User talk:AttackOfTheSnailDemons

Please be aware of the sanctions[edit]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigarette edits[edit]

Your recent editing history at electronic cigarettes‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

You are accusing me of harassment without supporting evidence.[1] See Wikipedia:Harassment#Accusing_others_of_harassment. Thanks you. QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you stop accusing me of harassment. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant text and removal of well source material[edit]

Your edit added redundant text and deleted sourced material. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Duplication_and_removal_of_well_sourced_material. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru[edit]

Go away. Do not post anything here. Quit bothering me.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]