User talk:VasOling

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Slipknot (band). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion in Art

I apologise, but I have reverted your edit at Crucifixion in art. This is because you have deleted a pile of stuff and added new stuff all in one edit, have not used any edit summary, and have broken the formatting in one place. Could you break this down into more than one edit and, if you intend to delete content, please refer to it on the talk page. Note also that the consensus on the talk page is currently not to include the Sailor Moon content, and the image has been deleted as it is not possible to develop a fair use/WP:NFCC rationale for it. Your contribution to the debate would be very much appreciated. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" critics, and "warm critical response"

I've initiated a discussion in this regard on "The Dark Knight Rises" article. If you would like to say your piece, please do so. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You -VasOling

Fascism

The definition of fascism is out of keeping with existing norms in encyclopedias.

It is always defined as "rightwing."

It is also not a form of nationalism. Even the two citations justifying defining it as "nationalism" do not say that. They say it espouses nationalism. Very different from essentially being nationalism (and nothing else).

All existing encyclopedias define it as "rightwing political movement that was authoritarian, nationalist, xenophobic, etc."

The idea of nationalism can be retained but the essence of fascism is something else--a rightwing political movement that used state terror to impose rightwing values on a community.

Mryan1451 (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

I never changed anything about Fascism being right-wing, that was another user. -VasOling (talk)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Batman in film may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of eligibility at the [[85th Academy Awards]], much to the surprise of film industry insiders.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/oscar-nomination-snubs-have-fans-410711.|title=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archenemy

Hi, I noticed your edit on the archenemy page. Specifically, Bane for Batman. Are you able to find another supporting source besides the one you have provided (because the term "one time archenemy" is used, indicating that under current story continuity, it no longer is the case or their enmity is less intense)? Haleth (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, VasOling. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Your recent editing history at WikiLeaks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SmartSE (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Julian Assange. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding pages and edits dealing with the post-1932 politics of the United States

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutrality^talk 02:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page

Hi VasOling. When your removals or other edits are challenged, please use the article talk page to try to gain consensus. If you repeatedly making the same change without discussion or support from other editors, it is likely to be viewed as edit-warring. You may find Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to be helpful. Neutrality^talk 19:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last caution

Please don't make blind, contentious reverts (like you did here) without (1) giving an edit summary and (2) at least engaging on the talk page and making some effort to gain consensus). It's highly discourteous. You've been alerted to this issue before, politely. If this occurs again then I will take it to to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. I would prefer not to do that. So please be mindful. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:VasOling reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: ). Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi. You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a combination of edit warring and a lack of participation on the article talk page. Please try to gain consensus for your changes on the article talk page, where you are expected to be responsive in case of reversions. Although the article has no template to that effect, the topic is also encompassed under post-1932 politics of the United States discretionary sanctions, which adds to the gravity of the dispute. Thanks. El_C 05:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked you for a week for repeated edit warring. Materialscientist (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not take out the contentious material and would like it if my templates were put back in place

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. Max Semenik (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2017 (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.

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Neutrality^talk 00:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So now my edits are considered fringe. Ok buddy whatever you say. Say hi to your best pal in the world User:Snooganssnoogans for me.VasOling

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, VasOling. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]