User talk:ASCIIn2Bme

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Have mörser, will travel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Acroterion   (talk)   18:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion nomination of John Maxson Stillman


A tag has been placed on John Maxson Stillman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at John Maxson Stillman
- SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was editing the article. I didn't know what the "db-person" template meant. I thought "db" stood for database. The article cites academic journal sources that obviously state the importance of this person "a pioneer of the history of science in the United States", a claim which has been reproduced in the Wikipedia article. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Seoul Land
What was your rationale for removing the speedy deletion tag from Seoul Land? Where is there any indication of significance? Inks.LWC (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's included in many travel guides for Korea. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet you have yet to provide more than one reliable source for the article. If it is truly significant, you should source it and then remove the speedy deletion tag. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule somewhere that articles need to have more than one reliable source? And is there a rule that the speedy deletion tag can only be deleted afterwards? From CSD#A7 it seems the opposite is the case: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But the article did NOT make a claim of significance. That was the problem.  And when I tagged the article, it had no references and only stated that it was an amusement park, which clearly does not make any claim of significance.  When you removed the tag, the article still had no claim of significance and did not have any references. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. That was three days ago. I hope you're not objecting to the current article. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No - the article as it stands now is a good stub. But for you to tell me that it shouldn't have been tagged as such when I originally tagged it is ridiculous. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've added more references to the article. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at your talk page and edit history, you seem to have significant trouble understanding or following deletion rules. Perhaps you should slow down from tagging for deletion umpteen articles per hour, and spend more time improving articles. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Gunpowder

 * That was user supervised bot edit. At first change 'wrong' links at de.wiki before undoing and complaining. If de:Schießpulver links to articles about en:Gunpowder then article "Gunpowder" should link to "Schießpulver". But if you add some links to one article, some to other you just make confusion. Hugo.arg (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The de wiki link is not wrong. In modern German Schießpulver means firearm propellant for which there is no exact English Wikipedia article match. Before the advent of smokeless powders and nitrocellulose explosives, Schwarzpulver was sometimes subdivided in Sprengpulver (blasting powder) and Schießpulver (shooting powder, in direct translation) based on intended usage with small variations in formulation.  Since them, Schießpulver became generic to include other kinds of "shooting powder" and Sprengpulver became generic for all kinds of explosives. You should not code your bot or make your edits expecting natural languages to have 1:1 match for all terms. Also, in your post above the English is rather poor, so perhaps you should not be the one engaging in such tasks, bot-assisted or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know

 * I have replied on the noticeboard and on the article's talk page. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, discussing you qualifications and reputation as a historian is not prohibited by WP:NPA. In the absurd case that it were so, it would be impossible to follow WP:NPOV as the content in this case is sourced from your book. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

About Seoul Land.
I've finished uploading the picture in Wikimedia Commons. Sorry for the late reply. -- User:Bart0278 ( talk  ·  cont. ) 04:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Don't worry about the delay. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear lord, please learn to use the preview button.
Please please please learn how to use the preview button. The revision history of William Muir is an absolute mess because you have made ~75 edits in the last two days, and most of them are minor wording changes. Saving every minor change makes review of your edits nearly impossible, and will often lead to rollbacks and reverting to previous versions. Please preview every edit you make to an article, and make sure that consecutive edits are substantive. A single incident of making a substantive edit followed by a minor change is significantly different from several dozen in a row. VanIsaacWScontribs 11:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "will often lead to rollbacks and reverting to previous versions." That has never happened to me before. The only time it happened is when someone strongly disagreed with part of the (sourced) contents. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact Editing policy says something that jibes with my common sense: that in controversial articles large changes (rather than incremental ones) are more likely to be reverted. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, the history tab allows one to select a grup of time-contiguous edits and see them as one diff, so the argument that reviewing multiple consecutive edits by one editor is much more difficult than reviewing a single large edit is rather tenuous. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will however strive toward the Bradspeak diff-friendly discourse; it might take me a lifetime to get there though... Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
 Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you've sent me this because of my edits at Upper Trajan's Wall. Alas, I don't have much expertise in the area, but I investigated that article due to alleged manipulation from an irredentist and banned user. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

redirection
"I'm concerned about what is going on at Allied Intervention in Hungary; basically WP:SYNT in order to push a POV, which is mostly about the title, but also involving plain misuse of sources, cited to say the opposite of what they actually state. See this diff (multiple consecutive edits by the same user) as a good example of the problem. I left a comment on the talk page there as well. I don't think this is something ANI can handle, because it requires an editor to read history sources carefully, like yourself :-)"
 * However, the redirection was justified in my opinion. If you see the original text of the page, that was about historical movements in 1918-20. It had nothing to do with 1848.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be happy If you proposed a new title for the article. Here:Talk:Allied_Intervention_in_HungaryFakirbakir (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The theme of Interventions in Hungary(1918-20) had no page . The original page for this was redirected to ???1848???. Originally I intended to expand the article of Hungarian Romanian War 1919, because the Hungarian-Czechoslovak war and the Hungarian-Serb conflict have no page. So I proposed a renaming process for it to Hungarian war of 1919. I know this title was not a best solution and we are short on English sources about it. One article could negotiate everything in connection with this theme ('Interventions'). When I saw this proposal is pointless I 'recreated' the 'Allied intervention in Hungary' page'. I did not want to misuse with the sources, It is my fault, I did not read the sources properly (I am not English). It should be a 'summary' page about these subjects. Maybe 'Interventions in Hungary (1918-20) would be better title.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am working on an article on the Czechoslovak-Hungarian War of 1919. It should be ready in a few days. The information available in English is rather sketchy. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Thanks for clarifying what's going on with your comment on the talk page.

I'm surprised that a simple footnote, copied from WP:EQ would be so disputed, but I'll let you work it out with others on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Something less elaborate but identical in intent was added by the same editor a couple of days ago, and was reverted by a third editor. Not every bad example from a guideline belongs in a policy. That policy has in fact enough of those already. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And guess what: I violated the guideline by calling its examples bad! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy as written is about making improper comments about others. I think it would be helpful to expand it to include improper personal comments in general. I haven't looked into the policy history to see what attempts have been done to do this in the past...
 * In general, Wikipedia has a very poor history of creating policies and guidelines related to civility, and has an even poorer history of enforcing them.
 * Glad to see some new eyes on it! --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note
I'm removing all the policies and guidelines from my watch list, effective immediately. I came to the conclusion that editing there is a serious time drain and found the atmosphere rather unpleasant. I have no intention to spend 95% of my wiki time in sterile arguments about some wording that hardly ever gets enforced, especially arguing with "policy wonks" who seem to hardly ever edit any article. The only way to keep up with them is probably to become like them, and I have no intention of doing that. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability
I may be reading my own views into your comments, but something you wrote on the talk page struck me as very constructive. it had something to do with avoiding a knee-jerk view of "reliable sources." I do not believe there is any problem with the "... not truth" formula; I think many of the problems have to do with a naive and sloppy application of Reliable Sources. You may not agree with me about the truth thing, but I think we agree that the guidelines on using sources needs a lot of work. Too many editors think that any publication is sufficient to establish a source as reliable. I do not even believe that an article by a PhD in a peer-reviewed journal is necessarily reliable for anything more than "X believes Y." An article written by an acknowleged expert in a top journal may nevertheless express a fringe theory, or speculation - one has to wait for time to pass to see if the view ends up accepted by peers as significant or mainstream. Similarly after many years great research can be proven wrong or surpassed. Finally, an article that is a top scholarship may contain within it statements which are speculative, tangential, opinion. To be able to draw these distinctions one must read a LOT more than most editors here are willing to read ... but I think our RS guidelines need to provide criteria for distinguishing between these kinds of claims. My point is that a source may be reliable for some things but not others. based on your recent comments I think you might agree... Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

talk page guidelines on the talk page guidelines talk page
Things calmed down after I noted that we had found a point of agreement, and for the last couple of days I have ignored a discussion in which I have no involvement. Just now I checked back, only to discover a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'm sorry, but being literal and objective is my primary mode of communication, which seems to irritate you intensely. So I'll skip the analysis and get right to the point, do you want to back off and clean up the talk page, or should I take this to ANI and request a topic ban be imposed on you at WT:TPG and WP:TPG? Unscintillating (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have redacted some of your comments, and I have done the same following your request above, leaving only what I think are the on-topic parts of my posts. Let me know if anything left still bothers you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please be aware that changing your own post that I had replied to without ever notifying me that you have done that, even if done in good faith, is an action in slight violation of WP:REDACT: "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. [...] Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps: Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text. [...]". Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Corrections. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. JeffJ (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a fake warning with no diff. I've removed a WP:PROD notice, which I'm allowed to. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI
In case you missed it an admin is in the process of closing the AfD discussion. Please read the message in the banner. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the small print! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

AGF
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:JeffJ. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''On the Articles for deletion/Corrections, I made it very clear to you that you had placed the citation in the wrong place within the paragraph. Once you corrected your error, I acknowledged the correction and have not since removed the citation. Since then, posting a 3-revert rule warning on my talk page smacks of violating WP:AGF. I would remind you also that the material to attached the citation to is obviously plagiarized from the source.'' JeffJ (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First you removed the reference which had a page needed tag as "non-citation". I did assume good faith that you were merely confused, and for the record, the poorly formatted reference had been added by someone other than me. Then you removed the enhanced citation claiming that it doesn't mention Department of Corrections, which actually it does. Quote from source: "correction [...] 3. (usu. pl.) The punishment and treatment of a criminal offender through a program of imprisonment, parole and probation ." (The angle brackets and italics are in original. Page xxvi in the 9th ed. explains "6. Angle Brackets[:] Contextual illustrations of a headword are given in angle brackets".) Then you found a reason to revert which beggars belief, namely that the source doesn't contain the exact sentence about many US states. Leaving aside that the Black's Law Dictionary is about the US, the fact you contested doesn't even need a citation. Perhaps you should nominate Department of Corrections for deletion as well, because there are slight variations in terminology, "Correctional" instead of "Corrections" etc., and there's no source cited saying that they are all really, really Department of Corrections. And going back to your edits, you repeatedly removed the citation for the entire paragraph, the rest of which is less than obvious, but was surely well supported by the citation. Finally, you reverted my WP:EW warning as as "vandalism". You're exhibiting a lot of good faith. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm also amused how on one hand you complain above about plagiarism, and on the other you continue to delete references claiming that the text I added to Wikipedia does not follow the sources cited close enough.  I can't ever do anything that meets your high standards, it seems. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm mistaken, when you copy and paste copyrighted material (such as that found in Black's Law Dictionary) verbatim, you are plagiarizing. Unless, of course, you place the pasted text into quotes and directly cite the source, as in: According to Black's Law Dictionary, corrections is defined as...quote, unquote. Just copying and pasting - even with a reference - is just lazy. And bad writing of the worst kind. I don't believe you're the original plagiarizer, but now you're defending it. --JeffJ (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyright violation and plagiarism are related, but not the same concept. Plagiarism means that the ideas or expression thereof are passed on as original. The Pirate Bay has copyright violations in spades, but hardly any plagiarism as they don't bother hiding that they're merely ripping off others' intellectual property. By definition, WP:Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; every idea published in Wikipedia is a "ripoff" from someone else. So the only cause for concern is plagiarism of expression, which when extensive constitutes copyright violation. A simple sentence, like the one with the subject ("corrections") and object ("imprisonment, parole and probation") both of which are difficult to restate without changing their meaning substantially, is very unlikely to be considered copyright violation in any court of law. You should note that it appears in many books that don't cite anyone for that fact, nor do they put it in quotes. Anyway, the current version doesn't even have that sentence anymore. ¶ If copyright violation was your concern, you should have changed or removed the text, instead of removing the citation. Removing the citation ironically turned it into plagiarism by erasing any attribution. ¶ Anyway, I've also changed the grandfathered definition of correctional system. You're welcome to improve it further. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I only removed the citation while it was positioned badly in the article. Once it was moved to the more appropriate location I've left it intact. Nice try though.--JeffJ (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry
Thank you so much for helping me. Like removing a stumbling block from in front of a blind person, really. Aharon (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AFC
 Chzz  ► 04:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Hi Have mörser, will travel. You participated in Village pump (policy), which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Village pump (policy), it pertains to Request close and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

VPR
Just a comment about your comments on the VPP, every single edit that I make I review before saving and its not a bot. ΔT The only constant 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you, but the proposals are to allow you to do repetitive stuff (aka patterns) some of which are normally done by bots, so semi-automated tasks is probably a good way do describe it. From WP:BOTPOL: "While such contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot, if there is any doubt, you should make an approval request." ʔ (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He is clearly using the RefLinks general fixes tool in script format. That does not constitute bot activity. It would be considered bot activity if he were making a large number of edits in a short period of time. He was not, he was carefully reviewing each edit before saving the page, per his restrictions. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RefLinks and a lot of additional cleanup items. But yes I was reviewing them before saving, and have preformed over 8,200 such edits with this account. ΔT The only constant 20:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And some of the examples provided for you have been less than convincing . Uʔ (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

VP Thread
While I am not required to inform you, I am doing the kindness of letting you know that an issue that concerns you is being discussed at Village pump (proposals).  S ven M anguard  Wha?  08:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is only tangentially related, but could you create some redirects to your name (one of mine for instance), to assist those who don't know how to type the glottal stop? → Σ  τ  c . 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is there's a different SUL for User:Glottal stop who edits on Polish Wikipedia—see my user page. I've requested my account to be renamed again to an ASCII one because having this distinctive user name is not worth all the drama it has caused. Uʔ (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the community should have full trust in the renaming bureaucrat's judgement of renaming. → Σ  τ  c . 08:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikmedia and other development projects
Hello ASCIIn2Bme. You are User:Have mörser, will travel, and also  operate other accounts, and under all of them you apparently  do not feel welcome here anymore. Perhaps you could take a moment  to  consider why. You state: The essence of Wikipedia is that's just a social club for script kiddies or IRC buddies to run roughshod over fools who try to contribute here -  in  my  opinion your various comments under your  multiple identities exacerbate the very  issues you  complain  about. You have already  been requested to  adopt  some good faith, and I  would ask  you  to  accept  that  in  spite of the number of seemingly  childish contributors who  try  to  use the encyclopedia as a social  networking  site, the majority  of serious registered users are mature adults and university  graduates. The WikiMedia and MediaWiki pages are not Wikipedia, and are for discussing development of the global  Wiki project - any  other comments concerning  routine  editing on  local  Wikipedias, and particularly ones about  the behaviour of individuals are misplaced, are a disruption  to  this process,  and are possible personal  attacks. In addition, you  should read postings before you  cite them incorrectly,  and get  the facts straight  before you  accuse the wrong  people. I will  investigate your use of multiple accounts, and if need be, I  will  not  block  them  directly  myself, but  I  will  open a Sockpupet investigation and let other administrators decide. Do bear  in mind that  a sockpuppet block will  prevent  you  from creating  any  new accounts under other names. I hope you'll take this  message in  the good faith  with  which  it  is intended, and that  pending  this investigation, you  will moderate you  future participation  both here on  Wikipedia, and on  the Foundation  pages. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your post oozes good faith. Please check my user page before wasting others' time with your sock-puppet investigation. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And please explain what you mean by "read postings before you cite them incorrectly". Accusations like that without diffs may be considered uncivil. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will retract  the issue concerning SPI as it appears a name change was authorised just yesterday by a bureaucrat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for you opinion on village pump, I have updated the extension based on that, so that now it doesn't track people who don't want that anymore. Petrb (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubs
You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks please
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fram (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That user has received multiple blocks and bans for disruption, and there's a current discussion to ban him on ANI. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a current discussion to TOPIC ban him, which is a completely different thing. Apart from that: his real or perceived mistakes don't make it allright for you to engage in PAs on him. Fram (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What PA? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, adding "Too much time is wasted pandering to trolls here. Not my cup of tea." after your comments on a user have been reverted is the most recent one. Fram (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain how that statement of mine (on my user page) meets the definition of a WP:PA, and also explain how my comment is substantively different from the comparison of Wikipedia with a Jerry Springer show that the other user engaged in, which is equivalent to saying "you guys collectively don't rise above the level of a Jerry Springer audience". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a personal comment on an editor, and when it gets removed twice (by two different editors), you claim that "Too much time is wasted pandering to trolls here", clearly implying that the editor you commented on is a troll. The other comment, comparing Wikipedia to the Jerry Springer show, is a general remark, not clarly aimed at any specific editor (it would be hard to indicate e.g. which editor is supposed to be Jerry Springer in that comment). Fram (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That comment, which is equivalent to saying "you guys collectively don't rise above the level of a Jerry Springer audience", is coming from an editor who was topic banned from astrology for "poisoning the well"-type comments with other group-level comparisons like comparing those who disagree with him with the KKK. Repeatedly offensive behavior from a long-term Wikipedia user that is enabled by some administrators? Can't be happening except in a Kafka novel, I guess. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Question...
Hi ASCII, when you said "[...]please don't modify a RfC[...]" here, were you referring to me? I do not recall modifying it. And believe me, I would have loved to modify it (if such were permitted) to show its true intent (it's one discussed and rejected on the Muhammad Images talk page for being biased and solely purposed to remove all images due to religious objections with the additional bias of implying all those images have no value). Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  16:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the text of the RfC itself which says that more examples are going to be added later. In the current examples the image used did not seem that incidental to me, as I have commented there. There's a weird disconnect between what the RfC asks and what examples it provides. I don't know if that's the result of further editing or what. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... got it. The indenting and such on that page kinda had me lost. Thanks for the clarification. I was worrying I might have dropped something in an edit conflict or such... (took a chunk of AN/I out during an edit conflict that didnt get caught by the software - fortunately someone else noticed and fixed it). Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence was reopened after a review at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228. I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26 to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions to the parties on the Betacommand 3 arbitration case
Drafting arbitrator User:Kirill Lokshin has posted some questions to the parties. As you are either an involved party or have presented evidence in this case, your input is sollicited. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Smokeless powder
In the absence of explanation on the talk page, I'm puzzled by the globalize tag you added to the Chemical variations section of subject article. Your edit summary included a comment that you doubt something in that section applies to UK practices. That section appears globally neutral to me; although I can see some US bias in the Manufacturing section. In the absence of an alternative explanation or reference supporting the alleged UK difference, I propose to remove the globalize tag after including a main article link to the Cordite article in the Manufacturing section.Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think my edit summary contained sufficient explanation for adding the tag. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then, since you're semi-retired and no longer very active on Wikipedia, I assume we'll just wait for someone who thinks like you do to find your tag and make the corrections you want.Thewellman (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hi ASCIIn2Bme. You participated in Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on. The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

re: December 2011
Haha, seriously? Please read WP:AGF. Jesus wept.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor Jesus, if only he could read Wikipedia... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism in Iran
Hi ASCIIn2Bme, re, note Buddhism in Iran, notably. Cheers, -- J N  466  16:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True, my edit summary was inaccurate read in isolation, but there's only so much space in that box. The removal of that sentence fragment was appropriate though. The Buddhist tradition in Iran had been stomped pretty well at this point. First, the Sasanids were Zoroastrians and didn't tolerate Buddhism, then the came the White Huns and after them the Islamic conquest . "the final demise of Buddhism in Eastern Iran and Afghanistan was caused by the rise of Islam and Arab invasions from the 7th century onwards." The Samanids who later ruled Eastern Iran (where most of the Buddhist centers were) were Sunni and did plenty of conversion themselves . The Mongols were influenced by Buddhism indeed, but not so much from Iran, but rather by Buddhism from further east in their empire, particularly China, with which they had contact way before anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And since you're so fond of the "mainstream Islam" phraseology, I feel like quoting a phrase I serendipitously found: "The Samanids liberated Islam from its narrow Arab bedouin background and mores and made of it an international culture and society. They showed that Islam also was not bound to the Arabic language, and in so doing they earned a significant niche in world history." Cheers. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the source I linked for you, you'll see that you're still quite wrong. Buddhism in Iran ended with Ghazan (d. 1304), who was tutored by a Buddhist and converted to Islam later not out of personal conviction, but out of political expediency; in fact he did not live according to Muslim precepts. (It was Ghazan who appointed Rashid-al-Din, who converted from Judaism for possibly similar reasons and wrote the Jami al-Tawarikh). -- J N  466  22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I find your style of argumentation which essentially consists of stating that (1) I am wrong [somehow], and (2) stating an unrelated fact [with which I in fact agree] quite amusing, but it gets tiresome after a short while. If you dispute any further edits of mine, it's better that we discuss them on the article's talk page, so others may easily take part in the discussion. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

??
I responded to one of your comments to my proposals on the workshop page before realizing that all of your responses are (as best I can tell) nonsensical. At least, I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. can you rewrite your posts in a less elliptical fashion? -- Ludwigs 2 15:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Images manual of style changes
I reverted your commenting out due to your involvement in the Muhammad arbitration case - I think given your involvement there you should let someone else do it.

Feel free to revert me at the end of the case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself. It was copyediting in response to a UK IP address' comments on talk, some of which were well justified. The changes were not substantial in my view. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert all your changes, just the commenting out :). I thought the other changes were just copy editing. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you did at first . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was an accident :o. I presumed you had missed it as I was so quick to revert it ;). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After engaging the ABF engine for a while, I realized why one might think that example may be relevant to the case—figurative images. I agree with you that it was bad form for me to comment that one out, although I've done it because the examples given don't actually exist in Wikipedia articles. Perhaps they were intended as purely hypothetical. You may want to raise that on the talk page there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've done that myself. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I mainly thought the guideline as a whole was relevant to the case and therefore you shouldn't be making substantial changes to it - that has got people into trouble before if they then rely on that section. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the heads up I am correcting it now. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Binding RFCs
I do hope you will consider offering suggestions. It's late here, so I'm off to bed, but I proposed this as one who has observed dispute resolution on WP for nearly four years. It's not perfect, but it could work. We won't know if we don't try. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 10:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation
I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silver seren C 01:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Yone Fernandes (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re DIVA


I notice your first edit was a perfectly executed citation and your 5th was a perfectly executed redirect. Have you edited under another account (not mörser)? Have we met before? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've occasionally edited as an IP before stretching back a few years, and learned that open editing in practice means that IPs get reverted unless they add "perfectly executed" citations. Which are not that hard to produce. As for meeting you before this Muhammad images thing, I don't recall having the pleasure. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U Fae
I have deleted the RFC/U as having been improperly certified, since it was premised on the unproven assertion that Ash and Fae are the same person. You are welcome to create a fresh RFC/U on Fae alone, but it should not include unproven allegations of other identities.  Will Beback   talk    07:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by ASCIIn2Bme and RFC talk page
Just a small question: W.r.t. Talk:Karrine Steffans/Archive 2, you've said that "both sides behaved subpar if one peruses the talk page." Similar sentiment expressed in outside view. While I'm mostly inactive, that's probably not a permanent thing, so I'd appreciate any feedback on my participations. So that I may do better next time, I mean. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the RfC is on Fæ, I thought it wasn't that appropriate to bring up the names of other users, hence my vagueness. Rest assured, I was not referring to you specifically. But comments like 2nd chunk of this with "Making shit up", "bassakwards" or comments on presumed motivations are on the same level of discourse as Fae's reply. ¶ Besides the tone on the talk page, it is actually pretty difficult to find sources for an article like that which aren't immediately dismissible as gossip columns/TV or product [self-] promotions. So it's easy to see the double standards in that discussion where each side was harping on the low quality of the sources the other side was using, while ignoring the quality issues with the sources they wanted to cite. Academic efforts in that area are rather scanty, but I did propose one such source for consideration . I do not have a real interest in the area, so I won't be contributing any further to it, but I do admit I was curious as to whether better sources for something like that existed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Until now, I have been thinking you've been deliberately twisting my intent as a cheap rhetorical device, but when I read this post it occurred to me you are sincere in your belief.

I think I need to explain something clearer than I have. I had no intention of discussing the prevalence of poor social sensitivity on Wikipedia. But when Hans brought it up, in a rather brutal way, and it looked like he was being misunderstood, I felt I should contribute my two cents. I was trying to make the point that an organisation that disregards offensiveness is displaying a trait common to certain types of mental illness, but I was saying nothing about individuals in that debate.

Some individuals that defend that position will suffer from autism or psychopathy but many others will defend the position because, though they have healthy social sensitivity and prefer not to offend, they believe it is wrong to compromise openness in any degree.

I'm worried that you think I believe you or others in the debate are mentally ill: I have no reason to. Or that I am implying it as a rhetorical tactic. I have made no such suggestion. This isn't dog whistling.

I genuinely have no opinion about the mental health of any of the individuals in that debate, except for one, who explained he is on the autism spectrum. I would never suggest or imply such an opinion even if I were ever to form one about an individual. I would appreciate it if you would believe me on this as it is the truth.

As an aside, I believe it is perfectly legitimate to discuss this question, though I can't see it being of any practical use at the project, so would never have introduced it into that discussion myself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re. meh
No problem, chacun a son gout. I've been called everything under the sun during vandalism patrol and still that hit a nerve the size of the Panama Canal. --NellieBly (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

AN/BarkingMoon/CU
Hello there!

It seems my post mixed signals with yourself and SandyGeorgia. I apologize for misunderstanding of my intentions of my post regarding CU information and Rlevse/BarkingMoon. My point was that when we find a CheckUser on SPI to be as Kirill phrased it, "ambiguous", it is sent back to the clerks and admins to process based on behavioral evidence. It is rare that such circumstance as the one that we're involved in currently to happen, and my intention was to focus on gathering behavioral evidence if we want to start a consensus for a sock or not, which never happened previously.

This is the process that is happening now, and I for one appreciate your bringing forward the detailed evidence the community would like to see. I have no position one way or the other on how the community acts, my post was simply to focus discussion. This is also why I annoying posted it three times (sorry about that, everyone), but my reasoning was this spiral thread was tl;drallofitjustparts and I wanted to be sure to note focus for specific subsections. That didn't seem to work so well for yourself and SandyGeorgia, the two working the hardest on this project. I apologize if this inflamed the conversation on both of your parts. I misspoke in emphasis on how view the previous case from last summer, since as noted it was not well documented, and I was accounting from memory.

Happy editing to you, see you around the wiki. Keegan (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The revolution eats its children", but resurrections are possible in this one. . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, many thanks for your good investigative work detailing similarities/differences between the accounts.   You  really  can  09:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced comment?
Thanks - I think I've fixed it.   Will Beback    talk    10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard is for people involved in the kangaroo court (ArbCom members and Clerks). You want Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee or something. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Thanks for the advice. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  16:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm crushed
"By the way, if anyone can imitate My76Strat's elaborate phrases on talk pages, I'd "buy" them a wiki-beer or two. I suspect User:Floquenbeam might succeed if they set their mind on the task" - you at AN or ANI, although I'm not going to try to find the diff.
 * Aack, really? I had no idea I was close to his end of the spectrum. Something to work on, I suppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that My76Strat-like is who you are. Some people have more acting talent than others. Since I wrote that, I've also discovered the skills of User:Bishonen. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation about the Muhammad images RFC
Just to let you know I've opened a request with the Mediation cabal about the Muhammad images RFC. Please see the mediation request if you want to comment. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Translation requests
You may wish to avail yourself of Translation requests, after all, that is part of what Meta is for :) -- Avi (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nemo told me on my meta talk page that RfCs are not translated... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to archives
If you make changes to archives as here you need to indicate that the section had been in the past collapsed or hatted, to allow readers to understand that it was collapsed, but now isn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, noted. I'm not sure what difference it makes since I preserved the note from the collapse tag. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3 closed
An arbitration case regarding Betacommand (Δ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  01:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
 * 2) Betacommand is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
 * 3) After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban.  The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.

Tags
Thanks for your note. I'm pretty confident in the identifications I made. But if you see any that look weak feel free to remove them for now.  Will Beback   talk    12:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There may be larger problems which require outside input, but I suggest we address the more manageable ones locally first.   Will Beback    talk    12:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the comment, but I don't recall participating in any other FARs.   Will Beback    talk    13:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I misinterpreted "Beback continued adding tags in a campaign (see it's history) he's been carrying on for 6 months or so." as involving other articles because of the long alleged time span. I guess he was referring just to that one article then. The other "painful article" in "To keep my sanity, I only allow myself active involvement in one painful article at a time. Unbelievably, an article about merit badges has become a second one, and I'm totally disgusted at what has happened here. I'm leaving." was probably unrelated. I was temporarily confused there because an IP added a post by North8000 (in quotes), so in my first (and mistaken) reading I interpreted that as the IP being the editor involved in two "painful articles", but it was North8000 instead. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

AN comments
I have made subsequent comments at the AN discussion about a topic ban.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

re
I disagree on the "theatrics", but I will say this: If any of that proves to be factual rather than conjecture - then I will indeed apologize in whatever forum you desire. — Ched : ?  21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Per advice from a checkuser, I consider the matter closed until Rlevse decides to return again, if ever. Even then, it will be best to let him explain himself on this before taking any further action. Regards, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed. best wishes. — Ched :  ?  00:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U
I do think there's an ongoing problem with Director's method of engagement with other editors, but as RL is keeping me pretty busy and I'm enjoying the break, I've pulled the draft for the time being. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In lieu of a barnstar...
I added your Cabal of One award (which was excellent btw) to WBb's page, I hope you don't mind. If you do, please feel as free to remove it as I was to "vandalize" Will's userpage. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 09:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider
A premature RFC, before the issue has even been correctly formulated and positioned, is guaranteed to crater anything useful, and is precisely what many of us were worried would happen if a bunch of people started in there. Would you please reconsider holding off on RFC until we know what we're RFCing? RFCs are a better use of everyone's time if they are first well formulated; Nathan's starting point is not. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a request for comments is not necessarily a vote, although the existing discussion was partly that. The proposal to elevate it to policy was simple enough, although the other proposed steps for better enforcement were more nebulous. Before I saw your message here, I had added it to WP:CENT as well. If you disagree with either listing, feel free to revert me. It's a wiki after all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not ready for an RFC-- the proposal is not well formed, and issues should be hammered out first. I'd much prefer that you revert yourself and remove the RFC.  I think that's the best way forward on this, and will result in less unproductive use of time. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done & done. I've deactivated the tag but not removed it completely because you had already commented about it on the talk page there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you-- much appreciated !! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have 2 cents to throw in...
If you're really bored, apparently my changes to that page have stirred up some controversy (after AGK removed my edits and I reverted him), here and now here, if you'd like to add something to the story. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited For Dummies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BitTorrent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Rlevse
Well, of course he was. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Was what? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Compact, pact, contract
There are two different words written and pronounced "compact", based on two different Latin words. One of them does have the meaning of contract or "pact".  J N  466  03:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey there :).

You're being contacted because you participated in a discussion that touched on (or was about) how Wikipedia treats new pages, new editors, and the people who deal with both - patrollers. I'm happy to say we've started work on New Page Triage, a suite of software that will replace Special:NewPages and hopefully make it a more pleasant experience for all. Please take a look, read about what we're planning to do, and add any notes on the talkpage, where some additional thoughts are already posted :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Muhammad images
I think the Rfc is nearly finalized, but only a few editors have commented recently, not including you. Could you take a look & let us know what you think at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Xavexgoem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits in broken English
Hi, as someone who has contributed to discussion of the page Almogavars, you might be interested in a discussion that is taking place at Influences on the Spanish language. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Chevauchée
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chevauchée, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 19:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)