User talk:Wejer

"Hello Mr or Mrs NuclearWarfare,

It has come to my attention that my account (User:Wejer) has been blocked on the charges that my account is *suspected* to be a sock-puppet account of another user called "User:Scibaby".

I deny any accusations that this is so and politely demand that I am given a fair and honest trial by the community, where all evidence (if any) is put forth. Furthermore, I demand that my innocence shall be presumed until otherwise proven guilty.

Yours most respectfully, Martin Lundqvist, a.k.a. User:Wejer

-- This e-mail was sent by user "Wejer" on the English Wikipedia to user "NuclearWarfare". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>." Wejer (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wejer, your account has been unblocked. A check has confirmed your bona fides. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lundqvist, my apologies for the block. I had misread a report that a checkuser had made, and I assumed that all of the accounts listed were confirmed sockpuppets. The block was entirely a mistake, and I hope you accept my apologies. Sincerely, NW (Talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. All is forgiven. Wejer (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Warm Period; some advice

Please reconsider your edits on the talk pages of this article. You have had the errors in your argument fairly clearly pointed out to you by a number of editors (not me) and have been referred to the relevant policies on self published material and material which concerns living persons. Declaring that you have now proved your point to your satisfaction when you have no argument left standing is not dignified behaviour. Now is time to go and reflect, find better sources and find a better addition to improve the article rather than keep on digging at the bottom of a hole. --BozMo talk 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response Wejer (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may realise on reflection, I did not appeal to authority but rather I gave you some advice. It is entirely up to you whether you heed it or not, heeding and reading other people's thoughts and correctly appraising the strength of your own arguments in face of them is a skill I am sure you will acquire. Ignoring my advice is your right and is certainly not going to bother me. --BozMo talk 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Freedom of action for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mastermind (role variant" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mastermind (role variant has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Mastermind (role variant until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]