User talk:Indiana6724

Welcome!

Hi Indiana6724! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Home (Electronic Music) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Home (musician). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Home (musician) (August 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Twitter, YouTube, Discogs and Soundcloud are not considered reliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Home (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Indiana6724! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Home (musician) (August 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Home (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 08:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Home (musician) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Home (musician). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Home (musician) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Home (musician). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

26-DEC-2023

Hello Indiana6724! Your additions to Bluffton, Indiana have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Documentation: https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en/?id=105230471 Thank you. Regards, Spintendo 01:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am i allowed to roll it back so i can redo some of it, not all of it has been directly copied. Indiana6724 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i dont want to go through all the hassle of rewriting the whole thing, id much perfer if i could remake it enough in proper paraphrase Indiana6724 (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm 33ABGirl. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2024 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. The edit summary for this revert is unacceptable. If you want to remove something, please give a edit summary which adequately addresses the reasons for the removal. 33ABGirl (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi @Indiana6724, Glad to see that you're interested in improving content about Indiana. So are we, the Wikimedians of Indiana, ... join us! If you're in central Indiana, we also have semi regular meetups. Have fun! -- Jaireeodell (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photomontage

Refrain from adding back the 2022 photomontage. The agreement in the RfC was to remove the ones that are contested. Even though a discussion about it has been abandoned for a month, doesn't mean it doesn't count. DementiaGaming (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South Bend, Indiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Joseph River. 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) 17:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction set in Indianapolis moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of fiction set in Indianapolis. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Indiana6724 (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indianapolis metropolitan area, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Anderson and Carmel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Circle Tower

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Circle Tower requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://indyencyclopedia.org/circle-tower/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Indiana6724. Thank you for your work on Circle Tower. Another editor, Bruxton, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I hope you develop the article. I find that there are sources available so I am marking this as reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know nomination

Thank you for starting the Circle Tower article. I worked on it and nominated it at DYK and you can follow the progress. Template:Did you know nominations/Circle Tower. Hopefully it will be reviewed, then promoted and featured on the main page. Keep on editing! Bruxton (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I really appreciate that man. Indiana6724 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana

Thank you for reverting vandalism on the subject article. Vandalism is very frustrating, I know. It pisses me off too. But we also have a policy called No Personal Attacks. Saying to the vandal "Grow up and go make some friends instead of vandalizing Wikipedia, what a sad loser you are" is likely to be seen by many as such. What would be disappointing is you landing in the same kind of hot water the vandal deserves, so basically, it's really best to just revert and leave the normal courteous warning on their talk page. And if they get enough warnings, their access will be zapped. Thanks for your time and your anti-vandalism. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Indiana6724 (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Circle Tower

On 8 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Circle Tower, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Circle Tower (pictured), an Art Deco building in Indianapolis, features ziggurat-like upper floors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Circle Tower. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Circle Tower), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of fiction set in Indianapolis

Hello, Indiana6724. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of fiction set in Indianapolis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit on 9/11. Can you discuss it on the talk page first please? Thanks. 96.9.173.56 (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sixmile Creek (Indiana) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Sixmile Creek (Indiana). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of fiction set in Indianapolis

Hello, Indiana6724. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of fiction set in Indianapolis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The World War Barnstar
		I know I heavily dissected the article at Frederick Douglas Williams (lawyer), but you were bold, took the initiative in creating it, and helped out a fellow editor in doing so. That's commendable. *TheTechnician27* (Talk page) 16:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said

The more appropriate route to creating an article written by a brand-new user in the future (especially one with a close connection to the subject) is generally going to be WP:AFC. They're heavily backlogged right now to be sure, but this article did have major problems that an AfC review would've caught. This article was a WP:DRAFT, and the proper means for getting it created would arguably have been to submit it for an AfC review, not to create it outright. It's still nice to see editors taking initiative; I also just want you to be informed since I also didn't know these things at one point. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Douglas Williams (lawyer) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Frederick Douglas Williams (lawyer). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022

Take a look at this topic. ArionStar (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement

Hi there. Please note that image placement is generally on the right, per MOS:IMAGES. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sixmile Creek (Indiana)

Hello, Indiana6724. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sixmile Creek (Indiana), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spokane, Washington, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages University District and St. Aloysius Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sixmile Creek (Indiana)

Hello, Indiana6724. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sixmile Creek".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration on Efilism or Promortalism articles?

Hello Indiana6724. In Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing, you said that an article for Efilism should be created, which I'd also like to see. I started a draft in my own user space, User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism, but I hope that I won't have to write it all myself, since I'm a busy person, I have lots of other things to do, and a second pair of eyes could probably find some sources that I have missed, since that's the highest priority at the moment. If you're interested in collaborating on that draft or Draft:Promortalism, then I would greatly appreciate that. Zero Contradictions (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll see what I can do, but when you have the chance you should probably expand on the Adam Lanza section as there is much more to be said about him. Indiana6724 (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. I'm almost finished reading all the sources that I want to cite, except for a few academic works and my desire to re-read Van Allen's commentary on Efilism.

I agree that there's a lot that can be said about Lanza, but so far, I've only found a book that talks about him, a magazine article that describes his influence by efilism, and a more recent news article that briefly alludes to his YouTube channel. The current consensus for Lanza's Wikipedia entry is that more RSs are needed to prove his influence by efilism and the identification/existence of his YouTube channel. My guess is that the editors of that article are probably unaware of the sources that I've found. But still, the more sources we have, the better. I will probably start a talk page discussion about this over there eventually. Zero Contradictions (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some TCC member tried to create an article on him, it failed to be made due to a consensus by one. Maybe you could make one, and I could help. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the draft didn’t exist, apparently it does: Draft:Adam Lanza. Maybe we could start a new consensus on whether it’s eligible for an article or not? He has the same qualifications if not more as Elliot Rodger. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for showing me this. I had no idea that this existed either. That draft doesn't even cite T. K. Van Allen or Katherine Dee's writing on Lanza, nor does it cite more news articles that state that Lanza inspired the perpetrator of the 2025 Palm Springs bombing.

I agree that that draft should be published. It seems that the main reason why it was rejected in the past four attempts was because the consensus failed, and it failed mainly because the reviewers thought the article was not notable enough among other things.

We should start another consensus vote to get that draft published as well, but we should first edit it to include and cite the important yet unincluded sources that I mentioned. Zero Contradictions (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should get some sleep, but at the time of writing this, I think the only major thing that's left to do for the Efilist draft is to cite information from Van Allen's books about Efilism and Adam Lanza. Finding more papers and books to cite regarding David Bentar's and other antinatalists' views on promortalism could also be useful. If those one or two things get finished, then I think the draft is ready for submission. Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attention! July 2025

Hello, I'm Criticize. I noticed that you recently removed content from Palmer, Illinois without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Criticize 05:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Indiana6724 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of US city articles

Thanks for your many edits to US cities. Please see WP:USCITIES, which outlines the standard US city layout. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this. Indiana6724 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied content from numerous pages into Timeline of terrorist attacks in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

forgot about that, thanks for reminding me. Cheers! Indiana6724 (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Cleveland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edgewater Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Indiana6724 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hi Indiana6724! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. It looks like you mark almost all of your edits as "minor" even when you have removed or added major portions of content, such as on Timeline of terrorist attacks in the United States, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, List of tallest buildings in Columbus, Ohio, etc. Shearonink (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. i tend to tag my edits as "minor" even when I don't intend to. Indiana6724 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are still marking most of your edits as minor, even though most of them clearly aren't. What gives? Are you aware that marking your edits as minor hides them from logged-in users who have chosen in their preferences not to display minor edits? I fail to see how it is difficult to simply not mark your edits as minor. For example in your most recent edits, you added an entire unsourced section dedicated to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the History of Newtown, Connecticut article and marked it as minor edit. Do you believe this is a minor edit?

Please read WP:MINOR and the lines A good rule of thumb is that only edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits. and note that If other editors complain about your use of the "minor" edit flag, then it's likely a good idea to stop using it.

You also rarely use an edit summary. Please read WP:ES as all edits should be explained, with exception for cases in which the reason is obvious. Raskuly (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Columbus, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Downtown Columbus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Indiana6724 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of terrorist attacks in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Trade Center.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Moses Montefiore Academy shooting

None of the citations you provided actually verify the information in this article. The Washington Post link is dead, the United Press International citation just links to their Archives page, and the WLS-TV citation links to a completely different article. Please fix your citations. I have found multiple easily accessible sources about the shooting from a quick Google search, but the responsibility of providing working citations is on the user who adds them. See WP:BURDEN. As such, since there are no existing sources in the article which actually verify it, I've moved it to draft. Raskuly (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cainbread/sandbox

How exactly have you found yourself editing the sandbox of this user? Did you get permission to do so? Are you the same person? Raskuly (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’m the same person. I try not to waste my time responding to stalkers like you who clearly have too much time on their hands. Indiana6724 (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe engaging in personal attacks will help you get unblocked. Raskuly (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see it that way. You have left multiple messages on my page and are obviously stalking me. Indiana6724 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you're upset by is my realization of your chronic misuse of the minor edit checkbox and neglect of edit summaries causing me to follow up on your problematic edit habits. Shearonink warned you about your misuse yet you continued to misuse them. The extent of your misuse of minor edits after being warned was alarming, so I followed up on it periodically and reverted your most recent additions to the History of Newtown, Connecticut article (which was also done without references), since they were done while misusing minor edits, hoping you'd fix it and to get the point across.

While looking through the school shooting categories, which frequently have articles inappropriately added to them, I found the recently created Draft:1988 Chicago shootings, which you happened to create. You uploaded an image in it which you appeared to not have the rights to, so I nominated it for deletion. Additionally, none of the sources in the article actually supported the content per what I said at User talk:Indiana6724#Draft:Moses Montefiore Academy shooting, so I moved it to draft, expecting you to fix it per WP:BURDEN.

On November 6, using the Cainbread account, you reverted my edit to the History of Newtown, Connecticut article, and because of my notification settings, I was sent a notification that one of my edits had been reverted. The Cainbread account was extremely suspicious as about an hour after reverting my edit you began editing User:Cainbread/sandbox on it. This sandbox was dedicated to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. A new user would be unlikely to know about sandboxes so that indicated to me that it was potentially a sockpuppet account. I saw by following up on the Cainbread account that you had edited the sandbox on this account and so I looked at your edit history and saw that you had also replied on the talk page of the Sandy Hook Elementary School article. The account you were replying to was named Kaynbred89, which is very similar to Cainbread. I also saw that Kaynbred89 was a sockpuppet account of Travis Lanza, and so after reporting Cainbread as a potential sockpuppet of Travis Lanza I inquired on your talk page about your potential connection to the Cainbread account.

Girth Summit investigated the Cainbread account and found that while it was not connected to Travis Lanza, it was instead connected to you. Cainbread is actually older than Kaynbred89 per the logs, so somehow Travis Lanza saw your Cainbread account and made a sockpuppet with a similar name, you're incredibly unlikely and were found out to be using an alternative account without properly disclosing it through Travis Lanza by coincidence making an account with a similar name, you have a connection to Travis Lanza, or something I can't think of.

So rather than engaging in a personal attack against me (which is contrary to Wikipedia's rules) for noticing your problematic editing habits and following up, change your editing behavior and actually show that you actually mean this: I am committed to following Wikipedia’s policies carefully moving forward. Raskuly (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“What you're upset by is my realization of your chronic misuse of the minor edit checkbox and neglect of edit summaries causing me to follow up on your problematic edit habits. Shearonink warned you about your misuse yet you continued to misuse them. The extent of your misuse of minor edits after being warned was alarming, so I followed up on it periodically and reverted your most recent additions to the History of Newtown, Connecticut article (which was also done without references), since they were done while misusing minor edits, hoping you'd fix it and to get the point across.”

I apologize for marking some of my own edits as minor when they were not and for occasionally omitting edit summaries or sources. This does not change the fact you stalk my page, and I think that it’s more than my editing pattern.

“While looking through the school shooting categories, which frequently have articles inappropriately added to them, I found the recently created Draft:1988 Chicago shootings, which you happened to create. You uploaded an image in it which you appeared to not have the rights to, so I nominated it for deletion. Additionally, none of the sources in the article actually supported the content per what I said at User talk:Indiana6724#Draft:Moses Montefiore Academy shooting, so I moved it to draft, expecting you to fix it per WP:BURDEN.”

I have other things to do, I’ll get around to it once I get unblocked.

“On November 6, using the Cainbread account, you reverted my edit to the History of Newtown, Connecticut article, and because of my notification settings, I was sent a notification that one of my edits had been reverted. The Cainbread account was extremely suspicious as about an hour after reverting my edit you began editing User:Cainbread/sandboxon it. This sandbox was dedicated to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. A new user would be unlikely to know about sandboxes so that indicated to me that it was potentially a sockpuppet account. I saw by following up on the Cainbread account that you had edited the sandbox on this account and so I looked at your edit history and saw that you had also replied on the talk page of the Sandy Hook Elementary School article.”

I should have clarified on the user page that Cainbread is an alternative account of Indiana6724, that is my mistake. However, I was using it appropriately and made no violations of any rules.

“The account you were replying to was named Kaynbred89, which is very similar to Cainbread. I also saw that Kaynbred89 was a sockpuppet account of Travis Lanza, and so after reporting Cainbread as a potential sockpuppet of Travis Lanza I inquired on your talk page about your potential connection to the Cainbread account.

Girth Summit investigated the Cainbread account and found that while it was not connected to Travis Lanza, it was instead connected to you. Cainbread is actually older than Kaynbred89 per the logs, so somehow Travis Lanza saw your Cainbread account and made a sockpuppet with a similar name, you're incredibly unlikely and were found out to be using an alternative account without properly disclosing it through Travis Lanza by coincidence making an account with a similar name, you have a connection to Travis Lanza, or something I can't think of.

So rather than engaging in a personal attack against me (which is contrary to Wikipedia's rules) for noticing your problematic editing habits and following up, change your editing behavior and actually show that you actually mean this: I am committed to following Wikipedia’s policies carefully moving forward.”

I have no connection whatsoever to any of those accounts. I chose the username “Cainbread” because it references Adam Lanza; in hindsight, that was inappropriate and created an unfortunate coincidence. I assume the similar accounts might belong to TCC enthusiasts, but I didn’t investigate them closely. I’m not sure how to prove the lack of affiliation beyond this statement. I plan to change up my editing habits and comply with the rules. Indiana6724 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I buy this explanation. I don't think the majority of editors would've realized that this was a reference. I don't know why you believe I "stalk" your page. If I was "stalking" your page I would've noticed things much quicker than I actually did. Have we had a dispute before that I don't remember? I don't like you holding this belief about me, but I guess I can see why you feel that way. Regardless, I do hope that the admins unblock your account. Raskuly (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I must have not seen this message, or i forgot to respond)

I completely overreacted with the “stalking” thing. There’s no prior dispute or anything, I think I just got paranoid when I saw the same name pop up a couple times in a short period and jumped to the wrong conclusion. I don’t actually think that at all now. Fingers crossed on the unblock. It’s been about five days since I submitted the appeal and still nothing, but I know everyone’s volunteering their time. Indiana6724 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Travis Lanza. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Girth Summit _(blether) 14:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator use only:

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

I didn't do anything, you falsely banned me and didn't give me a chance to respond. Indiana6724 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ignoring me, Girth Summit (talk · contribs)? Indiana6724 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Indiana6724 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’d like to appeal the indefinite block on this account for sockpuppetry. I wasn’t trying to do anything shady. I only made this second account because there’s one particular topic that really doesn’t fit with the rest of what I normally edit on my main account. I just wanted to keep things separate and tidy—nothing more than that. I never used the two accounts together to push a point, vote twice, dodge a block, or anything like that. The sockpuppetry policy does say it’s okay to have an alternate account for legitimate reasons as long as it’s not used abusively (see the “Legitimate uses” section). That’s all I was doing. I’m perfectly happy to list both accounts on my user pages or wherever is needed so everything is out in the open. I just want to get back to editing. Could someone please take another look? I’d really appreciate it.

Decline reason:

I concur with my colleague here. The Standard Offer without any socking is the only path forward. Star Mississippi 23:16, 9 December 2025 (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.

This doesn't make much sense to me - you were editing the sandbox of your other account, hardly keeping things separate and tidy. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was transferring some text from my Indiana6724 account, as Cainbread wasn’t old enough to access the Sandy Hook article. Indiana6724 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I’ve waited a bit, and I realize you denied my request on my other account. Could you perhaps review my request on this one? Indiana6724 (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: - how do you feel about a possible unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded. The SPI sets out evidence that the second account was likely created to evade scrutiny, as edits on the subject from this account had already been made and reverted. The unblock request also does not address the similarities between these accounts' recent editing, and those of the master in that case. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The SPI sets out evidence that the second account was likely created to evade scrutiny, as edits on the subject from this account had already been made and reverted."

I literally had no reason to create another account to evade scrutiny—if that were my intention, I could have continued editing the page from my main account. The purpose of creating the “Cainbread” account was to gradually shift my true-crime–related edits there, so that my main account could focus on topics related to my home state of Indiana.

"The unblock request also does not address the similarities between these accounts' recent editing, and those of the master in that case."

There is no evidence beyond a similarity between my username and those belonging to someone else. Over the years, there have been multiple accounts with similar names. I chose the username “Cainbread” because it referenced Adam Lanza; in hindsight, that choice was inappropriate and created an unfortunate coincidence. I assume the similar accounts might belong to true-crime enthusiasts, which is fairly common on true-crime pages, and likely contributed to the confusion. However, I did not look into those accounts closely beyond leaving a message on the talkpage. I also wasn’t given an opportunity to respond to the accusations made against me, and my messages went unanswered as i was blocked in minutes. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You made these edits under this account in late October. Those edits were reverted, so you came back under your sockpuppet account and reinstated them. That in itself would be enough to warrant a block. The connection between you and the blocked accounts listed at that case is not clear to me, but you were editing about exactly the same subject in the same time frame, and the fact that you were doing it under a sockpuppet account is, I'm afraid, simply too fishy for me. I'll add that if after over two years and 1,600 edits you still think it's OK to add an entirely unreferenced section about a school shooting to an article about a town's history, there is something lacking either in your competence or your willingness to take a reasonable amount of care while editing about such sensitive subjects. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You made these edits under this account in late October. Those edits were reverted, so you came back under your sockpuppet account and reinstated them. That in itself would be enough to warrant a block."

I had no idea that correcting your mistakes using another account was a violation of the rules, my intention was not to evade scrutiny.

"The connection between you and the blocked accounts listed at that case is not clear to me, but you were editing about exactly the same subject in the same time frame, and the fact that you were doing it under a sockpuppet account is, I'm afraid, simply too fishy for me."

I understand why the timing and overlap in subject matter may appear suspicious, but I want to clarify that I was not attempting to operate a sockpuppet account. My edits happened to focus on the same topic because I was in the process of shifting my true-crime–related work to the “Cainbread” account, as explained earlier. This transition was intended to help separate different areas of my editing, not to conceal activity or evade scrutiny. I have no connection to the blocked accounts mentioned in the case, and any similarity in editing topics during that time frame is coincidental. Additionally, the grammar and tone used on those other accounts are not consistent with either Indiana6724 or Cainbread.

"I'll add that if after over two years and 1,600 edits you still think it's OK to add an entirely unreferenced section about a school shooting to an article about a town's history, there is something lacking either in your competence or your willingness to take a reasonable amount of care while editing about such sensitive subjects."

I agree that my editing over the past few months has been disgustingly sloppy. My plan is that, if I am unblocked, I will go back and fix most of my mistakes, including the draft I created for the Moses Montefiore Academy shooting Indiana6724 (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very hard to believe that someone would honestly think that reinstating reverted edits to an article using a undeclared alt account would be seen as legitimate use of that account. We're not talking about an edge case, or 'Wikiepedia's rules are so complicated', it's blatantly and obviously deceptive, in the natural, everyday sense of that word. If you were to be unblocked, at a minimum I would want to see you accept a one-account restriction, to commit providing reliable sourcing for any and all edits made to 'true crime' subjects, and to stop marking edits as minor unless it is actually minor. To be clear, a minor edit is fixing spelling, changing punctuation etc. Anything that changes meaning, introduces or removes information or sourcing, or significantly changes structure, is not minor. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I find it very hard to believe that someone would honestly think that reinstating reverted edits to an article using a undeclared alt account would be seen as legitimate use of that account. We're not talking about an edge case, or 'Wikiepedia's rules are so complicated', it's blatantly and obviously deceptive, in the natural, everyday sense of that word."

I agree that your first impression is understandable, and I recognize that I should have clarified beforehand that Cainbread was an alternative account.

"If you were to be unblocked, at a minimum I would want to see you accept a one-account restriction"

I will definitely no longer use the Cainbread account after everything that has happened.

"to commit providing reliable sourcing for any and all edits made to 'true crime' subjects, and to stop marking edits as minor unless it is actually minor. To be clear, a minor edit is fixing spelling, changing punctuation etc. Anything that changes meaning, introduces or removes information or sourcing, or significantly changes structure, is not minor."

I plan to take Wikipedia more seriously after this incident. If I mistakenly mark an edit as minor, I will revert it and make the correction properly. Indiana6724 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you will need to indicate that you will accept these restrictions, and you will need to declare any other alt accounts you have created, even if they haven't been used. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cainbread is the only account I have, as far as I know. If I have created any others, I must have forgotten about them. Indiana6724 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try to remember. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cainbread is my only account. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really trying to assume good faith of you here. You created another account just a couple of weeks ago, and you've forgotten already? Girth Summit _(blether) 07:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely forgot about the ‘TropicalMainlander’ account — I created it a couple of weeks ago during a late-night editing session (I think?) and honestly hadn’t touched it since. Your comment prompted me to check my old password manager, and sure enough, there it was. Indiana6724 (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked on 15 November. You made that account on 25 November - any editing you were doing at the time would have been to the talk page of one of your blocked accounts. I'm sorry, but while I recognise that you didn't actually use it to evade the block, the creation of a new account while you are blocked seems like quite a deliberate act, and not something you would have so easily forgotten, and I can only conclude that you are being less than entirely frank. I'll leave this request open for someone else to consider, but my advice to you would be WP:SO. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take the offer, thanks for you're time. Indiana6724 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]