User talk:Rosguill/Archive 22

2849:, thanks for your reply. The reason why I have mentioned the word "spite" is because in my opinion the user is using aggressive tones in his comments and, since there has been recently a discussion on the itwikiquote about the activity of the subject as a cultural entrepreneur, I have founded strange that this nomination for deletion of the article on the en.wikipedia came up just now. The article has been reviewed by you three years ago and by now it is also present on several other wikipedias. To be honest with you, sometimes I have the feeling that on the italian wikipedia they have added their own criteria which is not always easy to understand. With that being said, I do agree with you that the sources been removed by Praxidicae were in fact quite poor therefore I have updated the article by adding in depth coverage reliable third party sources of the subject. I was wondering if you would be so kind to find the time to take a look at the article and eventually partecipate in the case. I would really appreciate your feedback.-- 1863:. The problem that I encountered was that there exists a Redirect in the name that we wish to use, namely "Bethany." According to the instructions given on the above page, "Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves." How do I go about alleviating this problem? I have followed the procedure so far, having written this on the article's Talk-Page: {{subst:Al-Eizariya|Bethany|Since this is the English Knowledge, it seems natural that we use here the well-known English name for this village, which is "Bethany" (mentioned in the New Testament), rather than use the lesser known Arabic name transliterated into English, seeing that it is NOT known by most English speakers. The English transliteration of the Arabic name, however, can and will be used as a redirect to the same article.}}, but nothing happened. Your help is needed. 661:, and possibly work with them in creating a proper article for Blankenbaker. Can't you read my mind? 🤣 I just finished creating the UTP for Help2Educate, and added the Welcome template when your redirect flashed on my screen. I was a little thrown off balance because the ink was still wet on the paper and things happened rather quickly - it's a reflex from my old publishing days. I'm a little slow when working at NPP because I'm usually multi-tasking and have a plan, which requires my intense focus. I'm usually more concerned about CSD's not getting tended to fast enough. I apologize if my tone came off too matter-of-factly...which helps explain why I typically use emojis, and have even customized a few templates, like , 3416:, Thnx. I was afraid you might give me a pile of documentation to read but what you've recommended seems manageable. Umm... RS? One of the WP terms I'm not familiar with although I have a clue from what follows. I'm still waiting on some data on slides and I still need to organize some of the newer data I've acquired. As soon as it reaches critical mass I'll start flailing at it in one of my sub-page scratch pads. Thanks for the assist. And no I didn't mean anything by Gestapo. I'm of Dutch/German descent myself and AFAIK none of my immediate relatives were Nazis. I go to jerk chains and rattle cages for the data I'm waiting for. Thanks again for the assist. I will now peruse the docs that you have recommended. 3301:: I'm contacting you because you appear to have extensive experience and knowledge of Knowledge. Perhaps this isn't a kosher way of contacting you but I haven't been able to find any other way of doing it. I've intermittently edited a few things over the years but I'm not very experienced or very knowledgeable (Hmm... My first post was back on August 5th, 2014. Didn't realize it was so long ago). I recently decided to become more involved in the editing process but the documentation is somewhat intimidating. I don't think I'd care to become another new page/article Gestapo or a vandalism censor. Other than the two projects I'm contemplating I think I'll stick to being an intermittent drive-by editor. 1028:

another genocide was carried out in Rwanda and then in Congo, that of the Hutus and potential opponents, even Tutsis, and this for the sole benefit of the combatants from Uganda, these former refugees eager to recover their land and to exercise unchallenged power." (Au fil des récits et des éléments extraits des rapports rédigés à l’intention du TPIR, un fil rouge apparaît, une intention de plus en plus évidente : mener le lecteur à conclure qu’un autre génocide a été mené au Rwanda puis au Congo, celui des Hutus et des opposants potentiels fussent ils Tutsis, et cela au seul bénéfice des combattants venus d’Ouganda, ces anciens réfugiés désireux de récupérer leurs terres et d’exercer un pouvoir sans partage.)

1545:, which currently isn't much help but at one point had a video about the magazine's history; you can still read the description calling it one of the most beloved and oldest gaming publications in Brazil. I'd be inclined to trust UOL on this as a NEWSORG for what appears to be an uncontroversial topic. Regarding the IP's edit, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that such a review actually exists, but without a proper citation (and without any actual information about the review) they're obviously going about this the wrong way. 3393:. Diving into the weeds more than that shouldn't be necessary for what you're doing. In general, learning the ropes by getting active practice editing is pretty standard for everything but the most complicated processes on Knowledge, and the community is pretty tolerant of honest mistakes provided that you're willing to heed advice and improve when issues are pointed out to you. As for how to contact me, leaving a message in a new section on my talk page is the correct way, so no worries there, although I do object to being called 2981: 2267: 2241: 2195: 31: 2174: 2185: 1940:

and get some real translation work in, but right now I'm helping out with the cleanup backlog to get a feel for how to correct the most common errors. There's a lot of edits I've been making that I'm like 80% confident in, but that feel just a little off, and I think having someone experienced to bounce things off of—and that knows the best practices for stuff that comes up a lot (e.g., finding the most common translation for a foreign term)—would be really helpful.

2289: 1811:. There was clear consensus for the first redirect to be deleted, but the second redirect was not part of the original nomination, and no consensus had formed yet for it, so I wanted to relist the second redirect from the bundled discussion. The method of performing the delete-one-relist-other that I came up with is very clunky and might turn out to be confusing down the line with the discussion. Is there a better way to handle that sort of situation? 2113: 3268: 137:, the article gives a lot of attention to various opinions held by Almaliti, but mostly cites primary and otherwise non-independent sources to support them. There was one claim in particular that I flagged with that was clearly both non-neutral and not supported by the provided source, but I think that a lot of the content about Alamaliti's perspectives is not currently supported by citations that justify its inclusion, even where it is verifiable. 2563:! I did everything as you said, Thank you for your advice! If it doesn't bother you too much, could you please take a look at another my draft to point me out to its problems? It is a large company that used to be an Estonian government agency. I have looked into your links about Knowledge's neutrality and verifiability policies, (as well as notability guidelines), but I would be extremely grateful for at least a quick glance. Thanks in advance! 206: 812:

The alleged behavioral issues were either frivolous (even the filing of an Arbcom request supported by 25 diffs was listed as a behavioral issue); or they were old and already dealt with; or were gathered from discussions on other editors' Talk pages rather than the article's Talk page; or were simply invented. In my comments I've provided detailed evidence for several falsehoods in the complaint, see point 2. Those are violations of

3096:, speaking as someone who's read through a few AE cases but never directly participated in one, it shouldn't be that complicated for topic ban violations, you just need to identify the diffs that violate the topic ban. DS-based cases are thornier, but that won't apply here. Granted, once the case is filed you get to deal with a fresh serving of drama, but other than the different the unthreaded discussion layout that's nothing new. 2324: 664: 731: 2256: 2230: 675: 3176: 2914:, further changes to the article should be raised on the talk page, but right now I would focus on the AfD. I think your first comment got off on the wrong foot. You want to make a concise case for notability by providing links to 3-4 sources that demonstrate significant, independent coverage in a reliable source. Most of the arguments you've made in the AfD thus far are quite frankly, irrelevant. 1961:, yeah I'd be willing to help out, feel free to ask me questions when you run into issues. Is there anything you're struggling with right now? One thing that I would suggest is that while your signature looks cool, the custom alignment formatting may make it difficult to identify your posts in ongoing discussions, so I would suggest changing it to something that renders right after your comments. 229: 2222: 1417: 368: 2543:, at this point, please just comply with the COI disclosure request that I left on your talk page (and please do reply on your talk page, rather than here, so that other editors will see it as well and won't think you're ignoring the disclosure request), after which you can submit the draft for review by clicking the blue button in the AfC template at the top of the draft. 472:

of the other editor's involvement. If you think a CoI is highly like, then open a discussion but do not place a tag of shame on the article. Could the problems be resolved with simple edits? You've made your point, but I think leaving the template is disruptive at this point since it's a suspicion (it's a good suspicion, but is undeclared and so still just a suspicion).

3206:, in this case, a Google Scholar search shows a fair amount of promising results, enough that I think it would survive an AfD. It's annoying that the initial editor creating the article didn't do their homework, but as far as NPP is concerned, I think that given that there's very little danger of BLP issues, promo content or political disinformation, tagging with 3164:, once uncited material is removed it should not be put back onto WP without reliable sourcing. And against that is the consensus of an RfD. Based on the first two policies, this information should be removed until sourcing is provided. Based on the RfD it was returned to the mainspace. I know the RfD result was without prejudice to AfD, but 2828:, at a glance, the sources that Praxidicae has been removing are in fact quite poor, an assortment of blogs and PR sites. Right now I would suggest making a case for the subject's notability at AfD. Please remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors; it is highly unlikely that they are motivated by "spite" as you suggest. 3336:

stories but is unclear whether they would be functionally valid for use of buildings as tall as the now non-existent Twin Towers or the current World Trade Center Tower. I wonder if you think it is notable to create a new article expanding on buildings containing slides originally included in the design architecture?

923:

been a big deal. But as an example of continued behavior, coupled with a sarcastic jab, even after being blocked for personal attacks and knowing full well that an ANI discussion related to this behavior was ongoing, it made it clear that you are not able to collaborate on this subject matter on Knowledge at this time.

3316:

recent, but NOT as emergency evacuation devices. They're intended as a novelty or for amusement. They typically start at the top floor of a multi-story building and end up on the ground floor with no access by any other in between. I have a number of images (.jpg) of slides incorporated in various buildings.

1829:, when I'm in that scenario, I usually just relist and include a relisting comment that explains my assessment of the situation (e.g. "we seem to have a consensus for deletion for X but it's not clear what to do with Y"). It's not perfect, but no one's complained yet so it seems like a workable solution to me. 1250:, thanks, haha. There's a solid chance that someone else stalking this page does know better, so it may yet prove useful. That having been said, given that it does appear to be transcluded to today's, presumably it can be closed normally in a week's time regardless of whatever the underlying issue was? 3315:

Over the last 50 years I have seen it featured three times as a news item on two different TV stations. My curiosity peaked I decided to do some research to see if other buildings contained this feature. I have found other buildings with slides included in their original design, most of them fairly

2403:

Hello! I just created my account and was trying to figure out what to do and I came across the Adopt-a-user page and I saw you there. Are you still taking on new apprentices? I'd love to start giving back but I don't know where to start! I'm a fast learner and will pull my weight. Please let me know.

1939:

Hi there! I saw that you were listed as an available adopter, and your interests seemed a lot like mine (especially in the language department), so I was hoping you could help me with some direction as to how to become a better contributor. Eventually I'd like to do something like the New Page Patrol

1565:

for his thoughts since he is well versed in the gaming stuff and might be able to help find some RS we can use. At this point, it's just not compliant with MOS or PAGs to simply create a section, call it "Review" and then add a WikiLink to unsourced article. The editor who reverted me should at least

962:

The previous ANI closed on 22 December. The first two of your diffs are from before that date. This means that they were already dealt with and you're in fact re-opening an old case. The second ANI was about other issues and other "evidence". Nevertheless, you might want to consider this information:

471:

Suspicion is not the standard listed in the template. We should be doing so only if it is biased or has serious problems. You also have not opened a discussion to explain "non-neutral about the article" as is requested. So I am no closer now to knowing what the problem with the article is as a result

261:

Hello, i have seen your name in the adoptees list, i am mutahir from kashmir and i am interested in adding kashmiri notable people to the wiki, i have been told that i require an adoption and i think i might be able to learn a lot from you, you can give me daily tasks so that i get complete hold over

3330:

I'm attempting to get copies of the video of the First National Building slide from the TV stations featured in their news. I'm also in the process of accumulating data on the First National Building in Oklahoma City such as the architect, the archetects history, his other designs, the construction

3305:

Like most branches of science and other disciplines there seems to be a whole different frame of logical reference and terminology to absorb. There appears to be a fairly steep learning curve here and will be a bit of a climb. Lots'a clumps of character salad (RfD, AfD, RM, GNG, G6, BLP, CSG, G11,

3112:

I don't think the topic-ban violation is that clear. I think the evidence of continued violation of AGF and NPA is extremely strong, but I feel like an idiot taking this to a third ANI considering how much drama ensued the previous two times and how little benefit emerged from either attempt. I wish

3340:

Considering the fairly extensive edit on the original article and the possibility of creating a new article I was considering copying the original article and creating the new article in subpages of my user space using them as a scratch pad. Reading through this talk section I discovered there is

3325:

There are also companies manufacturing inflatable slides capable of retrofit to existing structures up to three or four stories. I think the article on emergency evacuation slides should include these as its focus appears to be mostly on the airline industry (article title; Evacuation slide). Or

2524:

Hello Rosguill! Thanks you for reviewing my article (“Bamboo Group (company)”) First of all I want to thank you very much for for your interest and participation. I am a beginner and any advice would be useful to me! I really want to make it better, but you have not pointed to any specific issues.

2067:

You should always start on the talk page of the affected article, with the next step being a relevant WikiProject (if the article is low traffic, you can post a discussion notice at the WikiProject from the get go). Depending on the nature of the issue, there may be centralized noticeboards related

811:

What was the reason for accepting the case? The ANI complaint was basically about three minor content disputes. Most of the other comments posted by the accuser were also content discussions that belong on the article's Talk page (including incidents that were actually resolved by me compromising).

3320:

There have been a few slides used as a replacement for fire escapes attached to the exterior of a building. Relatively recently there has been a Chinese inventor who has designed an emergency evacuation slide configured to be attached to stairwells in existing buildings. It folds up when not in

2731:, IIRC, the sources provided in the last version of that article that I looked at only mentioned the labiodental ejective affricate, and did not discuss it in depth. For that level of coverage, it's more appropriate to have coverage of it as part of an article about a more general subject, such as 2442:

I'm not really too sure haha. I looked through some of the tutorials and tried reading up on some of the policies and decided to just look at recent edits and see if I could find anything worth editing. It's been kinda hard because i'm not sure what i'm looking for. I've also just been looking for

922:

HoC asked you for a source that stated that double genocide was the main topic of the book. You provided a source that stated that the book rehabilitates double genocide theory. Had this been the only instance, or even one of a few instances, of failing to cooperate appropriately it would not have

3345:

Given your experience and your establishment of the school, I thought I would get your input on this. Would it be kosher to create subpages in my user space as scratch pads for working on these articles? Of the vast amount of documentation available what would you recommend I read to begin this

107:

Hello! I'd first like to thank you very much for reviewing the Feda Almaliti page. I greatly appreciate it. I saw you have disputed the neutrality of the article. However, you have not pointed to specific issues that are actionable within Knowledge's content policies on the talk page. I'd like to

3379:

about the evacuation slide, by all means add information about it to the article. Regarding a new article on evacuation slides, you should look up what academic literature says about evacuation slides and assess whether these RS (i.e. do a Google Scholar search, but skip patent results). If most

1016:

Did I? Don't forget that there was editing activity going on at the same time. You don't see that on the Talk page of course but is part of the discussion. Editing can be done in a manner to spite others. What you see on the Talk page is an effect of that. When HoC arrived at the scene they were

907:

I think that the phrase "accepting the case" is not really an accurate description of how ANI works generally or of my participation in this discussion specifically, but to answer the main point of your question, because I was looking for ANI cases that needed additional input from an uninvolved

3335:

I have also accumulated information on the number of companies manufacturing inflatable slides for retrofitting to buildings although they seem to be only applicable to buildings three or four stories tall. There are also companies creating shutes which will work for buildings taller than four

1027:

Vidal's explanation is very clear. Not sure why you insist on this point. Besides, Colette Braeckman says the same thing: "Throughout the stories and elements taken from reports written for the ICTR, a common thread appears, an increasingly obvious intention: to lead the reader to conclude that

911:

HoC's behavior was taken into account, and was the reason that I called for the case to be closed without action at certain points, where it seemed like you could amicably resolve the content disputes and go back to editing constructively. I changed my mind about this after seeing the continued

3310:

I have a couple of projects in mind but I'm not quite sure how I should proceed. One is an article expansion of the First National Building in OKC (article title; First National Center (Oklahoma City)). It has incorporated in its original design an emergency evacuation slide in the stairwell

2919:

I've looked through the sources you presented to me back in 2018, and honestly I'm inclined to agree with the delete arguments at this time. I think I may have been too charitable when I first reviewed the article (I was quite new at the time), and do not really see sufficiently significant,

2007:

is always listed as the secondary name, next to "monkey B virus" or just "B virus" alone. The issue is that it's a relatively even split between including and excluding the "monkey" portion, and the official name is a nice enough fallback that it might be better to keep it. At the same time,

451:, my understanding is that if there was simply a suspicion of COI, tagging the article and following up with them on talk pages was standard, and that connected contributor templates should only be used once there has been an admission of COI. I think that given their very narrow interest in 930:

I'll note as well that my notice to you on your talk page was intended to invite questions regarding the scope and the enforcement of the ban, not an invitation to relitigate the ANI case. I decided to actually respond to these questions in the hopes that they can put the matter to rest.

3311:

accessible from every floor. My mother first related this to me as she had worked in the office of an insurance company in the building. This is a unique feature of this building and appears to be the only one in the world. This architectural accessory is not included in the article.

529:

Where is the borderline condescending tone? I asked for there to be a discussion and there was none. I simply commented on it. I am being neither patronizing nor acting a way that is superior to Rosguill. The template Rosguill used has a process and it was not followed. That is all.

871:

Uninvolved editors evaluating a dispute are not as a rule required to provide diffs to back up their assessments of the situation as it stands, particularly when evidence had already been provided. You characterization of allegations as unsubstantiated is at odds with my reading of

787:

Please explain why my rebuttals were not taken into consideration? Due process would require an impartial hearing of both sides and scrutiny of the evidence provided by both sides. In my "detailed response" and several comments I've provided evidence of several falsehoods in the

291:, I'm afraid I can't commit to taking you on as a student right now, as I don't think our interests overlap sufficiently. I would suggest that you get a bit more experience working with improving existing articles before you set off on trying to write new ones from scratch. 1017:

aggressive, accusing me of biased editing and saying the article was turned into an "attack page". This attitude never changed. They also use framing language, ascribing opinions and intentions to me which I don't have. That's very suggestive to outsiders. For instance:

2063:

Looks like the article was boldly moved in 2019, and you've already started an RM discussion on the talk page. I don't really have much of an opinion on the underlying issue, but an RM is appropriate if you think that the name should be changed so you're on the right

1424:

for 31 hours, although in the future I'd appreciate it if you could include a link to their contributions and a description of why you think a block is appropriate when requesting it, as that would reduce the work that I need to do in responding to your request.

3326:

There should be a separate article on evacuation slides in general with links to the evacuation slide article retitled as Airline Evacuation slides? Or, perhaps, the airline evacuation slide should be incorporated in to a general article on evacuation slides?

2809:

due to some sort of "spite". One user in particular is using aggressive tones questioning the meaning of cultural entreprenrship, reliable sources and taking down sections. What do you reccomend in this kind of scenarios ? Please let me know when you can. Many

2137:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1368:

edit; now that you've contested it, an AfD would be the next step. Your prior edit to the page looked like a rote anti-vandalism response to the IP's poorly justified edits, which is why I felt that my approach was still appropriate given the circumstances.

1447:

I reverted it back to the actual article because it's better to have that than just a redirect. There are specific articles for other years, so I created an article for the 2018 edition. It fits in with the other ones, so it should not have been deleted

2525:

When you will have a bit of time, would you mind to give me your specific commentary or advice about what needs to be done? Maybe you have any other commentary for me? I would be happy to use every opportunity to improve my project. Have a wonderful day!

3380:

sources address airplane and building evacuation slides together, they should probably be presented in one article here. If not, separate articles are the way to go. The standard test for establishing whether a subject should get a separate article is

3159:

Okay, so here we are with the classical immovable object meets irrestistable force argument. The material was removed after years of existing without sourcing. As per WP policy, uncited material may be removed at any time by any person. And as per

617:

The article in the queue has had issues since 22:32, 5 August 2008 - I start working on a few of the redirects/backlog, and wham - editors are doing stuff to my work before I even finish. I'll just back off - I've got some new articles to work on.

1988:

page, there's a section about "Admirers" which doesn't feel entirely within the realm of encyclopedic content, but which has also been included since before it was awarded as a "good article." What would be the reasoning for its inclusion in the

1477:, as I've already explained at your talk page, the article was deleted following a consensus at AfD; in order to surmount that, you're going to need stronger citations to establish the subject's notability. I'd suggest that you read through our 432:

should be added to the talk page. The fact that you simply suspect a CoI is also problematic and so the template is probably not correct to be placed at this point. I'll let you correct your errors before I see advice from the larger community.

3331:

company, and the characteristics and attributes of the building. The Weary & Alford Company of Chicago is listed as the designer of the building. It's unclear whether there was a single architect involved or if it was a team effort.

1217:, hm, I'm not sure what's going on and I am not super familiar with the AfD listings...looking through a search history, it seems like the AfD is listed in today's log, but I don't see any record of having ever been listed in a prior log. 842:

and immediately issuing a ban. This needs more explaining than the two diffs you provided which turned out to be a difference of opinion about a content issue. Would you mind clarifying and responding to my explanation, copied here:

1744:, which generally doesn't hold much water on Knowledge because we are a volunteer project and our rules are inconsistently applied due to a lack of volunteers able to apply them. I would suggest that you direct further questions to 2580:, I don't have time right now to do a particularly thorough review; at a glance the article looks ok, but I'm not familiar with the sources you cited so I can't assess notability very well without putting in a lot more research. 770:

A severe punishment like a ban requires strong evidence. Would you mind clarifying the following issues? I'm considering an appeal and so it would be helpful to understand the reasoning behind your decision before I do that.

1808: 1732:, please don't create a new section every time you leave a message: use : to indent and leave a message in one of the existing sections. The last time the article was created, it was nominated for deletion for not meeting 2651:

on the draft's talk page and also at my user page. I apologize for not declaring it in the beginning. I belong to the organization and attempting to make this page by adhering to most of the Knowledge norms such as

1737: 3341:

evidently a draft space for doing such projects. I think I would still like to use subpages of my user space for a scratch pad before submitting them to the draft space for the Dorsal Fin Society to have at them.

2141:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

1802: 1089:

Dear Rosguill, you very kindly left a message on my talk page. I have since followed your recommendations. Do you have any other advice to share with me? I would like to take every opportunity to improve my draft

1517:

my removal of what appears to be an irrelevant section titled Review and all it contains is a wikilink to that unsourced article. It doesn't make any sense to me so maybe I'm not aware of something I should be?

1120:

best citations for establishing the subject's notability on the talk page so that a reviewer will be able to review the page more efficiently. Once you've done that, go ahead and submit the article for review.

819:

Was there a reason for not treating everyone as equals? Most of the comments posted by the filing editor and by others contained personal attacks, some more severe than anything I've ever been accused of, e.g.

1781:, the core part of our notability guidelines, and was deleted following an AfD discussion where all participating editors agreed that there wasn't enough coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. 2016:, so it wouldn't be a loss of clarity to move the page, but it's also not quite as common as "monkey B virus." Would it be better to keep it the way it is, or move it to one of the simpler, more common names? 879:

Rebuttals were unnecessary, as I had read through the talk page discussion and formed my opinions based on that discussion (as well as the ArbCom case filing), rather than based on HoC's specific accusations.

1604:

I'm not coming up with much more to substantiate this article (and that's possibly due to language barrier issues). This probably should be draft or the like until better sourcing can be used to confirm it.

2892:) 03:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Hi Rosguill, when you say make a case on AfD do you mean open another discussion or just add my comment to the one that has been open ? Also, my recent edits on article 705:, no worries, I wasn't offended just confused, and now you've cleared that up. As far as teaching the editor in question, I would think that the revdel'd history is an equivalent lesson to a G12, no? 1035:

Ironically, the part of Vidal's article that you used for you interpretation was actually quoted in the IPOB article (different context though) and deleted by HoC with this (sarcastic) edit summary:

959:

Here you admit that my evidence was not taken into account, because you had already formed your opinion. This was obvious - nobody took it into account - but raises serious questions about fair play.

173:, I think that the article still has due weight issues; if we can only cite a specific opinion of Almaliti's to an article she wrote, we probably shouldn't be including it in the Knowledge article. 2896:

are being undone even if I have added better sources to the article. In this case shall I just wait to avoid edit war ? The user is asking me to revert my last edit. Don´t really know what to do --

339: 2049:

I agree that the Admirers section doesn't seem appropriate (I also note that the GA reviewer was blocked a few months after that review was completed). I think that you would be justified in

1714:

Ok, I understand why you think it should be deleted, but I still don't understand why it should be. There are other articles for a specific tournament, why is the 2018 one being deleted? --

994:

This is actually a civil explanation of what the field of genocide studies encompasses. There's no sarcasm in it anywhere. The response to it was, however, a perfect example of sarcasm, see:

2056:

I'm afraid we don't have much in the way of formal resources for that. The best you could do would be to ask on the article's talk page, and at the noticeboard at the relevant WikiProject,

613:

I was actually in the process of creating a UTP for the user who added that copyrighted material, hoping they would stick around and learn how to write a proper bio. Not sure why you did a

2003:

page was at one point under the name "Herpes B virus" (in line with all other translations of the page), but was then changed to its current formal name. In all the sources I could find,

1091: 1996:

makes use of the term "비교내신제," and my limited Korean has made it hard to source the most common translation of the term into English, so who would I reach out to to figure that out?

1820: 2668:. This required a pretty amount of reading at my end so that I can stay as much close to Knowledge norms. I just submitted the draft for your 2nd review. Could you assist please? - 2805:, I hope you are well during this harsh times. I would like to ask for your help. I have the feeling that some users from The Italian Knowledge are trying to take down the page 2482:

anti-vandalism, because while anti-vandalism is important, it doesn't teach you as much about editing articles well, just how to spot the most extreme of bad-faith contributors.

1190: 2019:

4. Finally, all of these revolve around not having any other opinions on the topic; where should I post things like these so that I can hear what other Knowledge users think? –

2478:. Feel free to try out all of the above if they strike your fancy. Anti-vandalism work is also worth trying too, although I generally recommend that new editors do more than 262:

wikipedia editing and policies. i have made a lot of mistakes in my past in wikipedia and i don't want to repeat them ever, so thats why i am looking for guidance. thanks

2519: 916:

on January 14th and 15th, and after re-reading the original discussions, where you initiated the use of uncivil argumentation first against buidhe and later against HoC.

2392: 1208: 1196: 3350:

I apologize if this isn't the proper way to contact you. I would appreciate your enlightening me on the proper procedure. Thank you for your time and attention.

2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2305: 2534: 808:. Please explain "improper". Improper suggests "unwarranted", "uncivil", "insincere" and/or "lacking evidence." I can't judge this without specific information. 999:

No sarcasm intended. You're reading something into it. Besides, I've explained this exchange already. I hope you're not implying I'm being dishonest over this.

2893: 2806: 2754:: in depth? there are rarely any sources for those langs and in most of the related pages to this, there are barely sourced and the sources are just phoible 2309: 555:

bit in the first comment was maybe a little condescending, I think this has been handled amicably at the relevant article's talk page and can be put to bed.

2156: 1723: 1629: 1467: 442: 2101: 1686: 1646: 1392: 658: 2151: 1153:

Hi. I'm looking for a reviewer for these two pages. If you have time would you mind reviewing and assigning a wikiproject rating to them if applicable?

1759: 1492: 539: 1513:? I'm of the mind that unsourced articles should be sent to draft space rather than left in main space with unverifiable material. Add to that, an IP 784:. One commenter simply linked to definitions of concepts, not to diffs, others didn't provide any diffs or diffs that did not support the allegations. 1138: 3306:

UPE, BLPPROD, Copyvio, 🙁😕😞 {sigh} etc), acronyms, and contractions to wrap my head around. From here the Knowledge lexicology appears cryptic.

823: 795: 793: 782: 3136: 3088: 2134: 566: 497: 481: 466: 407: 3122: 3107: 2507: 2493: 2452: 2437: 1261: 1242: 1228: 1164: 821: 791: 789: 779: 3430: 3417: 3368: 3362: 3354: 2786: 2763: 2745: 2369: 588: 517: 2961: 2942: 2694: 2091: 1709: 1436: 3074: 3060: 2722: 2591: 2572: 2554: 1926: 1912: 1703: 1671: 1323: 1309: 900: 895: 802:

Saflieni has improperly and repeatedly construed disagreements over content as either incompetence or conspiracy on the part of other editors.

3444: 3425: 3408: 3289: 3253: 2374: 2270: 2244: 1840: 1792: 1380: 1132: 1068: 1049: 973:. The other remark was wrong, I admit, but it was made in the spirit of other Talk page posts that addressed me in the same manner, such as: 942: 184: 165: 148: 3371:, so, to quickly answer your questions: using subpages of your user space for drafting is totally fine. As for the expansion suggestion for 3284: 2931: 2878: 2867:, I'll take a look at the sources myself at some point in the next few days, but you should probably make a case yourself at the AfD first. 2839: 890: 885: 1677:

Yes I am saying the same. Just give me my answer. Whether the deletion process will be stopped or not after bringing some reliable sources

1442: 306: 1872: 1617: 1599: 1580: 1556: 1184: 747: 716: 697: 652: 399: 385: 2413: 1631: 1116:

and ensuring that it doesn't include any non-neutral content. In order to help out AfC reviewers, I would also recommend identifying the

323: 127: 3353:

Hmm... I should come up with a signiture. The editor appears to be similar to some of the MarkUp languages/editors I've encountered.

2364: 1347:

if you feel it is not deserving of that status. Replacing it with a redirect, unilaterally, is not consistent with policy. Thanks. --

2188: 2124: 1355: 452: 3261: 3031:. (While it occurs in a section nominally about appealing the ban, it cannot realistically be construed as part of any appeal.) -- 1463: 902:, responding to repeated requests for sources with the same source that did not back up the claim for which sources were requested. 777:

I'd like to know on what grounds people support or reject complaints.(...) If anyone has questions they're welcome on my Talk page.

1509:

you acknowledged that sources exist, but to this day, no RS have been cited. How do we know that what's written is compliant with

1103: 342:(which I started). However, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to restore it, because there's now an appropriate target for it at 2677: 1514: 355: 3272: 3172:- although the quandary is not in the WP article, which is criminal, since it is the most brilliant thing about that script). 3010: 2700: 1767:, why is the 2018 getting a redirect, I still don't understand. It is better to have information there instead of a redirect. 970:

referred to an agreemnt we made on EdJohnston's Talk page. but this agreement was suddenly abandoned without a word of warning.

2422:, what sort of editing are you interested in? If you aren't sure where you want to help out, I would suggest checking out the 248: 3372: 2274: 2248: 2161: 1846: 1773:, we are not supposed create articles about topics unless there are enough sources to demonstrate that the subject meets our 981:

If you can't correctly understand talk page posts that then perhaps you should try editing Knowledge in a different language.

102: 3040: 2426:, which describes and provides links to a whole bunch of different types of Knowledge work of varying levels of difficulty. 2388: 2028: 2905: 2858: 2819: 2463:

If you like doing behind the scenes work or love thinking about how best to sort information, try out Categorization tasks

1404: 281: 3237: 3168:

would suggest simply blanking the page. Which is not acceptable. I feel like the android in that episode of Star Trek (

1656:, they need to be reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, i.e. enough to meet 858: 725:

with repeated removals of the redirect. Uh oh, have I become overly systematic with my routines, or worse, have I become

995: 989: 983: 977: 1285: 1010:

So you were just a passer-by? May I ask if you have any relevant knowledge of the topic, or about complaint procedures?

781:. The unsubstantiated allegations continued even after your action. My reference to Knowledge policy went unheeded too. 722: 1809:

Knowledge:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_27#List_of_weapons_and_gadgets_from_the_Ratchet_&_Clank_series

1112:, I would follow the advice last left on the draft by an AfC reviewer, namely reformatting the article to comply with 975:...if you want your POV to be represented on Knowledge you would be better off publishing your own review on the book. 3028: 1993: 1506: 1331: 971: 844: 632: 224:

Knowledge will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future.

2398: 1992:

2. How would I best go about asking for help in translating a particular term? For example, the Korean article for

1532: 1233:

Thanks, and sorry to bother you outside your expertise. Let it just be a sign that I think of you as knowing lots.

1039: 335: 3113:

there were a better process for dealing with disruptive editors, because these unending attacks are discouraging.

3024: 1057:, I don't have time to rehash the ANI in this level of detail. You're going to have to look for advice elsewhere. 816:. In fact all examples listed as rude or uncivil - except 2C - were violated in this case by the accusing parties. 2384: 329: 295:

is a great way to find articles that need different kinds of editing work, and is organized based on difficulty.

194: 412:

Are you new to this, or have you just not been challenged to do things the way the documentation states before?

3242:

Okay. I'm thinking of cutting it down to a bare stub, so that there's not so much unreferenced info. Thanks.

3195: 2936:

They've now been globally locked along with 12+ other accounts for a 3 year long xwiki mass spamming campaign.

1459: 1084: 575:

Are you new to this, or have you just not been challenged to do things the way the documentation states before?

426: 123: 2710: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3433:, RS is short for reliable sources, you'll see the abbreviation thrown around a lot if you stay here long. 2336: 1719: 277: 1037:

Association fallacy. Many murderers like pizza but this "fact" does not belong in the article about pizza.

775:

What was your reason for ignoring my requests to provide evidence in support of the allegations? Example:

3049:, I think I've had my fill of that case, but I'm sure other interested parties can find their way to AE. 2971: 2634: 2057: 2013: 2004: 2000: 343: 1199:

hadn't been transcluded right. Can you or a stalker figure out what is wrong and make it right? Thanks!

535: 477: 438: 2351: 2340: 486:

I think I followed up with additional comments at the article in question while you were writing this.

38: 1859:, which we are trying to change its name to "Bethany," I went through the usual steps described under 2128: 2713:

what else do you want? some of the related pages dont even have sources in them and this page has 3

806:

Coming after 2 ANI threads and thousands of words of discussion, and coupled with insults at HoC ...

1294:, this is not the appropriate place to file a sockpuppet report, please follow the instructions at 256: 108:

address the issues and would appreciate your specific commentary as to why you have flagged this.

3118: 3084: 3018: 2796: 2503: 2448: 2409: 1770: 1729: 1715: 1577: 1542: 1529: 1474: 1455: 1238: 1204: 913: 873: 744: 694: 629: 3220: 2759: 2718: 1298:. Additionally, you need evidence to motivate the report, or it will be dismissed out of hand. 1173:, the articles are in the new pages queue and will be reviewed in due time, please be patient. 953:

Thank you, very enlightening but also a little disturbing, unfortunately. Allow me to respond:

584: 513: 544: 531: 503: 473: 448: 434: 3210: 3152: 2475: 2423: 1934: 759: 577:

was what I found to be very disrespectful and condescending. In any case all looks well now.

292: 1099: 156:

I have corrected the specific citation in question. Please review when you have a chance. --

3191: 3183: 2673: 2266: 2240: 2194: 2024: 1948: 1451: 1400: 1386: 797:

Irrefutable evidence of falsehoods and manipulations trumps language issues, I would think.

608: 506:, I believe you can make your point without that “tone” which is borderline condescending. 265: 119: 111: 2339:

will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The

1981:, thanks so much! There are three issues that come to mind that I've encountered recently: 1893:

a redirect should be fine. As for the template text, it looks like you accidentally wrote

641:, not sure what you're saying here. I saw the G12 tag you placed and revdel'd accordingly 8: 3376: 3132: 3070: 3036: 2644: 2568: 2530: 1922: 1868: 1682: 1642: 1319: 1281: 674: 573:

Good to know things have been resolved amicably, Rosguill like you rightfully stated the

3421: 3358: 3280: 3114: 3093: 3080: 2998: 2994: 2772: 2732: 2499: 2457: 2444: 2419: 2405: 1816: 1498: 1352: 1271: 1247: 1234: 1214: 1200: 1045: 854: 273: 161: 47: 17: 2184: 2901: 2889: 2854: 2815: 2768: 2755: 2728: 2714: 1985: 579: 548: 524: 508: 3389:

As for documentation, other than the links I added above, for now I would just read

828:

I'm curious to learn why practically every item on the ANI advice list was ignored:

346:. I could recreate it myself but that seems unfair to the original creator. Thanks, 3165: 3161: 2657: 2119: 2103: 1637:

If I can bring some reliable sources that will the deletion process will be stopped

1566:

try to fix the problem - find some RS and write an actual review. Don't you think?

657:

I meant redirect because I was going to use that G12 to demonstrate the problem to

319: 1109: 1095: 2947: 2937: 2771:, then as I said, it's more appropriate to add coverage of it to an article like 2669: 2466:

If you're reasonably confident in your writing skills, try out Copy editing tasks

2301: 2077: 2033: 2020: 1958: 1944: 1613: 1574: 1526: 1499: 1410: 1396: 1160: 1117: 741: 691: 626: 395: 351: 968:

the point is that you shouldn't be editing this page without explicit consensus.

46:

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

3128: 3066: 3046: 3032: 2980: 2665: 2577: 2564: 2540: 2526: 2146: 2073: 2050: 1918: 1878: 1864: 1678: 1653: 1638: 1365: 1315: 1291: 1277: 1014:... original discussions, where you initiated the use of uncivil argumentation 726: 3437: 3413: 3401: 3390: 3381: 3294: 3276: 3243: 3230: 3226:

should be enough and isn't a huge burden on us from a reviewing perspective.

3203: 3187: 3169: 3153: 3100: 3053: 3006: 2954: 2924: 2871: 2846: 2832: 2802: 2779: 2751: 2738: 2706: 2687: 2653: 2648: 2640: 2584: 2560: 2547: 2486: 2430: 2084: 2069: 1978: 1965: 1905: 1852: 1833: 1826: 1812: 1785: 1778: 1764: 1752: 1745: 1741: 1733: 1696: 1664: 1657: 1592: 1549: 1485: 1429: 1373: 1361: 1348: 1344: 1302: 1295: 1254: 1221: 1177: 1125: 1113: 1061: 1054: 1041: 935: 864: 850: 813: 709: 645: 559: 490: 459: 378: 311: 299: 240: 177: 170: 157: 153: 141: 134: 115: 2709:: Hi, what kinds for sources are you talking about? i gave 3 sources on the 908:

admin and this was the oldest discussion that I felt like I could help with.

2911: 2897: 2885: 2864: 2850: 2825: 2811: 2661: 1510: 1340: 1333: 730: 416: 2173: 1021:

Find such a casual remark a hundred times and you'll swear it's the truth.

2469:

If you like doing research and investigation, try out Fact-checking tasks

1856: 1803:

Performing a split relist/delete with XFD closer and a bundled discussion

1774: 1478: 663: 315: 288: 269: 3079:

The complicated and sophisticated process at AE is beyond my expertise.

2344: 1019:

Saflieni, meanwhile, does not want the article to discuss RPF war crimes

2647:. I may not be an expert in this but yes I just declared Knowledge COI 1606: 1585: 1567: 1562: 1538: 1519: 1170: 1156: 734: 702: 684: 638: 619: 391: 361: 347: 2613: 1860: 766:

If you have clarification questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

3275:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

3127:

Well, maybe at some point they'll get bored and go away. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --

2343:

of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically

2288: 1276:

Hi, User Fasterenergie is a sockpuppet of Noname_JR. Best regards. --

205: 919:

Believe me, I'm as frustrated that this advice was ignored as well.

235: 956:

Which evidence was provided? And I mean evidence, not allegations.

2323: 2255: 2229: 2009: 1343:

was to exist as a standalone article. You should nominate it for

1481:

to get a better understanding of what is expected for articles.

455:

over 10 years of editing indicates that a COI is highly likely.

1148: 2314:

post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people

1883:

Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

829: 764:

Dear Rosguill. The notificaton you left on my Talk page says:

2221: 840:

It seems my last comment calling for a close was premature.

834:

I'm still trying to get my head around the giant leap from

2460:, hm, well to get you started, here are some suggestions. 2624: 1364:, replacing it with a redirect is a perfectly acceptable 987:

your clumsy methods repeatedly violate WP:POV and WP:BLP.

882:

This list is not exhaustive, but I think is illustrative

314:

Thank you for your response, i will surely look onto it.

2997:, especially when I feel it's too much to go review. -- 1736:; you can read the discussion where this was determined 2117:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

1740:. The argument that you are currently making is called 1191:

Weird AfD has been up for 3 weeks, something is busted?

3027:

is a clear-cut violation of the topic ban you imposed

1143: 2614:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Bamboo_Group_(company)

800:

Would you please provide diffs for these statements:

2123:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

966:

Two important things you've overlooked: The remark:

683:, the latter of which I probably deserve right now. 3397:, even though I don't think you meant any offense. 2664:and at the same time keeping it completely neutral 2520:

Moving page to Draft (Draft:Bamboo_Group_(company))

3346:project? I'll get into the second project later. 1777:. The article was challenged for falling short of 2474:You can find links for all of these tasks at the 1855:. When I tried submitting a move for the article 1003:...the same source that did not back up the claim 2135:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/SDSU Sports Deck 1314:Hi, thank you for your message. Best regards. -- 680:Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough 836:I think that this may be closed without action. 1149:https://en.wikipedia.org/PAG_(investment_firm) 721:Yes, provided we can avoid getting trapped in 2498:Okay, I'll go take a look then. Thank you. 2920:independent coverage in reliable sources. 2643:I'm here because of your direct review at 2157:Administrators' newsletter – February 2021 1881:, I'm pretty sure that the instruction of 1339:The status quo for the last 10+ years for 1139:Looking for a reviewer on these two pages 3321:use but has to be deployed when needed. 2625:https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Andmevara 892:, sarcasm and insults directed at Buidhe 408:COI and associated connected contributor 3391:our guide to writing your first article 2683:responded on other editor's talk page. 1588:, yeah I agree, the IP is out of line. 1094:. Thank you very much for your help! -- 14: 3065:Thanks, that's very understandable. -- 2354:, and recently saw its billionth edit! 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3373:First National Center (Oklahoma City) 3290:Intimidated Newby ( 🤔 uh... sort of) 3273:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard 1748:, our forum for helping new editors. 1144:https://en.wikipedia.org/MBK_Partners 226: 3173: 2167: 2164:from the past month (January 2021). 1885:means that you can't request a move 1710:2018 Northeast Conference Tournament 1443:2018 Northeast Conference Tournament 25: 3271:There is currently a discussion at 2162:News and updates for administrators 2125:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 1630:Regarding the proposed deletion of 364:, that's quite considerate of you. 23: 2350:Knowledge has now been around for 2220: 24: 3460: 2133:The article will be discussed at 2074:the original research noticeboard 1994:College admissions in South Korea 3266: 3262:Notice of noticeboard discussion 3174: 2979: 2322: 2302:standard discretionary sanctions 2287: 2265: 2254: 2239: 2228: 2193: 2183: 2172: 2111: 1779:the general notability guideline 1734:the general notability guideline 1415: 1092:Draft:Edmond J. Safra Foundation 729: 673: 662: 366: 336:Blood grouping and crossmatching 227: 204: 29: 1917:Okay. That makes sense. Thanks! 2701:Labiodental ejective affricate 2618: 2607: 13: 1: 3445:00:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC) 3426:23:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC) 3409:17:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC) 3363:03:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC) 3285:00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC) 3254:16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC) 3238:16:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC) 3023:Possibly of interest to you: 1954:20:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC) 1861:Requested controversial moves 1847:Move (name-change) to article 1024:You could have applied a few. 103:Feda Almaliti neutrality flag 3395:the new page/article Gestapo 3137:22:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 3123:18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 3108:16:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 3089:13:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 3075:13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 3061:05:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 3041:01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 3011:21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 2962:19:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 2943:19:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 2932:19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 2906:18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 2879:03:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 2859:21:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2840:20:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2820:19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2787:23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2764:23:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2746:21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2723:20:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2695:03:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2678:02:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2592:15:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 2573:11:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 2555:16:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2535:11:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2508:16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2494:16:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2453:16:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2438:16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2414:13:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2393:19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 2316:, replacing the 1932 cutoff. 2152:16:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC) 2092:20:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 2070:reliable sources noticeboard 2029:18:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 1927:04:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC) 1913:04:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC) 1889:a redirect; requesting them 1873:04:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC) 1841:20:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC) 1821:19:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC) 1793:16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC) 1760:16:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1724:16:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1704:17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1687:17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1672:17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1647:17:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1618:16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1600:16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1581:16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1557:16:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1533:14:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1493:16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1468:13:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 1437:22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC) 1405:22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC) 1381:21:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC) 1356:21:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC) 1324:21:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC) 1310:20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC) 1286:20:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC) 1262:19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1243:19:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1229:19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1209:19:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1185:03:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1165:01:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1133:18:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC) 1104:18:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC) 1069:00:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC) 1050:23:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC) 1005:That's your POV, not a fact. 943:19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC) 859:10:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC) 748:00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC) 717:23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 698:22:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 653:22:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 633:22:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 589:19:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 567:19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 540:19:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 518:18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 498:22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC) 482:22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC) 467:22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC) 443:22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC) 400:03:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 386:03:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 356:02:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 324:23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC) 307:23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC) 282:22:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC) 249:01:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC) 185:00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC) 166:00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC) 149:21:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 128:21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 7: 3375:, if you can find reliable 2993:For your continued work at 2014:Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1 2005:Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1 2001:Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1 344:Blood compatibility testing 10: 3465: 2385:MediaWiki message delivery 2078:the neutrality noticeboard 2068:to the issue, such as the 2978: 2950:, thanks for the update. 1541:, the ptWiki article has 897:, sarcasm directed at HoC 887:, insults directed at HoC 338:last year as a result of 203: 2399:Hi! A friendly question. 2127:or whether it should be 1395:please be blocked ASAP. 2365:Discuss this newsletter 914:Talk:In Praise of Blood 874:Talk:In Praise of Blood 330:Restoration of redirect 196:Happy 20th anniversary! 2345:check your eligibility 2337:2021 Steward elections 2225: 1085:Draft: Edmond J. Safra 2224: 2178:Administrator changes 2053:removing the section. 2012:already redirects to 1775:notability guidelines 1479:notability guidelines 427:Connected contributor 293:Knowledge:Task Center 42:of past discussions. 2987:The Admin's Barnstar 2341:confirmation process 2058:WP:WikiProject Korea 1899:subst:requested move 1742:"other stuff exists" 2972:A barnstar for you! 2894:Giovanni Morassutti 2807:Giovanni Morassutti 2645:Draft:Nikhil Kamath 2635:Draft:Nikhil Kamath 1195:Cyberbot said that 553:Are you new to this 2773:Ejective consonant 2733:Ejective consonant 2226: 1771:Ajax.amsterdam.fan 1730:Ajax.amsterdam.fan 1716:Ajax.amsterdam.fan 1475:Ajax.amsterdam.fan 1456:Ajax.amsterdam.fan 1393:user:92.23.33.134 831:. Care to explain? 18:User talk:Rosguill 3377:secondary sources 3186:comment added by 3016: 3015: 3009: 2395: 2310:amended by motion 2306:American Politics 2284: 2283: 2260:Oversight changes 2234:CheckUser changes 1986:Grotrian-Steinweg 1571: 1523: 1454:comment added by 738: 688: 682: 671: 623: 268:comment added by 254: 253: 114:comment added by 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3456: 3270: 3269: 3250: 3247: 3225: 3219: 3215: 3209: 3199: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3005: 3003: 2983: 2976: 2975: 2940: 2627: 2622: 2616: 2611: 2382: 2326: 2291: 2269: 2258: 2243: 2232: 2197: 2187: 2176: 2168: 2149: 2120:SDSU Sports Deck 2115: 2114: 2104:SDSU Sports Deck 1895:subst:AlEizariya 1610: 1572: 1569: 1524: 1521: 1470: 1423: 1419: 1418: 739: 736: 733: 689: 686: 678: 677: 667: 666: 624: 621: 576: 528: 431: 425: 421: 415: 374: 370: 369: 334:Hi, you deleted 284: 257:kindly adopt me. 247: 238: 232: 231: 230: 218: 215: 208: 201: 200: 130: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3464: 3463: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3436: 3400: 3292: 3267: 3264: 3248: 3245: 3229: 3223: 3217: 3213: 3207: 3181: 3175: 3157: 3099: 3052: 3021: 3019:T-ban violation 2999: 2974: 2953: 2938: 2923: 2884:Ok. Thank you. 2870: 2831: 2799: 2797:Aggressive user 2778: 2737: 2703: 2686: 2637: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2623: 2619: 2612: 2608: 2583: 2546: 2522: 2485: 2443:vandalism too. 2429: 2401: 2396: 2380: 2379: 2304:authorized for 2285: 2159: 2147: 2144: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2083: 1964: 1952: 1937: 1904: 1849: 1832: 1819: 1805: 1784: 1751: 1712: 1695: 1663: 1635: 1608: 1591: 1568: 1548: 1520: 1503: 1484: 1449: 1445: 1428: 1416: 1414: 1389: 1372: 1337: 1301: 1274: 1253: 1220: 1193: 1176: 1141: 1124: 1087: 1060: 934: 762: 735: 708: 685: 669:Just curious... 644: 620: 611: 574: 558: 522: 489: 458: 429: 423: 419: 413: 410: 377: 367: 365: 332: 298: 263: 259: 236: 234: 228: 216: 213: 199: 176: 140: 109: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3462: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3434: 3398: 3387: 3385: 3349: 3344: 3339: 3334: 3329: 3324: 3319: 3314: 3309: 3304: 3291: 3288: 3263: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3227: 3156: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3097: 3050: 3020: 3017: 3014: 3013: 2990: 2989: 2984: 2973: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2951: 2921: 2916: 2915: 2882: 2881: 2868: 2843: 2842: 2829: 2798: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2776: 2735: 2702: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2684: 2636: 2633: 2629: 2628: 2617: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2581: 2544: 2521: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2483: 2476:WP:Task center 2472: 2471: 2470: 2467: 2464: 2427: 2424:WP:Task center 2400: 2397: 2381: 2378: 2377: 2372: 2367: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2348: 2335:Voting in the 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2282: 2281: 2278: 2277: 2252: 2251: 2218: 2216: 2214: 2213: 2191: 2166: 2158: 2155: 2110: 2109: 2107: 2102:Nomination of 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2081: 2065: 2061: 2054: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2017: 1997: 1990: 1982: 1973: 1972: 1962: 1942: 1936: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1902: 1848: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1830: 1815: 1804: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1782: 1749: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1693: 1675: 1674: 1661: 1634: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1589: 1546: 1507:this 2019 diff 1502: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1482: 1444: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1426: 1388: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1370: 1336: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1299: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1251: 1218: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1174: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1122: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1058: 1030: 1029: 1025: 1022: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1000: 997: 992: 960: 957: 946: 945: 932: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 920: 917: 912:discussion at 909: 905: 904: 903: 898: 893: 888: 880: 877: 847: 846: 832: 826: 817: 809: 798: 785: 761: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 706: 642: 610: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 556: 545:Walter Görlitz 532:Walter Görlitz 504:Walter Görlitz 487: 474:Walter Görlitz 456: 449:Walter Görlitz 435:Walter Görlitz 409: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 375: 331: 328: 327: 326: 309: 296: 258: 255: 252: 251: 225: 221: 220: 209: 198: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 174: 138: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3461: 3446: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3432: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3386: 3383: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3351: 3347: 3342: 3337: 3332: 3327: 3322: 3317: 3312: 3307: 3302: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3287: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3255: 3252: 3251: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3222: 3221:sources exist 3212: 3205: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3155: 3154:Visual editor 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3115:HouseOfChange 3111: 3110: 3109: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3095: 3094:HouseOfChange 3092: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3081:HouseOfChange 3078: 3077: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3048: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3002: 2996: 2992: 2991: 2988: 2985: 2982: 2977: 2963: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2949: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2941: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2918: 2917: 2913: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2880: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2866: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2847:User:Rosguill 2841: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2827: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2808: 2804: 2803:User:Rosguill 2788: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2774: 2770: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2734: 2730: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2696: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2641:User:Rosguill 2626: 2621: 2615: 2610: 2606: 2603: 2593: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2579: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2542: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2500:WanderingSeer 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2468: 2465: 2462: 2461: 2459: 2458:WanderingSeer 2456: 2455: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2445:WanderingSeer 2441: 2440: 2439: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2425: 2421: 2420:WanderingSeer 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2406:WanderingSeer 2394: 2390: 2386: 2376: 2373: 2371: 2368: 2366: 2363: 2362: 2353: 2349: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328:Miscellaneous 2325: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2290: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2257: 2250: 2246: 2245:Berean Hunter 2242: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2223: 2219: 2217: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2163: 2154: 2153: 2150: 2143: 2139: 2136: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2121: 2105: 2093: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2035: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1980: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1960: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1950: 1946: 1941: 1935:Some guidance 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1769: 1768: 1766: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1705: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1673: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1659: 1655: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1633: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1587: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1579: 1576: 1573: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1544: 1540: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1528: 1525: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1501: 1494: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1480: 1476: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1438: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1422: 1412: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1382: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1367: 1363: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1335: 1332:Staus quo on 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1297: 1293: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1263: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1249: 1248:HouseOfChange 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1235:HouseOfChange 1232: 1231: 1230: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1216: 1215:HouseOfChange 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201:HouseOfChange 1198: 1186: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1151: 1150: 1146: 1145: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1026: 1023: 1020: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1004: 1001: 998: 996: 993: 990: 988: 984: 982: 978: 976: 972: 969: 965: 964: 961: 958: 955: 954: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 944: 941: 940: 939: 929: 921: 918: 915: 910: 906: 901: 899: 896: 894: 891: 889: 886: 884: 883: 881: 878: 875: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 863: 862: 861: 860: 856: 852: 845: 841: 837: 833: 830: 827: 824: 822: 818: 815: 810: 807: 803: 799: 796: 794: 792: 790: 786: 783: 780: 778: 774: 773: 772: 768: 767: 760:Clarification 749: 746: 743: 740: 732: 728: 724: 723:Groundhog Day 720: 719: 718: 715: 714: 713: 704: 701: 700: 699: 696: 693: 690: 681: 676: 670: 665: 660: 656: 655: 654: 651: 650: 649: 640: 637: 636: 635: 634: 631: 628: 625: 616: 590: 586: 582: 581: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 565: 564: 563: 554: 550: 546: 543: 542: 541: 537: 533: 526: 521: 520: 519: 515: 511: 510: 505: 501: 500: 499: 496: 495: 494: 485: 484: 483: 479: 475: 470: 469: 468: 465: 464: 463: 454: 450: 447: 446: 445: 444: 440: 436: 428: 418: 401: 397: 393: 389: 388: 387: 384: 383: 382: 373: 363: 360: 359: 358: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 325: 321: 317: 313: 310: 308: 305: 304: 303: 294: 290: 287: 286: 285: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 250: 246: 244: 239: 223: 222: 219: 210: 207: 202: 197: 186: 183: 182: 181: 172: 169: 168: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 151: 150: 147: 146: 145: 136: 133: 132: 131: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3439: 3438: 3403: 3402: 3394: 3352: 3348: 3343: 3338: 3333: 3328: 3323: 3318: 3313: 3308: 3303: 3296: 3295: 3293: 3265: 3244: 3232: 3231: 3211:unreferenced 3182:— Preceding 3170:Mudd's Women 3158: 3102: 3101: 3055: 3054: 3022: 3000: 2986: 2956: 2955: 2926: 2925: 2883: 2873: 2872: 2844: 2834: 2833: 2800: 2781: 2780: 2769:AleksiB 1945 2756:AleksiB 1945 2740: 2739: 2729:AleksiB 1945 2715:AleksiB 1945 2704: 2689: 2688: 2638: 2620: 2609: 2601: 2586: 2585: 2549: 2548: 2523: 2488: 2487: 2479: 2432: 2431: 2402: 2327: 2321: 2313: 2292: 2286: 2279: 2259: 2253: 2233: 2227: 2215: 2199:Mattflaschen 2177: 2171: 2160: 2145: 2140: 2132: 2118: 2106:for deletion 2086: 2085: 1967: 1966: 1953: 1938: 1907: 1906: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1850: 1835: 1834: 1806: 1787: 1786: 1754: 1753: 1746:the teahouse 1713: 1698: 1697: 1676: 1666: 1665: 1636: 1594: 1593: 1551: 1550: 1504: 1487: 1486: 1450:— Preceding 1446: 1431: 1430: 1420: 1390: 1387:92.23.33.134 1375: 1374: 1341:Carlo Bonomi 1338: 1334:Carlo Bonomi 1304: 1303: 1275: 1256: 1255: 1223: 1222: 1194: 1179: 1178: 1155: 1152: 1147: 1142: 1127: 1126: 1088: 1063: 1062: 1036: 1018: 1013: 1002: 986: 980: 974: 967: 937: 936: 848: 839: 835: 805: 801: 776: 769: 765: 763: 711: 710: 679: 668: 659:Help2Educate 647: 646: 614: 612: 609:Blankenbaker 580:Celestina007 578: 561: 560: 552: 551:, while the 549:Celestina007 525:Celestina007 509:Celestina007 507: 492: 491: 461: 460: 422:states that 411: 380: 379: 371: 333: 301: 300: 264:— Preceding 260: 242: 211: 195: 179: 178: 143: 142: 110:— Preceding 106: 78: 43: 37: 2995:WP:PERM/NPR 2939:CUPIDICAE💕 2404:Thank you. 2293:Arbitration 2271:Someguy1221 1897:instead of 1857:Al-Eizariya 1543:this source 849:Thank you. 727:Rain Man?!! 390:Thanks. :) 212:Celebration 36:This is an 3180:Thoughts? 2948:Praxidicae 2670:Syncronyte 2602:References 2034:LogStar100 2021:LogStar100 1984:1. On the 1959:LogStar100 1945:LogStar100 1649:Jogesh 69 1561:I'll ping 1500:Ação Games 1411:CLCStudent 1397:CLCStudent 1272:Sockpuppet 991:And so on. 788:complaint. 95:Archive 25 90:Archive 24 85:Archive 23 79:Archive 22 73:Archive 21 68:Archive 20 60:Archive 15 3166:WP:BURDEN 3162:WP:BURDEN 3047:JayBeeEll 2658:WP:SIGCOV 2578:Cartifdet 2565:Cartifdet 2541:Cartifdet 2527:Cartifdet 2370:Subscribe 2312:to cover 2203:Nandesuka 2148:Spiderone 2051:WP:BOLDly 1919:Davidbena 1879:Davidbena 1865:Davidbena 1679:Jogesh 69 1654:Jogesh 69 1639:Jogesh 69 1632:Dhindoora 1515:reverting 1316:Fayçal.09 1292:Faycal.09 1278:Fayçal.09 3440:Rosguill 3435:signed, 3431:Quisizyx 3418:Quisizyx 3414:Rosguill 3404:Rosguill 3399:signed, 3369:Quisizyx 3355:Quisizyx 3297:Rosguill 3277:Saflieni 3233:Rosguill 3228:signed, 3204:Onel5969 3196:contribs 3188:Onel5969 3184:unsigned 3103:Rosguill 3098:signed, 3056:Rosguill 3051:signed, 3007:(aka DQ) 2957:Rosguill 2952:signed, 2927:Rosguill 2922:signed, 2874:Rosguill 2869:signed, 2835:Rosguill 2830:signed, 2810:thanks-- 2782:Rosguill 2777:signed, 2752:Rosguill 2741:Rosguill 2736:signed, 2707:Rosguill 2690:Rosguill 2685:signed, 2587:Rosguill 2582:signed, 2561:Rosguill 2550:Rosguill 2545:signed, 2489:Rosguill 2484:signed, 2433:Rosguill 2428:signed, 2383:Sent by 2352:20 years 2347:to vote. 2189:Hog Farm 2087:Rosguill 2082:signed, 1989:article? 1979:Rosguill 1968:Rosguill 1963:signed, 1908:Rosguill 1903:signed, 1853:Rosguill 1836:Rosguill 1831:signed, 1827:Hog Farm 1813:Hog Farm 1788:Rosguill 1783:signed, 1765:Rosguill 1755:Rosguill 1750:signed, 1699:Rosguill 1694:signed, 1667:Rosguill 1662:signed, 1595:Rosguill 1590:signed, 1552:Rosguill 1547:signed, 1488:Rosguill 1483:signed, 1464:contribs 1452:unsigned 1432:Rosguill 1427:signed, 1376:Rosguill 1371:signed, 1362:Fuzheado 1349:Fuzheado 1305:Rosguill 1300:signed, 1257:Rosguill 1252:signed, 1224:Rosguill 1219:signed, 1180:Rosguill 1175:signed, 1128:Rosguill 1123:signed, 1118:WP:THREE 1110:TychéS19 1096:TychéS19 1064:Rosguill 1059:signed, 1055:Saflieni 1042:Saflieni 938:Rosguill 933:signed, 865:Saflieni 851:Saflieni 712:Rosguill 707:signed, 648:Rosguill 643:signed, 562:Rosguill 557:signed, 493:Rosguill 488:signed, 462:Rosguill 457:signed, 381:Rosguill 376:signed, 340:this RFD 312:Rosguill 302:Rosguill 297:signed, 278:contribs 266:unsigned 180:Rosguill 175:signed, 171:Rednikki 158:Rednikki 154:Rosguill 144:Rosguill 139:signed, 135:Rednikki 124:contribs 116:Rednikki 112:unsigned 2912:Doratig 2898:Doratig 2886:Doratig 2865:Doratig 2851:Doratig 2826:Doratig 2812:Doratig 2666:WP:NPOV 2375:Archive 2207:Savidan 2129:deleted 2010:B virus 1999:3. The 1366:WP:BOLD 453:Maveryx 39:archive 3382:WP:GNG 3001:Amanda 2654:WP:GNG 2649:WP:COI 2559:Hello 2064:track. 1658:WP:GNG 1345:WP:AfD 1296:WP:SPI 1114:WP:MOS 814:WP:IUC 672:, and 316:Hums4r 289:Hums4r 270:Hums4r 2662:WP:RS 2308:were 2211:Wangi 2076:, or 1692:Yes. 1586:Atsme 1570:Atsme 1563:Masem 1539:Atsme 1522:Atsme 1511:WP:OR 1171:Imcdc 1157:Imcdc 804:And: 737:Atsme 703:Atsme 687:Atsme 639:Atsme 622:Atsme 392:Spicy 362:Spicy 348:Spicy 16:< 3422:talk 3359:talk 3281:talk 3249:5969 3246:Onel 3192:talk 3133:talk 3119:talk 3085:talk 3071:talk 3037:talk 3029:here 3025:this 2902:talk 2890:talk 2855:talk 2816:talk 2760:talk 2719:talk 2711:page 2674:talk 2569:talk 2531:talk 2504:talk 2480:just 2449:talk 2410:talk 2389:talk 2300:The 2275:Xeno 2249:Xeno 2025:talk 1949:talk 1923:talk 1869:talk 1851:Hi, 1817:Talk 1807:See 1738:here 1720:talk 1683:talk 1643:talk 1609:asem 1460:talk 1421:Done 1401:talk 1391:Can 1353:Talk 1320:talk 1282:talk 1239:talk 1205:talk 1197:this 1161:talk 1100:talk 1046:talk 985:Or: 979:Or: 855:talk 838:to: 585:talk 536:talk 514:talk 478:talk 439:talk 396:talk 372:Done 352:talk 320:talk 274:talk 243:Talk 162:talk 120:talk 3129:JBL 3067:JBL 3033:JBL 2845:Hi 2801:Hi 2639:Hi 1887:for 1505:In 615:G12 417:COI 237:MJL 3424:) 3361:) 3283:) 3224:}} 3218:{{ 3216:, 3214:}} 3208:{{ 3198:) 3194:• 3135:) 3121:) 3087:) 3073:) 3039:) 2904:) 2857:) 2818:) 2775:. 2762:) 2721:) 2676:) 2660:, 2656:, 2571:) 2533:) 2506:) 2451:) 2412:) 2391:) 2273:• 2247:• 2209:• 2205:• 2201:• 2131:. 2080:. 2072:, 2027:) 1925:) 1901:. 1891:to 1871:) 1722:) 1685:) 1660:. 1645:) 1616:) 1605:-- 1578:📧 1575:💬 1530:📧 1527:💬 1466:) 1462:• 1413:, 1403:) 1351:| 1322:) 1284:) 1241:) 1207:) 1163:) 1102:) 1048:) 857:) 745:📧 742:💬 695:📧 692:💬 630:📧 627:💬 587:) 547:, 538:) 516:) 480:) 441:) 430:}} 424:{{ 420:}} 414:{{ 398:) 354:) 322:) 280:) 276:• 164:) 126:) 122:• 64:← 3420:( 3384:. 3357:( 3279:( 3190:( 3131:( 3117:( 3083:( 3069:( 3035:( 2900:( 2888:( 2853:( 2814:( 2758:( 2750:@ 2717:( 2705:@ 2672:( 2567:( 2529:( 2502:( 2447:( 2408:( 2387:( 2060:. 2036:, 2023:( 1951:) 1947:( 1943:– 1921:( 1867:( 1718:( 1681:( 1641:( 1614:t 1612:( 1607:M 1458:( 1399:( 1318:( 1280:( 1237:( 1203:( 1159:( 1098:( 1044:( 876:. 853:( 825:. 583:( 534:( 527:: 523:@ 512:( 502:@ 476:( 437:( 394:( 350:( 318:( 272:( 245:‐ 241:‐ 233:– 217:! 214:~ 160:( 118:( 50:.

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

Index