User talk:211.48.164.1

It's hard to argue with you if you don't have an account. All my edits were sourced, which according to you are problematic? You are removing sourced content (for example about etymology of ponai). We can discuss problematic fragments and changes here on the article talk page. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Do not undo my reversion of vandalism with no explanation.
I explained to you why that one category cannot be added, because it is only for real people, not fictional characters. If you want Hannibal Lecter to be the only fictional character listed on that page, I won’t stop you from re-adding it, though. And Balthus is not supposed to be listed in the infobox because he does not have an important connection to Lecter, he’s only mentioned in one throwaway line in one novel, but he can be added if his relation to Lecter is specified and other less important characters from the novels are also added to the infobox, which really shouldn’t be done but which I would be willing to do if it will stop you from causing the vandalism that Treybien2 did to be put on the page again. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are causing all of this trouble, and, frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for putting Treybien2’s vandalism on the page again just because you couldn’t be bothered to manually re-add your category and relation that really don’t belong on the page anyway. Do you want me to add them for you? STOP putting Treybien2’s nonsense back up. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m glad that we seem to be done with the worst part of this, that you were able to add what you wanted to add WITHOUT recreating someone else’s vandalism at the same time, although you did still insist on doing that bit of damage to the paragraph that was meant to be solely about Lecter’s trauma.

I think you will be happy to note that I kept the exact words and the exact link (which was already in the “appearances” section of the article) that you added to the “character” section of the article, but moved them to the very first sentence of that section, where it makes more sense for them to be. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Lithuanian nobility, you may be blocked from editing.

Stop your conduct or I will have to report you Marcelus (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hannibal Lecter. 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: 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.  General Ization  Talk  03:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your recent editing history at Lithuanian nobility 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  General Ization Talk  03:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours 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 below the block notice on your talk page:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)