User talk:Victor Salvini: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:09, 13 October 2019

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.

Template:Z33

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.

Template:Z33 --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]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 <br> 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.
 <br> 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. [[Special:Contributions/2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE|2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE]] ([[User talk:2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE|talk]]) 18:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)