User talk:Asad112

who are you?

any other accounts? is Asad112 a sleeper account? or? please answer these questions, Hope&Act3! (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! My secret is out! You have outed the sleeper account! Do you get a badge/barnstar on your page for doing that? -asad (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

1rr

Hey, you are only allowed 1 rv per 24 hours within all Arab-Israeli conflict articles [1], so you should self revert your second revert at Rachels Tomb as it was your second rv within 24 hours. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that didn't apply to reverts from anonymous or ip users? Can you clear that up for me? -asad (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right, my mistake, you didn't violate it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of edits

You shouldn't notify me of other peoples edits as it may be regarded as inappropriate canvassing. I have Dome of the Rock on my watchlist so I would see it anyways. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it may be regarded as inappropriate canvassing, you can read about it here: Wikipedia:Canvassing. Those who are interested would be watching the article so you only have to make posts at the article talkpage about it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Old City (Jerusalem)

You should be aware that all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

• Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty.

• Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

For further information, see WP:ARBPIA.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I am aware. As you can see, nearly the exact same message was posted above yours. Have I been in violation of this rule to warrant being notified twice? -asad (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Asad112. You have new messages at Brewcrewer's talk page.
Message added 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Asad112 reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: )--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning regarding disruption

This is a warning regarding disruption as evidenced in report at Administrators' noticeboard - Edit warring. Yes, there may be a WP:SPI issue involved, but please in the future refrain from repeated reverts and disruption as you have done multiple times. There are other ways to seek out conflict resolution and dispute resolution instead. If there are sock concerns, there is WP:SPI and WP:SOCK. If there are dispute resolution concerns, there are avenues described at WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what would you suggest to do at this point if the problem persists? So far I have done this and this. This resulted in nothing. And this doesn't look promising. Everything I and other users have done until this point has failed, and the user continues to make reverts without participating in the discussion.

I guess I just want you to help me out in finding the other ways as you said. Thanks. -asad (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:BRD, avoiding disruptive behaviors yourself, and instead engage in talk page discussion, WP:Dispute resolution procedures, etc - especially due to the 1RR issues involved. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Disruption

• You are not allowed to comment on the contributor instead of the content as you did at the Western Wall discussion. That can lead to blocks if repeated too often.
• There is not consensus for the map you chose (if anything it is slightly against you but that could be my POV) It is edit warring anyways since the next step was not to revert but seek another step i dispute resolution.
• You removed a video with false reasoning in your edit summary a little while ago
• I believe you might be a sock of Sol Goldstone based on similar humor and a lapse in editing until he was blocked.

I am debating how to handle this situation but will deal with it tomorrow. The comments above show that you are familiar with the arbitration decision so you have no excuse. I don't really care if you respond but wanted to let you know what was up. Cptnono (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)