User talk:JohnKragen1611

JohnKragen1611, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JohnKragen1611! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Doug Weller talk 13:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Faithful Word Baptist Church, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Combat 18, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Hello JohnKragen1611, WP:CAT tells you, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs.

So, copying all pages from Category:Anti-Muslim violence in India to Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment is wrong.

Also, what is the point of copying them also to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment? How is it different from Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment?

I recommend that you stay away from mass categorisation projects until you gain more experience with Wikipedia. Otherwise, you will be creating loads for other people to clean up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Alternative for Sweden

added a link pointing to Anti-Islam

CasaPound

added a link pointing to Anti-Islam

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative for Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnKragen1611. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:43, 22 November 2020 (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).

JohnKragen1611 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I misunderstood the rules on creating sockpuppets, I was under the impression that sock puppet meant a troll who created multiple accounts to mess around on Wikipedia, I didn't realize that sockpuppet meant what I was doing, I now understand why I have been blocked and I now have a better understanding of what sock puppet accounts are and mean, I had no ill intention when I created the second account, I didn't realize it was a sock puppet, it won't happen again, it was just a misunderstanding on my part, I have autism so I interpret things differently than other people. It won't happen again JohnKragen1611 (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I won't judge on whether your sockpuppetry was made in good faith or not, however you were given a final warning about adding unsourced content on 9 November but continued to do so with your new account. You will need to address this in any future unblock request. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:51, 25 November 2020 (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.

Unblock request.

{{unblock|1=I understand that I have been blocked for sock puppetry, I used and abused multiple accounts and violated the "one user one account policy" I also made a new account to avoid sanctions, which violated the policy for editors. I understand and recognize the concern and reason for blocking me, I received warnings but ignored them, which is fault on my part. I recognize and am sorry for my violation of the policies against sockpuppetry and abusing multiple accounts, it won't happen again, I will only make good and productive contributions in the future. JohnKragen1611 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

You still have not addressed the issues with additions of unsourced content. Quoting Voice of Clam above: you were given a final warning about adding unsourced content on 9 November but continued to do so with your new account. You will need to address this in any future unblock request. Do you understand Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and citation of added content? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the policies on adding sources. I will make sure to add sources for things written. I won't leave anything unsourced. JohnKragen1611 (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request.

{{unblock|reason=I understand that I have been blocked for adding unsourced content,& I understand and recognize the concern and reason for blocking me, I received warnings but ignored them, which is fault on my part. I have read and understand Wikipedia's policies on sourced material, in the future I will source everything I write.JohnKragen1611 (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

Unblock request

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).

JohnKragen1611 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for adding unsourced content, and I understand and recognize the concern and reason for blocking me, I received warnings but ignored them, which is fault on my part. I have read and now understand Wikipedia's policies on sourced material, in the future I will source everything I write. What happened before won't happen againJohnKragen1611 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2021 (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.

Please only have one unblock request open at a time. Multiple requests will not help you or speed up the process, as it makes more work for administrators. Thanks. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I thought there was something wrong with my other one, like it didn't send properly or I pressed a wrong button, so I sent another one. JohnKragen1611 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is in Category:Requests for unblock. Bad requests tend to be answered and rejected quickly - good ones often take longer. I won't review your latest request as by convention admins don't review the same request twice. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 19:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I see. JohnKragen1611 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a checkuser block so I can't lift it, however, I hope someone considers doing so. I've reviewed the questionable edits they were making, specifically the fact that they were almost exclusively categorization-based edits and infobox additions, which inclines me to believe their explanation vis-à-vis the statement that they truly and innocently misinterpreted the sockpuppet policy due to a neurounique social perspective. In light of their previously unblemished block log and pledge to be more cautious moving forward, I think the purposes of this good block have been served and it is safe to lift it. Chetsford (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2020 (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).

JohnKragen1611 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for adding unsourced content and material, and I understand and recognize the reason for blocking me, I received some warnings regarding leaving unsourced material but I ignored them, which is a mistake on my part, I should have listened to the warnings about leaving material unsourced, and not dismissed them. I have read up on and now have a better understanding and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and rules regarding sourced material and providing sources on articles, in the future, I will provide sources for information written or added by me. Leaving material unsourced won't happen anymore JohnKragen1611 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2021 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnKragen1611 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for adding content and the content was unsourced. I understand and recognize the reason for being blocked. Prior to being blocked, I received warnings regarding leaving unsourced material but to my shame, I ignored them, which was a fault on my part, I should have listened to the warnings about leaving material unsourced, and not dismissed and ignored and downplayed them. I have read up on and carefully examined the policies on adding sourced materials and I now have a much better understanding and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and rules regarding sourced material and providing sources on articles, in the future, and I won't ignore any warnings or messages in the future, and I will provide reliable sources for information written by me on Wikipedia articles. Leaving material and information unsourced won't happen anymore JohnKragen1611 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Decline on the merits of the request (unlike my previous decline, which was procedural). Simply copying and pasting your prior request, when you were told to substantially reword, demonstrates you should not be unblocked at this time. Yamla (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2021 (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.

@Yamla: I didn't "copy and paste" the comment, if you compare this message to my other message, the wording isn't the same. I thought when I was told "substantially reword" it, I should just not have the exact same wording as last time, which I didn't have, I didn't have the exact same wording as last time. I didn't know what to change because when I did change the wording, I kept getting told to resend the request because it had been over two weeks since I sent my last request, so I was told to resend it, so I didn't see any point in rewriting the whole thing, so I changed the wording because my previous few requests were only rejected because they had gone unresponded to for over two weeks. So I tried to change the wording as much as I could without taking away from the main point of what I was writing JohnKragen1611 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2021 (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).

JohnKragen1611 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand, recognize and realize that I was blocked for adding content and material that was not sourced. To my shame, I failed to abide by Wikipedia's rules and policies about adding sourced materials, it was a foolish mistake on my part, and I take full responsibility for adding unsourced materials. I have closely read up and went through Wikipedia's terms and policies about sourcing materials and not adding unsourced materials, and I can assure you that any edits done on Wikipedia articles will be sourced, and if I can't get at least one source for my edit, then I won't add or edit the article. I am deeply sorry for failing to abide by the policies.JohnKragen1611 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing here addresses the abuse of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:48, 5 June 2021 (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.

JohnKragen1611 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts as well as failing to provide credible sources and adding unsourced material. I would edit articles and I failed to provide credible sources on the edit in question. I also was guilty of using multiple sockpuppet accounts to avoid getting blocked or if I was given a warning for providing unsourced material. I did receive multiple warnings, which I sadly ignored, and that was a stupid mistake on my part. I have looked up on the policies regarding abusing multiple sockpuppet accounts along with providing unsourced material. In the future, I will only stick to a single account and will make sure to provide a credible source for any edits I may make on Wikipedia articles, and if I am not able to find a reliable credible source then I won't even bother publishing the edit, every edit I add will include at least 1 credible source, and I will only stick to one account and won't be deceptive by using multiple sockpuppet accounts (like I sadly did the last tine) JohnKragen1611 (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This sounds reasonable. I'm going to assume good faith and unblock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing advice

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Some of your edits have been on pages in my watchlist, and as a result, I noticed a few things in your recent edits that I wanted to mention. The first thing is number of citations. By way of example, this edit. First, far too many citations for one small thing, and the other issue is that this is not covered anywhere in the article. It might be a good idea to review both WP:OVERCITE and WP:LEADDD. The other thing I noticed was in terms of categorization. You have a number of categorization edits where categories have been added like tags; but Wikipedia treats categorization as a hierarchy. You should use the most specific category available, as opposed to every category in the tree. By way of example, this edit you added Category:Hindu nationalism. The article is in Category:Hinduism-related controversies and the category you added is a subcategory of that, so the parent category should have been removed (which is was later by another editor). The reverse would also be true - don't add the parent category if the article exists in a subcategory down the tree. See WP:CATSPECIFIC for an explanation of how to approach categorization. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for telling me. It wont happen again. NickGamer01 17:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop overciting

You've been making a lot of edits to KKK, most of which are simply adding new citations to already cited information. Please stop doing this for information that is already adequately cited. Edits such as this [1] are WP:OVERCITE and are making a mess of this article. There is no need for this number of citations, especially in the infobox. Infoboxes are intended to be a summary of what's in the article. From MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). If you're citing things in the infobox, then that would imply they are not properly cited in the body of the article. Similarly, the lead, like the infobox, is a summary of the article. From WP:LEADCITE: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. In the case of the KKK article, none of this is contentious - there are no reasonable editors that are going to challenge any of these WP:LABELs. Further, The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus and the current general consensus is that you're overciting things. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It won't happen again. NickGamer01 11:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]