User talk:ImVeryStupid

Hi ImVeryStupid! 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, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please do not introduce links to draft articles in actual articles. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 20:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. ImVeryStupid (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2026 Fort Lauderdale–Sarasota shootings, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Fort Lauderdale–Sarasota shootings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello ImVeryStupid! Your additions to Killing of Ken Lee 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, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at KMVQ-FM, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at KMVQ-FM, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Annunciation Catholic Church shooting, a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News was added. 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) 22:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please review WP:BLPCRIME. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please review WP:BLPCRIME again per your edits at 2026 Carrollton Koreatown shootings. Raskuly 🐰 10:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see now. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I broke so many fourth walls on Wikipedia. I would rather have my account banned than active. ImVeryStupid (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why? Chattenoir (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't care. Besides, Doug Weller banned me for good, so I wanna thank him. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Self request, see their talk page and posts to Mikewem.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 10:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why on earth did you block him for no reason? He did nothing wrong. ~2026-11772-98 (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

? Do you not see him asking to be blocked? That's why Doug Weller did it. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC).Reply

Doug, I know I'm proud that you terminated my account, but I just wanted to say that I'm very sorry. I'm not upset at you; I'm just upset at myself. I just don't know how to follow the rules properly at Wikipedia, and I'm very new to Wikipedia. The reason why I wanted to be banned is because I don't know how to follow the Wikipedia rules although I kept reading it over a hundred times, and as well as me really hating myself.

If you unblock my account, I'm probably not going to go on Wikipedia as much, but I think retaining my ban is a good option. All I want is help. Just please help me. Thank you very much Doug, and I hope I'll be better soon. ImVeryStupid (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hating yourself isn't a solution to this problem. (And I'm saying that as someone who's expressed a lot of self-hate.) I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, as well as some of the material on editing contentious topics. I think you decided to jump into the deep end of the pool when you started on Wikipedia, and it's easy to get into arguments with people when they're editing articles about contentious topics. I suggest you sit back, catch your breath, and relax. Wikipedia is not a battleground. You aren't banned, your account wasn't terminated, and you can always submit an unblock request. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I tried. Its never going to work at all. I apologized several times and nobody seems to care. ImVeryStupid (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2026 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm very sorry for hating myself. I know everybody thinks that I didn't do wrong, I just need a termination break from my Wikipedia account. I'm not upset at anybody; I'm just upset at myself. I just don't know how to follow the rules properly at Wikipedia although I already read the rules like thousands of times, and I'm very new to Wikipedia. I just hate myself big time and I want somebody to help. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You don't seem to be asking to be unblocked. We cannot give you medical or psychological advice; please consult with a qualified professional who can help you. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2026 (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 user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I'm feeling completely calm and better now. And I already did read the rules on "Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot". It's my fault for planning a ban, and not others. I joined Wikipedia on the week before my ban. I know people thought that I did not break the rules of Wikipedia, but I did myself, and I'm very sorry. Please forgive me, and I hope I'll return to Wikipedia as soon as possible. But if I don't make a return to Wiki, it's totally okay.

Accept reason:

You are unblocked. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

ImVeryStupid (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Doug Weller: - okay to unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Sure, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Raskuly, and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Temple Israel synagogue attack, it appears that you added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Raskuly (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha, thank you. I might readd the Livonia part because it does confirm the location of where the suspect purchased the fireworks. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm TLJ7863. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, HM Prison Belmarsh, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I could not find any reliable source that supported that Rudakubana was in Frankland or that he was involved in an attack that took place there. Also, Frankland only houses prisoners aged 21 or over and Rudakubana is only 19, which makes this less likely to be the case. TLJ7863 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Valerie Solanas, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I note that you added Category:Violence against men in the United States to a couple articles today. Please realize that articles in the Category:Violence against men group must deal with material where the violence is targeted intentionally against men -- i.e., it doesn't just happen that the the victim was a man, but that they were specifically victimized because of their gender. I undid the one instance at Killing of Austin Metcalf (along with an inappropriate racial violence category), and someone else undid Alex Pretti, but if this is something you've added other places, you may wish to review whether it was an appropriate edition. May this save you editing time in the future! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your re-edits, thank you. ImVeryStupid (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi ImVeryStupid, I noticed you’ve added this category to a lot more articles recently. If you go to the main page, Category:Violence against men, there’s a big blue box that says:

This category is for articles on the topic of sexual or gender-based violence against men or boys.

The scope of this category includes sexual violence against men, sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict situations, domestic violence against men, and violence against trans men. Organizations, literature, events, books, etc for which the topic of gender-based violence against men is defining are also on-topic.

This category should not include violence where men happen to be the victims. Rather, it should only include acts of violence where the gender of the victim is an important determinant in them being selected for violence, when there is a gendered nature to the violence itself, or when it otherwise fits the definition in the literature of sexual or gender-based violence. Mikewem (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I bolded parts that I think are helpful. Do you have any questions about any of this? Mikewem (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

In addition to what Mikewem mention, I see you've been putting other articles into specific crime categories based in claims that are not in the articles you are categorizing. Nowhere in our article on Seth Privacky do we say that he was white. Nowhere in Killing of Austin Metcalf does it say that the killing was racially motivated. I am going to suggest that you step away from categorization until you've studied it much further and understand the problem with such edits. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I understand. Thank you very much. I'm going to step away from Wikipedia and learn. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi ImVeryStupid. Thank you for your work on Geoffrey Kent Ferguson. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thank you for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, ImVeryStupid,

Thank you for creating Key Personnel massacre.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

classifying the attack as androcide requires neutral third party sourcing and the views must be balanced if there is any dissent on this question

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Boynamedsue}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Key Personnel massacre. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it contains original research classifying the murders as androcide. This is an exceptionally controversial identification given no sources on the page identify the attack as such, agreeing that the motivating factor was the unemployment of the perpetrator. The article needs rewriting with a neutral tone.. I have converted it 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha. Thanks. ImVeryStupid (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, make sure you're following WP:BLPCRIME. We can't call him the perpetrator until he's been convicted; in fact, we should be careful about how we talk about him. Please see the discussion in the talk page for the article for more detail. Qoiuoiuoiu (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Misandry in the United States indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

The categories "Misandry" and "Misandry in the United States" are two different categories, with "Misandry in the United States" featuring articles on misandristic nature and content in the United States of America, while "Misandry" was more like "harmfulness against men". ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your new category is redundant at best, and the 'Misandry' category is currently so small there is no need to subdivide it. MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think its best for you to re-add the speedy deletion tag. Its definitely one smarter move. ImVeryStupid (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi ImVeryStupid, on the article talk page we are trying to puzzle through this diff. Can you help us out? Einsof (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I noticed on some comments you seem to be very hard on yourself. Try to take it easy, Wikipedia is just a hobby so don't beat yourself up over it. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Bobby Cohn, left the following feedback:

This draft appears to be a duplicate of an existing article. Wikipedia does not permit multiple articles on the same topic.

• To improve the existing article, please edit it directly at Geoffrey Ferguson. If the article is protected and you cannot edit it, propose your changes on the article's talk page.
• If you are writing about a different subject with the same name, ask the reviewer to rename your draft to distinguish it.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Geoffrey Ferguson to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Its okay. Its already on Wikipedia. People thanked me for creating Ferguson's wiki page. Thanks! ImVeryStupid (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, ImVeryStupid! 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! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Its already published on Wikipedia. Thanks! ImVeryStupid (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2026, a link pointing to the disambiguation page KMMO was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fixed it. Thanks! ImVeryStupid (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back to Wikipedia, ImVeryStupid. I see that you've returned after a period away and wanted to thank you for your contributions. If you haven't seen them before, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here again and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, ask it at the help desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome back! Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I quit Wikipedia. ImVeryStupid (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Nixleovel, left the following feedback:

This draft does not have sufficient content to warrant a standalone article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Okmulgee bicycle murders.

• Edit the existing article to include your text and citations into an appropriate section.
• If the article is protected and you cannot edit it, propose your changes on the article's Talk page.

While this draft is well-researched and properly cited, it is a duplicate of the existing article Okmulgee bicycle murders. Instead of creating a new page, please compare your draft with the live article. If your draft contains more detailed information, updated legal status, or better citations, you should merge that content directly into the existing live article.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Okmulgee bicycle murders to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 06:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I already made the page several months prior. Thanks! ImVeryStupid (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm unsure what you mean. Do you mean to say that you created the existing article in mainspace and don't want this draft anymore? Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 19:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I tried drafting the page and waited for almost a whole year. I know it takes patience which I did, but it lasted a LOT longer than I thought. And then I decided to give up and create the page myself. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2026 Memorial drive shooting, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Memorial drive shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2026 Carrollton Koreatown shootings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Carrollton Koreatown shootings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Raskuly 🐰 20:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2026, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 540 was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reminding me! ImVeryStupid (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to 2026 Islamic Center of San Diego shooting did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. If you use a registered account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Editor → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

One more note that I think can be helpful. I noticed you’ve been adding ethnicity (white) to a number of ‘Killing of’ articles. MOS:ETHNICITY says:

Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

Do you have any questions about this editing guideline? Mikewem (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you think not having a "White Americans" category is extremely racist? Of course, we have all the African Americans and Latinos and Hispanics and Asians categories, but why not White Americans as well? Why do you guys don't want White Americans to be added? I think it's kinda helpful. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:White Americans shot dead by law enforcement in the United States has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

First of all, why? And second, do you think not having a "White Americans" category is racist? Because I think not having a "White Americans" category is very racist. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The majority of articles you were throwing in here to build this had no reference to the race of the individual, or had an unsourced claim you added while you were adding a category. There is no article showing this is a specific topic of interest, this does not reflect any other subcategories of Category:People murdered by law enforcement officers in the United States. And as for the claim that we don't have a "White Americans" category -- we do, at Category:White_Americans. Anyway, those bolded words "the category's entry" provides a link to the discussion which you are free and even encouraged to enter into if you think this is an appropriate category. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not talking about White Americans in general. I'm talking about why we don't have a "White Americans shot dead by law enforcement" category, because we do have African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and others that are "not simply white", but why not White Americans? To me, as a white guy, I think it's completely racist. ImVeryStupid (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Really? Can you point to those categories?? Because I cannot find them. I look at relevant articles like George Floyd and don't find such categories being used. The only category indicating the murder by a law enforcement officer on his page is Category:People murdered by law enforcement officers in the United States, with no indication of either race or nationality of the victim. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

All of these are mentioned at Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States. And the main reason why I added White Americans is because they don't have a category at all, and I think it's appropriate enough to add in a section on White Americans fatally shot by law enforcement in a similar matter as the other races, and in my opinion, it 100% deserves a list. Besides, as a white man who supports everybody who loves every color and every gender around the world, I've been learning about violence against white men ever since Derek Chauvin got stabbed in Tucson. ImVeryStupid (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The "shot dead" categories are not the "murdered" categories, which is what you were trying to add (and in a number of cases, to people whose killings were not considered murders.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm so confused. I don't know why some user added African Americans, Latinos, Hispanics, Asians, and children in the "shot dead" category and not the "murdered" category. If I was able to do the White Americans category, it would've been in the "murdered" category too. Shooting still counts as murder, its the same exact thing. ImVeryStupid (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I will admit that I got confused between the "shot dead" and the "murdered" categories here myself during this conversation, and had thought you'd added to the "murdered" category when you'd added to the "shot dead" category. My apologies for that. But you were adding claims of whiteness to articles that had no sourced claims of whiteness. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

And "murdered" would overlap with "shot dead" but they are not the same; one can be shot dead (in self defense, for example) without it being murdered, and one can be murdered (intentionally rammed by a vehicle) in cases where it was not being shot. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I also see why the "shot dead" categories were hard to find -- their categories all include "officers" in the phrasing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and the ones I added in the category are all fatally shot by law enforcement, just like the other races in the category. I thought adding the "White Americans" in the category will finish off the complete list. ImVeryStupid (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, it wouldn't. The subcategories currently have one for Black Americans and one for Black Africans but none for Blacks of other nationalities, one for Asians in general but not for Asian Americans in specific, one for Hispanic & Latino Americans, and none for Native Americans, whether limited to Americans or for any nationality. So it's all a mishmosh. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... Well, I hope someone will someday add them into the blog. ImVeryStupid (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I emptied and nominated the deletion of the category. Nobody really wants to use it anyway. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

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

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Mikewem (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is about your repeated additions of the categories Category:Violence against men in the United States and Category:White Americans shot dead by law enforcement in the United States across multiple articles. Please stop. Mikewem (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I'll cut it out, and I'll stop doing it. ImVeryStupid (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to engage in the edits anymore since I already learned my lesson. Besides, although I'm not going to do it again, I think its best for me to stay away from the categories for a while. But if you want to block me, then I'm cool with that. ImVeryStupid (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I feel like quitting Wikipedia. I have been horrible recently and I think I deserve to be locked out from Wikipedia for good if that's alright with you. ImVeryStupid (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Given some of the peculiarities that have shown up in the Killing of Dylan Noble, I'm moved to ask: having you been using any AI system, such as ChatGPT, Grok, whatever, to help you with your edits? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

No. I never used AI on my searches. All of these peculiarities came from local Fresno outlets, national outlets, and newspaper websites, even some overseas. ImVeryStupid (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

If they are coming from sources, they are coming from sources that are not the next ones you have marked in the article, and are thus failing verification. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

And why was that? Besides, I'm literally this close for quitting Wikipedia. I tried to help but I just won't stop breaking the rules and reading all those WPs nonstop. I know that I'm terrible, and I think you should punish me. ImVeryStupid (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

You tried to post earlier that you were self-blocked. If you wish to actually receive a block, see WP:SELFBLOCK (yes, yet another WP) for directions. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

But I've been awful on Wikipedia, feeling like I would rather quit. Do you think that I deserve to be gone from Wikipedia just because on how horrible I was? I just need to get better, but I've been worsened myself almost all the damn time. ImVeryStupid (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it's best for me to immediately quit. Although I've been on Wiki for a few months, I think quitting Wikipedia is probably the best option for me, because I have been so horrible and awful at editing, causing wars and bringing wrong facts, even vandalism and BLPs and crap, causing me to read WPs nonstop. I just don't know how to edit. I just give up. I'm done. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

You may have done some things wrong, but all of this editing on your talk page and... saying "I think you should punish me"? I am going to say that your edits do seem a little bit like self-pitying and compliment fishing, even if it's not intended. I would also like to say that your edits are not horrible and I made many of the same mistakes when I was new. It's not over.

For editing here, you can try making less contentious edits or listening to advice if it's helpful. If you really want to leave Wikipedia, you can do so. You can request a self-block. The thing is, other editors aren't going to "punish" you for something you can improve on.

It's fine to make mistakes, and the main point is that you have the capacity to learn from that. I do know that all the policy pages are really overwhelming, but you can focus on one area (spelling mistakes, for example) and then expand. I don't really know. Hope this gets better for you, whatever that might mean. Sorry if this is a really bad response, I've read it over and I don't know how to improve it...! 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

It may not get better. I've always been bad at edition. Sometimes I always declare wars on edits which I'm trying to end it! ImVeryStupid (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article May 2026 White House shooting, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2026 White House shooting (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Specifically this discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm done with Wikipedia. I broke thousands of walls throughout my first year on the job, and I'm not just stupid, but I'm 100% the worst Wikipedia user in the whole world. I kept reading all those WPs nonstop and I just won't stop breaking the rules. I quit. I'm done. I don't deserve this and all I want to do is to quit. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Whoever wants to ban me here, thank you very much! I don't deserve to be in this website anymore, and I don't deserve a life anyway.

This user is currently under a self-requested block for a period of Infinity, which was placed by ImVeryStupid.

ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I meant to say this on UTRS, but accidentally closed it too early. I declined the appeal per your last comment. I think that continuing this break from editing is probably a good idea at this point. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply