User talk:An Inconvenient Truth

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello An Inconvenient Truth, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Rape by gender has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * 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 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 Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * 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 can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

25 year ago
A 25 year old ref is a little old. Anything newer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Update the body to this review  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Peer review page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=745352955 your edit] caused a DOI error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F745352955%7CPeer review%5D%5D Ask for help])

Edits to IUD
en.muvs.org/topic/camel-contraception

The page that you cited itself says that there is no evidence to support the idea.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw that when I read the article, and doing that to a camel does sound very dangerous. I also saw that Huffington post thought the idea was worth repeating however, granted they repeat just about everything from their references verbatim. It's a piece of historically significant folklore related to the topic; I'd be interested if it's ever actually been tried in a veterinary journal or has been mentioned by a famous source because the museum said the idea is plausible, but right now it's just a legend that needs confirmed of myth busted. An Inconvenient Truth (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Flyer22 Reborn can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Muffled Pocketed  16:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Could you clarify which remark? I would guess before you answer where I asked if they were a sock puppet. That seems odd however as I am being accused of being a sock puppet. I too call for a high degree of respect and professionalism in my colleagues, thank you for your comment, but if you could be more precise it would help me more. I thought it was odd someone who is apparently very well respected here had a non existent talk page, it just hardly seems like a good form of public relations, I will be more careful with my opinions concerning the conduct of others, particularly those who have committed more of their time and resources to improving this encyclopedia. If you don't mind my asking Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi how would you yourself feel if all your edits for the last week were reverted (which for me is all of them), you were not informed of a sock puppet investigation? It would be annoying wouldn't it, you probably thought a couple edits you made this last week were pretty cool. I'd have to take a took at your edit history but a week is a lot of time lost. If I had been here a month would it be someone getting 150 edits reverting me, I'm wondering that the limits on this time honored tradition of witch hunting new editors by saying their old editor stems from? Forgive the analogy, but more appropriately say analogies and metaphors are forbidden. No one here seems to like them, just use them. I certainly didn't think anyone fell off a turnip truck, ouch, talk about the road rash and contusions from that one, you'd be lucky to be able to type still falling out of a moving truck. An Inconvenient Truth (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Where exactly were you accused of socking? Also I do not see an open investigation here. --Wlmg (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not on the sock puppet investigation page, yet. In the edit summaries of User:Flyer22 Reborn after they reverted all of my edits they repeatedly state"Revert sock: An Inconvenient Truth". No where else really. Would you go through flyers edits that reverted mine Wlmg, there's not that many and they don't seem to be doing it for my new edits. I don'y really have anything else to add at the moment, I've read enough depressing stuff for now, however I would like the edits I've already added to count. An Inconvenient Truth (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok I see them; that is troublesome that she would put that in an edit summary. --Wlmg (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Guy (Help!) 01:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that this is based on a review of your edits, your exceptionally combative mass revert of another user, including reintroducing material sourced from manifestly unacceptable sources such as blogs, and the fact that I simply do not believe form your contribution history that you are a genuinely new user. Guy (Help!) 01:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)