User talk:Diegoferralis

This is Diegoferralis's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Davide Locatelli has been accepted

Davide Locatelli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Numberguy6 (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Gold moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Elisa Gold, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae Hi actually the page had several problems. Now I have changed it leaving only the essential things, with reliable sources. You can control? Thanks for your kindness Diegoferralis (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Davide Locatelli for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davide Locatelli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Locatelli until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PRAXIDICAE💕 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello Diegoferralis. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Diegoferralis. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Diegoferralis|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae Hi, I can't understand where your deductions come from. I don't receive any kind of compensation for the creation of pages or their modification. I'm just here to contribute to the community, writing about what I'm passionate about (mostly music). I would be curious to know what made you think what you wrote to me. Anyway, I reiterate not to use Wikipedia as a job. Greeting Diegoferralis (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elisa Gold (May 8)

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

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 people). 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:

Thanks for creating this draft. There is insufficient evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria on Wikipedia for a biography. Please ask at the Teahouse if you need help or advice on improving the draft.

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:Elisa Gold and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Elisa Gold, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be tagged for G13 deletion.
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.

MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Diegoferralis! 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! MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Davide Locatelli has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Davide Locatelli. Thanks! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elisa Gold (July 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae 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 appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Elisa Gold and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Elisa Gold, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Elisa Gold has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Elisa Gold. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello Diegoferralis. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Diegoferralis. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Diegoferralis|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not receive any compensation for any of my publications. I will always be ready to defend the articles I write and to push for publication, given the time I dedicate to them, completely free! Have a nice day. Diegoferralis (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on information I cannot reveal publicly, I do not believe you have no paid relationship with the topic you are editing about. Any paid relationship triggers the disclosure requirement, you do not have to be specifically paid to edit. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are defaming me and I do not allow it in any way. You can close this thread here. I answered your question, if you have any problems with me, you should first provide me with your details and talk to me elsewhere. I repeat my answer: mine are free publications, with no request for compensation or other. Diegoferralis (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia business is generally conducted on Wikipedia for openness and transparency, within the bounds of policies like the one I linked to above(click on the words "I cannot reveal publicly"). Again, you do not have to be specifically paid to edit to be a paid editor, any paid relationship with a topic triggers the disclosure requirement- declaring paid editing is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory; you can be blocked for failing to disclose. You should also review conflict of interest- even if you are not paid, but have a relationship with a topic, that should be disclosed as well. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please you should clarify what is meant by "relationship with a topic". It is normal that since I am a musician, I know the artist I propose on an artistic level, but I have no contact with them, nor have I been commissioned to work. If I have to declare that I have known these artists, as well-known artists, then I certainly have no problem declaring it. Diegoferralis (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that if you are just aware of the person, but do not communicate with them and are not working(paid or unpaid) for them, there is no relationship. If you communicate with them or work for them(again, paid or unpaid), that is a relationship that should be disclosed. However, it is difficult for me to believe that you have no relationship with this person, based on my information(which again, I cannot publicly disclose per policy). 331dot (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't know where you get your information, but I assure you it's wrong. You say you can't disclose them publicly, well at least tell me privately. You certainly can't say one thing publicly, discrediting me, based on information you hold to yourself. Even then I can say the same about you, without proving it, it doesn't seem correct. Diegoferralis (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You either have a paid relationship with Gold or you don't. Which is it? 331dot (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat it to you for the third time: I have't paid or unpaid relationship with any of the well-known personalities I write about. Diegoferralis (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

331dot (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any other admin, this block is based on off wiki evidence that I will share with you upon request. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be kind enough to share them with me too?!

To all administrators: I don't know what this user's information is, maybe he invented it, or he made a mistake in taking information about me. I have never asked for fees for my publications, I have no relationship with the artists I have proposed to wikipedia. I hope it will shed some light on this serious incident (obviously I will make a complaint). Diegoferralis (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must make an unblock request(as instructed above) for another admin to see this. If they find I am in error, I will unconditionally apologize. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I ask that my profile be unblocked as soon as possible. I have in no way violated Wikipedia's rules. I ask that all the necessary checks be made, on what was declared by the user who proceeded with the block. I am very angry with what has happened, it is absurd that I am blocked without having any proof of the accusations made by the user @331dot. Diegoferralis (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2022 (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.

Without wishing to "out" anyone, you are editing with the same name as a "Web designer, project Manager, social media manager and E-commerce specialist" perhaps this is where the problem lies? Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm penalized so for my nick right?! I'm sorry to tell you that I don't care about the things you said, I saw that there is a person with this name who is in charge of what you said, and I'm sorry to tell you it's not me. Do I have to provide you with my data? Do you want to investigate my person more deeply? Congratulations on privacy. This confirms that I was blocked because searches were made based on the nickname I entered... I have no words Diegoferralis (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Davide Locatelli (July 26)

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

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 people). 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.

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:Davide Locatelli and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Akevsharma (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Elisa Gold

Hello, Diegoferralis. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Elisa Gold".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Davide Locatelli

Hello, Diegoferralis. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Davide Locatelli, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]