User talk:Rdgboulder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Rdgboulder! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

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:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, 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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: Description of IEEE paper reverted[edit]

Hi, Rdgboulder,

> Anybody else? -- Me, too.

> There is no way to evaluate if it is a "significant event in the history of the controversy" without secondary sources. -- No way indeed, imo, unless ones dares to switch on ones brain, that is. --- Greetings from VIE: Wda (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]