User talk:Vanny089

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Vanny089! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanny089, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Vanny089! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

November 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Little Flower Academy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The content on traditions is unsourced and not encyclopedic. It was previously removed by another editor. Why are you attempting to sneak it back in? Meters (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't insert information about criminals issues involving former staff members. The article is about the school. What staff members do after they leave the school does not belong in the article. And for that matter, what staff members do on their own time does to belong in the article either unless it happened at a school function or involved the school's students. Meters (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And please read WP:BRD When you have been undone it is up to you to discus the content on the article's talk page. Don't restore it again unless you get consensus to include it. Meters (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You win. Even though I am right. I edited it then you removed it with NO discussion. I re-edited it with another reference and you reverted with no discussion. So you are the wrong person. But I will let you win even though you violate Wikipedia policy.Vanny089 (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page. I am not interested in discussing this there. You added a contentious bit of material, and I undid it with an edit summary explaining myself. I then left a message on your talk page. You restored it without first discussing it on the article's talk page. I don't need to discuss my undo, you need to discuss your restore. Again, read WP:BRD. And you gave me a level 2 disruptive editing warning. Consider yourself lucky that I did not give you a warning for leaving a bogus talk page warning. Meters (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are very angry and wrong. You engaged in bad behavior so I gave you the same type of warning that you used. Please seek help. Vanny089 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:Meters, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Again, stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And please4 remove you last post from this page. I consider it a personal attacks. Meters (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

I did stay off but you are being threatening and hateful. I see you like school articles. I hope you are not like this with your students. It would be better if you gave Wikipedia a rest for 2-3 days. Vanny089 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you might want to read WP:NOTAFORUM. If you wan to discuss whether the the contested content should be included in the contested material on the talk page article then link to the edit and discuss it. We're not going to store the contested material on the talk page simply so you can say you will "let it go." I removed it under WP:NOTAFORUM. Meters (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Enough. Doubling down on your personal attack on this page, and restoring the NOTAFORUM violation with another personal attack on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what that is called? Blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute. Even if you ask a friend to block. Step back and see how hostile you look. Are you trying to sabotage Wikipedia by spreading anger. If so, I will not cooperate by being angry. Instead, I will leave Wikipedia for at least 12 hours as a sign of high morals and self control. You should, too. Vanny089 (talk) 06:02, 20

Sorry? Are you suggesting that I have made an under the table request to an admin friend to have you blocked? No. I have not asked to have you blocked anywhere. I have simply explained things to you, and given you warnings. That might be yet another personal attack by you. I suggest that you remove all of the attacks before someone actually reads your ANI thread (teh one you started about a supposedly anonymous editor) and looks at what has been going on. Otherwise it is possible you may end up blocked without anyone reporting you. Meters (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Meters is right on this one. Please read WP:NPA and WP:TINC. It's not about picking on anyone or anything of the like.Firestar464 (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Firestar. I thought that people on Wikipedia were supposed to act civil and that Meters was far from that, very hostile actions but you seem to say that this is ok. Ok. Vanny089 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME

BLP policy is very clear about things like arrests of school staff members. If you keep trying to memorialize the arrest of an otherwise non-notable person, you will face sanctions. Attacking people for following policy is not acceptable. I note that you've been notified of the discretionary sanctions concerning living persons. Acroterion (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you notified?, I don't see it. Some rule that I am not aware of?.Vanny089 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified on 11 November. The notification is still on this page. --bonadea contributions talk 14:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was only on very high profile people, like Biden. Please explain, thank you. Vanny089 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to every living (and recently deceased) person. And WP:BLP1E is specifically about non-notable people. --bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not arrest but conviction and sentencing. I discuss and ask a question on your talk page AcroterionVanny089 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied. The encyclopedia is not a means of shaming otherwise non-notable people. Acroterion (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Harlingen High School. That was removed as being unsourced. Adding a cn to it is not justification for restoring it. Either provide a reliable source or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template listed rivals. Someone put a good faith and plausible nearby school. If true, then your actions would be vandalism. Your actions are certainly hostile. Vanny089 (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as being unsourced. You restored it withou a source. Don't do that. Any you posted to my talk page after I explicitly told you not to. Don't do that. And you copied my warning including my signature to my talk page. Don't ever copy someone's signature again. And once again you made a personal attack. Don't do that. Meters (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, I added a reference Vanny089 (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add a ref the first time. If it was so easy fo rtyou to find then you should have done so the first time instead of following me to the page and undoing me. And for the last time stay off my page. The next time you post anything that is not required by policy I will take you to WP:ANI. Meters (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Meters alone. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure. She should leave me alone. She filed a frivolous AIV complaint. She also has had fights with several others. She did leave a warning asking me to discuss with her on the talk page! Vanny089 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely. This talkpage isn't a substitute location for sniping. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not sniping. Meters is very combative, not a Wikipedia team player, just see her hostile interactions on her talk page. What if I told you, Acrorerion, make comments on my talk page (I exact quote is "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page"), do not make any comments on my talk page. You will be blocked! See, hostile. Vanny089 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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) 01:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, if you want this block to be productive and useful, you will explain and point to the personal attack. Otherwise, this is punishment and attack because the user has no idea if this is just an administrative temper tantrum or an obscure rule or something else. Vanny089 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I will remove your access to this talkpage (again) if you keep this up - you were asked to stop, and you didn't. You're blocked. Please reconsider your approach to working with other editors on Wikipedia. It's not working, and the next block will be much longer. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Utah monolith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BLM. 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) 06:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, as you did at Little Flower Academy, you may be blocked from editing. This has been removed more than once as being not-encyclopedic. You have already been informed of the problem with this edit, here on your talk page. Waiting a month and restoring the material with a false claim that it has been discussed on the article's talk page is disruptive. You posting two malformed references on the talk page and your opinion that it should be included in the article is not a discussion. Restoring the content 7 minutes after your talk page post is not even leaving time for a discussion, let alone consensus. Meters (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP these disruptive warnings. What I put was well sourced in the news. Also your notice is invalid unless you allow discussion on your talk page. I here order you not to post here u less you allow me to discuss things on your talk page. Thanks. Vanny089 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that. You may delete my post, but you may not change it. I have restored it. Either delete it or leave it alone. And since you don't want me posting warnings here again, I won't. Next time I have reason to warn you I will instead raise the issue at ANI. Meters (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very confrontational but that may your intent. ANI is just for drama. For true resolution, discussion is better. I recommend that you end your ban on me posting on your talk page. I temporarily remove the ban on you so you may reply up to 2 times Vanny089 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Since you continue to make personal attacks I have no interest in having you post to my talk page. There is no need to discuss the article content on my page. It is under discussion on the article's talk page, where it should be. Meters (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a personal attack. A personal attack on a hypothetical Jim would be calling Jim an idiot. But I will change it more.

People should know that your warnings are counter productive. If people want true change, polite discussion is better.

Since I gave you 2 exceptions to post, you have one more left unless extended.Vanny089 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change posts that have already been replied to. It changes the context of what I replied to. I have restored the original wording of "You are". If you want to change what you have written then strike it and change it properly.

And I don't need to access your talk page. As I've already told you, if I need to warn you again and I cannot post here then I will simply take you to ANI. It's your choice. You are already at a level 4 warning for adding improperly sourced info. Meters (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please look at yourself. Can you honestly say you are discussing things in the wikipedia spirit of cooperation? Instead, you appear hostile, threatening and not in the spirit of writing an encyclopedia. What is this level 4 anyway? What evidence do you have? Lay out the accusation and level 1, 2, 3, etc.

what was improperly sourced? There was a reference.

also, since you ban me from using your talk page, I issue a similar ban for you but allow you 3 exceptions starting now. Thank you. Vanny089 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm Firestar464. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Vanny089 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Telling Meters to ban himself is not civil at all. Firestar464 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally misunderstood. Ban himself from talking on my talk page because he issued a similar ban for me. Such ban is not the same thing as a WP ban.Vanny089 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see he did no such thing. You can't prohibit people from posting on your talk page. I know very well what you are talking about, and saying that "someone caused me to disrupt" is not a valid excuse for making PAs and vandalizing. Firestar464 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firestar, Meters did say that I must not post on hi is talk page but it seems that you say it is not allowed or a valid request.

It seems that Meters is not prone to discussion but just posts stock warnings which are inappropriate, hostile, and unproductive for WP. I don't understand your comment about PA and cause me to disrupt because I have not done so,but Meters is disruptive. Vanny089 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]