User talk:Jose Enes

August 2016

Hello, I'm SLBedit. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from João Vale e Azevedo. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm user Jose Enes. I noticed that the user SLBedit (oddly or not its the same initials of SLBenfica that was presided by Joao Vale e Azevedo) your revision is totally inaccurate, incomplete and offensive. It's based on gossip and not facts and evidence. My revision follows a detailed investigation and is based on true facts confirmed by the English Courts. For example in SLBedit version is said that Joao Vale e Azevedo is a convicted money launderer, which is totally false. He was charged but acquitted in full by all Court instances in Portugal, first, court of appeal and Supreme. Also Joao Vale e Azevedo has a relevant CV following great professional success and work in several areas and major pan-europeen companies that is totally ignored by SLBedit version where he is referred only as a criminal. Even in relation to Joao Vale e Azevedo's presidency of SLBenfica there are lots of relevant facts ignored and not referred by the version of SLBedit. For example Jose Mourinho was discovered by Joao Vale e Azevedo, who offer to him his first contract as main coach/manager. Likewise Jupp Heyckens that was coach at SLBenfica during Joao Vale e Azevedo presidency. Also the honours are totally incomplete. During Joao Vale e Azevedo's presidency the football youth teams won all championships in all categories, which happened for the first time in years. Sources [cite: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/José_Mourinho]; [cite https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jupp_Heynckes ]; [cite http://www.apcolaco.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/statement-joao-vale-e-azevedo.pdf ]; [cite: http://www.kaimtodner.com/extradition/judgment_joao_azevado.pdf; http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judjements]; [cite: http://www.kaimtodner.com/news/2014/05/27/media_release__joao_azevado.asp Purdy; http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judjements Purdy; http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service ];[cite http://www.kaimtodner.com/news/2015/03/13/media_release__joao_vale_azevedo.asp High Court; http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judjements Purdy; http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service ] Jose Enes (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at João Vale e Azevedo. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:58, 25 August 2016 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jose_Enes reported by User:DatGuy (Result: ). Thank you. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

João Vale e Azevedo

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meatsgains (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at João Vale e Azevedo. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]