User talk:Prisonevo

February 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bocce. Graham87 04:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of text that you wrote that was not covered in the source. Disruption is still disruption, whether good-faith or not. Graham87 12:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you not only lack competence to edit here, you've also used misleading edit summaries. We are not mind-readers and should not be expected to play your linguistic games. Graham87 13:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 13:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you've been adequaltely warned about this sort of thing on the Italian Wikipedia too. You are not welcome here. Graham87 13:14, 8 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I always did my edits adding related sources and I consider admin, who blocked me, in error because indefinitely block is blatant exageration despite my friendly approach in personal talk of admin. Furthermore admin controlled my collaboration in Italian version where I did almost 1.500 valid edits with integrations in a lot of articles and I collaborate in Spanish version too. I request opportunity to collaborate in this project: you can control list of my valid contributions. Regards Prisonevo (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You added content not covered by your sources. You also used misleading edit summaries. You need to recognize your faults and commit to improving. I am declining this request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I acknowledge that in various modifications I forgot to follow the correct procedure, but now I declare that I will be more careful and I undertake to improve my collaboration, if you free my account. Regards.Prisonevo (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am unfortunately not satisfied by the below responses. The promise to stick to translation work does not address the deficits in sourcing, as part of the task of interwiki translation is to recognize when material in the source article is poorly referenced and unworthy of inclusion in the translation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:52, 11 April 2023 (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.

Please answer the questions below to help administrators determine that you understand why you were blocked, and will not do these actions again:

Why is it important to cite everything that you add to Wikipedia?
What were the edits that led to your block, and why were they inappropriate?
What will do you to ensure that these mistakes will not happen again?

Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I answer:

Adding sources in articles is important operation because this project is based on informations which are confirmed by valid sources.
I was blocked because in article bocce I added sources with content which described different sport, but I did not understand that content.
I made a mistake but in future I will make more attention because surely I am not a vandal: I edit in Italian, English, Spanish versions and I am a translator interwiki.

Prisonevo (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these answers. I want to note that uncited information was also added or changed in a variety of articles, so it was not just your conduct in bocce that caused this block. For question 3, can you give more information? Please describe exactly what you will do instead (or the process you will undertake) when adding or changing text on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can add valid sources in cases where I forgot to do so, but I need my account unblocked to collaborate on the project in this way. Regarding answer number three, in the future I plan to collaborate mainly as a translator and I will integrate a few articles with related sources, which I will check to ensure they are valid and reliable: in this English language version, I intend to add pieces of articles translated from the Italian language with related sources already inserted in the text.Prisonevo (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

perché un amministratore mi ha bloccato? Prisonevo (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]