User talk:Zictor23

Welcome!

Hello, Zictor23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Victuallers (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Zictor23, I appreciate your contributions to the various political pages of New Zealand. I'd like to WP:NZP and its talk page to your attention. On the talk page, you find various suggestions that could do with some input. Given that you obviously have some expertise in that area, your feedback would be valuable. Schwede66 21:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hello Zictor23, I suggest that you have a look at a couple of pages on citations. It's great to see that you use citations (often, new editors don't!), but you could provide more detail, and the use of citation templates would help you with that. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is worth a look (although I assume you've had a look at this already), and you could then follow up with WP:CITEQR. The latter is a manual method. You can also create citations using the edit toolbar, which is what most editors do (I believe). In 'My preferences', go to the 'Gadgets' tab and check 'refTools' under 'Editing gadgets'. That way, a 'cite' button will be added to your toolbar and when you click it, it brings up cite templates.

I hope you appreciate this. Schwede66 19:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to learn how to use cite tools? If so, I could mentor you. Schwede66 21:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Zictor23, thanks for your message on my talk page. You ask for an outline of how to use cite tools. For that, please follow the two links in my 3 May message. I suggest that in order to try it out, you use the 'manual method' for a reference that you have already created and convert it with what is given there. When you've done it, feel free to leave me a note and I'll have a look at it and give you feedback. It's not complicated – not any more complicated than providing references at all. Schwede66 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit on First Liberal Government of New Zealand, I'm going to undo this. Giving a reference a name, as had been done, avoids it being listing with more than one entry in the reference list. Whenever you refer to it subsequently, you just quote the name as had been done. Please do read up on Wikipedia:Citation_templates#Using_the_same_footnote_multiple_times. Schwede66 23:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello, Zictor23, and welcome to Wikipedia. I take it you are a fairly new user? You have been working hard recently. I am only a little more experienced than you in the techniques and policies of Wikipedia, so I am not the best person to mentor you -- there are others with far greater knowledge and experience. This said, I do want to raise some issues -- in what is sincerely intended to be a constructive way -- about some of your recent edits, especially those connected to the Harold Wilson article.

One is to suggest some care in moving large sections of text from one article to another. You deleted the entire section providing a summary on Conspiracy Theories from the main article on Harold Wilson and then seem to have more-or-less pasted it into the more detailed article on Harold Wilson Conspiracy Theories. I assume the initial deletion was done with a view to shortening the Harold Wilson article (possibly to make way for the extensive material you added to this article). It is a matter of judgement whether the main article is improved by the deletion -- I feel not but will propose this question for discussion by other editors. What is very clear is that the article on Conspiracy Theories has been made into something of a mess, with separate discussions of exactly the same subjects repeating themselves. If you are going to add material to an article like this, please give thought and attention to what it will do to the article where you are pasting, as otherwise a mess is created for others to try to clean up.

Please also take note that Wikipedia sets great store by its principle of Neutrality of Point of View. This is discussed in greater detail in specific guidelines. My own sense is that the extensive material you added to the Wilson article may not meet this standard -- it sounds to me more like a brief on behalf of the Wilson administration than a neutral discussion -- but again I am raising this for other views.

Here, too, it seemed to me there was a separate question of how best to integrate your new material with the existing article. You added it all to an existing section on social issues, but your material covered a much wider range of policies (transportation, etc.) not normally classified as social issues. I've therefore proposed a new section in the article.

Again, please see this as intended as constructive feedback. Using Wikipedia is a learning experience for all of us, and I wish I was myself more wise in its ways to be able to give you more detailed advice. Good luck in your future edits! Nandt1 (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Copied from Nandt1's discussion page:

Dear Nandt1,

Thank you for the feedback. I apologise for deleting the information on Harold Wilson conspiracy theories: I only intended to shorten the section on Harold Wilson, but it was not my intention to cause any mess. I laos hope that I didn't come across as biased: I merely wished to add information regarding reforms by Harold Wilson's governments so that people could see what was achieved by the Labour Party in office during the course of the Sixties and seventies, but it was not my intention to biased. I have also made sure that reforms I add are referenced, so that people could see that the information I provide is not false. I will also be more careful in future when deleting information that is in an article when adding my own information.

Kindest regards,

Zictor23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zictor23 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, again, Zictor23,

Thank you for your response on my talk page. Right now I am rather tied up with "real" work (the kind that pays the bills) and am having to put Wikipedia on the back burner. I have flagged my concerns on the Discussion pages for Harold Wilson and Harold Wilson Conspiracy Theories. Let's see if other editors have any comments one way or another. Good luck to you for now. Nandt1 (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And hello, yet again, Zictor23,

OK, since you said that you had not intended to make the full extent of the changes that you in fact made on the Conspiracy Theories, I thought the best thing would be for me to revert the relevant section and article back to where they were before you started. I have now done this.

Please learn how to revert an edit which you make unintentionally in the future. If you do so more-or-less immediately, you can use the Undo feature on the History page of the article concerned. But if you wait too long, this may not work because there may have been too many intermediate edits (this was the case when I made these changes just now, so I had to copy and paste instead).

Please also note that, whenever you write a comment on any discussion page, you are supposed to sign it. This you do by typing four tildes (this sign on the keyboard ~). Wikipedia will translate this into your signature. Again, good luck. It is worth investing a bit of time in learning your way around Wikipedia and how it works technically.Nandt1 (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ben Chifley

Hello Zictor, I can see that you are keen to contribute as am I and I think it important we cooperate to make Wiki as good as it can be. With the article of Ben Chifley I appreciate you have found a source that says that Chifley contributed to Education Reform in his time in office. I posted that in the talk section and removed that from the article because it isn't true, even though you have a source that asserts it, and even if it were true, it's wording does not fit in with the Wiki policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. I am asking that you delete that reference or justify in the talk area why the reference should remain and modify it so that it fits with wiki standards. DDB (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Labour reforms

Why have you deleted some of the reforms in Third Labour Government of New Zealand and similar articles?-gadfium 22:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Information cannot be copyrighted. It is not valid to say that you cannot use any information from a published work. However, you cannot simply copy the wording, since the expression of the information is subject to copyright.

It appears that the thesis is no longer available online (I checked http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/2648/1/Thesis_fulltext.pdf), but this does not invalidate the information it contained. The articles can be restored and the references marked with {{dead link}}. At some point, some editor might find new sources for the information. It would be very easy, if somewhat time consuming, to sift through hard copies of newspapers of the era in an archive to get suitable refs. For the most part, the information added is not likely to be challenged, so this is not an urgent matter.

I request you restore the information on this basis.-gadfium 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 etc

When creating a new article, please remember to put it in geographical context: Wikipedia is international, so you need to specify what country an Act belongs to. It is also standard WP practice to start the article with its title (perhaps preceded by "The"), and not just "This is....". If in doubt it is often helpful to look at existing well-developed articles for similar items, in this case similar acts of the UK parliament, to get an idea for the format of the opening sentence. I've upgraded your two stub articles in this way. Also, when citing a book as a source of reference you should give date and publisher, and the page on which you found your information. Thanks. PamD (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitlam

I've reverted your (good faith) edits... due to duplication, what was added is already covered in next section. Not to mention, the page has recently been awarded Featured Article status due to it's comprehensiveness. Timeshift (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Harold Wilson, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 18:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Liberal welfare reforms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NHS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948

Thanks for this article and your many others; it's great to know there's another person here writing about law :). Drop a note on my talkpage if you need any help finding sources! Ironholds (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Household statistics

I moved your statistics to the Household article because they are about households, not solely about houses. The statistics include apartments and other dwellings, but the house article is only about houses, so the statistics are not appropriate and in fact they would tell the reader incorrect information. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party

You added: "In Western Australia, Forrest introduced a conciliation and arbitration bill in 1900 which brought trade unions into the state’s social fabric for the first time ever. In addition, WA Labor scored another victory with the passage of legislation which extended workers’ compensation." Sir John Forrest was not a Labor Premier, so what's the relevance of this? This article is already a long one, ans it can't include every reform carried out by every Labor government. It certainly can't include things done by non-Labor governments, even if Labor supported them. I'm going to remove this section. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So you've reverted my edit. Now you need to explain why something John Forrest did belongs in this article. You also have to produce a reference for your apparent belief that the Australian Labor Party (as opposed to NSW amd Qld labour parties) was founded in 1891. Good luck with that. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is stated by various historians that the ALP was founded in 1891. As far as I understand it, Labor's support for Forrest helped bring about those reforms, so I feel that it is relevant to mention him. In addition, I see nothing wrong with including various Labor reforms. Its important to spread knowledge. I feel that that is what it means to be a Wikipedean. zictor23 (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

On the first point: kindly produce a citation from a historian stating that the ALP, a federal party, was founded in 1891, ten years before the federation existed. On the second point, if this article included every reform carried out by every Labor state government, it would be thousands of words long. This is not the place to list all these things. And it's certainly not the place to list things done by non-Labor governments with Labor support. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is. That's like saying Labor's emission's trading isn't to be mentioned on the Greens page, Mr Toad. Timeshift (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack Lang

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. You seem to have a strong in Labor history. You recently added additional content and a book to the article, Jack Lang. However, you failed to provide inline citations in terms of Wikipedia citation policy. Also, you listed The Light on the Hill: The Australian Labor Party 1891-1991 by Ross McMullin in the books section. However, the book is not listed in alphabetical order, or in the format as all other books are listed in this article. Whilst I could go through and correct that above matters, I do not have access to the book to know from what page you drew the refs, nor publication information. Would you please revisit and provide direct references for the stated claims? Thank you. You may also wish to keep in mind for other edits. Keep up the great work. Regards. Rangasyd (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rangasyd. Thank you for the praise you gave me in regards to my edits. I have long taken a great interest in Labor history. It always makes me feel very happy when I receive positive feedback for my contributions. I promise that in future when I make a reference I will mention the page. Unfortunately, in relation to the Ross McMullin book, I no longer have it (it was a library book I ordered and had to return recently). But I promise that in future I will provide direct references when making a contribution. Kindest regards, zictor23 (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the thanks! I've added the template next to your inserted text at Jack Lang and removed the book by McMullin, as it was already listed in alphabetical order. Please note, when you're replying to messages on talk pages, use the colon (:) to indent each message, progressively increasing the indentation, like I have done with your reply, and this response. Cheers Rangasyd (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Re-take

Re-take is not an official piece of NGE media. So if any information were to be placed it would be in a "Legacy section" depending. However, you're a lil obsessed over doujinshi that have been read by NGE staff. I dont think the information (unless a true third party source) is useful. Doujinshi is common and hardly ever notable. I suggest pursuing ways to improve other aspects. Also i removed it because it contained a forum link. next time, if i revert again for 2 thirds the reason if not half, then instead of re0reverting, edit it again and add the information. ALso find ways to figure out whats a reliable sourceLucia Black (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Also...this isn't a forum for us to discuss meaningless things....try to keep your conversations about improving the articles.Lucia Black (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats exactly my point. This isn't a place for fans let out their fandom. THis is a site to help improve articles and create them (and clean up the non notable subjects).Lucia Black (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Lucia Black. Personally though, I don't think that everything I mentioned was meaningless. There were people who took interest in my comments. Also Lucia Black, what did you mean when you said "Thats exactly my point.?" I didn't understand what you meant by that. Also, what did you mean when you said "This isn't a place for fans let out their fandom.?" Lastly, regarding your comments about doujinshi hardly ever being notable, I think Re-Take (for example) is notable, because I've read that it is very popular and is regarded as one of the best/best known Eva doujinshis, if not the best/best known. Presumably, that's partly beacuse it continues from where the "End of Evangelion" left off (which had an open ending).

zictor23 (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

They have no meaning here in wikipedia. Some may have taken an interest, but that doesn't mean you were helping. And you are not a third party reliable source. Also, it has been attempted to prove its notability before, but doujinshi is usually never reliable, 1) they are fanmade versions of the official media. 2) there are dozens if not hundreds of doujinshi for one series. To mention it expands to doujinshi is one thing but trying to put Re-take info as a source isn't true. Also you need to work on what the article is saying and what the source is saying. If article says "it has become popular among dojinshi" you would need a source saying something along those lines, not give an example. Two true statements don't always make the third statement true. For an example Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes is a good example of a notable fan-made media.Lucia Black (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

IN order for you to learn, i wont answer that. because it's irrelevant to improving the current articles.Lucia Black (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It does. its wasting my time. ASk friendly irrelevant questions in wikia insteadLucia Black (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope that someday Re-Take gets an official release and/or an naime adaptation. zictor23 (talk)

UK Dragonball Z DVDs

I learnt today on both Amazon and Anime News Network that all 291 episodes of Dragon Ball Z are finally going to be released here on DVD in the UK, starting from July onwards. I am really happy. Its taken so long for this to finally happen.zictor23 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Some interesting Eva links

http://www.evangelion-armageddon.com/Scripts/EOE2.html

http://www.evaotaku.com/html/evafaq.html

http://www.mechatalk.net/viewtopic.php?p=225864

http://forum.evageeks.org/post/375083/DOUJINSHI-Re-Take/

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?564952-IWIW-Evangelion-Part-5-The-Many-Worlds-Interpretation-fanworks-and-spinoffs/page20

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa305/secondgryphon/Sketches/EVA/DoujinshiSamples/ReTake-25-TheOath.jpg

http://www.evacommentary.org/omake/gos2_faq.txt

http://www.mangareader.net/687-44283-11/neon-genesis-evangelion/chapter-83.html

zictor23 (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Social liberalism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Democratic Congress, Social Liberal Party and Democrat Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited Social liberalism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Democratic Congress, Social Liberal Party and Democrat Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting links

http://forum.evageeks.org/post/531711/Girlfriend-of-Steel-2-pics-Enjoy-XD/

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ts5W5Mxo-akC&pg=PA8&dq=billy+casper+miner&hl=en&sa=X&ei=23TqU4aYDaPT7Aah5YC4CA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=billy%20casper%20miner&f=false

http://www.thebhc.org/publications/BEHprint/v012/p0094-p0108.pdf

http://www.sparrowspointsteelworkers.com/html/project.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P_cJ5z_e9IsC&pg=PA110&dq=American+steelworkers+high+wages+1970&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KVSgT4SjNsaR0AX09JG6Aw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=American%20steelworkers%20high%20wages%201970&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B1UEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA33&dq=American+steelworkers+low+wages+1960&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VY-2ULvWCYuRhQfWg4GoAQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBDgo#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://news.yahoo.com/iceman-mummy-holds-worlds-oldest-blood-cells-230805449.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e1N0pcEOcAUC&pg=PA85&dq=percentage+of+workers+subcontracting+in+japan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NRmwT-TZIouS8gPe6_msCQ&ved=0CGcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=percentage%20of%20workers%20subcontracting%20in%20japan&f=false

http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=2624

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HtGb2wNsgn4C&pg=PA107&dq=new+york+heroin+drug+abuse+working-class+neighborhoods&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V422UJWlHcO4hAeu4YCYDQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20heroin%20drug%20abuse%20working-class%20neighborhoods&f=false

http://forum.evageeks.org/post/385239/Has-anybody-else-finished-Shinji-Ikari-Raising-Project/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzlypwc1AQM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLOj83QniWI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnKdsy6-4y0&feature=relmfu

http://health.yahoo.net/articles/depression/photos/12-surprising-causes-depression#0

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NV1A57wmPh8C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=steelworkers+steaks&source=bl&ots=bBjX5tm3Qh&sig=vK3BPlur1F3jpY8fTKCv1czQ5kI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Go5gUMejIOnA0QXAmIHIAQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=steelworkers%20steaks&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ctv5j--wFF4C&pg=PA171&dq=pittsburgh+steelworkers+high+wages&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WNmSUMDtI4S60QWqm4DgBg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=pittsburgh%20steelworkers%20high%20wages&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zP-3cRLe5R0C&pg=PA86&dq=pittsburgh+steelworkers+high+wages&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wdqSUKaNCOOe0QXLooCQCw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgy#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YN9i74gcansC&pg=PA86&dq=fluctuations+in+annual+earnings+steelworkers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kUjKUJ_oCIub1AXXv4CgBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fluctuations%20in%20annual%20earnings%20steelworkers&f=false

http://pittsburghinwords.org/john_hoerr.html

zictor23 (talk)

Info about steeworkers from Jim Shooter

jimshooter said... The United Steelworkers Union lagged well behind other major labor unions -- the machinists, auto workers, mine workers, others -- in winning decent wages and benefits for their members. Other union jobs paid higher at the time.

http://forum.evageeks.org/thread/4211/RE-TAKE-deserves-its-own-anime-Why-not/60/? http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/nov/25/highest-paid-jobs-uk-201 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/america-s-dirty-war-against-manufacturing-part-1-carl-pope.html http://forum.evageeks.org/post/385239/Has-anybody-else-finished-Shinji-Ikari-Raising-Project/ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OOMxODBGC9wC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=cadillac+autoworkers+high+wages&source=bl&ots=w1CLyp5HwQ&sig=sQH-XVgZoogpwOL06jK_Povs_nU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xMdkUOODNYek0QWluIHAAg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=cadillac%20autoworkers%20high%20wages&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H7mhOyV4gaIC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=steelworkers+car+ownership&source=bl&ots=VTuqIdTeYO&sig=gxHTnHKNXO4-qQLNXY9S1rwGTLs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lOh1UJGCHKnK0QXJo4EI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=steelworkers%20car%20ownership&f=false http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOjRMuuHHR4

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/17818

zictor23 (talk)

Democrat Party

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Democrat Party (Thailand), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. When you recently edited Harold Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Townsend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 16:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Social liberalism - reliable sources - original research

Hello Zictor23,

please know that all Wikipedia content is required to be based on reliable sources. The reliance on your own observations and analysis, even if they might be reasonable, is considered original research, which is deprecated on Wikipedia. All statements must be supported explicitly and literally by the sources. Drawing your own conclusions from different sources (WP:Synthesis) isn't accepted either. For the same reasons, it is not okay to remove content that refers to reliable sources only because their findings contradict your own perceptions or knowledge. If you're unsure, please consider reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, discuss the issue on the respective article's talk page or ask other Wikipedians for help. I, personally, would be glad to answer your questions if you still have any. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia's policy on original research. Wikipedia only publishes knowledge that has already been published (preferably in reputable academic publications), not (previously) unpublished research that has been done by its own editors. The question is not whether you or Mr. Almeida is the better student or the better researcher. But Mr. Almeida got his study published and cites his sources. As soon as your research findings on social liberal parties get published by an academic institution, you may cite them as sources for Wikipedia, as well. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited First MacDonald ministry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Trevelyan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Game Boy cheats

Batman Forever: Cheat menu: At the difficulty selection screen press Up, Right, Down, Left, Up, Left, Down, Right to get a cheat menu. Crash Test Dummies: Cheat mode: To enter the code screen, hold A and press Start at the title screen. zictor23 (talk)

Proposed deletion of Labour's Record

The article Labour's Record has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable cut and paste from political manifesto. No refs. No evidence of independent coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Labour's Record was the name of a section from the British Labour Party Manifesto of 1979. It listed the various measures undertaken by the Labour governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan from 1974 to 1979. The measures included the following:

• Rate of inflation reduced to single figures.

• Funds made available to hold down or reduce some food prices.

• Maximum prices on subsidised foods laid down.

• Value for money information given to shoppers. Over 300 local price surveys sponsored by Government.

• Price Commission asked by Government to examine bank charges, books, footwear, coal, TV rentals, school uniforms, spectacles, coffee, tea and beer, resulting in prices being lower than they otherwise would be.

• Tough bargaining in Europe over Common Agricultural Policy has resulted in price rises being held to a minimum, despite Tory attempts to force prices up.

• Compulsory unit pricing on meat, fish and fresh vegetables, cheese and pre-packed milk In vending machines.

• Government funds subsidise over 120 Consumer Advice Centres up and down the country.

• Consumer Credit Act and Unfair Contract Terms Act safeguard the consumer against sharp practice.

• Price Control legislation toughened up by removing the safeguard provisions of the 1977 Act, under which many companies were allowed automatic price increases.

• £3,000 million deficit left by Tories now completely wiped out.

• British oil to benefit the British people; British National Oil Corporation set up. Oil Taxation Act gives nation 75 per cent share of profits.

• More cash help for families. Child Benefit covers all children including the first, is tax-free and is paid direct to the mother. It went up to £4 a week in April this year.

• One-parent families not receiving a long-term National Insurance benefit get an extra £2 a week on top of Child Benefit.

• Three new benefits to help disabled people and those who look after them. Mobility Allowance of £10 a week payable to drivers and non-drivers alike to be increased in November. Invalid Care Allowance for men and women who give up work to care for a disabled relative. And a Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension to help disabled people unable to work.

• Pensions have gone up six times under Labour and they will rise again in November. The single pension, now £19.50 will be about £22 in November. The married couples pension, now £31.20, will be about £35. Pensioners have seen a 20 per cent real increase in their standard of living since the last Tory government.

• Labour’s new pension scheme started in April 1978. It will take future pensioners out of poverty, with an earnings-related scheme fully protected against inflation.

• Labour paid a £10 Christmas bonus in 1978 – over 10 million people benefited.

• 83 per cent of state pupils now in comprehensive schools. 11 plus rapidly being phased out.

• Direct grant schools being phased out.

• Classes are getting smaller – pupil-teacher ratios improving. Proportion of classes over 30 fell from 54 per cent under the Tories to under 33 per cent under Labour in primary schools, and from 18 per cent to 12 per cent in secondary schools.

• 366,000 jobs created or safeguarded in the regions by Government selective assistance.

• National Enterprise Board set up to help existing industries and start new ones, extend public ownership into profitable areas of industry and act as holding company for existing publicly owned enterprises. Now largest holding company in Britain with stake in over 40 companies.

• Employment Protection Act lays down new rights for workers. Part-time workers entitled to same treatment as full-time workers.

• Government-TUC-CBI Industrial Strategy under way. Key industrial sectors backed by £350 million through Government special schemes.

• Special support given to small firms, VAT simplified, tax concessions, new employment subsidy, more advice centres and fewer Government forms.

• Nationalisation of aircraft and shipbuilding industries protects jobs and strengthens the industries.

• Launching the micro-electronic revolution in Britain. Over £175 million of Government aid to boost the introduction of the new technology including £50 million to the NEB’s new UK micro-electronics firm INMOS.

• Tied cottage system in agriculture effectively ended.

• Mortgage lending boosted to all-time record levels.

• New help for first-time house buyers put on statute book.

• New programmes introduced to help run-down inner cities – worth £150 million this year alone – through construction work. Partnership Authorities, the Urban Programme, new Inner Urban Area Powers and ‘Operation Clean Up.’ Plus new emphasis on inner cities in main spending programmes.

• Wide-ranging new charter of rights for council tenants proposed in new Housing Bill.

• Women now get equal pension rights with men.

• Paid maternity leave with right of reinstatement guaranteed by Employment Protection Act.

• Legislation protecting minorities strengthened by Race Relations Act – new Commission with similar power to Equal Opportunities Commission set up.

• Independent element introduced into investigating complaints against the police. • Women now have right to equal pay if employed on work of same or broadly similar nature to that of man.

• Battered wives protected by new Act empowering courts to evict or arrest violent husbands.

• Sex discrimination in employment, education and housing, and the provision of goods, facilities and services outlawed.

• Rape victims given right to maintain anonymous and the offence of rape redefined, placing emphasis on lack of consent rather than on violence used as the essential element.

• Police force is 7,500 stronger now than it was under the Tories.

• Public spending on law and order is 20 per cent higher than under the Tories.

• A new form of grant aid designed to provide greater help to local authorities in meeting the special needs of ethnic minority groups within their areas proposed in Local Government (Ethnic Group) Bill. The new grant would be wider and more flexible than the existing arrangements.

zictor23 (talk)

Reliable sources

Hello Zictor23,

I think I have already tried to explain the importance of WP:Reliable sources for Wikipedia to you. If you are unsure, you might want to re-read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Sources should be independent and written and published by third parties, not by the subjects of the article themselves. This has nothing to do with the insinuation that someone lied, but with maintaining a WP:Neutral point of view, which is another fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Thank you for your comprehension. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If I have overlooked a reference to a reliable source and made a mistake when reverting your edit, I apologize. Regarding the self-identification: Parties self-identifying their own ideologies is always problematic, because they sometimes use political terms differently than independent observers and researchers do. E.g. the Croatian Social Liberal Party considers itself social liberal, Wolfram Nordsieck of "Parties and Elections" decribed it as conservative liberal, and they are usually placed on the centre-right. The Liberal Front Party of Brazil (today's Democrats) also claimed to be a social liberal party and at the time of the establishment some of the founders even proposed naming it "Social Liberal Party". However, it is usually considered a centre-right liberal conservative party. The Social Liberal Movement of Switzerland in fact is a social conservative party, according to an independent source. The Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland describes itself as liberal-social (whatever this is supposed to mean), yet it is a classical Christian democratic party. Therefore, we should not follow the self-identifications of parties, but insist on having confirmation from independent sources. --RJFF (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (e/c) I think it might help to state that there are 2 seperate issues.

1) notability - is there third party coverage to indicate that the subject of the article can be appropriately covered in an encyclopedia article?

2) if there is sufficient coverage, the subject's own websites can be used to verify certain limited types of information: non-controversial and content that isn't self serving. If there are reliable third parties that contradict the subject's own view of their positioning, then both views are presented: "X calls themselves Y (source). THESE RESPECTED ANALYSTS call the group Z (source) (source) (source)]]. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Zictor23,

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources explains which sources are considered reliable for Wikipedia and which aren't. There is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist to help you identify reliable sources. If you are in doubt, you can let sources be checked at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Gordon Brown edits

Thanks for adding the information to the Gordon Brown article! Now that it's in prose rather than list form it looks much better. However are you aware of the Premiership of Gordon Brown article? That article sets out the policies and reforms carried out by the Brown government and it seems to lack much of the information you added.

I propose that we move much of the information (in its current form, since it reads well) to that article. I also feel it would be of more benefit to the Premiership article because the policies are not directly the actions of Brown himself, so they're less relevant to an article on him. What do you think? -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 20:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republican Party (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert La Follette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UK miners' strike (1972), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

History of the United States (1964–1980) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Medicare

Pierre Bérégovoy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to RMI

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Original research/synthesis

Hello Zictor23,

I have already tried to explain Wikipedia's principle of WP:no original research to you. You should not let your own ideas and analysis influence your Wikipedia edits. "I recently read that it is a centre-right party." is not a valid reason to remove content that is supported by a reliable source. First, you have not shown a source that would say that SFP were a centre-right party. Second, the argumentation "One source says they are centre-right. Centre-right parties cannot be social liberal. Therefore SFP cannot be social liberal" is what we consider WP:Synthesis: a mix of the findings of different sources with some of your own beliefs. This is not accepted on Wikipedia. The only valid reason would be, if you could argue with substantiation, that the source is not neutral, unreliable, or misrepresented. But that is not what you have done. I hope that I succeeded in explaining these Wikipedia principles understandably and look forward to further constructive collaboration with you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to It's Time may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Woodrow Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Freedom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Great Society may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• economic conditions in rural areas. Nearly every section of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (which has been described as Under Title III of the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act, Special Programs

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mariano Rumor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1969 extended access to higher education to all students holding a higher secondary school diploma (formerly limited to students who came from classical (and in some cases, scientific) curricula. A

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Social reforms in Italy

Thank you for adding the information on social reforms in Italy. Quite a job to get all that information. However, I moved the section about social security reforms in the articles about Alcide De Gasperi and Amintore Fanfani to a List of post-war social security reforms in Italy. The reason is that the very detailed, not interlinked, and long lists do not really contribute to a better understanding of the personalities of those politicians. These reforms were performed by ministers in their cabinets from different parties and not necessarily by the Prime Ministers themselves.

In addition the reforms have to be seen in context with the reforms of other cabinets, given the fact that Italian governments are often short-lived, particularly until the 1990s, and social security bills often overlap different cabinets. Consequently, they are not necessarily the work of one cabinet or one Prime Minister. In a separate article people nevertheless can check the reforms and appreciate the historical chronology.

I see you have been adding these kinds of lists to other Italian politicians as well. I hope you appreciate my suggestion to tackle the issue in a different way and will follow my example of moving your additions to this list, in which you may want to add some additional information on social reforms in Italy to give the reader an even more comprehensive insight in post-war social politics in Italy. Thank you for your understanding. - DonCalo (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Left wing or centre left

Sorry, here I am again. I noticed that you changed the leaning in the political spectrum of several Italian Christian Democratic politicians. For instance, you made Giulio Andreotti a right winger, and Aldo Moro a left winger. I cannot access the source on which you base this, but if this is what it claims the political leaning of those politicians is, I suggest you throw that source in the waste bin inmediately. Unless the source places them on the right or left wing in the DC, which would make some sense. However, being a left winger in the DC makes you a centre-left politician when considering the full spectrum of political parties in Italy where the communists would be left wing and fascists right wing. - DonCalo (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and by the way, it would be nice if you would follow the advice given to you in December 2010 on how to cite tools and, in any case, not use Bare URLs. Thank you again and happy editing. - DonCalo (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Zictor23. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"accusing"

I don't like that word very much. I was deliberate in saying in the investigation filing that the putative copyvios I found may have been the result of an unfamiliarity with WP best practices and guidelines. I would appreciate it if you did not assert that it was an accusation. It was not. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please add ref

ref name="autogenerated3" see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=528020301 thanks --Frze ^{> talk} 09:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of the Labour Party (UK) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

! Year ended	Benefit actual	Benefit level proportion of after tax average earnings	Benefit real value ($1978 prices)
March 1961	17.00	61.8%	57.40%
March 1962	n/a	n/a	N/A

Actually ...

regarding this edit, CTTOI you're right, that does happen in the film. Sorry about the revert. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

New Deal

What are you doing here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Labour Government 1974–79 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how make these corrections. If I did I honestly would make the changes you recommended.zictor23 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Silent Scope and gun games

This game has no official light gun support, even the source you cite states that it merely maps the trigger to allow it to be used to fire shots in this game. I disagree with your addition of the game, using your logic you could say that the game supports the fishing controller (since you could use the pad and buttons on it), but I could understand your reverts. But not this one, in which I clarify the nature of the supposed support for this peripheral. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the First Wilson ministry page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Liberal Party (UK) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• amp;ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=New%20Liberal%20MPs%201906&f=false</ref>) while Radical claims were made that “five-sixths of the Liberal party are left wing.”<ref>https://

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Vladimir Kokovtsov page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clement Attlee may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mapai reforms

The link you provide is for page 260, which makes no mention of Mapai. Please don't readd it unless you get the correct page number. The sentence is already well referenced, so not sure why it's even needed anyway. Cheers, Number 57 23:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zictor23. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zictor23. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Attribution for public domain material

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as New Deal. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Helmut Schmidt

"Corrected various errors" is an insufficient rationale for removing 6 kbytes of sourced content from the article. Please start a discussion on the article talk page to get consensus for the changes. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There was repetition. That's what I meant. Zictor23 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Left Alliance (Finland), you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Information Regarding British Prime Ministers

Hi Zictor23! I have recently seen your fantastic contributions on articles regarding former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and it is great that someone have adding previously unknown information regarding those significant people. I would love to seek some assistance from you on retaining sources for editing the same articles you have been improving as I currently do not have much access to some sources concerning these topics. Please consider helping me out and thank you for all your contributions. Cheers! Danjwilkie (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Danjwilkie! Its so nice to read your message. It makes me happy knowing that people like yourself find my edits interesting.

One source I find very useful is Google Books, as it has both snippers and full or partial views of all kinds of texts. If you put in key words such as, for example "Benjamin Disraeli social reforms" a list of books will appear with those matching words. I can't remember which words I entered, but on GoogleBooks I came across a snippet of the book I am currently using as a source for my edits. GoogleBooks only had a snippet of the book but when I noticed from the snippet that the book was a comprehensive guide of various social reforms introduced under previous Conservative prime ministers I thought it would be good to get, which I did. I am going to be using it for editing the pages of other British prime ministers from the 19th and 20th centuries. The short title of the book is "Conservative social and industrial reform" by Charles E. Bellairs.

2 other sites I would recommend are HaitiTrust (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/mb) and the Wayback Machine (https://archive.org/web/). Both sites have hundreds of texts that you can read for free. I've found them particularly useful when finding information for editing Wikipedia pages. Zictor23 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping me out on finding sources on the internet and improving my editing skills. I am very grateful for that and I appreciate your support. Danjwilkie (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure Danjwilkie. If you do use those any of those sources I hope you find them useful. Zictor23 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Your edit to Fighting Vipers 2 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologise. I didn't realise at the time when I added that information directly from an instruction manual. I hope you understand and that I can continue editing on Wikipedia. I will be more careful in future. Zictor23 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Zictor23 has been open since 2013. If you want to be unblocked, you need to commit to not from copying from sources in your future editing and demonstrate a better understanding of copyright. User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks contains some advice on appealing this block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  I apologise. I didn't realise at the time when I added that information directly from an instruction manual. I hope you understand and that I can continue editing on Wikipedia. I will be more careful in future. Zictor23 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  After reviewing Wikipedia's copyrighting policies following your blocking me I understand the error that I made and am confident that I would not repeat it if I'm allowed to edit again. I do commit myself to not copying from other sources in my future editing, like you asked me to. I only made a single mistake, and administrators can see by looking at my edit history that during my 13 years as an editor I was very careful with how I added information I drew from various sources. I hope that you or another administrator will take that into account and give me another chance. I took great pleasure out of editing pages on Wikipedia; sharing my knowledge with others. I would like to be an editor again. Zictor23 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  If you still feel I need to convince you or someone else that I will not repeat my mistake and should be unblocked please let me know what I need to do; either by giving me an example or directing me to where I need to go on Wikipedia to get an idea. Zictor23 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Moneytrees I just submitted an unblocking request. I've never done this before so I'm not sure if the formatting is correct but if not please let me know. Zictor23 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Moneytrees I uploaded another unblocking request the other day at the bottom of the page but no one has activated it yet. Please can you take a look if you have time? Zictor23 (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Unblocking 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).

Zictor23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was recently blocked because I was said to have breached copyright by adding information from a video game manual. I am fully aware of Wikipedia’s policies in regards to copyrighted material from having read pages such as these: (copyright policy) and policies regarding how to use non-free content. I reviewed the whole manual prior to my edit. The only copyright it mentions relates to making a copy of the game, not of any information included in the manual itself. I did not feel that I breached any copyright, but if I did then this was a lack of awareness on my part. I hope that you consider my appeal as I would be happy to continue editing Wikipedia as I have since 2009. I feel that the decision to block me should be reversed, taking into account my awareness of Wikipedia’s policies regarding copyright, and the fact that it is not my intention to ever breach copyright policy.

Decline reason:

You clearly missed the part of copyright policy that says "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement". Notice is not required, and for Wikipedia's purposes, copyright notice is irrelevant. So "fully aware", clearly not yet. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Zictor23 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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).

Zictor23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

An administrator replied to a previous unblocking request I made noting that part of copyright policy says that "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement". I didn't notice that. I feel that I should not be blocked owing to a misunderstanding. Please let me know if there is any way for this issue to be resolved so that I can be unblocked. I've received a lot of positive likes and comments over the years for edits and I think it would be a shame if I'm no longer able to edit Wikipedia. Following on from my last message its never been my intention to breach copyright. I hope that one or administrators will understand that and unblock me. I've loved editing Wikipedia for 14 years and have received a number of thank you messages and kind words for edits I've made. I would be sorry if I will no longer be able to edit Wikipedia because of an unintentional mistake. Zictor23 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, we must treat misunderstandings related to copyright seriously, as copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. It may not have been your intention to violate copyright(rarely do people intentionally violate it here) but you did nevertheless, and you must demonstrate an understanding of the issues here before you can be unblocked. I don't think that this request(I merged your two requests, only one is needed) does it. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

{{unblock|reason= An administrator replied to my unblocking request just now saying that I must demonstrate an understanding of the issues before I am unblocked. I do understand Wikipedia's copyright policy. I just made a mistake. Please can an administrator tell me what I need to do to demonstrate this? What will it take for my account to be unblocked?}}

Zictor23 (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

New unblocking request

{{unblock|reason= An administrator replied to my unblocking request yesterday saying that I must demonstrate an understanding of the issues before I am unblocked. I do understand Wikipedia's copyright policy. I just made a mistake. Over the past few days I have read all of Wikipedia's copyright policies. I am confident that I won't repeat the same mistake. If this isn't enough for someone to unblock me, can someone please give me an idea of what I should say? I'm not sure how detailed my unblocking request should be.}}

Zictor23 (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Request to be unblocked

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).

Zictor23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like an administrator to please review the decision made last month to block me. After reviewing Wikipedia's copyrighting policies I understand the error and am confident that I would not repeat it if I'm allowed to edit again. This isn't personal, but I feel that the decision to block me was incorrect, considering I made only a single mistake and that administrators can see by looking at my edit history that during my 13 years as an editor I was very careful with how I added information I drew from various sources.

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

• What is copyright?
• How is Wikipedia licenced?
• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Do you realise that you were copying "nowiki" markup and an unbalanced "code" markup around your last few unblock requests? No one will see them if you do this. I have repaired your requests so the most recent one is correctly formed.-gadfium 18:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

New unblock appeal

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).

Zictor23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Earlier in January, an Administrator said that in order for the block on me to be lifted a reviewing Administrator would need to be certain that I understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To do this I needed to respond to the following questions in my next unblock appeal. I’ve included below the questions, along with my responses to each of them. I hope my answers are correct and sufficient, and that I have demonstrated a good enough understanding: • What is copyright? According to Wikipedia, copyright refers to a kind of intellectual property providing creators of original works or other owners of the secured legal right to perform, copy and disseminate creative works. Wikipedia’s text is copyrighted automatically and formally licensed to the public under various liberal licenses. • How is Wikipedia licensed? Wikipedia is freely licensed, with most of its text released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-SA). This means that the information can be reused as long as any derived work is released under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License or the GFDL. Editors are required, for instance, to provide author attribution. • Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Because producers of creative works are granted copyright to prevent their material from being duplicated by others. • Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? When Wikipedia is able to gain permission to do so under certain circumstances. The Wikimedia Foundation’s licensing policy, for instance, allows for the adoption by projects of an exemption doctrine policy that allows for the use of non-free content. An exception to this is Wikimedia Commons. • How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? By ensuring that none of the information I add in future is copied directly by any source, while also avoiding close paraphrasing. I will also keep myself updated with Wikipedia’s copyright policy.

Decline reason:

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

---

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 don't seem to have understood WP:FAIRUSE and your answer to "Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?" is generally incorrect. --Yamla (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my time editing Wikipedia

Towards the end of last year, I considered taking a break from Wikipedia to focus on other things, and I feel now that the time is right. I made all the edits that I was hoping to make, and am happy with the positive feedback I have received over the years. I hope that the contributions I made will continue to be of interest and of use to people, and am happy to have been a part of such a wonderful enterprise as Wikipedia.

Zictor23 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

A new unblocking request

{{unblock|reason= Recently, an Administrator replied to a recent unblocking request I made by asking me to describe concisely and clearly how my edits merited a block, what I would do differently, and what constructive edits I would make. I feel that I already explained what happened. I also feel that I did explain in my answers to those questions I answered last month how I would do things differently. If there isn't a way for me to get unblocked I'll accept that, but I tried answering those questions as best as I could without going into too much detail and tried sticking to the point. It would be good if an Administrator can review my request. I regret the fact that I was blocked, as over the years I have gathered a lot of historical information that I enjoyed sharing on Wikipedia and had more that I would liked to have shared. I can share it with other organisations, but given how many people look at Wikipedia I felt that Wikipedia was a good place to share that information. I was also generally careful with my editing. I thought that if I made a mistake it would be reversed and an editor would tell me where I went wrong, instead of being blocked. I hope someone can take into consideration that I have been generally careful and wouldn't repeat this mistake if allowed to edit again.}}

Zictor23 (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my new unblocking request

{{unblock|reason= I'm not sure if anyone has had a chance to look at my recent unblocking request, but recentlyan Administrator replied to a recent unblocking request I made by asking me to describe concisely and clearly how my edits merited a block, what I would do differently, and what constructive edits I would make. I feel that I already explained what happened. I also feel that I did explain in my answers to those questions I answered last month how I would do things differently. If there isn't a way for me to get unblocked I'll accept that, but I tried answering those questions as best as I could without going into too much detail and tried sticking to the point. It would be good if an Administrator can review my request. I regret the fact that I was blocked, as over the years I have gathered a lot of historical information that I enjoyed sharing on Wikipedia and had more that I would liked to have shared. I can share it with other organisations, but given how many people look at Wikipedia I felt that Wikipedia was a good place to share that information. I was also generally careful with my editing. I thought that if I made a mistake it would be reversed and an editor would tell me where I went wrong, instead of being blocked. I hope someone can take into consideration that I have been generally careful and wouldn't repeat this mistake if allowed to edit again. I hope you can also take into consideration the fact that many people thanked and/or liked my contributions.}}

Zictor23 (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

No one is likely to see your requests because they are not correctly made. Your requests appear as wiki source, not as output. See my earlier post a few sections up. I fixed some of your earlier requests, so they did get considered, but you have not learned how to post correctly.-gadfium 17:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gadfium thank you for letting me know. I have issues with posting these requests. I hope you understand. I was sorry to have been blocked as I enjoyed editing Wikipedia and I like to think at some point one of my unblocking requests will be successful. I only made one mistake, and at the time I wasn't sure if what I did was right. I made the edit anyway, thinking that if I made a mistake an editor would point it out and reverse it. I didn't think at the time it would lead to my being blocked, but perhaps someday I will be allowed to edit again. I know where I went wrong and wouldn't repeat the error if the block on me is lifted. Zictor23 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gadfium I just posted the following question for the administrators to look at. I noticed that the block on my account prevents me from editing all pages including talk pages, apart from my own. I was wondering if this is correct? I found it strange that I can't add comments to talk pages, because I didn't think it was the same as editing pages. I wouldn't be making any changes to talk pages. I would just be adding suggestions for improvement and/or additional information. Please can you or someone else clarify? Even if I can't edit pages anymore I thought I would still be able to make comments. Zictor23 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gadfium I just uploaded a new unblocking request. A while ago I saw you kindly corrected some errors I made in the way I put together a previous unblocking request. I wasn't sure if I've done it correctly this time. Zictor23 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking request in regards to talk pages

{{unblock|reason= I noticed that the block on my account prevents me from editing all pages including talk pages, apart from my own. I was wondering if this is correct? I found it strange that I can't add comments to talk pages, because I didn't think it was the same as editing pages. I wouldn't be making any changes to talk pages. I would just be adding suggestions for improvement and/or additional information that could be added. Please can someone clarify? I wasn't sure if I can be unblocked when it comes to adding comments on talk pages. Even if I can't edit pages anymore I thought I would still be able to make comments.}} Zictor23 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Party of Unity and Social Liberalism

The article Party of Unity and Social Liberalism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No secondary source, lack of evidence of notability

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. AusLondonder (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't make improvements as my account was blocked. I accidently did something that was considered a copyright violation, something I didn't realise. I copied an introduction from a video game manual. The manual didn't have any messages to do with copyright so I thought it would be okay. I've tried several times to appeal but they all failed. If you or anyone else thinks the article should be deleted then that is up to you. Zictor23 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

New unblocking request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Zictor23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was wondering what I need to do in order for my account to be unblocked? I already answered some questions but my answers were rejected. Is there another way to convince someone that I have learnt from my mistake? After all, I only made one mistake. Although I did make a mistake, I would have thought that my edit would be reversed and I would be left off with a warning. I'm sure a lot of people have made the same error and have not been blocked. As an historical researcher, I enjoyed putting what my research onto Wikipedia; sharing it with others. I'm sorry that I am unable to do this anymore as a result of my block. I hope you can take that into consideration, as I have so much to offer this site. I can't help but feel that the decision to block me was hasty, considering how careful I was with my edits over the years. Technically I can get what I was hoping to put onto Wikipedia published in a book but it would have been nice to share it on this site.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was wondering what I need to do in order for my account to be unblocked? I already answered some questions but my answers were rejected. Is there another way to convince someone that I have learnt from my mistake? After all, I only made one mistake. Although I did make a mistake, I would have thought that my edit would be reversed and I would be left off with a warning. I'm sure a lot of people have made the same error and have not been blocked. As an historical researcher, I enjoyed putting what my research onto Wikipedia; sharing it with others. I'm sorry that I am unable to do this anymore as a result of my block. I hope you can take that into consideration, as I have so much to offer this site. I can't help but feel that the decision to block me was hasty, considering how careful I was with my edits over the years. Technically I can get what I was hoping to put onto Wikipedia published in a book but it would have been nice to share it on this site. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was wondering what I need to do in order for my account to be unblocked? I already answered some questions but my answers were rejected. Is there another way to convince someone that I have learnt from my mistake? After all, I only made one mistake. Although I did make a mistake, I would have thought that my edit would be reversed and I would be left off with a warning. I'm sure a lot of people have made the same error and have not been blocked. As an historical researcher, I enjoyed putting what my research onto Wikipedia; sharing it with others. I'm sorry that I am unable to do this anymore as a result of my block. I hope you can take that into consideration, as I have so much to offer this site. I can't help but feel that the decision to block me was hasty, considering how careful I was with my edits over the years. Technically I can get what I was hoping to put onto Wikipedia published in a book but it would have been nice to share it on this site. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was wondering what I need to do in order for my account to be unblocked? I already answered some questions but my answers were rejected. Is there another way to convince someone that I have learnt from my mistake? After all, I only made one mistake. Although I did make a mistake, I would have thought that my edit would be reversed and I would be left off with a warning. I'm sure a lot of people have made the same error and have not been blocked. As an historical researcher, I enjoyed putting what my research onto Wikipedia; sharing it with others. I'm sorry that I am unable to do this anymore as a result of my block. I hope you can take that into consideration, as I have so much to offer this site. I can't help but feel that the decision to block me was hasty, considering how careful I was with my edits over the years. Technically I can get what I was hoping to put onto Wikipedia published in a book but it would have been nice to share it on this site. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Zictor23 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed the above request. Zictor23, I don't know why nowiki markup keeps being placed around your unblock requests, but when you see it - it looks like this in the source editor: <nowiki><code> - you should remove it, like I did here, so your unblock requests display properly and get added to the queue. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate that. Ill check out that link you sent me to see how I can display my unblock requests properly.

I was going to post this question to the administrators later this week, but I was wondering if you know why the block on my account prevents me from editing all kinds of pages, including talk pages? I thought I would still be able to edit talk pages, given that I would only be making suggestions for changes and/or improvement like other editors do.

Even if the block on my account is never lifted, although I hope it will, I thought I could at least post comments on talk pages, other than my own. Zictor23 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia- publishing it in a book is exactly what you should do with your research. Your research could only be on Wikipedia once others have written about it and its findings. What we need from you to be unblocked has not changed, please see your prior requests. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was putting stuff that I found in other texts onto Wikipedia, like other editors do. It wasn't original research. What I meant was incorporating the information I found into a book, rather than on Wikipedia, given that I am currently unable to edit. I wish that someone could understand that I understood the error I made and regretted it and unblock me. Surely I've made that clear. I was an editor on Wikipedia for 13 years after all, and rarely made a mistake. Zictor23 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Cardcaptor Sakura franchise and Wikipedia pages about it

I was thinking at some point of posting some information on my talk page regarding the Cardcaptor Sakura franchise that people might find interesting. This includes summaries of various bonus chapters and CD dramas I came across. In regards to the original series, there were 3 CD dramas in total, to my knowledge (the Cardcaptor Sakura page states that there are 2). In regards to Cardcaptor Sakura Clear Card there have been to date 2 bonus mangas and 2 CD dramas, all of which to my knowledge have only been released in Japan. The first bonus manga (which involves Sakura and Syaoran going on a picnic date) came with the 8th volume of the Blu-Ray release of the series, while the second (which focused on the time Sakura and Syaoran were separated while he was in Hong Kong) came with a special edition of Volume 10 of Clear Card.

I found the ending of the original series, where Syaoran and Sakura are happily reunited, very touching (the anime version was just as good). Its nice how they revealed their love for each other, such as when Sakura gave Syaoran the bear she made for him and said that he was her "Number One" (The person she loves the most).

It was such a well written series. The sequel, which ended last month, is just as good. It'll be good when another follow-up is made.

I think it would also be good if some of the Wikipedia pages about the series get updated. For instance, the page listing various chapters doesn't have summaries for all the Clear Card volumes yet.

Zictor23 (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Question to the administrators regarding the block on my account

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).

Zictor23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was wondering if an administrator could please explain to me why the block on my account prevents me from editing all kinds of pages, including talk pages? I thought I would still be able to edit talk pages, given that I would only be making suggestions for changes and/or improvement like other editors do. Even if the block on my account is never lifted, I thought I could at least post comments on talk pages, other than my own.

Decline reason:

You already have an open unblock request. The unblock template isn't to be used for asking questions. Yamla (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

---

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:BLOCK for a detailed description of blocking policy. A sitewide block generally means that you're unable to edit anything except your own talk page, and only then for the primary purpose of making unblock requests, discussing the repercussions of your block, and discussing unblock conditions (and the like). Administrators will assume good faith, but if discussions on a talk page don't appear to be constructive or the blocked editor makes tendentious or repetitive unblock requests, talk page access may be removed as well and unblock requests can then only be made via WP:UTRS. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Suffice it to say, you want to avoid using unblock requests as a method of asking questions as you did above. Making improper unblock requests is a good way to get your talk page access revoked! I would urge you, before making any more unblock requests, to make sure that they aren't made for a repetitive reason and that they address *all* the issues that administrators have raised with you. If you're unsure about something, directly ask the question. And then, if that unblock request is declined, the approach that is most likely to lead to a block being lifted is taking a break from Wikipedia and following WP:OFFER.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, and for the link. At some point I think I will try and answer those questions again; the ones that I was told I would need to answer to show that I understand Wikipedia's copyright policy.

I assume though, until my account is unblocked (if I am a successful unblocking request), I can still post comments on my talk page? You said "A sitewide block generally means that you're unable to edit anything except your own talk page, and only then for the primary purpose of making unblock requests, discussing the repercussions of your block, and discussing unblock conditions (and the like)."

Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, but does this mean I can't make comments or posts unrelated to my block? the WP: BLOCK page doesn't say I'm not allowed to make posts on my own talk page unrelated to my block, so I imagine its okay. If not please let me know. Zictor23 (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, perhaps waiting a bit longer might help my case. Judging by what it says in the Standard Offer section on the WP: OFFER page, waiting for at least 6 months before making an unblocking request to an experienced administrator might help my case. If it does, at least it will give me a chance to edit again.

I was blocked in December. Perhaps you can correct me, but given that it is now April, I presume I would only need to wait until June/July before following the advice given on the WP: OFFER page?

I haven't been successful with my unblocking requests up until now, but maybe if I wait a few more months things might turn out differently. Zictor23 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, you only want to be talking about things related to your block. If you start talking about articles or edits or off-topic things anything else, it's likely some admin will revoke talk page access.

Your best bet is to wait six months from now and don't post at *all* here. Work on other Wikimedia projects or other interests outside of the Wikimedia projects. And definitely don't create a new account. You've got five or six unblock requests during this period; while I could be wrong, I would be surprised if a block request in just another month or two from now would result in you being unblocked. WP:OFFER is only an essay, but it's a very influential one. The whole idea is to make the best possible case for reinstatement. Peppering admins with requests is likely to have the opposite effect of what you want. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you kind advice. I'll wait another 6 months like you suggested. I'll take another look at the WP:OFFER essay then, and take it from there. I feel that I have a lot to offer Wikipedia, and I would be happy to be reinstated at some point. Zictor23 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Best of luck to you! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully after 6 months or so I'll be able to edit again. Zictor23 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)