User talk:Enlightenedstranger0

Linking Enlightenedstranger user page
I need for my Enlightenedstranger page to link to this page. I read what to do if I couldn't retrieve my original account, and I'm supposed to do that.
 * You did the right thing by mentioning it on your userpage :) For this account, make sure you have an email linked to it so that you can reset the password if necessary. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Polyamory, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

  Peaceray (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Erectile dysfunction
Hello, I'd like ask you about your revert of an edit on page Erectile dysfunction K.I.F Caliph (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * K.I.F Caliph, you didn't add a source. That's why I asked, "Source?" Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The nephroptosis article also says, "It has been one of the most controversial conditions in terms of both its diagnosis and its treatments." Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

yes, I don't have a source however it was my case that took 7 years and one of several doctors to figure it out. I wish it get published by somebody in medical journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kifcaliph (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Biology of sexual behavior
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Your behavior on the page mentioned above is inappropriate and violates wikipedia rules. Please stop trying to push your opinion and stick to publicly available scientific papers that specifically state that origins of sexual behavior is unknown and biological factors are considered along with sociocultural. Lpsspp (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I bet. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The user is now blocked, but cyberflashing is relevant
What did you mean by this?MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MaitreyaVaruna, are you truly confused by that? Or?
 * That editor is blocked. That editor added "cyberflashing" to the see also section. WP:EVADE says, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. However, this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Because the editor added a link to the see also section that is relevant (or tangentially related), my intention was to communicate that there wasn't a need for me to undo the editor's edit while rearranging the see also section. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand this more. I was thinking you did some kind of editing function I didn't see, like the user was removed from editing history and their edit transferred to you MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Standard notice
WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A better purpose than...
--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Epiphyllumlover, Enlightenedstranger0 says in the SPI that they were tipped off about the SPI. If people look in the edit history of that page and what is said by SMcCandlish at a noticeboard, I think everyone can assume that Enlightenedstranger0 knows about it. Maybe all the editors accused on that forum know about it. I've been accused, and I know about it. The forum even accused Crossroads of being a sock because he participated in the SPI. But this was a widely discussed topic, so I imagine that dozens of editors are watching that page. I went to an admin and then-Arb about the harassment. There, I pinged SMcCandlish, Crossroads, Johnuniq, and Liz. And months later, WanderingWanda is still using their harassment method of adding a welcome template or ‎standard notice template on the talk page of an editor they believe to be the deceased editor. Last time I brought attention to this, it was shrugged off by the Arb. Considering it's happened again, following WanderingWanda's post at the SPI, and the details of the forum thread you've linked to, I don't think WanderingWanda using these templates to harass can be denied any longer. Coincidentally, the use of the ‎standard notice template as an intimidation or harassment tactic is being discussed at WP:ARCA. I was going to wait for the Enlightenedstranger0 SPI to end to say this since one of the participants from that forum, who is also an editor here, schemes to go after me next, but I'll say it early: I might turn to the Wikipedia harassment policy. In this discussion, Johnuniq told me that he is "less busy than Bradv" and so I "might try contacting" him "first if problems arise". He said he "might not respond immediately", but he "will investigate any issue. In particular, any further attempts to misuse the name of the deceased person will lead to blocks." This looks like it is such an issue.
 * I don't think you should have posted this at this user's talk page. It doesn't appear you meant it in such a way, but it's a continuation of the harassment. You say you've interacted with Enlightenedstranger0, but User interaction analysis shows no such interaction. It does show interaction between you and the deceased editor. So it seems you believe that Enlightenedstranger0 is that editor, which makes your post even more in bad form. GBFEE (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever, all of you. I've run out of patience with this seemingly endless psychodrama. Everyone obsessing about this shit needs to drop the stick and light the stick on fire and let it burn to ash.  Find something else to think about, something else to do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I echo SMcCandlish's comment. My off-wiki busyness level has increased since the discussion referenced above and so has my level of impatience. I will indefinitely block anyone who continues poking this pile of manure. Do not provide links to what would be regarded as off-wiki harassment and do not reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This thread might have led to this troll comment. See the image title in adjunct with the text. But Epiphyllumlover has asked about removing the link and oversighting it. I don't know how much that would help. Maybe it should now stay. GBFEE (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for multiple reasons, mainly that there is sufficient evidence that this is a secondary account that is being used for reasons that are not per WP:SOCKLEGIT. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)