User talk:TWM03

TWM03, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TWM03! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Masumrezarock100 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in . Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding a couple topic areas:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 18:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Guideline Proposed which you might be interested in

Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Wikipedia:Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Majid Nawaz Edits

The edits that I made are all correctly sourced, which I believe you are well aware of. I'm not sure why you are reverting them each time, and I am giving fair warning to stop vandalism on the page.

Unless you can substantiate your points, which other editors of the page have not reverted and agreed that the citations used were accurate, I will report this to the WP:AIV account as an ongoing act of vandalism.

Reasoned disagreement is absolutely welcomed. Reverting changes you are unhappy with simply for that fact is not. Sscloud21 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The edits I made are not "vandalism". You added a statement linking his dismissal from LBC to COVID-19 conspiracy theories with no citation, so I removed it. Then you added it back with a citation, but the citation does not mention "COVID-19" or "conspiracy theories" once. These edits were justified, and I see no evidence that any other editor agrees with you. Reporting me would be a clear misuse of the service since I am obviously not a vandal. I also ask you not to engage in personal attacks against me as you did when you accused me of being a "pro-Nawaz actor" and your accusation that I assume is against me of being "right wing". TWM03 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep undoing the edits. You say talk page consensus, but the consensus is that his conspiratorial views need to be reflected in the article, and incidentally the fact that he was dismissed from LBC following them.

The citations do support the edits, which I know that you know. What I don't know is why you keep undoing them in the face of the talk page consensus and the correct citations. Sscloud21 (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If you really thought that my objections were baseless, you would not have changed the content you were adding in based on my objections.

There is a talk page consensus to add some content on his conspiratorial views, but there is no consensus for the specific edits you have made. You will notice that I have never reverted your description of him as a "conspiracy theorist", for example, because that is explicitly stated in the source you provided.

Although the version of the article that exists now is closer to an accurate representation of the sources than your previous edits, you are still making inferences from the sources in a way that is not proper for Wikipedia. The Press Gazette source, for example, does not mention him espousing "conspiracy theories" or even say that he was dismissed at all. However, something similar that you could say (based on the Jewish Chronicle article) is that "LBC cancelled his show after he stated anti-vaccine views" because this is stated explicitly in the source. Do you understand the difference?

Regarding your statement about Quilliam, your use of the terms "self-proclaimed" and "purported" function as MOS:SCAREQUOTES and should not be on Wikipedia, especially without a source that uses them, because it compromises our WP:NPOV policy.

I don't know if you followed through on your threat to report me for vandalism, but if you want to report this there are better places (I have already made comments in WP:WikiProject Politics and WP:BLPN), since this is not a case of obvious vandalism.

TWM03 (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

To keep the discussion about the content in a central place, I'd recommend describing any further concerns about the content at Talk:Maajid Nawaz. User talk pages are helpful for discussing user conduct, but the only conduct issue I have seen so far is edit warring, and that seems to have stopped. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)