148:
not going to give. For the record - I'm not a suck up and I didn't come here to make friends, so if someone takes offense to how I handle things thats their problem not mine. Your all anonymous to me, this isn't a paying job and I'm not trying to win kudos for a higher position of authority like being an admin or whatever - so if there are a bunch of incidents stacked against me so be it. I really don't care. Therefore, when I'm accused of something I'll respond however I feel is necessary and if that includes smart ass comments and sarcasm then thats what happens. All I can say is that
Cheeser needs to get over it because I really don't give a shit if he/she has an issue with me or not. Cheeser accuses me of saying "I own these articles" well I'd like to see where I said that. The copyright vio banner is something that can't be ignored unless you want to see the article annihilated. Yeah, I could have let the article go, but knowing full well no one else will lift a finger to fix it, it would of course get the admin "quick fix" and be deleted entirely. Because I spent time on it, I get pissed when I see work I did flushed down the drain because someone out there doesn't like it or thinks it violates something. I never said I owned the articles I work on nor did I say anyone else wasn't allowed to touch them. But whatever, this is the first time in the four years I been on Knowledge where anyone's lodged a complaint against me - I think the record shows that I'm a civil person but I do have a short fuse for morons.
2623:
clash frequently on many pages. They seem to argue most about the relationship of the UK monarchy with other
Commonwealth monarchies: in particular, the Canadian one. In my opinion TharkunColl does seem to ignore some points and sometimes offers (in my opinion) irrational arguments. But on that score you could castigate many of not most editors at some point or another. On the other hand, if you stay with him long enough and patiently enough, he will address your points. G2Bambino, in his discussions with TharkunColl seems to assume motive and resorts sometimes to personal attacks. He also on occasion ignores valid points TharkunColl makes. They are both red rags to each other, as many talk pages show. I think this issue is more about a personal feud. Both parties are equally responsible for disruptions. I agree with GoodDay: if you read a lengthy exchange them, they actually agree on more than they argue about. And yes, following another good idea from GoodDay, why don't you (Tharky and G2) both retire temporarily from the UK vs equal monarchy thing and see how it plays out without you? You might be able to get some fresh perspective. --
4080:. Here, he instigated an edit-war by removing a large amount of entries without discussion. I never reverted him, though other editors did, and he engaged in edit-war like behavior with them. Attempting to find good faith, prevent an escalation of the edit-war, and improve the article, I attempted to engage him in discussion. Instead of taking this opportunity to improve the article, he instead nominated the article for deletion, on the pretexts that inclusion criteria (which I was attempting to discuss with him) were poorly defined, and that this had caused an edit-war (which he had started). I realize he has done some good in the work on English municipalities, but even here it seems that he is taking advantage of the rules-- articles on towns cannot be deleted as non-notable-- in order to spin out hundreds of stub articles. I have serious doubts about the validity of his purposes in editing here.
354:
arrogant jerk who likes to fan the pages of policy in my face like I don't know them and from what I read in your little essay about how
Knowledge fails when it comes to enforcing it's policies, you seem all for running this place like a gestapo camp. Now that you caught me you just don't wanna let go because you want to make an example out of me. I have news for you — you aren't Knowledge's guardian knight, you're not a policy superhero. I've wasted enough of my day on this stupidity so I am done with this discussion. As far as I can see there's nothing to resolve except your arrogance and "can do no wrong" attitude — and I can't help you with that. So, I'd appreciate if you got off my back. If you're on some sort of crusade to straighten me out then you're wasting your time. You have a lovely evening now.
3357:. What you say in reference to him may very well be the case, that he had less than honorable motives in his edits to the various articles involved. However, what I was referring to you when I mentioned the concept of AGF was the portion of your response referring to Enuja's motives in opening a WQA. I don't see her behavior at all deserving of a re-examination of her motives; and to see it in that light would really require you to have dropped your good-faith assumption about her behavior a while ago. I'm not just tooting a policy horn, here—I really believe that AGF is what greases the wheels of Knowledge's operations, so to speak. When we start seeing ulterior motives behind every editor, then we spend more time addressing our paranoia and less time improving the encyclopedia. --
4076:
to all other editors. He follows what he feels are
Knowledge rules with rigid literalism, usually as an excuse to mass-nominate articles in a subject area for deletion. These mass-deletions always follow his loss of an article through AfD. Once he has lost an article, he goes on a deletion-tagging rampage, invariably showing contempt for consensus and an inhumanely literalistic interpretation of the rules, apparently to prove a point. When his actions cause an outcry from editors with long experience in those subjects, and administrators offering him advice, he refuses to budge, and instead increases the rate of his nominations. My most recent such encounter with him was at the
3573:. I think you're allowing Tony1 to get under your skin a little too much - I'm referring specifically to where you cited Godwin's Law and told him that he'd lost the argument. While I agree that his calling you a Nazi was way out of line and generally discredits his arguments, you allowed yourself to respond in kind, thus inflaming the situation more. (Telling someone that they're losing usually only prompts them to fight harder.) I think you'd be better served by refocusing the discussion only to the policies at hand, and politely asking the other editor to remove all personal attacks from his comments and focus on the content discussion.
3849:
3440:
1106:
920:
437:
2659:
enough, and treat him with respect, he will respond to your arguments. I'd suggest simply rely on the safeguards Wiki already has in place (the 3 revert block rule, etc)to deal with difficulties, and most importantly, don't respond in a personal manner. As youve read from my comments to Tharky, I get riled by him, but it is important to keep my cool. When I stopped feeling riled, I noticed he put forward some bloody good points that made me think. I will of course, continue to spar with him. It's all good fun, as long as noone gets hurt! Cheers!--
3170:, and the bulk of the information can be moved to the most appropriate article where someone who wants to find out about the relation between mass and weight will logically look first. Nothing is lost by doing this, since it's just a simple click away. Personally, I enjoy the aspect of being able to open linked articles in a new tab for additional information when I'm done perusing the first article. The exploration of additional linked articles is part of what makes Knowledge fun to learn from!
31:
2451:
article and changes it in line with his views/normal rather than convoluted views. These are in effect content disputes between these two editors in particular, over a range of articles with themes about the commonwealth etc. G2Bambino has been blocked for 3RR for this himself in the past over this. From what
Lonewolf said above, as you can see I am not the only one with this opinion about the ongoing G2B vs tharkie issues. Call it a 'personality clash' or a clash of agendas/POVs.
4493:(note: this one is not included on the list). All these antagonisitc, non-constructive comments, the result is undeniably to sour the AfD process and make it impossible to work together to discuss policy and work to form consensus on the issue. Instead, these bad-faith AfD nomimations are marked with continued acts of unreasonable and uncivil behavior. It seems entirely inappropriate to respond condescendingly, or at least non-constructively, to every single "keep" vote. He even
3305:
life and liberty. This is not a civil trial where liability to the tune of millions of dollars is established based upon the “preponderance of evidence.” For the purposes of interacting with other editors on
Knowledge, only one common-sense test can apply: treat others as you would have them treat you and assume good faith until they demonstrate otherwise. Once someone has violated that trust and does childish stuff, the “presumption of good faith” is no longer deserved.
3203:, or perhaps consider RFC or a vote. I am also deeply concerned by your comment, regardless of the circumstances, that you " interested in what ... regular editors feel." Regardless of the size of the group of editors expressing a concern, how often they contribute to the article in question or scientific subject matters, or how experienced they are at Knowledge, you should always be interested in what your fellow editors have to say. That's the basis of
607:) have kind of given up. I doubt mediation would work, as she has consistently ignored others' opinions. Ideally I'd like to resolve this editorially (not administratively), but it's been hard (I've even been resisting putting up 3RR reports and just asking for page protection so it wouldn't be interpreted as me trying to administratively sanction her personally). But, to be honest, I'm at my wits' end. I'd be interested in posting something on
1894:. He created and actively edits the article, but I stepped in to try to improve the page. Since then, he's fought me left and right on edits. The reason I bring this issue here is that we had a discussion over what to name the section that refers to the discontinue flavors. I went ahead and got a third opinion that seemed reasonable and went ahead and made the edits, and he reverted them and left a fairly inflammatory comment on the
2645:
occasions. Thark's reasons for elevating the UK in every and all instances – the non-UK countries are colonies, they are "non-kingdoms," they have vice-regals, and so on – certainly were not accepted. It's the fact that Thark refuses to recognise these decisions, and, of course, any of the provided evidence that supports them, combined with the aggressive reverting, and NPOV and NPA breaches, that makes Thark generally disruptive.
3158:
and valuable but misplaced information is relocated. You compared the article on
Kilogram to a Britannica article, and said "it's nowhere near as long" and "Britannica articles have some depth." The beauty of Knowledge (and the World Wide Web and hypertext in general) is that you don't have to have all of the information on one page for the article (and the encyclopedia) to have depth. If the information is moved to, say,
2346:
annoyance, and general editing of articles to suit his POV. He calls for discussion on talk pages but often refuses to answer direct questions, hardly ever provides citations, and derides other people's citations as irrelevent or out of context. He instigates disruption on articles by inserting his POV, leading to edit wars and article locking. Almost every article he has altered in this way has been subject to disruption.
3984:
see his point, that if he just goes and fixes the problems himself, the fixes may not necessarily gain the notice of the original editor, and thus the original editor may just go make the same mistakes later on, requiring more fixes. I believe his intentions were good in promoting the "fix it yourself" approach - wording could have been a little better, but I don't see any clear violations of civility here. —
1923:- and reading between the lines I can certainly see a possible ownership issue there. However, before I can comment on it, I'd need to see some diffs in which he reverted your edits for the sole apparent reason of protecting "his" version of the page (i.e. without making reference to policy or otherwise justifying his reversions). Once I see those, I may be able to discuss the issue with him.
2825:
2053:
1883:
73:
4196:- please refrain from making such remarks. It is okay to say that you feel as though you're being stalked (though I doubt that's what's happening in this case), but when you start judging other people's character like you did above ("He's just a schoolkid, though"), it can be quite insulting to other users, and it only tends to inflame the situation further, rather than helping. —
4581:. Regardless, this is way out of hand. I believe something needs to be done. I may have more to add later, but I am fairly busy and may not be able to find the time. But this is what I've come up with now, in a bit of spare time I had this evening. Of course, there are also plenty of other users making points that I have not covered here (like Xhir's point about Epbr trying to
799:. These are important policies that discuss not only how to stay out of trouble, but also how to be more effective in arguing your points in content disputes. Also keep in mind that if your arguments are against current consensus, the onus is on you to sway the consensus through civilized discussion and official sources that back up your point of view. Also keep in mind
2690:
1186:, so that is not an acknowledgement of incivility.) If so, I should just suck this up, or remove the few India-related pages I edit from my watchlist? On the other hand, if, as I think, Bakasuprman's comments are outside the bounds of civility, I'd appreciate it if someone else would let him know; he doesn't seem too inclined to accept my input.
4375:, just a few paragraphs above, calling me a "stalker" and a "schoolkid" in order to discredit my complaints against him. Interesting that his condescending "schoolmaster" approach was the initial reason this WQA was opened (although it's widened quite a bit in its scope since then). He nominated 11 articles for deletion in a single day, from
757:
along with consensus is another matter - they are valid, and nobody is trying to tell you that they're not. What is NOT okay is the fact that you are personally attacking Dali-Llama (DL), and have been shown to do so in the past. By criticizing DL's use of the
English and/or Portuguese languages, questioning her age (both of which are
3228:, and no consensus was needed on that from the RFC. I suspect she opened the RFC to see if there was consensus to support YOUR view that the information should remain in Kilogram, since you seemed upset by the idea of moving it, and if such a consensus had formed, then I believe she'd have left the information intact in Kilogram.
2328:
TharkunColl's attitude with him would be sufficient for him to take a second look at himself; yes, multiple warnings and blocks seem to have done little, but maybe - just maybe - a frank opinion expressed to him might work (?). If that does fail, then said other editor could thus be the second person required to file an RfC/U. --
2775:
creating a sub-article on the earlier controversies about body count. That is certainly more in line with the expectations from the encyclopaedia; the media battle and the real-world battle were two different things. If nothing else, I find that focusing on too many things at once on a talkpage can lead to extra frustration.
85:
some sort of spite that I apparently harbor. I asked him twice to discontinue his inappropriate behavior and to assume good faith, until he insisted that he was not violating policy, but rather "add more flavor" to the discussion. This is a relatively minor dispute, but this user's behavior seems to be in gross violation of
3224:. There was indeed a lack of consensus from the RFC on keeping the information on mass vs. weight directly in the article. A lack of consensus doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a lack of action. Enuja's attempt to move the detailed information to the specific subject article(s) was supported already by
1853:
common values, one must try to go to arbitration where meaningful sanctions can be enforced. One of this group, Bharatveer, has been taken directly to arbitration for similar behavior, and of course "Baka" has taken his usual combative approach in supporting him there. I suggest reviewing the arbitration case
803:, which deals with the issue of putting undue weight on one particular point of view - in cases where POV statements are appropriate for an article (such as in movie reviews), it is important to keep the article balanced such that it accurately reflects all relevant points of view, not just a single one.
3645:
appears to be equally true of both you and I, and
Radiant, and... So I wouldn't put too much store in that. I do agree that he also does calm down. So, I'm not sure why we are here. His over-the-top "like a Nazi" comment got him admonished by multiple parties, and I'm sure that's sufficient. Also,
3696:
I do wish someone would look into
Pmanderson's behavior as part of this whole issue; I can't help but notice he's lodged what I consider to be a spurious issue two sections below this one, and suggest that someone might ask Pmanderson to consider his own editing style and the effect it has on others.
3294:
good faith). It is inescapable that humans often behave in ways that are clearly childish or not in good faith. People can do bad things. Knowledge can experience its share of all of this; you can I both know this. Any reasonable interpretation of, for instance, Yath’s behavior in following me to the
2622:
If I can offer an observation: I respect both TharkunColl and G2bambino as editors who do their research and offer useful comments. I have been in lengthy discussions with both of them. I have both agreed and disagreed with them on a number of points. From what I've observed G2bambino and TharkunColl
1722:
This thread is making me wonder about this noticeboard's utility. Instead of getting outside comment about the issues at hand, this thread is simply offering Bakasuprman another venue to cast aspersions on my character, credibility, etc. If we're not going to get any comments from uninvolved parties,
1586:
is an official policy in Knowledge. You are not permitted to throw around accusations of virulent bigotry. If virulent bigotry is impacting upon articles, you must deal with that through appropriate channels, and not by just making personal attacks on the bigot. If a virulent bigot is making personal
765:
and other civility policies. This behavior tends to discredit your own arguments, but more importantly, it also inflames other users, usually causing knock-down-drag-out arguments that can span multiple pages and cause many hard feelings on all sides. At that point, the discussions stop being about
625:
and the reason why you warned her about it, among other things. I have been trying very hard to get her to separate the behavior and content issues, and I'm personally getting rather frustrated by the ongoing discussion there. One or two more exchanges like the ones we've been having, and I'm going
4728:
had alerted him to my (completely appropriate, I still believe) reversions to his deletions on his talk page, but obviously I'm not surprised. (And yes, I gathered that Picaroon was an admin, which is why I let it be without engaging in further efforts. Why bother trying to do the right thing when
4075:
I've had several encounters with Epbr123, and will share some impressions, for what they're worth. His behavior in the English municipality and FA articles and discussions show him, by far, at his most constructive. Once he leaves these areas he is unceasingly arrogant, condescending and destructive
3983:
In my opinion, he has a valid point, even if it could have been stated more politely. It is a little condescending as written, and generally editors are encouraged to just fix obvious problems, as that is more efficient and helps promote the constructive and cooperative nature of a wiki. But I can
3934:
OT:That has been my interpretation of the FAC process, that the reviewers primarily were concerned with presentation clarity, not so much the content (though if it stinks, they point it out). But most articles should be close to not having content issues to be serious FAC contenders I would think.
3919:
Actually, I did think Epbr's responses were less than helpful, but perhaps that's to be expected since the discussion in question started with a severe critique of the FAC process. Ironically enough, Epbr's responses could easily be seen as a demonstration of one of PMAnderson's criticisms--that the
3304:
So in that particular case, considering the totality of the history preceding that, a simple common-sense test shows he very probably went looking for conflict with a provocative deletion. This is not a court of law where the burden of proof must be “beyond a reasonable doubt” before society revokes
2728:
removed the tags saying that "factuality has been established and there's no massive neutrality issues. feel free to open the issues on talk in separete subsections." (Actually, that's another issue here - Jaakobou has been aggressively trying to structure the discussion to his liking, moving around
2658:
Rather than being disruptive I would say Tharky pushes his point. You could call that a strength as long as his arguments are supported by evidence. And he does put evidence forward, no matter how much we may dispute its worth. And I agree, it can be annoying. But as I say, if you stay with him long
2593:
His talk page and block log are evidence enough, and both show he gets himself in trouble well enough without my help. I've already admitted that I'm no saint, but I think the main difference between he and I is that I can be reasoned with. I don't know if others have, but I've tried to reason with
2567:
You've provided no evidence yourself, though, it's just wingeing. Please provide diffs of what you claim he has done wrong, and no doubt dozens could be provided as examples of your bizarre behaviour too. My point is that tharkie might be stendentious but you are too. I don't have to defend thark
2516:
The situaton can be assessed by G2B's own words "Yes, I considered RfC/U, however a minimum two people who have already previously contacted the user in question regarding his/her behaviour is required to file one. I currently have no such counterpart. Hence, I wanted to bring his actions to wider
1852:
Bakasuprman is one of what appears to be an affinity group of users with similar ideas and open contempt for wikipedian standards (read their talk pages and editing history), who often support each other. IMHO, it is a waste of time to consider mediation with such repeat, unrepentant users who share
1359:
Presenting past evidence of your incivility is hardly grinding an axe on this page. (Thank you for linking to that evidence, by the way.) Both dab's comments you've linked to indicate that you are considered a single purpose account; that in itself is not incivil. I still await substantiation of the
883:
That's what's frustrated me in this case. She repeatedly threatened me with a "block", and I told her several times to contact an administrator or log a complaint in any of the DR forums, like RFC or AN/I and she refused to do so. And the recalcitrant nature of her actions in two projects now really
407:
I am glad this has come to a positive conclusion. I've left a more extensive response on my talk page (since the more extensive comment from Cyberia was there). I had begun to lose hope that this would come to a positive resolution, but since it has, there's no reason to continue this process to any
4585:
a page in the middle of an AfD he started for that page). Oh, and one more point: he lists every single one of his edits as "minor." Many people filter out minor edits, and he would effectively be able to edit without being noticed by these people. He could respond to their points, appropriately or
4321:
In addition to engaging in mass deletions (and refusing to explain why), edit warring, refusing to try to discuss things out, mass related AfD creation without grouping them together (in order to increase their chances of succeeding), and then calling an AfD in bad faith as he was clearly losing an
3299:
article looking to create conflict, would lead to the conclusion that this wasn’t in good faith. As I explained above in the third paragraph of my statement, his motives are unprovable, known only to him and God. I’ve carefully studied the timing of the edits he made to the article and his posts to
3157:
Knowledge would not be where it is today without contributors like you, Greg, who take the time and effort to improve our coverage of scientific topics. However, Knowledge would also not be where it is without editors like Enuja, who take the time to ensure that each article covers what it should,
2774:
Much of the discussion is based on who called it a massacre and when. This is not really relevant to an encyclopaedia article on a battle, which should focus on current knowledge of strategies used and casualties; as a method of defusing tension, I strongly suggest you all take a break and consider
2345:
The problem here is G2bambino's obsessive pushing of a certain POV across all pages relating to the British monarchy. This complaint here is part of a pattern of disruption that includes excessive arguing on talk pages, using all possible administrative processes (such as this one) to cause further
2327:
Yes, I considered RfC/U, however a minimum two people who have already previously contacted the user in question regarding his/her behaviour is required to file one. I currently have no such counterpart. Hence, I wanted to bring his actions to wider attention. Hopefully another editor discussing
1974:
I've left a note on his talk page encouraging him to accept the change (which I personally think is clearly more in keeping with Knowledge's policies than is "Flavor graveyard", although I'm not here to adjudicate content disputes). I've also asked him to confirm that, if an RFC results in a clear
1738:
Personally, I agree. It's apparent by the ongoing argument here and the fact that Duae Quartunciae's comments above about civility policies were almost completely ignored, that continued discussion on this board will probably not accomplish much. We can only help mediate when all parties involved
1428:
It stands to note that the only two editors pressing the issue are editors that wish me banned and have broken Wiki rules multiple times to attempt to do so. Masquerading as a "concerned user" and presenting oneself as a victim really adds an emotional touch. "Bakasuprman is a demon that deals with
1414:
Sad, and true. Note that Bakasuprman has indicated nothing in the above statement except that he believes that these concerns about civility are the product of 'misrepresentation'. And as for being exposed to incivility, all of us face trolling regularly. As I pointed out earlier, trolling by anons
1360:
claim that Baksuprman is exposed to incivility on a daily basis. He is not; judging by the comments on this page, he seems to labour under a delusion that he is being persecuted by a cabal of tendentious editors and racist admins. Such a delusion is not a basis for the abandonment of a core policy.
1011:
That's very much beside the point. I suggest you let a non-involved editor look at Tony's continuing incivility and childish behavior. It is unfortunate that you first ask for outside opinion (on PManderson, whom you are in conflict with yourself) and then attack the person giving that opinion when
756:
I agree with Dali-Llama's assertions here, Ludovicapipa - he has consistently pointed out that your opinions and statements are valid, and that to the extent that you're participating in a content dispute, your content arguments are worth considering. Whether or not your opinions are correct or go
339:
Certainly, I would agree that we can consider this alert to be done (though not resolved). This is one of the easier-to-deal-with conflicts I've been involved in - I think when someone so clearly refuses to follow the rules, it makes things simpler, albeit with a less satisfying resolution. I don't
119:
All these other nonsense accusations are clearly because Cheeser needs to have the last word. I have no time for his/her stupid games. I cleaned up the article already, removed all questionable material, and moved on. Cheeser just wants to one up me because I "offended" him/her and this is how they
3644:
sometimes, he is backed up in the matter by other editors (myself included, by way of disclaimer), with actually logically-defensible rationales for why to prefer one over the other, which fans of "Moses' " have yet to counter. I do agree with Tony can get a little hot around the collar, but that
3551:
as well, pointing him to several civility policies and advising him that there are better, more civil ways to discuss a policy dispute than the way he's currently doing it. I looked through all four of Radiant's diffs and read through the conversations, and for the most part I believe Radiant has
2367:
And here is where the root of your issue lies: it is your arguments that are mostly unsupported by actual evidence, and, indeed, your edits that contradict other Knowledge content. Your refusal to accept this, along with your personal attacks, revert wars, talk page trolling, and the like, is why
378:
in a futile attempt at getting the upper hand in our disagreements. It was stupid of me to flip out and take my aggressions out on him and I hope he reconsiders filing a compliant to the higher echelon. It was a dumb argument and not worth how far it's gone. Hopefully now this is resolved but it's
147:
I consider the matter over since the original problem - the copyrighted material on the article - has been dealt with - (of course if anyone wants to verify that by all means go ahead.) The rest of what is going on is just utter lameness on Cheeser's part because he/she expects an apology that I'm
115:
the article they would have seen that the material was sourced at the top part of the article in the header. Yes, I admit it was not the usual location at the bottom of the page where they would normally be, but this article was hit once before for violating copyright and I wanted to make it clear
84:
with a copyvio tag because its content was blatanly ripped from a book (and despite plagiarism, the book wasn't even listed as a source). This user responded very rudely, including use of profane language, and assumed that my intetions were bad - that I was trying to get the article deleted out of
3901:
issues and editing "their" article is a good way to get your head bitten off. Epbr123's responses there were reasonable; perhaps you're being overly sensitive to other editors pointing out issues on the article you nominated. I assume you've notified Epbr123 of this alert? If not I shall do so
2363:
I think you'll find that there are more than enough citations in the relevant articles themselves to support what's inserted, either at the same article or elsewhere - and you should be aware that I didn't create all that content myself (I'm never sure why you continue to convince yourself of the
1468:
you are not the rule; instead, you continue to be engaged by established editors with the patience and good faith that is mandated by our core policies. (Nobody, for example has called you a "demon".) Incidentally, wikilink to 'objective' aside, your complaint about the subjectivity of policy has
1053:
a personal attack. Now Radiant, please calm down. I've clearly upset you greatly by analysing your text at the Gender-neutral discussion; I can't resile from that—it was necessary. I'll be pleased when tempers go down five notches, because we need cool heads to negotiate the issues at hand at MOS
165:
Nowhere did I ask for an apology. The purpose of posting this alert is to (I'm quoting myself here) "hopefully help understand how/why to act appropriately on Knowledge." Please do not continue to assume that I was out to get the article deleted (or "annihilated"). It's not up to me to decide if
4270:
I completely agree. He has made a dozen bad-faith AfDs this week, and among other things, has personally attacked several users (including the frivolous complaint here at the WQA against an admin), and has sniped at almost every "keep" vote in these AfDs. He claims that he is being "abused" when
3007:
to make “editing and discussion on this article constructive again,” that strikes me as disingenuous posturing in an attempt to appear as a wise source of reason who seeks only to avoid conflict. The same applies to her claim that I am displaying “signs of ownership”; I believe the true facts to
2759:
2) What do we do when a discussion simply goes on and on without any resolution? Is it just time for mediation? I'm worried that the extremely wearying nature of this discussion is driving people to leave, or at least seriously reduce their involvement - causing those editors who stay to jump in
2710:
has seen much heat and little light over the past several weeks. A {{POV-check}} tag was added, belatedly, on 3 August, and I soon changed it to {{TotallyDisputed}}, which I thought was a more accurate characterization of the debate. (POV-check is generally for minor issues, such as when a new
2450:
G2B is equal if not worse than tharkie, with his edit warring and downright bizarre views and changes to articles that would be misleading to readers. What tends to happen is G2B goes to an article and changes it according to his particular beliefs and obsessions. Then Tharkie comes across the
2304:
Honestly, if the blocks and such haven't yet served as notice to him that his behavior is unacceptable, I'm not sure what additional good a WQA will do (i.e. a user who's already been blocked for disruptive editing isn't likely to respond positively to the kind of gentle reminders WQA volunteers
1369:
Personal attacks are not incivil? Dab really does not need a wikilawyer. Incivility is something you create by misrepresneting statements made by myself and other users. Those who you are in agreement, such ads dab are not incivil. Those who you ideologically are opposed to are reoutinely dubbed
730:
I think my point here is that it's not the content dispute which is at issue--these are all perfectly valid points which we're trying to discuss. My point is that the manner in which you've conducted yourself in this discussion, added with the fact that you've ignored third parties' opinions and
106:
Cheeser is blowing this way out of proportion. He/She is only doing this because he/she thinks I should kiss their ass, that I owe him/her respect because they're "enforcing the rules", and they apparently don't believe that if you accuse someone of something, like plagarism you'd get a negative
3689:
by Pmanderson, while Tony has attempted to improve the MOS to common professional standards in use elsewhere. I have limited computer access for the remainder of this week and next, but I have left one small example of how difficult it has been to work on MOS because of Pmanderson's editing on
2732:
Anyway, I reverted the tag with the summary "re-add tags; the fact that some editors have been worn down or driven off by excessively circular talk page discussion does not mean that issues are "resolved"!", Jaakobou re-reverterd the tag with the summary "rv, i don't follow your commentary/edit
845:
Iam sorry if looks like a personal attack. Iam ONLY worry abt editions --not abt attacks, not at all. Iam sorry if sounds stupid, really. I must reafirm that I am facing an enormous wrok everytime I try to edit an article, whihc she/he deletes, reverts, without ask nor discuss. My goal is edit,
4796:
According to WP Talk Page policies, Epbr is allowed to remove the notice from his Talk page, and putting it back on there could then be considered vandalism or harassment of a sort. You can safely assume that he is aware of the RFC/U now that he has deleted the notice, so if he chooses not to
2903:
and proposed action based on this false premise. In blunt terms, but ones that fall far short of a ‘prohibited’ “personal attack,” I told her what I thought of that stunt. It is a dispute over this issue that underlies her claim that I am “not interested in what other users on the page have to
2644:
But what he and I agree on is of minor consequence here; the main issue is that the UK first/all equal subject already has been debated by a wider group of participants; the majority of people saw, in each case, that there were no grounds on which to give the UK primacy beyond certain specific
3046:
about not being interested in what she and the others had to say before she withdrew the form; quite the opposite, for I posted my best case and waited for others to weigh in. My ‘don’t care’ reaction was only after she falsely claimed a consensus and solicited JimWae to start deleting recent
1957:
Sorry, one more addition. Even after the third opinion today, he twice reverted my edits. We're getting kind of close to 3RR, but I still think that the suggestion given in the third opinion should be made. Should I go back to third opinion, or take it to RfC? Seems like a big step for such a
980:
It's not necessary to start a second thread. Radiant! as others already stated above, I urge you to cool off and remove yourself from this situation. You've now threatened to use your admin tools to block me because I provided you with the diffs showing the past issues. I've summarized the
353:
What's there to resolve? You seem to be assuming that just because I'm a problem for you Cheeser that I'm some sort of threat to this whole website and that I supposedly treat everyone I encounter with the same disrespect I've given you. You're wrong. I simply don't like you because you're an
3241:
Basically, Greg, I think you need to learn to let go a bit and allow the wiki process to take its course. Correct any obvious scientific errors that are introduced, but please acknowledge that others have valuable contributions they can make—if not to the scientific information, then to the
328:
seems quite happy not to. You can take it to higher levels if you want, and you could probably eventually get action, but I think it might be easier to just accept that some people are jerks, and that sometimes the onus is (unfairly) on non-jerks to put up with them. I'm marking as stuck.
652:
Absolutely. I've come to the conclusion that there is nothing more I can do in this case. The entire conversation on my Talk page is available to use as evidence that we tried to resolve this issue and could not, and I will happily endorse a MedCab or ArbCom request if the need arises. —
3726:
Thanks for the update. It does look like a strong case of frayed nerves. A dispute between Tony1 and Radiant can be quickly resolved with a couple apologies in both directions if that's all it is, and then work can resume on the content issues at hand. My advice to both parties stands,
2715:
argued on 6 Aug that we "did not open a talk page subsection explaining this dispute", and that "i see no reason for the orange tag except that one side is unhappy that they look bad with the material in the article". Myself and other editors discussed this and the tags seemed to stick.
550:) for personal attacks. She opened her user account on the EN wikipedia a few hours after being blocked on the PT wikipedia on June 6, 2007. She consistently edits the same articles as the blocked PT username did, including adding the same sources and generally of the same POV (examples
2633:
It seems to me that this issue of Thark's behavious goes well beyond his interactions with me; as I keep saying, his talk page and block log show well enough the wide range of his offences, and where they take place. My opening this discussion here wasn't the start of some personal
1374:. I am exposed to incivlity on a daily basis, an insight into my userpage history would establish this. The "core principle" is being misrepresented for ideological gain by users such as Hornplease, who have much to gain with the loss of constructive editors from the India pages.
1315:
Nobody has ever called Bakasuprman a name that remains an editor in good standing. People are routinely polite to him and requestful of civility, which he fails to return. Unless you can substantiate your justification of his abysmal behaviour with diffs, I suggest you withdraw
3467:) is posting silly personal attacks about me and other people he disagrees with, and disrupting discussion with ad hominems, as well as by alluding to conspiracies and "ploys" against him, and calling people Nazis. Could someone have a word with him and get him to calm down?
573:), and given her history of being blocked from the Portuguese WP, it may also be a case of open harassment at this point. If you feel it'll help, we can try to mediate with her. Otherwise, I'd probably recommend a higher form of dispute resolution and/or a report to the
1519:
Bakasuprman has announced on several occasions that "civility does not apply" in contentious areas of Knowledge. (Contentious areas are anywhere he edits.) My last words on the subject - when he repeated this "defense" yesterday, which Sarvagna seems to share - are here:
1763:
Thank you for the recommendation--but my understanding is that dispute resolution is for article content. This is an interpersonal issue that has almost nothing to do with any Knowledge article. Do you still think mediation would be an appropriate way to deal with this?
2419:
Yes, I caused shit early on in my time here; mostly out of ignorance of the processes of Knowledge combined with bouts of tempermentality. I never claimed to be perfect. But, let's let the records speak for whom is more disruptive than whom - yourself included, Loner.
731:
recommendations and have previously been blocked for the same offense on another project, should raise serious issues about whether or not you fully understand Knowledge and abide by the rules on civility and behavior. This was echoed to me on my PT Knowledge talkpage (
1664:
My comment is in regards to the person bringing the charge of incivility on another editor of WP. And specifically, the person bringing the charge frequently violates WP policy and thus does not have a lot of credibility in bringing up charges against another user.
711:
6. Now the lates blatantly happened on Plano Collor --you said Plan Collor is one thing and PND (Plano Nacional de Desetatização) is another thing --well the link I provided (since you neve provide sources) says PND is a part, one major step to move forward with Plan
2194:
TharkunColl's main modus of operandi is seemingly tactless and irrational reverting; in the edit summary he either offers no explanation at all, claims to be removing POV, or claims to be reverting vandalism, of which only the second reason could possibly be seen as
2891:
To the committee: I’m sorry you’ve been dragged into what I feel is a dispute over childish behavior. While I am quite interested in the consensus of reasonable people, by Enuja’s own admission no consensus had been reached on an issue of great interest to her (see
3140:." I don't see that she performed any kind of "wholesale deletion," especially since information is very rarely permanently deleted on Knowledge (and such requires the intervention of oversight and/or developers to effect.) Rather, I see she was trying to follow
1172:
2719:
Over the past 3 or 4 weeks the dispute has certainly not quited down; if anything, it's become more heated. Those who follow this board (and AN/I and even CSN) have probably cseen some fallout from it. Anyway, the point I'm making is that we seem to be getting
2763:
Thanks, and I apologize for the length of the post, and for the summary which will necessarily exclude all kinds of details - this has been going on for 6 weeks at least, with at least 6 or 7 editors posting extensively, so I'm sure I've missed many things.
2198:
Following on the above, when prompted to participate in discussion about that which he alleges is POV, TharkunColl simply dismisses presented evidence that contradicts his claims, and puts forward little to none in support of his view, thus making his edits
4038:
No one else can make you wear a shoe if it doesn't fit; I don't see how Epbr123 can be responsible for you feeling like a pupil when issues that need to be corrected are pointed out. No reviewer is obligated to repair an article you bring to FAC, and the
704:
4. The only full text you wrote so far concerns Collor´s "Corruption and downfall", trying to damage his image, you only talked abt corruption adn missed several issues --including his Senate ecletion. If it was not me, Collor would still be a convicted
4786:. I wish to restore it, however I did not read anything in RFC guidelines regarding the removal of notification messages one way or the other, so have held off for now. Regardless, the user knows about the RfC, so I guess it has served its purpose. --
2711:
article is created by someone who doesn't feel they can be entirely neutral, and voluntarily asks for a "sanity check" by a second editor.) Anyway, the tag was reverted and unreverted a bunch of times over the next few days, without explanation, until
989:
asking uninvolved admins to step in. I suggest your personal involvement in this (including threats to use your admin tools) has escalated the conflict and taken this issue beyond the level of informal dispute mediation that can occur on this page.
3047:
additions to the article. Her above allegation to you seriously mischaracterizes the true facts and seems nothing more than another attempt to garner support for her cause. I have been a contributor to Knowledge for years and can assure you that all
3684:
I'm sorry to see a conflict erupt between Tony1 and Radiant, two good editors. IMO the problem actually originated with Pmanderson, and Radiant found himself in the middle of Tony1's exhausted patience after long-standing disruption to Knowledge's
3896:
Please try to avoid mischaracterizing someone else's comments as "educate the rest of Knowledge". No FAC reviewer is obligated to make the changes to the article; some may choose to do so, but it's not generally wise, as some FAC nominators have
3763:
At any rate, I hope the analysis I left for Radiant of the issues that are occurring at MOS, and how difficult that editing environment has been, will still be useful. Perhaps it would be appropriate for Radiant to withdraw from this conflict?
687:
Why dont´also say that none of yr editions damaging Collor´s image and linking him to "Corruption and Downfall" (this one considered POV); why dont´you say you linked an image from "Veja Magazine" on which is said: "The year we got rid of him"
3268:
Darkwind: Thank you for taking the time to respond to this issue. Volunteers such as youself serve a very valuable service since unresolvable disputes can really ruin the Knowledge experience. A third party can be just what it takes to break
195:
Also, please note that concerns about your incivility and assumption of bad faith are not tied to the copyright violations. Removing the copyrighted material does not change the fact that your conduct was, and continues to be, inappropriate.
3781:
I don't see why Radiant should withdraw; Tony attacked him for daring to disagree on GNL. Nor am I saying this out of gratitude for an unsuccessful RfA nomination nine months ago; Sandy is far more closely tied to Tony than I am to Radiant.
2008:) have told him that this action is irrelevant. If this continues, I'm considering starting an RfC. Does anyone have any other suggestions? It seems silly/excessive to apply for an RfC, but it seems there may be no other choice. —
408:
sort of RFC/U or anything like that. I'm happy this worked itself out, and would like to thank Cyberia for being good enough to work towards a resolution - I can imagine how hard it is to make this apology, and I appreciate it. --
107:
reaction about it. But since the Ettiquite rules state that Wikipedians are to be emotionless and mindless robots and not allowed to voice an opinion ever, and I voiced one and made an argument and he/she is pissed off about it.
4813:
Right, I just remembered that, and another user let me know of the same as well. ;-) As it has been already said, he knows about the RfC and his refusal to participate only makes things more likely to go against him, sadly. --
2843:. There was a fair amount of constructive, collaborative editing sparked by Greg L's contributions, but one exception was the response of other editors to the huge expansion of the "mass versus weight" section. I initiated a
1130:
700:
3. On Fernando Collor talk page you asked me to ask and discuss before revert or delete --that´s not wht you did on thsi same artcile --within few minutes you deleted and reverted without discussiong and even requested a page
4237:
2594:
him, many, many times; unfortunately, to no avail. Thark continues with his anti-British paranoia, and to throw jabs at people even when they're generally being respectful in return; and those are just a couple of the things
620:
Sorry for the delay on responding to this - I've been busy with off-wiki stuff and have also been trying to field a barrage of edits to my own Talk page regarding this issue. It appears that Ludovicapipa does not understand
3582:
I do thank you for bringing this issue here, though. For the most part, I think you're doing a good job in the dispute. Just a few rough edges to polish off, that's all. We're certainly willing to help mediate, though. —
2977:
that had been in the article for years. He deleted it only nine hours after I had edited the table (I had restored it to full size after someone truncated it). This was very suspicious timing given that his previous edit to
116:
where the info was coming from. If it was in the wrong spot I apoligize for thinking that for once some people didn't have to be led by the hand around here. Anyway, if you look at the history it was referenced at the top.
2679:
4616:
There's no RFC yet... Given that there is growing consensus that one is necessary now, it's in the process of being established. Unless anyone else beats me to it, I plan on working on it sometime tomorrow afternoon. --
642:
If you do recuse yourself, I understand (you won't be the first nor the second). I will probably end up sending this to arbitration anyways, so I hope I can count on your support for my request for that if you do recuse
2737:
restored it saying "This is a hugely disputed article..Lead stuffed with inappropriate "context", written to the "minority view" eg over whether it was a massacre, lots evidence missing." I have given in and written an
1587:
attacks themselves, then deal with that through appropriate channels, not by attacking in return. Otherwise, if the bigotry is not affecting articles and not leading to attacks, then I am afraid the official Knowledge
489:, but what has concerned me is her attitude in this debate. She has accused me of acting in bad faith, and issued numerous personal attacks. She has also petitioned administrators directly to block me, outside of the
691:
1. Why don´t you say you deleted the words "end of hyperinflation" and substituted for "hyperinflation" only? Collor Plan was not a failure --so many citations prove the following administrations still use his Plan
1551:
This is great Hornplease. All Bakasuprman stated was "willfully making false statements" and there is a long line of commentary by you and Akhilleus. When we take a look at a larger diff around the same discussion
582:
Good job on staying civil, especially in the situation where Ludovicapipa questioned your age. It's remarkably difficult to stay calm when someone's deliberately trying to get you to respond to personal attacks. —
4702:
I've notified the administrator (yes, Picaroon is an administrator, much to my surprise) to justify his actions. I've also reverted his changes on the AFDs I've found so far, with additional comments as needed. --
1463:
I am not aware of a single "wiki rule" I have broken to "attempt" to ban you. I am not even sure whether a reply is warranted here, as it should be obvious by now from this discussion alone that ad hominem attacks
568:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm not sure if there's really much we'll be able to do in this situation - it's quite clear that Ludovicapipa is acting uncivilly toward you (including a violation of
4305:
Yes, indeed it did. However, as I tried to diffuse the situation myself near the climax/end of it all, I'll get the attention of the users who could probably best help you (and other outside observers) out. --
2407:, going back to his inaugural attempt to put "Canada is a kingdom" into the opening of the article on Canada. While I don't condone some aspects of Thark's behaviour, G. is much the more disruptive of the two.
1941:). Beyond that, I guess it's just the stubbornness against change. I spent a bunch of time putting everything into a wikitable, and his comment was "Maybe next time you could contribute some actual content." —
4178:
not on the WQA. Your behavior is inappropriate and you should seriously reconsider how you are approaching this issue (and for the record, I am a 22-year-old graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. in mathematics).
270:
in this (or virtually any) circumstance cannot possibly hinder you from doing so. I'm not going to "explode," but I will continue to point you to the policies that explain why you are mistaken in this matter.
4626:
Probably not a bad idea, given that he just put another few dozen articles up for Deletion. (I haven't read through them all, so I can't comment on whether it was appropriate or not, but at the very least,
1122:
4555:
he is appointed by Knowledge to delete bad articles - he thinks he speaks for the entire Knowledge community (despite the fact that many of his currently-running AfDs have snowballed-keep). He seems to be
4344:
4233:
1270:) is probably editing right now while Akhilleus, entrusted with the admin tools to serve the 'pedia is using a questions semantics to facilitate a witchhunt against users in good standing. Defecation, yes.
97:, and the user believes that it's fine to act like this. I was wondering if a third party could comment on this and hopefully help this user understand how/why to act appropriately on Knowledge. Thanks. --
110:
I must say that in regard to his first accusation of the article not being properly sourced, Cheeser must have been too busy adding the copyright violation tag, because had they actually took the time to
134:'s talk page, encouraging him to be more civil, but he seems to have pre-emptively rejected any such suggestion. If this is the case, I'm afraid that there's very little that a Wikiquette alert can do.
4572:
of abusing administrator power by warning him about his AfDs. I looked and was immediately surprised to see him going on what can only be described as a deletion spree. I can't speculate as to why, but
3601:
While Tony does tend to be unusually aggressive, and believes that the MOS should be used to promote "modern" views on English, he also tend to cool down and consider arguments after a few days. I find
4118:
No need; I have a degree in statistics. It doesn't matter if my "win" rate is lower than average (although I think it's way above average), my supported AfDs still vastly outweigh my rejected ones.
2074:
1655:
This is about incivility. Your remarks about POV-pushing are not striclt relevant, like BAkasuprman's similar ones above. (Incidentally, if anyone's interested, those articles need massive cleanup.)
3796:
Nor are you the only one who noticed this rather out-of-place accusation. I just didn't comment on it when I noticed it yesterday because I didn't want to reopen the discussion in this section. --
2229:
rejects community input; resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
3823:, I've marked it as Stuck here. I don't see that there's anything more we can do in this situation - the situation is apparently much more complex than we're equipped to deal with here on WQA. —
2768:
2756:
consent. I realize this may not be practically required in all cases, but I'd never dream of removing a tag when two or three editrs disagree, without having some overwhelming exceptional reason.
2700:
1739:
are interested in resolving the dispute. We cannot really help when one or more parties are still jabbing at each other throughout the process. I would recommend you move on to a higher form of
4327:
4077:
2005:
1997:
1895:
178:(which you refuse to acknowledge as applicable). It states prominently that if you do not want content to be mercilessly edited (possibly deleted), do not contribute it. And finally, if you read
577:. The fact that there is a block history for this user on another version of WP makes it less likely that you'll need to go through a lot of dispute resolution procedures before getting action.
2517:
attention." i.e. No-one else objects to Tharkie's stance on this issue enough to upbrade him about it, and G2B has to go telling tales and canvassing in order to try and get someone to do so.
1915:
The only thing I've read is the conversation on your talk page, in which he's perhaps slightly sarcastic, but not totally out of bounds. I suspect that the larger issue isn't any violation of
4724:, where I pointed out why I thought his actions were inappropriate and what a more appropriate solution would be (he replied, dismissing my objections, not surprisingly). I was unaware that
2797:
We might both be right if what the central foci of difference are (the polemics surrounding the use of the term 'massacre') are, in a sense, tangential to the real subject of the article.
4334:
is not really an option here; he is clearly attempting to be disruptive for whatever reason. In my opinion, this has escalated far past a mere etiquette violation and constitutes abuse.
3963:
If reviewers fix articles themselves, the main authors don't learn anything. If you guys fix these things yourself, you'll be more likely to remember to do them with your future articles.
2244:
on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
1304:. And like you concede yourself, you supported an indef on him on the most bogus grounds(as the arbcom pointed out). So stop trying to appropriate the moral high ground for yourself.
4540:
4536:
4528:
4520:
4516:
4513:
4510:
4506:
4502:
4494:
4480:
4476:
4459:
4455:
4451:
4447:
4443:
4430:
4426:
4413:
4409:
4405:
4401:
2379:, put together with your block log and comments on your talk page, you seem to be a disruptive editor. That's not to say you can't change, but as it stands, things don't look good. --
81:
2568:
it's up to you to back up your claim in the first place. Thark would not be petty and buerocratic enough to go round pages like this trying to get people in trouble that's for sure.
1129:), which found no grounds for blocking Bakasuprman, and he remains an editor in good standing. Another reason for Bakasuprman to be upset with me is a discussion I initiated on ANI (
333:
4003:- I find this a little bit condescending to be honest. I'm not complaining, but I just thought I'd point out the irony of a system where people are told off for telling people off.
1638:
I find it interesting that Hornplease brings up uncivility and violation of WP codes of conduct when he takes part in much the same. Hornplease has routinely pushed his pov on the
2460:
It's frustrating: here we have 'two' editors G2B & Tharky (both who obviously care about the accurarcy of 'Commonwealth' related articles) ripping each other apart. They have
982:
846:
he/she call it POV. I don´t, since I FULLY provide citations, sources, as you could see above. Since I started talikgn to him/her I did the same, but seems to be a waste of time.
493:
mechanism. I would just ignore normally, but considering this expanding to other peoples' talk pages I figure a check from third parties would be good. Here are a few examples:
2493:
Yes, he and I obviously face off often. However, he's been riling people up at other pages and has been blocked for his actions there as well as where he and I cross paths. --
2847:
on the issue, but Greg L has stated the he is not interested in what other users on the page have to say, and he has been attacking other user's suitability to edit the page.
4600:, except that I'm not sure what the point of the behavior would be. (I'd like to AGF, but it's a bit of a stretch). Is there an RfC up somewhere, or has this gone to AN/I? --
2788:
Hmm, another reason we need some help. You're saying that we're focusing on too many different things, Jaakobou is saying that the disputes are only really narrow and minor.
2364:
opposite). You have been directed to said articles time and time again; that you refuse to either look at or accept the cited content therein is nobody's issue but your own.
383:
124:
1415:
or users subsequently banned is no excuse for incivility to users in good standing, none of whom are rude to Bakasuprman. Note, finally, his dismissal ofthis entire process
120:
get revenge. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a sarcastic bastard because I really don't take much in life seriously. I guess Cheeser wants a consensus to prove it.
101:
62:
4127:
If you had a degree in statistics, you'd realize that what you just said is nonsense. I'm really good at getting wet when I swim. I get we 100% of the time I swim. Is that
3640:(a guideline cannot actually "mandate" anything) consistent possessive indicator usage, instead of mutually contraditory and incompatible rationales for dropping the final
3874:
3051:
edits by others are treated in the proper Knowledge manner and any good-faith disagreements with other editors that are discussed on talk pages are debated professionally.
599:
Well, this is by far the toughest dispute I've ever faced--aggravated by the fact that other users have refused to become involved and even third-opinion good samaritans (
3944:
No, Akhilleus. The fact that there were so many MOS problems with the article after it had been promoted shows that formatting was not heavily focused on during the FAC.
4770:
No problem. Thank you for all the work that you've done. I've officially launched the RfC against Epbr and will be notifying users involved with the dispute shortly. --
2606:, or other articles would have other things to say. If he won't be reasoned with, what other options present themselves to bring a resolution to the ongoing problems? --
1874:
1261:
1578:
something to worry about. It can be hard to remain civil in a highly charged atmosphere; but there is no excuse whatsoever for dismissing this as a minor consideration.
4501:
about the subjectivity of the criteria - a point he could have made on the article's talk page, something to be discussed and resolved with other editors. Instead, he
1975:
consensus in favour of "Discontinued flavors", he will honour it. I'd give him a chance to respond and, if he continues to insist on "Flavor graveyard", start an RFC.
324:- I think we've taken it as far as this Wikiquette alert can go. Wikiquette alerts are really only useful when dealing with users who *want* to adhere to policy, and
4751:. For those of us directly involved with this, please feel free to modify my work, since it's been a long while since I've ever had to file an RfC against anyone. --
1982:
1969:
1952:
1927:
4797:
respond to the RFC, you should add a link to the diff of your original notice to the RFC so that other users are specifically aware of his refusal to participate. —
3750:
Please see the new section "Block" on my talk page (unfortunate coincidence in a whole-ISP block I've been caught up in). I hope this is the end of the matter here.
459:
4818:
4808:
4678:. He seems to be supporting these absurd claims of "trolling" (probably because that's one less keep vote) however, even if a poorly justified vote on an AfD isn't
4289:
Are there any specific diff's you'd like an unbiased observer to look at? The whole big-bust thing went on for a little too long for me to entirely follow. Best, --
3183:
That being said, I also think you were a bit quick to call a "vote" on the Mass vs. Weight section (on 12 August). Discussion is indeed the correct first step, as
1296:
Bakasuprman routinely gets called names and abused all the time by one side (your side?) of a particular divide (see his userpage). And I havent seen you use your
4271:
people point out his bad-faith nominations, and seems to believe that accusations of bad faith are themselves bad faith (when in fact, WP:AGF only goes so far). --
2925:
I also created the CG illustration for it. Both articles had degraded to the point that they were difficult to read and had significant factual errors. Please see
2413:
2266:
has been considered, however I wished to start this informal RfC first, and, perhaps, have others directly communicate with TharkunColl regarding his behaviour. --
562:
152:
138:
3820:
2669:
As long as Tharky keeps his arguments to the 'talk pages', doesn't get overly combative on the 'edit summaries' & restrains from Edit warring - I'm at peace.
516:", roughly translating to "that shows the level of person we have have here" (Google translate is similar), questioning what I'm assuming is my educational level.
344:
4774:
4765:
4707:
4388:
4284:
4275:
3878:
2962:
article have been entirely the opposite. A small group of the people—those cited above by Enuja—have seemingly not ‘warmed’ to a newcomer. One of them seemingly
2287:
2270:
2036:
1527:
903:
850:
217:
Thanks for referencing all those great policies and showing me the wickedness of my ways. But, in this case, regarding my attitude toward you, it's time to cite
4642:
4621:
4310:
4300:
3199:
pointed out. Someone has an idea, you respond, they rebut, you rebut, and by then or there abouts, if neither of you changes your mind, THEN perhaps ask for a
2949:
article behaved very maturely, welcomed the improvements, and sought to assist (one of them even solicited my efforts to merge a now-redundant article into it).
2663:
2627:
1732:
1650:
1633:
1546:
1330:
1195:
1089:
878:
4055:
3914:
3791:
4539:). He also seems to like to accuse people of the violations that they are accusing him of (when accused of bad faith, he accuses bad faith, and the same with
3995:
3939:
3929:
3660:
2455:
1704:
1473:
1458:
1387:
1364:
1354:
1283:
743:
4733:
4651:
4338:
3974:
2497:
2437:
2424:
2350:
1831:
1801:
1773:
1754:
1409:
1242:
1228:
1036:
1002:
888:
827:
664:
647:
637:
615:
594:
400:
4207:
4084:
3948:
3674:
3594:
2572:
2521:
1511:
1423:
1338:
1320:
1251:
1117:, and I find some of his contributions to our discussions a bit uncivil. Bakasuprman is upset with me, primarily because I endorsed his indefinite block on
4216:
4023:
4007:
3805:
3631:
2610:
2546:
2396:
1308:
4160:
4122:
4113:
3776:
2801:
2792:
2779:
2652:
2476:
2383:
2332:
2318:
1678:
1669:
1659:
1558:
863:
on the article. That will attract the attention of more editors who can offer opinions on both sides of the dispute. The important thing, though, is to
412:
358:
304:
275:
225:
200:
190:
4095:
3754:
3538:
2297:
2219:; continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
4611:
4434:
4417:
4397:
4183:
4169:
4135:
4066:
2673:
2433:
In my observation you've never ceased to do so, but merely gotten craftier about it. However, let the full records say what they may to anyone else. --
1178:
What I'm looking for here is primarily some outside perspective: is this kind of discourse the kind of thing I should expect on India-related pages, as
4012:
I apologize if my analysis seems condescending - I assure you it wasn't meant to be. As I said, I didn't see any particular lack of civility there. —
3425:
3402:
3366:
3316:
3251:
2883:
1859:
735:) by another user, who clearly stated that the reason you were blocked there was not because of content disputes, but because of your personal conduct
418:
1058:
2400:
2019:
1909:
3071:
2042:
4484:
4043:
instructions encourage nominators to respond well to criticism. Epbr123's comments are not in the least uncivil; this alert looks unnecessary.
4379:, but instead of grouping them, he nominated them all at once (this is why the admin warned him). He justified it using an (invalid) citation of
4351:
2934:
1095:
2464:
in common then they both care to admit- 'strong willed', 'intelligent', 'demanding accurary', in otherwords 'well meaning editors'. If only the
708:
5. What abt "1964 Brazilian coup" artcile wto which you only used one source (Gaspari´s, a famous antiprivatization, antiCollor, procommunist?);
4548:
3286:
Most of what you’ve said above seems like good, common-sense dispute resolution advise. I take issue with one observation you made: A lack of “
1898:. This whole thing seems to stem from his not understanding how Wiki ownership works, and it's starting to bug me. Where can I go from here? —
1674:
I think Akhilleus has a lot of credibility. If you cannot point to these 'frequent violations' of WP policy, perhaps you should withdraw that.
4463:
4252:
in a deletionist sort of way. His behavior has me concerned, particularly his sniping of people on the linked AFD and I feel that it requires
1393:
4390:
for example. He constantly marks people's comments as "ILIKEIT" and makes other unfounded remarks in order to antagonize and discredit them.
3760:
1204:
1168:
4790:
4761:
Thanks for the heads up. I've contributed a bit, and while I don't think I have more to contribute, I might come up with something later. --
4755:
4669:, and Epbr is helping that user out by telling him/her that his removals (which I would consider serious vandalism) are being reverted. See
4264:
3868:
3136:
do indeed have the ring of "I worked hard on this, don't touch my stuff." From there, your responses also start to lose the appearance of "
2811:
859:
In cases like that, if you feel that an editor is unfairly reverting your changes and refusing to discuss the situation, please look into a
1325:
The amount of self-delusion required to make such a statement like that is amazing. Dbachmann seems to still be here, even after utilizing
1215:
blocked since september 2006, and the recent defecations on my block log are in no small part to akhilleus personal crusade against myself.
1126:
1079:
611:, but I don't know if we should try to reason once more (and if so, how should we reason?), or go straight to an administrative position.--
3603:
3529:
arguments, but I don't have time to go over the whole situation at the moment. I'll come back later on today and give it another look. --
340:
think it needs to go up the ladder, unless this situation becomes more of a problem, for myself or other users. Thanks for your input. --
4676:
4672:
2144:
974:
4674:
4670:
3890:
3713:
1437:. Users trying to gain the upper hand in conflict take advantage of the subjectivity of the policy to stifle discussion and engage in
4467:
4384:
3834:
3742:
3607:
2637:
That said, it seems you, Gazzster, and GoodDay should know that I'm not unaware of what Thark and I agree and disagree on; I thought
1419:. Unless he is told sternly that random incivility and motive-questioning poisons the atmosphere here, he will continue in his ways.
1136:
While it's understandable that he dislikes me, I find some of Bakasuprman's comments towards me vexing, and possibly in violation of
4690:
4590:
4091:
The fact that the vast majority of AfD I make end with a deletion show that the Knowledge community backs my "destructive" actions.
722:
4360:
2087:
3499:
2752:
1) Under what circumstances are maintenance tags removed? Whever I've done it, it's been by posting on the talk page and getting
684:
One should click on the links where you see a personal attack I see a self defense against a constant persecution of my editions:
4544:
4490:
3701:. For someone who has worked as hard as Tony1 has to improve Knowledge, that's just insulting and the whole point behind DTR.
2835:
is a class-B Vital article that Greg L has been doing an enormous amount of work on. Unfortunately, the user's behavior on the
2283:
is currently locked, I have not, as of yet, notified him of this posting. I will do so at the earliest possible opportunity. --
4748:
3857:
2933:
talk page regarding that rewrite. I also engaged in professional and good-faith debate with other editors during that rewrite (
1627:
4578:
678:
4568:. His behavior has, from the start, been entirely out of line. I first encountered him here on the WQA, where he had accused
4280:
I would like more people's input (from an outsider's point of view) regarding this before we proceed with a possible RFC. --
3649:, and while I don't condone the incivility, it is sometimes not difficult to understand how someone can feel driven to it. —
1267:
1068:
I'm closing this WQA for the same reasons as the first one - the entire issue has been escalated to the Admin Noticeboard. —
761:
violations), telling him to "go see a doctor", and otherwise calling him out in the manner you have, you have been violating
3418:
I've changed the tag on top to "resolved" as it seems to be so. Thanks for the help from Darkwind, and thanks to Greg L!
3088:, and what I see there is slightly disturbing in the sense that you all started out so well, but then it quickly degraded.
3020:
2844:
2729:
comments to "on" and "off" -topic sections, insisting that he won't comment in a section if he finds the title "NPOV", etc)
867:
on the editor with whom you're arguing - if you do that, people will be much less likely to take your opinions seriously. —
3036:
after having receiving insufficient interest from others in her “issue” and obtained mixed results from those who commented
1533:
If holders of virulent bigotry continue to be praised when editing, some mildly charged rhetoric is nothing to worry about.
3468:
2226:; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopaedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
1939:
1936:
1933:
1873:
1790:. And the mediation processes are there mainly to help resolve issues between editors, so hopefully they can help you. —
1085:
I agree with Kieferskunk, though the diff posted to start this thread doesn't rise to the level that it's made out to. --
3472:
3474:
3470:
2120:
1601:
is a behavioural guideline. It is not set in stone; there can be exceptions and common sense applies. But the idea is a
519:
4561:
4552:
4372:
2648:
I have, however, taken seriously people's observations here regarding me. I certainly hope Thark has done the same. --
2179:
1326:
389:
Thank you for doing that, Cyberia. It shows a good-faith effort on your part to restore civility to the discussion. —
4535:
is in charge of clean up, and that when edit wars ensue, he is in charge of fixing it by AfD'ing the whole thing (see
4212:
I'm sorry, Cheeser1. I misread the part of your userpage which mentioned graduate school. You are stalking me though.
2638:
1521:
4586:
not, and they'd never even see it. The "This is a minor edit" button is not supposed to be abused in this fashion. --
3965:
If this is not the point of view of the country schoolmaster setting tasks to his pupils, it really needs recasting.
2599:
2183:
2080:
57:
4783:
1183:
1179:
1157:
1149:
4323:
2926:
500:
2241:
1152:, accusing me of religious bias and being a "maladroit hack", following my restoration of a talk page comment at
47:
17:
3694:
1501:
3646:
1416:
766:
the content, and often become "He said/She said" personal attack arguments, which are not welcome on Knowledge.
4662:
2257:
555:
474:
2237:
547:
4376:
3548:
3131:
3099:
2114:
1182:? (n.b, after his statement that "Editors of India related articles are always incivil" he later said that
1054:
etc. And PS, I'm kinda pleased you cite above, coz I don't think people will see it as aggressive at all.
948:
551:
4359:
I don't have time to add too much exposition to these points right. Well, we'll see how much I crank out.
3023:
on the issue, but Greg L has stated the he is not interested in what other users on the page have to say…”
2641:
I made on his talk page clarified my position on the entire UK first/all equal situation between he and I.
2368:
I've started this process - I want to see it cease so that editing can be more productive. I want to see
4557:
3516:
3464:
3115:
2131:
2100:
944:
3920:
FAC process focuses on formatting and copyediting, rather than addressing the substance of the article.
2150:
seems to have been causing undue disruption across a number of articles for some time now, including at
3348:
3194:
2971:
2138:
1621:
38:
174:, however, is not optional. Feeling like after "spend time on it, get pissed when ..." is covered by
4569:
3691:
3636:
That was an inaccurate summary of the apostrophe-s siuation; not only is Tony arguing for the MoS to
2991:
2107:
4368:
4100:
Well, actually, the vast majority of all AfD's end with a deletion, so that doesn't show much. See
3697:
I also note that someone actually left a template on Tony1's talk page, perhaps never having read
2734:
2472:
should take a break from those articles & see how the 'rest' of the Wiki community edits them.
2167:
1297:
909:
466:
2127:
4188:
I agree with Cheeser1's statement here. Epbr123, the comment above is definitely a violation of
2223:
2163:
1396:
is just another example of the level of discourse we can expect in this area of Knowledge, where
1300:
to try and put an end to it. And on that page you were restoring a comment that was clearly in
1211:
in a manner which allows facilitators of admin abuse to whine about incivility. I have not been
4051:
3910:
3772:
3709:
2918:
2876:
I would like advice on how to make editing and discussion on this article constructive again.
2542:
So, you actually have no evidence that counters what presently speaks for Thark's behaviour. --
1979:
1924:
1639:
998:
529:
330:
135:
3552:
been remaining calm and civil (though citing Godwin's Law was not a good move, in my opinion).
4815:
4804:
4787:
4771:
4752:
4704:
4618:
4307:
4281:
4261:
4203:
4019:
3991:
3865:
3830:
3738:
3590:
2280:
2253:
2068:
1797:
1750:
1698:
1616:
1540:
1452:
1381:
1348:
1277:
1222:
1075:
874:
823:
660:
633:
590:
455:
396:
2094:
696:
4347:
the page -- before the AfD he's started on it is even complete. This is beyond silly now.
4109:
3970:
3886:
3839:
3787:
3627:
3039:
2893:
1508:
1257:
4165:
This guy seems to be stalking me. He's just a schoolkid, though, so I'll make allowances.
465:
I've been engaged in a protracted content dispute with Ludovica on a few pages, including
8:
4101:
4001:
even if it could have been stated more politely. It is a little condescending as written
3925:
3204:
3004:
1993:
1891:
1855:] and initiating a similar approach with "Baka", documenting his plethora of offenses. --
1827:
1769:
1728:
1441:
demonization. This case is nothing short of caprice, considering this "process" has been
1405:
1305:
1238:
1191:
1145:
1141:
2190:, etc. There seems to be two main, though intertwined, issues with his overall actions:
1429:
everyone incivilly" is nothing short of misrepresentation and defamation. The policy on
4238:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination)
3801:
3670:
3534:
3476:
3430:
3362:
3247:
2896:). Nevertheless, in bad faith, she suggested that since no consensus had been reached,
2314:
2233:
2204:
2187:
2171:
2155:
1153:
1013:
951:
947:) Unfortunately, despite the thread above, his aggressive behavior continues unabated.
367:
4647:
I agree; an RfC or mention to AN/I is wholly appropriate now, given his track record.
3877:
gratingly condescending, particularly his idea that the FAC regulars are entitled to
2938:
2293:
You might be able to have an 'Administrator' notify him (or allow you to notify him).
182:
more closely, you'll find that you should be civil to anyone, even people who enforce
4044:
3936:
3903:
3765:
3702:
3225:
3167:
3141:
2376:
2249:
2026:
2009:
1996:
continues to ignore the slight consensus that has been reached on this page (see the
1959:
1942:
1899:
1646:]. I don't edit all that much on WP, but do notice improper behavior when I see it.
1086:
991:
900:
847:
719:
505:
If you insist, I will ask and administrator to block you, so you can refresh yr mind.
419:
4156:
against an administrator who warned him that his deletion rampage was disruptive. --
510:
4799:
4628:
4549:
he is the only one in charge of deciding whether an article can be properly sourced
4198:
4014:
3986:
3825:
3733:
3652:
3585:
3397:
3311:
3128:
3096:
3066:
2434:
2410:
2347:
2276:
2175:
2044:
1792:
1745:
1693:
1535:
1447:
1376:
1343:
1272:
1217:
1114:
1097:
1070:
869:
818:
800:
655:
628:
585:
450:
391:
255:
247:
218:
4721:
4393:
Unsubstantiated accusations of "bad faith" or frivolous accusations of "ILIKEIT":
1786:
The dispute resolution process also applies to interpersonal disputes. Check out
732:
4597:
4498:
4241:
4189:
4105:
3966:
3882:
3783:
3759:
Oops, just discovered a bit of a conflict here, which I wasn't aware of before.
3623:
3570:
3562:
3513:
3458:
3422:
3112:
2880:
2798:
2776:
2707:
2680:
2569:
2518:
2452:
2306:
1916:
1819:
1787:
1675:
1656:
1609:
a basis for disregarding the official policy on civility and no personal attacks.
1570:
1524:
1505:
1470:
1430:
1420:
1397:
1361:
1317:
1248:
1208:
1161:
1137:
938:
780:
758:
570:
427:
375:
263:
251:
179:
171:
86:
2945:
article looked like before I started on it 22 days ago. The authors over on the
470:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
4574:
4380:
4081:
3921:
3566:
3345:
3191:
2649:
2607:
2603:
2543:
2494:
2421:
2404:
2392:
2380:
2329:
2284:
2267:
2263:
2151:
1823:
1765:
1724:
1401:
1234:
1187:
986:
885:
796:
784:
740:
644:
612:
559:
536:
There are a few others but I have to go back and search through blanked pages.
482:
380:
355:
325:
301:
222:
183:
167:
149:
131:
121:
63:
4232:
In my recent conversations with Epbr123, in addition to his recent remarks on
4762:
4717:
4713:
4687:
4587:
4331:
4272:
4257:
4249:
4245:
4193:
4180:
4157:
4132:
4040:
3898:
3797:
3698:
3686:
3666:
3530:
3522:
3448:
3358:
3354:
3287:
3243:
3221:
3137:
3085:
2840:
2836:
2725:
2712:
2660:
2624:
2310:
1932:
Hmm, okay. Since we got the third opinion today, he twice reverted my edits (
1920:
1597:
1582:
1118:
928:
860:
792:
788:
762:
622:
608:
574:
423:
409:
371:
341:
321:
272:
267:
197:
187:
175:
98:
94:
3606:
particularly indicative on both tendencies. It happens to be political; but
2203:. This obstinacy can, and has, resulted in ceaseless debate on talk pages,
4725:
4632:
4601:
4290:
4213:
4166:
4119:
4092:
4062:
Gotta agree there with Sandy and Epbr, not that my word is worth much now.
4004:
3945:
3861:
3840:
3200:
2789:
2765:
2697:
2670:
2473:
2294:
2216:
2200:
1740:
1666:
1647:
1589:
1555:
604:
490:
478:
445:
90:
4174:
This is an inflammatory personal attack, which has no place on Knowledge,
4509:. He's made it a point to drag irrelevant topics into the AfD by asking
4253:
3561:
Radiant: Some advice for you as well: Please ensure you're up to date on
3392:
3306:
3123:
3091:
3061:
2871:
2859:
2812:
2000:) and has contacted Ben & Jerry's for their opinion. Two people (one
1371:
486:
1171:, as well as apparently accusing me of anti-Hindu bias (full discussion
1133:) in July 2007 that lead to him being briefly blocked for edit warring.
899:
I didn´t threaten you --I suggested to the adms you should be blocked.
4063:
3751:
3526:
3508:
3454:
3431:
3419:
3107:
3008:
quite the opposite. I am particularly galled by her above statement of…
2877:
2865:
1856:
1688:
1554:] we Restating something in different words--how is this now uncivil?
1438:
1301:
1055:
934:
910:
600:
4131:
remarkable? No. Everybody gets wet 100% of the time when they swim. --
3665:
We're not "here". This alert was closed on this page two weeks ago. --
2986:
talk page betrayed an underlying annoyance with recent events over on
2733:
summary - what factuality problems are you contesting exactly ?", and
2248:
Hence, TharkunColl's general actions seem to place him squarely under
1822:
is likely to attract univolved editors, but thank you for the advice.
4730:
4648:
4348:
4335:
3340:
3186:
2853:
1938:); previously, he reverted an edit when I removed trademark symbols (
1684:
1434:
2914:
2832:
2816:
2159:
1442:
884:
make me question whether or not I should bump this up the ladder.--
4782:
Note: I notified the user about the RfC against him; he has since
2001:
1233:
Is "defecations" actually the word you wanted, or is this a typo?
1167:
This is not an isolated occurrence; earlier Bakasuprman called me
4489:
Sorry, I know that's alot of links. If you only click one, click
1164:
is apparently supposed to mean that I am idiotic, not malicious.
3721:
Have to strongly agre with SandyGeoria on eery word of he above.
2746:
paragraph, which I believe is very typical of the entire piece.
1500:
Neutral editors reviewing this post may also like to comment on
3163:
2967:
4369:
told him to stop disruptively nominating articles for deletion
3821:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Radiant!
3618:" at FA suggests that he does not understand what a guideline
3353:'s behavior outside of the comments that appeared from him on
2683:; Removal of maintenance tags, exhausting circular discussions
1207:. I dont deal with abuse nicely, and will refuse to interpret
3300:
the talk page. He hadn’t edited that article in the previous
1334:
2025:
Issue is now resolved. Thanks to everyone for their help. —
526:" Is it really necessary to insult me by questioning my age?
512:
After I make a spelling mistake in Portuguese, she states: "
4365:
accuse an intervening administrator of etiquette violations
3159:
4507:
decided unilaterally that the article wasn't worth keeping
2063:
1049:
So let me get this right: "childish behaviour" is somehow
170:. No one is asking you to "win kudos" or "make friends" -
3505:
Just on the basis of that fourth diff you linked, I left
3034:
She withdrew (deleted) her own Request-for-Comments form
1247:
If so, it's a typo he makes with surprising regularity.
3207:
and the operation of Knowledge and any wiki in general.
695:
2. Also here, let´s see wht´s written abt yr editions:
2921:
article: I completely re-wrote it. And in the case of
2862:
is engaged in editing and discussion on the talk page
1890:
There has been a slight battle over at this page from
1691:
community, so too does Akhilleus among this community.
4322:
argument -- as has all been pointed out -- he is now
3614:
is equally dismaying. (His habit of speaking of "MOS
2724:
from consensus, rather than closer. This being said,
1333:. Of course, dab is not incivil, because he is not a
379:
now his decision how he wants to pursue the matter.
2391:
I essentially concur with Thark's assessment. User
2260:
show some of the extensive evidence of his conduct.
626:
to simply recuse myself from this Alert entirely. —
1335:"Hindu nationalist communalist sockpuppeting troll"
1113:I've been involved in some editing conflicts with
252:not carte blanche for you for do whatever you want
166:we're allowed to plagiarize copyrighted material:
2207:, page locks, and his being blocked from editing.
715:There are many other examples of yr behaviour....
503:: Ludovica threatens me with a block (somehow): "
4439:Other non-constructive responses to keep votes:
2982:had been a year prior. Further, his post to the
1992:I'm changing this from Resolved to In Progress.
1445:by partisans hoping to broadcast their opinions.
477:. The disputes center around the application of
4596:Hmm... I'd say that's being more than a little
2760:proclaiming that the dispute no longer exists.
4250:taking ownership of the aforementioned article
4149:
497:Constant accusations of "acting in bad faith".
4260:on this user sometime in the near future. --
3761:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Pmanderson 2
3547:I left a message on Tony1's talk page and on
3005:claim of seeking advise and guidance from you
1644:] and removed WP:RS sources w/o discussion
542:: It's important to point out that this user
3220:Your response here also indicates a lack of
2868:I am engaged in discussion on the talk page
1127:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2
501:User talk:Dalillama#Fernando Collor de Mello
4234:Talk:List of big-bust models and performers
2375:The record stands: by all four criteria of
2309:if it continues after the block expires. --
2211:Overall, TharkunColl's moves show that he:
4523:by Xhir. He believes that the AfD page is
3819:Because this issue has now been raised at
2917:article what I had previously done to the
1743:, such as informal or formal mediation. —
1574:is an official policy in Knowledge. It is
1370:"incivil" which has turned into a term of
258:is only provided for if you are trying to
2403:) has a long history as the epitome of a
1205:since I obviously should have been banned
1140:. The latest examples can be found on my
4720:brought up the uncommented deletions on
4667:deleting people's "votes" in Epbr's AfDs
3873:Does anyone else find Epbr123's part in
3242:formatting and layout of the article. --
3120:insofar as your responses to her and to
520:Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello#Last reply
370:about this incident. I admit I violated
186:or people you believe to be "morons." --
4497:that his AfD was an attempt to prove a
2913:Please note that I’ve recently done to
2598:know of him, editors who contribute to
2466:All are equal VS UK, first among equals
1642:page and posted citations in bad faith
1169:"uneducated, dishonest, and irrational"
14:
4387:. He has been extraordinarily uncivil
4328:List of big-bust models and performers
4078:List of big-bust models and performers
3166:, then a brief summary can be left in
2970:just to make a bad-faith edit by flat
1723:this "discussion" ought to be closed.
1339:Hornplease has a big axe to grind here
66:- incivility and bad faith assumptions
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2305:typically leave). I'd refer this to
532:- User tells me to go "find a doctor"
366:For the record, I left an apology on
4562:accuse an admin of an abuse of power
4531:). It appears that he believes that
2468:schism could be sorted out. Perhaps
1203:Its obvious you are on a witch-hunt
25:
4525:the place to discuss content issues
4248:, and, in an odd sort of way, even
3610:that the MOS should simply mandate
1012:he turns out to disagree with you.
514:Por aí nota-se que nível temos aqui
176:the policy I already pointed you to
23:
4747:I've begun breaking ground on the
4729:the deck is stacked against you?)
3337:I didn't take the time to examine
2180:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
260:"to improve or maintain Knowledge"
24:
4832:
4661:I'm also going to point everyone
4472:Other non-constructive comments:
2856:deleted the expansion very early
2749:I'd like opinions on two issues:
2742:summary of the POV problems with
2600:Second city of the United Kingdom
2184:Second city of the United Kingdom
1121:in April 2007; the discussion is
981:conversation (with all diffs) at
4422:Personally insulting responses:
3847:
3438:
2823:
2688:
2051:
1881:
1104:
918:
435:
82:Star Trek planet classifications
71:
29:
4363:, Epbr took it upon himself to
3084:I took some time today to read
2958:However, my experiences on the
2242:Knowledge:Ownership of articles
18:Knowledge:Wikiquette assistance
4819:20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4809:20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4791:19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4775:19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4766:17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4756:17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4734:21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4708:14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4691:11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4652:04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4643:03:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4622:03:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4612:03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4591:03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4136:05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4123:21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4114:20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3869:19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3806:23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3792:20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3675:04:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
3661:04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
3521:a message to remind him about
3426:02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
983:User:SandyGeorgia/RaToPm issue
865:not resort to personal attacks
524:I dont´know how old are you...
13:
1:
4503:jumped ship on the discussion
4352:23:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4339:22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4311:21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4301:20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4285:20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4276:18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4265:17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4256:, which may even result in a
4217:22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4208:22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4184:10:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4170:09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4161:05:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4096:09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4085:04:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4067:15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
4056:20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
4024:16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
4008:11:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3996:20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3975:20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3949:23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3940:23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3930:20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3915:20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3891:19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3879:educate the rest of Knowledge
3835:16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3777:03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3755:02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3743:01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3714:20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3632:19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3595:18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3539:12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3500:11:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3403:03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
3367:02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
3317:01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
3252:18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
3072:04:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
2884:23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
2802:05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
2701:14:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2674:17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2664:02:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2653:20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2628:07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2611:13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
2573:13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
2547:06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
2498:06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
2238:Knowledge:No personal attacks
2037:04:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2020:23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1860:01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1832:01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1818:Well, I don't really think a
1802:01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1774:01:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1755:01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1733:01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1705:22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
1679:18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
1670:17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
1125:. The matter went to Arbcom (
1090:23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1080:16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1059:15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1037:14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1003:13:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
975:08:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
904:19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
889:21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
879:20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
851:20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
828:20:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
744:19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
723:19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
665:19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
648:19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
638:18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
616:19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
595:18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
563:18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
546:in the Portuguese Knowledge (
544:has been blocked for one year
460:19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
413:02:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
401:20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
384:19:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
359:02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
345:00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
334:23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
305:04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
276:22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
226:22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
201:21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
191:21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
153:20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
139:18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
125:18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
102:15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
4560:, in fact. And yet he would
4547:). He seems to believe that
4377:Notable Usenet personalities
4373:a personal attack against me
4152:, where he actually filed a
3549:Knowledge talk:Build the web
2966:conflict by following me to
2900:one somehow had been reached
2898:that this was evidence that
2706:A long-simmering dispute at
1958:relatively minor issue... —
1256:Its disturbing to note that
7:
4240:, he seems to be violating
2793:20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
2780:20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
2769:13:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
2522:21:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2477:20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2456:19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2438:17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2425:16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2414:16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2384:16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2351:15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2333:14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
2319:22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
2298:21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
2288:18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
2271:18:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
1983:19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1970:15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1953:15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1928:15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1910:14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1660:17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1651:10:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1634:04:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1559:11:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1547:03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1528:16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
1512:07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
1474:04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1459:04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1424:03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1410:03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1388:03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1365:18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1355:03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1321:16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
1309:07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
1284:04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1252:04:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1243:04:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1229:03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1196:06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
444:Recommended higher form of
221:- so please "explode" now.
10:
4837:
3961:Epbr123's exact words are
3845:
3436:
2821:
2686:
2049:
1879:
1687:has credibility among the
1102:
916:
779:Please make sure you read
475:1964 Brazilian coup d'état
433:
69:
4631:should have been used. --
4570:User:georgewilliamherbert
4324:adding bulk bogus entries
1875:Ben & Jerry's flavors
1593:applies; anyone can edit.
1469:completely mystified me.
1327:politically charged terms
4784:blanked the notification
2931:Specific heat capacity’s
2735:User:PalestineRemembered
2168:Head of the Commonwealth
2043:Disruptive behaviour by
1978:I hope this is helpful.
985:and started a thread at
467:Fernando Collor de Mello
448:or Admin Noticeboard. —
184:perfectly valid policies
4367:just because the admin
4154:frivolous WQA complaint
4148:I would point everyone
2224:Knowledge:Verifiability
2164:Commonwealth of Nations
1523:. Please do read them.
1096:Possible incivility by
4566:no evidence whatsoever
4343:And now he's proposed
2947:Specific heat capacity
2927:this positive reaction
2919:Specific heat capacity
2894:record of dispute here
1683:In the same vein that
1640:Hindu Students Council
1605:, and exceptions are
1603:fundamental principle
42:of past discussions.
4712:That's interesting,
3692:Radiant's talk page.
3021:Request for Comments
2845:Request for Comments
2372:annoyance, not more.
1180:Bakasuprman contends
1160:, where the link to
368:Cheeser1's talk page
300:It was a joke dude.
4332:Assuming good faith
4258:request for comment
4246:no personal attacks
4102:Bayesian statistics
3447:Issue escalated to
3042:). Further, I said
3003:As regards Enuja’s
2992:see that discussion
1583:No personal attacks
1146:User talk:FCYTravis
861:Request For Comment
816:Hope this helps. —
268:assuming good faith
4665:. Another user is
3858:RFC has been filed
3647:takes two to tango
2850:Involved parties:
2405:tendentious editor
2234:Knowledge:Civility
2188:Commonwealth realm
2172:Monarchy in Canada
2156:God Save the Queen
1741:dispute resolution
1154:Talk:Romila Thapar
256:ignoring all rules
130:I've responded on
80:I recently tagged
4519:, as pointed out
4505:, because he has
4112:
3973:
3889:
3875:this conversation
3790:
3630:
3525:and the usage of
3138:assume good faith
2201:original research
1980:Sarcasticidealist
1925:Sarcasticidealist
1631:
1598:Assume good faith
1394:this edit summary
739:those disputes.--
575:Admin Noticeboard
530:Talk:Plano Collor
331:Sarcasticidealist
136:Sarcasticidealist
58:WQA Archive index
54:
53:
48:current main page
4828:
4816:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
4788:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
4772:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
4753:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
4705:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
4640:
4637:
4619:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
4609:
4606:
4558:very proud of it
4491:this one instead
4361:On this very WQA
4308:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
4298:
4295:
4282:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
4262:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
4108:
4048:
3969:
3907:
3885:
3866:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
3851:
3850:
3786:
3769:
3706:
3655:
3626:
3520:
3511:
3496:
3494:
3492:
3490:
3488:
3451:
3442:
3441:
3352:
3343:
3198:
3189:
3135:
3126:
3119:
3110:
3103:
3094:
2827:
2826:
2703:
2692:
2691:
2277:User:TharkunColl
2176:British monarchy
2149:
2147:
2110:
2090:
2088:deleted contribs
2066:
2055:
2054:
2045:User:TharkunColl
2033:
2030:
2016:
2013:
1966:
1963:
1949:
1946:
1919:, but rather of
1906:
1903:
1885:
1884:
1701:
1696:
1619:
1617:Duae Quartunciae
1543:
1538:
1455:
1450:
1400:does not apply.
1384:
1379:
1351:
1346:
1280:
1275:
1225:
1220:
1115:User:Bakasuprman
1108:
1107:
1098:User:Bakasuprman
1033:
1031:
1029:
1027:
1025:
995:
971:
969:
967:
965:
963:
931:
922:
921:
462:
439:
438:
219:Knowledge:IGNORE
75:
74:
33:
32:
26:
4836:
4835:
4831:
4830:
4829:
4827:
4826:
4825:
4638:
4633:
4607:
4602:
4371:. He also made
4296:
4291:
4106:Septentrionalis
4046:
3967:Septentrionalis
3905:
3883:Septentrionalis
3854:
3853:
3848:
3844:
3784:Septentrionalis
3767:
3704:
3687:manual of style
3651:
3624:Septentrionalis
3507:
3506:
3486:
3484:
3482:
3480:
3478:
3452:
3446:
3444:
3439:
3435:
3339:
3338:
3185:
3184:
3122:
3121:
3106:
3105:
3104:, I agree with
3090:
3089:
3060:Respectfully,
3019:“I initiated a
2839:shows signs of
2830:
2829:
2824:
2820:
2815:'s behavior on
2708:Battle of Jenin
2704:
2696:
2694:
2689:
2685:
2681:Battle of Jenin
2222:cannot satisfy
2123:
2103:
2083:
2062:
2061:
2058:
2057:
2052:
2048:
2031:
2028:
2014:
2011:
1964:
1961:
1947:
1944:
1904:
1901:
1888:
1887:
1882:
1878:
1699:
1694:
1541:
1536:
1453:
1448:
1382:
1377:
1349:
1344:
1278:
1273:
1258:Willy on Wheels
1223:
1218:
1148:; for instance
1111:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1023:
1021:
1019:
1017:
1015:
993:
961:
959:
957:
955:
953:
932:
926:
924:
919:
915:
681:
463:
443:
441:
436:
432:
93:, and possibly
78:
77:
72:
68:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4834:
4824:
4823:
4822:
4821:
4780:
4779:
4778:
4777:
4749:RfC on Epbr123
4745:
4744:
4743:
4742:
4741:
4740:
4739:
4738:
4737:
4736:
4659:
4658:
4657:
4656:
4655:
4654:
4645:
4575:User:Dekkappai
4553:seems to think
4487:
4486:
4482:
4478:
4470:
4469:
4465:
4461:
4457:
4453:
4449:
4445:
4437:
4436:
4432:
4428:
4420:
4419:
4415:
4411:
4407:
4403:
4399:
4357:
4356:
4355:
4354:
4319:
4318:
4317:
4316:
4315:
4314:
4313:
4230:
4229:
4228:
4227:
4226:
4225:
4224:
4223:
4222:
4221:
4220:
4219:
4146:
4145:
4144:
4143:
4142:
4141:
4140:
4139:
4138:
4072:
4071:
4070:
4069:
4059:
4058:
4033:
4032:
4031:
4030:
4029:
4028:
4027:
4026:
3978:
3977:
3958:
3957:
3956:
3955:
3954:
3953:
3952:
3951:
3846:
3843:
3838:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3814:
3813:
3812:
3811:
3810:
3809:
3808:
3729:
3728:
3724:
3723:
3722:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3678:
3677:
3599:
3598:
3597:
3577:
3576:
3575:
3574:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3553:
3542:
3541:
3437:
3434:
3429:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3411:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3405:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3371:
3370:
3369:
3326:
3325:
3324:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3277:
3276:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3270:
3259:
3258:
3257:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3234:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3230:
3229:
3213:
3212:
3211:
3210:
3209:
3208:
3176:
3175:
3174:
3173:
3172:
3171:
3150:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3145:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3074:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3040:see discussion
3029:
3028:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3024:
3012:
3011:
3010:
3009:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2995:
2953:
2952:
2951:
2950:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2822:
2819:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2783:
2782:
2687:
2684:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2656:
2655:
2646:
2642:
2635:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2604:English people
2584:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2524:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2428:
2427:
2408:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2373:
2365:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2322:
2321:
2301:
2300:
2246:
2245:
2230:
2227:
2220:
2209:
2208:
2196:
2152:English people
2050:
2047:
2041:
2040:
2039:
1994:Chunk Champion
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1976:
1955:
1892:Chunk Champion
1880:
1877:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1758:
1757:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1594:
1590:editing policy
1579:
1562:
1561:
1549:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1184:"its rhetoric"
1162:Hanlon's Razor
1142:user talk page
1103:
1100:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1006:
1005:
917:
914:
908:
907:
906:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
854:
853:
843:
842:
841:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
749:
748:
747:
746:
717:
716:
713:
709:
706:
702:
698:
693:
689:
685:
680:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
579:
578:
534:
533:
527:
517:
508:
498:
434:
431:
417:
416:
415:
404:
403:
364:
363:
362:
361:
348:
347:
326:User:Cyberia23
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
208:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
193:
158:
157:
156:
155:
142:
141:
132:User:Cyberia23
70:
67:
64:User:Cyberia23
61:
56:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4833:
4820:
4817:
4812:
4811:
4810:
4806:
4802:
4801:
4795:
4794:
4793:
4792:
4789:
4785:
4776:
4773:
4769:
4768:
4767:
4764:
4760:
4759:
4758:
4757:
4754:
4750:
4735:
4732:
4727:
4723:
4719:
4718:User:Picaroon
4715:
4714:User:Cheeser1
4711:
4710:
4709:
4706:
4701:
4700:
4699:
4698:
4697:
4696:
4695:
4694:
4693:
4692:
4689:
4685:
4681:
4677:
4675:
4673:
4671:
4668:
4664:
4653:
4650:
4646:
4644:
4641:
4636:
4630:
4625:
4624:
4623:
4620:
4615:
4614:
4613:
4610:
4605:
4599:
4595:
4594:
4593:
4592:
4589:
4584:
4580:
4576:
4571:
4567:
4563:
4559:
4554:
4550:
4546:
4542:
4538:
4534:
4530:
4526:
4522:
4518:
4515:
4512:
4508:
4504:
4500:
4496:
4492:
4485:
4483:
4481:
4479:
4477:
4475:
4474:
4473:
4468:
4466:
4464:
4462:
4460:
4458:
4456:
4454:
4452:
4450:
4448:
4446:
4444:
4442:
4441:
4440:
4435:
4433:
4431:
4429:
4427:
4425:
4424:
4423:
4418:
4416:
4414:
4412:
4410:
4408:
4406:
4404:
4402:
4400:
4398:
4396:
4395:
4394:
4391:
4389:
4386:
4382:
4378:
4374:
4370:
4366:
4362:
4353:
4350:
4346:
4342:
4341:
4340:
4337:
4333:
4329:
4325:
4320:
4312:
4309:
4304:
4303:
4302:
4299:
4294:
4288:
4287:
4286:
4283:
4279:
4278:
4277:
4274:
4269:
4268:
4267:
4266:
4263:
4259:
4255:
4251:
4247:
4243:
4239:
4235:
4218:
4215:
4211:
4210:
4209:
4205:
4201:
4200:
4195:
4191:
4187:
4186:
4185:
4182:
4177:
4173:
4172:
4171:
4168:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4159:
4155:
4151:
4147:
4137:
4134:
4130:
4126:
4125:
4124:
4121:
4117:
4116:
4115:
4111:
4107:
4103:
4099:
4098:
4097:
4094:
4090:
4089:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4083:
4079:
4074:
4073:
4068:
4065:
4061:
4060:
4057:
4053:
4049:
4042:
4037:
4036:
4035:
4034:
4025:
4021:
4017:
4016:
4011:
4010:
4009:
4006:
4002:
3999:
3998:
3997:
3993:
3989:
3988:
3982:
3981:
3980:
3979:
3976:
3972:
3968:
3964:
3960:
3959:
3950:
3947:
3943:
3942:
3941:
3938:
3933:
3932:
3931:
3927:
3923:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3912:
3908:
3900:
3895:
3894:
3893:
3892:
3888:
3884:
3880:
3876:
3871:
3870:
3867:
3863:
3859:
3842:
3837:
3836:
3832:
3828:
3827:
3822:
3807:
3803:
3799:
3795:
3794:
3793:
3789:
3785:
3780:
3779:
3778:
3774:
3770:
3762:
3758:
3757:
3756:
3753:
3749:
3748:
3747:
3746:
3745:
3744:
3740:
3736:
3735:
3725:
3720:
3719:
3718:
3717:
3716:
3715:
3711:
3707:
3700:
3695:
3693:
3688:
3676:
3672:
3668:
3664:
3663:
3662:
3659:
3656:
3654:
3648:
3643:
3639:
3635:
3634:
3633:
3629:
3625:
3621:
3617:
3613:
3609:
3605:
3600:
3596:
3592:
3588:
3587:
3581:
3580:
3579:
3578:
3572:
3568:
3564:
3560:
3559:
3558:
3557:
3550:
3546:
3545:
3544:
3543:
3540:
3536:
3532:
3528:
3524:
3518:
3515:
3510:
3504:
3503:
3502:
3501:
3498:
3497:
3475:
3473:
3471:
3469:
3466:
3463:
3460:
3456:
3450:
3433:
3428:
3427:
3424:
3421:
3404:
3401:
3399:
3394:
3390:
3389:
3388:
3387:
3386:
3385:
3384:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3380:
3379:
3368:
3364:
3360:
3356:
3355:Talk:Kilogram
3350:
3347:
3342:
3336:
3335:
3334:
3333:
3332:
3331:
3330:
3329:
3328:
3327:
3318:
3315:
3313:
3308:
3303:
3298:
3293:
3289:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3253:
3249:
3245:
3240:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3227:
3223:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3206:
3202:
3201:third opinion
3196:
3193:
3188:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3177:
3169:
3168:summary style
3165:
3161:
3156:
3155:
3154:
3153:
3152:
3151:
3143:
3139:
3133:
3130:
3125:
3117:
3114:
3109:
3101:
3098:
3093:
3087:
3086:Talk:Kilogram
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3073:
3070:
3068:
3063:
3059:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3050:
3045:
3041:
3037:
3033:
3032:
3031:
3030:
3022:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3015:
3014:
3013:
3006:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2993:
2989:
2985:
2981:
2976:
2974:
2969:
2965:
2961:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2954:
2948:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2932:
2928:
2924:
2920:
2916:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2902:
2901:
2895:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2882:
2879:
2874:
2873:
2869:
2867:
2863:
2861:
2857:
2855:
2851:
2848:
2846:
2842:
2838:
2834:
2818:
2814:
2803:
2800:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2791:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2784:
2781:
2778:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2767:
2761:
2757:
2755:
2750:
2747:
2745:
2741:
2736:
2730:
2727:
2726:User:Jaakobou
2723:
2717:
2714:
2713:User:Jaakobou
2709:
2702:
2699:
2682:
2675:
2672:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2662:
2654:
2651:
2647:
2643:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2626:
2612:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2597:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2574:
2571:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2548:
2545:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2523:
2520:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2499:
2496:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2478:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2454:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2439:
2436:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2426:
2423:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2412:
2406:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2385:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2371:
2366:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2352:
2349:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2334:
2331:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2303:
2302:
2299:
2296:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2273:
2272:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2232:has violated
2231:
2228:
2225:
2221:
2218:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2206:
2202:
2197:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2146:
2143:
2140:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2126:
2122:
2119:
2116:
2113:
2109:
2106:
2102:
2099:
2096:
2093:
2089:
2086:
2082:
2079:
2076:
2073:
2070:
2065:
2046:
2038:
2035:
2034:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2018:
2017:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1984:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1968:
1967:
1956:
1954:
1951:
1950:
1940:
1937:
1934:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1908:
1907:
1897:
1893:
1876:
1861:
1858:
1854:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1789:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1747:
1742:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1697:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1677:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1668:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1649:
1645:
1643:
1641:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1632:
1629:
1626:
1623:
1618:
1613:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1585:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1560:
1557:
1553:
1550:
1548:
1545:
1544:
1539:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1526:
1522:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1504:by Akhilleus.
1503:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1475:
1472:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1451:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1386:
1385:
1380:
1373:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1352:
1347:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1319:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1276:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1221:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1099:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1060:
1057:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1000:
996:
988:
984:
979:
978:
977:
976:
973:
972:
949:
946:
943:
940:
936:
930:
912:
905:
902:
898:
897:
890:
887:
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
871:
866:
862:
858:
857:
856:
855:
852:
849:
844:
840:Hello Kiefer,
839:
838:
837:
836:
829:
825:
821:
820:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
764:
760:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
745:
742:
738:
734:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
721:
714:
710:
707:
703:
699:
697:
694:
690:
686:
683:
682:
666:
662:
658:
657:
651:
650:
649:
646:
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
630:
624:
619:
618:
617:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
587:
581:
580:
576:
572:
567:
566:
565:
564:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
531:
528:
525:
521:
518:
515:
511:
509:
506:
502:
499:
496:
495:
494:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
461:
457:
453:
452:
447:
429:
425:
421:
414:
411:
406:
405:
402:
398:
394:
393:
388:
387:
386:
385:
382:
377:
373:
369:
360:
357:
352:
351:
350:
349:
346:
343:
338:
337:
336:
335:
332:
327:
323:
322:User:Cheeser1
306:
303:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
277:
274:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
227:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
202:
199:
194:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
164:
163:
162:
161:
160:
159:
154:
151:
146:
145:
144:
143:
140:
137:
133:
129:
128:
127:
126:
123:
117:
114:
108:
104:
103:
100:
96:
92:
88:
83:
65:
60:
59:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
4798:
4781:
4746:
4726:User:Epbr123
4722:my talk page
4686:trolling. --
4683:
4682:, but it is
4679:
4666:
4660:
4634:
4603:
4582:
4565:
4532:
4524:
4488:
4471:
4438:
4421:
4392:
4364:
4358:
4292:
4231:
4197:
4175:
4153:
4128:
4013:
4000:
3985:
3962:
3937:Rocksanddirt
3872:
3862:User:Epbr123
3855:
3841:User:Epbr123
3824:
3818:
3732:
3730:
3683:
3657:
3650:
3641:
3637:
3619:
3615:
3611:
3604:this section
3584:
3477:
3461:
3453:
3417:
3396:
3310:
3301:
3296:
3291:
3065:
3048:
3043:
3035:
2987:
2983:
2979:
2972:
2963:
2959:
2946:
2942:
2930:
2922:
2899:
2897:
2875:
2870:
2864:
2858:
2852:
2849:
2831:
2762:
2758:
2753:
2751:
2748:
2743:
2739:
2731:
2721:
2718:
2705:
2657:
2639:this comment
2621:
2595:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2390:
2369:
2274:
2262:
2247:
2210:
2141:
2135:
2124:
2117:
2111:
2104:
2097:
2091:
2084:
2077:
2071:
2059:
2027:
2010:
1991:
1960:
1943:
1900:
1889:
1791:
1744:
1721:
1692:
1624:
1614:
1606:
1602:
1596:
1588:
1581:
1575:
1569:
1534:
1518:
1465:
1446:
1375:
1342:
1331:racial slurs
1298:good offices
1271:
1264:
1216:
1213:legitimately
1212:
1177:
1166:
1158:this comment
1150:this comment
1135:
1112:
1087:Rocksanddirt
1069:
1067:
1050:
1014:
952:
941:
933:
927:Referred to
901:Ludovicapipa
868:
864:
848:Ludovicapipa
817:
736:
720:Ludovicapipa
718:
654:
627:
584:
543:
539:
538:
535:
523:
513:
504:
471:João Goulart
464:
449:
420:Ludovicapipa
390:
365:
319:
259:
118:
112:
109:
105:
79:
55:
43:
37:
4800:KieferSkunk
4199:KieferSkunk
4015:KieferSkunk
3987:KieferSkunk
3922:--Akhilleus
3826:KieferSkunk
3734:KieferSkunk
3653:SMcCandlish
3586:KieferSkunk
3391:Very well.
2935:see example
2872:User:Greg L
2860:User:JimWae
2813:User:Greg L
2435:Lonewolf BC
2411:Lonewolf BC
2348:TharkunColl
2217:tendentious
2139:investigate
2064:TharkunColl
1824:--Akhilleus
1793:KieferSkunk
1766:--Akhilleus
1746:KieferSkunk
1725:--Akhilleus
1502:this revert
1402:--Akhilleus
1372:doublespeak
1235:--Akhilleus
1188:--Akhilleus
1071:KieferSkunk
870:KieferSkunk
819:KieferSkunk
656:KieferSkunk
643:yourself.--
629:KieferSkunk
586:KieferSkunk
451:KieferSkunk
392:KieferSkunk
264:being civil
254:. In fact,
248:that policy
246:I'm afraid
36:This is an
4579:some ideas
4176:especially
4110:PMAnderson
4104:for more.
3971:PMAnderson
3887:PMAnderson
3788:PMAnderson
3628:PMAnderson
3612:Socrates's
3527:ad hominem
3432:User:Tony1
3226:WP:SUMMARY
3142:WP:SUMMARY
3049:good-faith
2964:sought out
2866:User:Enuja
2799:Hornplease
2777:Hornplease
2570:Merkinsmum
2519:Merkinsmum
2453:Merkinsmum
2401:Gbambino06
2377:WP:DISRUPT
2250:WP:DISRUPT
2108:block user
2101:filter log
1689:journalism
1676:Hornplease
1657:Hornplease
1525:Hornplease
1471:Hornplease
1439:ad hominem
1421:Hornplease
1392:I suppose
1362:Hornplease
1318:Hornplease
1249:Hornplease
911:User:Tony1
886:Dali-Llama
741:Dali-Llama
701:protection
645:Dali-Llama
613:Dali-Llama
560:Dali-Llama
422:: Lots of
4629:WP:BUNDLE
4517:questions
4254:mediation
4082:Dekkappai
3899:ownership
3638:recommend
3205:consensus
2941:what the
2915:Kilogram
2854:User:Yath
2841:ownership
2837:talk page
2754:unanimous
2740:extensive
2650:G2bambino
2634:vendetta.
2608:G2bambino
2544:G2bambino
2495:G2bambino
2422:G2bambino
2393:G2bambino
2381:G2bambino
2330:G2bambino
2285:G2bambino
2281:talk page
2268:G2bambino
2258:block log
2254:talk page
2205:edit wars
2128:CheckUser
2115:block log
1998:talk page
1896:talk page
1685:The Onion
1435:objective
1306:Sarvagnya
1302:bad taste
801:WP:WEIGHT
688:(Collor)?
381:Cyberia23
356:Cyberia23
302:Cyberia23
223:Cyberia23
168:we aren't
150:Cyberia23
122:Cyberia23
4763:Cheeser1
4688:Cheeser1
4588:Cheeser1
4511:pedantic
4345:renaming
4273:Cheeser1
4242:civility
4190:WP:CIVIL
4181:Cheeser1
4158:Cheeser1
4133:Cheeser1
3860:against
3798:Darkwind
3667:Darkwind
3616:breaches
3608:his idea
3571:WP:POINT
3563:WP:CIVIL
3531:Darkwind
3465:contribs
3359:Darkwind
3292:assuming
3269:logjams.
3244:Darkwind
2988:Kilogram
2973:deleting
2960:Kilogram
2943:Kilogram
2923:Kilogram
2833:Kilogram
2828:Resolved
2817:Kilogram
2661:Gazzster
2625:Gazzster
2397:Gbambino
2311:Darkwind
2275:PS - as
2160:Passport
2081:contribs
2056:Resolved
2004:and one
1917:WP:CIVIL
1886:Resolved
1820:WP:RFC/U
1788:WP:RFC/U
1571:Civility
1443:hijacked
1431:civility
1398:WP:CIVIL
1268:contribs
1209:WP:CIVIL
1138:WP:CIVIL
945:contribs
781:WP:CIVIL
759:WP:SKILL
679:Editions
571:WP:SKILL
410:Cheeser1
376:WP:CIVIL
342:Cheeser1
273:Cheeser1
198:Cheeser1
188:Cheeser1
180:WP:CIVIL
172:civility
99:Cheeser1
87:WP:CIVIL
76:Resolved
4598:point-y
4514:leading
4381:WP:SNOW
4330:page.
4326:to the
4214:Epbr123
4167:Epbr123
4120:Epbr123
4093:Epbr123
4047:Georgia
4005:Epbr123
3946:Epbr123
3906:Georgia
3768:Georgia
3727:though.
3705:Georgia
3658:‹(-¿-)›
3567:WP:COOL
3398:my talk
3312:my talk
3067:my talk
3044:nothing
2975:a table
2790:Eleland
2766:Eleland
2722:further
2698:Eleland
2671:GoodDay
2474:GoodDay
2295:GoodDay
2264:WP:RFCC
2252:. His
2060:Editor
2032:Annyong
2015:Annyong
1965:Annyong
1948:Annyong
1905:Annyong
1667:Kkm5848
1648:Kkm5848
1556:Kkm5848
1433:is not
994:Georgia
987:WP:AN/I
797:WP:NPOV
785:WP:COOL
712:Collor.
705:figure;
692:Collor;
605:Carioca
483:WP:NPOV
320:Sorry,
39:archive
4639:figura
4608:figura
4495:admits
4297:figura
4194:WP:NPA
4129:at all
4041:WP:FAC
3902:now.
3856:-- An
3699:WP:DTR
3449:WP:ANI
3423:(talk)
3393:Greg L
3307:Greg L
3297:Kelvin
3164:weight
3124:JimWae
3092:Greg L
3062:Greg L
2984:Kelvin
2980:Kelvin
2968:Kelvin
2939:Here’s
2881:(talk)
2195:valid.
2145:cuwiki
1921:WP:OWN
1576:always
1156:, and
1119:WP:ANI
929:WP:ANI
793:WP:CON
789:WP:NPA
763:WP:NPA
623:WP:3RR
609:WP:ANI
430:issues
372:WP:NPA
95:WP:NPA
4680:great
4564:with
4551:. He
4545:CIVIL
4541:POINT
4527:(see
4499:point
4150:below
4045:Sandy
3904:Sandy
3864:. --
3852:Stuck
3766:Sandy
3703:Sandy
3509:Tony1
3479:: -->
3455:Tony1
3443:Stuck
3420:Enuja
3302:year.
3108:Enuja
2904:say.”
2878:Enuja
2693:Stale
2395:(aka
2307:RFC/U
2029:Hello
2012:Hello
1962:Hello
1945:Hello
1902:Hello
1857:Dseer
1607:never
1341:, so
1316:that.
1109:Stuck
1016:: -->
992:Sandy
954:: -->
935:Tony1
923:Stuck
913:again
601:Coren
491:WP:DR
479:WP:OR
446:WP:DR
440:Stuck
428:CIVIL
91:WP:GF
16:<
4807:) —
4805:talk
4731:Xihr
4663:here
4649:Xihr
4583:move
4577:has
4543:and
4537:here
4529:here
4521:here
4385:here
4349:Xihr
4336:Xihr
4236:and
4206:) —
4204:talk
4192:and
4064:Tony
4052:Talk
4022:) —
4020:talk
3994:) —
3992:talk
3926:talk
3911:Talk
3833:) —
3831:talk
3802:talk
3773:Talk
3752:Tony
3741:) —
3739:talk
3710:Talk
3671:talk
3593:) —
3591:talk
3569:and
3535:talk
3495:<
3459:talk
3363:talk
3341:Yath
3248:talk
3187:Yath
3160:mass
2470:both
2462:more
2370:less
2315:talk
2256:and
2095:logs
2069:talk
2006:here
2002:here
1935:and
1828:talk
1800:) —
1798:talk
1770:talk
1753:) —
1751:talk
1729:talk
1695:Baka
1628:cont
1622:talk
1537:Baka
1506:nids
1449:Baka
1417:here
1406:talk
1378:Baka
1345:Baka
1329:and
1274:Baka
1262:talk
1239:talk
1219:Baka
1192:talk
1173:here
1144:and
1131:here
1123:here
1078:) —
1076:talk
1056:Tony
1032:<
999:Talk
970:<
939:talk
877:) —
875:talk
826:) —
824:talk
795:and
733:here
663:) —
661:talk
636:) —
634:talk
603:and
593:) —
591:talk
558:).--
556:here
554:and
552:here
548:here
540:Note
522:- "
487:WP:V
485:and
473:and
458:) —
456:talk
426:and
399:) —
397:talk
374:and
266:and
113:read
4716:.
4684:not
3622:.)
3523:NPA
3290:” (
3288:AGF
3222:AGF
3162:or
2937:).
2929:on
2744:one
2602:or
2409:--
2279:'s
2215:is
2132:log
2075:tag
1700:man
1542:man
1509:(♂)
1454:man
1383:man
1350:man
1279:man
1224:man
1175:).
1051:not
424:NPA
250:is
4533:he
4383:,
4244:,
4179:--
4054:)
3935:--
3928:)
3913:)
3881:?
3804:)
3775:)
3731:—
3712:)
3673:)
3620:is
3565:,
3537:)
3445:–
3365:)
3250:)
2994:).
2695:–
2420:--
2317:)
2240:,
2236:,
2186:,
2182:,
2178:,
2174:,
2170:,
2166:,
2162:,
2158:,
2154:,
2134:)
2121:CA
1830:)
1772:)
1731:)
1466:on
1408:)
1337:.
1241:)
1194:)
1001:)
950:.
925:–
791:,
787:,
783:,
737:in
481:,
469:,
442:–
271:--
262:-
196:--
89:,
4803:(
4635:B
4604:B
4293:B
4202:(
4050:(
4018:(
3990:(
3924:(
3909:(
3829:(
3800:(
3771:(
3737:(
3708:(
3669:(
3642:s
3589:(
3533:(
3519:)
3517:c
3514:t
3512:(
3493:t
3491:n
3489:a
3487:i
3485:d
3483:a
3481:R
3462:·
3457:(
3400:)
3395:(
3361:(
3351:)
3349:c
3346:t
3344:(
3314:)
3309:(
3246:(
3197:)
3195:c
3192:t
3190:(
3144:.
3134:)
3132:c
3129:t
3127:(
3118:)
3116:c
3113:t
3111:(
3102:)
3100:c
3097:t
3095:(
3069:)
3064:(
3038:(
2990:(
2596:I
2399:/
2313:(
2148:)
2142:·
2136:·
2130:(
2125:·
2118:·
2112:·
2105:·
2098:·
2092:·
2085:·
2078:·
2072:·
2067:(
1826:(
1796:(
1768:(
1749:(
1727:(
1630:)
1625:·
1620:(
1615:—
1404:(
1265:·
1260:(
1237:(
1190:(
1074:(
1030:t
1028:n
1026:a
1024:i
1022:d
1020:a
1018:R
997:(
968:t
966:n
964:a
962:i
960:d
958:a
956:R
942:·
937:(
873:(
822:(
659:(
632:(
589:(
507:"
454:(
395:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.