extremely persistent addition of unsourced (and wrong) content and also copyright violations despite many, many warnings about both. You have never answered any of the warnings and comments, and you never seem to stop making these disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC).

Reference Errors on 28 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Parkfield earthquake. Dawnseeker2000 16:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent copyvio violations, ignoring many many warnings and apparently learning nothing from your two-week block. This, reinserted just a few days after that block expired, was copied from this site. I'm sorry, I'm sure you don't mean to harm Wikipedia, but that's what you're doing, and I have no choice but to block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bishonen | talk 11:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Adriano.93 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Excuse me for copyright, not happen again, I just wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, do not I'll just make more.

Decline reason:

A vague "sorry, it's not going to happen again" isn't sufficient, given that you've been blocked before after multiple warnings for the same reason. Kinu t/c 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Adriano.93 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

More that excuse me, what can I do? I swear I don't happen again. When you remove the block? I don't think you'll keep me blocked forever. --Adriano.93 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A standard offer approach could be taken in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.