User talk:LoneWolf803

January 2024

Hello, LoneWolf803, 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. Jingiby (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? How? LoneWolf803 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.Jingiby (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I did so, my apologies. LoneWolf803 (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, this above was my mistake. Jingiby (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, cheers! LoneWolf803 (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hello, I'm Tdmurlock. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, LGBT people and Islam, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tdmurlock (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. LoneWolf803 (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Güzel Choice Awards moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Güzel Choice Awards. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Suntoloo Panoom (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for letting me know. Cheers. LoneWolf803 (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi LoneWolf803. Please use meaningful edit summaries when you contribute to Wikipedia. I have noticed you often use "mechanical" to describe your changes. This is not meaningful, and does not help other editors understand your changes without reviewing the diffs - defeating the purpose of an edit summary. Help:Edit summary has further guidance. Thanks. — Manticore 22:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. The reason I used “mechanical” is simply to concisely and simply describe, well, mechanical (I.e. minor grammatical, spelling, phrasing changes.) What are some other edit summaries I could use while maintaining conciseness and simplicity? Thank you. LoneWolf803 (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the links on the help page I linked above, this list might be useful to you - Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. — Manticore 02:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! I will take a look. I hope I am doing better now, going forward, I will be doing my best to use more specific and meaningful edit summaries, per Wikipedia standard. LoneWolf803 (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:ByzantineIsNotRoman per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ByzantineIsNotRoman. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

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).

LoneWolf803 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not understand what I did wrong. How was I tied to an account I have no relation to? If you look on my talk page, a while ago somebody suspected the same thing but corrected themselves soon after. I believe this is an error in the system or a mistake by a user. Please help! LoneWolf803 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ByzantineIsNotRoman. Yamla (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2024 (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.

Block appeal again (having to use this because I cannot reply to either my talk page or the investigation page

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).

LoneWolf803 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Concerns? What concerns exactly? I clicked the link and all I see for my “investigation” is “Likely” “blocked and tagged” what does that even mean? As I said, this must be an error in either the automated check user system or by an administrator. I see the accusation against me now, but cannot even reply to it to defend myself because I am blocked. Furthermore, I was given absolutely no notice that I was being investigated as a sockpuppet and thus had no ability to defend myself against the claim whatsoever. How can this be fair? Can you at least regrant me some editing privileges so I can defend myself with evidence and reason on the investigation page against this nonsense claim? LoneWolf803 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You shouldn't be having any difficulty posting to this page(the Reply function is imperfect, often it's better to just click "edit" at the top). Notice is not required(and sometimes even discouraged) when a SPI is opened. Your chance to defend yourself is now. Please explain why you appear to have been building up your edit count artificially, and why you were editing the exact same articles as a blocked user(these are the concerns raised in the SPI). 331dot (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2024 (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.

Okay. I am replying to defend myself here as I cannot reply on the SPI page as I stated. As you can see here, an administrator already confirmed that I DID NOT game to increase my edit count, as I was having a bug with GBoard that was casuing me to only be able to make one character edits at a time. [1]

See here as well [2]

And here [3]

As to why I edited pages that were “also edited by a blocked user”, I mean, how am I supposed to answer that? Does making edits to pages previously edited by sockpuppets warrant blocking an innocent and uninvolved user? As I said, (I am now aware that SPI don’t usually inform those being investigated) but regardless I wasn’t even initially aware that I WAS editing pages previously edited by a blocked user. I am sorry for any confusion and red flags I caused by doing this. I have absolutely no connections to the sockpuppet user account and joined Wikipedia in mid-late January. Also, as you can see by my first talk page section, a seemingly experienced user with tens of thousands of edits initially suspected I was a sockpuppet account somehow as well, but soon corrected themselves and admitted to making a mistake. This all seems like either a mishap on part of the check user system, by an administrator, or both. I already tagged Izno, an administrator who understood and addressed the issues I was having in regards to the editing bug not too long ago, and am seeking their input as well. Thank you.

You need to make a new unblock request for someone else to review. Yes, users who edit the pages that blocked users edited exclusively are themselves blocked as sock puppets. This block has the added enhancement of being a checkuser block, meaning that there is private technical evidence(that even admins cannot see) to support it- so you will need to explain why we should disbelieve a technical connection to a blocked user on top of the fact you were editing the exact same articles. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help ASAP!

Izno can you please kindly help me with this? I have been unfairly and unjustly blocked as a sockpuppet despite no notice of investigation whatsoever, and Yamla told me that my block appeal “didn’t address the concerns raised at the investigation page.” Well I cannot address any concerns there as I cannot even reply on the investigation page to defend myself! This is utterly unfair and completely unjust. Any help would be appreciated. Please at least give me a chance to defend myself and make a reasonable argument. I am fully prepared to defend myself with any and all evidence and reason I can. I sincerely believe this is an error/bug in the check user system or a mistake on an administrator’s part. Thank you. LoneWolf803 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New unblock request per latest discussion on my talk page

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).

LoneWolf803 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

3] As to why I edited pages that were “also edited by a blocked user”, I mean, how am I supposed to answer that? Does making edits to pages previously edited by sockpuppets warrant blocking an innocent and uninvolved user? As I said, (I am now aware that SPI don’t usually inform those being investigated) but regardless I wasn’t even initially aware that I WAS editing pages previously edited by a blocked user. I am sorry for any confusion and red flags I caused by doing this. I have absolutely no connections to the sockpuppet user account and joined Wikipedia in mid-late January. Also, as you can see by my first talk page section, a seemingly experienced user with tens of thousands of edits initially suspected I was a sockpuppet account somehow as well, but soon corrected themselves and admitted to making a mistake. And it seems like made edits to two (2) articles in total that also happened to be edited by a blocked user (neither of the two page edits were the same and in fact one appears to be completely different in context, material, etc.) Apologies if I’m wrong, but this seems to be nowhere near enough “evidence” to confirm anything. Even the seemingly erroneous check user said “likely” and not “confirmed”. This all seems like either a mishap on part of the check user system, by an administrator, or both. I promise you that you are making a mistake here and unjustly punishing an innocent and uninvolved user. Could I perhaps at least be unblocked and have the “sockpuppet” tag removed whilst possibly having the SPI started over and re-analyzed, with me being able to actually defend myself and present evidence this time? Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you. LoneWolf803 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2024 (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.

For some reason (seemingly another technical error), the unblock request cut out half of my text. Here is all of it again just in case.

For whoever reads this, as you can see here, despite claims on the SPI page, an administrator already confirmed that I DID NOT game to increase my edit count, as I was having a bug with GBoard that was casuing me to only be able to make one character edits at a time. [4]

See here as well [5]

And here [6]

As to why I edited pages that were “also edited by a blocked user”, I mean, how am I supposed to answer that? Does making edits to pages previously edited by sockpuppets warrant blocking an innocent and uninvolved user? As I said, (I am now aware that SPI don’t usually inform those being investigated) but regardless I wasn’t even initially aware that I WAS editing pages previously edited by a blocked user. I am sorry for any confusion and red flags I caused by doing this. I have absolutely no connections to the sockpuppet user account and joined Wikipedia in mid-late January. Also, as you can see by my first talk page section, a seemingly experienced user with tens of thousands of edits initially suspected I was a sockpuppet account somehow as well, but soon corrected themselves and admitted to making a mistake. And it seems like made edits to two (2) articles in total that also happened to be edited by a blocked user (neither of the two page edits were the same and in fact one appears to be completely different in context, material, etc.) Apologies if I’m wrong, but this seems to be nowhere near enough “evidence” to confirm anything. Even the seemingly erroneous check user said “likely” and not “confirmed”. This all seems like either a mishap on part of the check user system, by an administrator, or both. I promise you that you are making a mistake here and unjustly punishing an innocent and uninvolved user. As I said, I experienced a serious bug which seemed to get me intro trouble with regards to the Wikipedia editor, so it doesn’t seem very far-fetched that the check user system/administrator could also make a mistake/experience a bug as well. Could I perhaps at least be unblocked and have the “sockpuppet” tag removed whilst possibly having the SPI started over and re-analyzed, with me being able to actually defend myself and present evidence this time? Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

As I said, your chance to defend yourself is here, now. Someone else will review this. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Hence why I posted another unblock/review request just as you suggested. I experienced a serious bug which seemed to get me intro trouble with regards to the editor, so it doesn’t seem very far-fetched that the check user system/administrator could also make a mistake as well. I am awaiting someone to else to review this as you noted. Thanks. LoneWolf803 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Güzel Choice Awards

Hello, LoneWolf803. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Güzel Choice Awards, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Güzel Choice Awards

Hello, LoneWolf803. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Güzel Choice Awards".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]