I requested a move from Edith Sirius Lee to here[1].

Welcome back. It's inadvisable to edit your talk page comments after another editor has responded to them. SeeWP:REDACT. Not a big deal in this case, but i thought you might not be aware of the guideline.  Will Beback talk 23:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I knew the guideline. It's a guideline, not a policy and, as you say, there was no harm done. The modification that I made had nothing to do with your response, which was about a different part. Also, I started this edit before you posted a message. It was an edit conflict situation.Edith Sirius Lee (talk)00:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content totalk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you mustsign your posts by typing fourtildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk)17:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bot! You are very useful. I had corrected the situation already before seeing this.Edith Sirius Lee (talk)17:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how renames work. You could try to contact a sysadmin who can attempt to retrieve your password on your old account, but accounts cannot be merged and user talk pages should not be moved unless the user is renamed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstoodthese instructions then. I will contact a sysadmin. Thank you.Edith Sirius Lee (talk)18:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoinghere. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)16:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In RfCs one usually votes for their choice not against other choices. Please move your comments to the discussion section.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)17:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this policy, guideline or just usage? If it is guideline or usage, I think it contradicts the idea that an Rfc is not a formal survey where we count votes. Besides, it is informative to express that we are particularly against an option.Edith Sirius Lee (talk)18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to fix this edit[2] in which the entire talk page was duplicated.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)15:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I don't know what did that. I am not expert, but I will try. The only way that I see is simply to remove any duplication. I will try that.Edith Sirius Lee (talk)15:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be requesting formal mediation. Please let me know if you wish to be included or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thank you.(olive (talk)01:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yep, you can put me on the listEdith Sirius Lee (talk)01:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have filled an arbcom enforcement here[3].Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)17:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please readWikipedia:Canvassing. Asking input from editors known to share a viewpoint is regarded as a form of vote-stacking that skews the consensus-making process.  Will Beback talk 21:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, Olive and I disagree on the point, so I had absolutely no way to know in advance the opinion of any editor. I think this is normal discussion among involved editors. Second, I believe the context where this applies is when we seek opinions among non involved editors. How come you do not assume good faith on me. Do you really think that I wanted to skew the consensus in this way, which would have been ridiculous and impossible?Edith Sirius Lee (talk)22:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you did what you did. I'm just alerting you to the fact that such activity is strongly discouraged.  Will Beback talk 22:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your point, it can be used against me, despite the fact that it is completely anodyne in this particular context. So thank you. The information is well noted. My point is that an heavy environment for editing and communication is created when every single anodyne action is seen in terms of policy violation. However, I thank you because I do not hold you responsible for such an environment - you are just a part of it.Edith Sirius Lee (talk)23:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per administrators' consensus at the AE thread[4], you are nowtopic-banned from all articles and discussions relating toTranscendental Meditation for a period of6 months, because of your persistent combative and unconstructive conduct in related disputes.Fut.Perf.☼22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edith, may I make a suggestion? You've been focused exclusively on one topic on Wikipedia. There are, literally, over a million articles here. Including articles on your other hobbies, your favorite songs, your hometown, that poet you like, and a hundred other topics you would find interesting. Getting involved in a couple of different topics, unrelated to TM, would help you grow as an editor. This action is not a punishment, it's a remedy. Please take it as such and learn from it. Best wishes,  Will Beback talk 13:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution –Survey Invite Hello Edith Sirius Lee 2. 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 clickHERE 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 associatedresearch page.StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania!02:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]