User talk:Ck4829

Your category is up for deletion

I think out of courtesy they were supposed to contact you, they did not. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_3#Category:Human_rights_violations_attributed_to_anti-communism Signed: Travb (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your category is up for deletion or renaming: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 28#Category:Contemporary Theocracy Bejnar 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:John McCain controversies

I have nominated Category:John McCain controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Hi. I've undone your recent edit to Bush Derangement Syndrome, for reasons I tried to explain on the talk page. If you think I'm wrong, please leave a comment there. Cheers, CWC 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Kristol family

Category:Kristol family, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Secret ^account 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Bush Pioneers

Category:Bush Pioneers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. BDD (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ck4829. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

July 2017

Your recent editing history at 2017 National Scout Jamboree shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your category edits

Hello, you've been making problematic category edits for the last eleven years; please knock it off. Smallpox vaccine is a vaccine, not a disease, so it shouldn't be in Category:Eradicated diseases. Sam Clovis is a person, not a controversy]], so his article shouldn't be in Category:Trump administration controversies. Please review the categorisation guideline. If you continue to make problematic category-related edits, you may be blocked. Graham87 03:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ck4829. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Diseases of affluence

I see that you've added Diseases of affluence to Category:"Social problems in medicine". Are you sure about that? Maproom (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Perceived judicial activism in the United States has been nominated for discussion

Category:Perceived judicial activism in the United States, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

See alsos and our BLP policy

I've just removed the names of Ivanka Trump from one article and Jared Kushner from two. I can see no reason under MOS:SEEALSO to include those specific names and the addition of Kushner's name to I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration might suggest that he was involved somehow, a clear violation of WP:BLP. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

addition of Madonna–whore complex to an article on an aspect of sex education

Again, not appropriate. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories redux

User:Graham87, another Admin, warned you about these last December. Richard Sackler is not a social problem in medicine. Again, this is a violation of WP:BLP. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Militarization of society has been nominated for discussion

Category:Militarization of society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles and content relating to recently deceased or living persons

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

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 recently 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 any 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 14:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to Cargo cult

Please do not add politically-charged links to unrelated articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ck4829. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ck4829. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Bacondrum. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to United Patriots Front have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. At this point your editing history in regards to adding categories is beginning to look like deliberate vandalism, you appear to be adding categories to suit a personal agenda, please stop adding POV categories to pages. Categories are not there to game the system, they are not to be used to present subjects in a unfavorable light. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. R2 (bleep) 22:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm GenQuest. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Charleston church shooting, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Since you decided not to react in any way even afther the ANI case was opened, but continued to add the category to the articles, which in some cases obviously does not belong there, I blocked your account for 31h. The ANI continues to run its course, and if by the time your block expires it is still running, I strongly recommend you to respond there before making further questionable edits. Failure to do so may result in a block of a longer of indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, please respond

Hi Ck4829, my name is Levivich. There is a discussion about your editing happening here: WP:ANI#White nationalist terrorism. You may want to respond and join the conversation. While you are blocked, if you post a message here, someone will copy it to the page WP:ANI#White nationalist terrorism for you. After your block expires, you can post message yourself to WP:ANI#White nationalist terrorism. I hope you join the discussion. Thank you. Leviv ich 17:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm serving my time as I should, I am appealing nothing, I meant to disrupt and I succeeded, guilty. My edits went too far, maybe? But I sought out include individuals, cheerleaders, ideologues, organizations, symbols, rhetoric, propaganda all as white nationalist terrorism. While it's clearly a very uncomfortable subject, I find it odd that practically nobody corrected my 'overreach' with what appropriate examples are, if someone were to tell people in that discussion something, one could tell them "I put absolutely nothing in that category as a joke or to be ironic and I sought out to populate it as quickly as possible."

I hope that helps, I've been told by a friend I should probably limit my time on Wikipedia for a while, especially going through all those disgusting pages.

Ck4829 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I'm not sure if that's going to help :-) but I copied it to the ANI thread. This is just my opinion, but I agree with a lot of the categories you've added, but if you stop at "drive-by tagging" to make a "statement" you may be just wasting your time. It's going to take discussion with other editors, and probably adding sources to many articles, in order to make the tag "stick". FWIW I'd be willing to work on that, so if you feel like it, stop by and say hello on my talk page when your block expires. Leviv ich 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ck4829, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

wumbolo ^^^ 15:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I've opened a new SPI. I think it's fairly obvioua Ck4829 has been editing logged out after his block for a good while: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ck4829 --Pudeo (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)