User talk:T.Nuvolari

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 15:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 15:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Souther Poverty Law Center are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the notices above

You're new and have jumped right into a contentious area and because you are new don't know how to use talk pages. These notices are to help you avoid problems. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to abuse alkpages to discuss your personal point of view, as you did at Wikipedia talk:No Nazis, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Alt-right troll of some sort. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the nosey! Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

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) 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Suggestions

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).

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

Request reason:

Today while reading various articles on Wikipedia I came across an article titled "No Nazis" which sounded interesting. The article was was about racism on Wikipedia. Reading through the article it was clear though that it was not only very biased but by all definitions it was itself an example of bias and racism on Wikipedia. All the examples it gave of racists were of one particular race, as was the opening paragraph. :So with that in mind I made a suggestion on the talk page that the article was a bit biased and what could be changed to improve it. I then somehow got blocked with the reason "alt right troll" which is which quite humorous to say the least. I don't even know what the word troll means in relation to Wikipedia. AFAIK its someone that posts silly messages and spam and other junk to a message site to annoy other users. I have always made fact based and relevant contributions on the talk pages, never using foul language, racism, spam, or any other kind of disruptive techniques. I hope you are no sincerely suggesting I am troll. :Upon reading through the Admin board it seems that now I been upgraded to a "nazi sympathizer" because many months ago I suggested a correction on a talk page in relation to a date mistake on a photo by using knowledge of when the uniform was introduced to correctly date the photo. I don't think I have ever come across a more preposterous suggestion such as this, that because I know a decent amount about World War 2 history that somehow that makes me Nazi sympathizer?? Then just about every historian that covers that period must also be "Nazi sympathizers". Hilarious. That is some fine logic indeed. :With regards to my editing history on this website, I haven't made any actual edits (to my knowledge) on Wikipedia to any articles. I have only made suggestions and comments on talk pages as I am new editor wise and I am still unfamiliar with all the politics and rules that seems to dominate how editing works around here so I have refrained from doing so to try and avoid situations like today. :There was a message posted to my talk page by someone saying that my suggestion was "disruptive editing" even though I did not edit or change anyone's contributions I simply added a suggestion below to the bottom of the talk page. :The message also stated if I make any more suggestions I would be blocked. I haven't added any suggestions or edited anything since that message but I was then blocked anyway? :The irony this whole thing came about today because I was linked to an article on Wikipedia via a news site that was covering the Antifa incidents on Wikipedia of late in particular the editor wars that are going on. There has been ongoing allegations lately in the news media about political bias on Wikipedia. I am a fairly centrist kind of person but I must admit I can find little fault in such sentiments. There does appear to be at times a strong bias in some of the articles present on here particularly political ones. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia but it's hard to see that when an article for examples gives 10 examples that all come from one side of politics while failing to even give not even one example for the other side. That is straight up bias. :I have been reading Wikipedia for nearly 20 years but have only felt the need to become a editor in recent years as I have felt that the neutrality of some articles has been so poor to warrant at a least a suggestion for someone to address it. Again I am not all that familiar with the editing process so I have stayed out of it, leaving it up to veteran editors to hopefully improve the articles. :Anyways as they say its better to live one day a lion then a 100 years a sheep. T.Nuvolari (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:54, 19 July 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.

Hello, T.Nuvolari,

You've written an interesting piece about your philosophical differences with Wikipedia, as you judge it to be, but it is not an unblock request that is likely to succeed. In fact, reading it over, I'm not even sure that you really want to be unblocked. So, first, you have to be sure that you want to be unblocked.

My own experience with Wikipedia is that any admin who would consider unblocking you wants to know that you won't become a disruptive source of disputes on Wikipedia. Admins fill their days with resolving problems among editors and they want to know that you are not here to right great wrongs. It's fine to want to see that articles are less biased but editors who have any political agendas are not welcome here to edit because 1) they tend not to write objectively and 2) they inevitably clash with editors who hold different points of view.

In sum, the Guide to appealing blocks will tell you what you need to know for writing a successful unblock request. I guess I would just end with the point that administrators here are not here to enforce a particular political point of view. Their aim is to reduce drama and conflict and I'm guessing that you were seen as an editor who sought that out, hence you were judged to be not here to build an encyclopedia. This opinion was not only based upon your actions but based on the experience of admins who have worked here for 18 years and seen many troublesome editors come and go. Good luck with your next unblock request. Know that unblock requests are not unlimited so put some thought into them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a very new editor, one thing you would not know is that there are various "spaces" in Wikipedia. The "article" that you came across is in fact not an article at all. It is an essay written by an editor here that makes observations about things that happen on Wikipedia. This is very different to an actual Wikipedia article. If you read the two links I have posted, that might clear things up. Blackmane (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the reply User:Liz.

The thing is I don't even know why nor understand why I was blocked. The reason provided refers to people that are actually editing and fiddling with articles. I have not done that. I posted a suggestion on a talk page today on how to improve an article and then for some reason I was blocked. I have not actually edited any articles on this site so I find it odd how I can be judged a bad editor if I have yet to actually edit anything. All I have been trying to do with my suggestions was to try and improve the accuracy and fairness of articles.

I deliberately did not make any edits myself to avoid this very issue because I am unfamiliar with how the editor system works and haven't got the time to spend in what by all accounts seems to be a very tedious process. I only existed to give suggestions for which others could maybe act upon. What you are saying though seems to suggest that I have been blocked for something that I may or may not do in the future. That is indeed quite a bizarre and scary legal concept, predicting future guilt. I guess should re-watch that film Minority Report.... T.Nuvolari (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the reply User:Blackmane. Ok thanks for the links I will read them. Are you saying that you are not allowed to make suggestions to "Essays" because that is all I did. If I had known that I would get blocked for a suggestion on an essay I would not have made it. T.Nuvolari (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the WP:NONAZIS page is a project-space essay, not a mainspace Wikipedia article. Its topic is also nazism WP:POV-pushing and promotion on Wikipedia. There likely are other essays and policies against racism POV pushing in general and black supremacist POV pushing in articles is also not allowed. Relevant policies like WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:PROMOTION always apply in any case. An essay against the promotion of nazism on Wikipedia doesn't mean that racism by non-whites is acceptable. It is a reaction to a recently persistent problem. —Paleo Neonate – 06:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this isn’t a good faith editor. Someone who as one of their first edits goes on an extensive commentary of SS uniforms and then follows that up on multiple talk pages saying we’re unfair to the alt and far-right is exactly the type of person WP:BLOCKNAZIS was aimed at. This isn’t someone who is going to be reformed into a model Wikipedian. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I get it I made a comment in relation to an incorrect date on a photo by using the uniform he was wearing to correctly date it the and therefore i am a Nazi. Fantastic logic and you somehow you are an admin on this website? That is quite disturbing. It's clear from your own words I am being attacked for no other reason then my perceived political beliefs rather then any actual actions I have taken. Ironically I made the comment on the incorrect date-stamp on the photo after reading an article on the Einsatzgruppen in which that particular individual's name (among others) was mentioned, on the excellent website Axis History Forum. I guess that makes me extra Nazi for reading Holocaust related material?

Anyways I would like to remind our friend here TonyBallioni, that I have refrained from making any edits to articles only making helpful suggestions because I don't have time to deal with all that bureaucratic nonsense that comes with it, its better if some full time editor that knows what they are doing makes the changes. I read hundreds of articles a month on here and I have only felt compelled to make a suggestion on those which stood out for their impeccable bias. Unfortunately I didn't realize that even making mere suggestions (not actually editing anything) on a talk page on how to improve overtly biased articles (I don't understand how you can selectively only use one race to illustrate "racism" and not understand that is indeed biased and probably racist in itself) in good faith on this website can get you sent to the gulag.

As they say though you can't keep a good man down. I will be appealing this again as it's clear the allegations are politically based, frivolous, nonsensical and without merit. T.Nuvolari (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked on perceived political grounds not on actions I have myself have made to any pages. I have not edited a single page on this website, only made suggestions to talk pages on how to improve the neutrality of an article. I am not a Nazi or a Communist and I didn't come here with any fixed agenda. My political beliefs are mostly centrist although again that should not be a factor in whether someone is allowed to edit or not. Judge a man by his actions not his alleged political beliefs. I like history in particular 20th century history - WW2 and the Cold War and I find it absolutely beyond ridiculous that someone having an interest in World War 2 history could be judged a "Nazi" based on that interest. That is complete BS.

The initial grounds for my block do not make any sense either. First off I was given a warning for "disruptive editing". I didn't make any suggestions after that warning and was still blocked? Also how I can be a "disruptive editor" if I have not actually edited anything unless adding a valid suggestion to the bottom of a talk page is somehow disruptive and "editing"? T.Nuvolari (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for WP:NOTHERE, and you have not demonstrated in any way that you are here to create an encyclopedia. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:06, 21 July 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.

Note from blocking admin: you were blocked because you've done litle but troll talkpages [1] [2] [3] [4], culminating with the absurd notion that we need to be nice to Nazis [5] [6]. We're not obligated to put up with that or to give you a forum for your views. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acroterion, you have taken my point about Nazis and others out of context. My point was that in a supposedly neutral open encyclopedia that Wikipedia claims to be, users should not be judged on their actual political beliefs or their perceived political beliefs (as in my case because I knew too much about World War 2 German uniforms that obviously makes me a Nazi). If someone comes on here and declares that he is a Nazi or a Communist or some other extreme ideology but follows all the rules and makes valid contributions then what business is it of anyone's what his beliefs is, if he contributes correctly to the encyclopedia then he should be afforded the same rights as anyone else. After all the main things that matters in an encyclopedia is truth, facts and accuracy not what the skin color, ethnicity, religion gender or political belief of the contributor is correct? To do otherwise is basically to engage in discrimination. That was my point which you've completed missed. T.Nuvolari (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a look at all of their contributions taken in total clearly shows them to be a pro-nazi troll only here to cause talk page disruption. They don't have a right to do that. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page disruption? That's a new one. Posting a legitimate suggestion to improve the neutrality of an article is now "disruption"? Sorry to burst your bubble pal but not all people think the same.

TonyBallioni you keep allegedly I am "Nazi" based on what exactly? That I corrected the wrong date on a photo by using what the guy was wearing to correctly date it? The crime of knowing too much on an encyclopedia? The irony. That I suggested that an article on racism that only included people from one race to use as examples of racism was biased? Are you going to stand here and tell me that it was not biased?

I am not here to "cause talk page disruption" as you ridiculously claim without any proof. I am a very casual user (I haven't even made any edits yet) that has made suggestions on pages that I have come across in my readings with an overt bias on how to improve their neutrality. I have not edited the pages/articles themselves only given suggestions to improve them so that others may do so.

using W. as a soapbox

Recommend removing TPA. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]