Please refrain from making edits on Wikipedia pages such as those you made to Venus, without first discussing your changes on the article's talk page, Your edit(s) require discussion to establish consensus as this is considered a type of change that other editors should be allowed to comment on. Your edits do not appear to have been discussed and have been reverted. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since editing was made to make things clearer and more correct, I didn't see any reason not to do it. We don't need a village council for every small thing here. That's not how Wikipedia grows. Lajoswinkler (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue with Bold editing, (I know this is dated) but wanted to drop this BRD policy here for you if you, keep up the good work! MaximusEditor (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lajoswinkler! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss my revert of this edit if you would like. Thanks for fighting promotion of pseudoscience in WP! VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did a complete revert which speaks a lot. The terms "Brown's gas" and "HHO" are exclusively pseudoscientific. It is not "fringe science". But I'm not fighting over it. It's obvious what team you're on. Lajoswinkler (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord. Give WP:AGF a read and familiarize yourself with the article history before throwing around accusations. VQuakr (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you accuse me of wiki-hounding. This is a serious accusation, and inaccurate; your edits are being reverted because they are poor, not because I'm trying to distress you. If you repeat such an accusation, I will escalate the issue. If you think your edits have merit, make a case for them on the article talk pages. VQuakr (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are a hounder. You are following me around and reverting my edits which are informative and scientifically correct. It takes me considerable time to sift through an article and change misinformation or half baked factoids and then you ruin it. Not one article, but several articles. That's what hounders do - they enter someone's page and look for their edits, and then revert them completely, without any regard for what has been changed. I don't care about your passive aggression coated in call center style. You are clearly in the wrong here. You're welcome to "escalate it". Lajoswinkler (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A "bare URL and 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atmosphere of Jupiter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page False Colors. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be a bit uncivil in that last thread. Calling stuff idiotic, etc. And you have sort of a hateful tone. Please stop. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I went through your entire edit history. You even accused people of hounding, and screamed in bold text. I will simply ANI you if you continue to make baseless accusations and not collaborate civilly. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about feelings of Wikipedia bureaucrats who use passive aggressive corporate language to promote falsehoods. Lajoswinkler (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Please read this old thread, and please do not move pages without consensus. Just because you are autoconfirmed does not mean you can just move pages without consensus, especially when you don't get a lot of trust since numerous editors are fed up with your personal attacks. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at this talk page regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I can't report you to ANI at the moment, because the page is semi-protected until tomorrow. That doesn't mean your behavior isn't under scrutiny. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL What an ego. Many decades of established terms down the drain because of few people's ignorance multiplied by social network bots. Lajoswinkler (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Lajoswinkler. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I feel like I am being a target of sockpuppet account under IP 35.136.190.243. This account has been made on 16th of January 2025 and is going out of its way to destroy my account. New account and it already behaves as if it's been here for many years. It is my suspicion this has something to do with my work on Wikipedia in Croatian language which had over a decade long problem with neonazis running it. All it did is engage in passive aggressive provocation and complaining when they would succeed in it. Textbook trolling. My mistake was to let myself lose my composure, that I will admit. Permanently blocking my account which I used to fact-proof quite a lot of articles, because of this, is wrong and unfair.

Decline reason:

I suggest you read WP:NOTTHEM. Your unblock request does not adequately address the block reasons. I am declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 15 February 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.

What evidence do you have that the IP is a sock? An IP does not have an account, which means the account cannot be "made". The IP has been editing since before January 16, 2025 - I don't know where you get that date from. As for "losing your composure", you've done that more than once and haven't learned from the criticisms of your behavior. If you repeat the "neonazi" stuff again, I will revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not giving anyone any more material because there is nothing I can say anymore that couldn't be turned against me at this point. I consider it a lost cause. Lajoswinkler (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to CroCube. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]