User talk:HammerFilmFan

http://freespirit1.wix.com/freespirit#!findus/c2414

--HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo HammerFilmFan,

I answered on the Libya's discussion Page. Anyway, thanks a lot for detecting two errors of mine! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the picture on Susan Atkins page titled "mug shot of Atkins taken after her arrest" is a picture of Susan Atkins.I believe that the picture is of a person who portrayed Susan in issue 20 of Pop Smear magazine. The article recreated the killings in a photo journalist stle and participants were played by Maynard Keenan as Charles Manson as well as Dick Manitoba,Wayne Kramer,Arthur Kane,Texas Terri,Jeff Dahl. I notice that you had similar feelings about the pic. Can you help me with the next step please. Thanks Garwain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garwain (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://freespirit1.wix.com/freespirit#!findus/c2414== MedCab ==

RfC on Red John issue

Hello, I have listed some comments on the case you have filed. You will find them on the case page. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.inlandiapress.com/index.php/2011/05/20/did-patrick-jane-really-kill-red-john-in-season-finale/. Quote by creator of the show saying he is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- and which we now know was either a lie, a mis-quote, or a misunderstanding - as Red John is "alive & well" in the show. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey HammerFilmFan, I saw you undid my edit over on the 2012 Aurora shooting. I'm curious why you did. I added the reference and removed the {{citation needed}} template. Thanks. -- Luke (Talk) 17:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it appears we got into an edit conflict. I'm sorry about that. I re-added my ref. -- Luke (Talk) 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Many times when I press "Save" I get msgs that I am no longer connected to the internet - some sort of delay writing to the server - which is a major pain and probably helps cause that stuff.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the tool bar above the edit window, click cite, then the dropdown box you'll find a template for news articles, it isn't just a weblink. Guidelines say "Citations for newspaper articles typically include:: name of the newspaper in italics,date of publication, byline (author's name), if any, title of the article within quotation marks, city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper,page number(s) are optional. See WP:CTT and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. I think the main thing about the foreign language sources other than we should use English sources where possible is that they didn't seem to pass our RS criteria. I'd still prefer a more mainstream publication than the Washington Times. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post is one of the major papers of the United States, occupying a mindspace somewhat analogous to The Guardian in the United Kingdom (albeit not so far to the political left). The Washington Times is an obscure local paper, founded and owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church (and whoever may be behind them), and with an editorial policy to the far-right even by U.S. standards. Do not confuse the two; and be very cautious about using anything from the Times as a source. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I ever confuse the two? I'm very aware of the standards of both papers. The 'front page' of the Washington Times is very mainstream news. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appeared to be using the Times as if it were a reliable source, so I thought that you had mixed the two papers up. My apologies. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a reliable source for news stories - not the opinion pages, etc., just I certainly wouldn't use the left-leaning Post in such a way.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Back Street Crawler (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) 12:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was correct per my original intentions, thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the same user who was accused of archiving the conversations in the talk page, is the same one that just reverted your edition. As I read he was caught in several lies. It seems as you said that the conversation happened just a couple of months back. The dispute resolution managed the article as he wanted, mostly. I guess he tries to hide how he is in a severe conflict of interest ( Is that dispute a joke? as I read he is a trustee in the board of the Michael Servetus Institute). Can people archive a conversation that is not even 3 months old? In this case it is just biased. A clear try to hide, not protocol--SchuhammerJes (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this conflict of interest was dismissed by a dispute. But still, that does not mean the conversation has to vanish, or should be archived. It just adds more intriguing and ominous weight to the COI discussions.--SchuhammerJes (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. You need to create a User Page/Talk Page, since you are registered. 2. I don't have a dog in that fight, I am just correcting an inappropriate archiving. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HammerFilmFan. I've restored the content you blanked from this talk page archive. Deleting talk page comments is allowed in only very limited circumstances. If you can explain which criterion covers your removal, I will remove the content that needs to go. If you blank, delete or alter talk page content, whether current or archived, without first discussing the matter you jeopardize your editing privilege. I will watchlist this page in the event you have any questions. Regards Tiderolls 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I didn't "blank" anything - the other editor when archiving didn't leave a stub of the last section, which I've had other Admins admonish other users for. The purpose of archiving is so we don't have to scroll-scroll-scroll thru long-dead discussions and can get TP's organized better. The other editor archived a discussion only a couple of months old. I simply 'reduced' the archive to the point of July or so. I see many other editors were upset with him at the time for closing it out in that fashion - I don't have an opinion on the arguments between the editors, haven't edited the article - just noticed it on "On This Day," went to read it, checked out it's TP, and saw what had happened, and adjusted it. But there does appear to be some serious disagreement going on about that article (see above section ^). Can you give me a solid reason(s) why adjusting the archive to allow the most recent discussions, which are hardly very long (you want to see long active Talk Pages - see some of the Balkan articles!) and allows new readers to possibly join the discussion without having to bring forward an archive that basically is still 'active'? I don't believe the Archive Template was created to make things harder for users. Btw, as far as editing TP's - you do realize that violations of the TP rules allow ANY user to delete content that serves no purpose (vandalism that is totally off-topic, kids going on there and posting "Lisa loves Tommy," etc.) - so a blanket statement about that is not accurate. Heck, Jimbo Wales had that in one of his discussions. But that's another issue altogether.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no "adjustment"; the content was deleted and was not placed back on the current page. While other editors may have objected to the archiving, the archiving took place 60 days ago and it would appear that those editors have not followed up on their objections. If you have objections to the archiving your first course is to discuss the matter. Not only did you not discuss the situation, you deleted the post of the editor that approached you with discussion. When a discussion is archived it should not be altered; in those instances that require some change please be prepared to answer the good faith inquiries of other editors regarding your actions. Tiderolls 23:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! I just moved the last discussions to current Talk Page - three sections, I believe - if they are gone now, I didn't do it! I verified the page before I stopped messing with it. Ok, will discuss the matter in future, but was following what other Admins have said in the past. Shrugs.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do see where you placed the content into the current talk page now; I missed that on my first check. I will be removing those discussions as they are archived. Tiderolls 00:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya gave me a computer-heart-attack!  :-) I started to think something very serious had happened with Wiki source-code there for a minute. Anyway, glad this is settled.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:Kazuba#November 2012, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it.
* Especially when your unsigned edit, coming immediately after mine, may make it seem that I did it! ()- 220 of ^Borg 02:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to "talk" to the Wiki servers - "they" lost my sig. This and loss of edit summaries has been a prob recently - you hit "save page" - the update takes forever - and often stuff has been getting lost. It's irritating.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, AGF. I'll go 'harass' Jimbo instead! I have noticed that updating seems slow, but my Internet connection/PC is a bit slow anyway. Oh, I signed for you at Kasubas Talk page, hope that's OK! - 220 of ^Borg 08:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 November 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Xenoceratops, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Bongwarrior (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be the first time I have tried to talk some sense into him, but sadly I didn't get far. If you think that his omission of edit summaries in that case was contrary to Wikipedia policies (in addition to the obvious disregard for the edit summary manual), you should ask an uninvolved administrator for help at WP:DRN or WP:ANI or WP:AE or similar forums. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do in fact post on a noticeboard so that others may attend to it, I'm not the end-all solution to all of your problems :) simply because I don't have infinite free time to address absolutely everything. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a blatant violation of policy, WP:ANI is a good choice. If it's a content dispute, use WP:DRN. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did that with valid reason. The deleted content is the academic garbage and that was just the small part of the junkyard. The article itself represents one sided view of the scientific community whose serbocroatistic blunderviews are obsolete, proved wrong and the time has run over such notions. I am not going to engage in any edit wars since it is pointless to fight against the moderator(s) whose been paid for the talibanic assault on this article. The article now is ordinary serbocroatistic onanism, rude ignoring of the reality, rude ignoring of Croatian science and Croatian speakers. Fortunately for me, in the meantime I was informed by my community about what encyclopedic violence was done here and warned about what might happen to me if I involve myself into editing and lose my time invain hopelessly trying to explain the basic things. I saw the talk page of the article Croatian language and the reverts been done on the article and I am 100% convinced that the expelled Croatian editors were right. The form of that article as it looks now was not formed with the editors' consensus, but by the rude misuse of the tools of an admin who was desysopped in the meantime and his gang. A decade long experience of mine from the forums tells me that there is a swarm of his sockpuppets and meatpuppets that is defending this article in all possible ways, reverting, sending warnings, creating false support to his view etc. The Wikipedia in English is rapidly losing its editors, with one of the highest rates of abandoning and it is obvious why. Rikovers (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

um ... yeah

What was your reason for this removal? Tiderolls 02:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

revert it - mistake in trying to copy it HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the drama. I was just trying to edit back in the two citations you'd removed, and add in a third one.

Bearian (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was delicious!  :-) No drama - just a day in the life of a Wikipedian! HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Which part do you take offense to? It's all properly sourced. ChakaKong^talk 16:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to leave these details out - that's why I said "Read the Talk Page(s) for the article. You'll be reverted by multiple editors again if you go against Consensus.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing this consensus you're referring to. ChakaKong^talk 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking, it's there.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija ‎, you may be blocked from editing. bobrayner (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No disruptive editing at all, cited references, this article is a content-fork anyway for a whole Serb-nationalist POV that should have been killed to start with. False accusations are not appreciated on my User Page, please cease from doing that again. Nor are you an Admin, and in no place to make any "threats." HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I came down a bit too heavily there; sorry. I would agree with you that the article is a serb-nationalist content fork; but writing about Kosovo's separation from Serbia being enforced by external actors with bigger arsenals is part of the problem, not part of the solution. (We have plenty of other content which pretends that the recent violence in Kosovo only started when NATO dropped bombs; pretends that Kosovo's history starts in 1913; &c.) bobrayner (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in using Wiki to solve international problems, because 1) it can't and 2) that's not an encyc's job - the project is to use Reliable Sources to accurately reflect the article's subject matter. My edits are scrupulously NPOV at all times. If you don't agree, well, isn't that a pity. Contain your discussions (concerning me, anyway) about topics on the article's TP.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text you removed about the "widespread" viewing of DVDs is, indeed, highly dubious. Unfortunately, apologists have a history of making even more dubious attempts to paint a positive picture of life in North Korea. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Well, those who think it's such a wonderful place are always invited to emigrate. What? Google's "chilling affect" result? Yeah.  :-) And let's remember to take the wife and kids to sunny NK for vacation, where they can roam free, take unrestricted pictures, and feel that balmy wind off of Siberia.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only people who have never been to the beautiful Democratic People's Republic of Korea spew such hate-filled bile about the country. --TheSupremeLeader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.239.208 (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up.  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Cyprus does not have de facto sovereignty over the whole island; it has de jure sovereignty over the whole island (with the exception of the British bases and other British sites), but de facto sovereignty only in the south. The TRNC has de facto sovereignty in the north. I've reverted your edit. Thanks, --Lfdder (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - my edit was mixed up with another one I was trying to do, sorry. However we need a better source than Britannica.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RoC is a UN member state and claims sovereignty over the whole island. Its territory was originally stipulated in Article 1 of the treaty for its establishment. I don't know what else you might be looking for? --Lfdder (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki frowns on the use of other encyclopedias and prefers secondary sources at all times. Britannica should just be a stopgap.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WPNOTRS. I think it is acceptable here. --Lfdder (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - ok for now but a better source is needed - don't remove the tag.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You may have participated in a prior informal discussion on changing the title of 2013 Russian meteor event.

This discussion has been closed in favor of a formal Requested Move.

You are invited to comment on the formal discussion here.

Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think I've ever edited either your user page or your user talk page before, and I sure I wouldn't leave a message that just said "okay".

That said, I'm glad you've recovered from your surgery. DS (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, that's what it said. Weird. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: [2]. You want the talk, not the old GA1 subpage, I think... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timur#Who was .22Kurgan.22 .3F. Peaceray (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Resolved template page itself, I used it correctly: the resolution applies to the section, not to specific comments within the section; and putting it at the top can save people from wasting time reading about an already-resolved issue. And I used the blockquote in accordance with how blockquotes had been used elsewhere on that same TP (and in accordance with how they are almost universally used). Also, if you're going to correct other people's posts on TPs, you should follow the rules yourself: you didn't sign your post. AudiblySilenced✉ 20:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry if I'm coming off rude. I really don't mean to! Even if I disagree with your edit, I know you were just trying to be helpful. AudiblySilenced✉ 20:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not called "Doug". See the top of my userpage. --Dweller (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry!  :-D HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good move removing the anti-Israeli remark from Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17‎. Want to now work on removing every anti-Russian remark? HiLo48 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was totally off-topic and that editor is using Wiki to push a personal agenda, and has already been warned about this.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've re-reported him to the disciplinary Administrator.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Want to report User: HammerFilmFan. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you - I've made my only reply to this "discussion" HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And said reporter has now been blocked.  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page history is a great place to look to see who leaves unsigned comments and posts. I have added the {{unsigned}} template to both posts of the IP that posted the edit request and the Original research noticeboard.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the IP address should always appear on the TP also - something's gone whacky with Wiki project software recently - I'm seeing this more and more.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has to sign just as much as a user does. If they don't, it doesn't show up. And Wiki projects don't have software. They're just projects on Wikipedia.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I am not signed in, my IP always showed up on any TP comments I made. I am referring to the software that powers the Wikipedia in general - whatever database/GUI is being used.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever ~~~~ are used. When they are omitted, nothing appears. A perfect demonstrations is right now.

Listen ... in the PAST, when I was NOT signed in, nor used the four tildas, my IP was always registered. I know the database is constantly being amended, and perhaps this is the result of such.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with something like that. I was an IP myself too.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 04:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a move of 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa has been formally requested. I'd invite you to submit your comments. --Natural R_X 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened, but I'm sorry that we started off this way. Looking over your editing history, I'm not seeing any prior experience with editing articles with health claims, so this could be the very first time you ever encountered a WP:MEDRS-related dispute. I see you've worked on WP:BLP-related articles, so you know that we have policies and guidelines that go beyond WP:V and WP:RS. MEDRS is similar to BLP in that it requires better quality sources than what's mentioned in V and RS. However, MEDRS is far more specific than BLP. If a MEDRS dispute is not resolved through normal editing and discussions on the article talk page, then WP:RSN is the noticeboard to turn to for assistance, though talk pages for related WikiProjects like WikiProject Medicine are often used as an intermediate step in dispute resolution. Again, sorry that our first time working together went so badly. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Saw very, very little of that at all . . . when another editor's views differ from yours, that doesn't make it a POV issue, per se. I've noticed editors with left-wing leanings doing several knee-jerks on articles of this nature - you'll just have to live with the fact that in the U.S., the vast majority of people are 'center-right', and this will be reflected in the RS that they choose to cite."

Alas, too bad they don't vote that way -- especially scary political realignments in New Hampshire and Virginia, both on the verge of going from purple to blue. Quis separabit? 21:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly did in the last mid-terms.  :-) But that's neither here nor there. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you .... HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User:Taivo is now User:TaivoLinguist. Their original user page has been replaced by someone from another wiki. From your comments there, it looks like you were as confused as I was. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kwamikagami Yes, this change happened about 10 years ago (give or take a few). Apparently someone on another language Wiki (I seem to recall it was the Finnish or Estonian wiki, but my memory is vague that far back) predated my use of "Taivo", so I had to change my formal name although it's still easier to use the short form in most discussions. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might go 'hood' and just refer to him as 'Vo.  :-)

What about "Tav-man" - like a hip paleo dude? :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NO

removed rubbish

I responded to a pro-liberal comment and have not harrassed anyone. "Safe environment" indeed. Pfft. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post that nonsense here!