User talk:Krizpo

Welcome!

Hello, Krizpo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! StaticGull Talk 21:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Bhutan , please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Vietnam . When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite supporting sources

You have made a number of edits today to sections of various articles involving statistics about religion -- changing figures in those articles without citing sources supporting your changes, See here. Please re-edit those articles and cite your supporting sources. Please read the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite correct sources when changing content here in Wikipedia. And please do not remove content or change content which is backed up by proper sources. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view carefully if you want to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way. - Takeaway (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding irrelevant content to articles as you did to Hinduism in Turkey. Nothing in the content bears any relevance to the subject. - 11:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Religion in the Philippines, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Philippines. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Christianity, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Taiwan. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Religion in Taiwan. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Christianity in Japan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Buddhism in Italy. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. When citing sources, please take care that the sources are indeed correctly cited. Also only add relevant content to articles. Please do not add content which does not mention the subject of the article. - Takeaway (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Hinduism in Cyprus. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. When citing sources, please take care that the sources are indeed correctly cited. Also only add relevant content to articles. Please do not add content which does not mention the subject of the article. - Takeaway (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Buddhism in the Middle East. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Buddhism in Italy, you may be blocked from editing. - Takeaway (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hinduism in the West Indies, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. - Takeaway (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Christianity in Thailand, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Christianity in Thailand, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Takeaway (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Christianity, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Takeaway (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Buddhism in Africa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Takeaway (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Takeaway (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Hinduism in Africa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Takeaway (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite sources correctly and do not add in your personal analyses as you again did in Hinduism in Africa. - Takeaway (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Christianity in Thailand, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Takeaway (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ONLY ADD INFORMATION WHICH HAS BEEN PROPERLY REFERENCED AND NOT PURELY DERIVED FROM WHAT YOU SPECULATE TO BE TRUE IN ORDER TO PUSH YOUR POINT OF VIEW! If you continue this way, you will be reported. - Takeaway (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important Administrators Noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeaway (talk • contribs)

Your Response is Required

In lieu of blocking you at the moment, I have taken the unique step of protecting 3 of your recently-edited articles from further edits.

This is out of the possibility that you have either not been reading this very talkpage, or that you would like to explain yourself on the WP:ANI report about your editing.

Wikipedia runs on WP:CONSENSUS, and does not permit original research. Knowing how you understand the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, an explanation of why you're breaking so many Wikipedia policies, and an understanding of how you intend to proceed in the future will be key to whether or not the project is forced to block you from editing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for breaking Wikipedia rules. From now on, I will try to find verifiable sources to my articles.

Whatever happened to both this apology and the promise above? Was it false? Were you just trying to appease the masses? It appears you went right back to your previous types of actions, and now you're blocked. You claim to have understood - what happened? dangerous panda 17:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Religion in Africa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. I dream of horses

Ignore that. I made a mistake. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate sources

Try using established newspapers (any newspaper we have an article on will probably do in most cases), scholarly journals, and books published by university presses. Try to avoid sources affiliated with the subject you are writing about. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will try to find verifiable sources on the religions I wrote about.

Regarding your edits to Religion in Africa

I had to drastically cut out a lot of material that failed site policies and guidelines, as already explained to you on Talk:Religion in Africa.

Here I removed your introduction to the Dharmic Religions section because the sources cited do not mention Africa or the Middle east at all. Additionally, Indianhistory.info and historyfiles.co.uk do not meet the reliable sources standards. I've explained that to you before.
Here I removed material completely unsupported by any source.
Here I removed New World Encyclopedia, which is a wiki. As Qwyrzian explained on Talk:Religion in Africa, wikis, blogs, self-published sites, and forums are not reliable sources.
Here I removed Strategyleader.org, which is just some guy's personal website and not a reliable source.
Here I removed unsourced information, as well as information not supported by reliable sources. Dhammawiki.com, being a wiki, is not reliable. Pataka.dhamma.org brcixopo.co.za are affiliated with the subject and cannot be used to prove notability. Anyone can create those kinds of sites, so they're not really verifiable.
Here I removed material completely irrelevant to the article. The worldwide number of Sikhs does not inform the reader how many are in Africa.
Here I removed the rest of the Sikhism section, because the Foreign Policy magazine did not say that Sikhism was an increasing presence in Africa.
Here, *here, and here I removed sources that did not mention Africa at all. One only discussed worldwide expansion, but a source has to mention expansion into Africa to be useful in the article.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on talk

Please address my concerns on talk about you again adding inappropriate material to Religion in Africa. If you cannot provide suitable justification, I'm going to remove everything you added. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Religion in Africa. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Krizpo, address the concerns Qwyrxian and I raised in the edit summaries before trying to restore the contested material. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Religion in Africa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are messing up the page. It actually looked good after my edit.(Krizpo (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Multiple editors with a laundry list of policies and guidelines to cite disagree completely. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators Noticeboard notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing at Religion in Africa and related articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for being biased and making disruptive editing at Religion in Africa and related articles. I must contribute with more reliable sources. The block was set to expire 14:51 today, why am I still blocked from editing?

Accept reason:

The block was set to expire at 14:51 UTC, and it is still only 14:15 UTC. But I'm not going to quibble over 36 minutes, and I've unblocked you slightly early. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Krizpo (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You do realize that this is what got you blocked last time, right?

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Religion in Africa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for immediately going back to exactly the same contested edits that got you your 1 month block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea if you will be able to convince anyone to unblock you now, but I want to point out one stylistic error you keep making. You changed a lot of source citations to move the <ref> before the sentence's closing period, and that is contrary to Wikipedia's style standard (see WP:MOSREF). It should be "Some sentence.<ref>...</ref>", not "Some sentence<ref>...</ref>." Anyway, that's for future note - if you with to be considered for unblock you will need to do some explaining about how you are going to change your approach to editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I forgot to ask you guys if it was okay that I changed the article back to my previous contribution, with small changes. Now I realize that my edits still are very biased. I will change my way of approaching when editing on religions in Africa and the Middle East from now on. Krizpo (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is just what you said last time. It turned out to not be true. How are we to be sure you will be able to control yourself in the future when you just got blocked for this same thing last month and made the same promise then? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2012 (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.

And on the article talk page, you made this comment, yet again completely ignoring everything that had already been explained to you about the need for reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for going back to my previous revisions, as most of my previous revisions wasn't backed by neutral reliable sources. From now on, I will only make small changes with reliable sources on articles like 'Religion in Africa'. Krizpo (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is substantially what you said in your last unblock request, and is still subject to the same objection that Beeblebrox gave. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2012 (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 don't remove previous declined requests and discussion of your block, as a reviewing admin would need to see them - I've restored what you removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1= I apologize for editing my previously declined unblock request. But my previous unblock request was not the same as the earlier unblock requests.}}.

Procedural decline, this is not really an unblock request. I think it would be best if you and Wikipedia went there separate ways for a while. I am revoking your ability to edit this page. I strongly suggest you consider the terms of the standard offer to blocked users as your best path to returning. Any future unblock requests will need to ne made via WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]