Chrononem

Welcome!

Hello, Chrononem, 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 take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Chrononem, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Chrononem! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger

I do not know what are your intentions with the article Margaret Sanger, but can you please tone down a bit? Your edits are not exactly neutral and your hammering on the 1RR-rule seems grossly unfair and is often disruptive. The Banner talk 00:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:The Banner, I'm not going to let people violate the 1RR rule. It's there for a reason, because one side of the argument can always domineer with persistence otherwise. If we don't enforce the rules neutrality is out the window. Especially with the reverts Jason and Artifex have been trying to make. The IP was non-neutral and should be reverted but the editor's I reverted reverted two correct edits as well. if they had followed 1RR their edits would have been productive, as it was they were reverted. Chrononem ☎ 11:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You have violated the 1RR-rule often enough to make your hammering on it rather dodgy. The Banner talk 20:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Haha; coming from you, Banner? Chrononem ☎ 20:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not hammering on 1RR, you did and do. The Banner talk 20:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I demand that it be applied, especially to disruptive editors. However you may note that the only time I've violated it was by reverting an edit itself in violation. Chrononem ☎ 23:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I demand that it be applied, especially to disruptive editors. In fact, I regard you as a disruptive editor. And an indiscretion of somebody else is off course no excuse to break the rule yourself unless you are reverting CLEAR vandalism (and a content dispute is no vandalism) The Banner talk 21:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering your past edits the feeling is mutual; and, again considering your past edits, your definition of "CLEAR vandalism" is suspect at best. Chrononem ☎ 01:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL, remember this whitewash? So you are not only considered disruptive on Margaret Sanger... The Banner talk 13:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You were there for that, you commented on it, don't act like you just found it. And I wasn't banned for being "disruptive" I was banned for pointing out some suspicious editing habits of a group and not knowing that the lead didn't need citations. Chrononem ☎ 13:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger protection

I don't think extension would be a good idea right now: to quote {{RFPP|np}}, "pages are not protected pre-emptively", and this seems to me like a pre-emptive protection. Perhaps people won't resume edit-warring when protection expires; if that's the case, everyone benefits. Perhaps people will resume edit-warring when protection expires; if that's the case, it can always be re-protected then. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger

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 Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI

As a good practise, I like to inform you that another editor has filed a sockpuppet investigation against you. You can find that request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrononem. The Banner talk 14:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)