User talk:Lehuck

Hi Lehuck! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi - Regarding IHG Hotels & Resorts, articles should be based off secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, not press releases issued by the company. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 17:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for contributing to the article Unilever. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits are a promo for "Open Wing Alliance". Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Lehuck. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sinergia Animal International, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Lehuck. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sinergia Animal International".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, and thank you for reviewing my request.

I would like to address two concerns that may have contributed to my block: (1) the impression of promotional editing, and (2) the appearance of coordinated or improper account use.

Regarding promotional content: I understand the warning I received about edits referencing the Open Wing Alliance. My intent was not to promote the organization, nor to add advocacy-leaning material. I referenced OWA only because they were directly relevant to the topic being edited, and I tried to summarize their work neutrally using reliable, verifiable sources. If my wording or sourcing created the impression of promotion, I sincerely apologize — that was not my intention, and I understand the need for strict neutrality.

Regarding account concerns: I did not intend to misuse multiple accounts or violate any rules around coordinated editing. If any of my actions were interpreted that way, I would appreciate clarification so I can correct my approach moving forward.

I value Wikipedia’s policies and want to contribute constructively. I am more than willing to follow any restrictions or mentorship the community recommends.

Thank you for considering my appeal.

Lehuck (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

This was AI generated(100% certain according to zeroGPT). You are blocked, not an AI, so we want to hear from you directly. An AI cannot tell us what is inside your mind or what you understand- you just posted what it spit out. Please write in your own words without the aid of an AI. We don't expect you to have perfect spelling and grammar, just talk to us as one human to another, imperfections and all. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2025 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, I have a strong suspicion you used AI to write your appeal for you - if I'm correct, please read WP:NICETRY and avoid using it going forwards. I'd also recommend rewriting your appeal in your own words, this can be done in a reply below mine (don't submit a new appeal template, you only need one open at a time).

You need to directly address both the promotional editing concerns and the sockpuppetry.

The AI has just given vague answers about taking things seriously and avoiding it in future because it doesn't know the specifics of your personal circumstances. Please try this again. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I apologize for making several edits referencing to the Open Wing Alliance as a source and linking to their site, after reading one of their reports online. I am not affiliated with them, it was simply the first source I found and it seemed credible to me at the time, but I understand now that bulk edits referencing to the same source is not adherent, especially since there are various better secondary sources like news articles or press releases on the topics I edited (corporations making animal welfare committements). I'm sorry I disrupted Wikipedia, I truly didn't mean to. I fully read through the sourcing guidelines again and see how I need to use secondary, credible sources in the future and I will also diversify my edits further, since my motivation for editing is enhancing wikipedia as a whole.

Decline reason:

The Arbitration Committee has assumed responsibility for this block. Please see the below message on how to appeal directly to us. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2025 (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.

Lehuck (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Non-administrator comment) Thank you for responding, can you please address the concerns over the use of multiple accounts? This is a "checkuser" block, which means specific technical evidence was found connecting you to at least one previous account on Wikipedia. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

This account was the first wikipedia account I ever created, I truly don't know what this is about, I'm so sorry. I'm happy to provide whatever info if you have follow-up questions, perhaps can you find out more about the technical evidence? Thank you! Lehuck (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking into this and will get back to you. -- asilvering (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

---

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

Daniel (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dear Lehuck,

Following a successful appeal, the Arbitration Committee has voted to undo your block, on two conditions:

1. You are topic banned from animals and animal welfare, broadly construed.
2. You must disclose the history and nature of your relationship with the Pro-Animal Wikipedians (PAW).

For now, I've restored your access to your talk page so that you can make the disclosure. When you do, please ping me and I would be happy to lift the remainder of your block.

For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:25, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi leekycauldron! Thank you and the committee for deciding to unblock my account - I just posted my affiliation note below (you’re pinged) and I confirm that I understand the “topic ban on animals and animal welfare, broadly construed”. Lehuck (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Lehuck! I've unblocked your account. You can appeal your topic ban down the line by emailing ArbCom; I would recommend building a track record of around six months of solid editing before submitting. I'm always here if you have questions about editing, so don't hesitate to reach out via my talk page or by emailing me. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was the founder and organizer of Pro-Animal Wikipedians (PAW), a network of around 100 volunteers, with roughly 14 actively editing. We identified content gaps on animal ethics and animal agriculture and edited articles to address them. We coordinated off-wiki without disclosing our connection as a group. Since the Arbitration Committee’s investigation, I have stopped all coordinated editing activity through PAW. I have disclosed the full details of PAW’s activities to the Arbitration Committee and am looking forward to engaging openly and within community policies. I will strictly adhere to the topic ban on animals and animal welfare, broadly construed. @Theleekycauldron: Lehuck (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just want to add here, as an individual and not as arbcom, that it is totally okay, in principle, to co-ordinate editing. That's what we're all doing here, to some extent, and it's a key part of what WikiProjects and Affiliates do. It is even okay to, for example, maintain an email newsletter for this purpose. The key thing is that the editathon needs to be obvious to others on-wiki who aren't in the loop already. If you successfully appeal your topic ban in the future and would like some help setting something like this up, feel free to reach out. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate it, asilvering! This is a neat perspective - I'd love to learn more about systems like Wikiprojects and possibly start/ reactivate one in the future. I will ping you on here should I get there. Thank you! Lehuck (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lehuck! I'm User:The person who loves reading, and I've been assigned as your mentor. All new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! The person who loves reading (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Lehuck, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to help us improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. When you feel ready to create your first biography, you'll find guidance in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ipigott! I am excited to have joined Women in Red! I would love to specialize in translating biographies (German-English). If there's any quick guidance you have on how to get started, let me know, it's always easier to ask around rather than figuring it out solely on my own. Thanks! Lehuck (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

One way of starting would be to look through the German entries on our Redlink index. You might first like to look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Germany which lists 1500 German women who are covered in other language versions but not yet in English. If you are interested in activists, you could scan through the listing for "activist". You may find some names you know. Please let me know how you get on.--Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply