User talk:Leyncho

August 2021

MOS:ETHNICITY states that "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." The ethnicity of Mo Farah, for instance, is not "relevant to the subject's notability". Reference is made to it in the third paragraph, and that is sufficient. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my explanation on the edit? Leyncho (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will open a talk page on MO Farah's page as justification and explain further. Leyncho (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "explanation" was incorrect. His popularity among Somalis is not relevant to his notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, definition of "explanation" as per Merriam Webster:

to give the reason for or cause of

I did just that. So it's not "explanation". It's just explanation.

Second, then tell me in what event is ethnicity notable according to Wiki "Ghmyrtle". What is Wikipedia excusing for a just reason to include it. If not for it's *notability* amongst Somalis Leyncho (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am now going to read your response on the talk page Leyncho (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you may or may not want to wait until I respond to that. Your choice Leyncho (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What warrants someone as prominent as Nikola Tesla to have his ethnic Serbian background placed in the lead now then. Leyncho (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil message on my talk page

Why you go away from our policy and guideline Leyncho. Your edit is seriously vandalizing instead of me by using unknown word that foreign people do not understand it. It misses "notability". Read the guideline of MOS:Ethnicity and short description before making disrupting and harassing anyone—that leads you blocking or banning from the project. Regards The Supermind (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A warning on vandalizing a page isn't an "uncivil message" dude. You deliberately provided false information on the Qeerroo page by calling it a "militant organization". Leyncho (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Qeerroo, there is no evidence that I say "militant organization" in it and I just adding as "Oromo youth group". That's your invention. You're trying to seek vandalism in Derartu Tulu by changing her country to Oromo, which is non-sense to her notability. You're doing with your ideological aim which Wikipedia is not and I'll oversee your such devastation every time you contribute such topics. Also you have no authority to block me as administrator. The Supermind (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Supermind. I am presuming your poor command of the English language is making it difficult for you to comprehend here so I will explain slowly and calmly so you can understand. If you want, we can speak in Amharic as well if that makes it easier for you? Would you prefer that? Let me know.

Seeking for the inclusion of her Oromo ethnicity in the lead does not mean I am changing her country to "Oromo". Hence it is not vandalism.

Regarding the Qeerroo being militant organization part, sorry I confused you for another user. Your error was deleting the actual native name. I also don't know why you undid the hyperlink to "Oromo". Leyncho (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does mean "your poor command of the English language"? My English dialect is clearer and better than your accusations. I have no enough time to get in conflict with you due to your irrational statement that doesn't fit Wikipedia's guideline. Keep in mind, that Wikipedia aims is the source of human knowledge. That knowledge is constructed by citing good independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place for serving soap. That means a battleground for driving propaganda and ideology. Thus, every article must be written in neutral point of view in order to portray Wikipedia as a mainstream encyclopedia. You contempt this and you're continuing breach this policy. That's I warn you. The Supermind (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme aggressiveness

This user is extremely aggressive, conducting edit wars across Wikipedia and generally being a nuisance. I suggest they improve their behaviour lest they end up losing editing privileges.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use inappropriate or abusive edit summaries.

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. Kronix1986 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warnings. I do not believe discussing and debating on talk pages and explaining your edits puts me at fault for an edit war. It's only detrimental when users simply ignore my discussions and explained edits and revert anyway even after I tag them they just ignore. Regarding users who have engaged with me in discussion in the talk pages over disagreements, no edit war panned out because both parties went and discussed. Leyncho (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sifan was born and raised in Ethiopia. According to Dutch naturalization law, citizenship is granted to an immigrant regardless of a persons perceived identification with their home country Samueltechtitan (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have indefinitely blocked you for disruptive editing, including personal attacks, incivility toward other editors, e.g., shouting in discussions and edit summaries, refactoring discussions, failure to collaborate with others, and edit-warring. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Ultimate conclusion/summary: - Whatever reasons I was blocked for either already has been stopped by me, or will no longer occur in the future or I strongly believe aren't true - Since I am inexperienced, It is difficult to know when I am breaking a rule unless I read everything and even sometimes when I do as they are often up to interpretation or have discreet exceptions or details that is hard to be aware of. Rules are generally not intuitive and there are a very large number of them. I assumed I'd get a warning at least because of this and the next point - Rules are also counterintuitive at times. For example, there's a rule where Users should notify and give substantial warnings for any violations of rules before requesting a block. So I had presumed I would be notified of any breaches I may be making on my behalf before being blocked. In one event I was properly notified, regarding name-calling, and hence I stopped that. - Some given reasons I believe are just flat out false or mistaken for the wrong person Disruptive Editing. I don't know what he's referencing by this. It will make this appeal very long if I try to explain every possible point that he could mean by that. To answer Generally, I have been always calling for talks and discussions in every dispute Everytime. User:bbb23 care to explain? Personal Attacks if he's referencing name-calling, I have already addressed this in the very same thread admin decided to block me as well as elsewhere. Last Paragraph in green. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037729884 To summarize/add context, I was warned in December but I didn't log back on until recent and only saw notification recently after I familiarized myself with Wikipedia, to which I refrained from name-calling at that point, but only after I already name called another few times. I clarified I am not going to do that and I already stopped it. shouting I didn't know capital letters were prohibited. Sorry. I will stop that. incivility toward other editors I take it this is beyond name-calling. This is another one with a plethora of possible reasons that Admin could be referencing. I don't know if I'm expected to address every one. Directions were to keep it brief. User:bbb23 explain? refactoring discussions if he means having the same discussion on other pages, yes I did this. I wouldn't have had the slightest clue this is prohibited. I do this to try to get a larger consensus and more view points. I don't see how this is bad but if it's not permissable I will stop. Edit: After further exploration I believe I understand what is being referenced. Same theme as before, I don't understand how refactoring for improving flow, format and clarification of discussion is bad nor does the wiki page on refactoring say it's bad/warrants blocking. I dont know which refactoring he is referencing was poor choice on my part by I strongly view every one improved flow. Can explain each if needed failure to collaborate with others I'm sorry but I strongly have to say this is blatantly false! I am the person that has always been trying to collaborate every time with no exaggeration. I'm sorry. You can check all the receipts. Every time I am calling for discussion, to go to talk page. Responding to every response on the talk pages. I'm the one who asked for protection on Sifan Hassans page because people were reverting without discussing and ignoring my calls for it! User:bbb23 what was the reason for this? Edit Warring I reported the other user for edit warring because of the reasons I outlined here! In the green highlight and no highlight as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037662871 To summarize, others and him are reverting me without discussion and not explaining in edits. I call for discussion again, I often get no response so I assume concession and revert! I never crossed 3RR and I even tried keeping my reverts at 1 maybe 2 a day! Not to mention some of the reverts are in accordance with MoS. Leyncho (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There were several issues in this appeal that ultimately led to me declining it. One is that you state a lack of knowledge of rules that you broke (which, I should note, include core conduct rules based on common good behaviour, not esoteric ones) but have placed conduct warnings on multiple users, including some of the categories you were blocked for. I assume that you wouldn't be placing warnings on people's pages unless you had read all of the applicable policy? You also did receive warnings above, and warnings of different types can stack - they don't start a new chain for any given rule breach. Beyond that, sufficient misconduct can lead to a direct block. Talk page guidelines indicate you shouldn't be refactoring live discussions if there's a dispute between you. What you say as "bringing clarity" would be interpreted by most as amending meaning, something that is specifically prohibited. More critically, it's beyond me how you think that insulting users would be permitted (let alone beneficial), even before you found a specific policy on it. And then you complain when another user points out edits you made less than a week prior.

In short, while there may be a few cases you name where, at a minimum, it might be beneficial for improving your behaviour and making a future appeal to know from @Bbb23: the specific instances of each block reason, there are enough issues as it stands to indicate that unblocking you would not be a positive. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2021 (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.

user:Nosebagbear Unless you specifically mean Wikipedias "code of conduct" and not simply some general "core conduct", I disagree that there's even such a thing as that and "common good behaviour". But that's a philosophical debate. Ultimately it comes down to this: Even assuming there is such a thing, that doesn't automatically mean Wikipedia or any and all platforms automatically bar it.

"I assume that you wouldn't be placing warnings on people's pages unless you had read all of the applicable policy?"

I essentially already counter-argued your argument in the very comment your responding to.... I placed conduct warnings on edit warring and vandalism. The thing I am literally arguing above was not a applicable reason for blocking. Not the things and rules I am saying I did not know about. Making your point not pertinent. I am assuming you broke the wiki guidelines on reading before commenting here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Read_before_commentingintentionally then? Given that I just found this rule on the very same talk page guidelines link you sent in your reply. I assume that you wouldn't be placing warnings on people's pages unless you had read all of the applicable policy.? You are proving true the very same point you are arguing against. That the rules are in fact not intuitive, counterintuitive, and generally just hard to keep track of and know. Also even then, no I wouldn't have to read all the applicable policy to place a warning. All I would have to do is read somewhere that it says I should place warnings before requesting administrator intervention. And then search "edit warring block warning template". All I would have to do is read enough. Not all. But even then, even if I did in fact read all the applicable policy, like I argued above regarding the rules, "they are often up to interpretation or have discreet exceptions or details that is hard to be aware of. Rules are generally not intuitive and there are a very large number of them.". But again, none of this is even pertinent because I'm arguing I shouldn't have been blocked for edit warring. Not to mention there's no way I could be blocked for edit warring and not the other guy given the reasons I provided up there and on the block request page. Yet somehow that's apparently exactly how it turned out. If edit warring were truly a factor in my block, the other user would've most definitely been blocked for it.

"You also did receive warnings above" I don't know what you mean by this as I acknowledged that I received warnings and that is why I stopped. I am just going to requote myself. I said the following "there's a rule where Users should notify and give substantial warnings for any violations of rules before requesting a block. So I had presumed I would be notified of any breaches I may be making on my behalf before being blocked. In one event I was properly notified, regarding name-calling, and hence I stopped that". I'm sorry but you're making it hard not to believe you are breaking the Wiki guidelines on reading before commenting here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Read_before_commenting. Please do not if that is indeed what is happening. It's making it difficult to follow the unblock request guideline on being brief.

'"warnings of different types can stack, they don't start a new chain for any given rule breach. Beyond that, sufficient misconduct can lead to a direct block.'" Ok thank you for letting me know now. It won't happen again in the future. But as I already mentioned, i do/did not know this and not only is it not intuitive, it is counterintuitive . Now that I do in fact know this, I have been making it known that the rules I have been made aware of won't happen in the future and therefore is not useful to blocking me indefinitely. In fact negatively useful as it will eliminate the future contributions I will make in the future.

'"Talk page guidelines indicate you shouldn't be refactoring live discussions if there's a dispute between you. '" the part I believe your referencing says the following: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection" That moreso seems to be suggesting if there's an objection to the particular edit. i.e If I refactor and the users objects to my refactoring, I shouldn't persist in refactoring. Not because of a general dispute. The former did not happen. Not to mention you literally just refactored my points in a live discussion in which you're literally disputing them

you shouldn't be refactoring live discussions if there's a dispute between you
— User:Nosebagbear

.

"What you say as "bringing clarity" would be interpreted by most as amending meaning, something that is specifically prohibited". I'm sorry but are you referring to me ~~striking through~~ something I didn't mean to say?? Here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037726896? Maybe you just thought I left it without the strike through since I edited the strike through 19 minutes later. But I also reflected that I didn't mean that and that I made the proper edit in my comment in response. I didn't just act like nothing happened. Nevertheless I think this is the rule that bb23 was referencing: "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving or interpolating your own replies to individual points. ". Yes I did this but again, this is such an esoteric rule that no way would I be aware of it in any other way but to read every single guideline or to engage in that very act and be warned for it. Otherwise it would have to be by pure luck that I run into such a rule. In my viewpoint I was making it clearer and flow better. I wouldn't even think there's a wiki guidelines on how to interact in talk pages.

"'More critically, it's beyond me how you think that insulting users would be permitted (let alone beneficial), even before you found a specific policy on it'" first of all, I'm not necessarily saying I thought there would be permission to do so. But it's not like every platform bars it. Let alone automatically block someone for it. My understanding is this platform is solely focused on contributions, and not upholding some subjective moral standard. Wiki argues insulting will drive away contributing members. But as apparent here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995253610, there would actually be more merit in the member that was insulted there from being driven away. Ironically this rule got the person who made that contributing editing blocked off the platform instead. And beneficial, well, personally as long as someone is a contributing member to the platform, I wouldn't mind whatever else they bring. But this is not my platform of course and like I said, I have stopped breaching that rule already and it won't occur in the future. I'm sorry but it just simply is not rationally beneficial for the platform to continue to indefinitely block for reasons that won't occur again and already have stopped occurring.

'"And then you complain when another user points out edits you made less than a week prior.'" ok first of all, I said I'd appreciate it if he didn't bring up my past since I no longer insult. But again, like I already addressed in my initial request, I didn't see that warning of not insulting until recently. When I started getting acclimated to the platform. Which again goes back to the very point that I already addressed twice now: I stopped once I saw the warning. It doesn't matter if it was a week ago. I stopped.

"there are enough issues as it stands to indicate that unblocking you would not be a positive" strongly disagree for the reasons above. None of these issues will be pertinent in the future. In fact maintaining an indefinite block on me is a negative for the platform. Even if we're speaking of the past, 80-95% of my edits were very contributing. Especially in areas that hardly no one on this platform knows about or will contribute towards. Blocking indefinitely for the 10-20% of my past that will not even be pertinent in the future is only a detriment to the future quality of this platform. Thank you Leyncho (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request #2

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry I've been reading for 20 minutes and I'm still not certain what I'm supposed to do. I think it's this again. I already requested before, another admin decided to uphold block. I responded to him on that discussion titled "Unblock". Sorry for such a long reply there. I honestly think that admin did not properly read my initial request. So I ended up having to reiterate my points and be very thorough in my next reply. I think even reading my initial request and his reply should be enough. I just tagged that particular admin there as wellLeyncho (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as this request has been open for two weeks but not persuaded an admin to review it. You may make another, hopefully more persuasive unblock request. Please read the unblock appeals guide. 331dot (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2021 (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.

UTRS 46876

UTRS appeal #46876 has been declined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's been awhile and I haven't gotten a response on my most recent request so I presumed I did the wrong thing. Is it just taking awhile before they respond then? User:Deepfriedokra Leyncho (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]