User talk:Activist

3424:

much interest for what I feel is such a major public issue, or to explore its complexity. To date, the big players in the prison hustles there have yet to have their names broached. The US AG for MS has said there will be more forthcoming indictments. I haven't been curious enough to check and see who are the four corporations which didn't want their responses to the court released, save under seal, and the MS press hasn't yet looked in that obvious direction. But those four corporations that did the vast majority of business with Epps have a long history of corruption, though none of them have ever been criminally prosecuted for it. Even PACER isn't going to tell us about things that have yet to be charged...who might be guilty and who might not. One, Cornell, has been out of business for six years so I expect the statute of limitations has expired for its execs. It never got prosecuted for laundering campaign contributions in Alaska, 15 years ago, for paying off the mayor of Richmond, VA, around the same time, etc., though some of its partners in crime were and the payments were disclosed in courtrooms. If Epps indeed got at least $ 1.47 million (probably more) and there seems to be no dispute about that bottom number, he couldn't have gotten that kind of money from the collection of bit players who have been indicted to date. Also that dough was split with McCrory, who has asked to change his guilty plea for the better part of a year. It's only going to take a single one of those unsentenced defendants to say, "Yes, I gave the money to McCrory with the understanding that I would get X or Y with no competition if I played ball, or no contract if I didn't. Since the payments were carefully structured by and probably between both Epps and McCrory, to conceal disclosure from the IRS, the conspiracy between them shouldn't be difficult at all to prove to a jury. I'm no legal scholar, but I think if a prosecutor can prove that A & B conspired to do X or Y, and that B & C did so as well, that C could be prosecuted for A's actions, even without personal knowledge of the particulars. In my very limited knowledge, the OPI or FBI take very unkindly to an informant or defendant reneging on a deal; so McCrory it would seem, has abandoned a choice of between going to jail for a set long period, or alternatively, gambling on either going free or going forever. Maybe he's holding out to renegotiate the deal. I've thought about looking at PACER to see whom is requesting their disclosure to be under seal, but since it would be a primary source, it wouldn't be appropriate for adding to the article's content, unless I misunderstand the conventions. I'll see if I can think of or discover a previous similar case, perhaps ABSCAM or Watergate, or something, to see how they were handled here. It might be easier than I'd imagined. I'm really tight on time with a bunch of different and important personal projects that I've been engaged in, so it's hard for me to find devote the time to Knowledge that that some articles deserve, but I'll try to find some way to do it. I'm not conversant about how to assemble a table, for instance, to graphically show the variables that would allow any reader to more quickly grasp the scope of the issue. If you'd like, I can run some ideas past you. Thanks again for your interest.

824:" statute under which their cases (and some others in the Polar Pen scandal) had been brought. Anyway, I went to the Bobrick changes, expecting the worst, and I found I didn't disagree with the changes the editor made. They seems to be nothing like those of the two (unless there had been just one, w/a sock puppet) who were adamant about shoehorning their unrelated, obviously personal grievances and poorly sourced edits into the article despite at least one of them having a COI plus their inappropriate and possibly libelous edits not being remotely related to the subject of the article. If the new editor can provide sourcing for his or her edit regarding Bobrick, I think they could restore as much as can be verified by reliable sources. I was unaware of the 52 (or any) letters of reference to the judge in Bobrick's case, but that might be hard to establish, given that the court record itself is insufficient as a primary source. I'll drop that editor a note on his or her talk page. I don't think legitimate contributions should be discouraged, and I think that edit was indeed germane to the context of the broader investigation. The Bobrick material also I think helps establish some missing balance or gives a broader perspective to the case. All the defendants were certainly not equally culpable by a long shot, but a wide net had been cast (and some fairly odious creatures slipped through) that snared some minor players. Lastly, thanks for catching the out of date tense reference to the then-anticipated sentencing of Stevens that never happened, given the inquiry which eventually voided the seven Stevens' convictions. Again, thanks for your vigilance. This has been a thorny mess and your input is greatly appreciated and respected. 6891:

of the article's subject. It certainly wasn't my intent to shame anyone, and all I did was post their photos as board members and identified them. I didn't even read their articles. I only recently became aware of Stavridis because I happened to see him when he was on C-Span's Book TV a couple of weeks ago talking about his most recent work and he was quite critical of Trump. The presence of those officers and ambassadors on that board of the only for-profit corporation holding detainee children speaks for itself. It was never claimed by anyone that their membership was generated by the possession of any expertise in dealing with migrants or asylum seekers. The inappropriate location of the facility on a military base and its initial operation dates back to the Obama administration. Except for being aware of Kelly and Richard Armitage, I had not been familiar with any of the histories of the remaining eight. Kathleen Martin's article had no photograph accompanying it, so I found her official Navy portrait which is in the public domain and posted it to both her article and the Homestead article. Many aspects of Kelly's post-military career behavior, as is evident from his Knowledge article, have been widely questioned prior to, during and subsequent to his termination from the Trump administration. I hope to have the time later today to edit down textual material and to break the remaining info into more appropriate sections. I note that 16 other named editors and 4 IP editors have contributed to the article this year, excluding bots. It was created by Megalibrarygirl last year who added 13 edits at that time. I'm hardly responsible for its structure and everything in it.

6405:

Trump mentioned him in a joined pair of tweets, but probably hadn't the faintest notion of who he is. The tweets went viral and half a dozen or so citations referenced the pair of tweets, though they presented no other content and least some were from an AP story though with different URLs, that were otherwise identical. So I presumed the WP rules had changed, somehow, since my original Watkins article was deleted. Since Watkins is running for reelection and has been heavily covered in recent news, and his only opponent has a rather extensive resume, I expect the article about her would be supported. She provoked a firestorm of controversy and incurred substantial employer wrath when she initiated an investigation of bipartisan inappropriate behavior involving exploitation of student legislative interns, though she was not one of those so treated. She has considerable political experience in Kansas, including being the chief of staff for the House Minority Leader, was the spokesperson for two successive governors, and had lost a previous closely contested legislative primary to the eventual incumbent. (The sort of credentials that got Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway articles) Had she been elected the mayor of a town of 25 people, I expect there would be less resistance to inclusion. Hodgson has considerable private and non-profit sector experience. I'm hoping we can achieve some consistency with this AfD. Meanwhile, the Watkins article has been regularly scrubbed, admittedly, by the article's subject and by his campaign manager and chief of staff (someone tagged it), and twice this week by an IP editor posting from England.

3698:

endemic in the for-profit prison industry as you're aware from the "Polar Pen"/"Alaska Political Corruption Probe." This case, if the FBI prosecutes the big players involved who have yet to be indicted, could be the cause of significant changes in criminal justice policy. The state has said that $ 80 million a year in contracts are suspect. The DOJ has already given notice in the last month it's going to be pulling back from using CCA, GEO and MTC. Cornell (think Bill Allen, Tom Anderson & Bill Weimar) was involved with Epps and his bagman for at least three years before it was sold to GEO. So you may be aware of the impact this sort of investigation may have. CCA, the Alaska provider in AZ from 1996 until 2009 is very involved. GEO, which got Weimar's halfway houses is as well, and Cornell was the provider in Hudson, Colorado when Joe Schmidt took the contract to Cornell. That prison probably wouldn't have been built if they weren't assured of the Alaska contract before they purchased the land. The MS scandal already caused former state legislators to be indicted and we're waiting for about four more indictments to come down. I suspect that GEO and CCA, plus MTC, are three of the four corporations that have tried to bargain with the judge to keep their information secret. That's because the amounts of the bribes identified so far simply couldn't have come from these smaller subcontractors. I believe we're waiting for the other shoe to drop on some very deep pockets. All four of the MS prison operators have been associated with corruption, but none have ever been criminally prosecuted, anywhere.

5727:"Power's" comment gave food for thought. I didn't know who any of those four candidates were. I thought I might have heard of Cisneros, but I may have been thinking of Henry Cisneros. Gil is clearly notable if nothing but his amazing charitable work were considered, and his going back to college after becoming immense wealthy compared to the average Californian. His opponent in the race is rather remarkable as well, though she's served in the state legislature, but more so because she beat an incumbent, then lost to the same defeated incumbent in the next election. Those sort of flips convey notability in their own right. I had to look up the other three situations that "Power" cited. I'm surprised that I've never heard of Eastman, as her situation has obviously drawn heavy national attention. I've heard of the situation that Harris has been involved in, because it has drawn national attention. But the other two are more remarkable. Ocasio-Cortez has attracted immense coverage and I've seen her dozens of times on the tube, much more than those who are entitled a "personality" in the absence of any actual lifetime accomplishment, and though they've never done anything notable, except to appear on television. But the last is the most interesting. Cutler is someone who should have had an article long ago, and yet his candidacy alone seems to have caused some editors to think that running for office in itself should be disqualifying, instead of augmenting. That's 8908:

Wikilinked. I don't know why you didn't see fit to remove that. I copied you about Marks and didn't hear back so I gathered you weren't interested, not realizing that you wouldn't get my earlier notice. You also removed Andrew Olson's first name (I'm not looking at it but I think I've got it correct) who was briefly identified as treasurer, but not identified otherwise by first name. I thought that was odd, in particular since you've been a reporter. I asked you if my using the old cite format was prohibited, and of course, it's not. I've used it since I started editing in 2006 and no one has ever objected or even mentioned it before. I'm hugely and urgently busy at the moment, so I can't get into discussing much more. I did wonder what was propelling you and saw that you have long had a stellar reputation on Knowledge and that you've run as a Democrat, so that left me scratching my head. It would be difficult to make Santos look worse than he actually is, a product of his bizarre behavior over the years. I'll try to break away to respond more but I don't think I'll be able to take care of that non-WP situation today. I only came to Knowledge to see if anyone had updated it to reflect Dick Groat's death at 92 y.o., as many occasional WP readers rush to be the first to post such events and mangle them about half the time as I'm guessing you've noticed. I expect I'll be able to write tomorrow. Maybe you could check on Groat's article. Thanks.

916:

and Bill W. and Frank P. turned their attention to where they thought they had better action: In Wrangell, where Robin Taylor was involved, and Whittier, where the mayor, the city administrator (for a "city" of 182 people), and the harbormaster all had their fingers in the pie. I don't think the schemers ever wanted to build in Whittier, where there's no labor force, the tunnel problem, tsunamis, avalanche and probably a potential Superfund problem, but it was the mechanism they were using to get the state to change the law to favor their various schemes. If they were able to do that, they could have built anywhere. Knowles wasn't going for it, as were many legislators who gave it the fish eye. In addition to the above grifters, Jerry Ward, Loren Leman and Eldon Mulder were also looking to score big with Cornell or whomever. Frank M. wasn't enthusiastic about the various Cornell/Prewitt/Weimar schemes that included Sitka, Nome (!), and Mat Su as well as those others. There was some talk about Fairbanks, too, but legislators such as Bud Fate put the kibosh on that notion. Uncle Ted got the dough, almost, for the Gravina bridge, but Coburn put a stop to it.

2670:

radar (when that concerned county sheriff blew the whistle to the AG or FBI) because of other things Chris had been habitually doing that gave rise to strong suspicions that he was a crook. The whole issue is terribly complex, of course, involving so many entities and individuals, and I'd hoped to lay it out so any naive reader with an interest could understand it. What do you think of the article, as far as that goes? This year, I've been wondering if other sheriffs or county officials might be involved in quids pro quo, or whatever, and now I guess we'll probably see that happening. I do wonder how many prosecutions have been lost, though, due to delays that have exceeded statutes of limitations? Cornell execs had a long history of corruption, for instance, but I'm guessing they're pretty much off the hook, unless there are some secret indictments out there. A reporter friend who has been covering this for some time ventured early last year that Epps had probably worn a wire for months before his original indictment had been made public. I also wonder if Sparkman's name is ever going to be brought up? Thanks for your current and future input.

8834:

rather than keeping readers in the dark. Marks had raised a substantial amount of money, seven figures, for Santos and I can't imagine that Marks has found the attention he has focused on her to be welcomed. It also was hardly the first time she'd come to the attention of the somewhat torpid FEC. There are plenty of references regarding her bailing as his treasurer three months ago. His comment about her should stay as it exemplifies his unwillingness to take any responsibility for his own behavior. We don't have any obligation to make the subject of articles look better. I know that Ted Bundy was a Rockefeller presidential convention delegate, but, after all, there was that "heavy on the negative" dismemberment issue. I never looked at the Il Bucco article section. Santos/Devolder had many declarations of supposed $ 199.99 charges to the point that they're statistically laughable. Marks has also had a problem with that sort of thing in other campaigns she's handled, though with Santos/Devolder, it was way off the charts. I think this might draw some attention to old Zeldin filings. Is there any guidance that the old cite format

7523:, I'm gong to have to devote considerable time to Springee's latest accusations, but I would note that this is not a question of differences of opinion about edits, though he would like it to be seen as that. It's that he has a chronic habit of contentiousness with other editors and their work which is essentially, on political (or to a lesser extent, vehicular) articles, of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT He has stalked me, going from article to article, erasing edits sometimes new, but often that I've made to articles over many, many years which sometimes thousands of other editors have read and have had no problem with them. The first time he's looked at them is when he's been in a dispute over another political article I've edited, erases many hours of work, slashing through them in a few seconds, and claiming his are legitimate differences of opinion. He's Wikilawyered me and many others to WikiDeath in some cases, where editors have simply abandoned their involvement in the encyclopedia due to his intentional abrasiveness and lack of good faith. I note that of his last 1,000 edits, that 3358:

considerable divide on the political issues involved in the occupation, between Walden and the Governor and the four others in the Oregon congressional delegation. I'm guessing that his district encompasses the vast bulk, maybe 75% of the low-population eastern and southern parts of the state. It's almost entirely rural, save for Bend, Medford and Grants Pass. I'm not sure if Ashland is part of it. He's the only Republican in the delegation, with four House members and Merkley and Wyden. I was going to go back and clean it up some more, incorporating more of your edits such as the expanded Wikilinks, but when I started to review the article from the top, I noticed that the "leadership" section had Finicum's residence wrong, and I went off to check that from a number of sources before returning to correct it. By then you had written to me, though I was unaware. I think in the future, if I'm going to expand an edit summary with a direction to a TALK page, I'll open up two windows so that I can do them simultaneously and not repeat the problem I caused. Thanks for the heads up.

773:

court (pay) site, the Alaska Department of Law, rather than referring to specific documents. It would be next to impossible to locate materials that ostensibly substantiate the claims and allegations the poster has inserted into the article. More importantly, perhaps, is that the perseverating poster(s?) seems to be on a vendetta against individuals and organizations that have literally nothing to do with the article in question, the AK probe. In my frustration I finally at one point referred to it as "graffiti." Responses to my efforts have been numerous reverts and personal attacks on myself and others including persons with whom I am not familiar. If you have a moment to look at the TALK page and tell me what you, as a dispassionate person, think should be done , I would greatly appreciate it. I should add that this weekend I reverted a brief comment, word salad really, on another, wholly unrelated page (regarding the estate of "H.C.", if you look at my contributions), because the poster obviously had serious mental problems.

3574:

them to contractors with little or no oversight. Walnut Grove and East Mississippi had to be up there on the top of anyone's "dysfunctional" U.S. prison list, with Wilkinson not far behind. They were lawsuit magnets. I haven't heard anything about Marshall, no matter who was running it. I was aware of the problems at Delta, which became vacant for some time. LeFlore county might be using it now for a jail. Tallahatchie has always held out-of-state prisoners and I remember it rioting in July 2004. I don't even know who owns them all, but I expect that they may have been built with bond scams engineered by out of state speculators. Adams County certainly was, with Haley Barbour using Katrina relief money to get it built. I suspect the corruption goes well beyond what we've seen, though I think Ronnie Musgrove was honest. I personally don't know much about Angola, save for watching documentaries, though I was very familiar with Jena, which started when

3625:, you state "when I heard he got indicted I decided that he needed to have an article. That kind of fall from grace would be covered in reliable sources and Knowledge needs to have records of that." Um, this "need" would be because it's recent news? What about all the falls from grace which occurred and were covered by reliable sources prior to Knowledge's existence which we've willfully ignored? I'm having a hard time as of late justifying all the time I've devoted to this project. Treating what's supposed to be an encyclopedia as a constant dumping ground for today's headlines and/or trending topics ranks at or near the top of the reasons why. Why do we have categories for state cabinet secretaries when those categories appear to be used primarily as a means to puff up articles on media celebrities? I thought their purpose was to collect articles based upon a defining element of the subject's notability, unless I'm misinterpreting 1093:

include, where, why, and what the references are. Then there will likely be a bunch of disagreements and caveats. That's life. But it's how to make an article. You might have noticed, if you went through the history of the GEO article, that if it weren't for me and one or two other editors, the entire "controversies" would probably have been wiped in the wake of the stupid FAU stadium scandal. And the reason, had that happened, would not have been because anything in there was false, it would have been because the sources were shitty or missing, the writing was sloppy, and maybe most importantly, the content in there had not been justified as "controversial". So I argued that, rather than diffusing the section into the history section, we should find better sources and rewrite most of the section. So we, mostly I, did that. The article is still not very good, but it's better now than before.

1435:

quakes. I will change the wording to reflect that, and see what you think. The number of quakes recorded by seismograph (43) is irrelevant, because the sentence is about those large enough to be felt by humans. Every frac job generates many small seismic events, detectable only by sensitive instrumentation. As to the the total number of earthquakes in Oklahoma, if any of them had been both associated with a frac'ed well, and felt by a human at the surface, that fact would have been no doubt studied and reported in great detail, as was this instance in your provided reference, because such events are so rare. So other than the Garvin County well, The increase in seismic activity in Oklahoma, as is the case elsewhere, is presumably associated with disposal wells reinjecting the produced brine, which is where the real problem lies. Regards,

6930:

County), and it's quite ignorant for a more rational state like Colorado. But hope springs eternal in the human heart. If some of those voters die of the disease, maybe their kin will take a better look at him. As far as Biggs is concerned, those eastern Maricopa voters were the same ones who kept "Sheriff Joe" in office for so long, even though they paid many millions to settle a deluge of legitimate cases brought against him. I appreciate your efforts and will take a look at ZZ and see how the issue might have better staying power. He (?} has not changed my two restorations of his 20 reverts. Let me suggest that these votes might be seen in the future as were those ignorant and cowardly votes to endorse the groundless invasion of Iraq in October 2002 that have cost millions their lives and trillions paid by the U.S. taxpayers.

6075:

three sentences about Ivey's action, from which I'd paraphrased, except for the quoted remark, which I obviously couldn't change, taken from the pre-existing citation. When I reverted it, just as you had twice with the Rhoda material, with me using and quoting you exactly, the same rationale that you used to restore the Rhoda material on 17 May, you reverted it a second time and demanded consensus be sought. How could the situation be any less "different?" I am reminded of Lewis Carroll. "The contemptuous Humpty Dumpty, sitting up on his wall, said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more, nothing less." Somewhat perplexed by this, Alice said, "The question is whether you can make words mean different things." "The question is," barked Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

1103:

you try to convince other editors besides me, on my talk page, that that's a good source. Again, I probably wouldn't have an objection, but the conversation should be had. You might also look at the sources I put on the talk page. And wikipedia doesn't necessarily run on the precedent of other articles; it would be hard to evolve that way. Just because the article for private prisons cites all kinds of left-leaning media and aclu stuff, doesn't mean anything for another article. That's because groups of editors achieve consensus about specific articles they work on, and one article could have completely different approaches than another, and both could still be within WP policy. The relevant policy that was frequently brought up in the context of wiping the controversies section, not using certain types of sources, etc., was

6994:

his or her edits and found that the edits were okay, but one of his numerous sources he gave for the edit was crappy, from Daily Kos. The rest, however, were solid, and they were redundant. I expect you erased them because you were previously trying to save Biggs from his own boneheaded positions. That's not our task. The poster with the sock(s?) should have been barred permanently, obviously, though I expect he or she just got a new user name, but the posts about AGW and Biggs were legitimate. I hope you can better explain your behavior. I'd be looking forward to seeing that. Unless Biggs has reversed his "flat earther" position about climate disruption, I'll see if that warrants posting to his article. I'm having a bit of trouble with my PC, so be patient if I don't get back to you right away.

1028:

is common among those who change jobs that he would not involve himself those issues in which he had been involved as Commissioner of Administration. That expired a decade ago and so there have been no restrictions on his representation since. Your personal feelings about Duncan, whatever they are, don't permit you to shoehorn your opinions about him or others into an article on another subject entirely. The statement by the AG's office about revisiting an opinion had absolutely nothing to do with Duncan. If you need a forum to air your ancient grievances about someone who had nothing to do with the subject of this page in any way, you need to remove them to another more appropriate venue. You've been informed by numerous editors that you need to abide by Knowledge policies, including avoiding

1083:

motherjones and whether or not it should be used as a source and where, because that is really a matter for a community discussion. What we're talking about here is encyclopedia articles, their content, and the references for that content. You were trying to use the motherjones article as a reference that a particular facility exists. That, as I said, is pointless. Instead I used "some GEO Group corporate boiler plate"; of course I did, because that's the easiest reference to use for a trivial fact. What is not trivial is WHETHER that fact belongs in the article. This was the relevant discussion to have, which I had, with Niteshift on the talk page, while you were busy composing a summary of geopolitics for me. The Reeves facility is now mentioned in the article in case you hadn't noticed.

3874:

descriptor) found in searches, the years contracts started, etc. I can't use the WP app (TW?) to check since I'm the writer. Thanks for your concerns, patience and diligence. I share them. Also, many stories about these issues derive directly from press releases, especially from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, so numerous reporters, as before, have written almost the same thing since they're getting it from the same source and often have limited text available to them in their papers. I did draw from other text I'd written in associated articles, but I can't plagiarize myself. If I'm writing about three different prisons with the same set of circumstances, they can't be written that differently (I did about 95% of the edits on the new

8474:) As has been happening frequently when you post to articles, your sentence here doesn't make any sense. I've recommended that you get a program that translates what you want to write from Polish to English, and I've also suggested that when you do edit, that you pay attention to the words highlighted in red that may tell you when you're not conforming to basic English rules of grammar. You may also get such notification if you've made errors in citations again, and you can try to correct them before you publish. You are also not allowed to publish your opinion but you can only post text that's supported by the citations. If you can't manage to do that, I expect we'll have to go to a noticeboard which could result in sanctions against you. 5436:. His talk page has 13 archives at this point. Nothing is "scrubbed", deleted or hidden. It's all preserved. That simply hasn't been set up on the GEO article. There is a link to the archive on the talk page, just like there is in every other article that has an archive. You are edit warring over a normal housekeeping function. I'd also like to appeal to you one last time to stop making your allegation that I am editing on behalf pf the company. It's ridiculous. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I was actively editing many types of articles before I ever touched one about GEO and that I continue being very active over a broad range of topics. It's clearly false and I'd ask that you stop making the allegation. 7450:

support.) He uses bogus BRD claims to whitewash article after article, slashing through laboriously well-sourced material. He's not engaged in dispassionate discussion. He's enforcing a one-man topic ban on me as he tries to protect right wing politicians from documentation of their worst, notable behavior. I'll take it to Talk and go to a noticeboard. I've been pressed for time, so haven't done so sooner. I'm sick of this. It violates the spirit of Knowledge. His behavior should not be allowed. He has a track record and I'll document it. Please note that I've not had any problem on this article, though experienced editor and administrator MelanieN and I discussed and quickly resolved an issue.

7919:

have an absolute right to challenge any edits by any editor on any grounds you might conjecture. I've noted in the past, after reviewing your most recent 1,000 edits, that you have spent up to 18% of your time on Noticeboards, which leads to an obvious conclusion regarding your assumption of good faith. I wonder how many editors who make high volume edits at a rate similar to yours and spend any time remotely approaching the amount of time you spend arguing? I would also point out that you have canvassed other editors to join you in your behavior, and even solicited at least one other editor requesting that they make an edit to my work that you were restricted from making yourself.

3066:] I had first searched the list for "paid," but not COI and when I didn't get any hits, I made my submission. You are soliciting a third panelist. I'd be happy to join you. I was going to prepare some slides that make a case for more effective COI blocking by corporate content controllers/IPNs and paid editors who have not been blocked under their current Knowledge identities. If you would be okay with me joining you, I can withdraw my separate proposal and if there are any other editors who have indicated an interest in my proposal, I'd ping them to note the fusion of the proposals. At present, one community editor has exhibited an interest in your proposal. Thanks. 6008:

walk record was set by her en route to her breaking the 5,000 meter record. Her high school record-setting range is quite remarkable: From the one-mile walk to 10,000 meters, over six times as far. That she could set a record one day in the steeple, sit in a car for 11-12 hours at least, and then break a U.S. Junior walk record the next day, is extraordinary. She lowered that walk record by over three minutes in international competition a few months later. I can think of very few track athletes with that sort of range, and being competitive at racewalking and running are extremely rare. With regard to range, because he was such a unique competitor,

680:

operated within the same theater, at times likely at cross purposes with each other. It's confounded more by relatively crude attempts to cover up political initiatives and their history (i.e., Ollie North's night of shredding tens of thousands of documents), to more use of more sophisticated covers, to use of "back channels" (such as the Heritage Foundation) for expressing support, or through use of personal connections to achieve goals (i.e. developed through mutual participation in programs at the "School of the Americas" involving such actors as SOA graduate Colonel Francisco Luis Gordillo Martinez, who was a prime participant in the '82 coup ).

4850:

actually thought I'd previously deleted my comments. I'm a bit ill with some kind of crud, so am a bit spacey. When I returned to the ANI discussion, I realized I hadn't deleted what I'd intended, per that advice, so I hit "save." Then when I went back to review some of the comments that others had left, I saw the notice that comments had been left on my TALK page. Now that I've read them, I realize that I should restore them per NeilN's advice and will do so in a moment. So, if it is indeed self damage, the damage has been done, unfortunately. At least I've gotten a bit of education in the process. Thanks to you both for your input.

231:

else's eyes will have to acknowledge when reading the reports or watching the videos? If you need to defend or praise Breitbart, "you should probably go somewhere else to" do it. Knowledge's definition of the word "controversy" is Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction," from contra – "against" – and vertere – to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against." The title of the section is not mine but is of long standing on the Breitbart page.

1508:

old changes show the new title in your contribution history. You may also be aware that the KS authorities ordered cutbacks in injection well pressures and volumes last March. Austin Holland, the state geologist who was reluctantly admitting despite industry pressure that OK injection wells were inducing significant seismicity was pushed out of his position and now works for the USGS in NM. Sandridge, recently delisted from the NYSE and under huge financial pressure, refused to abide by the OK Corporation Commission orders to cut back on disposal in some injection wells. I am not aware of any OK quakes in the MMS: -->

1061:

internal, dead, or missing. This does not mean that there is anything necessarily wrong with the original story; it could be investigative, the sources could be anonymous, etc. But it does mean, in the view of this editor, that it is not an encyclopedia source. For instance, your motherjones link you're pushing on the GEO article is turning up next to nothing. Nevertheless I'm keeping track of a few leads that may be able to make their way into the article in some relevant form. Speaking of this, I'm going to take the rest of this issue to the talk page at the GEO article, where most of this should be voiced anyway.

3741:

if you were interested in doing an article on, when we discussed it. I'm sorry you're feeling a bit burned out because you'd done a lot of very solid encyclopedic work on your state. You referred me years ago to North or South Baranof, so I guess that editor has as well. I brought the Nageak article up to date yesterday and I was surprised to see Begich's name being bandied about for the general election. I expect that's a trial balloon. That is pretty wild, and I guess you could have a five way competitive general election Senate race. That might be a first anywhere though it might also guarantee Lisa reelection.

6872:"shelter" and not a single one gave the impression that it was a good idea or not violative of standards. Of those seven flag rank officers, the only one with whom I'm familiar is Kelly, whose judgment, an opinion available to any reader that could be entirely assessed on the content of Knowledge articles, seems to have been wanting. Kelly, according to his WP article and many other sources, has vigorously promoted some of the very policies that created intentional family separation as a deterrent to asylum seekers fleeing from the horrific, well-documented violence and climate disruption-generated diaspora in 9380: 4960:

predominated in that classification back in the '30, '40s and '50s. The mess stewards were also mostly non-white in those eras, particularly Filipinos and other Asian-Americans. Again, see Alex Haley. I knew Bill Hudson, a retired USCG Commander, later a very good, six-term state legislator, who served with him as they both rose through the ranks. I expect that the City of Healy, which recently became the seat of Denali Borough, was probably named after Michael, though I've never seen it referenced anywhere. Thank you for your thoughts about my brother.

885:

silly as all of this about Jim Duncan and Donn Liston. First Bank is the lineal descendant of the First National Bank of Ketchikan. Both of Eileen Van Wyhe's grandparents were rival bankers is Ketchikan; her paternal grandfather, Frank M. Murkowski, was with the same First National Bank of Ketchikan, while her maternal grandfather, Lester Gore, was with the Miners & Merchants Bank. Could it be that the bank felt that she had experiences and perspective which could serve the bank well? It could very well have been cronyism and/or favoritism, too.

1401:

neighborhood "fine drinking establishment" and not contracting an STD than you would in getting any resolution or satisfaction out of that monstrous trollfest, populated by editors who constantly throw up the AGF shield as they tell you that they're merely improving the encyclopedia, all the while making countless edits which amount to little more than unabashed damage control and/or puffery. Just a friendly warning in the event you haven't been following it. It's the same principle behind not responding right away to your concerns about

7843:. Activist, I see it was two years ago that I warned you to stop accusing Springee, without evidence, of having a conflict of interest. Now you are accusing them of partisan editing, which is not quite as bad (you would have been blocked if you had continued the COI accusations), but is still an accusation. Here's how it should work: base your comments on the merits of the edit or removal. Argue on the article talk page why the material should be included, not on what you allege to be the motives of the other editor. The rule here is: 1450:

seem to give the location of the quake with respect to the fracked well, so apparently they do not know if it occurred in the near vicinity. Without correlation of both time and location, the authors did not draw conclusions. As the Knowledge article says, there are 3 “known” instances of fracked wells triggering earthquakes; those that are not regarded by experts in the field as having some probability of causation are, I think by definition, not “known”. One can speculate that there have been more, but only three are known.

1133:

understandably guarding his territory (and who, of course, is of a particular political disposition), and he needs to be convinced of the legitimacy of edits. Nothing extremely surprising here. You said "I want to insert content that legitimately and importantly reflects on the actuality of GEO's operation." What is it? I ask again, what is that content? Don't talk about it here, and don't talk about it on my talk page, put it on the GEO talk page, right now, if you think it's important. There we'll discuss it, not here.

9387: 9373: 6854:

including image overkill and the fact that they are only tangentially relevant; but in the end, they seem to be an attempt to stack the deck, to shame these people. That, we cannot have. Knowledge is not a place for editors to shame people--if they deserve to be shamed, according to secondary sources, our articles should reflect what secondary sources say, and it should be done in proper neutral fashion. I seriously urge you to reconsider various things I signaled in that article. Thanks,

4647: 546:" in that one report. It appears to me that Supreme Court appointments are being timed (more like stalled) so that new members face retention four or five years after being initially appointed. To me, this flaunts the constitutional intent of having the justices face their first retention after three years. Having pro tem justices such as Matthews occupy the vacant seat for lengthy periods of time would also appear to flaunt the constitutional intent of retiring judges at age 70. 812:

not fight the charges. The only other defendant whose indictment surprised me by his or her involvement was Bruce Weyhrauch, who was in my opinion, a pretty decent guy, a good legislator, who did not appear to have any larcenous or corrupt tendencies. Weyhrauch, an attorney, in fact challenged his indictment on technical grounds, took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. I didn't agree with the SC's ruling in the case, which was associated with a couple of real scoundrels,

9395: 2390: 2429: 6718: 5558:, where you will read “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, 8937: 8533: 6828: 4767: 10359: 10311: 9987: 9939: 9891: 9582: 9236: 9081: 9033: 6218: 1950: 1659: 8003:. This woman at 25 years old has a resume that is already longer than Schwab's. A substantial part of his WP article, half its citations, are about his young son's horrific decapitation. On the other hand, she's been a Fullbright teaching assistant, former Chief of Staff to the Student Government at WSU, current President of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, Miss Butler County, Miss Black and Gold, dancer, former Policy Intern with Michelle Obama, etc., etc. 8637: 6342: 5603: 9286: 2473: 2168:, which I would highly recommend if you haven't already read it. Manly drew numerous cartoons in the style of newspaper editorial cartoons. Some of them are dated, such as Bob Palmer lecturing on how moving the capital to Willow will make it easier for the Delta-area barley farmers to come and beg for their state subsidies, framed as "bison migration". The section entitled "Corruption in Government" is accompanied by a cartoon of Dankworth as " 7577: 7374: 6752: 5119: 3091: 2945: 1204: 6533:

I would have been more than willing to hear your concerns (as I have demonstrated with other editors on many occasions). Because you have defamed me, I am not even interested in your concerns. I would ask that you self-revert your comments within 24 hours. Also, I would urge you to take a look at yourself and ask whether you harbor prejudices against Christians and/or conservatives that are affecting your view of me and my editing.

471:, but I'm pretty experienced here, and can probably help you figure out the best way to deal with disputes and conflicts, if that would be of any use to you in the future. Just drop me a note on my talk, if some problem should arise that you're puzzled over how to handle. For the short-term, though, I've temporarily placed this talk page on my "watch list", so I won't miss any reply you might like to make immediately below. Cheers, 10247: 10039: 9507: 9133: 5295: 4366: 1842: 7260:

hounding I will take you to ANI. I've kept the subject to only the specific edits you are making, not your edit warring, failure to follow BRD and NOCON as well as your talk page comments that attack me personally rather than address the issues with your edits. I am 100% open to discussing the issues with the edits but the personal attacks and off topic comments about me on article and noticeboard talk pages need to stop.

3460:, at 3,000 or so characters, little more than a stub, though I did considerable research on it. I can't even remember what the third was. I'll have to figure out again how to create a page. The FBI named the criminal behavior/prosecution, the "Mississippi Hustle," if I recall correctly, so that might be a good name for the second article about the substance of the case, though I think you or I can probably do better. 7528:

latest forays. It's very Unwikpedian, in my estimation, and his somewhat unique behavior should not be tolerated. I'll respond to his latest accusations on the newest noticeboard. I'm hugely busy and have had Internet connection problems, but I intend to deal with this and hope to stop it once and for all. It is not at all in the spirit of the encyclopedia. Thank you for your interest and your long term involvement.

6400:

narrowly won a heavily contested primary against better known, though far less well-funded opponents. An AfD was started and some deletionist editor from England who showed zero understanding of U.S. politics and had contributed little of any import to the encyclopedia erased it. A new article, not of my creation, was back on not long afterward. Based on that experience, I protested the inclusion of an article about

9636: 8364: 4262: 2058:(talk page stalker) Things wouldn't likely go well for Activist at either. He's been stubbornly edit warring and violating BLP guidelines over his insistence on keeping the content in addition to citing unreliable sources. He hasn't even exercised BRD on the article talk page. Folliwing BLP guidelines/policy and exercising the 'D' portion of BRD should be his first actions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 1053:(investigative journalism) or opinion pieces and hence not appropriate as references for encyclopedia articles, especially controversial ones. If there is a fact that is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article, it should probably have a secondary source at least somewhere in the news media, or at least an official primary source (like a court document or something). I'm sure I don't have to remind you about 6651: 7241:

they're from Alaskan and nationwide print and broadcast sources. Now I see that you've reverted my text once again and in doing so so you've erased numerous other corrections I'd tediously edited throughout the article. You are claiming that "other editors" have agreed with you about the legitimacy of your savaging the article (as well as others). That's also not true: It's vandalism, pure and simple and

4226: 2139:, in which I had to leave his specific ethnicity blank. I actually met Jerry's mother once, back around 1992 or thereabouts, but all I really know about her is that she's from Nenana. That doesn't necessarily help with identifying his ethnicity; between its longstanding role as the intersecting point between transportation networks and its former role as the headquarters of the 8510:) I'd meant it to be included in a new section, and had written the comment, but before I posted it got called away for hours. When I returned I saw that you had changed the article and didn't have any problems with your changes, and just hit "Publish," rather than changing my intended note. I hope I didn't aggravate you and that certainly wasn't my intent and apologize if I did. 6914:

itself isn't newsworthy and your insertion suggests a bias in pointing it out". I don't do much editing on Knowledge so I'm not sure how the standard of this site should be applied in this situation, and I see that you reverted the changes by @ZimZalaBim for two reps. Can this info be added to the pages of the 38 other no votes? Any insights you can share would be appreciated.

7934:

good content (absent the puffery) if added to an article about the actual elections in Kansas. It's not ok in a BLP where it implies wrong doing. Restoring the challenged material we not the right thing to do. I'll give it a bit of time to see if anyone else weighs in. If not I will remove it again. Perhaps you could start a BLPN or NPOVN discussion to get more input.

5478:, Thanks! I noticed that another IP graffiti artist has been vandalizing the Butch Otter article, though an editor has so far fairly quickly reverted all the obvious though onerous posts. Is there another administrator you might suggest who could deal with making those articles available only to autoconfirmed users? The other issue can surely wait. Safe travels and happy 7226:, articles where you erased well-sourced edits about notable votes in House floors by those two congressman alone, then you followed me to the Don Young article, the first time you'd ever made an edit to it, though I'd made about 60 edits to it over the last 8 1/2 years. You slashed my well sourced-edits and then, though you had been similarly absent there, diff at: 1012:

sounds good to me. Obviously 223-03-0342 is a quid -pro -quo as it were, and clearly the Department of Law suggests revisit of such ethics problems may take a different direction in the courts.(As documented in AG opinion.) The sex for job hiring policies under Duncan's stipulation that replaced the merit system the state is supposed to have, another quid-pro-quo.

1486:

Like yourself, I was always intrigued by the Manitou Cliff Dwellings, since I had never known of Anasazi ruins so far east. After I found out that the site was built around 1904, I paid my way into the place; nothing at the site informs you that it is recently constructed. I suspect that most visitors go away thinking that it is a genuine ancient site. Regards

490:

Breitbart thing where I think I was sandbagged. I didn't have time to deal with the undos, but I think the material was finally added by others through the consensus process. The book thing was blatant self-promotion done by the son-in-law of the author and the book was written to exonerate himself for having been paid for wearing a wire on his co-conspirators.

8096:]. I don't think I have interacted with Activist in many months. The article is on my watch list and I think the material I reversed (minus one part which I noted later) fails IMPARTIAL. Additionally, the source Truthout is not reliable. Finally, I see no talk page comments which effectively means a new edit was restored based on an accusation of stalking. 1589:, meaning that while it doesn't appear in the article, it does appear in certain envrionments which are tied into persondata (the page I linked to describes it better than I ever could). Honestly, if it weren't for the fact that I've seen his name in one or another news story in the past two years, I wouldn't have known any better whether or not he had died. 3823:

line at a News source. Can't remember the website, though. I found an article about a deceased Inupiat friend, who went to UAF on the GI Bill after being on a WWII ski detachment. He retired as a railroad worker and was a ivory carver and whaler and lay anthropologist. I just now looked at a narwhale he did many years ago, the only piece of his that I own.

7545:] I'm seeing a common issue with trying to coatrack negative material about politicians into articles. The writing style is, as another editor put it, conspiratorial rather than encyclopedic. Unfortunately you aren't hearing the concerns of others and turn to accusations of bad faith and restoring text without consensus. That's a problem. 2746:

involved with that, but I don't know if there's any firm connection between the two. Also, are you claiming that Ward is pushing Cruz? Nothing about this election would surprise me anymore, but that doesn't sound right considering the story states "Trump staffers were in touch with Alaska's Trump campaign chair, Jerry Ward".

2273:. Thanks for catching that. I believe that as I was working on the infobox, you corrected the citation. I might have also copy-pasted wikitext from multiple versions of the page. When I saved the changes to the infobox that overwrote the citation fix. In other words, that reintroduced an old mistake. Good thing to be aware of. 1629:, Mildred Banfield and Mildred Meiers Hansen. Bringing this back around to the previous discussion, I believe Kim Metcalfe purchased the legislative reporting service founded by Hansen. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's in business anymore, as it appears that the Bradner brothers have that field pretty well locked up. 462:

from unbiased. And of course, as I see you've discovered as I read your talk page, you've had a couple of "tangles" with other editors already. I think you've handled them as well as could be expected, but if you ever feel like you need any advice or counsel or whatever, to know how to deal with a problem, I'd be glad to help.

4315:. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! 1294:

requested sourcing in response to other editors' comments. Your complaints here are in my opinion, tendentious. It's particularly ironic, given your own history of pervasive involvement in edit wars where you have simply apparently tried to wear down other editors and preserve your own extremely partisan view of history.

2695:. That's definitely an Athabaskan vest he's wearing, but I don't recognize anything about the design which would point to a specific ethnicity or "tribe". But what's up with all these taniks wearing kuspuks, anyway? And is that a bolo tie I see Tuckerman wearing? Does he think he's Joe Vogler now or something? 1601:

Patrice. Atwood and DeArmond lists the same, except they say that Patrice is actually Patricia, and they added Kathleen. That means that four children are missing from the listing. I'm guessing that Vern Metcalfe was long gone from the public eye by 1977, so that information may not have been so easy to obtain.

7502:, I'm happy to discuss any of the edits in question but I think Activist needs to understand that WP:NOCON is policy. If Activist add new content and that content is challenged then they need to get consensus before restoring the material. They should NOT if they haven't tried to address the issue. 8833:

the FEC section. So the reader who fails to read beyond those three sections or who skips the fourth would likely have no idea who "Marks" is. You've been a professional reporter, and I would expect you to understand that. You could have left my edit, and deleted the second mention of her first name,

8271:

did a nice job of condensing the new Rittenhouse material in part by culling it down to the essential facts. You are welcome to disagree. The proper venue for that disagreement is on the talk page where Sal already started a section explaining why the material as in the article should be cut down.

8115:

Hey there, just wanted to acknowledge your email. It's true I haven't edited in 9 years on this account but I'm perfectly fine, nothing happened. Just kind of drifted to new projects and things. I've made a few edits here and there as an IP when im looking something up and notice an issue, but im not

8006:

Schwab took almost a year to settle a case that had final orders seven months before he took office, and then he whined about it and tried to besmirch the reputation of a prestigious century-old American institution, complaining they were only in it for the money, because they were compensated to the

7823:

as if they are going to restore my edits (an accusation you seem to make in the above link). I've pinged them due to your continued personal attacks on the talk pages. It's not that hard. You are welcome to come to my talk page and tell me you think my edits are full of it and you think I'm biased

7527:

have been posts to noticeboards. By raising at times completely baseless objections, he has essentially tried to enforce a one-man topic ban on my editing of political articles. He's canvassed other editors after often quite civil discussions or disagreements I've had with them to recruit to back his

6853:

My problem with your edits was that they were so clearly UNDUE in assigning blame IN THE ARTICLE, and your talk page comments made clear that you had a point of view that informed those edits. That's even aside from the matter of the pictures, which IMO violate some other policies/guidelines as well,

6590:

I haven't made any false statements, and I've sent you proof of the veracity of a number of my contentions that you claimed had no merit. Despite that, I've made you a very reasonable offer to remove what I'd written if you reciprocate with your demonstrably false accusations against me, and back off

6532:

As I stated on the talk page to the Susan Wagle article, Knowledge article talk pages are not fora for attacks against other editors. Regardless of whether I am the target or someone else is, I object to your conduct. If you had come to me with concerns about my edits in an honest, good-faith manner,

6517:

Your speculation that I edited the naturism page because I have a problem with "naughty bits" is just weird. (If you think that is the true reason for my edits to the Naturism page, how do you account for the fact that I did not remove a single image depicting genitalia?) What I really have a problem

6404:

who is running for Attorney General in Kentucky. It was argued he should be included because he had been on the University of Louisville football team, had worked for a couple of private law firms whose websites provide most of the material in the article, and he was African-American. Then, President

6007:

Thanks for your review. The reason she is notable is not only because she's a remarkable racewalker, but also a steeplechaser and cross country runner. Her American Junior racewalk record was set when she was 3 1/2 years younger than the age limit for setting such records. Her high school 3,000 meter

5731:

in my estimation. Thanks to both of you for the comments. I went back and looked at the PFD situation with Watkins. It requires that recipients attest that they're going to remain Alaska residents intend to remain in the state. But he stopped applying two years ago, so the sentence should go and I'll

4998:

Coincidentally, we had visitors from Alaska come to visit with us on Thursday, p.m., March 23rd, and they were both very aware of Healy. One knew that the most recently launched icebreaker was named for him. If a new report I read recently is correct, it is the only currently serving U.S. icebreaker,

4849:

I read the comments left by Jytog, intended to remove mine per Jytog's advice, highlighting them, but got distracted and started reading the articles to which Jytog referred, including "Advocacy," and "ToU," (which I didn't know what it meant and spent some time eventually finding and reading it) and

3659:

The kind of news such as a politician getting into a major scandal is not "just recent news" that's no big deal. It's something important in the state's political history. Epps had a reputation as a "reformer" (something I knew about before the scandal hit). He was the only black man who was the head

3489:

Okay, I reviewed similar articles and save for ABSCAM, they are called "Operation etc." with the "House" name of the particular one. I'll see if i can figure out how I can set up a diversion to assist anyone searching without the proper name to get there. I'll delete all that now-extraneous material

3288:

You seem to have honed your peculiar editing to a fine edge. Three edits savage in eight minutes, undoing hours of careful work, including the time it took to make extensive repairs to your prior insufficient edits, require some deliberation and reserve. I took the time to do that. So then with a bit

2745:

ancestry, but I wouldn't want to just assume that to be the case. In the Caswell area, there's a turnoff at around mile 86 of the Parks (pretty close to Sheep Creek Lodge) which leads back to a rather extensive series of subdivisions. I do know that his family's real estate business has been heavily

2740:

He's in the center of the first photo, about the only one in that shot not wearing a kuspuk. One of the commenters made a remark about "his fake Caswell tribe". Caswell was recognized as a village entity in ANCSA, but it's unclear to me what role his family may or may not have played in that. This

2027:

You bolded another editor's talk page comments. That's against policy per TPO. I never once accused you of stalking me or anyone. Your comments on article edits are typically too long, run off topic, and never really get to a bottom line that would help readers understand what point you are trying

1775:

Why are you ignoring my request that we submit this to arbitration. You seem to be also contesting the accuracy of any source that doesn't meet your notion of what's a RSS, though it may have stood in the article for quite some time. It quite clear that your view is that it's your way or the highway.

1600:

by Edmond C. Jeffery, which was published several years before Jake's birth. Not exactly; Atwood and DeArmond did update Vern Metcalfe's career through his employment with the state education department in 1971. Jake's article says that Vern had nine children: Jeffery lists Vern Jr., Kim, Peter and

1584:

I looked at what you described. I faintly recall having seen this come across my watchlist at the time, but probably didn't look that closely or I would have fixed it. The accompanying statement "He is currently married to Greg brown", and the listed date of death being three months after the edit,

1507:

I just ran across this above note again which you wrote a year ago as I looked for sections in my TALK page that might be usefully deleted or archived. I expect you're probably aware, but the OK earthquake swarms article to which you were posting in October has changed its title to 2009-2016 and your

1449:

Thanks for the very interesting note on the Santa Maria Basin quake in 1992. The 2 problems with associating that one with fracking appear to be 1) this is a much more seismically active area than the US Midcontinent, so near-coincidence in time is not nearly as remarkable, and 2) the article did not

1434:

Thank you for providing the reference. I need to change the wording to reflect the fact that "several" quakes were felt by a person at the surface, associated with the well in Oklahoma. There are still three wells known to have triggered such quakes, but you are right that there were more than three

772:

I've left extensive explanations on the article's TALK page about the impropriety of posting non-factual material, removing legitimate requests for cites, attacks on living persons, and posting cites that do not nearly satisfy sourcing requirements, i.e., referring to home pages of PACER, the federal

9447:

Thanks for the attaboy. It led me to look at your User page and to look further at the Shirley Chisholm (a heroine of mine) article. Her described relationship with Lubavitchers led me further still. I always thought they were somewhat insular, and now realize I was wrong with that assumption. Enjoy

8736:

I think it is too soon to be calling Fierro a hero in wikivoice, particularly when the same sentence goes on to describe the actions of trolls. It comes across as very defensive. It's OK for someone like Polis or Biden to call him a hero, but I think those are opinions until he is given an award for

8667:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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

8405:

template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can

7691:

What you're doing is a rationalization for your abuse, of course, and BRD and other instruments and contentions should not become an automatic cover for your endless protection of right wing politicians and players. Let's take this to ANI. I'm sick of it, as are many others whom you've spent so much

7449:

I've just seen your note, a moment ago and appreciate your interest. Unfortunately, it's not "other editors." For months, I've been stalked almost solely by Springee who has done this to other "good faith" editors before me, even on vehicular topics. (He gets occasionally company as he canvasses for

7429:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

7108:

Why you are simply amazing. You've taken this precious time of yours to lecture me about the necessity to stalk me. How thoughtful of you. As long as we're talking about Don Young quotes, (including the ones you reverted which I'd found in multiple sources), what do you think about his talking to an

6807:

6074:

I'm baffled. You restored text that had been deleted by Velella three hours earlier, on 25 April 18. On 11 April 19, an IP editor deleted precisely the same material once again. On 17 May, you restored it, once again. How is what you did "different," when it's exactly the same thing? You deleted the

5569:

So this is an official warning: this casting of aspersions has got to stop. Talk pages and edit summaries are not acceptable places to accuse people of stuff. If you think you have a case, present your evidence to WP:COIN. (And don’t go looking for evidence offline; remember WP’s prohibition against

5244:

It states that public court documents, etc. should not be used "to support assertions about a living person" nor should "public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses" be used - However "Where

5174:

3923:

Hi again. Thanks very much for your efforts. I had gone back a few times to try to respond to the objections. The page looks okay to me. I thought the #s of shanks found at different institutions was quite germane though, as did the ex-US Attorney whom I was quoting. He said there were 8 times fewer

3740:

Lastly, and off the subject, as I mentioned a couple of months ago, I think, I need to get around to doing that article on Jim Duncan, who wasn't just a commissioner but a long time state legislative leader and congressional primary winner. I'm trying to remember which Alaska personage I'd asked you

3228:

smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to

3146:

3000:

2669:

That's it, all right. I presumed that your tip was meant for any editor, generally, but wasn't sure if it might not have been meant solely for me and I wanted to make sure I responded if that were the case.The Epps business is something I've been looking at for years before it ever got on the USAG's

1563:

I don't know where you get your information, but it is absolutely inaccurate. Puckett was still a Democrat on the day he resigned from the Virginia legislature. You can just go to the many citations that are part of this article, and to the text of the article itself, which will confirm that you are

1293:

I have not been involved in an edit war. I have not reverted other editors work, in fact I have done two reverts in response to those that removed my own well founded edits, one each on the article talk page and article itself. Your complaint is POINTy, in my estimation. I have laboriously provided

1233:

1011:

I added Juneau Empire and ADN articles that are accessible and back up the Department of Law documents as one editor asked. Perhaps removing "probe" from the title would resolve the issues with a union which has a BM that is not allowed to represent dues payers. Calling the page "Alaska Corruption"

846:

Hi, responding to your message. I'm taking advantage of a lull in business right now to hope to get a few things done, but I haven't exactly made any progress. Between dividends and the fact that the AFN convention will once again be held here, I expect to be very busy out in the real world before

811:

I really appreciate your vigilance with regard to this page. I was surprised to see that references to Bobrick might have been changed somehow. He was truly a very minor player in the affair, the only one who took full responsibility for his involvement and did so very rapidly, the only one who did

679:

Now here's the problem. We're dealing with "Russell's (cosmic) Teapot." It's not possible to prove that the U.S. was not involved nor had it seen the coup coming. Part of the problem is that a number of different elements and agencies (i.e., State, DEA, CIA, NSA, etc.) of U.S. policy have sometimes

541:

There are other issues which come to mind, though. I just didn't have time to follow the redistricting process like I wanted to. From what meetings I did attend, however, it seemed all too obvious that the Republicans (Brodie, Holm and Torgerson) walked in carrying an agenda already and considered

489:

Thanks very much for your offer. I'm up to my butt in alligators this morning but if I can get free sometime today from some rather intense work, I'll get back with you in detail. I left those older comments on my Talk page as I felt I'd get around to dealing with them at some point, including the

461:

You know, I think I'll just add that new editors are often surprised to discover that Knowledge is a highly "political" environment. I know when I was just starting out, that I was very surprised to discover, for example, that the opinions one receives at the various notice boards are often very far

419:

and type a few characters or whatever you like, and then click on "save page". When you next come back to your talk page, here, you'll see the "red link" will have turned blue, to indicate that the page actually now exists. ( That's the general process you use to create any new page, btw, whether in

414:

It's also helpful to have a so-called "Sandbox" page where you can prepare text you want to add to articles or talk pages, and see how it'll actually look once you save it, before transferring it to the actual article or talk page; a sort of workbench or workspace in which to prepare such additions.

358:

When you want to indent a section, you can't just do so using the space bar; you have to add a colon character at the beginning of the line. One colon indents a short distance, two colons indents twice that far, three colons ... you get the picture. This is explained at the end of the "Works only at

8266:

Activist, contrary to what you appear to think, my concerns with your edits are not personal. I am often concerned with the way they are phrased or conspiratorial in tone (others have said the same). I'm also concerned that your first reaction is to revert and accuse others of acting in bad faith

7918:

I've already started the Talk page discussion. It was delayed by a Knowledge internal problem, but I persisted and it was accepted. You don't have a right to whimsically erase any edits I or anyone else have made and calling it a legitimate exercise of BRD. In your opinion, you seem to conclude you

7230:

went on to do the same thing at my edits to the Susan Wagle article where I'd made over 80 edits over the years. You claimed that you were removing edits supposedly based on what you claimed to be "negative Op-eds," but in fact you had instead slashed out edits sourced to reporters for Newsweek and

7088:

Activist, please keep UNDUE in mind when adding material about COVID-19 to BLP. Individual quotes, comments, votes etc are not likely to be long term DUE when this is done. RECENT applies to virtually all COVID-19 material. The overall subject is important but it must be remembered that material

6993:

After reading your contention, Springee, that you erased the opinion of Biggs that global warming didn't exist, or whatever his loopy take was, because it had been posted by a "sock" of Hugh somebody, I went back to them and read them. That was October 2017, if I recall correctly. So I went back to

6890:

I've also deleted contents regarding unsourced or non-RSS negative behavior from articles about conservatives. I deleted a photo from one's article a week or so again as it was one of at least half a dozen that were essentially cumulative and redundant. I'm surprised there weren't any baby pictures

6125:

What's going on? Why do you keep reverting? I note we're both up to 3 reverts in the past 24 hours. But surely you can see that as a recent addition, the material should stay out until there is consensus to include it. I could understand if you think you had consensus because I had not responded to

5013:

Hi there! I had an emergency which made it necessary to completely disappear from the web for some many weeks. For approximately the past eight days, I've been in stop the bleeding mode. That's "bleeding" as in financial; I may very well be enroute to pawning my laptop after this, that's how bad

4801:

Your post is very damaging to you and I suggest you remove it before anyone replies to it. It is long and rambling and hard to follow. You repeat the allegations of COI even as you deny you have been doing that (which makes your denial unbelievable, especially with the diffs that N brought). You

4525:

but in fact you seem to be adamantly opposed to balanced presentations of this corporation, and you minimize the corporate whitewashing engaged in by others for GEO. You'll recall that after he was outed, Cohen used the corporate IPN to do further editing, only to get caught again by some observant

3822:

Nice catch on the Parchman map. Looks like it's probably rich bottom land, subject to flooding and needing a lot of work, i.e. terracing. I expect they got tractors at some point to replace horse drawn plows and harvesters. RadioKAOS may know this, but I found photocopied old News-Miner articles on

3357:

Sorry about that and thanks for the tips. I incorporated a few of your edits into my restoration of the original text. I had written that text hours before the OPB story on the current situation broke yesterday and of course there have been copious edits since the story appeared. There is and was a

1485:

5 were in 2011. But these things tend to be spotty. I suspect that Oklahoma state authorities have been busily limiting injection pressures and volumes at brine disposal wells, while still trying to accommodate the increased need for brine disposal. There must be some available information on this.

1400:

Heh heh heh...while I likely do have some things to say about this one, I decided to step away from such sewer pits until after the election hysteria has died down and the trolls move on to other conquests. Trust me on this one, you would stand a better chance of taking home a woman you met at the

1132:

Thanks for your comments, again. I don't doubt what you've said about GEO, etc. But if you want to include something in the article, you shouldn't be discouraged by Niteshift's "tirades" or "purges", neither of which accurately characterizes his behavior, I think. He is a long-time WP editor who is

1102:

If, for instance, you want to include a mention of the riot at Reeves, you'll first have to justify including that on the talk page (I probably wouldn't object, but the conversation should be had). And if you think the motherjones piece is a good source for that, then it would be interesting to see

1027:

There's nothing wrong with the title. It actually and precisely describes an important series of events in Alaska political history. Duncan was hired by ASEA, per your documents and references, 11 years ago, well before the completely unrelated probe began. He engaged in a one-year stipulation that

915:

There was actually a connection between Polar Pen and Ketchikan. Prewitt, Weimar and Cornell wanted to build a rent-a-pen on Gravina Island, with the feds pitching in a quarter of a billion to build the necessary bridge and an intertie. It didn't go anywhere because the Borough Assembly knew better

884:

Anyway, Theresa appears to have her own Murkowski-related grudges, although from what I've read, it's limited to the hypothesis that Eileen Van Wyhe's service on the board of directors of First Bank is further evidence of a conspiracy related to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. Yeah, just as

868:

In general, I still see nothing which ties this whole matter into the actual subject of the article. Sheila Toomey reported several years back that Nelson Cohen was the first-ever non-resident to be appointed U.S. Attorney for Alaska. Cohen was placed in that position specifically due to his role

8907:

Nancy Marks was not identified by her first name in the beginning of the article when I modified it. I put it in there so she would be. You removed it, leaving only the later mention. At the same time, you left a later extended cite in a lower paragraph which was not only redundant but erroneously

8783:

story. I had read it myself when it came out, and really, as I said in one of my edit summaries, I don't think there's anything in it, really, that would add anything new and relevant to the Santos article. Further, a lot of what you added to it isn't supported by the article—it doesn't mention Il

8715:

Following your reasoning, your Username is Irish, of course, perhaps a clue that you can't be trusted to i.e., edit any article about "The Troubles," in Northern Ireland as it perhaps might allow your opinions to overly influence your editing, which isn't good. I'm so glad you're not taking issue

8428:

Thanks for the heads up and recommendations. Before making the Morse edits, I'd made edits to the Shipley page, adding text, moved text within the article for coherency, checked out the old citations to see if they were still live links, but didn't change the edits enough or the work wouldn't have

7198:

While I was addressing your concerns and after I'd spent quite some time cleaning up many errors and incomplete citations left by other editors in the Don Young article and I was about to leave this feedback at the Don Young article, I was prevented* from doing so because you are still stalking me

7182:

Both policies say that if new material in a BLP is challenged then it must not be restored until it has been discussed and the concerns addressed. Continuously restoring the same material without so much as engaging in a good faith discussion related to the issues with the text is not adhering to

6945:

Activist, please address UNDUE and RECENT concerns as well as NOCON before restoring this information to a number of articles. I would suggest opening a thread on the politics project page so we can get some sort of general consensus that would cover a number of articles at once. Please remember

6399:

I'm the author of the article. I wrote an article about Steve Watkins more than a year ago when he was running for the seat for which Hodgson has filed. He had padded his resume extensively, but I thought he deserved an article. He was spending six-figures, family money, at that point and had very

6012:

comes to mind: He ran on the Ethiopian 1,600 meter relay team in the 1956 Olympics, then won the Olympic marathon in 1968 and finished third in 1972. Ivan Huff qualified by times for the 1980 U.S. Olympic Trials in every race between the 3,000 steeple and the marathon. Among women, the only ones I

5825:

wasn't constructive either and I won't submit to it. Bold attempts at compromise are a good thing, not a bad thing, even when you disagree with the particulars. If you have a content-based argument, please make it cleanly without personalizing the dispute. If you have a problem with my conduct you

4161:

I'm aware. You've been very tolerant of him, as much as may be possible under the circumstances, assuming we have the gender correct. I wrote to the prosecutor today to see if she knew when or if the police knew of Boyd's identity or history, before they killed him. "Cecil" claims they did, but he

3423:

Thanks for the feedback. I've been recently thinking the same as the article and the cast of characters has grown, except that the content has largely been this long, tedious procession of similar grifters who were in on the same scam, without that much variance. No other editor has seemed to have

2662:

I meant that for all of the editors of the article in general. If you had done the edit, though, I strongly suggest heeding it. One thing that's really important on Knowledge is referencing. Material can be removed if it's "unreferenced" (unless we're talking about common knowledge) - Manipulating

876:

Funny, though, this has attracted attention away from another, years-long issue with the article: the "Murkowski legacy of corruption", that somehow Frank's appointment of Lisa to his Senate seat is tied into this, which hasn't exactly been corroborated through RS, either. If you haven't noticed,

670:

CurtisNaito did, and he quoted the book as follows: "When the Lucas cabal was overthrown in the March 23 golpe de estado, the United States was not involved and, in fact, had not even seen the coup coming. The embassy did not at first grasp the origins or the implications of the coup, incorrectly

570:

faced in Southeast. APRN reported that this leaves Southeast without any Native representation in the Legislature for the first time in perhaps decades (I didn't notice exactly how long). There's very little support amongst the average Alaskan for maintaining the status quo WRT the Voting Rights

404:

CCA has had riots in its institutions on a regular basis. There have been reports regarding them made by contracting and hosting states and monitors. These included, for instance, reports on riots in May and July and September of 2004 in Watonga, Oklahoma, Crowley County, Colorado and Beattyville,

392:

The only connection was running the place - which is rather insufficient for any implication about a corporation which was not in any way implicated otherwise in the "riot." The White Star management, on the other hand, was implicated in the poor decisions about the Titanic - so thanks for showing

7933:

You still went out of sequence by restoring the content before consensus was established. The material is simply undue both in length given the short overall BLP article and also because it's a coatrack topic. It's not about Schwab and the source article hardly mentions him. Sorry, it weeks be

7179:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the

6913:

I edited the pages of several members of the House of Representatives who voted against the Coronavirus Relief Bill. Considering the national emergency and state of this global pandemic, the No votes seem worthy of inclusion on Knowledge. But @ZimZalaBim reverted my changes and said "That vote in

6493:

article, I'd ask that you kindly reconsider your ill-considered comments about me. Your comments were irrelevant to the topic at hand. Most of them were altogether irrelevant to that page. Troublingly, most of your comments were false or misleading. Those false and misleading comments include the

4604:

In the interest of expanding some more stub articles, and having done so at the political families such as the Engstroms, I expanded the Ivy Spohnholz article. I couldn't help but indulge in a bit of whimsy there, as her mom also was an appointee, and her electoral history with close elections is

4049:

policy applies on talk pages too, so make sure to have references on hand to back up anything you say about living people and recently dead people (if their actions have implications for living people). We wouldn't want one of those guys attacking Knowledge. IMO it also helps to keep WP talk page

3898:

Your initial page creation was picked up by a bot, as well as by human patrollers, as being a copyright violation. The majority of the clean-up was already done when I arrived at the page. My note here was intended as a general reminder not to add copyright material to this wiki. I have done some

3573:

Well, I'm glad you took it upon yourself to author it, and to do such a professional job. I might have never gotten engaged with it had you not started the article. I was aware of Epps' rep from his "reforms" at Parchman, but a source told me that rather than fixing the problems, he largely moved

3521:

I reviewed a good deal more on the MS corruption. I removed extraneous material from the Epps article and reordered and polished up it and the "Hustle" article which had quickly been reviewed. Though I've run across your edits on other pages, I'd completely forgotten that you had created the Epps

2919:

The instructions say to place a template notification tag on the article's talk page. Did you forget or am I missing it? I see you accuse me of being an SPA (what that single purpose could be I can't determine) who's made "BLP violations on related articles" - another accusation without evidence.

2310:

Hey, realizing Obama can do more than "pardon" - as in commute the sentence - was a good catch. Instead of saying all that in the lead, I tweaked to the sources language "clemncy" and just gave a wikilink to where the pardon power is discussed.... note that section explains pardon-power includes

2159:

had some possible gems related to Sheffield's hiring of Roger Endell to lead corrections out of HSS and into its own department, but there were too many holes in the narrative of that one particular source for me to put anything into the article. Anyway, looking elsewhere in this book, I found a

2004:

Your threats are getting very disturbing. I don't know if you're deliberately trying to upset me or if you're simply devoid of empathy. You keep accusing me of doing things I'm not doing (what did I delete from the Talk page, for instance?), complaining to others that I'm "stalking you," when no

1624:

Thanks for the compliment. Bill Parker, now there's a blast from my past. I think I mentioned a while back that when Bill Weimar first came to my attention in the late 1970s/early 1980s, he was an active Democrat. Some may find that inconceivable, given his later activities. Maybe he stumbled

1092:

While Niteshift and I of course have many disagreements (which is often a kind of collaboration that contributes to a good article), I think he and I are both stumped as to what actual content, facts, you want to put in the article. You need to go to the talk page and say what content you want to

371:

A different way to "call out" text that you're quoting, to distinguish it from the surrounding context is to subtly change the background colour behind it. One way to do that, using a slightly different shade of bluish-green than the "mint green" colour that appears on talk pages by default is to

10189:

Greetings, when you reverted my edit, your edit summary included "See Talk". I promptly posted there. Your response would be appreciated. Setting aside my misstatement about the WaPo article being paywalled, my version gave a more detailed presentation regarding the decision particularly towards

9207:

Hey, Activist! You left a kind message on my talk page, back in the Pleistocene or Mesozoic or a few years ago, or something, IDK. I've left a well-intentioned reply on my own talk page. Have a look, if you like, before we all get too old and gray to care about each other, any more, whatever our

8877:

You were correct that Marks's first name was used earlier in the article as I thought it had been. But, as to some of your other responses ... you had placed Santos's "rogue" comment in the article in such a way that most readers would infer Santos had said it in direct response to the Van Duyne

7318:

Thank you for this new article. As an appointed judge, Malloy is eligible for a Knowledge article, but in its current state the article is very heavily focused on criticizing him and his allies. Noting his controversies is legitimate, but the article was written with too much commentary from the

7240:

You cited subjective criteria, that is your own opinion, as giving you license to engage in this very Unwikipedian behavior. You had claimed that there was little coverage of Young's remarks and reception. I just Googled his name and "beer virus" and got 18,500 hits. I looked at the first 20 and

7046:

I'll take ownership of them, edit them, certainly dropping that Daily Kos cite. HughD was certainly, it seems, a well-documented sock editor and wasn't very good at hiding that behavior. If he or she has returned, I expect his or her behavior has changed or would have been dealt with once again.

6929:

I appreciate your efforts and think the edits you made had merit. The two that I reverted in their articles had voted for the first ignorant bill, the only pair who did so in the House. I thought it would be hard to argue that those edits should not stand. I know Buck's constituency (mostly Weld

5528:

about you. Back in February you accused Marquardtika of having a COI on the assumption that they are a government employee, based on information they had on their user page. They replied, explained about the info on their page, said they are not a government employee, and said they are currently

5273:

Thanks for the suggestions. I reviewed all the materials to which you'd directed me. I have considered this issue before, in fact, found the date of birth for a well known writer but was reluctant to include it in the article about her, which already has the year of birth, since she may have not

5035:

has continued to do much work on those topics, but I haven't had the opportunity to dig up relevant source material lately. Really, though, a separate article on education in the Unorganized Borough might work better than a slew of stubs on individual school districts and/or schools, especially

3372:

Yes, I know the area. Frequent visitor in those parts during my wild youth. No worries, I often forget to start the talk first also. I'm not particularly interested in covering the electoral politics end of this so I'm glad you are! My interest lies more in covering the public lands side of

2235:

The caption at the bottom of the cartoon reads: "The fat lady having sung, the opera adjourned on the 144th day". Any of this sound familiar? George Hohman isn't mentioned by name in this section, but it sure appears that the text refers to the events which led to his expulsion by the Senate.

561:

would have in all likelihood also lost if not for the chicanery of an "independent" sockpuppet candidate, which to me recalls Tom Moyer's reelection to the House in 1990 and Georgianna Lincoln's initial election to the Senate in 1992. Despite the excessive spin put on explaining their losses by

533:

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. I recall reading before the election of the courts deciding that there were problems with the redistricting plan, that the plan in place was only temporary for this election, and that there would be changes needed before the next election. The only

7628:

has pointed out to me that I misread the time stamps and that you made your re-additions BEFORE I said on the article talk page that you shouldn't - and that you have not done it since. So my warning not to do it a fourth time still stands (that would be a 3RR violation), but I apologize for my

6871:

I think your points are to some extent valid. My intent wasn't to shame all those generals and admirals. Had that been the case, and it certainly wasn't, I expect I would have tried to do that on their own articles. I'll review my edits but my guess is that I've read over 100 articles about the

6850:

I think your point was I'm not a Trumper--fine. But I rarely edit those articles, and if I do it's as often to correct one partial reading or edit as it is to another; I have blocked many an anti-Trumper who violated the BLP, for instance, and I have revdeleted many a blatant violation in those

6441:

No worries. Even after having been here for a decade or more, we can all still learn new stuff when we wander into less familiar areas, or old processes are adjusted, or lots of other times when we encounter new situations we've never been in before — so yeah, don't take it personally, now that

5914:

Thanks very much for your input. I'll take a look in the morning, if I can find the time. This race may get considerably more interesting as the DCCC, which may have taken a policy position about not only not supporting candidates who don't hew to their party line, has apparently taken the same

5039:

In response to the above discussion, Orth p. 413 contains all the entries on places names containing "Healy". The town Healy next to Denali Park is listed as being "named after the Healy River". The Healy River is listed as being "named by prospectors about 1902–04; reported in 1905 by L. M.

4547:

You continued in that discussion, trying to justify the connections, despite several clear statements that I haven't made any edits on behalf of anyone and that your allegations are an attack. Again, your attempt to word it as a 'look at the conincidence' won't fly. The ARBCOM saw through that

3697:

I've obviously agreed that I believe both the Epps article and the "Operation Mississippi Hustle" articles are quite notable. The corruption goes back to 2007, the probe has dragged out for six years, and Epps started wearing a wire in May 2014. They are also important because the corruption is

2776:

I think that those who told me that there was rebellion from Trump, were unknowingly talking about Ward and others doing the right thing, making sure Cruz and Rubio votes were counted, honoring the preferences of the Alaskan Republican primary voters. My friends, having watched that part of the

1060:

If the "fact" is a mere claim made in a venue such as those above without any other confirming source, it is not appropriate as a reference on Knowledge. In some venues such as those, there are plenty of cited sources for a story that would be fine references. Other times, referencing links are

1052:

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have no problem with Slate, Salon, Motherjones, or for that matter DemocracyNow or RealNews, in fact I think all of these do great journalism. But the way I understand Knowledge, most of what appears in these venues would be considered primary sources

230:

Both sources I quoted, Campus Progress and WND (World Net Daily) contain graphic descriptions and characterizations of Breitbart's behavior and come to conclusions. Both videos amply document his behavior. Are you suggesting that other intermediaries are needed to verify what your own or anyone

7259:

Activist, I don't think you are listening to the concerns of others. Notice that basically every editor who has reviewed your edits said they violate the same policies I've pointed out. That said, if you continue to personally attack on article talk pages and claim you are being targeted for

5712:

My eyebrows were raised by that too, and I adjusted wording in some places to be more nonjudgemental, but fwiw that turned out to be almost a direct quote from a mainstream source. We should be careful to keep a critical perspective, and journalists can be locally non-neutral when hyping their

4959:

We disagree about the inclusion of the family history. It's not extensive, but it's important. I note that another editor shares my convictions. Also, I was well aware that the "black gang," did not only refer to the ethnicity, but their working conditions. However, certainly African-Americans

2131:

around here is appallingly low at times, mainly because we have lots of editors whose activities suggest that they view Knowledge as an alternate form of social media, while plenty of content is left in a state which reinforces the "Knowledge is a joke" meme. For that reason, I'm beginning to

661:

I hadn't suggested that you had added it. In fact I left it specifically so that the source could be checked and restored if it proved accurate. I didn't realize that CurtisNaito had included the quote or would have been more reluctant to remove the contention. My following responses are quite

2888:

The pinging was merely a courtesy notice to some of the most recent of many other editors who have differed with you over your interesting and persistent removals of what present as well documented facts in the DWS article. I'm not remotely responsible for what you imagine might be happening.

6052:

Yes, I noticed you used the same wording. I don't think you appreciate how the situations are different. With Rhoda, I was restoring material that had been there for a year. With Ivey, you were restoring material that had just been added. On Knowledge, we generally default to the status quo.

505:

You're quite welcome. I'll be offline for pretty much the rest of the day, myself. Not the least criticism intended re any of the previous material on your talk page, by the way. Drop in at my talk any time if I can help you navigate; I don't like to see long-established editors use of their

207:

The stuff you added is original research. You are not allowed to come to your own conclusions about what the video was showing. Unless you have reliable third party sources that talk about the incident you cannot include it as it is undue weight. Also, who says it is a controversy? You?

6551:

Harbor prejudices against Christians? Actually, for many years, the beneficiary of a quarter of my six-figure life insurance policy has been a Christian organization whose work I have long admired. Many of my best long-time friends are Christian pastors of different denominations, and ditto

5030:

were two separate court cases, initiated by separate sets of lawyers. I believe both teams of lawyers were employed by Alaska Legal Services or a similar organization, however. The two cases are typically thought of as one and the same due to the similarities of their legal complaints and

4619:

I was born and raised in Wisconsin; the La Follette family is one of Wisconsin's political families. Robert La Follette, Sr. was the first native Wisconsinite to serve as Governor of Wisconsin; I shook hands with Bronson La Follette who was a grandson and Attorney General of Wisconsin. Many

3873:

Hi, Dianna. I can't change the quotes, of course, though I eliminated parts of one or two to satisfy concerns. Can you point me to precisely what text you think I should change? I'd be only too happy to accommodate. Some of it is #s, i.e. the numbers of shanks (I changed the language in one

2005:

case could be made against me but certainly one could against you, that I'm engaging in edit warring when you have attacked the majority of my posts on RBC's page, and you refuse to even read, no less consider, my explanations that might help to resolve our problem. You continue to actually

1082:

As a wikipedia editor, I'm not really interested in your knowledge and analysis of world politics and propaganda systems. I happen to agree with most of it, but that doesn't matter here, so there's no reason to keep laying down paragraphs on my talk page. I'm not going to talk further about

4567:

Many thanks for your comment. Several states have families who are prominent especially in politics; the Kennedys of Massachusetts; the Longs of Louisiana, the La Follettes of Wisconsin, etc. I am feeling okay and sometimes I have to undergo minor surgery to clear up an infection. Again my

3547:

I knew about Epps after doing research on Parchman. I think I remembered reading about how he did reforms... when I heard he got indicted I decided that he needed to have an article. That kind of fall from grace would be covered in reliable sources and Knowledge needs to have records of

4887:

At this point, I'm not sure either of us is of much assistance to the other. I've seen your edits before, somewhere, probably quite a while ago, but I'm not remembering where. I tend to post on a very wide variety of subjects, but focus mostly on political and criminal justice issues.

3210:(cur | prev) 06:12, 31 August 2016‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,772 bytes) (-3,843)‎ . . (→‎2016 Congressional campaign: update, shorten (now that the race is over hopefully there'll be no need to use this as a campaign platform), rmv unreliable sourcs) (undo | thank) 3401:'s legal troubles may be disorganized and is too long without sub-sections. Make sure that content is grouped accordingly and that, if needed, sub-sections are put in. Perhaps it can be organized by date or by theme (say one about Epp's own plea and then one about co-conspirators). 181:

My objective is for Cato to continually increase its effectiveness in advancing a truly free society over the long term. This was my objective when, in 1976, I came up with the idea of converting the Charles Koch Foundation to a public policy institute and recruited Ed Crane to run

7388:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 6766:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 5018:

has done a herculean effort in picking up the slack in my absence WRT political biographies. Despite that, unfortunately, I still see a whole lot of "bleeding" going on here that I'm powerless to stop, in the sense of actually having the time to do much of anything to respond to

3232:

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I

1453:

As for waste disposal wells, I note that you deleted from a sentence in the UK fracking article words to the effect that earthquakes are triggered by relatively few injection wells. This is actually a common observation, for instance the following by a USGS researcher writing in

7781:] That is failing to focus on the content and the issues with trying to present a bill as if it were nothing but gum drops and sugar plumbs. It's not clear to me that any of that content is DUE at all but if we are going to have it is needs to be IMPARTIAL in it's delivery. 5657:

As a note, there have been quite a few discussions about the notability of candidates for federal political office in the United States recently. I think site consensus is moving towards keeping these types of articles, but site policies don't yet make that completely clear.

8156:

Activist, the Don Young article is on my talk page. Your edit was UNDUE and I reverted it. Your restoration followed by an accusation of stalking is not acceptable. You are allowed to question and get support for the content but not attack me. Please self revert. Pinging

6449:

your vote in an AFD, it's best to be above board about that by striking the keep/delete "vote" portion of your original comment, and then posting your new revised vote as a followup comment to your original statement instead of just erasing your original statement entirely.

4681:

You're most welcome, though I don't drink beer. I had intended to thank you for authoring the article. I've been trying to expand some stubs and recently have edited some articles about members of political families, including about Alaskans, so your timing was fortuitous.

5040:

Prindle, USGS". Without clearer information, there's a distinct possibility that the name could be traced to Michael Healy. A more likely namesake is found in a long-abandoned settlement on the Yukon River delta. Orth states that it was mentioned in the 1916 edition of

7174:

When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Knowledge's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained

6465:

Thanks for the feedback. I haven't voted a heck of a lot in AfDs, may not have all for the first decade in which I'd been editing. I don't think I've ever had occasion to want to change my vote but thanks for the direction on how to best do it should the occasion arise.

3578:

took a bribe from the first speculators who wanted to build there. Winn has received substantial publicity in the last year, thanks to Shane Bauer. As far as Parchman, I'd heard Bukka White's song, long ago, and Mose Allison's version. Not exactly "reliable sources."

2268:

Hi Activist—thanks for keeping a keen eye on the citation date. I actually didn't touch any of the citations (citation intricacies happen to be one of my least favorite things). After poring through the change log I notice I accidentally reverted the date update in

2160:

tidbit which could possibly be a prehistory of the Corrupt Bastards Club. pp. 114–122 contained a list of lobbyists registered with APOC. VECO's lobbyist is listed as one M. E. "Ed" Dankworth of Dankworth & Associates, not long after he left the legislature.

434:

is a great way to get quick answers, usually within 15 - 30 minutes. Feel free to drop me a note on my own talk page, also, if you have any questions. I can't promise I'll reply as quickly as the volunteers at the help desk typically do, but I'd be glad to help.

4540:

I further note that you've made 32 edits to the GEO Group main article, with the last signed edit by Abraham Cohen being made February 20th, 2013, though the GEO IPN was used to make subsequent sock puppet edits not long after but before you started your signed

8784:

Bacco at all, it doesn't say that the FEC investigations prompted her to resign as Santos's treasurer, and the "went rogue" remark seems to have nothing to do with the Van Duyne JFC. (And, as you did when the story first broke, you added the source in that pre-

8066:

An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate

6368:

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.

5629:

593:

Hello! While checking to make sure that the recent GEO Group problem wasn't more widespread, I noticed that you have edited several articles related with GEO Group. I'll be direct and say that while I'm weary that your username may imply that you're here to

6502:

page. This is a false accusation. You claimed that I deleted her comments about mass shootings. As you can plainly see from the diff you provided, the material I removed had nothing to do with mass shootings, which was why I removed it from a section on mass

1276:

I'm asked not to respond in kind, because you are presently blocked for a week for doing exactly what you're disingenuously accusing me of doing. I'm about as guilty as starting a war as the Poles, who were so accused by Hitler of attacking Germany in 1939.

366:

I also distinguished the text you were "quoting" from another user's talk page from the context of the CCA talk page itself by reducing its font size a little via placing it between these two html "tags": <span style="font-size:90%; line-height: 1.4em;":

1625:

upon the same batch of Kool-Aid as Donley, Mackie, Williams, etc. Anyway, there once was a time when I would interchangeably confuse Bill Parker, Bill Weimar and Bill Miles. Probably not as strange as it would seem: others have interchangeably confused

7464:

Activist, just a warning. If you continue to fail to follow WP:NOCON and WP:BRD I will take you to ANI. You need to understand that editors can object to your edits and in that case you need to engage in talk page discussions to address the problem.

1794:

place to go if editors find themselves in an unresolvable morass. This is a dispute over one article and doesn't warrant arbitration and a case request would be declined. If you can't come to agreement with other editors on the article talk page, go to

3522:

article and did most of the work on it for the first year. I also noticed your editing focus is mostly on schools. Did his initial employment as a prison teacher, or his mother's position as a dean influence your initiative, or was it something else?

6591:

your trying to whitewash the Wagle article. You haven't responded, but have just doubled down on your slandering me, calling me "untrustworthy" now. You seem unable to take any responsibility for your behavior. What am I to think, at this juncture?

4117:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (you are not the subject but your name is mentioned in connection with the re-posting of your anecdote from your talk page, intended to be private, to another user's talk page).

3847:

Please don't add copyright text to this wiki, not even temporarily for editing. Please use an external text editor, or do your amendments before you save the page. All content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Thanks, —

8873:

really isn't valid ... the template allows for multiple authors under last1, first1, last2, first2 etc., I think, all the way up to at least six. I have not seen any guidance to that effect but ... you are the only editor I know still not using

8116:

really involved in the operations of the encyclopedia anymore, and also haven't lived up in AK for a very long time, so I'm afraid for all those reasons I wont be much help with the wikiproject relaunch, but I do appreciate you reaching out. --

7542:

Actually it is an issue of good faith issues with content. I think you are making good faith edits but you respond badly when editors challenge those edits. At the same time look at examples of the edits I've challenged and the notice board

6573:, you have now had plenty of time to reconsider and take back the false statements I brought to your attention. Obviously, you have no interest in doing that, which means that you are not trustworthy. That is unfortunate, but is good to know. 5245:

primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

3490:

out of the Epps article and insert a hat note that will take readers to the "Operation Mississippi Hustle" article. If you could take a look to see if it could use additional work, let me know. I'm beat and need to hit the sack. Thanks again.

3474:

If the press by and large doesn't use the FBI name then I would go by "year/decade Mississippi political corruption case" or something to that effect. Remember that the lead is just a summary of the content, and divide the body by theme/topic

1462:“However, only a small fraction of the more than 30,000 wastewater disposal wells appears to be problematic—typically those that dispose of very large volumes of water and/or communicate pressure perturbations directly into basement faults.” ( 6620:, not a single word of your last post was true. You are either very comfortable with dishonesty or are living in a world that is quite different from the world of reality that I inhabit. I don't see a point in continuing the conversation. 1751:

When you keep re-adding improperly sourced content to a BLP and edit warring over it and leaving TLDR screeds on another editor's talk page because they are following BLP guidelines, yes. That is the definition of disruptive editing. --

4189:

While I appreciate the ping, I honestly had no role in the entire CFredkin incident beyond simply closing the SPI case. In addition, please do not modify archived SPI cases, and SPI is not the best venue for those kinds of discussions.

384:

The prison riot yesterday didn't say anything about CCA? That's a bit like contending the sinking of the Titanic didn't have anything to do with the White Star Line or an iceberg or the Atlantic Ocean. Activist (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012

905:

I posted prior text to the BLP Noticeboard last night. Got some good feedback from one editor. I think there's been more but I've just gotten back on line after being off since the wee hours this a.m. so I'll look for that in a minute.

506:

knowledge of the rules and political process here unfairly to gain advantage over new editors, or to see new editors snookered or intimidated on that basis. Knowledge isn't supposed to be competitive in that way, but political articles

2079:" is a common Knowledge term for those who have the talk pages of others on their watchlist. Many editors do it and call it that. It's not actual stalking. But, if it were, the person being stalked is the other editor, not you. -- 5090:

as they are "Populated, legally-recognized places" - While high schools are usually kept, I don't usually start articles on rural K-12 schools in Alaska unless they meet WP:GNG (due to references talking about the schools in detail)

4162:

plays fast and loose with the facts, so I'm trying to verify. By the way, I did edits this evening to the pages for the novel and movie and author pages for Roots of Heaven. I expect you might be familiar with the novel and author.

5574:). If you don’t have a presentable case, then stop making this claim. If you do it again, I will take you to ANI myself. Likewise if you seem to have a pattern of following them around and reverting or reacting to their edits, see 865:, for starters. At least it will garner the attention of others outside of this discussion. The existing discussion between only two or three people is already circular enough to where it's quickly approaching being pointless. 8838:

be used? I've edited almost as long as you have and I haven't seen it. I find it convenient, i.e., in those cases where half a dozen reporters might be cited in the original sources. Please provide a source for your objection.

7235:

You had written at "01:24, 5 April 2020‎ Springee talk contribs‎ 106,106 bytes -2,143‎ NOCON related to the restored material. It violates UNDUE. The newly added material was sourced to negative Op-Eds. Again DUE hasn't been

2009:

me how to edit, and assign what WP policies I should read, as if you possess some imperial authority and have no obligation to observe the social conventions of common courtesy. I really think an honest apology is in order.

8611:. You are welcome to disagree with my edits/comments on the Carlson article. However, when you move from discussing the edits to focusing on the editor that is a problem. You are welcome to raise concerns on my talk page. 1308:

Activist, I came here to give you the same warning. You added the same material three times. If you do it again I will report you for edit warring. I will issue the same warning to CFredkin since he reverted you three times.

8234:

I asked another editor who has considerable professional expertise in such issues for his opinion. I certainly did not ask him to post at the article and he didn't do so. Stick to the facts and stop leveling accusations.

7815:] The little that discussed the article content avoided actually discussing the specific issue. The rest was an attack directed at me. That is not an acceptable use of a talk page neither is accusing me of notifying 5455:

Hello, Activist! I got your message, but I am traveling and won't be able to look at the issue you raised until next week. You might want to ask someone else if it is urgent. If not I will take a look sometime next week.

10132: 3884:]. I didn't want to be there but it was such a mess it almost got me crying. I did a lot of straighening it out, time I didn't have to spare. Another editor had done the same before me or it would have been way worse. 3318:, you ended your EditDiff with see talk, only there is no talk thread. Additionally, the essay BRD has a section saying that it is NOT B-R-R-D, which is what you did. The EW policy also says you can be edit warring 5085:

Hi! I agree that it would be a great idea to have a general article about education in the unorganized borough of Alaska. Note that in addition, articles on individual school districts are almost always kept as per

9838:

Thank you for your attention regarding these edits, I trust these were just human errors (to which all of us are subject), and please let me know if you believe I’m “off base” on my reviews, conclusions, or edits.

9011:

My ancient laptop has keyboard problems that I try to keep under control. Sorry about the error introduced. However my use of the words "an extensive" rather than "a copious," is much better. You can look them up.

8021:

Swypeo is an auto corrected word that programs like Swype get wrong. The woman’s resume is not relevant to an article about Schwab. You have made no reasonable argument why the material was due for that article.

6372:

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.

5633:

2154:

into a mindless repetition of the department's official website and other cherry-picked sources instead of something I would call useful encyclopedic content. I had to search for source material, and the 1985

5405:

page was probably a better solution. John doesn't like anybody editing any pages that he is watching. He would rather have no information on a page than a little. He's very territorial and has friends in high

3664:. - It doesn't mean that he wasn't notable before... I think even before the scandal somebody could have written an article about him. But once the scandal came it became imperative to have an article on him. 3213:(cur | prev) 06:09, 31 August 2016‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,615 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 2601:204:D003:7B40:30FF:F4CF:CDA4:7892 (talk) to last version by MB298) (undo | thank) 4233: 3250:

Sequential edits are not counted as separate reverts. That there is one revert by me. A revert is when you keep undoing some one else's edits. You did that three times. I reverted once. Again, please self

7847:

If you think you have a serious case for disruptive/partisan editing, you can always try to prove it at a noticeboard, but I don't recommend it. Just get on with editing and stop with the accusations. --

788:

A newly-minted IP (sock?) 72.42.151.107 made unsourced edits to the article lede tonight (pp removed earlier today today), seemingly intended to improve the reputation of one Bill Bobrick (but also quite

3229:

mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

1032:. I'm hoping that you also don't restore or renew your unprovoked personal attacks and diatribes against me that also violate those policies. None of this should be too difficult for you to understand. 7692:

time reverting. You've even canvassed other editors to get them to do your specious work for you, and have consistently Wikihounded me and many others. It really has to stop. "Respect" is a term for a

671:

concluding the Movimiento de Liberacion Nacional had instigated it and that the coup leaders, Rios Montt in particular, were nothing more than figureheads representing the interests of the Far Right."

737:

I just made this edit. Check the subtitle in the article: Ward ran Donald Trump's 2016 campaign in Alaska, was rewarded with a position in the Department of Education, but resigned not long afterward.

9315:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3289:

Wikilawyering, you seem to justify your arguably non-neutral attacks on not only my work, but apparently habitually on the efforts of other assumed good faith editors. Just in my opinion, of course.

869:

within the Public Integrity Section. This was happening at the same time that the PIS were actively investigating other state governments, particularly Illinois. Therefore, it could be argued that

7015:, HughD is a prolific sock editor. Per EVADE their edits have been removed. If you wish to restore them and take ownership of them that is fine with me. I don't give a crap about Biggs himself. 7214:

I've copiously labored to engage in "good faith" discussions with you, Springee, but actually you need to explain why you feel it is necessary to Wikihound and to stalk me and my edits. (Diff at:)

6528:

Your accusation that I have "adopted" the Lewis Carroll quotation on my user page is blatantly false. Anyone who visits my page can plainly see that from the comment I made following the quotation.

4220: 3206:(cur | prev) 06:17, 31 August 2016‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,668 bytes) (-104)‎ . . (→‎2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: what the sources actually say) (undo | thank) 1484:

Thanks for the note. The US Midcontinent earthquakes (mostly Oklahoma) have certainly been increasing rapidly in number, although I'm not sure about magnitude, since the only quakes magnitude : -->

165:

Charles Koch issued a statement this month that confirmed the correctness of my edits with respect to the Cato founding and name change. charles-kochs-recent-statement-on-the-cato-v-koch-conflict/

8060:

I find that you have repeatedly accused another editor of editing in a non-neutral manner (“whitewashing” was your phrase) and even of wikistalking you. I am here to remind you one last time that

5953:

Thank you for your new article on Taylor Ewert. I recommend sticking with the article in case she actually makes it to the Olympics team, because otherwise I am not convinced that she is any more

1585:

should have been obvious tip-offs to vandalism. That it appears to have been partially reverted by Moira Smith herself should have been another tip-off. The "death information" was entered into

10353: 10305: 9981: 9933: 9885: 9230: 9075: 5918:"House Democrats Move to Hobble Primary Challengers The party’s congressional campaign arm rolled out new hiring standards to deter firms from working with candidates who run against incumbents" 7206:

I guess I'll have join the immense number people with whom you've sparred in your last 1,000 edits (your totals are rising like coronavirus fatalities) and hope we can get it sorted out there.

7963:

added to an article about the actual elections in Kansas. It's not ok (sic) in a BLP where it implies wrong doing.(sic) Restoring the challenged material we (sic) not the right thing to do."

5713:

discoveries, but it does seem like a fair reflection of high-quality RS and most local political observers to say that there at least appear to be minor contradictions in his stated biography.

5671: 3030:. Discuss content, not the editor. Please keep in mind that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Come on, filing out WP:AE reports is a big pain in the ass so don't make me do it. 1509:

5 range, but there have been many recently crowding that magnitude. The magnitude and frequency of KS quakes has dropped since the issuance of that order, after topping out at MMS 4.9 in 2014.

427:

as the very first line of any such page, to prevent the page from being "crawled" by search engines, i.e. so it won't show up when anyone searches for anything via Google or Yahoo or whatever.

10264:

The Knowledge users of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are invited to an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 13, 2024, at

3667:

As for "What about all the falls from grace which occurred and were covered by reliable sources prior to Knowledge's existence which we've willfully ignored?" - Which ones do you have in mind?

9027: 5592: 6518:

with is editors littering Knowledge pages with unsourced or improperly sourced material and leaving them that way for years on end, which is why I made most of the edits I made to that page;

3726:

I just checked the size of Parchman Farm out of curiosity. At almost 24 square miles it's 30% bigger than Kowloon (2 million pop.) and half the size of San Francisco (800 thousand or so?).

7997:

I didn't know what "swipeo" meant and the only hits for the word I get are for a prolific poster on social media, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I suggest you review the definition of

3882:, i.e. It would be like writing about Charlie Hayden's triplet daughters, all vocalists, who share the same heritage. Can't be that different. P.S. Take a look at my note earlier today at 4241: 7980:

That’s a swipeo. Should be “Sorry this might be good content”. The puffery is the part about the student. That is the sort of emotional lead in used in news stories but not needed here.

909:

You don't see anything that ties the whole matter into the actual subject of the article because there isn't anything. In the case of Duncan and ASEA, there's no connection, of course.

10179: 8289:

are you having problems with partisan bias and tendentious editing regarding conservative topics coming from Springee and Shinealittlelight? It's been an ongoing problem for me as well

5626: 4050:

activity directly focused on improving the article. It is fun talking about the bad things politicians do, but it may be more difficult BLP-wise if discussion strays into suppositions.

854:. What can be done? Beeblebrox would probably have been a better person to ask, as he's an admin, but it appears that he is off trying to get some camping done before the snow flies. 2330:

Posting the entire text of his own articles to my talk page isn't helping anything — as I've already pointed out numerous times, a person does not get a Knowledge article by being the

9331: 8829:) Frankly, I'm puzzled by your actions and critique, i.e., you removed the first name from Marks. She is first mentioned, without her first name, in the Discrepancies section. That's 2636:

Of course.... why would I think that you'd actually give a crap about an article that is supposed to have detailed descriptions of this sort of material? Talking to you is pointless.

1564:

wrong. It is against Knowledge policy to level attacks against other editors. I respectfully request that you check what you believe are your facts and respond to me with an apology.

881:. John Lindauer tried to do the same thing maybe two or three years ago. You would think that people who have earned PhDs would be capable of understanding what an encyclopedia is. 8577: 7278:

applies to your edits. When you add new material, if that material is challenged you should take it to the talk page. If you think there is a larger problem then take it to ANI.

3808:

articles aren't online). However many libraries have microfilm collections with older newspaper articles and you could ask Wikipedians to snatch stuff off of microfilms if need be.

3330: 123:

the 1974 information is to be included, so must the 1977 information from the Cato Institute web page and the fact that the Charles Koch Foundation says it was founded in 1980. —

9300: 8562: 4518:

you began editing the GEO Group article, almost four years ago, after GEO employees using their own names or making IPN edits were outed, you've made about 80 edits to the article

4246:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

4108: 2915: 7668:

Activist, please understand that when you add controversial material to a BLP and it is challenged you need to show consensus to restore. The reflexive restorations go against

598:, you obviously have some experience with articles related to GEO Group, but I see no evidence that you're in any way associated with the organization. There's a conversation 8549:

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

2506: 9697: 6523:

Your accusation that I "admittedly feel that Knowledge should be edited from a Christian conservative viewpoint" is a complete and total lie, and an apology is in order; and

3008:

Please self-revert your latest revert. This is a BLP. You cannot include contentious material if it's been challenged. I suggest starting an RfC or bringing the issue up to

8554: 6962:]. I rightly reverted the IP editor because their edit had no citation. You have added the citation which addresses the issue. I trust we are both content to move on. 5932: 4745:' articles (as well as others about the private prison contractors.) Thanks for letting me know. You've done a great job in explaining this huge investigation and results. 283:

I don't see any evidence at all of attempts to achieve consensus by any of the editors who removed the CPAC section of "Controversies." The removals seem to violate NPOV.

4030:

Interesting. One of my foci is on public/bureaucratic corruption, but hasn't often extended to the K-12 education arena, and I'm currently overwhelmed beyond Knowledge.

8496:

I think your latest comment to the talk page was meant to be in a new section, correct? I will create the new section, but feel free to correct me if I misunderstood.

7109:

auditorium of high schoolers about "buttfucking?" I found that remains in many sources but perhaps it's still too RECENT to remain in his article. What do you think?

5758:. A preferable way to request that an article be assessed is to leave a message on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects already added to the article's talk page.-- 4250: 4533:

I note, Niteshift36 that you've made 38 of the last 107 or so edits to the GEO TALK page, since Cohen was outed. If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us

2132:

disdain discussions, especially when I'm being nice and trying to give people a clue for free rather than telling them to go to Walmart and buy one. Ahem, anyway...

3064:

Dear William and Andrew. I noticed your submission this afternoon. I submitted a similar, but less extensive, proposal a few days ago for the Knowledge conference.

6697:. It even lets you upload directly to Wikimedia Commons. I've changed the Kansas Senator map, but in the future don't be afraid to use that tool. Hope this helps! 5651: 5087: 3629:. Looks like he was appointed to this position in 2002. We're sending the message that he's just now notable all of a sudden? That might not pass a smell test. 10237: 8626: 8585: 8550: 7292: 5246: 3333:, where I have painstakingly done individual edits to remove the problematic parts of your desired text. Each of my reasons is stated in the Edit summaries. 8716:

with my Username with which I've made about 17 thousand edits in 16 years. Is there anything else we should know about you to discount or disparage your edits?

510:

very often competitive between opposing points of view, and the "playing field" should be level, in my opinion, whether someone is a new editor or not. Cheers,

9701: 9576: 8815:

and most of what we could reliably source for the article is, like the Santos article, heavy on the negative. If you want to, feel free to discuss it with me.

8808: 6759: 6730: 8576:

on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the

5051:

Finally, you mentioned Bill Hudson. I've come across a number of photos of Hudson over the years and always thought that he could pass for a lighter-skinned

3802:

P.S. about older topics, one issue inhibiting them is that many newspapers don't have electronic archives prior to the 1980s or due to copyright reasons (why

1596:, even though he had already graduated from JDHS by the time it was published. I previously assumed that the listing was lifted verbatim from the listing in 10300: 9629: 8357: 3456:

That's a thought. However, though I've made about 4,200 edits, I've only authored a few articles, one to disambiguate the many Rafael Cruz's, and another on

8671:

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit

7245:

unless you're sitting in a "virtual" boiler room somewhere and others up to the same practices are remotely cheering with you. This has really got to stop.

8664: 3105:. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 2959:. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 10396: 10348: 10024: 9976: 9928: 9273: 9118: 6042: 5196:

Actually, it's you that's involved in an edit war. You've been deleting my edits without cause. Please contain yourself until I'm finished with my edits.

2524: 1682:

with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Knowledge's

8250: 4127: 9070: 8951:

Thanks for your serial (cereal?) contributions to Knowledge, most recently with your finding that Atlantic article about centrist Chuck Hagel. Cheerio!

7779:] would have made it clear that accusing editors of bad faith actions is a problem. Here you accuse me of being a "partisan editor" scrubbing content. 9463: 9243: 6481: 5915:

stance against any campaign management firms who agreed to work for such candidates. I'm guessing that an Eastman candidacy might fit that criterion.

5110: 2692: 2173: 10283: 10163: 10085: 9553: 9179: 7711: 7363: 4339: 3999: 443:

Also, since this message is quite long, I've posted it here in "collapsed" form, to avoid using quite so much real estate on your talk page. Cheers,

254: 245:

WND is not accepted as a RS and Campus Progress doesn't look any better. Best to deal with it on the Talk. Consensus is clearly against your edits.

10102: 9197: 6146:

This should have posted on my Talk page. I had neglected to read the header on your talk page, so I removed it from there. Here's what I'd written:

4999:

whereas the Russians are said to have 40 in the Arctic. The other also wondered if the city of Healy, is named for him, but I couldn't answer that.

4483:

I apologize Harizotoh. Activist has an annoying tendency to ping everyone who ever agreed with him on an article talk page as a form of canvassing.

2240:(one of the middle managers under him was Dan Sullivan, as in the former mayor) and don't know all that much about his prior law enforcement career. 9848: 6832: 6331: 6253: 5239: 4771: 2270: 1694: 935:, which can prevent the IPs from posting to the article while allowing you to continue editing it (e.g., semi-protected or feedback protected). -- 931:

I posted at BLPN, the article talk page, and now here. You are doing a good job on the article. If you still are having trouble, post a request at

7903:

has talked about this before. I'm going to start the talk page discussion. Do not use it to make accusations against me. You can do that here.

6246: 1687: 626: 10203: 9729: 8686: 7736:

Thank you for the heads up! It turns out Queerty recycled the website putting 2020’s Pride50 over 2019’s group. I’ve added the archived website.

6349: 6333: 5133:. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 599: 314: 2663:

information without keeping it close to the sources can lead to stuff being mistakenly removed by new editors who are unaware of what happened.

10029: 9589: 9123: 9088: 4214: 8775:

It was with no small regret, especially after the thanks you recently gave me, that I removed most of what you added about Nancy Marks to the

8588:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 8054:

Activist, this is a final warning about casting aspersions against other people. As you know, I warned you about this more than two years ago

3315: 2594: 873:

has more to do with this than Jim Duncan does, even though it would constitute quite a stretch to arrive at that conclusion through RS, also.

9040: 8419: 7897:

Activist, you restored challenged content without going to the talk page first. This is a violation of BRD. This is the edit in question.

6512:

page. This is incorrect. While I did remove a good deal of unsourced material from that page recently, not all of my 26 edits were deletions;

6390: 6365: 5190: 4439: 4059: 4017: 3840: 1573: 1192: 9358: 6106:

what I could. With a few more smaller changes, this became the consensus version which lasted almost a year before it was removed by an IP.

1142: 10273: 10153: 10075: 9946: 9543: 9169: 8811:

to Marks, she now meets the notability standard and we could start an article on her. All the same, I'm not sure we should because she's a

8383:

does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Knowledge, this is supplied at minimum in an

7768: 6307: 5688:

Although Watkins said Kansas “was always home in my heart,” he applied 11 times between 2002 and 2015 for an Alaska Permanent Fund dividend

5667: 5663: 5659: 5530: 3760: 3540:. Since the prison does have staff living there, I made sure to get the school attendance boundary information for Parchman (and same with 1374:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 268: 9571: 6542: 6161:

I've referred the matter of the edits of the Kay Ivey case to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I also read the FTB case. Fascinating.

5837: 5707: 5396: 5014:

things became. Anyway, thanks for all the words of encouragement that I've been remiss in not responding to as of late. It appears that

3382: 3367: 1693:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

1371: 483: 423:

If you do create that page, or any sub-page in your "user space", I'll also just mention that it's customary to add the eleven characters

334: 9749: 9745: 8184:

history of edit warring and failure to get consensus before restoring questionable edits. This is a behavior issue that needs to stop.

4114: 3298: 2898: 2852: 2512: 2236:

Here's another possible tie to CBC. Wasn't Dankworth succeeded as head of AST by Tom Anderson, Sr.? I knew the elder Anderson from the

9868:👍 We’re all human, Activist, though I think you make fewer mistakes than the rest of us. Thanks for your usual courtesy. Best regards, 9624: 6939: 5722: 5220: 4102: 3817: 1041: 145: 8889:

forbidding us from reporting inferences of our own as fact. And I take that as an obligation not to make the subjects of articles look

7597:

Activist, I told you at the article talk page that you should not add your version to the article while the issue is under discussion.

5789: 5686:

is irrelevant.) If it looks like this is going to be kept, I can clean it up a bit this weekend; I'm most concerned by sentences like

5519: 5306: 5205: 4492: 1354: 638: 8258: 6428: 6414: 5741: 5511: 5493: 5432:. Archiving is perfectly normal Knowledge functions. It's done automatically by a bot in many articles. Take a controversial guy like 5100: 4691: 3678: 2920:

Battleground behavior under discretionary sanctions should not be tolerated. Perhaps you'd like an opportunity to correct the record?

522: 9492: 8653: 7833: 7808: 7790: 6354: 5615: 5283: 4462: 4039: 3860: 3832: 3772: 3707: 3606: 3588: 3559: 3531: 3499: 3484: 3469: 3451: 3433: 2645: 2546: 7459: 4476: 4353: 4344:

I appreciate the heads up. I expect to be on the phone for the next few hours but I'll make any necessary repairs when I get loose.

3985: 3924:

shanks, per capita at Parchman than at the for-profits that all were managed by the same outfit: GEO then, MTC now. Peas in a pod.

3750: 2299: 2164:

and John Manly (then his legislative aide, later press secretary "to the stars") collaborated on a book about the 12th Legislature,

542:

dealing with the public to be a necessary evil, but otherwise loathsome. Of far more interest to me was hearing of "Senior Justice

455: 9717: 8151: 6252:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Knowledge's

5587: 5073: 4754: 3647: 2786: 2764: 697:

who had served in the Alaska House of Representatives and started an article about her. Feel free to make any improvements. Thanks-

338: 10232: 8352: 8244: 8211: 8031: 8016: 7989: 7975: 7943: 7928: 7881: 7857: 7723: 7705: 7655: 7638: 7554: 7537: 7474: 7146: 7132: 7118: 7038: 7024: 7003: 6900: 6140: 6120: 5415: 5008: 4929: 4171: 4156: 4142: 4074:

Which revision are you looking for? You can use the revision comparison tool in each history page to check which edits were made.

3735: 2929: 2108: 2094: 2070: 2043: 1785: 1767: 1746: 1423: 1405:, even though I agree that you did raise a valid concern (obviously, as look at how quickly it was whitewashed by another editor). 1387: 1318: 1303: 1286: 994: 980: 958: 944: 240: 9753: 8878:

issue. In the original source for that comment, a couple of months ago, long before that was reported, there is no mention of it.

8519: 8483: 8438: 8170: 6629: 6600: 6582: 6561: 6475: 5822: 5801: 5551:

you accuse SeventeenNinety of being an “operative tasked with scrubbing negative info about Colorado Republican officeholders".

3958: 3933: 3911: 3893: 2577: 330: 324: 8145: 7183:

these policies. The next steps are drop it, good faith discussions (with a request for a 3rd opinion), or something like ANI.

6885: 6191: 4968:):::Given no one has responded to this Talk section, I have moved it, notifying those who have participated in this discussion. 3438:

You're welcome! In light of that it may help to split the article, with the new one dealing with the overall bribery scheme and

3081:@WWB:, @Fuzheado: Dear William and Andrew. My request for a scholarship was approved, so I'll get gas money to get to San Diego. 1954: 1518: 1177: 833: 806: 499: 10246: 10038: 9709: 9506: 9278: 9132: 8069:

Making such accusations in edit summaries or on talk pages is inappropriate, and doing it repeatedly can result in a block. --

5849: 4911: 4897: 4873: 4859: 2169: 932: 221: 10126: 6923: 6863: 1495: 1116: 1070: 430:

I know all this can be as confusing as anything when you're just starting out. If you have any questions, posting them to our

7511: 7490: 7397: 6775: 5142: 4830: 4629: 4614: 3841: 3114: 2968: 2486: 2147: 1824: 1810: 756: 538:), so I'm not that familiar with what's been said this time around. I can't see where there's any new ground here, however. 250: 6206: 6170: 3309: 3221:

Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.

2723:

I'll see if I can't figure out what tribe he belongs to. I'll take a look at the article when I get back on line. Gotta go.

10296: 10175: 10098: 9567: 9497: 9354: 9193: 8620: 8500: 7201:"Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it, resulting in an edit conflict. Here is what I'd written. 3594: 3349: 3039: 3021: 2568:

19:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the notice. I'll drop you from those pings. I apologize if they've been a distraction.

1541:

Democrats". Do you really believe this nonsense? They went after Puckett because he became a Republican, and was therefore

1013: 8725: 5310: 4147:

this is not the primary point, which is his single-minded POV pushing. I just mentioned that to illustrate editing style.

1857: 9733: 8489: 8335:

Thank you for the pointer. It took me a while to understand whether it was me who created that article. I added him as

8322: 8298: 8281: 8228: 8193: 7358: 7287: 7269: 7254: 7192: 7167: 7102: 6149: 5994: 5767: 5610: 5594: 4731: 4285:). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this: 4065:

Thanks for the advice. I'm off to bed shortly, but I'll try to fix that mixup before I do go. 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

3027: 2498: 2136: 1647: 1619: 1057:

and that Knowledge itself is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and hence relies on secondary sources for credibility.

877:

Theresa Obermeyer has recently discovered Knowledge, but evidently hasn't progressed through it far enough to understand

379:

The following would be the effect of doing so with some of the text you wanted to quote from the other user's talk page:

9877: 9863: 8309:] If you don't self revert I will take this, along with the rest of your recent edit history to the noticeboards. You 7056: 6987: 6971: 6955: 6103: 6095: 6084: 2621:

I have known about it for weeks. Why don't you do it? I'm already too busy trying to keep up with your endless reverts.

725: 9705: 8794:

style which we haven't really used for 15 years ... why? Is there some issue with that template for you? I'm curious).

8407: 6706: 6384: 5701: 5645: 3879: 3544:

in Angola, LA). The fact that staff and their children lived in those two prisons motivated me to beef up the articles.

1972: 1375: 9670:

I also note your revision 1213581551#2024_U.S._Senate_campaign, Revision as of 22:23, 13 March 2024, that incorrectly

8700:

was meant to indicate that you were perhaps allowing your opinions to overly influence your editing, which isn't good

8180:

Activist, if you restore the Rittenhouse material without getting consensus first I will take you to ANI. You have a

6960:

Activist, edit summaries such as the one you included here should be avoided as they suggest wp:battleground behaivor

6552:

conservatives. So I would be tempted to ask you the converse to your questions. But I don't think that's appropriate.

5381: 3942:

article to be comparing two other different prisons. The article needs to stay focused and on-topic, and not become a

3271:

A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

971:

rights. If you need more to help you maintain the Alaska political corruption probe page, etc. please let me know. --

562:

their supporters (who have mostly placed redistricting at fault), methinks more attention will be given to the losses

10318: 10254: 10046: 9643:. I note you reverted two of my good faith and correct edits at 1213583026, Revision as of 22:32, 13 March 2024, to 9595: 9514: 9140: 8464: 7912: 7422: 6800: 6176:

The FTB case is indeed fascinating. Was this an isolated incident or are the conservative justices willing to ignore

5815: 5541: 5537: 5465: 5167: 4789: 4199: 3139: 2993: 2285: 706: 688: 629:- If no published source ties together, say, 163 incidents as part of a common trend, Knowledge cannot do so either. 8601: 6277: 4665: 3442:

being a biography of one of the participants (with the section on his legal troubles focusing only on Epps himself)

3282: 3260: 3172: 2607:

Did you know there is a whole article about G4S Controversies? Why don't you put all this excessive coverage there?

2411: 9898: 9693: 8175: 7745: 7685: 7083: 4697: 4323: 3660:

of a major state agency (at the time). His pre-scandal biography had been covered in national-level magazines like

2320: 1478: 1444: 1047: 246: 5927: 319: 292: 10292: 10171: 10094: 9563: 9350: 9189: 8917: 8902: 8848: 8581: 8330: 8202:

Actually, Springee, consensus does exist there. there was nothing "questionable" about my edit that you deleted.

6946:

that per NOCON and BLP the disputed content remains off the article until a consensus for inclusion is reached.

6908: 6726: 6047: 5068: 4557: 4389: 3899:

further copyright clean-up and removed off-topic material, including incidents that occurred at other prisons. —

3642: 2910:

As was explained on the article's talk page, it's not canvassing when the recipients are all active participants.

2824:, I restored the most recent scrubbing of the DWS article by VolunteerM. I expect he or she may be very unhappy. 2759: 2708: 2616: 2552: 2253: 1642: 1614: 1579: 1418: 897: 567: 130: 10148:

originally scheduled for May 14 has been rescheduled for 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 21, 2024, at

9457: 9415:

if it's occurring in your area of the world. Thank you for your amazing effort to maintain, improve, and expand

9021: 7218:

The article needed work and I've cleaned up a number of errors within it. What you did is to follow me from the

5533: 5260: 4330: 3410: 2258: 2127:

I probably never followed up on various discussions between you and I in recent months when I should have. The

2019: 1992: 1943: 1557: 925: 644: 9667:

as, I trust you know, Twinkle is not to be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith.

8978: 8765: 8705: 8368: 7763: 7389: 7199:

and Knowledge automatically rejected the edit to the Don Young Talk page that I was making. Here's the message

6767: 6132: 6112: 6059: 5346: 5134: 4237: 4005: 3537: 3106: 2960: 2135:

I see that you worked on Jerry Ward's article recently. I've been working on filling in the Alaska section of

2090: 2039: 1988: 1939: 1893: 1763: 1737:

Disruptive editing, it appears to me, is exactly what you're doing. Certainly we can resolve this collegially.

1724: 583: 571:

Act, but that hasn't appeared to faze the Redistricting Board. I'm sure it will be an issue in the next round.

554: 298: 31: 8989: 8105: 8078: 6295: 6287: 2630: 2143:, Nenana has long attracted Natives from all over. If you can think of anything which may help, let me know. 1728: 1370:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 112: 10198: 8444: 6459: 5445: 5387:

In 1939, Hitler invaded Poland claiming it was a just response to a "provocation" by "Polish" cavalry. Hmmm.

4977: 4806:. None. You are heading for some kind of block or ban. You can of course leave it but it would be unwise. 4370: 4083: 3245: 2463: 1349: 1335: 1270: 1168: 160: 53: 8709: 6844: 6746: 5843: 4093:

to keep track of these things when writing BLP articles. Getting it wrong can have disastrous consequences.

2713: 2455: 1021: 782: 738: 619: 9994: 9873: 9844: 9405: 9324: 8960: 8649: 8348: 8061: 7889: 7588: 7405: 7336: 6821: 6783: 6722: 6326: 6242: 6222: 5972: 5547:

Furthermore, looking at your recent contributions I see it is not just Marquardtika you are doing this to.

5358: 5314: 5150: 4738: 3875: 3541: 3304: 3122: 2976: 2732: 2679: 2656: 2151: 1905: 1861: 1683: 1667: 1592:

Here's something even better than that, though. Jake Metcalfe is not mentioned in his father's listing in

1429: 1258: 1154: 306: 199: 101: 48: 9688:

The wikiarticles on medical schools, including highly ranked medical schools, do not use “graduate”. See,

9005: 7400:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

7227: 6778:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

5145:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

3117:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

3075: 2971:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

2375: 557:

spent more time and energy campaigning against HB 110 than against their actual opponents, and all lost.

9817: 9789: 9757: 9737: 9336: 8751: 8672: 8490: 8130: 7696:

relationship. You show little if any of that. You've left a wide trail and I'll be happy to document it.

7619: 7409: 6787: 6671:

It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon!

5749: 5362: 5154: 3613: 3126: 2980: 2939: 2565: 2380: 2263: 2140: 1958: 1909: 1705:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through 1395: 212:. I realize you don't like Breitbart, but you should probably go somewhere else to complain about him. 9437: 5548: 4004:

There was a scandal where several Detroit school principals were involved in a kickback scheme. I wrote

3963:

I agree that it's very important to keep the articles focused or people may not easily read it. I think

2719:

I didn't see him, but I heard that he and Dave Donley were both there pushing Cruz, beating up on Trump.

8558: 7663: 7078: 6688: 6273: 6126:

all your arguments, but I have now. We've both been around here too long to get into such an edit war.

5871: 5377: 5036:

since the whole REAA concept hasn't been given much recognition in our coverage despite its importance.

4196: 3378: 3345: 2316: 1776:

I don't have time to deal with you any longer. I repeat my request that we submit this to arbitration.

1702: 10272:

is encouraged to attend. There is no obligation to participate and all guests are welcome. Please see

8410:. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — 7443: 7180:

removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

3340:

If you can expand that section or go deeper into who said what with RS based text, wonderful! Thanks

3161: 3158: 3155: 9825: 9809: 9805: 9794: 9761: 9678: 9674: 9671: 9652: 9644: 8819: 8701: 8657: 8004: 7582: 7417: 6795: 6734: 6358: 6265: 5619: 5368: 5238:

It technically applies to all pages on Knowledge, including article talk pages and user pages as per

5162: 4577: 4374: 3278: 3256: 3168: 3134: 3035: 3017: 2988: 2848: 2558: 1915: 1710: 310: 278: 58: 2833: 949:

Thanks for the feedback. I requested temporary protection and will follow through on further steps.

10122: 9225: 8525: 8451: 6919: 6230: 5916: 5795: 5675: 5450: 3756: 2952: 1679: 1548: 1164: 1017: 606:

attempting to determine if this is a larger issue. You're invited to comment there if you'd like.

467:

I can't jump into a conflict on your side since doing so would violate our rule about what we call

10379: