User talk:1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia

Answer!

May 2024

Hello, I'm Prince of Erebor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ciro Immobile have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Erebor Yes, but answer my question! How do I create an Article?? Or I'll complain with the Manager!!! 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can create one at WP:HTCAP by typing a page you want to create. You did not ask to create an article on this talk page. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ASKED IN THE TEAHOUSE!!! 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you said "Yes, but answer my question", like you asked on this talk page. Someone at the tea house will assist you and reply to your question, or you can use WP:HELPDESK. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Draft:Ponte sul Rio Verde, Catanzaro, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Theroadislong (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha this notice is Patent Nonsense!!! 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatestLuvofAll @Theroadislong How could I have vandalized an article which was Rubbish?! I told that it was a hoax, so there was no Deception! I'LL COMPLAIN WITH THE MANAGER! 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No ok. I read advice below. I was joking. Now please Unban. 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:A Wikipedia Article

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:A Wikipedia Article, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Wikipedia Article (May 26)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by CanonNi was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Test page.

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia! 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! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense!!! "A Wikipedia Article" is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia???!!! It doesn't make any sense!!! And you say this is not for fun, so why don't you delete this? 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that Is a comedic essay, and is marked as such. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 14:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Ponte sul Rio Verde, Catanzaro

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Draft:Ponte sul Rio Verde, Catanzaro, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Colleverde (May 26)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Theroadislong was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

I think you should be warned that if you continue in the way you have started, there's a real likelihood that you will soon be blocked from editing by an administrator, because the things you have been doing don't seem to be constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia. There are websites such as fandom where you can post pages on things you have made up "just for fun", if you like, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. You say that you wish to create an article, but what do you wish to create an article about? If you just like the idea of creating an article, but don't yet have a particular topic in mind, then you would be far better advised to start by making other kinds of contributions, and not trying to create an article yet. Even if you fo have a particular subject in mind, it would almost certainly be better not to try to create an article on it yet. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. JBW (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create pages which say that they are "rubbish" or "hoaxes", or which ask to be deleted. Doing so takes up administrators' time which could instead have been for more useful work. JBW (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make test edits at User:1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia/sandbox if you wish to. Please don't make test edits in articles or drafts. JBW (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Now Unban my Account. 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URGENTLY!!! 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:46, 26 May 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).

1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have read the previous Advices, and so I won't create any more articles for fun, but just improve seriously existing articles. 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

reblocked as an obvious sock with talk page access revoked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/14_novembre. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:59, 27 May 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.

Can you describe exactly what facts about your editing led to the block, and how your future editing will be different? It's good that you say you won't create any fantasy pages for fun again, but that was only part of the problem, and it's unlikely that you will be unblocked unless you can convince an administrator that you understand what all of the problems were. JBW (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW Of course I understand what Problems were! The other problem was asking Stupid Questions at the Teahouse, and saying I would COMPLAIN WITH THE MANAGER. But I understand that such behaviour was stupid as it didn't invite Admins to answer more quickly. So I apologize and won't do further Disruption if I Get this Unbanned. 1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we should entertain this unblock request from 14 novembre here, but I'll leave it to JBW to make the call. --Yamla (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main account is CU blocked, and this user was trolling all day yesterday, creating 4-5 accounts and doing the exact same things with each one. Nobody is going to unblock this account, ever, yet admins are edit warring to make sure their appeal stays open because of a rule that, as far as I can tell, is being made up on the spot.

I don't understand what the point is here, this request is invalid and not qualified to be reviewed becauase this is an exceedingly obvious troll sock, but if some imaginary rule says it has to be left open, fine, enforece your imaginary rule. I'm sure the troll behind this account is having a good laugh about all this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Step Sideways: You may like to re-read your comment above and consider whether there might have been a better way of expressing what you said. You say that "admins are edit warring", but I can see only one administrator who has made the same edit more than once. Who is trying to "to make sure their appeal stays open"? As far as I can see, the only issue is how to close the appeal, not whether it should stay open. What is the "imaginary rule" you refer to? I really don't know what you are referring to there. A closed unblock request is easily seen; one which has been left in place but commented out isn't, which resulted in my wasting some time before I realised what had happened. Therefore doing it the way you did was unhelpful. JBW (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inmaginary rule is that there is some valid reason to restore the unblock request and leave it open. There is not. The user was reblocked (by me) without talk page acces once it bacame clear who this was. They are now propoerly tagged as a sock of the original user, who has also had their talk page revoked and been instructed they may appeal off-wiki. They've made like eight more obvious duck accounts since this one was blocked yesterday. What possible purpose is served by forcing this request back open? It is invalid on it's face as this account is not eligible to be unblocked.

I'm sorry you feel your time was wasted, but by forcing this back open, you are wasting the time of an othery admin who will come along to review this, only to find that this is entirely moot. This is profoundly stupid and feeding the troll. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]