User talk:JohnKragen1611

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 13:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at 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:. The SandDoctor Talk 06:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request.

 * You still have not addressed the issues with additions of unsourced content. Quoting 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)

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)

Unblock request

 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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

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)

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)

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. Butler Blog  (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


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

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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 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. Butler Blog  (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


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

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)