User talk:Acroterion

3165:. Thankfully it was answered and the Administrator gave his opinion, which seemed to me that he wasn't certain or just tried to be as neutral as possible. Me and Socialwave597 made our proposals and have yet to been answered, it's been more than 2 weeks. I have no idea whether Admins respond back when giving third opinions but we really need a concrete answer so we can reach a consensus as fast as possible. Would you be able, if possible of course, to check the situation and possibly resolve this? Please let me know if I need to contact someone else or do something as I really have no clue of what to do, I'm kind of new to Knowledge and I am just trying to solve 5849:

spot) and I foolishly clicked on it (Because I know UNEQIVICALLY better than to trust this info). I read what "Wiki" had to "SAY" about "George Stinney" (the youngest EVER to be EXECUTED), saw hundreds of your blue {#}'s which I know UNEQUIVICALLY that they mean it was either "Edited for WRONG FACTS" or "Misleading", "Sorry, wrong, here's an update", "Sorry you were fooled by a so-called Historian", blah, blah de, blah ditty blah.. noticed the "TALK" tab and like a dumbass, signed up so I could write what I did the first time. Which, by the way, is so very true and I saw many others doing the exact same thing.

3941:

revolt. There is no way of knowing fair was just these four men or others unnamed were involved. It has to be written media and popular narratives attribute the events to be that this is what occurred. The official 9/11 commission report is not definitive but somehow popular media is. Remember popular media uses licence to create a story to sell the medium it is being published in. Stating things as definitive because it is in sources usually considered reliable negates that the accounts are not verified as what happened. Reliable and verified sources must be used, but just reliable.

3892:

only four who decided initially. That is just what is reported through popular media and what was reported as being said in unrecorded telephone conversations. Tge use of names when referring to the 9/11 commission report is also wrong as the simply says ‘native English’ or ‘native Arabic’ speaker. The voice recordings have never been made public just a transcript, so any attributions to individuals is not confirmed. The definitive claims of ‘these four men did x’ or ‘x said this’ when not a recorded call in wikivoice is a misuse of wikivoice.

11325: 10852: 1514: 11655: 10863: 10820: 7818: 6288: 6204: 654: 570: 467: 9102: 11389: 11367: 11336: 11314: 10894: 10830: 9294: 8902: 7908: 7866: 7828: 6310: 6257: 6214: 4827: 2691: 2621: 1525: 1503: 1472: 1409: 664: 580: 477: 11303: 10809: 9257: 7807: 6193: 4816: 2589: 1377: 446: 136: 4538: 9268: 2600: 1388: 618: 524: 457: 26: 7855: 6246: 2680: 1461: 11232: 11459: 10936: 7969: 6377: 4905: 1587: 693: 12233: 10249: 3673: 3624: 10214: 11122: 10745: 10442: 9476: 9047: 5516: 5344: 5213: 5040: 4365: 4112: 4056: 3498: 2522: 382: 78: 10907: 9341: 7947: 6358: 4886: 2746: 1568: 11519: 9364: 8001: 6398: 4924: 2765: 1617: 780: 8539: 11984: 11023: 9542: 8435: 6746: 5106: 3269: 1826: 1001: 11356: 7897: 6299: 607: 11378: 10883: 6277: 1492: 513: 11413: 7921: 6323: 4859: 2709: 1549: 3161:

activities of King Degna Djan." Throughout the discussion I gave a lot of reliable sources, however to no avail. He (I don't kow if it is on purpose or not) misinterprets them and/or gives some excuse not to accept them as valid. He also provided some sources, however when you look at them they don't state what he said, on the contrary, some even prove my point. I saw that It was a waste of time and asked

2002:) continuing to post on the talk page in question. Maybe not making personal attacks, but it feels like block evasion. Asking here because you did the original block and it's honestly not clear whether this is something that needs to be reported/where that would even happen/whether a block expansion is even warranted. Can't wrap my head around rangeblocks, but when I tried to look at contributions over 58: 11348: 10875: 9249: 7889: 6269: 4808: 2672: 1484: 505: 11713: 3653: 2933:

POV, and then removed the reference that supported the original statement, with a talkpage comment that effectively stated that they just didn't like the reference. This particular statement has seen disruption in the past. The IP can clearly find the talkpage, and is welcome to discuss why they think such a significant reversal should be made, with a consensus of sources.

1175:

seems biased towards the religion. The sentence "19th century priests - including Donders - showed no respect towards existing beliefs (including Winti) is by any standard not neutral, since: 1. Is authos's presonal opionion not covered in bibliography 2. Contains only half of the truth: most (if not all) missionaries does not show respect towards existing beliefs, becuase

4514:. I am kind of fascinated by the history of this.....mainly because I haven't heard of it. It appears this has been a focus in more recent decades. (After most of the references I am familiar with were written.) Of course, fatigue checks have always been a part of AASHTO.....but I didn't know this was part of their intent (i.e. a overall failure of the whole system). 2917:

explanation. There was an explanation for the move on the talk page. This user has also only removed this content once before, which was a day ago so is that considered "persistent"? Further, this user has added well-sourced content, so I've assumed that the editor is acting in good faith. From what I see, it didn't need to be protected. —

12202:, the UConn Student newspaper still has the string Storrs-Mansfield. At least two other experienced editors left it in the address for the main office for the newspaper while reverting other changes. Inside a street address, I don't think common name applies, so I think we are good, I'll do a check in a few days after his block expires. 9378: 4467:

itself. Bridge design is a specialty area in structural (kind of like precast/prestressed). We use to gripe about the fact the SE exam was 20% bridge questions.....and we (i.e. building guys) were clueless. (I had to get AASTO's 16th/17th ed. and try to pick off the easy questions.....but I digress.)

12106:

I *think* I'm responsible for the initial discovery of the issue. I started reverting the Storrs-Mansfield after he had been doing it for a while and the wall of text summaries for the reverts was what brought in even more users to the issue. Yeah, sometimes the users just don't realize that the mops

5742:

In 1968 in Orangeburg, law enforcement officers shot thirty African American students, killing three. These students from Claflin College and South Carolina State College had been protesting a segregated bowling alley. Two year later, in Lamar, two hundred white men armed with ax handles, chains, and

4681:

This is directly addressed in what I posted above. I am not seeking to be "immunized from criticism". But if you fail to understand the difference between constructive criticism and unfounded accusations and not assuming good faith, then I do criticize you. In fact, my track record can show that I do

3955:

Knowledge uses "the media" for sources. If you have wording that you think more accurately reflects the 9/11 report and reliable sourcing, describe it on the relevant talkpages. Again, your wording is more vague than I think is warranted. I think there are better ways to approach the issue of what is

3737:

I recently noticed that my Knowledge user page, which was dedicated to well-known saints with followers worldwide, has been deleted. I'm writing to inquire about the reason behind this deletion. I've observed similar pages for saints from various countries, including the USA, China, Japan, and India.

3184:

On superficial reading, it looks like Ilywrch (who is not an administrator) did a very thorough review, more than I could do. But , at least while acting as an administrator, I can't arbitrate content, and I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic, so I would need to do a lot of homework to be of much

2932:

I take a less benign view. The IP appears to be trying to turn around the article's discussion on domestic partner violence, flipping the statements on women vs. men (i.e., persistently removing content not to their POV). They added a source that at least on its face appears to support their apparent

1174:

The statement I made was a highly neutral statement, that is pure fact, that is so embedded in Christianity- can it be more "neutral"? Or how would you define "neutral" It is not personal commentary, it is neutral explanation that is designed to make the text less ambiguous than it already is - as it

9685:

so if ActionHerosAreReal says in his edit summaries "this is original research", even though he's removing multiple sentences in this Tupac article that is sourced, and he says "we agreed with my edit on the talk page" "see talk page" even though everyone disagreed with his edits even administrators

8206:

why you deleted my artist about page? that was for my google page with all my social network, when you type slainix on google there's a page that show with social network etc, i don't understand why it got deleted, it's not to promote myself i do that, it's for people who don't know me yet this p*ss

4466:

I read your article.....and while I appreciate you asking me, I am not sure how much help I can be with it. (Although if you have specific questions from specific references, I might be able to help.) First off, I am not a bridge guy (I do mainly industrial buildings). AASHTO is kind of a world unto

3552:

Hi Acroterion, it's been a while and I hope you are doing well. I decided a few days ago that I would see if I could make a low-key return to Knowledge editing without too much anxiety, and the first thing I found was that Nsmutte had returned while I was gone... I came here to ask if you could help

2441:

I've never seen a mechanism via email, at least Iv'e never participated in such a mailing list. I'll figure out where such emails actually go, I'm not optimistic that it's very closely monitored I'd avoid email response and just contact somebody on-wiki. Nighttime requests would be very unlikely to

1145:

You're right that you've donne it once in a given article (I thought you'd done it twice in the Biden article, I was mistaken). However, you're bouncing from place to place adding lengthy digressions about a lawsuit that has a long way to go before it reaches a threshold of due emphasis. Warnings do

8076:

ad you have helped me in he past. My name is Einar, on wikipedia I am carptrash and today I was blocked from editing on wikipedia. When I tried to report it through the suggested channel I was informed that there was o block, but there was one everywhere else. I am now at a friend's house, where I

7036:

And people who tell me I'm doing something wrong have to be punished for being meanies. I think they're a teenager based on the edit to Bearcat's userpage and the edits to their own userpage that had to be suppressed for TMI, so it all goes together. I think they're not yet living in the Real World

3659:

I am contesting your conduct as an admin. You have threatened to block me 3 times, which I find to be an unacceptable way to wield your ability to ban users. If you ban me for contesting your conduct, I only take it as further evidence that you have been given too much power as an admin because you

2916:

Hello Acroterion, I see that you've protected the violence against men article. I personally disagree with your move and request the move to be reversed, however I am happy to hear your thought process as I'm not up to code with page protection. You cite an IP persistently removing material without

2415:

Thanks, I appreciate the detailed info. I will definitely seek help if I spot any similar issues in the future. In this situation, it looks like a former protester/occupier is really keen to remove or counter any negative coverage. In response, we can talk about the use of reliable sources, and the

10361:

While you deleted my comments on that talk page instead of providing any reply: Maybe you might answer here on your own page? Thank you and greetings from France's Atlantic coast. We do not have mountains here where you could remove any tops so all we are afraid of is that heaven might fall on our

9867:

I had decided to block if they did it again. I didn't see your warning at their talkpage until after I'd blocked ,and considered unblocking and leaving your note there, but decided to leave it, since I was more concerned with the trolling nature of the comment than with the issue you'd warned them

8841:

five years ago which eventually got admin-move-protected. Furthermore, with the ongoing calamity in mid-east, I fear that both the target page and the redirect would experience a move-war given that both of their current move-protections are non-extended. Are you still confident about half of your

5859:

And finally, in the "Southern Schools" students are "NOT ALLOWED" to use Knowledge for "ANY and ALL assignments or you will fail with a big fat F and have to do it all over again". That is a TRUE FACT that I know UNEQUIVOCALLY. And if you do not believe me? Please allow me to introduce my "Genius"

5848:

Lastly (I really hope you read this article), I NEVER come to Knowledge for FACTS. I saw a "Documentary" about it on a "True Crime" (I am a True Crime buff) channel I "TRUST" and when I typed it into my browser (NOT GOOGLE) the "Wiki" page was the 1st to POP up (I bet you all pay billions for that

4772:

Well, you got to within 400 miles or so the cities began with B and the states with M. However, I take your point, see my discussion on the talkpage about a pedantic insistence that the bridge ran from Dundalk to Baltimore, which may make sense in a legal sense, but is otherwise nonsensical, and I

3891:

There is no actual way of knowing that the claims of the four men being the ‘ones who organised a revolt’ are true. The only evidence is from reports of what happened which have changed over time, and their accuracy has been questions. There is no way of knowing that the four men actually were the

3769:

As noted in my notice to you, userpages are not workspaces for drafts, or alternate hosts for articles. Additionally, the content included repeated links to what I take to be your personal website, yatharthgeeta.com. Knowledge does not permit that kind of spamming. Please do not use Knowledge as a

11259:

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal

5855:

My knowledge comes from a lot of research, fact checking and being or living someplace where I SEE, HEAR, and WITNESS the TRUE goings-on of what I UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOW as a FACT still happen to this very day! And I am NOT afraid to say it directly to anyone's face who attempts to "call me out" on a

3940:

The issue here is with flight 93 a lot of what is reported in the media is written as being factual and accurate, when it is speculation and conclusion creation on behalf of those organisations who wrote and published those. There is no way of knowing who was and was not involved in the passenger

2955:

However, since I have commitments for the rest of the day and won't be available to respond, I've removed the semi-protection, since the IP appears to be able to present talkpage discussion. Please keep an eye on things, the article has been a battleground in the past for this very statement. Any

2284:

Would it be possible to help? A convoy supporter is removing well-sourced content. It appears that the edits are politically motivated - they wish to remove any content that is critical of the convoy occupation (e.g. anything referring to the class action lawsuit). They are also adding inaccurate

8272:

Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything

7255:

I’d take a look at the user’s talk page history, at least, before continuing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Ironically, I warned all involved users in a discussion taken there that accelerating rather than trying to communicate leads to things getting heated and makes it worse - but they

4488:

Well, I'm an architect, so I'm worse off than you - my competency is in building structures, and as you observe, we generally think in terms of redundancy - there are few non-redundant tension-loaded elements in a building. Thanks for the clue, I'm going to try to stick to generalities and avoid

3160:

talk page. This discussion began after a disagreement on when the Christianization of Amhara began, with me believing it started in the 4th century during the reign of Emperor Ezana and the other user "Socialwave597" believing it happened "in the late Aksumite period, as hinted in the missionary

12453:

Meh, I'm immune to that kind of puerile crap by now, but I've gotten rid of the one that got him blocked - I'd meant to circle back but was probably distracted by my family acting like normal people, instead of this obnoxious child. Simple vulgarity (without any particular non-bot target) isn't

3907:

Your language implies far more doubt than actually exists. Reliable sources are reasonably concordant on these matters. There is room for modification, but I don't think the may-or-may-not tone is helpful. We follow the conclusions of reliable sources rather than introducing our own analysis of

9797:

Hey, so you left a response to something I said and when I said; "Who asked you?" You felt the need to say that just because you were an administrator nobody needed to ask you. Can you tell me why you feel like nobody should need to ask you even though you're the equivalent of a glorified hall

2376:

I don't think anybody expects you to know, from limited experience. In general, editors are limited to three reverts, at most, for anything short of really obvious vandalism or defamation, which this was not. In general, if you encounter this kind of thing again, I would advise reporting it at

7682:

Very good. It was actually getting kind of comical. I've been here a number of years, and have been accused of various things, but I think this was the first time alleging I was a national security threat! In any case, the California-based IP has said enough by now that any recurrence of this

6513:

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please

9198:

Hey, do you reckon the page should just be semi-protected indefinitely? I don't think the issues are going to go away. We aren't going cover (what are typically) symptoms of psychotic disorders in an in-universe way, so I think our coverage of the topic is always going to be upsetting to its

9149:

Hi, I'm Drmies, and because I do things on a website people email my bosses and tell lies about me, threaten to kill me, and threaten rape and murder on my family members. My case against one of these abusers (just one) went pretty far, all the way to the California State AG, apparently, and

4682:

seek objective feedback for my actions out of my own volition. And I do accept and recognize objective criticism and even when I make mistakes. But I don't like when people make unfounded and false accusations or rumours against me, much more administrators, who should know better. Thanks.

3936:

the claim of ‘implies far more doubt than actually exists’ is not true as doubt as to who did and said what does exist. There is no way to know who ‘we’ or ‘they’ are when this is reported as quotes in media sources. It is unlikely the passengers all formally introduced themselves to each

7279:

That kind of conduct is something I see on a practically weekly basis all over the 'pedia, and it's not a subject area where I have an extensive knowledge of the perennial problems, but I'll take a look around. At the moment I'm trying to remind a bunch of people to stay out of trouble.

9150:

then--well I don't know what happened then. It's been quiet for a few years. What I'd love to see is the WMF taking these concerns seriously, and pressure law enforcement and start civil procedures. The real kicker? As a boy I have it relatively easy compared to our female colleagues.

6490: 5844:

It is only ONE of the many "FACT CHECKS" I do when someone decides to, ohhh, "Underestimate Me". So, for you, I have attached a link of "The Smithsonian Magazine" article (Note that they do NOT have {#} please) as, quite frankly, I do not have the time to give all my FACT resources to

9768:

I left a couple when I reviewed. No, your spammed templates were unnecessary and disruptive. They can be placed if needed by someone, but not the way you were doing it. No, it's not a "world-changing event," it's the kind of awful crap we have to deal with without overdramatizing.

8619:

We were more concerned about potential outing, not that I believed that any of it was real, but we wanted to err on the side of safety. As long as there are no concerns on your part, I will un revdel it. The "grossly insulting or degrading" was more a term of art for the revdel.

12108:

Storrs-Mansfield pages on my watchlist, and I'm trying to keep a count of how many remain as I do cleanup. If I see any changes from Storrs to Storrs-Mansfield, which course of action is preferred, commenting here to you as the blocking Admin or putting a comment at WP:ANI?

2069:

On inspection of their edits, the first edit from that range was probably the most telling. I guess they've learned from the first block to tone down the personal attacks, but not quite enough. Iv'e blocked the new range. I suspect they'll find another /64 range, though.

9748:

I think you should go back and review at least some of those based on their recent editing history and consider self-reverting. While it might be correct for not all of those to have the tag, to have removed all of them includes cutting out the kidneys with the cancer.

5481:

Well, yes, that's what you would do. Putting a course syllabus, code source or not, in Knowledge itself is a copyright violation from what I saw, and Knowledge itself isn't a Mediawiki or coding forum. You might want to try the Mediawiki wiki for that sort of thing:

1193:

Knowledge is not a messageboard for your personal views or analysis. I have no particular issue with the removal of that statement, but amplifying or explaining it strays into personal analysis. ff you persist in editorializing you will lose editing privileges.

4000:

Attributions are typically used when there are other widely discussed views. Take it up on the article talkpage - the onus is on you to find consensus for your changes. At the very least, they're awkwardly phrased and convey waffling rather than attribution.

8856:

Yes. There are always possibilities, but we can bump it up if needed. The general guidance for ECP is to not make it perpetual except in unusual circumstances, and I think most of the potential move warriors have gone on to hotter topics for the time being.

5570:

Monsieur le ministre@heures, je ne veux pas vous faire perdre votre temps comme vous me le dites sur ma page de discussion. Je ne veux pas perdre mon temps. Vous pouvez fermer mon compte sur le Wikipédia de langue anglaise. Cordialement Laurange Jolicœur

3654:

You are abusing your power to block, are not providing transparent justification for your editorial decisions, are asserting rules that are not present in Knowledge policy pages, and are reverting edits citing principles that contradict Knowledge policy

3450:

is a conspiracy theory site. Eg "Shocking Mini Hidden Camera Shows – Corporate, Big Pharma Plot to Fire Tucker Carlson" and "Bizarre Oddities: Oh My, Obama’s Brother Says Barack Sold His Soul to Satan To Join the Illuminati" The American Chronicle is no

9906:

We were just looking at two different aspects of their conduct. Recent events are likely to encourage this kind of soapboxing, and while we don't need to get to Barney Fife levels of bud-nipping, I think it'll be another thing we have to contend with.

2476:

Hello. Extended confirmed did make sense on the 20th anniversary, but it’s been 2 and a half years and the page is still extended. It could potentially be lowered to even pending changes or no protection, but extended confirmed is overkill as of now.

7459:

the other day, and the arbitration request case relates to the same group of users, so you might have specific insight into the topic. Only posting in case you didn't see it and would like to make any statements - feel free to completely ignore this

7302:

I'm not going to comment on the article talk page itself because of my previous warning about the contentious topic marker, but I'm pretty sure PicturePerfect666 has just created a sock to continue their edit war. See the "Revert needed" section of

4587:

When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach

4869: 4170:

to 49.185.208.16. (Thanks for the backup, btw. It's good to know that someone else found that edit sketchy) Do you know if there's a discussion/policy that specifically addresses the issue of "Jew-tagging"? Or is it something that is enveloped by

11184:? For the most part, they seem to be making OK edits or edits that at least look OK, but then they create something like this draft. It almost seems like two different people are making the edits. Do you think something like that is possible? -- 6367:

Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Knowledge. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks.

3982:

what is being missed here is assumption bias of this is what has been reported for a long time by lots so it’s correct. Which is a form of bias to avoid. Lots of people saying something over a long period is not verifiability in and of itself.

6493: 4557:. I had legitimate reasons why I went to the ArbCom, which I will explain in the case if my request for extension is approved. You may even think I may have used a mistaken venue. But you stating that it looks like it is forum-shopping is an 7199:. Maybe that /24 needs to be shut down. I think it's highly unlikely that person is in the Dominican Republic, but whether or not he is I think that range can get a longer block. Expanding to a /22 shows edits that clearly originate in .do. 11473: 4994:

This is not a hoax this is culturally significant local legend back by reputable news source. It also helps to further display the cultural impact the Chupacabra cryptid legend has stretched to other area of the world outside of mexico.

3744:

Could you please provide me with more information regarding the deletion and any guidelines or policies I may have inadvertently violated? I'm eager to ensure that any necessary adjustments are made to comply with Knowledge's standards.

9813:

Can you explain why you think aggressive comments like this help us write an encyclopedia? If you just want to treat people badly, find someplace else to do that. I see that another janitor (we like that term better) has blocked you.

4708:

I think you're acting in good faith. That doesn't mean that everybody is compelled to agree with you, or never to criticize you. The tendency to filibuster the slightest criticism is another characteristic that I'm seeing on this page.

7260:. I wanted to try AGF asa far as possible, but if that behaviour has got to the point of a temp block, the message isn’t getting through. I also don’t know how old the account is, but the aggressive weaponising of irrelevant policies 9639:

On the Tupac Shakur page on the lead where it says "african Americans" can you put the word "other" in front of African Americans since Tupac was also black. Action heroes are real keeps removing it and vandalizing the page. Thanks

8177:

I will try and do that, the problem is that all that sort of information is on my computer at m house but I can't edit there. I need to email it over here. Maybe I'll try and do that now. It just involves some driving around.

9991: 1652:. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found 6433: 3978:

I reject the phrase ‘a bunch of waffle’ it’s not in good faith. Also attributions to who has said an individual thing is common on Knowledge. It is more than common to go ‘according to newspaper’ or ‘publication stated about

12161:

Just tell me, or Cfred. I've seen people like this before, who are willing to die on a hill to prove that "The Beatles" is better than "the Beatles," for instance. Some people can't coexist with ambiguity or contradiction.

4619:

so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all

6429: 2334:

for other admins to look at. You should expect to be scolded for simply reverting instead of soliciting admin help from the beginning. I realize you didn't necessarily know that, but it leaves you open to sanctions too.

10000:? I reverted the post but thought an admin who had edited the article or posted on the article talk should probably check it out. I also notified Jpgordon since they had edited the article/article talk as well. Thanks, 5818:

How do I say this "Wiki" Proper? I will do my best. But first I would like you to know a little something about me. I am a "FACT" checker from day one. My Grandmother imbedded in my little pea sized brain the following

5621:. What happens if a partially blocked user attempts to edit one of these pages, and then logs out: is an autoblock applied, and if so, is it a full block, or is it limited to the scope of the original partial block? 7755: 2422:"3. For vandalism, it is best just to fix it directly yourself; however, if you cannot fix it, you can email info-en-v@wikimedia.org and include the address or title of the article and a description of the vandalism." 6337: 5757:

Yes, it was a terrible time and place. But this encyclopedia's article talkpages are for suggestions on article improvement, not for general observations on how awful things were. Knowledge is not an Internet forum.

2300:

Whatever the issue is, you have both wildly exceeded 3RR. I’ll look it over and figure out what to do, but reverting like that is never a good idea - it should be reported at AIV or AN3 before it ever goes that far.

758: 3681: 3632: 5462:

All that in mind, I understand that user pages aren't the intended place for providing Knowledge's developers with such an example for debugging the underlying MediaWiki software, my apologies for that oversight.

4023:

I want to add my complete support for Acroterion's comments above. To repeat, the onus is on you to find consensus for your proposed changes. You do appear to waffle and find objections to other Knowledge pages.

12146:

I don't think I am, though this is probably the first time (and I have more than 100,000 edits) that I have seen someone immolate is such a pendantic way. So *when* he shows back up, I'm not sure where to report

7608:

Yummy stuff. :) Meanwhile, I advised him that this is a privately owned website and that his threats are meaningless here. I'm just wondering if he's going to yap his way into making a full-blown legal threat.

8577: 8546: 8532: 6576: 8352:, that block is set only to affect logged-out users, so you should be able to edit as long as you are logged in to your account. If you're having trouble logging in, you can try resetting your password using 8527: 6345: 9133:

It's special, isn't it, having that status? We should form a club. People who never realized they'd be acknowledged as "victims" by the FBI for their participation in, and administration of, Knowledge. Who

4636:

and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should follow Knowledge policies and perform their duties to the best of their abilities.

1653: 1146:

not mean that you've breached a threshold, they are just reminders not to. I recommend that you wait until any court action becomes a significant feature of someone's life. Mere existence is not notable.

11503: 5834:

Q2). My last reply to you (Orangeburg 1968), is most definitely a "FACT" but not from "WIKI". It is straight out of The Smithsonian Magazine, and it is only ONE paragraph of "The Orangeburg Massacre" in

2361:

Someone has protected the article. I contacted info-en@wikipedia.org to ask for help, but received a reply 9 hours later. Sorry, I didn't know who to contact - I haven't encountered these issues before.

6348:(2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the 4335:, so I misspoke somewhat in the edit summary. It's sort of like sticking to one language variant once it's established. Personally, I think it's kind of anachronistic to use gendered language for ships. 4276:

edit you said that consensus was to refer to ships without gender. I tried to find the consensus myself but failed to do so. Is it possible that you can share with me the link to the consensus? Thanks.

7638:

Yeah, I was a little surprised that they're taking a leap off the high board, their editing history doesn't give any hint that I saw to lead to this Double Top Secret special security police business.

6855:. Not an article, a sandbox. He's not making that a real article. Yes it is a hoax, but it's a sandbox, not an article. I do sound uneducated but I'm still somewhat confused that you deleted a sandbox 5283:), while others have simply been reverted for being unsourced or undue. As the most recent blocking admin, I thought I'd bring this to you first rather than give this person a platform at ANI. Cheers, 12247: 12124:

You're not to blame for this person's obsessive pedantry. I don't think they're compatible with WP; we deal with lots of ambiguity and either-or issues, and this kind of absolutism isn't productive.

7311:, signs up at 01:42, posts that topic at 01:47 with knowledge and opinion of the editwar, and then immediately retires the entire account (a process new users aren't normally aware of) at 01:48. Big 9842:

I understand that different admins have different opinions on how to handle this sort of thing, so I'm bringing this up in an attempt to understand that discrepancy. Did you feel that my warning to

1266: 1169: 1130:

I am curious where this three-revert rule applies to me. Please provide evidence. I have actually not reverted a single page. I am not even on one, yet you flagged my account as three. Why is this?

11486: 1600:, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas. 1684: 1670: 1604: 12015: 11999: 7456: 2252:

By all means. I interpreted it as a child who had a slightly garbled idea of what had happened who was trying out editing. We see that fairly often, though less than we used to, unfortunately.

2492:

I've removed protection entirely, as the specific disruption has been dealt with. There are a couple of LTAs that might cause trouble, but they can be dealt with by semi-protection if needed.

1857: 1841: 6260: 6235: 12223: 11871:) has created an article from it, but it is entirely unreferenced. I reverted once but before I could leave a message, they have reinstated it. I don't know what to do now? Can you advise? 11556: 11261: 7223:

No, when I went to block the IP for awfulness, the Twinkle block window told me that the IP had been previously blocked twice by ST47ProxyBot,which also shows in the block log for that IP.

2279: 1032: 1016: 11260:

structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available

9753:

just as one example where this absolutely is being affected by the latest shooting and we should at minimum leave the tag in place for days, if not weeks. This was a world changing event.

8131:, from a CU perspective I'm not seeing any blocks that should be affecting you. Were you logged in to your account when trying to edit? Most IP blocks will not affect registered accounts. 3933:

also you have omitted that I have pointed out inconsistencies from official reports, to the non-official media reports. Also the primary source of the voice recorder has not been released.

12076: 11054: 11038: 5010:

Then I'm sure that you can provide several references in reliable sources that actually describe the alleged appearance in Huntingdon Valley. The reference you used made no such mention.

2385:

for more complicated issues, and resigning yourself to the understanding that the article may have the wrong version until it can be dealt with. For flat-out edit-warring, like you saw,

1663:. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. 12007: 6388: 5137: 5121: 4915: 3300: 3284: 800: 6341: 12083: 11266: 9573: 9557: 8466: 8450: 1849: 6507: 6777: 6761: 1024: 11046: 7551:

Um, yeah. I'm thinking of founding a think tank too. Its first position paper will examine "Gelato vs sorbetto: which is more satisfactory after dinner?" Research is warranted.

6421: 5852:

In summary, Knowledge is commonly referred to and known as (and ALWAYS has been from day ONE) "Wiki-Rumor-Has-It but we'll fix it with blue {#} if you call us out on something".

5565: 5393: 5129: 3292: 1664: 9565: 8458: 4293: 3447:

I think it's warranted. Good close to that discussion. I got caught up in an edit conflict with you, wrote: Quick response before I block you for personal attacks. Source1mag

1040: 7751: 6769: 1999: 1995: 12096: 11782:

Coordination of separate contracts and timelines for rootop HVAC unit replacement and a re-roofing project could be more exciting than you might think, but alas, it isn't.

11469: 9108:

Thank you. Ha, this reminds me that I have official FBI victim status--hasn't done a lot of good, of course. Comments by colleagues like you do help, and I appreciate it.

10950: 5145: 3096:

Julkhamil, I removed your recent post, which was not on-topic for the article talk page. I second Acroterion's advice that you not edit other people's comments. You cited

1791: 1740: 10009: 7988: 6515: 1597: 11836: 9890:

No need to unblock, I was just curious, for my own benefit, whether you disagreed with my handling of the issue or if you just didn't see it. Either approach is fine. –

9428: 6616: 703: 7436:`` page which YOU have reverted, I have intelligence about this subject, b/c my Cousins in laws cousin is part of a mission discovering the EDP445 missile, thanks! -UI 5720:

Talkpages are for specific, sourced, actionable suggestions for article improvement. They're not fora for the opinions of individual editors or for general discussion.

2652: 2642: 2627: 493: 12081:

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote

6785: 6483: 1440: 1435: 770: 5421:

What on earth does a copied course syllabus have to do with that? User pages aren’t hosts for copyright violations or HTML debugging or whatever you’re trying to do.

5298:

If this was their first rodeo I’d warn or give them more rope, but they seem to be trying to skirt on just the edge of what they were doing before. 1 year this time.

1559: 11858: 6572: 6225: 6220: 4838: 4833: 3803: 1187: 11423: 10946: 10836: 9325: 9310: 9305: 9300: 8604:) as grossly insulting or degrading. I do not find this edit insulting or degrading and did not ask for it to be hidden; can you please un-hide the edit? Thank you 11546: 11510: 11181: 7839: 7834: 5942: 5878: 5744: 5706: 3984: 3942: 3893: 2471: 9686:

and he's still warring with people, that's not vandalism? Ok it's not, since I didn't Read the rules about vandalism, but I'm pretty sure it breaks another rule.

5869: 3816:, and build an article there, using independent sources (not your website), and avoiding anything directly copy/pasted from anywhere, printed or on the Internet. 3553:

me with a renewed semi-protection of my user talk page, but I just noticed that you already did while I was typing the previous, so I'll change to a thank you! --

555: 545: 10382: 10081:

after your warning about personal attacks was to double down on this notion that I somehow have an ulterior motive to supress the truth here. Thanks in advance.

8940: 8847: 8798: 8754: 8727:

I can, but given a history of attempts to move titles, I am reluctant to do so. What do you think would need to be done with the redirect if it was unprotected?

8717: 8149:

unable to edit while logged into your account, please send me an email with the message you get while trying to edit, including the IP, and I'll look into it.

7980: 6313: 6291: 2021:

Want to be clear I'm not requesting that you expand the block, just asking what the protocol is here... Knowledge policies can be positively oracular at times.

1531: 12271: 9934: 8591: 8163:

Thanks all, I have been unable to log into my account for perhaps a month but was still able to edit as a number, but no more. But I can at a friend's house.

7911: 3755: 2846: 790: 488: 11687:

today, but there may be one other, by the same user, also earlier today. Same reason (RD3). The revisions are five minutes apart. Thanks for looking into it.

6625:

There really ought to be an article on the book first, and there really ought to be sources for the others, and for your addition. I've left it there though.

4438:

Thanks, there appears to have been a group of accounts doing the same things there. I’m still looking at some earlier edits to see if they’re worth reveling.

1280: 11490: 9284: 7930: 7877: 7334: 2352: 1429: 5580: 4473:. Like some of the posters said: we tend to think more in terms of "redundancy" than "Fracture Critical". I am not sure if I've even heard that term before. 1425: 11933: 7938: 6349: 3054: 2718: 2003: 11442: 7463: 6506:

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the

6051:

it's preferable to find sources instead of summarily removing it, unless it's agreed to be dubious or unsourced and tagged as such for a long, long time.

5455:, not the root cause that I would need for crafting an example from scratch. There-in, the relevance is to provide Knowledge's software developers with a 2294: 1644: 11811: 11271: 7437: 5595: 5268: 3211:

All right. I believed Llywrch was an administrator as it was stated in his profile page but in any case I'll see what I can do, thanks for the response.

2858: 1991: 2733: 9214:

Probably. I won’t do it tonight, I’m about to signed, especially since it would turn into an argument about involvement, but feel free to ask at RFPP.

7759: 6411: 3813: 2637: 1924: 1748: 11596: 5636:

Well ... damned if I know, to be honest. I'm not sure if the autoblock would apply only to the partial block topic, I hadn't considered that. I would

2212:

Did you read the edit? It wasn't a question, it was a garbled test edit at best, and was not an edit request or a suggestion for article improvement.

2092:

Thanks for the attention. A new block was more than I was expecting. If he does find a new /64 I'm not sure we can continue this game of Whac-A-Mole.

10823: 10363: 9843: 9330: 8026: 8011: 6037: 5415: 2842: 2632: 1724: 11288: 6530: 950:

The thought crossed my mind, but then I really needed to wind up lunch and get back to work. We'll see what use, if any, they make of my tolerance.

840: 11812: 11000: 10841: 7821: 5267:...a couple times for "Jew tagging" and in general bad editing practices has picked up where they left off after the latest 3-month block expired: 2611: 2486: 1795: 1744: 1394: 9319: 7455:

Hi Acroterion - just wanted to let you know that has opened an arbitration request about ARBECR - just thought you would like to know, seeing as

4983: 2905: 1362: 762: 11573: 10977: 9432: 9416: 9393: 8065: 8042: 7872: 6454: 5468: 5407: 4960: 3442: 2882: 1701: 817: 11840: 11400: 11395: 11370: 6477: 2647: 1771: 1445: 431: 12040: 11283: 11079: 9598: 9463: 8491: 8208: 7844: 6810: 5591: 5402:

is resolved? The example links for reproducing the bug are no longer working. Otherwise, could you please recommend where/how I might post the

5170: 4196:. We get two kinds of editors that do that - proud promoters of Jewish accomplishments, and bigots. Before edit filters prevented it, we'd get 3325: 2854: 2428: 2363: 2286: 1946:

Oh boy, I didn't see that either. I won't remove TPA unless they abuse it, but I will amend my comment, I see no redemption available to them.

1882: 1065: 10794: 7771: 4512: 1577:

Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (

680: 675: 670: 657: 644: 639: 634: 629: 624: 596: 591: 586: 573: 560: 550: 540: 535: 530: 483: 470: 11939: 11578: 10982: 9837: 9398: 9315: 9279: 8565:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 8558: 8554: 8047: 6603: 6459: 6207: 5443:

It's the delta (change) between the revisions that's relevant to the bug report. Wikimedia asks for "clear how to reproduce the situation" (

4965: 2887: 2866: 2862: 2194: 1706: 1536: 822: 11339: 11317: 10153:

and reverting more material to their preferred POV. I've final warned them, but I think we've run out of patience here - what do you think?

9436: 7535: 4796: 4542: 2571: 1506: 1243:

Well, more like 18 months, if I'm reading the block log right, but we can find comfort that they've at least moved on from Matthew Garrett.

7934: 7389:

Just a simple question: does the 1RR on the article apply only to content that relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict or to all content?

6333: 3068: 2850: 2722: 1799: 10866: 9962: 9237: 7792: 4848: 11983: 11962: 11022: 9541: 8434: 7491:

you reverted a junky comment on my talk page. It would be good if you'd at least use an edit summary to say why when doing such things.

7464:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Extended_confirmed_restriction

6745: 5886: 5714: 5105: 3268: 1825: 1420: 1000: 460: 10930:. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked. 6987:

Which is perfectly fine, I understand your motivations for creating it, I've done things like that too (long ago, before the Internet).

6846: 6178: 5279: 4843: 3462: 2657: 11568: 10972: 9388: 8201: 8037: 7537:

including the continual use of a variation of "retard", and some weird kind of self-promotion, maybe it's time to shut that guy down. ←

6449: 5700: 4955: 2877: 2188: 1696: 1399: 812: 2206: 11773: 11729: 10126:

FYI they are now trying to circumvent their partial block by canvassing others to change the article back to their preferred version

7140:

How do you know they're using a proxy? Or, is it just an assumption because that second Talk:AOC comment made it clear it was LTA? –

6230: 3644: 3109: 1931:

on another page until I went looking through their previous contributions. This person definitely doesn't need to be allowed back. —

3648: 11868: 6608:

It is not my fault there is no article about the book yet. That is why i linked to the author's article where the book is mentioned

1475: 1450: 10897: 10552:

Yes and no: "became the stuff of legend" is hardly appropriate, but yes, you added a ref. You might want to reconsider that line.

2146:, which is frequently targeted by irate editors. If you have some time, it would be appreciated if you could keep an admin eye on 11967: 11270:

by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the

11254: 9750: 3901: 10427: 10413: 10078: 9857: 7112:

I think so, it makes criminal allegations and, while that doesn't appear to be the primary intent, includes a promotional link.

3147: 1271:

By mistake, I pinged a different editor. I edit it back, to your username, but I don't know for sure if it notified you or not.

12036: 11733: 11075: 10179:

I was down to my last nerve with them anyway, so it would have taken a lot less than that torching of any doubt to indef them.

9594: 8528: 8487: 8216: 7960:

feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title.

7068: 7054: 6806: 5166: 3677: 3628: 3321: 1878: 1809: 1061: 10350: 10127: 9946: 6866: 6611:

There are also plenty completely unlinked cases on the article so i don't get why you're singling this one out specificially?

4742: 2694: 852: 12281:

Fun fact, I just ran into an account from another LTA that had used the same proxy as this one. I've never seen that before.

12044: 11832: 11799: 11777: 11759: 11529: 11293: 11083: 10799: 9602: 9274: 9242: 8495: 7797: 7787: 6814: 6612: 6561: 6183: 5870:

In 1968, Three Students Were Killed by Police. Today, Few Remember the Orangeburg Massacre | Smithsonian (smithsonianmag.com)

5174: 4801: 3666: 3329: 3139: 3015:"1. An abusive, bitter verbal or written attack, criticism or denunciation. 2. A prolonged discourse; a long-winded speech." 2606: 2576: 1886: 1367: 1069: 984: 761:, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were 436: 11177: 10151: 9731: 9717: 9695: 9680: 7957: 7155:

The IP shows as previously blocked as a proxy. My assumption of course is that the previous block was correctly attributed.

6658: 5685: 3693: 3113: 12344: 12092: 12070: 11831:

Page protection got downgraded and leaving this edit-request on the discussion's talk page won't gain any user's attention.

11592: 11279: 11006: 10996: 9412: 8061: 6473: 5950: 5936: 5775: 5752: 5737: 4979: 4018: 3992: 3973: 3950: 3925: 2901: 1720: 1415: 1179: 836: 351: 348: 345: 342: 339: 336: 333: 330: 327: 324: 321: 318: 315: 312: 309: 306: 303: 300: 297: 294: 291: 288: 285: 282: 279: 276: 273: 270: 267: 264: 261: 258: 255: 252: 249: 246: 243: 240: 237: 234: 231: 228: 225: 222: 219: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 198: 195: 192: 189: 186: 183: 180: 177: 174: 171: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 10164: 9427:

Literally every source (unless AI) is user-generated. Every book is written by a person. Every story told by perspective.

8312: 7633: 5618: 5617:. If I'd fully blocked the account, this would trigger an autoblock on my IP and this account; I'd like to try this, but 4895:

The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (

1912: 1339:

Yeah, I'd been waiting to see what else they'd do, there's no doubt that they're a logged-in version of the IP. Indeffed.

12380: 12252: 11845: 8562: 8389: 8321: 7687: 7629: 7613: 7577: 7541: 7500: 7483: 6642: 6620: 6535: 5329: 5315: 5089: 4033: 3799: 3787: 3617: 3252: 2039:

Rangeblocks take some getting used to, especially with IPv6. I think it bears a closer look, because blocked is blocked.

1928: 1730: 1095: 11884: 11109: 7030: 3763: 3367: 3178: 2269: 2247: 2229: 1211: 12260: 12238: 12224: 11696: 11539: 11246: 9525: 8602: 8550: 8418: 8291:

This block will expire on 00:28, 6 June 2025. Your current IP address is <redacted and sent to Spicy and Drmies: -->

7764: 7737: 7717: 7697: 7691: 7677: 7655: 7617: 7603: 7581: 7568: 6580: 5292: 5200: 5004: 4935: 3886: 3833: 3807: 3798:

I was new on Knowledge just started contributing here I will keep in these points in mind for my future page if any.

3355: 3046: 3032: 2737: 2509: 1977: 1963: 1163: 1139: 12403: 10498:

Your reversion of my edit left an errant ref tag and some very poorly worded text. Please review your changes. Thanks

9628: 9010: 8642:

Oh, no, from the snippet that I was able to read, there is no danger of real information being divulged in that edit.

8521: 7421: 7398: 5272: 4613:

If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific

2182: 1260: 887: 10569: 10547: 10539: 10533: 10499: 10121: 9807: 8967: 8936: 8874: 8851: 8843: 8824: 8802: 8794: 8780: 8758: 8750: 8744: 8713: 8412: 8123: 7304: 6840: 6729: 4167: 3880: 3485: 3434: 3416: 101:. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me, unless I don't respond when a response is expected. 10307: 10196: 10170: 10133: 10055: 10033: 9034: 7129: 6068: 5274: 5027: 4314:

which says that either feminine or neutral gender pronouns may be used with ships. Sorry for the mass of messages! —

3680:

regarding You are threatening to block me on unjust grounds, and this is not ok conduct for an admin. The thread is

3059:

I was trying to polish and refine the comments on the talk page for the Far Right, but you undid my revision. Why?

2087: 12485: 12471: 12348: 11216: 10371: 10230: 8807:

Yeah, we're really not supposed to keep ECP if it's not needed, so I brought it all to autoconfirmed. My decision.

8371: 8109: 7478: 6017: 6003: 5276: 4726: 4695: 4676: 4523: 4506: 4352: 3716: 3097: 3091: 2987: 2973: 2950: 2123: 2101: 2056: 1303: 1223: 933: 926: 12446: 11620: 10726: 10702: 10680: 10656: 9831: 8687: 8673: 8651: 8637: 7523: 7372: 7328: 7240: 7190: 7172: 7004: 6982: 6968: 6951:

You wrote something in the format of an article purporting to describe a civil war in Texas. It's both. Not here.

6911: 6897: 5476: 5438: 4482: 4323: 4305: 4192:

It comes up at ANI from time to time, and it's condemned each time. In the MoS it's specifically deprecated - see

3738:

like similar content what my page was so if similar content with other page can work what is issue for my page..?

2030: 976: 967: 12358: 12088: 11925: 11907: 11588: 11275: 10992: 9792: 9786: 9408: 9231: 8239: 8057: 7297: 7218: 7206: 7064: 7026: 6571:

Why did you revert my edit on List of Fictional Countries of the Earth? There was nothing wrong with my addition

6469: 6122: 6104: 5679: 5657: 4989: 4975: 4455: 4257: 4245: 4217: 3609: 3590: 2897: 2459: 2436: 2410: 2371: 2318: 1716: 832: 12313: 12211: 12193: 12179: 12156: 12141: 11643: 10632: 10242: 9985: 9181: 8837:, though not sure if you're typing about the target page or redirect, but that case was unfortunately true with 8721: 8140: 7350: 6946: 6928: 6438: 6086: 5692: 5662:

Zzuzz or another checkuser would probably have better insight on that topic, since they'd see the consequences.

3567: 3393: 3242: 3220: 3206: 1649: 11602: 11446: 11166: 10789: 10722: 10676: 10628: 10603: 10486: 10323: 9924: 9901: 9885: 9159: 9144: 9091: 8987: 8983: 8979: 8973: 8944: 8092:

Hello Einar. I’ll see what I can do, but it will probably need a checkuser o see what’s going on with your IP.

7488: 6162: 6045: 5560: 1785: 1356: 1286:

I replied at AN. I think you probably need to take a step back. I'll reply at greater length on your talkpage.

10266: 9997: 9949:

on a user talk page requesting sort of offline information prima facie might sound innocuous but to read with

9663:. If I see anybody else calling someone a vandal they're likely to get blocked. Disagreement isn't vandalism. 9520: 8365: 8187: 8172: 6721: 5388: 5257: 5084: 4790: 4409: 4156: 4100: 3542: 2926: 2566: 119: 11769: 11725: 11678: 7450: 5467:

Please disregard. I've attached the information directly to the bug report. Thanks, again, for the guidance.

4918:

to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

4604: 3640: 3602: 3573:

I considered making it indefinite protection, in fact, I think I will, if you don't mind. I'm happy to help.

3560: 3105: 9374: 8920: 7545: 1660: 922: 426: 11862: 10920: 10394: 10327: 10226: 9727: 9691: 9645: 7384: 7106: 6145:

Well, at least we've given them some time back that would otherwise be used in adding periods, one by one.

6140: 4653: 4600: 4554: 4550: 2838: 2425: 1627: 1122: 1117: 866: 11436:

applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past

10333:

Stopping it is the main priority, then we can take further action. No worries, thanks for jumping in too.

10129:. I've just noticed this after reverting some interesting SYNTH and OR of theirs on a different article. 9351: 9350:

Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript.

8343: 8158: 5576: 4200:

instead. I'll look around for a discussion, I know one exists, and I've probably quoted it at some point.

3857: 2725:

is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the

1320:

is the same person. They left a comment defending the IP's edit and then made the same disruptive edit at

944: 12325: 11704: 11222: 11193: 10927: 10356: 9762: 8950:

Yeah, those are only less bad. I see an OS hit the others, which is good because work intervened for me.

8377: 8317: 7273: 5946: 5882: 5748: 5710: 4461: 4420: 3988: 3946: 3897: 3722: 3547: 1940: 1237: 909: 36: 12245:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

11672: 9649: 7623: 6699: 5281: 4226: 2015: 12353: 12118: 10423: 10409: 10390: 10098: 7149: 7083: 7060: 7022: 5599: 5262: 4940: 2159: 1631: 9119: 5630: 5465:

Could you recommend where I should post a working example (solely for the lifetime of the bug report)?

5138:

Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes

3009: 12415: 12241:

has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the

11140: 10763: 10514: 10460: 10319: 9494: 9422: 9208: 9065: 8914:

Thanks for your swift suppression and block of that IP user, and for keeping Knowledge a safe place!

8328: 8278: 8255: 8086: 7573:

Mmmm. Sounds like a savory subject. :) Better be careful about that block. He says it's illegal. :) ←

6033: 5856:

fact that I UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOW, LIVE and BREATH due to incompetent hacks who crossed my path of life.

5534: 5362: 5325: 5288: 5231: 5058: 4432: 4383: 4130: 4074: 4029: 3759: 3516: 2540: 2330:

I'm not going to have the time to sort this out before I go to work, I'm going to leave a message at

2235: 1315: 1101: 400: 12290: 10507: 10015:

FYI, I blocked them for the legal threat, but I suspect they were not long for this project anyway.

6336:

has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including

929: 12340: 12242: 11765: 11721: 11480: 11242: 11130: