Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Brunello di Montalcino, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• Overview
• Help pages

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tommaso A. Dragani 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/Tommaso A. Dragani 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. Amkgp (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vasssi. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Vasssi. The template ((Paid)) can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: ((paid|user=Vasssi|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName)). If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praxidicae. I make edits based on my personal interests and regarding topics, which I know better: science, wine and law mostly. I've read carefully Wikipedia policies and I'm fully respecting all Wikipedia rules. Indeed, I am trying to be a good editor, that grounds his contributions only on verifiable sources, with the aim to improve the Wikipedia community and to make a good service for everyone. Vasssi (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you took this photo. Praxidicae (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photo you are talking about from this website https://dirittopenaleuomo.org/autori-dpu/tommaso-dragani/, after asking permission to use it. This photo is copyright free as Wikipedia policy states. Vasssi (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah except that you uploaded it very clearly as your own work, which is a lie. Praxidicae (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vasssi. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. ST47 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't have any connession with any other account; please, provide some evidence for the blocking

Decline reason:

The connection was established at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vasssi. Yamla (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2020 (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 not permitted to edit or removed declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Do not do so again. You are free to make a new request, but must specifically address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vasssi. --Yamla (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't violate any Wikipedia policy. Someone is trying to delete my works with no reason. See "Cococciola". It has been deleted, why?Vasssi (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because # I understood the issue which have been blocked for; #I'm not going to cause damage or disruption, and #I am making useful contributions instead Vasssi (talk) 18:0, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you are unable or unwilling to write a proper unblock request, you will lose access to this talk page. WP:GAB explains how to write a proper unblock request. You will get only one more chance. Yamla (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I think that the indefinite block is just too much. One of my friends, probably, decided to back my arguments, not because it is a "sockpuppet", but just because he believes that the arguments are correct. You cannot question the arguments and the freedom of writing and editing. I thought that Wikipedia was a place where everybody could express his opinions. I made good edits in Wikipedia, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cococciola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilaria_Capua https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gras%C4%83_de_Cotnari https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abruzzo_(wine) I think that I helped Wikipedia improving with my edits. I would like to continue making good edits, in respect of Wikipedia rules. The block it's just too much. Wikipedia should be a community where everybody can express freely. If asking someone's opinion it's prohibited, we are not in a democracy, but in tyranny. I just asked one of my friend's opinion, and he backed my arguments. I didn't violate any policy. You can not rely only on automated bots for your investigation. Vasssi (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy. As far as violating our policies, recruiting friends to assist you is what we call "meat puppetry". I suggest you use WP:UTRS to make another unblock request and address this issue. You've said you understand Wikipedia policy, but you don't seem to have actually read our policies. Unlike many other websites, we actually do expect you to read and understand our rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2020 (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.

To the reviewing admin, note every single one of the edits this person uses as defense of their good editing was reverted as inappropriate. Also, the bizarre position that Wikipedia is a democracy (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) shows perhaps they lack sufficient competence to edit here, and you should consider reverting talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also note over on User talk:Adalberto75, the sockpuppet account confirms they were recruited by Vasssi. So, "One of my friends, probably, decided to back my arguments" is an attempt to mislead us. Enough, I'm revoking talk page access right now. --Yamla (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #30107 was submitted on 2020-04-16 16:32:45. This review is now closed.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tommaso A. Dragani 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/Tommaso A. Dragani (2nd nomination) 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. Ajpolino (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]