User talk:Tomuchtalk

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Tomuchtalk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Neutrality^talk 19:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alert / note re: edits about and pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people[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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Hi. This is a courtesy alert to let you know that edits about and pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people are subject to special rules on Wikipedia. The box above has more info, and I encourage you to have a read. This alert is purely informational and is given to users who edit in the topic area; it is not a commentary on your edits. Neutrality^talk 19:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note re John Fleming (American politician)[edit]

Please don't engage in edit warring or other inappropriate behavior on this page, or any other. You should also be aware of the three-revert rule. Your threatening comments against Shelfpea are not called for either. Please take a moment to read our policies and guidelines. Neutrality^talk 19:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "John Fleming (American politician)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 April 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning John Fleming (American politician), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

I did not post on talk because there was multiple points made over time and consensus was reached years ago. I think Shelfpea and Neutrality should respect that. There is absolutely no new facts related to this minor issue. Nonetheless, I have now responded to Shelfpea on Talk. I ask that you open mediation. I don't see how one or two late-comers can reverse what was agreed to by consensus.Tomuchtalk (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been lengthy posts on talk by Shelfpea and myself. I was the last to post and that was yesterday. I think our discussion has covered everything and has really nothing to add to the conclusions reached years ago. Can you mediate now, or should I formally request again? Tomuchtalk (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]