User talk:Cairnesteak

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Cairnesteak! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 19:23, Thursday, June 29, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

English spelling

Before changing the English spelling in any more articles you should read WP:ENGVAR in its entirety. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will carefully read that section, and then I think it is advisable I read the entirety of the manual of style. The amount of information, markup, and rules here on Wikipedia is immense, so I appreciate you informing me of that.

I will also go back and fix those alterations I made and take another look once I know the rules regarding regional spelling better.

@Cairnesteak Cairnesteak (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Henge, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I very much appreciate you bringing this to my attention, and I will be reverting those changes I made.

That makes a lot of sense, I was a bit confused on how it was handled - but I will read the manual of style, especially the section regarding national varieties of english.

And thank you for the invitation to ask questions, there is a lot to learn here!

I had no intention of disrespecting other people's usages of english - but I can see now that I was. Apologies. Cairnesteak (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder about this guideline, as you made an ENGVAR swap at [1]. DMacks (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello, Cairnesteak, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToBeFree, I only have this account, and use it to do edits. I do not have multiple accounts. I want to have more contributions, and hope to continue to improve at editing skills. Thanks! Cairnesteak (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Newslinger. An edit that you recently made to Talk:Zak Smith seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This also applies to discussions on talk and project pages. Please do not post LLM-generated comments, especially without proper disclosure. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello Cairnesteak, how did you become aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across that discussion and the discussion above it by looking for it, I have been trying to pay attention to the procedures in place for escalation, voting, et cetera. Given other editors/participants conduct, I thought it would be making its way to other places: and it did.

Thanks! Cairnesteak (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for it where/how? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read about conflict resolution, COI, and notice boards - someone mentioned teahouse and I looked at that too. On Wikipedia:Noticeboards, there are several links to different noticeboards, along with suggestions for success. It said any editor could edit if familiar with the relevant policies: I am still learning. Did I do something incorrect with formatting or something? There is so much information, so if I missed something, I'd love to know. Cairnesteak (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cairnesteak, whether it was on someone's talk page or via off-wiki communication, I'm relatively certain that you were informed about the existence of that specific noticeboard discussion and need to stop acting as a meatpuppet for whomever let you know. If I'm wrong, great. If I'm right, you don't need to confirm this and you're welcome to keep denying it; all I want is you to know that if it's the case, it's obviously-enough the case and you should avoid continuing it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Slacker13 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13. 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 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 ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 17:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13 § 26 August 2025:

Blocked and tagged indefinitely for apparent meatpuppetry. Cairnesteak is advised that, if they wish to edit topics unrelated to Zak Smith on Wikipedia, an unblock request would be more likely to be successful if they accept a topic ban from Zak Smith as an unblock condition (see also this administrator's comment to Jehmbo). — Newslinger talk 17:36, 14 September 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).

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

Request reason:

The reason I might appear to be a Single Purpose Account (I.e. disproportionate edits) is that this discussion and the subsequent RFCs and topic ban [2] [3] [4] are the first disputes I voted, discussed, and participated in.

Since I am a novice, this tends to dwarf my other (small) contributions, but I was planning/working on doing many more. See: [5], which gave me a lot of good advice from admins, and directions I was pursuing.

As I stated previously [6] I copy-pasted text from a word editor - and this transfer of markup caused formatting issues.

I didn't "accuse" morbidthoughts of anything - I simply pointed out an Apparent COI, which is the actual Wikipedia term: WP:APPARENTCOI. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything like bias, I was just describing a situation where bias is possible: [7].

I based this on [8], which is something morbidthoughts publicly stated on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with opposition research, morbidthoughts has been very clear about their professional involvement in pornography through edits on Wikipedia. Thus I also used the term Subject-Matter Expert - which has its own Wikipedia page: [9].

Using those words (apparent COI, and subject-matter expert) is not proof of me being a sockpuppet; rather those words are ones I used in this circumstance because they are pertinent. Any similarity to other COI issues raised in the past by other people was unintentional, even if it was a COI issue pointed out about the same article.

Accusing me of being a sock/meatpuppet because I agreed with others, made formatting mistakes, am a novice, and due to my style of writing is not only disingenuous; it doesn't make sense.

I do not understand how anyone could learn to do this Wikipedia thing without making mistakes; I feel I have been punished for every mistake, unjustly. I have been responsive, civil, and do not feel a block is merited.

Thank you for your attention, and time. Cairnesteak (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Close as unresponsive. You may make a new request when you are able to engage with us and respond to the question below, yes or no. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 20 September 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.

Would you agree to a topic ban from the subject of Zak Smith? 331dot (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am capable of engaging with you all, apologies for my tardiness.

The reason I might appear to be a Single Purpose Account (I.e. disproportionate edits) is that this is the first discussion and the subsequent RFCs and topic ban [10] [11] [12] are the first disputes I voted, discussed, and participated in. Since I am a novice, this tends to dwarf my other (small) contributions, but I was planning/working on doing many more. See: [13], which gave me a lot of good advice from admins, and directions I was pursuing.

As I stated previously, I used a text editor- [14] I copy-pasted text from that text editor – and this transfer of markup caused formatting issues.

I didn't "accuse" morbidthoughts of anything – I simply pointed out an Apparent COI, which is the actual Wikipedia term: WP:APPARENTCOI. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything like bias, I was just describing a situation where bias is possible: [15].

I based this on [16], which is something morbidthoughts publicly stated on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with opposition research, morbidthoughts has been very clear about their professional involvement in pornography through edits on Wikipedia. Thus I also used the term Subject-Matter Expert – which has its own Wikipedia page: [17].

Using those words (apparent COI, and subject-matter expert) is not proof of me being a sockpuppet; rather those words are simply ones I used in this circumstance, the similarity to other COI issues raised in the past by other people was unintentional, even if it was a COI issue pointed out about the same article.

Accusing me of being a sock/meatpuppet because I agreed with others, made formatting mistakes, am a novice, and due to my style of writing is not only disingenuous; it doesn't make sense.

Would I agree to a topic ban from the subject of Zak Smith? No, I would not: I haven’t seen any people with opposing opinions about the inclusion of that section being topic banned, or even told they could be topic banned. So I see no reason I should be excluded from the conversation, given my other points refuting the claim that I am a puppet of any sort. Despite my mistakes, I have been trying to avoid even slightly disruptive comments, bludgeoning, and anything else that wastes time or belabors points. Despite this, I have made definite mistakes, which I apologize for. The last thing I want to do is waste other people's time - but sometimes my inexperience or outside life interferes.

I do not understand how anyone could learn to do this Wikipedia thing without making mistakes, which is a crucial part of the learning process. I have been as responsive as life allows, civil, and do not feel a banning is merited.

Thank you for your attention and time, please accept my apologies for the delay.

Cairnesteak (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am capable of engaging with you all, apologies for my tardiness.
The reason I might appear to be a Single Purpose Account (I.e. disproportionate edits) is that this is the first discussion and the subsequent RFCs and topic ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zak_Smith#c-Slacker13-20250820204900-Removing_contentious_material_based_on_new_information] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zak_Smith#RfC:_Sexual_abuse_allegations] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_believe_that_a_page_is_being_used_as_a_suspected_battleground] are the first disputes I voted, discussed, and participated in. 
Since I am a novice, this tends to dwarf my other (small) contributions, but I was planning/working on doing many more. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1308378914], which gave me a lot of good advice from admins, and directions I was pursuing.

As I stated previously, I used a text editor-  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newslinger&diff=prev&oldid=1307820952] I copy-pasted text from that text editor – and this transfer of markup caused formatting issues.

I didn't "accuse" morbidthoughts of anything – I simply pointed out an Apparent COI, which is the actual Wikipedia term: [[WP:APPARENTCOI]]. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything like bias, I was just describing a situation where bias is possible: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morbidthoughts&diff=prev&oldid=1307872794].

I based this on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morbidthoughts&diff=prev&oldid=966719506], which is something morbidthoughts publicly stated on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with opposition research, morbidthoughts has been very clear about their professional involvement in pornography through edits on Wikipedia. Thus I also used the term Subject-Matter Expert – which has its own Wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-matter_expert].

Using those words (apparent COI, and subject-matter expert) is not proof of me being a sockpuppet; rather those words are simply ones I used in this circumstance, the similarity to other COI issues raised in the past by other people was unintentional, even if it was a COI issue pointed out about the same article.

Accusing me of being a sock/meatpuppet because I agreed with others, made formatting mistakes, am a novice, and due to my style of writing is not only disingenuous; it doesn't make sense.

Would I agree to a topic ban from the subject of Zak Smith? No, I would not: I haven’t seen any people with opposing opinions about the inclusion of that section being topic banned, or even told they could be topic banned. So I see no reason I should be excluded from the conversation, given my other points refuting the claim that I am a puppet of any sort. Despite my mistakes, I have been trying to avoid even slightly disruptive comments, bludgeoning, and anything else that wastes time or belabors points. Despite this, I have made definite mistakes, which I apologize for. The last thing I want to do is waste other people's time - but sometimes my inexperience or outside life interferes.

I do not understand how anyone could learn to do this Wikipedia thing without making mistakes, which is a crucial part of the learning process. I have been as responsive as life allows, civil, and do not feel a banning is merited.

Thank you for your attention and time, please accept my apologies for the delay.
    [[User:Cairnesteak|Cairnesteak]] ([[User talk:Cairnesteak#top|talk]]) 18:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am capable of engaging with you all, apologies for my tardiness.
The reason I might appear to be a Single Purpose Account (I.e. disproportionate edits) is that this is the first discussion and the subsequent RFCs and topic ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zak_Smith#c-Slacker13-20250820204900-Removing_contentious_material_based_on_new_information] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zak_Smith#RfC:_Sexual_abuse_allegations] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_believe_that_a_page_is_being_used_as_a_suspected_battleground] are the first disputes I voted, discussed, and participated in. 
Since I am a novice, this tends to dwarf my other (small) contributions, but I was planning/working on doing many more. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1308378914], which gave me a lot of good advice from admins, and directions I was pursuing.

As I stated previously, I used a text editor-  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newslinger&diff=prev&oldid=1307820952] I copy-pasted text from that text editor – and this transfer of markup caused formatting issues.

I didn't "accuse" morbidthoughts of anything – I simply pointed out an Apparent COI, which is the actual Wikipedia term: [[WP:APPARENTCOI]]. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything like bias, I was just describing a situation where bias is possible: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morbidthoughts&diff=prev&oldid=1307872794].

I based this on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morbidthoughts&diff=prev&oldid=966719506], which is something morbidthoughts publicly stated on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with opposition research, morbidthoughts has been very clear about their professional involvement in pornography through edits on Wikipedia. Thus I also used the term Subject-Matter Expert – which has its own Wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-matter_expert].

Using those words (apparent COI, and subject-matter expert) is not proof of me being a sockpuppet; rather those words are simply ones I used in this circumstance, the similarity to other COI issues raised in the past by other people was unintentional, even if it was a COI issue pointed out about the same article.

Accusing me of being a sock/meatpuppet because I agreed with others, made formatting mistakes, am a novice, and due to my style of writing is not only disingenuous; it doesn't make sense.

Would I agree to a topic ban from the subject of Zak Smith? No, I would not: I haven’t seen any people with opposing opinions about the inclusion of that section being topic banned, or even told they could be topic banned. So I see no reason I should be excluded from the conversation, given my other points refuting the claim that I am a puppet of any sort. Despite my mistakes, I have been trying to avoid even slightly disruptive comments, bludgeoning, and anything else that wastes time or belabors points. Despite this, I have made definite mistakes, which I apologize for. The last thing I want to do is waste other people's time - but sometimes my inexperience or outside life interferes.

I do not understand how anyone could learn to do this Wikipedia thing without making mistakes, which is a crucial part of the learning process. I have been as responsive as life allows, civil, and do not feel a banning is merited.

Thank you for your attention and time, please accept my apologies for the delay.
    [[User:Cairnesteak|Cairnesteak]] ([[User talk:Cairnesteak#top|talk]]) 18:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am capable of engaging with you all, apologies for my tardiness.
The reason I might appear to be a Single Purpose Account (I.e. disproportionate edits) is that this is the first discussion and the subsequent RFCs and topic ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zak_Smith#c-Slacker13-20250820204900-Removing_contentious_material_based_on_new_information] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zak_Smith#RfC:_Sexual_abuse_allegations] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_believe_that_a_page_is_being_used_as_a_suspected_battleground] are the first disputes I voted, discussed, and participated in. 
Since I am a novice, this tends to dwarf my other (small) contributions, but I was planning/working on doing many more. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1308378914], which gave me a lot of good advice from admins, and directions I was pursuing.

As I stated previously, I used a text editor-  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newslinger&diff=prev&oldid=1307820952] I copy-pasted text from that text editor – and this transfer of markup caused formatting issues.

I didn't "accuse" morbidthoughts of anything – I simply pointed out an Apparent COI, which is the actual Wikipedia term: [[WP:APPARENTCOI]]. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything like bias, I was just describing a situation where bias is possible: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morbidthoughts&diff=prev&oldid=1307872794].

I based this on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morbidthoughts&diff=prev&oldid=966719506], which is something morbidthoughts publicly stated on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with opposition research, morbidthoughts has been very clear about their professional involvement in pornography through edits on Wikipedia. Thus I also used the term Subject-Matter Expert – which has its own Wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-matter_expert].

Using those words (apparent COI, and subject-matter expert) is not proof of me being a sockpuppet; rather those words are simply ones I used in this circumstance, the similarity to other COI issues raised in the past by other people was unintentional, even if it was a COI issue pointed out about the same article.

Accusing me of being a sock/meatpuppet because I agreed with others, made formatting mistakes, am a novice, and due to my style of writing is not only disingenuous; it doesn't make sense.

Would I agree to a topic ban from the subject of Zak Smith? No, I would not: I haven’t seen any people with opposing opinions about the inclusion of that section being topic banned, or even told they could be topic banned. So I see no reason I should be excluded from the conversation, given my other points refuting the claim that I am a puppet of any sort. Despite my mistakes, I have been trying to avoid even slightly disruptive comments, bludgeoning, and anything else that wastes time or belabors points. Despite this, I have made definite mistakes, which I apologize for. The last thing I want to do is waste other people's time - but sometimes my inexperience or outside life interferes.

I do not understand how anyone could learn to do this Wikipedia thing without making mistakes, which is a crucial part of the learning process. I have been as responsive as life allows, civil, and do not feel a banning is merited.

Thank you for your attention and time, please accept my apologies for the delay.
    [[User:Cairnesteak|Cairnesteak]] ([[User talk:Cairnesteak#top|talk]]) 18:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}