User talk:ASCIIn2Bme

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)[reply]

Hello, ASCIIn2Bme. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  04:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Have mörser, will travel. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

talk) 19:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

And some of the examples provided for you have been less than convincing [11].

talk) 04:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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? →Στc. 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is there's a different SUL for

talk) 06:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Nonetheless, the community should have full trust in the renaming bureaucrat's judgement of renaming. →Στc. 08:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ASCIIn2Bme. You are

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

What PA? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

That comment, which is equivalent to saying "you guys collectively don't rise above the level of a Jerry Springer audience", is coming from

is enabled by some administrators? Can't be happening except in a Kafka novel [12], I guess. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi ASCII, when you said "[...]please don't modify a RfC[...]" here[13], 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 ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your positive and neutral contributions here [14].With Respect --Orartu (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think my edit summary contained sufficient explanation [15] for adding the tag. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi ASCIIn2Bme. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, seriously? Please read

Poor Jesus, if only he could read Wikipedia... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 10, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ASCIIn2Bme, re [16], note Buddhism in Iran, notably [17]. Cheers, --JN466 16:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Samanids who later ruled Eastern Iran (where most of the Buddhist centers were) were Sunni and did plenty of conversion themselves [19]. 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)[reply

]

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." [20] Cheers. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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). --JN466 22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? --Ludwigs2 15:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 <talk> 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't revert all your changes, just the commenting out :). I thought the other changes were just copy editing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did at first [21]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was an accident :o. I presumed you had missed it as I was so quick to revert it ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, I've done that myself. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 <talk> 10:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Hello. You have a new message at Eraserhead1's talk page.

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,

Hello, ASCIIn2Bme. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.
Message added 03:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yone Fernandes (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ASCIIn2Bme. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 15:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[22]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Outside view by ASCIIn2Bme and RFC talk page

Just a small question: W.r.t.

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 [23]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"The revolution eats its children", but resurrections are possible in this one. . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many thanks for your good investigative work detailing similarities/differences between the accounts. Youreallycan 09:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think I've fixed it.[24]   Will Beback  talk  10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Thanks for the advice. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good --Guerillero | My Talk 16:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 <talk> 14:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to avail yourself of m:Translation requests, after all, that is part of what Meta is for :) -- Avi (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo told me on my meta talk page that RfCs are not translated... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 01:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [25], 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)[reply]

I have made subsequent comments at the AN discussion about a topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. —

]

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)[reply]

agreed. best wishes. —

 ?  00:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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. -- Maelefique^(talk) 09:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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? [26] RFCs are a better use of everyone's time if they are first well formulated; Nathan's starting point is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you-- much appreciated !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rlevse

Well, of course he was. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was what? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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". JN466 03:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images#Finalizing_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FMuhammad_images. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear ASCIIn2Bme: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia: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)[reply

]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello ASCIIn2Bme. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated DR goes to Wikimania! 11:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

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:

• 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?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--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)[reply]

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. ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

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)[reply

]