User talk:Leahmerone

Hi Leah! I’m a subscriber of yours and I want to arrange a collab, if you don’t mind! I’m a huge fan of yours! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinDavis11 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Escape the Night, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leahmerone, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Leahmerone! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop changing the edit. Natheloiz04 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Escape The Night edit. Natheloiz04 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Escape the Night does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so uncofterble with all caps and taking the article as a well reality show? just curious...M622 (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)M622[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Leahmerone. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manny's name

Why do you keep changing Manny's name on the Escape the Night page to "Manny Mua"? MUA is an abbreviation for makeup artist not his last name. His last name is Gutierrez. Matt is not labeled as MatPat, he is labeled as Matthew Patrick. Roi is labeled as Roi Fabito, not Guava Juice. I can keep going (iJustine->Justine Ezarik, MyLifeAsEva->Eva Gutowski, etc.). These people are not labeled as their pen names, so Manny therefore should not be either. Specially if you are capitalizing it as a last name and not an abbreviation. Please tell me if you have any reasoning because trust me I'd love to hear a valid reason because there does not seem to be one. Gjh fan (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Escape the Night. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please refrain from editing against consensus. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Escape the Night 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2020 (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. Thank you. M622 (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Your recent editing history at Escape the Night 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Brojam (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Escape the Night. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lcmr2

As I said at Talk:Escape the Night, WP:CLEANSTART (which you used to defend creation of Lcmr2) says that Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions imposed (including, but not limited to, those listed here); or is currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee); or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start.. I'm opting for leniency here since you did acknowledge the relationship between the accounts, but let's be clear here: while you are partially-blocked you may not do a CLEANSTART, and the whole point of CLEANSTART is that you don't use the original account and you don't keep editing in the same areas where you were having problems. What you did is block evasion, and it is a pretty serious offense. I'm giving you a warning this time, but if this happens again, expect all of your accounts to be blocked. By the way, now would be a good time to acknowledge any other accounts that you've created (perhaps Christinelc?). GeneralNotability (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability - I'm sorry for breaking the rules. I didn't mean to. I just wanted to move on from the issue that's been centered around me these past few days. I still think I was in the right, but I admit that I messed up by pushing it too far, and now it feels like the whole site hates me. I just wanted to maintain and upkeep the article that people have been known in the past to vandalize. I don't want to be seen as a bad person. But now I don't know what to do. Leahmerone (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go find a different article to edit and show that you can be a productive and mature editor, and then a while from now you can ask that the partial block be lifted once you've shown that you can maturely edit in other areas. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't emphasise this enough - nobody hates you. I don't block people to feel powerful or important; rather, it's done out of a profound sense of weariness and regret that we can't get somebody to come to terms with differences of opinions with other editors. As GeneralNotability has said (and as I said on my talk yesterday), you are only blocked from one article, and you are very welcome to edit any other. By editing lots of articles constructively, you can show that you are a productive editor who is able to work as part of a team. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does CLEANSTART not apply if you have active blocks, but even if you didn't, you were involved in disrutpive editing for which you were warned, and you have a conflict of interest. You're not allowed to create a new account to "move on" from that, it's called evading scrutiny, which you would know if you actually read WP:CLEANSTART. The fact that you did so after being warned against continued disruptive editing on that page, well, frankly the only reason I'm not going forward with the block that I warned you would happen is because another admin is already involved and has told you that they're going to be lenient about this, but quite frankly apart from this courtesy towards another admin's judgment call, there is nothing that would have otherwise stopped me from blocking you at this point. You're on extremely thin ice and you need to make every effort to abide by WP:COI and WP:CCPOL if you want to have any involvement on this article's talk page. I implore you to learn these concepts, and to contribute to the project in areas where you don't have a COI. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to make every effort to abide by the rules from now on, but I must disagree on one point: I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not affiliated with Escape the Night or anyone on that show. Yes, I make videos about the series, but only because I'm a fan of it. I don't even make any money at this time. If I worked on the show or something like that, that would be different, but I disagree on that point. Leahmerone (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A COI does not have to be an official affiliation, it simply needs to be an external relationship with the subject. We can appreciate that your motivation is not official, nor is it motivated by monetary gain, but you do have a fairly massive relation to this show. Even if innocent and recreational, you have a personal relationship with this show, you have a stake in this show. You're a content creator who creates videos based on this show. You have over 20 million views and over 20,000 subscribers. Think about that. Tens of thousands of real people follow you because you make content about this show. Can you really claim you have no real relationship to this show? Of course not. You do not simply have a relationship with this show. This show is part of your identity. If it wasn't, it would not be one of two things that you said about yourself on your user page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: For the record, they were socking this morning with the account User:Gwelliano (contribs). ——Serial 10:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was NOT. That account is not mine! Leahmerone (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 6 August 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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't done anything. Gwelliano is not my account! Leahmerone (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:SOCK isn't restricted to accounts you have direct control over. See the WP:MEAT part of it. Yamla (talk) 17:35, 6 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Seriously, though, I haven't done anything. Gwelliano is not mine, nor is it related to me, so WP:MEAT does not apply either! Leahmerone (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's pretty clear that MEAT applies here. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 8 August 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.

Are you seriously claiming you have no idea who Gwelliano is? Be careful here. It's time for you to fully and honestly answer this question, which you have not been doing so far. --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that. All I said was that Gwelliano is not related to me. I have heard of them, but I do not have any influence over what they post. My account is being punished (as is theirs) for invalid reasons. I haven't done anything wrong in this particular instance. Leahmerone (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you are unwilling to fully and honestly answer this question, I have revoked talk page access for the duration of your block. You will be expected to comport yourself more openly and honestly once the block expires. --Yamla (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since my block is over now, let me please say: I admit that I did several things wrong before, but I promise, I did not make another sockpuppet account. Gwelliano is not mine, nor related to me, and while I am aware of them and share several Discord severs with them, I have never once told them what to write or tried to control their Wikipedia activities. If you'll remember, when I made Lcmr2 as a failed attempt at a CleanStart that should not have been made, I acknowledged that the account was mine when I was asked about it. I try to be honest in my dealings with people. I didn't bring Gwelliano or anyone else over to argue on my behalf; honestly, I've been trying to move on from things for quite some time, as I can't even edit on the main EtN page anymore. Yes, I should not have edit warred before. Yes, I should not have made Lcmr2. I admit that those things were wrong, and I heartily apologize for them. But I promise, I did not make Gwelliano, nor have anything to do with the account. Besides, they joined several years ago. Check the IPs and you will see that they are different. Please, listen to me. I did many things wrong in the past, but this is not one of them. Leahmerone (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]