User talk:Alessiorom13

Welcome!
Hello, Alessiorom13, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as UFL (video game), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
 * Article development
 * Standard layout
 * Lead section
 * The perfect article
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JeepersClub (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of UFL (video game)


A tag has been placed on UFL (video game), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JeepersClub (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jaafar Jackson (February 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jaafar Jackson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jaafar_Jackson Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jaafar_Jackson reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked
Yamla (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You are believed to be the same person behind and other such accounts. This is backed by both behavioural evidence (the type of edits you make) and technical evidence. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What bad "behavioural" edits have I made in recent years? It's all been straight forward and non controversial normal edits. What do I have to prove to be unblocked? You for example just reverted my revert of a disruptive edit on the Invincible (Michael Jackson album). Now the album tracklist on that page is completely wrong. How is that not a "bad behaviour edit"? - Alessiorom13 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Every single edit to Michael Jackson related articles is in violation of your WP:TOPICBAN. Every single edit in general is in violation of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why am I banned in particular when I haven't done a single disruptive edits in years? It seems like you have an agenda against me for some reason. So it would be better if un unbiased account answers my question. - Alessiorom13 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that this user remains under a WP:TOPICBAN, imposed by the community, from all edits related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This includes related articles and talk pages. This is logged at Editing_restrictions/Archive/Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community and has not been lifted. This user is additionally under a WP:1RR restriction for all other articles. Pretty easy to see almost every edit from this account violated that topic ban, not to mention the violations of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. This unblock request should be declined and talk page access revoked. The user is far closer to a complete community ban under WP:3X than they are to being unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would obviously happily request an unblock from the topicban aswell if possible. If not, I would definietly have no problem editing in articles not releated to Michael Jackson, which I have done plenty of times in the past. I sincerely want to make positive edits and not be disruptive in any way. I'm willing to do better more than ever. What can I do to better myself and prove myself to this community? - Alessiorom13 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's essentially zero chance of your topic ban being lifted, not when you've blatantly violated the topic ban, over and over and over and over and over again for literally years. Your best bet is to go six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO, acknowledging your topic ban and agreeing not to contest it for at least six further months and acknowledging your literally years of sockpuppetry and block evasion. I'll warn you, your behaviour has been so bad, your rampant unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies has been so chronic, that WP:SO is very far from a guarantee at that point. Again, you are much closer to a community ban than you are to being unblocked and your nonsense that your edits have not been disruptive needs to stop immediately. If you can't understand that every single edit you make is in violation of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE as well as WP:TOPICBAN, Wikipedia simply isn't the place for you. So, yes, there's a path forward for you. But you need to change your entire approach, immediately. I suggest starting by removing your open unblock request, which has no hope of being granted. --Yamla (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So I'm not blocked indefinietly, I'm essentially blocked for life according to you. Even though my edits on their own havent been disruptive at all for years. Im completely aware of the mistake I made and i'm willing to do better. And if im still topic banned, i'm more than willing to behave and not be disruptive until when and if it eventually gets lifted. - Alessiorom13 (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT. I'm not responding further. You have a path. Take it or don't. --Yamla (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else to say. I have been sincere and adressed everything and I can certainly answer any question. - Alessiorom13 (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. As I previuslly stated. This account right here the only account that I will be using going forward and I will not use or create any other account. My previus account awardmaniac was so long ago, over 5 years ago. I don't have access to it anymore and don't want to either. This is the only account I want to edit on. How can I redeem myself? Alessiorom13 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained this in great detail above. Read it. Six months from today is 2024-11-11, so if you don't edit this talk page any further until then and don't evade your block any further, that would satisfy the six month part of WP:SO. Frankly, given your years of abuse, that seems unlikely. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was told 6 months from today 6 months ago on November 8, 2023. It has been over 6 months now. I'm asking what I can do to redeem myself or am I banned for life? Alessiorom13 (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to slow down. Multiple admins have given you extremely specific details of how you can possibly post again someday, but you're ignoring what they say, and I fear you are going to have your talk page access revoked for bludgeoning them with questions, which will greatly reduce the chances you have of posting again.
 * Waiting six months (and that's a minimum) is necessary, but not sufficient by itself. As admins are telling you, you need to come clean -- you still haven't explicitly said what you've done and noted all your sockpuppet account -- and making excuses and justifications are not helping your case. Saying that you haven't contributed anything negative, while violating a topic ban and a posting ban, are not helping your case. And some of the excuses in your story make little sense; even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that starting a sockpuppet account when you "made a mistake of lashing out" was justifiable, how does that justify starting a sock puppet account years later.
 * Getting to post again basically requires an administrator trusting what you have to say. But you're acting in a manner that erodes trust. You accuse admins of "having an agenda against [you]." You handwave away the things you did in the past. You even talk about having the topic ban lifted even though your're currently not allowed to post at all.
 * The fact is, you have repeatedly said in the past, when your actions have been called out, that you would do better and that people shouldn't give up on giving you chances to change, but those changes never seem to happen. Admins don't want to ban people. If admins just wanted to ban you for life, it takes about a minute of effort to remove your talk page access and ban you from making UTRS appeals. I always pay attention to ANI and unblock requests and I can assure you that the admins you're talking to have given many editors second or third or fourth chances to be productive contributors again.
 * Do you want to post again? This is the only path that has any chance of working out: drop this argument and wait six months (at a bare minimum, it would be smarter to wait a year or two). And next time you appeal, fully disclose the things you've done, both actions and accounts and make no attempts to justify or excuse what you did. You can also help your case by editing productively on another project that you're not banned from, such as Simple Wikipedia. Even that may not be enough, but it represents the only way you can be involved in this project once again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But I did wait 6 months. Should I wait six months again? Or is it 6 months for every unblock request I make? I just want answers. Cause I'm more than willing to prove that I have and will redeem myself. Alessiorom13 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To help you out, I will protect this page for six months to prevent you continuing to edit here and continuing to hurt your chances of ever being unblocked. Remember, any further editing, via another account or while not signed in to this account, would count against you and would reset the timer. Remember, you need to acknowledge your blatant violations of your topic ban, which remain in effect. --Yamla (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)