User talk:Madame Necker

Welcome!

Hi Madame Necker! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Adakiko (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide

I removed your AfD tag to Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide as it's the wrong template for this. Suggest you read wp:Categories for discussion for more info before adding the CfD. Specifically wp:CfD#How to use CfD You will also need to start a discussion and add a valid reason for its deletion. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pings

If someone is watching a page, you do not have to keep pinging them, and some (I by the way am not one of them) find it annoying. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven Thank you for contacting me. I take other people's complaints very seriously. Can you please tell me how can I know that you are watching a page? Madame Necker (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reply is often a clue, another is if it is a regular poster there. But if someone has posted more than once in a thread, they do not need to be pinged as they are already aware of it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🌻 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:507F:D061:356B:BEBC:D79B:4F42 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have draftified the Rayleen Bauelua article

While closing its AfD discussion, I have converted the Rayleen Bauelua article into a draft, now located at Draft:Rayleen Bauelua. Feel free to add sourced material to the draft when you can and submit it through the article creation process when you think it's ready to become an article again. Note that if 6 months pass without the draft being edited, it will be deleted without discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

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 post-1992 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.


SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUMSHOP

Mme Necker, I know we've been in a dispute, but I wanted to note concern on your contributions and warn you about forum shopping. This is my attempt to give you a reasonable suggestion of how to improve and not retaliatory or vengeful for having a disagreement with you. This thread could have easily been on a noticeboard but I am trying to give you an opportunity to correct course.

I suggest you drop this line of editing and focus on being productive in the content area, not in pushing this. Andre🚐 19:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, I would like to ask Madame whether she has or formerly had any other registered WP userids? SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edits

This edit was inappropriate and seems to be more of the same of what you were doing here. Specifically, articles are not "retired" and, to put it bluntly, you are not experienced enough to be closing AfDs. I'm not sure why you are trying to get involved in the behind-the-scenes aspects of Wikipedia, despite quite clearly not being experienced enough to understand what is and is not appropriate, but I can tell you that it is disruptive. Salvio 10:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano Thanks for correcting me. I use retire and delete synonymously. I wanted to close it because so many people voted to retire the article. Madame Necker (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert: Eastern Europe and the Balkans

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

 —Michael Z. 22:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hey. Please note that there is a new general sanction; only extended-confirmed users are allowed to edit articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you may be blocked from editing. JeffUK (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: I will always continue to be open to criticism and try to make my edits the best I can. However, I believe there is a line beyond which people fell under the spell of an ideology in such a way that there is no way to accept any righteous criticism from them. I don't know how you can reason with someone who places a North Korean flag next to their name. Absolutely neurotic.--Madame Necker (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vichy Syndrome

Notice

The article Vichy Syndrome has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Vichy Syndrome isn't actually a thing by itself, but rather the title of a book. I think this article might be able to be salvaged, but it would need a complete rewrite from top to bottom, so probably better to just start over

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vichy Syndrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vichy Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vichy Syndrome until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and civility

Please review WP:BATTLEGROUND; your interactions with other editors gives the impression that you are assuming nefarious motives on their part. -- Ponyobons mots 20:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo Hi, I take your feedback very seriously and thank you for contacting me. Are you referring to my comment at Vichy Syndrome AfD or is it about something else? Cheers. Madame Necker (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is based on a number of your interactions with others in your time here, but it was indeed this most recent comment that led me here.-- Ponyobons mots 21:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo Well, I assume you find that comment striking because I used the phrase "[p]olitical censorship has no place in Wikipedia". However, when I was writing this sentence, I meant with it that my definition of the term Vichy Syndrome was not based on an act of "agenda pushing" as Vulcan had claimed in their previous comment. As what I said was not directed against another editor but it was about my own conduct, I believe you wouldn't view it as a transgression of the common norms of civility. Was I able to clarify this question for you or do you still have another question? Madame Necker (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your discussion comments come off as overly agressive in many instances. I have no questions; my intent was to ensure you are aware of WP:BATTLEGROUND and have now done so.-- Ponyobons mots 21:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo Whenever you have free time I am open to discuss any conduct disputes to ensure a transparent and ethical workspace for all the editors. If you ever have questions in the future, I will be here to listen them. Best regards. Madame Necker (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
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 ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ponyo This editor has moved on to antisemitic fringe trolling. Taking into consideration the entirety of their editing career, which mostly consists of 1) edits related to pushing fringe right wing views 2) some sort of subtle or not so subtle denialism trolling 3) competency is required or otherwise unhelpful posts. They've gotten by on being usually civil with their posts, but have been toeing the line as of late with some of their edits (for example), I believe to "push the margins" on what is acceptable. Also consider the username, "Necker"... but don't say it really quick! If this user wants to appeal this block, they should change their username, and take a broad topic ban from everything even vaguely controversial and only edit articles like Brick. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moneytrees I am not sure why you want me to change my username but I hope your are not thinking that it is some sort of reference to the N word. I share ancestry with Jacques Necker, and my surname does not contain anything offensive. Madame Necker (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My interaction with the user was only yesterday at the deletion review of a page I had deleted, for which she notified me on my talk page. While I initially thought the user's inability to communicate was a competence concern, I see from the other discussions that this is not so. So if it is the non willingness to communicate, after setting up the deletion review, I see this as an attitudinal concern, in addition to the tone used at my talk page to notify of the deletion review. Jay 💬 10:39, 5 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am a person open to criticism, and I have thought hard over why this block might be justified. I have reviewed the link you've shared but failed to understand which criteria was the cause of this block, whilst I acknowledge that I make mistakes every now and then and try my best to improve. However, I think this block was unfair, especially in a period where I publicly expressed I had problems with my personal and professional life, and I would understand if you said you don't care about what a user merely composed of 0s and 1s does in her private life at all. But if you unblock me I will view it as a very humane act and dedicate my time to enhance my edits and increase content quality on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:14, 5 November 2022 (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.

Madame Necker (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not credible and no evidence they understand why the are blocked. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With Moneytrees have just elaborated their reasoning in the comment above, I will write a reply in 48 hours with a critical analysis of my conduct and the rationale for the block. Madame Necker (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Moneytrees has some fair points. I'm going to be defending myself a bit but I also agree with some of his arguments. There's room for improvement on how I approach to other editors. Firstly about the Atlantic slave trade, in the ANI thread my intention was to point out that it is acceptable to discuss an historical subject with sources however I didn't know that this particular subject was being abused by anti-Semites. Next time, I will be more careful and do background research before commenting on ANI threads. Moneytrees also claims that I made "denialism" arguments on genocide related articles, but this is based on incomplete evidence. If you view my other comments you can clearly see that I call the denialism of Uyghur genocide an extremist fringe claim. I agree with his point that I am not as competent as many established and veteran editors here, and that's why I will work hard to improve my skills; I take Wikipedia very seriously and am aware of the public responsibility being a Wikipedia editor brings. Last but not least my username, it doesn't contain anything offensive against any race, religion or nationality. I feel saddened that my surname was taken by Moneytrees to have hidden implications but I assure you it is not the case. Madame Necker (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy I have already acknowledged them. Why did you say I didn't? Madame Necker (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is this "incomplete evidence"? my intention was to point out that it is acceptable to discuss an historical subject with sources - your comment insinuated no such thing. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy That link is complete evidence. By incomplete evidence, I was referring to another link they placed to Uyghur genocide article. Madame Necker (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address that diff, you dismissed it as a misunderstanding by Moneytrees. I'd say Moneytrees understood the comment properly. Remember, you weren't blocked for a one-off instance, your entire editing history revolves around the same issues. To be unblocked, you must address the concerns that you'll immediately return to causing the same problems. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy I didn't dismiss it, instead I acknowledged that it was a mistake on my part and said that I will do research beforehand to not repeat it. I also acknowledge the mistakes on my part for earlier disputes and I am open to review them to convince you, if you are interested. Madame Necker (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to be unblocked, you should follow my advice above and file a new unblock request. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:34, 5 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I acknowledge the mistakes on my part and promise not to repeat them but instead I will improve my skills and help to build a better encyclopedia.Madame Necker (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is so unspecific that it could apply to anyone in any circumstance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2022 (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: My request was a supplement to the previous request and messages I have written. Why do you consider it unspecific?--Madame Necker (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moneytrees, User:DatGuy, User:NinjaRobotPirate, while we're here we might consider which longterm troll this is, and while we do that I'll drop CU blocks on User talk:Isabelle Alone, User talk:Viyana Gazisi, and the latest childish incarnations, User talk:Wiktor is a funny guy and User talk:Man-at-Bogomil. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]