User talk:PasqualeGiliberti

PasqualeGiliberti, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PasqualeGiliberti! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Davide Giliberti for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davide Giliberti 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 Giliberti until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Davide Giliberti. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that to edit with multiple accounts, or to combine logged-in edits with logged-out edits to make it look like it's different people, is against our policy - it's called sockpuppetry, and frequently results in users being blocked from editing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed, for the record, to either (a) remove the AFD notice from an article where the AFD discussion is underway, or (b) blank the AFD discussion. The discussion does not in and of itself mean that the article is guaranteed to get deleted — there have been cases where an article listed for AFD got kept, because it was possible to demonstrate that the necessary quality of referencing existed to get the article significantly improved from where it was. But you have to let the process work through to its conclusion one way or the other, and do not have the right to short-circuit it by removing the template or erasing the discussion yourself. There are only two people who have the right to remove the AFD template once it's been added — the nominator themselves if they're withdrawing the nomination for some reason, and/or the administrator who's closing the discussion at the end of the process — and the only person who has the right to erase the discussion is an administrator who's courtesy-blanking it after closure on the grounds that sensitive information was discussed in it that impacted the subject's personal privacy rights (e.g. if an article was about an alleged criminal and the discussion included details of the allegations.) You, however, do not have the right to do either thing. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]