Knowledge:Wikiquette assistance/archive11

2215:

the situation, I will admit you that based on what you have said, you appear to have only used the internet and not contacted government agenices. Although, at first, it seemed like this was what you had done. And, also, what would have happened if these internet sources had given you a confirmed name? You then would have had my son's name and thus my last name, easily tracing it to me. I also do not accept that you ever had enough info to ID him. You took a lot of info pieces from the picture and the shadow box program, assuming a great deal which I never verified. The picture is gone though and I will not re-upload it, so no further need to beat it death. I was hoping for 3rd party opinions on this page, not a continuation of the debate. -

93:- that is, the moment your boldness hits resistance, you should go into discuss mode, not press on. Further, for moves, if your boldness is going to result in something not easily reverted, then discussion beforehand seems merited, as irritating as it may be to have to delay something that may seem obvious for a couple of days. In addition, trying to see the merit in what the other editor says - he/she may not be 100% right, but typically other (long-time) editors are not 100% wrong that often - is among the best ways to arrive at something acceptable to all. And finally - I realize that article names are important, but really, to have a huge honking fight over the name of some places in New Jersey - really? -- 1236:, as far as I known, the type of thing that is covered by Knowledge policy. If it were, would Knowledge ban "insults to members of the KKK"? insults to gay and lesbian activists? insults to conservative talk hosts? Would editors be able to say anything negative about anyone? The purpose of talk pages is not, of course, to discuss subjects of articles, it's to improve articles. But commenting on an article is often commenting on the subject: for example, "This article on the XYZ freedom fighters is too positive - it doesn't mention their killings of innocent civilians, or how they financed themselves by drug smuggling." So saying something negative can certainly be about the article as well as the subject. -- 1498:

would not want to be described as a conservative these days, since the word has now taken on very unpleasant meanings. In America these days "conservative" is now synonymous with "torture-loving warmongering religious fanatic." I would certainly never want that label attached to me. Hopefully "former liberal" is not as controversial. MoeLarryAndJesus 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)". As I said, I would never gotten involved in this if someone didn;t alert me to it. The line should read: Swirsky, a self-described Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" Jackson tradition, writes articles for...". At the HuffingtonPost.com that is what is stated in my bio:

1502:(click on bio). There are other places on the internet that attest to that. I am a registered Democrat -- the POV of MLJ ddisagrees with me and it's why, for the last 4 days +, we have to be engaged in this nonsense. You should see how his original vandalizations of my political bent read. I am convinced that --through his behavior, his unkindliness and his explanation in his latest edit that it's personal with MLJ -- and would request that he be banned from posting on the page a number of people have obviously have worked hard to honestly contribute to. -- Seth Swirsky 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 2121:. As far as I can tell, no action was taken against the person who made that statement; a statement which scared the hell out of me and made me fear for the safety of myself and my family. I actually no longer edit Knowledge from home or work because of this, only public locations. Please note that I'm not filing any complaints against Durin and dont want to get him or others spun up. I just would like some neutral comments about the conversation on the pump page to see if I myself have done anything seriously wrong. Thank you - 769:. You seem to think that you add value to Knowledge by tagging lots of things as needing work, when in fact there are hundreds of thousands of articles that have tagged for many months as needed to be fixed in some way. There is no corps of volunteers standing by, waiting to rush in and fix, at an instant's notice, anything that any editor thinks is a problem. Please consider doing constructive work in Knowledge rather than continuing to provoke others with pointless tagging. If you don't want to work on 31: 1103:

the other user objects to in the article, since he/she has been deleting information, and then you'll respond. I think you're dealing with a vandal here, essentially, so reverting and reporting is really the only thing you need to do. Knowledge has pretty good (quick) responses to this. If for some reason you can actually get a dialog going (again, I'm skeptical), then presumably mediation would be useful. In general, you'll find guidance at

1164:; blocking is pretty automatic. Again, your role is to simply to escalate the warnings if inappropriate behavior occurs, and then to report any violation that occurs after a level 4 warning. It doesn't matter if the user deletes warnings (don't revert; deleting is acknowledgment of reading, and the user's contribution page can be easily checked to see the deletions) or protests; an admin will make the final decision. -- 1673:) has been posting links to a color blindness test he's developing. He's been asking for feedback on to improve the test, and now is accusing editors of vandalism when they remove his link. He's also removed spam warnings and a suggestion to read WP:COI. Someone who can read and write French might be helpful, because his English appears limited. He's also editing as 82:

persuasive on their face, and I won't, because you're not bringing a content issue here but rather one of etiquette. So: in my opinion, while a purist could criticize bits and pieces of what the other editor said, the vast bulk of the comments were civil, and I'm personally not inclined to get involved by posting anything on anyone's user page.

1128:, adding gibberish to pages, and refusing to listen to any other Wikipedians who attempt to set him straight on policy. He's been blocked before and comes right back again with the same behavior. There's enough here for a RfC (several editors have commented on his conduct) but seeing as it's an IP number, I don't know if that is even doable. 2002:, breaking 3RR at least twice (no action taken due to the edit summaries concealing the reverts until it was too late to report them). Independent, informal evaluations had been asked for in the past, yet Viriditas pays no attention to their conclusions, and has edited vitually every edit (not just mine) that is added to the article. 403:(exceptions include such things as personal attacks; talk pages aren't sacrosanct if used inappropriately). I reviewed the talk page history and found only one example of this, on January 28th, and have posted a note about it on Prosfileaes' user talk page. As to handling this in the future, you should simply revert the deletion 2363:. Judge for yourself whether or not his comments on that page were made maliciously and in bad faith. He has accused me of "extremely provocative and insulting battle spurring comments", but perhaps he should read some of his own comments and see if they were made with exactly this intention he accuses me of.-- 476:). They are completely false (elaboration and proof can be provided if necessary), and even if they weren't they have absolutely nothing to do with Knowledge or Fire Emblem and are nothing more than hurtful, offensive slander. Any help on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thanks. 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 1818:). His contributions are almost entirely connected with a group of articles to which I have recently contributed, where I had initially removed the POV and insufficiently verified information he kept pushing, and his disregard for basic wikipedia conventions on neutral tone and reliability (see, for example, 1225:) and others have had with LSLM and others. LSLM has been warned previously about civility, and has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing (and you've apparently gotten a fair number of complaints yourself about your behavior); I'm not going to waste anyone's time by reminding them of policy. 2214:

RfC says you have to have two people and have an unresolved issue which has failed to be resolved through other methods. It also says an RfC should not be taken lightly and only used as a last resort. Since the photos themselves have been deleted, that issue would seem to be resolved. After reviewing

2117:

might be going a bit too far in his methods with not just me, but others who he contacts about images, etc. Clearly investigating family members of Knowledge users is a bit beyond the line. I am also concerned about an unresolved threat, where another user stated he had friends who lived in my area

1903:

It is strange that Dahn resorted to complaining. In fact I am basically persecuted by Dahn, who systematically removes my contributions on all pages. There is something wrong with the way he deals with editing conflict. Instead of discussing and then changing, immediatly he reverts. He may or may not

990:

violations. I'm not sure at all that you, personally, could convince an admin that you were reverting vandalism here (which would mean you could do unlimited reverts). If I were an admin, in fact, I'd be tempted to block you for removing info rather than the anonymous IP editor for adding it (except

663:

My objection is that an anonymous IP, has added it to all English Heritage sites in Cornwall, plus the English Heritage page. The actual story is that three people performed an illegal act, conspiracy to cause criminal damage, which nearly resulted in a custodial sentence. There is no mention of this

128:

in his posts to "keep cool" and to restrict my comments to the article). When I attempted to discuss the matter on his talk page, assuming that he had simply misinterpreted or misunderstood my posts, I was rather rudely informed that I was "not welcome" to do so. I am uncertain what to do; ignore it?

2308:

is the one that refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. A poll was taken, showing that his viewpoint was in the minority opinion, yet he continues to make dramatic reverts to a very old version of the article without commenting. It was explained that one should attempt to modify the text, as

2200:

You have repeatedly accused me of investigating your family members offline. You have zero evidence of this and have been shown multiple times now how I ascertained the results that I did. Yet, the accusations remain. Casting about on various forums and continuing to maintain that I have made such a

1958:

article (with the same symptoms: Mardavich hasn't contributed in any way to that article or to its talk page, moreover I addressed his behavior on his talk page and I got no response!). I believe these are "friendships" over Knowledge translated as mutual support to avoid 3RR violations. I will look

1497:

Furthermore, as proof of his personal bias towards me, read his reasoning for changing the disputed line of text. Do you think it reeks of a some poilitcal bias and personal hatred?): From MLJ: "In my latest edit I have used the term "former liberal" instead of "conservative." I can see why someone

1102:

to act as unofficial mediator here. I am skeptical of the usefulness of this offer, given that the unregistered user has only - at least by my cursory look - been interested in deleted information that is properly sourced. I suggest responding with a very brief comment that you'd like to hear what

860:

The comments were unacceptable, some from both sides of that discussion. I removed the blatant personal attacks and archived the discussions as they were not discussions about content of the article. I also added the talk header at the top to explain to editors the purpose of the talk page. A lot of

800:

article, it appears that there has been an ongoing POV dispute, and that at the time I found the article with the random button, the article was dominated by one POV, which included an editor with a strong conflict of interest. Now other editors are involved, the tag I placed has been re-instated by

567:

It's pretty hard to make much of an impact on anonymous IP editors, particularly because there isn't any guarantee that the account is being used by just one person. Looking at the edit history here, there are at least three threads: constructive edits to articles about TV shows, raw vandalism, and

1928:

syndrome. It is a lie that I posted a personal attack on his page. I posted there a reaction to user Khoikhoi's acknowledging that he just acted according to Dahn's wish and blindly reverted to Dahn's versions. Dahn has the habit of erasing comments he dislikes. I repeated the comment on Khoikhoi's

1850:

who occassionaly reverts all the changes of other editors to the last change made by you and that without absolutely no reason as he is absent from the debates and he is not adding content whatsoever in those articles), so unless you'll find a mediation/arbitration to decide where the middle ground

1540:

There is absolutely no independent source for the claim that Swirsky is a registered Democrat, but even if he is, my edit says nothing about his party affiliation, so that's a red herring. He is undisputably a conservative, but I have magnanimously agreed to go with "former liberal" instead. It's

1058:

has taken an interest in the article, and has made some constructive suggestions on the talk page that may be acceptable to all. I suggest waiting to see how that turns out; if there are still problems in a week or two that don't seem like they are being resolved, feel free to post here again. --

974:

You're relying solely on the edit summaries to have a dialog with the user. That's wrong. Post something to his/her user talk page (again, I've done that), or to the talk page of the article, and say, in the edit summary, "see talk page". A talk page is a good place to have a discussion; it also

575:

Finally, I note that the anonymous editor's "NPOV" tag on the article was removed by two different editors (correctly, due to lack of any specific details on the talk page). The second time was after a different anonymous IP address reposted the tag - which makes me suspect that this individual has

1740:

I have written to Jjean, explaining that the non-inclusion of the link is not a critique on his/her work, but because of editors not believing that it will improve the article. I have asked him to participate in the ongoing discussion regarding the appropriateness of certain external links in that

519:

I apologize for incorrectly placing my complaint; I'm not familiar with Knowledge and this SEEMED like the best place to do it. Second, I (the person who reported this) have never posted on the Talk page. My concern was that the Talk page was being used for, as you called it, "a bunch of pre-teens

374:

refues to accept the decision and continues revert-warring. He removes all warning templates placed on his user page. He removes comments from the article talk page. He uses personal attacks. So we are all too frightened to do anything. The user seems less concerned with the welfare of the article

1152:

Don't argue with the user - just post warnings and civilly explain any real questions (rhetorical ones like "WTF are you warning me about?" can be ignored, as can complaints that he didn't mean to offend). Don't be overly sensitive here - just post warnings about profanity and other attacks that

286:

guidelines. The paragraph has recently been added back, just as before, with no sources. Belina007 has not responded to my comment on his/her talk page, and writes no edit summary. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I really feel that this paragraph does not belong in the article, at least

81:

Well, I see a long-time contributor to Knowledge exchanging messages with you, and he's a bit frustrated with some renaming/moving that you did and with your arguments that what you did was correct. I haven't looked at the actual moves, though some of the other editor's arguments do appear a bit

327:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all

244:

controversial or you really think that a citation would add value is, in my opinion, sufficient; and (b) there was room for a compromise here, I think: rather than "the two most famous men who ... ", it could have simply been "two notable men who ... ". If there's a content dispute involving two

2354:

I contend that the link was neither malicius nor spurring dispute, nor was it directed towards any users. As I noted on the talk page itself, the link may have been found on the pro-Japan section, but the quoted sources themselves are Korean. The time period contended by the external link also

2074:

ordering me to change his edits back or change the manual of style by Saturday, and that the issue was simply a case of my opinion versus his. I feel I have made it quite clear to him why four-digit years are the accepted standard on Knowledge, but he is clearly not accepting this. I feel he is

1081:

and its talk page. An unregistered user – apparently affiliated with the institution – keeps deleting sourced and, IMO, relevant and NPOV parts of the article and has also blanked the talk page at least three times. Does not write edit summaries, does not respond to requests for discussion. The

293:

My suggestion is to revert unless sources are added or Belina007 communicates, and warn with {{subst: uw-unsourced2}} or {{subst: uw-unsourced3}} or {{subst: uw-defamatory2/3/4}}, progressing in number each time (I've already warned him/her with the 1st template). If Belina007 continues not to

1186:

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. I did leave a Level 2 template on his Talk Page...I'd previously tried to explain to him why people kept blocking him/etc. and he blew it off. Someone else blocked him for incivility tonight. I'll keep an eye on the situation and avoid arguing with him.

375:(he has now slapped an "OR" banner on the page in a fit of pique) and more concerned with "winning a battle" (the wikipedia-as-MMORPG mentality). Its hard to know how to proceed in this situation as the dispute resolution has already been done, but the user won't accept the result. What now? 1526:

I'll repeat - I have sent no "harrassing e-mails" to this "SethSwirsky." As for my "personal bias" against "him," I have no idea who he is. My edit calling the real Swirsky a "former liberal" is fully supported by a cite to an article by the real Swirsky called "Why I Left The

2165:

is why I call into question the veracity of your claims that this was your son, killed in the war on terrorism. I did not contact any government agencies (as you claim). I did not contact anybody in the "real world" regarding the veracity of these images. I used the information

239:

The only other things that comes to mind, reading the discussion about the text in the article that was in question, is (a) labeling unsourced but almost certainly common/reasonable knowledge as "original research" is, in my opinion, a mistake; putting "fact" on it if it's

179:? I got involved thinking this was a minor COI incident, but I now count five articles he's written and another he's substantially contributed to, all on subjects his company consults on, in all cases introducing his company's published material and his company's founder. 235:

acceptable. At one point, it looks like there was no response (except deletion) of a proposal for a third opinion; I suppose that's incivility, but at worst it's still minor and the right thing (as was done here) is to ask if the user missed the question when doing the

623:. I personally think the paragraph is very POV oriented, and should not be in the article. Even if it was neutral, it is not relevant to the article. I do not want to get into an edit war, so I just want to get some more opinions please. 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 960:. An unregistered user keeps putting what sounds like an advertisment in the article and has started an 'editing war'. I want unregistered users blocked or this guy blocked but I am unable to do that (I am unsure how). Please help. 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 791:

It doesn't seem that you have analyzed the situation with any degree of diligence. I have placed many tags, and there have been a very tiny number of complaints in proportion to the number placed. Of the complaints, here is a good example of how things worked out:

2186:

No one is making accusations, I am asking for neutral people to give an opinion; I thought this page was for that purpose, not for you and I to hash it out further. No intent here to stir things up, just wanted to hear other songs and not just the same old tune.

2134:

You are upset about and accuse me of supposedly contacting people (including government agencies) to investigate your family members, but have no desire to spin things up? For the record, as I have now stated multiple times, I investigated the source of the image

861:

the comments were being made from a often changing ip address, so there seemed to be no route to take for a personal warning. I did explain to one editor that was identifiable on their talk page the reason for the changes and prompted them to remain civil.

571:

In any case, I've deleted the comment; it goes over the line when it mentions another editor by name uses the wording it did. And I've posted a note on the article talk page about why I removed it; that will hopefully encourage others to remove it if it's

1885:, his article edits appear to be much better than his talk page contributions, where he sometimes seems to be unwary in the choice of his vocabulary. Nevertheless, he is a valuable contributor and there is no apparent reason to doubt his good faith. -- 1047:, the original author insists his are the only valid edits, that he is the only expert on the subject and thus the only one qualified to edit the article, and has now started bringing personal attacks from userpages into the article talkpage. The 436:

guideline. Unless he actually said this (and it's hard for me to believe someone would say that he/she was going to do something "in a fit of pique"), or something similar, it's not clear what the factual basis for your statement is. Similarly,

249:

to be able to reach some sort of compromise that's acceptable, although it's also common (as is the case here) for one editor, perhaps one who feels less strongly, to just drop the argument and concede the point, particularly for minor points. --

1476:

I have no idea why an editor like Athaenara is being so one-sided in this dispute. It's a disgrace. In addition, Athaenara is aallowing "SethSwirsky" to post personal attacks against me on Athaenara's own talk page, but deleting my responses.

123:

page. As far as I understand the rules, I have not done anything wrong and have attempted to remain civil, only to be met with increasingly strident repeated accusations that I was violating the NPA rules (all while he kept repeatedly telling

1137:

The user here seems to have a limited amount of self-control, unfortunately, because he (I'm guessing) seems generally well-intentioned, if often clueless even after reading policy, and it would be nice if he were to concentrate on improving

675:, as I mentioned before. (Yes, the cited BBC story is mostly about the three protesters who were arrested; it's up to the discretion of editors to decide what parts, and how much, of any news source to actually use in an article - only the 1145:, and specifically the npa series. (You'd put something like this on the talk page: {{subst:uw-npa2}}.) I suggest starting at level 2, incrementing by one each time; after you give a level 4 warning, if the user does this again, post at 982:

is a little-bit advertising-oriented, I suppose, but it's well within the acceptable range: It's a fact, unverified, but a fact, as opposed to, say, "He is a tremendously promising artist and leading talent", which would be unacceptable as

796:. It seems that at the articles where there has been an objection to a tag, the objection is resistance to fixing the article, not to the tag. Placing the tag calls attention to the problem, and others intervene to fix the article. In the 998:. You're welcome to follow the process for getting such protection (just click on the link), but I warn you that not only is a reviewing admin unlikely to act on your behalf, he/she is likely to put a 3RR warning on your user talk page. 2317:. Please look at the edit history of the article. This user is also deleting my complaints from his talk page. While others must share some of the blame, he appears to be engaged in trolling, and is bringing the worst out in everybody. 2201:

gross violation of privacy is not a positive process in any respect for you, me, or the project. I have requested you begin an RfC. Please do so. That is a preferable forum for this; you would surely get considerably more input. --

801:

someone else, and discussion is going on. The great resistance by one editor to allowing the tags to remain was not helping the article. Also, I do not insult anyone, and I do not believe it is acceptable for anyone to insult me. -

520:

arguing about who did what to whom, when, and why," and it was degrading into hurtful slander, so I thought it seemed like the time for some kind of administrative intervention. Anyway, thank you. 17:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

392:

acceptable. A user deleting a warning is presumed to have read it. Warnings are still visible via the history of the user page, albeit researching them is a bit more work for admins. Please do not argue further over this

1777:

The reason for the changes to his/her edits has been provided on his/her talk page. Motivation to provided reliable sources was given. It's now been a couple of days since the last attempt to include that same information.

411:

means that any edit war over this results in an automatic block for the editor trying to keep a comment off a talk page (again, assuming that it really does belong there; if this is a gray area, it's best to discuss it on

764:

sure about is that, to date, you appear almost totally unable to figure out that when lots and lots of people have negative things to say about you, and they are established members of a community while you are not, then

934:. I will post a warning on the user's talk page. But generally I find the discussion to be reasonably civil, and I urge the editors of the article to (continue) to focus on finding and adding statements supported by 2139:

which you uploaded, by using statements made by you about this image and the person displayed in the image (age, service, location of service, rank, and death). I used these statements and compared them against these

1997:

has caused one seasonededitor to leave the article completely and caused others (including me) to lose their tempers at the user's unwillingness to work within a group, He has been active in edit-warring for almost a

1462:

I have most certainly NOT harrassed said user with e-mails. Ataenara has NO evidence to support such a scurrilous accusation except for the word of said user. I dispute the accusation utterly, and consider it to be

671:, as stated at the top of the page. I have suggested a rewrite that is three sentences long rather than an entire section; if you feel that is unacceptable, all I can suggest is that you follow the procedures in 2025:, a single editor insists on reverting to his unvoted-upon vanity edits, where other members have proposed and started voting on the subject, and has again started bringing personal attacks into the talkpage. The 1252:

The user Bridge & Tunnel has been making bald accusations on user Bi of bad faith, and also trying to include into articles information which is questionable at best. Bridge & Tunnel also seems to be a

2172:

gave and information publicly available on the Internet, and that is all. Period. Images on Knowledge are routinely reviewed for their source, attributions, and copyrights. I am sorry you find this troubling.

483:

websites, including one editor (presumably the same person who posted this alert) posting a response in a section that hadn't seen any activity for six weeks - that would be re-open the argument, I suppose.

1728:

until he destroy my work , sorry but i write again my work, until an administrator say me why my test is not valable. i think just a person who is color blindness can say that my test is not good but no

531:. To summarize: the talk page was being misused; I've posted a note about that on the talk page; and hopefully editors will stop bickering about personal things and discuss only content issues. -- 1091:

The user was blocked earlier today for 24 hours, for removing content. Blanking the talk page is vandalism. If he/she does it again after the block expires, just revert and report the blanking at

2320:

In short, I would like to know if there is anything that can be done, or if I should accept this type of behaviour as being inevitable form time to time at wikipedia. 15:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1904:

leave a dismissive note ("rv vandalism" is his favorite, which I apply to him only in retaliation). Another dishonest behavior is enlisting the help of people unrelated to the article in question.

1835:

Moreover, I doubt he is chasing your contributions, a much more fairer assessment would be he's interested in the history of Communism in Romania (unless you have solid evidence for your claims).

1509:

Please do not continue discussion regarding your original disagreement on this page. An editor responding to this request will come to where the discussion is currently taking place to help out.

886:

not only persistently attacks other people, such as AdilBaguirov and several others, including myself, accuses people of being sockpuppets, but also uses foul language, such as the following:

1541:

absurd, and my "torture-loving warmongering" comment was written with tongue in cheek due to the absurdity of this fight by "SethSwirsky" and Athaenara to keep "conservative" out of the bio.

737:

If I hadn't already read all the complaints about your behavior on your user talk page, and comments about you elsewhere, I'd be more sympathetic to the language you presumably object to (

1763:. An identical post was deleted by another recently, but it seems that s/he might benefit from a calming outside view about how opinions are best expressed. 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 294:

respond and just add the section after the 4th template warning (there is no unsourced 4th template, but this counts as defamatory, so you can use that one) you can report Belina007 at

923:. The repeated accusations of "libel" by one editor - and recently, mention of legal consequences ("...and libel is a crime.") - have become troublesome. 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1798:

has been repeatedly describing me as "a Stalinist", "a communist", "a pest", "a disruptive editor", and comparing me to persecutors of the 1950s and himself to a victim (see

1908:

did a few reverts at Dahn's request without having the slightest idea what he was doing, just beacuse he and Dahn do such services between themseves. Then three other users

1303:), has systematically eradicated verifiable information from authors that she disagrees with from articles about civil justice related issues, causing severe POV problems. 1929:

talk page. He did not erase it and it is really not a personal attack. In fact, aside from the obnoxious treatment I receive from Dahn, I find WP quite a friendly place...(

2234:

I see now that both the user page and the user talk page have been PRODed. If anyone wants to take a look at this report, s/he should best do so in the next couple days. —

1605: 1559: 1321: 1647: 994:

That one anonymous IP editor has made four edits to the article in the past two days is nowhere near enough of a problem (if a problem at all - see above) to justify

2013: 1832:

Actually in those 3 quotes he didn't describe you as "Stalinist", but your position as "Stalinist stance". I also couldn't find it where he called you a "communist".

703: 619:

and many others. To me it was a blatant attempt at publicity, so I removed all occurences. They soon reappeared, with an additional copy on the talk pages, claiming

540: 1972:

when responding to this. Defense and additional accusations are not necessary; an experienced editor will be able to help out based on the original posting alone.

928:

I would like to remind you the undisputable fact that publishing a false and defamatory statement damaging a person's reputation is libelous, and libel is a crime.

147: 2359:

history section, which starts in the 18th century. I'd also note that this user has also made both personal attacks and ethnic attacks towards me previously (see

1481: 1600: 1555: 1542: 1478: 1316: 202: 1545: 1191: 1173: 585: 2136: 1005:, and then (b) put a {{fact}} tag on what is left, which asks the editor to provide a source, and warns the reader that the statement is unsourced. (Rules on 664:

in the paragraph. Plus the fact they also change the location from England to UK, it is just a blatant attempt to get publicity. 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1116: 826: 805: 342: 259: 2376: 1445:) harassed the subject of the bio article personally by email. Is there a Knowledge forum/noticeboard which specifically addresses this kind of activity? 1245: 2349:

talk page by introducing a biased anti-Korean link and a malicious comment about enjoying the fight between the two parties. 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

1898: 1889: 102: 1709: 1674: 1296: 554: 2219: 2205: 2191: 2177: 2314: 2022: 1769: 1695: 1664: 963:

I've put a note on the user talk page asking that the user provide a source or not add the information. But - really - you've got a lot to learn here:

316: 2372:

It is a general comment toward both the Korean and Japanese sides and the style and wording of the comment is enough to heat up the battle even more.

2329: 1976: 1756: 112: 2006: 2110: 1963: 1864: 1855: 1563: 1261: 1146: 558: 271: 2034: 231:

Seemed pretty civil to me; I didn't read every word, but the tone of what I saw seemed quite acceptable. Deleting stuff on one's user talk pages

1933: 1142: 1567: 888:

Who the fuck is this guy? he comes out of no where and starts supporting these guys they are sock puppets! Nareklm 15:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

473: 465: 1920:

also joined in reverting to Dahn's versions. None of these users ever made any contributions to related articles. My personal opinion is that

1160:

Adding gibberish is just vandalism - see the page for warnings about that. When/if you post a level 4 warning and it occurs again, report it

1068: 1029: 947: 1691: 1660: 1617: 1333: 1300: 891: 814: 786: 730:

article. I have expressed my concerns as best I can, and an editor keeps removing the tag and insulting me rather than dicussing the issues.

658: 514: 450: 298:. I haven't seen this in practice so another editor may come and contradict me (feel free to, John) but the claim of going from size 6-: --> 1292: 1281: 1051:

has tried to talk him into being an editor who works well with others, without success. Please help, thanks. 07:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

133: 2238: 2125: 1492:

For the record, the date of last harrassing email from MoeLarryandJesus was February 9, 2007 12:49:30 AM PST. Should I post a screenshot?

1449: 1129: 1082:

article doesn't get a lot of attention and my experience with WP conflicts is limited, so it would be good to get other users' opinions.

1001:

I strongly recommend that in the future you (a) edit down anything you consider puffery to consist only of potentially verifiable facts,

690:). If you think that the editor might have some connection to the organization he/she is posting about, you could mention the Knowledge 180: 2066:

why four-digit years should be used for both technical and aesthetic reasons, but he insists he is free to use five-digit years because

562: 288: 2095: 1782: 1745: 1513: 1425: 907: 865: 186: 1810:). He has recently harassed me on my talk page, re-posting a personal attack he had made on another user, and one which I had erased ( 1304: 1086: 894: 649:. You'll find mention there of the "third opinion" process, for cases when just two editors (as appears the case here) disagree. -- 2367: 1826: 1216: 226: 2063: 1125:

Intervention is needed for User 74.195.3.199, who is back up to his old tricks again: personal attacks on other editors (example:

1107:, but, again, that's based on editors who want to engage over content, and doesn't really apply (yet, at least) in this case. -- 76: 1288:, and has stated that a particular point of view simply does not belong in an article because she thinks it is a "pack of lies." 1611: 1327: 2026: 1048: 90: 1799: 523:

You did post to the correct page; I apologize if I gave the impression that you did not. What I was grumping about was the

225:

since some parts of the discussion have been deleted. I'm interested in a civility check for both sides of this discussion.

129:

Seek an administrator's help? I am not experienced in Knowledge, and I find this situation confusing and frustrating. ---

1803: 978:

You're having a fight about some information that the user wants to add to the article that is unverified. Text such as

2273:

occasion and it is still happening. To make matters worse, the his/her new argument is that it is impossible to have a

1719: 1684: 1417:

was called in but the user is impervious to informal negotiation and consensus building. 01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1289: 1044: 333:

is also relevant, although I find it lacking in such basics as actually giving an operational definition of libel. --

2053: 1753: 2309:

opposed to revert, in order to help acheive consensus, but this was to no avail. A summary of his behaviour is given

2119: 1339: 57: 1807: 287:

without sources. I'd fix it myself but I don't have the source that Belina007 apparently is reading this info from.

2070:

does not explicitly say not to use them. Following some discussion he posted a rather confrontational ultimatum on

1772:. He has made several inflammatory updates without sourcing and reverts when others make reasonable changes. Link: 1591: 1379: 1374: 995: 920: 176: 172: 2071: 1442: 1438: 1815: 1811: 1383: 855: 852: 47: 17: 2277: 2271: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2259: 2252: 2029:

has tried to talk him into being an editor who works well with others, without success. In fact, please look at

1641: 1351: 1215:

keeps making remarks about what he thinks the political views of editors are, along with insults to Americans...

69: 1635: 1345: 400: 1629: 1406: 1366: 2388: 1968:

To all parties involved. Please avoid continued discussion of the issue on this page. Editors will come to

1701: 1670: 1623: 1357: 1104: 1017: 672: 646: 382:

lays out a policy for dealing with content disputes. You've done a third opinion; the next step is an RFC.

379: 2056: 1388: 1009:

information are different - remove it on sight if not adequately sourced; that's not the situation here.)

797: 727: 687: 479:

What I see is what looks like a bunch of pre-teens arguing about who did what to whom, when, and why, at

312: 2310: 975:

brings the matter to the attention of people who may not be following edits of the article that closely.

2345:. In "The Dokdo wars heat up" section, a user has intentionally spurred the fire of the dispute at the 2050: 1851:

is, I personally do not find your accusation solid (though I disagree(d) with many things Icar added).

931: 616: 38: 490:

be used for at the article's talk page, in the section with the squabbling. I recommend following it.

275: 1773: 1400: 731: 388:- This is a point of widespread confustion. In fact, the current policy is that removal of warnings 1819: 2336: 2147: 2103: 2040: 1790: 1654: 1310: 1270: 1242: 1201: 1170: 1113: 1065: 1037: 1026: 944: 913: 873: 838: 823: 783: 700: 655: 582: 537: 511: 447: 422:

I read the talk page, and saw no evidence of personal attacks. He said some negative things about

339: 256: 199: 144: 99: 1860:

Thank you for your input. Now, I'll wait for neutral users to become involved, if you don't mind.

1428:. Seven reverts before warning; three more (so far) after warning. 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1221:

I've looked. This involves a long-running disagreement that you (under your current name, and as

1414: 1126: 720: 593: 458: 352: 155: 62: 193:

issues, on his talk page, was quite civil, so the issue doesn't seem to be one of etiquette. --

2255: 2058:) using a five-digit system for numbering the years (e.g. "02007" instead of "2007" - like the 1713: 1678: 367: 120: 2079:

territory and would rather not continue arguing the toss alone. 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

2062:). I changed the dates to the standard four-digit style, but he reverted them. I explained on 1839: 1149:

requesting admin assistance and mentioning the user was blocked once already for this problem.

749:). Given your edits to date, I'm not sure that this language rises to the level of violating 774: 568:

crankish ("fanatic zionist") postings, just recently. It's not clear that's the same person.

2332:— baseless insinuations of malevolent agendas in another user. 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2313:, as well as above in the same talk page. His personal behaviour is most clearly seen here: 2304:. This user uses edit summaries such as "reverting to last NPOV. Discuss on talk page" when 1959:

if this falls under the incidence of Wiki rules, if so, this POV pushing should be exposed.

1838:

On the other hand you also have a long track of POV pushing (see your numerous edit wars in

2360: 1396: 1277: 642:

violation. So yes, it should be in the article (in my opinion), but not so much as it was.

166: 1843: 527:

comment included in the alert, which seemed to suggest continuing the off-Knowledge fight

8: 2373: 2083: 2059: 1238: 1166: 1109: 1061: 1022: 940: 819: 779: 696: 651: 578: 533: 507: 443: 335: 279: 252: 195: 140: 111:

I am not certain where to place this; I have been falsely accused of personal attacks by

95: 2301: 1886: 1392: 879: 278:

that I feel is bad information and is unsourced. I reverted it, and posted a notice on

328:

information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

2091: 2046: 1370: 1208: 1078: 1020:

when you have a content dispute with another editor, and please don't overreact. --

210: 130: 1759:

who for several weeks has been posting complaints about edits to the article about

497:

violations really look like. I suggest that you read the advice at that page and at

2244: 2014:

Knowledge talk:Reliable sources#Problems of reliability with the Metropolis article

1099: 848: 844: 732:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#content_policies_tag-05:20

627: 608: 600: 469: 2235: 2216: 2188: 2122: 1258: 750: 726:

Hello, I have place a tag regarding original research and non-objectivity at the

686:, Knowledge generally discourages any comments about an editor's motivation (see 612: 498: 371: 359: 330: 309: 222: 214: 162: 634:

relevant, in my opinion; the problem was that it was at excessive length, which

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2391:: alleging edits to this talk page made in bad faith. 04:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 2356: 2274: 2067: 1994: 1947: 1909: 1760: 1446: 1285: 1188: 890:

Please, address the issue, as this user's activity is very disruptive. Thanks.

639: 283: 218: 2152: 1576:

blocked (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours

1499: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2248: 1990: 1951: 1925: 1917: 1913: 1905: 1847: 1254: 1161: 1092: 987: 773:

information to articles you're personally interested in, then take a look at

754: 691: 645:

When you have a content dispute with another editor, a good place to look is

555:

Talk:USS Liberty incident#Totalitarian Ethnic Activism Destroying Scholarship

494: 474:

Talk:Fire_Emblem#Quit_adding_Fire_Emblem_World_to_the_list_of_external_links.

433: 408: 322: 300: 295: 190: 73: 621:

a political fact is not against wikipedia rules so long as neutrally written

2087: 2076: 2033:. Almost any edit he makes is tendentious to someone. Please help, thanks. 2003: 1973: 1846:

and others - which perhaps are not relevant now - plus the interference of

1779: 1742: 1510: 1362: 1222: 935: 902: 883: 862: 363: 116: 86: 2323: 2283: 282:

asking him/her to please source the information and write it according to

1960: 1955: 1876: 1852: 1083: 957: 802: 189:; they specialize in this sort of thing. Mr. Cline's response regarding 793: 245:

reasonable editors, as appears to be the case here, it's actual unusual

2251:

page. Specifically, behaviour such as: editing someone else's comments

2202: 2174: 2114: 708:

Points taken, thank you for your input. 20:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

407:

you believe that the original posting was appropriate for a talk page;

306: 299:

size 24 in 2 weeks, no other edits, and no communication, I think the

2364: 2030: 1930: 1921: 1895: 1882: 1870: 1861: 1823: 1795: 1730: 1705: 1212: 1055: 2086:

to guide the choice between the four digit and five digit formats.

679:

should be used, even if that isn't the main thrust of the article.)

1873:’s report and following step by step the development of the story 362:'s endless reverts at . Dispute resolution has already been done ( 1741:

article along with the rest of the editors working on that page.

2148:

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/2004.12.html

430:

he has now slapped an "OR" banner on the page in a fit of pique

2292:

is becoming more and more disruptive. Violations appear to be

1409:, harassing other editors on the article talk page, active on 1141:

My suggestion is that you use the standard warning grid - see

441:

seems to me to be problematical given the AGF guideline. --

2346: 2111:

Knowledge:Village pump (assistance)#My response on the matter

2016:

Heated discussion, incivility. 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

1583:

extreme 3RR violation (more than 10 reverts) after warnings:"

1413:

for the past 30+ hours from the first contrib with this ID.

267: 468:. He and another anonymous commenter (AnonFE) are using the 426:

by others, but that does not constitute "personal attacks".

2342: 1986: 386:

He removes all warning templates placed on his user page.

1157:, or on your talk page, not on the user's own talk page. 777:- there is plenty of work there, of a wide variety. -- 1894:

As I have said: I'm still waiting for neutral editors.

2243:

I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at

1095:; I can assure you that the next block will be longer. 794:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nixie_tube#references_tag

1291:

The problem is not simply with this article, because

996:

protection of the page against all anonymous IP edits

266:

I'd like somebody to weigh in on recent edits to the

1733:

who just destroy without purposeful.20 February 2007

813:- this user account has been blocked indefinitely: 303:

are the best way to go. And I have to go! I'm late!

2031:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Okkar

1134:

Yes, you can do an RfC with an anonymous IP editor.

505:. The world will be a better place if you do. -- 493:Finally, I think you have little idea what serious 138:I've posted a response on your user talk page. -- 2315:Talk:Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings 2279:article on veganism. 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 2023:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Myanmar (Burma)/Members 901:I never attacked anyone yet you use sock puppets. 767:it's your behavior that is the problem, not theirs 525:elaboration and proof can be provided if necessary 630:page; please take a look. The information added 2330:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Frank R. Wallace 2109:I would welcome outside input at my comments on 1722:) (it is the same) , he always destroy my work . 1147:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1143:Knowledge:Template messages/User talk namespace 603:. An anonymous IP has added a paragraph titled 397:He removes comments from the article talk page. 2256:generalized belligerence towards other editors 930:is, in my opinion, approaching a violation of 747:because you are too lazy to check for yourself 472:page to air personal vendettas (specifically, 815:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cindery 557:which is a pretty blatent personal attack by 2161:I could find nothing that matched. Nothing. 221:. You will have to look into the history of 177:User_talk:Mike_Cline#Conflict_of_interest.3F 2153:http://icasualties.org/oef/Afghanistan.aspx 1500:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/ 2264:. S/he has been warned/cautioned on more 1153:occur in edit summaries and talk pages of 187:Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard 1426:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR 486:I've posted a note about what talk pages 980:He is currently planning a European Tour 321:Good advice. The following words from 14: 847:- Sections were removed for violating 399:. This is generally unacceptable per 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2027:Knowledge:WikiProject Myanmar (Burma) 1049:Knowledge:WikiProject Law Enforcement 607:. The same paragraph also appears at 439:more concerned with "winning a battle 91:Knowledge:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle 2389:Talk:New_antisemitism#Bad_faith_edit 2355:happens to be missing in the actual 1768:Could you look into changes made by 753:(and certainly isn't a violation of 667:This is not the place to argue over 576:moved on to another IP address. -- 25: 2049:added content to several articles ( 1016:In summary, please read and follow 851:or for containing off topic content 23: 1993:behavior and uncivil attitudes by 1045:Talk:Police memorabilia collecting 743:complaining across the help boards 24: 2401: 1954:in an edit war he had with me in 991:that you've not been warned yet.) 921:Talk: Columbia Pacific University 882:- Please, check this page. User 857:. 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 29: 1687:) 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC 694:on his/her user talk page. -- 18:Knowledge:Wikiquette assistance 1595:22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 401:Knowledge:Talk page guidelines 85:May I suggest that you temper 13: 1: 2239:03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2220:16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 2206:16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 2192:16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 2178:16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 2126:15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 2096:19:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 2082:I asked Pakalomattam to read 2035:07:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 2007:04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1989:? Repetitive revert changes, 1977:17:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1964:14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1934:14:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1899:09:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1890:08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1875:I am very inclined to second 1865:00:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1856:00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1827:22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1783:18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1746:17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1568:20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1546:23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1514:23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1482:22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1450:21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1305:22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1284:is unclear on the concept of 1262:06:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1246:02:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1217:09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 1192:05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 1174:00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 1130:20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1117:23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1087:17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1069:22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1030:22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 986:You're both getting close to 948:22:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 908:19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 895:08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 866:18:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 827:17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 704:17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 368:Talk:Unwinnable#Third opinion 2118:and that he'd been in touch 1704:) and very hungry against -- 1105:Knowledge:Resolving disputes 1018:Knowledge:Resolving disputes 806:19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 787:18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 739:because you hate the article 684:blatant attempt at publicity 673:Knowledge:Resolving disputes 659:18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 647:Knowledge:Resolving disputes 586:16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 563:13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 541:15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 515:17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 451:19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 380:Knowledge:Resolving disputes 343:19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 317:05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 289:05:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 260:20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 227:19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 203:06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 181:05:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 148:06:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 134:03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 103:06:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 77:20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 7: 1646:blocked indefinitely as of 798:electronic voice phenomenon 728:Electronic voice phenomenon 692:conflict of interest policy 688:Knowledge:Assume good faith 599:Please can someone look at 185:I recommend taking this to 161:Can someone take a look at 10: 2406: 1985:Could someone take a look 932:Knowledge:No legal threats 854:. The removal was reverted 617:Chysauster Ancient Village 2377:23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 2368:04:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 1648:23:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 1566:) has been blocked as of 605:Controversy over the site 420:He uses personal attacks. 119:page, and then on my own 1869:After carefully reading 1437:User has also (as noted 734:, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 501:regarding minor stuff - 1415:Knowledge:Third opinion 1003:rather than removing it 2288:The behaviour of user 2021:Please take a look at 1820:Talk:Leonte Tismăneanu 1725:he vandalism my work . 1424:User also reported on 1077:Please have a look at 1043:Please take a look at 956:Please take a look at 919:Please take a look at 464:Please take a look at 121:User talk:Noclevername 68:Can someone look into 2137:Image:Soninafghan.jpg 775:Knowledge:Maintenance 42:of past discussions. 2361:Talk:Baekdu Mountain 1411:these two pages only 1278:Talk:Frederick Baron 1230:insults to Americans 1098:I note the offer of 938:to the article. -- 2084:Knowledge:Consensus 2060:Long Now Foundation 1840:Vladimir Tismăneanu 1407:tendentious editing 1295:(who also edits as 366:) - with result in 325:are also relevant: 280:User Talk:Belina007 2343:Dokdo wars heat up 880:User_talk:Khoikhoi 432:. Pleae note the 89:by also observing 2261:personal attacks 2247:behaviour on the 2047:User:Pakalomattam 1924:suffers from the 1844:Leonte Tismăneanu 1297:User:67.35.126.14 1209:Talk:White_people 1079:IMADEC University 211:User_talk:Sanchom 54: 53: 48:current main page 2397: 2337:27 February 2007 2324:25 February 2007 2284:24 February 2007 2104:23 February 2007 2041:22 February 2007 1950:sided also with 1791:21 February 2007 1655:20 February 2007 1645: 1618:deleted contribs 1601:MoeLarryAndJesus 1594: 1556:MoeLarryAndJesus 1543:MoeLarryAndJesus 1479:MoeLarryAndJesus 1404: 1386: 1360:the bio article 1355: 1334:deleted contribs 1317:MoeLarryAndJesus 1311:19 February 2007 1299:and, I suspect, 1276:Can you look at 1271:18 February 2007 1241: 1228:I will say that 1207:Can you look at 1202:17 February 2007 1169: 1112: 1100:User:Bobzchemist 1064: 1038:15 February 2007 1025: 943: 936:reliable sources 914:14 February 2007 905: 874:12-February-2007 845:Talk:Gus Grissom 839:11-February-2007 822: 782: 699: 654: 628:Restormel Castle 626:I've edited the 609:Pendennis Castle 601:Restormel Castle 581: 536: 510: 470:Talk:Fire_Emblem 446: 338: 315: 255: 198: 143: 98: 33: 32: 26: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2339: 2326: 2286: 2106: 2043: 1793: 1657: 1603: 1590: 1377: 1361: 1319: 1313: 1273: 1237: 1204: 1165: 1108: 1060: 1040: 1021: 939: 916: 903: 876: 841: 818: 778: 723: 721:9-February-2007 695: 650: 613:Tintagel Castle 596: 594:8-February-2007 577: 553:Please look at 532: 506: 461: 459:6-February-2007 442: 372:User:Prosfilaes 360:User:Prosfilaes 358:Have a look at 355: 353:4-February-2007 334: 331:Knowledge:Libel 304: 251: 223:User_talk:88888 215:User_talk:88888 209:Please look at 194: 158: 156:3-February-2007 139: 115:, first on the 113:User:Dreadlocke 94: 72:? Thank you. -- 65: 63:2-February-2007 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2403: 2393: 2392: 2384: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2374:Good friend100 2357:Ryukyu Islands 2351: 2350: 2338: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2325: 2322: 2285: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2258:and repeated 2241: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2209: 2208: 2195: 2194: 2181: 2180: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2150: 2142: 2141: 2129: 2128: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2075:straying into 2042: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2018: 2017: 2010: 2009: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1836: 1833: 1792: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1765: 1764: 1761:Robert Latimer 1749: 1748: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1726: 1723: 1656: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1579: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1504: 1503: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1419: 1418: 1312: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1272: 1269: 1267: 1265: 1264: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1239:John Broughton 1226: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1167:John Broughton 1158: 1150: 1139: 1135: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1110:John Broughton 1096: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1062:John Broughton 1054:It looks like 1039: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1023:John Broughton 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 999: 992: 984: 976: 967: 966: 965: 964: 953: 952: 951: 950: 941:John Broughton 926:The statement 915: 912: 911: 910: 898: 897: 875: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 840: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 820:John Broughton 780:John Broughton 758: 722: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 697:John Broughton 680: 669:content issues 652:John Broughton 643: 595: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 579:John Broughton 573: 569: 559:User:63.3.10.2 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 534:John Broughton 508:John Broughton 491: 484: 460: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 444:John Broughton 427: 417: 394: 383: 354: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 336:John Broughton 264: 263: 262: 253:John Broughton 237: 219:Talk:Comb_over 207: 206: 205: 196:John Broughton 157: 154: 153: 152: 151: 150: 141:John Broughton 108: 107: 106: 105: 96:John Broughton 83: 64: 61: 56: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2402: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2378: 2375: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2353: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2341: 2340: 2331: 2328: 2327: 2321: 2318: 2316: 2312: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2278: 2276: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2260: 2257: 2253: 2250: 2249:Veganism Talk 2246: 2245:Nomenclator's 2242: 2240: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2221: 2218: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2207: 2204: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2193: 2190: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2179: 2176: 2171: 2170: 2164: 2160: 2159: 2154: 2151: 2149: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2127: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088:Sancho McCann 2085: 2081: 2080: 2078: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2064:his talk page 2061: 2057: 2054: 2051: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2015: 2012: 2011: 2008: 2005: 2001: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1983: 1978: 1975: 1974:Sancho McCann 1971: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1962: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1946: 1935: 1932: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1918:User:Artaxiad 1915: 1914:User:Domitius 1911: 1907: 1906:User:Khoikhoi 1902: 1901: 1900: 1897: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1888: 1887:Vintila Barbu 1884: 1880: 1879:’ conclusions 1878: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1854: 1849: 1848:User:Khoikhoi 1845: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1784: 1781: 1780:Sancho McCann 1776: 1775: 1774: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1744: 1743:Sancho McCann 1739: 1738: 1732: 1727: 1724: 1721: 1718: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1688: 1686: 1683: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1669: 1666: 1662: 1659: 1658: 1649: 1643: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1622: 1619: 1616: 1613: 1610: 1607: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1593: 1584: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1547: 1544: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1515: 1512: 1511:Sancho McCann 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1483: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1451: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1427: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1359: 1353: 1350: 1347: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1274: 1268: 1263: 1259: 1256: 1251: 1247: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1193: 1190: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1163: 1159: 1156: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1118: 1115: 1111: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1094: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1085: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1031: 1028: 1024: 1019: 1015: 1014: 1008: 1004: 1000: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 962: 961: 959: 955: 954: 949: 946: 942: 937: 933: 929: 925: 924: 922: 918: 917: 909: 906: 900: 899: 896: 893: 889: 885: 881: 878: 877: 867: 864: 863:Sancho McCann 859: 858: 856: 853: 850: 846: 843: 842: 828: 825: 821: 816: 812: 809: 808: 807: 804: 799: 795: 790: 789: 788: 785: 781: 776: 772: 768: 763: 759: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 735: 733: 729: 725: 724: 707: 706: 705: 702: 698: 693: 689: 685: 681: 678: 677:most relevant 674: 670: 666: 665: 662: 661: 660: 657: 653: 648: 644: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 624: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 597: 587: 584: 580: 574: 570: 566: 565: 564: 560: 556: 552: 551: 542: 539: 535: 530: 526: 522: 521: 518: 517: 516: 513: 509: 504: 500: 496: 492: 489: 485: 482: 478: 477: 475: 471: 467: 463: 462: 452: 449: 445: 440: 435: 431: 428: 425: 421: 418: 415: 410: 406: 402: 398: 395: 391: 387: 384: 381: 377: 376: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 356: 344: 341: 337: 332: 329: 324: 320: 319: 318: 314: 311: 308: 302: 297: 292: 291: 290: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 258: 254: 248: 243: 238: 234: 230: 229: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 204: 201: 197: 192: 188: 184: 183: 182: 178: 174: 171: 168: 164: 160: 159: 149: 146: 142: 137: 136: 135: 132: 127: 122: 118: 114: 110: 109: 104: 101: 97: 92: 88: 84: 80: 79: 78: 75: 71: 67: 66: 60: 59: 58:Archive index 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2383: 2319: 2305: 2287: 2168: 2167: 2162: 2072:my talk page 1999: 1969: 1874: 1794: 1716: 1710:90.30.155.22 1698: 1681: 1675:90.30.155.22 1667: 1638: 1632: 1626: 1620: 1614: 1608: 1588: 1582: 1575: 1554: 1410: 1363:Seth Swirsky 1348: 1342: 1336: 1330: 1324: 1266: 1233: 1229: 1223:User:Thulean 1154: 1006: 1002: 979: 927: 887: 884:User:Nareklm 810: 770: 766: 761: 746: 742: 738: 683: 676: 668: 635: 631: 620: 604: 528: 524: 502: 487: 480: 466:User:Thunk00 438: 429: 423: 419: 416:talk pages). 413: 404: 396: 389: 385: 378:In general, 326: 246: 241: 232: 169: 131:Noclevername 125: 117:Talk:Psychic 55: 43: 37: 2302:WP:Civility 2113:. I think 1956:Albert Wass 1770:Kshatriyaaz 1589:Details in 1301:User:Jgwlaw 958:Ben Bledsoe 370:. However, 36:This is an 2236:Psychonaut 2217:Pahuskahey 2189:Pahuskahey 2140:resources: 2123:Pahuskahey 2115:User:Durin 1881:. As for 1757:S. T. Webb 1755:. A user 1636:block user 1630:filter log 1592:block log. 1358:disrupting 1346:block user 1340:page moves 1293:User:Jance 1282:User:Jance 163:Mike Cline 1995:Viriditas 1948:Mardavich 1922:User:Dahn 1910:Mardavich 1796:User:Icar 1642:block log 1463:libelous. 1447:Athaenara 1356:has been 1352:block log 1213:User:LSLM 1189:DanielEng 1138:articles. 1056:User:SGGH 849:WP:ATTACK 572:reposted. 503:ignore it 301:templates 276:paragraph 272:Belina007 270:article. 236:deletion. 2290:Gravitor 1952:Khoikhoi 1720:contribs 1702:contribs 1685:contribs 1671:contribs 1612:contribs 1599:Update: 1564:contribs 1328:contribs 1155:articles 1007:negative 983:puffery. 751:WP:CIVIL 499:WP:CIVIL 274:added a 173:contribs 2068:WP:DATE 2004:Arcayne 1380:protect 1375:history 1286:WP:NPOV 904:Nareklm 811:Closing 760:What I 682:As for 640:WP:NPOV 284:WP:NPOV 242:minorly 39:archive 2300:, and 2298:WP:NPA 2294:WP:AGF 1991:WP:OWN 1961:Daizus 1926:WP:OWN 1877:Daizus 1853:Daizus 1806:, and 1752:Link: 1692:Jjean3 1690:I am * 1661:Jjean3 1527:Left." 1384:delete 1257:. See 1255:WP:SPA 1162:WP:AIV 1093:WP:AIV 1084:Brindt 988:WP:3RR 892:Atabek 817:. -- 803:MsHyde 771:adding 755:WP:NPA 495:WP:NPA 488:should 434:WP:AGF 409:WP:3RR 393:point. 323:WP:BLP 296:WP:AIV 217:, and 191:WP:COI 175:) and 2347:Dokdo 2267:than 2203:Durin 2175:Durin 2077:WP:DE 2000:month 1405:with 1401:views 1393:watch 1389:links 481:other 424:edits 364:WP:3O 268:HoHos 87:WP:BB 16:< 2365:Yuje 2311:here 2275:NPOV 2270:one 2163:That 2092:talk 1987:here 1931:Icar 1916:and 1896:Dahn 1883:Icar 1871:Dahn 1862:Dahn 1824:Dahn 1816:here 1814:and 1812:here 1808:this 1804:this 1800:this 1731:Ronz 1714:talk 1706:Ronz 1696:talk 1679:talk 1665:talk 1624:logs 1606:talk 1560:talk 1443:here 1441:and 1439:here 1397:logs 1371:talk 1367:edit 1322:talk 1243:(♫♫) 1171:(♫♫) 1114:(♫♫) 1066:(♫♫) 1027:(♫♫) 945:(♫♫) 824:(♫♫) 784:(☎☎) 701:(♫♫) 656:(☎☎) 583:(☎☎) 538:(☎☎) 529:here 512:(☎☎) 448:(☎☎) 414:user 340:(☎☎) 257:(☎☎) 200:(☎☎) 167:talk 145:(☎☎) 100:(☎☎) 70:this 2169:you 1970:you 1822:). 1280:? 1234:not 1232:is 638:an 247:not 74:NE2 2306:he 2296:, 2254:, 2173:-- 2094:) 2055:, 2052:, 1912:, 1842:, 1802:, 1729:-- 1708:or 1570:: 1562:• 1399:| 1395:| 1391:| 1387:| 1382:| 1378:| 1373:| 1369:| 1260:. 1211:? 762:am 757:). 745:, 741:, 636:is 632:is 615:, 611:, 405:if 390:is 305:RB 233:is 213:, 126:me 2187:- 2090:( 1936:) 1717:· 1712:( 1699:· 1694:( 1682:· 1677:( 1668:· 1663:( 1650:. 1644:) 1639:· 1633:· 1627:· 1621:· 1615:· 1609:· 1604:( 1581:" 1578:" 1574:" 1558:( 1403:) 1365:( 1354:) 1349:· 1343:· 1337:· 1331:· 1325:· 1320:( 561:. 313:2 310:7 307:9 170:· 165:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

:Wikiquette assistance/archive11 - Knowledge

Index