Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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 , 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 that 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.

Template:Z33 Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thats what I am doing, I am not trying to "push" anything, I am pointing out why it is wrong to say "its debunked" while it clearly is not. you can write alleged child sex ring, which would be more fitting instead of "debunked". debunked means clearly fake theory without any reasonable doubt. that single creepy email which I copied is more than enough. and there are hundreds more similar to that. and dont threaten me with block because I asked questions on the talk page.

Lets look at your logic, why would someone tell someone else they had left a handkerchief behind.

Well for a start "Look I am a sales person who really cares about you as a client", and yes I happen to work for somewhere that would contact someone over lost property for that very reason. That is far more logical then "map of a Pizzaplace" being code for "buggering children". And remember I am not talking about supposition here, I am talking about actual personal experience (and thus this is a fact). The E-mail was not creepy, it was just overzealous, but then they were trying to sell him a house.

And yes RS have no doubt this is a fake theory (with very good reason), the only thing that has not been proven beyond any doubt to be false are claims that words like Pizza, Ice cream and cheese are codes (would you want the police to read your e-mails if they assumes the use of any of these words were code pedophilia?). that (however) has also not be proven to even a slight degree of believably (see above).

And I did not threaten you with a block, I said you might be blocked if you continue on the course you were taking (and you did indeed end up with a warning).Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<BLP violation redacted>

there are a lot of connections in the smoke. and obviously you cant easily prove it as they probably own the media you want to hear from. but I am looking forward to the day when this will be public information then we will yet again witness how unreliable wiki is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.244.234 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the email? It clearly say (and I quote) "The realtor found a handkerchief" note realtor (a person who sells real estate) not "pizza guy" (and the same e-mail contains this "yorus"). So as to the second e-mail, ever heard of typos? Hell you may well be right, maybe it is a code so can you show how this has been decoded? For all you know it may be code for a political campaign, or underhand bribe, or a typo. How can I take your claims seriously when you ignore your own evidence.

The simple fact is you (nor anyone else) has provide more then a claim it refers to pedophilia. I have provide equally valid explanations. So until someone comes up with some actual evidence we can asses it is not a valid theory. Thus all that has to be debunked is the actual evidence provided.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are you editing out accurate data from the Steppenwolf site, a reference was cited and its part of the history of the band

what you did was to have a series of empty citation tags, no cite was given.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok help me out, how do I get a citation entered ??

I have given you some pointers on your talk page.

this would be a cite ^[1]

But it would fail verification because the actual page linked to does not contain the information.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok well this site contains the information magiccarpetrideinc.com so how do I link it.... help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenBui (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Click on edit (on this discussion, my talk page) and you will see the correct formatting for a cite. By the way, I have changed the cite on the Steppenwolf page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:CS, WP:V, and WP:RS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Thank you for improving this article but to be honest given your comments at ANI I'm slightly concerned you've decided to start following me around. I do hope that isn't the case. WCM_email 19:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to withdraw that suggestion based upon two pages (one of which I have been fairly active on over the last week) and not on the half half a dozen other pages you have edited and I have not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a question not a suggestion. Its not a topic you usually edit, one you've never edited and it happens to be one I edited a short time before. Hence, not an entirely unreasonable question. WCM_email 19:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]