User talk:Jersey Devil/Archive 2

1906:

people that with the right approach could spring some strong industrial nations on par with Japan and Germany...such as Argentina and Brazil. Also, is Peru mainly native or European like Argentina? It is unfortunate that no nation there has produced the economic miracle of a Japan. Venezuela especially has the potential to emerge strong with the right approach in using their oil money to build productive enterprises, high speed rail and modern forms of transport, and to improve the quality of life of their citizens. But, back to Peru...who is the George Washington of Peru by the way? Thanks. --

1061:

appear to have a decent amount of potential, they be noted for expansion. If they don't, then they do deserve an RfC. But if you have in fact been attack Striver for his Shi'a point-of-view, that is just plain wrong. Adding an article about every single Shi'a that every lived and every single topic of Shi'a Islam certainly can be annoying (and at times unnecessary), but that is not point of view. That is educating others about Shi'a Islam. If you want to add an article for every place (of significance) in

1937:

daughter articles. Why should Rutgers not be the same? In addition, you've claimed that "lots of people are complaining", which as far as I can tell, they aren't. Could you clarify what you meant, or show some instances of someone other than you complaining about this? In the meantime, s there is apparently a 2:1 "consensus" on the talk page against keeping it all on one page, can we keep it split up--for now, until we reach a real consensus--please? Thanks. (If you want to reply, do so on

2191:, which includes a provision for Speedy keeping if "the nomination was clear-cut vandalism or WP:POINT and nobody disputes this or votes to delete it anyway (since calling a nomination vandalistic does not make it so and actual POINT-making AFD nominations appear far less frequently than accusations thereof)." Thus it would seem to be preferable to recommend speedy keep on something in a case like you described rather than removing the AfD tag. 186:- "Party of Striver," if you like). (3) Non-muslims with little knowledge of Islam who vote keep because they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he is doing since he is "a religious Shi'a twelver Quietist Muslim" per his user page and clearly knows English as a second language. He is, then, not an "average" Wikipedian and his contributions could be thought to be countering 2023: 1785:. It also further proves that you are on an anti-Islamic Christian Crusade and are a far-right George W. Bush supporting, France hating, Iraq War supporting, fascist. /sarcasm On a serious note you can expect the same crowd to come in and systematically vote keep because it is a Striver article, because Striver is above Knowledge policy. All he has to do is list it on his personal page at his 194:. However, as a non-muslim with a fairly extensive knowledge of Islam (more than the average muslim anyway, who knows about as much about islam as the average christian does about christianity), I don't see that Striver has any special knowledge of Islam. His contributions are equivalent to what a non-muslim with no prior knowledge of Islam could find with a Google search - 1047:. Considering that Striver is clearly an inclusionist, and both you are I are at least somewhat deletionists, that seems to indicate that his additions get deleted at a disproportionally high rate. So to say that your recent actions have been an attack on Striver would be unfounded; historically a surprisingly high number of his pages have been deleted. 1358:

can be time-consuming and draining for those who have to defend it, and shouldn't be taken lightly. Several intelligent and articulate people I know, who might otherwise have been valuable contributors had their first experience been a positive one, are now convinced that Knowledge is useless as a direct result of the whole mess we were in. --

45:

arrives. I too agree that the spamming needs to end. However, the AFD (or MFD) page is not the place to discuss this. Stick to the merits, or the weaknesses of the article (or portals). Incidently, despite your comments, the Conspiracy project was not unanimous as their was a weak keep, despite the user now regretting doing so.

1329:) If I revert them am I, yet again, "abusing" Striver? I just have to wonder how far he has to go before any of my changes to his edits are justified by his defenders.And with regard to Stifle's comments, see Striver's talk page about the Rfc. Striver: Can be un-done? Stifle: Generally, no, but since 1905:

I see your of Peruvian descent and you seem interested and know much of Peru. My knowledge of that country is limited right now. I have quite a curious mind and am interested in their present economic system and their past economic system. I feel Latin America has abundant resources and courageous

1495:

Funny, I was just about to edit your page to let you know I already knew about it. Maybe I should wait to see if it gets certified this time before posting. Striver's characterization of the failure of the first RfC as "deleted due to a technicality" is dishonest. It was deleted because it was not

1357:

I think it's worth commenting about this here because I now see two completely different groups of people who think you're jumping the gun on AfDs where cleanups might be more appropriate. Rather than taking it defensively, please consider whether there might be some validity to this. The AfD process

1289:

Again: if you will change your behavior to conform with AfD policy, and instead of just AfDing them tag them for cleanup for a while, only AfDing them if Striver fails to clean them up... then this discussion is over and you have my encouragement and blessing to tag his stubs to your heart's content,

1230:

WP editors have certain discretion related to pages in their user space, and your reverts are within that policy. However, my current inclination if this is not otherwise resolved soon is to make a copy of the page over in my userspace, sign it, get another signature, and put it back up at RfC. The

549:

The only people who have found it disruptive are those who systematically vote keep in Striver's articles. See the afds, many "keep" votes are not on the basis of the articles themselves but just sytematic keeps because it is Strivers articles that are up for deletion. So no, I won't take a break. If

396:

a "POV Hawk" on your user page, accompanied by the text "POV Hawk-The Greatest enemy of the NPOV Wikipedian", is a personal attack. I also suggest that it is not productive to stalk Striver and list all articles he created on AfD. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep

181:

There seem to be three problems (at least) in the AfDs on his articles. (1) Some people will do a procedural keep on his articles if Striver is named in the nom. This could be addressed by either not naming him in the noms, better identifying multiple policy violations, or identifying a policy that

139:

I doubt the majority of Wiki knows anything about you Messhermit. The ones who do know you don't think of you negatively. You do need to work on a few things though. I understand you are from Peru, but you need to be ever-aware of the fact that Peru is a small miniature country in comparison to other

2143:

I don't know, I took a quick look and didn't notice anything about it. It would seem to be a bad practice, otherwise it could happen all the time, which would be disruptive. I think the nominator can withdraw and even close it if there's a consensus for that, and an admin can close an afd early if

908:

Yes, I saw you commenting on an afd to Irishpunktom about the claims of this for "keeping" an article. Unfortunately he always votes keep on Striver's articles no matter how bad they are or what wikipedia policy stands against it (because he feels it is an attack on muslims) and whilst he accuses me

763:

I can believe that most of the articles you listed are bad. That is not the issue. I can also see that Striver is not the most cooperative editor to work with. But honestly, I think that you are presently too obsessed with Striver to be able to distinguish clearly between articles that genuinely fit

2102:

Hi, it's kind of a personal ethics thing of mine to be wary of people asking me to vote on afds. I voted on this particular one because I did have an opinion on it but next time I ask that I not be informed on afds (because it may in the eyes of others delegitimize my vote i.e., "he only voted this

1638:

Enable section editing via links Enable section editing by right-clicking on section titles (JavaScript) Edit pages on double click (JavaScript) Edit box has full width Show edit toolbar (JavaScript) Show preview on first edit Show preview before edit box Add pages you create to your watchlist Add

1281:

I have no problem with you wanting to clean up Knowledge. I have no problem with your acting to clean up Knowledge articles by Striver. I have a problem with your going against AfD written policy and just AfDing them, en masse, into highly controversial and mostly unsuccessful discussions, rather

1273:

doing something wrong. AfD policy states rather explicitly that you should tag articles for cleanup as a strongly preferred alternative to AfDing them. If you were right and the articles were all hopelessly out of place and unsalvagable, there would be little controversy, they'd be gone after the

1146:

because the family relationships of Uthman have been public record for upwards of 1400 years. The other, and apparently primary, reason for your AfD nomination seemed to be its authorship and your content dispute therewith. Again, I have no dog in that hunt. All I care about is quality content. The

876:

We've tried it before, listing the bad articles for deletion at a slow pace. What happened is that Striver just calls all his allies to vote keep and the articles get kept by no consensus. And by the time the afd closes, Striver has created 10 other pages that could be put up for afd. I have yet to

588:

I invite you again to lead by example, and demonstrate good faith and civility towards your fellow Wikipedians by taking a day or two off. Have some faith in the ability of the community to expunge bad content -- if his contributions truly need to go, someone else will handle it. But right now, you

202:

There should in fact be more articles on Islam and Shiism, and they should accurately present their views of themselves and of others per policy. However, those articles should be created by people who can create at least proper stubs for them that at least conform to WP policy. I don't know what

198:

Striver does not appear to cite to articles or books he owns or consults, but rather seems limited to Google searches. That might not be so bad if he could really analyze the search results. However, Striver's tendancy to copy information wholesale, and not evaluate the reliability of sources, to

1218:

Jersey Devil, your comment above that the original RfC was deleted for not fitting the requirements is not entirely correct. We failed to certify it, which is a procedural goof. That's very different than "that's not a valid subject for a RfC" or "there is no issue here worth discussing". There

1034:

I am familiar with that incident, considering I was the one who originally created that AfD. I ran into a similar issue when I nominated those articles (and several other by him) for deletion. Some people mistook a problem with his articles with a problem with him. I'm not (and I'm sure you're not

759:

Thank you for your message. Believe me, Striver is not threatening the very fabric of the Wikiverse, thereby causing the end of civilization as we know it. I think you should try to cool down a bit. It would be better for you and for the Knowledge project if you staid away from Striver for a while

622:

I am not going to nominate any more of his articles for afd for a while anyway. It took alot of time to find those articles. But what annoys me is the different rules we have for this user. I am being accused with being disruptive, well then challenge the articles themselves. Look at the bottom of

560:

I too want to repeat the sentiments of Adrian. At least wait until this recent collection of AfDs you nominated pass over until you further nominate others. I agree with you partially that if something doesn't belong, it should go. However, with about twenty nominations right now from you, it will

470:

Err..You have blanketly nominated over 20 articles created by a Wikipedian you have repeatedly said you want to see banned. You are clearly acting in bad faith, and I dislike that you are disrupting Knowledge to make your point. You are not "attacking islam" .. and don't add quotes to statements I

157:

Thanks for contacting me with repect to striver's rfc against you, I was very interested to leave my comments and read what others had to say on the matter. It looks like this thing is whole lot of hot air though, no one is paying the request anything more than lip service. I am however curious to

2128:

Regarding your question about my edit history. It occurred to me that since you asked on the vote page, rather than on my talk page, that your question carried an unfortunate implication. While I clearly have some experience here, I am not sockpuppeting anything. Nor do I have any dishonorable

1277:

Most of the AfD nominations you made for his articles failed. Persistent rejected AfD nominations is a clear, glaring sign that something's wrong. Persistently highly controversial AfD nominations... and yours of his articles have been the most high traffic of any regular AfD nominator over the

1060:

During edit conflict: Hmm... I may have to re-consider on my above statement after looking at the comments on your RfC. I get the impression that you may in fact be nominating articles for deletion just because they are from Striver. If that is indeed the case, I do not support that. If articles

374:. I don't think the author made them up, but rather that he simply didn't cite his sources (and the sources' reliability may not have been assessed). I don't disagree with their listing on AfD (i.e. even properly sourced, I don't see them as belonging) but I suspect this is going to get ugly. 125:

I'll give you my support. I think that so far you have not done anything that deserve this treatment. I was victim of one of those too as soon as I started my career as wikipedist. People will forget about that. So far, it seems to me that the creator of those articles has clearly POV opinions.

44:

or something similar. On the MFD, you could have just commented about Striver's spam messaging to many other users, but you didn't need to further your comments about exhausting the communities patience. I generally disagree with Striver's method of creating stubs and then leaving until the AFD

1936:

Hey, I figured I'd drop you a line about Rutgers and its various daughters. Edit warring will get us nowhere, so let's talk about this. Daughter articles are an accepted, respectable part of Knowledge. Look at almost any featured article (so long as it's a long one) and you'll note that it has

432:

On five occassions on my talk page you have referred to legit edits as vandalism. That, in itself, is vandalism and/or a personal attack. Don't be a vandal. Listing an article for an AFD is a content dispute, not vandalism. If you disagree with the listing you can vote against. Now, are you

1869:

calls 66% a supermajority for AFD purposes). Considering the arguments for deletion versus keep, I'd have to say there weren't any good arguments for keeping, but then I'm not an admin. I tagged it for sources just now, since it lacks any even though it asserts their existence e.g. "Muslim

1353:

I have no idea what's going on here, but I had your talk page on my watchlist from the AfD run you did, in which you were accusing a whole group of people as having some sort of keep-bad-entries-at-all-costs agenda. I saw Georgewilliamherbert's text here and realized he had a highly similar

1373:

I generally don't edit or make keep or delete votes on articles I know nothing about. I see it was essentially a merge in that article and it may even be a POV fork. BUt I stay away from areas I know nothing about unless I see them to be seriously and obviously flawed in article content or

172:

I don't know if by that you mean a 2nd RfC on him, or something else. It might be appropriate to attempt to have more people give him advice on his talk page, though at this point I doubt he would listen to me (he ignored my advice when we were on I think good terms, and he also failed to

177:

on combinations of terms like +striver +pov, +stiver +npov, +striver +block, +striver +copyvio, +striver +attack, +striver +vandalism, etc. (And neither of these constitute wikistalking, Striver, if you're reading this.) However, this would miss anything that had been deleted, probably.

1065:, that is fine. Not point-of-view. And to echo the words of a few other users, you may want to wait until your current AfDs are exhausted since, although many of your AfDs may be legitimate, the appearance of carrying out a vendetta against Striver will prevent others from voting Delete. 173:

acknowledge the work I did saving some of his articles). I don't know if this would be necessary, though. In terms of identifying further violations of WP policies, the options seem to be going through the contribution history, or doing a wikipedia.org Domain-specific Google search

199:

push POV, to revert edits, and to make substubs that don't even qualify as stubs (and contrary to georgewilliamherbert's claims, rarely revisit and lengthen them), his poor English spelling and grammar, etc. pretty much negate the value his contributions could potentially have.

1246:

No, the rfc copy wouldn't even exist had I not asked for a copy and thus it is mine for reference. Don't expect me to bend over backward to help in attempts to make me look like I am doing something wrong when I am trying to delete articles that don't belong on Knowledge.

623:

this page. Why do those articles belong here? If they were created by any other user the deletion tags wouldn't be challenged. Why doesn't Stivers actions of listing articles for deletion for the sole reason of others listing his "Muslim Athletes" article for afd count as

1231:

recent AfDs that you did without any apparent attempt to mark Striver's articles for cleanup or improvement were exactly contrary to my point regarding AfD being the wrong mechanism for getting Striver's stuff cleaned up, which had significant support in the RfC.

140:

nations in this world, and you shouldn't think of yourself as better or bigger. Just tone things down, and instead of just editing, RESEARCH. Researching multiple points of view will help you in the long run. I still enjoy your contributions to the Peru articles.

278:

Just to let you know that the RFC against you was deleted as it did not have the required two certifiers within 48 hours of creation. If you want to preserve the content, please let me know on my talk page or by email, and I will move it to your userspace.

459:

Ok, I see that you don't take Knowledge policies that Striver breaks with seriously and will just vote randomly keep on his articles up for deletion no matter what their content is because you feel that we are "attacking Islam". That is all I needed to

1786: 1680:

Jersey Devil, did you see that Striver endorsed Isotope23's outside view? I'd say that that is a very conciliatory gesture. Any chance of some gesture from your side? Who knows, maybe you'd like to endorse it as well (one may always remain hopeful).

1285:

AfD policy is bent a lot on marginal articles. They mostly just get AfDed without Cleanup tags. Nobody objects too much when that happens. But lots of people are objecting at one level or another to your widespread nominations, without cleanup

1188:

was userfied, it was noted that it could be endorsed and moved to project space. It's my sincere hope that doesn't happen, but it's important to note that it was only de-listed for lack of timely endorsement, although there were users willing to

323:

You should take note that the previous AfD resulted in a merge, yet Striver continuously reverted mine and Zora's attempt at keeping the merge tag up until we both got tired of his antics, and left the tag off the page. Check the page history.

1467:

item #9". All of the images that I removed from your userpage are tagged with a fair use tag of one sort or another. The use of fair use images in your userspace is not permitted by fair use policy on Knowledge, as decided by the Knowledge

550:

I see an article that obviously does not belong on Knowledge I will put an afd tag on it and I won't stop that because some people refuse to acknowledge that the articles don't belong here because of a personal friendship with the author.--

1858: 1859: 1419:

You mean Jersey Devils rudeness to Radical Mallard, his agreement to not revert articles before discussion which is why I self-reverted in the first place, his continued harassment of Radical Mallard after this etc. Give me a break.

1301:

Very well, and when Striver adds a sentence to claim it has been "updated" and removes the tags I'll list them up for Afd. But I am more than sure that I will still get as much attacks from the same people when that happens as well.

1092:

Another thing I don't approve of is statements like the one above. I admit that Striver can be annoying, but need you point out every single piece of evidence that supports that claim? I didn't think it would have to resort to this

2129:

reason for a new name or any unpleasant history here. I just like to shed my old skin now and then, here, as in real life. If you have any concerns about any of my edits, please let me know on my talk page. Best Regards,

574:

Given your (Jersey Devil's) response, I'm glad to see that you clearly understand that your nominations are polarizing some people. But of the people who find this series of nominations unhelpful have never interacted with

2103:

way because he was asked to...". Anyway, I usually check out the afd page and things like that usually catch my attention anyway. Hope this is no prob, I've seen you around and like your contributions to Knowledge. Later.--

2113:

I believe you would have caught it too. That's one of the peculiarities of notifications, that not infrequently the people being notified didn't need to be. Maybe you have some thoughts about the proposed guideline

1707:

Reviewing your response to the latest RfC, you seem to have gotten more confrontational, for no obvious reason that I can see. Can you take it down a couple of notches in the interest of civil discussion? Thanks.

1077:

What I find often is that the defenders of Striver always say "he makes stub articles, but he always works on them and builds them up later" which simply is incorrect. Check out this page on the userspace of Zora

778:

I think it is not a good idea to use the argument that someone else is hostile as justification for your own acts. The merit of the articles is independent of that. It really shows you need to let this go a bit.

909:

of trying to make a point (which I am not since all of those articles do warrant an afd), no one ever says anything about Striver explicitly listing afd's on good articles to make a point. See the following:

764:

the AfD criteria, and others that you are unable to appreciate mainly because they were created by Striver. Listing so many at the same time has the nature of a hostile act and is, in my opinion, disruptive.

1748:, but I don't intend to contribute to the article. Not that I wouldn't like to, but my research plate is just too full right now. I just hate not following through with things. But thanks for the heads up.-- 2075:

The edit summary above yours stated "stop adding vandalism..." and I must have clicked the IP below yours in seeing the vandalism being added. I strongly apologize and I have removed my vandalism comment.

2007:

Unless there is a lot of vandalism, I don't protect articles that are in current event categories. Keep me posted, but I am going to be very busy this week...lots going on off wiki for the next 10 days or

520:

on whether your actions are correct or not, please consider an observation someone made the other day, in an unrelated matter -- just because something is the correct thing to do, doesn't mean you should

182:

makes naming the creator in fact acceptable. (2) Striver also appears to do "vote stacking," or in any case there's a group of people who are willing to disregard policy to vote keep on his articles (the

1567:

Hi Jersey Devil...I will monitor the Rfc and if two editors agree with the Rfc, it will become live, at which time I will chime in. If they don't sanction it, then I may be wasting my time as I did last

1265:

administrator to bring back a copy of it for any purpose. You can nuke your copy right now, if you feel like it, but any administrator can bring back another copy somewhere else, so it would be sort of

1840:

I think that there is an option that more or less protects the article from IP editions (that is, users that don't have an account here in Knowledge). Maybe we should ask someone to protect the page.

471:

have not made, you are attacking Striver for your own personal reasons as part of your bad faith endevour to have a fellow wikipedian banned, and I do not like that one bit, so I voted against. --

392:

policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Calling

2091: 1874: 825: 1972: 1734:. It's been on my list for...well, since I joined. I don't think you need to worry too much about notability, though. If it does perchance get nominated, I'll definitely vote "keep". PAZ-- 410:. But yes, you are correct in that such language in my user page is hurtful and I will take that comment out. But I also ask if you think that the user cursing at other users and creating 2238:

Naw, the IP made fake votes first and then it seems he created a bunch of sockpuppets (other accounts) to also vote keep. Yeah, I posted the incident in AN/I as well and it was handled.--

794: 1174:

The original Rfc was deleted by admins for not fitting the requirments for an rfc. That page is on my userspace for my reference and is no longer active. So I reverted your changes.--

962:

And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.

680:

And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.

775:, which led me to investigate a bit. Then I discovered you had put up no fewer than twenty-four Shriver-created articles for deletion. Very industrious, but not very productive. 1724: 1035:

either) deleting those articles simply because Striver created them. Striver just happens to create a large number of articles, many of which get deleted. Note that he has had

2049:, and made a quick assessment of those articles. I left some comments at that page, so you may want to have a look at it, and please feel free to keep it up to date. Thanks! 887:

Dear Jersey Devil, take a deep breath, read carefully what I wrote, take another deep breath and read it again. Maybe you'll get what I'm trying to say. I sincerely hope so.

1234:

I see Adrian's comment above about you indicating you'll back off; not sure what that was referring to (haven't found the source yet) but I am hopeful that you will do so.

853:. Standing down for a little bit, and letting the situation / discussion settle and percolate may be the most helpful thing you can do. It'd definitely help to keep this a 800: 2046: 1975:. The Mediation Cabal usually does a pretty good job. I expect you meant to write, "This Mediation shouldn't exist" instead of "This Mediation Cabal shouldn't exist." 1920:

It seems that a Request for Comment would be initiated against person. If you wish to state an opinion, I will be more than welcome to hear it or recieve it. Thanks.

1823:

I think it's blowback from the 911 Eyewitness and Rick Siegel AfD's, which attracted a lot of newbs and anon trolls. Marking the new edits should be sufficient.

1870:

historians have kept detailed lists of people who interacted with Muslims during Muhammad's era" (OK, which historians, and where were those lists published?).

1712: 1485: 1294: 2180: 1458: 992:

When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put

836:

I'd be interested to know the actual arguments for keeping these articles. Had any other poster created these there would be no argument for keeping them.--

710:

When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put

1994: 411: 1476: 1212: 870: 493: 472: 449: 438: 2242: 1550:

Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

771:. I looked at the AfD page, did not understand the argument for nomination, went back later to the AfD list to vote Keep and saw another nomination for 614: 497: 476: 453: 1424: 565: 2122: 2080: 1810: 1414: 793:

Ok, the merits of the articles themselves. Let us look at the merits of the articles themselves. You wrote this in many of the articles for deletion.

130: 2206:

I have seen many like that, but I don't know how they're made. I would try posting on the user pages of the people who uploaded those, or there's a

2195: 2170: 1560: 1102: 1051: 104: 891: 589:

come across as being too personally involved to be effective, especially since some users will oppose your nominations due to what they feel to be

1892: 1526: 1514: 310: 293: 144: 2176:

through the nomination at the top and then adds a comment "Withdrawn by nominator, please close.", and leave the close and cleanup to an admin.

1990: 1793: 1669: 1572: 1557: 1538:

I'm remove that, I saw Striver doing it in the other Rfc so I thought that was what you were suppose to do. I'm writing the response right now.--

1530: 1511: 1362: 1099: 1066: 1048: 955: 902: 673: 1069: 337: 328: 191: 2163: 2097: 1752: 1086: 1027: 350: 259:

I suggest, very simply, you stay away from Striver; and when he does 'vandalise' ask another member, such as me, for a third opinion. Thanks.

1241: 1378: 1605: 448:

Further, that happened almost a month ago, will that be your permanent justification for trying to wreck the Shia sections of Knowledge? --

1350:

Since you removed my "amen" comment as "nonsense", let me expound on it so you can remove it as "don't like you so your logic is invalid":

342:

I have no opinion on what should be done with the article. As for the incivility, etc., if Striver persists, you may request arbitration.

2107: 2063: 1827: 950: 80: 1694:

Please do not come on my talk page with the intention of trying to make me sound unreasonable. I've made my response and that is that.--

1368: 1910: 1613:

I am undergoing an Rfc and under Rfc rules I am suppose to inform users involved with the dispute about the Rfc to get their comments (

2133: 1865:

Just from a tallying point, I guess it was about 63% for deletion? I guess that could be called no consensus (the proposed guideline

561:

definately turn off many other editors who may feel you are making a point, despite the fact that many of the articles do not belong.

486: 464: 442: 422: 99: 1979: 1764: 1463:

In response to your query on my userpage; certainly. Please see the edit summary where it says "Removing fair use logos per terms of

1344: 1317: 1251: 1178: 101: 2284: 2232: 1961: 318: 242: 230: 221: 1879: 1731: 2156: 2012: 207: 97: 1659: 1621: 1548:

Actually, you may still be able to add endorsements to that section (I just re-read the instructions under Outside Views and saw

1542: 1453: 1436: 401: 1698: 1497: 1400: 1044: 544: 93: 1798:

You may be right, but that would be an abuse of that page since it isn't relevant to it. You might get some criticism for not

881: 840: 745: 554: 1614: 482:

Yes, and therefore you are not taking the merit of the articles themselves into account but just systematically voting keep.--

95: 2058: 1639:

pages you edit to your watchlist Mark all edits minor by default Use external editor by default Use external diff by default

1533: 1169: 378: 1040: 796:

Please tell me why you think the following merit an article, if this really is about the merits of the articles themselves:

2149: 1689: 1665:

I just did a few random edits and it isn't happening with mine. Try logging out and then log back in after a few minutes.--

1327: 1036: 1650: 788: 668: 2069: 1997: 1219:

was clearly an issue here, and the RfC was properly presented other than not having been certified in time. As noted by

897: 820: 49: 40:

If I may interject, I don't think you commenting on Striver on AFD or MFD is going to help. Use the proper channel i.e.,

1853: 1844: 268: 212: 1224: 1079: 1924: 1504: 119: 2257: 2214: 2033: 1830: 1771: 830: 492:

You are acting in bad faith and attacking a user you want banned. Those are the merits on which i base my actions --

283: 162: 1282:

than tagging them for cleanup first and waiting a reasonable period of time to see if Striver cleans them up or not.

1738: 1579:

Hi, I've seen your edits repeatedly pop up on my watchlist. Please avoid spamming other users' talk pages, thanks.

815: 70: 115:

The rfc rules specifically state that I am suppose to do that. That is why it is called a "request for comment".--

1310: 1227:, he's perfectly happy for us to move it back to live if we have two people sign it where it is now (userified). 1135: 1082:. A very large portion of the articles he had created long ago have remained incredibly small and not updated.-- 110: 87: 1338: 1158:

I repeat, I do not care about his other edits or AfD nominations; they are not germane to the question at hand,

2085: 2002: 333:

Just a reminder to put "AFD" or something similar in the edit summary when nominating an article for deletion.

2228:

already blocked him. If I read it right, he didn't actually make any sockpuppets, just a bunch of fake votes.

849:, this is precisely my point :) These nominations have become less about the articles, and more about you and 1885: 1000: 976: 718: 694: 389: 1020: 986: 738: 704: 1900: 1015: 981: 733: 699: 2262: 1778: 1496:

certified by two users, which is a requirement not a technicality (and a rather hard-to-miss one at that

1393: 1010: 966: 728: 684: 427: 383: 1325: 418:. It seems that all the defenders of Striver refuse to acknowledge his violations of Knowledge policy.-- 2207: 2039: 1966: 1929: 1600: 1594: 1323: 1108: 1005: 971: 723: 689: 303: 63: 2118:? It would be nice to get that promoted to guideline in some form, not necessarily the way it is now. 877:

hear a real argument for keeping those articles. Again, we seem to have special rules for this user.--

2219: 2177: 2138: 1709: 1291: 1238: 167: 1802:

yourself for the text of your vote. My regret is that I didn't do the obvious thing and recommend "

2038: 768: 1777:

What! You should have removed that afd tag and put up a clean up tag. By not doing so you are not

1123:

is and I do not care. I do not know about his past behavior, and I do not care. I do not know who

2115: 1866: 1208: 866: 810: 772: 610: 540: 1500:). Note Striver wrote "He got a rfc on him earlier" without mentioning it was him that did it. 2094: 1626: 1520: 1383: 17: 1655:

Just check it....It wasn't checked in. Pretty weird...hopefully just a glitch in the system.--

1464: 2188: 2068:

Thanks, Jersey Devil, but I actually removed vandalism, if you check the history of the page

1954: 1675: 1334: 299: 263: 1469: 627:

and as "disruptive". Why do we continue to bend the rules for this user? See the following:

2280: 751: 532:

I hope you'll consider this message. Thanks for taking the time to help out Knowledge! :)

503: 355: 1860:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era

8: 2053: 1583: 347: 235:

It's not working so try again and I'll get back to you tonight...don't forget to go to :

31:

This archive page covers approximately the dates between March 12 2006 and May 8, 2006.

1984: 1930: 1818: 1306: 1204: 925: 862: 643: 606: 536: 1849:

Well, the page is semiprotected. In Knowledge/Spanish this problem is still going on.

1763:

I can't believe this guy...he is the worst POV pushing troll I've ever seen...look at

2239: 2229: 2104: 2077: 1976: 1907: 1790: 1758: 1695: 1685: 1656: 1618: 1539: 1482: 1450: 1433: 1421: 1389: 1341: 1330: 1314: 1248: 1175: 1083: 1024: 940: 878: 846: 837: 742: 658: 590: 551: 483: 461: 419: 290: 116: 2017: 1942: 1889: 1411: 1397: 1147:

family tree needs a lot of work, but it can be quality content, hence my vote. The

935: 653: 562: 334: 325: 289:

Yes, I would like a copy of the rfc and rfc talk page on my userspace. Thank you.--

273: 260: 46: 2276: 2248: 2225: 2211: 2192: 2167: 2162:

I asked about a nominator withdrawing/self-closing but didn't get many responses

2153: 2119: 1921: 1871: 1850: 1841: 1835: 1807: 1782: 1501: 1446: 1152: 1109: 898: 753: 624: 513: 407: 375: 204: 127: 35: 1354:

experience with you as I did--a run of your AfDs made without due consideration.

2130: 1947: 1590: 1407: 930: 648: 343: 247: 159: 57: 174: 2272: 2268: 2145: 1915: 1799: 1718: 1646:...there may also be a glitch in the system. Let me know what you find out.-- 1490: 1442: 1185: 1128: 805: 526: 415: 217:

Just so you know, I am sending you an email that will be important reading.--

187: 152: 141: 41: 1309:(Clean up/Bio Context since July 2005, Striver removed the tag after adding 1290:

and delete the ones he doesn't clean up after a reasonable period of time.

2254: 2201: 1749: 1735: 1682: 1195: 1148: 1143: 1120: 947: 920: 888: 850: 785: 665: 638: 576: 509: 398: 393: 371: 356: 253: 107: 84: 1151:

comment and unnecessary mention of authorship did not seem apropos, hence

525:. I'm sure you want to keep Knowledge tidy, but right now you're clogging 2050: 2030: 1220: 1139: 367: 360: 307: 280: 203:

it would take to get Striver to that point, or if that is even possible.

75: 67: 2092:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination)

2009: 1768: 1666: 1647: 1569: 1473: 1375: 1359: 1062: 239: 227: 218: 1278:

last month, that I can see... are another sign that something's wrong.

1973:

Knowledge:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-01 September 11, 2001 attacks

1580: 1194:

That said, thank you for affirming that you'll back off from AFD'ing

1166: 1113: 767:

I came upon the whole thing because I saw the AfD notice on the page

433:

suggesting it coincidence that all those articles you listed for AFD

406:

All of those articles meet the criteria for deletion and thus is not

760:

and put your energy in other things before this becomes a vendetta.

508:

Hi. I'd like to encourage you to take a few days off from actioning

1165:

I suggest further discussion of matter take place at your RfC page.

158:

know how my name came up as someone with an intrest in the matter.

1441:

Seems you've been blocked for 48 hours. Next time please remember

27:

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

1392:. He accuses me of being a troll whenever I don't agree that the 1340:

So, according to him Rfc's are not for the most part undeleted.--

62:

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I'll make sure to join

1556:

go ahead and re-add them. But yes, you should write a response.

512:'s articles. Other users have found your persistent nominations 2029:

Hi Jersey, thanks for the star!! Here's some cherries for you!

1745: 2022: 1989:

Hello JerseyDevil. Thanks for pointing out my error. Regards,

236: 1723: 1274:

AfDs, and we wouldn't all be talking about what you're doing.

2175:

The usual process is that the nominator uses <strike: -->

2148:

but I'm not very enamored of that. You might try asking at

1142:, but the idea of the article itself has merit. It can't be 252:

I am not willing to act as an advocate in your dispute with

1322:

Are you going to defend these kinds of additions as well? (

801:

Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era

579:, or only heard of him due to the recent deletion debates. 437:

to be created by Striver, a Wikipedian you want banned? --

1510:

I commented on your RfC. The RfC was a bit unnecessary.

1449:(reverting my edits solely out of revenge). Thank you.-- 1269:

And, though I believe you are acting in good faith, you

2164:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#withdrawing_an_AFD

1198:'s articles for a bit. I really hope it does some good. 946:

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --

664:

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --

1098:

I understand; I get your point; now please calm down.

1617:). I think that is the "spam" you are referring to.-- 1039:, or 7.3% of all his edits, deleted. Compare that to 1406:

You're right, I'd forgotten about his disruption at

1445:(telling Will Beback and myself "go to hell") and 1704:I think Lambiam was trying to be friendly to you. 414:on his userspace attacking others users count as 1789:and that is where he gets his keep votes from.-- 1138:, the article does indeed need verification per 1642:Makes sure you don't have a check mark next to 1498:Knowledge:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC 861:, rather than de-evolving into a tug'o-war. — 256:, however I am going to give you some advice. 192:Knowledge:WikiProject Countering systemic bias 1635:tab, open editing, and you should see this: 1459:Removal of fair use images from your userpage 1529:of your RfC, not endorse the outside views. 1525:You're supposed to write a response in the 370:fits a lot of your recent AfDs better than 175:http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en 81:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil 2267:In the future, please report vandalism on 1767:. How can this be considered an article?-- 602:Thanks again for your work on Knowledge :) 1127:are, and I do not care. When considering 238:so they can send you a code to confirm.-- 92:How amusing to see you do the same thing 2210:, you might try asking there. Sorry... 2021: 1971:Thank you for your generous comments on 2072:. I don't appreciate your accusation. 2045:Thanks! I've added those pages to your 1160:whether a single article should be kept 226:Guess not...your email isn't enabled.-- 14: 1225:User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#The RFC 1131:I judge by the merits of the article. 196:and in fact are even inferior to that. 2144:there's a clear consensus. There is 956:For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes 826:Family tree of Maymuna bint al-Harith 674:For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes 2150:Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion 1644:Add pages you edit to your watchlist 914:wtf, why not including this as well: 632:wtf, why not including this as well: 2253:Makin' the rounds. Thanks, Devil.-- 2070:2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests 2064:2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests 1941:talk page, please.) Happy editing! 23: 1722: 1080:User talk:Zora/Striver new article 821:Persons related to Qur'anic verses 24: 2295: 1037:nearly nine hundred deleted edits 831:Timing of Sahaba becoming muslims 1880:With a designation like THAT.... 1396:is the center of the universe. - 816:Family tree of Shaiba ibn Hashim 103:you told other people to not do 1333:requested it, I have put it at 1136:Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan 1001:Rv Vandalism List of Christians 719:Rv Vandalism List of Christians 1432:I call them as I see them. -- 1369:Misconceptions about the Shi'a 319:Misconceptions about the Shi'a 13: 1: 1886:Knowledge:Paranormal Watchers 1021:Rv Vandalism List of Buddists 1016:Rv Vandalism List of atheists 951:04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 739:Rv Vandalism List of Buddists 734:Rv Vandalism List of atheists 669:04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 1884:You are invited to join the 7: 2090:You are invited to vote in 1394:American System (economics) 1011:Rv Vandalism List of Hindus 729:Rv Vandalism List of Hindus 64:Knowledge: WikiProject Peru 10: 2300: 2258:00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 2243:00:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2233:00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2215:00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2208:Knowledge:WikiProject Maps 2196:02:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2181:20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2171:19:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2157:16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 2134:07:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2123:01:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2108:00:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2098:00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2081:08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2059:04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2034:22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 2013:11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1875:16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1854:22:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1845:23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1831:23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1811:19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 1794:19:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 1772:14:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 1753:08:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 1739:07:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 1713:09:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 1699:03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 1690:03:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 1670:06:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1660:06:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1651:06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1622:05:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1573:04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1561:03:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1543:02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1534:02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1515:02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1505:02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1486:17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 1477:17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 1454:02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 1437:01:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 1425:01:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 1415:01:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 1401:01:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 1379:09:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC) 1363:14:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1345:15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC) 1318:10:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1295:04:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1252:04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1242:04:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1213:00:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1179:23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 1170:23:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 1103:22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 1087:22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 1070:22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 1052:22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 1028:20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 892:22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 882:22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 871:21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 841:21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 789:21:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 746:22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 615:21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 566:21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 555:21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 545:21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 498:23:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 487:23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 477:23:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 465:21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 454:21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 443:20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 423:20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 402:16:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 379:05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 351:15:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 338:04:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 329:00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 311:09:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 304:User talk:Jersey Devil/RFC 294:00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 284:23:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 269:17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 243:16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 231:08:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 222:08:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 208:21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 163:04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 145:00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 131:03:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 120:12:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 111:00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 88:19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 71:16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 50:13:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 1998:02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 1980:13:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 1962:06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 1925:20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 1911:01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 1893:04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC) 1465:Knowledge:Fair_use#Policy 1006:Rv Vandalism List of Jews 724:Rv Vandalism List of Jews 769:Sunni view of the Sahaba 518:Without passing judgment 213:I'm sending you an email 2285:13:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 2116:Knowledge:Vote Stacking 1867:Knowledge:Supermajority 1730:Thank you for starting 811:Family tree of Abu Bakr 773:Shia view of the Sahaba 388:Please see Knowledge's 2086:Bush Crimes Commission 2026: 2003:Current event articles 1727: 977:List of Christians Afd 695:List of Christians Afd 523:do it like a hurricane 397:this in mind. Thanks, 18:User talk:Jersey Devil 2189:Knowledge:Speedy keep 2025: 1726: 1335:User:Jersey Devil/RFC 996:on the edit history. 714:on the edit history. 300:User:Jersey Devil/RFC 2178:Georgewilliamherbert 1901:Curiosity about Peru 1710:Georgewilliamherbert 1615:See the first bullet 1292:Georgewilliamherbert 1239:Georgewilliamherbert 987:List of Buddists Afd 982:List of atheists Afd 705:List of Buddists Afd 700:List of atheists Afd 2263:Reporting vandalism 1779:assuming good faith 593:faith on your part. 428:Stop being a vandal 390:no personal attacks 384:No personal attacks 2027: 1967:Mediation comments 1931:Rutgers University 1781:and breaking with 1728: 1307:Khattab ibn Nufayl 1119:I do not know who 967:List of Hindus Afd 926:List of Christians 685:List of Hindus Afd 644:List of Christians 2220:Fake Sockpuppets? 2139:removing AFD tags 2095:Morton devonshire 2047:WikiProject table 1744:I would vote for 1687: 1609: 1552:). I believe you 1470:Board of Trustees 1390:user:Northmeister 1331:User:Jersey Devil 941:List of Buddhists 847:User:Jersey Devil 782:Hope this helps. 659:List of Buddhists 168:Review of Striver 66:. Thanks, bye. -- 2291: 2056: 2040:WikiProject Peru 1995:Have your say!!! 1960: 1957: 1686: 1603: 1586: 1527:response section 972:List of Jews Afd 936:List of atheists 690:List of Jews Afd 654:List of atheists 266: 2299: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2265: 2251: 2222: 2204: 2141: 2088: 2066: 2054: 2043: 2020: 2005: 1987: 1969: 1955: 1952: 1934: 1918: 1903: 1882: 1863: 1838: 1821: 1761: 1721: 1678: 1640: 1629: 1598: 1584: 1523: 1493: 1461: 1386: 1371: 1261:editor can ask 1117: 906: 757: 506: 430: 386: 364: 321: 276: 264: 250: 215: 170: 155: 78: 60: 38: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2297: 2264: 2261: 2250: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2224:It looks like 2221: 2218: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2140: 2137: 2126: 2125: 2087: 2084: 2065: 2062: 2042: 2037: 2019: 2016: 2004: 2001: 1986: 1983: 1968: 1965: 1933: 1928: 1917: 1914: 1902: 1899: 1881: 1878: 1862: 1857: 1837: 1834: 1820: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1760: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1720: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1705: 1677: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1637: 1633:my preferences 1628: 1627:My preferences 1625: 1611: 1610: 1588: 1576: 1575: 1564: 1563: 1522: 1521:About your RfC 1519: 1518: 1517: 1492: 1489: 1460: 1457: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1408:Democracy Now! 1385: 1384:Edit summaries 1382: 1370: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1355: 1351: 1300: 1298: 1297: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1267: 1216: 1215: 1203:Cheers :) — 1200: 1199: 1191: 1190: 1134:In this case, 1116: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1095: 1094: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1055: 1054: 1031: 1030: 1018: 1013: 1008: 1003: 990: 989: 984: 979: 974: 969: 944: 943: 938: 933: 931:List of Hindus 928: 923: 917: 916: 905: 896: 895: 894: 874: 873: 834: 833: 828: 823: 818: 813: 808: 803: 756: 750: 749: 748: 736: 731: 726: 721: 708: 707: 702: 697: 692: 687: 662: 661: 656: 651: 649:List of Hindus 646: 641: 635: 634: 620: 619: 618: 617: 603: 597: 596: 595: 594: 583: 582: 581: 580: 569: 568: 505: 502: 501: 500: 480: 479: 457: 456: 429: 426: 385: 382: 363: 354: 320: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 275: 272: 249: 246: 214: 211: 184:Shia't Striver 169: 166: 154: 151: 150: 149: 148: 147: 134: 133: 77: 74: 59: 56: 54: 37: 34: 33: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2296: 2287: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2260: 2259: 2256: 2244: 2241: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2227: 2217: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2197: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2179: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2136: 2135: 2132: 2124: 2121: 2117: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2106: 2100: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2083: 2082: 2079: 2073: 2071: 2061: 2060: 2057: 2052: 2048: 2041: 2036: 2035: 2032: 2024: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2000: 1999: 1996: 1992: 1982: 1981: 1978: 1974: 1964: 1963: 1958: 1951: 1950: 1946: 1945: 1940: 1932: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1898: 1897: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1868: 1861: 1856: 1855: 1852: 1847: 1846: 1843: 1833: 1832: 1829: 1824: 1812: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1765:this nonsense 1754: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1737: 1733: 1725: 1714: 1711: 1706: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1684: 1676:RfC situation 1671: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1649: 1645: 1636: 1634: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1616: 1607: 1602: 1596: 1592: 1587: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1574: 1571: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1516: 1513: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1488: 1487: 1484: 1479: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1426: 1423: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1381: 1380: 1377: 1364: 1361: 1356: 1352: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1326: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1303: 1296: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1244: 1243: 1240: 1235: 1232: 1228: 1226: 1222: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1205:Adrian~enwiki 1202: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1192: 1187: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1168: 1163: 1161: 1156: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1115: 1111: 1104: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1019: 1017: 1014: 1012: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1002: 999: 998: 997: 995: 988: 985: 983: 980: 978: 975: 973: 970: 968: 965: 964: 963: 960: 959: 957: 952: 949: 942: 939: 937: 934: 932: 929: 927: 924: 922: 919: 918: 915: 912: 911: 910: 904: 903:User:Joturner 900: 893: 890: 886: 885: 884: 883: 880: 872: 868: 864: 863:Adrian~enwiki 860: 856: 852: 848: 845: 844: 843: 842: 839: 832: 829: 827: 824: 822: 819: 817: 814: 812: 809: 807: 806:Zayd ibn Umar 804: 802: 799: 798: 797: 795: 791: 790: 787: 783: 780: 776: 774: 770: 765: 761: 755: 747: 744: 740: 737: 735: 732: 730: 727: 725: 722: 720: 717: 716: 715: 713: 706: 703: 701: 698: 696: 693: 691: 688: 686: 683: 682: 681: 678: 677: 675: 670: 667: 660: 657: 655: 652: 650: 647: 645: 642: 640: 637: 636: 633: 630: 629: 628: 626: 616: 612: 608: 607:Adrian~enwiki 604: 601: 600: 599: 598: 592: 587: 586: 585: 584: 578: 573: 572: 571: 570: 567: 564: 559: 558: 557: 556: 553: 547: 546: 542: 538: 537:Adrian~enwiki 533: 530: 528: 524: 519: 515: 511: 499: 495: 491: 490: 489: 488: 485: 478: 474: 469: 468: 467: 466: 463: 455: 451: 447: 446: 445: 444: 440: 436: 425: 424: 421: 417: 413: 409: 404: 403: 400: 395: 391: 381: 380: 377: 373: 369: 362: 358: 353: 352: 349: 345: 340: 339: 336: 331: 330: 327: 312: 309: 305: 301: 297: 296: 295: 292: 288: 287: 286: 285: 282: 271: 270: 267: 262: 257: 255: 245: 244: 241: 237: 233: 232: 229: 224: 223: 220: 210: 209: 206: 200: 197: 193: 189: 188:Systemic bias 185: 179: 176: 165: 164: 161: 146: 143: 138: 137: 136: 135: 132: 129: 124: 123: 122: 121: 118: 113: 112: 109: 105: 102: 100: 98: 96: 94: 90: 89: 86: 82: 73: 72: 69: 65: 55: 52: 51: 48: 43: 32: 29: 28: 19: 2266: 2252: 2240:Jersey Devil 2230:Tom Harrison 2223: 2205: 2142: 2127: 2105:Jersey Devil 2101: 2089: 2078:Jersey Devil 2074: 2067: 2044: 2028: 2006: 1988: 1977:Tom Harrison 1970: 1948: 1943: 1938: 1935: 1919: 1908:Northmeister 1904: 1895: 1883: 1864: 1848: 1839: 1825: 1822: 1803: 1791:Jersey Devil 1762: 1729: 1696:Jersey Devil 1693: 1679: 1657:Jersey Devil 1654: 1643: 1641: 1632: 1630: 1619:Jersey Devil 1612: 1553: 1549: 1540:Jersey Devil 1537: 1524: 1494: 1483:Jersey Devil 1481:Thank you.-- 1480: 1462: 1451:Jersey Devil 1440: 1434:Northmeister 1431: 1422:Northmeister 1387: 1372: 1342:Jersey Devil 1321: 1315:Jersey Devil 1304: 1299: 1270: 1262: 1258: 1249:Jersey Devil 1245: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1217: 1196:User:Striver 1176:Jersey Devil 1173: 1164: 1159: 1157: 1133: 1124: 1121:User:Striver 1118: 1084:Jersey Devil 1076: 1025:Jersey Devil 994:Rv Vandalism 993: 991: 961: 953: 945: 921:List of Jews 913: 907: 879:Jersey Devil 875: 858: 854: 851:User:Striver 838:Jersey Devil 835: 792: 784: 781: 777: 766: 762: 758: 743:Jersey Devil 712:Rv Vandalism 711: 709: 679: 671: 663: 639:List of Jews 631: 621: 577:User:Striver 552:Jersey Devil 548: 534: 531: 522: 517: 510:User:Striver 507: 504:take a break 494:Irishpunktom 484:Jersey Devil 481: 473:Irishpunktom 462:Jersey Devil 458: 450:Irishpunktom 439:Irishpunktom 434: 431: 420:Jersey Devil 405: 387: 365: 341: 332: 322: 291:Jersey Devil 277: 258: 251: 234: 225: 216: 201: 195: 190:. See also 183: 180: 171: 156: 117:Jersey Devil 114: 91: 79: 61: 53: 39: 30: 26: 25: 2275:. Thanks! — 1944:Matt Yeager 1890:Martial Law 1787:Wikiproject 1732:the article 1412:Will Beback 1398:Will Beback 1388:Don't mind 1221:User:Stifle 563:Pepsidrinka 335:Pepsidrinka 326:Pepsidrinka 298:It's up at 261:Computerjoe 142:Pvt Mahoney 47:Pepsidrinka 2277:BorgHunter 2226:Kungfuadam 1985:AfD thanks 1922:Messhermit 1872:Esquizombi 1851:Messhermit 1842:Messhermit 1819:Meatpuppet 1808:Esquizombi 1806:per nom"! 1606:2006-03-20 1502:Esquizombi 1266:pointless. 1257:Actually, 1184:When this 1063:New Jersey 514:disruptive 376:Esquizombi 205:Esquizombi 128:Messhermit 2187:See also 2131:Brillig20 1759:More junk 1631:Open the 1599:at 05:02 1286:attempts. 1247:Thanks.-- 1237:Thanks. 1045:your 1.5% 344:Johnleemk 160:Bobby1011 2076:Sorry.-- 2018:Barnstar 1991:Blnguyen 1783:WP:POINT 1558:joturner 1531:joturner 1512:joturner 1447:WP:POINT 1189:endorse. 1153:WP:POINT 1110:WP:POINT 1100:joturner 1067:joturner 1049:joturner 899:WP:POINT 754:WP:POINT 625:WP:POINT 435:happened 408:WP:STALK 366:I think 274:Your RFC 2255:Rockero 2249:Gracias 2212:Шизомби 2193:Шизомби 2168:Шизомби 2154:Шизомби 2120:Шизомби 1836:Ollanta 1804:Pull it 1750:Rockero 1736:Rockero 1683:Lambiam 1568:time.-- 1041:my 1.8% 948:Striver 889:Lambiam 786:Lambiam 666:Striver 460:know.-- 399:Lambiam 394:Striver 265:'s talk 254:Striver 108:Striver 85:Striver 36:Striver 2273:WP:ANI 2271:, not 2269:WP:AIV 2146:WP:IAR 2031:Arniep 1800:WP:AGF 1443:WP:NPA 1374:POV.-- 1186:WP:RFC 1129:WP:AFD 1093:but... 859:merits 857:about 855:debate 527:WP:AFD 416:WP:NPA 308:Stifle 281:Stifle 248:Advice 68:Gabbec 58:Thanks 42:WP:ANI 2010:MONGO 2008:so.-- 1956:Talk? 1769:MONGO 1719:NACLA 1667:MONGO 1648:MONGO 1570:MONGO 1474:Durin 1376:MONGO 1360:Spinn 1313:.) -- 1149:WP:OR 1144:WP:OR 1112:from 901:from 412:blogs 372:WP:OR 357:WP:OR 240:MONGO 228:MONGO 219:MONGO 16:< 2281:talk 2202:maps 2051:Tito 1828:Mmx1 1472:. -- 1311:this 1305:Ex. 1209:talk 1167:Alba 1140:WP:V 1114:Alba 1043:and 867:talk 752:Re: 611:talk 541:talk 368:WP:V 361:WP:V 348:Talk 302:and 1916:RFC 1601:UTC 1581:NSL 1554:can 1491:RfC 1410:. - 1337:. 1271:are 1263:any 1259:any 1223:at 1162:. 1125:you 591:bad 529:. 153:Rfc 76:rfc 2283:) 2166:. 2152:. 2055:xd 1993:| 1939:my 1896::) 1888:. 1826:-- 1746:it 1420:-- 1211:) 1155:. 1023:-- 869:) 741:-- 613:) 605:— 543:) 535:— 516:. 496:\ 475:\ 452:\ 441:\ 359:v 346:| 306:. 106:-- 83:-- 2279:( 1959:) 1953:( 1949:♫ 1608:) 1604:( 1597:) 1595:C 1593:+ 1591:T 1589:( 1585:E 1207:( 958:) 954:( 865:( 676:) 672:( 609:( 539:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index