- 1 ArbCom case "Editor conduct in e-cigs articles" has now been opened
- 2 Discretionary sanctions notice
- 3 Thanks was not enough
- 4 Shelley Shannon
- 5 Nicolás Maduro
- 6 Organized promo campaign:
- 7 at least specify why doens't it beling.
- 8 Noticeboard edits
- 9 My 2c
- 10 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 11 Mystery Wolff at AE
- 12 Check Dams is not true
- 13 DRN notification: JDL
- 14 DNR about acting leaders
- 15 Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
- 16 re: Ugg boots
- 17 Hi to you too, Magnificent Clean Keeper!
- 18 Domestic Terrorism
- 19 please join the discussion about the image
- 20 About your recent edit for the Fort Hood Shooting
- 21 Hi
- 22 What do you want
- 23 Quack crusade against the word some
- 24 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 25 Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
- 26 Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
- 27 DT article
- 28 rubber bullets
ArbCom case "Editor conduct in e-cigs articles" has now been opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notice
|This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Thanks was not enough
- "Many" is an understatement. Ever wondered why we haven't really moved much in the last 25 years or so? It's not you --- it's them (and too many of it).--TMCk (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I am re-adding the terrorist citation and using the NYTimes article where the judge who sentences her calls her a terrorist. To not call her what she is - a terrorist, would deny the facts of the case. The indisputable fact is that she was called a terrorist by the very judge that presided over the case and sentenced her to 20 years in prison. Have a great day! Bill Heller (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Here is the URL: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/09/us/woman-gets-20-year-sentence-in-attacks-on-abortion-clinics.htm
- You're really too lazy to read what was said to you, aren't you?--TMCk (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Organized promo campaign:
Thanks for noticing the influx of spam from an e-cig vendor - should we get these blocked as socks? --Kim D. Petersen 13:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC) [i'm guessing that there is a chance that we can get sleeper socks found, if it gets reported --Kim D. Petersen 13:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)]
- I don't think they'll come back (more than once?) but go ahead and file a report and/or tag those accounts. I don't have the time and nerve ;) If there are persistent spam attempts in the future the domain can be more efficiently blacklisted.--TMCk (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
at least specify why doens't it beling.
- The previous editsummary "WP:NOTMEMORIAL, please discuss on talk page, consider creating separate page..." is quite clear on this. Also, imagine the size of the article if one would start adding the same from the other side of the conflict - wouldn't fit the page. If you still feel it belongs please make your argument on the article's talk page for everyone to see it and chime in. Thanks.15:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)--TMCk (talk)
+ you'd need to cite sources.--TMCk (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I know the image is better. I know there is a problem with editors trying to keep things in and resisting change. I think the new image is much better. But, and please take this as friendly advice, dont let it get to you. I have seen way to many editors self destruct in the topic because of how editing is done. AlbinoFerret 20:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks but I sure won't "self-destruct" nor will I scrape the floor to join the fresh pity petty war blue-something started out of "nowhere".--TMCk (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Mystery Wolff at AE
Check Dams is not true
I ask you to revert since I don't want to be guilty of 1RR but you are not reading the sources. Israel has no dams in that area. Even Al-Jazeera retracted the story. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/gazans-flee-floods-caused-israel-dams-opening-150222115950849.html You should self-revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the check dams claim, that was not true, I left the other stuff out, but flooding is a part of water since flooding ruins natural water quality. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes there are check dams. Read the first source! + revert yourself or get blocked.--TMCk (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- That source is false, read the Al Jazeera link.Sir Joseph (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Or this: http://news.yahoo.com/gaza-floods-dispelling-myth-israeli-dams-153701865.html
- Yes there are check dams. Read the first source! + revert yourself or get blocked.--TMCk (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
DRN notification: JDL
- TracyMcClark, I would like to mediate the DRN case concerning the JDL but would first like to ask if you will be participating? Participation is voluntary, but encouraged, in DRN discussion. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
DNR about acting leaders
There is a DNR going on about the question whether to include or delete acting presidents from the list of state leaders articles. This is the matter which we briefly touched upon on the talk page of Neve-selbert, and about which you also expressed an opinion. ZBukov (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
re: Ugg boots
First, I didn't "revert over 1 year back." If I had, several red entries in the References section would have been included. I reverted principally in response to two edits dated 25 April 2016 and 29 April 2016, removing a total of 4000 characters of perfectly good, well-sourced, neutral, encyclopedic information. Second, spare me the exclamation points in your edit summary. Third, please revert yourself. Those 4000 characters are perfectly good, well-sourced, neutral, encyclopedic content. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since you don't feel like discussing it at all, I'll restore the edit. It is constructive, not disruptive. If you'd like to discuss this as required by the "D" in WP:BRD, I await your overtures. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- This dif here is from when you left off on Feb 2, 2015 and your revert just now. So please spare me the old antics. Still some spare accounts on hand for the next round?--TMCk (talk)`
- The worst editing brings out the worst in me, I guess? I see you don't defend your "not from a year back" claim anymore. That's a good start, maybe.--TMCk (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi to you too, Magnificent Clean Keeper!
Good job on figuring out it was me.
Look what I wrote! (It's OK with me if you or anyone else writes a review based just on the free preview, which you can read by clicking the words "look inside" on the image of the book's cover.)
(If you want to delete this from your talk page, I will understand.)
- Wow. So you've filled a whole book with this crap (well, mostly crap). Tooooooo funny. Have a good one, Grundle.--TMCk (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I left plenty of citations and there is no controversy here according to the actual definition.
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
Clearly Black Lives Matters falls under section B, subsection i.
How is this controversial? You accept the definition since you have not changed that (which is the opening paragraph) but you fail to see the relationship?
please join the discussion about the image
About your recent edit for the Fort Hood Shooting
A couple days ago I edited the kill count for the Fort Hood Shooting to state that 14 people were killed including an unborn baby. I noticed that you've edited it. My reasons for editing it was inspired by the Wikipedia article on the Wilkinsburg shooting which also mentions that one of the victims who was killed was pregnant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Wilkinsburg_shooting
Perhaps, I could edit the Fort Hood shooting article to to say, "not including an unbo4rn baby." Is that an acceptable compromise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I need help getting my ideas across effectively. You see. my problem is I want to make it on Wikipedia. I just don't feel I have the direction or the inspiration to do so. I want someone or something to bounce ideas off. Thank you, I will appreciate any given feedback.--Armanikoka (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi back. Well, I might be the wrong person for you to bounce ideas off but I can recommend to you the friendly Teahouse. Enjoy.--TMCk (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
What do you want
You seem to be blind that I've been poked and insulted, and my comments have been in response. That's inherently lopsided, selective, prejudiced way to see things, and helps enable those who are abusive to others. (Is that your intent? Because your one-sided view of things is not only unfair, it's offensive and unethical.) You don't seem to understand that I did not sign up as volunteer editor to receive public abuse while being gagged to respond. And please don't respond w/ the gradeschool "two wrongs don't make a right" or "take it to ANI [cesspool]". One thing you seem to have missed is that one of my responses actually produced a change in the offending editor, who promised (not directly to me but to others, which was just as fine) to be less offensive in future. (Now that's something positive. The path you've chosen, to get me blocked, or to reduce me to absorbing abuse w/o comment, in either case will lead to loss of a productive editor. I suppose that makes you happy!?) IHTS (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Educational attacks" then directed at two different editors?--TMCk (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Quack crusade against the word some
I was wondering if you could have a shufti at Quack's recent edits to E-cig articles (Vape Shops, Cloud Chasing etc.) I can't tell if he's being intentionally disruptive or if my dislike of his editing style is clouding my judgement. SPACKlick (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Since you've commented before on Donald Trump talk, and you've edited Barack Obama, would you be willing to come back to help edit there? Please look over the talk page for the latest issues to see if there is anything that might interest you. Also, if you know of others who helped bring Barack Obama to FA status, and could ping them, I'd appreciate it. We need fresh eyes over there. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, your post violated discretionary sanctions. If you don't self revert you risk getting blocked. Secondly, the sources do not say rubber coated steel bullets."“In response, security forces engaged in riot dispersal measures, including the use of rubber bullets and tear gas.”"Sir Joseph (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- You haven't read the source: "Fifty Palestinians were injured with rubber-coated steel bullets while dozens others suffered from severe tear-gas inhalation...".--TMCk (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.