User talk:Ashley Y/2008

1056:

to improve the wiki would be fraught with danger. If you are spotted doing so and are found to not be making a material improvement, you will face an increased sanction - so I for one would advise the blocked user to use other means - email me, for one. And I would further say that the best way a blocked user can maintain or improve the wiki is to figure out the problem points in their own behaviour and how to fix them, then go about asking for their block to be lifted based on a promise to improve. The best way to improve Knowledge is to have a whole lot of unblocked editors working together, obeying and ignoring rules, and caring about each other. </rant: -->

437: 361: 700: 761: 1976:

the (utterly fictitious) "blame". The point is to try to act wisely, keeping context and the tendencies of others in mind. There is no foolproof formula for not creating disruption. On the other hand, nobody will hold you eternally culpable for making a mistake. We all live and learn, and that's built into the system, precisely because we don't run on an unforgiving and unyielding ruleset. IAR takes care of that.

1836:(undent) As I've said, I think the first (and basically only) priority for a blocked user is to understand why they've been blocked, figure out a new course of action, communicate with an admin, get themselves unblocked based on a promise of reform, prove they mean it - then get on with productive editing. 1723:

creates a disruption. Nothing that fails to create a disruption is disruptive. No other criterion is worth anything. The only thing that should be considered disruptive is that which disrupts. Keeping in mind that you control your own actions, and not those of others, figure out how to avoid creating

1637:

Ashley, why do you need to draw a definite conclusion out of this, on the lines of "you...suggest" vs. "if,,,not"? Ignoring rules is not conducive to drawing conclusions. It's a judgement thing and a conscience thing. Don't ask for definitive answers, the rule to IAR's is designed to prevent definite

1571:

It was actually you who suggested that a user might get "caught". If getting "caught" is a real concern, then creating a second account would make that happen very easily. If getting caught is not a concern, then create as many accounts as you like. There are no absolutes here except for "improve the

882:

Another reason people sometimes get testy is when they see the other party run out of arguments and instead take the same arguments around in circles again and again without making any advances. I've tried to meet your points, but they seem to keep shifting, there doesn't seem to be anywhere where we

1982:

If I were some kind of judge, declaring fault and credit (which thank God I'm not - yecch!), I would say that the disruption was created partly by Q's naivete, and partly by the blocking admin's misplaced "cops and robbers" mentality. I wouldn't block either of them for it, but I'd point out to them

1501:

If you seriously think that I'm claiming that honesty and openness is disruptive, then you are missing my point by LIGHT YEARS. Is that intentional? All I'm saying is, "do what it takes to improve the project while generating the least heat." Why do you insist on finding some way in which I'm wrong?

1219:

Um... I don't think I've suggested that anyone hide anything. Have I? All I'm saying is that, were I blocked for edit warring over some issue article, if I were reading anonymously at a library, and noticed a typo in an article about a band, that had nothing to do with that issue... then I'd fix the

1070:

Yes... I think there's a lot of good sense in what you say. I think it would depend on the situation, honestly. If I were blocked, but I were on a library computer and noticed a simple typo somewhere, I would absolutely fix it, rather than emailing someone. If I wanted to perform some action similar

1055:

Just to pop in an unsolicited comment here, imo, if you have been blocked, it's a reasonably good indication that you currently have a problem with understanding which rules to follow, which to ignore, and when to do either. Continuing on a course of determining a necessity to ignore a rule in order

2111:

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make

2095:

The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the

1851:

ability to judge what the problem was in area A and your ability to stick only to areas B, C and D. Yet you have just been sanctioned for your erroneous judgement. You are no more trustworthy using your second account - and if you are trustworthy, why not promise an admin that you will avoid area A

1268:

I agree with you that it's OK to evade a block to fix something unrelated. But surely it's a little bit easier to edit with an account? Why not be completely explicit about it? After all, you're not doing anything except improving and maintaining, and you're carefully avoiding the original locus of

1081:

Your last sentence is one I certainly agree with in every way. I hope that anyone who is blocked is also provided with the necessary knowledge of how to improve their contributions and avoid future blocks. I'm very leery of the idea of admins as cops and rules as laws, which seems to be implicit in

928:

and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund

886:

I have read the /V page, it has some good stuff but it also has just plain random stuff. Why is it there, who put it there, when? It gives no context, it's like you tipped a museum room into a storage box. Which one is the dinosaur bone, which is candy floss, which is the preserved nuclear warhead?

1975:

Yeah, I'd agree with that. It sounds like life. You're not always in full control of the effects of your actions. Q has some control over the situation, and others have some control. If we're all being wise about it, nobody will be "blamed", but frankly, that never happens, and Q might end up with

1920:

If you can use a good-hand account without it creating a disruption, then good work. If you can edit anonymously without it creating a disruption, then good work. The ONLY absolute is to improve the project while generating the least possible heat. Everything else is up to judgment and conscience.

1839:

GTB is talking about a certain clear situation: if you're currently blocked and see a simple typo, you're in a position to correct it anonymously, ignore your block and get the job done. I do agree with that however I think it's unrealistic. People generally get blocked because their judgement has

1394:

I must confess I'm a little confused. Consider: editors P and Q both get blocked in area A. Both want to make some improvements in unrelated area B. P does so anonymously, but this gets detected for some reason (say, a checkuser). Q creates a new account Q2, and on User:Q2 writes "this is a second

1294:

For minor edits, I do not find there to be any difference between editing with an account and editing without one. The account only becomes useful if one is following specific articles (on one's watchlist), but one can use "User contributions" just about as effectively without logging in. Unless I

1278:

Well, I suppose you could do it... why make noise when one could be silent? I don't know; it doesn't seem like much of a big deal. I don't always log in to make simple edits - is there a problem there? Does it hurt the project if I sometimes refrain from logging in? Is being "completely explicit"

610:

Pleased to meet you, Ashley. I notice that the userbox in question is not being used by you, nor were you the last to edit it, and the message has been changed. I just edited it to fix the grammar. What's the story of this userbox? The MfD could be extraordinarily disruptive, I'm trying to get it

1134:

If I were blocked, I would not evade to edit in another area unless I could be sure that there were consensus that this is acceptable behaviour. Looking around I don't have evidence of such a consensus, though perhaps it exists. If there is no consensus, then I'd likely have my block extended.

2091:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Knowledge, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial

1905:

Yah, you're possibly right in that thinking. I suppose it comes down to how you interpret "evading a block". The example you gave seemed like an open declaration of defiance - "I have decided to invoke IAR to continue editing". That's a little different from the other open course - like any

2115:

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

995:

Is the project hurt? Why refrain from improving Knowledge? I do not understand your reply to contain a reason. What am I missing? Do you think an admin would be right to "catch" them improving the encyclopedia? According to what bizarre understanding of common sense would that be a crime?

964:

I thank you for your interesting post at my talk page. What you said is thought provoking, and I'm working on a reply in which I go into a bit of detail about how the rules relate to different areas of Knowledge work. That relation certainly varies from one part of the project to another.

1440:

Now if I understand you correctly, an admin should not extend P's block. That's good. But apparently Q is "creating a disruption". Surely Q acts at least as well as P? Why is the honesty and openness disruptive? After all, Q chooses to do nothing except improve or maintain Knowledge.

1171:

I'm a bit puzzled how this type of block evasion would be detected, with enough certainty that you're willing to say "I'd likely have my block extended". Does that mean it's likely that someone is playing sleuth, and trying to catch you in unrelated areas? Who on Earth is doing that?

1494:

User Q is not necessarily creating a disruption. If there is some cop-minded admin on the lookout for Q, then Q would probably do well to fly under the radar. It really doesn't make a difference in probably 99% of cases, and the other 1%.... what on Earth is this conversation about?

31:

Hi Ashley Y. I'm a bit clumsy with wiki markup and protocol, so please forgive me if I'm writing in the wrong place. Just wanted to tell you that I recently signed in, saw your message about the Durban Strategy article that I started, and responded on its talk page. Thank you. Yours

1226:. That would be like asking to create a disruption while attempting to be quietly helpful, which is all I've suggested anyone should be. Quietly helpful. Are we against that? Should that user in that library not fix the typo in the band article? Just leave the error there? - 495:

deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Knowledge's policies and guidelines.

116:

Do not vent your anger at your fellow Wikipedians if they are just making simple comments on your editing, even if it's on your own talk page and you revert it right away. Users can still see your edits if they look through your edit history or are browsing Recent Changes.

1921:

Franamax is correct that looking for some list of criteria about what is or is not disruptive is totally misguided. What is required is mindfulness, thoughtfulness, and a genuine desire to help the project. Don't look for rules to follow; use your judgment in each context.

2099:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and

1112:

I would counsel the admin not to extend the block. But it's not clear to me that extending the block is widely considered abuse, and if it's not so considered, then I would advice the blocked editor that they might have their block extended if they evade the block for any

1348:

Yes, I'm sure improving Knowledge trumps any priority about "explicit"ness, and no, one is not necessarily hurting the project by being anonymous. But surely one is not necessarily hurting the project by being explicit either? I mean, it seems like a matter of simple

1978:

If I were Q, I would probably just edit very quietly and anonymously, if I edited at all while blocked. Doing otherwise is a bit quixotic, but that doesn't make it dead wrong, nor does it mean that it will never work. There's a big world of possibilities out there.

1164:

That's a reasonable approach. I would put up more of a fight, which I think is also reasonable. If an admin extended a block for a reason that doesn't involve preventing damage, then I would seek input from the larger community on that admin's behavior. Speaking

1073:

I think what I'm saying is in line with the idea that blocks are never punitive, but always preventative. If we're not talking about the type of action that you were blocked to prevent, then I don't see how a preventative block would proscribe the action.

1497:

If you can improve the project more effectively by logging in, then log it. If you can do it more effectively by editing anonymously, then edit anonymously. If you can do it more effectively by using a "good hand" account, then use a "good hand" account.

1891:

Yes, and that's a big IF. If Q can convince other human beings, in real time, to accept the use of her "good hand" account, then I'll be impressed. It's much more likely to upset people, but the day it doesn't, I'll be there celebrating with you.

923:

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to

1077:

On the other hand, if you are doing something that is not improvement, and you're "caught", then I would say the increased sanction makes sense, and incurring it is worth doing, in order to learn what one has apparently not yet learned.

1906:

good-standing, blocked, banned, vanished, outed, disruptive, trollish or just plain weird editor - if you appear in another guise and don't repeat your bad (or otherwise identifiable) behaviour, you're just any other editor, right?

451:, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the 849:

Generally speaking, when people start feeling testy, it's more a sign that they've run out of arguments than that they're dealing with someone unreasonable. I'm not accusing you of that, but it's something to watch for.

878:

run out of arguments - when I'm persuaded I'm wrong in my thinking - then there is a brief gap and I argue for the other side. Never a problem there. It is late at night though, and I do like arriving at some kind of

1840:

gone wrong somehow. In that case, they need to be very careful about what they think a "typo" is - for example, they could interpret "Jew" as being a mis-spelling of "evil Zionist conspiracy" and helpfully IAR to

1965:

say "that's bad" and block Q2 and extend the block, and then there's a disruption. So it seems to me it's the admin (or admins and others collectively) that decides whether there's a disruption or not, not Q.

827:

Ashley Y, be honest, of all that discussion, have you gained any better understanding? Do you think you've helped anyone gain a better understanding of your point of view? Are you just doing this for fun?

584: 516:...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the 2084: 383: 831:

I'd be happy to carry this on here, do you think any of us are being productive anymore on the IAR talk page? I'm going to sleep soon so I'll be taking a break anyway. I'd urge you to as well.

2120: 1927:

bother someone and thus create a disruption, but if you can find a way to make it work, then good job. Nothing is "necessarily" disruptive until it creates an actual disruption. Then it is. -

1852:

and ask for an unblock? GTB is completely right there, creating a second account with the declared intention of evading a block on account-1 - it's just not gonna end well, don't you think?

2048: 2076: 375:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1923:

Creating a "good hand" account might or might not be disruptive. That is based on only one criterion: does it create a disruption? If you declare your intent to evade a block, that will

568: 382:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

2144: 2025: 1284:

The easiest, least heat-generating way for me to improve Knowledge while I'm blocked is anonymously. Improving Knowledge trumps any priority about "explicit"ness. Or doesn't it? -

419:

was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--

1847:

And your Q2 goes right over to the other side of the question. You are talking about openly declaring your intention to ignore your block. In essence, you are declaring your

2103:

Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently

2068: 834:

Let's try again tomorrow, here. Give it a rest for now. None of us has improved an article for several hours - that's probably not a net benefit for the wiki. Talk later.

804:

this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click

595:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

2016: 2008: 694:

as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

604: 904: 368: 354: 596: 794:, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at 2006: 2055: 1708:

Actually, I'm merely inquiring as to whether a particular action should be considered disruptive or not. I don't see why I can't draw conclusions about

1560:

Well earlier you seemed to suggest that creating a second account would be disruptive, which struck me as very odd. But if it's not, then that's OK. —

954: 1207: 352: 1169:

an admin, I would like to know if some admin were behaving in that way, so we could stop them. Admins who think they are cops damage the project.

562: 611:

speedy closed, the last thing we need is a debate over fundamentals of religion. It seems some people want to interpret it offensively.... --

406: 1042:

What would you counsel the admin in that situation? Do you think that counseling people to defer to possible admin abuse has the effect of

620: 1279:

directly helpful, in and of itself? Is the goal to bait legalistic people into complaining that you're "evading a block"? That seems odd.

105: 74: 65: 1987: 1970: 1931: 1896: 1732: 1576: 1564: 1506: 1445: 1303: 1288: 1273: 1230: 1214: 1176: 1139: 1086: 1065: 1050: 1025: 1000: 986: 650:

If you're so concerned about the facts, check yours. Christianity is not the only belief system that believes non-followers are damned.

503: 200: 174: 157: 139: 1915: 1882: 1861: 1805: 1647: 896: 869: 854: 686:

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Knowledge.

817: 311: 298: 268: 235: 2198: 731:

article a while ago, so, if you have a moment, could you help out a N00B like me and stop on by? Thanks! (BTW, I also posted on the

1281:

I guess one could force the issue, if it were important to one, but if that is the goal, then that's the definition of disruption.

416: 637: 1395:

account of Q created so I can edit in B, and I promise to not use it to edit in A". And then Q goes ahead and improves in area B.

883:

could say "ok, that's resolved, lets go to the next point". That makes it difficult for me, I like to see at least some progress.

717: 592: 576: 570: 552: 428: 529: 752: 972:

from improving Knowledge in some other area, by evading their block? If so, then why? Is the project hurt by such an action? -

982:

They should probably refrain, as they are taking a chance on either not getting caught or on the admin being understanding. —

191:

I'm not accusing you- you really said "UR STUPID", unless it was someone else on your account. And let's not fight here.

917: 521: 170:

Um, I suggest you examine that a bit more closely before leaving snotty and accusatory messages on people's talk pages. —

659: 347: 2047:

for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

680: 665: 289:(bolded for emphasis). I'd like not to have a big debate here, so please just refrain from those types of comments. - 943:

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

524:. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - 41: 976: 1299:

to be logged in, and I don't notice an efficacy difference, except where it comes to page moves or admin actions. -

843: 744: 664: 543:

userbox, should be in Category:Humanist Wikipedians, and not Category:Wikipedians interested in humanism. Regards,

508: 1021:

admin behaviour), but if it were likely that an admin would extend the block, then I would counsel against it. —

95: 55: 540: 517: 929:

raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

913: 708:

I have noticed your Christianity userboxes and I thought that you might be interested in this project also -

219: 2041: 1878:

necessarily disruptive, and that creating a "good hand" account (Q2) is OK if it helps Q improve Knowledge. —

460: 129: 2185: 455:, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please 2129: 1957:

I'm a little unclear about at what point a disruption is created. At some point, an admin notices Q2. They

1013:

The project might not be hurt, but the user could be. I must confess I'm not all that familiar with likely

583:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 534: 920:

for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

2096:

imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

2080: 645: 600: 423: 936:

at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch

303:

The "U" referred to myself, since I was the target of the accusation. See if you can figure out exactly

933: 776: 372: 2029: 629:

I collected a bunch of religious userboxes after it was decided to move them out of Template: space (

548: 2037: 968:

I am curious, though. Is it your opinion that someone who is blocked for actions is one area should

2021: 740: 329: 805: 397:

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

26: 1210:

with a note that I'm using the account to evade a block so I can editing in an unrelated area? —

912:

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the

959: 466:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding

2075:

has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the

822: 713: 500: 71: 52: 925: 393:

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

2112:

it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

2052: 1071:

to what I was blocked for, then I hope I would consider the argument you've laid out here.

813: 544: 456: 343: 2033: 8: 802:

if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that

736: 307:

I did that. And as for the big debate, who exactly came to whose talk page to complain? —

196: 153: 125: 37: 2159: 1911: 1857: 1643: 1220:

typo. Is that equivalent to suggesting that someone hide something? What am I missing?

1061: 892: 839: 791: 780: 772: 754: 101:

Thanks. I always hate it when people say "rvv" in a content dispute, so I'll be good. —

17: 452: 790:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting

655: 487: 485:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 294: 231: 2134: 950: 937: 709: 525: 497: 92: 1206:

Well, if I'm not doing anything wrong, why hide it? For instance, should I create

862: 809: 799: 768: 722: 471: 402: 339: 82: 46: 784: 448: 447:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

2060: 1984: 1928: 1893: 1729: 1716: 1573: 1503: 1300: 1285: 1227: 1173: 1083: 1047: 997: 973: 411: 192: 149: 121: 111: 88: 33: 2195: 1967: 1907: 1879: 1853: 1802: 1639: 1561: 1442: 1270: 1211: 1136: 1057: 1022: 983: 888: 866: 851: 835: 795: 634: 630: 616: 588: 580: 559: 394: 387: 376: 335: 308: 265: 261: 226:, although it is not directed at anybody specifically, it violates policy. - 223: 171: 136: 102: 62: 2126: 2104: 2072: 732: 651: 481: 444: 430: 290: 227: 779:

from Knowledge. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because

2163: 946: 585:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah

436: 384:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Okopipi (software tool) (2nd nomination)

360: 420: 398: 2119:

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged

874:

Heh, you will never find me running out of arguments :) Except when I

1983:

that they were being naive in the one case, and silly in the other. -

1135:

Knowledge might benefit from my edits up to then, but I would lose. —

2079:, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad 760: 612: 2143: 699: 728: 2061: 371:, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for 591:

with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of

491:

explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for

457:

see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

1961:

say "no big deal", and then there's no disruption. Or they

1874:

That may well be true, but I think GTB is saying that Q is

273:

You can if you'd like. I don't consider that calling

1082:

many people's understanding of the blocking policy. -

120:

We are trying to improve Knowledge, not anger users.

1844:- then they repeat the action that got them blocked. 775:, by another Knowledge user, requesting that it be 905:Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice 1724:a disruption. Whatever that takes, nobody cares 1295:need to do a page move or admin action, I never 914:Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference 1712:. From that, maybe, I might shed light on IAR. 1269:the block. Why is this creating a disruption? — 91:. It is given easy and easily removed. Enjoy.-- 1728:you avoid attracting trouble. Just avoid it. - 449:section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion 1222:Creating a second account sounds bizarre and 579:, a page you created, has been nominated for 1715:An action "should be considered" disruptive 679:You are cordially invited to participate in 887:It's all just stuff. Regards (&gnight) 70:It's not important who wrote the section. 2141: 593:User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah 577:User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah 571:User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah 14: 783:is a redirect to a non-existent page ( 461:notability guideline for biographies 23: 759: 459:, as well as our subject-specific 435: 359: 260:stupid? I think that's stretching 24: 2210: 1801:think an admin should block Q2? — 2142: 698: 1017:admin behaviour (as opposed to 940:, for updates on future meets. 539:Hello Ashley Y. A user who use 277:stupid though. You didn't say 61:I know, but you did write it. — 1988:04:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 1971:00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 1932:19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1916:11:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1897:19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1883:10:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1862:10:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1806:09:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1733:19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1648:09:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1577:19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1565:08:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 1507:15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 1446:07:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 1304:07:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 1289:07:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 1274:07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 1231:06:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 1215:01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 1177:17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 1140:04:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 1087:04:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 1066:04:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 1051:03:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 1026:03:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 1001:01:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 987:19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 977:15:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 767:Hello, this is a message from 87:Use it only to remove obvious 13: 1: 2056:03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 504:19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 417:My effort to regain adminship 256:I'm not even allowed to call 148:About the "UR STUPID" edit. 2199:00:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 2186:00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 2130:12:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 2077:Palestinian-Israeli conflict 932:You may also wish to attend 453:criteria for speedy deletion 424:04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 407:21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 348:01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 312:00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 299:00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 269:00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 236:23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 201:23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 175:23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 158:23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 140:23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 130:23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 106:23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 96:23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 75:11:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 66:11:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 56:11:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 7: 955:23:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 798:. Feel free to contact the 771:. A tag has been placed on 390:with four tildes (~~~~). 42:18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 10: 2215: 2160:Talk:Hummus#Policy, please 926:the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page 897:06:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 870:06:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 855:06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 844:06:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 818:08:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 745:21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 727:Hey, I saw you edited the 718:03:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 660:17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 638:19:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 621:17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 605:23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 563:11:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 553:08:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 2148: 2017:Category:Religious people 2009:Category:Religious people 530:17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 443:A tag has been placed on 2162:. Self-explanatory, no? 681:WikiProject Christianity 666:WikiProject Christianity 367:An editor has nominated 222:. That is considered a 51:I meant to not sign it. 934:the next London meet-up 509:A new Oxbridge user box 488:the article's talk page 369:Okopipi (software tool) 355:Okopipi (software tool) 861:I do urge you to read 764: 587:and please be sure to 440: 386:and please be sure to 364: 2073:Arbitration committee 763: 671:Hello Ashley Y/2008! 439: 395:articles for deletion 377:What Knowledge is not 363: 2107:), or the Committee. 2081:editing restrictions 535:Humanist Wikipedians 2152:The Modest Barnstar 2069:an arbitration case 2049:the discussion page 646:Just the facts, eh? 429:Speedy deletion of 2007:CfD nomination of 792:Zionism and racism 781:Zionism and racism 773:Zionism and racism 765: 755:Zionism and racism 589:sign your comments 569:MfD nomination of 441: 388:sign your comments 365: 353:AfD nomination of 18:User talk:Ashley Y 2191: 2190: 2014:I have nominated 1842:improve Knowledge 733:article talk page 706: 705: 597:Action Jackson IV 2206: 2182: 2179: 2176: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2146: 2139: 2138: 2046: 2045: 1572:encyclopedia". - 938:Knowledge:Meetup 777:speedily deleted 769:an automated bot 702: 674: 673: 518:work in progress 477: 476: 470: 330:I like your edit 2214: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2171: 2168: 2165: 2137: 2132: 2067:As a result of 2065: 2053:Parthian Scribe 2019: 2015: 2012: 1208:User:Ashley Y 2 962: 907: 825: 758: 725: 684: 669: 648: 574: 545:Masterpiece2000 537: 511: 474: 468: 467: 434: 414: 358: 332: 224:Personal Attack 114: 85: 49: 29: 27:Durban Strategy 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2212: 2202: 2201: 2189: 2188: 2155: 2154: 2149: 2147: 2136: 2133: 2125: 2109: 2108: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2064: 2059: 2011: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1845: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1717:if and only if 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1292: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 990: 989: 961: 960:Ignoring rules 958: 906: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 884: 880: 879:understanding. 858: 857: 824: 821: 789: 788: 757: 751: 749: 737:Intothewoods29 724: 721: 704: 703: 696: 677: 668: 663: 647: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 624: 623: 573: 567: 566: 565: 536: 533: 510: 507: 433: 427: 413: 410: 357: 351: 331: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 163: 162: 161: 160: 143: 142: 113: 110: 109: 108: 84: 81: 80: 79: 78: 77: 48: 45: 28: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2211: 2200: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2187: 2184: 2183: 2161: 2157: 2156: 2153: 2150: 2145: 2140: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2122: 2117: 2113: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087:and below. 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2063: 2058: 2057: 2054: 2051:. Thank you. 2050: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2018: 2010: 1990: 1989: 1986: 1980: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1969: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1926: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1904: 1898: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1850: 1846: 1843: 1838: 1835: 1807: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1734: 1731: 1727: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1713: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1578: 1575: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1509: 1508: 1505: 1499: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1447: 1444: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1291: 1290: 1287: 1282: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1233: 1232: 1229: 1225: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1179: 1178: 1175: 1168: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1141: 1138: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1089: 1088: 1085: 1079: 1075: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1049: 1046:said abuse? - 1045: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1002: 999: 994: 993: 992: 991: 988: 985: 981: 980: 979: 978: 975: 971: 966: 957: 956: 952: 948: 944: 941: 939: 935: 930: 927: 921: 919: 916:. Please see 915: 910: 898: 894: 890: 885: 881: 877: 873: 872: 871: 868: 864: 860: 859: 856: 853: 848: 847: 846: 845: 841: 837: 832: 829: 823:IAR talk page 820: 819: 815: 811: 808: 807: 801: 797: 793: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 762: 756: 750: 747: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 720: 719: 715: 711: 701: 697: 695: 693: 689: 683: 682: 676: 675: 672: 667: 662: 661: 657: 653: 639: 636: 632: 628: 627: 626: 625: 622: 618: 614: 609: 608: 607: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 578: 572: 564: 561: 557: 556: 555: 554: 550: 546: 542: 532: 531: 527: 523: 522:comment on it 519: 515: 506: 505: 502: 499: 494: 490: 489: 484: 483: 473: 464: 462: 458: 454: 450: 446: 438: 432: 426: 425: 422: 418: 409: 408: 404: 400: 396: 391: 389: 385: 380: 378: 374: 370: 362: 356: 350: 349: 345: 341: 337: 313: 310: 306: 302: 301: 300: 296: 292: 288: 286: 280: 279:"I am stupid" 276: 272: 271: 270: 267: 263: 259: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 202: 198: 194: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 183: 176: 173: 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 164: 159: 155: 151: 147: 146: 145: 144: 141: 138: 134: 133: 132: 131: 127: 123: 118: 107: 104: 100: 99: 98: 97: 94: 90: 76: 73: 69: 68: 67: 64: 60: 59: 58: 57: 54: 44: 43: 39: 35: 19: 2164: 2151: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2083:, described 2066: 2013: 1981: 1977: 1962: 1958: 1924: 1922: 1875: 1848: 1841: 1798: 1725: 1720: 1709: 1502:What's up? - 1500: 1496: 1296: 1283: 1280: 1224:non sequitur 1223: 1221: 1170: 1166: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1043: 1018: 1014: 969: 967: 963: 945: 942: 931: 922: 911: 908: 875: 833: 830: 826: 803: 800:bot operator 766: 753:Redirect of 748: 726: 707: 691: 687: 685: 678: 670: 649: 575: 538: 513: 512: 492: 486: 479: 465: 445:Individual-i 442: 431:Individual-i 415: 392: 381: 366: 333: 304: 284: 282: 278: 274: 257: 119: 115: 86: 50: 30: 2100:guidelines. 1925:very likely 710:Tinucherian 498:Tagishsimon 480:the top of 281:, you said 72:John Reaves 53:John Reaves 810:CSDWarnBot 340:Coppertwig 338:. :-) -- 2194:Thanks! — 1985:GTBacchus 1929:GTBacchus 1894:GTBacchus 1730:GTBacchus 1638:answers. 1574:GTBacchus 1504:GTBacchus 1301:GTBacchus 1286:GTBacchus 1228:GTBacchus 1174:GTBacchus 1084:GTBacchus 1048:GTBacchus 998:GTBacchus 974:GTBacchus 865:though. — 287:R STUPID" 193:Redbull47 150:Redbull47 122:Redbull47 89:vandalism 34:tharsaile 2196:Ashley Y 2135:Barnstar 2092:process. 1968:Ashley Y 1908:Franamax 1880:Ashley Y 1854:Franamax 1803:Ashley Y 1721:de facto 1640:Franamax 1562:Ashley Y 1443:Ashley Y 1349:honesty. 1271:Ashley Y 1212:Ashley Y 1137:Ashley Y 1058:Franamax 1044:enabling 1023:Ashley Y 984:Ashley Y 889:Franamax 867:Ashley Y 863:WP:IAR/V 852:Ashley Y 836:Franamax 635:Ashley Y 581:deletion 560:Ashley Y 514:Ashley Y 482:the page 373:deletion 309:Ashley Y 275:yourself 266:Ashley Y 172:Ashley Y 137:Ashley Y 103:Ashley Y 63:Ashley Y 2127:Spartaz 2030:history 1113:reason. 970:refrain 729:Odwalla 723:Odwalla 652:T geier 291:Rjd0060 228:Rjd0060 135:What? — 83:Granted 47:Comment 2071:, the 2062:Hummus 1015:actual 947:Addbot 796:WP:WMD 785:CSD R1 631:WP:UBM 501:(talk) 493:speedy 472:hangon 412:My Rfa 379:"). 336:WP:ATT 262:WP:NPA 258:myself 112:Notice 2105:WP:AE 2038:watch 2034:links 1963:could 1959:could 1019:ideal 558:OK. — 421:MONGO 399:BJBot 16:< 2158:For 2121:here 2085:here 2042:logs 2026:talk 2022:edit 1912:talk 1858:talk 1710:that 1644:talk 1297:need 1062:talk 951:talk 918:here 909:Hi, 893:talk 840:talk 814:talk 806:here 741:talk 714:talk 656:talk 633:). — 617:talk 601:talk 549:talk 541:this 520:and 403:talk 344:talk 295:talk 232:talk 197:talk 154:talk 126:talk 38:talk 1876:not 1849:own 1799:you 1797:Do 1726:how 1719:it 787:). 735:!) 613:Abd 478:to 463:. 334:at 305:why 264:. — 220:See 93:Doc 2123:. 2040:| 2036:| 2032:| 2028:| 2024:| 1914:) 1860:) 1646:) 1167:as 1064:) 953:) 895:) 876:do 842:) 816:) 743:) 716:) 688:WP 658:) 619:) 603:) 551:) 528:@ 526:LA 475:}} 469:{{ 405:) 346:) 297:) 234:) 199:) 156:) 128:) 40:) 2181:t 2178:u 2175:m 2172:a 2169:i 2166:T 2044:) 2020:( 1966:— 1910:( 1892:- 1856:( 1642:( 1441:— 1172:- 1060:( 996:- 949:( 891:( 850:— 838:( 812:( 739:( 712:( 692:X 690:: 654:( 615:( 599:( 547:( 401:( 342:( 293:( 285:U 283:" 230:( 195:( 152:( 124:( 36:(

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

Index