User talk:ValentinesDay88

Misleading edit summary

Please don't use misleading edit summaries in your edits, as you did here. The content was not "deleted by accident": as Aquillion's edit summary makes clear, the content was deleted because the source you cited doesn't mention antifa, so it wasn't clear why the material belongs in the antifa (United States) article. Being confused about other editors' motivations is of course understandable, but it's much better to be honest about that confusion than to risk inaccurately describing those motivations. If the edit summary was intended to obfuscate or deceive, you should know that it was not successful; this sort of thing is very unlikely to work and much more likely to get on people's nerves. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. It looked like it was an accident because the website I cited said he was "Antifascist" and I thought that's what Antifa was, so that's why I thought it was a mistake. I tried to chat in the talk page but I don't think it was working right, it kept saying that my post was added successful but didn't display.

Redneck Revolt

I've reverted your edit to Redneck Revolt because the claims you added to the article are not supported by the source you cited. Here's a rule of thumb to remember: rather than deciding to add a claim to an article, and then looking for a source to justify it, read the source first and then try to summarise it in the article, without adding any commentary or anything you've read elsewhere. This is especially important in articles about contentious topics, where other editors typically have less patience with editing that might be intended to advance a particular point of view. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This is confusing because I quoted the cited article directly. ValentinesDay88 (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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 08:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Anome (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, ValentinesDay88, bears an unfortunate resemblance to a well-known far-right term. Please choose another username which does not risk this confusion..

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

-- The Anome (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Would HappyValentinesDay be considered offensive? If so, why? I like the day because it's my birthday and my nickname is Valentine but I don't want to offend anyone because I know that day is important to some Catholics and I am not Catholic.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ValentinesDay88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

HappyValentinesDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

In light of the below, no. Huon (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your request has been relayed to the discussion at WP:ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This account and HappyValentinesDay1988 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed to CordialGreenery (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who is tagged as a proven sock of OnceASpy. AGK, you may be interested in this. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)