Jump to content

User talk:Nixon Now

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nixon Now (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 18 April 2018 (→April 2018). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Speedy deletion nomination of Rod Phillips (politician)

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)[reply]

Nixon Now, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Nixon Now! 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 experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer McKenzie

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Information icon 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 → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan Party leadership elections

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)[reply]

The election results should be there when they're in but anything else is redundant. Nixon Now (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick and Nova Scotia general elections by number

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)[reply]

I started a discussion at the WikiProject Canada discussion board. Please see this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dougald Lamont

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:

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)[reply]

Nomination of Dougald Lamont for deletion

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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)[reply]

Today's New Senators

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
They are now. --Natural RX 22:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A page you started (William Krehm) has been reviewed!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PCPO leadership

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)[reply]

SMILE! 7 Feb 2018

Hello Nixon Now, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Replaceable fair use File:Caroline Mulroney.jpg

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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)[reply]

Ways to improve Ontario Health Coalition

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

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)[reply]

COI re James and Michael Laxer

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nomination of Althia Raj for deletion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Invitation to join Women in Red

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
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: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/70 (This event is a collaboration with two other wiki organizations: our article campaign supports Art+Feiminism, while our image campaign supports Whose Knowledge?)|Women's History Month (This event is a collaboration with two other wiki organizations: our article campaign supports Art+Feiminism, while our image campaign supports Whose Knowledge?)]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

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: @wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why is CBC news reporting the Ford is the Ontario PC party's new leader? GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a change. Turn on your tv.[1] Nixon Now (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Doug Ford Jr.?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oh, never mind, CambridgeBayWeather has already protected it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

April 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons.


Focus on: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/71|April+Further with Art+Feminism]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/72|Archaeology]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/73|Military history (contest)]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/74|Geofocus: Indian subcontinent]]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

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: @wikiwomeninred --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]


Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Alert

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. Swarm ♠ 20:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z33

A page you started (StarMetro) has been reviewed!

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)[reply]

April 2018

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2018 (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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

@Yamla: see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nixon Now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nixon_Now&oldid=837081425"