User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 19

Keep that chin up
--Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. If there's one thing I've learned about the human world it's that positive change frees up a lot of ugly energy: positive change always reduces tension in the long run, that kind of tension has a lot of mental energy invested in maintaining it, and that energy has got to go somewhere.  For some reason I don't really understand I seem to be a lightning rod for it.  It sucks, but for the most part I don't mind.  This NOTCENSORED battle has been raging for years now and everyone involved has mobilized a hell of a lot of mental resources towards waging it.  If dumping on me helps them demob, so be it.


 * a day off is good, though. I need to blow off the load people have dumped on me; there's only so much I can take before I lose control of it.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I thought the day off was a great idea. I've really benefited from the process overall. I'm more comfortable with my grasp of the issues. I've had a chance to exchange ideas and express new thoughts. I think I'll knock up a summary of my thinking at the moment and put it in the workshop when it reopens for business. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2011
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuation
Hi, I wanted to continue here (the arb case pages are already getting long enough!). First, you're right, I'm not in your shoes, and I do apologize if my comment came across sharper than intended. However, I do empathize! I feel the same way you do sometimes (and rightly so), that there are editors watching my edits in bad faith, ready to pounce if I make the slightest mistake (or even if I don't!). I'm not sure if you're following the "civility enforcement" case or not. But anyway. I smiled when you said, "If the project were savvy". It does feel sometimes like there's an overlord brain in charge of this, but no, it's an illusion. I see Wikipedia more like a flock of starlings that's fluttering this way and that. From a distance, it seems to have shape and coherence, but in reality it's just a bunch of individual birds flapping as fast as they can. ;) I also greatly agree with you that Wikipedia is an awful place to edit. It is. Then again, Democracy is an awful form of government -- it's just better than all the others, heh. Ultimately, I agree with much of what you say, I think you know that. Mainly I disagree, sometimes, with how you are saying it. So, just as an exercise, could you try editing some articles? Even helping out in a cleanup category, or adding sources, these kinds of things would be good to get back to. It's helpful to the project, looks great on your contrib list, and is just plain good for one's mental health. There really are lots of places where you can edit, where no one else would give  two hoots as to what you do. And trust me, it's kind of nice. Quiet, peaceful, no arguing. I can get into a kind of zen mode when deep in the stacks, and it helps me keep perspective on the rest of the chaos. Maybe just give it a try? Pick any topic of your choice, or heck, c'mon and help me with one of the articles I've created recently? Or review a GA, or my current FAC? There are lots of places where your help would be much appreciated! And it doesn't mean you'd have to abandon the other discussions you're in. Just maybe, engage in them in moderation? Have a balance between arb discussion and article work, and I think everything can go much more smoothly. :) --Elonka 06:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I like that starling analogy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Elonka: Truth be told, I am sour on the project right now. I've gotten locked against my will into this cycle where I'll do a little quiet editing, try to be reasonable on the wrong article, find myself dragged through an administrative abattoir, take a wikibreak, come back to do a little quiet editing, try to be reasonable on the wrong article, find myself dragged through…  trying to edit wikipedia is a huge and unpleasant waste of my time that I could better spend doing other things.  The only reason I haven't left the project already is that I like the idea of it, and wish it could work the way it's supposed to work, because that would be really cool.  But on the kind of articles I like to edit - politics, religion and spirituality, fringe science (mostly where it interacts with the first two) - I'm blocked out by a near-universal knee-jerk reactivity to anything I do.


 * I've currently set myself to making this a place that I can edit quietly and reasonably as a rule rather than as an exception. If I succeed I will happily go about editing just as you ask, as is my normal wont; if I fail then I don't want to be here anyway.  That's what it comes down to for me.  I mean, don't get me wrong: sooner or later Wikipedia is going to come around to my way of thinking, whether I'm here or not. I've seen this dynamic played out politically in too many contexts to anticipate any other outcome. I'm just trying to make it happen now for the purely selfish reason that I'm tired of putting up with endless crap over every simple, reasonable action I want to take.


 * I like your starlings analogy as well, but unfortunately I study politics academically; I know it's incorrect. The difference between humans and starlings is that starlings have their social behavior written into them immutably by nature; humans have an inbred drive to create abstract forms of social order.  Wikipedia has thus far more-or-less abnegated its role of creating an overarching system of order, and so what's happened is that editors have created their own local order.  Wikipedia is composed of bands and tribes of editors with all the standard tribal affective components: deep in-group loyalty, suspicion and hostility towards out-group members, ideological solipsism, territorialism, jingoism…  If you keep in mind that it is typical among tribal groups to extirpate any threat to any member - if a tiger kills someone, hunters who never knew the victim will gather from all over the tribe to hunt it down - these arbcom cases will make a whole lot more sense to you.  I remember the lashing you took when you tried to rein in ScienceApologist back when I first started editing here (I forget what page it was over, but I know I was involved somehow; my first ANI experience), so I know you know what I'm talking about.


 * I will keep your words in mind, and after I take another wikibreak (which I am most assuredly going to be doing soon) I'll see if I can do that. $20 says that - whatever I do whenever I return - I won't get more than a couple of weeks before someone drags me into ANI over some idiotic thing.  Best you set aside the cash now.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bighting
Please don't bight. It's his little siren call to you. Please strap yourself to something, and turn the stereo up. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak
This process has become too stressful for me - I've become more frustrated and depressed by it than I can cope with healthily - so I'm on wikibreak. If someone would notify me of anything that requires my attention on the case pages that would be nice, because I won't be following them. Otherwise I'll check up on the results when I return. -- Ludwigs 2 04:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel the need to post something but don't feel like looking at the workshop page post it here and I will move it for you. Take care of yourself, no reason to compromise your health over a webpage  N o f o rmation  Talk  04:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks: if I decide I need to post a principle of FoF I can do that myself; I'm just not looking at the discussion any more. I'd like to know if an Arb or anyone else asks me a direct question so I can respond, but that will be the limit of my activity on the page from now on.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Periyar (river)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Periyar (river). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mothballed
Template:Mothballed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ludwigs2
And while I'm here. I am going to be very disappointed in this project if the arbitrators apply sanctions of any kind to Ludwigs2. I implore all arbitrators to truly familiarise yourselves with this mans character, and his mission here. I haven't stalked him so I can only go on my own experience with him. He's a person of insight and intelligence and high moral fiber. He's taking on the culture of offense here. This, of necessity, means he is constantly engaged in what I've been patronisingly calling bickering. I owe you an apology for that, Ludwigs.

I urge all arbitrators involving themselves in this case to follow Ludwigs2 through one of his controversies. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. I just can't deal with this anymore, and I've said all I can stomach saying, so either they see it all for what it is or they don't.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm out of here too. I was thinking of just mooching off to some quiet backwater but can't face that either. The culture of insult and offense is everywhere. I'll be watching, though, to see what the arbs make of it all. It's interesting that these two cases, one dealing with offensive behaviour toward readers, based on wmf:Resolution:Controversial content, and the other dealing with offensive behaviour between editors, based on wmf:Resolution:Openness should be running at the same time. I think these, because they address fundamental cultural change, are the two most important cases I've seen.


 * I feel let down by the arbitrators on that workshop, actually. I pointed out numerous obvious blatant lies and misrepresentations about me, and numerous instances of offensive behaviour toward me, and not a word was said. I'd have thought that if there was anywhere on the project where a person would find themselves being scolded for offensive behaviour, it would be at arbcom. That it was blithely ignored, week after week, leaves me very pessimistic about any possibility of arbcom even understanding what's at stake in these two cases. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs has insight and vision as no one else has on this project. While much of what goes on Wikipedia is in-the-moment reactive, Ludwigs sees and understands where this kind of project has to go to grow, and to grow in a healthy way, and I  know he has tried to convey that.  Ludwigs unlike many has the kind of integrity that dictates you stick your neck out, and lay out what you think in a constant and forthright way. That kind of behaviour is an antidote to much of what goes on here.  Ludwigs and I have not always agreed on the small things, but on his insights of what Wikipedia is and where it could go, his vision is far greater than mine and most on this project, and there I agree completely. How disappointing and how sad all of this is.  I guess one always hopes for vision and a larger understanding. (olive (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Well, I'll wait another day for a response on the case page, and if none is forthcoming I'll take the issue to Jimbo's talk page, and see if he can get them to answer my question. Anyone who wants to support me there is welcome (i'll post a link here) but let's not turn it into a circus.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I dropped a note on Jimbo's page, here. anyone who wants to chime in…  -- Ludwigs 2  19:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a hint as to the problem, I notice you have 1840 articlespace edits, but 19 talk page archives. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Try 18,421 edits. Sheesh!(olive (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
 * The point John made was that there were 18,421 edits total but only 1840 of them were to actual articles.  N o f o rmation  Talk  21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a valid point, but not as valid as it may look on first sight. It's a well known fact that content-focused editors have more edits in talk space and less edits article space than average, whereas the typical vandalism fighters have most of their edits in article space and user talk space. Hans Adler 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no it isn't! Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Yes I see. Consider this. Wikipedia's policy and guidelines were written by editors. Nothing says the work on those policies is of less importance than writing articles. Further, at no place in Wikipedia is it explicitly or implicitly stated that spending time in discussion is ban able. That's an opinion.(olive (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
 * That's correct and L2 isn't being banned for having an abnormal ratio. It's an example of the problem though, which is that L2 can't seem to let an issue die when he feels other editors are wrong, and when you keep going without having convinced enough other editors of your position you enter the WP:TE realm (this is the crux of the issue right here).  My personal opinion is that blocking/banning should be considered from a utilitarian point of view, or in other words, what is the net effect on the project?  Has L2 contributed to the project via policy implementation in such a way that the positive effects of those policies outweigh the frustration he causes other editors?  I don't believe so (though, as an aside, my first choice is restriction, not banning, but arbcom doesn't seem to agree).  L2 is certainly here to improve the encyclopedia, I just think it would be better if he did so by actually editing the encyclopedia.  Furthermore, he knew there was a good chance he was going to get banned and he knew it long enough ago to have adjusted his tactics.  For what ever reason he didn't find it pertinant until now. Ultimately you have to know which battles you can win and which you can't, and considering all the policies in the way Ludwigs was Sisyphus from the start.  N o f o rmation  Talk  21:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nofo, you're mistaken on two point:
 * It's not a question of my thinking that other editors are wrong; it's a question of other editors refusing to discuss matters. a day of discussion after my first post to Muhammad and we could have avoided all of this; but I got tag-teamed by editors telling me the issue was not up for discussion, ever.  apparently they get to be stubborn and I don't, go figure.
 * I've had editors trying to get me banned ever since I got involved with the Race and Intelligence arbitration - Mathsci is the prime example if you need one. (actually, it goes back to ScienceApologist, who spent a lot of time trying to smear my reputation, but that's a different story).  it was just a matter of time before they succeeded.  I though maybe ArbCom would be a bit more reasonable than the editors doing their best to stab me in the back, and that maybe I could segue that into something productive; I was wrong.
 * If you're suggesting I should have backed off and left an apparent system of anti-islamic editing in place on the project - that would have been better for me, but worse for the encyclopedia. Sorry, but I'm an idealist; I'm going to discuss issues like that when I run across them, because doing otherwise would be irresponsible.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is, indeed, what I am suggesting. Look at it from the consequentialist perspective: if you had done that then you wouldn't be at risk of being banned right now which would mean that you would be able to contribute to the project, though I still do not buy the "anti-Islamic" characterization.  The fact of the matter is that you have a lot to offer but your idealism isn't doing you any favors.  Even if you're right, if you're not around to change things then it doesn't really matter at the end of the day, does it?  O
 * Re:users trying to get you banned: I'm certainly not trying to get you banned and I have nothing against you personally, I'm sure that each arbiter on the case feels the same way.  I can't speak as to the motivation of Matchsci, but the fact of the matter is that you can't "create" evidence on WP.  If the arbiters ban you it will be because of a preponderance of the evidence, not because Mathsci really wants it.  Seriously, think about that.  I'm also familiar with your history with SA, having read the talk pages, and I could probably agree with you on that one.  He was an eccentric (though very smart) editor and had the tendency to butt heads with similar people :).
 * Re: a lack of discussion: you are a hard man to satisfy. I think if I read one more word of discussion on the Muhammad talk I might just shoot my computer.  N o f o rmation  Talk  00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost half of your edits are to talk space. I'm not sure why you would be going after another editor on this issue. Why don't we assume we all edit to our interests and leave it at that!(olive (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Well, I suppose we'll have to put that down to the difference between you and me. I never let an injustice stand because the outcome is personally inconvenient.  The way out of this discussion (as I said many, many times on the talk page) was to convince me that no injustice was being done; had they tried to do that, the problem never would have developed.  but that wasn't on their game card.  And no, I'm not a hard man to satisfy: I could think of several ways to resolve this to my satisfaction, and I even suggested two of them, but when you have people like Tarc and Resolute who are dead set against any discussion whatsoever, there's not a whole lot of effort put into trying to satisfy me.  You and I disagree, but we discuss: if it were between the two of us we'd have reached an agreement.  the 'no not ever' crowd gets in the way.


 * With respect to 'not making up evidence', try reading the diffs entered into evidence. for example, Tarc diffed me saying this:"The cause of the disturbances on both Pregnancy and Muhammad was not that I think the images have no value and other editors think they have value. On the contrary, I suspect that I have roughly the same opinion of the value of those images as any proponent (I don't happen to think it's a bad image). The problem is that the proponents evaluate conventional mores and Muslim culture as worthless; so worthless in fact that there are frequent assertions that such opinions are not even allowed to be voiced much less considered."under the heading Accuses others of bigotry/prejudice/intolerance.  There's no accusation there, simply the observation that they repeatedly said that Muslims opinions on the images were not to be considered.  Mathsci does this habitually: he'll mass up a long list of more or less random diffs and give them nasty-sounding labels, counting on the fact that people will read the labels but not try to see if the diffs really match what the labels say.  it's not so much about manufacturing evidence but about carefully cultivating a vision that creates emotional outrage; basically FOX News tactics without even the minimal pragmatic constraints that FOX has to satisfy.  it's disgusting from a human perspective; fascinating from an academic one.  Not that everyone does it, of course - you don't, for instance - but it only takes a few doing it loudly to create a really poisonous atmosphere in which facts are effectively irrelevant.  pure lynch mob stuff…  -- Ludwigs 2  00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * oh, this is just another line. consider:
 * Wikipedia is not mandatory, so how much I edit is irrelevant
 * I prefer to talk about disagreements, and 50% of the edits I make in article space are reverted - that guarantees I'm going to spend more time in talk discussing than editing
 * I do a lot of work on policy
 * I keep having editors drag me through extensive ANI procedures. easily 60% of my edits to the project are me trying to defending myself against some idiotic charge.
 * You want me to edit more, get your friends to stop trying to screw me every time I make a post. wouldn't that be nice?  but whatever, believe whatever makes you sleep better at night.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you work in contentious areas, as Ludwigs2 does, having lots of edits to talk pages is normal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Something i've aways wondered
What does your user name mean exactly? Why the "2" and why the "S", if you don't mind me asking? N o f o rmation Talk  21:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a student of Wittgenstein and a fan of Beethoven. two Ludwigs: Ludwigs2.  Which reveals more about my viewpoint than you might realize…   -- Ludwigs 2  22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah very cool! Mine is just boring chemistry :)  N o f o rmation  Talk  22:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the best user name of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Philos
I'll respond to what you wrote above, I don't have time to read/write a lot right now but I wanted to start a dialogue on another, semi-related topic (and if you get banned I'd love to exchange emails and continue communicating in the future, if you're interested, of course).

From what you wrote in regards to idealism, it appears to me as though you have a certain deontological leaning, though other schools of thought could also lead to similar conclusions. Is this the case? If so, is part of your desire to engage in long dialogue borne of a "duty bound" perspective at all, or is it more personal?

Also, if you don't mind me asking, you said that you teach; and I'm guessing based on what I've read that you're in the philosophy department, though I could also see something like anthropology. What's your background? Really no big deal if you'd like to remain totally anonymous, I'm just curious.


 * I'm a social scientist. leave it at that: it's a small world in academia.


 * I wouldn't call myself a deontologist. As I said, I'm a student of Wittgenstein, and you should read Wittgenstein's commentary on rules and rule following.  I mean, I respect the deontological move - the effort to shift moral understanding away from any substantive ontological grounding onto formal principles - but deontologists tend to recreate formal principles as a sort of 'abstract' ontos in ways I find discouraging.  My 'idealism' is actually a kind of pragmatism.  For instance, in the Muhammad case - as I've said many many times - it strikes me as idiotic to insult a major religion without any real gain to the encyclopedia.  Doing so is not pragmatic: it creates a situation of constant hostility and strife requiring the investment of time and energy of multiple editors on both sides, and an ever-growing risk to the reputation of the encyclopedia.  Removing the images would have very little impact on the article content, and it would take far less energy to maintain the state of the article, and far less hostility all around.


 * In a nutshell, being ethical is almost always the pragmatic thing to do, because ethical treatment of others eliminates many areas of interpersonal conflict which consume so much time and energy.


 * Rules are often a help, but they can also get in the way when they get used to protect unethical behavior. More generally, any rule or principle creates a locus of potential instability: it's a hook that people's thoughts get snagged on, which can interfere with their ability to be ethical (e.g., the frequent protestations that it doesn't matter if Muslims are offended, we have to follow the rule of NOTCENSORED).


 * And none this is relevant to my 'desire to engage in long dialogue'. I'm just long-winded; I can't order pizza in less than three paragraphs, with at least two similes and an oblique reference to the classics. shoot me now, I'm obviously evil; though you may have to get in line behind the pizza parlor guy.    -- Ludwigs 2  02:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mentorship
Franamax, one of the most reasonable people in this discussion, has offered to mentor you. I hope you'll consider that offer. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human rights in Estonia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Human rights in Estonia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

just a comment
Ludwigs2, sorry for what is happening to you. I haven't been on Wikipedia a lot lately, but in reading the arbitration, I think the fact that they are considering a site ban is rather extreme. Sorry to see this happening as I think you are an editor that is involved more than most in trying to improve Wikipedia. stmrlbs | talk 03:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Block
Ludwigs is banned, not blocked. I know it's a technicality but in my experience we don't block banned users unless there is a reason to. I doubt that L2 would violate the terms of his ban and the block looks bad on the record when he hasn't done anything to earn it. Normally when a user is arbcom banned they get a notification on their page and are expected to voluntarily follow that. My apologies if I am wrong here, but this is what I have seen most commonly in my tenure here. N o f o rmation Talk  07:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect it might be a temporary measure because there was a fumble with publication of the final decision, mostly due to an inexperienced new trainee clerk, but also late voting from an Arb. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my message on User talk:Noformation. Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate ban
In my opinion this ban is totally inappropriate and reflects very badly on Arbcom. However, in the interest of clarity I want to point out that my decision to minimise my involvement in this site is mostly due to other ways in which the Muhammad images dispute was mishandled. Hans Adler 14:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed
An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article, and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
 * 2) Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
 * 3) Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
 * 4) Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
 * 5) FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
 * 6) Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
 * 7) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
 * 8) The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc ( powwow ) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Template:Pictify listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Pictify. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Pictify redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Traveler100 (talk) 16:40, 28 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 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Do list
Template:Do list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Arguments to avoid in discussions
Arguments to avoid in discussions, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in discussions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Arguments to avoid in discussions during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Keφr (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cooper Square
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cooper Square. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shark Island Extermination Camp
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shark Island Extermination Camp. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Buchenwald Trial
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Buchenwald Trial. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Back!!
A warm welcome back and a little somethin' to break the ice... from your #1 fan—Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  01:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! So nice to see an edit!(olive (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC))

Nomination for deletion of Template:Modelref
Template:Modelref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slavery in Africa
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slavery in Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steubenville High School
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steubenville High School. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Akrafena
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Akrafena. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rujm el-Hiri
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rujm el-Hiri. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Al-Ahbash
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Al-Ahbash. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian Armed Forces
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indian Armed Forces. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comfort women
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comfort women. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:WW2InfoBox
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:WW2InfoBox. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flare (pyrotechnic)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flare (pyrotechnic). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation Museum
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation Museum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armoured fighting vehicle
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Armoured fighting vehicle. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Khosrau I
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Khosrau I. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Toluca Lake, Los Angeles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Toluca Lake, Los Angeles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Panchen Lama
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Panchen Lama. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Days of the year in India
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Days of the year in India. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of the Falkland Islands
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of the Falkland Islands. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:India
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:India. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gia Bình District
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gia Bình District. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ref cleanup
Template:Ref cleanup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedians
I've added you to the page above because I saw you left suddenly for some reason and met the requirements for being eligible to appear on that list. If/when you return, please remove your name from the list. God bless,  Lazy Bastard  Guy  20:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * L2 was banned for a year per an ARBCOM decision and my guess is that he didn't want to return after the whole ordeal (at least not under this account).  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  22:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I'll change the info on the entry I posted. Thanks!  Lazy Bastard  Guy  23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Gun control
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment at Gun control. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. This message is pursuant to the directions for publicizing an RFC. Thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:?&
Template:?& has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 09:17, 25 November 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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Clade/sub
Template:Clade/sub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Apple Inc. WikiProject Reviving
Hello there, I am trying to revive the Apple WikiProject. Please come back and add your name to the participant list if you'd like to help me. Let's make this awesome. Come by today! Thank you, DJAustin (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mediated
Template:Mediated has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mediated
Template:Mediated has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 04:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)