User talk:Ashmoo

Hi, my name's Alice. I edited the corsetry page. I'm sorry everything wasn't referenced right up. I can't pull every reference all in one afternoon. I was hoping to work on the page over the next few days with my friends. I'm a tightlacer of four years now and while I know some of the references can be less direct than others I can support it. I'm working with 5 other induviduals, wearers, makers and historians to try and correct some of the misconceptions about corsetry. Is there anyway I can directly contact you? I'm more than happy to discuss in length with you the changes I have made and why. Thanks for your time.

Hi Alice. We can talk on this page if you want, or on the talk page of the article itself if it is about things specific to that article. Sorry if I was a bit heavy handed with the edits but that page already suffers from a lot of unsourced edits by enthusiasts that never come back to provide the sources. If you are new to wikipedia I would strongly encourage you to read WP:Verifiability (especially the Reliable Sources section) to see what sorts of sources are acceptable. As you have indicated there are a lot of myths about corsetry (from both non-corseters and enthusiasts, alike) so we need to insist on correct sources to stop wikipedia contributing to the misinformation. I hope you can understand why I chopped the section that makes medical pronouncements immediately without giving time to provide sources. Anyway, I'm happy to discuss anything about improving the page while abiding by wikipedia rules. Ashmoo (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...

Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva

Thank you very much for all of your help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you planning on listing all of the countries in which Tim Tams are sold? I suspect you'll be looking at dozens. If not, why is it relevant that Israel is one of them? — mendel ☎ July 7, 2005 13:37 (UTC)

My impression was there are only a small number of countries where they are sold. It seemed as relevant as the paragraph about England and which shops they are sold in. Ashmoo 7 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I would've taken out the bit about which shops in the UK had I noticed it then too! It's not as rare as you'd think, though -- Campbell Soup owns Arnotts now, so they're available in at least some of Campbell's markets (at least Canada, the US, and the UK, and I suspect throughout Europe but I can't confirm that.) Apparently the AU-IL trade relationship is remarkable, though, so I'll resign myself to marvelling that people do Tim Tam Slams with things other than liqueurs and port. — mendel ☎ July 8, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

I'm surprised that they are available in Canada & the US. If they are widely available I'd support removing the comments about the UK & Israel. Or maybe just making a list of countries where they are sold. The whole article is a bit trivial though, so I'm not going to get too worked up about it. Ashmoo 8 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)

Its fully documented , no room for PC.

I see uve been editing Mount Arapiles. There is a future version User:Deanos/temp that because this user is away for a long time i will probably update as i know and make the arapiles page, if he doesnt respond ...

Maelgwn 00:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you removed my edit about why activists believe the kangaroo species are not as well protected. I stumbled upon this viewpoint on an old website called "save the kangaroo". I'll be certain to post the link if I come across it again. <regards>,,,,,Ariele 00:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ash, if you are going to make modifications you may want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/dispute and implement the consensus ones. JoshuaZ 07:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've agreed (at the Rove talk page) to semi-protect the Rove McManus article in future on further instances of vandalism. -- Longhair 07:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re this edit: if so, then shouldn't the whole paragraph that it was included in be removed? Come to think of it, that paragraph and the mention of Gary Miller, even though it claims to be response, is in actuality not a response to any criticism but an ad hominem attack on Christianity - outside the scope of the article. Do you agree? Just as a note to you, your edits to the Criticism of Islam page have in general have been very helpful, and you are right that much of the article is/was nothing more than Islamic apolagetics. Thanks. Yid613 07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your rationale, I think that I understand it now. Even though Gary Miller's argument is logically fallable, it is still appropriate for inclusion if it is (not surprisingly) what Muslims say, and responses to that still have to be sourced. Thanks. Yid613 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That was me what wrote that, and it was a fair cop. The problem is that there's a huge literature on the human urge to find pattern, but I couldn't find anything to quote that was either broad enough, or talking about textual analysis specifically. A lot of it is on visual pattern perception -- like the tendency to see faces in things. I'm sure the right quote is out there, if I could just find the right search terms. Zora 04:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ashmoo, as I have promised earlier, i will not revert your edits before discussing them on the talk page(I may apply minor changes). But please note that your change to "scientific criticism of Islam" was already discussed in the talk page. So, i'll revert that one. Please discuss it on the talk page. Thanks and have nice times.--Aminz 08:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ashmoo, Could you possible please have a look at my last edit in the talk page of criticism of Islam. Thanks --Aminz 07:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ashmoo, Could you possible please have a look at my last edit in the talk page of criticism of Islam WHENEVER you are free(i.e. My edits to "You too; A suggestion"). Thanks, --Aminz 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your comment in the Iranian people article about a naming dispute. The user in question who springs multiple disputes gives unreasonable excuses for his or her edit, and is not a user who can be compromised with. As a result, unfortunately we had to set up an Rfc for the user here. If you see fit, please leave your comments in that page, in regards the fact the user Aucaman may be difficult to compromise with, or is unreasonable. Thank youZmmz 05:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit here. You meant to put it in the TALK page, right? Aucaman^Talk 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It is really sad to see some people unjustly forge materials. Thanks for the example. I remember once I saw strange commandments attributed to Zionism somewhere; maybe they belonged to the same document. I don't know. I personally don't like the zionism thought since the land belonged to the Jews over 3200 years ago. Their thought is not justified to me simply by the Golden Rule. But this does not in any case justify, and even it is disgusting, that some people accept a forgery just because they like it to be in that way. --Aminz 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I included a diff to your comments in an ongoing ArbCom case that we unfortunately had to file for Aucaman; so just be aware of that please.Zmmz 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Please have a look at the criticism of Islam article. An editor has made changes to the article that seems to be contrary to yours. thx. --Aminz 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, you may want to know that the article Islamikaze is up for deletion and vote accordingly. Netscott 09:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is another kind of healing, there's a lot of work by John E. Sarno that looks relevant. Nice to meet you Ashmoo. Nastajus 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a cavalry tactic where a small group of very heavy cavalry rides in front and others behind. Their aror protects them against enemy fire while they fire themselves.

In Nuremberg armor was tested by squarely shooting at it with a crossbow. if there was just a mark and the armor was not penetrated, it was sold as first class product and the mark was a sign of quality. Few knights were able to afford it.

Crossbows carried by knights were small versions totally out of metall. before metall was avaiable in such amounts the crossbow was to clumsy for riders.

Wandalstouring 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Ashmoo, and sorry for the extra work, I know you have plenty to do. It was just a general call for reality maintenance on the NLP article. The U.S. Empire has manage to ban us. No Dogs or Chinese allowed there any more. All the best. HongKongMasterofSci 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to role-playing games.

I've another null phrase for your list - "despite, or perhaps because of".  :-) Percy Snoodle 11:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ashmoo. Was there a problem with my recent edits? You reverted two of them. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I think that Hilter guy (or someone else) has vandalised your page, I would revert it but I'm not completely sure, as it is fairly subtle.--Hibernian 01:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you have a read of the East Timor talk page and see if you are motivated to try and find some expression of the fats which Merbabu and I could live with? THank very much if you can, All Best.58.107.10.239 13:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

haha. Sorry about that. I thought you did the opposite of what you really did. For some reason I got it in my head that you removed the example and placed a fact tag there. Yeah. Yeago 05:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Ashmoo, thank you for your help on the new "It!" page. I remember seeing "it (!)" at the cinema as a child, and I was mostly intrigued about the information given about the Golem. An online essay on the Golem points out that this film is the only English language film in times past that featured the Golem. I want to provide more information, and would appreciate any help you can continue to give.--Drboisclair 00:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the image of the Golem It! (1966 film) and emendations I made to the article.--Drboisclair 03:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Ashmoo, the Orwell-section is gone. As well as the last critical parts of the article. And the Turkish newspaper-items are gone as well (and remember: English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability ) and who am I to dispute Oktars English-written webpages? With illegal 'original research'?). And because, as I said, I do not want to violate more copyrights as neccesary, my advise is to keep the article this way. I see no better option left.Jeff5102 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember the shmoos. They were characters in Li'l Abner who were over-eager to serve mankind. If you prepared them one way, they tasted like chicken, and another way, they tasted like steak. Goofy little guys, and given Al Capp's mercurial political views, it's hard to know whether they were his way of satirizing capitalism, socialism, or maybe both. Wahkeenah 04:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

- I'm just wondering why you reverted the footnote in artwork to Ibid? As stated on the talk page by myself, Talk:Watchmen#Citation 24 that the ibid tag didn't make sense with the footnotes around it. You left no edit summary so I have no idea why you changed this? –– Lid^(Talk) 15:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked for citations on two topics. The first one was for the idea that many studies have been done demonstrating naltrexone to be of questionable value in supporting abstinance. Since the statement says "many" I assume you want more than one. How many would you like? Here's a quick list:

Renault, P. F. (1978) Treatment of heroin-dependent persons with antagonists: Current status. Bulletin on Narcotics 30: 21-29 ¶ Renault, P. F. (1980) Treatment of heroin dependent persons with antagonists: Current status. In: Naltrexone: Research Monograph 28, Willett, R. E., and Barnett, G., (eds.), Washington, DC: National Institute of Drug Abuse, 11 22.

O'Malley, S.S., Jaffe, A.J., Rode, S., and Rounsaville, B.J. (1996) Experience of a “slip among alcoholics treated with Naltrexone or placebo. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(2): 281-283.

Maxwell, S., and Shinderman, M. S. (1997) Naltrexone in the treatment of dually-diagnosed patients. Journal of Addictive Diseases 16: A27, 125, 1997 ¶ Maxwell, S., and Shinderman M. S. (2000) Use of Naltrexone in the treatment of alcohol use disorders in patients with concomitant severe mental illness. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 19:61-69.

Oslin, D., Liberto, J., O’Brien, C.P., Krois, S., and Norbeck J. (1997) Naltrexone as an adjunct treatment for older patients with alcohol dependence. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 5: 324-332.

Kranzler, H. R., Tennen, H., Penta, C., and Bohn, M. J. (1997). Targeted Naltrexone treatment of early problem drinkers. Addictive Behaviors 22: 431-436. ¶ Kranzler, H. R., Tennen, H., Blomqvist et al.. (2001) Targeted naltrexone treatment for early problem drinkers. Alcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research 25 (Suppl. 5) 144A.

Balldin, J., Berglund, M., Borg, S., Månsson, M., Berndtsen, P., Franck, J., Gustafsson, L., Halldin, J., Hollstedt, C., Nilsson, L-H., and Stolt, G. (1997) A randomized 6 month double-blind placebo-controlled study of Naltrexone and coping skills education programme. Alcohol and Alcoholism 32: 325; ¶ Månsson, M., Balldin, J., Berglund, M., and Borg, S. (1999) Six-month follow-up of interaction effect between Naltrexone and coping skills therapy in outpatient alcoholism treatment. Alcohol and Alcoholism 34: 454; ¶ Månsson, M., Balldin, J., Berglund, M., and Borg, S. (1999) Interaction effect between Naltrexone and coping skills. Treatment and follow-up data. Abstract to “Evidence Based Medicine of Naltrexone in Alcoholism”, satellite symposium to the 7th Congress of the European Society for Biomedical Research on Alcoholism. Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 1999.

I could probably provide about a dozen more. How many do you feel is sufficient?

Also, you requested citation for "For those who don't understand the mechanism involved, these results have been assumed to reflect the effectiveness of the two treatments in combination.". I'm not sure what you're asking for for this. A physician's opinion survey performed by someone like Reuters? This information was gathered in an unofficial manner, having discussed the issue with a couple dozen or so medical professionals regarding their professional associate's thoughts on the matter. Do you feel that this needs rephrasing?

I also noticed that you had a problem with "This logic is faulty because it assumes that the two treatments are merely complementary, like two people pushing a car, as opposed to sequential, like turning a doorknob and then pulling on it.", stating that it is "POV demagogic unsourced comment". I'll take these three up with you on the discussion page for Alcoholism.

Robert Rapplean 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw your note on the talk page: just wanted to let you know that I nominated the article for review. Sandy 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey will you be able to do something about this page.Nick Vujicic. I hope you can do some good edits to. An Australian based person. Thanks. rencin24

If you'll excuse me asking, why only remove the worst? Why not remove it all? (Consider this an invitation, not a criticism.) Palmiro | Talk 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Woops, sorry about that. I decided to go ahead and do some trimming myself, but then I had some problems which forced me to log out and log in again before I could make the edit. I seem to have slain two of your edits in the process. Apologies. Palmiro | Talk 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:

Edit summary usage for Ashmoo: 45% for major edits and 36% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 104 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed the following text from Assembly language without leaving any comment about why you did so.

However, a strong case can be made that any serious programmer should learn at least one assembly language – to understand the fine structure of how computers function, to anticipate how application design choices can improve generated code, and to appreciate all the work high-level languages save.

Why did this need to be removed? Is it wrong? Badly stated? POV? I'm not saying your action was wrong; but this idea is stated in much writing about assembly language, so I'm surprised to see it removed from this article without comment. Kindly explain your position, either here or in talk:Assembly language. Trevor Hanson 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could read the "new" plot summary that I added to the discussion we were having. Your insight would be most beneficial as you were the one that brought the war to the talk page first. I don't want to add it to the plot because I don't want to stir the water with Shadow. Thanks. Bignole 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you removed "Non-miniature products that Games Workshop sell can often be bought elsewhere at much lower prices - particularly paints (which cost £2.00 for 12 ml) and other craft items." saying that while it may be true it is unsourced. It's easy to verify by looking at the Games Workshop online store for their prices and then comparing these to, I don't know, Valejo or Coat d'Arms prices. I don't see why something like this needs to be directly sourced, else you'd have superscript numbers next to everything in the article. Xzamuel 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Sorry, was attempting to correct other probs in article, seems I accidently caught that one in the loop. Thanks for fixing it. ZueJay^talk 06:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you thought (the articles I merged into) Lee Strobel was bad, take a look at the articles associated with The Way of the Master -- where I'm looking at merging/purging (for unencyclopaedic & poorly cited material) a whole bunch of them. Your input would probably be valuable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashmoo - You are only one of a few "surviving editors" on the Land Letter Discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Talk:Land_letter#No_references_at_sbc.net.3F . Most other editors have turned red. I just added three new questions / comments. Help there would be appreciated. Doug youvan (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text in Alpha Centauri developing article.

Hi Ashmoo. The text here is both relevant and necessary. and in no way is violating WP:FUTURE "speculations about events thousands of years into the future." The reference for this can be accessed much from the from the book "Centauri Dreams : Imaging and Planning Interstellar Exploration" by Paul Gilster. This has 69 citations that I know of, and You can read the Introduction on line at . pg.6 There is currently investigations and some results have already been applied to future missions. If we were to apply your logic here, then the accepted accredited article on Pluto regarding the Horizons spacecraft to Pluto expected to arrive in 2015 should also be removed for the same future violation WP:FUTURE. Which way should it be?? As previously stated, This information is critical to the common question about problems of interstellar distances and removes the possible confusion in why we cannot detect planets directly. (Read earlier text on the Talk page.) The text is neither popularist nor unrealistic. It is both relevant and reinforces the text written after it.

Please leave it there! (in the meantime, I'll attempt to reword it.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have significantly reduced the text size and have removed the conflicts of WP:FUTURE as suggested. It meets the requirements in my previous statements, and adequately covers your suggestion. Does this section of text now meets your expectations satisfactorily? Considering the investigation by scientists, engineers and NASA, I have no doubt such a journey will be undertaken. If it is, this will probably be heralded as one of humanity's greatest achievements - as stated in "Centauri Dreams" Thanks for the contribution here. (at least it is a bit of a comprimise!!) Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point diff, sometimes we're blind to our biases - I must have read that several times and never picked up on that. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but I still disagree with the suitability of my article being externally linked. For example, in the rule you pointed me to it reads "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The thesis in question was published by Wesleyan University Honors College, and received High Honors for scholarship. The thesis has been, since 1996, one of the only long-format academic examinations of Watchmen, and for as long as I can remember, the link to the thesis (then hosted on another site) has been available on the Watchmen article. I checked the rules on external links, it does not violate any of them and the article contains a level of granular detail that may not be appropriate for the Wikipedia article. Anyone interested in reading Watchmen in more depth would benefit from it. 15:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)SEffron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seffron (talk • contribs)

I notice from your user page that you like to make things more concise. Your edit to this article, no doubt made with this good intention, created not one but three problems.

• the sentence that you moved was shoved between two sentences that were closely linked to each other in meaning. This damaged the sense of the section.
• you left intact a sentence that said "See above for the English meaning" and placed the English meaning below, rather than above.
• you didn't use "Show preview" option or look at the article after saving, and left the formatting stuffed-up. (by the accisental insertion of a space which "boxed" your moved section)

Amandajm (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this reads rather rudely. I have made some adjustedmments which include your simplifications. Amandajm (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me, sorry for the lapse of proofreading. Ashmoo (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I proposed changing the title of Iranian calendar to "Iranian calendars" (with an -S) in Talk:Iranian_calendar#Changing_title_to_.22Iranian_calendarS.22. I saw that you contributed in some discussions, so I thought to ask for your view too. Ariana (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ashmoo, It looks like you're doing a grand job on Oprah Winfrey. Let me know if there is something specific you need to help with the reworking of the article. Onwards and upwards! Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Spanglej. If you were looking for something to do to help, I think adding a 3rd opinion to the various talk discussions which at the moment are just between SamG & I. The 'inspiring prosocial behaviour' & 'Size of article' discussions are the ones that are currently at an impasse. Any edits or comments would be appreciated. Ashmoo (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Those were some good edits you did. In these days, such are not very common for this article.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Articles on religion (especially new religions) tend to require a lot of work, as they tend to receive enthusiastic if not balanced editing from both pro- and anti- editors. Ashmoo (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You can be an Oprah fan, but you cannot use Wikipedia as a fanpage. I will report you if you write in biased fanpage content.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) I will, however, not erase the edits you made recently to the Oprah page, as they are not fanpage-like content. Saturdayseven, mark will my words, will be blocked if they continue to violate the NPOV policyJoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding the Intelligence Analysis reports is not mentioned elsewhere on wikipedia, and caused major problems for hundreds of Americans, as well as being denounced by multiple organizations. it's worthy of mention. Repeated censorship of the topic may affect Wikipedia's credibility, please show the respect due to the site as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobroebuck1861 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not know what you are talking about. What 'censorship' do you believe I committed? Ashmoo (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why you removed Michael Jackson in this edit, but Michael Jackson is Brown's biggest musical influence, as the source says, and therefore he should be added back.

In this edit, you say that the source does not say that, but it actually does. It says: "Dressed in a powder blue sweater and bow tie, Brown told King that, following the now infamous incident, it was the media that drove them apart. So, in order to sort things out, Brown and Rihanna spent some time at Diddy’s mansion in Miami. And it was regarding this experience, which Brown alluded to the Montagues and Capulets: 'It was sort of like Romeo and Juliet story, like both sides not wanting us to kind of have contact so we just got away.' " It's not about the pre-assault. And since Brown was criticized for this statement, I believe it belongs in that section.

In this edit, you removed the source because it's a dead link. But you typically aren't supposed to remove sources just because they are dead links, per WP:Dead link. You should at least see if the source has been archived at Internet Archive first. See, the source is here. That said, this piece of information isn't all that important and I don't mind that you removed it from the article.

If you ignore me and don't address my other two points, I'll bring them up on the article talk page and see if any registered editor there will be willing to address these concerns. 23.20.83.143 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Since you did not comment as a logged in user, I will respond here.

I took the Michael Jackson mention out, because the section is on his public image and perceptions of him, not on Influences. Also, citing Michael Jackson as an influence is already mentioned 5 times in the article. I don't think we need another.

You are correct about the Romeo & Juliet mention. I apologise for misreading that and will correct my error.

I'm aware of dead link policy, but I think you are right to remind editors of it. Anyway, I removed it because the line says nothing except the interview took place, which isn't very notable. This is why I didn't bother to case up the dead link.

Thanks for bringing up your concerns here. The whole section is a bit hard to read and I decided to be WP:BOLD and hope I didn't antagonise any other editors.

Regards, Ashmoo (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of my concerns. No, I'm not a registered editor (never been motivated enough to register, even though I've become familiar with how Wikipedia functions). If I was registered, I would have taken care of the issues myself, LOL. I see your point about not including Michael Jackson in that section. I'd thought the same thing about what the focus of that section is, but I felt that it was worth a mention to note that Jackson had an influence on Brown. I felt this without noticing that he is mentioned as an influence at other parts of the article. The section reads fine to me, by the way. But in the lead, for the "In 2009" part that addresses his domestic violence case, you left out the word "he" when you tidied up that line. I'm also not sure about "Billboard Hot 100" being removed from the "I Can Transform Ya" line. I can see that you removed it due to redundancy. And I agree that it is redundant for the other parts. But by the time we get to that particular line, it isn't that redundant. Just saying "peaked at number 20, becoming Brown's eighth Top 20 hit" may leave readers wondering "On what chart?"...unless they click on the reference. 107.20.92.141 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Chris Brown (American entertainer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usher (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) 10:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cnilep (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

I don't know if you can see the label, but it's an imported beer. -Cnilep (talk)

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 06:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Most people in Britain know Shirley Williams best for her stance on Grammar Schools and for the controversy surrounding her own choices for the education of her daughter. Why have you deleted this section from her biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.154.123 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing me with another editor. I never deleted the section, I simply renamed it to something more informative than 'Controversy'. That is, it changed the name to what the controversy was about. Wikipedia style discourages 'controversy' sections. If you think the name I used didn't reflect the nature of the controversy, but all means fix it, but called a section just 'Controversy' is poor style. Ashmoo (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I must have misinterpreted the editing history, sorry. I will change the para heading as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.154.123 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I undid your revision to the Yoga article and thought it best to elaborate on some of the reasons.

Version before your edit:

Yoga (Sanskrit: योग) is a commonly known generic term for the physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines which originated in ancient India with a view to attain a state of permanent peace.

Version after your edit:

Yoga (Sanskrit: योग) is the physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines which originated in ancient India with a view to attain a state of permanent peace.

At first glance, your revision appears to be appropriate by removing what may be deemed obvious or unnecessary.

However, the term yoga is used in many contexts and by removing "a commonly known generic term", this seems to have the unintended effect of narrowing the scope of what is covered by the first sentence of the lead section. In various texts and traditions, yoga has different meanings and connotations. Also, by including "a commonly known generic term", this would appear to be more representative of what yoga is now (so balances modern usage and traditional usage of this term).

If you have any suggestions, your input would be greatly appreciated. Should this discussion be moved to the Yoga article's talk page to get consensus?

Thanks.

--Ewj001 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking to time to explain your reversion. You are correct that Talk:Yoga is the place for this discussion. When I have time I will respond on that page. Ashmoo (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dan Cortese may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• team as a backup ]{{fact}}. However, this piece of Cortese's history is in dispute.{{fact}{{who}} His freshman year the team went to the ]. He graduated with a B.A. in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ashmoo, this is regarding your recent editing out of an Aymard quotation, upon which you ask "does this really add anything?" I think I see your point, Aymard's is about showing the coherence between the old man's character and his oeuvre in the context of the legal proceedings, which does not add factual information regarding the trial, but would probably be worth adding if, as you have suggested, we integrate the Criticism section into the article—it does have biographical value.

In any case, as you have probably seen, I have started a grand-sounding Revamping section in the FS talk page. As not much interest has been shown from other quarters (I had been waiting to see if anyone reacted, alas!), I am counting on your supervision and help as I gradually move on with the changes. Thanks.Desde la Torre (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ashmoo. I know you've invested some time in the Shroud of Turin article so I was wondering if you could take a quick look at my suggestions at its Talk page and contribute your thoughts? Much appreciated.110.146.160.225 (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ashmoo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

As it says, this does not imply any misconduct. Everyone who strays into Gamergate article territory gets this. Woodroar (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-dispossessed/#gsc.tab=0. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodosian. 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) 09:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ochre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maori. 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) 09:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edits to that article changed the first sentence into something which is highly stiff and unnatural (barely even a sentence of English). If you don't like what was there before, then you should come up with an acceptable alternative (i.e. something which fixes the article instead of breaking it)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ashmoo – I'm a little puzzled by your addition of the "Fact" template and your edit summary. Both the accident and his account of his dream are described in the July 26, 1988, New York Times article that is linked in the External Links section of this article, and something of a connection is made between them, and the similarity between his manner of death – a fall while mountain climbing – and the dream is fairly obvious. Is that not sufficient to justify the use of the word "similar" in this sentence in the Heinz Pagels#Biography section? --

• Eerily, the accident is disturbingly similar to the imagined fatal fall he described at the end of his first book, where he wrote:

Is your objection to the adverb "eerily"? I believe this is supported by the sentence in the article in Edge.org, also linked in the External Links section, that introduces an extended quote from Pagels' book in which he describes the dream:

• I often think about Heinz. And I always come back to the beautiful and eerie passage he wrote to conclude The Cosmic Code:

You will see that this sentence uses the word "eerie". I think this word suggests further that the similarity between the dream and he actual fall was disturbing to Pagels' friend, who wrote this tribute, and who was probably John Brockman, Editor and Publisher of Edge. I believe the sentence in the article that begins "Eerily,..." is a paraphrase of this source.

If I have persuaded you, perhaps you would consider removing the "Fact" template.  – Corinne (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, thanks for taking the time to contact me. Indeed, my problem with the text as-is is the connection between that article and his death. It seems like WP:OR to me. The Edge article connects the passage to Heinz himself, and doesn't clearly state it is about his death. And is their any evidence that Heinz's accident was anyway similar to the passage described? Did gravel give way? Did he grab for a shrub? If not, it is just that a climber had a dream about falling and later the climber fell to his death. Specifically regarding the word 'eerily', in the Edge article the word 'eery' seem to be being used to described the cosmic nature of the text, not any relationship to the manner of Heinz's death. I hope I am being clear. Ashmoo (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. I wonder if you could clarify your statement just above where you write:

Indeed, my problem with the text as-is is the connection between that article and his death.

You write "that article". I presume you mean the Edge article because that is the last one I was referring to, but I mentioned two articles. The New York Times article contains the following sentences:

• Dr. Pagels, a tall, slender man, stepped on a rock that proved unsteady and lost his balance. He fell and slid down a steep slope.

We're talking about the similarity between the dream and the actual accident, so the details do not have to be identical, and the similarity was implied in the New York Times article by virtue of its being mentioned at all, and explicitly pointed out in the Edge article. If you consider the implied connection in the New York Times article to be original research, then ignore it; the similarity is pointed out in the Edge article, and one source should be sufficient.  – Corinne (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, neither source notes the similarity between the dream and his death, it is only ever implied. My understanding of WP:V is that we cannot use sources to support things we think they imply, the source must clearly assert it. The Edge article seems even less to make the connection, I believe, between the dream and his accident. If you read the text about the dream, Heinz is using it as a metaphor for the search for knowledge and the Edge article links the dream to his life and worldview, but not to the circumstances of his death. Maybe it is because I am also a climber, but the dream and the real accident do not seem 'eerily' or 'disturbingly' similar. In the dream a handhold gives way, he tries to grab a bush, slides on gravel and falls into an abyss, in real life a rock moved under him and he fell down a steep slope (gravel cannot rest on a steep slope) and landed in a gorge. The only similarity, is that he once had a dream of falling and he fell to his death. Ashmoo (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. You don't think "eerie" to "eerily" is an appropriate paraphrase?  – Corinne (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm mostly contesting that the relationship between his dream and his death is remarkable. Neither source states this according to my reading of it. The dream seems to be more about making a connection between his climbing and his love of knowledge. Ashmoo (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand. What do you think about copying this exchange to the talk page of the article?  – Corinne (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Ashmoo (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that you objected to some bits of the Lich article. I also think it is in need of some work, so if you want to help me prepare another version, I'm toying around with one in my sandbox. Feel free to edit if you wish. Regards, RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You reverted an important information from the article, saying it was coined by a journalist. If one word "term/label/tag" bothers you, replace it but do not erase the one who invented this label. This goes against our wiki rules to bring information with sources. Carliertwo (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. No specific word bothers me, it was just that the lede was violating WP:NOTDIC. I reworded it to clarify the text without losing any information, which wasn't my intention. I hope the new version is acceptable to you. Ashmoo (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How about, if you are going to remove entire sections of an article, you discuss it on talk first... Famartin (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I did discuss it on the talk page. The offending text is also three years without a single cite, so I figure it is probably more feasible for editors to re-include the text when they find the sources. But I am of course happy to discuss any of it. Ashmoo (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ashmoo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Errors in references.Xx236 (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC) November, not novembre. Still one (red) error.Xx236 (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have probably corrected.Xx236 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm slowly building based on the French version, so it is going to look pretty terrible for the moment. Your help (and patience) is much appreciated. Ashmoo (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I hate templates in these circumstances, and you are clearly edit warring at Rupert Sheldrake, Where you currently stand on the 3RR bright line. I shall be restoring the status quo ante in a moment, and advise you not to revert me a fourth time. I also note your egregious attempt to enforce your edit by referring to policy or guideline that does not exist viz WP:KNOWN. So no template, just a nice friendly warning. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok fine. I was hoping to just make what I thought was a small change using the edit comment to avoid having to go to the trouble of starting a talk page section. 'Is known for' is inherently unverifiable and just muddies the text, in my opinion. It is better to just say what the person has done. I also wouldn't count accusing me of edit warring to be 'friendly'. Your 'advise you not to revert me a fourth time' warning confuses me, since I never reverted you a third time, nor even a second. I will admit I did revert you once, but my second edit was not a revert, but a reworded edit that I hoped would address your concerns with the first edit. I double-checked and am surprised to discover that WP:KNOWN is not a policy. Thank for you pointing that out, and I apologise unreservedly for using that. It wasn't an attempt to game the system in some way, I had somehow got the impression that it was a policy. Maybe from my interpretation of WP:NOTED. I am sorry for this long response, but I do take accusations of edit warring against me very seriously, so I wanted to clear the air. Ashmoo (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's moot now anyway. I still don't understand why you changed it in the first place. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

How is it moot? I explained my reasoning in the first two lines of the previous paragraph. Is it unclear? Ashmoo (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's moot because we are not edit warring any more, and that's good. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Celine is a businesswoman. With its line of perfumes. She currently is with her new collection of suitcases, wallets and bracelets "Celine Dion collection" with the bugatti corporation ... Apart from that it is her own manager who manages the Las Vegas contracts once her husband died.

She also has the title as a producer. The singer Veronic D'caire has a show thanks to Celine who produced it at the Hotel Ballys in Las Vegas. He is currently on tour as a support act. Many interviews of Veronic she talk about that... Maicool04 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Celine Dion currently presents her new collection of 200 pieces of suitcases, wallets and bracelets "Celine Dion collection" together with the Bugatti corporation... Is available in Norstorm Stores around the World

Maicool04 (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In relation to "considered", it's possible that it was there because a number of writings were plagiarized copyright violations, with others suspected to have been written by other adherents. Just in case you'd like to expand it about that, —PaleoNeonate – 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ashmoo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ashmoo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, your edit here had an edit summary asking what the heck was going on. It's from a long-term vandal account that I call the Cutler vandal. This gives you some background, but his stuff is way beyond most right-wing conspiracy nuts getting into what is he on level of craziness, and absolutely anything current that he can pull into his theory, he edits. It's been going on for years now, despite an edit filter and other efforts, and sorry it went to the Covington article. If you see something even remotely similar, just hit revert and ignore him. Ravensfire (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the info! I'll keep that in mind. Ashmoo (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Scott Aaronson's page has a section named "Love Communications plagiarism" that you named (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Aaronson&diff=prev&oldid=871961151) and I think the naming is harsh and confusing - at first sight it looks like Scott plagiarized the lecture. Maybe "Love Communications dispute"?

It's also a very vague section whose existence is only justified by the "free printer" joke/punch line. Filipdimitrovski (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Tom Holland is indeed a historian, so there's no need to remove that description from his brother's article. Unlike, say, being a physician or a lawyer, there is no legal requirement of a degree in the field or the issuance of professional licenses, in order to be called a historian. One simply needs to write about history and be generally regarded as an authority in the field. Wikipedia's own definition of 'historian' is:

"A historian is a person who studies and writes about the past, and is regarded as an authority on it."

Tom Holland has written a great deal on history (books and articles) and is frequently consulted on the topic by other writers and broadcasters. While some people - in particular those who have been unhappy about his historical analysis of the origins of Islam - have sought to dismiss his work by calling him a "writer of popular history", the fact remains that he is a historian. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is important to make a distinction between someone who holds a degree and history, teaches and does peer reviewed research and is cited by other historians. In the same way that Bill Nye isn't a scientist although people look to him as a source of scientific information, we do not refer to him as a scientist. I don't care about people who don't like his opinions on Islam. I am not concerned about people who have motivated opinions, but rather just want to make sure WP doesn't contain misleading statements. That said, I'm not going to spend any more time on this minor quibble. Ashmoo (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Rundle Burges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topsham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi am from Uganda and i visited the Ugandan Wikipedia page and i wanted to change a few facts about our history. I don't think its right for someone who has never lived in Uganda to write about it and introduce it to the world..of course most were right but some need change becuase they are not right.we want to have say after all its our history...be it good or bad everything should be included... Waligorahim (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Waligorahim! Thanks for taking the time to write to me. Wikipedia has its own set of rules for editing. There is no restriction on who can edit a page, especially not based on nationality or ethnic background. If you think there are problems with the Uganda page, please let us know about them at Talk:Uganda. We are committed to improving the accuracy of all pages at Wikipedia, and any insights you had would be greately appreciated. Ashmoo (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I see you have added some comment to the talk page. I will try to address them, and look forward to your feedback. Ashmoo (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts improving articles on Australian far-right figures. Much improved. Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Mengo Crisis. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

These seem to be the same thing, so the content should be merged.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:History of Uganda (Buganda crisis) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:History of Uganda (Buganda crisis), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ashmoo! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There's past discussion at Talk:Collyridianism, but bibliography is not my strongpoint, and trying to collate things so as to be acceptable to strict Wikipedia standards would be tedious and tiresome for me, and if I attempted it, the result still might not satisfy sourcing purists... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colleen Hoover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kindle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ashmoo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of Uganda (Buganda crisis), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ashmoo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "History of Uganda".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

An article that been involved with (George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm CastJared. Your recent edit(s) to the page The Last of Us (TV series) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CastJared (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Harron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue Velvet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Robert Thomas Christgau (/ˈkrɪstɡaʊ/ KRIST-gow; born April 18, 1942) is an American music journalist and essayist. Among the most well-known and influential music critics,

I'm gonna keep this one on my watchlist, fyi... 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 18:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Reiche III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Freeman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Maizels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Cardinal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Ashmoo,

Your wiki anniversary was 26 days ago, marking 11 years (as per SUL) of dedicated service! I wanted to extend a heartfelt thanks for your amazing contributions. With over 27,442 edits, your dedication is an inspiration to the community. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead!

Use this Tool to send wiki anniversary wishes to other amazing Wikimedians.

-- : Suyash Dwivedi (💬) 15:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)