Hello, I'm
Vif12vf. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Faisceau, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Vif12vf/Tiberius (
talk) 22:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
National Synarchist Union, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Vif12vf/Tiberius (
talk) 22:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Bolivian Socialist Falange, you may be
blocked from editing.
Vif12vf/Tiberius (
talk) 22:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
National Falange.
Vif12vf/Tiberius (
talk) 22:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Roald Nikolai Flemestad (December 30)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, TheFriendlyFas2!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Caleb Stanford (
talk) 01:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Roald Nikolai Flemestad (December 30)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hi TheFriendlyFas2! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
DrKay (
talk) 07:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 08:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Because I feel as though 'Third Position' more accurately represents my political views, that being said I'm still a fascist or at least some variation of it. I also don't want people to think that I'm a Nazi or a racist. TheFriendlyFas2 ( talk) 06:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Please stop spamming articles with religious affiliations. Religion is only used as an infobox parameter when the subject is a religious leader. DrKay ( talk) 08:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen a great number of articles about non-religious leaders who have their religious affiliation listed in the infobox. Isn't the point of the infoboxes to make information easily accessible and convenient? And there are infobox templates specifically for religious leaders so why even include the option to add religious affilation? TheFriendlyFas2 ( talk) 08:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Religion may be listed if relevant, sourced and uncontroversial." Not "Religion may be listed if subject is a religious leader" also why'd you reverse my edits with the same reasoning every time?
TheFriendlyFas2 (
talk) 08:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please remove it from those articles. Articles should only have one infobox. We don't include infobox royalty and infobox religious leader on people who are both. So, parameters are sometimes copied over to ensure flexibility for when people have dual roles. It doesn't mean that every parameter should be filled.
DrKay (
talk) 09:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- "We don't include infobox royalty and infobox religious leader on people who are both. So, parameters are sometimes copied over to ensure flexibility for when people have dual roles" okay that makes sense but that doesn't mean that the role shouldn't be filled because religion is a relevant characteristic of many monarchs. And if the subject has to also be a religious figure then how is it that there are numerous articles in which the subject's religious affiliation is included but the subject isn't a religious leader? This is the first time anybody has told me that the subject has to be a religious leader for their religious affiliation to be included because it isn't necessary.
TheFriendlyFas2 (
talk) 09:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, it should be removed from articles in which the subject's religious affiliation is irrelevant. You haven't been adding it to monarchs or religious leaders. You've been adding it to people that are neither.
DrKay (
talk) 09:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Okay then why would my edits be reverted for actual monarchs? TheFriendlyFas2 ( talk) 21:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, it should be removed from articles in which the subject's religious affiliation is irrelevant. You haven't been adding it to monarchs or religious leaders. You've been adding it to people that are neither.
DrKay (
talk) 09:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- "We don't include infobox royalty and infobox religious leader on people who are both. So, parameters are sometimes copied over to ensure flexibility for when people have dual roles" okay that makes sense but that doesn't mean that the role shouldn't be filled because religion is a relevant characteristic of many monarchs. And if the subject has to also be a religious figure then how is it that there are numerous articles in which the subject's religious affiliation is included but the subject isn't a religious leader? This is the first time anybody has told me that the subject has to be a religious leader for their religious affiliation to be included because it isn't necessary.
TheFriendlyFas2 (
talk) 09:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please remove it from those articles. Articles should only have one infobox. We don't include infobox royalty and infobox religious leader on people who are both. So, parameters are sometimes copied over to ensure flexibility for when people have dual roles. It doesn't mean that every parameter should be filled.
DrKay (
talk) 09:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Polish National Catholic Church, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Veverve (
talk) 15:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Categories should reflect what is already within the article, as per Wikipedia:Categorization. Veverve ( talk) 15:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
- 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 noticeboards.
- 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Asqueladd ( talk) 07:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Folk saint, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bouillon, Arcozelo and Chincha.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Folk saint, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emperor of the Romans.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siberian Evangelical Lutheran Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denomination.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
HadesTTW (he/him •
talk) 00:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her) 06:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
TheFriendlyFas2 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am writing to request the removal of the block placed on my Wikipedia account. I believe the block was unjust, as my most recent edits have been harmless, and the occurrences of alleged disruptive editing happened months and even years ago. To address a potential concern, I admit to having mentioned my political views on my description page, which may have given the impression that my edits were politically motivated. However, I want to clarify that I am not a Nazi, antisemite, or associated with any extremist groups, nor have I ever been, and I do not endorse hatred of any kind. In the past, I may have used the term "fascist" too liberally, and perhaps I would’ve genuinely called myself a classical fascist of sorts, but I have since matured and my views have become more moderate. I don’t refer to myself as a fascist anymore and I regret having done so. I want to emphasize that I have not allowed any political bias to influence my editing. Regarding the reasons for my block, it was claimed that I edited articles with a political agenda, with specific reference to changes I made from "Far-Right" to "Third Position" in December 2021. I acknowledge that these edits were unsourced, inappropriate and perhaps a little biased. I was also cited for more recent edits in April, which were aimed at correcting oversimplifications and ensuring accuracy. My intentions were purely to reflect the true nature of the subject matter. As I am a Wikipedia contributor who values the principles of accuracy, neutrality, and collaboration that Wikipedia stands for. When my edits were reverted, I made efforts to cite sources, but upon being told to stop, I complied. Since then, I have refrained from any contentious edits and focused primarily on articles related to religion. I recognize the errors I made in the past and am committed to improving my editing behavior in the future. Please consider removing the block on my account. Thank you! TheFriendlyFas2 ( talk) 00:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your very username is understood to be "the Friendly Fascist", as per the discussion over at WP:ANI that lead to your block. That seals the deal, I'm afraid. Yamla ( talk) 10:08, 18 October 2023 (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.
@ Yamla: My username was assumed to be The Friendly Fascist but that's not what it is. My username is TheFriendlyFas2, and the username itself doesn't refer to anything specifically and thus doesn't violate any policies. My username wasn't intended to mean "The Friendly Fascist" anyway so the claim that my username is a sort of code to mean "The Friendly Fascist" is based on pure speculation and assumptions. But in any case, I was blocked for disruptive editing not for having an inappropriate username. Please consider unblocking my account. Thank you! TheFriendlyFas2 ( talk) 23:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
TheFriendlyFas2 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am writing to request the removal of the block placed on my Wikipedia account. I believe the block was unjust, as my most recent edits have been harmless, and the occurrences of alleged disruptive editing happened months and even years ago. To address a potential concern, I admit to having mentioned my political views on my description page, which may have given the impression that my edits were politically motivated. However, I want to clarify that I am not a Nazi, antisemite, or associated with any extremist groups, nor have I ever been, and I do not endorse hatred of any kind. In the past, I may have used the term "fascist" too liberally, and perhaps I would’ve genuinely called myself a classical fascist of sorts, but I have since matured and my views have become more moderate. I don’t refer to myself as a fascist anymore and I regret having done so. I want to emphasize that I have not allowed any political bias to influence my editing. Regarding the reasons for my block, it was claimed that I edited articles with a political agenda, with specific reference to changes I made from "Far-Right" to "Third Position" in December 2021. I acknowledge that these edits were unsourced, inappropriate and perhaps a little biased. I was also cited for more recent edits in April, which were aimed at correcting oversimplifications and ensuring accuracy. My intentions were purely to reflect the true nature of the subject matter. As I am a Wikipedia contributor who values the principles of accuracy, neutrality, and collaboration that Wikipedia stands for. When my edits were reverted, I made efforts to cite sources, but upon being told to stop, I complied. Since then, I have refrained from any contentious edits and focused primarily on articles related to religion. I recognize the errors I made in the past and am committed to improving my editing behavior in the future. With regard to my username which was understood by some to be "The Friendly Fascist" isn't what it was understood to be, my username is TheFriendlyFas2, and the username itself doesn't refer to anything specifically and thus doesn't violate any policies. My username wasn't intended to mean "The Friendly Fascist" anyway so the claim that my username is a sort of code to mean "The Friendly Fascist" is based on pure speculation and assumptions. With all of this in mind please consider removing the block on my account. Thank you! TheFriendlyFas2 ( talk) 00:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Insanity is doing the same exact thing again and expecting a different result. — Daniel Case ( talk) 07:21, 15 November 2023 (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.
@ Daniel Case: It's not the exact same thing actually since I did something different. I made an addition to include the bit about my username, because that was the reason why my first request was denied. I kept the rest to make my other points clear. With this information in mind please consider unblocking my account. Thank you! TheFriendlyFas2 ( talk) 08:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)