User talk:LordCollaboration

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is LordDiscord's gaming of the extended confirmed permission. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi LordDiscord, the consensus in the discussion is that you were not permission gaming. I apologize to you for filing the report accusing you of permission gaming, and thank you for your typo corrections. In light of the consensus here, I think the discussion WP:ANI § Jensenjan and WP:XC WP:GAMING needs to be re-examined and I am going to support their re-application for extended confirmed status. — Newslinger talk 20:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, I really appreciate this. And thank you for your (vastly more) contributions to Wikipedia too! Can't even imagine getting past 65,000 edits :) LordDiscord (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No problem, and thanks for accepting my apology. Frankly, I am appalled that I have misjudged the situation to this extent. If you are able to properly interpret policy under pressure, as you have done here, I think your future on Wikipedia looks very promising, whether you participate in contentious topics, policy-related discussions, or a calmer topic area. I hope this incident doesn't dissuade you from editing, and I wish you the best. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Knock this off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And this. You've been around long enough to know better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Am I not allowed to make a comment at RFA in support of their candidacy? LordDiscord (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You shouldn't be encouraging or offering to nominate RFAs that are plainly going to fail, and compounding the trolling by attacking editors who are trying to save them from getting their teeth kicked in at RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am not attacking any editors. As I said in the other thread, if people are uncivil at RFA, then isn’t the solution to stop that? Not discourage qualified editors from running? LordDiscord (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The problem isn't that people are uncivil. The problem is that having 200-300 people turn up to say "Thanks for volunteering, but this is why I don't think you should be an admin" is horrible and demotivating, even if written in perfectly polite English. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You need to stop your trolling or it is possible you get blocked for disruptive behavior. dbeef [talk] 15:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Your unfunny attempt at being funny is going to drive away a confused, potentially good-faith editor. If someone is clearly struggling to understand their mistakes, you don't confuse them more and push them toward the (second) hell — DVRTed (Talk) 14:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Per consensus I have asked for them to withdraw. LordDiscord (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, LordDiscord,

I don't believe you are trolling, I believe you are well-intentioned but you lack experience to understand what an ordeal an RFA is. For mine, I had 2 years of experience, tens of thousands of edits and it was still brutal. There have been efforts to reform RFAs so that they aren't so horrible but they are still a field for every editor to analyze and scrutinize every single mistake an editor has made, bring them up and suggest that not only should they not be an admin, they should resign from the project. They are far from civil.

RFAs are a little kinder than when I went through the process ten years ago but for an editor with such limited editing experience as Starfall2015 would face a lot of cruel comments. In general, I don't encourage editors to go through an RFA unless they are ready for war and have a thick skin. It isn't always a horrible experience but you never can tell what will happen and I think an RFA would cause Starfall2015 to leave the project. I just came here to offer a little support because you are facing a lot of criticism for encouraging them to run an RFA. I think, for new editors, and I consider you to be pretty new, it's best to focus on improving articles and staying away from the drama of noticeboards. There is always a chance for a boomerang when you participate and it's much safer to build up your editing experience. If you are looking for companionship, try participating in WikiProjects or getting onto a Discord channel. Happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, @Liz, I appreciate your kind words. I will avoid the noticeboards from now on and look into WikiProjects. LordDiscord (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not joking. You could help more than one person here. Your work has improved because you made the good choices. Consider it. BusterD (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Start by doing some reading. Visit the user's talk page and talk to them like a normal person. Maybe tell them something about yourself. Maybe talk about when you got in trouble but you're still here. Talk about your willingness to consider my offer. Why would you be helping anyway? Ask yourself first. Agreeing isn't all ribbons and rainbows (for either of you). I suspect we're dealing with an actual human being, not an LLM. But if I cut the editor loose and they go back to abusive behavior, I'll have my own choices. One way or the other, I owe you a favor for merely considering it. Not sure exactly how we'll keep track. Wikipedia thanks you. I'll give you a few hours to think about it. Glad to answer questions. BusterD (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

BTW, User:CoffeeCrumbs has offered to help as well if everyone likes the idea. Might take some pressure off everybody. BusterD (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Buster, thanks for encouraging me on this, I think this would be good for both me and Baangla if it works out. I read through that article and made a post on their talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baangla#Mentoring LordCollaboration (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are a natural. Honest, direct. I'm impressed. BusterD (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I could not be more pleased how you've done here. Now just stay on today's lesson. Do the WP:5P reading as well. Let's not talk about editing. Let's talk about learning something new. For now, I have some huskies requiring immediate service. BusterD (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks so much BusterD, I will focus on that for the day. Have a good walk! LordCollaboration (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good day! Think about a subject matter which would interest both Baangla and yourself and make it a project for the two of you. Start with an existing stub if possible. Talk to me about it here. Then mosey over to their talk and look at what we've accomplished in a few hours. If you agree in principle, I'll create a signature section where all three of our sigs appear on the same line. At that point, it's entirely on all three of us. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

One more thing: if this ends badly, it's not anybody's fault. Accept that possibility now. I've seen some pretty gruesome and disappointing stuff. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you think Lanai/related pages would be a good start? Definitely not a stub, but seems like we could probably find some more recent information to add to it or recent topics. I wanted to give them leeway in deciding. And thanks for steering away from contentious topics. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Low-profile stubs are excellent locations where a mentorship may work without interruption. I'm sure there are many Hawaii-related stubs to work on. As a long-time user in good standing, you have access to WP:The Wikipedia Library. You will find a mountain of useful sources there, available for free. I have a newspapers.com account via the library so I can help if you need it.

Immediately under the Wikipedia logo in the upper left corner of every page, there's a link called Random article. I highly recommend this method of finding some unusual subjects for improvement. While many subject matter WP:Portals are now deleted, Portal:Hawaii is active, so that might be a place to browse island-related topics. A nice category tree and many links. As it turns out, I lived in Honolulu when I was a child. BusterD (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Added some stuff on your sites article. This is an excellent pagespace choice and gives you both work entirely away from normal conflict zones. This will become more difficult for both of you once you begin to do more reading. The culture of the islands' peoples is arguably thousands of years old. The native plants, animals, and humans of pre-exposure Hawaii were a unique independently-arising natural culture. Island people (sea-going people) are different for non-obvious anthropological reasons. What has happened to Hawaii in the last 225 years constitutes a huge loss for humanity, IMHO. Great Britain and the new U.S. were both anxious to stake colonial claims, and much of the original society/culture was lost. I'm glad Niihau is kept largely restricted, but while the islands today are a tourist's paradise, (speaking as someone who lived within walking distance of this site when he was in 5th grade), what has been lost culturally was enormous. BusterD (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@BusterD: How many people in Hawaii still follow the pre-Christian religions? What were those religions called? Apart from Filipinos and (削除) Japs (削除ここまで) people of Japanese heritage, were there Native Americans or Native Hawaiians there before? What happened to them now? Did they use witchcraft? Could they heal witchcraft related issues?-Baangla (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you provide reliable sources for the above, so that I can add them to the respective articles?-Baangla (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Google is thattaway. I threw you some bones, I'm not going to be your research intern. BusterD (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"Japs" is an inappropriate way to refer to people of Japanese heritage. When we make a pubic mistake, it is wise to strike through (<s></s>) which would look like (削除) japs (削除ここまで). On any Wikipedia, we should avoid using disparaging terms without specific reason. Lenny Bruce once made a famous point about utilizing a derogatory term repeatedly as a means to disarm the violence of the term. But on Wikipedia we should avoid the sort of BOLD which got Mr. Bruce thrown in jail. I'm going to ask you, Baangla, to strikethough the offending term. I'm going to insist upon a response. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are not required to answer but how old are you, Baangla? The reason I boldly ask is that you have been in trouble largely because of the lack of (forgive me) maturity demonstrated in your edits. In your exchanges with me and LordC you seem to be interested in witchcraft and ghosts. You seem to toss insulting epithets casually. These seem like (forgive me) immature behaviors to display on a highly-visible planetary platform. I do not disparage the young in heart, but I caution Baangla to demonstrate more maturity in behavior when literally anyone in the planet can read what you've written (even years from today) and justifiably object. BusterD (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

OK, I am sorry!-Baangla (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What's a bit ironic is that I think in some ways "witchcraft" and "ghosts" represent a western glance of the authentic social and religious views of native islanders. What I complain about being lost was the songs, the stories, the beliefs of pre-exposure island culture. So we're actually talking about the same things, but using different metaphors. BusterD (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good job on the striking through, btw. Everyone sticks their keyboard in their mouth occasionally. It's an excellent idea to know how to redact one's own words. Don't ever strikethrough somebody else's words. That's a bad action. A strikethrough represents a self-withdrawal of a word or words (where a removal may appear to be covering up for an error). BusterD (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hollywood movies use the word, so I did not know that it was offensive. I am just retired.-Baangla (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks BusterD, and thank you Baangla for striking the comment. I probably won’t have much time for research until the weekend, but will definitely get on that. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No worries. Everybody's doing something useful. BusterD (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I found this and this and I think it satisfies me (for now).-Baangla (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Just for the record, you are not required to make a full time job of mentoring. Up until very recently, 90% of your edits have been to main space, with edits to many articles, which is always great to see. Don't feel like you must at all costs make a mentoring project successful. Valereee (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks Valereee, I will keep that in mind. I did put a lot of work into main-space in June-July, but I felt burned out/upset after I got accused of trolling. I feel like helping Baangla will help show I am here in good faith, in addition to hopefully helping them become a more constructive editor. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Then that's great. :) Valereee (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

LordCollaboration, you have impressed me (and others) during this episode. Your behavior has shined, made all of en.wikipedia look good. Thank you, truly. Now with the application of the community topic ban, we're in a new era. Any editor may report a violation; any admin may choose to act. So if the mentee decides to act badly, it's entirely on them. Don't freak if they get themselves blocked. You and I might do a little work between us. You've earned more of my trust and admiration. You should benefit from this effort; in some important ways you already have. Think about something onwiki you'd like to accomplish. Together, we can make it happen. You are no longer alone on English Wikipedia. You have put yourself on my map (and Valereee's too). BusterD (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, BusterD. I really appreciate your help and encouragement. I’m sorry things haven’t gone nearly as well as hoped, and I hope I haven’t wasted the community’s time.

I’ve been considering doing some work on the Sampit conflict article for a while. My wife moved to Kalimantan as a very young child in the aftermath of the conflict and told me some of the wild legends around it. I was curious what actually happened, so checked out our article on it, which was contradictory and confusing. I cleaned up the lead based on the sources used in the article, but I never got around to doing more research. Most of the current sources are news stories in the immediate aftermath; some recent academic sources would definitely be ideal if I can find them. The negative is that my Indonesian is poor, so I would be rather reliant on Google translate and nagging my wife for most sources. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I honestly don't remember why I watchlisted your talk page, but I have been enjoying watching your progress so far, and have been seriously impressed with your conduct and tenacity. If you ever need anything from me, please don't hesitate to reach out and I'll do my best to assist. Best regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks Grumpylawnchair, I appreciate it :) LordCollaboration (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For the record, I reapplied the indef block on Baangla this morning. I felt they were gaming the mentorship in the same casual way they had gamed the ECP. LordC, you should not consider this a failure, or a mistake. I'd label this an adventure, and one which reflected quite well on your efforts. Some wikipedians aren't yet mature enough to police themselves. Despite their protestations, Baangla is clearly a very young contributor. BusterD (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

+1. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks BusterD, I agree this was the best option at this point. I hope they take the recent advice offered LordCollaboration (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As they do say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Grumpylawnchair @BusterD

Hello again to both of you! I've been reading up and taking notes on several Indonesia-related topics since we last spoke.

My furthest along one is here: User:LordCollaboration/sandbox

I need to do a sweep through the citations to make sure everything is proper and include quotes for the physical books/other not easily available sources, but I figured it was at the point where I could use some input, as this is the first article I have created. Any thoughts/criticisms would be greatly appreciated if you have some time. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Aye, I'll take a look at it right now. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Alright, here's a few of my notes (I reviewed to WP:GA standard, since I think the article is already at that quality or close to it). I'll add onto this later after I get some more time:

• Is Ledo a shortening of Sanggau Ledo district?
• The Dayak people are one of the indigenous ethnic groups in West Kalimantan – could probably be shortened to The Dayak people are indigenous to West Kalimantan
• Many were dressed in traditional war attire. What is Dayak traditional war attire?
• although some academics find estimates in the thousands as plausible Which academics?
• Press freedom subsection, perhaps "Censorship" would be a more apt title for it?
• Perhaps combine the piecemeal one-sentence paragraphs into larger paragraphs?

Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you! I've incorporated those changes.

Ledo is a separate, neighboring district (there's also a Sanggau Regency, mentioned in my piece as well, which is also completely separate...). All of the red links have an Indonesian Wikipedia page, I am thinking of creating them here at some point.

I cut the part on war attire since my sources don't go into any further detail. LordCollaboration (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll come up with a more detailed review in the next few days. Sincerely, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Grumpylawnchair, just to let you know, I moved it to draft space in case anyone else wanted to comment as well. Draft:Sanggau_Ledo_riots LordCollaboration (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Aye right, sorry, rubbish few weeks, haven't had much time for Wikipedia. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No worries at all! I really appreciate you reading through it and providing feedback, it was very helpful. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For your mentoring efforts, even if they didn't turn out the way we had hoped.

Grumpylawnchair (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also I'll hold myself to BusterD's offer, if there's anything you would like accomplished on-wiki, please do let me know and we can do it together. You deserve it after all you've done for the project. Best regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you! Sad how it ended up, but I will definitely start working on a project soon. LordCollaboration (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Understood. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you need anything or want to collaborate. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I noticed, that you undid my revisions in the title article. Although I agree, that not all statements there were supported by reliable references, most were. Also, the infor, that I added was quite useful: it is not JUNK or UNTRUE. If you have specific suggestions on what can be improved, please let mw know. There are also other people, who work on this article, and they can improve it fast than I can. Please come back in a month, and check how much better this article becomes. ApoieRacional (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I did not say it was "junk". As I said in my revert message, it appeared to be AI generated and there were several cases where I confirmed they were not supported by the sources you used.[1] I stand by this assessment.

I see another user reverted your changes again after you reinstated them, saying outright that it is AI generated.[2] And a third user on your talk page also said it appeared AI generated.[3]

As I asked on your talk page after reverting the edit,[4] which I see you did not respond to, can you confirm if you used AI to generate this or not? LordCollaboration (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

By the way, I think it would be a deep shame if you were blocked over this, as you have shown that you are capable of very useful contributions (the Jacques Baud article you created is a good example of this). I recommend coming clean on use of AI (if you are indeed using it) and promising to spend more time ensuring your changes are supported by reliable sources from now on. Best wishes. LordCollaboration (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Stop icon You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ~2025-42284-42 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi LordCollaboration, I am an administrator and checkuser here. I did not see the complaint that this refers to, but I happened to see your discussion at User talk:Glebushko0703#Please stop insinuating that I might be a sock puppet. I warned Glebushko0703 that repeatedly accusing you of sockpuppetry without evidence is harassment and I would block them if they don't knock it off. They removed my comment 7 minutes later, but that is evidence that they read it.

Their revert of my warning led me to investigate further. It seems they are upset about having been banned from a topic and are blaming you for it, and are threatening to report you for suspicion of sockpuppetry as a quid pro quo for you withdrawing a complaint somewhere else. I want to be clear with you about this: on English Wikipedia we do not check users (as in use the checkuser tool to review technical information about your connection) unless a user has provided clear evidence supporting their suspicion. We're not allowed to check on a "hunch" or "just because" (see WP:NOTFISHING). I can't guarantee that you wouldn't be checked if an investigation was requested with good evidence, but at the moment I see none. The motivation of the editor requesting the check would also be taken into consideration in the decision to check or not.

If Glebushko0703 continues bothering you about this, please let me know or report to another administrator. Thanks. (Courtesy ping ToBeFree) Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 01:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, Ivanvector, I appreciate it. LordCollaboration (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You seem to conduct your investigation rather poorly, since I wasn't topic blocked in the first place (it was just a poor phrasing), and the user didn't have any complaints against me (apart from the accusation itself). On the contrary, i'm the one who had few complaints regarding the user being suspicious by observing his behaviour.

For a clarification of what have actually happened please read the full discussion on my page, and to find out why I "blame" this user see User talk:ToBeFree#Block.

P.S. My swift removal of your comment indeed signified that I've read it, I didn't want to upset the user by making him see that admins have noticed it, since at the time you posted it I was trying to figure out how to remove my notice board message. Gigman (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Unfortunately, they continue to claim that they "have plenty of evidence" that I am a sock puppet.[5] LordCollaboration (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, now I see where're you going with this after getting a boost of confidence...

Where exactly in this diff do I claim you to be a sockpuppet again? I'm just explaining the situation to another user who didn't understand it. "Plenty of evidence" refferes to my logical reasons to suspect you + thing you have politely asked me not to express publically.

I want you to know that this admin is aware of what's going on and he has seen the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3 Löwi discussion. I'm not an active contributor to that investigation yet. Gigman (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I didn't say you claimed I was a sock puppet, you continually insinuate that I might be a sock puppet. Here you literally said "I've stated my reasoninng in the discussion on my page and this user insisted not to be investigated, so I dropped the case. I still have plenty of evidence" If you say you have plenty of evidence for a sock puppet case, that is absolutely insinuating that I might be a sock puppet. Here again, you say you have "logical reasons to suspect". No, you do not. Stop saying this without posting an actual investigation.

You've explained nothing. You refuse to stop posting that you have evidence while also refusing to actually post this "evidence" at a sock puppet investigation. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Check the other discussion we're having where I explain my usage of the word "evidence".

I have personally killed this topic yesterday, but you still fiercely insist I'm accusing you of something that you are not to 2 admins already. Perhaps another reason I should add to my suspicion list is "you desperately trying to get me blocked", be that by supposedly provoking me into edit war or by word picking from my discussions. Gigman (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Check the other discussion we're having where I explain my usage of the word "evidence". Changing to plenty of "reasons" to suspect I am a sock is not better at all.

I have personally killed this topic yesterday

Clearly not, since you continue to say you have plenty of reasons to suspect me of being a sock.

but you still fiercely insist I'm accusing you of something that you are not to 2 admins already.

No, I did not say it to two admins. I said it to one, above. It's not my fault you are making these accusations on an admin's page, and I responded to you there.

Perhaps another reason I should add to my suspicion list is "you desperately trying to get me blocked"

Very convincing evidence. Definitely post this at SPI.

supposedly provoking me into edit war

Supposedly? Who is saying I provoked you into edit warring? LordCollaboration (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You will always have something to say in my opposition, this conversation will never end wouldn't it? I might not have a right to accuse you of anything, but I do have a full right to be suspicious of you and your actions personally. Let's just look at facts:

You share a point of view on a certain subject with a community that spams socks, and you have participated in a discussion with them and on their side.

Your presence is quite frequent on my screen after i conducet any sort of activity, no matter what's the cause of it.

Your page is new and relatively empty.

And now you simply cannot get this topic done with by making me respond, presumably in hope of seeing something that gets me banned (maybe abother "evidence" word, I don't see another reason for this)

Those are my reasons, and all of them allow me to be logically wary of you, I think it's completely understandable. Gigman (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Why are you incapable of following a very simple request?[6]

Again, I do not want to hear anything about your "suspicions" until you open a SPI. If any of these were actually true and logical, you would post the diffs, and yet you continually refuse. Leave me alone. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please file an SPI report with whatever evidence you have. Thank you. ~2025-43978-49 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 03:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]