Chrisburke123

Welcome!

Hello, Chrisburke123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Red Director (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics

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.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop labelling substantive changes as 'typo' fixes. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2018 (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 10:46, 13 December 2019 (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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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 10:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Antifa (United States). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 10:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

June 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Antifa (United States). Doug Weller talk 10:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions alert

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 10:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban warning

Please stop your disruptive editing or you will be topic banned from American politics. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and you don't get to remove well-sourced information, or twist what it says, just because it's biased in your opinion. You have to find reliable sources that share that opinion first. Just one example: "The organization glorifies violence in self-defense"[1], besides sounding ridiculous, has no similarity to what any of the sources say. Bishonen | tålk 15:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: howdy! This user is continuing.--Jorm (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Very well. Shall I list the core beliefs from the organization's own website or biased news sources that you have listed? Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

How can a news source that is accusing the group of supposed racism be considered a reliable source when the chairman of the organization is a black man from Cuba? Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This website has become a joke. I have been a contributor since 2014 and have viewed just how biased this website has become. Please ban me or I will continue making edits Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you wish to be blocked? I believe, based on your comments elsewhere, you no longer wish to be blocked. --Yamla (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I will wait on a response from the administrator that banned me to see if I can make edits after a time, but as politics are my primary interest on Wikipedia, I have become very dishearted with the website and its structure. Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Good luck! :) --Yamla (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from post-1932 American politics. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for continuing to remove sourced content and adding text contradicting the sources provided, despite warnings.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ban changed

Hi again, Chrisburke123. Having slept on it, I've changed my mind, and decided a full ban from American politics was overly draconian, since the problems were all about a single article. I'm withdrawing the ban above, and instead banning you indefinitely from Proud Boys and all discussions and mentions of that subject. You're free to edit the rest of American politics. But please note that if you run into similar problems (especially sourcing problems), the full ban is likely to be reinstated. Bishonen | tålk 09:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC).

February 2022

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Battle of Montgisard. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)