Jump to content

User talk:Hockeycatcat

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hockeycatcat (talk | contribs) at 10:12, 18 May 2021 (Add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


New child

We are up here editing Wikipedia for the greater good.

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Hockeycatcat! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 06:38, Saturday, October 24, 2020 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Dogon country

I have submitted a move request. It's supposed to be a proper name. AboubacarD (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit regarding notable Alumna - Livia Krisandova in the page about AAU

Dear Sir,

You have reverted my edit about notable Alumna Livia Krisandova in the page about AAU (Anglo-American University)

In the context of this page, the section entitled 'Notable Alumni' is clearly meant to highlight achievements that can be generally regarded as positive or notable contributions of certain Alumni of this university. Such information about these accomplishments should be, first and foremost, referring to two types of such actions. First, highlighting a specific and remarkable achievement that makes someone notable and/or secondly, an up-do-date record about someone's career success that makes such a person worthy of mentioning.

Unfortunately, the current edit about a young lady called Livia Krisandova, which was made in 2020, and informs about her past employment in Cambridge Analytica (a company that had been dissolved in 2018) was clearly submitted by someone who, out of spite, wished to harm this young lady's reputation in public by highlighting her former career affiliation with Cambridge Analytica, a company that received a gargantuan wave of negative publicity.

Moreover, the current edit in question was made in 2020 in present tense, suggesting the present and continuous nature of such information, which was clearly not accurate at the time of that edit, not to mention that Cambridge Analytica had been dissolved in 2018 - that is two years prior to this edit. This, again, I makes such edit suspiciously obsolete in its informative nature, and very likely aimed, in truth, to diminish further this tung lady's reputation rather than highlighting her real and up-to-date accomplishments from neutral POV, as it should have been done, and as I have attempted to do do in my re-edits.

For these reasons, I have suggested and written down a new record to replace the previous edit(s), which was undoubtedly composed from a negative POV - a non balanced contribution that should be regarded as a violation of wikipedia rules, and should have been replaced with a content of significantly more balanced information or removed altogether.

Last but not least, the sources cited in this current and negative POV edit from 2020 all point out, in fact, to one and only source - a site opened to public and user contributions with no system of verification of submitted information, and therefore it should not be regarded as a reliable source for wikipedia per se. Besides, wikipedia should not serve as a battleground for persons, using it to deliberatively diminish someone's reputation out of spite or, possibly, other personal reasons.

Taken this altogether, I would kindly ask you to consider my request to replace the current edit (which is obsolete, not up-to-date, written from negative POV, aimed to make only negative associations, grounded in unreliable sources) with my suggested edit(s) with relevant sources. Alternatively, I would also recommend removing the current edit from 2020, taking out all the text with unreliable sources, and replacing it with plain and simple information:

Livia Krisandova - London-based Slovakian accomlished political consultant and campaign manager, AAU International Relations graduate (2012).

Thank you for considering my request! Martin M1988 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Martin M1988:, I apologise for reverting your edit. Feel free to add back what you think is correct. I didn't know that this was the case. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on ShinyHunters

Please stop reverting the IP user to re-add the PROD template; that's not how PROD works. From WP:PROD: A nominated page is marked for at least seven days. If nobody has objected during this time the page is considered by an uninvolved administrator who reviews the page and either deletes it or removes the PROD tag. Any objection kills the PROD procedure, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present. If someone removes a PROD template and you wish to continue a deletion process, you need to nominate it at WP:AfD. jp×g 19:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit to Second Battle of Sirte

This is regarding a message I received from you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2405:201:15:C821:41DD:FDE2:63DA:8359

The edit in question was made because the footnotes section had way too much quoted text, which made reading the references quite inconvenient. The quoted text in the footnotes in fact nearly matched the amount of text in the main article! The convention is that generally only a few lines of text from the main source are quoted. Adding in all that text from so many sources may violate the fair use policy.

Therefore, I felt the need to simplify the footnotes section. I believe this was a justified edit, so feel that you should undo the revert.

2405:201:15:C821:41DD:FDE2:63DA:8359 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @2405:201:15:C821:41DD:FDE2:63DA:8359:, I feel your explanation makes sense, and I have restored your version. It was indeed pretty messy! I apologise for reverting it in the first place. trout Self-trout Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Werner Kuhnt

Hello Hockeycatcat. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Werner Kuhnt, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: PROD already contested and playing for a national team is a claim of significance. Plus de-wiki article can be translated to add more content. Thank you. SoWhy 09:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SoWhy: - Accepted Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For staying with Super Mario Bros. 35 from beginning to end. Your work is recognized and much appreciated. Panini📚 20:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Panini!: Thank you so much! It really has been a pleasure. Let's hope that we can get another game like this in the future! Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo!

So this is that DeeDeeEn you've met. Hi there, I think. Nhan2006 (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nhan2006: yes, hi there my dearest friend! Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Nhan2006 (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Information icon Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. An edit that you recently made to Ablie Jagne seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!Template:Z191 GiantSnowman 16:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you did not tag the article for speedy deletion so I unsure what you are talking about. Secondly, why do you think it is eligible for speedy deletion? Please note that I am becoming increasingly concerned by this. GiantSnowman 10:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GiantSnowman: I got confused with a different article, so my apologies for that trout Self-trout. I changed the article because I think it's weird to put that he died immediately at the start of the article, normally it would just be a birthdate there. Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, opening dates of birth and death are standard, see MOS:OPENPARABIO. GiantSnowman 11:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Understood, sir or madam! Once again, apologies. Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re

I have replied where you posted. Bit tedious to ask to visit your talkpage after you posting at mine btw. And no response after ping. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2021

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 13, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2021
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2021, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC))

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I saw what you initially put on my talk page. Thanks for the notice, for I was previously unaware about warning non-autoconfirmed users. I will consider it next time. Thanks, again. SeaCardinal (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SeaCardinal: Yes, apologies for not noticing the earlier warning. I would certainly recommend Twinkle, just like that other editor did. Let's keep Wikipedia free of vandals! Hockeycatcat (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Plush

I don't understand these reverts? Tony Plush isn't his real name. Trying to clarify this in the dab page. 162 etc. (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Life (album)

Hi, I don't see how adding a hatnote is vandalism? This helps anyone who may have missed that apostrophe. 162 etc. (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @162 etc.: the hatnote you added was unfortunately incorrect. As for Plush, you are totally correct, and I will reinstate your edit! Sorry for any misunderstanding. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I also double-checked that redirect at Boss Life and it turns out I got that one wrong. We're good! 162 etc. (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@162 etc.: Yes, and I'll make sure to go more in-depth with future edits! Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. E. W. Mason article

It appears you were right to revert the IP edits to A. E. W. Mason. I didn't at all get the good faith response I was expecting to my offer of help. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MichaelMaggs: No problem! Everyone makes mistakes, especially me! (See above). Normally when an IP user adds unsourced content it's a red flag. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hockeycatcat, yes, indeed. That didn't seem to be just made up, though, and presumably was copied from somewhere. But who knows. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelMaggs: It just seems that no one knows that you have to cite your sources! Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Hockeycatcat. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TheSandDoctor Talk 06:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi there - please take a moment to read WP:DENY. It's rarely helpful to leave a personalised message on a troll's talk page - just revert their vandalism, report them and ignore them. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Girth Summit: alright, will do. It just makes me sad to see someone vandalise so hard. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot sections

Hi, please note that in most cases plot sections do not require references as they are sourced from the work itself as per WP:MOSTV, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing issues on NZWPW article

 Completed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOR REFERENCE: This is referring to the users User:SkylerLovefist and User:Socks 01.


You reverted incorrect edits on the New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling article back in March. Someone else is now arguing against the correct edit claiming without proof that the company is defunct. He is a candidate for a 3RR violation the way he is going and I may need someone else to revert him in order to avoid a 3RR violation myself. I have told him I'll start the reporting process if he reverts again (that will be his third reversion - his limit) and I'll formally warn him on his talk page. If he reverts for a fourth time, I'll report him to the EW noticeboard but I can't revert it which is why I need some help if you could. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Addicted4517: I'm sorry that I wasn't available at the time that you left me a message. It seems that the person you mentioned has stopped reverting. I hope you're not too angry that I could not assist in time. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. It hasn't been that long so it's worth continuing to watch. I might have shut him down on the talk page but I can't be sure. It's always good to have extra eyes on an issue. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517: I'll keep it on my watchlist! Also, once 24 hours have passed you can revert again if they continue to edit war. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was aware of that. Also if you look on the talk page you'll see he has no clue about WP:OR. Pretty sure he'll edit war even if it's outside 3RR. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517: That's funny and sad at the same time. It's a shame that people don't bother to listen to others. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now another user is at it. Need help if he reverts again (Socks01 has done this before). Addicted4517 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517: I see it. I will help. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And could you add two other related pages to your watch list? List of professional wrestling promotions in New Zealand and Template:Professional wrestling in New Zealand. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I have cautioned Sock. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517: Oh my, he's removing the warnings. I think it's time for AIV. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find the previous warning. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517: We're now at final I believe. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Update: They have now been reported. I repeat, Sock01 has been reported. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the previous report Addicted4517 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517: Oh, wow, they really are persistent! I'll add the reference to AIV. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was not vandalism. Not even close. I was simply edit warring and stopped before the final notice. Edit warring should be reported elsewhere. I didn't even break the 3RR. The changes to articles I made were also very minor. Socks 01 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socks 01: Persistent edit warring is also seen as vandalism, and you have made too many malicious edits. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how changing "is" to "was" or "-present" to "-2018" is malicious. How silly. They were minor edits and your warnings were sent too fast for me to see them. I stopped after the final warning. I was simply trying to add accurate information because the company no longer exists. And have stopped and given up. I guess the page will have to be incorrect then. But this is clearly not malicious editing Socks 01 (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socks 01: We can accept your edits if you provide reliable sources, and not original research. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The report is excessive and uncalled for. Socks 01 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - it is malicious editing @Socks 01: because there is massive difference between inactive and defunct. According to the course that are available - the information per the current edits is correct. It is not wrong. If it is wrong as Hockeycatcat said you have to provide a source (and not Cage Match because that can only be used for matches and nothing else per the reliable source list). As long as there is no source, the edit is correct. Also, you have disappeared before (in mid 2020) and then come back to continue your disruption. That's why the previous report I made was linked on the report against you. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon @Socks 01: I'm sorry, but that's the rules. When you vandalise after your final warning we have every right to report you. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't though. You sent the "final" warning at 20:56, 10 May 2021. This was also the same time as the second warning - 20:56, 10 May 2021.

My final edit on any NZWPW related articles was at 20:56, 10 May 2021. So I didn't edit any more after that final warning which was sent too soon anyway. Socks 01 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socks 01: Don't forget the warnings that you deleted, calling them "sockpuppet crap". Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the query from the admin looking at my complaint that you totally ignored. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The one warning I removed was re-added by you. I still never edited disruptively after the final warning. And the final warning was sent at the same time as the other warning. Socks 01 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were already being disruptive. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socks 01:Yes, and the warning I added after you removed it counted as a different warning, so you actually got 5 chances instead of 4. Please stop trying to defend yourself, as you are getting nowhere. You're making me very sad, and I'm sure that Addicted isn't feeling well either. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YO MAN WHAT THE HECK

YO YO BRO WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU BE A LIL BIATCH AND REPORT MY WORK MAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeTroller69 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LeTroller69: Because look at yourself buddy. Funny edits though. Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough pal they were quite humourous if i do say so myself, live long and prosper friend. -LeTroller69 signing off.

@LeTroller69: Alright peace my broski Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You got discord buddy? If so might I add you? Heres mine Kass#7745 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeTroller69 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LeTroller69: I'm sorry, I do not interact with other editors off-wiki. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I better give you one of these as I have apparently made you sad about NZWPW's not existence.

Socks 01 (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socks 01: Thank you very much for your cute kitten :3 Hockeycatcat (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The little mermaid

Hello. As I explained on the talk page, the content I removed consisted of one sentence, a reference and a subsection title called "casting controversy". I did it because for one, I'm under the impression that controversy sections are discouraged, and two, because the one paragraph under "casting controversy" wasn't even really about the controversy. There was one reference to some hashtag on social media that barely even hit the mainstream threshold, and the rest of the paragraph was about unanimous support for the casting. That's not a controversy. I figured it would be the best choice to simply remove this one sentence, and merge the rest of the subsection into the larger Casting section.

In short, the fragment contained undue information, and there was no reason for it to be it's own subsection. I figured this was an improvement. I forgot to leave an edit summary, but I did make a comment on the talk page. My edit was reverted by User:FilmandTVFan28 without explanation. I undid their revert, this time telling him in the edit summary to discuss. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@46.97.170.112: Accepted Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hockeycatcat:That's not very helpful. Can I undo your revert then? And if I do, how do I know I won't get an edit war warning? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@46.97.170.112:  Done Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

How many warnings this soapbox man need to be warned until this user will be banned? User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! 12:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ahthga Yram: I think four times, but only if they keep going the way they're going. They seem to have stopped now, what a troublemaker! Hockeycatcat (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore warnings

Hi Hockeycatcat, just a heads-up: users are allowed to remove warnings from their own user talk page, and you should not restore the removed warnings, much less give the user a new warning. At least two of your warnings at User talk:BantiAurBabli are in fact groundless. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above: that user is a sockpuppet of a user who has been blocked several times, so it is not a case of you biting a new good-faith editor, but it is still good to be aware of the fact that removing warnings is not vandalism, and usually not even disruptive. If a user removes a warning, it is taken as a sign that they have seen it, and if they continue doing the things they were warned for they can receive a more severe warning for that behaviour. More information about this here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Why??

Why isn't Wikipedia censored?????? It totally should be. Comment by 78.149.91.24 - 16 May 2021 at 10:39am (UTC)

@78.149.91.24: On the contrary! Wikipedia should state pure fact, and thus things are written exactly as they appear in real life. Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to play.

Listen up buddy I don't care if you are autistic, it doesn't mean that you can take away my privileges as a Wikipedia contributor page I was adding true information that I gathered from sources such as the director of the school and I want you to revert the edit I made to the International School of Amsterdam page. Thank you have a good day. Sincerely, TruFaxPrinter TruFaxPrinter (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC) TruFaxPrinter[reply]

@TruFaxPrinter: The fax you printed are not tru, my apologies. Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Closed Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

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.
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request!

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).

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

Request reason:

I have never edited whilst not logged in! This really is a shock to me, as I am someone who removes vandalism. I really don't understand this, I logged out, and I don't see any contributions in my history. Editing Wikipedia is a fun hobby of mine, and I don't plan to let that all go away in one fell swoop. Please go into further investigation. Update - I noticed that there is more than one IP address linked to this account, and I can confirm that there are malicious edits present. This was not me. Hockeycatcat (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Give me a break. The CheckUser evidence is conclusive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2021 (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.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Can you please believe me? I live in an apartment complex. Also, the way that the vandalism is written is not accurate to how I write. Why would I suddenly vandalise after over 2,400 constructive edits? I couldn't find any legal threats, but I withdraw any legal threat that was made on behalf of whoever made a threat. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, could you show me the evidence that you mentioned? I will probably be able to point out some flaws. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
question mark Suggestion Maybe just keep the IP addresses blocked and just unblock this account to prevent vandalism from the IP addresses? Cheers Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hockeycatcat&oldid=1023786850"