User talk:~2026-40763-89

Got notified of this. You have told the user: "The accusations you are arguing against are AI hallucinations"; they are not. I only use Grammarly to improve my prose. Regards, SilentHalo (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Then why are they referencing things that never happened in the discussion if they are not AI Hallucinations? ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

They're not hallucinations. I wanted to defend the user, and I did; I'm just expressing a POV. What makes you think they are? Best, SilentHalo (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at Anastrophe's rebuttal of your post. They point out several instances of things you said not existing. Should this go to the AI noticeboard instead? ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I read the Anastrophe's comment carefully. Obviously, he didn't make those statements. It was my interpretation of what he did—just expressing a POV. SilentHalo (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Also how are you usually typing those em dashes? ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• "---" 3 hyphens, autocorrect.

SilentHalo (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh neat, I learned something. I always had to do the alt key combination which made it a pain in the butt. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's amazing to see that those things were right there, within anyone's reach. That's how I felt with this encyclopedia also. SilentHalo (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

"Should this go to the AI noticeboard instead?" Don't ask me—you tell me. SilentHalo (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)"

I have already warned you on Valjean's talkpage, but I'll repeat it here to make sure you see it: get off User talk:Valjean and stay off it unless you want to be blocked for harassment. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC).

I did nothing wrong. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong, you were merely trying to help by "trying to make sure it does not end up at a drama board for repeated infractions and get a full AP topic ban"? Aw, that's so touching. And you got in a dig about Roxy's block log, too. Also just trying to be helpful? Bishonen | tålk 19:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC).

Honestly yes, I don't know much about Roxy but their attitude on that talk page and their block log lead me to believe they are not someone you want to take advice about not getting blocked from. So yes, trying to avoid them getting blocked. But it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

WTF? Now you've done this without even notifying me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Well yeah I tried to be like hey, you violated your topic ban, you should probably self revert and instead you doubled down. Then compared someone asking you to take it easy to victim blaming a rape victim. That is beyond fucked up. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

What is fucked up is you trying to turn around what I said to make it sound like I agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah out of the two that is the more fucked up part you are right. Not even what I did, but sure that is worse than child rape. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you seriously just say that child rape is, in your opinion, something that is less bad than something else? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I was saying that is what you said by comparing my message and saying its fucked up that you feel I turned around what you said to agree with me. Sorry for the confusion. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Your bizarre comment and its defense are completely incomprehensible and offensive. Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You mean quoting what Valjean said was incomprehensible and offensive? Or which part? ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion Which comment are you referring to and where? ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

You didn't quote Valjean, you took his already awful metaphor, for which he had apologized, and turned it into "child rape," apparently based on Valjean's use of the word "young." That has no place at AE, and given that you provided no context whatsovever - I was unaware of that exchange with Tryptofish - was way out of line. Your'e not entitled to put words in other peoples' mouths on noticebaord based on your own reinterpretation. Acroterion (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion It was in response to Tryps comment here. So to say it was no context is incorrect at best. Also didn't put works in other persons mouths, he was comparing raping young women, which he after my comments, clarified. So that was wrong too. Also I did quote Valjean through the whole thing with diffs and everything. I do take umbrage with you saying it was a complainant's rationale was vexatious as that is untrue as well since it had diffs and was clearly a third topic ban violation. I am still confused by people saying it wasn't, now if it deserved a sanction? That is a different question, but its hard to argue it was not a violation that they refused to self-revert. Which is why it ended up there. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I was describing a comment as victim blaming, not as "raping young women", which sounds awful. In that situation, it was apparently a poorly-chosen example, for which I apologized. At my age, any woman under 30 is young, and my example happens to be a very common situation where victim blaming often occurs, especially where men in society do not respect a "no". In that societal context, my example was very natural to use. In this case, it just happened to be an unfortunate choice. I felt awful when Tryptofish reminded me of their experience, which I still don't remember, even after seeing the diff. My memory is getting worse by the day. So please drop that topic. Tryptofish has done so. Be like them.

BTW, I never "refused to self-revert". No one asked me to and other editors were defending me, so I didn't see it as necessary. No one in their right mind would see it as necessary to revert to a state that violated MOS. It was about as "minor" a type of edit as exists, and it improved the article. Not a single word in that whole paragraph mentioned "T", so I never dreamed anyone could consider such a minor gnoming edit could be a violation. Well, I forgot about you.... Things ended up where they did because you wanted it to, not because of my actions. You could have deescalated. Try to deescalate conflicts, not escalate them. Don't treat this place like a battlefield. Life is hard enough already, so let's be more kind and forgiving to each other.

I happened to see that Andre made an edit there, and Andre is on my watchlist. I notice what he does. That article was not on my watchlist, but because of my settings, it then was automatically added, but I have now removed it. My watchlist is very small and has neutral topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey V, thanks for stopping by. My intention was not to get you sanctioned but for you to understand and comply with your topic ban. Also point of clarification you were asked to self-revert and the message itself, saying hey you violated your topic ban is a call to self-revert. Your refusal to one understand that you had broken your topic ban and two your refusal to fix it were the reason for the report. It is disappointing for someone that has been here for 21 years and has over 100k edits to not understand what a topic ban is or how they function. It looks like you are still not, even now, taking responsibility for your actions and the consequences of those actions. Instead deflecting and going on about how corrupt the process was. It looks like your friends on your talk page are trying to help, let them help. Listen to what they say, especially Tryptofish and Viriditas, instead of getting defensive. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I am trying to understand how that gnomish edit could have violated my tBan when neither the edit itself, the content involved, nor the paragraph it changed even remotely concerned the prohibited topic. I guess we differ on what "widely construed" can mean, and there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on that among good faith editors. You believe it was a violation, but many others who are far more experienced and wiser than you or I do not believe it was a violation.

I will abide by the consensus view, as I certainly would not violate my tBan on purpose. Please give me that much credit and AGF. This was so far removed from even the edges of "widely construed" that it never crossed my mind, but you made that connection anyway, and you got blocked for causing this kerfuffle. Sadly, another editor who called you out also got blocked. You have just caused grief. You seem to like to follow me around, and that has been called hounding. I agree. It's unwelcome attention. Please find something more constructive and positive to do here. At the very least, let your first reaction be to ask rather than accuse. Seek to deescalate problems rather than escalate them. This "gotcha" type of crap helps no one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's because the topic of the article and specifically that section had to do with the Steele Dossier. Which was also btw the main subject of the original AE that lead to the topic ban. The Steele Dossier is trump. From my read of the AE they were going to topic ban just Steele Dossier but wanted a wider scope but not so wide that it was all American politics, so it was trump.

Who got blocked and for what? I think I missed that.

Also my first reaction was to ask, that's why it was a question on the topic ban violation. Then other chimed in essentially saying yes it was but it was not sanctionable. I did see to deescalate, which again is why I brought it to your talk page first. No gotcha or any other bad faith assumptions please. I meant what I said above, until you learn and grow its going to keep happening, if not me then someone else. Again it all starts with personal accountability, which you have dodged this whole time. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

That paragraph was not at all about the Steele dossier, but about Danchenko's later work as a CHS for the FBI: Igor Danchenko#Value as FBI source. You seem to be playing a "degrees of separation" game. Just how many degrees of separation must there be so it's not a "widely construed" matter? My tBan is not an AP2 tBan, just a "T" tBan. I can understand how in your mind, and in anyone's mind, a connection can be made because we first knew about Danchenko because of his involvement in the Steele dossier, but this was not about that matter at all. He has another life, and my edit was in that area. The connection is in your head, not in what I did or the content I edited. You need to actually look at that and get away from what's in your head. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Dude... The first sentence of that paragraph you edited says went far beyond the Steele dossier. To say the notability of the subject isn't primarily the Steele Dossier is not accurate, and you know that, you are an expert on the Steele Dossier.

I also never said your topic ban was an AP2 topic ban, I said they wanted to stop short of that and they did by only doing a trump ban. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Where did I say "the notability of the subject isn't primarily the Steele Dossier"? It would make no sense for me to even imply that because I know that he is most known for his involvement with it, but that section of the article is about other things, the "far beyond" part of his life. Those words tell us that the section is entering a different topic, one not related to my tBan. Most people don't know that he worked for the FBI for a couple years. I knew that, and that's the part I edited. I did not edit anything even remotely related to the dossier and his work there. If I had, then I would have likely violated my tBan.

There are three points in this equation: (1) Danchenko, the (2) dossier, and his later (3) FBI work. You are still keeping the connection between (1) him and the (2) dossier in your head, but the connection between those points is unrelated and unconnected to my edit (1 & 3). My edit only connects points 1 and 3. Rewire your thinking and make a new connection: (1) Danchenko was later connected to the (3) FBI. That's where such a connection in your head would also be connected to my edit.

Both points 1 and 2 must be connected in my edit for there to be a tBan violation, but I did not connect those points at any time during my edit. Focus on my edit and the topic in that paragraph. That topic is unrelated to the dossier or "T". The section is about 1 and 3, about his value as a CHS for the FBI. He is an unusually well-connected and extremely valuable CHS. His unmasking harmed national security. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

If the subject of the article or the thing you are specifically editing are related, then its related. The content of your edit does not really matter for the purposes of determining whether or not you violated your topic ban. In this case, as you say, the subject of the article is most known for their involvement with the Steele Dossier, which is the topic that got you in hot water. So the whole article is hot lava, full stop.

I think that might be the disconnect and it is verging on wikilawyering to say well the whole article is primarily notable for something directly related to the topic ban and the paragraph I edited even mentions is, but the sentence I modified doesn't there for it's okay. Again, it starts with accountability and when you make a mistake you fix it and move on. Not double down, not get defensive, and not try to tread the edges of well its technically maybe this or that. As Tryptofish and Viriditas have said several times, just be super careful and think hard about what articles you are editing and if they could be construed to be related to your topic ban. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, my aspie brain doesn't work that way. I try to not violate the letter or the spirit of my tBan, and others have said I didn't violate it, but some have noted that, sadly, there are people like you who will still try to get me in trouble, so because of you, not me, I need to be more careful. That's where the victim blaming comes into the picture, even if they do not intend to be doing that. Why should I make accommodations for someone like you when other, quite rational, people don't think my edit violated the tBan? Why am I, your victim, supposed to make accommodations that allow you to continue to treat me badly? Why don't you stop and consider that maybe they are right about you? That it is you who should change?

Will I change because of this? Of course! I will probably seek advice before making such an edit in the future, because maybe "T" took a breath in the distant past of the article's history! Then you'd get another opportunity to play "gotcha"! But we should not allow my (forced) change to bury the fact that I was hounded into making unnecessary changes by an unreasonable interpretation made by you, an interpretation that others disagreed with. I think it would be best for me to avoid you for a while before I say too much. (I do anyway, regardless of the subject. That's my autism.) I have said my piece now and shown there was no connection between my edit and my tBan, but you have wikilawyered again and again, as noted by others, so it's pointless for me to say more. Have a good day. I'll ping some others who are far wiser than I so they can know about this interchange. @Bishonen: @Acroterion: @KoA: Again, I will, as always, abide by the consensus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You are not a victim. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)