User talk:Passani

Pointy

Don’t disrupt Wikipedia just to prove a point. Your actions are WP:POINTY.2A04:4A43:497F:E21A:2CBB:940E:C354:914F (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you are referring too. Can you be more specific? Also, it would be appreciated if you could sign your comment one way or another. Thanks Passani (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know exactly what I’m referring too. Don’t play innocent here.92.40.192.10 (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% innocent. BTW who are you? Passani (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:Cpm screen2.gif

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Cpm screen2.gif, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Cpm screen2.gif is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Cpm screen2.gif itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Admob

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Admob, by ConfuciusOrnis, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Admob is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Admob, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Admob itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Sorry this is late!

Welcome...

Hello, Passani, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —SusanLesch (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Logo La Voce di New York.png

Thanks for uploading File:Logo La Voce di New York.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Voce di New York moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, La Voce di New York, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. noq (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stefano Vaccara (May 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft does not really contain enough information to establish biographical notability.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stefano Vaccara and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stefano Vaccara, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Passani! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stefano Vaccara (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Worldbruce was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Editors are commonly advised to cite at least three sources that are independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of their subject. The draft cites sources that are independent, sources that are reliable, and sources that contain significant coverage, but no sources that are all three.

RAI and Casa Italiana Zerilli-Marimò are interviews where Vaccara talks about Vaccara without independent analysis. The Lehman College bio is supplied by Vaccara, so not independent. He is the editor of La Voce di New York, so their coverage of his award is not arms length.
ITALIANY is a self-published blog, not a reliable source.
La Republica is a passing mention of an occupational hazard. The Baffler reviews Vaccara's book in capsule style, a mere 60 words within a larger piece, so not significant coverage. La Nacion is a brief quote by Vaccara. And Amerigo is a brief mention of a minor award.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stefano Vaccara and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stefano Vaccara, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: La Voce di New York has been accepted

La Voce di New York, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Passani. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. $Salvio$ 20:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: the only accepted contribution I have on WikiPedia in recent times is La Voce di New York. I have no affiliation with La Voce di New York, except that I wrote a few articles for them on a voluntary basis (no compensation whatsoever) in the past, nor is any compensation of any kind foreseen/expected in the future. As I am familiar with WikiPedia, I took the initiative to author and submit a draft about a topic I was familiar with: an online publication that is a relevant news outlet for the Italian-American community (VNY also has significant readership in Italy). For the record, my job is CTO of an IT company in Reston, VA, USA. Nothing to do with La Voce di New York.

@Salvio giuliano: I know see that you may be referring to an undeletion request that I submitted but immediately deleted. That was my mistake. Apologies for that.

Ah, ok. I'll re-delete the article then. Best. 20:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Salvio

@Salvio giuliano: to be clear, I still think that the article is legit, in fact it wasn't created by me and it was there for almost 10 years. I admit that I am not the right person to request the undeletion, but a look at Google scholar will reveal that the article made sense. Thanks

File:De Blasio Letter to VNY.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:De Blasio Letter to VNY.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 04:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Wikiacc (¶) 04:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of La Voce di New York

The article La Voce di New York has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article claims this website (which ranks #1,234,728 according to Alexa) is a "newspaper"; actually, it is not a newspaper but a blog. The homepage (namely, the footer) claims its office is located at "The United Nations Headquarters New York, NY 10017", which is not confirmed by un.org and looks like fake news.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of La Voce di New York for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article La Voce di New York is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Voce di New York until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 12:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Passani reported by User:Modulato (Result: ). Thank you. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 12:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Voce di New York

Hi Passani, if you are concerned that a user might have a conflict of interest, you can ask them about the matter on their user talk page, and create a discussion at WP:COIN if necessary. Please do not, however, repeatedly ask a person about their affiliations in deletion discussions or on article talk pages, as these pages are reserved for content-related discussion. Your COI questions distract from the actual topic of the deletion discussion and should be moved to the asked user's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip, ToBeFree Passani (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree I asked the question, but rather than getting an answer, a different admin said that the question had been answered, when IMO it wasn't. I am not sure where this leaves me. Passani (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tough situation, perhaps. :) Or a completely acceptable one, if we ignore all possible connections and focus on the actual topic(s): The deletion discussion is about notability, so notability-based arguments are the only way to prevent deletion anyway. The article is about its subject and needs reliable sources, so only verifiability-based arguments are useful anyway. Whether a COI exists or not is, in this specific case, practically irrelevant. This can be frustrating for sure, but in the end, the encyclopedia benefits from a content-based approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to argue with what you just stated, and in fact I won't, because I agree with the general concept. Having said this, please allow me to take a few minutes of your time to tell you how things look from my viewpoint. An article about an online newspaper that was published over one year ago, all of a sudden is challenged with the accusation of being hoax and fake news, or even of not being a newspaper. All this is easily refuted, as the editor of the newspaper has been a UN correspondent for many years and is well-known among his peers. Also the newspaper features (order of) 20k articles published over a period of 8 years, i.e. it's legit and solid. Next thing I see, the bar is risen: the request to delete the article now focuses on notability and argues that the threshold is not met. Now, I am the author of the article, but I did not publish it. I created the draft, submitted it for review and a WP editor at some point (months later) concluded that the notability was met and the article was ok to move into the article space. Article has been pretty much the same since. So, what changed? Also, the person that raised the challenge appears to have been focusing virtually exclusively on one specific article (mine) in the last 10 days, has no intention to work together on consensus, has no significant previous WP history, yet exhibits impressing knowledge of the WP process. Something funky is going on here. Anyway, it turns out that WP has notability guidelines tailored for newspapers and magazines. According to those, the article is legit, as, among other things, there are a significant amounts of citations in academic work across a multitude of topics. I trust that the admins who will take a decision will be able to see what is going on and make the right moves. Thanks Passani (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm C.Fred. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Modulato. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Please see this message for an expanded explanation, but I'll hit the key point here: unless you can provide specific diffs that indicate a conflict of interest, your repeated questioning of Modulato about a COI are moving into the realm of badgering. —C.Fred (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you C.Fred, but I don't follow. Why is Modulato allowed to question my integrity and disclose my identity (isn't there a rule to protect User's from Wikipedia:Harassment?), but I cannot for a statement about a suspected COI? I find it suspicious that a user who has formidable experience with Wikipedia editing and process (but little or no track record!) has used the last ten days with the sole objective of taking down my article. This is why I asked for confirmation that there is no WP:COI. This would be as simple as Modulato responding by either stating that he/she has no COI OR disclosing the COI. I have feelings too and I also like to be respected and feel included. Passani (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an unreasonable leap of logic to connect your username to a name shown on the subject article's website, especially since you've admitted to a prior business relationship with the subject. IMO, one of the main reasons Modulato has spent so much time focusing on this deletion discussion over the last few days is the nature of your responses to them: they've felt constantly pressured to respond to your comments about their character. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very clear about this. I did NOT admit any business relationship with the subject (La Voce di New York). Quite the opposite in fact. I stated clearly that I have NO COI, just like someone who writes a post on Facebook has no business relationship with that company. VNY is open to third-party contributions and the fact that I have contributed in the past freely and without any compensation DOES NOT constitute a business relationship. In fact, I wonder if your wording is an attempt at gaslighting, at provoking me or what. In fact, this inspired me to take a look at your talk page history and I just noticed that you deleted someone's note that indicated Modulato as a sockpuppet. What is going on there? Are you related to Modulato in some way? Modulato has been talking about sockpuppets and meatpuppets a lot, which may very well indicate that s/he is very familiar with that kind of tricks. Can you please expand on why you deleted/reverted that comment? Passani (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I misunderstood. I interpreted your comment as that you wrote in a professional capacity or otherwise got a byline for them, not just as somebody who sent in a letter to the editor or the like.

As for the deleted message, it was from a one-and-done account: that was the only contribution they made. In that light, it's pretty clear it was a tit-for-tat accusation; I didn't want to do the research, but it's likely that I could have blocked the poster for block evasion or long-term abuse. I also thought it related to a different issue and didn't catch Modulato's name in the list. Regardless, edits from blocked users may be reverted on sight, and the incivility of the message is also why I removed it, per the notice at the top of my user talk. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is Modulato allowed to question my integrity and disclose my identity" For the record, you voluntarily chose to write your own name here. No one asked your name or cared about it. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 23:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 08:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard templated notice: Administrators' noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for operating an undisclosed alternate account, using that account to violate a number of policies, and making repeated accusations without evidence, which is disruptive editing..

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 ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked unfairly Passani (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to make your case clearly and convincingly. Our guide to appealing blocks can be of assistance. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:22, 7 June 2021 (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.

@Jpgordon: The case is explained here [1]. Long story short: a hacker who had been exposed by many websites for his hacks decided to come back for retribution. He used one of his many sockpuppets to vandalize/shut down the WP articles of the sites that exposed him. As the author of one of the articles, I tried to defend its legitimacy, but the guy managed to make it appear like I was the bad guy and get me blocked. The article provides plenty of references. Passani (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That might be useful for an unblock request on your talk page on it-wiki; it is not useful here, and your summary does not address your use of an undisclosed alternate account (among the other reasons you are blocked.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did NOT use ANY alternate accounts and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I only wrote in my own capacity, at all the times and never impersonated anyone. Convincing WP editors that I had a sockpuppet was one of the achievement of the hacker in question (who knows how to operate many sockpuppets, an art he obviously masters. He has a track record that dates many years back). The article I mentioned [2], albeit in italian, talks mainly about what happened on English Wikipedia and documents what the hacker in question is capable of (hacking WP). Passani (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have to insist with the unblock. As I documented, I was the victim in this case. I did not impersonate anyone. I simply tried to defend a legitimate article against vandalism (which unfortunately succeeded) by a bad actor [3] Passani (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Firstly, it's not an "insist" point - you either convince us, or not. Secondly, given the vagaries of automated translation, just linking to an off-wiki article in another language is not conducive. I advise summarising the relevant aspects in the actual appeal. I'd also query why, as highlighted while the ANI was ongoing, if you had this information you didn't submit it to WP:SPI? Another account raised such, which is why individuals think you were socking. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2021 (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.

@Nosebagbear: the fact that I registered my user on WP many years ago does not imply that I am a super-expert in all the aspects of how WP works and operate. One thing is for sure: the system has become very complex and has a lot of rules that I am not aware of. Having said this, I tried to contribute wherever I could in the past, acting according to the idea that anybody can edit Wikipedia. Coming to your implied accusation, back in April I did see that a user by the name Notaharvardgrad was also active in trying to counter the user that went by the Modulato handle, but what should I have done about it? All I know is that Modulato was putting a lot of energy in getting the article I had drafter two years earlier killed, and tried to understand the motivation. It turns out that that user is an old acquaintance of WP (among opthers): a guy by the name Giuseppe Macario who managed to hack his way onto the ballot of the Italian political elections in 2018 (there was a North-American ballot for italian expats who elect one senator and two congress people in Rome). A few publications had exposed him (La Voce di New York, The Points Guy, Rolling Stones magazine italian edition, journalist Selvaggia Lucarelli), and this is why in 2021 he decided to come back for retribution, exploiting WP to bring the organizations/people that had exposed him to disrepute. There is no socketpuppetry on my side, no axe-grinding, nothing of that: I simply tried to defend Wikipedia. As a result I was blocked. The article I mentioned [4] is in Italian but the built-in browser translator does a great job at explaining all the references to the different WikiMedia properties: Modulato's attempt to build a fake web reputation for Macario's objectives and Macario's attempt to damage those who had exposed him. To be honest I am shocked that experienced wikipedia editors can't see what has happened here. About the SPI, I had no idea (and frankly I still don't) about how to initiate an SPI, but I did see the notahardgrav's SPI was shut down without reason, and made me wonder what was going on and whether there was something that I wasn't getting. This is why, after the block, I stopped doing anything for a while. Two months down the road, though, I still don't get why I should be penalized for defending Wikipedia's mission. Hence I am asking for the block to be removed. I did NOTHING that justifies the block. If anything, WP should be looking into this as a handbook case of how it can be hacked by evil actors. Passani (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Now that I have responded to your objections, can you please go ahead and unblock me? Thanks. Passani (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to review an appeal more than once, though you can raise another appeal - it's not that you didn't go directly to SPI - it's certainly a complex area, but when in the key discussion someone asked you to and you didn't either do that or ask them for help or clarify to me makes it look like reticence to actually participate in the process. It's not impossible I'm wrong, and if another admin wants to take the case to WP:AN for a fuller review of an appeal, I won't contest that, but it doesn't meet that level to me. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Not only in this very page, but also elsewhere during the discussion about the VNY AfD, I have been doing whatever I could to express that something very suspicious was going on, but automagically the discussion took the direction that I had to be the bad guy, no matter what I wrote or tried to explain, while Modulato was always believed to act in good faith. So, what should I do now? re-issue a request for unblock? Passani (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

None of the accusations against me are true. I did not operate multiple accounts, no axe-grinding. I only tried to protect Wikipedia against vandalism (which unfortunately succeeded). I need the admin who reviews this request to do their homework, verify all the information I have already provided and lift the block. If you have questions, feel free to reach out. Thanks Passani (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have given no evidence for your assertions. However, I have read the noticeboard threads leading to this block carefully and can see multiple uninvolved administrators have sanctioned you for blatant attacks on other editors for no obvious reason. I cannot see you getting unblocked any time soon, and think you are now wasting everybody's time, so I am turning your talk page access off. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:09, 16 June 2021 (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.

Concern regarding Draft:Stefano Vaccara

Hello, Passani. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Stefano Vaccara, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Logo La Voce di New York.png

A tag has been placed on File:Logo La Voce di New York.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. 151.57.107.156 (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Logo La Voce di New York.png

The file File:Logo La Voce di New York.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uploaded for La Voce di New York. No other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]