User talk:SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd)

See User talk:SolarStorm1859 for past warnings/messages. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation[edit]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOLLOWING[edit]

Filling in refs are neutral edits, not editing in opposition. But, I'll be blunt here. It's been a handful of articles now, and when you turn up on the more obscure articles I edit like Leslie Feinberg and an essay I'm building with a small number of people that's not even in the mainspace yet,:[1] it's creepy. I'm asking you to stop, per the spirit of WP:FOLLOWING, and what it used to be called. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

??? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan: fixing references is not against policy. I don't know what you're getting worked up about? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're smarter than this. Read the policy. The earlier following edits were done with your IPs. Again, you're sticking to the strict letter of it by not editing in opposition, but you are clearly following other editors around. Don't be condescending. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is fixing citations hounding? Stop accusing me of stuff I'm not doing. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly using first my, and now Indigenous girl's contribs to do it. It gives the impression of stalking and surveillance, and you know it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, CorbieVreccan. I have read WP:FOLLOWING. It says that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors", which is exactly what I am doing. It also says that only "If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior," none of which I am doing, "it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." You may wish to look the other way while I edit if you think that it's "creepy", but constructive edits are 100% allowed under Wikipedia policy whether you like them or not. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --- CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I noticed that in this edit to Native Americans in the United States, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 19:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: sorry if it looked like I was deleting stuff. I was actually combining identical refs. It's probably time to start using some edit summaries. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, edit summaries are generally a good idea. Sorry for the reversion.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 19:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understandable. I probably would have made the same mistake myself if I was patrolling. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptive edits. What did you think was gonna happen? Please don't do this again. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 02:11, 7 June 2019 (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).

SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My agreement with Corbie on Talk:Indigenous intellectual property was not intended as hounding but I am willing to avoid interaction with Corbie or indigenous girl for 48 hours if unblocked. How does that sound? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a negotiation, nor is this something that we're going to tolerate. Complying with the expectations that El C and I both set with you in the ANI discussion isn't something that should be difficult to understand and follow. You are violating the spirit of the WP:FOLLOWING policy by following CorbieVreccan and Indigenous girl around from page-to-page and making edits to these pages as they're currently editing them. You need to do whatever it is you need to do in order to stop making edits to pages that these two editors are currently editing (whether it be avoiding interaction with them, joining a Wikiproject, or taking on a new area or task such as recent changes patrolling). You will be blocked for an increased duration each time your contributions show that you're continuing this behavior, and without any prior warnings given to you in advance. One way or another, this behavior will stop. I really hope that it stops because you did what it took in order to cease the behavior, not because I had to block you in order for it to stop. C'mon, man... this isn't rocket science. Just stop, will ya? Please? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:01, 7 June 2019 (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.

I didn't realize we were negotiating. El_C 02:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the 24hr block is lifted, I believe that it would be better if I took a step back for a while and improved some other areas of the encyclopedia. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a good idea, and your idea of avoiding interaction with those two editors for 48 hours was a bad idea. I suggest 48 weeks instead, or you face a much longer block. Avoid creepy behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. 1 year sounds good? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are almost 6 million articles now on Wikipedia, SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd). It shouldn't be hard to find articles that have nothing to do with either editor. I recommend finding an WikiProject that might be of interest to you (look here or here for possible areas of interest). Wikipedia is an enormous resource and it is very possible to never run into other editors. By the way, have you ever thought of simplifying your name? Go to WP:RENAME in interested. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C and Oshwah: It looks like SolarStorm is now attempting to circumvent the interaction ban by using Citation bot to edit the same articles as CorbieVreccan.[2][3] Of course, it's impossible to prove that it's actually the same person (since Citation bot doesn't use OAuth), but it definitely matches SolarStorm's MO and one of the edits is signed "SolarStorm1859". Kaldari (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user/s indefinitely, but this may not be the last we heard of them vis-a-vis the Citation bot. If the bot can be misused this way, we may have a problem. El_C 21:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I'll see what I can do about that... Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for looking into this. El_C 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; thank you for looking into this. Let me know what you find. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for per this.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked[edit]

Since you're just trolling now, I've revoked talk page access. You can still use WP:UTRS to appeal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]