User talk:Leftsupercazzola

February 2024

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I had started a discussion on a Wikipedia page and I noticed that my text was blocked. I have seen also messages on my talk page, read this message and although I understand little of the vocabulary used, I read that the word "blocked" is being used. Can you please explain to me what is happening and why?

? Leftsupercazzola (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I had started a discussion on a Wikipedia page and I noticed that my text was strikethrough. I have seen also messages on my talk page, read this message and although I understand little of the vocabulary used, I read that the word "blocked" is being used. Can you please explain to me what is happening and why?

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. In your next unblock request, you should address this reason. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

I tried to read the unblock guide which says "Talk about yourself, not others", so I don't know what to reply, I don't have multiple accounts. I made a comment on a talk page and evidently I read what had been written before and that's why I intervened. is that what you mean by multiple accounts ?

Decline reason:

Your editing behavior suggests to me that the reason for the block is correct. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have just re-read the discussion to understand what you mean. I don't know anyone because I don't know who they are. I read the discussion very carefully and understood that some users had asked for a discussion on the subject. So I thought it would be useful to do so by giving my point of view, based on my ideas and what I have read. At this point I have to ask you a question: is it legitimate to open discussions, to take up ideas illustrated by others and to make them your own only in part? For example, my studies leads me to say that the humanistic and papyrological part of this page should prevail, and I do not seem to have read this in the discussion. Is there a veto on opening a discussion on this?

Decline reason:

This is quite philosophical, but does not address the WP:sock puppetry -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should say so. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]