User talk:Nonononocat

Nonononocat, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nonononocat! 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 Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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 recently 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 any 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.

Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages aren't a platform for you to vent your dislike of someone. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what was the offending edit? i don't recall adding defamatory content anywhere. unless you're referring to my tagging of someone as not-notable, which i don't consider defamatory - indeed we should all be so lucky as to be not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. i harbor no ill will toward her personally. Nonononocat (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [1]. Don't abuse talkpages to call people criminals - the biographies of living persons policy applies everywhere, and neither talkpages nor articles are platforms for you to air your antipathy toward someone. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

got it, will be more circumspect in the future. thanks Nonononocat (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain where i edited disruptively. unless editing certain pages at all is considered disruptive, i have not done so, and do not appreciate your accusation. Nonononocat (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

Natureium (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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.

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) 19:47, 21 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Wrongfully accused Nonononocat (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The indef block had nothing to do with the IP in question. Rather, it was for sockpuppetry using User:LeviaThinMint. GAB^gab 17:13, 22 February 2019 (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.

i am not the IP editor JzG and others accused me of being at AN. while i find it an interesting coincidence that we've both edited articles related to New Jersey and Gary Null's biography, it will be clear from looking at my IP that i am not this person, unless it is a geographic IP and the net is spread widely (or - unlikely but possible - that it is another person using the same network as i). i don't think the latter will be the case though, as i have never edited from New Jersey, & the IP account is described as located in Metuchen. My efforts to challenge edits that are indefensible from the viewpoint of Wikipedia's own policies also don't extend to copyright violations, which the IP editor was apparently guilty of (i say apparently because their contributions were struck).

the appellation "blocked via checkuser" makes me wonder how many others have been falsely "checkusered" and blocked for socking on accounts that aren't theirs. someone should look into this. (i can see New Jersey from my house!) Nonononocat (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused you of being the IP. CheckUser unambiguously linked your account with another registered account which also pushes quackery apologia. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]