• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't have guidelines on when to enable feedback. Turn it on if you want, but don't be offended if someone else turns it back off. (In my opinion, it's kind of a poorly thought-out system).Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm beginning to notice that. It seems to disconnect comments and make discussion difficult participate in. Thanks for the answer. {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 02:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm MrScorch6200. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Sunir, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. MrScorch6200 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about bumping into you on the new pages feed. That said, thanks a lot for helping out! I, JethroBT^{drop me a line} 02:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it happens to me also. I also saw that you took the "Bot" out of your name! I was wondering when you might have done that! MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*stands in corner, looking bewildered* "Ahem." No problem. I thought I'd switch over from vandalism patrol to new pages review, but I don't have it in me tonight! {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 02:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah uh...it's a little strange that you responded as though this was directed at you, oh well. I did decide to take it out because I got tired of wondering whether it confused newer editors, even ifthe community did not think so. Anyway, Asukite, I'm moving onto other matters, so hopefully you'll have fewer curation conflicts tonight. :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I'm a little too tired to be doing this right now... %') (That's actually what a tired smiley looks like). MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It confused me when I was new. :) Anyway, I'm sure I'll see you around. MrScorch6200 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Theonesean#The League of Peace Foundation. theonesean 21:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, atWikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. SeeBRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please, rather than you reverting User:98.14.207.162's edits, and he or she reverting yours (which could in fact be valid), try to discuss this and resolve your dispute in a civil, productive manner. Come to a compromise. Understand each other's viewpoints. Explain your rationale for your actions. Thanks. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment (and the don't-template-regulars policy; clearly, you understand site policies and put that understanding to good use), I have stricken out the warning.

However, would you be so kind as to explain why you have engaged as you have with User:98.14.207.162 or your actions in your edit war? Cheers.

Also, I am aware that you were not the only editor reverting User:98.14.207.162's edits. However, can you deny that were the only one to have reverted at least thrice, and can you deny that there could be valid grounds for the edit that both you and EuroCarGT have been reverting? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't call it an edit war. I was simply a bit overzealous in my usage of Huggle. I was moving a bit quickly at the time and probably failed to notice the number of times I had reverted the page. I noticed shortly afterward that I wasn't handling my reviewing with the same dispatch which I normally am capable of, and decided to stop. While I recognize in entirety that I remain fully responsible for each edit which I perform using automation, I concede that I do occasionally make oversights and mistakes, which I have corrected summarily.

Futhermore, the removed content did appear to be sourced upon my secondary investigation and I have been unable to locate a source regarding a libel investigation into the included claims. I might be able to further improve this issue but the disappointing truth is that I don't altogether care that much. I will issue an apology to the IP editor when I see proof that it is not a single purpose IP, as its only edits have thus far been to the page in question. Good day :) {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 01:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair do's. My apologies for any similar overzealousness or misunderstanding.

Although the IP editor appears to be an SPA, it could be a little presumptive to assume that it is in fact one. Further, do keep in mind that determining whether something is under investigation or before the court can be a little difficult, as not all of these things are publicly accessible and may compromise the integrity of the rule of law and due process.

Glad that this has been sorted, though. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my article on Pigdebatten but I'm not sure why. How do I undelete it and how do I revise it to ensure it doesn't get deleted again. Thanks -- Mangooseman —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Asukite. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on ST Applications to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm aindriu80. I don't think you should have deleted LÉ Samuel Beckett (P61) because it is a new ship for the Irish Navy which is being built at the moment. I tried to upload a few pictures but it said I did not have the privileges. _____________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aindriu80 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello aindriu80, I apologize that your page was deleted, but it was deleted as an empty article. When you create an article, you have to submit some meaningful content along with the article, rather than creating blank pages. You can work on an article in your userspace, (ie, create the page "User:aindriu80/samplepage" and work on it there, then move it or ask somebody else to move it when it's ready for action.) just remember that the subject of the article has to be notable. Hope I helped! (you might also find WP:AFC useful.) {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 22:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Julijo Pisk may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete an article that you have no reason to have any problems with. The article is by no means vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regular-bypasser (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article in question, Jonathan K. Stonefire was reviewed and classified as a blatant hoax, as an unsourced article which makes nonsensical claims about an individual. Contributions to Wikipedia must meet the following guideline: WP:GNG in order to qualify for encyclopedic coverage. In addition, subjects must be written about in a neutral manner that exposes the reasoning for the subject's significance in clear language without need to exemplify any certain characteristics, such as accomplishments; whether factual or not. {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 18:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to Wikipedia not so long ago. It took me a while to work out how to do the 'Talk Pages' and I still don't think I'm doing it quite right. Anyway, thanks for the advice/help on the 'Paul-Louis Landsberg' article. I still need to make improvements to out but will watch out for what other Wikipedians might do to it first. Have been busy editing twenty or so other articles and have just added extra references (London Review of Books, British National Bibliography, Worldcat, Independent Biographies) to the article Edouard d'Araille. I have watched as this author has gone from obscurity to over 10,000 entries on Google on the last decade and was aware of his large body of poetic work having been discussed by the Nobel Prize Foundation earlier this year. I hope that the article is coming nearer to being satisfactory from a Wikipedia point-of-view. Someone else already seems to have added an edit (which seemed accurate to me) but I am still browsing through internet entries and physical bibliographies for the best additional references to add. Will get to work on some other articles in the meantime that I have been wanting to add as well, and I have some further cleaning up edits I would like to do. Thanx again for your support. Aldersonsmith (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a heads up that I replaced your CSD on this article with one for copyvio. Hope you don't mind. best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 03:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Asukite. I edited RubberBand earlier to update a detail, adding a supporting reference for the change and with an appropriate edit summary. Shortly afterwards you reverted it using Huggle [1], in an edit marked as minor and with no further information in the edit summary. Please could you tell me what the specific problem you had with my change was that caused you to revert? Thank you. Replying here is fine; elsewhere if you prefer. Thank you. –91.125.29.135 (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a mistake. I've corrected it. {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 17:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, ta. 91.125.29.135 (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]