User talk:Alexgonzalezvasquez

Hi Alexgonzalezvasquez! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of List of foreign electoral interventions several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:List of foreign electoral interventions, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Amigao (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Amigao, sorry for the reversal, it's just that in Talk about the interference article I posted about Brazil 2022 and Venezuela 2024, I didn't receive any answers. Also, I can't confirm if there really was interference, I'm just putting the accusations of interference from the governments, since the list is also about mere collusion. A hug, thank you very much. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of foreign electoral interventions shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Amigao (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amigao (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I see you are adding Category:Third Position to the Nuevas Ideas article. Third Position is not the same as Third Way; they are very different. The article has references that Nuevas Ideas portrays itself as Third Way. It belongs in Category:Third Way, not Third Position. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 00:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sjö. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of designated terrorist groups, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. As I told you on my talk page, the Ku Klux Klan does not support "terrorism" and why did you add a ref to a paper that does not even mention the KKK? Sjö (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop running around adding the category of Third Position to things frivolously and without any support in the articles for the things you're attaching them to. That refers to something rather specific in fascist ideas and you've applied to things across the political spectrum. Docktuh (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The Third Position is not limited to fascism, but goes beyond that. Fascism is only part of the spectrum, but the spectrum is not part of fascism. Every country has its own form of the Third Position. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop adding the Third Position to categories or articles unless you have a source for it. As others have mentioned above, you seem to be mixing up Third Way ideologies with the Third Position, read the note at the top of the article. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

What type of fonts do you need Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

For the last time, find a source and include it in the article that directly links any of these ideologies to the fascist Third Position. The fascist Third Position is what this category is meant to cover, not anything beyond that. We don’t want to hear each other’s interpretations and we don’t do original research here. What we add must be based on what reliable, verifiable sources actually say. Neither Kemalism, Gaullism, nor Putinism are Third Position ideologies, and they do not reject liberal market policies, it is not as simple as you suggest. While one may find some similarities with a broader Third Way, they are not classified as belonging to the fascist Third Position. Xi Jinping Thought is based on socialism and Marxism, not corporatism, claiming that it's corporatist must be supported with a source. In these cases the WP:BURDEN lies on you to prove this and you need to provide reliable sources before you can reclassify any of them, and none of your edits are supported by the current article content. And finally use only one account when you edit. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of designated terrorist groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meta. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of designated terrorist groups, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you.Like you did with KKK you add a source that does not support the addition. Sjö (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Sjö arbitrarily deletes, as in the case of Boeremag, where he cited a source that served as proof. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexgonzalezvasquez. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  PhilKnight (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello PhillKnight, The reason I have my second account, Alexgt2007, is because I lost the password for this account, Alexgonzalezvasquez, to enter it on my computer. So I created another account on the computer. PhillKnight, could you please revoke my block? Please take into account what I'm telling you, and thank you very much. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here I don't use multiple accounts because I want to manipulate edits, but because I lost the password to my main account and created another one on a different device. Also, my edits often enrich the reader. Please, Wikipedia, unblock me.

Decline reason:

For this to be true, you'd have stopped editing with the one account and only edited with the other. And you've have declared your use of multiple accounts as per WP:SOCK. Instead, the two accounts overlapped for months. Yamla (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2026 (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.

Responding to Yamla: That doesn't mean anything, since sometimes I edit on my cell phone and sometimes on the computer, I still maintain the account on my cell phone.

I'm not sure why you think Yamla is female. PhilKnight (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Responding to Yamla: That doesn't mean anything, since sometimes I edit on my cell phone and sometimes on the computer, I still maintain the account on my cell phone. Also, I didn't know about declaring it; I really need a good tutorial on how to use Wikipedia. Today I realized I can't use it properly. PS: I'm using this template because I don't know how to reply to Yamla, as it says I can't reply to her.

Accept reason:

I'll unblock both accounts for you. Happy editing and sorry for the inconvenience. asilvering (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks 💯 Alexgt2007 (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Ping @Yamla: - so you see this. PhilKnight (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, I didn't think Yamla was a man; it's just that around here we're not very familiar with these names. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't take any offense. You'll have the most luck with an unblock attempt (which will be reviewed by a different admin, not me) if you firmly commit to only one account, going forward. --Yamla (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'll commit. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Alexgonzalezvasquez, it's actually perfectly fine to have two accounts, one that you use on your phone and one that you use on your computer, you just need to make it really clear that both accounts are you. I can unblock both of your accounts, and I'll put a note on both of your user pages. You're free to edit them, but you can't pretend that you're different people. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@PhilKnight, I've tagged these both, any objections to an unblock? -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

asilvering- I would prefer they used one account from now on. PhilKnight (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, their use case for multiple accounts is perfectly within policy, and they never got a warning about it on either account, so I'll let them keep both. -- asilvering (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see how this fits any of the reasons given in WP:LEGITSOCK. Could you enlighten me? Sjö (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sjö, it's very common for editors to have a phone account and a desktop account. There's nothing wrong with having multiple accounts, within reason, but it becomes an illegitimate sock if you're doing things like pretending to be separate people. So long as you edit as though both accounts are the same person, and make that clear to the people you're in communication with, it's fine. And the names of these two accounts make it pretty clear already, so all we needed was a clear disclosure to avoid doubt. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Please note that you can use the same account on your computer and on your phone. Sjö (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)