Pizzole

February 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Antony Coia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Antony Coia

We cannot speedily delete the page because other users have substantially edited it (see WP:CSD#G7). Please stop blanking the page. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Favonian (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, I know it can be frustrating to have a page that you have worked on marked for deletion, but doing what looks like a temper tantrum by deleting everything in sight you have worked on isn't the way to go. If this is bothering you so much, maybe it's best to take a break or a day or two and try to calm down a bit. This isn't a personal attack on you, just an opinion that the page isn't notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Oh yes, this is a personal attack. The page is on wikipedia since May 2015. It's only a personal attack. Wiki is not really free. Pizzole (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I strongly suggest you use the time of this block to think about your approach to collaborative editing, as the attitude you seem to be exhibiting right now will almost certainly earn you longer blocks if it continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Fuck your rules. You're like a little mafia of nerds.--Pizzole (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have reverted your blanking of this page, as declined unblock requests must not be removed while the block is still in effect. I have also removed your ability to edit this page for the duration of the block, as you are abusing that privilege. Some might have raised your block to indefinite following your latest outburst, but I hold out some hope that your anger will subside by the time the block ends and that you might then return to collaborative editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: I think indef was a little excessive here. Had I a mop and was in your situation, I'd have blocked for something like two weeks. pbp 20:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• An indefinite block can be a lot shorter than two weeks, so I don't think it should be seen as excessive. But I do think we need to see a commitment to backing away from personal attacks and from deliberate disruption first. And as always, my admin actions can be reverted or adjusted by any other admin without my prior approval. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• You have continued with personal attacks and threats of retaliatory AFD nominations, and that is incompatible with your remaining as a contributor to this collaborative project. You may request unblock, but you would need to make it clear that your approach to interaction with others will significantly change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Thank you. This is what I asked for days. [[User:Pizzole|Pizzole]] ([[User talk:Pizzole#top|talk]]) 13:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)}}

Further attacks

Stop making threats of retribution on those who are following guidelines and seeking to have pages deleted. There are pages that have been on Wikipedia since 2005 that are under consideration for deletion. Gettting mad because one that has been here since May 2015 is being so considered makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm blocked, so, peace for you!--Pizzole (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You are indeed blocked, but I hope you will soon feel able to rejoin our collaborative enterprise, and I look forward to seeing a suitable unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Pizzole, in order to be unblocked you'd have to show that you can be trusted to edit in a neutral manner. I would also recommend that a condition of unblocking be that you not edit or create any topics on Coia, his websites, or his works. The reason for this is that there appears to be an extremely strong conflict of interest of some type and you get so hostile about this that I don't think that you can really edit and collaborate in a neutral manner. Your behavior has only been getting progressively more hostile since this AfD, which concerns me. I'm also concerned that at no point have you specified what your relation is to Coia, especially as there have been several edits and points brought up that heavily imply that you are affiliated in some form or fashion, one of which is that at the iHORRORdb AfD you produced several sources that were written within the same day you were asked to produce more sourcing. That implies that you're in a position to where you could request that people write sources. In other words, it's just really hard to believe that you don't have a COI and if you do, you need to be transparent about this. If it's determined that you do have a COI and are trying to hide it, this could prevent you from being unblocked as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, guys... Your behaviour is very unclear. You are deleting a page with sources from newspapers ([1], [2], [3] and more) and some of you have created pages that need to be deleted just because there is a serious COI about sources you applied (from same subject of the article). It isn't @Tokyogirl79:? Are you sure what are you talking about? You have some pages that need to be revised. I'll do it.--Pizzole (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And, yes, no way to apply important newspapers source on the page I created because, every time, someone will delete them!! --Pizzole (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• You can use WP:PRIMARY sources to back up basic information like where someone lives and their education, although preferably there would be a non-primary source to back this up. Now when it comes to newspaper sources, there are a few things that are required: (this is not a complete list, but it does cover the most basic of information)

1. We need to be able to verify when/where the article was published.
2. The mention needs to be in-depth or at least make a claim of enough significance that it would give notability.
3. The article should not be a routine notification of an event or be heavily or entirely based on a press release.

Now here's a rundown of the newspaper links above.

1. This source only mentions Coia briefly as working on the film's soundtrack, so that wouldn't be enough to assert notability. Now if the source went into a lot of depth, that would count, otherwise he wouldn't be able to get notability from working with the film unless the film passed NFILM on its own merits. It's actually hard for films to pass this criteria since many films - especially indie and foreign horror films - tend to not gain the type of coverage that their mainstream brethren do.
2. This is actually the same link as above, as far as I can tell. The image is very fuzzy, but the image is the same as is the byline.
3. This looks like it might actually be usable, but we'd need to know when and where it was published and we'd also need to see the full article. This is actually the type of source you'd need to assert notability for Coia. However until we have that full information there's really not anything we can do with it. Now the way to show when/where is to take a full picture of the article that includes the top of the news page that includes the publication and the date. The html link names it as "La Gazetta del Mezzogiono", but we need to be able to verify this ourselves. Of course a link to the story on the Internet would be best since I'd be able to run that through Google Translate to see what it says, otherwise I'd have to get someone at WP:ITALY to translate it.

If you can provide more sources like the LGdM article then that'd be great. However you must remain calm and neutral when talking to people and above all else, you really need to state what your conflict of interest is in this situation. Unless I missed it, I don't think that you've ever directly answered anyone's questions about this to where people would be satisfied. More than a few people suspect that you are likely Coia himself and I'm inclined to believe them.

You can edit with a conflict of interest, but you must edit in a neutral fashion and be able to accept criticism. It's your behavior that got you blocked and any assistance from this point on will rely heavily on your ability to work well with others. Your articles were deleted and I know that this has to sting, but you just cannot retaliate by trying to nominate pages for deletion and insulting others. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

you should be ashamed

You should be ashamed because you have even deleted sources from Istituto Luce, "The oldest public institution devoted to production and distribution of cinematographic materials for didactic and informative purposes in the world.".

Your draft article, Draft:Internet Horror Movie Database

Hello, Pizzole. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Internet Horror Movie Database".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Internet Horror Movie Database

Hello, Pizzole. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Internet Horror Movie Database".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 15:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)