User talk:InsulinRS

InsulinRS, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi InsulinRS! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It's been four days and 10 edits

Can I please edit semi-protected pages now?InsulinRS (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—valereee (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi InsulinRS,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 02:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Anarchist symbolism does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Isaidnoway (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. When editing, especially on highly-edited pages like Shooting of Breonna Taylor, it's really helpful to leave edit summaries so others can understand the intent of your edits and possibly avoiding misunderstandings. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Kama Sutra

I'm afraid Kama Sutra's history with the counterculture movement and religious standing is not a good excuse to erase what it has been blamed for.https://www.firstpost.com/living/kamasutra-is-it-about-pleasuring-women-or-oppressing-them-603825.html] [1] [2]InsulinRS (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WHSV. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't appreciate false claims about sources not noting criticism of Kama Sutra

The First Post source even debates if it is about "the pursuit of male desire" and "oppressing" women.https://www.firstpost.com/living/kamasutra-is-it-about-pleasuring-women-or-oppressing-them-603825.html Do to it's history with counterculture, it is too easy to expect bias reverts.InsulinRS (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No need to keep covering up Senate Judiciary Committee rules

It is clear that at least two minority party members must be present. [3]InsulinRS (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at Amy Coney Barrett 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Once more and you will be reported and most likely blocked for edit warring. JOJ ^Hutton 12:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And why did you vandalize the fact with  ? Thus I forget vandalism is a violation Wikipedia:Vandalism. I also did go the consensus policy by reverting my own edits.InsulinRS (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Exact quote from the source, They're boycotting the committee. So what I will do as chairman there will be a majority of the committee present. We will waive that rule.

Call me a vandal again and I will report you for uncivil discourse.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

He did not though. Rule was still intact and source doesn't say it was waived. The edit you made is in the page's history too, which you cannot change. How come I cannot see it here?InsulinRS (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for WP:3RR and generally confrontational position. 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 ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CharlesShirley (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Christian prayer, you may be blocked from editing. Stop using personal blogs and websites as sources; they are not reliable. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Christian prayer, you may be blocked from editing. Stop edit warring. Your source is not reliable and your personal experience irrelevant. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC) No, you are disrupting my edits. The sources are reliable and many who people who actually go to church will tell you about silent prayer.InsulinRS (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You have now added another source, yet neither source supports your edit. User:Ymblanter has already blocked you for edit warring. Please find a reliable source to support your edit and stop adding poorly sourced content and original research. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Other source states that Mary Baker Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, claimed ``Silent prayer is a desire, fervent, importunate: here metaphysics is seen to rise above physics, and rest all faith in Spirit, and remove all evidence of any other power than Mind; whereby we learn the great fact that there is no omnipotence, unless omnipotence is the All-power. [4]

I have responded at Talk:Christian prayer#Let us discuss silent prayer. Please respond there. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Christian prayer 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Though I accept facts, I don't intend to make any more reverts with them. Block me and you will only show a conspiracy.InsulinRS (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your edit to Virginia Military Institute has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Altering it only in part, which is what I'm seeing, is okay with me.InsulinRS (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Technically, if the text was written by an active member of the military forces, it cannot be copyrighted. US laws apply, since this is a US website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The material I removed was written by CNN staffers Eric Levenson and Eliott C. McLaughlin, and was copied from this CNN article.— Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

What's with WWF Raw featuring the Fox Sports logo

This Fox Sports logo is from a May 2000 episode of Raw and features no foreign subtitles despite being broadcast in English (link removed by Elizium23) It's already noted on the page that Fox-run networks have Latin American and Australian WWE Raw programming too.InsulinRS (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It is very reliable Britannica's YouTube channel.InsulinRS (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR.You may not present your own analysis of the Zapruder film in Wikipedia's voice. Getting it from Britannica doesn't make any difference. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Assassination of John F. Kennedy 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you don't violate that rule, as you reverted firstInsulinRS (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm an administrator - would you like to explain the rule to you, since you don't seem to understand it? Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Such childish accusations are uncalled for.

You were blocked for edit-warring three weeks ago - please read WP:OR and WP:EW. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't violate the NPOV policy, as it is clearly on the video and not "personal analysis."[[5]. Some parts also included were also taken from words in the Smithsonian Magazine article.[6] However, I don't intend to edit war with future edits..InsulinRS (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What you see on the video and what someone else sees can be very different (or do you think everyone always interprets things exactly the way you do?). That is clearly POV. And please give us a quotation in the Smithsonian source that unequivocally supports your edit "showed blood to be coming from the front of Kennedy's head". I read every word, several times, and I see nothing about blood coming from the front of JFK's head. The warning stands. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Though I did not edit the page again, and made clear of that I wouldn't continue to do so, you are still trying to intimidate me. Something must be really making you paranoid. FYI, the Smithsonian words I included were about onlookers and black Lincoln Continental. Do you think everyone always interprets things exactly the way you do?InsulinRS (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I would never have left you a second message if you hadn't falsely denied violating the NPOV policy. Trying to convince you to follow policy is not "intimidation". If you think it is, you need to rethink why you are here. Blocks are given to prevent damage to Wikipedia. The additional warnings and your combative and defiant attitude make me wonder whether you have any intent to avoid further damage. I'm sure you won't believe this, but my main goal here is to help you avoid another block and to make Wikipedia better. So you agree that the Smithsonian article has nothing about blood coming from JFK's head? If so, and if you stay away from policy violations, you'll never hear from me again. Sundayclose (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Never intended to claim the Smithsonian said anything about blood. It was intended to be a source for other parts of the edit. Your claim that I "falsely denied" the NPOV is nonsense and your opinion. However, I don't intend to make future edits to the Kennedy Assassination page without consensus.InsulinRS (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Britt Baker does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision diffs
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 23:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Anthony Bowens

Hi there. Your argument that there is no excuse for deleting your inclusion of a random tag team match on Dark fails WP:ONUS, which states: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. WP:PW/BIO says to summarize major events and key points and not to write in proseline ("week-by-week" format), which means that random, inconsequential matches, such as the one you included, do not merit inclusion. Regarding creating a separate subsection for Bowens' AEW run, neither his early career nor his time in AEW is long enough for its own subsection per MOS:BODY, which states: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.

Regarding winning streaks, many people in AEW are on winning streaks. Hikaru Shida is on a winning streak. Darby Allin is on a winning streak. Kenny Omega is on a winning streak. Britt Baker is on a winning streak. Shawn Spears is on a winning streak. Brandon Cutler is on a winning streak. That's just the nature of win-loss records. Unless a reliable source–Sportskeeda not being one of them per WP:PW/RS–highlights a winning streak as uniquely meaningful, they do not merit inclusion. Finally, please remember to continue to adhere to WP:BRD. Believe me; I understand being excited about editing as a new user and wanting to contribute as much as I can. That said, it's all right not to edit an article when one does not have anything substantial to contribute to said article. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 03:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There's something called the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Apparently, you aren't following it.InsulinRS (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madusa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diamante.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the error. The first time around, I forgot to link it to Diamante (female wrestler).InsulinRS (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Tomahawk Chop

Saw your edits about the signage/slogan changes in regards to the Braves. It's possible they made the changes due to controversy, but the team hasn't confirmed it. The Braves slogan has changed several times over the last eight years. I left it on the Atlanta Braves article since it's related to the team, but it probably doesn't belong there either. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

InsulinRS, not interested in getting into an edit war. You haven't answered my question. I know the slogan changed. The hashtag motto changes every couple of years. There's no evidence that the change is connected to the controversy other than coincidence. Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy is a page about the controversy. It's not about speculation about it. Nemov (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I did address the controversy. I will now specify it further, as it came when the Redskins were changing their name and the Indians undergoing a review of their name.InsulinRS (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Professional wrestling career sections

Are you going to continue writing in proseline ("week-by-week" format) even though the guideline specifies not to do so? For the last time, not every match in one's career is suitable for inclusion. Britt Baker defeated Cassandra Golden on April 15, 2020. Does that belong in the article? What about Baker's victory over Jamie Hayter on October 23, 2019? Do you see how your inclusion of every match imaginable would create a cluster that would not help casual readers learn about these professional wrestlers? KyleJoan^talk 20:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The match was on a TV special called AEW Winter Is Coming. You're running low on pathetic excuses.InsulinRS (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Britt Baker; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KyleJoan^talk 20:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Though I don't intend to make any more edits to the page without consensus, you seriously to stop make up nonsense to block match updates. Quit making up a ridiculous "week-by-week" excuses, which the timeline clearly doesn't show. The last match mentioned was in September, which is definitely not "week-by-week."InsulinRS (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The timeline only shows notable matches because other users and I have ensured as much. It makes little sense to include a match for the sake of including one since it's been a while since one was included. Your misunderstanding of what proseline and the week-by-week format are continues to baffle me as well. Please address any concerns about the professional wrestling style guide here. KyleJoan^talk 21:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No, either you misunderstand it or are a poor liar. You have yet to even acknowledge that the timeline is clearly not "week-by-week."InsulinRS (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Your conduct

Stop insulting other editors. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Tell him to do the same then. The user cannot claim I know so little that they "baffle me."InsulinRS (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not even close to what you're doing. Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Now you're showing favoritism. Give it up, because blocking me won't help your cause. By typing "That's not even close to what you're doing," you are making insulting accusations as well, so you should stop being a fellow insulter if you want me to "Stop insulting other editors." I have not returned to other pages for such comments and don't plan to do so as long as the situation is calm.InsulinRS (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP

Please read WP:CRITS - you appear to be trying to amplify minor criticism common to any media person into a POV fork. You are reminded of the discretionary sanctions notice at the head of this page. Acroterion (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You're distorting the policy, as it refers to sections and not content in other sections.InsulinRS (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And I'm also referring to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. You need to show that your additions represent widely-reported and important matters of more than common importance, not just usual chatter. Acroterion (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2020 United States presidential election

added a link pointing to KWWL

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans

added a link pointing to Slidell

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Kenny Omega

Remember WP:BRD? Please obtain a consensus to include the title defense against Janela. KyleJoan^talk 19:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC) You look for lame excuses to censor content and are now using the consensus excuse, which I do happen to believe in.InsulinRS (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You believe in a consensus? Then obtain one. The source you provided does not state it was Omega's first title defense, and even if it was, it does not change the fact that it was a regular title defense on a regular episode of television. Please stop edit warring. KyleJoan^talk 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KyleJoan^talk 19:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no documentation of any other title defense. You need to stop making up excuses.InsulinRS (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no documentation of Omega dating anyone. I guess we should include in the article that he's single? KyleJoan^talk 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not in AEW company records like a title defense. You are clearly making up excuses.InsulinRS (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Your edits to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases and Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Canada and elsewhere have been removed, as it appears you added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Erasing the history of edits suggests you have access to good technology, which disturbs me. Show me evidence of a complaint from Ottawa Citizen please.InsulinRS (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't wait for a complaint to be received from a copyright holder before removing copyright content, as it's a violation of our own copyright policy to include it. Since the interntion is for Wikipedia to be freely copied under the terms of our CC-by-SA license, we don't want copyright content to be included in our articles. Revision deletion of the violating edits was done under criterion WP:RD1 of the revision deletion policy. Wikipedia administrators all have the ability to hide revisions in this way.— Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Even your pro-John Lennon image makes me suspicious too. After all, John and Yoko had the Montreal Bed-In.InsulinRS (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, InsulinRS. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Somehow, you were also able to erase the history the edits. That concerns me. I can't remember what I even sourced in April and since you erased the history that far, I won't know now. The only thing I remember is not including CityNews.InsulinRS (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Weekly events

Please, don't include no notable, weekly matches or events in pro wrestling articles. Our Manual of Style says "Summarize the major events and key points of the wrestler's career. Avoid writing in proseline ("week-by-week" format)." Sting pointing with a bat isn't notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your username is that of someone from a rival company, which makes me suspicious.InsulinRS (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Marc Oullet papacy conspiracy?

Just a theory.InsulinRS (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anthony Bowens; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KyleJoan^talk 06:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Keep it up, and I will get assistance to block you.InsulinRS (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholic Church sexual abuse cases; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

So are you. You are making nonsense about "unreliable sources."InsulinRS (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020: Your edits to Nairobi have been very helpful!

Now I have a favor to ask. Lately, there has been a lot of IP editing of a careless nature on Nairobi. The edits are not getting caught in time to be easily reverted, making a ton of work for other editors. If you haven't done so, would you please put the article on your watchlist and respond timely to the alerts regarding Nairobi? Generally, all that is required is to press undo and say "unsourced" in the edit summary. Thanks for any help you can give.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Boniface Ramsey

added a link pointing to Commonweal

Leonardo Sandri

added a link pointing to Commonweal

Theodore McCarrick

added a link pointing to Commonweal

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a newspaper

Hello, I have reverted your addition to one article but not the other. I will be selectively reverting your contributions if this volume keeps up. Firstly, we've already discussed how cumbersome it is for editors to have to clean up 3 copies of the same passage in different places on the project. Now I've become concerned that these articles are becoming a dumping ground for you, every time you find a news article on one of the subjects involved in a case, it warrants another paragraph, and another paragraph, and another and another. This is not a play-by-play sports match, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What we do here is we take multiple WP:RS and we summarize, we distill them, we paraphrase, and we put down the most important points given. The sexual abuse articles are going to be large, there's no getting around that. But it is in your best interest to keep it mercifully brief, lest one of us have to come along and delete/reduce them after the fact. So I will be selectively reverting your additions. There is no call for duplicating and triplicating information in so many articles. It could be centralized and transcluded, but you haven't shown an interest in laying that groundwork or cooperating with a new structure, so I'm unwilling to take the plunge there. I hope this helps somewhat. Elizium23 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but it happened last month. Not wise to invoke the newspaper excuse.InsulinRS (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

InsulinRS, you didn't even read the diffs. Elizium23 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72h for edit-warring and addition of unreliable sources. 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 ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you have decided that angelfire.com and Youtube are reliable sources, but here we are.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not what the policy claims about YouTube, which allows edits so long as there is certainty.[[7]] I also don't recall sourcing anything from angelfire.com. YouTube and angelfire.com also don't relate to my edits about Henryk Gulbinowicz's burial.InsulinRS (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

They do relate to your edit-warring though. Angelfire and Youtube are both s4elf-published sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No they don't relate. I used this source first.https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-gulbinowicz-dies-ten-days-after-vatican-sanctions-67629 InsulinRS (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC) I then used this source, which has also been accept Gulbinowicz's page, as the only other source I cited for the edits about Gulbinowicz. https://www.onet.pl/informacje/onetwiadomosci/gulbinowicz-henryk-nie-zyje-kardynal-mial-97-lat/2qb37rw,79cfc278 InsulinRS (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

May be if you would stick to that source and not would start edit-warring you were not be blocked now.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Which is what I did. I did not include any other sources for the Gulbinowicz edits. You are making up stuff.InsulinRS (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Really? You may post an unblock request though and see what another administrator would say.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't trust the unblocking process. However, there is still the latest edit histories containing the most recent edits I made. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases_by_country&diff=997478615&oldid=997478209 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases&diff=997475907&oldid=997474329 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Europe&diff=997479239&oldid=997477896 InsulinRS (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, see you in 72 h then.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

You may wish to review the WP:PROPORTION section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, which states:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet, Gator Bait references still are no longer on the The Pride of the Sunshine page you reverted. Wikipedia is a team effort and I do respect that partInsulinRS (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Further Tomahawk Chop Changes

I rolled back your GFE on the tomahawks not being sold anymore. For this to be a notable addition you'll need a source that covered the alleged change in policy. Feel free to add it back if thee's a source that covered the story. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline

In multiple articles, you have asserted with similar text (and typos):

• Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy [8]

By January 2021, the foam tomahawks used during the tomahawk chop were no listed by MLB Shop.com as Atlanta Braves merchandise.

• Tomahawk chop [9]

By January 2021, these foam tomahawks were no listed among MLB.com's Atlanta Braves merchandise.

• Atlanta Braves [10]

By January 2021, MLB.com no listed the foam tomahawks fans have used during the home game tomahawk chop among its Atlanta Braves merchandise.

with a "citation" to mlbshop.com. This is not an actual citation, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As such, theses edits have been removed. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I am suspicious of your behavior. The actual described source is not reliable to you.InsulinRS (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

InsulinRS, mlbshop.com is a commerce website for selling merchandise. It is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia for statements of fact such as this. It is WP:OR to point at a website and go "oh, look, this thing isn't on there." You would need something reliable, like a news article that discussed the withdrawal of merchandise. Elizium23 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I apparently got to you, because now you're directing your attention at my other contributions not related to the Catholic pages you like to protect. Your contributions even show quite a lack of editing for these types of pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elizium23InsulinRS (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

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. Elizium23 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And I'll report you for disregarding the Wikipedia:Harassment policy.InsulinRS (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

InsulinRS, go for it. Elizium23 (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep it up, and I will.InsulinRS (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

InsulinRS, you are not being harassed. Multiple editors have asked you to follow basic Wikipedia guidelines. Please follow direction and refrain from being hostile. The editors are trying to help you. Nemov (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes there has been controversy, and the fact that you waited nearly a day after to reply, and just after I made an edit to a different page involving the South African Police, only makes me more suspicious. Please abide by the Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding policy. Please refrain from giving me the "trying to help me" stuff too, because even from my own experience outside of Wikipedia, I have learned it is just a way of defending one's own interest.InsulinRS (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalking

People, let's not disregard Wikipedia:Talk page stalker.InsulinRS (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll just create more accounts. It never ends.InsulinRS (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

We are well aware of that. See you around.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)