User talk:Thepm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Busy desk.svg This user is very interested in what you have to say and may respond very swiftly to queries.
If you left me a message here, I will reply here. If I left you a message on your talk page, please reply on your talk page.


Hello, Thepm, 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:

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! œ 06:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that articles related to climate change are particularly sensitive at the moment[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, but I don't think I've actually contributed to the article (haven't been game enough!) only to the talk page. Does everyone who contributed get this notice? Thepm (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, but the pedantic grammar nerd quibbled less with that than with describing a talkpage as an article. All related discussions are also covered by the probation, and everyone who contributes to the topic area will ideally be notified and logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. I try to remember to check whenever I see a new name, but you should feel free to help out if you notice anyone who has been missed. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough of this crap[edit]

The 2consensus is in noncompliance with WP:NPOV, and I'm saying it is to be overridden as per WP:NPOV. Macai (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Temperature reconstruction[edit]

I wonder if I might prevail upon you to choose a more neutral word for "explain" in this edit, per the spirit of WP:Words_to_avoid. I think the article will be greatly improved if we can adopt a more encyclopedic tone and avoid the point-counter=-point style. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

hmmm. Fair call. How about "stated"? Thepm (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. I owe you one JPatterson (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.[edit]

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A few hints[edit]

Hey friend. I'd first like to thank you for your contribution to the 3rd opinion.

I wanted to write this when I just noticed your post. Yeah, unfortunately your comment about my approach is true. Unfortunately, because my desire to be on the side of truth often harms me and my personal interests in life. But that's a path I chose... I also totally agree with you about the images and it is very good that wiki encourages the creativity of the editors. It was not easy for me to find maps that would match the copyright rules and especially ones used for academic purposes (if you read the map's page, you shall see a link I put as an example of how the universities use it), so I know that well.

The problem here is that maps are a bit more different. They need a very good knowledge of topology. And especially the historical maps need real deep researches because of, as I said, the historians of those times were basing their descriptions on geographical explanations and descriptions. A mere creation of a historical map seems wrong to me as it does require a deep research and is practically impossible to be made even referencing them with texts. Only if copying from some source, clearing it from, let me call it, "noise" and publishing as a changed map of an academic source (given the ability to compare) would seem proper to me. But when one has several other copyright free and academic sources, it doesn't seem encyclopedic to keep the editor's own work and refuse the academic. As I said, you can check on the scanned map's page that it is being used as an academic material (from the example-link). And in his case I really do not see why would anybody be opposing that change. leave alone the minuses the created map has for this very article and paragraph. That is why I cannot logically explain to myself my "opponent’s" aggressive behavior.

Now the hints I talked of :). There are at least 2 little things a "3rd opinion" had to do you, probably, have forgotten. The tag should be removed and some changed in the 3O page made. Can you please, if I ask you, have [third opinions] reread? Thank you!

One more little, but I'd call it NOTA BENNE. Just for your info, you can get an opinion how "scholarly", as Iberieli claims, the historical maps of the user, having created the disputed map, are. I don't even want to talk of how improper his work is in some cases of the map I'll give you the link for. Just pay attention to the "process of map creating" of the user my opponent is calling scholarly [[1]]. Once again, it's just to show how much of a "original research" it is, though from the process it shows I can't even call it a research.

Talk to you soon. Aregakn (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I've removed the tag and also removed the listing from the 3O page. cheers Thepm (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Funny... Iberieli is usually very often there (here) and active, if not agrssive (let's say as an editor). I wonder why he's not here. Maybe trying to get deeper into the issue at his history university, who knows?! Aregakn (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It's been 3 days since his last response, but I think we'll give him a further 24 hours to respond. I'd really rather hear his comments before replying, but I'll reply anyway if I haven't heard anything from him by this time tomorrow. Thepm (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sure. One of the goals of the dispute I started is to make him talk and discuss instead of continuous baseless threats, so I'd wait too.
Anyway, I'm almost convinced that this will not bring to a solution and I'll have to take it further to formal mediation and I think he's just ignoring this process. Aregakn (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted You[edit]

[2] Here, fixing a typo is not "nonsense from vandal" Just letting you know as i got into the deep brown stuff for calling stuff vandalisim when it was not :-) mark nutley (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are happy with the IP's edit, then I apologise for making the revert. I didn't realise that the IP was making the change on your behalf. cheers Thepm (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops, well that`s embarrassing :-) i thought he had corrected a typo by me. Sorry about that mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. You're original comment was made in good faith and good humour, so I wasn't too bothered. That IP had been roaming around making stupid edits at random. cheers Thepm (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have two accounts[edit]


I have two accounts. One that I had forgotten about with user name "Winston Churchill" and this one. Is there a way that I can combine them? Thepm (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not possible to combine two accounts. The only thing you can do is put a note on User:Winston Churchill and/or User talk:Winston Churchill that you are using this account now. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao talk 22:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Typo which is..."[edit]

Talk:Ian Plimer‎; 01:21 . . (+5) . . Thepm (talk | contribs) (→Section: Volcanoes & CO2: fix typo which was direct result of wife yelling 'are you messing around on wikipedia again!')

Heh. You too, eh? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"The happiest part of a man's life is what he passes lying awake in bed in the morning." -- Dr. Johnson

Heh. We are moving house at present and my wife seems to think that packing and cleaning are more important activities than saving the world from inaccurate information on wikipedia :) (She's probably right...)Thepm (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IP being a nuisance[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Over at Christopher Monckton's bio there is an anonymous IP that keeps reverting what have been agreed to be legitimate edits.

I am having a similar problem with an anonymous (but different) IP at Australian property bubble.

In both cases the IP refuses to enter into discussions and simply reverts what has gone before. Is there a process for dealing with that sort of thing? --Thepm (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, there is-- The general term for continuing to insist (by editing) on a particular text without discussion is "edit warring", the best place to report that is WP:ANEW. There's some definitions and instructions near the top of that page, let me know if you have any questions. --joe deckertalk to me 05:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Strange Edit[edit]

I can see it, so I can only guess it's your local cache. I know my own connection has done it in the past. I also agree with your word of caution to Kitty. It's too easy to simply label the IP as Monckton, rather than simply an activist on his behalf or a genuinely concerned editor. At the moment however it definitely appears to be the former (not that an activist cannot make perfectly good edits, just that they must also subject to the process of balance). Koncorde (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Terence Corcoran
James Annan
Geophysical Research Letters
Tom Segalstad
David Karoly
Adem Poric
Guardian Books
Alastair McIntosh
The Weblog Awards (Wizbang)
Tropical climate
John Mason (Australian politician)
Arie van Vliet
Malcolm K. Hughes
List of potato museums
IPCC Second Assessment Report
IPCC supplementary report, 1992
Journal of Climate
Bertil Sandström
Tom Wigley
Indian property bubble
Vincent R. Gray
J. Scott Armstrong
Canadian Youth Climate Coalition
Incarceration in the United States
Add Sources
Science and Public Policy Institute
David Legates
Global warming controversy
Rosina Bierbaum
2008–10 California budget crisis
Great East Thompson Train Wreck
Seafood in Australia
Chapter 12, Title 11, United States Code
Richard Lindzen

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion at Thor (film)[edit]

Just letting you know other editors have offered their opinion on the matter including Millahnna and Tenebrae.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your reverts[edit]

Reverting to last agreed version of lead. Please discuss changes on talk page.

I've discussed my changes on the talk page; you can't use or appeal to any consensus to prevent others from editing. If you don't like my edits, then you need to discuss your reverts on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you've explained that you are making changes, but I can't see where you've discussed them with anyone??? It's a long page and maybe I've missed that discussion. Can you point me to it? --Thepm (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Nobody has to discuss anything with anyone or get permission to edit Wikipedia. If you have a problem with my edits, and you revert them, then you are required to discuss the problem so I can correct it or acknowledge it on the talk page. What is the problem? You are misusing the consensus process to prevent content from being added or modified. I have previously brought the problem up with length and summary (lead guideline) and I have received no response from you. I have now brought up issues related to media controversy vs. controversy (precision), misleading linking of scientific misconduct (against linking policy and guideline), and misleading description of file release. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Responding on the talk page shortly. You first said that you had discussed your changes and now you are saying that you don't have to discuss your changes. Can you please clarify whether you had discussed the changes before you made them? --Thepm (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Please keep your wikilawyering at work. I have discussed my changes and I am not required to discuss my changes before editing. Does that make sense to you? You are abusing the consensus process to implement a gatekeeper/firewall strategy. There is no such rule on Wikipedia. Furthermore, my edits have all been based on information found in the current article and in the best sources on the subject. There isn't anything controversial about them. You seem to be trying to abuse the discussion process to that everything can be "put on your desk" for your personal review. That pretty much goes against how Wikipedia works. I don't have to ask for your permission to edit anything. On the other hand, you need to use the talk page to dsipute my edits, otherwise you are trying to prevent me from editing. Your recent edits were incredibly misleading and distorted the topic in such a way that it made it seem like the UEA woke up one morning and released their files to the public with cheery smiles on their faces. Furthermore, linking to scientific misconduct as the very last two words in the last lead paragraph is incredibly misleading, as it makes it seem, to the casual reader, that scientific misconduct occurred. I'm finding less and less confidence in your edits as this continues. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, so you have discussed it on the talk page. I can see that you put in a note on some of your changes (although not the ones made just now), but I can't see any discussion of your changes at all. Can you point me to where this discussion is? A link would be handy. --Thepm (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thepm, I am still awaiting your explanation of your reversion of my edits on the talk page. So far, you have made the outstanding claim that the material I added is:
1. only marginally relevant in the lead
I have previously explained to you how WP:LEAD works, and why we need to summarize the most significant aspects of the topic in the lead section. I have also explained that you introduced ambiguity into the lead section by removing the precise nature of the illegal release of material. You claimed that the documents just happened to be released to the public with no explanation. That is entirely misleading and wrong. You have not responded to my repeated requests for you to justify your revert. Please do so now. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, discussion of the article belongs on the talk page and is currently taking place there.
Your continued personalisation of criticisms and your generalised bullying of me is not civil and is not acceptable. This is a formal warning that you should moderate your tone. --Thepm (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Requesting that you respect and honor WP:REVEXP, which is essentially basic etiquette, and avoid gaming the system is not, I repeat, not "bullying". Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bubble has already popped[edit]


Please enlighten me on whose behind reducing the Australian Property Bubble page to what it is now? Why do i sense that some property speculators and spruikers are on a mission to mislead people by removing valuable information on this page? well i got bad news for them pal. Australian Property Bubble has already popped.speculators and spruikers can do whatever they want but it is too late!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi There
I've done quite a bit of editing to the Australian property bubble article over the past few weeks. The article had previously contained a lot of original research which we don't do on wikipedia. It was also written from a specific point of view and we should take care to write from a neutral point of view. You are welcome to assist with edits that meet wikipedia's criteria. Perhaps the best way to start would be to comment on problems with the article and possible improvements on the article talk page. cheers --Thepm (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason none of us care about certain people(you know who)systematically deleting the article is that the bubble has popped.what bothers me and others is that the article has existed a long time without any issue but when the housing market heads south it gets edited.most of the article contained neutral facts. now it has only got a couple of charts. not sure the way you define Neutral?
you delete images quoting "may be a copyright issue", well i don't see the problem as long as the citation is there and the owner has not complained?
I think i have a fair reason to contact Wikipedia to get their view given that the article editing has come parallel with the Australian housing market slump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm very curious that you say "none of us". Who is us? I'm also a bit baffled by the "you know who" comment. I don't know who.
Anyway, it's best to make comments regarding the article on the article talk page. The page you are leaving messages on now is my user talk page. Nobody much looks here unless they want to leave me a message directly.
Having said all that, I will try to answer your questions. First off, the way I define neutral is not really important. What's important is the wikipedia policy. If you follow that link, you'll see wikipedia's policy for "Neutral Point Of View" which is one of the "five pillars" of wikipedia.
For the images, there is a problem. The images are copyright and we cannot use them on wikipedia, even with attribution. You can see the rules on copyright here and you can see a discussion that I had about them here.
There is nothing that would stop you from contacting wikipedia. There are various noticeboards that you can post to that will come to the attention of an administrator. If you are specifically worried about a conflict of interest, I recommend that you first read this so that you can understand what is considered a conflict of interest by wikipedia. For example, someone may be considered to have a conflict of interest if they represent a group or organisation that promotes a particular point of view. If someone edit articles while involved with organisations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.
By way of illustration, a number of folks from the fringe advocacy group "Prosper" appear to have edited the Australian property bubble article. I would be very concerned about the ability of such folks to maintain a neutral point of view given their activist approach.
Finally, please feel free to edit the article yourself. Make sure that anything you add is neutral and verifiable. I'm happy to help if you want advice on matters that may or may not be appropriate for the article.
best regards --Thepm (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow you specifically refer to a group called Prosper Australia? and you doubt their ability to be neutral contributors, what about all the other contributions before the members of prosper may have started editing? This article existed for a long long time before you started editing.i regularly check the article and all i can do is laugh at the length certain people go to edit an article under the guise of so called neutral contributors.some people are far from being neutral mate but that's OK. This is my last message here. good luck to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Heh. I thought so. Good luck to you too. --Thepm (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Amway COI[edit]

Thanks for your advice. Not sure if responding on my own talk page notifies you? so here it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by Financeguy222 (talkcontribs) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Word of the Week[edit]

Page created. All invited. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Where am I?[edit]

I am travelling for business over the next week or so (Japan and Malaysia). I will still be around but a little slower to respond than usual. かんぱい! Thepm (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

comment re merge of Australian Property Bubble with Australian Property Market[edit]

Comment: I am not sure if the Aus property bubble page needs to be merged with the Aus property market. There are 14 other pages covering property bubbles in other countries so including Aus in that group seems logical. However, if someone can build up the page 'Aus property market' and indicate where the Aus property bubble might sit that would be worth considering.Justdata4wiki (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Justdata4wiki 17 May 2011

Climategate page stuff[edit]

Haven't seen you there for awhile -- can't imagine why not ;-[

Anyway, have a look at [3] for an interesting development -- which might be your chance to get your proposed revisions back on track. Go for it! Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Fewer scientific problems are so often discussed yet so rarely decided by proofs, as whether climatic relations have changed over time." -- Joachim von Schouw, 1826.

Thanks for the notice (I have taken the article off my watchlist and wouldn't have seen it otherwise), but I think I might pass. The page is very poorly written and all I would be interested in would be making it more readable. The problem of course is that everyone that edits there is first and foremost interested in which "team" other editors are editing for. I doubt very much that any changes made by me would last very long as I am not willing to join one of the teams.
It's a shame that an entire subject area has reached such a point, but it's not uncommon in wikipedia. Subject areas such as alternative medicine, religion/creationism and, of course climate are dominated by teams. The teams are usually those people who hold an orthodox view and they are almost invariably correct scientifically, but this seems to render them incapable of editing dispassionately when it comes to political or historical matters related to their subject.
I have no doubt that any changes that I make will be effectively (if not actually) reverted in three weeks time. best regards --Thepm (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, weel, you were off to a good start until a Certain Editor hijacked the page. IMO of course....
I occasionally think about trying to clean up the Hockey stick controversy page, which is just as bad... I'm afraid Wikipedia's just not the place to go for reasonable CC info. Too bad. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Australian Property Bubble[edit]

Hello, did you make a decision on the Australian Property Bubble article? I support your suggestion to merge it with the other Australian housing article. Silly to have an article about a bubble until after it bursts. Until it bursts there's no way to know it's even a bubble, rather than just a regular boom or normal price activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a classical music edit-a-thon Saturday week (13 October) in Sydney. The theme will be Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown between 8-14 October. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online during the countdown. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/October 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using to all users in Sydney)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using to all users in Sydney)

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 10:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using to all users in Sydney)

Sydney September 2013 edit-a-thon invite[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate Sanctions Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Everyone gets this. Cheers.--Jorm (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I had no idea the topic even existed until a few hours ago. Seems rather hotly contested :) Thepm (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Thepm. 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)