User talk:AdelmiraDiSantacroce

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Bibliography added irrelevant pushed on many articles. Pierre cb (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can you consider it irrilevant, please? AdelmiraDiSantacroce (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always the same books, with no verifiable url links, on vastly different articles. This is a publicity push for your favorite author onto Wikipedia. Pierre cb (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pierre, that's not my favorite Author at all (!) and this really sounds utterly hilarious, believe me. I'm an historian from Italy, that's all. Can the same be said about you? I hope so.

Concerning your answer:

1) That book (but I've also added something else, if you only paid more attention) deals with many subjects, and in a very valid way. It should be clear to you why it is possible to quote it frequently.

2) Since when does a book need a link URL to be "verified"? Several books by that renowned Author are preserved in many libraries worldwide, even in the USA (please verify: https://search.worldcat.org/it/search?q=au=%22Fragale%2C%20Luca%20Irwin%22 ). Anyway, if you are not used to libraries, you can also just type his name on the web and check this way. It shouldn’t be difficult for you.

3) Talking about "publicity" while discussing of history? Please, do not fall into ridicule.

Thank you very much. AdelmiraDiSantacroce (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a list of books, even from famous authors, the input must be directly related. The URL is thus needed, so one can refer to the section of the books relative to the subject. Without it, how can I, or anyone, know it is related? I do not need to be an historian to appreciate that fact. Pierre cb (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t mean wikipedia is a list of books.

One can refer to the “section” of the books by reading the numbers of the cited page(s). There’s absolutely no need of an URL: wikipedia is full of book references whitout URL (obviously).

Answering your other question: one can know the relation by searching the book, opening it and reading it. Have you ever been to a library? Have you ever bought a book? There’s no need to be an historian even to do that.

Thank you again. AdelmiraDiSantacroce (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Boeotian, using a book as a reference in Wikipedia means it needs to be accessible online directly at the page that is relevant. Pierre cb (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again! What good fortune brings you here this time?

“using a book as a reference in Wikipedia means it needs to be accessible online directly at the page that is relevant”?!?!? Are you serious? This is really the most baseless thing one can hear.

I don't have the courage to ask how many Wikipedia entries you've analyzed in your life. Please take a tour of the web (as well as libraries) and you'll learn something. Good luck and, please, stop being annoying. Thank you. AdelmiraDiSantacroce (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A book does not have to be available to read online to be used as a source, but it must be directly relevant to the topic, and when your edits are reverted, you should not restore them (especially not repeatedly). Why don't you simply start discussions on the talk pages of the articles where you believe that the book could be used as a source? Note that you have to do that, and achieve a consensus in favour of using the books as sources, before reinserting them.

Do not add web pages hosted at Wordpress or other blog websites as sources or as related reading, in any Wikipedia articles. If you believe that a particular website hosted at Wordpress is in fact reliable, please ask about it at the reliable sources noticeboard before adding it to any articles. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 15:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are relevant to the topic. Obviously. One should be informed about them before cancelling them. Thank you very much. AdelmiraDiSantacroce (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is absolutely no evidence that my contributions consist of mere “Advertising” or “Promotion” nor any proof to this accusation. I am an historian and my job also includes taking care of biographical profiles of living authors, also concerning the various branches of knowledge in which they have devoted themselves. If anything, I believe that certain attacks against me have been personal (please see above). How is it possible that some users are so particularly ardent in harassing me for reasons that are unfounded and often false? I’m afraid they should be blocked rather than me. Thank you for your attention..AdelmiraDiSantacroce (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nobody said "mere" advertising or promotion. But what you've done -- inserting repeated instances of the same author's work in multiple articles -- fits automatically into what we consider spam. The right response would have been to slow down and discuss your contributions, rather than just insistently replacing them; you might well have been able to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your additions. You're not being harassed, you're being corrected. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:52, 27 April 2025 (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.