Nigario.sss

Nigario.sss, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nigario.sss! 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 Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

name

Even if your "nickname has nothing to do with any racial slurs that you Westerners use" you might still want to change it out of common courtesy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• First you assault me with name-calling because I disagreed with you. Now you come to my page? You are absolutely an indecent person with absolutely no dignity inside. Nigario.sss (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Looked like an honest and damn good suggestion. Think about it instead of lashing out. Objective3000 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

And it also violates it because it looks like the name of a website.--Gla_xp 21:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

And I'm an Australian, not a western.--Gla_xp 21:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Profit.--Gla_xp 21:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to change it. Nigario.sss (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I never said to.--Gla_xp 21:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

please read this discretionary sanctions alert carefully

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.

Doug Weller talk 08:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at your edits at Talk:CNN when I placed this. I think I need to emphasise that you need to follow our standards of behavior with all of your edits, edit summaries, etc. Doug Weller talk 08:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of my edits that broke any of Wikipedia's policies? Nigario.sss (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Even with looking only briefly at the discussion at Talk:CNN controversies, which I think Doug Weller must have been referring to, my eye was caught by this: "These are the new hawkish liberal Westerners who feel like killing innocent peasants all around the world is good".[1] And "these" refers back to a bolded mention of "like half the people who supported the merger in the discussions above". That would be an example of an unacceptable attack on your fellow editors. Comment on content, not on the contributor, and especially not with such outrageous comments on contributors. If you write anything remotely like that on a Wikipedia page again, you will certainly be blocked. WP:NPA is policy. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC).

I am sorry, but you are steight up lying. The liberal hakish comment had nothing to do with wikipedians, and you've managed to find a single sentence in the sea of hundreds of sentences that you've decided to nitpick on, good for you, while THESE reffered to the fact that half the people in support of merger had a clear agenda simply because they had contributed exclusively to pages related to CNN, Trump, and all this discourse. You can, ofcourse, say that this is not a logical arguments, simply a version of ad hominem, and that I can agree on, but at the same time it's a fact and their agenda on this site should e questioned. Nigario.sss (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're sorry I'm lying? That's nice. It's hardly my fault if you can't parse your own writing. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC).

July 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)