User talk:Georgius Romanus

Welcome!

Hello, Georgius Romanus. I saw your contributions and want to welcome to you the free encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Thank you for joining our community and becoming a Wikipedian. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

If you need help, see Wikipedia:Questions or our tutorial. Last but not least, the five pillars of Wikipedia explain what we're all here to do.

Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Hello! I'm a bot created by another Wikipedia editor. I wanted to let you know that I removed a link that you recently added to the page Private revelation here. I did this because http://georgiusromanus.weebly.com/documenti.html is probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

We appreciate your help in making Wikipedia better for everyone. If I made a mistake, feel free to undo my edit. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Help desk.

Thank you! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 18:23, 6 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

The external link I added point to a page containing important documents about Private Revelations, exactly the argument of the voice I edited. For example you can find following that link: Prospero Lambertini's DE SERVORUM DEI BEATIFICATIONE ET BEATORUM CANONIZATIONE, pages related to private revelations, or you can find C.Del Zotto, Per una teologia delle Rivelazioni Private.

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. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:44, 9 December 2011 (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.

Few days ago I added one external link to the "private revelation" article. The external link pointed to http://georgiusromanus.weebly.com/documenti.html a page on my website rich of important and rare documents (most of them about private revelation) that I collected. The external link was immediately removed by a BOT, and I can accept this behaviour if it is a policy of wikipedia in english. As you can verify I did not undo the BOT activity leaving to the wikipedia community the decision. After that my user has been BLOCKED. I tried to unblock (using appeal procedure) without success. In my opinion this behaviour is unbelieveable and absurd. You treat as vandals who want to contribute. Moreover at the first edit on your project. For this reason I will not issue any more unblock request, because I will never contribute to wikipedia in english. Regards, Georgius Romanus (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]