User talk:Lewishhh

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cheerbleederz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheerbleederz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lewishhh. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cheerbleederz".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 05:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

==

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. ==

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. Prwl2000 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

{{subst:ANI-notice|Dream Nails|noticeboard=noticeboard of discussion|reason=reason for discussion|thread=thread name of the discussion}} Prwl2000 (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted your edit to 2024 United Kingdom riots as it appears to have been copied verbatim from https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cy8497l7dx8t?post=asset%3A5ba0d60f-5668-4548-8949-f36db02f0517.

You may wish to read up on Wikipedia copyright policies here.

Celjski Grad (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2024 United Kingdom riots, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please show me where this edit is backed by the source Doug Weller talk 07:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dougweller I think you have misidentified and removed the latest source. From the actual source: "In Blackpool, protesters faced off against punks attending Rebellion Festival. There was little police presence as skirmishes broke out between the two groups, with bottles and chairs thrown" Lewishhh (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides the fact I don't sees the word stand-off, that doesn't seem to be the source you used. The source I see is / See this version with your edit. Am I missing something? Anyway, unblocking as you have responded. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cl7yy2zevy2o this article mentions a stand-off, as well as chairs and bottles, and is linked by the original source. Everything has moved quite quickly with that page but I can only think I made a mistake and meant to use the above as a source. Lewishhh (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lewishhh We all make mistakes. Go ahead and readd it with the new source, but I'd appreciate it if you made it clear the early source was the wrong source. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for No responses to talk page warnings, etc, only deletions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is because your only edits to your talk page have been to delete large chunks, never responding. This is unacceptable as Wikipedia cannot work without collaboration. If you agree to start responding AND give me a satisfactory answr to my question, I'll unblock you. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unblocked. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to The Falcon, Camden. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.

If you have any questions, you can reach me by replying to this comment and starting your message with {{Re|Wibbit23}} and ending your message with ~~~~. Thanks! Wibbit23 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amersham Arms, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wiley and Benga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Lexington, Islington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queen's Head, Brixton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Circa and London Museum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:First Timers bands has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hiya! I just spotted a notification that the WP page for Flamingo 50 has been nominated for deletion as it has no sources if no one does anything within 7 days. I literally only recently came across a few references to them in google books but also feel like theyre that sort of early internet DIY probably mosted in printed stuff era DIY band. But yeah anyway I'm gonna have a crack at it now if you have any further ideas! Rhagfyr (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a mention in MRR 263, which was on Internet Archive, but is that gone now? Maybe we can find a pdf online or something Lewishhh (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lewishhh. Thank you for your work on The Falcon, Camden. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page for a former Britpop and Shoegaze music venue (and pub) with extensive coverage in the late 20th century.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello again! I was just thinking 195 Mare Street would be a fun page to make, its Elizabeth Fry (off the old £5 note!) history along with the first First Timers being there and I swear I went there in another earlier squatted era for one of the first London Big Takeovers, Satellites of Love played but I'll try dig out who else. There's a few mentions on WP already. Perhaps we could ask Hackney Archives if the house has an archive too.... Rhagfyr (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good! There's a couple of local and national news articles referring to it online we could cite also Lewishhh (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prince Charles Cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TimeOut.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mighty Hoopla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eve (singer).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dave Allen (English musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Andrews.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fika Recordings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fika Recordings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Zzz plant (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Woolf (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woolf (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 21:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I see you your using bandcamp as reference. Bandcamp is social media. That is not a reliable reference. It is unacceptable to use such a dodgy source. If you continue using from this point forward, I will issue warning against you. scope_creep^Talk 18:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm using specifically Bandcamp Daily, that is not social media content. It's an online music publication that employs journalists. Lewishhh (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

It is considered primary and WP:SPS. Don't use it. scope_creep^Talk 20:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

By who? Articles on Bandcamp Daily are not self-published. Lewishhh (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

By the reliable sources noticeboard discussion. Its has come up as bad ref by the references script. Its junk. scope_creep^Talk 21:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I can find no consensus on it, perhaps you can point me to one? Lewishhh (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Woolf (band), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I was thinking it's about time I introduce myself rather than just repeat-editing! My name is Hugo and I guess I'm the 'pub historian'. Re sources for The Stranglers, they are listed in Time Out as playing at The Newlands Tavern on January 31st 1976 (a few years ago, I went to the Time Out offices to trawl through their archives. I think most of the notable bands I found you have already listed). In addition, I know the people who ran the pub then and they have spoken to me in detail about the band being there. Re Status Quo, we have had three people (that I know of) come into the pub on separate occasions over the years saying they saw the band there in the late 1960s, and two of them that they were friends with bassist Alan Lancaster in particular (he, Francis Rossi and drummer John Coghlan all being local lads). Re Pink Floyd by the way, it's a question mark, but a recent-ish book about the band - The Complete Pink Floyd by Glenn Povey - cites them as probably playing at the pub in October 1964 when they were known as Leonard's Lodgers. It could perhaps be listed with the question mark and the source? (I haven't worked out yet how to add a source!) I notice, Laura J Martin excepted (I booked her - I was events manager at the pub for a while!), you like the acts mentioned to have their own Wiki page, which is fair enough. (There are a couple I put up there - Billy Karloff and Filthy Boy - which have strong local connections, but haven't yet had the honour of a wiki page). Great job doing this by the way, listing the bands!Skittermuster (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for these. I suspected you were someone in the know locally. I'll see if I can dig up enough information about these for adding sources, but feel free to add them back. The Time Out one probably needs the issue date if you happen to have it recorded anywhere. Lewishhh (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lewishhh. Thank you for your work on Problem Patterns. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating the page for a band that reaches WP:BAND through criteria 1 (related to coverage in multiple independent reliable sources). Their Glastonbury performance certainly helped there! To expand, it would be nice to hear more about their albums and songs; how have they fared in the charts, for example.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lewishhh. Thank you for your work on Shacklewell Arms. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page for a pub, best known as a music venue. It fits with the series on 'Pubs in London', and has a range of sources showing sustained coverage.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over the lede or you will be blocked. There is already a discussion over the issue on the talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you on Bob Vylan. I got caught in an edit conflict with yours. If a talk post deals with the article, I think that it sometimes looks bad if the post is summarily reverted. I think it's good to provide a succint rebuttal, as leverage for refuting other non-starter arguments as to how the page should be curated. If you want to revert it again, I won't be upset. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Lewishhh! a bit of notice that the Brixton meetup is back at Brixton Library next Monday 29th September at 6pm-8pm if you're nearby and free. If there's anything you're interested in editing at the moment I can find some books on in the library in advance. I'll find some books on pubs at the least! Hopefully we're getting BNA back really soon fingers crossed by this month. Colette Lambeth (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you please try avoid getting blocked for edit warring again? It's the second time you've violated 3RR (unconsciously I assume), in two batches of 4 reverts within 24 hours (based on 6 reverts and overlapping periods - I'll let you do the math). Some of these were unnecessary as I of another editor would of eventually reverted anyway (such as disruptive tagging). Regards, CNC (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lewishhh. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've reflected and will stick to the one account, and follow the rules, if allowed back. Lewishhh (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It looks to me like you maliciously abused multiple accounts to continue violating WP:EW after being previously blocked for violating WP:EW. This is a real problem, it shows not only are you unwilling to abide by our policies, but you deliberately go out of your way to continue violating them and to hide your violations. I could perhaps see a path to unblocking, but only with a WP:1RR restriction, along with a commitment to sticking to a single account (and no WP:LOUTSOCK). Alternatively, WP:SO might be an option. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Sure, am happy with either of Yamla's suggestions. Lewishhh (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Are you, though? asilvering (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I commit to using just the one account and abiding by all rules. Any other restrictions are fine also. This is the earliest account I've made that I still remember the password to. Lewishhh (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yeah, no. Given your history of sockpuppetry, please start with the standard offer: : do not edit the English Wikipedia at all for at least six months -- no IP editing, no new accounts. During that time, you are free to edit other Wikipedia projects, such as Simple Wikipedia or Wiktionary. After at least six months has passed, request an unblock from your preferred account addressing the reasons for your initial block. The six-month break from English Wikipedia helps us gain trust that you will not continue to abuse the system if unblocked. If you are uninterested in the standard offer at this time, you can submit another unblock request, which another administrator will review. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Lewishhh (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA - I know you have no reason to believe me, but weirdly that IP is not actually me Lewishhh (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lewishhh. Thank you for your work on Lambeth Women's Project. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Acknowledging the importance of this topic for the history of feminism in London in the late 20th century; the tone seems fine, following edits from a range of editors.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The article Paper Dress Vintage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Most of sources are advertising/promotion in local publications. Noting interviews with the owner/operator(s) are primary sources.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Dan arndt (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)