User talk:Lisa de Leeuw Fan

November 2024

Hello, I'm Zinnober9. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Pornography have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lisa De Leeuw. Stick to the facts, source them, and don't use WP:BIASED phrases; "mesmerizing", "highly valued", etc. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are 100 percent constructive facts that honor Lisa de Leeuw. It was lacking information and even included false information about Lisa. For instance the bottom portion that said pornography even listed several terms that are not related to anything she was involved in and that is extremely disrespectful to her and her fans. There was also no image of her. Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT. I have no issue with ~~the~~ a non-copyright-violating photo being added, but the rest of your changes violate WP:BLP in regards to reliable sources. If there are reliable sources that support your claims, please add them. Otherwise you are adding Original Research which is not permitted. And for the navbox template {{Pornography}} it is a navigational box to all related topics within the subject of Pornography and is not expected to all relate to her or any page it appears on. It's essentially a "you liked this, you might also like to read about (similar topic)". Zinnober9 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She and her fan-club is the reliable source. Please read everything that was added. Please give us a proper wikipedia page. May you please add everything that is ok. I don't want to change without your approval. Please add what is permitted Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She, and her fanclub, are not reliable sources. Again, see WP:RS. Please stop edit warring. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it will not touch that again. May you please leave what we did that is permitted. For example her biography, nicknames, and image. Thank you Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I understand she deserves a proper page but I respect your rules. Is it ok now? Photo has been added but nothing to biography. The birthday is also incorrect but I didn't switch it. Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please see it now. I hope you approve this now. I want no trouble and I have much respect for keeping wikipedia accurate. Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Template:Pornography, you may be blocked from editing. Cassiopeia talk 03:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Pornography. Cassiopeia talk 03:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would never vandalize. There was false information and it was disrespectful to Lisa and her fan-club. Please leave her page how we left it Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please view it now and only change what you don't like. Lisa deserves a proper wikipedia page. I mean no trouble and I fully respect you Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa De Leeuw

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; 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.. Cassiopeia talk 04:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Can you please help me? Can you please make the page ad close to possible from my contributions? I don’t want to get blocked but I need help. Can you please look at my contributions and keep it as close as possible. Everything I added is truth and give her a more meaningful page. Thank you and I apologize for any disruption. Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Lisa De Leeuw) for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing on Lisa De Leeuw. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't permanent - it's just for a week. Please slow down and take the time to read the warnings people are giving you. If you have any questions, you can ask at WP:TEA. -- asilvering (talk) 07:25, 14 November 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).

Lisa de Leeuw Fan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request placed in a section header. All edits should be placed in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header/edit summary window. You can avoid creating section headers entirely by clicking "edit" and not "add topic" to edit this page. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 14 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).

Lisa de Leeuw Fan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was only trying to fix Lisa de Leeuw’s Wikipedia page. It has been brought to my attention by many people how inaccurate it is. There is not one edit that I made that wasn’t true. For example it is a fact that Lisa’s other names are Lisa Trego, Lisa Ann Trego, and Lisa the Readhead. The other names listed on the current edit are false and have no references. Please allow me to edit the page following the rules which I have learned. I want Wikipedia to be better and respected always. Lisa de Leeuw Fan (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't indicate to me that you have read and understand the warnings on this page. Specifically, telling how you will handle content disputes around your edits and avoid edit warring. I'm wondering if you're too much of a fan to edit about Lisa- you need to be able to set aside your "fan" side when you're here and edit dispassionately. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 14 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.