Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 756

I thank you very much for your invitation
but I have to report bullying by Italian users against my person. Currently I have an infinite block. I would request a review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --TheSilentEnigma76 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)(talk) 22:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/Razorblade76/8 aprile 2018 < Wikipedia:Utenti problematici‎ | Razorblade76 Razorblade76 (discussioni · contributi · cancellati · spostamenti · blocca · blocchi · CU positivi) Concetti che è opportuno conoscere prima di intervenire Elenco dei sockpuppet già individuati per Razorblade76 Se sei a conoscenza di sockpuppet identificati di Razorblade76 aggiorna ora l'elenco. Discussione sulla segnalazione L'utenza, già segnalato poco meno di mese fa, sembra non aver compreso appieno quanto gli è stato detto in passato. Da pochi giorni sembra essersi dato ai vandalismi e a insulti e/o provocazioni gratuite o inserendo commenti fuori luogo come qui, qui oppure qui. Vorrei aggiungere anche questa serie di edit eseguiti questa notte che non mi lasciano pensare a un affidabilità piena di questo utente. --SuperVirtual 14:08, 8 apr 2018 (CEST)

erano provocazioni quegli edit grotteschi, li avrei rimossi poi io. Figuratevi un sono super fan dei Nirvana, lì ho visti anche dal vivo :) Risposta sbagliata. Questo non è un parco giochi, ma un'enciclopedia; le modifiche sono visibili a tutti appena vengono inserite. Con le tue provocazioni hai danneggiato l'enciclopedia. Ti fermo per un giorno. Rifletti con calma e decidi se vuoi contribuire seriamente e senza giocare. Grazie dell'attenzione. --Gac 14:24, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) E non parliamo di questa "motivazione"... --SuperVirtual 14:39, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) adesso però mi state indisponendo perchè volevo tributare il grande CHESTER ma nessuno vuole collaborare, solo annullare--Razorblade76 (msg) 14:13, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Infatti mi pare di aver scritto, in quel campo oggetto, "Nell'attesa che l'intervento venga privato di ogni osservazione personale e non neutrale". Nessuno ha cancellato quell'edit dagli archivi, anzi, è liberamente possibile ri-rollbackarlo ancora una volta, ma se fatto nel modo in cui lo hai fatto tu diventa una guerra di modifiche o edit war, cosa che non è accettabile su Wikipedia. Quando il tempo sarà un po' più propizio, mi assicurerò di aggiungere una parte di quel testo aggiunto alla voce, perché è comunque ingiusto non far notare che il tuo è stato un lavoro di ricerca, per quanto superficiale potesse sembrare. E, comunque, qui non si edita per "provocare", pena la perdita di reputazione che può portare a UP come questa.--Gybo 95 (msg) 14:18, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) [← Rientro] Contributi chiaramente vandalici e commenti infantili sulle pagine di discussione, compresi quelli qui sopra; sembra non aver capito il concetto di punto di vista neutrale e che Wikipedia non è un fan club né dei grandi Nirvana né del grande Chester, né di chiunque altro, e che quindi "essere un grande fan" non è affatto una nota di merito in questo contesto. --M&A (msg) 14:21, 8 apr 2018 (CEST)

All'infuori dell'"amichevolezza" che ho mostrato con l'utente, sottoscrivo quello detto da M&A: questo è indubbiamente un atteggiamento da blocco, bisognerebbe solo stabilire lungo quanto (sempre se l'utente torna ad editare come ha fatto fino ad ora).--Gybo 95 (msg) 14:29, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Campi oggetto come questo sarebbero da blocco all'istante, se poi ci aggiungiamo l'edit-war e il vandalismo ultimo le speranze lasciate nella precedente UP vanno a farsi friggere, non è che può alzarsi un giorno in buona (scuse in PU) e il giorno dopo male se la cava con un scherzavo. Incompatibile col progetto.--Kirk Dimmi! 14:33, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) P.S. Del resto lo ammette lui che è fatto così, per quello credo che il "recupero" sia improbabile. La discussione di stanotte non è stata troppo edificante ma speravo che, passata la rabbia del momento, decidesse di cambiare registro oppure, non trovandosi bene, di chiedere il blocco prima di arrivare a un'altra segnalazione di problematicità. Gli rinnovo il mio consiglio, prima di arrivare al blocco infinito per incompatibilità col progetto, perché da quello non si torna più indietro e non è sufficiente cambiare l'utenza (esistono i CU...): Wikipedia non è obbligatoria e, visto che non è perfetta, se non ci si trova bene basta non parteciparvi, mentre giustificarsi con "sono fatto così" è soltanto controproducente--Parma1983 14:53, 8 apr Fate quello che volete, sicuramente ho fatto Delle stupidaggini e mi sono già scusato ma voi continuate a non collaborare. Vorrei chiedervi perché le pagine di gruppi più o meno conosciuti come Mad Season, Creed, K's Chiuse, Anathema (anni e anni fa), Paradise Lost, art or anarchy, Bush,seether e altre che non ricordo ho dovuto"farle" io. Se trovassi qua su più aiuto e collaborazione probabilmente la mia componente "punk" rimarrebbe assopita ed eviterei di fare certe cavolate. Scusate è stato poco "civile" da parte vostra impedirmi di partecipare al dibattito percui ho chiesto ad amico "gentile" di poter usare il suo telefono. Razorblade76. — Questo commento senza la firma utente è stato inserito da 151.34.69.204 (discussioni · contributi) 14:56, 8 apr 2018. Non hai "fatto" delle pagine, gli hai messo una sezione che, come abbiamo già detto, non doveva stare lì perché un doppione di quella dell'infobox oppure le hai aggiornate come avresti dovuto fare anche prima senza inimicarti una buona fetta di utenze: inoltre, nessuno ti sta impedendo di partecipare al dibattito (è un blocco di un giorno, mica di un mese), ma sappi anche che usare eccessivamente altri indirizzi pur di rispondere ed editare può portare ad un blocco definitivo per evasione dal blocco già attivo.--Gybo 95 (msg) 15:09, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) [← Rientro]Allora per cortesia sbloccattemi e proseguiamo converversando civilmente. Anche perché necessito di precisazioni Razorblade76 — Questo commento senza la firma utente è stato inserito da 151.34.69.204 (discussioni · contributi) 15:23, 8 apr 2018.

Il blocco di 1 giorno, come detto da Gac, serve per riflettere a mente fredda. Per favore non intervenire nuovamente fino allo scadere del blocco, o la durata si allungherà. Siccome non ho voglia di ripetermi, ti linko quanto ti scrissi un mese fa. Per favore leggilo. Buona giornata, --Ripe (msg) 15:26, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Dobbiamo perdere altro tempo dietro un'utenza che palesemente non è – e per sua stessa ammissione, mai sarà – collaborativa? A mio modestissimo parere, no. E gli estremi per l'infinito, purtroppo, ci sono tutti. --Dimitrij Kášëv 15:30, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Allora, io sono tentato di portargli il blocco direttamente a una settimana, e senza alcun riguardo all'evasione ma solo perché le buone a quanto pare non funzionano. Mi astengo solo perché un intervento di [@ Ruthven] la volta scorsa adombrava la possibilità che l'utente si sia sentito morso fin dall'inizio. E va bene, io stesso sono una persona comprensiva fin quasi al limite dell'ingenuità. Quindi Razorblade torna domani. Faccio notare però che è la seconda volta che prende un giorno. La prima, non ha funzionato. Questa, il risultato è sotto gli occhi di tutti: continua a scrivere da ip che «voi continuate a non collaborare», «è stato poco "civile" da parte vostra impedirmi di partecipare al dibattito», «per cortesia sbloccattemi e proseguiamo converversando civilmente». Si noti l'insistenza sui concetti di civiltà ed educazione che evidentemente lui possiede e gli altri no (!). Stessa cosa dopo le scuse la volta scorsa (!). Accuse agli altri e autocritica solo subordinata a queste ultime: «Se trovassi qua su più aiuto e collaborazione probabilmente la mia componente "punk" rimarrebbe assopita ed eviterei di fare certe cavolate». Gli torna sempre il resto, coerentemente con l'autopresentazione che l'aveva messo subito in cattiva luce un mese fa. Dunque ammiro l'estenuante pazientare per wikilove di Gac e di Ripe, ma questo signore di quarantadue anni adesso ha urgenza di imparare la lezione. La volta scorsa scrissi che alla prima doveva essere infinito. Stavolta aggiungo che alla prima (cioè ormai la seconda) il tasto lo premo io. Temo di essere d'accordo con Dimitrij Kasev. --Erinaceus (msg) 16:39, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Viste le diff linkate da SuperVirtual (alle quali aggiungerei questa, che da sola avrebbe meritato una settimana di blocco per attacchi personali), mi pare che la prima UP non abbia sortito alcun effetto. Se vogliamo fare uno sforzo di wikilove e dare un'ulteriore chance per me può andare, ma al prossimo sgarro si passa al blocco infinito senza perdere altro tempo. --Dan Kenshi 19:28, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Anch'io invece sarei per l'infinito diretto, perché la gente che si iscrive qui apposta per divertirsi si riconosce da un miglio. Non è solo un caso che l'utente sia passato dalla seconda persona singolare alla terza persona, quasi a darsi un tono più "adulto" o a sottolineare la sua onniscenza. Prima di decidere di iscriversi a questo sito, uno le linee guida dovrebbe osservarle dall'inizio alla fine, ma così non è...--Gybo 95 (msg) 19:42, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Sono dello stesso parere di Gybo 95. Credo che il blocco infinito a questo punto sia l'unica soluzione. --SuperVirtual 20:00, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Tralasciando anche le evasioni da ip, dopo la sua entrata qui in questa UP, che si somma alla sua entrata precedente, ancor più d'accordo con Dimitrij Kášëv; aspettare domani perchè si scusi e tornare qui dopodomani (o un altro giorno) per altre uscite del genere, è tempo perso, è fatto così e il suo modo di fare è incompatibile, quindi infinito.--Kirk Dimmi! 20:07, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) E no, ho come il sospetto che l'utente stia continuando ad evadere il blocco.--Gybo 95 (msg) 20:37, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) @rientro. Suggerisco alla santa inquisizione e a Razorblade76 di tornare a questo punto di Ripepette. Nel senso: a Razorblade76 di non andare per bacheche chiedendo di essere ascoltato, potrai farlo qui dopo il blocco. Nessuno prenderà provvedimenti per i tuoi interventi successivi al blocco. (Si dovrebbe tollerare e comprendere lo stato di agitazione di chi, bloccato e non dimestico, si sente franare la terra. Ed ai valutanti, di valutare il comportamento esclusivamente prima del blocco. @cf edit: santa inquisizione era per stemperare e, Ripe ha spiegato qui sotto. Massimo rispetto per tutti. Saluti--☼Windino☼ [Rec] 20:46, 8 apr 2018 (CEST)

[× Conflitto di modifiche][@ Gybo 95] non starò qui a spiegarti perché il tuo precedente intervento è, oltre che sbagliato nel merito, inopportuno. Se dopo averci pensato un po' il perché non ti fosse chiaro scrivimi in talk. [@ Razorblade76] data la tua nuova evasione ho fatto ripartire il blocco. Ora: noi siamo disposti a darti un'ultima chance. Per fare ciò tuttavia è importante che: 1) rispetti queste 24h di blocco senza editare da anonimo, rilassandoti o pensando ad altro, 2) quando finisce il blocco, torni qui con spirito collaborativo e costruttivo, e, siccome noi abbiamo il vizio di presumere la buona fede anche quando sembra stupido farlo, possiamo provare a chiarire eventuali incomprensioni assieme. Se nessuno dei due punti viene rispettato si passa all'infinito. Non prenderla come una minaccia, ma come un'occasione per dimostrare che la tua utenza è salvabile. Fallo anche per rispetto nei confronti di chi come me ha perso tempo ed energie investendo su una tua eventuale crescita (in senso wikipediano). Grazie. Ora rileggi i punti 1 e 2. --Ripe (msg) 20:51, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) P.S.: raccolgo l'assist di Windino per chiedere gentilmente di evitare di esprimere pareri duri nei confronti dell'utente, fino a che egli non sarà in grado di scrivere qua. Su Wikipedia è fondamentale l'adattabilità alle situazioni, da parte di tutti. Ok, grazie, stavo per chiedere un check user nel dubbio ma a questo punto non penso serva più. ;) Sì Ripepette, ho capito tutto, è il famoso "Non infierire su chi è a terra", vero?--Gybo 95 (msg) 20:55, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Va bene Ripe hai ragione nessuno infierirà, solo una cosa: la situazione è spinosa, perché qui non ci sono chiarimenti da rendersi ma serve un cambiamento dalla notte al giorno su un certo modo d'intendere la collaborazione che forse è frainteso fin dall'inizio e che forse sarà difficile modificare. Ma ben venga un supplemento di tolleranza, fino a... --Erinaceus (msg) 21:14, 8 apr 2018 (CEST) Sono d'accordo con Ripe e Windino: concediamogli un'ultima chance, cercando un chiarimento al termine del blocco e facendo conto che l'evasione non sia avvenuta. Alla peggio avremo solo perso un po' di tempo, ma in caso contrario avremo guadagnato un potenziale buon utente--Parma1983 00:08, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) [← Rientro] Ma è iscritto da appena un mese e ha già creato tutti questi problemi? Mi sto chiedendo quanti anni abbia, perché si comporta in modo piuttosto infantile. Potrebbe essere utile un blocco un po' più lungo. Tipo un mesetto. Ma da quanto si è visto finora temo che i problemi si ripresenteranno. Magari è anche una persona preparata, ma dovrebbe rivedere radicalmente il proprio atteggiamento prima di ripresentarsi. -- Il Passeggero - amo sentirvi 00:56, 9 apr 2018 (CEST)

Ma davvero vogliamo stare ancora qui a perdere tempo discutendo di questa utenza? O è un troll che si diverte a fare dispetti o è davvero come dice di essere, in entrambi i casi è del tutto incompatibile col progetto. Abbiamo vandalismi ed edit puerili che denotano un comportamento immaturo che ci si potrebbe aspettare forse da un ragazzino delle medie, abbiamo una totale incomprensione di cosa sia Wikipedia (che non è un fan club di chicchessia), abbiamo una disarmante incapacità di comprendere i propri errori (nella sua ottica siamo noi che non collaboriamo e che lo spingiamo a comportarsi così) e un'altrettanto problematica incapacità di "mettere a tacere" alcuni aspetti del suo carattere per adattarsi alla comunità e alle sue regole di pacifica convivenza (componente punk? Ma stiamo scherzando? Solo perché lui ha una componente punk noi dovremmo assecondarlo nei suoi edit dannosi? Non esiste, ci sono delle regole ben precise che tutti siamo tenuti a rispettare, altrimenti anche io mi metto a esplicitare la mia componente skinhead in barba alla wikiquette), abbiamo evasioni dal blocco, attacchi personali e due UP in meno di un mese. Infinito diretto e chiudiamola qui, abbiamo perso fin troppo tempo. --Mandalorian ↣Messaggi↢ 14:38, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) Dai Mandalorian. Ha l'occasione di smentirci, può sfruttarla. Sta messo meglio del gattazzo nero :-D tenere duro ci costa ancora relativamente poco --Erinaceus (msg) 14:42, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) A pattto che, quando torna, se ricomincia si passi all'infinito renza riaprire una UP. --Klaudio (parla) 15:13, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) Se la comunità deciderà di dargli un'altra occasione rispetterò questa decisione ovviamente, ma secondo me possiamo aspettarci ben poco. --Mandalorian ↣Messaggi↢ 15:18, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) [@ Mandalorian] Se tu sprechi del tempo per intervenire qua è una tua propria decisione. Non ti nasconderò che avrei preferito tu avessi evitato questo intervento, che è al limite (se non oltre) dell'attacco personale. D'altro canto ad aspettare 6 ore per la fine del blocco perdevamo troppo tempo, già. Ora sentiamo che ha da dire e vediamo, fine. Non è complicato né ci fa perdere tempo. --Ripe (msg) 18:18, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) Attacco personale? Ma seriamente? Qui gli unici attacchi sono quelli di Razorblade76, che per come si è comportato ha dimostrato di aver scambiato Wikipedia per un parco giochi. Poi per carità, se vogliamo continuare a stare qui a discutere invece che infinitarlo ok, quello che dovevo dire l'ho detto. --Mandalorian ↣Messaggi↢ 18:22, 9 apr 2018 (CEST)

12345678

Lettera scritta ad un amico inglese per chiedergli qualche consiglio. Il suo è stato di farvi leggere quello che avevo scritto a lui. Dear Andrea I'm desolate but my relationship with the Italian wikipendiani is a disaster now we are at the real bullying

I would only be trying to bring improvements in the Italian version (in the exclusively rock as you know) of wikipededia retrieving information from en version, much more complete and detailed. But mine is not just a simple copy-paste my work is also the result of research outside of wiki.en.

Unfortunately, a group of users and administrators have immediately targeted me by canceling my contributions (and then making them re-identify identical by other users), erasing the things I write also because they assert that the information and music genres "recovered" from wiki.en for them are not sufficiently reliable because their competence is superior to mine (and yours....). They cancel the work of tens of minutes (I'm not very practical at the computer) or asserting fake or no justifications or speaking like robots not like nice "humans". Now either I am an exalted fool and my contributions are erroneous or they are (which are then only a very homogeneous group among them .....) or they are "the ones who have the truth in their pockets" but maybe they are only very superficial and arrogant .. ..

Another example: why I had to be on as a user not yet registered to report on the Italian page of Pearl Jam on February 27, 2018 (old notice!!!) that the group were included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame introduced by the comedian and TV presenter David Letterman ON 7 APRIL 2017! Could not the Italians "know how" to do it first?

Currently I have been "crucified" (stuck with perennial blockade threat ...) because I "dared" to enter the following information on the Italian page of Chester Bennington:

Vocal style and legacy: The gap left by Chester in the music scene is unbridgeable. Considered in his own way as the spokesman of the "zero generation" (as years before it had happened to Kurt Cobain about the "X generation") will be remembered for his remarkable interpretative skills and the heterogeneity of his vocal style. Bennington has formed vocally with the Gray Daze using an instinctive and naturally "dirty" approach that can be compared to that of Layne Staley and Kurt Cobain.

With his inclusion in Linkin Park his voice was "sophisticated" and enriched with multiple nuances, also required by the musical genre of LP more oriented to metal than to grunge. Bennington with a probably unique ease was able to move from a "relaxed" style almost pop to a powerful and really incisive scream. Lars Ulrich said of him: "He was one of those singers who had that rare gift in which every word he uttered sounded authentic", "what comes out of him is all his expressive urgency." [22]

His career was studded with excellent collaborations including the duet in 2007 with his great friend Chris Cornell, reinterpreting the "classic" of the Temple of the Dog "Hunger Strike" [23]

Numerous tributes and vigils have been organized by the artist's fans in all the countries of the world as visually testify the videos of One More Light and Crawling (Live). [24] [25]

But Bennington's greatest merit was to give "voice" to anyone who feels excluded "abused" and "put aside" by society. [26]

Chester's wife, Talinda Bennington, who immediately started to attract media attention to those suffering from depression and mental disorders on March 20 (her husband's birthday) founded the "320 Changes Direction" [27]

Now if you check the Italian page compared to EN you will notice that it is really poor, my intent was only a small contribution. They HAVE DELETE ALL!!! after my attempts to reinsert I was put on the pillory where I am now. Do I realy deserve this? What do you advise me to do? To persist or leave them alone? probably the problem does not subsist because it gives me what I read in their talk is more brobable that they enjoy more in blocking me for a long time or life time and I trust you that I suspect that some of them are haters people and also homophobics That's all :( write to me soon please.

Post Scriptum: I'm realy anscious now, I expect at any moment to be impaled on my shoulders by spears like Spartacus on the tv series;)--Razorblade76 (msg) 21:52, 9 apr 2018 (CEST)

Per me dopo questo intervento, contando anche l'oggetto, possiamo passare all'infinito. Non mi sembra ci siano i margini di miglioramento sufficienti. --Ripe (msg) 21:57, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) cosa non ti piace in quello che ho scritto?--Razorblade76 (msg) 22:03, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) 0123456789 chiamami --Razorblade76 (msg) 22:05, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) [← Rientro] Anche se non ne ero a conoscenza, ho provato a guardare fra i contributi dell'utente su en.wiki, e sebbene non veda alcuna "lettera ad un amico inglese", vedo ripetuti interventi in cui l'utente si è lamentato proprio di essere vittima di "ostracismo" e "bullismo" da parte di "alcuni amministratori su it.wiki". Giustamente, gli utenti di là o gli hanno rollbackato gli edit (inseriti in pagine erronee), o gli hanno detto di risolverla qui senza scomodarli. Pertanto, il "messaggio" ricevuto dall'amico riportato sopra è un'autentica bufala.--Gybo 95 (msg) 22:11, 9 apr 2018 (CEST)PS: Faccio notare che il numero di telefono scritto sopra esiste e corrisponde ad una persona realmente esistente. Non andrebbe oscurato?

no gybo del 95 è una mail indirizzata ad un amico esistente.--Razorblade76 (msg) 22:17, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) E' il MIO n. e se hai quello che sai mi chiami!!! [← Rientro] Ho oscurato il numero di telefono. Che il messaggio sia inventato o meno non è assolutamente rilevante. In ogni caso aspettiamo di sentire cosa hanno da dire altri utenti. Come detto sopra io non credo ci siano margini sufficienti ad evitare l'infinito, per i motivi già evidenziati da altri nel corso di questa procedura, e confermati da quest'intervento finito il blocco. --Ripe (msg) 22:23, 9 apr 2018 (CEST)

@cf Come per Ripe: senza tante parole di sorta. Avevo proposto un tappo e, meglio così. Si chiedeva un confronto sul modo, è stato cercato consenso perseverando--☼Windino☼ [Rec] 22:31, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) C'era anche più su il numero, oscuro. Per il resto, tutto come previsto direi.--Kirk Dimmi! 22:50, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) Andrò fuori tema, ma queste accuse di omofobia non le ho comprese. Da dove arrivano? Perché? Da chi nei confronti di chi? Ma tolte queste piccole curiosità, l'intervento sopra non lascia amaramente adito a dubbi. --Dimitrij Kášëv 22:52, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) [← Rientro] OK, vedo gli è stata data un'altra settimana di blocco. Se al ritorno si ripresenta con gli stessi atteggiamenti si passi pure all'infinito, IMHO. Non penso sia il caso di stare a perdere altro tempo con bambini intemperanti. -- Il Passeggero - amo sentirvi 23:23, 9 apr 2018 (CEST)

Non ho compreso nemmeno io i motivi alla base di quelle accuse di omofobia, ma forse perché non conosco minimamente quel cantante. Mi pare però che adesso, convinto erroneamente che ce l'abbiamo tutti con lui, Razorblade76 non si aspetti altro che di essere bloccato e voglia perciò farlo da martire, in sfida a tutti. A questo punto, sono sinceramente dispiaciuto e deluso, ma non vedo alternative all'infinito--Parma1983 23:50, 9 apr 2018 (CEST) Infinito, non ho capito perché ancora non sia stato fatto. L'utente è del tutto incompatibile col progetto, esistono altri siti appositi dove dare sfogo alla propria componente punk. --Horcrux九十二 00:46, 10 apr 2018 (CEST) A me questa "lettera a un amico inglese" e quanto ne è seguito puzza tantissimo di ennesima presa per il naso: il ragazzo si sta divertendo alle nostre spalle. Ma IMHO questa dovrebbe essere l'ultima volta: questa è la prova definitiva della totale incompatibilità con il progetto. Infinito e non ci pensiamo più. E non è affatto un martire: se l'è cercata apposta. --L736El'adminalcolico 08:49, 10 apr 2018 (CEST) Ho bloccato l'utente a tempo indetermianto, sperando che non tenti di contnuare ad evadera il blocco. --Klaudio (parla) 09:56, 10 apr 2018 (CEST)

Mi sa che non era partito il blocco, ho fatto io :) --Ripe (msg) 10:03, 10 apr 2018 (CEST) Viste anche le bambinate da parte dell'interessato, direi che non c'è altro da aggiungere. Chiudo la segnalazione. --Horcrux九十二 21:47, 10 apr 2018 (CEST)


 * Hey TheSilentEnigma76. Unfortunately each project is basically an island unto itself, and those on the English Wikipedia can't really affect anything on the Italian Wikipedia. You will need to appeal your block on it.wiki using the normal channels.  G M G  talk  22:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Protecting Pages
I don't need to protect any pages right now, but I want to know how to protect pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbeatableFlame154 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To protect a page, you need to file a request at WP:RFPP, or contact an administrator through some other means (please don't do it at WP:AN or WP:ANI unless it's just a huuuge mess). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How unblock?
How can I unblock a wiki account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibbles.yellow (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - you cannot unblock a Wikipedia account unless you have the necessary privileges, such as adminship. Though, judging by your talk page and contribution history, you may soon become acquainted on a personal level with our block policy. Just a word of warning. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are blocked, the block message will provide instructions on how to appeal. Better to improve your behavior before that happens, though.  RudolfRed (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now blocked as sockpuppet.David notMD (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox field bleeding into child module
Hello~

I am working on a page in my sandbox for a scientist and am hoping for it to go live in about a week. I am doing well with content and most of the coding is going well, but the infobox field "website" is bleeding into the child module "Infobox Korean name" and I am unsure why. Link to the sandbox in question is here. I've done some searching and can't find a solution. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 07:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is because website is to appear at last per Infobox person User:Capankajsmilyo(Talk 07:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thank you very much for your reply. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 02:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic
According to Naming_conventions_(ships), shouldn't the title of Sinking of the RMS Titanic be "Sinking of RMS Titanic"? I asked this in a couple of places and, but nobody seems to get what I'm asking or... ? WOPR (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.  According to the section Using ship names in articles:
 * "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong:
 * Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (preferred)
 * The Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (not recommended)"
 * So it looks like what you are suggesting is what the guideline recommends. I see that you have already raised this on the article's Talk page, which is the correct place. I will copy the excerpt above there as well.  Give it a little while to see if other authors comment on the proposal.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald and the declaration of his guilt in Wikipedia articles
In the United States guilt must be determined by a court of law (provided by the Sixth Amendment, for example, not to mention the basic legal principle of audi alteram partem). In the case of Kennedy's murder the jurisdiction of prosecution would ostensibly fall on the shoulders of Texas courts. In any case, no state or federal court ever convicted him as such, and thus he should be considered innocent unless and until otherwise proven guilty by a court of law.

And yet, in Wikipedia articles he is unequivocally declared "guilty". How can we remedy this? Most editors and administrators here surely must recognize the importance of presenting the facts with neutrality. The consensus reached by several investigations lay the blame on Oswald and hence the wording in the articles should indeed reflect this assumption of guilt, while at the same time being careful not to imply that he was found to be so in the strict legal sense of the word.

Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss the article is at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. You should also look through the talk page archives to see what previous discussions there have been about this subject.  ~ GB fan 19:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Earl of Arundel. From the looks of it, it seems this issue has been discussed already in the past, and has reached a consensus for the current wording in the article. Sometimes consensus goes your way and you agree with it, and sometimes it doesn't. If the steps in the dispute resolution process were followed correctly, and discussion that reached that consensus is recent, then we probably just have to wait for the consensus to change, and find something else productive to do in the meantime.  G M G  talk  19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Above and beyond that,, there's a broader principle involved, and one that especially American Wikipedia editors often miss. Simply put, Wikipedia is not the United States government.  Within the terms of service and community/Foundation-mandated policies, this is a private website with no onus to provide the constitutional protections of the US Constitution.  Other than where it violates libel laws, for instance, the most we are required to do (for instance) for Oswald is to state that he was not convicted of any murders.  Another frequent flyer on Wikipedia is people demanding "freedom of speech," which we are not required to accord and which isn't even a guarantee in much of the English-speaking world.   Ravenswing   04:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help editing a bio
If a person is of Irish descent from both his parents side and of Scottish descent from his paternal grandmother's side then should his article say, "He is of Irish and Scottish origins" or should it say "He was born in an Irish family. He is also of Scottish ancestry from his paternal grandmother's side. " ? The former seems misguiding since it implies that one of the parents was Scottish, which would be inaccurate. What would be the best way to edit this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaistha (talk • contribs) 06:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Accurately summarize what the reliable sources say about this person's ancestry, and avoid any type of original research, which is contrary to policy. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

How to get consensus?
Hi there. I was hoping someone could assist me with a content dispute going on at Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album). There are 3 editors and 1 IP editor who have reverted a user regarding Drip (song) being a single. We need to achieve consensus because at the moment it is going nowhere. Thanks Bardigang (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Without even looking at the discussion, I can say that if (as you say) there are four editors arguing against you, that sounds like a consensus, even if you don't like it! But seriously, the steps to follow if you cannot reach consensus are at dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi User:ColinFine. It's actually me and 2 other editors (another IP also who didnt take part on the talk page discussion) who have argued against another user, but the user says it's not consensus despite everyone disagreeing with him and reverted all of us. Bardigang (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Updating wrong information about our company
A customer of ours made us aware that the Wiki page comes up pretty high during searches for our company name "Trenton Systems". Upon our review, the information listed was wrong. I tried to fix it but now I am made aware that my affiliation with the company does not allow me to do so. I am asking for help to correct these errors:

The History of our company can be found here: https://www.trentonsystems.com/about-us It has been corrected by me momentarily, if anyone else would like to insert what they see fit based on the information listed, please do so.

The location has also been updated to: 1725 Macleod Drive Lawrenceville, GA 30043

Our products are: Rugged Military Computers, Industrial Computers, Modular Blade Computers, Single Board Computers, Backplanes, Chassis, Expansion Chassis. We will be adding Motherboards soon.

The name is NOT "Trenton Technology" it is "Trenton Systems". Trenton Technology is our PCB manufacturer in Utica, New York.

How do we make these corrections fast? Our customers are confused by the conflicting information.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrentonSystems (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you are likely aware, your username has been blocked because usernames cannot be that of a company, and must indicate an individual user.  As you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest and likely a paid editor relationship with the company, you should not edit the article about your company directly.  However, we still want the information in it to be correct, so please make an edit request on the article talk page explaining the information that is incorrect, and another editor will eventually review it.
 * Please understand, though, that Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject like your company. Unless the history of your company is described in an independent source, it can't be in the Wikipedia article about your company. It is acceptable to source something like your company's address or other purely factual information to a primary source, but for everything else we need a secondary, independent source. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wishes to say about itself, or how it wants to be portrayed; those are both things that should be done on a website owned or used by the company. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Do I need a mentor to edit?
It's good to have a cup of tea or coffee, I like mine with two sugars!..:)

May I say that it's a great pleasure to have some spare time so that I can attempt to contribute to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. For the past few weeks, I have been writing a few words attempting to improve the content of a Wikipedia article. I have been told that I should consider editing the original Wikipedia article. After forty years of research, and writing I am concerned as it appears that I am in danger of oversights or errors during the process of contributing to the Wikipedia system. I am happy to edit, and I have read many of the guidelines, however, I think that I need guidance as I do not want to waste time on oversights during the editing process. Before I start work on editing the original article may I request from you as an experienced editor in Wikipedia that you read my draft then tell me if I should remove any inappropriate information. Thanking you in advance. The draft is in my sandbox, it was rejected yesterday because the topic was covered in Wikipedia. Perhaps I can improve the original Wikipedia article, what do you think? MikeWilkins (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC) I have put the link here, hope that it works! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MikeWilkins/sandbox&redirect=no
 * Hello,, welcome to our Teahouse. I hope this drink will be to your taste. I see you posted the identical question on your own Talk page, but you did right to post it here if you genuinely need a reply. As you'll have gathered, there is already an article on this topic, so we cannot accept an alternative version. But you may indeed work to improve the original. You could either be bold and add content directly (one bit at a time, rather than en massse, would be best), or you could move it back into your sandbox and link to it from the talk page of Robert Matthews (religious figure), seeking consensus on revisions from other interested parties. You don't need a mentor to make those changes - you may maje them yourself. But, it's fair to say that we do have lots of guidelines and policies on what is, or is not, the right way of doing things. So please don't get downhearted or frustrated if anything you do gets undone by another editor -this is why it's best to make smaller changes over a longer time at first, so giving others a  chance to give feedback and to steer you if you accidentally mess up. (we always try to assume good faith). We do actually have a mentoring scheme here on Wikipedia called Adopt-a-User, but it's not working effectively at the moment, and is very much in the doldrums nowadays, though I'm planning to try to overhaul it if I can. Right now, for users like you, apparently here with a single interest in editing an article, I'd simply advise continued use of our Teahouse for quick answers to straightforward questions. Once you've shown a commitment to editing across a spectrum of articles and definitely intend to stay here to contribute, then AAU might well suit you. (In that scenario, I would advise not bothering with placing an 'adopt me' template on you page, but simply looking through the list of current adopters available and willing to take on and guide new editors, and approach one directly who appears to have common interests with you. That person could well be me, but I will only adopt a new user if our interests overlap and they have demonstrated through their past editing a broad suite if contributions across a topic.)
 * It does look like you've done a lot of original research on this person, and may have built a blog in which to show scanned documents from libraries. For some reason my tablet is not letting me view these. My worry is that you might be straying into an area explained at WP:No original research, in which we discourage editors from posting a synthesis of their own studies if it has not been properly published and covered in depth elsewhere. Does this offer a helpful idea as to the way forward, or do you need further specific assistance in editing. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hellow Nick Moyes, Many thanks for your response remarks, and the cup of tea. :) I am not sure which is the best way of moving forward, however, I will consider all that you have said, as your remarks have been helpful. By way of information correlation, all the points made in my original article is fully verifiable from a variety of historical original information. I am able and willing to share this information with any and all interested persons, so perhaps your idea of seeking consensus on revisions from other interested parties is a good way of moving forward. Between ourselves, I am not sure what to do that is why I am seeking help and guidance, I have no ax to grind, however, I know that I have firm historical information which can greatly improve the original Wikipedia article. Additionally, I have read many other articles which I know can be improved with hard work, and re-editing!

MikeWilkins (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am certain the best way forward is making edits 'cautiously', and by consensus. That's why we have talk pages on articles so we can discuss content with other edits, if needs be. I completely understand where you are coming from, as I've been in the same situation. Because we are an encyclopaedia, we need all content to be cited in a way that anyone can substantiate what is said about a subject. Offering to make private research documents available to anyone who wants to see it is not, I'm afraid, a solution. Because anyone can produce a blog and put up photos  that purport to be reliable evidence and then use that to promote falsehoods, we have to take an approach across the board on not having personal websites as reliable sources.  Now, if you can persuade a competent local historical research group to publish an article based on that research, you might well stand a better chance of having edits you want to make actually accepted, based on that article. None of this is to impune you as an individual or your competency as an historian. But there are charlatans out there, and we have to have policies across the board to ensure  Reliability and Verifiability which must apply to everyone I'm afraid, not just the bad guys. I'm almost trying to get you to rein in your enthusiasm and knowledge for the subject and would rather ensure we have a good but short article based on available, accessible evidence, than a long one which nobody quite trusts enough because they can't verify all that has been stated. Because of your keenness to contribute, but naievity of our processes, I really don't want you to get hurt or disillusioned here. We need sound historians and sound editors - it's bringing the two together that can be a bumpy journey to start with. And trying to give advice in written form always sounds terribly bossy and rather insulting - when it's rarely meant that way. (I'm currently mentoring a retired professional academic geologist, and I'm having to work to change his habitats of a lifetime to match Wikipedia's style and approach - and it's a very rewarding journey for us both to be on, I think).
 * Oh, one other bit of advice worth mentioning: Do please go back to Wikicommons and upload new versions of the posters and other images you supplied. Those modern day edges and titles you've added are wholly inappropriate to 1830s documents and render them unusable. Fine for a blog, but not acceptable here. In some cases, like the one shown you've actually blurred out the original edges in favour of pretty borders, which, if you consider it, is pointless. (If you'd done that in my museum I'd have called it a crime!) Normally, I'd urge you only to 'upload a new version of this file' which is a link you see lower down in the file history section of each image. But in this instance I  might upload it again but ensuring you  use a filename that actually identifies it in a useful manner. Calling it  'original poster.' is not only pointless (amongst hundreds of thousands of other  images), but totally wrong because of the pretty border you've added. And  more advice: try not to add unsubstantiated commentary to any image you upload. Leave interpretations to articles, based on what others have said on the subject. Once you've uploaded a new version, no borders, informative filename, you can request a deletion of your original image. (There is a way to request a name change, but I think my proposed route may be simpler). Hoping this all helps a bit. Come back anytime. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to as I used incorrect name above.  Nick Moyes (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a "valid source"
I am in the process of getting a book published. My publisher Balboa Press, division of Hayhouse, has stated that I can't use Wikipedia is a "valid source." Stating the following:

→→Copyrighted Text from Wikipedia →→Wikipedia will not be acknowledged as a valid source by Balboa Press because anyone can make an account and modify the information found in the site →→without authenticated sources. To resolve this issue, you can paraphrase the texts you got from Wikipedia.

Question #1: What is a "Valid Source?" Question #2: Why isn't Wikipedia one of those? Question #3: Will I get into any copyright problem if I do quote from Wikipedia? Question #4: How is the Integrity of the information in Wikipedia maintained? Question #5: Does my publisher have a point, is the information in Wikipedia Untrustworthy therefore unquotable and unusable?

Mike Faff Mmfaff (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Question was also asked at WP:Help desk and has been answered there. Please do not ask the same question in multiple locations.  ~ GB fan 11:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

changing the title page
Hi I am relatively new to wikipedia and am doing my best to edit and create pages where I have some expertise. The page on my grandfather Frank Richards correctly identifies him as "best known as the author of one of the most widely acclaimed memoirs of the Great War to be written by a ranker, Old Soldiers Never Die." However, it is misleading to have the title page in his birth name Woodruff as he is not known by that name at all. As the opening paragraph on his wiki page states, this was his birth name but he changed his name by deed poll as a boy when adopted and was known throughout his life, and more importantly his military career, as Frank Richards, not Francis Philip Woodruff. When searching for Frank, it is more difficult to locate him on wiki because of this. In the list of people named Frank Richards that comes up when you type his name, it should appear there as 'Frank Richards, soldier and author'. I think the problem has arisen because the original (rather merge and not very accurate) stub was created under his birth name and historians and academics have added to that but never changed the title. I do not know how to make such a big edit. Could someone either do this on my behalf or advise me how to do it. my username is Secretpsychologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretpsychologist (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Maproom (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Accidently edited while logged out
I didn't notice that I had cleared all cache/passwords/cookies on my browser and made some edits while logged out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaistha (talk • contribs) 06:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, providing that you were not attempting to deceive, see WP:LOGOUT. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * However,, if leaking out your IP is a problem, you can request that it be deleted from the public logs, per WP:OVERSIGHT criterion #1. (That page also gives the procedure to request it.) Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Linking EN Wikipedia to FR Wikipedia
Hi, is it possible to add a link from an English language Wikipedia entry to a French language Wikipedia entry? (The French site has an entry on a writer not included on the English site). Double square brackets doesn't work in these instances, as far as I can tell! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyIze (talk • contribs) 12:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello If this is about Izé, that's a good one. I would usually recommend using the template Interlanguage link, but there is an interesting complication: The English article Frédéric Lefèvre article is about a different person than the French article fr:Frédéric Lefèvre. I came up with   which renders as Frédéric Lefèvre (fr). You may find this helpful: Help:Interlanguage_links. Vexations (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Why revert?
I want to ask why someone revert my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peanut_(video_gamer). After i add "peanut" to wiki, i get an message about "Articles for deletion/Peanut (video gamer)". It saying that: 1. Non-notable video gamer, Apparently best known for involved in non-notable (and so redlinked) competitions. With no references, does not satisfy general notability or any other notability guideline. -so i add that he is considered to be the best jugnler in the world and add notable events such as Worlds or keSPA Cup.

2. Could be tagged for BLPPROD, but that could probably be addressed, so let's go with AFD. 3. Google search does not turn up this person, but many video games based on Peanuts, the comic. -so i add that you can find him by name "peanut lol" cause "peanut" can be considered as normal peanut.

And all of this changes was reverted. I want to ask WHY they was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuks27 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello,, welcome to our Teahouse. I know it's really upsetting when edits you have added get immediately reverted, or when an article you've created gets nominated for deletion, as has just happened with Peanut_(video_gamer). But this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to insert opinions. We require the topic to be notable according to our standards, not anyone else's. See this guideline and this one for what that actually means.  We also require every statement  made to be based on what others have written in reliable  sources  that are not connected in any way with the subject. This  excludes comments on YouTube, blogs, gaming forums and so on. So when you added  without citing and references, such unsupported statements will get quickly removed. You are very welcome to continue editing the article whilst a deletion discussion is going on. I suggest you only focus on demonstrating that this person actually meets our notability criteria. Somehow  I doubt they will,  but if you can prove it, feel free to add the references. If you're  unsure how,  feel free to ask,  or leave a link on the deletion discussion page for others to see. I should also say that anyone can add a 'Deletion' notice to any page they think fails our notability criteria, and that, as the page creator, that's why you got a notice informing you on your talk page. Does that explain things? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Can't fix it
What happens if you mess up on a page and can't fix the it.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundevilemily (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any edit you make can simply be reverted.  You can do this yourself by going to the page's edit history and click "Undo" next to your edit, or if you would rather not mess around with it anymore, please tell us what page you are referencing. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Thank You for telling me, now I know for next time.

Notability
Hello everyone,

Could I get some feedback on a draft I am working on? I have been told it's been declined because it does not prove the notability of the subject; however it includes substantial coverage by the Toronto Star, Playback magazine, and many other sources, and one of its shows has been reviewed by The New York Times. Other articles about production companies that I've read just include Playback magazine and the company's own website, so I'm just not sure how best to proceed and would really appreciate your help.

here's the link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sinking_Ship_Entertainment

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahyn (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello In order for a company to be notable, we need sources that are about the company, not its products. I thinks that's the biggest issue with the sources you've provided. They're about the shows the company produces, not the company. There is one source is just right; The Toronto Star. The article is about the company itself, it's history, how they work etc. If can provide one more like that, those sources could possible sustain an article. The other sources can be used to verify some facts. See WP:NCORP for our notability criteria for companies. It's pretty strict, since we get a lot submissions from companies that would like to have an article about themselves, and we're not a company directory or the yellow pages. Vexations (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * To establish that a subject is notable, you need citations of reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. The Toronto Star and Playback articles are both based on statements made by the company's executive producer, and so are not independent sources. The New York Times article doesn't even mention Sinking Ship. I haven't checked the other references, but those three do nothing to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)