User talk:Jbrill05/sandbox

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because (your reason here) --Jbrill05 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Omnis Scientia claims my sandbox is a "COMPLETE copy of the one I made George Bowyer (pilot)." Despite my many edits to it in the sandbox, and my plans to make further edits regarding grammar and accuracy. I did not plan on publishing another article for George Bowyer (pilot); I merely used the sandbox as a place for editing, which is allowed. Additionally, other people have made edits, besides Omnis, to the page, and Wikipedia's guidelines state, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone." They say "...copy of the one I made..." despite others' contributions to the article, including my work-in-progress.

I have attempted to contact Omnis and propose solutions regarding hounding accusations, but they have yet to accept any proposal I have made, nor proposed anything themself, at least nothing specific, which I have asked them to do several times.

They feel I am "following" them, presumably because I edit the same page after them. Surely I couldn't avoid editing any page they have edited prior, as they have edited nearly every page within my topic of interest in the past. They have not proposed a timeframe for waiting, in which I would have to wait after they edit a specific page to edit it myself. They have not stated anything regarding my proposals relating to when to use the talk page instead of reverting, or my proposal to not thank their edits, but I have taken it upon myself to do the latter, despite the lack of agreement.

I have made several edits that were reverted by them with a substantial period after their latest edit, and I had to explain my reasoning to them, and we agreed on a compromise. This is exactly the Bold, revert, discuss cycle that Wikipedia mentions, to my understanding. From my perspective, when I attempt to do the same thing with their edits (which is not targeted, as I do this with every edit on pages of my area of interest), it is now considered following?

I am still more than willing to change my behaviour with specific, reasonable, concrete boundaries, as long as I maintain my right to contribute. I personally don't like that I caused another editor with similar interests to me to feel harmed, and it causes me distress. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia, and had a great start in my opinion, but this incident is interfering with my enjoyment of the site. Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

You ARE following me because you had every chance to do this BEFORE I added information on this page but you decided to go after me on a different page I had begun editing, and then only after I expanded this page you coincidently come here too? And for your information, I in fact have not edited "nealy every page" regarding Titanic, not even close.

I feel harrassed and uncomfortable with this behavior of yours and me trying to push back on your behavior is not the same as what you are doing AT ALL. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

For any future editor who sees this list of excuses, see Jbrill's talk page for the repeated requests to stop by both myself and an admin who agrees with me that it appears this user is following me around because most of their edits have come only after I turn to edit a page. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for my behavior if it has harmed you, truly. I have limited time, so the time I edit something isn't solely up to me, but my schedule. If I had edited before you, wouldn't that be hounding me? "I expanded this page you coincidently come here too?" This is an odd question to ask. Is it conincidence or following? I will explaiin my process again. I edit pages with activity, specfically that with new falsifiable information, which from my watch page, seems to happen nealry exclusivley by you (which is a good thing!) Of the top 20 search results I get when I search "Titanic" on Wikipedia, you have edited 11 of them, and the 9 you haven't include the disambiguation page, Titanic II, Titanic II (film), Titanic 666, Titanic Sinclair (who is a singer with a stage name), My heart will go on, and the list of films. Not exactly my "wheelhouse", as the expression goes.

I understand you feel uncomfortable, but I wanted to clarify something. I am not distressed from your push back, not at all, I am distressed because I am harming another editor, a human being, and one who has similar intrests to me.

In fact, all of my edits are after you edit a page, because your first edit was well before my first edit, so that is naturally true. Jbrill05 (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

"In fact, all of my edits are after you edit a page, because your first edit was well before my first edit, so that is naturally true." --> except no it is not true because you edited this page after I edited it today. And you showed up in recently edited articles by me.

The fact is you ARE going after MY edits and only mine. And the next time you do so I will report you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

"If I had edited before you, wouldn't that be hounding me?" --> if I did it every day and constantly to the point I get irritating and you start getting extremely uncomfortable with what appears to be stalking then yes. But I will never do such a thing to anyone and if so, I'd stop after being told to. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. And you've done this far more than three times, even after being warned. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

It is true. Your first edit was well before mine, which was last month; all of my edits over all the pages I have edited naturally come after the very first edit you made. I was attempting to grammatically correct and verify information on the entire page, which has multiple contributors, not specifically related to your edits.

If I am editing after you enough with the frequency that you consider hounding, but instead of doing that, if I were to have edited before you did, which would naturally mean all the edits you did would have come after mine, and on the same page. It is the same as our reality, just my edits come temporally before yours, which would seem to imply you were following me. However, you state that it would only be hounding if it were to the point you would get irritated, and I would get extremely uncomfortable with what appears to be stalking, so it wouldn't be hounding.

"Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern." Neither statistics nor Wikipedia's hounding guidelines validate this sentiment. If it had been three times but temporally spread out, thus giving it a higher probability of happening n times, would that still be a pattern? Your notion does not seem to consider the spacetime element. Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Stop justifying your actions. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Also majority of the edits in George Bowyer (pilot) are by me, with the exception of two, one of which was removing a repeat word and another tagging the page for more citations. So saying that the "the entire page, which has multiple contributors, not specifically related to your edits." is just a lie. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

"The entire page, which has multiple contributors..." - Jbrill05

"Also[, the] majority of the edits in George Bowyer (pilot) are by me, with the exception of two...[emphasis added]"

So two (which is more than one, thus multiple) contributors improved the page via addition, but the statement "I was attempting to grammatically correct and verify information on the entire page, which has multiple contributors, not specifically related to your edits," is a lie? I am confused. My edits were not solely targeting your edits, but the entire page, which does, as you admit, have multiple contributors. Even if you had been the sole editor of the page before today, I would still have the right to edit it. Jbrill05 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not justifying my actions. I am ashamed of my actions for harming someone else. I would love to know what I can do to help you. If I have specific instructions to follow that don't reasonably interfere with my ability to contribute, I will happily follow them if they make you feel better. I am truly shattered to pieces to see a fellow contributor harmed by my actions, and even more so because currently, and quite frankly, I don't know how to stop exactly, as I don't know the specific actions that are harming you, nor what specific resolutions exist. Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)