User talk:Nixon Now
Speedy deletion nomination of Rod Phillips (politician)
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Rod Phillips (politician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. AjaxLyons401 (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Nixon Now, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Nixon Now! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Nixon Now! There is no need to create a disambiguation page for only two individuals. It is standard practice to simply have a hat note added to the main biography. I would argue that the priest is the main person in this case (an archdeacon is similar in "rank" as a bishop) rather than a regional leader of a junior party (the New Brunswick New Democratic Party holds no seats). Unless you have an objection, I shall move it back to how it was: IE the priest as the main page with a hat note linking to the politician. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: there's also the Paralympian. In any case, I would say a political party leader is more significant than a local priest and to support this Jennifer McKenzie has been covered by a number of news sources while the coverage of McKenzie the priest seem to be largely from small church bulletin s and local newspapers. An archdeacon is not in fact similar in rank to a bishop but is below a bishop, basically a deputy to the bishop. If she were a bishop or archbishop there'd be more of a case but I don't think Archdeacons are generally considered to be notable. Nixon Now (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Paralympian doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and as she competed almost a decade ago and didn't win a medal it is unlikely she ever will. The priest has an entry in Who's Who (this isn't vanity press, and provides coverage of the most notable British/UK-related individuals). As stated above, priority is based on the level of notability and this politician is only borderline notable: see WP:POLITICIAN. In fact, as per WP:POLOUTCOMES (eg "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success"), if a deletionist came along, the article would most likely fail notability in their eyes and the article would be deleted. In England, the level of responsibility of an archdeacon is equivalent to an assistant bishop in other countries. It is a full time job and they can oversea 100 churches. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Gaia Octavia Agrippa: There are also many more incoming links to Jennifer McKenzie (politician) than to Jennifer McKenzie (priest). Considering that all current and most past provincial NDP leaders in Canada have wikipedia articles I don't think a deletionist would get very far. As for Who's Who, as a provincial NDP leader she'll be in the next edition of Canadian Who's Who. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria:
- People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7]
- Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
- Aside from the Who's Who entry, the sources for the article are authored by Archdeacon McKenzie herself and are thus not "independent of the subject" i.e. there is only one independent source for the article so, frankly, I think a deletionist would have more success attempting to delete Jennifer McKenzie (priest) than Jennifer McKenzie (politician) as it is not clear that the former passes the minimum requirement for notability that there be "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are... independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Nixon Now (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Paralympian doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and as she competed almost a decade ago and didn't win a medal it is unlikely she ever will. The priest has an entry in Who's Who (this isn't vanity press, and provides coverage of the most notable British/UK-related individuals). As stated above, priority is based on the level of notability and this politician is only borderline notable: see WP:POLITICIAN. In fact, as per WP:POLOUTCOMES (eg "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success"), if a deletionist came along, the article would most likely fail notability in their eyes and the article would be deleted. In England, the level of responsibility of an archdeacon is equivalent to an assistant bishop in other countries. It is a full time job and they can oversea 100 churches. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Please use edit summaries
[edit]
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Saskatchewan Party leadership elections
[edit]The 2018 leadership election section doesn't have to be blank just because I started an article. I was thinking that the Saskatchewan Party leadership elections article would have a summary of the election where Saskatchewan Party leadership election, 2018 article would be more extensive. Kingjeff (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- The election results should be there when they're in but anything else is redundant. Nixon Now (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia general elections by number
[edit]Hi Nixon Now. I apologize that I've just undone a large number of your edits without leaving edit summaries for all of them. I came across your edits when I was patrolling the speedy deletion categories. First, the "original research" and "unsourced" tags don't normally apply to disambiguation pages: they are just navigation aids and don't normally contain any information requiring citations. In fact, we usually remove citations from disambiguation pages. I did see your note somewhere else about proper numbering of the general elections and I agree, but deleting the pages isn't a good solution.
You mentioned WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB in some of your speedy deletion requests, but this isn't a WP:G6 criteria, and I don't think it's the right section of the disambiguation guideline to link to for this situation. I think this is a WP:TWODABS situation. You mentioned hatnotes in discussion somewhere else, and I think you're right that this is the best way to handle this situation, but in this case the disambiguation page should be replaced with a redirect to the correct target, rather than deleted. I'm doing one as an example here: 6th New Brunswick general election. However that's a bad example as we don't have an article on the 1816 general election.
I'm not doing them all because I think there's disagreement over the proper numbering sequence. I'm going to continue discussing this elsewhere. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I started a discussion at the WikiProject Canada discussion board. Please see this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 10
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rafe Mair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CJOR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Dougald Lamont
[edit]If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dougald Lamont, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
- It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Dougald Lamont for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dougald Lamont is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dougald Lamont (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Nixon Now. 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)
Today's New Senators
[edit]Hey. So regarding today;s new senators, normally I would be implementing all the changes you are now (that their appointment is pending). But, as I read the release, "The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that the Governor General has appointed two independent Senators...". Do you have information conflicting with this (that they have not been formally GG-appointed), or maybe I'm missing another step? Cheers. --Natural RX 21:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Are they listed on the Senate of Canada website yet? If not, they haven't taken their seats. Nixon Now (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- They are now. --Natural RX 22:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jason Kenney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MLA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 21
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ross Dowson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Underground (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (William Krehm) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating William Krehm, Nixon Now!
Wikipedia editor Kudpung just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Please check the year of birth - this would make him 104, but the sources state otyerwise.
To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 28
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A. A. MacLeod, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nathan Phillips (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
PCPO leadership
[edit]I wish Mulroney would just make the announcement already so we can stop reverting good faith(?) edits listing her as a declared candidate. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
SMILE! 7 Feb 2018
[edit]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Replaceable fair use File:Caroline Mulroney.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Caroline Mulroney.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing<your reason>with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. - On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Ways to improve Ontario Health Coalition
[edit]Hi, I'm Ongmianli. Nixon Now, thanks for creating Ontario Health Coalition!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hey Nixon! Nice work getting this page up. Do you mind providing more detail about this page? It looks like this stuff might have been taken right off the website. You could look up organization pages, such as American Psychological Association or Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology as examples! Thanks!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Ongmianli (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 19
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anne McGrath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]
Since the function is currently not working properly, just wanted to say thanks for your recent, and on-going housekeeping on Senate-related stuff with standing changes. Cheers! --Natural RX 18:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
COI re James and Michael Laxer
[edit]Sorry about having included you in those {{connected contributor}} tags. It seems that I inserted the incorrect username. For future, however, please assume good faith before accusing others of "presumptuous[ness]" (especially when you could see that the tag used the self-declaration parameter). 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @142.161.81.20: The new username you inserted hasn't actually contributed to the articles you've tagged or their talk pages. I have accordingly removed the tags.Nixon Now (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's correct. Rather, they were discussing the article on a user talk page. But {{connected contributor}} doesn't require that the user has edited the article, hence why it has a parameter that indicates that the user in question has not edited the article. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Althia Raj for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Althia Raj is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Althia Raj until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 6
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dyson Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Party line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Invitation to join Women in Red
[edit] We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.49% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for March: | ||
|
To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
--Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there, Nixon Now. Glad to see you've accepted my invitation and joined Women in Red. As a new contributor to Wikipedia, you might be interested in our Ten Simple Rules for Creating Women's Biographies. If you need any help or run into any problems, please let me know. You are of course also welcome to contribute to the WiR talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Why is CBC news reporting the Ford is the Ontario PC party's new leader? GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
There's been a change. Turn on your tv.[1] Nixon Now (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Protection for Doug Ford Jr.?
[edit]Note that a request has been made by User:Ivanvector for full protection of this article, due to edit warring over the drug charges. You have now added the material four times, for instance here. (This counts as three reverts). Will you agree to stop reverting until the discussion reaches a conclusion? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Just noting FTR that I've also added it several times, while Nocturnalnow and several unrelated sockpuppets have removed it (four plus several minus one) times, since roughly the end of December. It's an ongoing, slow-motion edit war. As long as everyone involved commits to not reverting until there is some conclusion to any of the discussions I'd be happy to withdraw the protection request, but Soulspinr's involvement seems to indicate that at least ongoing semiprotection is going to be required. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, never mind, CambridgeBayWeather has already protected it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 13
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Laxer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morningside (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
April 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Alert
[edit]
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. Swarm ♠ 20:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)A page you started (StarMetro) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating StarMetro, Nixon Now!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Don't forget to check "what links here" after (or before) usurping a page title, per WP:UPT, and fix incoming links. A large number of incoming links were from Template:FloridaTransSystems and Template:Florida State University (easy fixes), but some articles may have hundreds of links. Cheers,
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
--Animalparty! (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
April 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Nixon Now (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
1) I was not evading any blocks 2) I was not editing any articles being edited by my main account. Nixon Now (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. There's not enough information here to review your block. What other accounts were you using? Yamla (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
- @Yamla: see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nixon Now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Yamla: I opened an account called User:Zoltan Rideout. Then I couldn't remember the password so I opened User:She Who Must Be Obeyed Without Equivocation. You can check the edit histories of both. There was no block evasion nor was their an attempt to evade any restrictions on reverts or game talk pages. I've felt harassed and bullied by a user and decided to open a new account and eventually use that instead for most of my editing. Nixon Now (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Courtesy links to editor interaction, and specifically Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. For what it's worth I can attest that Nixon Now likely feels harassed given ongoing editing disputes at Talk:Doug Ford Jr. but sockpuppetry is rarely a good solution. At the least you should have informed Arbcom that you were going to use an alternate account, and it's always a bad idea to use an alt (especially an undisclosed alt) to edit in the same topic area. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, regardless of how NN feels, the actual record shows the opposite: he's been hounding CT, even showing up to random unrelated discussions on the latter's talk page.[2] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- All three accounts edited Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. Two accounts edited Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Two accounts edited Ontario general election, 2018. Two accounts edited Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It doesn't look like "I was not editing any articles being edited by my main account" but you are welcome to clarify. --Yamla (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Yamla: To clarify, the accounts were not editing any articles concurrently. As I pointed out, I forgot the password of User:Zoltan Rideout so I opened another. The Nixon Now account has, to my recollection not edited Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, or Ontario general election, 2018 since I opened an alternative account. Also, none of the edits involved edit warring or disputes. As I recall, they were mostly housekeeping edits but in no case were they used for edit warring. If you can point to any examples where the accounts were used to gain an advantage in an edit warring situation or otherwise game the system I would be surprised because there are no such instances. Nixon Now (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Because of your post-block, disruptive socking, I've increased the length of your block to two weeks from today. Next time will be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently you don't want to edit here anymore as you ignored (or dismissed) my warning about more socking. You are now blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll support your block removal
[edit]NixonNow, as you saw at the admin. noticeboard, I think you add a lot to Wikipedia, albeit with some of the similar personality traits that I have, which are problematic for many and the community overall perhaps and sometimes. I think Ivan will also support the block removal at some point. In the meantime, (and please forgive me if I am being presumptuous in any way) being someone likely much older than you, I thought I'd share with you what I finally found which helps me when I feel my blood pressure rising while working on a contentious Wikipedia issue.
- Just close your eyes and slowly breathe deeply in and out while counting to 10 with each in or out breath. Concentrate on the air going into or out of your lungs while you do this, and try hard to not think about anything else other than the air going into and out of your body. Try to do this for 5 minutes, it is not easy for me to make the full 5 minutes. All the best wishes, Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
May 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]  
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
July 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
August 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
September 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Nomination for deletion of Template:Groupe parlementaire québécois MPs
[edit]
Template:Groupe parlementaire québécois MPs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
October 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Get ready for November with Women in Red!
[edit]
Continuing: | ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
December 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
Continuing: | ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
January 2019 at Women in Red
[edit]
 January events:
|
February 2019 at Women in Red
[edit]
 February events:
|
March 2019 at Women in Red
[edit]
   Please join us for these virtual events:
| ||
|
|
April editathons at Women in Red
[edit]April 2019
[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)
May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Infobox Canadian leadership election/United Conservative Party
[edit]A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox Canadian leadership election/United Conservative Party requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gonnym (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Raphaël Fortin for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raphaël Fortin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphaël Fortin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Request for consideration
[edit]Nixon Now (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I no longer have access to this (or any) wikipedia account, however I am posting here as this is the designated sockmaster
In 2018, I got into a dispute and was blocked by User:Bbb23. The block was evaded and became indefinite. I offered to not edit for six months and ask for standard offer and commit to use only one account but the response from Bbb23, the blocking admin, was discouraging and left me with the impression that this would be pointless. I subsequently edited as User:Ffolkways and most recently User:Sowny. I created a number of what I think were well researched articles. Some of Ffolkways' articles were challenged for notability. I learned from that and none of Sowny's articles, generally extensively sourced, were put up for AFD. In particular I used my library access to dig up very old election results and extend the current series on Toronto election results back a further 15 years. All of this has been deleted as the work of a sockpuppet.
Except for the fact of block evasion my editing has been productice and largely free of dispute- certainly no more or less so than the average editor. I am sorry for that and for the dispute that led to the initial block.
I would like to come back as a legitimate editor and am willing to not edit for six months and then use only one account and only edit when logged in.
I would need to create a new account as I no longer have the password for Nixon Now, Ffolkways, Sowny etc.
So could I have a path to return to legitimacy?
RoySmith, Onel5969, Swarm, Ivanvector, Berean Hunter
208.98.222.0 (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser confirms recent article edits while logged out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
- You've been given the answer to this more than a few times and you even described it just now. The standard offer to blocked users is six months with no edits (see WP:BMB; this includes the edits you've been making logged out since Sowny was blocked) and then log in to your account and make an unblock request. If you've lost the password for your first account and can't can't reset the passwords for any of your accounts then I suggest emailing the Arbitration Committee and explaining the situation, but don't just make a new account for this purpose. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ivanvector I've been given the answer only once and it was that the blocking CheckUser ie Bbb23 could veto such a request so it seemed pointless for reasons that the Arbcom and CUs are well aware of. I'm aware of editing logged out since Sowny was blocked and didn't say otherwise. I am saying as of now (or a few hours ago) that I am willing to desist. What I am trying to ascertain is if I follow said conditions would I have a route to being normalized now that Bbb23 is no longer an obstacle ie would one of you support that request?208.98.222.0 (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if something Bbb23 said discouraged you, but nobody vetoes requests, except if a checkuser finds continuing block evasion. So don't do that, and that's really all there is to it. You dug your own hole, but if you come back in six months having abided by the standard offer and ask for reconsideration, I can't promise anything of course but I think you'll find the community more willing than you realize. We want people to edit, not stay blocked forever. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's encouraging. This is a dynamic IP so I can't prevent others using it (unless it's blocked) but I will not be editing as an IP or with a sock account. 208.98.222.0 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
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/Nixon Now, 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.
Singularity42 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
per UTRS appeal #60730
[edit]Nixon Now = Wellington Bay (talk · contribs) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)