Jbrill, I've tried to be nice about this but I can't find any way around it but tell you here. Firstly, Wikipedia rules are advisory and can be bent if the situation calls for it and they aren't rigorously followed in any case. They are guidelines and that is all. Secondly, can you kindly not follow me around and telling me what I'm doing right and wrong with regards to every single edit? I've been doing this for a few years now whereas you seem to have just started. If administrator users have no issue with me doing what I am and HOW I am approaching editing a page - and they always do say if and when they have an issue - you certainly should not either. I don't want to be forced to report you for WP:FOLLOWING which is what appears to be the case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia I appreciate you trying to be nice, I was trying, and will continue to try to be civil. I understand they are guidelines. Regarding the use of the definite article "the", the comment I left, "Do not use the definite article the before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time", is an exact quote from the article "Naming conventions (ships)". Additionally, the article used a mix of naming ships with and without the definite article, which is not good for internal consistency. I apologize for my behavior if it seems to you like I am following you around. I follow the pages of almost every article relating to Titanic, because it is an area of interest of mine, which seems to heavily overlap with your interests in editing too. I have been treating your edits with the same scrutiny as any other edits on the pages I follow, it's just that most of them happen to be you. The vast majority of your edit's I have let stand or even thanked, there are only a few I have had issues with.

In regards to your logic about administrators, it is dubious. Administrators are not objective, they are people. If they don't personally correct your your edits, that doesn't mean they are perfect. It doesn't matter where these corrections to your edits are coming from, it matters the minutiae of the corrections themselves. If the same corrections came from a veteran volunteer who is a subject matter expert, would you have the same issue? A lot of the issues I do correct involve personally verifying information from references. I know the administrators don't have time to personally verify every piece of information uploaded to this site! Especially not from someone who has been consistently high quality for years.

For example, I found information on Titanic's wikipedia page that did not match the cited sources, and was in fact, the result of mathematical error by a wikipedian, and had been on the page since 2011, nearly 15 years! These erroneous numbers have since spread to many places online, including the New York Times, and United States government websites, despite their dubious origin. I could have said "I am sure the administrators would have removed it if it was wrong", but I didn't, because it was clearly wrong, and unremoved, prior to my action.

If you truly don't want someone to peer review your work, I ask why? If you wish for me to never revert your edits, and take them to a talk page first, (which doesn't seem to mesh with Wikipedia's "Be bold" idea), I will gladly do so. Surely it is not ideal to have only one person write and research a topic on Wikipedia. So I ask this... what would you like me to do exactly? Be more civil? Leave your work unchecked? I recall you mentioning Dr. Paul Lee. Is it fair to assume you are a fan of his? His website has several pages dedicated to criticizing other historians, such as Daniel Allen Butler and Senan Molony, as well as listing inaccuracies in several films, for example A Night to Remember, and Titanic (1997). I, of course, unlike Dr. Paul Lee, haven't called you names or criticized your character, nor do I think negatively of you. However, I refuse to let Wikipedia articles relating to Titanic have one arbiter of truth. Jbrill05 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is WP:FOLLOWING and you've seemingly admitted to it too. You are not the judge of every single edit I do, any more than any other user is. And if I'm not the arbiter of everything Titanic (which I have NEVER claimed to be), neither are you. It is not your place to follow me around Titanic articles and decide if what I edited meets your expectations. This is unusual behavior on Wikipedia and I am asking you to please stop.

Also, please don't assume what I do or don't think about certain topics or people, that is my personal matter and opinion, and absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia, I hear your concerns. It is not my intent to make you feel hounded. I did not, and don't plan on admitting to WP:FOLLOWING. You are right, I am not the judge of every single edit you do, nor is anyone else. I am glad you agree you are not the arbiter of everything Titanic. I never said you were, nor have I claimed you to believe that you are, and I understand I am also not an arbiter of everything Titanic. In fact, no one is. I don't follow you around Titanic articles; I follow the articles themselves.

Wikipedia has a specific tool, reverting, for the very purpose of editors to revert other editors' edits, which they inherently have to use their personal understanding of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, as well as the sources available, and their interpretation thereof, to decide whether to revert or not. Again, my scrutiny is not targeted towards you or your edits. It is merely that you make the vast majority of edits on the topics I am interested in since I started editing. I use the same level of scruntiy for all edits made on Titanic-related articles, no matter who makes them; it just so happens there are very few not by you or me.

I understand you are asking me to stop, but I ask, should I not check edits made to Wikipedia articles in my area of interest? You seem to check my edits. Will you cease this behavior as well? I never assumed what you personally think or don't think about any topic or person, just asked a question. I understand you may think it irrelevant, and that is fair. I want to reiterate that I have no personal slight against you, and I respect your past contributions over the last couple of years to Wikipedia. I hope you realize we both have the same shared goal of having accurate, well-cited Wikipedia pages. I propose that I will no longer directly revert any of your edits, and bring them to the talk page instead. Would you be willing to accept this? Jbrill05 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but don't turn this on me, as if I am following you around and judging all your work. One look at your edit history tells me most of your Titanic edits are in talk pages, not on the articles themselves. Not to mention I've been editing these pages on and off since I joined Wikipedia a few years ago, long before you did. And I certainly am not going around "thanking" every single edit you've done.

What you are is WP:HOUNDING me, so I suggest again, you stop doing so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia Apologies again if that is how you feel. I certainly didn't mean to turn this on you, as you say. I thought that thanking you would be a good way to show my appreciation for your work, but I will stop if that is how you feel. I have spent a lot of time in talk pages, yes. Again, I respect your years of time editing pages, Titanic or otherwise, but it kind of feels like you are "pulling rank", so to speak. Shouldn't my actions matter more than my background?

I want it to be clear exactly what it is that I am doing that is bothering you. Is it the thanking? Mentioning your username? Reverting? I ask you to come up with a resolution that would make you feel comfortable, or accept my propsal of I'll stop thanking your work and I will go to the talk page instead of reverting. I have just as much right as you do to constructively contribute to a page, despite our experience difference. I am learning to love editing, and I don't like that I have made another editor feel like I am hounding. My goal is to balance making you feel less like I am hounding you, whilst still being able to contribute to Wikipedia. If you set reasonable, concrete boundaries, I promise I will respect them. Jbrill05 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't stopped even now and keep making excuses for yourself, and now are making subtle attacks at me - "pulling rank"? by telling you that you are clearly crossing a line with your actions? - for trying to tell you I am getting really uncomfortable with your behavior. Again, please just stop following me around to every page I edit. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia, I have given you several opportunities to accept one of my proposed boundaries, as well as the opportunity for you to propose boundaries yourself, and this offer still stands. I am not making excuses for myself, I did what I did, and I'm sorry it makes you feel uncomfortable, or even like my actions are "attacks." I mean no disrespect to you.

I would appreciate specific and concrete boundaries to avoid ambiguity. I have not followed you on every page you edit, though I understand how it may feel like it for you. I have a right to edit pages, and I don't plan on stopping editing the pages I am interested in, however, I will do so in a way less distressing for you, if you lay it out clearly for the both of us. Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When facing accusations of hounding, it is best to minimize contact with your accuser as much as possible. Could you please avoid posting at Omnis Scientia's talk page or pinging him any further. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Thank you for the advice. I am new here and do truly appreciate it. I will avoid pinging or posting on Omnis's talk page as much as possible for the foreseeable future. I do believe Omnis is a woman, though, but I don't see their pronouns on their page, so I think it would be best not to use male pronouns, right?

If you don't mind, I would like you to look at the edit I made that was reverted by Omnis. I believe I improved the article, but it was reverted for being "unhelpful and nitpicking minor details." The link I added was reverted for being "unnecessary" despite linking to the department that he was the head of, which is linked nowhere else in the main body of the article. Then Omnis manually redid a few things I did in my original edit that she deemed "unhelpful", which really confuses me. I'd really appreciate it if you took a look. Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I "redid" just one thing because I undid it initially by accident - but that is about it. I still think the rest of your edits are unhelpful because you are just misreading or selectively reading sources and adding citation tags even after you were told not to. And adding a lot of links is usually not encouraged so yes, I chose to remove the ones I thought unnecessary. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You also added a link to where I previously left a "Failed verification" tag. I would like to itemise my edits and explain why I did them.

General Edits

I removed the word "the" preceding the introduction of ship names, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), "Do not use the definite article the before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time" and "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong."

I also linked to Titanic's Victualling Crew, and the article claims McElroy was the head of the department, yet it was removed, and there currently is no link to Titanic's Victualling Crew in the main body of the article. I also added a link to Titanic's lifeboats, which was also removed; however, my link to collapsible C remains.

Early Life

I added an additional source to the sentence "He was baptised in the Catholic faith and, at age 16 in 1890, left to train as a priest in St. Mary's Priory in Bodmin, Cornwall." because the year "1890" is not given in that article, and it clearly seems to be coming from McElroy's page on the Titanic Officers' website. Though I do believe I accidentally added the wrong reference. But as of me writing this, the year 1890 on the published page is not properly referenced.

White Star Line

I changed "He would serve on the ship many times, including with Charles Lightoller and Henry Tingle Wilde, both officers of the Titanic, at various points" to "Later, Charles Lightoller and Henry Tingle Wilde, both officers of the Titanic, also served on the Cymric at various points." There are two changes here. I removed the part about many, because it is clear from the source that McElroy only served there from 1899 to 1901 (1901 only because there is a picture listed as "circa. 1901") at the latest, also serving on HMT Britannic in 1900. I don't think "many" would be an apt descriptor for this. I also rephrased the part regarding some of the people who would later be Titanic's officers, to reflect the source, which lists Lightoller's and Wilde's service years on Cymric to not be the same as those of McElroy's, or even each other! Lightoller served from 1902–1903, and Wilde served in 1909. The phrasing of the original sentence, using the word "with", implies they served together.

I added SS Germanic as one of the ships McElroy served on, as it is listed in the source as him doing so.

RMS Titanic

I changed "Many survivors reported seeing him during the evacuation on the starboard side, helping with the loading of the lifeboats." to "Two survivors reported seeing him during the evacuation on the starboard side, helping with the loading of the lifeboats." This was changed because the source only listed two people who said he played an active role "helping load the lifeboats" and placed him on the starboard side, these being Saloon steward William Ward and bath steward Jame Widgery. How does this constitute many? Yes, other people saw him on the starboard side of the boat deck, but not in an active role, as the sentence qualifies.

I added a "Citation needed" tag at the end of the sentence. "McElroy fired a gun twice into the air to aid First Officer William Murdoch, who was ordering two men who had jumped into the boat out of it; however, only the senior deck officers were issued guns, so it is unlikely that McElroy fired a shot." The reason I added this was for the latter part of the sentence, about senior deck officers being exclusively issued guns, therefore making it unlikely that McElroy fired a shot, is absent from the source linked.

Regarding McElroy's last sighting, I added a "Failed verification" tag because, at the time, the source did not support the claim that "McElroy was last seen standing on the Boat Deck near the gymnasium, along with Assistant Purser Barker and the ship's two doctors, William O'Loughlin and John Simpson, supposedly joking around. None of the men survived." The source states, "With the water at C Deck and rapidly rising, Purser McElroy stood with Drs O’Loughlin and Simpson and Assistant Purser Reginald Barker. For a brief time, they were joined by Second Officer Lightoller, who was sweating from his work at the boats. Simpson joked "Hello Lights, are you warm?" After spending most of the night on the starboard side of the ship, loading passengers into the lifeboats, the small group shook hands and said goodbye. Purser McElroy was last seen standing on the Boat Deck near the gymnasium, beside mail clerk Mr William Logan Gwinn." Notice the lack of differentiation between Lightoller's account of him when water was at "C Deck" (earlier in the sinking) vs the supposed last sighting by the gymnasium. The interaction involving McElroy, O'Loughlin, Simpson, and Barker is clearly a different event (almost certainly on the port side) than his last sighting (on the starboard side), which was with Gwinn and the other people not listed. The "joking" is only mentioned for Simpson, not for McElroy, as the article implies. This is also true in the new source that was recently added.

I hope this clears up why I did the edits I did. I spent a long time on them (and writing this comment). It is disappointing to me that all of this work was undone. Thank you for hearing me out. Jbrill05 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I already explained why I undid the edits too but I didn't find them helpful. And yes, I did add even more sources after I found them when I got up.

But if you think I will take anything you say seriously after you blatantly copied a full article I made recently and expanded today, you are sorely mistaken. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay, they are still doing it. They copied a full article, George Bowyer (pilot) I only JUST expanded into their sandbox here. If I wasn't before, I certainly am convinced now they are doing this on purpose. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You use the pronoun "it", but I don't know what you mean. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia's guidelines say, "Be very clear; some of the most common problems arise from simple good-faith misunderstanding of what the other person actually meant," as seen on Wikipedia:Autistic editors. I am having trouble defining exactly what "it" is and what the issue is. I am merely trying to correct the grammatical mistakes, and make contributions to the George Bowyer (pilot) article. I fail to comprehend what this mysterious "it" and "this" I am doing on purpose are, and therefore cannot take precaution to avoid doing "it". I hope you understand. I am merely asking for specifics. Specific actions I am doing that you consider harmful, and specific boundaries you want me to respect, and I will. Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have made myself pretty clear in the last two days but you keep on harrassing me endlessly, following me around. It is not a coincidence that you end up on the same articles shortly after I edit them.

And assuming you brought up the autistic editors article because you are autistic, I am autistic too. Trying to play the victim when I am in fact address this specific response to an admin and not at you, and after I have spelled out SEVERAL times in detail why I am exceedingly uncomfortable and feeling harrassed because your behavior is really low. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are following Omnis Scientia's contributions. If you were following Titanic articles, you would be editing in the Titanic topic space outside Omnis Scientia's articles, but your edits are concentrated on the articles that Omnis Scientia is editing. You haven't contributed at other articles in that topic space that are being equally heavily edited and contested at the moment, such as [1][2], where there are edit wars happening. Even if you aren't tracking contributions, there is a perception that you are and the best way to avoid or counter that perception is to avoid Omnis Scientia's contributions. DrKay (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are edit wars regarding White Star Line, and the edit war is not about Titanic, nor about factual information, but about potential promotional material and neutrality of language, which isn't in my interest, which primarily regards misinformation. The second one is about the inclusion of a prayer description at the funeral of a man who happened to be three years old at the time of the Titanic disaster. None of the edit wars is directly related to the Titanic, only about a company, and a survivor's funeral, and the correctness of the claims is not at stake, but the appropriateness of the inclusion.

For example, there was misinformation on the Edward Smith (sea captain) article, changing his name to "Edbread Smith", and several other bread-related changes. I was researching to see if "Edbread" was an obscure nickname, but someone else removed it before I could. This is an example of a change I was considering making that didn't happen because someone beat me to it.

Besides that one instance, Omnis appears to be the only one adding information to articles. The other edits appear to be mostly grammatical or format-related in nature.

My work cycle looks like this: I look through changes made in articles I am interested in. If it is a new or changed verifiable claim, I look to personally verify it. If it is incorrect, I will change it. If it is correct, I look around the surrounding context and often find grammatical errors or factual errors, such as for McElroy's page, where I noted the errors I found above. This happens nearly exclusively (with the notable exception of the Edbread incident) to Omnis, because they are the only ones adding new information.

I am willing to modify this work cycle, but Omnis has yet to discuss specifics with me.

I notice you refer to them as "Omnis Scientia's articles". Surely you don't mean to imply their ownership of the articles?

Omnis has reverted the edit regarding boiler room number 5 on the sinking of the Titanic page, before I even knew they existed.

What do you suggest I do? I have attempted to reach out with proposals regarding time delays, when I should revert and use talk pages, and the issue of thanking them for their contributions, which I do respect. I have yet to hear from them regarding these. They assumed I was autistic. They accused me of playing the victim despite not specifying my autism or lack thereof, and not using the potential of autism as a shield. I merely asked for clarity and specifics regarding boundaries and what precisely about my behaviour is bad, and what specifically I can do to correct it. Surely I can't avoid every article they have ever edited, because that would be the majority of articles relating to the Titanic, my area of interest. Even the two articles you linked were edited by them, and you used them as an example of articles I hadn't edited that were not being edited by Omnis! In summary, I need specifics. Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Before I even knew they existed" and then you decided to just edit or comment on every edit I do or ever will do? Because you have been doing that ever since then. And you have admitted yet again that you are in fact following me around.

And if you aren't Autistic then why did you quote an WP article about Austistic users at me? What is the point of even bringing that up then? Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you specific advice above. In addition, I suggest you work on other articles. There are many more articles that are in need of fact-checking and copy-editing besides the ones that Omnis Scientia is working on. DrKay (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Omnis, I have not edited or commented on every edit you have done and don't plan to do so on every edit you ever will do. I haven't reverted, thanked, or checked the vast majority of your edits in your over three years on Wikipedia. I have not been doing that ever since. I would like to know what I would have to do specifically for you to consider it not following, and I will gladly do that.

I never said I wasn't autistic. The point was to show that I need clarity.

@DrKay, I need it to be more specific than that. What exactly is my wrong behaviour, in terms of specific timeframes, actions, and what alternative do you recommend I engage in, and how will it balance your comfort level with my right to contribute? This has not been discussed to my knowledge. What other articles? Which ones are Omnis Scientia working on? How long ago does their last edit have to be before it is considered not being worked on by them? What if I spot a glaring error, like I have done multiple times now, in Omnis Scientia's work? What procedure should I follow? How will it balance the need to fight misinformation and improper references with how Omnis feels? Will I be allowed to correct all the errors I find in Omnis's work after they are done working on them? How is that functionally different from my current actions, if they are identical, just temporally delayed? Wouldn't waiting for Omnis to be done working on an article merely just extend the period of time during which misinformation is present in the articles? I have more questions, but I didn't want to overwhelm you. Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jbrill05, I'm here from ANI and I can answer this one for you. I'll start with how will it balance your comfort level with my right to contribute, which is pretty easy: you don't have a right to contribute. No one does, and you need to ditch that paradigm immediately, because it will get you into a lot of trouble otherwise. We're volunteering here to build an encyclopedia, not exercising our rights to edit something on the internet. This is a collaborative exercise. If there's someone you can't collaborate with - and it's clear you can't collaborate with OS - then you need to be working somewhere else, full stop. Do not spot the errors in OS's work. Do not correct them, at any delay. If there is misinformation in the articles OS has edited, that is now for someone else to fix, not you. You need to be working somewhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering, thanks for stopping by my talk page! Thank you for answering my question! I was really looking forward to someone answering, and better yet, it is easy! I am surprised it wasn't answered sooner since it is so easy, but better late than never! I am sorry to hear that my right to contribute is being taken away, just like everyone else's. I don't want to get into trouble, so consider that paradigm ditched! Got it, if I can't collaborate, move somewhere else. Makes sense to me. I will work somewhere else! Thank you so much again for answering my questions and giving tips to a new editor. I am so appreciative of everyone's efforts! However, I have one issue: if I am not allowed to acknowledge this editor, as per @11WB, how am I supposed to determine which pages I can and cannot edit? Sorry for all the questions I have asked. I really don't want to give the impression I am sealioning or IDHT! This is just something I thought of that would be a major barrier to my future contributions, and has not been addressed before, so I really hope it is not sealioning or IDHT, but if it is, I am so super sorry! Please forgive me as I am new here. Thank you so much! Jbrill05 (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you @ an editor, it notifies them. Just wanted to make you aware. I've nothing to add to this specific discussion. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know how @ works! I thought you might have been able to help clarify my question, but it seems I am wrong, and fair enough, you have helped out plenty enough! Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IBAN has six bullet points that directly address your question. You have also received multiple answers from other editors. This is, in my opinion, black and white. I don't think sealioning has helped your case at all. A simple acknowledgement of wrongdoing and disengaging with @OS is all that's required here. I'm about to go offwiki so I am not going to be active on the AN discussion for a while now. I hope something can be worked out so that an IBAN can potentially be avoided altogether. 11WB (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to look through the edit history of any article you're going to edit, to make sure you're not about to alter the other editor's edits. If you know what kind of article OS tends to edit, which I assume you do at this point, that does make it easier, because then at least you can go work on a topic you know they don't care about. Yes, it's very annoying, and very easy to mess up, which is why you really, really want to avoid getting placed on an interaction ban if at all possible. (It's still not too late - a brief apology and an earnest promise can work wonders.) -- asilvering (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I am surprised it wasn't answered sooner since it is so easy," --> I've literally been tell this to you but you only seem to respond with a patronizing tone of how you must fix my "misinformation" and "glaring errors". Not once have you sincerely apologized and said you'll stop, but rather tried to turn it on me as if its my fault.

@Asilvering, I'm sorry if I seem uncooperative but I do not like their patronizing tone and this one line is pretty much why. They know well this was answered before. And not only are they well aware of where I go, the fact that they copied a full article I made into their sandbox to "get around" the interaction warning is glaring red flag. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just caught this before properly heading out. I agree with @OS. The first few sentences of this reply were very condescending. "I was really looking forward to someone answering, and better yet, it is easy!" I don't know how else this can be read, other than as sarcasm. I have full respect for @Asilvering of course, and I don't take issue with them undoing the collapsed text over at AN. There is a problem here and I am not convinced at all that @Jbrill05 understands what issues they are causing @OS. 11WB (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the copying the article into their sandbox is extremely weird, and you were right to take it to ANI. It's probably best if you unfollow this discussion and unwatch their talk page at this point. I'd suggest unfollowing the ANI thread as well - if your input is required on anything, we can ping you directly. Since they say they've understood not to interact with you, you can simply act as though the whole thing has been resolved, regardless of how the thread turns out. If you're ignoring them completely and they're still showing up in all the same places as you, please let me or @DrKay know. -- asilvering (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, I will do. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Jbrill05/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This sandbox article is a COMPLETE copy of the one I made George Bowyer (pilot). And this user is STILL following me around to whatever page I edit despite being warned multiple times to NOT do that.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! I am absolutely convinced you are following me around now because I finally got around to expanding this new article which you decided to copy and paste into your sandbox only AFTER I did so. I will report you if you continue with this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jbrill05, the noticeboard discussion was closed after determining: "There is consensus that Jbrill05 now understands the Hounding in their editing behavior. They agreed voluntarily to avoid all and any interaction with Omnis Scientia and/or OS’s edits. Jbrill05 has also been warned that any continuation of this behavior can result in an IBAN." Please follow all the advice given by the experienced editors in the discussions on this talk page. If you have further questions, please ask. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]