Hello, Alessiorom13, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as UFL (video game), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JeepersClub (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on UFL (video game), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JeepersClub (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 music-related topics). 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:

I don't see much independent notability from Jermaine yet. Needs more external news sources. Do not cite genius, discogs, or own website. Maybe WP:TOOSOON until he charts and he has more lead roles besides the biopic.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jaafar Jackson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alessiorom13! Having an article draft 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! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk) 23:35, 7 November 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).

Alessiorom13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't understand why I suddenly got blocked. If you check all my edits are just fixing small errors or misspellings and are all well sourced. Theres not even one example of me behaving or making a inaccurate edit these last years.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for making inaccurate edits, you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. You need to address that reason specifically for any appeal to be considered. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 8 November 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.

You are believed to be the same person behind Awardmaniac and other such accounts. This is backed by both behavioural evidence (the type of edits you make) and technical evidence. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What bad "behavioural" edits have I made in recent years? It's all been straight forward and non controversial normal edits. What do I have to prove to be unblocked? You for example just reverted my revert of a disruptive edit on the Invincible (Michael Jackson album). Now the album tracklist on that page is completely wrong. How is that not a "bad behaviour edit"? - Alessiorom13 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every single edit to Michael Jackson related articles is in violation of your WP:TOPICBAN. Every single edit in general is in violation of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I banned in particular when I haven't done a single disruptive edits in years? It seems like you have an agenda against me for some reason. So it would be better if un unbiased account answers my question. - Alessiorom13 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 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).

Alessiorom13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

5 years ago I made disruptive edits and if remember correctly went into an edit war with another user. It resoluted to me being blocked. Quickly after I made a mistake of lashing account out and making another account which lead to me being blocked indefinitely. I don't even have the login of those accounts, it has been so long. After all that I stopped using Wiki for some time and I came back with this current account and I have since then been making safe, non-disruptive edits: I have since not contributed to anything negative or made any disruptive edits. It's been so long and I have changed my attitude and how I edit and contribute in a positive way. What can I do now to prove myself? I completely understand what I did years ago was wrong and technically what I still did with this current account was also wrong, even though my edits in itself wasnt. I can only request a unblock on this particular account since I have no way to access my previous ones. Please let me know what I should do.

Decline reason:

What you need to do is described below. You either will, or not. You are not "blocked for life"; the duration of the block is completely up to you. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 8 November 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.

Note that this user remains under a WP:TOPICBAN, imposed by the community, from all edits related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This includes related articles and talk pages. This is logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Archive/Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community and has not been lifted. This user is additionally under a WP:1RR restriction for all other articles. Pretty easy to see almost every edit from this account violated that topic ban, not to mention the violations of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. This unblock request should be declined and talk page access revoked. The user is far closer to a complete community ban under WP:3X than they are to being unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would obviously happily request an unblock from the topicban aswell if possible. If not, I would definietly have no problem editing in articles not releated to Michael Jackson, which I have done plenty of times in the past. I sincerely want to make positive edits and not be disruptive in any way. I'm willing to do better more than ever. What can I do to better myself and prove myself to this community? - Alessiorom13 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's essentially zero chance of your topic ban being lifted, not when you've blatantly violated the topic ban, over and over and over and over and over again for literally years. Your best bet is to go six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO, acknowledging your topic ban and agreeing not to contest it for at least six further months and acknowledging your literally years of sockpuppetry and block evasion. I'll warn you, your behaviour has been so bad, your rampant unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies has been so chronic, that WP:SO is very far from a guarantee at that point. Again, you are much closer to a community ban than you are to being unblocked and your nonsense that your edits have not been disruptive needs to stop immediately. If you can't understand that every single edit you make is in violation of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE as well as WP:TOPICBAN, Wikipedia simply isn't the place for you. So, yes, there's a path forward for you. But you need to change your entire approach, immediately. I suggest starting by removing your open unblock request, which has no hope of being granted. --Yamla (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not blocked indefinietly, I'm essentially blocked for life according to you. Even though my edits on their own havent been disruptive at all for years. Im completely aware of the mistake I made and i'm willing to do better. And if im still topic banned, i'm more than willing to behave and not be disruptive until when and if it eventually gets lifted. - Alessiorom13 (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT. I'm not responding further. You have a path. Take it or don't. --Yamla (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to say. I have been sincere and adressed everything and I can certainly answer any question. - Alessiorom13 (talk) 20:29, 8 November 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).

Alessiorom13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

5 years ago I made disruptive edits and if I remember correctly went into an edit war with another user. It resoluted to me being blocked. Quickly after I made a mistake of lashing out and creating another account which lead to me being blocked indefinitely. I don't even have the login of those accounts, it has been so long. After all that I stopped using Wiki for some time and I came back with this current account and I have since then been making safe, non-disruptive edits: I have since not contributed to anything negative or made any disruptive edits. It's been so long and I have changed my attitude and how I edit and contribute in a positive way. What can I do now to prove myself? I completely understand what I did years ago was wrong and technically what I still did with this current account was also wrong, even though my edits in itself wasnt. I can only request a unblock on this particular account since I have no way to access my previous ones. It's now been six months since this account got banned. I havent used wiki at all since then and i'm completely aware of the mistakes I have made. Please let me know what I should do.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately editing productively under another account doesn't seriously offset your failure to acknowledge that it was you, when you had been advised in no uncertain terms that you were not to create any other accounts (and showed poor judgement by going back to make the same edits in an area you had been topic-banned from, as if we wouldn't notice). If you are serious, you need to declare that this account or Awardmaniac (and if you pick another account, you must make the request from that account) is the one and only one that you will use going forward and disclose to us publicly all accounts you created, even those you never used. That is the minimum we ask of any sockmasters. I will not guarantee that you will be unblocked if you do this, but I can assure you that if you make another request without doing this, you will remain blocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 10 May 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.

Hi. As I previuslly stated. This account right here the only account that I will be using going forward and I will not use or create any other account. My previus account awardmaniac was so long ago, over 5 years ago. I don't have access to it anymore and don't want to either. This is the only account I want to edit on. How can I redeem myself? Alessiorom13 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this in great detail above. Read it. Six months from today is 2024-11-11, so if you don't edit this talk page any further until then and don't evade your block any further, that would satisfy the six month part of WP:SO. Frankly, given your years of abuse, that seems unlikely. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was told 6 months from today 6 months ago on November 8, 2023. It has been over 6 months now. I'm asking what I can do to redeem myself or am I banned for life? Alessiorom13 (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to slow down. Multiple admins have given you extremely specific details of how you can possibly post again someday, but you're ignoring what they say, and I fear you are going to have your talk page access revoked for bludgeoning them with questions, which will greatly reduce the chances you have of posting again.

Waiting six months (and that's a minimum) is necessary, but not sufficient by itself. As admins are telling you, you need to come clean -- you still haven't explicitly said what you've done and noted all your sockpuppet account -- and making excuses and justifications are not helping your case. Saying that you haven't contributed anything negative, while violating a topic ban and a posting ban, are not helping your case. And some of the excuses in your story make little sense; even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that starting a sockpuppet account when you "made a mistake of lashing out" was justifiable, how does that justify starting a sock puppet account years later.

Getting to post again basically requires an administrator trusting what you have to say. But you're acting in a manner that erodes trust. You accuse admins of "having an agenda against [you]." You handwave away the things you did in the past. You even talk about having the topic ban lifted even though your're currently not allowed to post at all.

The fact is, you have repeatedly said in the past, when your actions have been called out, that you would do better and that people shouldn't give up on giving you chances to change, but those changes never seem to happen. Admins don't want to ban people. If admins just wanted to ban you for life, it takes about a minute of effort to remove your talk page access and ban you from making UTRS appeals. I always pay attention to ANI and unblock requests and I can assure you that the admins you're talking to have given many editors second or third or fourth chances to be productive contributors again.

Do you want to post again? This is the only path that has any chance of working out: drop this argument and wait six months (at a bare minimum, it would be smarter to wait a year or two). And next time you appeal, fully disclose the things you've done, both actions and accounts and make no attempts to justify or excuse what you did. You can also help your case by editing productively on another project that you're not banned from, such as Simple Wikipedia. Even that may not be enough, but it represents the only way you can be involved in this project once again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I did wait 6 months. Should I wait six months again? Or is it 6 months for every unblock request I make? I just want answers. Cause I'm more than willing to prove that I have and will redeem myself. Alessiorom13 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To help you out, I will protect this page for six months to prevent you continuing to edit here and continuing to hurt your chances of ever being unblocked. Remember, any further editing, via another account or while not signed in to this account, would count against you and would reset the timer. Remember, you need to acknowledge your blatant violations of your topic ban, which remain in effect. --Yamla (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]