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
Doug Weller talk 08:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at 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:
 * Adding 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.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * 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 Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding 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.


 * Your request has been relayed to the discussion at WP:ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This account and are ✅ to  who is tagged as a proven sock of OnceASpy., you may be interested in this. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)