User talk:AcademieIT

Speedy deletion nomination of P. F. R. H.

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as PFRHL, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. EDT95 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not purposedly added, and yes, the connection was wrong. I was going to revise it, but better to be deleted until I find more information and have the proper connections. Thanks. AcademieIT (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AcademieIT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

First, editor SJ hasn't made any edits since leaving the messages on those articles, so they may still be on vacation and thus may not have read your message. I would suggest several items.

First, the policy on verifiability does not require sources be verifiable online, offline sources are fine. Thus, I would politely mention this in a new, much, much, much shorter note on SJ's page. But, if the majority of the sources are not published (e.g. a birth certificate only located at the local records office) then there could be a problem with notability. Assuming most of the sources are published (I saw some with ISBNs), provide links to library catalogs where these works are available so that someone could verify these more easily if they so desired. If possible, provide direct links to the information on Google Books that you said were available.

Next, try contacting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy, as those members are likely more familiar with all things Italian, including the language to assist in verifying via Italian publications.

Lastly, do the same with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, as they may know of sources related to nobility, as these articles seem to relate to nobility. Good luck. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! AcademieIT (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit seems to have removed detailed checks into the offline sources you used. Why did you blank that talk page? +sj + 07:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sj! I blanked the page as it was written by an unregistered user who had never made a contribution here. Anyway, I've been discussing part of what he wrote with an editor. I think when one reads constructive criticism, it is better to know the identity of who has written it. The critic who wrote that also "questioned" unpolitely my work here, very rude, as we all part from the "good faith" of all others like you and me making Wikipedia better :) AcademieIT (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Academie

Do you still use the talk page at User talk:Academie? It's easier to chat if there's only one talk-page! +sj + 07:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is my talk page. AcademieIT (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Are you no longer a professor of Latin American Literature at the University of Michigan? :) Thanks for helping clean up the articles you are working on. It would probably help other editors if you listed some details about your long-standing genealogy work (along with why you're doing it, where you are finding sources, &c) on your userpage. +sj + 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're mistaking me with a colleague when I was visiting professor, with whom I pretended to write several articles but unfortunately he passed away. AcademieIT (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to the page Guido Poeti-Marentini e Valperga di Masino-Caluso Peyretti di Condove. Blank pages can confuse readers, and are overall not helpful to the Wikipedia project; furthermore, blanking a page is not the same as deleting it.

If the article you blanked is a duplicate of another article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the appropriate deletion process. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 23:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I got an email from a descendant of the subject of the article asking for its immediate deletion from Wikipedia. I've been using the format {{delete| reason }} with blanking complying with the descendant's petition. AcademieIT (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Guido Poeti-Marentini e Valperga di Masino-Caluso Peyretti di Condove. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but now I put proper tags to article for deletion. Thanks. AcademieIT (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Max Vergara Poeti. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this stuff deleted you are going to have to provide valid, policy based reasons for doing so. See the guide to deletion for more information. I wouldn't bother with any more speedy deletion requests, you are going to need to initiate a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate Beeblebrox if you can see things in good faith as they are. I admit that I put wrong tags to the article, but made the corrections, thanks to your help, with no purpose of vandalism. The least thing I want is to vandalize Wiki. I always assume good faith with other editors, so you please do the same AcademieIT (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that while others have chosen to label it as such, I have in fact not said you were vandalizing. However, you were removing content from an article based solely on your claims that that is what the descendants of the article's subject want. As I have explained at the AfD discussion, what they want is not really relevant because they don't own the entry, any more than you or I do. Obviously, they have a conflict of interest as regards this Wikipedia article, Wikipedias interest is in having a factual, well researched, neutrally worded biography on a notable individual. Their interest seems directly contrary to that goal, and I'm afraid by acting on their behalf you now also apparently have a conflict of interest. I didn't mean to imply at all that you were acting in bad faith, but rather wanted to stress to you that your reasoning in making these edits was based on premises not consistent with Wikipedia's policies, or it's overall goals. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Beeblebrox, you seem to misunderstand me. I've been working on Northern-Italian genealogies for a long time (I'm member of the Italian Heraldic Institute), and in my research I had direct contact with the descendants of the subject of the article which provided me a great deal of information. They know I'm the one who provided such details to Wikipedia, and are angry, and I don't blame them. I'm not siding with anyone, as I am a member of Wikipedia. It is weird that some time ago other contributors, when the family was not bothering, were feeling uneasy with the article (raising suspicious accounts)and I was strongly defending it. I don't have a conflict of interest, I'm a professional genealogist and the family knows me: all I want is that this won't bring trouble to my life, that's all. If the articles can be edited in some way that it doesn't bother them (especially with the photograph of their father, that they claim to be private by right, and I know it is like that), I'm sure I can convince them so the article can stay and they won't contact the foundation. All I want is to settle this in the best and most peaceful fashion. I recently found, too, evidence of who is the Habsburg lady mentioned in the article: that can be fixed also, in the spirit of truth for Wikipedia. AcademieIT (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked until allegations of hoaxing are resolved

Investigations have shown that a large number of articles you have contributed seem to have faked or misrepresented sources. This obviously could be some misunderstanding, but a Wikipedia OTRS volunteer fact checked several sources and found that you appear to have misrepresented what they say.

There is also some question as to whether you misrepresented sources in the currently up at AFD article Guido Poeti-Marentini e Valperga di Masino-Caluso Peyretti di Condove, and the article has been the subject of accuracy complaints by the article subjects' children.

As it is currently in doubt as to whether your contributions are merely mistaken or slightly mis-sourced, or entirely fabricated, I am placing an indefinite block on your account. The degree of apparent misrepresentation is significant enough that we need to protect the encyclopedia from any further potential damage while we clarify the situation.

You may want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation's OTRS volunteer team via the email address [email protected] to identify yourself and address the source concerns.

This block can be immediately lifted by any administrator if we determine to a reasonable degree of certainty that no intentional falsification has occurred. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

I've made other fruitful contributions and corrected some instead. This charge is based on "Vandalism", while I had legitimate reasons to delete my articles related/and/or derived from the same subject based on db-g7. Despite my legitimate claim according db-g7 policies was rejected by administrators, I opened a deletion debate according to Wikipedia's policies. As the family mentioned in the articles is divided and threatening themselves to Court, and I had to impede them , I suggested its members to contact directly the Foundation, while a decision was taken on the 2 nominated articles. Three other derivative articles from the problematic ones I tagged with db-g7, as I had written them and nobody had edited its contents except me. About an hour ago, and administrator verified the legitimacy of my request and deleted the 3 articles. Now I'm tagged with "Vandalism", which is of course untrue, and blocked indefinitely, without the right to a due process or defense. These other articles were not "wrong" or "hoaxes", and I can proof they weren't, but as the author of them knew they had to go too, and as long as no one else made edits in the contents of my contributions, my db-g7 claims were valid enough in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. The user Georgewilliamherbert (talk) placed this block under the charge that a "large number" of articles I had written "seem to have faked or misrepresented sources". I am the one who put my articles on consideration for deletion (only two), and whenever there were problems with the contents, I talked it politely with other administrators and editors so we could find a fix, so the entries hadn't to be deleted (and it happened, as can be read in their talk pages). There are only 2 articles that were placed for debate and voting, and there's no such a "large number of articles" that I'd written that are controversial. This is abuse of a power someone had been given, a reckless use of it. Very sad, as it shows that, though a great majority of editors are respectable, decent people, there are some who rejoice in the power they had been given, and just use it how they like, even if they violate Wikipedia's own rules. Now the question is: if you had acted always in good faith, for the best of Wikipedia, in compliance with deletion considerations and guidelines (as any article can be corrected, made improvements to it before considering deletion), why deny to me this right? Has anyone asked proofs of truth about my articles? The ones calling them "hoaxes" merely Google down, ignoring there are public libraries in many European countries where genealogies and books are available to read online (though are not indexed in search engines for obvious reasons). No one really cared to ask me about my sources, and as Georgewilliamherbert (talk) simply states (I don't understand from where he got such claims as far as I know only 2 articles had been nominated for deletion by myself), without allowing me the right to debate, show, prove, and just I'd been tagged as a contributor who made acts of vandalism. The excess of this is seen in the "permanent block" imposed on me. I hope one honest, impartia administrator can truly understand the scope of what I've written here and the consecuences that it has brought me, but that requires too to check this case thoroughfully. I invoked db-g7 for my other 3 articles as it was legitimate, and as everyone was tagging me as of "building hoaxes" (it only takes you 1 article to be put into debate for deletion for other editors starting raising questions, without true basis, about your other contributions; it's how it is here) but strange is, and simple, that nobody asked for scans of the pages from were my entries were sourced or anything alike, which I would had provided. More than academic, it all falss into subjectivism and vanity of some, but not a respectful and even discussion with charges and proofs, that can be judged objectively, and most important, politely. Very sad it is, as it goes on personal attacks from other members disguised on "politeness", not direct attacks on one, but of our own intellectual work. It is obvious with this that the least important thing in Wikipedia is research, or human intelligence. Humanity, above all. This is not an academic forum for you to produce and discuss, but an enciclopedia built on whatever there's found in Google, difamatory or good. When I started to contribute here, I thought the contrary; I regret all of this happened, that part of the family subject of my recent contributions raised questions and opposed about the entries, but I'm sure I can still contribute to Wikipedia in more clear and fruitful ways, and so this is my appeal.

Decline reason:

Too long, didn't need to read. Your repeated elision of the facts about the source that couldn't cash the check you were writing with it is why I'm decline ing this unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (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.

AcademieIT (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond in part to the claims above-

As I stated in the block message, a specific book source which AcademieIT referenced was located by a Wikipedia OTRS volunteer who is also a university librarian, and the paper copy was fact checked against the specific source claims AcademieIT made regarding it. The claims were found to be unsupported.

In fact, what AcademieIT is asking for us to do therefore is what was already done - a library professional got a copy of the book, checked it, and found it not supporting AcademieIT's source claims.

This is not a final conclusion that actual hoaxing has happened. This is not a court of law. The block was imposed because there is credible evidence - including paper references checks - that hoaxing activity has occurred. It is particularly sensitive in that AcademieIT's area of work on Wikipedia is biographical articles, in many cases on living or recently deceased people.

The block was imposed to protect the encyclopedia and Wikipedia article subjects while we further investigate. An unblock is inappropriate until the hoax claims are reviewed and discussed and further fact checked in depth.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Umm...just one comment as a potential reviewing admin confronted with this "wall of text": No offense, but I think should take a look at this. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, Vandalism is:

"... any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism." Your claims, Georgewilliamherbert (talk) as you imposed a block to "protect Wikipedia" are not valid enough as seen through the rationales of blocks Wikipedia:Blocking policy. It is excessive and removed me from all controversy, without the possibility of discussing allegations. AcademieIT (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is specifically prohibited to create hoaxes, and doing so is considered vandalism. See: Wikipedia:HOAX

Accounts which have been found to be (or credible evidence for) hoaxing are routinely blocked indefinitely, or for long periods. This is normal administrative procedure.

Let me be clear here: Attacking this on procedural grounds Will Not Work. There are credible allegations that you're fabricating source material and misrepresenting sources to establish hoaxes in Wikipedia. You're doing it in biographical articles, touching on biographies of living persons policy, which requires that we proceed with an abundance of caution.

You are able to discuss the allegations here, on your talk page. If we establish investigations elsewhere we will be offered the opportunity to have comments or statements made here included in discussions there, or to have portions of your talk page included in those discussions via transclusion.

Though it's currently only available to administrators, the most blatant and specific evidence is regarding the now deleted article Louise Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld - see the deleted revision [1], and the book source:

Giorgio Cucentrentoli, I Granduchi di Toscana della Casa Asburgo Lorena, La Perseveranza, Bologna, 1975

As I stated - a paper copy of this book was located by a Wikipedia OTRS volunteer who is a professional librarian; the paper copy was consulted, and upon inspection was found to apparently not contain any of the information the article supposedly claimed it did.

As I said, you may want to identify yourself via email to the OTRS volunteers team at [email protected] and have that team review your academic credentials and identity.

Further review of all your articles and sources is underway, but nowhere near complete.

As I said at the beginning - if this turns out to be a misunderstanding, or merely minor errors, we can resolve it all rapidly. However, while apparent evidence of hoaxing is available we need to act with extreme caution.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you had just written, but for the record no such article of mine was declared a "hoax". The commented entry on Louise Hesse was not a product of a hoax, as I stated to the administrator who removed it, and we even corrected information that was dubious on the other articles. The two articles I put on deletion nomination are no hoaxes, they were written a long time ago and nobody ever tagged them as "hoaxes" before the nomination took place. As it is said in the link you posted here: It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax, as there have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure. Just the claims of living people asking the entries to be removed tells you that they are not hoaxes. Anyway I understand your reasons, though I not share them. And I do appreciate your efforts, counting that this is being done in good faith. Take care.AcademieIT (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but no. The article Georgewilliamgerbert mentions is one of a few that were reviewed, in each case by multiple editors. There is absolutely no doubt that the sources you claimed to have used not only did not contain the information you claimed, but didn't even contain the NAME of the person you wrote about. Further research determined that several editors were unable to find any evidence that the people you were writing about existed even though rather exhaustive searches were done. There is no room for you to claim that due diligence was not followed here, nor any room for you to claim the articles were anything but utter dosh. Shell ^babelfish 06:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]