User talk:Lehol

Hello, Lehol, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at C. S. Lewis. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Feel free to continue the discussion on the article's talk page, but stop trying to impose your change; attempt to achieve consensus for the change instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is impossible consensus with someone who whats to impose a false information. You are insisting in a meaningless discussion. You don't have a better resource than British Encyclopedia and are trying to force a meaningless debate. Do you have any biography of Lewis saying he is British? What is your source? Why are you trying carry on with a meaningless debate. All sources, including C.S. Lewis himself in "my Irish life", describes him as Irish, so what do you want discuss? Do you wanna make philosophy? This is not a place. I simply can't see the point in you delete a excellent resource to a meaningless debate.

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:Lehol reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been blocked. As I stated at the edit warring discussion, I have no horses in this race. If he's Irish, then that will come out in discussion and WP:CONSENSUS will be reached. If he's British, then that will be supported in discussion and CONSENSUS will be maintained. Either way, the path to change is through discussion, not edit warring. You might want to at least read the discussion at the noticeboard. You will not be able to comment there for about a day. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, you don't have sources to support your eccentric idea that C.S. Lewis was British, simply because he wasn't, I don't really get why you insist in this mistake, when the all works about him have treated Lewis as an Irish, even Lewis defines himself as Irish in his "My Irish life". I learnt of your different accounts in Wikipedia, what I don't understand is why you insist in a false information that has no support. And how could we find a happy medium? It seems impossible because you are not acting rationally. In general, when someone discovers a mistake this one say "sorry" and everything gets ok, but you've done the opposite when I presented you true facts by the 250-year-old British Encyclopedia. I don't really understand why you insist in damaging Lewis's biography. What a shame! (P.S.: I'll carry on protecting his biography, I was not born yesterday, mate!

So you know, it's not a good idea to declare openly that you intend to continue an edit war. That's the sort of thing the admins hand out permanent bans for. Try reading and answering the points others have raised on the Talk page first (as opposed to repeating your own ones). —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of Three-revert rule

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at C. S. Lewis. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am defending the biography of one of the most important writers in the 20th century. He defined himself as Irish during his whole life, for this reason it is famous his famous expression "My Irish Life", such as exposed during the discussions in his Talk Page. Besides, the 250-year-old British Encyclopedia clearly cites him as an Irish-Born, but not as British. Therefore, it is curious that I am the only person who uses strong references to make the modifications, the other seems to act in bad faith, once he doesn't have any strong resource supporting that Lewis was British and even so they carry on modifying in a bad way Lewis article writing something that has no support!

Decline reason:

In order to be unblocked, you need to demonstrate that you reached a consensus for your change, on the article's discussion page. Being correct is not sufficient grounds to engage in an edit war. Yamla (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2019 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24101 was submitted on Feb 27, 2019 22:16:23. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Bacon

So what's this all about, exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well? What's your explanation?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Lehol, in your most recent edit to this article, here (which was also apparently only your second edit to the article) your edit summary was this: "Please don't change again unless we get a consensus, he cannot be described as Austrian-British, it makes to seem he is British with Austrian citizenship." The current consensus for the existing "Austrian-British" seems to have been reached here, nearly four years ago, on 26 May 2015. As per WP:BRD, I think the onus is actually on yourself to explain why "Austrian-born British" is preferable. Your contribution at Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein#Nationality is awaited. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to explain, because majority of people in Wittgenstein talk page was against describe him as a British, the only person who agreed with you was blocked in the same year of you modification and never get back... So stop trying to be smart. And TRY to get a REAL consensus before imposing your will that has no relation to facts

If you wish to build a "a REAL consensus" you will need to explain your proposal at Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein. Whoever was blocked for edit warring, after a discussion there four years ago, and whether or not you think I am "trying to be smart" is quite irrelevant. You know how WP:BRD works, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you reverted without respecting the position of majority of people everything is there. You are in an edit war for not accepting that someone born in Austria to be defined as Austrian Born. It didn't work in Francis Bacon webpage and will not work here.

I think it's best discussed at Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein. Please sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~ Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for abuse of multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to create sock accounts, or log out at any time to continue edit warring, you will likely find yourself blocked indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Francisco Sanches; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

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 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt

To quote the site's login page: Whether player info, coach info, club info, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user, you can edit and add to almost all data by yourself. This means it considered self-published and does not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Please do not cite the website in articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2020 (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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcorteingles1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked in Wikipedia for several months now. I do understand I should have handled in a better way with my accounts, and I promise to be more careful when using my accounts. However, there're no reasons to keep my account blocked, I have never vandalised any article, I should have handled in a better way with my Wikipedia accounts and avoided edit warring, I'm aware of this... but I think an indefinite block for me is over the top because even when I made mistakes I was trying to improve Wikipedia, it was never trying to vandalise or damage it. I understand why I was blocked for, and I will not do use multiple accounts again, I assure you I will make more productive contributions. Please, I kindly ask you to unblock my account Lehol (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry via Grandthinker (talk · contribs) – as you appeal a block for sock puppetry, even! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2020 (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.

"Peri-peri (Portuguese source)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Peri-peri (Portuguese source). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 14#Peri-peri (Portuguese source) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sahaib3005 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]