C.Gesualdo
{{unblock}}
Welcome!
|
December 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Diego Maradona. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Irn (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Pelé in the 1962 World Cup
C. Gesualdo, I just left a message in Pelé's talk Page. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fritz Korbach, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. GiantSnowman 07:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of submarines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Briggs. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Nightwatch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, C.Gesualdo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello
Hi, if you have an issue with an article, can you discuss it on the article's talk page? Thanks. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just did. I thought this was more or less obvious? The statement of way too bold. C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Until you reach consensus on the talk page, this sort of edit is disruptive. freshacconci talk to me 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not if the people aren't giving arguments & sources! C.Gesualdo (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what you think of their arguments: the article is not yours to do with as you please. I have now warned you again for disruptive editing. You discuss it on the article talk page and you seek consensus. freshacconci talk to me 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are you even reading my comments?!? They're not giving arguments! That's the whole point. C.Gesualdo (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, that's not the point. It's your opinion. If you are not satisfied with the discussion you can seek input from uninvolved editors. What you don't do is escalate things and edit war/edit disruptively. freshacconci talk to me 16:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are you even reading my comments?!? They're not giving arguments! That's the whole point. C.Gesualdo (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what you think of their arguments: the article is not yours to do with as you please. I have now warned you again for disruptive editing. You discuss it on the article talk page and you seek consensus. freshacconci talk to me 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not if the people aren't giving arguments & sources! C.Gesualdo (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Until you reach consensus on the talk page, this sort of edit is disruptive. freshacconci talk to me 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Pablo Picasso.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. freshacconci talk to me 16:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Favonian (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pablo Picasso. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 05:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Aloha! Editor Retention outreach
Hi, I'm Mark Miller. I'm not an admin or anyone involved with the article you have had issues with. I volunteer at the DRN Noticeboard as well as a project called "Editor Retention", We strive to keep editors from being blocked or banned from editing. I noticed that you may not be familiar with Wikipedia protocol and process. If you would like to continue contributing here in a constructive manner, please feel free to leave me a note of any question or concerns you have here and I will strive to answer your questions. First and foremost I ask that you refrain from any further reverts to the Picasso article and please do not be disruptive. Try to work with the other editors to understand what needs to be done for everyone to find common ground. That is how Wikipedia works and there are many others willing to assist if needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:C.Gesualdo - First, I would like to thank User:Mark Miller for stepping in and offering to help. I can see that you are frustrated and that you have strong feelings about what should be said in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, and you need to work with other editors, not against them. If you need advice on how to work with other editors, you can ask for help on another editor's talk page or at the Teahouse. Unfortunately, just yelling that the situation has become "Kafkaesque" isn't likely to be useful. If you need advice, ask at the Teahouse rather than shouting and getting into edit wars. If you want advice at my talk page, I will try to help; dispute resolution is a cooperative enterprise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pablo Picasso, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. --Non-Dropframe talk 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is in fact constructive and I have explained myself more than extensively on the TP! Unfortunately other contributors refuse to provide arguments. C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, I appreciate your contributions and have no doubt that your knowledge of the subject easily outweighs mine. My concern, as referenced in the note I left you, is that you deleted a fairly good chunk of referenced content without explaining why in your edit summary. Users like me whose main focus is combating vandalism rely heavily on edit summaries in figuring out if an edit is useful. Thanks and if I can be of any further help, please let me know! --Non-Dropframe talk 17:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. You can absolutely be of further help if you could do something about the behavior of the users: User:Modernist and User:Ewulp. They're constantly reverting my edits without giving any arguments on the TP. I think this is a form of vandalism so I already reported both of them. The main point is that the sources they're supplying are not justifying the information in the article. C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, I appreciate your contributions and have no doubt that your knowledge of the subject easily outweighs mine. My concern, as referenced in the note I left you, is that you deleted a fairly good chunk of referenced content without explaining why in your edit summary. Users like me whose main focus is combating vandalism rely heavily on edit summaries in figuring out if an edit is useful. Thanks and if I can be of any further help, please let me know! --Non-Dropframe talk 17:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
AIV
Please do not report content disputes to AIV. These users are not vandalizing by having a content dispute for you. In addition, they haven't even made any recent reverts to the page. You were reverted by a third editor, Non-dropframe (In the talk section above this). -- ferret (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @ferret I'm sorry to say this but are you even paying attention? They made these changes yesterday: (cur | prev) 12:54, 13 January 2017 Modernist (talk | contribs) . . (78,687 bytes) (+42) . . (per consensus) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 05:50, 13 January 2017 Ewulp (talk | contribs) . . (78,645 bytes) (+434) . . (add) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 05:33, 13 January 2017 Ewulp (talk | contribs) . . (78,211 bytes) (+1,068) . . (add; add ref; restore bit about prolificacy) (undo | thank)
And a few minutes ago this one: (cur | prev) 18:02, 13 January 2017 Modernist (talk | contribs) . . (78,455 bytes) (+1,328) . . (per talk page - no consensus for this change) (undo | thank)
- So again: could you please do something about this nonsense? It's always the same: reverting my edits and then no discussion on the TP, not even a reaction! C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's still not WP:Vandalism. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- It clearly is, they're writing absolute nonsense without supplying sources and without participating in a discussion! C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's still not WP:Vandalism. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- And User:Modernist can do whatever the hell he wants? C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are edit-warring against multiple editors, not just him. Read the policies on disruptive editing, please. WP:BRD, WP:EW. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- And User:Modernist can do whatever the hell he wants? C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was about to post the same. Please read WP:3RR. You are involved in edit warring and a fourth revert on this article may be grounds for being blocked. -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- THEY REFUSE TO RESPOND!!!! How many times do I have to tell you? C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- After this warning, you immediately continued to edit-war on another article. Therefore ....
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)- Note: I count at least four editors, possibly more, that you have reverted today because "you are right". This is not how Wikipedia works. Please familiarise yourself with the concept of collaborative editing if you wish to return after your block expires. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite I already talked about this issue weeks ago. No one is responding! Who's going to do something about this idiocy? There is information in this article that is obviously false and only because one person disagrees - someone who is not supplying any arguments or sources whatsoever - the dispute is settled in his favor? How's this possible?
- In other words: how's 'collaborative editing' possible if no-one responds to my concerns? C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- How can anyone respond to your concerns when you hardly ever use the talkpages, and when you do, your replies include "I shall proceed to edit whatever I please" and " I'm not the party who has to supply proper sources."? Pretty much the opposite of collaborative as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Black KiteYou have got to be kidding me! Hardly ever using the talkpage? Me? Have you even looked on the talkpage? This - among many others - is one of my last edits concerning the content:
Or this one:@Ewulp, can't you see that it already becomes problematic when you explain the influence of Duchamp. Yes, he was influential, but his importance came - as you pointed out correctly - much later in the 20th century; not in 'the opening decades of the 20th century'. Again, I never disputed that Picasso is a highly important 20th century artist. I could agree with what OAO says about Picasso. What OAO says about Duchamp is already more specific and more problematic: the single most important historical figure to affect the formation and direction of Pop art, Minimalism and conceptual art in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, I can make a similar statement about a number of artists, to begin with Kandinsky and Mondrian. The sentence in the introduction of the article is written as if it's an objective fact that specifically those three artists defined the opening decades of the 20th century. I think Kandinsky, Mondrian, Dali, Miro, Ernst and Breton could also be considered as artists who defined art in the opening decades of the 20th century. About Kandinsky OAO states: A central figure in the development of 20th-century art and specifically in the transition from representational to abstract art. About Mondrian the OAO states: Even in his lifetime he was regarded as the founder of the most modern art. About Max Ernst similar things can be said. Again, I completely fail to see why specifically those three artists - Matisse, Picasso and Duchamp - and no-one else are being called 'the' artists who most defined the opening decades of the 20th century. I could make a similar claim about a whole bunch of other artists!
In both cases: no response. Seriously, how can you even think that I 'hardly ever use the talkpages'. This is really utterly absurd! @Black Kite, have you even read the discussion? C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)My point is: you can't possibly mention three specific artists of any time, but certainly not of the 20th century, who specifically are 'responsible for significant developments in painting'. These developments were far more complex and diverse. The best example I could give is non-figurativism, all three artists were not operating in that field. And yes, although they did influence non-figurativism, they were clearly not 'responsible for that significant development in painting'. The same goes for surrealism.
- Well, you've made many reverts today whilst hardly using the talkpages. But the Pablo Picasso discussion earlier in the month shows that you're not interested in listening to people anyway. You made a statement, many people disagreed with you, but you belligerently told them they were all wrong. How are people supposed to collaborate with you when you do that? And when you then just decide to start edit-warring with them? Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite seriously, stop spreading lies. 'You made a statement, many people disagreed with you', only one person disagreed with me and that was Modernist. And that's the whole point, this whole discussion is 1 versus 1. People can collaborate with me by giving me sources that support the claims they're making in the article. If they give me sources, then I'm very interested. But they're not doing that. For example, I made the following statement: you can't possibly mention three specific artists of a certain period in time, and certainly not of the 20th century, who are specifically 'responsible for significant developments in painting'. If people disagree with that, then they should give me sources that specifically support the claim in the article (i.e. the claim that specifically these three artists are responsible). But they can't do that, in fact they're not even responding. C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you can accuse me of lying, but the evidence is there on the talkpage; four editors (Modernist, ColdCreation, Ewulp and Freshconnaci) disagreed with you. And let's have a look at what happened after that. You reported Modernist incorrectly to the edit-warring noticeboard, despite the fact that you had been edit-warring more than he had. You reported Ewulp to the vandalism board, despite the fact that they were not committing vandalism. This is pure and simple disruption. Since you're not even going to acknowledge that this is the case, in the same way that you could not consider that others may disagree with you about your edits, I think this conversation should probably end here. Hopefully when your block expires you will be able to edit civilly. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite The evidence is indeed there on the talk page. Modernist and ColdCreation didn't gave arguments or sources to support their statements. Freshconnaci was not involved in the discussion and Ewulp refused to reply to my arguments. I don't call that a discussion, that's merely disagreeing with someone and nothing more. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to give information based on scientific sources. The people involved refused to do that. The result is now that something completely subjective and arbitrary is written in the introduction of three important artists. C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you can accuse me of lying, but the evidence is there on the talkpage; four editors (Modernist, ColdCreation, Ewulp and Freshconnaci) disagreed with you. And let's have a look at what happened after that. You reported Modernist incorrectly to the edit-warring noticeboard, despite the fact that you had been edit-warring more than he had. You reported Ewulp to the vandalism board, despite the fact that they were not committing vandalism. This is pure and simple disruption. Since you're not even going to acknowledge that this is the case, in the same way that you could not consider that others may disagree with you about your edits, I think this conversation should probably end here. Hopefully when your block expires you will be able to edit civilly. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite seriously, stop spreading lies. 'You made a statement, many people disagreed with you', only one person disagreed with me and that was Modernist. And that's the whole point, this whole discussion is 1 versus 1. People can collaborate with me by giving me sources that support the claims they're making in the article. If they give me sources, then I'm very interested. But they're not doing that. For example, I made the following statement: you can't possibly mention three specific artists of a certain period in time, and certainly not of the 20th century, who are specifically 'responsible for significant developments in painting'. If people disagree with that, then they should give me sources that specifically support the claim in the article (i.e. the claim that specifically these three artists are responsible). But they can't do that, in fact they're not even responding. C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you've made many reverts today whilst hardly using the talkpages. But the Pablo Picasso discussion earlier in the month shows that you're not interested in listening to people anyway. You made a statement, many people disagreed with you, but you belligerently told them they were all wrong. How are people supposed to collaborate with you when you do that? And when you then just decide to start edit-warring with them? Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Black KiteYou have got to be kidding me! Hardly ever using the talkpage? Me? Have you even looked on the talkpage? This - among many others - is one of my last edits concerning the content:
- How can anyone respond to your concerns when you hardly ever use the talkpages, and when you do, your replies include "I shall proceed to edit whatever I please" and " I'm not the party who has to supply proper sources."? Pretty much the opposite of collaborative as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
February 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing....Modernist (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
February 2017
Your recent editing history at Pieter Bruegel the Elder shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. freshacconci talk to me 20:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
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:C.Gesualdo reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: ). Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Kuru (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed the personal attack on freshacconci, and your ability to edit this page. Kuru (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
February 2017
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This comment is unacceptable. freshacconci talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Block extended
C.Gesualdo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to request an unblock. I have been accused of sock puppetry, which is not true since I haven't been using this account for many months now. I created a new account which I have been using since. Is that sock puppetry? If it is I apologize, but even then, you can't say it was intentional. That I reverted a few edits is also of course not good and I apologize, although it was done with the best intentions (namely to prevent POV sources from being included in an article). Could someone please unblock me?
Decline reason:
This account is not blocked. Just stop trying to edit with the other account, and the autoblock will naturally expire in 24 hours. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:02, 27 November 2017 (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.
- @Jpgordon: But why are my other accounts blocked? Surely it isn't forbidden to create multiple accounts? C.Gesualdo (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
C.Gesualdo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
That's not true. The block is said to expire in 2020. So again: I would like to request an unblock. I have been accused of sock puppetry, which is not true since I haven't been using this account for many months now. I created a new account which I have been using since. Is that sock puppetry? If it is I apologize, but even then, you can't say it was intentional. That I reverted a few edits is also of course not good and I apologize, although it was done with the best intentions (namely to prevent POV sources from being included in an article). Could someone please unblock me?
Decline reason:
This account is not presently blocked. Without knowing what account is causing the autoblock, there is nothing I can do to help. It may make matters easier to request an unblock from an account that is actually blocked. SQLQuery me! 00:12, 28 November 2017 (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.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, C.Gesualdo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
C.Gesualdo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Is it possible to unblock me? I know now that I did some things that weren't allowed, for instance, the creation of a second account, but I understand that I was wrong and would like to contribute to Wikipedia again. The account that is causing the autoblock is: Max Eisenhardt. I cannot edit the talk page over there and I'm not using that account anymore.
Decline reason:
No, you apparently weren't blocked in November but you are 
Technically indistinguishable to Max Eisenhardt and Wim Kostrowicki. Let me remedy that.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2018 (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.
January 2018
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
C.Gesualdo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry for my previous behavior. As I stated before, I didn't know it was forbidden to create multiple accounts, and I've already stated that I won't use the other accounts again (is it possible to delete them?). Therefore I would like to request someone to unblock me, especially since this block has been going on for a while and I won't repeat this behavior again. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Given the quite recent sockpuppetry and the repeated edit warring, you may want to try the standard offer. Huon (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2018 (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.
- Note: the underlying IP address is a hardblocked proxy which will not be unblocked.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)- Why not? C.Gesualdo (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:OPENPROXY. Huon (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: What can I do to unblock my account? I already said it won't happen again and I apologized. It's not as if I committed a war crime. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- You can read the message I left when I declined the unblock request; the link I gave you there already answers this question. No, you didn't commit a war crime. Thus you are not sentenced to prison or death, unlike these people. Huon (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: this is what I dislike so much about Wikipedia: the hostility. Always attacking people & making nasty comments. You gave me a link and I don't know what it supposed to mean. So could you explain that to me? C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Have you read the page whose link I gave? It explains one way forward for editors who have been indefinitely blocked, like yourself. It gives conditions (non-bidning, but often accepted by reviewing administrators) under which such an editor can get their block lifted. It thus, quite explicitly, answers the question of what you can do to get unblocked. And regarding "hostility" and "attacks", I'm not aware of having been hostile or nasty or of attacking you. You argued you shouldn't be treated like a war criminal; I pointed out you aren't treated like one. Huon (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: you mean a Standard Offer? Can I get one please? C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- If you follow those instructions, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to get unblocked under the standard offer. Huon (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: which instructions? I don't see any instructions? C.Gesualdo (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- If you follow those instructions, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to get unblocked under the standard offer. Huon (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: you mean a Standard Offer? Can I get one please? C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Have you read the page whose link I gave? It explains one way forward for editors who have been indefinitely blocked, like yourself. It gives conditions (non-bidning, but often accepted by reviewing administrators) under which such an editor can get their block lifted. It thus, quite explicitly, answers the question of what you can do to get unblocked. And regarding "hostility" and "attacks", I'm not aware of having been hostile or nasty or of attacking you. You argued you shouldn't be treated like a war criminal; I pointed out you aren't treated like one. Huon (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: this is what I dislike so much about Wikipedia: the hostility. Always attacking people & making nasty comments. You gave me a link and I don't know what it supposed to mean. So could you explain that to me? C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- You can read the message I left when I declined the unblock request; the link I gave you there already answers this question. No, you didn't commit a war crime. Thus you are not sentenced to prison or death, unlike these people. Huon (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: What can I do to unblock my account? I already said it won't happen again and I apologized. It's not as if I committed a war crime. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:OPENPROXY. Huon (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Then you didn't read what the standard offer is. I didn't give you a link because I like blue font better than black but because the page I linked to has information you may want to know. Huon (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: I've read what the standard offer is. I was wondering if I could get one? I would like to continue editing and I promise not the engage in rude behavior and/or edit warring. Thanks in advance for any trouble. C.Gesualdo (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Have you also read the part that says, "Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion"? Huon (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: Can I get a standard offer now please? C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome to request a new review of your block. You'll need to address the issues that led to the block in the first place; "time served" is not enough. Huon (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: Like I mentioned before: I made some rude & personal comments which are of course always wrong. I also created a second account, which is apparently not legitimate (I honestly didn't know that). In any case, I know I misbehaved, so it's not as if I disagree with the block, on the contrary I know I deserve it and I promise to avoid this kind of behavior in the future. What more can I say about it? C.Gesualdo (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at my past review of your block, there was the issue of edit warring. Also, you'll need to make use of the {{unblock}} template to request a review of your block. I can't lift it since it was imposed by a CheckUser, and even if I could, I generally don't review the same block twice (except in cases of obvious errors on my part). Huon (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: The edit warring is of course also my mistake. I'm sorry for that to and I apologize sincerely! C.Gesualdo (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @@Huon and Berean Hunter: Can I get a standard offer now please? C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Have you also read the part that says, "Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion"? Huon (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Huon and Berean Hunter: You suggested to me to use a standard offer. The standard offer page says: After you have waited six months, contact a willing administrator or experienced editor (via your user talk page, email, #wikipedia-en-unblock connect or WP:UTRS). If they agree a review is appropriate, they'll open a thread at an administrative noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI). Discussion usually takes a few days. There's nothing here about an unblock template. So what's the deal with this? I apologized now multiple times, I told you I will behave in the future and waited (since november) six months. Why can't I get a standard offer? C.Gesualdo (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- The template will "contact a willing administrator". If you prefer, I can copy your unblock request to WP:AN, but I doubt that's necessary here. Please be patient and wait for a review of your unblock request. Huon (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Huon and Berean Hunter: Thank you I will and thank you for your time. C.Gesualdo (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- The template will "contact a willing administrator". If you prefer, I can copy your unblock request to WP:AN, but I doubt that's necessary here. Please be patient and wait for a review of your unblock request. Huon (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
C.Gesualdo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So again: I sincerely apologize for the edit warring, rude language and multiple accounts and hereby offer my apologies again. I know I shouldn't have done this so it won't happen again. Could you please give me the standard offer? C.Gesualdo (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked on January 12th of this year. For the standard offer to be given, you need to wait until July 12th to request an unblock. As suggested below, step away from Wikipedia for a few months to wait this out, then come back and request the WP:SO at that time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2018 (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.
- Trouble is, by my reckoning, you'd not be eligible for WP:standard offer till July.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: But I got a ban in november for creating multiple accounts (which I didn't know was illegal). That was on my other account: Max Eisenhardt. I'm not using that account anymore, but in november I got a ban from that account (for which I'm very sorry). C.Gesualdo (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: To elaborate on that: my initial ban was for creating multiple accounts; that occurred in november 2017 (on the page of Max Eisenhardt; an account I'm not using anymore). Of course I apologize for the other misconduct, but the direct reason for this ban (until 2020) is for that (for which I'm very sorry). C.Gesualdo (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I blocked this account on Jan. 12.
- @Dlohcierekim: To elaborate on that: my initial ban was for creating multiple accounts; that occurred in november 2017 (on the page of Max Eisenhardt; an account I'm not using anymore). Of course I apologize for the other misconduct, but the direct reason for this ban (until 2020) is for that (for which I'm very sorry). C.Gesualdo (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- You state above "I also created a second account, which is apparently not legitimate (I honestly didn't know that)" which sounds disingenuous and mocking considering that you took part in your own SPI in Feb. 2017 and seem to have understood then. Being deceptive? ...and this? I don't find your claim of ignorance about the sockpuppetry policy to be very convincing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)- @@Berean Hunter: That was of course bad behavior and I certainly knew about that. However, the reason why I was blocked in november was not because of interfering in a discussion with a second account, the reason why I got blocked in november 2017 was because I admitted using multiple accounts when discussing a painting by Da Vinci (I was using a different account). I honestly didn't know that was illegitimate. That it wasn't legal to interfere in a discussion with other accounts was of course bad behavior and I apologize, although - again - that happened at an earlier stage and I wasn't referring to it (although I sincerely regret that of course as well). Like I've stated before, it's a serie of petty behavior and I promise I will change that in the future. However, it was always done with the best intentions. For instance, that sockpuppetery was concerning a discussion of Pieter Bruegel, which denied information that was included in an important monograph. I'm not trying to defend my behavior, but it's not as if I'm willingly trying to terrorize people. I would like to conclude by stating again that my behavior was inappropriate. C.Gesualdo (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- From WP:SO, "Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects." You have had very few edits on the other projects since you have been blocked as you can see. That doesn't couple well with having a shortened term of blocking.
- @@Berean Hunter: That was of course bad behavior and I certainly knew about that. However, the reason why I was blocked in november was not because of interfering in a discussion with a second account, the reason why I got blocked in november 2017 was because I admitted using multiple accounts when discussing a painting by Da Vinci (I was using a different account). I honestly didn't know that was illegitimate. That it wasn't legal to interfere in a discussion with other accounts was of course bad behavior and I apologize, although - again - that happened at an earlier stage and I wasn't referring to it (although I sincerely regret that of course as well). Like I've stated before, it's a serie of petty behavior and I promise I will change that in the future. However, it was always done with the best intentions. For instance, that sockpuppetery was concerning a discussion of Pieter Bruegel, which denied information that was included in an important monograph. I'm not trying to defend my behavior, but it's not as if I'm willingly trying to terrorize people. I would like to conclude by stating again that my behavior was inappropriate. C.Gesualdo (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- You state above "I also created a second account, which is apparently not legitimate (I honestly didn't know that)" which sounds disingenuous and mocking considering that you took part in your own SPI in Feb. 2017 and seem to have understood then. Being deceptive? ...and this? I don't find your claim of ignorance about the sockpuppetry policy to be very convincing.
- One question that you should answer is what do you plan to edit? I'm not sure that community members would be fond of you returning to the same subjects.
- I haven't been persuaded but I'm not opposed to letting you appeal at AN and letting the community decide if you wish. If you choose that route then I suggest that you write the prose for your request and either I or Huon or another admin will copy it over for you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)- @@Berean Hunter: My knowledge of art history and art in general is substantial, so I would like to continue contributing to those matters. However, I think it would be a good idea to refrain myself from engaging in discussions or debates since that's mostly where things went wrong in the past. With regard to your questions concerning other WMF projects, I got an IP ban so I couldn't participate in any of those.
- With regard to my statement: I would like to say that I'm sorry for my past behavior. I honestly didn't know it was illegitimate to use multiple accounts. I shall stop using these and I shall also behave better with regard to discussions with other people. I know my behavior was erratic from time to time and I shall change this in the future. I sincerely apologize for the edit warring, rude language and multiple accounts and hereby offer my regrets. C.Gesualdo (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Uninvolved+Non-Admin comment Just to let you know, the Standard Offer is applicable from the date it was suggested (13 January 2018), and I'd suggest that you leave Wikipedia alone (don't edit anything, including talk pages, unless it's important) until 13 July 2018, it's good to cool down, and forget about all this mess. In 6 months, hopefully your mind would have cleared, and I wish you all the best. Rob3512 chat? what I did 10:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @@Rob3512, Huon, and Berean Hunter: Since I've waited now until July the 13th, without editing anything (including talk pages), I was wondering if I could get a standard offer. Again, I apologize sincerely for my behavior, it was inappropriate and of course very stupid and unnecessary, but I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia and I think I could be of value to the project of spreading knowledge. C.Gesualdo (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't been persuaded but I'm not opposed to letting you appeal at AN and letting the community decide if you wish. If you choose that route then I suggest that you write the prose for your request and either I or Huon or another admin will copy it over for you.
As I said above: "You're welcome to request a new review of your block. [...] you'll need to make use of the {{unblock}} template to request a review of your block. I can't lift it since it was imposed by a CheckUser, and even if I could, I generally don't review the same block twice (except in cases of obvious errors on my part)." I don't have anything to add to that. Huon (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
C.Gesualdo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Since I've waited now until July the 13th, without editing anything (including talk pages), I was wondering if I could get a standard offer. Again, I apologize sincerely for my behavior, it was inappropriate and of course very stupid and unnecessary, but I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia and I think I could be of value to the project of spreading knowledgeC.Gesualdo (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC) C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Accept per the standard offer. Please do behave because opportunities to be unblocked such as this diminish as one's block log gets longer. The community's patience may become exhausted. Good luck on your new approach to editing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @@Rob3512, Huon, and Berean Hunter: Thank you very much! When exactly will I be unblocked? I stil can't edit on Wikipedia pages, it says that I'm still blocked and that it wil expire in 2020....C.Gesualdo (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Per my previous comment, there is a blocked proxy that isn't to be unblocked. You will need to find a non-proxy solution.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC) - @@Rob3512, Huon, and Berean Hunter: But this is absurd! You said you would unblock me and now I'm still blocked! What does a hardblocked proxy mean? And how can I find a non-proxy solution? My God, I know I did some things that weren't allowed, but this is almost as if I committed a war crime! C.Gesualdo (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @@Rob3512, Huon, and Berean Hunter: I really don't understand anything about this. You said you unblocked me, but it's still not possible for me to edit articles. Can someone explain this to me? C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- You will need to stop using your VPN and connect directly. You logged in through a service provider that is enabling a proxy. You are unblocked but that proxy remains blocked to prevent abuse.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)- @@Rob3512, Huon, and Berean Hunter: Why can't that network be unblocked? I mean this is absurd, it was blocked in the first place because I did some things that were not allowed. I promised not to do that again, now the entire proxy is blocked for that reason? I don't understand this: you're unblocking me, but that proxy remains blocked? Why? C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- We block open proxies on sight (WP:PROXY). It affects all users trying to edit via the proxy and has nothing specifically to do with your account. Favonian (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Rob3512, Huon, Favonian, and Berean Hunter:It clearly has because it says: This block has been set to expire: 03:37, 26 November 2020. It also says that Berean Hunter blocked me. Berean Hunter promised to unblock me, but it's still not possible for me to edit pages. C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- You need to stop pinging everyone repeatedly. Huon has already told you that he is letting others review this. Repeated pings have the effect of annoying those who aren't in the conversation. Question for you: how many other sockmasters were or are using the proxy?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)- @Berean Hunter:I'm sorry, I'll stop pinging everyone. Like I said, I didn't knew making multiple accounts was illegal (only using them in one discussion), so I don't know exactly how many. Certainly the account Max Eisenhardt and Wim Kostrowicki. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'll rephrase the question. Are you the one that controls that proxy? Do you know who else might be using it currently?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC) - @Berean Hunter: No, I'm the only one who's using it currently. C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- How do you know that? Do you have any other accounts?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC) - @Berean Hunter: Obviously I'm currently only using this account, but I was using the accounts Max Eisenhardt and Wim Kostrowicki in the past. With regard to the proxy, it can't be anything else than me having been blocked on this IP-address in november 2017 under the name Max Eisenhardt en after that Wim Kostrowicki or C.Gesualdo. C.Gesualdo (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- How do you know that? Do you have any other accounts?
- I'll rephrase the question. Are you the one that controls that proxy? Do you know who else might be using it currently?
- @Berean Hunter:I'm sorry, I'll stop pinging everyone. Like I said, I didn't knew making multiple accounts was illegal (only using them in one discussion), so I don't know exactly how many. Certainly the account Max Eisenhardt and Wim Kostrowicki. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- You need to stop pinging everyone repeatedly. Huon has already told you that he is letting others review this. Repeated pings have the effect of annoying those who aren't in the conversation. Question for you: how many other sockmasters were or are using the proxy?
- @Rob3512, Huon, Favonian, and Berean Hunter:It clearly has because it says: This block has been set to expire: 03:37, 26 November 2020. It also says that Berean Hunter blocked me. Berean Hunter promised to unblock me, but it's still not possible for me to edit pages. C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- We block open proxies on sight (WP:PROXY). It affects all users trying to edit via the proxy and has nothing specifically to do with your account. Favonian (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @@Rob3512, Huon, and Berean Hunter: Why can't that network be unblocked? I mean this is absurd, it was blocked in the first place because I did some things that were not allowed. I promised not to do that again, now the entire proxy is blocked for that reason? I don't understand this: you're unblocking me, but that proxy remains blocked? Why? C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- You will need to stop using your VPN and connect directly. You logged in through a service provider that is enabling a proxy. You are unblocked but that proxy remains blocked to prevent abuse.
- @@Rob3512, Huon, and Berean Hunter: I really don't understand anything about this. You said you unblocked me, but it's still not possible for me to edit articles. Can someone explain this to me? C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Per my previous comment, there is a blocked proxy that isn't to be unblocked. You will need to find a non-proxy solution.