User talk:Guccibelucci

June 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Kajsa Ekis Ekman, you may be blocked from editing. AnnikaCarina (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly adding unsourced and libelous claims. It is hardly the main point about a Swedish author that a Norwegian website copy-pastes her articles from the Swedish press - a Norwegian site she has never written for. Claiming associations to the Communist party is euqally unfounded and has been discussed on her Swedish talk page. Guccibelucci (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've done no such thing. You are the one one adding stuff about the Communist Party, a minor issue which I had removed anyway. Stop your disruptive edits and blanking of sourced content. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines on biographies of living persons. Ekman has never written for Steigan.no - that is a page which republishes already published material from the Swedish press. Your edits seem to be made in order to libel, not to add information to Wikipedia. Guccibelucci (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larries

Tar det på det lokala språket. You are not wrong, but WP:SYNTH. Not sure it matters that much, and WP tells me the band has done some stuff after 2016. But it is interesting that they don't really need the band to be alive and kicking:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Guccibelucci (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Kajsa Ekis Ekman) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - biographies of living people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guccibelucci. 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 20 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked due to sockpuppetry, and while it is true that I have had different accounts, I have not used them in order to evade a block, as the rules state. I have not engaged in abusive behaviour at all, just discussing contents on some talk pages. If I use one account or another it is usually because I get automatically logged in at different devices. I did not know that was not allowed and will not do so in the future. I have learned from this and hope that you can apply AGF on the case and reinstate me as i have been editing for ten years. Guccibelucci (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is not what the Editor Interaction Analyser shows. You edited the article with both accounts, not just the talk page. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 29 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Oh, sorry! It was a long time ago, so what you are saying might be true! But I still cannot see that this would have broken any rules as none of my accounts was blocked. When I read the rules, it says that what is not allowed is to use an account to evade a block. That was not my case. As I said the saved logins on different devices sometimes logs you in automatically in one or the other. As stated I hope you can reinstate me in AGF and I will stick to one account from now on. Thanks a lot! Guccibelucci (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you don't understand WP:SOCK, we have to leave the block in place. Yamla (talk) 12:01, 29 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.