User talk:Lavipao

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

nableezy - 07:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Euphrates Shield

Revert your edit or you will be reported. This is the consensus. Beshogur (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus according to who? There’s no conversation in this page Lavipao (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency according to what? You are now POV pushing. Operation appears 89 times, and it is called operation, invasion 3 times. Reporting by the way. See 24 hour revert rule above. Beshogur (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency to every other article on Wikipedia describing a “cross border operation” as an invasion. See: Russian invasion of Ukraine, Israeli invasion of Lebanon, US invasion of Iraq. An army crossing into another country and occupying land is by definition an invasion. Creating a new term to avoid using the real word is vandalism. Reported Lavipao (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An operation directed against ISIL and YPG is definitely an invasion sure. The article isn't even called an invasion and only country calling this an invasion is Cyprus whom Turkey doesn't even recognize. Beshogur (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an army crossing into another country to fight against a different army is an invasion by definition. Examples: Israel invasion of Lebanon to fight Hezbollah. Russian invasion of Ukraine to fight the UAF. US invasion of Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.

All 3 of those events have Wikipedia pages labeled invasion. Please explain to me why this page should not use that word?

You’re literally just trying to argue against the definition of a word because you want to try and pretend your country didn’t invade another country, even though they obviously and factually did. Please stop harassing me and read the dictionary definition of invasion while you’re at it. Lavipao (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 of those events have Wikipedia pages labeled invasion. Please explain to me why this page should not use that word? because they are direct invasions and they are called invasion in article name right? This is not called an invasion except for fringe views (same applies for Operation Olive Branch) since main factions were Syrian rebel troops. Is it hard to understand? I am going to report this disruptive behavior. Beshogur (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, the article title should also be changed to Turkish Invasion of Syria. Good point on consistency Lavipao (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You violated 1RR twice btw. Beshogur (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your change has been reverted, please read WP:BRD for details of how we make changes here (@Beshogur, you may want to revise this too!). You are absolutely right that you were fine to make the change and very welcome to edit boldly where you think an article can be improved, but now that another editor has reverted it, it is expected that you discuss the change before adding it back in again. If you think the word 'invasion' should be in there somewhere, your next step should be to visit Talk:Operation Euphrates Shield, making a new section, detailing your proposed wording, ideally with reference to sources, for others to discuss. JeffUK 15:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

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 Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lavipao,

Please come and participate in this discussion at ANI. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Lavipao (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics

Hello, no one has given a proper explanation so I will. Wikipedia has certain areas labelled as contentious topics: some examples are the Israeli-Arab conflict and the Kurdistan/Kurdish conflicts/issues. Both of these topics are subject to a 1RR rule. This means you cannot make more than one revert within a 24 hour period with very limited exceptions. If you have gone over this limit it is best to revert your own edit and acknowledge the mistake. When someone has reverted your edit in this area it is best to discuss things on the article talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have only made changes back to my original edit that was being reverted. I have attempted discussion in the talk page but have not been given any good reason why this one user is tracking my page and reverting all the edits I make on every article. Lavipao (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing years old text because you like so. this one user is tracking my page and reverting all the edits I make on every article because I patrol those since their creation? Those are not invasions yet you are POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes sense, it seems that since their creation you have been pushing a false propaganda term instead of using the correct and true vocabulary for a foreign military invading another country. I was wondering why these pages were so obviously biased and using false language. It seems you've devoted a long period of your life to spreading falsehoods on Wikipedia and "defending" your misinformation from being corrected. Classic no-life activist editor Lavipao (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what "the truth" is. What matters on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And even if it is verifiable, these articles are under 1RR, even if you are "only [making] changes back to [your] original edit". Also do not cast aspersons on other editors. Comment on content, not contributors. If you cannot edit within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia you will be blocked, so please do so. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (executive)

Why are you repeating the disruptive and unexplained edits by the blocked User:BrandtM113? Do you want to be blocked like him? This is even stranger as there is now a page for Michael Thorn, so I don't know why you are removing the link. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Beshogur (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024 (2)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Operation Euphrates Shield, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Coming off a block for edit-warring and immediately going back to the articles and resuming the exact same behavior that got you blocked, with personal attacks in edit summaries, is a very good way to get indef'd. Stop NOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t make any personal attacks lol not sure what you’re crying about Lavipao (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing another editor of being a paid propaganda agent is a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARBECR violation

Hi @Lavipao, making edits like this [1] is not allowed for your account per WP:ARBECR.

To edit in the Arab-Israeli topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for simple and specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't realize, thanks. This website has an unbelievable amount of convoluted and impossible to understand rules lol. Need a degree in wikipedia editing before I can do anything Lavipao (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no worries. Good luck, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tammun

You were given a alert by nableezy, 11 July 2024; it clearly says you must have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, in order to edit the Arab–Israeli conflict, hence you are not allowed to edit Tammun, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you can do, is to make an edit-request on the talk-page, in the form: change A to B,Huldra (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also says so at the top of the Tammun-page when you edit, Huldra (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I have made an edit request. Why was the first person allowed to post blatant lies? Seems weird that you police the people trying to keep wikipedia accurate and reliable, instead of those spreading lies on the platform. Lavipao (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I automatically revert new editors, please go somewhere else on wikipedia, until you have reached 500 edits. Also, you broke 1RR. When people give you an alert: please read it and follow it, or expect to be be blocked, Huldra (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is 1RR? What did I not follow?

I don’t have a PHD in Wikipedia editing I’m just trying to correct a false statement. Why is this so hard? Lavipao (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at 252nd Division (Israel), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome Lavipao!

Hello Lavipao. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Ad Orientem, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't commit vandalism

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Ad Orientem (talk) (Leave me a message) 18:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at History of the Jews in Algeria, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll add a reason sorry about that Lavipao (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to History of the Jews in Algeria. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at History of the Jews in Algeria. Skitash (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a valid reason as well as submitted a Talk page article about this specific issue. Lavipao (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2025 (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 History of the Jews in Algeria, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page

There is a discussion on the Talk page. Please stop reverting content or you will be blocked from editing Lavipao (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t reviewed this dispute in detail, but I’d caution that topics relating to 20th century Jewish emigration from Algeria can be considered part of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, and thus is off-limits to editors without WP:XC status _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any warning in the edit page about this being off limits, but I appreciate the caution Lavipao (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2025 (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:Lavipao reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR violation

Please refrain from violating the ECR restriction (like you did with this edit). M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Edom is not a protected topic and has no restriction. please refrain from your continued vandalism or you will be banned Lavipao (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make an edit request (as explained in the WP:ARBECR article). M.Bitton (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need, this is not a protected topic and has no restriction. please refrain from your continued vandalism Lavipao (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the edit does not relate to the Arab-Israeli dispute (which it does, given the nature of your edit), this edit is a clear brightline violation of WP:3RR. Would you like to self-revert to avoid sanctions for edit warring? —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone reverts my correct information 3 times, I'm not allowed to revert back and we accept the false information? How does that work? Lavipao (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a content dispute, you need to take it to the talk page and wait for consensus to change. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made an article in the talk page. They did not reply there and just kept reverting me and edit warring. How am I supposed to reach consensus if the other party ignores my talk page article and keeps reverting my edits? Lavipao (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [2] by M.Bitton is a clear violation of WP:3RR. Can you sanction him? Lavipao (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not edit warring, per WP:ARBECR. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted 3 times, which makes this a WP:3RR violation. This has nothing to do with WP:ARBECR Lavipao (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring." That's directly from WP:ARBECR. Your edit is directly in the topic of Arab-Israeli conflict, so ARPECR applies, and M.Bitton's reverts are exempt. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure how this has to do with the Ancient kingdom of Edom Lavipao (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading through WP:ECREXPLAIN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read through, unsure how this has to do with the Ancient kingdom of Edom. Lavipao (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT3RR,Huldra (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think that explains why my edit would not be in violation since "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism"

I have only ben reverting obvious vandalism so there is no violation of 3RR Lavipao (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you reverted were not vandalism. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

course they were, the user is arbitrarily replacing the word Israel with the word Palestine. Even though the specific land being spoken about is part of Israel and not part of Palestine. That's the definition of vandalism for political reasonsf

Lavipao (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I would note For conflicts that included the displacement and/or settlement of peoples, even seemingly benign details about geography and its history can fall into dispute, as these details can be held up as evidence of a group's historical presence there and thus their claim to the land. There's other good advice about listening to more experienced editors too. All that to say, anything referring to the territoriality of Israel or Palestine is covered by the ECR restriction, irrespective of whether it's referring to the current day or its historical antecedents, and you should have acknowledged that from the get-go. I'm not going to take any action as an admin here because I've now participated as an editor at History of the Jews in Algeria and would thus consider myself WP:INVOLVED, but several of your comments in the edit warring thread, and in relation to Edom, are clear violations of the PIA restrictions and are grounds for an admin to block you should they feel so motivated. What you're engaging in here is WP:WIKILAWYERing, which is very much frowned upon. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm engaged in here is simply fixing vandalism and maintaining the accuracy of wikipedia in the face of relentless disinformation campaign by this specific, politically motivated group of propagandists editors. I would think the Admins should thank me for using my free time for standing up to this disinformation campaign and attempting to keep Wikipedia accurate Lavipao (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BATTLEGROUND _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT3RR

Exemptions:

Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, Lavipao (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious vandalism. However, you caught a lucky break. See next comment. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, the user is arbitrarily replacing the word Israel with the word Palestine. Even though the specific land being spoken about is part of Israel and not part of Palestine. That's the definition of vandalism and it is especially obvious to any well intentioned user

Lavipao (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, they were—in good faith—undoing your edit because you are not extended-confirmed and are making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I'm going to be blunt. If you would have just shut up and posted a civil message on the talk page along the lines of "Hey, this really relates to the boundaries of Israel and not Palestine; shouldn't this be changed?" you would likely have gotten traction. However, at every corner, you doubled down on the hostility. So, now, this isn't a simple issue of edit warring: it's gotten into the realm of harassment and bad-faith editing.

If it were just simple edit warring and you hadn't started calling names, you'd be off the hook right now, because I found the edit by an IP that made the change you've been undoing. So, content-wise, your edit is correct. However, your conduct is unacceptable, so the block is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so I'm completely right in every way, but you don't like me so you'll allow false information on wikipedia. What a bastion of truth and information this site is! Definitely not just a club for power tripping weirdos to push propaganda. Lavipao (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not. Content-wise, you were falsely claiming that the sourced content failed verification (in other words, you were wrong). M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a month for a whole lot of disruption: edit warring and violating WP:3RR at Edom and History of the Jews in Algeria , plus persistent violations of WP:ARBECR after warnings, plus also your meritless accusation of sock puppetry and other aspersions against M.Bitton. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

October 2025

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Bishonen | tålk 21:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, given the blatant ongoing IDHT attitude and the rather embarrassing exchange at Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Algeria#"they_left_Algeria_en_masse,_not_because_they_were_persecuted_there_as_Jews", I think that this block should be made indefinite until they can explain themselves and commit to a more constructive approach. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just typing up an indef for messing with my block notice here. Lavipao, you have been blocked indefinitely. How to appeal is explained above. Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]