User talk:Lewis de Black

March 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you recently removed content from Patrick Bamford without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Stornoway (band). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Stornoway (band), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Patrick Bamford, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2023 (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 Patrick Bamford. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why can you block me? Why should that be allowed? Patrick Bamford has made one appearance for England nearly two years ago and scored only six goals in his last two seasons in the premiership. Surely he can’t be listed as playing for the England squad. Lewis de Black (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite the full two years, which as far as I understand, was the general agreement that content like this should remain visible. Bamford's appearance was on September 2021 so other users have reverted numerous times on your and IP address removals. More admin action may be needed if this continues. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who agreed this? Mattythewhite? Lewis de Black (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the consensus established at WT:FOOTY is that a player's international career can be considered "over" (e.g. infobox years closed, national team not mentioned in opening sentence of lead, etc.) after two years of the player not being called up or capped. In Bamford's case, this won't be until 5 September 2023. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that and I don’t think that’s right. Lewis de Black (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it should be different then you should raise it at WT:FOOTY. However, for now at least, I don't see why the Bamford article should apply a different standard to other articles. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question please. What/who gives you the right to block anyone? Lewis de Black (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, and nor does any user here, have the "right" to block anyone. Admins, however, are *granted* the technical ability to perform certain actions, one of which is the ability to block and unblock users. See WP:ADMIN for more info on this. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Patrick Bamford while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. (It does look like to me that you are editing the same type of removal as IP addresses other editors are dealing with so I suspect these may belong to you.) Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:22, 20 May 2023 (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 Patrick Bamford. CodeTalker (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Who are you to block anyone on Wikipedia? What gives you the right? He played 62 minutes for England a year and a half ago, he’s scored 6 in his last 2 seasons in the premiership, surely he still can’t be listed as playing for England?! You really think he’ll get a recall? Lewis de Black (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no power or right to block anyone from editing on Wikipedia. But I've been editing here for over 10 years, and I predict that an admin who does have the power to block you will do so, if you do not stop edit warring over this change. I have no opinion on Bamford's career because I've never heard of him before today. But I advise you stop reverting your change and instead participate in this discussion about it, and reach consensus with other editors before you get blocked. CodeTalker (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you’ve never heard of him then why are you getting involved? Maybe stop trying to dictate to me what I should be doing on Wikipedia. Lewis de Black (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. CodeTalker (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already have used the talk page to discuss this. Lewis de Black (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bamford[edit]

Patrick Bamford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am an administrator who is about to decline a request to semi-protect this article (requests are at WP:RPPI). The history of this article shows an ongoing edit war with several established editors reverting your edits. That will not continue. You will be blocked if there are any further changes without first establishing positive agreement from other editors on the article talk page. Other options are at dispute resolution. Please start by explaining at Talk:Patrick Bamford why the changes you propose should be accepted. Include references to support the proposal. I see you have raised issues above but a user talk page is not suitable for that as such a discussion can easily be missed by other editors who might have an opinion. Regardless of who is right or wrong, edit warring must stop and since you are in a minority, that means you have to stop and rely on discussion to have your changes accepted. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 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 ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the above, you have continued to try to force your views on the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia decides what goes into an article based on discussion and consensus (not just a single individual). the current consensus is two years before removing international details. You need to stop, or any further involvement by Admin. may result in a longer block. Eagleash (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewis de Black: You were blocked for edit warring at Patrick Bamford. You have not commented in this section or at the article talk page. Please think about what you are doing. There are millions of articles at Wikipedia and there are thousands of disagreements between editors every day. There are very few solid rules here but it should be obvious that edit warring has to be prohibited because otherwise there would be chaos. It does not matter who is right and who is wrong. If several editors revert one editor, that one editor must gain consensus for their proposal on article talk (see WP:DR). Your most recent repeated edit has been reverted. If you repeat you will be blocked for a month. After that, you will be blocked indefinitely. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse and whatever the issue is can be discussed at article talk or at a relevant wikiproject (see the messages at the top of the article talk page). The only thing that will not work is edit warring. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 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 ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that in this edit to Jadon Sancho, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Shabazz / February 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm User:Novellasyes. I noticed that in this edit to Betty Shabazz, you removed content without adequately explaining why . In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Novellasyes (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]