User talk:Vanlister

Hi Vanlister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Please also consider looking at WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, which you might find illuminating based on your contributions so far. Happy editing! warmly, ezlev. talk 02:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you comrade Wellersky. --Vanlister (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there was a typo there. What the hell does "Wellersky" mean? You get a standard alert that doesn't imply a problem with your edits and you go paranoid? If I'm wrong, apologies. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict.  On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time.  These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a peristroika. Could you transmit my opposition to your policies to the supreme leaders. Thank you very much --Vanlister (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should have read this first. You're talking nonsense. 42 edits and you think you know how we work. Wow. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Judith Butler 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.
Please discuss the changes you want to make on the article talk page. GreenComputer (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits at Political positions of Noam Chomsky come very close to breaching the rule that you may not make edits relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict before you have made 500 valid edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. One of your edits was almost certainly a breach. Please make sure to follow the rules, of which you have been reminded more than once, in order to avoid being sanctioned and further restricted from editing. RolandR (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitsm isn't a conflict. You are once against making offensive comments regarding Jews.--Vanlister (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wp:editwar is not "undoing multiple editors" it is "multiple reverts in 24 hours", in fact making one massive revert (or even lots of reverts in a row) is not edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reason to start reverts on antisemitsm in the first place. Really not a good way of doing things. --Vanlister (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but its not edit warring, what you did is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so check the history, someone introduce a distortion which I reverted, then an user reverted everything again with a false pretext, so yes he is into forcing his views. Then you came along with your false pretext that it's not yet an edit war. Let me return you the compliment, you deserve it.--Vanlister (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, it's not edit warring (read what edit warring is).Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have been systematically ignoring this information about the prohibition of users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure, from editing content relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You still havent got 500 edits and you've been editing content in the area, several times in December and, for example, here in March. Your attacks and smears on RolandR's and Slatersteven's pages, here and here, are completely unacceptable. You have been blocked for one month for disruptive and tendentious editing and personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 6 April 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

'Censored by antisemites in their jew hatred, I didn't write about their Sacred Palestine but about Jews and antisemitism. I can't let people say that antisemitsm is inexistent on the left while so many studies show otherwise. I am not into letting pas despicable haters in their madness.'

Decline reason:

I'm tempted to give you an indefinite block now, but since it hasn't been too long I'll give you one chance to make a proper unblock request without attacks. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2021 (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.

With that you will be lucky not to get a perma ban. Read wp:npa and try again.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have put your unblock request into the template so that it'll fulfill its purpose of calling an uninvolved admin to this page to review it. You're free to change your text, and I agree with Slatersteven that you may want to. Did you read the guide to appealing blocks? Bishonen | tålk 18:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Vanlister, an FYI that I've closed the AE request regarding you without any action being taken. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanlister! I noticed that you have reverted another editor several times at List of Jewish heads of state and government. I understand your stance, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable. If the problem continues or you encounter a similar situation in the future, there are several ways you can seek help:

• Request a third opinion at the talk page discussion or use another method of dispute resolution.
• Warn the other editor for edit warring and request they be blocked if they persist.
• Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard.

Using these instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Cheers, Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I don't understand why you delete all what is unsourced, I think it's a controversial policy as there is often available sources on detailed articles. But then you even go further as deleting sources, sometimes while writing "no references"?!. You also deleted the introduction with no motives, it is very odd. Also you wrote "died three years before the state was founded" who died? Please be less evasive so people can understand what you want to achieve. --Vanlister (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you said: Hello, can you explain your revert of perfectly acceptable sources and genuinely of all my work?

First, please provide an edit summary to each edit you make - this is common and expected practice among editors on Wikipedia. Second, your statement "allusions to hummus in the bible" is a) vague and uninformative, and b) sourced to an unverifiable reference, failing WP:RS, WP:V. Third, most of your edit was about using large amounts of tahini to make hummus, and contained an excessive unnecessary quote, while using a review of a book as the source (The Tablet). This material impressed as redundant because the use of tahini is sufficiently covered in the article. Zefr (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the wording, since the information is described in detail in four different sources, and that's where you can get the "informative informations" about this informative statement =). I used the term 'allusion' since it's based on bible study, and therefore interpretation of texts. b) sourced to an unverifiable reference : I used google scholar and google books for this research. The quote from a specialist is long but is there an issue with a long quote in the reference? I never heard of that before.--Vanlister (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stated, the content provided no new information and the sources are not better than those already in the article. I have said enough here - the article talk page is a better location for addressing content and sources among other editors. Zefr (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment "Do you have two accounts or partners? I didn't address you a message here, please let people the right to express their view, to respect a balanced process" please read WP:CIVIL.Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tricks and treats, the fact that you respond for others was disruptive. Sorry let me quote Eminem to express my personal feelings about our relational issue : "Look, I was gonna go easy on you not to hurt your feelings"

"But I'm only going to get this one chance" "Something's wrong, I can feel it" "Just a feeling I've got, like something's about to happen, but I don't know what If that means what I think it means, we're in trouble, big trouble And if he is as bananas as you say, I'm not taking any chances"--Vanlister (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, write down nonconstructive criticism.--Vanlister (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Holocaust victims, you may be blocked from editing. Your edit is disruptive; your edit summary explains nothing. The lead does not need to be sourced, and at any rate your edit was no improvement. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Holocaust victims. You have caused plenty of disruption. Time to stop. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Bishonen, 331dot, it's time to put a stop to this. See also their unexplained edits at List of genocides by death toll, and the rather inane comment on Talk:Holocaust victims. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you are doing the vandalism, why do you revert like this with complete lack of understanding on the subject. And yes I retracted the "Holocaust victims" emphasis since the only source counting victims of Nazism, clearly do not support that but talk about "other victims during the Holocaust era". Don't revert people like this with offensive messages, you are not helping anything or yourself. --Vanlister (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fist I don't care about your blocking threat, I am not against taking breaks if you want to go on the abusive way with your friends, secondly come confront me in the page of discussion of the article, if you know that much about sources and editing. I want to see your arguments now.--Vanlister (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]