You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? VosleCap (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TylerBurden (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to 2025 Argentine legislative election. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Éric Ciotti, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove sourced information from articles, as you did to the Éric Ciotti article: [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Éric Ciotti. Quit edit warring to add unsourced content. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the source?? VosleCap (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where? This edit of yours was a revert (without any additions) to reinstate your view of the article, which does NOT include a source for the "Disputed with François-Xavier Bellamy since 12 June 2024" claim. Your revert also incorrectly reinstated YDM date formatting, which France does not use. Leave the corrections others have made to change it to DMY alone. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latest edit that I did had a source but you reverted it nevertheless. Also where did I use the YDM date format VosleCap (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit I linked above shows the differences between the two edits. David O. Johnson's edit on the left, your edit reverting him on the right. Items that changed are highlighted. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to look at the edit histories, you'd have seen I wasn't the one that changed the infobox format (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1972_Italian_general_election&diff=1181174900&oldid=1177607105 here), and there was actually an RfC for the 2018 and 2022 ones. Can I recommend that you actually look at article histories and check talk pages before making a rash series of edits in future? Cheers, Number 57 20:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

A complete change of format that would affect almost all electoral pages requires a widespread consensus and approval, and personally I haven't seen that anywhere, for the Italian pages as well. I have reverted these because the current ones are more informative, displaying critical information (such as when the leader was selected, the amount of seats won in the precedent election and so on). This consensus was not reached in all pages, and I think that within the duties of a wikipedian editor is to provide as much information as possible, and not to insert just the leader, lost/won seats and that's it. The election box requires more information and so it was reverted not only here, but in every other election as well VosleCap (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a settled RfC discussion on the 2022 Italian General Election page, to change the infobox, on the 2022 Italian General Election page. It has nothing to do with other pages changing to legislative boxes. It was a change specific to the 2022 Italian General Election page, that took over a year to settle, and was settled a year ago. Caelem (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An agreement between 4 editors is not a "consensus", also the discussions did not involve the other previous elections (pre-1994) VosleCap (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please explain why you are replacing [2] a new good picture with an old and ugly picture? --Echtner (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted as I agree, there is no improvement in using the older picture. It isn't a better picture, and there is nothing wrong with the 2019 image. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, he/they. Benga502 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Nayib Bukele, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know you are an absolute and complete watermelon, Likely Spammer. Benga502 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You are a communist. Benga502 (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You want to replace the US constitution with the MAO RED BOOK VosleCap (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VosleCap, in the open Historical elections arbitration case, remedies and findings of fact have been proposed which may relate to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 14:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections has now closed, and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The results of any national or sub-national election are a Contentious Topic. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.
• The regular posters on X who associate with Election Twitter are reminded that there is no ownership of articles on the English Wikipedia. They are encouraged to seek consensus on the article talk page, use dispute resolution when they encounter disagreements and refrain from off-site coordination.
• The Arbitration Committee block of Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs) is converted to an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Anonymousioss (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Anonymousioss is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• CroatiaElects (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• CroatiaElects is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• DemocraticLuntz (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Mcleanm302 (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Mcleanm302 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections closed

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yahya Sinwar. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Skitash (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User:Benga502. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh uh. Benga502 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hes my friend noob VosleCap (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VosleCap I don't care. That language is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thats crazy actually VosleCap (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What language? Please recite the words that were used? Benga502 (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This diff.

OXYLYPSE (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your link does not work please describe the words used? Benga502 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	CONGRATULATIONS! I LOVE YOUR EDITS! Benga502 (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you VERY MUCH PATRIOT VosleCap (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Benga502 and VosleCap. Thank you. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	YOU ARE A PATRIOT. THE RADICAL HARD LEFT HAVE COME AFTER YOU WITH THEIR FAR LEFT ANTIFA ANARCHISM BUT YOU HAVE STOOD UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN! Benga502 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2024 (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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 03:11, 26 October 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'd like to appeal my block as I wish to return editing on Wikipedia again. I dissent with the fact that "I am not here to build an encyclopedia" when in reality I have contributed with hundreds of edits mainly to political and electoral pages, and I believe that my knowledge can be useful for the enlargement of articles here. I have reflected on my actions (that is why I did not appeal immediately) and I believe that I am ready to start over, and I would like you to give me another possibility. I was blocked from editing also because I engaged in uncostructive trolling with another individual, with whom I have cut contacts entirely. Thank you for taking my proposal in consideration. VosleCap (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)VosleCap[reply]

Decline reason:

 Confirmed to Unityguard. Well, that pretty conclusively puts an end to this. Yamla (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2024 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Greetings. First of all, I do understand that my association with the user Benga502 has been inappropriate, non-constructive and immature. What I thought was a funny and innocent interaction between two friends on Wikipedia quickly turned into an abuse of the rules laid out here at Wikipedia. I do understand the consequences of my actions, although I believe that he has dragged me into all this situation, with him awarding me barnstars abusively and making inappropriate comments in my talk page. We used to communicate on Discord at the time, and I have repeatedly asked him to stop after I initially played with him in our respective talk pages. I asked him to stop because I knew administrators were not happy with our actions, however has has continued to make disruptive comments. I believe that, despite these events, I am a good person that can help at making Wikipedia a better place overall. I have contributed to many political pages and added my contribution and knowledge, and now that I have been blocked from my account, therefore being unable to do any edits, I finally have understood the grave consequences of my actions, which are preventing me from applying my knowledge here in this website. Since then I have reduced my contacts with the person aforementioned. Additionally, now that Benga has been blocked, he will not approach me anymore. I acknowledge that I must uphold personal responsibility for my block, however, Benga was the main initiator and organizer of this disruption upon which I have participated. I only wish to be reintegrated as I know that I have learnt a valuable lesson today, which is not to go against the rules, even when a friend tells you it is fine to do so. I sincerely apologize for the disruption that has been caused, and I would be glad if you would grant me another opportunity to contribute improving Wikipedia. Knowing that this request will be considered, I respectfully wish you a good day. Sincerely, VosleCap P.S. I admit to have used an alt to edit, however I just gave up at this point as Wikipedia admins have advanced tools to detect those and I preferred to fill a new appeal. VosleCap (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request Comment by OXYLYPSE

I don't care if editing an unblock request goes against some etiquette, I want to ensure this is seen. What this pair of clowns consider a "funny and innocent interaction" was attempting to taunt me into repeating this edit. One perma-block has already been undone because they said "I did not realize that this fun trolling would result in such consequences such as a editing-wide block" for edits like this. Despite trying to deflect everything onto Benga502, this editor has repeatedly proven (as recently as a week ago) that they cannot resist the urge to be disruptive. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the comment

First of all I applaud your very "nice" manners. Secondly, your message is true only to a certain degree. It is indeed true that I applied and was accepted for an unblock once in the past, and it is also true that I have been, unfortunately, dragged by this individual once again to disrupt and break Wikipedia rules. I am aware of the consequences of these actions, and I am ready to start over. I perfectly know that I shot myself in the foot here by disrupting with that individual, and I initially acknowledged the consequence with the block that, however, I found it against my original goal of improving pages regarding certain arguments that I like to cover about, therefore this humble request to restore my editing permissions. I am asking for another opportunity that will surely not be wasted.

Additionally, as I said before, now that Benga has been blocked, he will not approach me anymore. I acknowledge that I must uphold personal responsibility for my block, however, Benga was the main initiator and organizer of this disruption upon which I have participated. I only wish to be reintegrated as I know that I have learnt a valuable lesson today, which is not to go against the rules, even when a friend tells you it is fine to do so. VosleCap -

Decline reason:

I'm glad you've learned a lesson here. Given the kind of disruption and the undisclosed alternate account that Yamla found, I'm not prepared to unblock at this time. I suggest taking the standard offer. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2024 (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.