User talk:Sandvol

October 2018[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dinesh D'Souza, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you look on the Talk page for that article you will see that the content you removed has already been discussed. DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dinesh D'Souza shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dinesh D'Souza. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Riga was kind enough to inform you that there's already an ongoing discussion at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza about the "far right" label. I'd recommend reading it and our policy on edit warring before trying to return to edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not a valid reason? This is why wikipedia is becoming such a sham. All the editors and administrators of wikipedia have a left-wing bent and are agenda driven. Are George Soros, Michael Moore, Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Bill Ayers or Yvette Felarca described as "far-left" by wikipedia? Let me answer that for you, no. Stop being a sham and be an actual internet encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

WP:GAB explains how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Make one like this again and you'll find yourself blocked indefinitely and lose access to this talk page. Yamla (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2018 (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.

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Dinesh D'Souza for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Your post had nothing to do with improving the article and made it look as though another editor was agreeing with you. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia really perplexes me Doug. It has the opportunity to be a good, neutral encyclopedia. Instead so many editors turning it into group think. You'd never see this kind of stuff in Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Not neutral, neutral point of view, showing all significant viewpoints, unlike Britannica where articles don't need to do that and where I can point to material a fringe author, one who has sockpuppeted frequently here to push his view, managed to get his view incorporated. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles[edit]

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 recently 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 any 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 18:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only publishes verifiable facts....[edit]

...which does not seem to fit in with your political ideology, which appears to be based on fantasy of some kind. You might be happier elsewhere, because Wikipedia is never gong to be what you appear to want it to be, and your attempts to make it that are always going to be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yearly renewal of discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

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.

Doug Weller talk 16:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Nazi Party while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]