User talk:Vedisassanti

May 2023[edit]

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You’ve been violating so many policies with your hostile talk page behavior I couldn’t decide which warning template to use, if that gives you any idea. Dronebogus (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have of this supposed disruptive editing? Vedisassanti (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Accusing another editor of antisemitism as you did at Talk:Eli Cohen is a clear violation of the policy against personal attacks. If you do it again, I will report you and you will probably be blocked. This is your only warning. Zero^talk 09:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you taking the side of an obvious antisemite? Vedisassanti (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Witch hunt=I am obviously the victim of a witch-hunt. I have violated no rules and I have performed no vandalism. In fact, I have refrained from making edits that could be seen as contentious instead resorting to the talk pages to allow more established individuals to make the edits instead. I don't know why Dronebogus decided to target me, or why administrative action has been taken against me based on his opinion. This entire debacle is enough to dissuade me from making any edits.

Decline reason:

Utter nonsense. Please see WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request. If you see nothing wrong with your edits, this is the end of the line. If instead you see how your edits were inappropriate and can explain how your future edits would be significantly different, you are free to make an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2023 (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.

Unblock2[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Learned my lesson=I will leave my social justice out of my edits.

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. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2023 (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.

You need to provide a reason, that reason has to be you showing you understand what you did wrong, and showing you will not do it again. It can't be an attack on other users, or a claim of unfair or unjust treatment (read WP:NOTDUMB, please). If you keep on with PA's you will lose talk page access as well. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock3[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand=There was no witch hunt. I was wrong. There is no antisemitism on Wikipedia. I was wrong. There are no white supremacists on Wikipedia. I was wrong. There is no agenda to discredit those connected to Susan Wojcicki because she's Jewish. I was wrong. Dronebogus is a valued member of Wikipedia who had valid reason for attacking me, as I had done wrong. I renounce my disruptive edits, wherever they may be. Vedisassanti (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I find this request to be in bad faith and as further demonstration that the reason for the block was correct. Since you do not seem interested in actually addressing the reason for the block and would prefer to think we are all antisemites (without foundation) for some reason, I am removing talk page access in addition to declining this request. You may make further appeals via WP:UTRS should you have a change of attitude. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2023 (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.

UTRS appeal #73712[edit]

is closed. Apparently part of a continuing series. If user wants to pontificate, many of the writers I follow on social media use Wordpress. YMMV. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]