Jump to content

User talk:Giovanni Paolucci

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liverpool F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Everton. 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) 20:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dr. Meena Sharma Profile Updation

[edit]

hey wiki, we are officially from Dr Meena Sharma's team. We have full details about her life, Journalism, awards education Qualifications and More. We want updated her profile. JournoRohit (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JournoRohit I answered in your talk page Giovanni Paolucci (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Ponyobons mots 18:00, 2 August 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is an obvious error, as I never had accounts in the past, but I only sometimes edited via IP, and anyway I never got blocked. However, I can quite easily give a possible explanation to why there has been this misunderstanding. In fact, I use a dynamic shared IP address: before I created my account, I sometimes noticed that in the contributions of the IP I was using there were contributions I hadn't actually done. So I think this is the reason for which you have believed I abused of multiple accounts. If, instead, there are other reasons for the block, I am willing to learn, as I said, I am quite new, so I may not know well some policies

Decline reason:

Procedural Close as the user (while socking) admits to being a globally-locked editor. Ponyobons mots 15:47, 8 August 2024 (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.

@Ponyo I have just notice you claim I am a sockpuppet of a user called "14 novembre": as said before, I've never heard of them in my life, nor of any other multiple account abuser; this is my first ever account, I never got blocked if I sometimes edited by IP, I am convinced you made a mistake, which is probably due to the reasons explained in my unblock request, thanks Giovanni Paolucci (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giovanni_Paolucci&oldid=1239313802"