User talk:Leke23

June 2023

Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Simon Ekpa seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liliana, may i know you are deleting my edit even with citation? Leke23 (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All information about notable individuals should be based on fact, i have been following his activities. Is there any reason his recent Ambassador for peace award shouldnt be on his Wikipedia Leke23 (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help in citing it correctly instead of deleting the edit? Leke23 (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need reliable sources first, especially when it comes to such a controversial figure. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liliana, here is a reliable source from Finnish Broadcasting cooperation Simon Ekpa received Ambassador for Peace award at the African day event in Helsinki Leke23 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Simon Ekpa. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 12:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies even to politicians you like or don't like. Read it and follow it, or an admin may block you. And if WP:COI applies to you, follow that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Simon Ekpa, you may be blocked from editing.
You are falsely representing sources to push a viewpoint, as shown here (where the source says nothing about "control") and here (where the source says nothing about the level of "compliance"). Carry on in this vein, and you will end up being blocked indefinitely. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements. 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:

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.
By my count you have reverted your preferred version back into the article more than 10 times in fewer days. If you do it again, I will be reporting your continued disruptive editing to our admin noticeboards. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements 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; read about 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.

You have made 3 reverts in under 36 hours and are already at 2RR for the last 24 hours. You may not be breaking the 3-revert rule yet, but you are certainly violating the spirit of it. If there are any more reverts, I will file a report at WP:ANEW. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete Simon Ekpa from the list? That is not neutral

You should check the government in exile and the legitimacy to those who believe in them. If the creator of Donald Trump list added a Prime Minister of a government in Exile, it means they recognise the influence of such government and you have your opinion but not to delete a Prime Minister by citing that the Biafra is not a sovereign state. Don’t you have knowledge of what government in Exile mean? Leke23 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All your sources actually *say* is that they are the "self-declared/styled/appointed" (your sources' words, not mine!) leader of a separatist movement which calls itself a "government in exile". The rest is wishful thinking based on your POV. If you have a source which actually *says* that this individual is an "elected prime minister" and that the US state of Maryland is currently playing host to the exiled government of Biafra, post it at Talk:List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics, one more

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 08:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donald Trump endorsements editing

Hi! So this is just some general information, because I'm concerned your current editing pattern might get you into trouble.

When new material is challenged on a mainspace page, the burden is on the party introducing the material to show that there's a consensus for inclusion. See WP:ONUS or WP:NOCON. To show that consensus, you have to engage on the talk page. And, critically, we have a very strict rule regarding mainspace edit disputes: you cannot revert a page 3 times within 24 hours. Additionally, four reverts within 48 hours will usually be considered a violation of the rule, particularly if the reverts involve edit warring over the same content. Unfortunately, you've reverted List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements four times in 48 hours over the same content.

I understand you feel passionately about including Simon Ekpa on that page. I want to specially invite you to look at and participate in the most recent discussion on the talk page—I suggested a potential compromise that would allow Ekpa to be included (though of course I can't say for sure you or the other editors will agree to it!). You can also, of course, make your case there regardless of whether you agree with the compromise or not. But, right now, regardless of your intentions your edit pattern is giving other users the impression that you're trying to unilaterally force your preferred version of the page, and that is very frowned upon. --Jerome Frank Disciple 14:51, 24 June 2023 (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:Leke23 reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: ). Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]