User talk:Krissmethod

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, All the Right Reasons, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed 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! The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krissmethod! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Missvain (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the YG (rapper) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS YOUR ONLY WARNING: Your recent editing history at Caitlyn Jenner and other articles, shows that you have engaged in edit warring. 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 article's 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 one-revert rule (1-RR), which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on any other topical pages (e.g.- abortion, transgender, iraq, and so on) that are also 1-RR within a 24-hour period. BECAUSE THIS ARTICLE IS A 1-RR ARTICLE: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—even on different pages—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Krissmethod. I have already laid two advisement templates on your user page so I did not want to lay one more template on you. I hope you reply to me. Ping me if you do. My signature is a ping template, which you can copy and paste into a reply here.

It is customary to leave an edit summary with each edit. Brief is fine. Over time you will even pick up some shorthand that some editors use to further condense their edit summaries. The norm is to use edit summaries and it will smooth things out for you going forward.

Going forward, please provide an edit summary on every edit you make. Thank you.

See you around the Wikis. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Meiloorun. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Johnny Rebel (singer)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 23:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Krissmethod. 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)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to David Duke. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please note that the only reason I haven't sanctioned you is that your last DS alert was over 12 months ago. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to white supremacy's lead do not seem to be constructive. Moreover, they are not supported by the text of the article. Please do not edit article leads in such a manner. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Based on your wholly unsupported edits at white supremacy and David Duke ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), you seem to have some issue regarding the overlap of white supremacy with Christian ideology. Please stop this disruptive editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning that any next edit from this account without attempting to communicate and address the issues that have been raised would result in immediate preventative block. Communication is not optional, especially when there are problematic editing behaviours associated with this account. Thank you for your understanding. Alex Shih^Talk 06:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to respond but whatever man just let it go and mind your own business please? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krissmethod (talk • contribs)

Your editing is disruptive and counterproductive (basically vandalism). It's not something that should be let go out overlooked. Alex Shih appears to be giving you a final chance to explain yourself and cease the disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not a big deal dude so just leave it alone and don't interfere with me and leave me alone. I don't care what your problem is. Stop talking to me and drop it both of you, end of discussion.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Alex Shih (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you seemingly have no idea what you are doing wrong, and your first ever communication is to respond with hostility, I have no choice but to block this account indefinitely. This is a collaborative project, and if you cannot collaborate with other editors, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Alex Shih (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]