User talk:Victor Salvini

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).

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

Request reason:

I was told to put my appeal info here. So basically, I was blocked after false accusations of NOTTHERE and was blocked by an admin who didn’t take part in the discussion about it. I refuted every claim made against me but apparently that didn’t matter. I would like to learn from any mistakes I did make and then resume my work on Wikipedia. If unblocked, I’ll tone down my editing but will continue editing the types of articles I edited before being blocked (political and NCFCA related). I can see two reasons for why I was blocked. The first being that the admin who blocked focused mainly on my early edits to Wikipedia. I admit my edits then were bad because I was new and still learning how wiki worked, but now my editing has gotten better and I feel I’ve progressed from that phase. The second reason being that the admin who blocked me just didn’t like me. I have some... unpopular opinions that people think are a reason to hinder or harass me (thinking right wing parties aren’t far right, thinking that populism doesn’t stem from fascism, etc). Please take into consideration my willingness to cooperate with other editors through engaging in talk pages rather than resorting to edit wars, plus, I’m still learning how all Wikipedia works, and I would like to learn from my mistakes when I do make them. Thank you.

Decline reason:

The problems with your edits don't just concern your first few edits but also recent ones such as this. The rest of this request doesn't address your own conduct other than by painting yourself as a poor oppressed victim. Huon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2019 (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.

I was hoping for advice on how to do better as opposed to more aggression if I were to be denied this time. All this does is make me think even more that I was blocked due to the second possible reason I listed.Victor Salvini (talk)

Welcome!

Hello, Victor Salvini, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! O3000 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just now responding to this. Good job me. Anyway, thanks for the welcome and info Victor Salvini (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, I'm Tsumikiria. I noticed that you recently removed content from Laura Loomer without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tsu *miki*⧸ 🌉 00:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did give an edit summary, but ok. This was a while ago and I took forever to respond so I’ll just assume you were mistaken Victor Salvini (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Doug Weller talk 18:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Victor Salvini (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Right-wing politics; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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.
Hello, Victor. You're getting close to 3 reverts. Please do not revert again, even if you think you are correct. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll head over Victor Salvini (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hellow. I'm Jeff6045. Firstly I want to thank for your input on recent edit on WP. I want you to know that WP doesn't reflect user's personal opinion. You might think the article is very wrong due to bias edit. However if you think that please leave your opinion on the talk page before edit. Your recent edit on WP can be considered as WP:POINTy behavior. This is my advice and warning to you. Please follow WP policy. Thank you. Jeff6045 00:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ultranationalism

Firstly I want to apologize for my late response. I have seen your inputs on talk page. And I want to thank for your effort on this. I want to suggest two thing on your revision.

1. Just wait until multiple user joins the discussion and reveal their opinion.

2. You can give reliable sources that denies the party as ultranationalist. As I mentioned at talk page on Finns party, if you give reliable sources that denies my revision I will give up my revision.

I'm always open to your opinion. If you have any other opinion please mention me. Thank you. Jeff6045 23:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6045 (talk • contribs)

That’s fine mate, I just responded to your comment in talk. And I agree, hopefully more people will show up (perhaps we could do an RfC?) Victor Salvini (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Salvini:, On finns party one of my users that I invited say it is undue to see the party as ultranationalist. May be I have gone too far with just one source. There is one last user that I invite to join discussion. After this this user reveal its opinion I think this argument should go to vote.
In addition I want to apologize to refer your edit as vandalism. At that time I just think your edit is based on your faith. But now I think there is rational reason on your edit. Again I want to apologize for refering your edit as vandalism.
Thank you. Jeff6045 01:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you point me to the discussion...

Where it was decided that the Guardian is not reliable as a source when describing political parties? Or the same for WaPo? Both are very high quality sources. You make that claim at least twice in your recent edit summaries and that does not seem like something that would actually be considered acceptable by Wikipedia standards. So, a link to the discussion on which you base those statememnts and your removal of reliably sourced content would be appreciated. Cheers in advance. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 16:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

Pursuant to the consensus of uninvolved admins at ANI, and my own review of your edits, you have been blocked indefinitely as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Namely, for being here to promote an agenda or personal POV. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that was a rushed attempt to knock me out, hardly any questions asked to me or anything I said taken into consideration. My cooperation with other editors was also completely ignored. I expected more from administrators (even funnier to see you never commented on the segment). What’s more, how come I am blocked but users who conduct clear POV pushing and are totally uncooperative with other editors are let free? Victor Salvini (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was not "rushed". An admin wanted to indef block you within the first 10 minutes, yet the discussion was left open for four days, and not a single person came to your defense. One does not accidentally engage in a pattern of self-evident POV-pushing. Your edits speak for themselves, it's really pretty obvious. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my interests IRL, the pages I edit are a given, which goes for a lot of other editors I see. Do also note that after the admin wanted to indefblock me the person who originally started the discussion rebuked him. And if I can be blocked over such things, please look at the record of users like “beyond my Ken” as seen in multiple talk sections on right wing populism in which Ken ignored consensus against him and started an edit war that went on for a month over two undue edits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism#/talk/4 , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism#/talk/11 , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism#/talk/12 , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism#/talk/13 Victor Salvini (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #27545 was submitted on Nov 10, 2019 15:47:32. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]