User talk:Sombodystolemyname

Welcome

Hello, Sombodystolemyname, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Sombodystolemyname, good luck, and have fun. Packerfan386beer here 23:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello, Sombodystolemyname, 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]

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]

This is my only account Sombodystolemyname (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sombodystolemyname, thank you very much for the clarification! I was mostly concerned about how you found the discussion about the Zak Smith article. It must have been through a path that others took too. Perhaps a public message on Twitter/X or something like this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I follow him on Instagram and I saw that he had a new verdict, so I went to his page to see if it was reflected there or if I could be the first, and there was already discussion. Sombodystolemyname (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Please avoid acting on someone else's behalf or creating the impression of this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello Sombodystolemyname, how did you become aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious of their editing history after all the back and forth about formatting issues and technical details so I decided to see what their other edits looked like. I saw the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on their contributions page. Sombodystolemyname (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I should have expected that after I said that's fine here, the next explanation from your group of apparently-coordinating editors is similar. My message from 19:07, 21 August 2025 above is still valid. If you adjusted your response based on what others said, you know what you are doing and need to stop that. If it's a coincidence, great and no worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandi Gray

Hi there! I left this on White Spider Shadow's talkpage, too, and you might find it helpful as well. Regarding [t]herefore, if someone - either in the news, case law, or my research - identified their experience as sexual violence, I accepted their claim. This definition of sexual violence does not claim normative status, nor does it claim to be "truth"; I think you might be misinterpreting this - what the author is saying is that if an interviewee says they that what they experienced is sexual violence, she took them at their word. She's letting her subjects define their experiences, and they had experiences that they would describe as sexual violence.

Pretend we both eat half of the same sandwich. I say it's delicious, and you say it's gross. Neither one is "true" or "false" in an objective fact kind of way. And if someone is asking you about that sandwich, and you say it's gross, they're going to believe you. You ate a sandwich that you would describe as gross. No one gets to tell you that it wasn't. If I say "no actually it was delicious," that doesn't make your gross sandwich experience any less gross.

When Gray writes that This definition of sexual violence does not claim normative status, nor does it claim to be "truth", she's saying that there is no one-size-fits-all definition. She's not saying that she's unconcerned with accuracy or fact-checking, because it's not a fact that can be checked (much like if any given sandwich is delicious or gross). There isn't a checklist that needs to be filled out, or certain criteria to be met.

I hope that helps clear things up somewhat for you! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Sombodystolemyname! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Collapsing Comments Claiming LLM, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:07, 6 September 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. Sombodystolemyname 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 two unblock conditions: a topic ban from Zak Smith, and a prohibition against using a large language model (LLM) to make edits on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked unfairly. people keep claiming that I am using LLM just because I type out a longer message in another text editor and then paste it in, which is much easier to do than trying to compose something in this editor. The reason I have so many edits in the Zak Smith Talk page is because it is a very active page right now and I am trying to actively participate in the discussion but keep getting falsely accused. Sombodystolemyname (talk) 19:51, 19 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 have been blocked unfairly. people keep claiming that I am using LLM just because I type out a longer message in another text editor and then paste it in, which is much easier to do than trying to compose something in this editor.  The reason I have so many edits in the Zak Smith Talk page is because it is a very active page right now and I am trying to actively participate in the discussion but keep getting falsely accused. [[User:Sombodystolemyname|Sombodystolemyname]] ([[User talk:Sombodystolemyname#top|talk]]) 19:51, 19 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 have been blocked unfairly. people keep claiming that I am using LLM just because I type out a longer message in another text editor and then paste it in, which is much easier to do than trying to compose something in this editor.  The reason I have so many edits in the Zak Smith Talk page is because it is a very active page right now and I am trying to actively participate in the discussion but keep getting falsely accused. [[User:Sombodystolemyname|Sombodystolemyname]] ([[User talk:Sombodystolemyname#top|talk]]) 19:51, 19 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 have been blocked unfairly. people keep claiming that I am using LLM just because I type out a longer message in another text editor and then paste it in, which is much easier to do than trying to compose something in this editor.  The reason I have so many edits in the Zak Smith Talk page is because it is a very active page right now and I am trying to actively participate in the discussion but keep getting falsely accused. [[User:Sombodystolemyname|Sombodystolemyname]] ([[User talk:Sombodystolemyname#top|talk]]) 19:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Would you agree to a topic ban from Zak Smith, and a prohibition on using an LLM? 331dot (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]