User talk:Wickey

Welcome!

Hello, Wickey, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that until you are WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you are not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages (see WP:ARBPIAINTRO) - you can post talk page comments, but not edit the article themselves.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laurie Magnus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Board of Guardians (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) 09:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account

Are you the same person as User:Wickey-nl?--Shrike (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wickey: I also require you to answer this question. If you continue to ignore it, I may block your account. AGK ■ 13:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AE

[1]-- Shrike (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Israeli-Palestinian articles

If it is not clear per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles: "accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." As you account is fewer that 500 edits you not allowed to edit I/P articles. Shrike (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Sandstein 15:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the loser. I can use my time for better things. The only losers are the readers of this distorted censored Wikipedia, and WP itself.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked, although it is obvious from my contributions that I did never abuse the account. So I request to unblock. Wickey (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You lied about the relationship between the two accounts. Additionally, to be unblocked, you'll need to specifically address the issues brought up here. Yamla (talk) 15:15, 24 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

User:Wickey and User:Wickey-nl have never been used at the same time. Wickey-nl has been retired for quite a time and I have no intention to abuse the account. Wickey (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think "really poor arbitration" appropriately addresses the fact that in multiple instances you edited articles you're topic-banned from. Huon (talk) 20:43, 24 April 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.

You still need to address the issues raised during arbitration enforcement. Nobody's going to unblock you if you are unwilling to do this. --Yamla (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was really a poor arbitration. What other than the above reason you need? Wickey (talk) 15:52, 24 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I did not consider a Noticeboard a WP-article #I did not consider anti-Zionism specifically related to the IP-conflict, rather to (British) Jewish history #Wickey-nl has been retired for quite a time #I have no intention to abuse the account Wickey (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your main account isn’t blocked. Edit from it. I won’t be unblocking this account so long as sanctions are in place. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 26 April 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.

See WP:TBAN: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic". Huon (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is looking retrospectively. Can you also look forward? Wickey (talk) 14:14, 26 April 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).

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

Request reason:

This is my main account and moreover, Wickey-nl is blocked. Wickey (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User:Wickey-nl was blocked in October for six months, and that block has now expired. If you are having any problems logging in as Wickey-nl, you should deal with those from that account. As you used *this* account to evade an Arbitration Enforcement topic ban and you are refusing to address the Arbitration Enforcement issue, I will not unblock this one either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 27 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Fools, I have addressed the Arbitration Enforcement issue. This is my original and current account. The central login is made for a reason. Wickey (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. MER-C 10:17, 27 April 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.

Talk page access revoked for your violation of WP:NPA. We've wasted enough time here, this is pointless. --Yamla (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 46548

UTRS appeal #46548 is now open. @Yamla and Sandstein: for unblock discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I can't access the appeal. Sandstein 21:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry to see that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I'm having trouble following it. They deny abusing the accounts, though I guess from the block log, they violated a topic ban with one or the other or both. Not really clear. Yamla's OK with unblocking if they want to edit with this account only. Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) stopped being blocked long ago. Above they appear to have confused this account on NLWIKI with User:Wickey-nl. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They should understand that they still tbanned from the I/P conflict. Shrike (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, without seeing the unblock request I must object to any unblock. The conduct above illustrates the reasons for the block. Sandstein 07:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Sandstein:. FWIW, the ysytem should give you access via the OAuth thing. Sorry it didn't work. Maybe AmandaNP can sign you up. Mooted for now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 46728

UTRS appeal #46728 has been opened. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting user admits to being User:Wickey-nl and wishes this account unblocked and wishes to edit with one account. Noting user is aware of ARBPIA WP:1RR and TBAN Noting Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive155#Wickey-nl Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wickey --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wickey/Wickey-nl was previously given an AE topic ban, and later blocked as a sockpuppet. The sockpuppet blocks treated User:Wickey-nl as the master, giving that account a temp block, and this one an indef block. The temp block has long since expired. As per this user's several UTRS requests, I will consider this account to be their master, unblock it, and re-block the other account instead.
@Wickey:, be advised that you are topic banned as an arbitration enforcement action from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, see Special:Permalink/625025912#Wickey-nl. This prohibition applies not just in article space but in all namespaces, for any activity described by the topic ban. If you violate this ban, you will likely be blocked again. You can only appeal this topic ban at WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. ST47 (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #46728 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCG

Please note that disambiguation pages like [[:]] are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

There should be an article on Nuclear Consulting Group! But currently there is barely a mention and no indication that it is known as NCG.

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EPR (nuclear reactor)

You keep adding a sentence in the section "New Model" EPR design. However, the sentence is not related to the "New Model" EPR design. Instead, it deals with the original design. If you think that the sentence is important, please move it to a suitable place in the article. --TuomoS (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source is of 2016 and it is in the right period and section. And if you want to discuss, please go to the talk page, not here. --Wickey (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Your move of Fukushima nuclear disaster was disruptive and it has caused alot of issues when trying to swap. Don't move the talk page if you can't move the main article Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 17:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article had a hidden move protection and the move of the talkpage gave a misleading option-list, suggesting that I could move the article. Instead it moved the talkpage itself, which could not be completely reversed. Fortunately, you solved it excellently. --Wickey (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh I see, please disregard the notice above. Cheers :) Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 15:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important 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 shown interest in articles about 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 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling someone as "British-Jewish" was not appropriate

Ignoring the fact that Bat Ye'or's article doesn't use that label, if people want to know more about her they can read her article. We would rarely label someone British-some religion. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not entirely understand what the problem is. "British-Jewish", albeit spelled as "British Jewish", is not uncommon at all. https://www.google.com/search?q=British-Jewish&num=50

The Bat Ye'or's article does explicitly mention that she is Jewish and it explaines the background of the conspiracy. --Wickey (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the issue at WT:BLP#Is labelling Bat Ye'or "British-Jewish" in another article ok?. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I appreciate assuming good faith. --Wickey (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you're being serious. That's why I asked at BLPN. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious. --Wickey (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know about your topic ban. You cannot participate in any relevant discussions so you are violating your topic ban. No problem so long as you stop now. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I self-revered just to avoid this. You did not revert my edit, but raised the topic again instead. I do not blame you for doing that. I don't think discussing this principal policy aspect on the BLP platform is a violation of the topic ban. Nevertheless I distance myself immediately from this subject. --Wickey (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Nuclear Reactors

If you would like to get your questions answered, I suggest the forum Renewable vs Nuclear Debate. David MacQuigg 02:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Wickey. Thank you for your work on Schedules of substances annexed to the Chemical Weapons Convention. User:Graeme Bartlett, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

make sure this is distinct from Chemical Weapons Convention.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett:Yes, I am sure it is distinct and is a useful addition to the subject. --Wickey (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]