Talk:Sappony

Proving a negative

If a search yielding no results ("Sappony search". US Department of Indian Affairs. Retrieved 3 February 2023.) is not allowed, I can remove it. It's a challenge to prove a negative, but I added this just to bolster the existing reference Office of Federal Acknowledgment. Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I removed the section because it violates wikipedia policy and only sought to prove a negative unsourced opinion that has no business on wikipedia. The author of this is also a part of a native tribe that was known to war with the Saponi so there is a major conflict of interest with the info provided here by the member of the Oklahoma tribe

The above unsigned comment was by User:Insitemobile. -Yuchitown (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I am logged in so I thought it would sign automatically as usual. Which still does not negate your conflict of interest by User:Insitemobile Insitemobile (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

THE AFORMENTIONED NEGATIVE AND IT'S ORIGIN IS FROM A SOURCE THAT HAS A TRIBAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insitemobile (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Insitemobile your supposition makes no sense. How do you know that Yuchitown is in fact Yuchi? I am not from all Indigenous communities nor do I represent them. Besides, being a US citizen does not prevent individuals from participating in editing articles about countries that the United States has gone to war with. I do not understand your reasoning. It feels as though rather than assume good faith, you are grasping at straws in order to question the motives of an established editor in good standing. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I made simple corrections to text that was ambiguous and off topic or were otherwise divisive in nature and I noted so. This act of editing has been responded to with nothing but aggression without source and is outside of wiki policy. Since my job was investigation as far back as 1996 I considered the source and upon looking at everything associated with the users page it is apparent that they have a conflicting agenda to bully tribes who have never sought government assistance and have paid for their own land and advancements, none of which is mentioned and should be the positive topic instead of posting negative opinions and links to books from unaccredited authors which is what got that man sued over the school defamation case etc. Why would a native tribe monitor information about another one. Hence the conflict of that users interest. Insitemobile (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Second the above by Indigenous girl. User Insitemobile seems to be displaying a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and needs to reaccess how they interact here. Heiro 21:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, i must reject your half-ass-ssement and reiterate to you who are also present on the users page that is bullying other users and you have openly participated in missions to patrol wikipedia. But as I said to the user above. Your group is conducting unauthorized activity to control content on wikipedia. I made simple corrections to text that was ambiguous and off topic or were otherwise divisive in nature and I noted so. This act of editing has been responded to with nothing but aggression without source and is outside of wiki policy. Since my job was investigation as far back as 1996 I considered the source and upon looking at everything associated with the users page it is apparent that they have a conflicting agenda to bully tribes who have never sought government assistance and have paid for their own land and advancements, none of which is mentioned and should be the positive topic instead of posting negative opinions and links to books from unaccredited authors which is what got that man sued over the school defamation case etc. Why would a native tribe monitor information about another one. Hence the conflict of that users interest. Insitemobile (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You seriously need to dial down the personal attacks and adhere to WP:AGF. The above is a load on conspiratorial nonsense and proceeding in that vein will definitely lead to you being blocked from editing here. Heiro 22:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC).

You and your group will be blocked first for your activity and conflicts of interest Insitemobile (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipeida has policies and guidelines for content in articles. The specific application of those policies and guidelines to an article is subject to a consensus of editors interested in that article. No one editor gets to override consensus, and no one editor or group of editors gets to override policies and guidelines. You are welcome to edit any article, but if you are reverted, then you should discuss changes you want to make to the article on the article's talk page. If you are dissatisfied with the results of such a discussion, you are welcome to seek advice in a wider venue (but please try to avoid forum shopping), but I suspect you will not find much support for the changes you want to make among the editors who watch this page, or in the wider community. Donald Albury 02:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Insitemobile I'm a bit at a loss to your point. There is a handy dandy watch list that Wikipedia has enabled for users that does indeed allow users to keep an eye on specific articles. If Native editors and allies did not contribute to Native articles, who exactly would be editing them? No one is bullying any tribes, though personal attacks are not looked at favorably. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Your response is in direct violation of wiki policy. By editing other native American tribes pages whom your tribe was at conflict with by your own admission is a violation of wiki policy. You are not spending your time adding to the Pythagorean theorem page to try to solve it, your group has a clear agenda and it will be stopped. If it was a friendly tribe to you that is also against wiki policy and you all are doing it as a group with a lot of missing information that is easy to find on the internet from the government and museums but you spend your time questioning the validity of natives when there is DNA to prove that, NOT WIKIPEDIA most of you may not be the real natives etc but you question others and vandalize wikipedia in every post attached to your names Insitemobile (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Insitemobile (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Except there isn't. Please stop trying to mimic Wikipedia policy warnings and actually read what constitutes a secondary, reliable, published source and actually read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Yuchitown (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown