User talk:VasOling

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. 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. 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. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

"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)


 * 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


 * 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572101735 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * of eligibility at the 85th Academy Awards, much to the surprise of film industry insiders. cite news|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/oscar-nomination-snubs-have-fans-410711.|title=

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)


 * 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)

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)

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SmartSE (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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: 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)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice regarding pages and edits dealing with the post-1932 politics of the United States
Neutralitytalk 02:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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 BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to be helpful. Neutralitytalk 19:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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 Arbitration enforcement. I would prefer not to do that. So please be mindful. Neutralitytalk 04:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Neutralitytalk 00:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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