User talk:Insitemobile

February 2023[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sappony, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Yuchitown (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT REVERT MY EDITS BECAUSE I HAVE SUPPLIED SOURCES AND REMOVED AMBIGUOUS, DECEPTIVE AND IRRELEVANT WORDING WITHOUT SOURCES. A SOURCE IS OCCANEECHI AND YOU WILL NOT TELL THEM THE HISTORY THEIR FAMILY HAS LIVED AND THEY HAVE INVESTIGATED AND WILL CONTINUE TO SHOW was the response but I continue to only post with source and objectivity given the many factors of your conflict which should not be on wikipediaInsitemobile (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. Please familiarize yourself with what constitutes reliable sources Yuchitown (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

I have also supplied reasons for every edit summary. This is a case of constant bullying of tribes by people in specific communities which is evident by the links back to their theories and it goes back to the history of the editor who posted the original links ancestors war with the saponi. Now there are persons posting information about cherokee nations and conspiracy and embedding it into the data by way of deceptive intelligence mixing truth with falsehood and conjecture rather than showing facts and sources such as I did. The Saponi are recorded as leaving the fort in VA and the NC and VA area and the different tribes of the saponi nations continued and still marry many other saponi of the same family names in these areas where the streets are even named for the Saponi families before 1900 debate. The Saponi simply refused to assimilate at the time like the cherokee did and the civil war was fought all across Saponi land so they hid in the area as reported sightings of a Saponi King by the US military etc So please stop vandalizing tribes pages with conjecture and misleading information and other information about conspiracies from Mr. Miller or others with links to his book if you do not plan to detail why one of the 5 nations is doing this and why the Saponi and Cherokee were at war and why it is important for another tribe to monitor their existence. Insitemobile (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, you may be blocked from editing. Yuchitown (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Sappony, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not censored. Yuchitown (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Do not accuse other editors of making "half-assed" edits, bullying, or other uncollegial, uncivil aspersions. STOP. Netherzone (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not warn me when they are the case and point Insitemobile (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Insitemobile. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Yuchitown (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

As I am given and gather information I have edited to your specifications and you have shown no proof that I have not done so. So this feels like youre trying to bully people Insitemobile (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These standard warnings with educational links explaining Wikipedia policies. You have lobbed fairly serious personal attacks at me. Sharing standardized explanations of Wikipedia policy is not bullying. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. Please actually read the warnings to better understand how Wikipedia operates. If you want to advocate for an organization or conduct original research, you can do so on innumerable platforms—online and in print; however, an encyclopedia is not the place for either. Yuchitown (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

I grew up with my own Britannica collection and I read every single page. What you are doing is a direct conflict of interest by posting about native tribes that were in opposition with your username and page data and you are sharing links to book advertisements from an unaccredited author Insitemobile (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been engaging in edit warring, personal attacks, and tendentious editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. WHY IS THIS AMBIGUOUS AND LOADED SENTENCE FRAGMENT "They claim descent from" MORE VALID THAN THE ACCURATE PRESENT ENCYCLOPEDIC STATEMENT "They are recognized as descendants of" which completes and explains the first sentence and solves ambiguity.

2. Why are editors who are admittedly from known opposition tribes allowed to edit the history of others when they admit it clearly?

3. Your response offered no clue of investigating the issue further than one page when this crossed several pages. Why have you not investigated the issue and responded to them rather than a lazy block?

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Insitemobile (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 21:23, 4 February 2023 (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.

Unblock me because you have not addressed the reason I raised an issue or why I was attacked by wikinazis and blocked for a logical edit@Cullen328@Yamla

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Insitemobile (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2023 (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.

Insitemobile (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MY BLOCK DOES NOT EXPLAIN MY BLOCK OR ADDRESS THE ISSUE I RAISED SO ASKING ME TO EXPLAIN A CATCH 22 IS ASININE

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Insitemobile (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Your reason here" is not a reason to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2023 (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.

Everything said in response is to obfuscate the facts. It is plain to see from my original edit and my research from 10 years ago that there has been a bias placed on the articles in question. As an administrator @Cullen328 the only thing that needs to be addressed here block or not is whether my original edit was valid.

Change in block[edit]

Since you thought that it was a good idea to attack your fellow editors as "wikinazis", I have extended your block to one month and revoked your talk page access. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options. Cullen328 (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now indef in light of Special:Contributions/2603:6081:893E:D3D3:0:0:0:0/64, which is an unambiguous behavioral match to this account. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #69129 [edit]

is closed. I have doubts about user learning to edit/disagree collaboratively, though stranger things happen. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. See change in block, above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]