1067:; you don't have to agree with it, and you can add an edit summary saying that you don't agree with collapsing the thread but that you are doing it temporarily until there's a Consensus to keep it open, or some such if you wish. You are still inexperienced here, even if not exactly new, and it takes a while to get familiar with the numerous guidelines and policies, and so no one expects you to know them all at this point. However, if an editor points out a problem, and you keep on doing it over and over, the slack due a new user evaporates, and what's left is just the impression of a lone wolf going their own way, and everyone else can go to the devil. That is pretty much the image your are projecting; I don't know if you are aware of that. Knowledge is at its core a collaborative enterprise, so that approach will not work.
889:) beat me to it, and I got an edit conflict, but they did just what I would have. Since that edit is their only career edit at Knowledge (at that address, anyway) in case you were inclined to laugh it off as an anon who doesn't know the rules, I came here to let you know that their action in collapsing your comments was entirely correct. Although you've been here over ten years, you have only 150 edits, so I'll give you some newbie slack, and just recommend that at an article Talk page, you stick strictly to the topic of how to improve the article, and avoid discussing other editors, and what their opinions or biases might or might not be. Have a look at
1819:@ScottishFinnishRadish: For all of the above reasons and more, I ask that you to reconsider hatting my discussion. Once the comment is unhated, if you wish, I can clarify why the discussion is relevant today, as Iāve done above. In the same vein, I ask @Valereee to reconsider my indef ban from CMCT on the grounds that repeated deletions of my Slate post and previous Gaslighting post were unwarranted. If anything, the censors should be sanctioned for silencing dissent and quashing discussion. I've already asked @Valereee to reverse the premature closure of the "Gaslighting" discussion, so I will not ask that again.
2749:
1825:, individuals who have attempted to propose such changes have faced backlash and bans. The most recent case was Sennalen, one of the few people with in-depth expertise in this subject area. She was indefinitely banned in what I perceive as an unfair and biased manner under vague accusations of āpushing fringe ideas.ā In reality, her views on CMCT and a couple of other CTOPs she was involved with were the exact opposite of what she was accused of, as succinctly
2568:
850:
1654:
152:
670:
3196:
2987:
1684:
2918:
2869:
1095:
504:
1844:
Not only do they revert well-sourced edits, but they also shut down talk page discussions. When you try to reverse their censorship, they throw the rule book at you, while tolerating far worse behavior from their own circle, including incivility, bad faith aspersions, personal attacks, and user space harassment. How is one supposed to contribute when they revert both your article edits and the talk page posts?
511:. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Knowledge, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Knowledge strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend.
2783:. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Knowledgeās norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Knowledge administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
2949:
likelihood that your idea of what constituted a joke is seriously fucked up, and you should avoid that kind of thing in the future. Alternately, consider that insulting someone and then saying it's "just a joke" has a long, pathetic history, and will works, at most, once. If you do it again you'll be blocked. If it's me doing the blocking, it will be forever. Clear?
1305:. So, your gambit is mistaken, and in fact, since this page is in part about hosting questions and comments about your behavior as a Knowledge editor, you should answer Aquillion's question as it is an appropriate question for another editor to ask, given the circumstances, and this is the appropriate venue to ask it. So, I echo their concern: Is this your only account?
1529:, to get some background on this. You'll see that your edit definitely crossed a line, but, imho, as a new editor, you are due a certain amount of slack, but not an endless amount. I think if this is the last time this happens, you'll be all right. But please don't fall into a habit or pattern of addressing other editors in edit summaries like that, or you'll end up
1889:. I invited you to this talk because you've seen with your own eyes that some of the outlandish accusations leveled against Sennalen were blatantly false. On one hand, you have a user with one minor prior infraction who gets an indef siteban. On the other hand, you have someone like ą¶¢ą¶“ą· who has so many priors that they fill 4 screens on my computer
1996:
a single day in a single discussion. It's a fairly complicated type of editing restriction to assess, but (as I said, from a brief look) NI appeared to be trying to comply. So, no, likely neither an oversight nor a double standard. I can almost guarantee you someone is watching NI's edits looking for a gotcha. But again, not really relevant
2049:. It's always purely to prevent further disruption, and IMO it's always best if we use a block that is the least restrictive possible, which in the case meant blocking from that one single place you were actively disrupting. If it were a punishment we'd be blocking from everything instead of leaving you free to edit 50 million other pages.
1968:, nor do I care to know. I was referring to editors who make their politics blatantly obvious in their comments or in their user spaces. If you want me to name names, Newimpartial is one of the editors for whom the double standard that I was alluding to seems to apply. Newimpartial has a site-wide anti-bludgeon restriction
1634:, with a couple dozen comments indicating a lot of familiarity with that board, and principles in general. Given that, I'm not sure how much more "newbie slack" is due them, but I note from the section below that they've been blocked from one article, so maybe that will be a wake-up call to good effect. I hope so.
2194:, you will end up sanctioned. Just gotta read the room sometimes. As a newer editor, I would suggest adopting an attitude of constant calibration and self-improvement. When an experienced editor tells you something, instead of fighting it, make a change to your approach instead. Hope this helps. Happy editing. ā
1071:
as I have no power to block anybody; it's just a prediction from having seen this play out umpteen times before. It's kind of sad, really, as I think you have things to contribute, but it's like you're driving towards the cliff, and each time somebody yells at you to turn away, you step on the gas instead.
1892:, and yet they walk away scot-free. Letās be straight with each other. I will share details about my alleged other accounts if you explain to me why Sennalen, who has no major priors, deserves a siteban, while ą¶¢ą¶“ą· and the other user walk away without even a slap on the wrist. Where is justice in that?
2948:
as a joke of some kind, but - unless you two have a history of such "banter" - it definitely comes off as you being a rude asshole. At this stage, she will no doubt see what transpired, and can restore it if she wants to. So you will not restore it yourself. If she doesn't restore it, consider the
2087:
Often an admin responding to an unblock request will ping the blocking admin to get their opinion on unblocking, but blocks are lifted by someone else very regularly. AE blocks are a different case; if the blocking admin does not actively give their approval, an appeal has to be made to the community
2041:
is liftable immediately by any admin, so it can literally last five minutes. All you need to do is convince an admin that you've understood the issue and are willing and able to stop the behavior. A timed block, many admins are reluctant to lift. So generally a 1-week block ends up being just that: a
1868:
Nope. You've been here for five minutes, picked one of the most contentious articles in the entire project, and started a fight. I see you still haven't given a straight answer to whether you've had any other accounts, but if you're truly new here and interested in helping write an encyclopedia, find
1807:
In a nutshell, the above is the genesis of all the problems with the current CMCT article and the ongoing disputes about the lede and related issues that have persisted for years. Banning me and @Sennalen will not address the root problem. These discussions will continue, as evidenced by recent posts
1402:
XM, in response to your comment of 10:59, 12 December, I shall interpret that as a straightforward question about issuing me a HUSH warning rather than as a backhanded accusation, so I will answer you. In my humble opinion, a WP:HUSH warning directed at me would not be appropriate and could even hurt
1355:
I'm at a loss to understand this aggressive bravado stance of yours; why not just lighten up, assume the best of other editors, and be ready to collaborate with anyone and everyone to the benefit of the encyclopedia? You seem capable and intelligent; if only you could channel your abilities into just
1278:
Aquillion, by now you ought to know that our purpose here is to engage with the content and not with the creator. I understand the temptation, and in hindsight, Iāve often indulged in the temptation myself, but ideally, whenever we recognize it, we should focus on the content and completely disregard
1070:
Can I just ask what you hope to achieve at
Knowledge? Because whatever it is, if you get yourself blocked, you won't be able to pursue that goal. I've been around long enough to sniff the wind, and I can tell you that you will be blocked soon if you continue on this path. This is in no way a threat,
1056:. There is more, but that is bad enough already. You may not discuss other editors at an article Talk page, so just don't do it, and that means collapsing your thread. Just from the point of view of courtesy, ignoring the view of everyone around you and insisting on having it your own way is not very
346:
While I don't think this most recent canvassing was as egregious as yesterday's was, I am utterly dismayed to see this stretching into a second day. I think that, this time, it might have been legitimate to have pinged
Talpedia, as they were already involved in the thread. The message itself was less
243:
I just want to reiterate the canvassing warning. You can't go to selected article and user Talk pages asking for a specific intervention on another article or page from people you believe to be sympathetic to your POV and who might be foolish enough to edit on your behalf. It is legitimate to leave a
3106:
I wonder how you would feel if your neighbor was a "repeat sex offender"? That sounds awfully close to what you labeled me. And that label is going to show to anybody who checks my contribs. Given this inescapable prejudice, why should I endeavor to contribute anything? Is this what you intended, to
2598:
Just to be clear, edits in
Article space have nothing to do with WP:BLUDGEON. And the expectations for BLPs are that they follow the best sources accurately and with respect to policy, not that they take on the mealey-mouthed voice, overly deferential to the BLP subject's opinion of themselves, that
1995:
The question about NI isn't really relevant here, but from a very brief look, most of those contributions look like copyedits to compliant posts. That is, NI makes a post, then edits it several times over the next couple minutes. A couple of other times, I saw them answer a question in a 3rd post on
1843:
The way I see it, there is a local consensus of ideologically motivated editors who resist and stonewall any attempts to separate CM from CMCT or change the lede away from emphasizing CM=CMCT. They have been emboldened by their success at silencing or demotivating those who challenge the status quo.
1370:
XMcan, you write: "I refer you to my reply above, and feel free to replace 'Aquillion' with 'Mathglot.' Does that suffice,..?" Of course not, and you know it. You are evading and not answering the question, which you must do. Be collaborative. We cannot AGF in you if you are evasive or do not answer
799:
Certainly, your warning might be better received if you were an uninvolved party in the content dispute. However, not only are you involved, but it could be argued that you are one of the instigators of the 'edit war,' as you term it. The page history indicates that the issues began with your sudden
3091:
It was definitely repeated. It was definitely harassment. Calling someone a "pussy" has a sexist connotation whether the target is a man or a woman, but maybe "sexist harassment" is a stretch; I could have gone with "repeated harassment using sexist language", I suppose. That does not seem to be
2164:
shouldn't redirect to CMCT (the main problem with that article IMO); it's just that there are ways to conduct yourself on talk pages that lead to less heat. (I'm by no means perfect; if you look in the archives of the talk there you'll see I got sucked into several useless side-threads where people
2159:
Navelgazing: Sure, that dynamic happens all the time to one extent or another; human nature. (I don't know all the background to
Sennalen's block; I certainly hadn't witnessed anything block-worthy from her, but I'm also not familiar with her edits that the block messaging says the block is for; so
2155:
Ah, pardon me I wasn't aware of the topic ban when I wrote that; apologies. You pinged me in my capacity as an admin: but I must of course recuse myself from acting as an admin in any way related to this article, since I've expressed editorial opinions and been in a behavioral dispute. Also I don't
1448:
Maybe you thought you were being helpful, Mathglot. However, I donāt appreciate you messing with my headers, especially coming on the heels of several rather long and repetitive messages that you left on my Talk in a span of a couple of hours. In good faith, I'll assume that you didn't realize that
291:
It's interesting that you threaten me with the administrator's noticeboard. I was actually thinking of reporting you myself if you continue with this personal harassment campaign, rather than engaging with the substance of my arguments. I'm not afraid of the
Administrator's scrutiny, so stop trying
961:
This will be your final warning, please let's not make this difficult, you're clearly in violation of
Knowledge's policies, and no one here has the authority to act unilaterally against them. The Administrative Incident Notice board is likely to take the fact that you were warned into account when
1971:
that they have been repeatedly breaking without consequence. For example, on
December 12, 2023, they made a total of 15 contributions in the CMCT Talk that they did not mark as minor (although a few appear to be). My understanding is that they are limited to 2 posts per topic per day. I have only
1480:
Congrats, your use of edit summaries with your contributions is over 90 percent, and that's terrific, keep it up! Edit summaries should specify briefly what you changed; my personal view of is that the edit summary should describe why or how your change improved the article (because every change
1074:
I've spent a lot of time and a lot of words trying to help, but I feel like it isn't helping. This is my final attempt to mediate with you and try to get you on the right path; I'll be looking for you in your next edit to undo your revert at Talk:CMct and I hope you do so. As always, feel free to
957:
up again, you will be reported to the
Administrative Incidents Notice Board, as you are using the talk page improperly. The hatnote closure was made so that people could still be led to Sennallen's talk page should they want to discuss the issues raised. You should complete your statements there,
482:
I disagree that you were neutral in the other thread, MrOllie, but thatās not why Iām pinging you with this reply. I am replying to say that on reflection, I want to thank you for bringing up WP:CAN to my attention. Prior to this week, Iāve never posted discussion notices anywhere on WP, and Iāve
453:
Hey DanielRigal, just pinging you to thank you for bringing up WP:CAN to my attention. Prior to this week, Iāve never posted discussion notices anywhere, and Iāve made some rookie mistakes trying to make them sound warm and personal. Iāve learned from my mistakes, and the next time I will use the
421:
OK. It is always sad when a long-standing
Wikipedian goes off the rails but I think that I've done as much as I can to dissuade you from shooting yourself in the foot. If you really think that you are in the right here then proceed as you think best. Please don't say that you weren't warned if it
2189:
was frustrating, I can also read the room. If the regular editors of an article are resisting a change, then I trust that they have their reasons. Sennalen was not good about this at all, and would keep pushing, making hundreds and hundreds of talk page edits even after being told her views were
529:
Hello, I'm XMcan. I'd appreciate an apology for the bogus WP:CAN claims you made against me. Since
Sennalen is part of our ongoing discussion, it can't be considered canvassing by any stretch of imagination. As for Talpedia, even DanielRigal agrees that they are an interested party in the topic.
547:
I was simply notifying S. of your disruptive behavior, not trying to have her do anything, certainly not "target" you. You are the one trying to influence S. to do something, namely close the discussion thread I opened. You closed it earlier but she reverted your closure, so you where trying to
331:
of User to User messages is inappropriate and a form of harassment? If you think I'm in violation of rules, you are welcome to formally open a complaint. I also see that you currently have a dispute open on one of the noticeboards regarding your disruptive behavior. Do you need another one?
565:
Please, just stop the cultural Marxism thing. Sennalen is in partial agreement with you but her methods are far less disruptive. Iām not trying to stop her canvassing or bludgeoning a bad argument because sheās not. You on the other hand will not stop trying to sway users to your side with
2160:
no comment from me about that.) However, I think your style of discussion at CMCT is generally not constructive: for example the vague reference to jimmy disapproving of something 10 years ago as a rhetorical entry to start a whole new section was a bit much. I mean, I agree with you that
1039:
but it is your actions of insisting on your own way in the face of concerted opposition that is disrespectful, contemptuous even. There is no censoring going on, and the policies have already been pointed out to you. Once again, the most basic purpose of an article Talk page is to discuss
1351:
of yours all from 29 November, along with another twenty comments of yours on that page. These comments indicate plenty of familiarity with procedures in corners of the encyclopedia rarely frequented by new editors, lending even more credence to Aquillion's question. Or maybe you're just
530:
Posting a canned harassment notice on my Talk is another form of harassment, especially considering you initiated this by removing my message to Talpedia and subsequently posting a threatening message in my Talk. The diffs speak for themselves. Please stop this inappropriate behavior.
2963:
For the record, F, I didnāt read any of the comments on my Talk until now. That said, I donāt feel bad about anything Iāve said in my prior summaries. I would only feel bad if T or B were offended by something Iāve said. So, until we hear from them, your argument is moot, as is your
1263:, which I assume means you're saying you were previously involved in the (at the time, fairly rancorous) discussions over the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on Knowledge; however, your edit history has only five edits prior to 2022, none of them in that topic area. --
2967:
I do appreciate you standing up for B, which is admirable. However, I think she can stand on her own and speak for herself. Perhaps Iām wrong, but I think she and Teward do share a sense of humor. Perhaps it is wrong of me to assume that I share in their dry wit, too.
766:
Some editors want to maintain that CM and CMCT are one-to-one equivalents (fully interchangeable terms) and that any deviation from this orthodoxy is subversive. This is also the reason why some editors are bending over backwards to argue against the applicability of
368:
Was it neutral of you calling me a troll yesterday? That said, I'm happy to say that your choice of words today is nicer and less "egregiously biased." Keep up the progress, and who knows, maybe by this time next year we'll be sending each other birthday cards.
1060:, and comes off as arrogant and disrespectful, despite your words. I'm at a loss to understand your actions after this was already explained to you more than once. Don't you understand that you are risking a block if you don't rein it in, or don't you care?
2434:
and/or the archives of that page. But since you are still page blocked from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, I would suggest instead that you find some other topic. Continuing disruption around that topic on another article is deeply unwise.
580:
Listen, I completely understand. You have resorted to personal attacks because you were unable to formulate a coherent response to either my arguments or Sennalen's. Bringing your arguments about 'cultural Marxism' to my Talk page only confirms my claim.
1976:
contributions, and even in that limited scope I see a couple of other Talks where they are in breach of their 2 per day limit. How come no one has reported them, yet I get instantly the rule book thrown at me? Is it an oversight or a double standard?
1583:. The collaborative nature of the encyclopedia is paramount, and it's essential that you get on board with that. There's still time to do so, but that time is drawing short. Once again, if you have any questions, please reply below, or try the
1226:
Oh, yesā¦ my tenants are whispering to me: there is a Marxist conspiracy trying to subvert Western culture into believing thatā¦ XMcan is the Emperor of the known worldĀ ;)))) Do bow before me, you lowly peasants!!!! Long live capitalism! š
613:
against me and other editors some admin might decide to extend your block indefinitely. A measly 72 hours is generous considering how stubbornly you insisted on continuing behavior multiple users told you was disruptive and inappropriate.
1481:
must improve the article in some wayāno matter how smallāotherwise you wouldn't have made it, right? Most of your edit summaries are just fine, so keep that going. On the other hand, there was one edit summary which was troubling, namely
823:
I'm sure someone as articulate and erudite as yourself is familiar with the expression: "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." In good faith, I assume you are aware of this expression, which compels me to issue you a
2929:. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Knowledge strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.
1162:
I left you this warning since you expressed that you were unaware of policies prohibiting disruptive and off-topic talk pages. Talk pages are for constructive changes and it is not censorship to remove soapboxing and sockpuppetry.
2022:
Okay, but why an indefinite ban rather than a milder or timed punishment? Also, please see my comments above about Sennalen vs. ą¶¢ą¶“ą·. It certainly seems like some people get off easy while others get the rule book thrown at them.
2618:
Hello friend. When you get a chance, please move your reply at AE to its own section, instead of as a reply to someone else. This is a rule on many of the arbitration pages at Knowledge, for anti-bludgeoning reasons. Thank you.
1910:. I remained neutral on the rest of the conversation. I'm happy to do the same thing for you, or you can pick another checkuser, but now that you have admitted there are details to share you had better share them quickly. ā
1485:
at Talk:CMCT where the entire edit summary was addressed to another editor, calling themin an accusatory way and in a kind of sarcastic or challenging tone. This goes against the purpose of the edit summary, as mentioned at
1840:. There is a common pattern: first, they revert your article edit without a cogent reason, and then when you open a discussion about it, it quickly devolves into incivility and bad-faith aspersions, or other forms of SQS.
1516:: be careful of what you write in edit summaries. Inappropriate edit summaries may be used as evidence against you in behavioral complaints. This applies particularly to uncivil and deliberately misleading edit summaries.
1296:
is a very senior editor (2004), and you can be sure that they are well aware of the role of editors, user talk pages, and article talk pages. You are a new editor, and are still acquiring this knowledge. Your comment to
1109:, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are
2140:
If you choose to do anything else, such as pinging admins to an extended diatribe on your talk page about how you are right and everybody else is wrong, then you can expect either no action or increased sanctions.
2683:
2576:
2312:
B) Dial down the rhetoric. Avoid language that is too provocative. (Nevertheless, questioning the status quo and referencing the Slate article are generally acceptable, despite opposition from a vocal group of
2925:. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Knowledge, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to
1800:
Recently, an adequate and fairly neutral page on 'Cultural Marxism,' which traced the history of Marxist critical theory from LukƔcs to Adorno to Jameson, simply disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single
1033:
Mathglot and IP, I hear you, and I respectfully disagree. If the talk page is not the place to have an open discussion, where is that place? Please cite relevant rules that prohibit this post, or please stop
2302:
A) Acknowledge that bringing up Google SERP and referencing the 2014 Slate article was disruptive. Similarly, questioning the redirect from CM to CMCT is disruptive, as this has already been decided by the
977:
I'm sorry, which policy are you referring to? Secondly, why are you hiding behind an IP? I know you have far more knowledge on a certain subject than an average IP. Why the IP thing? Please enlighten me.
1571:). This is not a good look, and does start to show a pattern of your using reverts as a way of insisting on your point of view, in the face of opposition from more experienced editors (previous example
1403:
you. I have neither restored anything to your user page, nor have I issued false or questionable warnings here. If you decide to issue one anyway, please marshal your evidence, as you will need it; per
314:. Or better yet, donāt, just drop it and accept that itās not going to happen. In any case people criticizing you for your disruptive behavior or reverting your canvassing campaign is not āharassmentā.
1603:
818:. That post could be interpreted as engaging in content war coordination. Simultaneously, it casts aspersions against fellow editors, labeling them 'fringe'āa term loaded with implications.
2215:
1193:
You haven't wronged me, XMcan. Sorry if I am living rent-free in your head. In the future, please try to reflect. Have a good weekend. Let me know if you have any questions or follow-ups.
1356:
improving articles in cooperation with other editors, we could really benefit from your contributions. But if you can't get along with your fellow editors, then, sadly, it will never be.
2004:
As for getting the rule book thrown at you...you were disruptively editing at an extremely contentious talk, including edit-warring and ignoring warnings about FORUM. And I blocked you
2814:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics
1837:
1778:
there. Therefore, I will communicate with you here. I kindly request that only pinged editors leave comments in this section; others can use alternative sections or the CMCT talk.
2467:
That must be some sort of a record! š I donāt want to start a content discussion here; I'm just curious if you've had the time to read and consider the Talk posts explaining it?
992:
A) Using an IP is in many ways less anonymous than registering an account. B) There's no obligation on users to register an account, although that policy is being considered. C)
49:
clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:
1969:
1134:
Hi Andre, we've never met. Not sure what you are referring to, but if it's about my CMCT talk post, rest assured that it will be fleshed out, as I've explained in the post.
1813:
Even though my post and a part of the discussion was hatted by @ScottishFinnishRadish, the discussion continues, and editors like @ErikHaugen do not want it to be shut off.
1430:. Any such pattern would likely be interpreted in the light of your overall behavior pattern, and not just in isolation. In simpler terms: issuing a HUSH warning now could
80:
1890:
566:
non-neutral talk page posts, and will not stop hammering OED like itās some revelation directly from God on this issue. Let it rest and Iāll stop bothering you about it.
1926:
Since you have dodged my questions, I will not fulfill my side of the bargain. Instead, I would like to point out that you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word
3053:
OK, I take back everything I've said, whether dry, wet, or otherwise. I would self-revert my original comment if I could, but that is no longer an option. Best wishes @
1782:
1179:
Itās been a week, and I find myself still drawn to your colored bus icon. Do you still feel that I've wronged you in any way, whether through my comments or otherwise?
924:
Thanks for your comment. In some sense, I'm a newbie; in some sense, I'm an oldie, but none of it pertains to the ANI accusations your refer to. Good luck to you, too.
636:. If you have a dispute with me, there is a proper place and format to litigate such disputes. My Talk page is NOT that place. DO NOT POST here. Doing so is considered
483:
made some rookie mistakes trying to make them sound warm and personal. Iāve learned from my mistakes, and the next time I will use the proper neutral voice and format.
2613:
1950:
Hey, XMcan. Just for clarity, are you saying you believe closing/hatting the talk page discussions and blocking you from the article/talk was ideologically motivated?
2296:
Given the lack of enthusiasm for exploring broader issues, let's wrap up this discussion with a simple poll. What key lesson should I draw from my recent experience?
1775:
1610:
on the same talk page during that ANI. Disappointing that someone who has been told they are editing too aggressively by their peers is still editing aggressively. ā
1319:
I refer you to my reply above, and feel free to replace 'Aquillion' with 'Mathglot.' Does that suffice, or do you think a WP:HUSH warning would be more appropriate?
229:
I think you have me confused with someone else. I reverted one edit, it is true (one which still is not in the article) and was neutral on your other suggestions.
779:, one would expect you to be more circumspect. Please refrain from these behaviors in the future to save us all the hassle of adjudicating this on a noticeboard.
2232:
This feels like potstirring. XM, please either create an unblock request or go do something productive somewhere other than Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.
1028:) in order to expose a discussion that you believe belongs there, although four different editors have told you it does not. In your edit summary, you said:
876:
407:
Are you defending him for deleting a post from another user's Talk page claiming bogus violation? Or are you just harassing me with incessant posts on mine?
1785:, in retrospect, it could have been worded better. However, bringing the article up is not off-topic for many reasons, including but not limited to these:
2214:
I appreciate your advice, Novem Linguae. I'd like to point out that, to the best of my knowledge, CMCT is not designated as a CTOP, at least according to
2070:
I assumed that the person who issued the ban is the only one who can lift it. My mistake. If I had known that, I wouldn't have been working you so hardĀ ;)
551:. It's all in your diffs, you have no leg to stand on. Stop this harassment now, it has gone too far. No one will back you if you continue on this path.
1457:) is an annoyance in itself. I see that you are fluent in many languages, which is wonderful. Just keep in mind that sometimes, fewer words mean more.
45:
It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Knowledge article with little or no alteration, though you
794:
First, Generalrelative, I must commend your writing style in the message above. It's challenging to deliver a warning while maintaining a civil tone.
1418:". Since you have already issued one such warning before, issuing another one now, if viewed by the community as unfounded, could trip the wire of "
3164:
2572:
1793:, along with two other articles that I highly recommend you read, as they highlight the problems with CTOPs and with CM/CMCT article in particular.
854:
2008:(and the article it's attached to, which obviously is also required in such blocks). That's hardly instantly getting the rule book thrown at you.
905:. I see now that you've been taken to ANI, so I'll let it go here, but if you have any questions, feel free to reply below, or you can go to the
161:āleaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or voteāin order to influence
2634:
2494:. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
681:. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
2093:
2186:
1845:
1833:
2218:
that Sennalen brought against Newimpartial. Take a look at that case to see if her experience reminds you of your own frustrating encounter.
1665:
1064:
954:
872:
2716:
2823:
2640:
It looks like somebody has beaten me to it, but I made a slight adjustment to the statement given the changed context. I hope that's okay.
2528:
to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
715:
to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
1256:
1991:
Okay, my question was just clarifying that you weren't saying the closing/hatting themselves, or the block, were ideologically motivated.
1113:
about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the
350:
XMcan. Three editors have told you to step back from canvassing so going after Dronebogus is not going to get you anything other than a
284:. I have contacted three other editors who have been discussing this topic with me recently on a related page; this is also not against
1338:
775:
Article talk pages are not an appropriate place to speculate about the imagined motivations of other editors. Coming on the heals of
628:
Again, Dronebogus, you come to my Talk to level baseless accusations. It is you who have misrepresented my views and cast aspersions
53:
1823:
1814:
761:
629:
437:
281:
265:
248:
was a perfect example of how not to do that. The message was not neutral and the choice of Talk page was only tangentially relevant.
3230:
1790:
1702:
1560:
120:
2165:
kept confronting my personal opinions and I kept trying to rephrase them; I'm trying to make sure that doesn't happen anymore.)
1836:
discussion, I encountered similar issues in my first post to the article about a month ago, where I raised comparable concerns:
185:
2537:
807:
804:
801:
755:
753:
724:
2705:
2741:
2857:
2709:
1008:
963:
886:
354:. While I do accept that you have dialled it back to some extent, I really do think that you need to stop it completely. --
251:
Any more of this and it is going to end up on one of the administrator's noticeboards. Please don't make that necessary. --
113:
3225:
3012:
1713:
93:
2322:
C) Adhere strictly to technical rules, including the maximum number of reverts per time period, under all circumstances.
1677:
938:
I promise, I will establish a connection between the quote and the article. Kindly allow me a day or two for this task.
513:
Canvassing other users to target someone you donāt like via a totally unrelated dispute is exceptionally lousy behavior.
3209:
3000:
2692:
2089:
1973:
1706:
1697:
1572:
1110:
678:
633:
1487:
1906:
My only involvement with Sennalen was to receive her alternate account disclosure and determine whether it violated
1454:
1450:
815:
760:
In addition, I see that your recent comment on the article talk page includes this explicit accusation of bad faith:
166:
2465:
2394:
I don't think this is a good use of time. Please use the established unblock procedure, which involves placing the
2270:
I see, I thought you were referring to me. I also seem to have mixed up AE with ARC in reference to the 2022 case.
2175:
1499:
3175:
may well consider taking away my TPA. This is surely an appropriate punishment for a "repeat sexist harasser."Ā ;)
2470:
2468:
436:
Your concern for my feet is noted. Hopefully, your next post on my page will be an apology for calling me a troll.
393:
complaints against them looks a lot more like actual harassment than anything else going on here. Please don't. --
1673:
1533:. In conclusion, keep up the good work using summaries, but keep an eye on the content, so that it complies with
971:
814:
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that you mention supposed bad faith on my part while, in the same breath, you post
84:
and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.
1850:
1643:
1625:
2720:
2351:
1753:
1106:
837:
788:
549:
545:
386:
329:
215:
Let's note that you also opposed my proposals for the Lindsay page until other senior editors became involved.
3047:
1016:
987:
866:
809:
I only reversed two deletions, not any content, especially not content that had been in place for over a year.
2958:
2701:
2669:
2649:
2279:
2265:
2227:
2209:
743:
273:
260:
196:
only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Knowledge's principle of
1301:" would have been quite right, were this an article Talk page, but it is not. This is a user Talk page, and
1272:
200:-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
3214:
3146:
3130:
3116:
3101:
3005:
2977:
2533:
2499:
2126:
1826:
1729:
1596:
1550:
1128:
1088:
918:
720:
686:
463:
448:
431:
416:
402:
378:
363:
301:
127:(~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of
108:
2180:
2052:
I don't know enough about the Sennalen situation to try to comment, but again it's not really relevant to
649:
623:
604:
590:
575:
560:
539:
341:
323:
140:
2877:
2386:
2156:
think there's really any admin-related thing an admin can do; see Thryduulf's note for the paths forward.
2150:
1862:
1735:
1288:
1102:
276:
on Talk:Ben_Shapiro that you keep reversing is neutral and relevant to the LP, and therefore not against
26:
3086:
3066:
2241:
2105:
2082:
2065:
2032:
2017:
1986:
1959:
1466:
1443:
1365:
1328:
1314:
1236:
1221:
1204:
1188:
1174:
1157:
1143:
947:
933:
193:
2495:
2480:
2459:
2339:
1741:
1669:
1390:
1250:
843:
682:
492:
238:
224:
189:
68:
16:
3204:
2556:
2543:
1939:
1921:
1901:
1880:
1659:
784:
739:
730:
3076:
2882:
2608:
2995:
2736:
2506:, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
2444:
2247:
1692:
1012:
967:
880:
693:, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
2291:
280:. Referring to it as 'tangential' and 'not neutral' reflects your POV, which I question given the
2664:
2629:
2419:
2414:
2260:
2204:
1620:
1568:
1556:
1498:
Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit
1482:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1025:
776:
63:
40:
3243:
3028:
2450:
Thank you, Mr. Ollie. I shall endeavor to interpret your message not as a threat but as advice.
1849:
If my case is not the best example of how this circle operates, take a close look at Sennalen's
523:
2830:
2604:
2529:
2487:
1631:
1334:
1053:
894:
716:
674:
98:
22:
1212:
I have already too many tenants in my big head. Thanks for your concernĀ ;))) Have a good one!
3126:
3097:
3024:
2954:
2431:
1024:
It is very unfortunate that after all this you decided once more to revert at the Talk page (
862:
663:
640:
harassment. I have already asked you several times to stop; consider this your last warning.
427:
398:
359:
347:
egregiously biased towards a specific desired outcome but it certainly wasn't neutral either.
256:
209:
2938:
2911:
1003:
If you want to search Knowledge's policies to become more familiar with them, you can type "
244:
neutral notification on a genuinely closely related article's Talk page. Your canvassing on
3184:
2677:
2374:
2171:
1098:
780:
735:
619:
610:
595:
Take a clue from MrOllie and DanielRigal. They are much more subtle in how they harass me.
571:
519:
319:
157:
3137:
Funny, I think if Tewdar was here to witness all this shit, he would fucking laugh at it.
8:
3239:
2899:
2890:ābecause it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
2819:
2552:
2503:
2425:
2146:
1584:
1538:
1431:
1268:
1076:
1049:
906:
690:
351:
307:
197:
58:
3044:
2926:
2895:
2887:
2842:
2655:
2620:
2405:
2347:
2251:
2237:
2195:
2101:
2061:
2046:
2013:
1955:
1749:
1725:
1639:
1611:
1592:
1564:
1546:
1526:
1439:
1397:
1382:
1361:
1310:
1200:
1170:
1153:
1124:
1114:
1084:
914:
75:
2588:
1798:
Here is the relevant quote from the 2014 Slate article, hardly a right-wing magazine:
2934:
2907:
2891:
2600:
2584:
2440:
1522:
1376:
1302:
1007:" before a policy name or details of a policy in order to try to find a policy page.
234:
205:
136:
128:
88:
2122:
If you have been blocked from a discussion or topic you have exactly three options:
3224:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge's
3168:
3122:
3093:
3072:
3036:
3020:
3011:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge's
2950:
2826:. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the
2732:
2491:
2398:
2161:
1712:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge's
1604:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#XMcan stirring up trouble
858:
423:
394:
355:
252:
245:
162:
2764:
2593:
2525:
2343:
2166:
1911:
1870:
1745:
1580:
1530:
1503:
1423:
1057:
993:
898:
712:
615:
567:
515:
508:
315:
2779:
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as
953:
I'm issuing you this polite courtesy warning that if you open the discussion at
43:, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission.
3235:
3189:
3172:
3039:. I can't discern any wit, dry or otherwise, in the repeated posts on my page.
2548:
2367:
2191:
2142:
1907:
1769:
1537:. Please feel free to reply below if you have questions, or you can ask at the
1404:
1293:
1264:
1045:
890:
825:
749:
637:
178:
310:
for wasting everyoneās time with arguments everyone has addressed and refuted
3158:
3040:
2355:
2233:
2097:
2057:
2009:
1965:
1951:
1774:
I was recently banned from the CMCT page and its Talk section after I opened
1757:
1721:
1635:
1607:
1588:
1542:
1435:
1427:
1416:
unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly
1410:
1357:
1306:
1195:
1165:
1149:
1119:
1080:
910:
902:
285:
277:
145:
3071:
Perhaps itās inappropriate of me to mention this, but how do you feel about
3075:
labeling me as a "repeated sexist harasser" in the site ban justification?
2930:
2922:
2903:
2873:
2862:
2807:
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
2715:
Details regarding appealing a community-imposed topic ban are contained at
2580:
2436:
1576:
1534:
1372:
1341:, which ultimately boomeranged into blocking her, and was surprised to see
1041:
997:
230:
201:
132:
103:
3054:
2728:
1048:, and your fourth edit to insist on exposing off-topic material violates
806:
Finally, you repeated a similar deletion without seeking consensus first.
2748:
2575:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Ā The thread is
2514:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
701:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
3176:
3138:
3108:
3078:
3058:
2969:
2641:
2472:
2451:
2378:
2370:
for their attention, especially to those of you who have left comments.
2363:
2271:
2219:
2074:
2024:
1978:
1931:
1893:
1886:
1854:
1765:
1458:
1320:
1280:
1228:
1213:
1180:
1135:
979:
939:
925:
829:
800:
deletion of an image that had been part of the article for over a year.
641:
596:
582:
552:
531:
484:
455:
440:
408:
370:
333:
293:
269:
216:
2944:
I'll assume for the moment that your post to Bishonen's talk page was
2359:
2246:
I was referring to Sennalen's activity in the covid-19 origins ctop.
2088:
at a noticeboard. I strongly recommend you do not court an AE block.
1761:
857:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
768:
34:
1869:
something else to work on. This article can do without your help. ā
548:
influence her by calling me "annoying, unproductive and disruptive".
2757:
1853:; losing her voice was an even greater loss for this encyclopedia.
1653:
2717:
Knowledge:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community
1808:
from @Novem Linguae, @ErikHaugen, and @Future Perfect at Sunrise.
385:
I would also point out that going after Dronebogus in a way that
3195:
2986:
1683:
1422:" and potentially place you in the position of being liable for
3015:, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:
2894:. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
2561:
1716:, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:
2917:
2868:
2577:
Editor page blocked from one article moving to related article
2524:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
1094:
711:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
503:
272:
attack, and as an experienced editor, you should know better.
1567:, following a previous revert of yours only an hour earlier (
803:
Subsequently, when your deletion was reversed, you persisted.
544:
This my second message to another user you've reverted today.
124:
1040:
improvements to the article. Your actions violate numerous
64:
Frequently asked questions on Knowledge's copyright policy
3217:. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has
2768:. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and
1407:(same page as HUSH), issuing one without clear evidence "
1063:
I strongly advise you to self-revert your last change at
131:
if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! ā
2654:
Works for me. Thanks for the response. Happy editing. ā
2614:
Replying in your own section at arbitration enforcement
748:
Here are the diffs of you reverting to include clearly
2464:
Last time, you reverted my contrib in under 2 minutes.
1148:
You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
871:
I was in the process of collapsing your discussion at
268:
on Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory is a clear
996:
covers some of the policies around IP users, as does
2187:
Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Antisemitism
328:
Do I have to tell you Dronebogus that your deletion
2822:or you may learn more about this contentious topic
2801:
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
2706:
Knowledge:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans
2125:Appeal the decision using the proper process - see
1434:on you. I hope this answers your question. Thanks,
1065:
Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Gaslighting
955:
Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Gaslighting
873:
Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Gaslighting
2876:. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
2682:Per consensus at the administrator's noticeboard (
2519:Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
1838:I. Antisemitism insinuations, II. Contemporary use
706:Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
39:Edits to Knowledge, such as your edit to the page
2794:, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
2774:imply that there are any issues with your editing
1488:Help:Edit summary#What to avoid in edit summaries
1261:a decade since us dinosaurs broached our concerns
2710:Knowledge:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement
1299:engage with the content and not with the creator
3121:Please stop acting like a victim of some kind.
2804:follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
2786:Within contentious topics, editors should edit
2573:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
855:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
2250:has been on my watchlist for a couple years. ā
2094:Knowledge:Contentious_topics/American_politics
1832:@Novem Linguae, as you've experienced in your
1303:comments about user behavior are on-topic here
81:click here to ask a question on your talk page
2686:), the following topic ban has been enacted:
1044:, discussing other editors is a violation of
306:Please do, because you will inevitably get a
119:I hope you enjoy editing Knowledge! Please
2755:You have recently edited a page related to
79:
2536:. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
2490:according to the reverts you have made on
2073:Does the same principle apply to AE bans?
1339:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
723:. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
677:according to the reverts you have made on
74:If you still have questions, there is the
33:remember the essential rule of respecting
2486:You currently appear to be engaged in an
673:You currently appear to be engaged in an
3017:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
2691:XMcan is indefinitely topic banned from
2185:Hey there. While my recent encounter at
1789:The Slate article was already listed in
1781:Regarding my offending post referencing
1718:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
1575:). That's pretty much the definition of
1531:having your editing privileges suspended
1075:reply or ask questions below, or at the
69:Policy and guideline on non-free content
2132:Edit anywhere else on the encyclopaedia
1703:Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
1563:of the discussion I just collapsed per
1561:Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
1555:I was disappointed to see your revert (
184:. Please do not post notices which are
1664:the next time you use talk pages for
177:in distribution and should reflect a
2798:adhere to the purposes of Knowledge;
2540:. If you engage in an edit war, you
1822:@ErikHaugen, regarding your comment
1579:, and is something that can get you
1259:comment you said that it was nearly
727:. If you engage in an edit war, you
3057:āoften mentioned, seldom pingedĀ ;)
2719:. This topic ban will be logged at
2571:There is currently a discussion at
2430:There are many such discussions at
1279:the creator, a.k.a. the messenger.
853:There is currently a discussion at
13:
3194:
2985:
2742:Introduction to contentious topics
2702:Knowledge:Banning policy#Topic ban
2693:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
2331:D) Do something else with my life.
2090:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
1707:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
1682:
679:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
192:or side of a debate, or which are
14:
3255:
2538:request temporary page protection
1602:This editor was recently at ANI (
893:(starting with the nutshell) and
725:request temporary page protection
454:proper neutral voice and format.
3092:your biggest problem right now.
2916:
2867:
2747:
2566:
1652:
1093:
962:issuing any subsequent actions.
897:, and you should also check out
848:
668:
502:
150:
109:How to create your first article
3228:, then submit a request to the
3167:and the current circumstances,
2820:arbitration clerks' noticeboard
2810:refrain from gaming the system.
54:Copying text from other sources
2721:Knowledge:Editing restrictions
2498:with others, to avoid editing
1111:not a general discussion forum
685:with others, to avoid editing
292:to silence and intimidate me.
155:It appears that you have been
1:
3231:Unblock Ticket Request System
2609:22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
2599:some editors seem to prefer.
2420:19:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2303:majority/community/consensus.
2280:00:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2266:21:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2242:20:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2228:19:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2210:23:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2181:22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2151:21:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2106:15:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2092:could easily be classified a
2083:15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2066:17:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2033:17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2018:13:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1987:12:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1960:21:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
1940:13:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1922:12:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1902:12:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1881:21:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
1863:20:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
1791:the Press section of the Talk
1730:11:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1709:) for disruptive editing.
1678:09:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1644:11:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1626:11:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1597:09:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1551:08:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1467:16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1444:19:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1391:18:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1366:11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1329:10:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1315:10:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1289:09:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
1273:07:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
838:23:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
789:20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
744:20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
650:11:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
624:01:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
605:00:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
591:23:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
576:23:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
561:23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
540:22:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
524:21:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
493:11:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
464:11:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
449:23:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
432:20:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
417:20:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
403:20:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
379:20:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
364:20:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
342:19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
324:19:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
302:09:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
261:04:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
239:22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
225:22:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
210:22:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
186:indiscriminately cross-posted
99:The five pillars of Knowledge
2589:22:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
2557:09:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2481:16:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
2460:19:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
2445:19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
2190:fringe. If you do that in a
2127:Knowledge:Dispute resolution
1964:I donāt know your politics,
1701:from editing certain pages (
1237:05:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
1222:04:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
1205:03:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
1189:03:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
1175:21:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1158:19:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1144:05:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1129:04:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1089:07:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1017:07:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
988:03:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
972:03:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
948:04:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
934:03:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
919:03:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
867:19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
387:spuriously seeks to leverage
169:are allowed, they should be
141:15:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
7:
3215:abuse of editing privileges
3006:abuse of editing privileges
3004:from editing Knowledge for
10:
3260:
3107:thoroughly discourage me?
2858:21:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
1449:the sheer volume of text (
188:, which espouse a certain
114:Simplified Manual of Style
3244:22:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3226:guide to appealing blocks
3185:21:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3147:21:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3131:22:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3117:21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3102:20:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3087:20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3067:18:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3048:18:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3029:15:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
3013:guide to appealing blocks
2978:18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
2959:15:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
2939:14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
2912:14:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
2878:your recent contributions
2737:11:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
2670:15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2650:12:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2635:20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2352:Future Perfect at Sunrise
1754:Future Perfect at Sunrise
1714:guide to appealing blocks
1666:inappropriate discussions
123:on talk pages using four
94:Contributing to Knowledge
3180:
3142:
3112:
3082:
3062:
2973:
2818:you may ask them at the
2762:, a topic designated as
2645:
2504:try to reach a consensus
2476:
2455:
2382:
2275:
2248:COVID-19 lab leak theory
2223:
2078:
2028:
1982:
1935:
1930:in my previous comment.
1897:
1858:
1736:Message to pinged admins
1462:
1324:
1284:
1232:
1217:
1184:
1139:
983:
958:where you are free to.
943:
929:
833:
691:try to reach a consensus
645:
600:
586:
556:
535:
488:
459:
444:
412:
374:
337:
297:
220:
2530:appropriate noticeboard
1783:this 2014 Slate article
1662:without further warning
1535:policies and guidelines
1352:extraordinarily astute.
1251:Talk: CMCT: Jimmy Wales
1079:. I wish you the best,
1042:policies and guidelines
844:Talk: CMCT: Gaslighting
717:appropriate noticeboard
41:Philosophy of happiness
17:Philosophy of happiness
3199:
2990:
1687:
1521:Please have a look at
1420:harrassment themselves
773:
439:I have feelings, too.
312:in ways you donāt like
3198:
2989:
2432:Talk:James A. Lindsay
2340:ScottishFinnishRadish
2047:is never a punishment
1742:ScottishFinnishRadish
1686:
1670:ScottishFinnishRadish
1630:Yes, and also at AE,
1500:edit-summary "don'ts"
1371:proper questions. --
909:any time. Good luck!
764:
2695:, broadly construed.
2216:the 2022 ArbCom case
1660:blocked from editing
1103:your contribution(s)
1099:Welcome to Knowledge
609:If you keep casting
266:Calling me a 'troll'
23:welcome to Knowledge
2760:, broadly construed
1539:Knowledge:Help desk
1077:Knowledge:Help desk
907:Knowledge:Help desk
59:Policy on copyright
3200:
3163:Surely, given our
2991:
2927:User talk:Bishonen
2888:User talk:Bishonen
2793:
2789:
2781:contentious topics
2773:
2534:dispute resolution
1688:
1527:Knowledge:Civility
1496:Avoid incivility.
1333:I ended up at the
1101:and thank you for
721:dispute resolution
664:CMCT: Edit warring
104:How to edit a page
27:your contributions
3213:from editing for
3165:prior discussions
2791:
2787:
2771:
2678:Topic ban enacted
2668:
2633:
2418:
2390:
2377:comment added by
2371:
2264:
2208:
2179:
2001:
1624:
1523:Help:Edit summary
1502:of the Knowledge
1409:can be seen as a
1401:
3251:
3018:
2920:
2885:
2871:
2835:
2829:
2751:
2662:
2660:
2627:
2625:
2570:
2569:
2509:Points to note:
2492:James A. Lindsay
2426:James A. Lindsay
2412:
2410:
2403:
2397:
2372:
2337:
2258:
2256:
2202:
2200:
2169:
2162:Cultural Marxism
2135:Leave Knowledge.
2037:XMcan, an indef
1994:
1972:looked at their
1919:
1878:
1719:
1656:
1618:
1616:
1517:
1507:
1428:personal attacks
1421:
1417:
1413:
1395:
1385:
1300:
1211:
1203:
1173:
1127:
1105:. However, as a
1097:
852:
851:
750:disputed content
696:Points to note:
672:
671:
506:
246:Talk:Ben Shapiro
194:selectively sent
167:friendly notices
163:Talk:Ben Shapiro
154:
153:
83:
25:! Thank you for
3259:
3258:
3254:
3253:
3252:
3250:
3249:
3248:
3247:
3246:
3222:
3192:
3161:
3032:
3031:
3016:
3009:
2881:
2865:
2839:
2838:
2833:
2827:
2752:
2744:
2680:
2656:
2621:
2616:
2596:
2567:
2564:
2428:
2406:
2401:
2395:
2294:
2252:
2196:
2054:this discussion
1912:
1871:
1776:this discussion
1738:
1733:
1732:
1717:
1710:
1612:
1512:
1504:Civility policy
1494:
1419:
1415:
1411:personal attack
1408:
1383:
1335:Sennalen thread
1298:
1253:
1209:
1199:
1169:
1123:
1054:WP:Edit warring
1052:and amounts to
895:WP:TALKOFFTOPIC
849:
846:
781:Generalrelative
777:a 72-hour block
736:Generalrelative
669:
666:
151:
148:
19:
12:
11:
5:
3257:
3223:
3220:
3202:You have been
3201:
3193:
3191:
3188:
3160:
3157:
3156:
3155:
3154:
3153:
3152:
3151:
3150:
3149:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3069:
3010:
2993:You have been
2992:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2965:
2880:āspecifically
2864:
2861:
2812:
2811:
2808:
2805:
2802:
2799:
2792:constructively
2775:
2753:
2746:
2745:
2743:
2740:
2727:
2698:
2697:
2684:permanent link
2679:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2615:
2612:
2595:
2592:
2563:
2560:
2522:
2521:
2516:
2484:
2483:
2462:
2427:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2293:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2244:
2183:
2157:
2153:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2133:
2130:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2071:
2050:
2043:
2006:from that talk
2002:
1992:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1885:Quid pro quo,
1827:explained here
1817:
1816:
1810:
1809:
1804:
1803:
1795:
1794:
1737:
1734:
1711:
1690:You have been
1689:
1681:
1651:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1519:
1518:
1509:
1508:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1393:
1368:
1353:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1224:
1160:
1037:
1036:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1009:14.202.188.111
1001:
964:14.202.188.111
951:
950:
936:
877:14.202.188.111
845:
842:
841:
840:
821:
819:
812:
810:
797:
795:
709:
708:
703:
665:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
593:
542:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
451:
422:goes badly. --
383:
382:
381:
348:
289:
249:
147:
144:
121:sign your name
117:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
72:
71:
66:
61:
56:
18:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3256:
3245:
3241:
3237:
3233:
3232:
3227:
3221:been revoked.
3218:
3216:
3212:
3211:
3207:
3206:
3197:
3187:
3186:
3182:
3178:
3174:
3170:
3166:
3148:
3144:
3140:
3136:
3132:
3128:
3124:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3114:
3110:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3099:
3095:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3084:
3080:
3077:
3074:
3070:
3068:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3052:
3051:
3049:
3046:
3042:
3038:
3034:
3033:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3014:
3007:
3003:
3002:
2998:
2997:
2988:
2979:
2975:
2971:
2966:
2962:
2961:
2960:
2956:
2952:
2947:
2943:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2936:
2932:
2928:
2924:
2919:
2914:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2889:
2884:
2879:
2875:
2870:
2860:
2859:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2851:
2848:
2845:
2837:
2832:
2831:Ctopics/aware
2825:
2821:
2817:
2809:
2806:
2803:
2800:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2784:
2782:
2777:
2769:
2767:
2766:
2761:
2759:
2750:
2739:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2724:
2722:
2718:
2713:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2696:
2694:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2685:
2671:
2666:
2661:
2659:
2658:Novem Linguae
2653:
2652:
2651:
2647:
2643:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2631:
2626:
2624:
2623:Novem Linguae
2611:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2591:
2590:
2586:
2582:
2578:
2574:
2559:
2558:
2554:
2550:
2547:
2546:from editing.
2545:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2520:
2517:
2515:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2507:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2471:
2469:
2466:
2463:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2442:
2438:
2433:
2421:
2416:
2411:
2409:
2408:Novem Linguae
2400:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2348:Novem Linguae
2345:
2341:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2262:
2257:
2255:
2254:Novem Linguae
2249:
2245:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2206:
2201:
2199:
2198:Novem Linguae
2193:
2188:
2184:
2182:
2177:
2173:
2168:
2163:
2158:
2154:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2139:
2134:
2131:
2128:
2124:
2123:
2121:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1993:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1975:
1970:
1967:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1920:
1918:
1917:
1909:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1888:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1876:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1847:
1846:
1841:
1839:
1835:
1830:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1806:
1805:
1802:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1784:
1779:
1777:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1750:Novem Linguae
1747:
1743:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1715:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1694:
1685:
1680:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1661:
1655:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1622:
1617:
1615:
1614:Novem Linguae
1609:
1606:), and broke
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1541:. Good luck!
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1515:
1511:
1510:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:, bullet #5:
1489:
1484:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1412:
1406:
1399:
1398:edit conflict
1394:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1378:
1374:
1369:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:contributions
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1255:I noticed in
1238:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1161:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1072:
1068:
1066:
1061:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1027:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
999:
995:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
976:
975:
974:
973:
969:
965:
959:
956:
949:
945:
941:
937:
935:
931:
927:
923:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
885:
882:
878:
874:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
839:
835:
831:
827:
822:
820:
817:
813:
811:
808:
805:
802:
798:
796:
793:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
772:
770:
763:
762:
758:
756:
754:
751:
746:
745:
741:
737:
734:
733:from editing.
732:
726:
722:
718:
714:
707:
704:
702:
699:
698:
697:
694:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
626:
625:
621:
617:
612:
611:WP:ASPERSIONS
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
594:
592:
588:
584:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
543:
541:
537:
533:
528:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
514:
510:
505:
494:
490:
486:
481:
465:
461:
457:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
339:
335:
330:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
290:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
263:
262:
258:
254:
250:
247:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
190:point of view
187:
183:
182:point of view
181:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
159:
143:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
86:
85:
82:
78:, or you can
77:
70:
67:
65:
62:
60:
57:
55:
52:
51:
50:
48:
44:
42:
36:
32:
28:
24:
3229:
3210:indefinitely
3208:
3203:
3162:
3001:indefinitely
2999:
2994:
2945:
2915:
2866:
2852:
2849:
2846:
2843:
2841:
2840:
2815:
2813:
2785:
2780:
2778:
2763:
2756:
2754:
2725:
2714:
2700:Please read
2699:
2690:
2681:
2657:
2622:
2617:
2601:Newimpartial
2597:
2594:Restrictions
2579:. Thank you.
2565:
2541:
2523:
2518:
2513:
2508:
2500:disruptively
2485:
2429:
2407:
2373:āĀ Preceding
2336:
2295:
2253:
2197:
2053:
2039:of this type
2038:
2005:
1997:
1927:
1915:
1913:
1874:
1872:
1848:
1842:
1834:Antisemitism
1831:
1821:
1818:
1799:
1780:
1773:
1739:
1698:indefinitely
1696:
1691:
1658:
1650:
1613:
1585:WP:Help desk
1577:edit-warring
1554:
1520:
1513:
1495:
1479:
1381:
1380:
1260:
1254:
1194:
1164:
1118:
1107:general rule
1092:
1073:
1069:
1062:
1050:WP:CONSENSUS
1038:
1032:
1023:
1004:
960:
952:
883:
870:
847:
774:
765:
759:
747:
728:
710:
705:
700:
695:
687:disruptively
667:
512:
501:
390:
352:WP:Boomerang
311:
308:wp:BOOMERANG
179:
174:
170:
156:
149:
129:my talk page
118:
89:Introduction
73:
46:
38:
30:
20:
3159:TPA revoke
3123:Floquenbeam
3094:Floquenbeam
3073:Floquenbeam
3037:Floquenbeam
3021:Floquenbeam
2951:Floquenbeam
2921:Hello, I'm
2872:Hello, I'm
2836:template.
2765:contentious
2496:collaborate
2404:template. ā
1657:You may be
1565:WP:NOTFORUM
1426:for making
859:DanielRigal
683:collaborate
507:Hello, I'm
424:DanielRigal
395:DanielRigal
356:DanielRigal
253:DanielRigal
175:nonpartisan
29:; however,
21:Hello, and
2902:. Thanks.
2816:procedures
2344:ErikHaugen
2338:Thanks to
2167:ErikHaugen
2042:full week.
1746:ErikHaugen
1455:textwall_2
1451:textwall_1
1117:. Thanks.
1034:censoring.
1005:WIKIPEDIA:
616:Dronebogus
568:Dronebogus
516:Dronebogus
509:Dronebogus
389:the other
316:Dronebogus
282:Ad hominem
270:Ad hominem
158:canvassing
146:Talk: CMCT
35:copyrights
3236:Abecedare
3190:June 2024
3173:Thryduulf
2900:Help desk
2883:this edit
2863:June 2024
2788:carefully
2549:Viriditas
2526:talk page
2502:, and to
2368:Thryduulf
2313:editors).
2143:Thryduulf
1770:Thryduulf
1432:boomerang
1424:sanctions
1294:Aquillion
1265:Aquillion
828:warning.
769:MOS:FIRST
713:talk page
689:, and to
391:unrelated
198:consensus
3041:Bishonen
3035:Thanks,
2946:intended
2896:Teahouse
2758:COVID-19
2532:or seek
2488:edit war
2387:contribs
2375:unsigned
2356:Valereee
2292:Epilogue
2234:Valereee
2176:contribs
2098:Valereee
2058:Valereee
2045:A block
2010:Valereee
1966:Valereee
1952:Valereee
1928:alleged
1758:Valereee
1722:Valereee
1636:Mathglot
1589:Mathglot
1543:Mathglot
1483:this one
1436:Mathglot
1358:Mathglot
1307:Mathglot
1150:Sennalen
1115:Teahouse
1081:Mathglot
1058:WP:CIVIL
994:WP:HUMAN
911:Mathglot
899:WP:CIVIL
887:contribs
719:or seek
675:edit war
165:. While
76:Teahouse
3205:blocked
2996:blocked
2931:Ternera
2923:Ternera
2904:Ternera
2898:or the
2892:sandbox
2874:Ternera
2726:Regards
2581:MrOllie
2544:blocked
2542:may be
2437:MrOllie
2399:Unblock
2192:WP:CTOP
1974:last 50
1908:WP:SOCK
1851:AE case
1801:editor.
1693:blocked
1581:blocked
1514:Warning
1414:" and "
1405:WP:AOHA
1384:PING me
1373:Valjean
1046:WP:TALK
891:WP:TALK
826:WP:HUSH
731:blocked
729:may be
638:WP:HUSH
274:My post
231:MrOllie
202:MrOllie
180:neutral
171:limited
133:Diannaa
3055:Tewdar
2729:Daniel
2366:, and
1608:WP:3RR
903:WP:NPA
875:, but
286:WP:CAN
278:WP:CAN
125:tildes
31:please
3177:XMcan
3139:XMcan
3109:XMcan
3079:XMcan
3059:XMcan
2970:XMcan
2770:does
2642:XMcan
2473:XMcan
2452:XMcan
2379:XMcan
2364:Bradv
2272:XMcan
2220:XMcan
2075:XMcan
2025:XMcan
1979:XMcan
1932:XMcan
1894:XMcan
1887:bradv
1855:XMcan
1766:Bradv
1740:To: @
1559:) at
1459:XMcan
1349:there
1343:these
1321:XMcan
1281:XMcan
1229:XMcan
1214:XMcan
1196:Andre
1181:XMcan
1166:Andre
1136:XMcan
1120:Andre
998:WP:IP
980:XMcan
940:XMcan
926:XMcan
830:XMcan
642:XMcan
597:XMcan
583:XMcan
553:XMcan
532:XMcan
485:XMcan
456:XMcan
441:XMcan
409:XMcan
371:XMcan
334:XMcan
294:XMcan
217:XMcan
3240:talk
3219:also
3181:talk
3171:and
3169:Doug
3143:talk
3127:talk
3113:talk
3098:talk
3083:talk
3063:talk
3045:tƄlk
3025:talk
3008:.
2974:talk
2964:ban.
2955:talk
2935:talk
2908:talk
2853:Path
2824:here
2790:and
2733:talk
2708:and
2665:talk
2646:talk
2630:talk
2605:talk
2585:talk
2553:talk
2477:talk
2456:talk
2441:talk
2415:talk
2383:talk
2360:JPxG
2276:talk
2261:talk
2238:talk
2224:talk
2205:talk
2172:talk
2147:talk
2102:talk
2079:talk
2062:talk
2029:talk
2014:talk
1998:here
1983:talk
1956:talk
1936:talk
1914:brad
1898:talk
1873:brad
1859:talk
1762:JPxG
1726:talk
1705:and
1674:talk
1640:talk
1632:here
1621:talk
1593:talk
1573:here
1569:diff
1557:diff
1547:talk
1525:and
1463:talk
1440:talk
1377:talk
1362:talk
1325:talk
1311:talk
1285:talk
1269:talk
1257:this
1233:talk
1218:talk
1185:talk
1154:talk
1140:talk
1085:talk
1026:diff
1013:talk
984:talk
968:talk
944:talk
930:talk
915:talk
901:and
881:talk
863:talk
834:talk
816:this
785:talk
740:talk
646:talk
634:here
632:and
630:here
620:talk
601:talk
587:talk
572:talk
557:talk
536:talk
520:talk
489:talk
460:talk
445:talk
428:talk
413:talk
399:talk
375:talk
360:talk
338:talk
320:talk
298:talk
257:talk
235:talk
221:talk
206:talk
173:and
137:talk
3234:.
3019:.
2886:to
2850:hed
2847:nis
2844:Tar
2772:not
2712:.
2562:ANI
1768:, @
1764:, @
1760:, @
1756:, @
1752:, @
1748:, @
1744:, @
1720:.
1668:.
1379:) (
1337:at
757:.
47:can
3242:)
3183:)
3145:)
3129:)
3115:)
3100:)
3085:)
3065:)
3050:.
3043:|
3027:)
2976:)
2957:)
2937:)
2910:)
2834:}}
2828:{{
2776:.
2735:)
2723:.
2704:,
2648:)
2607:)
2587:)
2555:)
2479:)
2458:)
2443:)
2402:}}
2396:{{
2389:)
2385:ā¢
2362:,
2358:,
2354:,
2350:,
2346:,
2342:,
2278:)
2240:)
2226:)
2174:|
2149:)
2104:)
2096:.
2081:)
2064:)
2056:.
2031:)
2016:)
1985:)
1958:)
1938:)
1900:)
1861:)
1829:.
1728:)
1676:)
1642:)
1595:)
1587:.
1549:)
1465:)
1453:,
1442:)
1389:)
1364:)
1327:)
1313:)
1287:)
1271:)
1235:)
1220:)
1210::)
1201:š
1187:)
1171:š
1156:)
1142:)
1125:š
1087:)
1015:)
986:)
970:)
946:)
932:)
917:)
865:)
836:)
787:)
752::
742:)
648:)
622:)
603:)
589:)
574:)
559:)
538:)
522:)
491:)
462:)
447:)
430:)
415:)
401:)
377:)
362:)
340:)
322:)
300:)
259:)
237:)
223:)
208:)
139:)
37:.
3238:(
3179:(
3141:(
3125:(
3111:(
3096:(
3081:(
3061:(
3023:(
2972:(
2953:(
2933:(
2906:(
2731:(
2667:)
2663:(
2644:(
2632:)
2628:(
2619:ā
2603:(
2583:(
2551:(
2475:(
2454:(
2439:(
2417:)
2413:(
2381:(
2274:(
2263:)
2259:(
2236:(
2222:(
2207:)
2203:(
2178:)
2170:(
2145:(
2129:.
2100:(
2077:(
2060:(
2027:(
2012:(
2000:.
1981:(
1954:(
1934:(
1916:v
1896:(
1875:v
1857:(
1724:(
1672:(
1638:(
1623:)
1619:(
1591:(
1545:(
1506:.
1461:(
1438:(
1400:)
1396:(
1375:(
1360:(
1323:(
1309:(
1297:"
1283:(
1267:(
1231:(
1216:(
1183:(
1152:(
1138:(
1083:(
1011:(
1000:.
982:(
966:(
942:(
928:(
913:(
884:Ā·
879:(
861:(
832:(
783:(
771:.
738:(
644:(
618:(
599:(
585:(
570:(
555:(
534:(
518:(
487:(
458:(
443:(
426:(
411:(
397:(
373:(
358:(
336:(
318:(
296:(
288:.
255:(
233:(
219:(
204:(
135:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.