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)