8433:
certainly were there to attempt a coup and as far as I'm concerned they were there to commit murder. The people who thought they were attending a protest and got caught up in the moment and broke into the building also should be charged with insurrection. But there were undoubtedly people who listened to the speeches, marched to the capitol, then decided it had gotten out of control and left. And probably some who listened to the speeches and then left because the crowd was already getting too worked up. And, yes, some BLM protests turned into looting sessions and riots. Some people attended BLM protests in order to get into fights with the other side. And because these incidents overlapped, discussing them in the same conversation makes progressives, including me, really uncomfortable because of course the insurrection can't be compared to the BLM protests that turned into riots, because in the case of the insurrection the leader of our country was the root cause of it and the immediate inciter of it. But it is absolutely not helpful to shut down such discussions because "they're right-wing talking points." Yes, right-wingers are comparing them in ridiculous ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the conversation at all, and in this particular case what I was comparing was the fact that not everyone in attendance was there to attempt a coup and therefore calling the idea that anyone was there to peacefully protest "mythical" was opinion, not fact.
3541:
to be old school - the John
Cameron Swayzee - Walter Cronkite style ethics in journalism; i.e., report only the facts in adherence with NPOV. The dilemma arises when the reporters are no longer reporting facts, rather they are mixing their commentary with opinion and that's why it has become difficult to get everyone on the same page. With the transition of the primary medium for which news was reported, specifically the transition from newspapers/magazines to analogue (TV) and from analogue to digital (internet), technology paved new roads for what we are plagued with today. WP has its own news source separate from our encyclopedic articles, and that is where I believe "news" should be published. When we defend news sources, we are not talking about peer reviewed academic sources or credible journals that have specific guidelines to keep editors on track, such as MEDRS; perhaps we should consider something similar to help avoid the ideological division that often leads to disruption. Some will argue that we already have PAGs that adequately address the problem and they just need to be followed - others will argue that we do follow them - it all depends on one's perspective. That's why I am in full agreement with the arguments put forth by Masem and DGG regarding sources. Their arguments clearly align with our current PAGs.
6020:(ec) Well, MastCell...I'm old enough to remember the phrase barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and it came with no labels unlike all the politically motivated labels attached to people today. I remember the Reagan years well, and a time when it wasn't at all unusual for a mom to lovingly tell her rambunctious kids to stop running around barefoot, to go put shoes on and stop acting like "little monkeys" - no labels of racism attached. In fact, I'd wager that it's still said today with no racist connotation. And then there's the 500lb gorilla picture we use on WP today, with no racist label whatsoever, and Trump being compared to and having the intelligence of an orangutan but that isn't racist. Nope - what WP considers racist is Reagan's private recorded phone conversation, and a phrase he used to express his frustration - not about the people necessarily, but about the country in what I would consider the same intent as the aforemented phrases, but because he's a Republican, his words are automatically labeled racist. We censored Biden's "you ain't black" gaffe, and whitewashed his article of notable criticisms while we pretend it's compliant with NPOV. Right - don't pay any mind to mainstream media's criticism - nothing to worry about - remember, WP is too big to fail. Atsme Talk đ§ 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
1095:
a lot of other things that Trump says. I imagine that they find racism repulsive. That said, I think they are willing to tolerate some things because they see Trump as doing other things that need to be done. (For many people this might include appointing conservative judges to the
Supreme Court who can maybe stop what they see as the killing of unborn babies. Not saying that PackMec specifically endorses this, but that's an example that probably applies to many conservatives.) Jeung, on the other hand, probably isn't doing a lot of good in their view...just working for the (failing) NYTimes. I also imagine that PackMec doesn't hear some of the "dog whistles" in Trump's statements and is distrustful of the media reporting on such. I'd also like to push back on the argument that if PackMec really cares about racism they should be willing to call it out wherever they see it. I imagine that you (MC) value honesty, but I don't think that alone would convince you to try to paint Obama as a liar (even though he got the "lie of the year" award for his "you can keep your healthcare if you like it" thing). The point is, these things don't exist in a vacuum. There's also the sourcing argument...that most of the news about Jeong is related to her tweets.
8457:, in which a group of right-wing extremists successfully breached the Capitol with the intent (and tools) to kidnap and/or lynch members of the government, all in an effort to overturn the results of a legitimate election. Describing January 6th as a "protest" isn't an example of neutral language; it's complicity in the effort to rewrite the history of what actually took place.And, sure. There were undoubtedly some "very fine people" mixed in with the crowd on January 6thâ just as there were "very fine people" in Charlottesville, interspersed with the neo-Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us!" Some people just have a knack for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I guess.Anyhow, what I'm saying is that the instinct to reflexively both-sides the issue and to reach for left-wing analogs to the Jan. 6th riots is a problemânot because it's a "right-wing talking point", but because it ignores the reality that these sides are not symmetric, and that neutrality doesn't consist of staking out a position halfway between Medicare-For-All and the guy in a "Camp Auschwitz" sweatshirt carrying a taser & zipties. I don't think you're intentionally echoing a partisan talking point, and I didn't mean to imply that. I
3506:
for false representation and victimization of that kid, and that other news sources have apologized to the victim, but WaPo intends to fight it. In all likelihood they will settle out of court. There are many other incidents of similar bad reporting by so-called trusted sources and if WP editors are going to IAR and blindly trust breaking news, pundits, opinion pieces etc., then we're doing a disservice to our readers and will soon be listed along with the sources we're citing that got the story wrong. I provided diffs when I spoke of those sources - nothing like what you represented that I did - and I also provided alternative ways to present the information without making it seem like WP supported it but I encouraged waiting a while instead - we're an encyclopedia, not the news media - and certainly discouraged saying things that were not verifiable in WikiVoice. If you can find instances that what I'm saying now isn't true, then please provide the diffs. I don't think it was fair that you made the statements you made about me without a single diff to support the allegations. How is that not casting aspersions?
5982:
not allow their kids to play with us. My closest friends and allies were the Black kids who lived in
Sunnyside across the railroad tracks, which is where I hung out. They accepted this little Yankee wop with her Bostonish accent as one of their own. I spent more time there with my best friend, Mathis and his family, than I did my own. Yes, MastCell, I know bigotry and racism very well...and while I'm typing this response to you, tears are falling as I relive those memories, and why I didn't want you to make it personal. I grew up a scrappy, defensive Tomboy who fought tooth & nail against the bigots; add to that, the fights I fought defending my handicapped sister from the bullies. I've had cigarette ashes flipped on me by the older girls on the bus ride home from school, I had soda poured over me, and was punched in the face for objecting to it. After that, I chose to walk home instead of riding the bus. As I got older, I learned how to defend myself against the bullies, and I sure as hell don't want to have to do it on WP.
5042:
6964:, and sorry for the belated reply. I think the topic is an interesting one, but I just don't have the bandwidth to dedicate to it at this point. We're in month twelve of the pandemic and while I'm very hopeful about the impact that vaccination will have, I haven't yet seen things let up on the clinical endâmeaning that I'm pretty depleted at this point. To do a thoughtful and defensible piece on a lightning-rod topic like right-wing misinformation on Knowledge would take more time and energy than I have at this point. Like many people, I can see the attempt to rewrite the history of the pandemic (and other aspects of the last 4 years) in real time, and it's alarming. Watching people lie and manipulate our coverage of something that I lived through in a very first-hand way is a novel and surreal experience, but these days like many people I have to carefully pick my battles and decide where to spend my finite wherewithal and moral energy.
5288:, I'm a complete dilettante when it comes to coding, but I do have fond memories of summer work writing server-side Perl scripts, with the old camel book in hand. It was either that or work on the database side, so it was an easy choice. Not to mention the feeling of power and trust when I was granted access to the cgi-bin directory... On another note, the cultural contrasts between tech and biomedicine always fascinated me. For instance, in medicine, people gain esteem as they age. Patients instinctively trust older, gray-haired physicians, and it takes time to prove yourself starting out. In tech, youth is everything (at least that was my superficial impression), and people's value was perceived to decline as they agedâit's the older, more experienced people who have to prove their worth. Both fields are marked by extremely rapid technological and practical change and evolution, so the difference is interesting to me. But I digress.
7763:. A few times should be enough; they've expressed their views, there's no reason to keep picking on me. Because, as you said, it upsets me. I volunteer my time on this website like everyone else, and to have one of the website's administrators, in conversations with the website's founder, repeatedly use me as an example... well, I think that's understandably upsetting. My fear is that editors who do not know me will look at MastCell's comments on Jimbo's talk page and believe them, then make wisecracks (like suggesting that the book "How to Argue With a Racist" might be useful in a discussion with me) that hurt my feelings. There's just no need for us to treat each other this way. For my part, I had earlier suggested MastCell say "ok I'll stop" and I say "ok great" and we both go back to what we were doing before, and I'm going to pretend like that's what happened here, and I'm sure this won't come up again. Happy editing, everyone.
8649:
routinely read media, reliable and not, that present a wide range of views. Such editors can readily identify the sources others have followed to arrive and non-mainstream content suggestions and the well-informed editors, JzG among them, also bring considerable historic and academic perspectives to the table. Valereee, I don't think anyone doubts your sincere concern and distaste for some of Trump's actions. But I suspect you fall more in the cohort of well-informed educated readers of mass media than in the much smaller cohort of those with deep historical and mainstream expert academic perspective. To evoke the term "riot" describing scattered looting, burning, in 2020 is to adopt a Trump/Republican propaganda narrative. In the USA, race-related riots such as those that occured in the 1960's '70s, and at a couple of more recent times -- those resulted in hundreds of deaths and hundreds of millions of property damage. See
8798:
of person who "is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'."But I don't want to get you in any more trouble, so I'll leave it there. You know how I feel, if you've read some of those discussions, and you've seen the type of bluster and dogpiling that have resultedâall in defense of "civility", of course.Congrats on your progeny's marksmanship. I have some (remote) experience with a .22 rifle, and an old NRA qualification to prove it, but I could never hit even the broad side of a barn with a pistol. On the other hand, video games are probably suitable training, since most seem to revolve around shooting things. My reflexes and reaction time have gotten too ponderous for anything beyond
5973:
proper share of the blame for lacking clarity in that regard, but I'm asking you to try to be a little more attuned to what I, as a female editor, was feeling by your aggressive approach. There were alot of thoughts going through my head while trying to recall some of the history of the 60s & 70s. It was my intention to present intelligible context relative to Reagan's racial slur. My thought process stems from my early childhood in
Providence, RI where I was born. My maternal grandmother was an Italian immigrant who didn't speak English, and my paternal grandparents were Irish immigrants, so we had our own battles to fight against prejudice within our own family. I was raised by the Italian side, and the words that were commonly used against us were dego, wop, hike, and guinea. It was a shameful time in American history, and a time when little kids were chanting "
9842:(got the squamous cell carcinoma on the second excision). As to family support, COVID made it near impossible to be together as one would expect in time of grief; it was just rough all 'round. My brother is still inconsolable, and I don't suppose that will ever get better. My other niece is still distraught. What a horrible thing cancer is. I am sorta relieved to hear you agree with me on AML, and understand you not wanting to try to fix it. I will at least feel less guilty if someone takes it to FAR. My sense of what's going on in here is what you mention combined with more of the effect of what are clearly child editors than I recall having seen before. Perhaps COVID lockdowns led to a lot of 12-yo editing, but, well, it does make one miss the wonderful old collaborations at a high level. I did notice that dave souza has kept
3453:
question, or are you just reflexively defending your "team"? By way of analogy, suppose that, in the course of a football game, the
Packers are flagged for 150 yards of penalties while the Bears are penalized for only 15 yards. Does that mean that the referees are biased against the Packers? Or does it mean that the Packers committed more penalties than the Bears, while the referees did their level best to call the game fairly? I don't see any evidence that you've tried to disentangle these two potential explanations. Do you think that some or all of those cases were wrongly decided? If so, it's not clear from your complaint, which seems based on your assumptions that a) editors fall neatly onto one of two "teams", and b) editors from each "team" should be sanctioned in roughly equal numbers by an unbiased admin.
2164:
deciding factor in the previous closing. Asking the editors in question could clarify if that was a deciding factor. Not many editors cited that reason alone. Keep in mind that
Dlthewave didn't start a new formal RFC including notifying the previous editors. Instead they set up a quick vote despite the objections of other editors. So even if the RFC should be reopened, they didn't notify responding editors that the material had been previously discussed nor why the previous RFC should be overlooked. Finally, I can't fathom how it isn't vote stacking to notifying a project that it's specifically setup to push this sort of information. Project firearms includes a broad range of editors including those who have supported such article changes in the past. The same can not be said of protect guns politics.
6620:
9003:âI'm glad it lifted your spirits. I've been there, and I know how isolating and depressing it can be to deal with that sort of thing. I think you did an outstanding job of being kind and patient, but also firm about this site's fundamental principlesâso thank you (again) for working so hard to find that balance.I'm sorry for not jumping in more actively to support your efforts to stand up for good editing; unfortunately, with the fourth wave (or fifth? or third? who's counting anymore) of Covid-19 infections I've been too busy with real-life stuff. I hope you can maintain the patience you've shown, although I know it gets harder with each subsequent agenda-driven single-purpose account that one deals with. Anyhowâyou're doing good work, and you're not alone, even if it feels that way sometimes. Thank you.
5566:
regarded blacks as worthy of the esteem and empathy of equals. There are stirring stories, for instance, of a young
Clintonâs efforts to help blacks in Washington, DC, displaced by the rioting in the wake of Martin Luther King, Jr.âs assassination, and of his friendships with African American peers while a law student at Yale. Nor should we ignore the close relationship Clinton maintained with Vernon Jordan, an African American confidant sometimes referred to as the presidentâs âFirst Friend.â Contrast this, for example, with the racism exhibited by Richard Nixon, whose secret White House tape recordings are littered with racist statements, such as when he told his personal secretary that African Americans would become productive citizens in perhaps 500 years and then only after they were âinbred.â
5573:
his defenders cried foul, insisting he was no bigot. Economist and political commentator Paul
Krugman offered this succinct rejoinder: âSo what? Weâre talking about his political strategy. His personal beliefs are irrelevant.â Just so with Clinton: he understood the political advantage in race-baiting and chose to use it. It may have violated Clintonâs values; indeed, he was likely deeply troubled by the perceived need to racially pander. Whatever the case, though, Clinton bit down on that whistle and blew. At root, the âracismâ in dog whistle racism is the âstrategyâ in the Southern strategy; the racism lies in provoking racial animosities in order to gain votes and power. Under this definition, Bill Clinton was as deft a dog whistle racist as Wallace, Nixon, or Reagan before him.
6774:
deal with, and have now passed the 100,000 deaths threshold, which is not the sort of "world beating" that I think
Johnson meant when this whole thing started. The government continues to be slow to listen to the science or implements halfway measures few think are good enough. I'm a bit concerned about our approach to only giving people one jab and then making them wait 12 weeks for the next one. I'm not sure they've thought out the human-behaviour aspects of that coupled with the political pressure to open everything back up. I can only hope one jab is more effective than the very limited data suggests. At least our leader isn't suggesting we all try injecting Dettol. We are all looking forward to having less American news on our TVs in 2021, so please don't disappoint us. --
5142:- that's a good point. From Sashi's reasoning, I suppose a pure procedural argument could be raised on two grounds, that of a request by him to hold it a couple of days so he could put together a more coherent argument when not at work, which would be an interesting basis (I'd actually guess that ARBCOM would have preferred that were the case, but wouldn't overrule on it) or that insufficient chance and effort was made to get all early participants to see El C's (the primary stated victim) statement in rebuttal of a siteban, after which there was a firm majority in opposition of a siteban. That's quite a common flaw, though this was a significant example, and I guess ARBCOM would again rather more effort be made but reticent to make what could be quite a broad overruling.
2082:, that is a VERY self serving summary of the issue. The proposed material is virtually identical to the material debated in RfC from last year. That RfC had about two dozen participants, many were not the usual editors, and resulted in no consensus for addition. You are attempting to relitigate the same material while ignoring previous consensus. You are also engaging in vote stacking by notifying the "Gun Politics" project. That was a project you started to correct what you felt was insufficient coverage of this sort of content in gun articles. All 10 members are editors who have reliably supported such content. So yes, I am asking why you think we should relitigate this content and why you think your notifications were not vote stacking.
968:
and do but none in your own. I would like to understand that thought process and why you think that. Going back to the explained several times from above, again that was explaining my thoughts and positions on things several times through the discussion. I am not sure if you either do not believe me or do not understand me. I would get it if you just disagreed with me, but it does not look like it has gotten to that point. I would be fine with either not believing me or disagreeing with me since that is your choice to make on an internal level. But I am not sure if it is not still an understanding issue. I would actually be happy to go over any part again if you still have any questions, perhaps tackle it from a different angle for clarity.
766:. The more you describe it the more it looks like you are seeing the difference between editor me and personal feelings me. I personally have many issues with things Trump has done, especially given who I am as a person. But I do try to edit in a way that goes with policy over feeling. As far as the question of weight per subject, we might just have to agree to disagree. As the leader of the free world does it matter his racial views? Certainly, heck it has it's own article. Are they the even in the top 5 for most important things for his whole BLP to be added to the lead? I would say no, you obviously have a different opinion and that is fine there really are no right answers there. Does that help clear up the situation for you?
960:
tried to say otherwise. Then tried to say the version you wanted had been in there since the start when that was not the case, a quick look in the article history showed that and I showed that with diffs on the talk page. There is now consensus for that version thanks to me. As to the actual claim of hounding are you suggesting I did it in malice or as a form of harassment? That is an odd idea since again it was a very misleading edit that needed to be corrected and was on one article, though I do apologize if I caused irritation, annoyance or distress. Also the "explained the situation several times now" was in reference to my beliefs and the main discussion, which I will discuss below, unrelated to the spurious hounding claim.
1893:
corruption is a central theme in the dissident literature of any totalitarian societyâfor instance, that of the former Soviet Union). A broader discussion is outside the scope of
Knowledge, and I know better than to try to have a serious discussion on this website, with this "community". I will say that, insofar as Knowledge is concerned, this project serves as a bulwark against official dishonesty, or at least it should. This project is dedicated to summarizing human knowledge, and to combating ignorance and misinformationâmeaning that we, as Wikipedians, have a responsibility to resist falsehoods and lies, whatever their source. And that's my inspirational speech for the day; now back to the comfort of my usual cynicism.
3849:... and so on. If you look at this exchange and you see Atsme providing a "content-based and collegial" critique, then I guess I question your perspective. I see her disruptively re-litigating a just-closed RfC, dismissing the input and basic competence of the other editors on the page, accusing them of bad faith and misrepresentation, making a variety of incorrect or false claims about the material under discussion, and constantly moving the goalposts when people respond to herâas substantiated by the diffs above. What am I, as a bystander and admin who watches the page, supposed to do in that situation? It is not "casting aspersions" to call attention to these behaviors and to ask or insist that they stop.
3855:. The editors that worked the proper processes and completed a well-formed RfC just watched Atsme swoop in, invalidate it with a bunch of poorly-thought-out and condescending arguments, and then go off to a different noticeboard to try to get the answer she wants. Those editors are bound to feel demoralized and dispirited at seeing this perversion of our content-dispute-resolution policies. Surely, with a modicum of empathy, you can acknowledge that you'd feel that way in their shoes. So I speak up, because I can, and because I think it's important. Like you, I worry about the degradation of our editing environment, and I see the behaviors demonstrated in that thread by Atsme as a case in point.
2547:
disturbed that you keep misrepresenting what the lead actually says. You keep saying "unrelated to Russia" but that sentence and the sentence before that make very clear that it is unrelated to Russian efforts to interfere in the election. There is a clear distinctions there and one that has been brought up by several people on that talk page with several RS supporting it. It is a little ironic that you call people lairs, incompetent, and childish for disagree with a source then you turn right around and do the same thing. Perhaps political articles are not your thing and you should take a break from them. But eh it is a free world and that is just some friendly advice. Marry Christmas!
7172:
tolerance in the first place isnât a product of the narrow-mindedness one person could turn off, or the cooperativeness another could turn on. There is something there, something in the way, something that actually matters to the human attempt to get along. There are differences that constitute obstacles to someoneâs integration into an ethical community that are no oneâs fault and cannot be willed away, and there is no recipe for how to overcome them. It is easier to tolerate people than to acknowledge this; and itâs easier to acquiesce in being tolerated and supported, rather than fighting for true connection. Tolerance is an equilibrium born of exhaustion and lowered expectations.
5518:
Strom Thurmond in South Carolina, the young Atwater held Richard Nixon as a personal hero, even describing Nixonâs Southern strategy as âa blue print for everything Iâve done.â After assisting in Reaganâs initial victory, Atwater became the political director of Reaganâs 1984 campaign, the manager of George Bushâs 1988 presidential campaign, and eventually the chair of the Republican National Committee. In all of these capacities, he drew on the quick sketch of dog whistle politics he had offered in 1981: from ân****r, n****r, n****râ to âstatesâ rightsâ and âforced busing,â and from there to âcutting taxesââand linking all of these, ârace ... coming on the back burner.â
9120:; thanks for taking an interest in the article. It definitely has some glaring blind spots, one of which (Reagan and racial issues) we've both touched on. Well, a "blind spot" is the charitable explanation. It's somewhat more difficult to sustain the assumption of good faith once one recognizes a pattern of cherry-picking sources in a non-neutral fashion. For example, scholarly sources which critically appraise Reagan's approach to racial issues are citedâso it's not like editors of the article are unaware of their existenceâbut they are carefully mined to support a one-sided presentation of the complex reality that they describe. In any case, thanks for your note.
5986:
become totally absorbed in my role as a pragmatic editor with a focus on getting the article right per our PAGs. I did not start that thread at Jimmy's TP with a focus on Reagan, but after you diverted my attention to it, I was trying to adjust by focusing on context and the events that might have provoked such an insensitive racial slur from a president, and it had all the makings of frustration. Most southern schools by that time had been integrated, the hippy era had waned, but communism was on the rise, Cambodia was in the news, and the USSR had nukes. And I hope that I've clarified my position to your satisfaction. Have a good evening, and happy editing!
5761:
incorporate themâand in fact we reflexively reject scholarship on the topic because it offends our sensibilities. But then, I've been doing this for more than a decade and I have a lot of blisters (to use your analogy). I got started here because I was concerned that Knowledge was a powerful vehicle for the spread of medical misinformation. I never considered I'd live in a world where the primary vector of medical misinformation was the President of the United States. It's led me to re-evaluate and refocus some of my efforts to ensure I'm spending my time and money (after all, time is money) in a way that serves my values and principles most effectively.
9337:
political capital on behalf of the property rights of Black renters denied housing on the basis of their race? Or on any of the myriad ways in which the property rights of Black Americans were abridged over the country's lifespan? If not, then "property rights" is probably best understood as a fig leaf to make racist policies and pandering more defensible, in the same lineage as "states' rights" etc.More generally, if your understanding of American history generally, and of Reagan's career specifically, excludes the significant role of race, then I think you have a very limited and, dare I say, unencyclopedic understanding of those subjects.
1099:
not to fall into, and I don't know the best way to get out of it. Getting out, I think, requires the mental ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Using this as an example, you might try an experiment of trying to decide what you would do editorially if Clinton or Obama wrote racist tweets. Like actually sit down and think about it. Should there be a mention of racism in their respective Lede sections? You could also ask yourself what you would do if an obscure writer for Fox News was discovered as having written ugly racist tweets in the past. Should quotes from those tweets be substantially quoted in that person's biography?
5614:
its animating purpose. Neither is conservatism a makeshift fusion of capitalists, Christians, and warriors, for that fusion is impelled by a more elemental forceâthe opposition to the liberation of men and women from the fetters of their superiors, particularly in the private sphere. Such a view might seem miles away from the libertarian defense of the free market, with its celebration of the atomistic and autonomous individual. But it is not. When the libertarian looks out upon society, he does not see isolated individuals; he sees private, often hierarchical, groups, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees.
2418:
6384:), but the last 4 yearsâand the last 5 months in particularâhave been object lessons in the dangers of ignoring or underestimating the power of unchecked misinformation. Without going into specifics, in the last several months I have literally watched people die because of politically motivated misinformation. So now, when I see people slipping off-handed, off-topic partisan falsehoods into discussions here, I'm not willing to just let them slide to the extent that I used to be. Falsehoods gain strength from unopposed repetition, and the whole thing is a lot less bloodless and academic for me than it used to be.
8478:
of the insurrection had ever started out as peaceful protest, I made what seemed like a reasonable comparison to explain why I thought it was reasonable to argue that even something that turns into an insurrection MAY have started out peacefully. As you can see I struck that comparison, as it isn't even necessary. Many many many peaceful protests have eventually turned ugly. So I disagree it was unrelated. It was obviously stupid to even mention BLM, obviously that was a hot button, but it's true of MANY protests: they start out peacefully, and some in the crowd use them as an opportunity for violence.
3559:
personal viewpoints. Rather than acknowledge that reality, you've created an alternative timeline, replete with a phony version of Walter Cronkite and other newsmen of yore, to buttress an attack on the concept of reliable sourcing which forms the foundation of this website. And no, Masem's arguments don't "align with our current PAGs"; his views on sourcing are extreme outliers and have consistently been recognized as such. As I said at the AE report, I don't think he is doing you any favors by normalizing and enabling the behavior that got you in trouble in the first place.
4514:
3718:. For me, even disagreeing with Atsme on the content (as I think I normally do actually), I'm not sure how you expect Atsme to present their concerns with the article: I can't imagine a more civil or academic way to approach the topic, which is what we want on a talk page. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect Atsme to just refrain from commenting at all. Would you have wanted them to approach the conversation differently? Or is it possible that you are in fact personalizing this dispute too quickly? Anyway I hope you consider my comments, no offense intended. -
8575:
Proud Boys and other militia groups planned to attend and take part in a violent protest. How else other than violent action could any person attending that march on the capitol expect to prevent congress from certifying the results of the presidential vote and declare Joe Biden the winner? Wouldn't you think that any person that saw that lynching structure being hauled around would figure out that this was not a peaceful protest and leave? Or when some of them started fighting with the security police in attempt to enter the building? Or climbing the walls?
5508:
are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. Iâm not saying that. But Iâm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow meâbecause obviously sitting around saying, âWe want to cut taxes and we want to cut this,â is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than âN****r, n****r.â So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner.
6750:
I could ping you if it takes another turn for the worse. Your wisdom and experience would I'm sure be valuable, but I appreciate your time is important elsewhere. I'm sorry you are so disillusioned with Wikipedians and can only hope your impressions are wrong. I recall for a while Commons got an awful reputation for sordid things, and it was justified for a small bunch of highly vocal users on the drama boards. Away from that, there are a lot of photographers who seem to spend a huge amount of time in church (taking pictures of course, ungodly lot). --
6284:
but not their preferred outcome; I can also accept that some people think the close was outside the discretionary range (although I don't agree). I'm bemused at the degree to which a subset of the arguments are simply thinly-veiled grudges and attacks against me, with little to do with the matter at hand, but I'm OK with that too. The only thing I've pushed back against is the subset of arguments that seem actively misleading, those which utilize a superficial veneer of logic and evidence to distort the actual situation at the thread.
8354:
skeptical. I'm back to speculating / trading in equities in the past couple years including small cap biotechs, so I'm sitting a bit closer to the stage lately. Kinda view money lost on biotechs as a charitable contribution, altho more than I'd like goes to executive largesse; corporate governance is a recurring topic of interest of mine here on Knowledge and elsewhere. I did drop into UCSF Osher Institute of Integrative Medicine after the diagnosis and I was abashed that UCSF could be associated with the silliness I encountered.
3478:
that you made completely unreasonable points. It's just that if there's a call to make, you will always fall on the same side which I think makes deep bias in the long run. There is some complaining about Sandstein being biased in Israeli-Palestine reports, but he's not always making the same call, and he's active in AE reports in other areas as well. The reason why I care about this is because AE is frequented by only a handful of admins, so if one or two admins pop up selectively, they will sway the consensus. Happy trails --
964:
houses should not throw stones". When looking at your contributions to talk and articles from the past year or so, yeah they are mostly topics that have a right or left swing and all favor one side or disparage the other. You can deflect however you want by saying people that focus on your topics are pov pushers themselves. But that does not actually change anything and is more of a whataboutism without addressing the substance. Though again it was meant to be insightful to you and help, but I have apparently missed the mark.
4386:
7565:
this use of the word was a reference to mob justice and not racist mob justice. It's true that generally speaking people should not call being dragged to ANI or similar as a lynching (or as a raping). It's also true that many people have called ANI threads "lynching". It's also true that they probably don't mean that in a racist way, just in an unfair-mob-justice way. This is part of the reason I object to MastCell using that diff as an example of racism on Knowledge. It's just not an example of that. It's just not.
5969:, I can see things a bit more clearly. Perhaps if I had not been approached in such a forceful and intimidating manner by 2 admins, I would have responded differently. I do know that your perception of me has been wrong for quite some time, and that you have a very strong POV which makes communicating with you rather difficult. I'm just going to be here long enough to clear the air regarding my attempt to bring context into the discussion when I brought up the various terms and how they were used back in the day.
11198:
10163:
10251:
8883:
6455:
1552:
7850:
uncomfortable to raise these issues; I've been dogpiled pretty consistently (if Jimbo hadn't said something, I have no doubt people would still be defending BobK's "good Nazis should be welcome here" attitude even now), threatened with blocks and the Code of Conduct, and so on. But I don't think it's healthy to prioritize the avoidance of discomfort for a subset of existing editors to the extent that we implicitly condone things that make a much larger, but less vocal, group of people uncomfortable.
6629:
4340:
2387:
9584:
9096:, I thought it worth mentioning that the article has FA status, which leads many people to not examine it critically; but it was promoted way back when, and much of its content hasn't actually been evaluated. I recently noticed some of those issues in the subsection related to apartheid. If you have seen broader issues, it may be worth listing them on the talk page; if they're fixed, wonderful; if not, such a notice would speed things along when the FA status is examined as part of
9053:
bit draining). A high-level debate about whether the article is too favorable to Reagan will bog down endlessly, so the better option is a focused approach to one sub-topic at a time.For instance, since the article shamefully whitewashes Reagan's record on race, or his response to the AIDS epidemic, those would be manageable starting points for improvement. As those sub-sections are developed, it becomes more plainly evident that they deserve mention in the lead, and harder for the
22:
10561:
8174:
9733:
7488:
structural racism, and similar (I don't remember the exact wording offhand). I ignored it at first, then I've previously asked them to stop, and now they continue to use me as an example of this sort of thing, and it's been months of this. I'm sure it's totally unrelated to my having vocally opposed their close in that siteban discussion. I'm sure that there's some good reason why, when arguing that racism is widespread on Knowledge, MastCell often needs to misrepresent one of
4483:
where the President of the United States, and his political enablers, would become the primary vectors for medical misinformation, nor where simple opposition to blatant medical misinformation & lies would be treated as a partisan act rather than as a basic expression of this site's founding principles. (Of course, I never dreamed that these people could turn the simple use of face masks, during a deadly global pandemic, into a partisan wedge issue either. Live and learn.)
2993:
9679:. I gave some responses, but tbh I haven't been back lately because I've been too busy, and also, frankly, because it's stressful. The evidence for the claim seems thin to me wrt 4th Wave Now; there are two sources that label the three websites (collectively) as "anti-trans", PinkNews (listed as usually reliable at RSN) and one other unknown which hasn't been reviewed there. Even a cherry-picked search doesn't find much. This doesn't seem to meet the bar for a term like that.
6726:
also been disgusted by this community's inability to recognize and counteract the efforts of people who blatantly use this site to spread medical and political misinformation, and I view this siteâand a handful of specific editorsâas complicit, in a small but real way, in the political violence of the past month. Watching people enable and defend these liesâand the people who tell themâon a site ostensibly dedicated to disseminating knowledge has been demoralizing.
4766:
4479:
people) into the villains of the story. I feel a certain responsibility to honor the efforts, sacrifice, and suffering of my colleagues, friends, and patients by pushing back. And while I think we all realize on some level that these are lies, the usual subset of Wikipedians nonetheless have sprung into action to incorporate them here. I have to decide whether I have the stomach to watch them do that, with relative impunity, without saying something I'll regret.
8112:
6921:
political violence of the past month." My biggest concern for Knowledge has been a corporate takeover and perhaps I've been thinking that we have the political and medical bias problem under good control. But for some time I've kept most of Trump's articles on my watch list but mainly author just a few of them, child separation and environment and some work on racial positions as well, so perhaps I'm just not aware of what's been going on under the radar.
11328:
11233:
10384:
621:
Trump's perceived racism, but there are hundreds more on just his hair.Heck even on google (I know not an indicator of weight but still interesting) Trump racism is about 62 million, Trump hair is about 90 million, Trump hands is 127 million, and Trump by itself is 915 million. So the weight is not as strong, in the Jeong example that is not the case. But anyhow, thanks for explaining your opinion and hopefully you will better understand my actions.
10988:
11020:
10624:
9392:
6527:
4250:
2255:
911:
several times now in several different ways, while receiving no answers on the reverse. Which after going though your contribution history is starting to make sense, though I will say there is certainly consistency in the overall positions you take. So I will leave off this one with a quote that might help you ì€ìíìŹ êł ìčì§ ììŒë©Ž, êł§ ê·žêČì ì€ìíêł ë§ë€. ì€ìíìŹ êł ìčë êČì êșŒëŠŹì§ ë§ëŒ. - Confucius. But if you do still want to talk more about all this I am more than willing.
11293:
5943:âit's always good to hear from you. My comment certainly wasn't aimed at you. It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, really. It just reflected my sense that people are expending a lot of mental energy and argumentation on points that seem like hairsplitting to me, and losing sight of the bigger picture. I get that other people might see it differently, and that's fine. I've tried to limit myself to explaining my point of view, as required by
6802:. It sounds like a glib denial of several editors' clearly expressed concerns about recent edits. Several users have communicated with this user in the past to ask him to moderate his removals of stable text and references. I'm reluctant to bring this to AE, but it has become a serious drain on the time and attention of other editors, and it's undermining a lot of hard work on this article over several years. Any help would be appreciated.
10006:
5346:. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.
10955:
10945:
8951:
8941:
8396:
6329:
6319:
2947:
11343:
10287:
6218:
3990:
8592:
basis for judging the proportion. ( People are attracted by the idea of watching other people fight. I even think that some of those who entered the building were there to watch the excitement, and I think we all agree that anyone doing that was at the minimum, either stupid or reckless. I also am aware of the propensity of people to see how far hey can go without actually getting into trouble, and that they often badly misjudge.
2502:, or should know, is false, in the lead of a high-profile biographical article. Worse, we have a talk-page environment where obviously false wording receives at least a significant minority of support on an RfC. That's evidence of a deeply dysfunctional editing environment, one that has drifted very far afield from this site's policies. Given those ground truths, my tone is significantly milder than perhaps is appropriate.
741:
statements than for an obscure technical writer to do so. I question how you can make high-minded and moralistic pronouncements about the racist aspects of Jeong's tweets while ignoringâor, in fact, actively attempting to minimizeâthe racist aspects of Trump's tweets. That seems hypocritical to me. Your explanations so far have something to do with "weight" and with Trump's hair and hand size. But we're not talking about
9655:
paper. The survey methodology was roundly attacked by activists and some professionals, and a controversy broke out in the RW (hence the title), mirrored to some extent at our Talk page. The article got to a very good state after some great collaboration by many editors with differing opinions, imho, and quiesced for quite some time, before flaring up again recently over some edits which labeled these three websites as
2330:
2218:. I would add that participation in a Wikiproject is not restricted to those who are listed as "members" or "participants". For example, I assume that Springee and other editors have either watchlisted the Gun Politics task force or are monitoring my edits, as they often respond to my posts on the project talk page, just as I have followed Firearms and other projects before adding my name to the list. I request that
5912:
here - I have seen SO SO many discussions turn on "procedure." A ban and an indef block are not the same things. A 4th revert after 24 hours and 10 minutes isn't violating policy. I could go on, but I'm sure you've seen your share of this yourself. My point was mainly that "The AN ban proposal was closed, and closed properly. It was appealed to ACom who declined to overturn it" To me, that is case closed.
6259:
but I have a terrible tendency to over-scrutinise results I want, in case it's my bias running away with me. I think the call on the outcome can be made more than one way. You are correct in what you say, but so are others: there was a lot of soft sentiment expressed for a less restrictive solution. My gut feel is that more time might have introduced more clarity, and this would contribute meaningfully to the
10110:
4176:
943:
everything, both editorially and administratively. Think of it as a Rorschach test. I've found that when people focus on my contributions to political topics, it's usually because they themselves have trouble conceiving of Knowledge as anything beyond a partisan battleground. Take a look at my most-edited articles sometime, and you'll see that political topics don't figure prominently in what I've done here.
11106:
1603:
4926:
topic ban youâve got very slim pickings for an indef. That stuff was brought up in nearly every notice board report about Sashi, and nobody I can see has ever once acknowledged Sashi was right about that and they were wrong. Normally protecting the project from socks is considered a good thing. But since youâve been inactive for so long Iâm willing to understand you probably didnât know all the details.
9996:
8386:
10149:
4209:
10924:
necessarily imply that the actual vote count is rigged; a rigged vote count being the essence of Trump's screwball claim. Ivey, by contrast, blames vaguer, more familiar targets such as a hostile press, generalized business interests, and nasty political foes. Thus it's a stretch to say that her claims are objectively false. The woman is a little shrewder than you are giving her credit for I think.
4542:(CHOMP) and it was just heart wrenching in that they were all so young. Any nurse/doctor is very well used of death of old people but so many beautiful, accomplished, young ones was not easy. None of us were used of that. To this day I have snapshots of my patients in my mind and I still feel a loss. But a least they did not have to die alone and I cannot imagine what you must be going through.
2551:
660:
5359:
3552:
alive and reporting today, you and Masem would be deriding him as a left-wing hack, and the President would label him an "enemy of the people". Mainstream media haven't changed, so much as the ground has shifted under them in light of a sustained partisan attack aimed at undermining the very notion of a free, reliable press (and yes, you and Masem are part of that attack, here on Knowledge).
574:
importance and even suggested showing the other side. But again, they are two vastly different BLPs and not comparable. Hence the apples and oranges. To do otherwise would be more akin to activism or righting great wrongs in my eyes, which is never appropriate here. But maybe I have it backwards? It is an interesting subject overall, I would like to know if you think I am way off base here.
5525:
moderates, both became racial demagogues when it became clear that this would help win elections. Reagan was different. Unlike Wallace and Nixon, Reagan was not a moderate, but an old-time Goldwater conservative in both the ideological and racial senses, with his own intuitive grasp of the power of racial provocation. For Reagan, conservatism and racial resentment were inextricably fused.
10830:
7711:
out, above, is that using such terms is not only ineffective, but it also trivializes atrocities, and can be hurtful and unpleasant to read, depending on the reader (for many reasons, including reasons of racial identity). I'm sure I've upset people for no good reason here (I know I have off-wiki) but it's something I try to avoid. Not asking for a handshake, but maybe an elbow bump. ---
8817:
one's education or accomplishments (which can never be verified) using deception and even lies to win ground in arguments and pearl-clutching about the appearance of civility. Yet all of those things are implicitly and sometimes expressly permitted, much to the detriment of this project, so long as the editors engaged in them phrase everything in just the right way. We have a policy on
4468:. I do log in from time to time, but I haven't really been able to muster the energy to do anything more. As you might imagine, it's been a pretty remarkable and draining couple of months at work. As a result, I've been circumspect about making sure that I spend my discretionary time in ways that are relaxing and rewarding, and Knowledge hasn't checked those boxes for awhile now.
4706:(where the discussion from the section below was moved to) I was wrong to have giving you the above message, so I have publicly apologized there and repeating it here as well as formally redact the statement. I know there's a wholly separate issue related to the same discussion on the ANI page that is more demanding so I'd rather clear this up first, and again my apologies. --
10360:(along with other changes). However, you are one of three people who have the template placed on a fully protected page. The parameters changed were bg1 and bg2. This means that your use of the template now has no color. To fix this simply replace any instance of "bg1=" with "titlebgcolor=" and "bg2=" with "contentbgcolor=". You can see which pages you use this template on at
5683:
be privately without evident bias but promote public policies that worsen structural racism and inequality, or they may be both privately racist and publicly exploitative of racism. The evolution of leaders' racial views is also interestingâTruman's early and mid-life letters were full of casual racism, but in his later Presidency he aggressively championed civil rights (
4471:
decency rather than as weaponized tone-policingâare pretty much extinct. And it's harder for me to be superficially polite right now. After what I've seen and done over the past few months, to come here and see a bunch of ignorant half-wits downplaying the severity of the pandemic, or the criminal negligence of our national response to it, is a challenge to my equanimity.
2198:âwhich the broader community rejected. And, as I'm sure you're aware, reputable outside media have raised the concern that the Firearms WikiProject is inherently political in its approach to the topic area. I haven't yet seen similar concerning issues with the Gun Politics Task Force. In any case, if you believe the Task Force to be invalid, then the appropriate venue is
383:. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Knowledge, and don't forget to
9706:
history to be able to go right to the topic at hand, namely, if their previous Rfc somehow renders the 4th Wave Now discussion moot and I should just give it up, or not. If after all this you still feel like having a look, I'd love to hear your opinion about it (even if you decide not to jump into it over there). Either way, thanks for the offer, and happy editing!
1170:, to the effect that Knowledge should not be a vector for prolonging or intensifying the harassment of otherwise low-profile people, but in the end, arguments about "sources exist so it should be in the article" tend to win the day). I was interested in PackMecEng's threshold for making a moral statement singling out an individual for racism, as she did with Jeong.
3555:
sometimes mightily, with the challenge of covering a President (and a party apparatus) who lie reflexively and unabashedly, whose conduct flouts established ethical norms and is frankly criminal to an extent unprecedented in modern memory, and who are capable of creating "alternate facts" which at least 40% of the population will accept in lieu of actual facts.
6405:
But fundamentally, this project is about honestyâabout being honest with our readers and presenting them with accurate, reliable information. The fact that people can relentlessly push misinformation, lie about it, and then cloak themselves in the mantle of site policy is messed up, and I can't pretend not to be bothered and alarmed by it. We're witnessing an
1162:
policies, principles, and expectations regardless of my personal beliefs. I'm not really interested in touching the question of what Sarah Jeong's Knowledge biography says. (Generally, I find these sorts of situations, where Knowledge policies conflict with what I would consider basic human decency, to be depressing. We've made a lot of positive headway with
8553:
responsible for their action to be sure, but that does not mean they were responsible for actions of other people. I wasn't there, and I doubt that you were, but from the films it looked like there were a lot of spectators around the edges. I can't prove for any specific person they were innocent of criminal intent, but I don't see how you can prove that
3585:? It's pretty decent, and quotes Cronkite at length on the Vietnam War essentially telling his audience that the official government line was not to be trusted, that the Administration's pronouncements of imminent victory were false, and that the best course of action was to cease offensive operations and negotiate for peace. Cronkite was trusted in part
3397:, they are an integral part of the 'community', a bizarre and alien creature that would not even be able to exist but for the consensus that it does. I'm a regular user, like you, and probably too protective of the community and its ways; I don't know much about either of you and hope what I had to say was helpful, in some way. Regards to you both.
6985:
blood transfusions, or even prostitutes who I learned as I cared for them are just as remarkable as you or I, etc. Really it was just awful, but nothing compared to this. With HIC we could be real, caring, people, not just like a bunch of Martians in space suits. So be sure MastCell, I am not asking anything of you. But I am going to ping
9182:? And note no complaints about his OR. Why did RR oppose civil rights legislation in many instances? As I noted in my edit on his page: it was because of property rights. You may not be aware of this (depending on how old you are), but even some of the biggest (original) advocates of this type of legislation began to question it on this point.
7605:
inconveniencing her or others, it can mean a lot of things, I've discovered). Evoking violent and oppressive imagery from the not so distant past, may be powerful, but is rarely useful in a fair and competent discourse. I'd just stay away from these terms in the context of Knowledge discussions. Obviously, they're not very effective here. ---
9643:; LOCALCONSENSUS may be involved, and I recently created a narrower discussion to try and look at just part of the issue, but I wonder if I should just give it up. Your comment gave me some hope, and your offer to look at it may help clarify things in my mind, so thank you. The gory details (well, a very brief summary, though it looks long):
5947:, and maybe correcting a couple of the most egregiously misleading claims in the discussion. Beyond that, I'm OK with any outcomeâI'm not invested in any way in SashiRolls being banned, or not banned, and I think it's fine to re-open the discussion if that's what the community wants. Anyhow, I hope you're well, and stay healthy out there.
1505:. As with most academic papers, the source includes a "Limitations of this study" section which is being cited in opposition. A letter written in comment (largely agreement) to the source is being cited in opposition. Opposition includes objecting to the retrospective nature of the study as inherently biased. Opposition arguments include
9698:, both of which have plenty of sources that could be used. (Views are by no means universal, and she has strong supporters as well.) But the almost complete void when I search for similar terms for 4th Wave Now makes me believe the term is not (yet?) proper for the article; it seems to me to be editors' opinions, or RGW, or something.
9787:
was not happy with), but the chemo-induced diabetes was the final blow. I cannot work on that article, and I don't see that it moved in the right direction over the time I couldn't bring myself to be involved (still can't). My suggestion is that, unless you are willing and able to bring it back to its former glory, it should go to
2498:. That is false. (At a minimum, Cohen's and Flynn's guilty pleas are directly and undeniably related to Russia). We're not talking about a difference of opinions, nor context dependency. The wording in the lead is categorical, and categorically false. So we have a situation where editors have inserted and defended wording that they
10056:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are
7280:, one of which is "racist" and the other "anti-racist", and there's some logic to that. But for the purposes of my comment here, I'm going to say that there is a third door, for "not racist and not anti-racist" (even though I recognize that "not anti-racist" is a double-negative â just acknowledging that I'm "not unaware" of that).
6729:
what he would define as "cancel culture"), who has no problem with neo-Nazis editi g here (because we can't punish people for having unpopular opinions!), and who defines "civility" as a mandate to treat right-wing extremists with zipties, tasers, and "Camp Auschwitz" sweatshirts as one valid side of a bilateral civic discourse.
3770:, and a few suggestions to possibly tighten the lead language â while adhering to the RfC result â if needed. I'm glad Atsme is around to apply their considerable talent and prodigious energy to this and other articles. Atsme's content-based and collegial critiques are what we need to make sure we get Knowledge articles
762:. Those were talks on a user page about the situation as a whole, not something I was trying to add the article. Perhaps it is the difference in my personal view verses my views as an editor, which I would assume are not always the same for you either. At least I would hope not, which goes back to what I said above
1137:
matter who I voted for it was going to Hillary. I just truly feel there is a weight issue at play. I could be completely off base and I admit that but that is what I see as neutral over all. On the whole though you are pretty close on most of it. I appreciate you taking the time to go though the weeds on this.
9294:. When a critical narrative is broadly supported by reliable sources, we shouldn't be labelling as coming from "critics". If it's contested, but still from reliable sources, it should be attributed, but "critics" is still not right; it ought to be "scholars" or "journalists" or other specific descriptor.
10812:
is not in favor of it, but cares so little about it that Zinnober9's intensity of caring about it is likely an order of magnitude or two higher. So I'm going to go ahead and do this as something that will more likely than not marginally increase the net happiness in the universe. At absolute worst,
9811:
Hi Sandyâit's always good to see your name, although less so under these circumstances. I don't know what to say other than that I'm so sorry to hear about your niece. I can't imagine what your family is going through. I don't have any uplifting words; cancer sucks, and I'll never get used to a world
9786:
How are you, old friend? I hope these times are treating you well. As I indicated on the talk page, 2021 was long and dreadful for my family, and I got the call literally as I was sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner. Unexpected, as she was due to be released to home after a year at UCSF (a choice I
9275:
Sometimes that gets a bit tricky and makes the article a bit cumbersome. (But I try to make it readable.) You'll have critic A slamming politician X without really presenting X's argument effectively (to the point where you are missing some things). You find Critic B who does present X's argument but
9057:
types who frequent the page to block them on spurious grounds.As I mentioned at the talk page, I'm not really up for venturing back there. Until Knowledge stops tolerating and condoning the sort of slimy racism apologists that I encountered there, I don't think it's worth my time, and it's beneath my
8983:
I cannot tell you how much your simple "Thanks" meant to me. I am exhausted after a week of battling someone who clearly signed up for Knowledge to influence one pet article. I felt like I was screaming into a black hole. I have been hoping another seasoned editor would jump in with support, but none
8521:
MastCell, I agree that everyone there had accepted a set of transparent lies and wanted to overturn the election results. I don't think there's evidence they 100% were there for a violent coup attempt. And of course they're adults and responsible for their own actions. The fact they were gullible and
8509:
of a coup, and came out to lend their support to that idea, whether or not they personally attacked the Capitol building. You say they were stupid and gullible... bullshit. Or rather, yes, many of them were arguably stupid and gullible, but they were also adults and responsible for their own actions.
7647:
I agree completely but I'd like to acknowledge that this isn't a discussion about the term "lynching" or similar terms, and nobody has every said that using such language is helpful or effective. I'd like to make sure we do not distract from the topic of this thread, which is my request that MastCell
6920:
MastCell you said, "I've also been disgusted by this community's inability to recognize and counteract the efforts of people who blatantly use this site to spread medical and political misinformation, and I view this siteâand a handful of specific editorsâas complicit, in a small but real way, in the
6819:
Also, I see that Melanie has included the Cornell study ("A Cornell University study concluded that Trump was "likely the largest driver" of COVID-19 misinformation in the first five months of 2020.") in her suggested copy. I note that you agreed that since it has not yet been peer reviewed it could
6712:
containing language/style unsuitable for a content guideline. It could do with some more input from someone familiar with the academic process, and you are an old-hand when it comes to writing MEDRS. And are there any other editors with experience here who could improve the guideline in that area. --
6400:
has very little to do with the use of profanity or even name-calling (I've been called every name in the book here, and rarely if ever made anything of it)âto me, civility starts with honest and forthright engagement. I can laugh off being called an asshole, but I can't laugh it off when someone lies
6298:
AnyhowâI appreciate your feedback here, and elsewhere, and don't worry about offending me. There are things that I think are worth fighting for and about, and for which I'd have a hard time forgiving someone, but disagreeing about a noticeboard close on Knowledge isn't remotely one of them. Stay well
5981:
When Mom registered us in school, I was advanced enough to be in the 5th grade instead of 1st, so I got bullied early on. My parents eventually saw that it wasn't a good idea, so I was moved into the 3rd grade, still the youngest and the shortest in my class. The Southern Democrats on our block would
5689:
Those transformations didn't happen in a vacuum; they reflect societal changes as well as shifts in what was politically expedient and/or possible. Anyhow, these are all extremely relevant aspects of these leaders' biographies, and of our national historyâwhich continue to have substantial effects on
5222:
It seems to me that SashiRolls, and at least a small handful of other editors, have "serious questions about the validity" of the ban and/or my closure, so SashiRolls has the right to appeal to and be heard by ArbCom. Obviously, I think my closure was reasonable and appropriate, and in my view ArbCom
4640:
there's an obviously bad-faith effort to suppress racist statements made by a former President. You find it disturbing that I would bring these things up, and view tone-policing me as the best response to this situation. You instinctively defend bad-faith efforts to downplay racism, and instinctively
4406:
3540:
I apologize for what I now see as an insensitive comment, so I struck it. It certainly wasn't fair to paint you with such a broad brush, especially when I personally don't believe it to be true. There will always be varying perceptions about news and how it is being reported over the internet. I tend
3124:
The old, deleted article was only 5 sentences long, contained little beyond a basic description, and cited zero sources. I can undelete it if you like, but there is really no sourced info there (and hardly any unsourced info either). If new sources exist then you might be best off just writing a new,
2853:
PMFJI, but as a Brit looking on (who is daily thankful he does not edit on US politics) I have to say that having phrasing like "unrelated to Russia" in the lede seems just really odd. Surely this is an opinion, and quite a layered/contested one at that. How can it belong? Merry Christmas to you all!
2589:
hack Clinton's email and help Trump win the Presidency, so it would appear they didn't take it as a joke, but I digress). I don't object to your sense of humor. I object to your total disregard for the content of reliable sources. I object to the fact that, confronted with a reliable source saying X,
2517:
So you have a reliable source saying X, and an editor responding by saying that no reasonable person believes X. That is bizarre. What is the good-faith explanation for a flat refusal to accept or acknowledge the content of reliable sources? Should I nod and smile when someone looks me in the eye and
1965:
regarding 72bikers' behavior in this topic area. It would help to have an uninvolved admin keep an eye on the article since it's really a long pattern of stonewalling and refusal to compromise on the part of several editors which can't easily be narrowed down to a particular incident. I've written an
1268:
Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted,
1161:
As for the issue of racism, I want to distinguish clearly between my views as a Wikipedian and my views as a human being. Like most people, I have a set of political and sociocultural beliefs, but I've worked hard (and, I believe, successfully) to ensure that my actions here on Knowledge reflect site
1136:
Though for the most part I agree with a lot of your assessment there are a few comments I would like to make. I am not actually a conservative, didn't even vote for Trump. I ended up doing a write in for a co-worker because I couldn't stomach the lesser of two evils argument, I live in Illinois so no
1094:
On the other topic, the one about Donald Trump's racist tweets versus Sarah Jeong's racist tweets: I think MastCell doesn't quite understand where PackMec is coming from, so let me address that. @MastCell, I imagine that PackMec, like many conservatives, is very bothered by Trump's tweets, as well as
963:
Next with consistency it was not backhanded, I am not sure I could of been more blunt other than saying in all caps and bold "POV pusher here!" that was not the point, nor would I personally consider you a POV pusher. It was meant to give you something to reflect on along the lines of "those in glass
959:
This is my final comment on the hounding claim because it is a red herring that has no value here (or anywhere for that matter). It is getting rather repetitive that you keep bring it up. Yes, I saw a bad edit in your history and corrected it. You had no consensus for what you did but for some reason
10085:
concerning proposed revisions. I see that you're an experienced editor who has updated the article in the past, so I'm hoping that you can take a look at what I've put together. Due to my conflict of interest (I work for Sequoia Capital) I will not make any changes to the article myself. If you have
9705:
I tend to be too wordy, for which I apologize; I was struggling how to keep this shorter, but this is such a contentious topic with a ton of history, and I was trying to find just the right-sized kernel of info for you, enough to be able to avoid most of the walls of text over there, and just enough
9670:
and NPOV require very clear statements, by a DUE majority or significant minority of reliable sources. So far, I don't see that. It seems to me that this requirement has been supplanted by arguments by editors who may strongly believe that they are anti-trans (they might be right; maybe there's just
9618:
notes: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." So in the instance in question in my edit, if reliable sources consistently describe a medical procedure as safe, then we as editors cannot
9276:
you are forced into going over the same criticism as A.....so then you feel like lumping them together as just "critics" and.....well, you know the rest. The media lumps people together as "critics" so that rubs off. (I don't think there is anything in the MOS on it....other than it is indeed vague.)
9258:
You're misreading me. I don't mind using quotes, so long as we're using them in the context that a source uses them; the crucial point is that the narrative needs to be that of the source, not a "critics say this, politician says this". To be clear, this is a problem with most political biographies,
8921:
Thanks, Gerda. I'm sorry to see MjolnirPants go too. There was a time when Knowledge was more tolerant of people like himâthose who are passionate and outspoken but who also have a fully oriented moral compassâbut that time is long past, and this place is much less interesting and less colorful as a
8762:
Fortunately my kids are awesome, and my oldest just won a junior pistol shooting competition despite being an abject video game nerd, so I'm like 90% sure he's the chosen one who's going to save the world before he hits puberty. I just hope I don't have to die horribly to motivate him past that last
8489:
It's fine to push back. I agree with you that there are many in the right wing -- and even just plain old conservatives -- who are trying to equate the violence of the insurrection with that of some of the BLM protests that turned into riots. But that is not what I was doing. I was doing sort of the
8481:
And I didn't say there were many very fine people in the crowd on January 6th, and that's really a very ugly thing to say to me. I think there were a lot of stupid and or gullible people there, probably at least some of whom had no intention of wreaking violence or breaking into buildings. And there
7710:
I do ask MastCell to not quote that anymore, as it's upsetting a very fine Wiki editor, and that's not necessary for making the legitimate point MastCell was making. I don't think you're a racist, Levivich. I don't think MastCell thinks you are a racist. I didn't see him calling you one. What I left
7564:
racist, although it's largely associated with racism in the US because something like 75% or more of people who were lynched in the US are black people who were lynched by white racist mobs. But I was speaking to one particular use of the word, by an editor who is not American, and pointing out that
7541:
As a counter-example, if I were to say (wrongly!) that "I feel like Levivich is raping me in this discussion", that would be an objectionable way of exaggerating and over-emotionalizing the situation. And if Levivich were to object to being characterized that way, it would be wrong for me to respond
7159:
The worst thing about being weird is the loneliness. The loneliness doesnât only or even mostly come from rejection. This is what I assumed, childishly, as a child, and that is why I thought that if genius bought me tolerance, it would make me happy. When the switch flips to âbrave and independent,â
7101:
Thank you. I'm sure I'd get around to it eventually, but I'm a dilettante when it comes to coding so I'd have to refresh my memory. I do still use the scriptsâat least the user-rights one, which I find super-helpful. I think the external-links one may be broken but I just don't edit enough to bother
6874:
SPECIFICO, I don't recall prior interactions with Onetwothreeip, so I can't speak to whether there are ongoing issues. I agree that the comment you mention is a bit concerning. And I notice that there have been recurring issues with this editor playing down Trump's role in the Covid-19 pandemic, and
6773:
Well I'd rather not say to much on wiki, but you are welcome to email me. I'm living in England, so we're in lockdown 3.0 and dealing with school/college being virtual. I am fortunate to be able to work from home and remote into work and still have a job. We have four more years of our mini-Trump to
6749:
It is possible the discussion is reaching its end (or at least, showing all the signs that it should be put out of its misery). Along the way I had a rather Alice in Wonderland experience of editors trying to redefine "peer review" and the odd personal attack. As you likely have better things to do,
6377:
No worries, and thanks for stopping by. I'm sorry for being sort of pointed in my response to you. I guess I'm sort of fed up with the general Wikipedian tendency toward "both-sides"-ism and false equivalence when it comes to issues that arise on political topics. I think it lets people off the hook
6361:
I regret that we had that disagreement yesterday, so I want to clarify some of the things that I said. When I talked about it being a political dispute, I actually wasn't thinking about you when I said it. I was reacting to the group of editors who were going back-and-forth at each other, with stuff
6263:
fairness of the ban. The AN discussion itself shows sharply divided opinion on the merits. So: I think this is one of those cases where people will hate the outcome whatever, and you were brave and IMO correct, as usual, but in a way that has unfortunately given ammunition to a certain faction. This
6258:
The AN discussion is too bloated, Reply-Link doesn't work and this is veering off topic anyway so I thought I'd come here direct. I know I am not articulating my view on SR very coherently. Part of my problem is that I think the result is correct (as in: I personally find SR tiresome in the extreme)
6221:
Do NOT attempt to compare my life, thoughts or feelings with whomever or whatever you believe yourself to be, Valjean. You are not a female, and cannot possibly understand anything that I'm feeling. You have not walked in my shoes, so stop pretending that you know even one iota of who I am or what I
5923:
Anyway - I know my post might seem a bit anal to some, but given the history of wiki discussions, yes I did note a "a matter of procedure" in my oppose. Is there a difference between "open" and "re-open" - not really. Was it a bit obsessive? IDK - maybe. But given some of the things I've seen on
5725:
I'm not sure how we cover this stuff in Knowledge if we can't even start a discussion without people freaking out and claiming A and B are equivalent. The cognitive dissonance is truly astonishing. Not really surprising I suppose. We do still have a "race and intelligence" article still supports the
5572:
The starkly divergent racial views held by Clinton and Nixon reinforces an important point: the âracismâ in dog whistle racism does not refer to individual bias, it refers to a willingness to manipulate racial animus in pursuit of power. When a dispute erupted about Ronald Reaganâs racial pandering,
5524:
When Reagan picked up the dog whistle in 1980, the continuity in technique nevertheless masked a crucial difference between him versus Wallace and Nixon. Those two had used racial appeals to get elected, yet their racially reactionary language did not match reactionary political positions. Political
4524:
How dare you say these rude things about Covid deniers! That's outrageous!! Thanks for all the important work you're doing, and if you can find time and patience to try to push back against misinformation here, that'll be greatly appreciated. Have a Wee Annie pic, hope you don't mind our local sense
3500:
I guess sometimes our experiences help guide us in knowing when something isn't right. I'm sure you know that a doctor can tell when another doctor screws up a suture. Well, a journalists know when another journalist screws up a story. Before you believe everything you read, you might want to take a
3456:
As for where I choose to involve myself, I've been active for more than a decade here, and I've done a little of everything. I've written featured articles, drafted content guidelines, handled vandalism, new page patrol, and protection requests, and participated in every level of dispute resolution.
2619:
The problem with removing it is the same issue you have with leaving it. The current wording is technically correct, though I see your point it could be misleading if you take the sentence by itself. The issue with just removing that part is that the sentence at that point would also not be correct.
2546:
Since I was pinged here for some reason I will give a short response to the above. I stand by what I said about reasonable people thinking Trump honestly asked Russia to hack Hillary. It was clearly a joke and the people that took it as anything but that seem to be pushing a political POV. I am also
1072:
One other observation is that PackMec's original (and mistaken) invocation of talk page consensus (in the "hounding" revert) looks more like an excuse to revert material they didn't like than an actual concern for enforcing consensus. It's pretty clear they skimmed the talk page and didn't read past
1064:
I think the point where you two started being on entirely different pages in what you were talking about was when PackMec (on the talk page) switched from it being about the confirmation hearing sentence to it being about the details in that sentence (eg. birtherism) which had indeed been added only
967:
Finally back on track and to the important bits. The questions I had asked are mirrors of those you have asked me, like "Why do comments like that from one side bother you but comments from the other not?" which was skipped. I addressed that just prior to this, in that you see an issue in what I say
826:
I believe you when you say that Trump's comments bother you. But my impressions are based on your actions. You went out of your way to publicly moralize on Knowledge about Jeong's tweets. Have you ever gone out of your way to publicly moralize about Trump's comments? (Honest question; I don't follow
442:
I recognize that my connections (which are not financial, but rather personal or professional) would potentially bias me. So I don't edit those articles, as a simple but healthy form of self-restraint. I sort of wish that some level of introspection would take place here so that people wouldn't need
426:
OK. But since you're here, I want to ask you something. Our content on the purported health benefits of Transcendental Meditation is heavily influenced by editors affiliated with the TM movement. Do you think that raises questions about bias (either conscious or unconscious) in our coverage? I think
11117:
Happy Holidays to you and yours. I hope you still visit these pages every once in a while. I have edited with some success for over a decade and I always wanted to let you know that you are my WikiPedia hero. There! I've said it and I'm sure I am not alone in saying it. Life is GOOD. Hope the same
9821:
is reasonable under these circumstances.How are you otherwise? Do you have the same general sense I do, that the people who made this site interesting and fun have systematically either been driven off or burned out? It's just not very fun here anymore. The worst people stick around and thrive, and
9816:
article, I agree that it's very out of date. Perhaps the most potent indictment of the article is that youâan experienced medical editorâfound it useless in understanding your niece's illness. That doesn't inspire confidence that the article is useful to the public at large. I wish I could tell you
9701:
So, coming full circle: I was thinking about whether to present my "Janice Raymond" thing, but I was anticipating someone telling me, "By recent consensus in the Rfc, we just decided the website is anti-trans, and V or NPOV doesn't trump that." So, I was hesitating going back there to make my case,
9211:
In Reagan's case? Yes. Reagan was (after all) a Goldwater Republican. (And not a fan of big gov....except when it came to defense spending of course.) And he took issue with these laws for some of the same reasons. In any case, we have a lot of people who want to add one side of that and leave out
9163:
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I'm "cozy" with Viriditas. Despite the fact that we've each been on Knowledge for more than 15 years, I can't remember ever interacting with him before he left this note for me. Hopefully we both understand that a kind or supportive response to a message
8797:
was insightful, and gets to the heart of the matterâthe fear of being "uncivil". Of course, "civility", as defined by this community, is all about prioritizing the comfort of a small subset of editors over that of everyone else. Or, as a wise man once noted, civility is the rallying cry of the sort
8688:
to go hang out with neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other right-wing extremists in order to agitate for the nullification of a free and fair democratic election. I'm not a lawyer, but that presumably falls under freedom of association, which explains why only the subset of attendees who actually
8595:
I'm not one of the people trying to trivialize the attempt at insurrection. I was quite apprehensive at the time of the possible results, and I do not think my concern was excessive. The whole series of events Nov-Jan put an end to my residual feelings that the US was exceptional in the strength of
8574:
You should really spend some time in learning to understand the subject at hand before you make comments about it. Far-right groups from around the country had been planning to prevent congress from certifying the election results for weeks. And, it was well known that violent groups such as the
8477:
The BLM protests were not in an unrelated discussion. We were talking about an incident that started as a protest and turned into a insurrection, in a year of protests that started out peacefully and some of which turned into riots. Because an editor had said that it was impossible that any portion
7837:
doing something that I've never done in the first place. As for citing your comment about "lynching", well... look. On Knowledge, people refuse to acknowledge an issue unless it's supported by diffs, for better or worse. I see a problem, and I therefore need to support it with diffs. The examples I
6839:
that he agreed to support inclusion once the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. But I would support its inclusion and in general support MelanieN's edit. I'll comment on the article talk page as well. (FWIW, the article appears to be under peer review and I suspect it will be published
5682:
There's a real reluctance to acknowledge any sort of nuance or complexity. In the real world, people are capable of good and bad, sometimes simultaneously. A politician can be personally racist while advancing policies that promote racial equity (Lyndon B. Johnson and Truman come to mind); they may
5665:
Less-sophisticated editors seem to resolve it with simple denialâas in the threads where Atsme and others simply refuse to acknowledge the harmfulness of even the most blatant racial slurs. More-sophisticated editors are able to operationalize Knowledge policy to resolve the dissonance; you can see
4872:
Agreed. I'm pleasantly surprised the AN thread was closed correctly. I was sure the dysfunctionality of the way that page is set up and run would hopelessly muddle things. I still wish proper outcomes at ANI didn't depend so often on wiser-than-average and more-flameproof-than-average admins being
4076:
the original poster's questions, an unscrupulous person might accuse me of evading accountability). You've come to my talkpage to criticize me for answering a question I was asked, while implying (without evidence) that I have some sort of nefarious history to cover up. I won't go so far as to call
3554:
I'm tired of the ridiculous argument (articulated by Masem, for instance) that the news media were perfectly good sources until all of a sudden, in 2016, they suddenly became questionable, dubious, partisan, and unreliable. That's utter self-serving nonsense. Yes, the reputable press has struggled,
3529:
I agree. InfoWars is a click bait site and full of conspiracy theories. BuzzFeed is a questionable source, but we have an entire article cited to what that source initially published. I know you disagree with my views about breaking news, internet click bait sites, etc., but Masem and DGG both made
3477:
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Yes, it's not nice to pigeonhole people into these labels, but it had to be broadly done to make the point. And let's not pretend that the DS area American politics 32- isn't about progressives vs. conservatives. I don't think the cases were wrongly decided or
3452:
But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that I accept the labels you've applied to these editors. Your complaint, then, is that I've advocated sanctions for "right-leaning" editors disproportionately to "progressive" editors. Have you made any effort to assess the merits of any of the cases in
2833:
I have a lot of respect for you. I remember sometime back a long conversation between you and PackMecEng where you were trying really hard to understand her perspective. I think that same type of open-mindedness is going to be what resolves this issue...when someone takes the time to understand the
2189:
Finally, regarding the Gun Politics task force, I don't share your concerns. Like other such task forces, it is open to any who wish to join, regardless of their personal views on gun politics. Of course, any WikiProject can end up serving as a platform for partisan vote-stacking or inappropriately
2163:
The change in the project guidelines was small, the existing recommendation now clarifies that WP:WEIGHT applies. Since the guideline helped interpret weight what we have was a non-change. Additionally, that argument would have more substance if it was shown the change in project guidelines was a
1485:
from high-velocity rifles have a lower rate of potentially survivable injuries as compared to other firearms. 371 gunshot wounds were found, included gunshot wounds from handguns, shotguns, and high velocity rifles. Potentially survivable injuries were about equally distributed between handguns and
971:
Lastly this is kind of off topic to the rest of the discussion but do you speak any other languages? I have found I am always surprised on Knowledge the vast differences in people from all over the world that contribute here. It's fascinating and very enlightening to hear about. First hand accounts
910:
No you did not say POV pusher, that is correct. You said I was a hypocrite only defending one side, completely different I know... The hounding is BS and I have not responded, to the several times you have brought it up in several places, because we both know it's BS. I have explained the situation
838:
Good question, I know I have several times on article talk pages put in a sentence or two with my other comments expressing my disapproval. But it is rare that I comment on anyone personally anywhere on Knowledge. GW's talk page is not common for me, I poke fun with other users all the time but not
699:
As I stated it was a comparison of coverage in the media and how we assign weight. Of course I am not advocating that his main BLP to cover such silly things and it rightly does not. It does cover his racially-charged statements though and it should, it is obviously more important than his hands or
620:
Again it all goes to weight for that BLP, not much past that. It is a flawed comparison between the two people, and the importance the controversies have played in their lives as a whole. They simply are not equal in terms of their overall coverage. For example, there are hundreds of articles about
437:
Finally, I'm sort of disappointed in the lack of restraint shown by TM-affiliated editors. Frankly, there are a number of Knowledge articles, both medical and biographical, which I avoid because I want to manage any potential conflicts of interest on my part. These are areas where I believe I could
9654:
for short). A Brown University prof published a paper on a hitherto unknown syndrome she named, surveying parents at three website forums known to attract parents who were upset that their kids announced suddenly (as it appeared to the parents) that they were trans, in order to gather data for her
9627:
decided amongst themselves that articles about assault weapons were forbidden to mention their use in mass shootings, and attempted to use that "local consensus" to overrule policy-based arguments on specific pages. Anyhow, I'm happy to take a look at the situation you have in mind, if you'd like.
9148:
I hate to start up a argument on your talk page, but with all due respect, you've done some of what you are complaining about. Note you (for example) included the fact Reagan was no fan of Civil Rights legislation ....without giving the reason. (Which I had to include.) And also (speaking of AGF),
9131:
Definitely noticing more of that the closer I look, particularly with the use of vague attribution ("critics said...") for critical material, but not for similarly sourced positive material (see the War on Drugs section). Not sure I can engage very deeply there, as I remain exceedingly busy in RL;
9052:
In these sorts of situations, I've had the best luck with identifying a specific sub-topic, systematically identifying the best available sources, and using them to develop a subsection on the topic. But that takes time, which I don't have. (I work in healthcare, and the last 18 months have been a
8644:
This gets to the crux of why informed and expert opinion is so adamant in characterizing the recent transformation of the Republican party. The Nazis were freely elected in Germany. The US Republicans started by backing away from Trump's barbs and tweets but in the past 6 months they've gone on to
8448:
First of all, you brought up the BLM protests, in an unrelated discussion. There was really no need to do that, and they weren't relevant in any way to the AE discussion at hand. But since you raised the topic, I'm not going to apologize for pushing back against what is pretty clearly a lazy false
8432:
To be crystal clear, I think what happened at the Capitol was an insurrection, and that Trump and Giuliani incited it and should be imprisoned for treason along with the hundreds of stupid people who allowed themselves to be incited. The people who showed up with grappling equipment and other gear
7849:
Sluzzelin, thank you for your comments here and elsewhere. It's not my intent to upset Levivich, or anyone else. But at the same time, it is probably impossible to have a serious conversation about these issues without making people uncomfortable on some level, myself included. And it is certainly
7604:
In general, I'd be careful with loaded metaphors like 'lynch mob', 'witch hunt', 'Feminazi', 'grammar nazi' ... I've had discussions about this with my American spouse who liked (and still likes :-) to call things 'fascist' (because they're more restrictive than her political view, because they're
7487:
Because they used me as an example of an editor whose viewpoints would defeat any effort to change "whitelist" and "blacklist" to "allow list" and "deny list" (ironically, that's a change I support). Also because it's not the first time; they've previously used me as an example of enabling racism,
7165:
Tolerance and flexibility are improvements over rejection as a way of managing the initial encounter with difference. If some people experience the customs and habits that come easily or naturally to others as arbitrary, coercive, alien or just plain confusingâand yes, some of us are like thisâthe
6984:
y Thank you so much for your reply and I totally understand your exhaustion. I worked when HIV was killing so many innocent, young, beautiful, people. It was just awful. Old people, sure, diabetics, etc., sure, but so many others just because they happened to be gay. Or others who had needed
6404:
I'm not going to rehash the details, but my impression is that it's pretty uncomfortable for people to acknowledge that someone would simply tell a blatant lie, and much easier and less distressing to accept the polite, face-saving fiction that it was all simply a mix-up or misunderstanding. Fine.
6283:
No worries. I'm fine with discussion and criticism of the close, or I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. I'm doing my best (with mixed success) to let the discussion follow its course, without commenting or badgering people. I can accept if people think that the close was within discretion
6200:
is at play here, and whether she is an active anti-racist? We all have racism in us. Enlightened racists admit they have racism in them and recognize the racism they have inherited from growing up in racist American society. The unenlightened ones deny it and either trivialize it or don't actively
6029:
So when Reagan said, of a group of African diplomats: "To see those monkeys from those African countries, damn them...They are still uncomfortable wearing shoes"... you don't see anything racist in that? You find that comparable to a mom lovingly scolding her children? I mean, I know you just said
5985:
But I digress, the bottomline is that I should have provided a more succinct explanation instead of assuming my intent would be understood. Of course I don't condone what Reagan said, but what I did not volunteer to do as a WP editor was to RGW. My time here is a special time in my day where I can
5748:
It will be tough, because we're starting from a place of ignorance and willful blindness. How do you get to a serious discussion of raceâone that would befit a reputable reference work and live up to our project's goalsâwhen a significant subset of editors won't even acknowledge the harmfulness of
5613:
Conservatism, then, is not a commitment to limited government and libertyâor a wariness of change, a belief in evolutionary reform, or a politics of virtue. These may be the byproducts of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever-changing modes of expression. But they are not
5507:
You start out in 1954 by saying, âN****r, n****r, n****r.â By 1968 you canât say ân****rââthat hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, statesâ rights and all that stuff. Youâre getting so abstract now, youâre talking about cutting taxes, and all these things youâre talking about
4987:
going to close the thread as obvious around the 28 hour mark or so - but El_C's comment and the late opposes left me thinking I should sleep on it. By the time I got back - the whole thing was such a mess that I didn't feel up to wading through it all. Your foresight to include the Arbcom option
4495:
are proposed as "factual" and neutral, when in fact they are worse than liesâthey are technically correct but deeply misleading misrepresentations of the content and emphases of reliable sources. Again, having lived through this in a very hands-on way, I find that dishonesty appalling and uncivil,
4225:
Re: Peter the Fourth at AE--I tend to agree with your take, but more importantly, I too think treating "go pick a fight in traffic" as terribly violent is somewhat ludicrous. But because I received no support and pushback from people I respect, I began to think perhaps I was the insane one. It's
3949:
and invoking their ban. This is despite the fact that you and Atsme have been colleagues here for over eight years. I think your quote about why people leave is a good one, and accurate, and I trust your good intentions. But as somebody who participated in that RfC and disagreed with Atsme, it was
3912:
by Atsme's comments: if mere disagreement invalidated facts, arguments, or articles, then we'd need to ban everyone who disagreed with us. Atsme raised her objections, we all looked into the matter more closely, and in the end the same outcome as before prevailed. The process was important: how we
3517:
is far more likely to be accurate than something I read on InfoWars. It's the embrace of false equivalence that got you in trouble. I understand that we live in the midst of a sustained partisan assault on our journalistic institutions, but reputable mainstream journalistic outlets remain reliable
3505:
book by former New York Times editor Jill Abramson. There's a similar exposé about getting the story wrong published by WaPo about WaPo, BuzzFeed, McClatchy, CNN, etc. but I can't provide that diff until after my appeal has been decided, if it ends in my favor. You probably know WaPo is being sued
2760:
If you're worried that readers will draw incorrect inferences about the specific crimes committed, why not just name themâfinancial fraud, lying to the FBI, conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to obstruct justice, etc.? I don't understand the need for lawyerly language about what they
1098:
So is it hypocritical for PackMec to support talking about racist tweets in Jeong's article and oppose talking about racist tweets in Trump's article? Well, maybe. But I think it's better understood as being a part of the tribalism that unfortunately too many of us engage in. It's a very hard trap
1080:
In conclusion, I think that the outcome at the article was a small positive, as the article was slightly improved. I think that improvement could have happened in a better manner without all the the false claims and posturing. In any case I think it's time to put this to bed. Talking about it more
865:
think it's hypocritical to chastise an obscure progressive for racially-charged statements while ignoring similar (and worse) statements from a conservative President. You haven't really said anything to convince me otherwise. Your statement above is exceedingly vague. Insofar as you care about my
811:
So it is not a case of Trump's comments not bothering me. Even on the various talks pages I am sure you have seen my past edits stating my personal feelings to that effect as well. But I try and keep those personal feels separated from what I do on articles. Why do comments like that from one side
740:
That's the key inconsistency, and I was interested in hearing your rationalization for it. You argue that Jeong's tweets are more biographically significant than Trump's. I think the opposite is true: that it inherently more significant for an American President to habitually make racially-charged
591:
Therefore, the disproportionate reaction to Jeong's tweets suggests that many of her critics are motivated not by any real concern about racism as a societal ill. Rather, they care about the subject only when they perceive their own "tribe" being targeted, or when accusations of racism can serve a
10795:
tag. Your request has been sitting here for three days unanswered; at least a couple hundred admins have seen it by now and have decided not to act, likely because few admins will mess around with another admin's protected page like this. MastCell protected it for a reason and we're generally not
8816:
I've always defined civility in terms of respect, myself. Respect doesn't preclude frustration or a little annoyance, nor does it preclude the expression of such. But it does precludes things like plotting ways to circumvent community consensus, misrepresenting sources, pounding one's chest about
8591:
There's a difference between "some of them" and "all of them". We don't actually disagree that much. I think it very probable that those in the know were quite aware of what Trump was likely to say, or perhaps intended to say. I see no basis for assuming everyone there realized it, but I have no
7171:
The problem is that any steps taken beyond tolerance will be frustrating and unpleasant, because we are, in fact, hard to coordinate with. These attempts will expose the underlying issue, which is not one of ill intentions or bad guys in need of reforming. The difficulty that drove the retreat to
6728:
If the Knowledge community were a person, he (yes, of course, he) would be a 20-something techbro whose parents pay his rent, who "doesn't see color", who thinks deep down that people are poor or homeless because they're too lazy to learn to code (but wouldn't say so out loud because of a fear of
6725:
Hi Colinâit's good to hear from you. I will try to take a look, but I can't promise anything. As you might imagine, it's been an incredibly busy and challenging year as a health-care worker. I am frankly pretty burnt-out and have very limited wherewithal and moral energy for Knowledge stuff. I've
6711:
Hi MastCell, Hope you are keeping well and safe. If you have time, could you look at the "Editorials and comments" section on the MEDRS talk page. Some proposals have been made concerning the different kinds of articles in a journal and have IMO become a bit unstuck over "peer review", as well as
6286:
I think we agree that leaving the thread open would almost certainly not have changed the outcome. I understand your point that more time might have reduced the attack surface for people who disagree with the close, but I don't really buy that. As I said, to me these arguments boil down to saying
6042:
MastCell, do not make it personal. The only thing you need to understand where I'm concerned has nothing to do with my personal beliefs or yours, and everything to do with our understanding of and compliance with NPOV as it relates to WP and the Reagan article. Since you brought up the "concerted
5972:
It was an era in our history when racism was more accepted by white society, and racial slurs were used more freely. I strongly believed then, as I do now, that it was wrong. I was not denying that Reagan's comment was a racial slur, which is what you perceived my position to be. I will assume my
5911:
re: The ban discussion. Not that I felt it was aimed at me (my post was well above yours), but just wanted to voice my thoughts somewhere. Regarding the "procedure-obsessed" comment. Personally I couldn't care any less about the whole thing (even if I tried). My point was that in my 10+ years
5817:
or question them on the talk-page? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? It's insane that all of those durations are actually a possibility. My money is onâ however long it takes for the editors supporting inclusion to wear me down to the point that I decide the juice isn't worth the squeeze and move on. I
5497:
Why did Ronald Reagan do so well among white voters? Certainly elements beyond race contributed, including the faltering economy, foreign events (especially in Iran), the nationâs mood, and the candidatesâ temperaments. But one indisputable factor was the return of aggressive race-baiting. A year
4684:
Well, I don't think you can ignore obvious systemic problems by pretending that they're only "anecdotes". Or at least I can't. And I'm not sure what point you're making about communism/anarchism; if you see those as indistinguishable from being a racist or a KKK member, then I don't know how much
3359:
An observation on this comment, hope that is okay with the user. There is an odd logic, and curiously US view of right and left politics embracing crazed populists lying left, right, and centre. According to the postscript, indicating hyper-partisan behaviour is itself partisan, therefore Pudeo's
2875:
around Russia's election interference. Without Russia's efforts to influence the election, there would have been nothing to lie about, and no crime. And yes, I tried hard to understand PackMecEng's perspective, because I try to be open-minded. It's partly on the basis of those prior efforts on my
2829:
meaning is "unrelated to Russia's efforts ", which I believe is true so far as we know. (At least people have produced sources saying things along those lines.) So I think what bugs me about the wording is not that it is categorically true or false, but that it can be interpreted as being true or
2606:
Now, our article says that the guilty pleas were "unrelated to Russia's efforts". But obviously, both Cohen's and Flynn's pleas were directly related to Russia's efforts. It might be narrowly and legalistically correct to say that their pleas do not speak to collusion with Russia to influence the
2147:
The previous RfC took place in 2017âat a time when the Firearms WikiProject had promulgated guidelines forbidding mention of mass shootings in articles describing the weapons used in those mass shootings. Those WikiProject guidelines have since been rejected by the community. Since the underlying
935:
by looking at my contribution history? If so, please, let's hear the alternate explanation. You say you've already "explained the situation several times now", but I don't see any explanation of your sudden appearance at that article shortly after you undertook a study of my contribution history.
588:
In my view, it's pretty simple. The people who are up in arms over Sarah Jeong's racially-charged statements are, in many cases, the same people who have tied themselves into rhetorical knots trying to excuse, minimize, rationalize, or normalize a long series of racially-charged statements by the
8833:
training one could have, but he's been ready and eager to go to the range ever since he got to shoot his first gun, three years ago. It's the one thing that he seems eager to work towards, which is a pleasant surprise for both me and his mother, as we'd previously thought him deathly allergic to
8552:
do you have any actual evidence that not a single person there was present just to see what would happen, or to accompany a friend? (They may have had enough sympathy with Trump to be interested, but that doesn't mean they were there with a specific insurrectionary purpose). They were adults and
8504:
Every person at the January 6th riots was there because they'd accepted a set of transparent lies, and because they were willing to invest substantial time and effort specifically to try to overturn the results of a legitimate election. January 6th was fundamentally an effort to disenfranchise a
7982:
Please provide the diff for the edit that you're concerned about. I've made only minor edits to the lead, so I can't tell what this alphabet-soup is meant to signify, and I think you're mistaken on the facts, not to mention basic policy. It looks like people are telling you the same thing at the
7853:
I guess that's a long way of saying that I haven't, and won't, go out of my way to quote Levivich or anyone else to cause them distress, but I also don't view the fact that these issues are distressing as sufficient reason for me to stop addressing them. And, again, there is no way to address an
5760:
I don't think the problem is a lack of scholarship, although it is encouraging to see the proliferation of (and renewed interest in) academic work on the subject. There have already been entire scholarly books written on race and politics, but we don't have the will or interest as a community to
5517:
This analysis was provided by a young Lee Atwater. Its significance is two fold: First, it offers an unvarnished account of Reaganâs strategy. Second, it reveals the thinking of Atwater himself, someone whose career traced the rise of GOP dog whistle politics. A protĂ©gĂ© of the pro-segregationist
4925:
MastCell youâve barely made 50 edits in 9 months, and 500 in the last two years. Sashi has been actively contributing good content up until this indef, creating and building many articles. If you give a clean slate for everything related to their highlighting of a former admin socking to avoid a
4595:
this diff with the statement "Anyhow, maybe we could start by committing to reject active KKK members from our ranks, and to basic honesty about notable, well-documented racist utterances from our political idols." in combination with what your complaint is and reviewing the discussion (and your
4482:
More generally, the reason I first got involved with Knowledgeâand a governing principle in my decade-plus hereâhas been to make Knowledge a vehicle of accurate, high-quality medical information, and to limit the harm caused by medical misinformation here. I don't think I anticipated a situation
3551:
for mixing opinion, moral perspective, and personal interpretation with facts in his journalismâas were the other high-profile newsmen of his day, like Murrow. Cronkite's reporting on the Vietnam War was essentially a sustained moral challenge to Presidential and military authorities. If he were
3460:
One more thing, regarding professionalism. In the threads in question, I voiced my opinion. Sometimes other admins find my opinion convincing and agree with me; sometimes I'm an outlier. That's part of the job. I rely on my administrative colleagues as a sanity check, and as a safety against any
2533:
I'm going to close with a question to you: does it bother you that the lead of the most prominent article in the encyclopedia now contains a false claimâone that you've now locked in place by protecting the articleâand that numerous editors continue to defend this false claim on the talkpage? It
1892:
I'm old-fashioned enoughâor naive enoughâto believe that truth and honesty are universal, rather than partisan, values. That said, while individual dishonesty is one thing, the official acceptance and promulgation of obvious falsehoods is morally corrupting and toxic to society as a whole. (This
1330:
For sure, there does seem to be a common thread. My personal favorites are when I ask for a name and diffs so I can seek out these heretofore anonymous abusive admins, without exception I only get excuses for not doing so. Sometimes it's impossible not to interject this whenever the latest round
942:
proud of the consistency of my contribution history. (Yes, I realize that you invoked "consistency" in backhanded way, and meant to imply political bias without actually having the courage to say so outright, but let's go with it). I've been here for more than a decade, and I've done a little of
557:
suggest that you are consistently downplaying racially-charged statements by the most powerful person on Earth, at the same time that you're choosing to emphasize racially-charged statements by an obscure technical writer. That suggests, to me, that your concern about bigotry is not universal or
11242:
Eighteen years ago. Man. Not sure it's an occasion many people would find worth celebratingâmyself includedâbut thank you for the reminder. I always thought I'd end my Wiki-career in a blaze of glory, but I think I'm more like Garcia Marquez's nameless generations of villagers, who "disappeared
9336:
Coming back to this, because it's fascinating to me, the idea that Reagan backed anti-Black discrimination because of his race-neutral belief in "property rights". If we're still allowed to think critically about assertions like that, one wonders: did Reagan evince any interest in or expend any
8659:
The JzG thread has now been closed at AE with a typical anodyne exortation to "do better" and no sanctions on the editors who came there explicitly to promote their POV and to attack a perceived opponent of their POV. The AE process as applied has resulted in a much worse editing environment in
8625:
In that article they say, "However, a closer look at the people suspected of taking part in the Capitol riot suggests a different and potentially far more dangerous problem: a new kind of violent mass movement in which more ânormalâ Trump supportersâmiddle-class and, in many cases, middle-aged
5756:
It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy: if we as a community, and culture, loudly deny, minimize, and dismiss obvious racial context, then we are effectively silencing and excluding people who value open and thoughtful consideration of those subjectsâand people for whom these issues are intensely
5156:
Although no one should regard me as a neutral party, I suppose that hypothetically another line of appeal would be that MastCell should instead have found "no consensus". But there would be a high bar, in that it would have to have been manifestly wrong, rather than something where there can be
5120:
review whether the procedure of the CBAN discussion, or whether MastCell's close, seriously violated normal process. That sounds to me like they are unlikely to review all of the disputes giving rise to the present situation, and would mainly focus on procedural fairness in the sense of whether
4478:
of so much of the suffering and death is the hardest thing to grapple with. Meanwhile, we're watching an effort to rewrite the history of the past few months right in front of our eyes, in real time, to minimize the culpability of those in charge and to turn career public-health workers (of all
4470:
I also need to be in the right head-space to edit here, because (as we both know) the culture here prioritizes superficial politeness over pretty much everything else. The people who used to make this place interesting and engagingâthe ones who understood civility as an extension of basic human
3558:
But it would be a lot more honest of you, and of Masem, to admit that your real problem is simply that you don't like the way that reliable sources have chosen to cover the Trump Administration, and that you are not willing to follow reliable sources in that area because they conflict with your
3449:
know he's repeatedly abused this site to push racist pseudoscience, but I'd hesitate to label someone "right-leaning" on that basis. More generally, I think that the tendency to reflexively pigeonhole editors by their perceived political leanings is evidence of a partisan political-battleground
2607:
election, but that's not what our article says. Our article contains a categorical denial that their pleas had anything to do with "Russia's efforts", which is false. Since Flynn tried to help Russia avoid consequences for their interference, his plea is obviously "related to Russia's efforts".
2185:
As for notifying participants of the previous RfC, that is certainly fine but it is not a requirement, to my knowledge. You're free to do so if you feel so moved; if you do, please notify all (non-blocked) editors who commented in the prior discussion. But please stop asserting that the lack of
708:
type situation, even though other than a racial component they are completely different. Perhaps you could offer an example of how my comments on the Trump pages related to Jeong's page or are inconsistent with what I have done? But to Boris's comment, I gave a sarcastic response to a sarcastic
461:
I just thanked Bishonen for her comment on the German WWII arb case, and realized that I never did the same for you. Thanks for speaking out - I entirely agree with you, and didn't say so because I thought the case result was a foregone conclusion. I'm glad you commented, and Bishonen as well.
433:
I'm not a big fan of analogies, but let's say that our coverage of an antihypertensive drug from Merck were dominated by a small group of single-purpose accounts closely affiliated with Merck. That situation would rightly raise concerns about our ability to present accurate and unbiased medical
11114:
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of
10923:
I think your recent edit to the Kay Ivey article is quite okay, though I also think that the source itself went a bit too far in saying her ad supported "unfounded conspiracy theories that the election was illegitimate." In politics the claim that "we were robbed" is quite common and does not
8648:
Valereee, I think there's a distinction that needs to be drawn between more-or-less well-informed citizens who read the daily RS newspapers and perhaps some other mass periodicals with commentary vs. the relatively small number of WP editors who are uncommonly well-read, well-informed, and who
7778:
Levivich, I think it's good to drop the dispute and move on, but I'd like to leave you with a few things to think about. First, it's ultimately up to MastCell whether or not to stop, and your stopping does not create an obligation on anyone else. Second, please do consider how, in the repeated
7496:.) When I initially read MastCell's most-recent comment, I thought to myself, "I better not be one of those three examples..." and then I looked at the diffs and yup! Me again! All I'm asking is for MastCell to stop using me as an example of racism on Knowledge. I don't think that's a big ask.
6879:
doesn't do well with these sorts of cases, but if you feel there is sufficient evidence of a pattern then that is probably your best bet. For the reasons described one thread up, I don't really have the time or wherewithal to pursue these kinds of things, and frankly the degree of enabling and
3796:
So then, what if one see an RfC that was just closed incorrectly? It's one thing to "present concerns" about a topic or a consensusâany editor can do that at any time. But in doing so, they need to acknowledge the existence of the consensus and show it some degree of appropriate respect. Atsme
3392:
Somebody made the point once that most of us are not familiar with the process of consensus and arbitration, and we try to equate it other forms of resolution, judicial, political, and the forms of democracy and control. This user's tools are somewhat incidental, although it is usual for those
3220:
Yes I did but that was a one-time event. It's not as if it has turned into a pattern, but rest assured that I will not be hounding you, if for no other reason than I don't think I want to aggravate you any more than is necessary given your apparent proclivity for viewing my edits in the worst
600:
is worth reading in its entirety): the Jeong matter is dominated by partisans who "understand the current debate around free speech and social media not as an attempt to create parameters of decency around public dialogue but rather as part of a board game in which each side attempts to remove
11166:
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please
9226:
The notion that we achieve NPOV by countering criticism of a politician with the politician's own stated positions is ridiculous and contrary to policy, and somehow still common. We ought to be describing what reliable sources say about his motivations, and nothing more. And really that means
7845:
for what sorts of discussions are possible here. If I have to spend all my energy convincing you that "lynching" is racially-charged term (something which, despite reams of text, I still think you've declined to acknowledge), then there's not much hope of having more any more serious, nuanced
7759:, I appreciate that. And I agree, the problem with rape imagery, lynching imagery, nazi imagery, etc., is that it is trivializing. MastCell is free to hold whatever opinion of me they want to, I have no expectation that everyone here will like me. I'm asking that they not use me as an example
7236:
No, I'll take whatever is behind door #3. I didn't call you a racist editor. I cited a comment you madeâin which you denied that the term "lynching" was racially chargedâas an example of the attitudes that make it impossible to have a serious conversation about race or racism on Knowledge. By
6107:
I guess that I do not agree with you, PackMecEng, that me pointing out a comparison that trivializes racism is somehow equivalent to an accusation of racism against a colleague. I was commenting on the content of the comment rather than the character of the editor. I hope that I have made the
5919:
don't think it is, I'm just saying some might. I've seen people railroaded off the site (IMO), and I'm sure you've felt that way somewhere along the line yourself. I've seen plenty of people ganged up on to the point of becoming ... uncooperative(?), or downright belligerent. Still - once
5753:
a racist!?" stuff, rather than anything more thoughtful. I'm not calling anyone a racist; I'm saying that if your first instinct is to deny that "lynching" is a racially charged term, or to dream up a bunch of innocuous alternative explanations for obvious racial slurs, then you have a pretty
5565:
Bill Clinton is a hero to many liberals, so itâs worth pausing to ask whether âthe first black presidentâ was a racist. If the term means only someone motivated by racial hatred, the answer is clearly no. Thereâs every reason to believe that Clinton despised white supremacist-style racism and
5436:
If possible, I'd prefer to leave my statement as is with a word-count extension, since a) people have already responded to it and I don't want to destroy the context for their responses, and b) the case request looks almost ready to be closed anyway. That said, if it's important, I can cut it
4596:
comments there) on the Reagan talk page, its pretty clear this looks like a NPA directed at one identifiable editor. You may want to redact that. (I can't speak of the 2008 incident to know if thats an issue as well, searching on certain names is not getting me a clear picture immediately). --
7840:
Tryptofish summed up my view very concisely; I am not interested in labeling you, or anyone, a "racist", but I am interested in the ways in which we as a community approach racially-charged issues. Quibbling about whether the term "lynching" is racially charged, in the course of an unrelated
9515:
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
8353:
has a pretty benign side effect profile too. Also not actually kidding (but I suppose kidding on the square is correct) about Big Pharma; I've always had a mixed relationship with it (and alternative medicine). It's been a long time since I was a sickly undergrad, but even then I was pretty
5964:
At first, I couldn't pinpoint where it all went to hell in a hand basket on Jimmy's TP wherein you ended-up with the wrong impression of what I said...but I'm pretty sure I've figured it out. Racism is a touchy subject which is why I asked you to not make it personal. Now that I'm not under
2108:
page should include mention of that weapon's use in mass shootings. The current consensus is to handle such material on a case-by-case basis, which is what it appears you're doing by opening an RfC. The "forum-shopping" objections seem groundless at best, and intentionally obstructionist at
573:
The difference is I did not play up the racism in either article. With Trump it came down to due weight for what was suggested and where, you will note I did mention where it would be more appropriate. In Jeong's article it holds more weight in her overall bio but even then I did not up the
3240:
Also on that page I responded to your assertion that a court transcript is always a primary source with a reference to the effect that those portions of a court opinion that are orbiter dicta are a secondary source, as are concurrences and dissents. Did you have a response to this? Thanks.
8485:
I'm not both-siding this. I am not saying there's symmetry. I am not arguing that we have to find some middle ground that treats the crazy right as a reasonable point of view. Literally all I am saying is that it's reasonable to argue that the day started out peacefully and turned into an
3797:
doesn't do that. She is, to parrot the classic description of the surgeon's mindset, "often wrong, but never in doubt". Rather than voicing a "content-based and collegial" critique, and rather than approaching the issue as a good-faith disagreement, she accused the editors from the RfC of
410:
Hi MastCell. I responded a bit impulsively today in the heat of the moment in the thread that alleges misrepresentation of sources. I sort of wish now that I'd held off, since I really appreciate your suggestion that we get back to the process we started. I think that's a good suggestion.
3913:
write the lead describing one of the world's major newspapers isn't a trivial issue, and I for one am happy that evidence not provided during the RfC process was presented after Atsme's critique. Regarding Atsme's use of NPOVN, she wasn't present for the RfC, and that's what NPOVN is for.
8337:
about Big Pharma, but (as we may have talked about via email? I can't remember) I'm probably more skeptical of the pharmaceutical industryâand less hostile to alternative approachesâthan you might think. Be that as it may, it's always good to hear from you, and I'm glad you're doing OK.
4800:
I wanted to thank you for closing the thread regarding the site ban for SashiRolls, without having it go to ArbCom (where I think they would send it back to the community anyway). It's going to be contentious, but I wanted to just applaud you for stepping up and closing the discussion.
11143:
5303:
script to do what would've taken them hours.) I've decided myself I'm going to complete my degree and go for chemical engineering; I don't just want to do web-monkey crap forever. As to the substance, though, do be wary of saying "nothing" or "never". We do have a user literally named
3789:
In this case, a properly-conducted and well-attended RfC was just completed with a clear consensus. Atsme didn't like the RfC's conclusion, so she opened a new discussion in a different forum about the same issue a couple of weeks later. That's a classic example of disruptive behavior
6834:
Hi GandydancerâI actually think it's fine to mention the study, because it's been covered extensively by multiple reliable sources (which is our bar for inclusion). To the extent that one specific editor (MONGO) raised a concern about peer review, I was willing to compromise on that,
2267:
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
2525:
adult definition of civility has, at its core, honesty. There is no act more uncivil than lying, or feigning incomprehension, or pretending that something is true in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Being polite to someone while s/he lies to your face or gaslights you is
9578:
you made a comment about the inability of Rfc's to overrule policy, which I very much hope is the case, as it would help in a completely different situation I'm mulling over. I'd love to be able to quote some policy shortcut on that, rather than just assert it. Do you have a link?
5021:
90% in either direction, I'd probably have closed it with one sentence. Recognizing these as rough limits, in between it's a judgment call as to whether a clear (super-)majority of community opinion constitutes a consensus. My judgment was that, in this case, a consensus existed.
4490:
clear about the details, coherency, and effectiveness of our national response, but a subset of the usual partisan hacks are tying themselves in knots trying to block Knowledge from conveying the content of those sources. To take a specific example at random, summaries like this:
6387:
I think you know what I mean. There are people who literally cannot participate in a talk-page discussion without interlarding tangential partisan talking points about the "Russia hoax", or mooting bespoke QAnon-style conspiracy theories, or undermining reliable sources like the
6140:
Valjean: The failure to AGF gets even more egregious. This ended up with lots of piling on and PAs against MastCell, and there is now a long list of diffs that would make her and PackMecEng look very bad at AE. I hope that doesn't become necessary. These attacks must stop and be
7283:
I felt at the time of the original discussion, and I still feel now, that "lynching" is unavoidably a racially-charged term, and that MastCell was correct to point that fact out, and that Levivich was incorrect to claim that it is not an intrinsically racially-charged term. And
6169:
I have made my point and clarified. Now it is time for other voices to comment. I will certainly take criticism by other productive editors very seriously. Nothing I said was heinous if you read my words accurately as written. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
2000:
I think your comment was probably the best thing you could have added to that discussion. There were lots of issues that editors felt compelled to discuss, but the discussion was going in more of a "forum" route than a "find a consensus" route. That's why I stopped commenting.
700:
hair. The issue I had was with the weight given and prominence in the lead. Which most people agreed with me on btw. Also it is absurd to compare the two people, which I have seen no argument on why someone would make such a comparison within Wiki policy. You said it yourself,
2119:
about the task force if s/he is so motivated, but the complaints about votestacking are likewise inappropriate and unfounded. I hope you're able to get a decent amount of thoughtful outside input at the RfC. If there are ongoing issues with obstructionism, please let me know.
6233:
Notice the order of her concerns. You are not my shrink, or my doctor, and I strongly advise you to stop what you're doing in your ludicrous attempt to make my comments and my personal life fit your distorted narrative. Your comments are beyond offensive and have been noted.
3794:). It basically invalidates the good-faith, content-based, collegial work of all of the editors who participated in the RfC. Seriously: what is the point of ever having an RfC, if any editor can happen along a week or two later and just toss its result and re-open the topic?
2132:
MastCell, why isn't this a case of revisiting a previous RfC in hopes of getting a different result? I have been under the impression that editors should have some just cause for reopening a previously closed RfC. Absent that reason why wouldn't this be forum-shopping?
1967:
7239:
If you want to have a grown-up conversation, then start by engaging with what you and I actually said, and drop the performative blusterâit's not convincing anyway. If you're just here because you're angry about being quoted accurately, then please see the reply given in
5244:
and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the
9817:
that I have the time and energy to re-write and update it, but the reality is that I don't. Between increasing real-life workload and disillusionment with Knowledge and its culture, I'm not able to invest the time that would be necessary to fix the article. I agree that
9020:
Thanks for the link to the archival discussion. Many of the issues that have been raised in the talk page archives have not been acted upon. Would creating a future, centralized discussion about this problem elsewhere have a better result? Journalist Will Bunch (2009,
2665:
I think it is to strong of a implication without clarification. Similar to what MastCell was saying, while not technically incorrect there is a high possibility that it would mislead our readers. I get the feeling our readers would either skip over or not understand the
1486:
shotguns; no gunshot wounds from high-velocity rifles were found to be potentially survivable. Compared and contrasted with the results of earlier studies of injuries in military combat, military combat injuries include injuries from explosives, military personnel wear
6060:
I suggest that Atsme think carefully before answering MastCell's question, and then to answer it with an acknowledgment of the pernicious results of the racism that permeates our society. Trivializing is not helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
8828:
I'm pretty proud of the little guy, too. His grandmother (my MIL) was a competitive shooter for most of her life. I won a few badges in the Army too, so hopefully he'll get it from both sides and get somewhere with it. Ironically, video games are actually about the
10762:
but Xaosflux declined on the basis I'd used a Protected Edit Request that created a new talk page instead of using an Admin Help request here on MastCell's existing talk page. Xaosflux has no objection to the contents of this requested change (per their reply with
8299:
Happy anniversary! And I'm certainly celebrating your perseverance, altho I'd be more jubilant you'd responded to my last email back in 2017. A couple years ago another big health issue was uncovered: Crohn's. Seems like it must've been latent a while. Thanks to
5019:
You're asking whether I have a numerical threshold for determining consensus, even though I explicitly said I don't have a numerical threshold for determining consensus? :) If it were roughly 50/50, I'd have closed it as "no consensus". If it were, let's say, :
1005:@PackMecEng, on the hounding thing, what you said above is such a distorted description of what actually happened it's almost unrecognizable. Almost every "point" you have tried to make about "consensus" is wrong. I'll put this in bullets to make it more clear:
5083:(and the note) in ArbPol doesn't give them the right to hear appeals to CBANs. Indeed, it's that which made the Community CBAN Edgar after his socking was discovered, despite an ARBCOM ban, because they wanted to ensure they also needed to sign off any appeal.
8599:
I will also add, based this time on my own experience (and what I was taught), that one of the key purposes of demonstrations is to attract spectators , who may join in the excitement and become involved in the cause. It's an excellent opportunity to recruit.
8428:
We've had a year of protests. It's natural to talk about them in the same conversation, and it is not inevitably a "right wing talking point" to do so, and IMO it's not helpful to jump straight to that, and I object to the implication you're making about me.
930:
article by going through my contribution history (something you acknowledge doing above). You then followed me there and reverted my edits, based on your incorrect assertion of consensus. Are you honestly saying that you found that article some other way, and
780:
So then let's talk about "personal feelings" you rather than "editor" youâas long as you're willing. Why do Jeong's racially-charged comments bother you in a way that Trump's do not? (This isn't a trick question; I genuinely don't understand, and I would like
7511:
I'd rather that MastCell respond to that, instead of me responding, but I see it as him using you as an example of how the community can make it difficult to have a useful discussion about why it was wrong to have called the site-ban discussion a "lynching".
4967:) pretty clearly felt that a ban was warranted, and that's how things work here, for better or worse. Separately, I don't feel the need to defend my activity level to you, and your petulant passive-aggressiveness in this thread doesn't reflect well on you.
3707:. Even if I think Atsme is wrong, they are clearly approaching this issue in a principled manner by raising specific concerns and linking relevant sources. However, that single post of yours that I'm noting here â early in the discussion â accuses Atsme of
3047:(and other U.S. media) coverage of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. In both cases media presented information they should have known was false in order to further political ends. And I don't think these are isolated incidents, just the most egregious.
5498:
after Reaganâs victory, a key operative gave what was then an anonymous interview, and perhaps lulled by the anonymity, he offered an unusually candid response to a question about Reagan, the Southern strategy, and the drive to attract the âWallace voterâ:
3758:â Atsme wasn't involved in the RfC: they arrived later and then questioned the RfC result when they learned of it. I disagree with Atsme but their comments aren't simply spurious, as evidenced by some supportive or ambivalent comments by respected editors
2484:, which is clearly an underserved area in terms of administrative guidance. That said, I disagree with your decision to scold me about my tone, rather than to address the repetition of obviously false claims (at this point, I think it's fair to call them
9523:. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on
8482:
were also a lot of really bad people. And there were probably a lot who didn't plan to become violent but ended up participating in it. Given the levels of stupidity we're seeing among those who've been arrested so far, I think that may be a lot of them.
6043:
effort" at the Reagan article, I will add that Levivich broke it down quite well and it aligns with my understanding of WP:PAG. UNDUE is the common denominator, but his explanation was much better than mine. Atsme Talk đ§ 16:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
4499:
Anyhow... I am thinking I'll gradually dip my toes back in the water, but on my terms and in a way I'm comfortable with. I appreciate you checking in, and I hope you and yours are staying healthy and grounded during these unprecedented times. Take care.
3425:
Without context, things like this are impossible to interpret. You admit you aren't a neutral observer - you need to make sure you don't come across as someone casting aspersions or trying to pressure admins at AE you see as unfavourable to your side.
2178:
I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. When the dictates of the Firearms WikiProject were overturned by the community, the baseline assumptions for these discussion shifted. I don't know what the outcome of the current RfC will be, but I
1043:. This is clearly false, as a careful reading of the talk page shows that there is consensus to include material about the confirmation hearing, although there wasn't an explicit consensus on the specific wording and which details should be mentioned.
8660:
American Politics. I don't know what alternatives may be viable, but clearly our Admin corps has not been up to the task assigned by Arbcom. Whether it was a mistake from the outset or whether things might have gone better is not clear at this time.
6409:, and to the extent that Wikipedians are serving as foot soldiers in that effort, we have a problemâone that our deep-seated misconceptions about neutrality and our communal commitment to lazy false equivalence have left us ill-equipped to address.
5661:
that Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton) was a Good Person, he therefore could not have said or done racist things. When confronted with inconvenient truths (like Reagan's casual use of racial slurs), the resulting cognitive dissonance is impressive to
2103:
I apologize for the late response; I'm not super-active here these days. I've reviewed the material in question, as well as some of the referenced RfC's and other discussions. It seems entirely appropriate to have an RfC on the topic of whether the
8621:
called it political violence so I will go with that: "First, the attack on the Capitol was unmistakably an act of political violence, not merely an exercise in vandalism or trespassing amid a disorderly protest that had spiraled out of control."
8461:
think that these instincts toward false equivalence, normalization, and both-sides-ism very readily play into the real, documented, ongoing right-wing effort to rewrite the history of Jan. 6th and broader recent events, and that's why I objected.
4778:, I am only doing this notification as required by AN, I am asking for a self-review of my actions related to the above and only because I've mention you I have to notify you to be legit, I am not asking for any AN action towards you or others. --
9149:
you seem to be pretty cozy with a editor who sprayed a lot of OR all over the talk page (i.e. Viriditas), apparently because he sees RR in a pretty negative light. So yeah, there are a lot of people grinding axes here. (On both sides apparently.)
8239:
A friend of mine once said he thought most people celebrating his birthday were actually just glad he was one year closer to dying. So I think your adminship anniversary is probably celebrated by everyone, but for diametrically opposed reasons.
7857:
I'm sure there are other aspects of this thread that I've forgotten to touch on, so if that's the case I'm open to further discussion. Thank you to all of you, Levivich included, for your openness and willingness to talk about these issues here.
8328:
Hey! Long time no see. I'm genuinely sorry for not responding to your email; I guess I could plead temporary insanity by virtue of an increasing real-life workload and disengagement from Knowledge, but no excuses. I'm really sorry about that. I
7160:
and the rules get relaxed, one doesnât magically find oneself surrounded by people with whom one experiences a real connection. Real connection requires ethical community, and ethical community requires shared rulesânot the exemption from them.
3421:
participate in like? And did MastCell agree with the majority in these cases, or disagree? If rightwingers are more likely to be wrong, and lefties more likely to be right, then you'd expect this pattern. If it's the other way around, then it's
7331:
doesn't just refer to lynchings of blacks in the US. Accusing someone of lynching doesn't mean you're accusing them of being racist, but rather of "mob justice". It's not a nice thing to accuse your colleagues of, but it's not an accusation of
1275:
I don't think that Nazi biographies fall under the "recent topics" umbrella, and WWII and the Nazi war effort have both been the subjects of extensive secondary analysis, so please keep this guidance in mind when choosing sources and subjects.
11146:
2663:"to investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government regarding election interference, and any matters arising from the probe. The ongoing investigation has so far led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates"
7626:
I agree with Sluzzelin, who puts it very well. And I also think it's arguing on thin ice to say that rape is always sexual in a way that lynching is not always racial, as though talking about lynching isn't really that bad. See, for example,
2061:
and several editors are essentially stonewalling the process by referring to prior discussions which are no longer relevant and making accusations of canvassing and forum shopping. Input from an uninvolved admin would be appreciated. Thanks
3230:
While I am here, I asked on Talk:Center_for_Medical_Progress#findlaw.com_as_a_legitimate_secondary_source whether anybody has an objection to findlaw.com as a legitimate secondary source. If you do could you go to that page and supply your
1158:
Thank you. I'm embarrassed to say that you explained my concern about the consensus/hounding issue much more clearly than I have, so thank you for taking the time. I don't have anything to add to that and agree it's best put to bed at this
7841:
discussion, is in itself perhaps relatively minor, but small things like this can add up to an environment which impedes our retention of editors of color, or inhibits them from participating here in the first place. Likewise, it sets the
6736:
discussion. Sadly, I can't think offhand of any other active editors who work in academic medicine, although I'm sure I'm forgetting someone. Most of us have been chased off or just left over the years, for the usual variety of reasons.
2584:
I pinged you because I don't want to be accused of talking about you behind your back. I understand that you think Trump was joking when he asked the Russians to hack Clinton's email and help him win the Presidency. (The Russians then
3094:
The topic is notable, certainly not a hoax, and there is plenty of coverage in books (physical and Google books) and journal articles. There's lots of new English-language scholarship since the article was deleted in 2007. Thank you.
6047:
Valjean: No, it was not making it personal. It was a valid question that should have been answered. The refusal to answer opened the door for what followed. It provided kindling, which was immediately personalized and lit on fire by
5757:
personal and existential, and not just matters of bloodless intellectual debate. The lack of diversity then reinforces the echo chamber. It's about who gets a voice here, and the thread on Jimbo's talkpage made that abundantly clear.
4982:
I wasn't going to comment (there were kudos already posted), but after a few sown seeds of discontent and disruption I thought maybe I should. Add me to the list of those who are aware that you did do the right thing. Originally I
3879:
Unlike either you or Atsme, I participated in the RfC whose outcome she later questioned. I argued against her viewpoint before she arrived, and then later on the talk page and at NPOVN. But I never once felt that Atsme's objections
10508:
10493:
2876:
part that I am less willing to extend leeway to her now. I am all for compromise wording, but you can't compromise effectively with people who flatly deny the content of reliable sources or insist of categorical and false language.
1058:
After a talkpage discussion a different editor who had participated in the original (2017) discussion tweaked the wording and added sources, implementing a new consensus version very similar to what MastCell had originally reverted
9964:
9826:
in action, I guess. And Knowledge, like many of our other institutions, has proven disappointingly vulnerable to counterfactual misinformation and ignorance, despite its nominal aspirations to serve as the sum of human knowledge.
6295:. I've found that it's best to do what you think is right and accept good-faith criticism for it, but not to worry about or cater to the subset of congenitally querulous types who, as you say, will hate the outcome whatever it is.
3373:
I can't say I'm some kind of a neutral observer not involved in partisan issues in Knowledge. However, the difference between me and MastCell is that I'm commenting as a regular user giving my two cents, and he's commenting as an
6392:
as no better than propaganda. The cumulative effect of this unchecked assault on objective reality is dispiriting, particularly on a project ostensibly dedicated to summarizing human knowledge and serving as a source of reliable
6880:
intentional blindness toward prolific, long-term editors who use this site as a platform for dangerous QAnon-adjacent right-wing extremist tropes doesn't inspire me with any confidence that more subtle cases will be dealt with.
6264:
is not your fault, it is a weakness with our processes - at the core of which IMO is our inability to handle intractable content disputes other than by banning people as they escalate. Anyway, I don't want to fall out with you.
5690:
day-to-day life todayâas well as subjects of extensive scholarly inquiry. So when our biographies completely ignore the topicâor when editors obstruct mention of itâthen we're failing our fundamental responsibility as a project.
10837:. I've checked to confirm that (a) the 4 bug fixes actually - on my browser - changed the signatures to appear the way the signers wanted them to, and (b) the 3 linter error fixes made no visible changes to the signatures. --
2891:
the guilty pleas are related to Russia trying to influence the election. (If Russia hadn't interfered there probably wouldn't have been a probe in the first place.) Looking more closely at the sources some people are providing
1293:
From one admin to another, the repetitive jeremiads on this subject are surreal. I almost never enter the fray on such discussions, but it's good to see a bit of candor on what adminship really is. This place does crack me up.
9675:. I missed the Rfc, and not wanting to re-litigate it I decided to pick just one of the three surveyed websites, and see if it is reliably described as "anti-trans" by sources, and started a discussion about "4th Wave Now" at
6201:
oppose it enough, and a good answer to MastCell's question could have cleared up those questions and left Atsme with good support for her anti-racist stance. That stance cannot be assumed without clear statements from her. --
3267:
for quite some time, and have noticed that you seem to pop out of nowhere when there is an enforcement report that is tangential to politics. Recently you have not participated at AE for a long time, until now when there is a
1490:
and ballistic protection helmets and so have more injuries to extremities, while civilian public mass shooting events are closer range, have more injuries to the head and torso, and have a lower rate of potentially survivable
562:: if you survey the current political and social-media landscape for racism, and decide that Sarah Jeong's tweets are the item most deserving of your attention and scorn, then I think that says more about you than about her.
5686:). Conversely, Reagan appears to have been relatively progressive with regard to racial issues early in his life, but evolved to exploit racism deftly as a politician (and, evidently, acquired privately racist views as well).
1315:âbut for whatever reason I couldn't resist in that instance. Have you ever noticed that the people who most vocally demand more accountability from admins often refuse to accept even the most minimal responsibility for their
723:
I've made the same point a number of times, and you're dancing around it and avoiding it, or perhaps I haven't been clear enough. I will try again. You went out of your way to express your moral disapproval of Jeong's tweets
6004:
Since I have defended MastCell other places, I think it's appropriate to offer a better explanation of the sequence of events that led up to all this clusterf###. Let's examine that actual thread, and I'll add my commentary
1698:"...what's even more amazing than a President who is averaging -- repeat: averaging -- more than eight untruths a day is this: Trump's penchant for saying false things is exponentially increasing as his presidency wears on."
10645:
Hello, I am correcting a tracked syntax error on Knowledge called the Tidy Font bug, and have sucessfully brought it down (In User space) from about 3000 errors down to 30 in the past few months. MastCell's protected page
5977:". The school I attended was not segregated so I was not exposed to any racism against Blacks...at least, not until my family moved to Texas where I was not only busy defending against the Italian slurs, I was a target of
866:
opinion, I'd like to see a specific instance where you held the President to the same standards as you apparently hold for random opinion columnists. (Of course, you're free not to care about my opinion. I'll be alright).
3774:
But if we were to respond to those critiques with ad hominem arguments or accusations, the behavioral problem would lie with us, not Atsme: encouraging this would degrade rather than improve the editing environment here.
946:
You say you haven't received any answers from me. I've made an honest effort to engage with you here and answer your questions. If there's something you think I've failed to answer, please, ask again and I'll do my best.
9496:
this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the
6378:
for a lot of frankly unacceptable behavior, and makes it harder for serious concerns to be heard. I assumed you were lumping my concern into that dynamicâit sounds like my assumption was wrong, and I apologize for that.
1930:
which quotes the original designer of the weapon. These sources are dismissed as "non-expert", "media commentary", "speculation by journalists", etc. even though they are published as news items and not opinion pieces.
6362:
like "bro" and the like. As I had said a couple of times before that, I could very well see how you and other editors would see what she said the way that you do, and that it would have been my own reaction as well. --
1520:
If these sorts of arguments are relied upon to exclude content, or to attempt to disqualify obviously reliable sources, that may constitute tendentious and disruptive editing and may become an issue for administrative
10807:
I don't know MastCell's views on whether lint error fixing and very minor bug fixing are good uses of someone's time. But I think I know MC well enough to be confident that he is either fine with someone doing this,
10361:
8705:
7417:
I tend to agree with Levivich. I don't buy the idea that Levivich has to significantly acknowledge myopic racial history in using the term. I reject this neo-fascist orthodoxy and all fair-minded editors should, too.
2825:@MastCell: Yes, it bothers me. Although to be fair the text doesn't actually say "unrelated to Russia" as you quoted above. It says "unrelated to Russia's efforts" and I think in the context of the whole sentence the
3811:"When material in the lead is challenged because it is not supported by a RS... then the material needs to be removed from the lead, and included somewhere else in the body of the article as a controversial opinion."
2603:, etc. Likewise, Flynn held secret backchannel communications with the Russian ambassador to help Russia avoid consequences for its interference in the election, and pleaded guilty to lying about those conversations.
7353:
racist. I'm white and human, and thus inherently and unavoidably racist. But not because I think the word "lynching" as used in that particular instance was an accusation of mob justice rather than an accusation of
7275:
very compelling in terms of how I attempt to live my life â although I am not in favor of making any of that into policy with respect to user conduct on Knowledge. Some people would say that there are two doors for
6504:
True, and I didn't mean to blame Jimbo, exactly. Maybe to shame him out of his spineless, milquetoasty "fine people on both sides" schtick, but that's about it. Thank you for speaking up in the thread in question.
1218:. Since I am not a native speaker of the English language, I consequently assumed this verbiage to be FAC compliant and made the "mistake" to replicate this text to other articles. In addition, I also assumed the
1051:"consensus on the talkpage was clearly to mention his confirmation hearings in the lead (please read past the bolded words on the talk page); restoring per *actual* consensus, pending further talkpage discussion."
9481:
3445:, first of all, I don't necessarily accept your facile dichotomization of editors as either "right-leaning" or "progressive". I have no idea if Captain Occam, for instance, is "right-leaning" or "progressive". I
8557:
of them were guilty of it. Of course this is a talk p, and not an article, so it isn't subject to WP:NPOV and WP:V, but it is subject to BLP, and you are making criminal accusations against identifiable people.
4019:
Your shouting links make no sense and your text contains no valid (or indeed any) argument. I have only glanced over the underlying discussions, but MastCell's description seems to be in agreement with reality.
5674:
to suppress uncomfortable, if well-documented, items. Of course, it's objectively laughable as a matter of policyâthe Reagan article is chock-full of insubstantial mythopoeic fluff, so the sudden invocation of
3334:
Really, there is no pattern here? Can you say hand on your heart that your participation at AE is not politically biased? Frankly, this reminds of Gamaliel's enforcement of Gamergate requests which led to this
9243:
I am aware of no policy that says we omit a politicians' statements in favor of speculation/accusation. We certainly should include such things.....but omitting direct quotes/arguments (via RS)? I don't think
8486:
insurrection, and that there's no evidence that everyone in attendance during the speeches intended to attempt a coup. That it's opinion, not fact, that the idea there was ever anything peaceful is "mythical".
1033:. Also false. There was nothing misleading about the edit. (I think you may be conflating MC's revert of the IP with their revert of you, thinking incorrectly that MC claimed "consensus" in this first revert.)
7691:
Levivich, maybe you could just admit that it was, in hindsight, a mistake for you to have defended the use of the term "lynching" as not racially-charged when it was used back in the site-ban discussion, and
6086:
Valjean: Now PackMecEng does make it personal with a directly false accusation against Cullen328. Later others make it even more direct and repeat it about MastCell. (PackMecEng is currently blocked for good
757:
None of those diffs were me purposing they be added the article, that is why I am confused I suppose. That is the sticking point I had brought up above as well (though perhaps I could of explained it better)
10655:
format with the color specified outside of the link, browsers don't agree on how to display the colors. Some browsers display it with the specified colors, and others default back to the standard link blue.
5223:
should decline an appeal on those grounds, but I can live with whatever they decideâand it does seem to me that our community-ban policy gives SashiRolls has the right to appeal to the Committee for review.
9623:, although it's been cited most often in contexts where specific Knowledge subcultures have developed internal practices or ideas that run counter to site policy. For instance, the firearms enthusiasts at
9546:
8656:, etc. Nothing like that can reasonably be associated with BLM, but the language matters and the context in which the language was promoted by Trump, the Republicans, and their media partners also matters.
6081:
I was wondering when this would devolve into subtle accusations of racism against fellow editors. Glad to see I wasn't disappointed I suppose. Don't be that guy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
2190:
coordinated editing. For example, the Firearms WikiProject developed a bizarre dictum insisting that criminal use of firearms could only be included as a "see also" in gun articlesâan obvious violation of
1257:
Thank you for clarifying that; I had tried to find where the original wording was added, but was unsuccessful given the lengthy page histories. While you're here, I guess I'd reiterate the wording of the
8626:
people without obvious ties to the far rightâjoined with extremists in an attempt to overturn a presidential election." I can't help but wonder if this was how it all started in Germany. I think of the
5920:
something hits any of the "boards", then "best behavior" should be a the phrase of the day. Anyone who's been around the block more than once knows that editing another editors post is bright red line.
1404:
1065:
1 month prior. MastCell apparently didn't follow that switch in argument that happened only after the reverting was done. I also found it a bit amusing where PackMec pats themselves on the back, saying (
5189:
I'm really just trying to identify the relevant policies here, followed by nothing more than a bit of idle speculation. I've already said just a little way above that I very strongly support the close.
2895:
it looks like the issue might be whether the charges were related to collusion with Russia to influence the election. That might be helpful in finding a compromise. Anyway I'll stop bothering you here.
1610:
11049:. 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
9419:. 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
6554:. 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
4277:. 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
2279:. 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
1983:
Thanks; I will review those links and discussions. I'm not super active these daysâtoo much else going on in my life, and in the worldâso I can't promise a rapid resolution, but I will look into it.
1916:
Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific characteristics but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect."
4125:
That's heresy, MastCell, and you know it. Anyone who has properly considered any of my opinions has agreed with all of them; to disagree with me is to prove that you haven't considered it properly.
3950:
your response, and not hers, that I found "demoralizing." I won't trouble you any more on your talk page, it was not my intention to create any more drama: none was ever needed in the first place. -
3205:
Thanks; I will respond on those talkpages. I've added them to my watchlist, so there's no need to ping me here. While we're talking, though, did you see my note on your talkpage, asking you to stop
5342:
Hi, MastCell. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at
3088:
3081:
2746:
That has the same issue and does not clarify any of it. I would personally like to kill the whole sentence as has been suggested by others and kick the can down the road to the presidency article.
10445:
7959:
4077:
that harassment, but it does render your accusations a bit ironic. To the extent that I've discussed conduct, I've provided diffs to illustrate my concernsâin contrast to your insinuations here.
10894:
No need to write checks. All of my personal expenses are paid by right-wing billionaire Harlan Crow, with no strings attached. It's one of the many things I have in common with Clarence Thomas.
10796:
okay with editing pages that another admin has locked, unless it's urgent. This is not urgent. When MastCell returns, he can handle it as he sees fit. Sorry about the delay in quashing the bug.
9524:
7334:
I still don't think that saying "they're lynching me!" is calling other people racist. It doesn't make me racist to have that viewpoint. It doesn't harm anyone for me to express that viewpoint.
6136:
No, you did not. I need you to explain that you are not making such a heinous implication because from what I can tell you made no distinction. PackMecEng (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
2222:
either cease making these accusations regarding the task force (which only seem to come up when there is an RfC or other discussion to undermine) or bring it up at the appropriate noticeboard.â
4830:
Iâm glad this block, of someone who hasnât bothered you in years, has partially restored your faith in Knowledge during your very active retirement. That gives us all some measure of comfort.
745:, really; I'm questioning your decision to moralize publicly about Jeong while ignoring/enabling Trump. I haven't really heard a direct answer on that yet, not that you owe me one of course.
431:) would be for editors with close connections to the movement to participate in talkpage discussion, but for independent, unaffiliated editors to manage the actual editing of article content.
8449:
equivalenceânot only in my opinion, but in the opinions of subject-matter experts.As for "a year of protests", these were not both "protests". The BLM marches were protests, based on a very
7833:
Thank you all for the commentary. A couple of brief remarks: first of all, Levivich, you keep insisting that I need to stop calling you a racist. I have never called you a racist, and can't
7048:
They're old, so not sure if you still want them; that first one you restored to test something a few years ago. I can take care of cleaning them up for you if you like, just let me know! ~
4054:
Stephen, MastCell's interaction with me goes much further than this discussion. I will not litigate it here but I am prepared to do so when/if I am forced to. I will say no more. Thank you.
5220:"Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or, where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, to the Arbitration Committee."
787:
articleâwhich you've never edited beforeâin order to revert my edit. Your assessment of consensus is incorrect, for reasons I'll detail on the article talk page, but I want to ask you here
8870:
2871:, Flynn admitted lying about his efforts to help Russia avoid sanctions for its election interference. So how can his plea possibly be "unrelated to Russia's efforts "? His plea revolves
8490:
opposite: pointing out that sometimes things that end badly started out peacefully, which is what we liberals have been arguing about the BLM protests that turned into riots all along.
6193:
I hope that at least explains my impression of the situation, and why I think it's an egregious PA to attack MastCell with the false accusation that they ever accused anybody of racism.
4486:
Glancing at some of the talkpages related to Covid-19 and national responses to it, the sheer dishonesty of so much of our proposed coverage is palpably oppressive. Reliable sources are
5655:
Thanks! Interesting stuff. It's almost like these are relevant areas of scholarly inquiry that should be included in an aspiring serious, comprehensive reference work like Knowledge. :)
1015:
Although some details in that sentence had been added as recently as 1 month prior, there was an existing talk page consensus from 2017 to include the confirmation hearings in the lede.
7303:
seem to be a societal taboo against calling anyone that. But I think that in the one instance when Levivich posted that comment about "lynching", he was "not anti-racist". Myself, I'm
677:
Immediately above, you suggested that Trump's perceived racism is less noteworthy than his hair or the size of his hands, on the basis of Google hits. Boris is responding to something
11065:
9639:
I'd love if it if you would; attempting a TL;DR (because I know I'm too wordy, sorry!): a contentious, gender-related topic had a recent Rfc which strongly supported use of the term
9435:
6570:
5734:
will ultimately prevail. It's gonna need a lot of hoes, regardless. I'd like to think there are more editors that feel the project is worth the blisters than not. Call me a dreamer. â
4293:
2295:
11160:
3851:
More to the point, everyone has his or her pet theory about why we lose good editors. Here's mine, informed by more than a decade of editing and adminning controversial topic areas:
3091:
that was deleted (PROD) because of "No decent google hits. Possible hoax, or un-notable thing. Maybe just because this was invented and dissolved way before the www was invented..."
10049:
5337:
2719:
ok, so you understand the problem. Now what can you do to fix it half way that doesn't involve adding the words "unrelated to Russia's efforts"? Looking on the talk page I see that
7816:
7812:
2521:
I'm a believer in civility, and I wouldn't have lasted more than a decade here, on the kinds of articles I edit, if I weren't relentlessly and sometimes teeth-gratingly civil. But
11034:
10478:
I think it's been pretty much never since I saw anyone say anything positive about anything I ever did as an arb. It's... curiously appreciated. I really did try my best on that.
9405:
6540:
5730:. Improving our coverage of race and racism, especially in American politics, is going to be a tough row to hoe. Hopefully, we will see even more scholarship on the topic and the
4263:
2780:
That would certainly be more appropriate for a BLP to be clear on what they did and try to avoid implying anything else. One needs to be careful when talking about a BLPs crimes.
8837:
My wife has a Gen-Xer's deep aversion to seeing video games as a legitimate hobby for anyone over the age of 18, but even she has recently fallen victim to the addiction that is
8730:
7307:
going to call that "racist". But I'm willing to call it "incorrect", and "incorrect" in a way that was harmful to the on-wiki discussion then, and continues to be harmful now. --
7256:
How about instead of all that we act like adults. You say "ok I'll stop using you as an example of racism" and I say "ok great" and we both go back to what we were doing before.
4901:
Mr Ernie, you're welcome to express your opinions about the close here, but if you're going to snipe at Tryptofish and Floquenbeam, then take it somewhere else. Or just quit it.
6196:
I really appreciated Atsme's explanation of her background above, and I don't think she's any more racist than the rest of us who grew up in the '60s. The questions are whether
3342:
10995:
10554:
10258:
9702:
when I happened to see your comment at the unrelated discussion, which made me think maybe I should go back and present the case after all. Which brings us back to the present.
8890:
6462:
6174:
Valjean: She should have AGF. She didn't. Instead, she added more fuel to the fire she had built out of the kindling created by Atsme's refusal to answer a reasonable question.
1559:
9498:
8287:
Of course, as Thomas Aquinas said, it's better to burn out than to fade away. (Or maybe that was Neil Young). And I'm managing to do both! Another year above the roses... :)
1645:"I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." --
7663:
MastCell said that you were wrong to say that "lynching" is not racially-charged. And you did say that. He never called you a racist, but you are acting as though he did. --
9554:
3043:
I appreciate that there are examples of sub-standard reporting in Fox News. My question is what is the difference between Fox news coverage of the Seth Rich murder and the
6034:
Valjean: MastCell also wondered, and asked for clarification. This is a discussion, and asking for clarification is perfectly normal and proper. It is not personalization.
5451:, the arbitrators have given you a word extension to cover your statement as is, so you can leave your statement as it is without shortening it. Thanks and happy editing,
2111:
Nor do I see any problem with the Gun Politics Task Force; it is properly constituted and open to anyone interested in gun politics, regardless of their underlying views.
683:
Boris's point is that regardless of Google hits, a President's habit of making racially-charged statements is inherently more relevant than his hair or hand size. Because
11168:
6946:. I am wondering if you and Smallbones could exchange a few emails re your concerns with the way our encyclopedia may be heading? Do you mind if I ping him? Thoughts?
5684:
10767:
on Xaos' talk page), and stated that I should make this sort of request in this manner instead, so this is what I am doing. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
8505:
subset of American voters and to invalidate their votes. Every single person in attendance knew, or should have known, that. Every single person there was fine with the
9676:
7271:
I watch this talkpage, and the quoted edit was part of something where I have long been involved. Off-wiki, I have come to find the arguments underlying the concept of
3964:
I understand that you personally aren't bothered by Atsme's behavior, and I'm glad to hear it. But I'm asking you to exercise some empathy for how her behavior affects
11136:
3269:
1811:
1219:
8333:
happy to hear that you're feeling betterâobviously not happy that you have Crohn's disease, but at least it's been identified and is being treated. And I know you're
3813:
That is just wrong as a matter of basic policy, and also an obvious example of begging the question (the material was, quite clearly, supported by a reliable source).
1222:
to be applicable, in particuar as it pertains to the victory claim tables and dates of rank tables. I assumed this to be legitimate since the following FAC articles (
10630:
9031:
2. The article awards Reagan more credit than he deserves for good things that happened while he was president, or asserts things that took place when they didn't.
7012:
deprecated, and while I don't think there's a timeline for their removal, it's been that way for a while. It's usually a straightforward fix, all uses need to use
5892:
Thanks for the notification. I don't have anything to add, except that an admin would have to be crazy or stupid to volunteer to close this noticeboard discussion.
5856:
who started it. Think he probably forgot to notify. Also Guy, I mean that in a good faith way, not snarky. The internet sucks on conveying meaning through text đ)
3461:
conscious or unconscious bias on my part. If your complaint is that other admins find my arguments convincing more often than not, well, I guess I hope I'm guilty.
3378:
directly leading to users being banned and blocked as a result of these reports. Arbitration enforcement is not to be taken lightly, it requires professionalism. --
1348:
Have you ever noticed that the people who most vocally demand more accountability from admins often refuse to accept even the most minimal responsibility for their
681:. Please stop playing games. I'm happy to have a serious discussion, if you're willing to engage more forthrightly, but this feigned incomprehension is beneath you.
545:
Can you think of any people more prominent than Sarah Jeong who have used their platforms to disparage people based on their races, religions, gender, or sexuality?
9919:
8453:
problemâthe disproportionate use of lethal force by police against non-white people. January 6th was an act of organized domestic terrorism based on a transparent
4873:
the ones to close them. That's how I can simultaneously have no faith in how ANI generally works, while simultaneously recognizing that at least it worked here. --
9531:
6406:
3768:
3761:
3759:
1411:, in particular thank you for your comments on the quality of the arguments offered in opposition to expanded content from obviously reliable sources. One of the
8062:
violation, and when I raised the issue she personally attacked me with a string of baseless and unsupported aspersions rather than addressing her BLP violation (
8013:
I'd appreciate a response, since you took the time to come here and accuse me of violating policy. Which edit of mine "restored challenged edits" to the lead of
6380:
On the broader topic, I am a lot less willing than I used to be to overlook misinformation on this platform. I've previously tried my best to ignore it (per the
5063:
2183:
know that it's fair to revisit the question given the changing context, and that the RfC itself is not abusive or inappropriate. Please stop insisting otherwise.
2047:
7988:
5250:
5009:
Hi MastCell. You wrote in your close "While there is no numerical threshold for consensus, it would be inappropriate to close a discussion like thisâwith : -->
4858:
I am not among the great and good of Knowledge, but I wanted to say as well that I believe you did the right thing, whatever happens in other venues. Cheers.
2959:
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings!
6112:
Valjean: Exactly. Asking a reasonable question is not an accusation of racism. Editors should always reply properly and civilly to requests for clarification.
2399:
Hoping all of your wishes come true, but I'm thinking you'll settle for the first 5, right? đ Stay warm...enjoy the holiday season...make happy memories!!
9907:
9028:
1. The article attempts to eliminate, whitewash or play down any references to negative things that took place during Reagan's presidency from 1981 to 1989.
8028:
Just so you're aware, she's apparently muted your pings, after accusing you of hounding on her talk page. So she's unlikely to have received your last ping.
7739:
I didn't phrase it well. I don't think MastCell is under any obligation. View it as a suggestion rather than a request, certainly not as a demand. Peace. ---
5377:
4955:
Mr Ernie, I don't have a strong personal feeling about whether a ban was warranted, and am not interested in arguing about it. That discussion took place at
3589:
he spoke with moral clarity and identified political lies as such. Of course, it was a different time. (In contrast, today's media would run something like:
2727:
that adds the word "various" before "criminal charges". Does that sufficiently soften the implication for you that the charges are Russia-collusion-related?
1755:
4538:
So good to hear from you MastCell. I went through something similar in the late 80s/early 90s when we started to get our first AIDs pts. I was working at
3700:â I don't know if we've ever interacted directly, though I have seen you around and respect your editing. While I agree with you on the content question at
10492:
5818:
hate to admit that I might not have the stamina to hang in there, but that is the reality. Maybe there is some support structure that could be built (like
4567:
1530:
11159:
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the
10392:
10221:
9662:
They may well be, and I'm fine with it if sources clearly support that, but from where I stand wrt our P&G, that's a loaded term, possibly covered by
9535:
8265:
7025:
5822:
of lack of a better example) to help editors deal with the stonewalling, etc, but I have no idea what that would look like. Maybe I'm missing something? â
5657:
It's become evident to me that a lot of people have a simplistic view in which people who say or do racist things are inherently Bad People. Because they
3327:
3321:
3315:
3291:
3279:
2509:, look. An editor presented a reliable source describing Trump's plea for the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's email. (The source is entitled, in part,
2054:
1342:
1325:
308:, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:
6638:
5849:
5321:
Yes, I've come across Neutrality a few times, and s/he is a great editor. I guess that's the exception that proves the rule? :P Good luck with Chem-E...
1368:
672:
644:
6847:
Evanega S, Lynas M, Adams J, Smolenyak K, Insights CG (2020). "Coronavirus misinformation: quantifying sources and themes in the COVID-19 'infodemic'".
3736:, re-litigating an RfC a few weeks after it closed is precisely the kind of thing that made Atsme's talk page contributions so difficult to handle, no?
3065:
Thanks, MastCell, for continuing to bring up these issues. Consensus doesn't do us much good if the facts aren't well known, or are being overlooked. --
2638:
AFAICT. (That several of Trump's associates have pled guilty to various crimes is uncontroversial). The problem I think people were having was with the
839:
BLP subjects much. I suppose being called a hypocrite and POV pusher would be a reason why I don't do it much. Feel satisfied to retract what you said?
2601:"(Cohen's plea shows) that Trump was engaged in business dealings with Russia in the midst of a campaign in which Moscow interfered to help elect him."
9682:
My next step at the discussion, if I go back, was going to be to point out what it looks like when sources really do describe someone or something as
9462:
6596:
5299:
Yeah, I certainly find that as I get a bit longer in the tooth myself. (Though they seem to be quick enough to like me when I can write a five-minute
3275:
So, I opened your contribs at 1000 edits and CTRL+F'd "enforcement". These are your last AE participations (political descriptions broadly speaking):
589:
President. Now, the President has a much larger bully pulpit than Sarah Jeong, and he targets groups far more vulnerable than those targeted by Jeong.
4319:
3641:
2313:
3080:
1783:
704:
which is exactly what you seem to be doing. How do you give similar weight to something that is a vastly different situation? It more sounds like a
8984:
came. Your kind acknowledgement let me know at least someone was listening. I hope I can return the kindness one day. God bless and happy editing!
6862:
5095:
5072:
791:
to do this again. That is, don't look through my contribution history and then follow me to an article to revert or dispute my edits. I think it's
11183:
9960:
8254:
Alternatively, there's the Gaelic Storm take; for all you saints and sinners, you losers and you winners, here's to one more day above the roses.
3676:âs earlier attempts at...forum shopping isnât quite the right term, but it may have to do...before answering this. Let me know if you need diffs.
3934:
3931:
3881:
3766:
3764:
3705:
3495:
1526:
1305:
9981:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
3393:
entrusted with other tasks to also be admins, and so are their own views if all is well with the community. The actions are not this users own,
2320:
1496:
10157:
9846:
clean all these years, so there are occasional glimpses of hope. I am glad to hear from you, and hope you are thriving. All the best, always,
1926:) while opposing sources that present other viewpoints or discuss characteristics of the gun that make it attractive to mass shooters, such as
10423:
8037:
5959:
1069:) Ummm...no...there was consensus before too. What you achieved was converting a tacit consensus about the wording into an explicit consensus.
702:"most powerful person on Earth, at the same time that you're choosing to emphasize racially-charged statements by an obscure technical writer"
8369:
8344:
8323:
5241:
11092:
8623:
7201:
I relate it to some of the difficulties we have as a community. The connection feels satisfying to me, but her prognosis is discouraging.
6942:
Smallbones wrote an investigative-type report on paid editing. I thought it was excellent and the best thing I've ever seen written in the
5474:
1386:
9940:
Hah! If I remembered any Perl, I'd fix it. :) Coding is one of those pre-pandemic hobbies that I haven't even thought about in 2+ years...
9901:
9164:
is not an endorsement of every single thing that the message-leaver has done or said.But now I'm curious. What, in your view, was Reagan's
8259:
5110:
4941:
I could certainly be wrong, but isn't it proper to base the closure on consensus rather than MastCell's subjective feelings on the matter?
4825:
4539:
3836:
criteria. She also complained that the other editors did not provide "in-text" and accused her fellow editors of bad faith, claiming that
3763:. Overall I think the impact of their critique has been positive, in that we've had posts bolstering the RfC results with further evidence
1649:
1336:
1299:
10448:
and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the
8645:
actively promote an anti-democratic anti-constitutional agenda in the US. And they are doing it as a core agenda of their organized party.
7807:
7433:
7144:
7096:
3111:
2457:
You may be right, but venting assumptions of bad faith like that on the talk page is not helpful to the discussion and a bit off-putting.
2202:. Until and unless the task force is deleted by community consensus, please don't keep implying that it's somehow less valid that others.
10444:
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at
9382:
9180:
8794:
8053:
7935:
6517:
4656:
I don't think you can make broad generalizations about racism based upon an anecdote, especially when you consider the number of editors
2592:
As for the "unrelated to Russia's efforts" wording, no amount of legalistic nonsense makes that wording any less false. Reliable sources
10524:
10196:
10027:
9970:
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
8808:
8788:
8754:
8680:
Returning to Knowledge after a refreshing break. My only further comment on this is in response to DGG, who asserts that I am violating
8159:
7838:
use are, of practical necessity, drawn from my immediate experience, and that includes the discussion with you over the term "lynching".
6299:
out there, and be sure to wear a mask even if the leader of your country tries to tell you that Covid-19 is a hoax or "just the flu"...
5422:
5406:
5392:
4691:
4679:
4049:
2031:
687:
were the one who proposed that comparison, can you explain why you find it relevant to coverage of Trump's racially-charged statements?
5831:
5767:
5743:
5699:
5327:
5316:
5294:
5199:
5184:
5166:
5151:
5130:
5121:
SashiRolls was given an adequate opportunity to respond to accusations or whether the close was manifestly improper or unreasonable. --
4551:
4240:
3883:
3015:
2247:
1919:
1282:
483:
376:
9860:
9833:
9472:
9305:
9285:
9270:
9253:
9238:
9158:
9111:
8928:
8858:
8671:
8145:
7108:
6955:
6829:
5397:
Furthermore, if you don't want to modify or trim your statement, you can have a word extension granted to cover your statement as is.
4148:
3401:
3387:
3368:
3309:
3303:
3297:
3285:
1957:
1955:
1953:
1951:
1949:
1947:
1945:
1943:
1899:
1430:
Smith, Edward Reed; Shapiro, Geoff; Sarani, Babak (July 2016). "The profile of wounding in civilian public mass shooting fatalities".
1215:
1211:
9143:
9126:
8741:
8710:
8639:
8365:
8319:
8249:
7748:
7734:
7720:
7642:
6970:
6886:
6511:
5460:
5443:
5229:
4896:
4651:
4641:
threaten people who raise concerns about it. Frankly, in my view, that makes you a bigger part of the cultural problem here than any
4496:
whereas Knowledge culture would likely mistake its dry concision for neutrality and my passionate disapproval for incivility or bias.
4029:
3507:
3344:
you accused three editors of "deep-seated partisanship" so hope you don't mind the word being used to describe your own behauvior. --
3152:
3136:
Okay, thank you for the information. Based on the description you provided, I'll probably just start it from scratch (with sources).
3131:
3074:
9890:
9775:
9009:
8349:
Thanks, no worries. Not kidding when I say I feel better than ever, even going back to as far as I can remember of early childhood.
7864:
7792:
7705:
7672:
7575:
7551:
7521:
7506:
7482:
7468:
7404:
7368:
7344:
7316:
7123:
Hello. I re-created the above page you deleted. It has new content and sources. I will be adding illustrations ere long. Sincerely,
6434:
6415:
5623:
5171:
While I don't know where I stand on the premises of both the discussion itself and the potential procedural concerns I noted above,
4882:
4853:
4839:
3642:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tagging_as_not_neutral_of_article_Lynching_of_Shedrick_Thompson
2789:
2775:
2629:
2613:
2563:
1176:
953:
872:
848:
833:
821:
801:
775:
751:
718:
693:
630:
614:
583:
568:
533:
519:
9868:
9647:
9372:
9361:
9343:
9221:
9206:
9191:
9174:
9064:
8417:
8234:
7773:
7658:
7614:
6903:
6872:
is a repository for manuscripts that are undergoing or will undergo peer review, not a peer-reviewed publication in its own right).
6210:
5924:
wiki - I'd post the same again. Now that I got all that out: Hope you have a great day/evening. Cheers and Best always MastCell.
5802:
4867:
4759:
3062:
In the case of Fox News, I'm not sure that "sub-standard reporting" is a remotely proper description, so the comparison is useless.
2755:
2741:
2679:
2656:
2600:
2229:
2091:
1989:
1962:
1501:
1477:
1432:
1146:
9715:
9634:
8699:
8539:
8516:
8499:
8468:
8023:
7266:
7250:
5271:
5028:
5014:
4907:
4628:
3250:
3215:
2365:
2208:
2173:
2158:
2142:
2126:
449:
9946:
8813:
Curiously, civility is a subject I can speak my thoughts on without fear of becoming uncivil, and I couldn't possibly agree more.
7946:
You restored challenged edits that were removed from the lead of the subject article because such inclusion is noncompliant with
7155:
I keep going back to this article and reading the highlighted bit. I thought it might interest you and your talk-page stalkers:
6222:
believe aside from what I reluctantly openly admitted for MastCell's sake. I recently watched a rerun of the original tv series,
5999:
5887:
5350:
4973:
4950:
3974:
3959:
3861:
3685:
2921:
2910:
2882:
2848:
2540:
1619:
1113:
640:
8713:
I also find myself agreeing with your position in the thread above this one, which I read, as it touches upon the same subject.
8584:
8223:
7725:
As much as I like to see things reach a resolution, I don't think that this is something for MastCell to settle unilaterally. --
6619:
4493:"In response to the global coronavirus pandemic, Trump declared a national emergency and passed a $ 2 trillion stimulus package"
3435:
2863:
11012:
10388:
10053:
9989:
8379:
8001:
7069:
6781:
6768:
6757:
6743:
5582:
5534:
4770:
4749:
4732:
4120:
4106:
What an odd response. I carefully considered why Darouet posted here, and engaged his points at length. Simply because someone
4101:
4083:
4067:
3784:
3745:
3599:
3576:
3565:
3535:
3524:
3502:
3487:
3467:
2050:
2019:
362:
8993:
6247:
5953:
5813:
articleâ as valid sources of criticism on the topic. Now how much of a time suck will it be if I dare to remove those sources
5002:
4790:
3655:
3199:
3184:
11243:
little by little in their own time, turning into memories, mists from other days, until they were absorbed into oblivion"...
10377:
9897:
8611:
8569:
8293:
8255:
8075:
6305:
5898:
5279:
4506:
3633:
3160:
1332:
1295:
1023:"plenty of precedent for including notably controversial confirmation hearings, even in confirmed judges; cf Clarence Thomas"
10142:
8972:
7132:
6693:
4718:
3542:
2937:
11088:
10933:
10851:
And, as an added benefit, I was able to successfully procrastinate instead of doing the IRL work I should have been doing.
10095:
10071:
9458:
8915:
8164:
7299:
policy position of the US Republican party is "Don't call me a racist. I just don't like it when Black people vote", there
7210:
6820:
not yet be included. I wonder if in this case it could be included with "newly released but as yet unpublished" wording?
6592:
6479:
4315:
4072:
Atsme, I was asked a question on my talkpage, and responded on my talkpage. I'm allowed to do that. (In fact, if I were to
2974:
2309:
10720:
Additionally, if you are willing, these three signatures have obsolete font tags. Changing these will clear all remaining
9812:
where young people die of it. I hope that your family is able to support each other through this terrible time.As for the
9132:
but if there were several editors interested, I'd try to chip in on those areas where I've some knowledge of the sources.
8205:
6350:
4988:
should have placated the grumblers, but you know wiki - Some folks will jump at any chance to stumble into a battleground.
4586:
3360:
behaviour is partisan? Or can I just accuse them of that, see if something sticks? ⊠it's confusing and paradoxical, this
2148:
assumptions from the 2017 RfC are no longer valid, it seems reasonable to revisit the question now. In other words, there
1927:
1475:
A retrospective study of 139 autopsy reports from 12 civilian public mass shootings in the United States published in the
10217:
9746:
8978:
8105:
7008:
Hey MastCell, it looks like you've got some user scripts that have bare javascript global wg-style variables. These are
5343:
3930:
It was no difficulty â in fact it was a positive thing â to reply to Atsme at Talk:WSJ, by quoting from relevant sources
3826:, a well-regarded book written by two prominent academic historians of science and published by a major publishing house.
2425:
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
1635:
1590:
1576:
1468:
495:
8091:
7888:, or it boogers the edit-mode syntax highlighter (the one available under Preferences, anyway). Another option is using
4377:
3936:
3886:
3837:
3830:
3817:
3810:
3798:
3716:
2152:"some just cause" to re-open the question, and it looks like other editors have repeatedly explained that cause to you.
11226:
10412:
10100:
10039:
9366:
If you relied our biography, of course, you wouldn't even know that Reagan gave a speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
7854:
issue on Knowledge without providing diffs, which, in turn, requires highlighting specific comments by specific people.
7542:
by saying that I only meant "raping" metaphorically, and that it is not a sexually-charged or violence-charged word. --
7090:
7063:
7003:
5874:, oops, my bad. Sorry, no disrespect intended, and actually I think everyone is aware of this one being controversial.
5010:
2/3 of commenters supporting actionâas 'no consensus'." Would your close have been different if it were less than 2/3?
4608:
651:
636:
597:
434:
information. I see a similar problem on the TM articles, at least as far as they intersect with medical claims. Do you?
354:
10822:
9952:
9760:
8080:
I'm saying I advised her to mute your pings., and that's all I said, and all I meant, and all I intend to say here.
6998:
5649:
5214:
It's my understanding that any ban or sanction can be appealed to ArbCom. Community bans are explicitly included, per
4593:
2597:
2400:
2069:
1923:
1534:
1125:
There is a little more to it on the consensus side. The orginal version that was implimented as part of consensus was
11249:
11188:
10529:
10057:
9034:
3. The article whitewashes Reagan's better qualities that no longer fit the modern day conception of the right wing.
8228:
Not sure that many people find my adminship cause for celebrationâleast of all meâbut I appreciate the sentiment. :)
7923:
7911:
7492:
diffs as an example of it. (On one of the previous occasions, I remember the example was a !vote I cast in an RFC at
5041:
4636:: I find it disturbing that our community has, historically, openly welcomed members of the KKK as editors, and that
4430:
3353:
3148:
3107:
1509:, that it is so obvious that high-powered rifles are more lethal than other firearms that Knowledge need not say it.
400:
10976:
10860:
10846:
10802:
10602:
8063:
7827:
6813:
1269:
articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians.
731:
728:
725:
559:
554:
539:
10091:
9079:
9046:
6498:
6231:"He's always been dubious of me. I don't know if it's because I'm a woman or black or maybe he just doesn't like--"
4810:
4533:
3009:
2377:
1995:
1977:
1839:
1288:
987:
10813:
MC can say "{{ping|Floquenbeam}} fuck off " when he returns, and I'll take that to mean I should revert myself. --
7230:
6226:, and something Jessica said in her scripted lines really hit home. She was trying to understand what Hardman had
4492:
3801:. She lectured the other editors on basic policy and bludgeoned them with a variety of incorrect arguments, while
2893:
2724:
2634:
I think you're mistaken PackMecEng. The sentence without the words "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is technically
2510:
2455:
2453:
2434:
1910:
I'll post this here instead of extending the NPOV thread. Several editors have been supporting a certain passage,
11399:
11309:
11273:
11258:
11084:
10918:
10900:
10889:
10875:
10275:
9619:
take it upon ourselves to describe it otherwise or to attach our own caveats, RfC's notwithstanding.There's also
9454:
9352:
Obviously Philadelphia, Mississippi was symbolically important for the race-neutral debate over property rights.
8934:
6605:
6588:
5966:
5480:
I thought you and some of your lurkers might find these sources interesting, enlightening, blasphemous, other...
5265:
5058:
4311:
3258:
2305:
920:
507:
11321:
10178:, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Knowledge project for fifteen years or more. â
6421:
Oh no need for an apology to me, either. If there is anyone who is, simultaneously, fed up with en-Wiki culture
6227:
5079:. Unless there's some private evidence I'm not aware of in play (in which case it should never have got there),
3056:
1133:
to the wording today. So almost a year after consensus was reached the text was changed. It's a muddy situation.
10174:
10162:
8033:
7769:
7654:
7571:
7502:
7464:
7364:
7340:
7262:
7226:
7150:
6442:
6371:
5749:
the most obvious racial slur? And the response is a bunch of chest-beating and performative "how dare you call
4045:
3727:
3180:
2970:
1939:
1727:
1207:
734:). Admirable words, but your deeds don't match themâwhen it comes to Trump, you've found various rationales to
471:
10779:
10345:
9601:
9557:. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
9504:
7976:
6799:
5793:
of that article's talk page is indicative of the challenges the project faces. Along with crap like citing an
4328:
3938:
did not pull up this evidence, and instead came out somewhere near the bottom of the "disagreement hierarchy"
1251:
548:
If so, then why did you choose her case, in particular, to take a principled stand against such disparagement?
10679:<font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99": -->
8361:
8315:
7916:
6312:
6015:
5865:
4013:
2514:
1886:
1671:
1623:
1398:
1382:
1130:
1126:
1056:
1047:
1037:
1019:
1009:
926:
I don't read Korean, so I'm afraid that quote isn't going to help me. Now, about the hounding: you found the
293:
265:
260:
255:
250:
245:
240:
235:
230:
225:
220:
215:
210:
205:
200:
195:
190:
185:
180:
175:
170:
165:
160:
155:
150:
145:
140:
135:
130:
125:
120:
115:
110:
105:
100:
95:
90:
85:
10372:
10233:
6396:
As to the specific event in question, I will never get used to people lying to my face. My understanding of
5933:
5794:
5260:
4935:
4458:
4235:
3457:
I don't feel the need to justify or make apologies for where I choose to spend my time on this site anymore.
1002:
Let me see if I can clear up some things here, as it looks like you two are kind of talking past each other.
635:
Yes, it's obvious that racism and hair styling stand on equal grounds as matters of biographical relevance.
11305:
11210:
11058:
10759:
10407:
10121:
10032:
9428:
8155:
8141:
7032:
6563:
4396:
4286:
4187:
3701:
3628:
2288:
2037:
1539:
540:"I just cannot see how it is okay to disparage anyone based on their race, religion, gender, or sexuality."
327:
301:
80:
75:
70:
65:
60:
55:
50:
45:
40:
11007:
10464:
9934:
9873:...so thought I'd say hi (while I'm still able to edit anything beyond my own talk page). Been a while.
7215:
7182:
5175:
those are both accepted as tolerable, I would say that MC's decision was legitimate, if that makes sense.
4581:
4034:
Umm...who referred to that is banned in this discussion? And how is this talk page discussion disruptive?
498:. What comparison were you trying to make exactly? Because it seems like an apples and oranges situation.
11387:
11070:
10449:
10434:
10087:
10023:
9723:
9493:
9440:
9087:
8530:
why otherwise basically law-abiding people might participate to whatever degree in something like this.
7412:
7116:
6575:
5246:
4298:
3033:
2300:
1013:"he was confirmed, so this clearly didn't have enough of an impact to warrant including in introduction."
9805:
6875:
substituting confusingly worded euphemisms for straightforward language on the topic. In my experience,
3575:
is truly as you describe and you can cite RS to support it, some CE may be in order at his WP article.
420:
353:
Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click
11283:
10938:
10929:
8689:
invaded the Capitol have been charged with crimes. So I'm not accusing anyone of a crime, and I'll add
8305:
7128:
7037:
6793:
6223:
4816:
The same from me (not surprisingly). Goes a significant way towards restoring my faith in Knowledge. --
3646:
I put quotes in today and he takes the whole section right out. How should I escalate this? Thank you.
3330:
defending progressive editor and proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (American politics 32-)
2105:
2058:
1311:
Agreed, and thanks for the note. I usually avoid those sorts of discussions tooâand I have a couple of
379:. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an
317:
6719:
6484:
5790:
4202:
4088:
You failed to consider the reason they posted to your TP. I did not, and will not engage you further.
3853:
good editors leave because it's demoralizing to watch bad editors run riot with no one reining them in
1196:
For the record, the original verbiage pertaining to "nose is long and straight" must be attributed to
11361:
10614:
10460:
10305:
10238:
10076:
9015:
8903:
8029:
4806:
3993:
3398:
3365:
3052:
1905:
3534:
Oh well, it's only WP and we're all just volunteers. RL is far more important. Enjoy your weekend.
2515:"I do not think any reasonable person takes that comment as actually asking Russia to hack Hillary."
2471:
11351:
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can
10351:
10295:
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can
10189:
10135:
9620:
8781:
8723:
8355:
8309:
7941:
7426:
6425:
with the parade of horribles in the real world, it's me. And I think I'll just leave it at that. --
5468:
4672:
4440:
4025:
2043:
2013:
1378:
10220:). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback
9749:. I find it kinda funny how it uses sarcasm to convey that sarcasm isn't a good idea. Good job. â
9200:
rationale accurately reflects the real calculus behind his promotion of a specific talking point?
8442:
5273:) and realizing that I had already interpreted the code without a second thoughtâthere should be!
809:"I personally have many issues with things Trump has done, especially given who I am as a person."
10647:
10211:
10201:
9575:
9485:
8759:
Those were indeed rabbit holes. And down in them I found deep despair for the future of humanity.
8151:
8137:
7973:
7443:
6244:
6030:
all of that, but I want to make sure I understand. MastCell Talk 23:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
5996:
5906:
5827:
5739:
5645:
5080:
4098:
4064:
4010:
3691:
1247:
1239:
467:
380:
10487:
10332:
9838:
Hey there :) Well, in the good medical news dep't, just home from dear hubby's very successful
7926:
and enable "Discussion tools", so that you will (almost) never need to count colons ever again.
5915:
Some folks may say that the "re-open" thread is a disruption (I've seen far less called that).
11003:
10271:
10045:
10019:
9856:
9813:
9801:
9695:
9587:
8911:
8851:
8014:
7931:
7322:
7206:
7086:
7059:
6689:
6475:
6277:
5944:
5861:
5054:
4577:
4373:
4144:
3840:. This is not only bad form, but also completely wrong and unfair, as the citation in question
3029:
2417:
2408:
1873:
1658:
1631:
1586:
1572:
983:
853:
I'm not clear what you'd like me to retract. I didn't call you a POV pusher, I don't think. (I
489:
312:
8334:
7960:
Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matthew_Whitaker,_Ronald_Mallett,_WP:GUILT
7168:
We donât want to go off on our own. We donât want to be left alone. No one wants to be alone.
2590:
you respond that no reasonable person could possibly think X. I think I made that clear above.
11384:
11046:
10925:
10885:
10856:
10842:
10818:
10357:
9886:
9569:
9553:
on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can
9416:
9300:
9265:
9233:
9138:
9106:
8635:
8580:
8245:
7908:
7166:
answer isnât to let us have our own way. Thatâs not kindness, itâs ostracism by another name.
7124:
6994:
6951:
6856:
6825:
6551:
6494:
5418:
5180:
5147:
5091:
4878:
4624:
4547:
4274:
4226:
nice to know that if I am insane, at least there are others who share my delusions. Cheers!
3791:
3638:
I'd appreciate it if you had another look at this. In my view, Qwirkle should be sanctioned.
3144:
3103:
2430:
2276:
1167:
11353:
11336:
11180:
10297:
10016:! Congratulations on your special day, and thank you for all the contributions you've made.
9534:. If you want to make sure you donât miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can
7452:...these aren't random passing trolls. These are established editors. This is our community.
2494:
article currently states, in its lead, that the crimes committed by Trump's associates were
11317:
11222:
11057:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
10456:
10430:
9755:
9427:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
8989:
7824:
7788:
7730:
7701:
7668:
7638:
7547:
7517:
7478:
7400:
7390:
7312:
7237:
misrepresenting what I said and casting yourself as a victim, you're underscoring my point.
7042:
6562:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
6430:
6367:
6356:
5240:
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
5195:
5162:
5126:
5036:
4849:
4821:
4802:
4530:
4285:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
4220:
3997:
3176:
3168:
3048:
2785:
2751:
2675:
2625:
2559:
2530:
civility. So if this is about tone and civility, then I'm going to suggest you start there.
2287:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1259:
1142:
975:
916:
844:
817:
771:
714:
705:
668:
656:
I have no idea why you would think that. Heck not even covered in the article. Focus here!
626:
608:
hereâat least those which I highlightedâseem to conform to this pattern. Hence my comment.
579:
529:
503:
342:
11214:
11174:
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
10633:
has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the
10574:
10013:
9561:
8740:. It's good to see you back and active here again. And if you enjoy rabbit holes, there's
8403:
8186:
8125:
6762:
On another note... how are you? I mean, not in terms of Knowledge stuff, just in general.
5679:
in this one instance is clearly selective and opportunistic, but it's a fig leaf at least.
2495:
2004:
So thank you. I'm always happy to see drama put to rest, and I think that's what you did.
8:
10969:
10775:
10417:
10229:
10183:
10129:
9357:
9281:
9249:
9217:
9187:
9154:
9097:
9075:
9042:
8772:
8714:
8666:
8301:
8219:
7743:
7715:
7609:
7440:
It's not a nice thing to accuse your colleagues of, but it's not an accusation of racism.
7420:
7117:
6898:
6808:
5786:
5754:
significant blind spot. And these blind spots add up to the systemic bias in our content.
5693:
Anyhowâthat is a long way of saying thank you for posting these thought-provoking items.
4795:
4666:
4021:
3431:
2834:
root of others' concerns, and comes up with some wording that reasonably addresses that.
2226:
2066:
2006:
1974:
1816:
1788:
384:
347:
11156:
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
7327:
I disagree with MastCell's characterization of "lynching" as a "racially charged" word.
6065:
Valjean: That was good advice, because it did appear that Atsme was trivializing racism.
1499:. Some of the same editors who objected to the NYT as unreliable are now opposed to the
10982:
10798:
10789:
10520:
10483:
10446:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment# Amendment request: Abortion
10370:
10329:
10207:
10082:
10066:
9913:
9711:
9597:
8684:
by "making criminal accusations against identifiable people". First of all, it's not a
8535:
8495:
8438:
7621:
7536:
7493:
7220:
You stop using me as an example of a racist editor, and I don't take you to ANI. Deal?
6009:
between each comment to see what derailed it and caused the discussion to go downhill:
5823:
5735:
5667:
5641:
5311:
5285:
5274:
4931:
4892:
4835:
4657:
4616:
4513:
4426:
4039:
3946:
3939:
3822:
3712:
3651:
3624:
3615:
3417:
the AE cases MastCell participated in the last year and a half? What were the cases he
3246:
3195:
2964:
2820:
2720:
2572:
2169:
2138:
2087:
1840:"Donald Trump's absolutely mind-boggling assault on facts is actually picking up steam"
1726:
Stelter, Brian; Bernstein, Carl; Sullivan, Margaret; Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018).
1421:
1243:
1201:
463:
416:
366:, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type
337:
3336:
11128:
11028:
10999:
10965:
10866:
10597:
10267:
9930:
9847:
9792:
9671:
not enough coverage yet). As it happens, a previous Rfc decided strongly in favor of
9399:
8965:
8961:
8907:
8899:
8842:
8764:
8737:
8410:
7927:
7871:
7629:
7288:
would be the anti-racist way of interpreting the disagreement between the two of you.
7202:
7082:
7055:
6846:
6680:
6534:
6489:
Not sure it's Jimbo's fault for the culture here (gestures broadly at real world). --
6471:
6343:
6339:
6206:
5974:
5871:
5857:
5235:
5050:
4946:
4863:
4661:
4615:
I think you're misreading that. I don't read it in any way as saying that anyone at
4573:
4364:
4257:
4231:
4198:
4140:
3955:
3780:
3723:
3681:
3025:
2904:
2859:
2842:
2735:
2650:
2481:
2465:
2263:
1869:
1760:
1654:
1627:
1582:
1568:
1525:
We could use your help. Could you take a look and perhaps weigh in? Thank you again.
1456:
1449:
1362:
1107:
456:
10650:
is one of 7 remaining pages in User: space and has four signatures with this error.
3513:
I don't believe everything that I read. I just believe that something I read in the
3272:
related to gun politics (which is a very controversial issue in American politics).
764:"To do otherwise would be more akin to activism or righting great wrongs in my eyes"
11379:
11255:
11077:
11042:
10881:
10852:
10838:
10814:
10401:
9882:
9447:
9412:
9296:
9291:
9261:
9229:
9134:
9117:
9102:
8631:
8627:
8576:
8241:
7903:
7808:
How should we address Charles Darwin's complicated legacy? | Science | The Observer
6990:
6961:
6947:
6821:
6704:
6582:
6547:
6490:
5843:
5452:
5431:
5414:
5398:
5384:
5369:
5176:
5143:
5087:
4874:
4620:
4543:
4305:
4270:
3741:
3139:
3119:
3098:
3038:
2426:
2272:
2195:
1640:
1441:
1191:
742:
332:
10764:
8693:
to the growing list of basic Knowledge policies that DGG seems not to comprehend.
5349:
Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or
1011:
An IP removed a sentence about confirmation hearings from the lede. Edit summary:
11313:
11218:
10639:
template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
10439:
10426:
9750:
9474:
9000:
8985:
7984:
7970:
7947:
7820:
7784:
7726:
7697:
7664:
7634:
7543:
7513:
7474:
7396:
7386:
7308:
6986:
6779:
6755:
6733:
6717:
6705:
6426:
6397:
6363:
6238:
6197:
5990:
5819:
5810:
5676:
5671:
5257:
5215:
5191:
5158:
5137:
5122:
5102:
4845:
4817:
4786:
4745:
4714:
4604:
4526:
4092:
4058:
4004:
3582:
3572:
3483:
3383:
3349:
3206:
2781:
2747:
2714:
2671:
2621:
2579:
2555:
2506:
1646:
1412:
1231:
1138:
1027:
you had no consensus for what you did but for some reason tried to say otherwise.
979:
912:
858:
840:
813:
792:
767:
710:
664:
622:
575:
525:
499:
405:
10250:
10081:
Hi there, MastCell! I recently posted two requests to the Douglas Leone article
8882:
7009:
6454:
5728:(there has been some improvement to that article of late, so there's that, yay?)
5112:, which is linked to in the footnote, it's made clear that ArbCom normally does
1812:"Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'"
1551:
1445:
11054:
10771:
10721:
10475:
10225:
9974:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
9843:
9823:
9691:
9624:
9615:
9424:
9353:
9277:
9245:
9213:
9183:
9150:
9093:
9071:
9054:
9038:
8661:
8215:
7955:
7842:
7756:
7740:
7712:
7606:
6893:
6803:
6559:
6381:
5929:
5806:
5413:
You can have some of mine; I was pretty frugal and didn't use my full share. --
4998:
4642:
4282:
4166:
3942:
3802:
3708:
3427:
3364:
method of hounding those users working on stopping 'deep-seated partisanship'.
3070:
2596:
tie Cohen's guilty plea to Russia efforts to influence Trump and the election:
2284:
2223:
2191:
2098:
2077:
2063:
1971:
1506:
1482:
1319:
behavior and actions? But then, unintentional irony is a Wikipedian specialty.
1312:
1227:
391:
372:
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
6665:
6108:
distinction clear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
4385:
4339:
2620:
What kind of clarification for the sentence would you suggest to remedy that?
1695:
Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'
278:
11395:
11269:
11245:
11050:
10896:
10871:
10581:
10569:
10542:
10516:
10501:
10479:
10365:
10341:
10325:
10061:
9942:
9829:
9822:
the overall culture has gotten increasingly rules-lawyerly and bureaucratic.
9818:
9788:
9771:
9707:
9666:, and if we decide to use that word in Knowledge's voice then I believe that
9630:
9609:
9593:
9489:
9420:
9368:
9339:
9202:
9170:
9122:
9060:
9005:
8924:
8804:
8750:
8695:
8690:
8681:
8607:
8565:
8531:
8512:
8491:
8464:
8434:
8340:
8289:
8230:
8193:
8181:
8132:
8120:
8087:
8071:
8059:
8049:
8019:
7997:
7992:
7951:
7860:
7764:
7649:
7566:
7497:
7459:
7359:
7335:
7257:
7246:
7221:
7178:
7140:
7104:
6966:
6882:
6764:
6739:
6628:
6555:
6507:
6411:
6301:
6272:
5949:
5894:
5882:
5763:
5695:
5448:
5439:
5323:
5290:
5225:
5024:
5011:
4969:
4927:
4903:
4888:
4831:
4728:
4703:
4687:
4647:
4561:
4502:
4453:
4422:
4278:
4116:
4079:
4035:
3970:
3857:
3833:
3715:. Your next comment is an implicit threat because you invoke their topic ban
3697:
3671:
3663:
3647:
3620:
3595:
3561:
3520:
3463:
3242:
3211:
3191:
3172:
3127:
2960:
2917:
2878:
2771:
2609:
2536:
2386:
2280:
2219:
2215:
2204:
2199:
2165:
2154:
2134:
2122:
2116:
2112:
2083:
2027:
1985:
1895:
1756:"Zurawik: Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward"
1513:
1452:
1408:
1321:
1278:
1197:
1172:
1163:
1041:"Undid revision 853936116 by MastCell (talk) consensus on talk is to exclude"
949:
868:
829:
797:
747:
689:
610:
564:
515:
479:
445:
428:
412:
387:
322:
21:
11144:
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
11100:
9539:
6800:
this comment, "Obviously the content isn't stable if I reverted some of it."
6401:
to me and then tries to convince me I'm crazy for noticing their dishonesty.
4726:, sorry for the late reply, and thank you. Apology accepted and we're good.
3532:
It is with sadness that it appears you have lost site of our NOTNEWS policy.
2186:
notification constitutes misconduct on Dlthewave's part, because it doesn't.
1373:
Sometimes I wonder if the accountability policy should be expanded to cover
11371:
11119:
10589:
10469:
10315:
10280:
9926:
9839:
9732:
9179:
You don't remember interacting with him before this "note"? Remember this:
8706:
I was following a rabbit trail of links and it led to this comment of yours
6876:
6202:
5731:
5109:
allow appeals to ArbCom of CBANs, but within some limits. There, and here:
4964:
4956:
4942:
4859:
4227:
4194:
3951:
3776:
3733:
3719:
3677:
3264:
2992:
2982:
2899:
2868:
2855:
2837:
2730:
2645:
2491:
2477:
2460:
2447:
1719:
1459:
1357:
1235:
1153:
1120:
1102:
927:
784:
732:"sunlight is the best disinfectant and light should be shown on both sides"
730:), and argued that such racially-charged statements should be highlighted (
397:
11197:
10560:
10339:
Thanks... obviously not very active at the moment but read and responded.
8173:
5310:, and they are, at least in my experience, an excellent editor and admin.
2452:
Could you please try to keep your talk page comments a bit less personal?
812:
bother you but comments from the other not? Personally it all bothers me.
10396:
9781:
9667:
8350:
7891:
7884:
in talk threads (I do this, too, and encourage it), please close it with
7446:, MastCell linked to my comment and described it as me saying there was "
7272:
7163:
Hereâs the thing about tolerance: it was never meant to be an end point.
6253:
3755:
3737:
1223:
593:
282:
11061:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
10391:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
9431:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
6566:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
4592:
This was pointed out to me and I think I need to give you fair warning:
4289:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
3312:
proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor ("Race and Intelligence")
2291:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
1210:) who introduced this verbiage during the Werner Mölders FAC review see
284:
11038:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
9409:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
8199:
8008:
7963:
6775:
6751:
6713:
6544:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
6235:
5987:
4779:
4738:
4723:
4707:
4633:
4597:
4267:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
4089:
4055:
4001:
3547:
Your portrayal of Cronkite is bizarre and unrecognizable, since he was
3479:
3442:
3379:
3345:
3165:
Please see my questions on the Center for Medical Progress talk page.
1487:
10987:
3324:
proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (American politics 32-)
3288:
proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (American politics 32-)
2057:? The discussion concerns the addition of criminal use information to
1081:
isn't going to help anyone or do anything to improve the encyclopedia.
11308:, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made
11019:
9896:
Yes, seconded. Best of luck IRL, it's been quite a time to be alive.
9881:
under the circumstances, and I hope the circumstances change soon. --
9663:
9391:
8423:
8111:
6526:
5940:
5925:
5798:
4994:
4773:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
4568:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine#Image for granulocyte transfusion
4405:
4249:
3066:
2254:
1784:"President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims"
1685:"Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward."
305:
9614:
A number of our policies are explicitly marked as suchâfor example,
8275:
Not bad! Here's to another year of adminship, another year in which
7696:
MastCell could agree to stop using that occurrence as an example. --
3832:), which is a non-issue since consensus was clear and the close met
3809:
Under the guise of explaining "how it works" here, she claimed that
3591:"White House: Viet Cong on verge of surrenderâsome critics disagree"
2946:
2915:
You're not bothering me; I appreciate your engagement and interest.
1129:
from August 2017 and then on July 2018 MastCell changed the wording
807:
As I mentioned above it does bother me the things he says and does.
10954:
10944:
10120:. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the
9512:
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
9070:
You were correct on that "widely" issue. My mistake. (I missed it.)
9023:
Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy
8950:
8940:
8768:
8602:
8560:
8395:
8082:
8044:
7328:
6732:
All of that is a long way of saying that I'm not sure I'm up for a
6328:
6318:
6266:
6024:
Valjean: I wasn't sure what was really meant by that whole comment.
5876:
5853:
4465:
4447:
4186:. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the
3190:
Also see my question on the talk page: For the People Act of 2019.
2534:
bothers me, and I'm open to your suggestions on how to address it.
1690:
President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims
280:
9519:
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin
4000:- your representation of me is false, disruptive and unwarranted.
3933:. But as I noted when I began this thread, your two initial posts
1782:
Kessler, Glenn; Rizzo, Salvador; Kelly, Meg (September 13, 2018).
760:"The difference is I did not play up the racism in either article"
604:
I don't know you personally, nor do I know your beliefs, but your
11327:
11292:
11232:
7991:. At a glance, this is veering into the bludgeoning and partisan
5077:
This ban can, of course, be appealed to the Arbitration Committee
4993:
tl;dr - well done. (from an insignificant voice in the balcony).
2439:
NoĂ«l ~ ÎșαλΏ ΧÏÎčÏÏÎżÏÎłÎ”ÎœÎœÎ± ~ Đ ĐĐ°Đ»ŃĐŽĐ°ĐŒŃ ~ ŚŚ ŚŚŚ Ś©ŚŚ ~ Gott nytt Ă„r!
2329:
427:
the best practice (one that is recommended, but not demanded, by
11074:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
9444:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
8654:
6579:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
5726:
idea that those two fictions are related in some biological way
4302:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
3571:
I won't address anything beyond the topic of journalism, but if
1935:
1602:
1220:
Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies
11263:
Yeah, I think it's time for me to take a deep breath, put down
11064:
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
11032:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All
10675:<font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif": -->
9434:
If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
6569:
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
5709:
I couldn't agree more. I see a big difference between saying A)
4887:
Floq donât you have blocks to threaten and aspersions to cast?
4292:
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
4110:
with your point of view does not mean that they have failed to
2294:
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review
1970:
on the big-picture situation which has largely been resolved. â
1913:
1725:
10206:
The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from
10109:
9488:
from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with
9403:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
6538:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
4175:
3704:, I object in particular to this post that you wrote earlier:
285:
11105:
10553:
10148:
8385:
7989:
tried to get this article deleted on clearly spurious grounds
7026:
mw:ResourceLoader/Migration guide (users)#Global wg variables
4208:
3318:
proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (gun politics)
3300:
proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (gun politics)
1512:
Similar summarizations of this source were also attempted at
1495:...and quickly reverted and is currently under discussion at
11267:, and get back to answering requests for page protection...
10422:
I appreciated your AN comment so much that I added it here:
7138:
Sounds good, and thanks for letting me know. Happy editing.
4844:
Thanks, I'm glad that you're glad. Nice of you to say so. --
3838:"they do not want to provide page numbers and follow policy"
3818:"The cited source points to an opinion essay by a scientist"
3282:
proposing sanctions for right-leaning editors (gun politics)
1775:
861:, and I'll take your silence on that topic as agreement). I
11348:
Hello, MastCell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
10511:
has been declined by a majority of the active arbitrators.
10292:
Hello, MastCell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
10172:
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the
10052:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets
9651:
8652:
7779:
discussions relating to the site ban, you chose to portray
7473:
So why are you saying that MastCell called you a racist? --
6840:
in final form in the near future. Currently it's housed at
5300:
2488:) on the highest-profile article and talkpage on this site.
360:
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
9769:
Thanks - that's kind of you, and I'm glad you enjoyed it.
7806:
Interesting topic, serendipitously I've just been reading
5101:
I'm watching here, and I think this might be relevant: At
4963:(or at least the subset of the community who commented at
4566:
I wonder if you have any ideas about this image request:
538:
Sure, as long as I can use the Socratic method. You said:
11213:, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your
5338:
Please trim your statement at the SashiRolls case request
5306:
1844:
1732:
1031:
it was a very misleading edit that needed to be corrected
9920:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/David Fisher (architect)
9791:. Sorry to be saying hello with such a dreadful post.
4261:
is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
11137:
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
11045:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
9415:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
6550:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
6407:
organized effort to rewrite recent history in real time
6287:
that the discussion should have run for arbitrary time
5242:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls squashed
4273:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
3413:
Patterns can't be discerned without context. Are these
2275:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
1313:
reminders near the top of my userpage to keep me honest
783:
On a separate subject, I see you've followed me to the
10356:
Hello, I boldly renamed two of the parameters used in
9690:, and I was thinking of raising the example of either
9484:
Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove
3829:
She complains that the RfC was closed by a non-admin (
3306:
defending a progressive editor (American politics 32-)
3294:
defending a progressive editor (American politics 32-)
1403:
Thank you for your contribution to the May discussion
9196:
Interesting. So you're confident that a politician's
8650:
1497:
Talk:Mass shootings in the United States#Recent edits
1067:
There is now consensus for that version thanks to me.
738:
applying sunlight to his racially-charged statements.
10998:
were found precious. That's what you are, always. --
7448:
nothing "racially charged" about the term "lynching"
4619:
is a KKK member, much less any particular editor. --
972:
always have more life to them than articles I find.
15:
10667:
Proposed changes. Collapsing here to keep page tidy
10425:. You said that really well. Thank you for that. --
9959:The administrator policy has been updated with new
8821:, but what we enforce is rather a specific form of
6639:
I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott
5723:
a racist for making that statement. Go pound sand."
3816:She mischaracterizes the source in question again:
1405:
RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles
11163:to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
8283:That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
3799:"a miscommunication or possible misrepresentation"
1626:" (In Your Peace). It's on the Main page today. --
1429:
558:consistent, but rather conditional. Or, to repeat
10362:Category:Hidden begin with depreciated parameters
9925:I think that I have found a bug in your perl. âș
8308:), I feel better than ever. All hail Big Pharma.
7962:. Please provide your input at that noticeboard.
7783:in a negative way that I think was undeserved. --
7648:stop using me as an example as they did. Thanks.
5785:It will be tough, very tough. I think we've seen
2670:which would then make it an incorrect statement.
1831:
1781:
357:to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.
9977:Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
5383:Your statement is around 645 words at my count.
5365:if email is not available through your account.
4959:, and I didn't voice an opinion either way. The
4445:I hope you'll return to activity at some point.
4132:"listening to" was defined an exact synonym for
4128:Also, please note that in the latest edition of
1747:
10758:Full disclosure, I made this request last week
10086:any questions or concerns, please let me know.
9877:. No, I'm fairly sure you're not. Hope you're
7924:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures
5477:(I replied there). I do really appreciate it:)
5064:Community Siteban vs ARBCOM appeal ANI decision
3668:, I think you might want to do a quick look at
3530:accurate presentations regarding news sources.
1029:This is clearly false. You also claimed above,
7995:behavior that's been problematic in the past.
7922:As an alternative, I recommend that you go to
5075:as a community siteban, but go on to say that
1940:opinions on why mass shooters choose the AR-15
1803:
10509:amendment request regarding the Abortion case
10020:đžđ đœđđđđđđ đżđđđđđ đșđŠđșđŠđșđŠ
8306:theracurmin research that I found didn't hurt
8058:Atsme committed a pretty serious and blatant
7872:
4421:Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas.
2642:of having that so close to Russian meddling.
443:to beat the drum confrontationally about it.
375:Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of
333:How to revert to a previous version of a page
11393:Got it. Always good to hear from you, Doug.
10986:
8711:And I could not possibly agree with it more.
6861:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
4540:Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula
2830:false by otherwise fairly reasonable people.
2511:"Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton"
1618:When I miss a user, I write an article. For
11254:Whoa, dude, thatâs like really deep, man. â
10865:Thanks Floquenbeam. You're now my official
10653:When links are written in the <font: -->
10158:Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
10012:Hey there MastCell, I'd like to wish you a
9058:dignity to interact with people like that.
9037:Any suggestions as to how to address this?
7454:" I guess it's nice to know that I'm not a
5351:by email to the Committee through this link
5086:Could you clarify? Am I missing something?
10961:Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
10249:
8957:Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
8881:
6453:
6335:Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
3207:following me around and reverting my edits
2991:
2354:What smells best at a Thanksgiving dinner?
1601:
1550:
709:comment so take it easy with the tut-tut.
513:Not to me. That's the point I was making.
11147:Please help translate to other languages.
6612:
4572:I hope all is well with you these days.
4337:
1516:and were reverted. At the RFC you wrote:
10746:to ] <span style="color:#3CB371": -->
10494:Amendment request: Abortion (March 2023)
9648:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy
9530:If you have not seen it before, you can
8841:, so I can't say as I blame you, there.
5040:
4737:No worried on lateness and thank you. --
4512:
2358:What did the turkey say to the computer?
2328:
1961:On a related note, I recently opened an
1942:section. Here are a few relevant diffs:
1837:
1502:Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
1478:Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
1433:Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
1039:PackMec reverts MastCell. Edit summary:
1021:MastCell reverted the IP. Edit summary:
9757:
9168:for opposing civil-rights legislation?
9025:) describes the problem we are facing:
7377:saying that "they" are racists. But it
7373:Saying "they're lynching me" is indeed
7177:
5815:(resulting in an almost instant revert)
4412:Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
3496:Some information you might want to know
3125:properly sourced article from scratch.
2668:,and any matters arising from the probe
1753:
601:valuable pieces from the other's team."
10703:<font color="#009900" size="1": -->
9953:New administrator activity requirement
8745:
7349:Oh and by the way, of course Levivich
6989:to see this discussion. Best, Gandy
5715:is racist. You understand that right?"
4383:
3089:Korean Proletarian Artists' Federation
3082:Korean Proletarian Artists' Federation
1838:Cillizza, Chris (September 13, 2018).
859:following me around to revert my edits
10693:<font color="990099" size="1": -->
10389:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard
7381:distorting the discussion by using a
6016:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Scrub a dub dub
5621:
5580:
5532:
5157:good-faith differences of opinion. --
5049:and I knew you would appreciate it.
4771:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard
4134:obeying instantly in every particular
3803:refusing to listen to their responses
1934:I would recommend reading the entire
1809:
1242:) also include claims tables. Cheers
11352:
11287:
11192:
11177:On behalf of the UCoC project team,
11029:2023 Arbitration Committee elections
10631:request for help from administrators
10618:
10296:
9400:2021 Arbitration Committee elections
7958:. There is an ongoing discussion at
7385:term in an inappropriate context. --
6535:2020 Arbitration Committee elections
5539:, Oxford University Press, pp. 56â57
4258:2019 Arbitration Committee elections
3581:I don't think so. Have you read our
2887:I suppose one could also argue that
2548:
2321:It's time for elastic waistbands....
2264:2018 Arbitration Committee elections
657:
11013:ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
10880:when can I start writing checks? --
10869:and emergency contactâcongrats! :P
10387:There is currently a discussion at
10002:Have a Happy Adminship Anniversary!
9646:The situation I have in mind is at
9521:will still be able to access the IP
9383:ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
7295:a racist? Well, at a time when the
6938:I am wondering... In last month's
6518:ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
5960:Ok - I've been reading and studying
5344:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case
4769:There is currently a discussion at
4347:Faithful friends who are dear to us
2661:Could be, but if the sentence says
1469:Mass shootings in the United States
494:Your comment on GorillaWare's page
13:
11341:
11104:
10953:
10943:
10559:
10552:
10285:
10161:
10004:
9994:
9505:How we will see unregistered users
8949:
8939:
8394:
8384:
8110:
7846:discussion of race-related issues.
7560:sexual, whereas "lynching" is not
7458:troll, but an established one ;-)
6327:
6317:
5251:Arbitration Committee's procedures
4384:
4353:... gather near to us once more.
4241:ArbCom 2019 election voter message
3518:sources for this site's purposes.
2723:has proposed an alternate wording
2333:Whad'ya call a turkey on the run?
2248:ArbCom 2018 election voter message
1754:Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018).
553:More pointedly, the diffs I cited
438:undoubtedly improve our coverage,
71:Admin stuff, RfA through June 2007
14:
11411:
10224:. For the Arbitration Committee,
9551:We would appreciate your feedback
9473:Administrators will no longer be
8902:, so placed it here. More memory
7556:The difference is that "rape" is
6892:A wise comment. Noted and agreed.
5809:âthe latter is also cited in the
5587:, Oxford University Press, p. 113
4136:. You must get with the times.
3450:mentality, which is best avoided.
3411:Really, there is no pattern here?
3004:Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht
1938:for background, particularly the
1810:Toles, Tom (September 13, 2018).
1377:edits, not just "admin actions".
827:your contribs, so I don't know).
11326:
11291:
11231:
11215:successful request for adminship
11196:
11115:serenity without social tension.
11018:
10828:
10711:'''<font color="#0000FF": -->
10622:
10382:
10378:Notice of noticeboard discussion
10147:
10108:
9898:The Blade of the Northern Lights
9869:Saw your name on my watchlist...
9731:
9582:
9390:
8742:plenty more where that came from
8281:Unequal laws unto a savage race,
8256:The Blade of the Northern Lights
8172:
8069:her to respond in that fashion?
7817:9781474611251 by Adam Rutherford
7393:) 19:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7102:fixing it. Anyhowâthanks again.
6798:Hello MastCell. I'm troubled by
6661:For you and all your loved ones,
6627:
6618:
6525:
6382:first few reminders-to-self here
6216:
5628:, Oxford University Press, p. 16
5357:
5045:A Wikipedian's work in meatspace
4764:
4760:Notice of noticeboard discussion
4404:
4338:
4248:
4207:
4174:
3988:
3016:begin it with music and memories
2945:
2549:
2480:, I appreciate your presence at
2416:
2385:
2253:
1415:sources suggested in the RFC as
1333:The Blade of the Northern Lights
1296:The Blade of the Northern Lights
1049:MastCell reverts. Edit summary:
658:
596:put it better than I could (his
20:
11068:and submit your choices on the
10770:Thank you for your assistance,
10741:] <font color="#3CB371": -->
10364:, sorry for any inconvenience.
10101:Happy Sixteenth First Edit Day!
9540:the weekly technical newsletter
9501:. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
9438:and submit your choices on the
9092:Apologies for butting in here.
8042:Yes, I advised her to do that.
7358:mob justice. Just to be clear.
6573:and submit your choices on the
5437:downâjust let me know. Thanks.
5368:For the Arbitration Committee,
4685:progress we're likely to make.
4358:and your troubles out of sight,
4296:and submit your choices on the
3820:. In fact, the cited source is
2343:Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
2298:and submit your choices on the
2261:Hello, MastCell. Voting in the
11304:Hi MastCell! On behalf of the
11209:Hi MastCell! On behalf of the
11008:08:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
10713:<font color=" #FFBF00": -->
10514:For the Arbitration Committee,
10276:06:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
9065:00:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
9047:23:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
8929:17:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
8916:07:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
6480:09:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
2393:Santa Claus is coming to town!
1900:20:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
1887:22:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
1728:"How to cover a habitual liar"
1680:"How to cover a habitual liar"
1672:22:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
1591:06:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
1577:05:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
938:While we're on the subject, I
271:(Date ranges are approximate)
1:
11093:00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
11047:Knowledge arbitration process
10715:<font color="#0000FF": -->
10659:If you would, please change:
10465:10:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
10435:22:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
10413:01:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
10373:22:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
10333:08:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
10234:15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
9463:00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
9417:Knowledge arbitration process
9306:05:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9290:Well, the relevant policy is
9286:04:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9271:04:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9254:03:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9239:02:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9222:02:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9207:02:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9192:01:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9175:01:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9159:00:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
9144:23:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
9127:23:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
9112:20:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
9080:20:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
9010:23:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
8994:04:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
7865:20:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
7828:23:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7793:18:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
7774:04:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
7749:21:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7735:21:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7721:21:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7706:20:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7673:20:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7659:20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7643:20:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7615:20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7576:20:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7552:19:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7522:20:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7507:20:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7483:20:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7469:19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7434:19:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7405:20:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7369:19:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7345:19:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7317:19:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7291:Does that mean that Levivich
7267:14:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7251:10:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
7231:22:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
6694:00:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
6664:
6657:
6597:01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
6552:Knowledge arbitration process
4645:racism denier or KKK member.
4431:18:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
4378:01:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
4320:00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
4275:Knowledge arbitration process
4236:19:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
3908:. Surely, our views were not
3634:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson
3600:20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
3577:22:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
3566:21:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
3543:20:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
3536:23:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
3525:21:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
3508:05:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
3488:08:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
3468:01:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
3436:18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
3402:12:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
3388:15:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
3369:10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
3354:08:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
3341:PS. In your latest AE comment
3251:21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
3161:Quoting from a court opinion.
2975:22:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2922:02:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2911:18:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2883:17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2864:17:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2849:17:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2790:03:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2776:02:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2756:23:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2742:23:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2680:22:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2657:20:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2630:20:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2614:17:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2564:16:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2541:15:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2472:00:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2435:22:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
2401:23:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
2366:22:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
2314:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
2277:Knowledge arbitration process
1620:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
652:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
637:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
251:September 2013âSeptember 2014
11357:at any time by removing the
11205:Happy adminship anniversary!
11189:Happy Adminship Anniversary!
10919:Claims about Kay Ivey claims
10785:I'm going to deactivate the
10733:<font face="Verdana": -->
10700:<font color="999900": -->
10688:<font color="004000": -->
10582:Knowledge Birthday Committee
10530:Happy adminship anniversary!
10346:18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
10301:at any time by removing the
10122:Knowledge Birthday Committee
10050:featured article review here
9990:Happy Adminship Anniversary!
9747:WP:Sarcasm is really helpful
9716:07:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
9635:05:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
9602:09:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
9566:18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
9555:let us know on the talk page
9259:not just with this article.
8392:Happy Adminship Anniversary!
8380:Happy Adminship Anniversary!
8194:Knowledge Birthday Committee
8165:Happy Adminship Anniversary!
8133:Knowledge Birthday Committee
7211:03:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
7145:17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
7133:21:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
7109:17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
7097:14:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
7070:19:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
7033:User:MastCell/user-rights.js
7024:. There's some more info at
6999:21:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
6971:17:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
6956:15:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
6904:04:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
6887:18:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
6830:18:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
6814:15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
6782:10:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
6769:21:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
6758:20:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
6744:18:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
6720:10:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
6512:20:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
6499:00:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
6217:
4188:Knowledge Birthday Committee
3989:
3702:Talk:The Wall Street Journal
3216:01:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
3200:22:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
3185:22:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
3153:05:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
3132:02:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
3112:16:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
3075:20:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
3057:18:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
3034:13:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
2230:21:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
2209:20:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
2174:23:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
2159:21:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
2143:21:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
2127:21:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
2106:Smith & Wesson M&P15
2092:18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
2070:17:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
2059:Smith & Wesson M&P15
1636:06:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
1025:You (PackMec) claimed above
256:September 2014âDecember 2015
236:September 2012âFebruary 2013
7:
11400:01:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
11388:17:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
11265:Love in the Time of Cholera
10576:happy adminship anniversary
10450:Knowledge:Arbitration guide
10014:happy adminship anniversary
9986:22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
9499:Administrator's Noticeboard
9373:00:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
9362:22:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
9344:18:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
8979:Thank you for the thank you
8736:Thanks for the kind words,
8404:happy adminship anniversary
8188:happy adminship anniversary
8127:happy adminship anniversary
8106:Happy Adminship Anniversary
7987:, and at the AfD where you
7438:So then it seems we agree,
7075:Took care of 'em for ya. ~
6435:19:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
6416:18:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
6372:17:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
6291:rather than arbitrary time
4658:that identify as communists
2032:03:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
2025:Thanks for the kind words.
2020:13:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
1990:03:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
1978:04:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
1535:15:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
1467:was recently summarized at
1446:10.1097/TA.0000000000001031
1387:10:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
1369:18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
1343:12:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
1326:04:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
1306:03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
1283:19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
1260:MILHIST sourcing guidelines
1252:17:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
1177:17:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
1147:18:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
1114:18:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
954:04:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
921:22:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
873:21:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
849:15:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
834:15:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
822:19:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
802:18:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
776:22:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
752:19:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
719:18:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
694:18:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
673:22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
645:21:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
631:20:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
615:19:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
477:Thanks for the kind words.
363:New contributors' help page
221:September 2011âJanuary 2012
206:November 2010âDecember 2010
161:December 2008âFebruary 2009
156:November 2008âDecember 2008
146:September 2008âOctober 2008
101:September 2007âOctober 2007
10:
11416:
11322:05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
11312:and became a Wikipedian!
11217:. Enjoy this special day!
11085:MediaWiki message delivery
10977:01:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
10393:SashiRolls requests a !ban
10197:19:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
10143:19:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
10114:
10040:Acute myeloid leukemia FAR
9947:20:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
9935:05:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
9908:18:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
9879:as well as can be expected
9739:The Barnstar of Good Humor
9549:this identity could work.
9455:MediaWiki message delivery
9212:the rest. That's not NPOV.
8973:22:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
8744:. In fact, you don't even
8178:
8092:23:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
8076:18:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
8065:). You're saying that you
8054:06:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
8038:08:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
7917:21:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
7819:. Which looks useful. . .
7813:How to Argue With a Racist
7038:User:MastCell/el-search.js
7004:Minor fixes to userscripts
6589:MediaWiki message delivery
6351:11:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
5555:Was Bill Clinton a racist?
4312:MediaWiki message delivery
4203:06:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
4180:
3885:(and reply to me directly
3686:16:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
3656:15:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
3629:17:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
3024:Not too late, I hope ;) --
2953:Austral season's greetings
2938:Austral season's greetings
2306:MediaWiki message delivery
592:useful political purpose.
584:16:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
569:16:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
534:16:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
520:15:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
508:15:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
450:17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
421:00:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
401:04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
323:Frequently Asked Questions
151:October 2008âNovember 2008
111:November 2007âJanuary 2008
10934:18:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
10901:17:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
10890:16:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
10876:17:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
10551:
10525:23:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
10488:04:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
10257:
10248:
10096:18:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
10072:04:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
10054:featured article criteria
9891:22:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
9861:22:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
9834:22:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
9806:15:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
9776:17:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
9761:16:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
9745:For your sarcastic essay
9730:
8889:
8880:
8859:03:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
8809:00:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
8789:21:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
8755:19:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
8731:15:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
8596:its democratic tradition.
8024:03:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
8002:20:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
7977:19:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
7936:19:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
6647:
6461:
6452:
6306:20:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
6278:07:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
6248:16:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
6211:15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
6000:23:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
5954:06:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
5934:20:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
5899:17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
5888:09:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
5581:Lopez, Ian Haney (2015),
5533:Lopez, Ian Haney (2015),
5358:
5230:19:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
5200:23:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
5185:23:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
5167:22:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
5152:22:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
5131:22:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
5096:20:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
5059:17:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
5029:19:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
5015:14:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
5003:20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4974:19:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
4951:18:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4936:18:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4908:19:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4897:18:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4883:18:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4868:18:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4854:18:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4840:18:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4826:17:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4811:17:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4791:00:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
4750:18:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4733:18:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
4719:04:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
4702:As you will see from the
4692:19:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
4680:19:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
4652:18:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
4629:16:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
4609:15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
4587:NPAs on Jimbo's talk page
4403:
4361:now and in the New Year.
4335:
4149:01:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
4121:21:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
4102:22:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
4084:22:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
4068:21:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
4050:21:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
4030:21:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
4014:20:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
3975:21:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
3960:11:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
3906:"condescending arguments"
3862:19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
3792:"asking the other parent"
3785:16:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
3746:01:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
3728:15:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
2990:
2944:
2518:tells me that 2 + 2 is 5?
2513:). PackMecEng responded:
2415:
2384:
2327:
1609:
1600:
1558:
1549:
484:00:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
472:23:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
313:Five Pillars of Knowledge
231:April 2012âSeptember 2012
201:August 2010âNovember 2010
181:August 2009âDecember 2009
11274:01:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
11259:12:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
11250:03:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
11227:00:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
11161:voting page on Meta-wiki
11082:to your user talk page.
10861:22:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
10847:22:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
10823:22:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
10803:15:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
10780:21:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
10603:13:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
10028:01:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
9452:to your user talk page.
8700:20:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
8672:18:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
8640:15:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
8612:19:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
8585:18:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
8570:16:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
8540:19:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
8517:23:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
8500:10:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
8469:19:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
8443:11:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
8418:17:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
8370:22:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
8345:18:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
8324:07:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
8294:05:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
8266:04:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
8250:17:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
8235:17:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
8224:13:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
8206:12:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
8160:07:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
8146:07:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
7022:mw.config.get('wgTitle')
6675:this holiday season and
6587:to your user talk page.
5866:23:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
5852:at an (courtesy ping to
5832:22:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
5768:17:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
5744:01:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
5700:18:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5650:00:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5461:20:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5444:16:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5423:02:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5407:00:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5393:00:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5378:00:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5328:18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5317:18:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5295:17:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
5280:18:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
5261:11:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
4582:17:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
4552:18:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
4534:18:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
4507:18:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
4310:to your user talk page.
2378:Wow!! Another year gone.
2351:Thanksgiving chuckles...
2115:can, of course, open an
1996:Your NPOVN AR-15 comment
1289:Absolute power of admins
1055:01:48, 16 August 2018 â
216:July 2011âSeptember 2011
186:December 2009âMarch 2010
141:July 2008âSeptember 2008
121:February 2008âMarch 2008
11184:23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
10648:User:MastCell/Barnstars
9963:following a successful
8763:confrontation with the
8746:have to leave this page
7450:" and described me as "
7444:Special:Diff/1006105578
6606:Greetings of the season
5270:After seeing that one (
5266:Perl and support groups
4459:14:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
4356:May your heart be light
3259:Your partisanship at AE
3087:Can you please restore
2765:do; just say what they
2360:Google, google, google.
1240:George Andrew Davis Jr.
246:May 2013âSeptember 2013
226:January 2012âApril 2012
211:December 2010âJuly 2011
11346:
11169:review the U4C Charter
11134:
11109:
10991:
10958:
10948:
10615:Protected Page Request
10564:
10557:
10290:
10166:
10088:VS for Sequoia Capital
10077:Douglas Leone requests
10046:Acute myeloid leukemia
10009:
9999:
9814:acute myeloid leukemia
9696:The Transsexual Empire
8954:
8944:
8399:
8389:
8115:
8015:World Patent Marketing
7873:
7323:Special:Diff/966431506
7199:
7151:Tolerance as ostracism
6332:
6322:
6190:
5510:
5073:ANI against SashiRolls
5071:You recently closed a
5046:
4518:
4389:
3888:), to quote you here,
2336:
1523:
1493:
1271:
1046:18:39, 15 August 2018
1036:13:37, 15 August 2018
1008:21:51, 6 August 2018â
542:(I completely agree).
377:never biting new users
261:December 2015âMay 2016
241:February 2013âMay 2013
166:February 2009âMay 2009
41:July 2006âJanuary 2007
11345:
11300:Happy First Edit Day!
11284:Happy First Edit Day!
11111:
11108:
11043:Arbitration Committee
11026:Hello! Voting in the
10990:
10957:
10951:Happy First Edit Day!
10947:
10939:Happy First Edit Day!
10724:errors on this page.
10563:
10556:
10358:Template:Hidden begin
10352:Template:Hidden begin
10289:
10165:
10008:
9998:
9961:activity requirements
9590:me on reply; thanks!)
9413:Arbitration Committee
9397:Hello! Voting in the
8953:
8947:Happy First Edit Day!
8943:
8935:Happy First Edit Day!
8853:Tell me all about it.
8783:Tell me all about it.
8725:Tell me all about it.
8406:on your special day!
8398:
8388:
8335:kidding on the square
8114:
7157:
7016:, such as converting
6548:Arbitration Committee
6532:Hello! Voting in the
6331:
6325:Happy First Edit Day!
6321:
6313:Happy First Edit Day!
6012:
5622:Robin, Corey (2015),
5505:
5044:
4516:
4388:
4271:Arbitration Committee
4255:Hello! Voting in the
3941:by accusing Atsme of
3844:include page numbers.
2496:"unrelated to Russia"
2332:
2273:Arbitration Committee
2015:Tell me all about it.
1518:
1473:
1399:Lethality of firearms
1352:behavior and actions?
1266:
1018:22:15, 7 August 2018
524:Could you elaborate?
295:Welcome to Knowledge!
196:June 2010âAugust 2010
176:June 2009âAugust 2009
11314:The Herald (Benison)
11219:The Herald (Benison)
10239:Precious anniversary
10202:Lightbreather appeal
10175:Fifteen Year Society
8871:Precious anniversary
8030:Symmachus Auxiliarus
7183:"Torturing Geniuses"
7043:User:MastCell/api.js
6844:and can be cited as
6677:in the coming year.
6673:peace and happiness
6666:"Let there be mercy"
6443:Precious anniversary
5670:, where they invoke
5625:The Reactionary Mind
5584:Dog Whistle Politics
5536:Dog Whistle Politics
5247:guide to arbitration
5116:overturn CBANs, but
4517:Thanks for the help!
4397:Be well at Christmas
3263:I've been following
2042:Could you look over
2038:M&P15 discussion
1540:Precious anniversary
1331:comes up somewhere.
598:piece on the subject
191:March 2010âJune 2010
10245:
9965:Request for Comment
9724:A barnstar for you!
9490:Edit Filter Manager
9227:scholarly sources.
8877:
8771:is a harsh master.
8302:allopathic medicine
8214:Happy anniversary!
7810:, by the author of
7395:Bold font added. --
7242:Arkell v. Pressdram
7118:Charles W. Dempster
6671:Wishing you health,
6449:
5789:in action. In fact
5787:white defensiveness
4329:Season's Greetings!
4130:Newspeak Dictionary
3583:article on Cronkite
1817:The Washington Post
1789:The Washington Post
1597:
1546:
1481:in 2016 found that
1379:JoJo Eumerus mobile
136:June 2008âJuly 2008
126:March 2008âMay 2008
46:Feb 2007âMarch 2007
11354:remove this notice
11347:
11306:Birthday Committee
11211:Birthday Committee
11133:
11110:
11059:arbitration policy
10992:
10966:Birthday Committee
10959:
10949:
10738:'']''</sup: -->
10736:'']''</sup: -->
10599:(THEY/THEM âą TALK)
10565:
10558:
10544:Birthday Committee
10298:remove this notice
10291:
10243:
10167:
10033:Birthday Committee
10010:
10000:
9547:two suggested ways
9429:arbitration policy
8962:Birthday Committee
8955:
8945:
8875:
8400:
8390:
8152:CommanderWaterford
8138:CommanderWaterford
8116:
7494:Talk:Ronald Reagan
7187:The Point Magazine
6794:Trump article cuts
6564:arbitration policy
6447:
6340:Birthday Committee
6333:
6323:
5668:Talk:Ronald Reagan
5216:the banning policy
5047:
4617:Talk:Ronald Reagan
4519:
4474:I think the sheer
4390:
4287:arbitration policy
3994:WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED
3968:besides yourself.
3894:"basic competence"
3823:Merchants of Doubt
3021:
2721:User:Objective3000
2490:Specifically, the
2352:
2345:
2337:
2289:arbitration policy
1595:
1544:
1422:The New York Times
560:my initial comment
328:How to edit a page
171:May 2009âJune 2009
61:May 2007âJuly 2007
11334:
11333:
11239:
11238:
11153:Dear Wikimedian,
11112:
11101:Holiday Greetings
11095:
10755:
10754:
10750:]]</small: -->
10745:]]</small: -->
10729:to ] <sup: -->
10682:to ] <sup: -->
10643:
10642:
10609:
10608:
10579:on behalf of the
10547:
10411:
10264:
10263:
10155:
10154:
10126:Have a great day!
10044:I have nominated
10035:
10031:On behalf of the
9766:
9765:
9621:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
9591:
9574:Hi, MastCell, in
9532:read more on Meta
9470:
9469:
9465:
9088:talk page stalker
9016:Re: Ronald Reagan
8900:User:MjolnirPants
8896:
8895:
8857:
8856:
8787:
8786:
8729:
8728:
8211:
8210:
8191:on behalf of the
8130:on behalf of the
7967:
7746:
7718:
7630:Rape of the Earth
7625:
7612:
7540:
7407:
7216:Let's make a deal
7095:
7068:
6702:
6701:
6603:
6602:
6468:
6467:
6276:
6241:
5993:
5975:Sticks and stones
5886:
5816:
5729:
5638:
5637:
5597:
5596:
5549:
5548:
5315:
5278:
4457:
4438:
4437:
4394:
4393:
4326:
4325:
4215:
4214:
4192:Have a great day!
4095:
4061:
4007:
3187:
3171:comment added by
3000:
2999:
2998:
2980:
2979:
2908:
2846:
2824:
2739:
2654:
2576:
2482:Talk:Donald Trump
2469:
2445:
2444:
2406:
2405:
2375:
2374:
2371:
2368:
2350:
2341:
2016:
1906:AR-15 style rifle
1884:
1867:
1866:
1761:The Baltimore Sun
1669:
1616:
1615:
1581:Six years now! --
1565:
1564:
1366:
1111:
991:
978:comment added by
291:
290:
66:Old odds and ends
11407:
11382:
11378:
11376:
11370:
11366:
11360:
11356:
11344:
11330:
11295:
11288:
11235:
11200:
11193:
11131:
11126:
11083:
11081:
11022:
10973:
10952:
10926:Goodtablemanners
10836:
10832:
10831:
10801:
10794:
10788:
10737:to ]<sup: -->
10663:
10662:
10637:
10626:
10625:
10619:
10600:
10595:
10545:
10540:
10537:Happy Adminship
10534:
10533:
10477:
10418:Credit where due
10399:
10386:
10385:
10368:
10322:
10320:
10314:
10310:
10304:
10300:
10288:
10253:
10246:
10242:
10195:
10192:
10186:
10151:
10141:
10138:
10132:
10127:
10112:
10105:
10104:
10030:
10007:
10003:
9997:
9904:
9875:Hope you're well
9853:
9798:
9735:
9728:
9727:
9613:
9586:
9585:
9580:
9453:
9451:
9394:
9387:
9386:
9304:
9269:
9237:
9142:
9110:
9091:
8970:
8948:
8885:
8878:
8874:
8850:
8849:
8847:
8780:
8779:
8777:
8722:
8721:
8719:
8628:Bosnian genocide
8415:
8393:
8358:
8312:
8262:
8202:
8176:
8169:
8168:
8012:
7968:
7965:
7942:WPM and Whitaker
7915:
7899:
7895:
7887:
7883:
7876:
7744:
7716:
7619:
7610:
7534:
7453:
7449:
7432:
7429:
7423:
7416:
7394:
7383:racially-charged
7197:
7196:
7194:
7193:
7167:
7125:BeenAroundAWhile
7079:
7078:
7052:
7051:
7023:
7019:
7015:
6867:
6866:
6860:
6852:
6698:
6697:
6686:
6631:
6622:
6610:
6609:
6586:
6529:
6522:
6521:
6457:
6450:
6446:
6348:
6326:
6270:
6239:
6232:
6220:
6219:
5991:
5979:Yankee, go home!
5880:
5814:
5727:
5724:
5716:
5629:
5599:
5598:
5588:
5551:
5550:
5540:
5483:
5482:
5469:Thanks and stuff
5435:
5364:
5362:
5361:
5360:
5314:
5309:
5277:
5221:
5141:
4783:
4768:
4767:
4742:
4711:
4678:
4675:
4669:
4601:
4451:
4441:Long time no see
4408:
4401:
4400:
4370:
4342:
4333:
4332:
4309:
4252:
4245:
4244:
4211:
4193:
4178:
4171:
4170:
4139:
4093:
4059:
4005:
3992:
3991:
3675:
3667:
3376:uninvolved admin
3280:18 February 2019
3166:
3142:
3123:
3101:
2995:
2988:
2987:
2949:
2942:
2941:
2909:
2902:
2847:
2840:
2818:
2740:
2733:
2718:
2655:
2648:
2583:
2570:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2470:
2463:
2420:
2413:
2412:
2389:
2382:
2381:
2370:
2363:
2325:
2324:
2257:
2102:
2081:
2018:
2014:
2011:
1878:
1857:
1856:
1854:
1852:
1835:
1829:
1828:
1826:
1824:
1807:
1801:
1800:
1798:
1796:
1779:
1773:
1772:
1770:
1768:
1751:
1745:
1744:
1742:
1740:
1723:
1702:
1701:
1663:
1605:
1598:
1594:
1554:
1547:
1543:
1463:
1367:
1360:
1339:
1302:
1157:
1124:
1112:
1105:
973:
857:ask you to stop
663:
662:
661:
655:
370:
318:Community Portal
286:
266:May 2016âpresent
81:JulyâAugust 2007
24:
16:
11415:
11414:
11410:
11409:
11408:
11406:
11405:
11404:
11390:
11380:
11374:
11368:
11364:
11362:You've got mail
11358:
11350:
11342:
11339:
11337:You've got mail
11310:your first edit
11302:
11286:
11207:
11191:
11139:
11129:
11120:
11103:
11098:
11097:
11075:
11023:
11015:
10994:Ten years ago,
10985:
10983:Always precious
10980:
10971:
10950:
10941:
10921:
10829:
10827:
10797:
10792:
10786:
10765:this discussion
10756:
10751:
10747:€</span: -->
10742:€</font: -->
10739:
10734:]</font: -->
10731:
10718:
10716:]</font: -->
10714:]</font: -->
10712:]</font: -->
10706:
10704:]</font: -->
10701:]</font: -->
10697:
10694:]</font: -->
10689:]</font: -->
10684:
10680:]</font: -->
10676:]</font: -->
10668:
10654:]</font: -->
10635:
10623:
10617:
10598:
10590:
10543:
10532:
10498:
10474:
10472:
10457:Anythingyouwant
10452:may be of use.
10442:
10420:
10395:. Thank you. â
10383:
10380:
10366:
10354:
10323:
10318:
10312:
10308:
10306:You've got mail
10302:
10294:
10286:
10283:
10241:
10204:
10190:
10184:
10182:
10169:Dear MastCell,
10160:
10136:
10130:
10128:
10115:
10103:
10079:
10070:
10042:
10037:
10005:
10001:
9995:
9992:
9984:
9983:
9955:
9916:
9902:
9871:
9851:
9796:
9784:
9759:
9758:Blaze Wolf#6545
9726:
9607:
9583:
9572:
9507:
9482:recently closed
9478:
9445:
9385:
9295:
9260:
9228:
9198:publicly stated
9133:
9101:
9085:
9018:
8981:
8976:
8966:
8946:
8937:
8873:
8843:
8839:Animal Crossing
8800:Animal Crossing
8773:
8769:Joseph Campbell
8715:
8708:
8522:stupid doesn't
8426:
8421:
8411:
8391:
8382:
8356:
8310:
8285:
8279:I mete and dole
8260:
8200:
8167:
8149:
8148:
8108:
8006:
7985:BLP noticeboard
7964:
7944:
7901:
7897:
7889:
7885:
7881:
7878:
7772:
7657:
7574:
7505:
7467:
7451:
7447:
7427:
7421:
7419:
7410:
7367:
7343:
7265:
7229:
7218:
7198:
7191:
7189:
7176:
7164:
7153:
7121:
7076:
7049:
7021:
7017:
7013:
7006:
6854:
6853:
6845:
6796:
6709:
6684:
6658:Dear MastCell,
6645:
6644:
6643:
6642:
6634:
6633:
6632:
6624:
6623:
6608:
6580:
6520:
6487:
6485:We're all Jimbo
6445:
6359:
6354:
6344:
6324:
6315:
6256:
6243:
6230:
6198:white fragility
6191:
5995:
5962:
5945:WP:ADMINACCOUNT
5909:
5907:Just to clarify
5846:
5811:White Fragility
5718:
5710:
5634:
5604:
5593:
5556:
5545:
5488:
5471:
5429:
5356:
5354:
5340:
5305:
5268:
5253:may be of use.
5238:
5219:
5135:
5066:
5039:
4803:RickinBaltimore
4798:
4781:
4765:
4762:
4740:
4709:
4673:
4667:
4665:
4599:
4589:
4564:
4525:of humour. . .
4443:
4399:
4368:
4331:
4303:
4243:
4223:
4181:
4169:
4137:
4097:
4063:
4009:
3694:
3692:On climate post
3669:
3661:
3636:
3618:
3573:Walter Cronkite
3515:Washington Post
3498:
3399:cygnis insignis
3366:cygnis insignis
3328:9 November 2017
3261:
3221:possible light.
3163:
3137:
3117:
3096:
3085:
3041:
3022:
3012:
2985:
2940:
2897:
2835:
2728:
2712:
2643:
2577:
2550:
2458:
2450:
2411:
2380:
2323:
2318:
2317:
2258:
2250:
2096:
2075:
2044:this discussion
2040:
2007:
2005:
1998:
1908:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1850:
1848:
1836:
1832:
1822:
1820:
1808:
1804:
1794:
1792:
1780:
1776:
1766:
1764:
1752:
1748:
1738:
1736:
1724:
1720:
1707:
1647:Nicolle Wallace
1643:
1624:Im Frieden dein
1542:
1401:
1355:
1337:
1300:
1291:
1272:
1232:Paterson Hughes
1194:
1151:
1118:
1100:
659:
649:
492:
459:
408:
368:
300:Dear MastCell:
298:
287:
281:
29:
12:
11:
5:
11413:
11403:
11402:
11349:
11340:
11338:
11335:
11332:
11331:
11324:
11303:
11298:
11296:
11285:
11282:
11281:
11280:
11279:
11278:
11277:
11276:
11237:
11236:
11229:
11208:
11203:
11201:
11190:
11187:
11151:
11150:
11138:
11135:
11102:
11099:
11066:the candidates
11035:eligible users
11024:
11017:
11016:
11014:
11011:
10984:
10981:
10942:
10940:
10937:
10920:
10917:
10916:
10915:
10914:
10913:
10912:
10911:
10910:
10909:
10908:
10907:
10906:
10905:
10904:
10903:
10753:
10752:
10749:</span: -->
10748:<small: -->
10744:</font: -->
10743:<small: -->
10740:
10732:
10730:]</sup: -->
10728:]</sup: -->
10727:] <sup: -->
10726:
10710:
10698:
10685:
10683:]</sup: -->
10673:
10670:
10669:
10666:
10661:
10641:
10640:
10636:{{admin help}}
10627:
10616:
10613:
10611:
10607:
10606:
10549:
10548:
10538:
10531:
10528:
10515:
10497:
10491:
10471:
10468:
10441:
10438:
10419:
10416:
10379:
10376:
10353:
10350:
10349:
10348:
10293:
10284:
10282:
10279:
10262:
10261:
10255:
10254:
10240:
10237:
10203:
10200:
10185:Chris Troutman
10181:Best regards,
10159:
10156:
10153:
10152:
10145:
10131:Chris Troutman
10125:
10113:
10102:
10099:
10078:
10075:
10064:
10041:
10038:
9993:
9991:
9988:
9979:
9978:
9975:
9957:
9956:
9954:
9951:
9950:
9949:
9923:
9922:
9915:
9912:
9911:
9910:
9870:
9867:
9866:
9865:
9864:
9863:
9844:Charles Darwin
9783:
9780:
9779:
9778:
9764:
9763:
9742:
9741:
9736:
9725:
9722:
9721:
9720:
9719:
9718:
9703:
9699:
9692:Janice Raymond
9680:
9660:
9644:
9571:
9568:
9506:
9503:
9477:
9471:
9468:
9467:
9436:the candidates
9406:eligible users
9395:
9384:
9381:
9380:
9379:
9378:
9377:
9376:
9375:
9347:
9346:
9333:
9332:
9331:
9330:
9329:
9328:
9327:
9326:
9325:
9324:
9323:
9322:
9321:
9320:
9319:
9318:
9317:
9316:
9315:
9314:
9313:
9312:
9311:
9310:
9309:
9308:
9068:
9067:
9017:
9014:
9013:
9012:
8980:
8977:
8938:
8936:
8933:
8932:
8931:
8894:
8893:
8887:
8886:
8872:
8869:
8868:
8867:
8866:
8865:
8864:
8863:
8862:
8861:
8835:
8826:
8814:
8760:
8707:
8704:
8703:
8702:
8677:
8676:
8675:
8674:
8657:
8646:
8630:as well.
8615:
8614:
8597:
8593:
8589:
8588:
8587:
8549:
8548:
8547:
8546:
8545:
8544:
8543:
8542:
8526:that. It just
8487:
8483:
8479:
8472:
8471:
8425:
8422:
8383:
8381:
8378:
8377:
8376:
8375:
8374:
8373:
8372:
8282:
8280:
8277:
8273:
8272:
8271:
8270:
8269:
8268:
8252:
8209:
8208:
8177:
8166:
8163:
8117:
8109:
8107:
8104:
8103:
8102:
8101:
8100:
8099:
8098:
8097:
8096:
8095:
8094:
8078:
7943:
7940:
7939:
7938:
7877:
7870:
7869:
7868:
7843:Overton window
7804:
7803:
7802:
7801:
7800:
7799:
7798:
7797:
7796:
7795:
7768:
7753:
7752:
7751:
7689:
7688:
7687:
7686:
7685:
7684:
7683:
7682:
7681:
7680:
7679:
7678:
7677:
7676:
7675:
7653:
7645:
7589:
7588:
7587:
7586:
7585:
7584:
7583:
7582:
7581:
7580:
7579:
7578:
7570:
7532:
7531:
7530:
7529:
7528:
7527:
7526:
7525:
7524:
7501:
7463:
7436:
7422:Chris Troutman
7413:by talk reader
7363:
7347:
7339:
7289:
7281:
7261:
7225:
7217:
7214:
7181:(2020-11-24).
7179:Callard, Agnes
7174:
7152:
7149:
7148:
7147:
7120:
7115:
7114:
7113:
7112:
7111:
7046:
7045:
7040:
7035:
7005:
7002:
6982:
6981:
6980:
6979:
6978:
6977:
6976:
6975:
6974:
6973:
6929:
6928:
6927:
6926:
6925:
6924:
6923:
6922:
6911:
6910:
6909:
6908:
6907:
6906:
6870:JMIR Preprints
6868:But note that
6849:JMIR Preprints
6842:JMIR Preprints
6795:
6792:
6791:
6790:
6789:
6788:
6787:
6786:
6785:
6784:
6708:
6703:
6700:
6699:
6679:
6678:
6676:
6674:
6672:
6670:
6663:
6662:
6660:
6659:
6654:
6653:
6651:Happy holidays
6648:
6646:
6636:
6635:
6626:
6625:
6617:
6616:
6615:
6614:
6613:
6607:
6604:
6601:
6600:
6571:the candidates
6541:eligible users
6530:
6519:
6516:
6515:
6514:
6486:
6483:
6466:
6465:
6459:
6458:
6444:
6441:
6440:
6439:
6438:
6437:
6358:
6355:
6316:
6314:
6311:
6310:
6309:
6255:
6252:
6251:
6250:
6237:
6189:
6188:
6187:
6186:
6185:
6184:
6183:
6182:
6181:
6180:
6179:
6178:
6177:
6176:
6171:
6154:
6153:
6152:
6151:
6150:
6149:
6148:
6147:
6146:
6145:
6144:
6143:
6137:
6123:
6122:
6121:
6120:
6119:
6118:
6117:
6116:
6115:
6114:
6109:
6096:
6095:
6094:
6093:
6092:
6091:
6090:
6089:
6083:
6072:
6071:
6070:
6069:
6068:
6067:
6062:
6053:
6052:
6051:
6050:
6044:
6037:
6036:
6031:
6011:
5989:
5961:
5958:
5957:
5956:
5908:
5905:
5904:
5903:
5902:
5901:
5845:
5842:
5841:
5840:
5839:
5838:
5837:
5836:
5835:
5834:
5807:The Federalist
5776:
5775:
5774:
5773:
5772:
5771:
5704:
5703:
5636:
5635:
5633:
5632:
5631:
5630:
5616:
5615:
5610:
5609:
5606:
5605:
5602:
5595:
5594:
5592:
5591:
5590:
5589:
5575:
5574:
5569:
5568:
5567:
5562:
5561:
5558:
5557:
5554:
5547:
5546:
5544:
5543:
5542:
5541:
5527:
5526:
5521:
5520:
5519:
5514:
5513:
5512:
5511:
5500:
5499:
5494:
5493:
5490:
5489:
5486:
5473:Thank you for
5470:
5467:
5466:
5465:
5464:
5463:
5426:
5425:
5411:
5410:
5409:
5339:
5336:
5335:
5334:
5333:
5332:
5331:
5330:
5267:
5264:
5237:
5234:
5233:
5232:
5211:
5210:
5209:
5208:
5207:
5206:
5205:
5204:
5203:
5202:
5065:
5062:
5038:
5035:
5034:
5033:
5032:
5031:
5006:
5005:
4990:
4989:
4979:
4978:
4977:
4976:
4923:
4922:
4921:
4920:
4919:
4918:
4917:
4916:
4915:
4914:
4913:
4912:
4911:
4910:
4797:
4794:
4774:
4761:
4758:
4757:
4756:
4755:
4754:
4753:
4752:
4700:
4699:
4698:
4697:
4696:
4695:
4694:
4668:Chris Troutman
4588:
4585:
4563:
4560:
4559:
4558:
4557:
4556:
4555:
4554:
4511:
4510:
4442:
4439:
4436:
4435:
4418:
4415:
4414:
4409:
4398:
4395:
4392:
4391:
4382:
4380:
4363:
4362:
4355:
4354:
4350:
4349:
4345:
4343:
4336:
4330:
4327:
4324:
4323:
4294:the candidates
4264:eligible users
4253:
4242:
4239:
4222:
4219:
4217:
4213:
4212:
4205:
4191:
4179:
4168:
4165:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4161:
4160:
4159:
4158:
4157:
4156:
4155:
4154:
4153:
4152:
4151:
4126:
4091:
4057:
4022:Stephan Schulz
4003:
3986:
3985:
3984:
3983:
3982:
3981:
3980:
3979:
3978:
3977:
3921:
3920:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3870:
3869:
3868:
3867:
3866:
3865:
3847:
3846:
3845:
3827:
3814:
3749:
3748:
3693:
3690:
3689:
3688:
3635:
3632:
3617:
3614:
3613:
3612:
3611:
3610:
3609:
3608:
3607:
3606:
3605:
3604:
3603:
3602:
3497:
3494:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3490:
3472:
3471:
3439:
3438:
3423:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3405:
3404:
3332:
3331:
3325:
3322:4 January 2018
3319:
3313:
3307:
3301:
3295:
3289:
3283:
3260:
3257:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3253:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3232:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3162:
3159:
3158:
3157:
3156:
3155:
3084:
3079:
3078:
3077:
3063:
3045:New York Times
3040:
3037:
3019:
3018:
3008:
3002:
2997:
2996:
2986:
2984:
2981:
2978:
2977:
2956:
2955:
2950:
2939:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2932:
2931:
2930:
2929:
2928:
2927:
2926:
2925:
2924:
2831:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2792:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2449:
2446:
2443:
2442:
2423:
2421:
2410:
2409:Happy Holidays
2407:
2404:
2403:
2396:
2395:
2390:
2379:
2376:
2373:
2372:
2362:
2361:
2359:
2357:
2355:
2347:
2346:
2339:
2338:
2334:
2322:
2319:
2296:the candidates
2259:
2252:
2251:
2249:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2117:MfD discussion
2039:
2036:
2035:
2034:
1997:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1907:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1865:
1864:
1859:
1858:
1830:
1802:
1774:
1746:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1705:
1700:
1699:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1687:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1676:
1642:
1639:
1614:
1613:
1607:
1606:
1563:
1562:
1556:
1555:
1541:
1538:
1483:gunshot wounds
1465:
1464:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1228:Roderic Dallas
1193:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1168:WP:AVOIDVICTIM
1134:
1096:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1070:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1053:
1044:
1034:
1016:
1003:
995:
994:
993:
992:
969:
965:
961:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
551:
550:
549:
546:
491:
490:Quick question
488:
487:
486:
458:
455:
454:
453:
407:
404:
351:
350:
345:
340:
335:
330:
325:
320:
315:
297:
292:
289:
288:
283:
279:
277:
274:
273:
269:
268:
263:
258:
253:
248:
243:
238:
233:
228:
223:
218:
213:
208:
203:
198:
193:
188:
183:
178:
173:
168:
163:
158:
153:
148:
143:
138:
133:
128:
123:
118:
113:
108:
103:
98:
96:September 2007
93:
91:September 2007
88:
83:
78:
73:
68:
63:
58:
53:
48:
43:
35:
34:
31:
30:
25:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
11412:
11401:
11398:
11397:
11392:
11391:
11389:
11386:
11383:
11373:
11363:
11355:
11329:
11325:
11323:
11319:
11315:
11311:
11307:
11301:
11297:
11294:
11290:
11289:
11275:
11272:
11271:
11266:
11262:
11261:
11260:
11257:
11253:
11252:
11251:
11248:
11247:
11241:
11240:
11234:
11230:
11228:
11224:
11220:
11216:
11212:
11206:
11202:
11199:
11195:
11194:
11186:
11185:
11182:
11178:
11175:
11172:
11170:
11164:
11162:
11157:
11154:
11149:
11148:
11145:
11141:
11140:
11132:
11127:
11125:
11124:
11116:
11107:
11096:
11094:
11090:
11086:
11079:
11073:
11072:
11067:
11062:
11060:
11056:
11052:
11048:
11044:
11039:
11037:
11036:
11031:
11030:
11021:
11010:
11009:
11005:
11001:
10997:
10989:
10979:
10978:
10975:
10974:
10967:
10962:
10956:
10946:
10936:
10935:
10931:
10927:
10902:
10899:
10898:
10893:
10892:
10891:
10887:
10883:
10879:
10878:
10877:
10874:
10873:
10868:
10864:
10863:
10862:
10858:
10854:
10850:
10849:
10848:
10844:
10840:
10835:
10826:
10825:
10824:
10820:
10816:
10811:
10806:
10805:
10804:
10800:
10791:
10784:
10783:
10782:
10781:
10777:
10773:
10768:
10766:
10761:
10725:
10723:
10709:
10681:</sup: -->
10672:
10671:
10665:
10664:
10660:
10657:
10651:
10649:
10638:
10632:
10628:
10621:
10620:
10612:
10605:
10604:
10601:
10596:
10594:
10586:
10584:
10583:
10578:
10577:
10572:
10571:
10562:
10555:
10550:
10546:
10539:
10536:
10535:
10527:
10526:
10522:
10518:
10512:
10510:
10505:
10503:
10495:
10490:
10489:
10485:
10481:
10476:
10467:
10466:
10462:
10458:
10453:
10451:
10447:
10437:
10436:
10432:
10428:
10424:
10415:
10414:
10409:
10406:
10403:
10398:
10394:
10390:
10375:
10374:
10371:
10369:
10363:
10359:
10347:
10344:
10343:
10338:
10337:
10336:
10334:
10331:
10327:
10317:
10307:
10299:
10278:
10277:
10273:
10269:
10260:
10256:
10252:
10247:
10236:
10235:
10231:
10227:
10223:
10219:
10216:
10213:
10209:
10208:Lightbreather
10199:
10198:
10193:
10187:
10179:
10177:
10176:
10170:
10164:
10150:
10146:
10144:
10139:
10133:
10123:
10119:
10111:
10107:
10106:
10098:
10097:
10093:
10089:
10084:
10074:
10073:
10069:
10068:
10063:
10059:
10055:
10051:
10047:
10036:
10034:
10029:
10025:
10021:
10017:
10015:
9987:
9982:
9976:
9973:
9972:
9971:
9968:
9966:
9962:
9948:
9945:
9944:
9939:
9938:
9937:
9936:
9932:
9928:
9921:
9918:
9917:
9909:
9905:
9899:
9895:
9894:
9893:
9892:
9888:
9884:
9880:
9876:
9862:
9858:
9854:
9850:
9845:
9841:
9837:
9836:
9835:
9832:
9831:
9825:
9820:
9815:
9810:
9809:
9808:
9807:
9803:
9799:
9795:
9790:
9777:
9774:
9773:
9768:
9767:
9762:
9756:
9754:
9753:
9748:
9744:
9743:
9740:
9737:
9734:
9729:
9717:
9713:
9709:
9704:
9700:
9697:
9694:or her book,
9693:
9689:
9685:
9681:
9678:
9674:
9669:
9665:
9661:
9658:
9653:
9649:
9645:
9642:
9638:
9637:
9636:
9633:
9632:
9626:
9622:
9617:
9611:
9606:
9605:
9604:
9603:
9599:
9595:
9589:
9577:
9570:Rfc v. policy
9567:
9564:
9563:
9560:Thank you. /
9558:
9556:
9552:
9548:
9543:
9541:
9537:
9533:
9528:
9526:
9522:
9517:
9513:
9510:
9502:
9500:
9495:
9491:
9487:
9486:Autopatrolled
9483:
9476:
9475:autopatrolled
9466:
9464:
9460:
9456:
9449:
9443:
9442:
9437:
9432:
9430:
9426:
9422:
9418:
9414:
9408:
9407:
9402:
9401:
9396:
9393:
9389:
9388:
9374:
9371:
9370:
9365:
9364:
9363:
9359:
9355:
9351:
9350:
9349:
9348:
9345:
9342:
9341:
9335:
9334:
9307:
9302:
9298:
9293:
9289:
9288:
9287:
9283:
9279:
9274:
9273:
9272:
9267:
9263:
9257:
9256:
9255:
9251:
9247:
9242:
9241:
9240:
9235:
9231:
9225:
9224:
9223:
9219:
9215:
9210:
9209:
9208:
9205:
9204:
9199:
9195:
9194:
9193:
9189:
9185:
9181:
9178:
9177:
9176:
9173:
9172:
9167:
9162:
9161:
9160:
9156:
9152:
9147:
9146:
9145:
9140:
9136:
9130:
9129:
9128:
9125:
9124:
9119:
9115:
9114:
9113:
9108:
9104:
9099:
9095:
9089:
9084:
9083:
9082:
9081:
9077:
9073:
9066:
9063:
9062:
9056:
9051:
9050:
9049:
9048:
9044:
9040:
9035:
9032:
9029:
9026:
9024:
9011:
9008:
9007:
9002:
8998:
8997:
8996:
8995:
8991:
8987:
8975:
8974:
8971:
8969:
8963:
8958:
8952:
8942:
8930:
8927:
8926:
8920:
8919:
8918:
8917:
8913:
8909:
8905:
8901:
8892:
8888:
8884:
8879:
8860:
8855:
8854:
8848:
8846:
8840:
8836:
8832:
8827:
8824:
8820:
8815:
8812:
8811:
8810:
8807:
8806:
8801:
8796:
8793:I think your
8792:
8791:
8790:
8785:
8784:
8778:
8776:
8770:
8766:
8761:
8758:
8757:
8756:
8753:
8752:
8747:
8743:
8739:
8735:
8734:
8733:
8732:
8727:
8726:
8720:
8718:
8712:
8701:
8698:
8697:
8692:
8687:
8683:
8679:
8678:
8673:
8670:
8669:
8665:
8664:
8658:
8655:
8653:
8651:
8647:
8643:
8642:
8641:
8637:
8633:
8629:
8624:
8620:
8617:
8616:
8613:
8609:
8605:
8604:
8598:
8594:
8590:
8586:
8582:
8578:
8573:
8572:
8571:
8567:
8563:
8562:
8556:
8551:
8550:
8541:
8537:
8533:
8529:
8525:
8520:
8519:
8518:
8515:
8514:
8508:
8503:
8502:
8501:
8497:
8493:
8488:
8484:
8480:
8476:
8475:
8474:
8473:
8470:
8467:
8466:
8460:
8456:
8452:
8447:
8446:
8445:
8444:
8440:
8436:
8430:
8420:
8419:
8416:
8414:
8409:Best wishes,
8407:
8405:
8397:
8387:
8371:
8367:
8363:
8359:
8352:
8348:
8347:
8346:
8343:
8342:
8336:
8332:
8327:
8326:
8325:
8321:
8317:
8313:
8307:
8303:
8298:
8297:
8296:
8295:
8292:
8291:
8284:
8276:
8267:
8263:
8257:
8253:
8251:
8247:
8243:
8238:
8237:
8236:
8233:
8232:
8227:
8226:
8225:
8221:
8217:
8213:
8212:
8207:
8204:
8203:
8196:
8195:
8190:
8189:
8184:
8183:
8175:
8171:
8170:
8162:
8161:
8157:
8153:
8147:
8143:
8139:
8135:
8134:
8129:
8128:
8123:
8122:
8113:
8093:
8089:
8085:
8084:
8079:
8077:
8074:
8073:
8068:
8064:
8061:
8057:
8056:
8055:
8051:
8047:
8046:
8041:
8040:
8039:
8035:
8031:
8027:
8026:
8025:
8022:
8021:
8016:
8010:
8005:
8004:
8003:
8000:
7999:
7994:
7990:
7986:
7981:
7980:
7979:
7978:
7975:
7972:
7969:
7961:
7957:
7953:
7949:
7937:
7933:
7929:
7925:
7921:
7920:
7919:
7918:
7913:
7910:
7907:
7906:
7893:
7880:When you use
7875:
7867:
7866:
7863:
7862:
7855:
7851:
7847:
7844:
7836:
7832:
7831:
7830:
7829:
7826:
7822:
7818:
7815:
7814:
7809:
7794:
7790:
7786:
7782:
7777:
7776:
7775:
7771:
7766:
7762:
7758:
7754:
7750:
7747:
7742:
7738:
7737:
7736:
7732:
7728:
7724:
7723:
7722:
7719:
7714:
7709:
7708:
7707:
7703:
7699:
7695:
7690:
7674:
7670:
7666:
7662:
7661:
7660:
7656:
7651:
7646:
7644:
7640:
7636:
7632:
7631:
7623:
7622:edit conflict
7618:
7617:
7616:
7613:
7608:
7603:
7602:
7601:
7600:
7599:
7598:
7597:
7596:
7595:
7594:
7593:
7592:
7591:
7590:
7577:
7573:
7568:
7563:
7559:
7555:
7554:
7553:
7549:
7545:
7538:
7537:edit conflict
7533:
7523:
7519:
7515:
7510:
7509:
7508:
7504:
7499:
7495:
7491:
7486:
7485:
7484:
7480:
7476:
7472:
7471:
7470:
7466:
7461:
7457:
7445:
7441:
7437:
7435:
7430:
7424:
7414:
7409:
7408:
7406:
7402:
7398:
7392:
7388:
7384:
7380:
7376:
7372:
7371:
7370:
7366:
7361:
7357:
7352:
7348:
7346:
7342:
7337:
7333:
7330:
7324:
7320:
7319:
7318:
7314:
7310:
7306:
7302:
7298:
7294:
7290:
7287:
7282:
7279:
7274:
7270:
7269:
7268:
7264:
7259:
7255:
7254:
7253:
7252:
7249:
7248:
7243:
7235:
7234:
7233:
7232:
7228:
7223:
7213:
7212:
7208:
7204:
7188:
7184:
7180:
7173:
7169:
7161:
7156:
7146:
7143:
7142:
7137:
7136:
7135:
7134:
7130:
7126:
7119:
7110:
7107:
7106:
7100:
7099:
7098:
7094:
7092:
7088:
7084:
7074:
7073:
7072:
7071:
7067:
7065:
7061:
7057:
7044:
7041:
7039:
7036:
7034:
7031:
7030:
7029:
7028:. They are:
7027:
7014:mw.config.get
7011:
7001:
7000:
6996:
6992:
6988:
6972:
6969:
6968:
6963:
6959:
6958:
6957:
6953:
6949:
6945:
6941:
6937:
6936:
6935:
6934:
6933:
6932:
6931:
6930:
6919:
6918:
6917:
6916:
6915:
6914:
6913:
6912:
6905:
6902:
6901:
6897:
6896:
6891:
6890:
6889:
6888:
6885:
6884:
6878:
6871:
6864:
6858:
6850:
6843:
6838:
6833:
6832:
6831:
6827:
6823:
6818:
6817:
6816:
6815:
6812:
6811:
6807:
6806:
6801:
6783:
6780:
6777:
6772:
6771:
6770:
6767:
6766:
6761:
6760:
6759:
6756:
6753:
6748:
6747:
6746:
6745:
6742:
6741:
6735:
6730:
6724:
6723:
6722:
6721:
6718:
6715:
6707:
6696:
6695:
6691:
6687:
6683:
6667:
6656:
6655:
6652:
6649:
6641:
6640:
6630:
6621:
6611:
6599:
6598:
6594:
6590:
6584:
6578:
6577:
6572:
6567:
6565:
6561:
6557:
6553:
6549:
6543:
6542:
6537:
6536:
6531:
6528:
6524:
6523:
6513:
6510:
6509:
6503:
6502:
6501:
6500:
6496:
6492:
6482:
6481:
6477:
6473:
6464:
6460:
6456:
6451:
6436:
6432:
6428:
6424:
6420:
6419:
6418:
6417:
6414:
6413:
6408:
6402:
6399:
6394:
6391:
6385:
6383:
6376:
6375:
6374:
6373:
6369:
6365:
6353:
6352:
6349:
6347:
6341:
6336:
6330:
6320:
6308:
6307:
6304:
6303:
6296:
6294:
6290:
6282:
6281:
6280:
6279:
6274:
6269:
6268:
6262:
6249:
6246:
6242:
6236:
6229:
6225:
6215:
6214:
6213:
6212:
6208:
6204:
6199:
6194:
6175:
6172:
6168:
6167:
6166:
6165:
6164:
6163:
6162:
6161:
6160:
6159:
6158:
6157:
6156:
6155:
6142:
6138:
6135:
6134:
6133:
6132:
6131:
6130:
6129:
6128:
6127:
6126:
6125:
6124:
6113:
6110:
6106:
6105:
6104:
6103:
6102:
6101:
6100:
6099:
6098:
6097:
6088:
6084:
6080:
6079:
6078:
6077:
6076:
6075:
6074:
6073:
6066:
6063:
6059:
6058:
6057:
6056:
6055:
6054:
6049:
6045:
6041:
6040:
6039:
6038:
6035:
6032:
6028:
6027:
6026:
6025:
6021:
6018:
6017:
6010:
6008:
6002:
6001:
5998:
5994:
5988:
5983:
5980:
5976:
5970:
5968:
5955:
5952:
5951:
5946:
5942:
5938:
5937:
5936:
5935:
5931:
5927:
5921:
5918:
5913:
5900:
5897:
5896:
5891:
5890:
5889:
5884:
5879:
5878:
5873:
5870:
5869:
5868:
5867:
5863:
5859:
5855:
5851:
5833:
5829:
5825:
5824:ArtifexMayhem
5821:
5812:
5808:
5804:
5800:
5796:
5792:
5791:first section
5788:
5784:
5783:
5782:
5781:
5780:
5779:
5778:
5777:
5770:
5769:
5766:
5765:
5758:
5752:
5747:
5746:
5745:
5741:
5737:
5736:ArtifexMayhem
5733:
5722:
5714:
5708:
5707:
5706:
5705:
5702:
5701:
5698:
5697:
5691:
5687:
5685:
5680:
5678:
5673:
5669:
5663:
5660:
5654:
5653:
5652:
5651:
5647:
5643:
5642:ArtifexMayhem
5627:
5626:
5620:
5619:
5618:
5617:
5612:
5611:
5608:
5607:
5601:
5600:
5586:
5585:
5579:
5578:
5577:
5576:
5571:
5570:
5564:
5563:
5560:
5559:
5553:
5552:
5538:
5537:
5531:
5530:
5529:
5528:
5523:
5522:
5516:
5515:
5509:
5504:
5503:
5502:
5501:
5496:
5495:
5492:
5491:
5487:Ronald Reagan
5485:
5484:
5481:
5478:
5476:
5462:
5459:
5458:
5457:
5450:
5447:
5446:
5445:
5442:
5441:
5433:
5428:
5427:
5424:
5420:
5416:
5412:
5408:
5405:
5404:
5403:
5396:
5395:
5394:
5391:
5390:
5389:
5382:
5381:
5380:
5379:
5376:
5375:
5374:
5366:
5363:wikimedia.org
5352:
5347:
5345:
5329:
5326:
5325:
5320:
5319:
5318:
5313:
5312:Seraphimblade
5308:
5302:
5298:
5297:
5296:
5293:
5292:
5287:
5286:Seraphimblade
5284:
5283:
5282:
5281:
5276:
5275:Seraphimblade
5272:
5263:
5262:
5259:
5254:
5252:
5248:
5243:
5231:
5228:
5227:
5217:
5213:
5212:
5201:
5197:
5193:
5188:
5187:
5186:
5182:
5178:
5174:
5170:
5169:
5168:
5164:
5160:
5155:
5154:
5153:
5149:
5145:
5139:
5134:
5133:
5132:
5128:
5124:
5119:
5115:
5111:
5108:
5105:, the policy
5104:
5100:
5099:
5098:
5097:
5093:
5089:
5084:
5082:
5081:scope point 2
5078:
5074:
5069:
5068:Hi MastCell,
5061:
5060:
5056:
5052:
5043:
5030:
5027:
5026:
5018:
5017:
5016:
5013:
5008:
5007:
5004:
5000:
4996:
4992:
4991:
4986:
4981:
4980:
4975:
4972:
4971:
4966:
4962:
4958:
4954:
4953:
4952:
4948:
4944:
4940:
4939:
4938:
4937:
4933:
4929:
4909:
4906:
4905:
4900:
4899:
4898:
4894:
4890:
4886:
4885:
4884:
4880:
4876:
4871:
4870:
4869:
4865:
4861:
4857:
4856:
4855:
4851:
4847:
4843:
4842:
4841:
4837:
4833:
4829:
4828:
4827:
4823:
4819:
4815:
4814:
4813:
4812:
4808:
4804:
4793:
4792:
4788:
4784:
4777:
4772:
4751:
4747:
4743:
4736:
4735:
4734:
4731:
4730:
4725:
4722:
4721:
4720:
4716:
4712:
4705:
4701:
4693:
4690:
4689:
4683:
4682:
4681:
4676:
4670:
4663:
4659:
4655:
4654:
4653:
4650:
4649:
4644:
4643:soup-spitting
4639:
4635:
4632:
4631:
4630:
4626:
4622:
4618:
4614:
4613:
4612:
4611:
4610:
4606:
4602:
4594:
4584:
4583:
4579:
4575:
4570:
4569:
4553:
4549:
4545:
4541:
4537:
4536:
4535:
4532:
4528:
4523:
4522:
4521:
4520:
4515:
4509:
4508:
4505:
4504:
4497:
4494:
4489:
4484:
4480:
4477:
4472:
4467:
4463:
4462:
4461:
4460:
4455:
4450:
4449:
4434:
4433:
4432:
4428:
4424:
4417:
4416:
4413:
4410:
4407:
4402:
4387:
4381:
4379:
4375:
4371:
4367:
4359:
4352:
4351:
4348:
4344:
4341:
4334:
4322:
4321:
4317:
4313:
4307:
4301:
4300:
4295:
4290:
4288:
4284:
4280:
4276:
4272:
4266:
4265:
4260:
4259:
4254:
4251:
4247:
4246:
4238:
4237:
4233:
4229:
4218:
4210:
4206:
4204:
4200:
4196:
4189:
4185:
4177:
4173:
4172:
4150:
4146:
4142:
4135:
4131:
4127:
4124:
4123:
4122:
4119:
4118:
4113:
4109:
4105:
4104:
4103:
4100:
4096:
4090:
4087:
4086:
4085:
4082:
4081:
4075:
4071:
4070:
4069:
4066:
4062:
4056:
4053:
4052:
4051:
4047:
4044:
4041:
4037:
4033:
4032:
4031:
4027:
4023:
4018:
4017:
4016:
4015:
4012:
4008:
4002:
3999:
3998:WP:HARASSMENT
3995:
3976:
3973:
3972:
3967:
3963:
3962:
3961:
3957:
3953:
3948:
3944:
3940:
3937:
3935:
3932:
3929:
3928:
3927:
3926:
3925:
3924:
3923:
3922:
3911:
3907:
3903:
3899:
3895:
3891:
3887:
3884:
3882:
3878:
3877:
3876:
3875:
3874:
3873:
3872:
3871:
3864:
3863:
3860:
3859:
3854:
3848:
3843:
3839:
3835:
3831:
3828:
3825:
3824:
3819:
3815:
3812:
3808:
3807:
3806:
3804:
3800:
3793:
3788:
3787:
3786:
3782:
3778:
3773:
3769:
3767:
3765:
3762:
3760:
3757:
3753:
3752:
3751:
3750:
3747:
3743:
3739:
3735:
3732:
3731:
3730:
3729:
3725:
3721:
3717:
3714:
3710:
3706:
3703:
3699:
3687:
3683:
3679:
3673:
3665:
3660:
3659:
3658:
3657:
3653:
3649:
3644:
3643:
3639:
3631:
3630:
3626:
3622:
3601:
3598:
3597:
3592:
3588:
3584:
3580:
3579:
3578:
3574:
3570:
3569:
3568:
3567:
3564:
3563:
3556:
3550:
3546:
3545:
3544:
3539:
3538:
3537:
3533:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3523:
3522:
3516:
3512:
3511:
3510:
3509:
3504:
3501:look at this
3489:
3485:
3481:
3476:
3475:
3474:
3473:
3470:
3469:
3466:
3465:
3458:
3454:
3448:
3444:
3441:
3440:
3437:
3433:
3429:
3424:
3420:
3416:
3412:
3409:
3403:
3400:
3396:
3391:
3390:
3389:
3385:
3381:
3377:
3372:
3371:
3370:
3367:
3363:
3358:
3357:
3356:
3355:
3351:
3347:
3343:
3339:
3338:
3329:
3326:
3323:
3320:
3317:
3316:11 March 2018
3314:
3311:
3308:
3305:
3302:
3299:
3296:
3293:
3290:
3287:
3284:
3281:
3278:
3277:
3276:
3273:
3271:
3266:
3252:
3248:
3244:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3229:
3228:
3227:
3226:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3214:
3213:
3208:
3204:
3203:
3202:
3201:
3197:
3193:
3188:
3186:
3182:
3178:
3174:
3170:
3154:
3150:
3146:
3141:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3130:
3129:
3121:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3100:
3092:
3090:
3083:
3076:
3072:
3068:
3064:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3058:
3054:
3050:
3046:
3036:
3035:
3031:
3027:
3020:
3017:
3013:
3011:
3006:
3005:
2994:
2989:
2976:
2972:
2969:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2957:
2954:
2951:
2948:
2943:
2923:
2920:
2919:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2906:
2901:
2894:
2890:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2881:
2880:
2874:
2870:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2861:
2857:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2844:
2839:
2832:
2828:
2822:
2821:edit conflict
2817:
2816:
2815:
2814:
2791:
2787:
2783:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2774:
2773:
2768:
2764:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2737:
2732:
2726:
2722:
2716:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2704:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2681:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2664:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2652:
2647:
2641:
2637:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2627:
2623:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2612:
2611:
2604:
2602:
2598:
2595:
2594:unequivocally
2588:
2581:
2574:
2573:edit conflict
2569:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2539:
2538:
2531:
2529:
2524:
2519:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2503:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2487:
2483:
2479:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2467:
2462:
2456:
2454:
2441:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2422:
2419:
2414:
2402:
2398:
2397:
2394:
2391:
2388:
2383:
2369:
2367:
2349:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2331:
2326:
2316:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2302:
2297:
2292:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2269:
2266:
2265:
2256:
2231:
2228:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2207:
2206:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2187:
2182:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2157:
2156:
2151:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2125:
2124:
2118:
2114:
2107:
2100:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2079:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2068:
2065:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2051:notifications
2049:
2045:
2033:
2030:
2029:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2017:
2012:
2010:
2002:
1991:
1988:
1987:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1976:
1973:
1969:
1964:
1959:
1958:
1956:
1954:
1952:
1950:
1948:
1946:
1944:
1941:
1937:
1932:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1915:
1901:
1898:
1897:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1882:
1875:
1871:
1851:September 14,
1847:
1846:
1841:
1834:
1823:September 14,
1819:
1818:
1813:
1806:
1795:September 14,
1791:
1790:
1785:
1778:
1767:September 14,
1763:
1762:
1757:
1750:
1739:September 14,
1735:
1734:
1729:
1722:
1718:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1704:
1703:
1697:
1694:
1693:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1674:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1667:
1660:
1656:
1651:
1650:
1648:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1599:
1593:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1579:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1548:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1522:
1517:
1515:
1514:Gunshot wound
1510:
1508:
1504:
1503:
1498:
1492:
1489:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1472:
1470:
1461:
1458:
1454:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1434:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1424:
1423:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1364:
1359:
1353:
1351:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1340:
1334:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1297:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1274:
1273:
1270:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1244:MisterBee1966
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1179:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1169:
1165:
1155:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1122:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1109:
1104:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1079:
1076:
1071:
1068:
1063:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1004:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
989:
985:
981:
977:
970:
966:
962:
958:
957:
956:
955:
952:
951:
944:
941:
936:Enlighten me.
934:
929:
925:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
874:
871:
870:
864:
860:
856:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
837:
836:
835:
832:
831:
825:
824:
823:
819:
815:
810:
806:
805:
804:
803:
800:
799:
794:
793:inappropriate
790:
786:
779:
778:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
755:
754:
753:
750:
749:
744:
737:
733:
729:
726:
722:
721:
720:
716:
712:
707:
706:WP:OTHERSTUFF
703:
698:
697:
696:
695:
692:
691:
686:
680:
679:you just said
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
653:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
619:
618:
617:
616:
613:
612:
607:
602:
599:
595:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
572:
571:
570:
567:
566:
561:
556:
552:
547:
544:
543:
541:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
518:
517:
512:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
485:
482:
481:
476:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
464:Beyond My Ken
452:
451:
448:
447:
441:
435:
430:
425:
424:
423:
422:
418:
414:
403:
402:
399:
395:
394:
389:
386:
385:tell us about
382:
381:administrator
378:
373:
371:
365:
364:
358:
356:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
310:
309:
307:
303:
296:
276:
275:
272:
267:
264:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
192:
189:
187:
184:
182:
179:
177:
174:
172:
169:
167:
164:
162:
159:
157:
154:
152:
149:
147:
144:
142:
139:
137:
134:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
106:November 2007
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
67:
64:
62:
59:
57:
54:
52:
49:
47:
44:
42:
39:
38:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
11394:
11299:
11268:
11264:
11256:Floquenbaked
11244:
11204:
11181:RamzyM (WMF)
11179:
11176:
11173:
11165:
11158:
11155:
11152:
11142:
11122:
11121:
11113:
11069:
11063:
11040:
11033:
11027:
11025:
11000:Gerda Arendt
10993:
10970:
10963:
10960:
10922:
10895:
10870:
10833:
10809:
10769:
10757:
10735:<sup: -->
10719:
10707:
10692:/ <b: -->
10678:<sup: -->
10658:
10652:
10644:
10634:
10610:
10592:
10587:
10580:
10575:
10568:
10566:
10513:
10506:
10499:
10473:
10454:
10443:
10440:Notification
10421:
10404:
10381:
10355:
10340:
10324:
10268:Gerda Arendt
10265:
10214:
10205:
10180:
10173:
10171:
10168:
10117:
10080:
10065:
10043:
10018:
10011:
9985:
9980:
9969:
9958:
9941:
9924:
9878:
9874:
9872:
9848:
9840:Mohs surgery
9828:
9793:
9785:
9770:
9751:
9738:
9687:
9683:
9672:
9656:
9640:
9629:
9573:
9565:
9559:
9550:
9544:
9529:
9525:better tools
9520:
9518:
9514:
9511:
9508:
9492:, choose to
9479:
9439:
9433:
9410:
9404:
9398:
9367:
9338:
9201:
9197:
9169:
9165:
9121:
9098:WP:URFA/2020
9069:
9059:
9055:soup-spitter
9036:
9033:
9030:
9027:
9022:
9019:
9004:
8982:
8968:CAPTAIN RAJU
8967:
8959:
8956:
8923:
8908:Gerda Arendt
8897:
8891:Eight years!
8852:
8845:áááááŸáá±Pants
8844:
8838:
8830:
8822:
8818:
8803:
8802:these days.
8799:
8795:edit summary
8782:
8775:áááááŸáá±Pants
8774:
8749:
8738:MjolnirPants
8724:
8717:áááááŸáá±Pants
8716:
8709:
8694:
8685:
8667:
8662:
8619:The Atlantic
8618:
8601:
8559:
8554:
8527:
8523:
8511:
8506:
8463:
8458:
8454:
8450:
8431:
8427:
8413:CAPTAIN RAJU
8412:
8408:
8402:Have a very
8401:
8339:
8330:
8288:
8286:
8278:
8274:
8229:
8198:
8192:
8187:
8180:
8150:
8131:
8126:
8119:
8081:
8070:
8066:
8043:
8018:
7996:
7945:
7928:WhatamIdoing
7904:
7879:
7859:
7856:
7852:
7848:
7839:
7834:
7811:
7805:
7780:
7760:
7693:
7628:
7561:
7557:
7489:
7455:
7439:
7382:
7378:
7374:
7355:
7350:
7326:
7304:
7300:
7296:
7292:
7285:
7277:
7245:
7241:
7238:
7219:
7203:WhatamIdoing
7200:
7190:. Retrieved
7186:
7170:
7162:
7158:
7154:
7139:
7122:
7103:
7080:
7053:
7047:
7007:
6983:
6965:
6943:
6939:
6899:
6894:
6881:
6873:
6869:
6857:cite journal
6848:
6841:
6836:
6809:
6804:
6797:
6763:
6738:
6731:
6727:
6710:
6681:
6669:
6650:
6637:
6574:
6568:
6545:
6539:
6533:
6506:
6488:
6472:Gerda Arendt
6469:
6463:Seven years!
6422:
6410:
6403:
6395:
6393:information.
6389:
6386:
6379:
6360:
6357:Following up
6346:CAPTAIN RAJU
6345:
6337:
6334:
6300:
6297:
6292:
6288:
6285:
6265:
6260:
6257:
6228:against her:
6195:
6192:
6173:
6139:
6111:
6085:
6064:
6046:
6033:
6023:
6022:
6019:
6013:
6006:
6003:
5984:
5978:
5971:
5963:
5948:
5922:
5916:
5914:
5910:
5893:
5875:
5872:TonyBallioni
5858:TonyBallioni
5847:
5762:
5759:
5755:
5750:
5720:
5712:
5694:
5692:
5688:
5681:
5664:
5658:
5656:
5639:
5624:
5603:Conservatism
5583:
5535:
5506:
5479:
5472:
5455:
5454:
5438:
5401:
5400:
5387:
5386:
5372:
5371:
5367:
5348:
5341:
5322:
5289:
5269:
5255:
5239:
5224:
5172:
5117:
5113:
5106:
5085:
5076:
5070:
5067:
5051:WhatamIdoing
5048:
5037:I found this
5023:
4984:
4968:
4960:
4924:
4902:
4799:
4775:
4763:
4727:
4686:
4646:
4637:
4591:
4590:
4574:WhatamIdoing
4571:
4565:
4501:
4498:
4487:
4485:
4481:
4476:avoidability
4475:
4473:
4469:
4446:
4444:
4420:
4419:
4411:
4365:
4360:
4357:
4346:
4297:
4291:
4268:
4262:
4256:
4224:
4216:
4183:
4141:WhatamIdoing
4133:
4129:
4115:
4111:
4107:
4078:
4073:
4042:
3987:
3969:
3965:
3910:"invalidate"
3909:
3905:
3901:
3897:
3893:
3889:
3856:
3852:
3850:
3841:
3821:
3795:
3771:
3695:
3645:
3640:
3637:
3619:
3594:
3590:
3586:
3560:
3557:
3553:
3548:
3531:
3519:
3514:
3499:
3462:
3459:
3455:
3451:
3446:
3418:
3414:
3410:
3394:
3375:
3361:
3340:
3333:
3310:4 April 2018
3304:April 4 2018
3286:28 June 2018
3274:
3262:
3210:
3189:
3167:â Preceding
3164:
3126:
3093:
3086:
3044:
3042:
3026:Gerda Arendt
3023:
3014:
3007:
3003:
3001:
2967:
2952:
2916:
2888:
2877:
2872:
2826:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2667:
2662:
2640:implications
2639:
2635:
2608:
2605:
2593:
2591:
2586:
2535:
2532:
2527:
2522:
2520:
2504:
2499:
2492:Donald Trump
2489:
2485:
2451:
2438:
2437:
2392:
2353:
2342:
2299:
2293:
2270:
2262:
2260:
2203:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2153:
2149:
2121:
2110:
2055:this comment
2041:
2026:
2009:áááááŸáá±Pants
2008:
2003:
1999:
1984:
1960:
1933:
1928:The Atlantic
1911:
1909:
1894:
1880:
1879:
1877:
1870:BullRangifer
1868:
1849:. Retrieved
1843:
1833:
1821:. Retrieved
1815:
1805:
1793:. Retrieved
1787:
1777:
1765:. Retrieved
1759:
1749:
1737:. Retrieved
1731:
1721:
1714:
1675:
1665:
1664:
1662:
1655:BullRangifer
1652:
1644:
1628:Gerda Arendt
1617:
1583:Gerda Arendt
1580:
1569:Gerda Arendt
1566:
1524:
1519:
1511:
1500:
1494:
1476:
1474:
1466:
1440:(1): 86â92.
1437:
1431:
1420:
1417:supplemental
1416:
1402:
1374:
1349:
1347:
1320:
1316:
1292:
1277:
1267:
1236:John F. Bolt
1204:
1195:
1171:
1160:
1074:
1066:
1050:
1040:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1012:
974:â Preceding
948:
945:
939:
937:
932:
928:John K. Bush
909:
867:
862:
854:
828:
808:
796:
788:
785:John K. Bush
782:
763:
759:
746:
739:
735:
701:
688:
684:
682:
678:
609:
605:
603:
590:
563:
514:
493:
478:
460:
444:
439:
436:
432:
409:
392:
374:
367:
361:
359:
352:
299:
294:
270:
116:January 2008
26:
11381:Doug Weller
11071:voting page
10882:Floquenbeam
10853:Floquenbeam
10839:Floquenbeam
10815:Floquenbeam
10717:''' to ]]]
10702:</b: -->
10695:</b: -->
10691:</i: -->
10690:</b: -->
10677:</b: -->
10259:Nine years!
9883:Floquenbeam
9688:transphobic
9562:Johan (WMF)
9494:self-assign
9441:voting page
8632:Gandydancer
8577:Gandydancer
8351:Vedolizumab
8304:(altho the
8242:Floquenbeam
7905:SMcCandlish
7896:instead of
7886:</p: -->
7273:anti-racism
7010:phab:T72470
6991:Gandydancer
6962:Gandydancer
6948:Gandydancer
6822:Gandydancer
6576:voting page
6491:Floquenbeam
6048:PackMecEng.
5432:Dreamy Jazz
5415:Floquenbeam
5256:Thanks, --
5177:Nosebagbear
5144:Nosebagbear
5088:Nosebagbear
4875:Floquenbeam
4796:SR Site Ban
4776:Please note
4621:Floquenbeam
4544:Gandydancer
4299:voting page
3947:WP:BLUDGEON
3902:"bad faith"
3713:WP:BLUDGEON
3298:17 May 2018
3292:24 May 2018
3140:Finnusertop
3120:Finnusertop
3099:Finnusertop
2427:K.e.coffman
2356:Your nose.
2301:voting page
1622:, I wrote "
1560:Five years!
1224:Albert Ball
594:Jelani Cobb
86:August 2007
11118:for you. â
11055:topic bans
10699:<b: -->
10687:<b: -->
10686:<i: -->
10674:<b: -->
10517:~ ToBeFree
10427:Tryptofish
9914:Bug report
9752:Blaze Wolf
9684:anti-trans
9673:anti-trans
9657:anti-trans
9641:anti-trans
9425:topic bans
9001:MarydaleEd
8986:MarydaleEd
8904:on my talk
7898:<p: -->
7882:<p: -->
7821:dave souza
7785:Tryptofish
7761:repeatedly
7727:Tryptofish
7698:Tryptofish
7665:Tryptofish
7635:Tryptofish
7544:Tryptofish
7514:Tryptofish
7475:Tryptofish
7397:Tryptofish
7387:Tryptofish
7321:I said in
7309:Tryptofish
7192:2021-02-06
6987:Smallbones
6560:topic bans
6427:Tryptofish
6364:Tryptofish
6141:retracted.
5850:ban review
5307:Neutrality
5258:SashiRolls
5192:Tryptofish
5159:Tryptofish
5138:Tryptofish
5123:Tryptofish
4846:Tryptofish
4818:Tryptofish
4662:anarchists
4527:dave souza
4283:topic bans
4221:Thank you!
3904:, or used
3616:Thank you!
3010:Happy 2019
2782:PackMecEng
2748:PackMecEng
2715:PackMecEng
2672:PackMecEng
2622:PackMecEng
2580:PackMecEng
2556:PackMecEng
2507:PackMecEng
2335:Fast food.
2285:topic bans
2214:Thank you
1963:ANI thread
1611:Ten years!
1521:attention.
1488:body armor
1139:PackMecEng
980:PackMecEng
913:PackMecEng
841:PackMecEng
814:PackMecEng
768:PackMecEng
711:PackMecEng
665:PackMecEng
623:PackMecEng
576:PackMecEng
526:PackMecEng
500:PackMecEng
369:{{helpme}}
343:Copyrights
56:April 2007
51:March 2007
11377:template.
11051:site bans
10964:From the
10790:adminhelp
10772:Zinnober9
10696:to ] / ]
10541:from the
10470:Thank you
10321:template.
10281:Mail call
10226:Barkeep49
10083:Talk page
9677:Talk:ROGD
9664:MOS:LABEL
9576:this edit
9536:subscribe
9527:to help.
9421:site bans
9354:Guettarda
9297:Vanamonde
9292:WP:YESPOV
9278:Rja13ww33
9262:Vanamonde
9246:Rja13ww33
9230:Vanamonde
9214:Rja13ww33
9184:Rja13ww33
9151:Rja13ww33
9135:Vanamonde
9118:Vanamonde
9103:Vanamonde
9094:Viriditas
9072:Rja13ww33
9039:Viriditas
8960:From the
8823:etiquette
8663:SPECIFICO
8532:âvalereee
8492:âvalereee
8435:âvalereee
8216:Guettarda
7874:Por favor
7757:Sluzzelin
7741:Sluzzelin
7713:Sluzzelin
7607:Sluzzelin
6895:SPECIFICO
6805:SPECIFICO
6556:site bans
6338:From the
6261:perceived
5799:Quillette
5713:statement
5355:arbcom-en
5236:July 2020
4961:community
4638:right now
4279:site bans
4108:disagrees
4036:Cas Liber
3890:"dismiss"
3428:Guettarda
2961:Cas Liber
2281:site bans
2224:dlthewave
2196:WP:WEIGHT
2099:Dlthewave
2078:Dlthewave
2064:dlthewave
1972:dlthewave
1936:talk page
1920:USA Today
1491:injuries.
1453:2163-0755
743:WP:WEIGHT
457:Thanks...
348:Shortcuts
306:Knowledge
131:June 2008
76:July 2007
11396:MastCell
11270:MastCell
11246:MastCell
10897:MastCell
10872:MastCell
10593:ASHEIOU
10570:MastCell
10567:Wishing
10502:MastCell
10496:declined
10480:Jclemens
10455:Thanks,
10367:Terasail
10342:MastCell
10326:Bishonen
10244:Precious
10218:contribs
10118:MastCell
10062:Hog Farm
9943:MastCell
9830:MastCell
9772:MastCell
9708:Mathglot
9631:MastCell
9610:Mathglot
9594:Mathglot
9592:Cheers,
9581:(please
9545:We have
9369:MastCell
9340:MastCell
9203:MastCell
9171:MastCell
9123:MastCell
9061:MastCell
9006:MastCell
8925:MastCell
8922:result.
8876:Precious
8819:civility
8805:MastCell
8751:MastCell
8696:MastCell
8528:explains
8513:MastCell
8465:MastCell
8341:MastCell
8290:MastCell
8231:MastCell
8182:MastCell
8179:Wishing
8121:MastCell
8118:Wishing
8072:MastCell
8020:MastCell
7998:MastCell
7948:WP:GUILT
7861:MastCell
7765:Levivich
7755:Thanks,
7650:Levivich
7567:Levivich
7498:Levivich
7460:Levivich
7360:Levivich
7336:Levivich
7329:Lynching
7297:de facto
7258:Levivich
7247:MastCell
7222:Levivich
7141:MastCell
7105:MastCell
6967:MastCell
6944:Signpost
6940:Signpost
6883:MastCell
6837:provided
6765:MastCell
6740:MastCell
6734:WP:MEDRS
6706:WP:MEDRS
6508:MastCell
6448:Precious
6412:MastCell
6398:civility
6302:MastCell
6087:reason.)
5967:pressure
5950:MastCell
5895:MastCell
5844:Heads up
5820:WP:MEDRS
5803:this one
5764:MastCell
5696:MastCell
5677:WP:UNDUE
5672:WP:UNDUE
5666:this at
5640:Enjoy, â
5449:MastCell
5440:MastCell
5324:MastCell
5291:MastCell
5249:and the
5226:MastCell
5103:WP:UNBAN
5025:MastCell
5012:Levivich
4970:MastCell
4928:Mr Ernie
4904:MastCell
4889:Mr Ernie
4832:Mr Ernie
4729:MastCell
4688:MastCell
4648:MastCell
4503:MastCell
4464:Thanks,
4423:SilkTork
4184:MastCell
4117:MastCell
4112:consider
4080:MastCell
4046:contribs
3971:MastCell
3858:MastCell
3698:MastCell
3672:Deisenbe
3664:MastCell
3648:deisenbe
3621:deisenbe
3596:MastCell
3562:MastCell
3521:MastCell
3503:tell all
3464:MastCell
3422:unusual.
3243:Swood100
3231:reasons?
3212:MastCell
3192:Swood100
3181:contribs
3173:Swood100
3169:unsigned
3149:contribs
3128:MastCell
3108:contribs
3039:Fox News
2971:contribs
2918:MastCell
2879:MastCell
2873:entirely
2827:intended
2772:MastCell
2610:MastCell
2537:MastCell
2220:Springee
2216:Mastcell
2205:MastCell
2166:Springee
2155:MastCell
2135:Springee
2123:MastCell
2113:Springee
2084:Springee
2028:MastCell
1986:MastCell
1924:ABC News
1896:MastCell
1653:Bam! --
1641:No truth
1545:Precious
1527:AviRich6
1460:26958801
1413:WP:MEDRS
1322:MastCell
1279:MastCell
1208:contribs
1198:Jayen466
1192:Feedback
1173:MastCell
988:contribs
976:unsigned
950:MastCell
869:MastCell
830:MastCell
798:MastCell
748:MastCell
690:MastCell
611:MastCell
565:MastCell
516:MastCell
480:MastCell
446:MastCell
413:TimidGuy
388:yourself
338:Tutorial
27:Archives
11123:Buster7
11078:NoACEMM
10722:WP:LINT
10705:to ] ]
10573:a very
9927:Uncle G
9852:Georgia
9824:Rule #2
9797:Georgia
9625:WP:GUNS
9616:WP:NPOV
9588:mention
9448:NoACEMM
8898:I miss
8765:big bad
8185:a very
8124:a very
8067:advised
7956:WP:NPOV
7332:racism.
7018:wgTitle
6685:Georgia
6583:NoACEMM
6203:Valjean
6170:(reply)
6082:(reply)
6061:(reply)
6007:in bold
5795:article
5732:sources
5662:behold.
5453:Dreamy
5399:Dreamy
5385:Dreamy
5370:Dreamy
4943:Dumuzid
4860:Dumuzid
4369:Georgia
4306:NoACEMM
4228:Dumuzid
4195:Mjs1991
3952:Darouet
3943:WP:IDHT
3898:"accus"
3777:Darouet
3734:Darouet
3720:Darouet
3709:WP:IDHT
3678:Qwirkle
3587:because
3270:request
2900:Awilley
2869:Awilley
2856:Alexbrn
2838:Awilley
2731:Awilley
2646:Awilley
2636:correct
2505:As for
2478:Awilley
2461:Awilley
2192:WP:NPOV
1706:Sources
1596:Awesome
1507:WP:BLUE
1358:Awilley
1154:Awilley
1121:Awilley
1103:Awilley
606:actions
406:Process
398:Psy guy
390:and be
302:Welcome
10500:Hello
10397:JJMC89
10048:for a
9903:話ăăŠäžăă
9819:WP:FAR
9789:WP:FAR
9166:reason
8691:WP:BLP
8682:WP:BLP
8524:excuse
8261:話ăăŠäžăă
8060:WP:BLP
7993:WP:RGW
7952:WP:BLP
7562:always
7558:always
7456:random
7356:racist
6014:From:
5926:â Ched
5717:and B)
5711:"That
4995:â Ched
4704:WP:ANI
4488:really
4167:Woohoo
4074:ignore
3966:others
3900:me of
3834:WP:NAC
3772:right.
3756:Drmies
3738:Drmies
3549:famous
3419:didn't
3395:per se
3337:motion
2763:didn't
2364:đđŠ
2200:WP:MfD
2109:worst.
1914:expert
1881:PingMe
1666:PingMe
1409:WP:RSN
1338:話ăăŠäžăă
1301:話ăăŠäžăă
1164:WP:BLP
1159:point.
1077:votes.
1075:bolded
429:WP:COI
10972:Heart
10799:Katie
10629:This
10116:Hey,
9849:Sandy
9794:Sandy
8834:work.
8831:worst
8686:crime
8608:talk
8566:talk
8088:talk
8050:talk
8009:Atsme
7966:Atsme
7770:hound
7655:hound
7572:hound
7503:hound
7465:hound
7365:hound
7341:hound
7325:that
7263:hound
7227:hound
7077:Amory
7050:Amory
6877:WP:AE
6776:Colin
6752:Colin
6714:Colin
6682:Sandy
6273:help!
6224:Suits
5883:help!
5848:See:
5805:from
5797:from
5719:"You
5118:could
4965:WP:AN
4957:WP:AN
4724:Masem
4634:Masem
4562:Image
4454:help!
4366:Sandy
4182:Hey,
3896:, or
3480:Pudeo
3443:Pudeo
3380:Pudeo
3346:Pudeo
3265:WP:AE
2048:these
1968:essay
1912:"Gun
1354:Yes.
1216:diff2
1212:diff1
736:avoid
396:! --
11385:talk
11318:talk
11223:talk
11089:talk
11041:The
11004:talk
10930:talk
10886:talk
10867:DPOA
10857:talk
10843:talk
10834:Done
10819:talk
10776:talk
10760:here
10708:and
10521:talk
10507:The
10484:talk
10461:talk
10431:talk
10330:tÄlk
10272:talk
10230:talk
10222:here
10212:talk
10191:talk
10137:talk
10092:talk
10067:Talk
10058:here
10024:talk
9931:talk
9887:talk
9857:Talk
9802:Talk
9712:talk
9668:WP:V
9652:ROGD
9598:talk
9509:Hi!
9459:talk
9411:The
9358:talk
9301:Talk
9282:talk
9266:Talk
9250:talk
9234:Talk
9218:talk
9188:talk
9155:talk
9139:Talk
9107:Talk
9076:talk
9043:talk
8990:talk
8912:talk
8906:. --
8748:...
8668:talk
8636:talk
8581:talk
8536:talk
8507:idea
8496:talk
8451:real
8439:talk
8246:talk
8220:talk
8156:talk
8142:talk
8034:talk
7954:and
7932:talk
7835:stop
7825:talk
7789:talk
7745:talk
7731:talk
7717:talk
7702:talk
7694:then
7669:talk
7639:talk
7633:. --
7611:talk
7548:talk
7518:talk
7479:talk
7428:talk
7401:talk
7391:talk
7313:talk
7301:does
7286:that
7278:this
7207:talk
7129:talk
6995:talk
6952:talk
6900:talk
6863:link
6826:talk
6810:talk
6690:Talk
6593:talk
6546:The
6495:talk
6476:talk
6431:talk
6390:Post
6368:talk
6240:Talk
6207:talk
5992:Talk
5941:Ched
5930:talk
5862:talk
5828:talk
5740:talk
5659:know
5646:talk
5475:this
5456:Jazz
5419:talk
5402:Jazz
5388:Jazz
5373:Jazz
5301:bash
5196:talk
5181:talk
5163:talk
5148:talk
5127:talk
5107:does
5092:talk
5055:talk
4999:talk
4947:talk
4932:talk
4893:talk
4879:talk
4864:talk
4850:talk
4836:talk
4822:talk
4807:talk
4782:asem
4741:asem
4710:asem
4674:talk
4625:talk
4600:asem
4578:talk
4548:talk
4531:talk
4427:talk
4374:Talk
4316:talk
4269:The
4232:talk
4199:talk
4145:talk
4114:it.
4094:Talk
4060:Talk
4040:talk
4026:talk
4006:Talk
3956:talk
3945:and
3781:talk
3742:talk
3724:talk
3711:and
3682:talk
3652:talk
3625:talk
3484:talk
3432:talk
3384:talk
3362:nice
3350:talk
3247:talk
3196:talk
3177:talk
3145:talk
3104:talk
3071:talk
3067:Ronz
3053:talk
3030:talk
2983:2019
2965:talk
2905:talk
2860:talk
2843:talk
2786:talk
2769:do.
2752:talk
2736:talk
2725:here
2676:talk
2651:talk
2626:talk
2560:talk
2500:know
2486:lies
2466:talk
2448:Note
2431:talk
2310:talk
2271:The
2194:and
2170:talk
2139:talk
2088:talk
2053:and
1874:talk
1853:2018
1825:2018
1797:2018
1769:2018
1741:2018
1659:talk
1632:talk
1587:talk
1573:talk
1531:talk
1471:as:
1457:PMID
1450:ISSN
1383:talk
1363:talk
1248:talk
1238:and
1214:and
1202:talk
1166:and
1143:talk
1131:here
1127:here
1108:talk
1073:the
984:talk
917:talk
845:talk
818:talk
781:to).
772:talk
715:talk
669:talk
641:talk
627:talk
580:talk
555:here
530:talk
504:talk
496:here
468:talk
417:talk
393:BOLD
355:here
11372:ygm
11367:or
10996:you
10588:--
10316:ygm
10311:or
9859:)
9804:)
9782:AML
9686:or
9538:to
9244:so.
9116:Hi
8999:Hi
8603:DGG
8561:DGG
8555:all
8455:lie
8360:| (
8314:| (
8201:Zai
8083:DGG
8045:DGG
7914:đŒ
7442:In
7375:not
7305:not
7244:.
7020:to
6960:Hi
6692:)
6423:and
6267:Guy
6254:Bah
5939:Hi
5877:Guy
5854:JzG
5801:or
5721:are
5353:or
5114:not
5020:-->
4985:was
4660:or
4466:Guy
4448:Guy
4376:)
4138:;-)
3892:my
3842:did
3754:Hi
3696:Hi
3593:).
3415:all
3049:TFD
2889:all
2767:did
2587:did
2528:not
2523:any
1922:) (
1845:CNN
1733:CNN
1442:doi
1419:to
1407:at
1375:all
1350:own
1317:own
1059:to.
933:not
855:did
789:not
685:you
440:but
304:to
11375:}}
11369:{{
11365:}}
11359:{{
11320:)
11225:)
11171:.
11091:)
11080:}}
11076:{{
11053:,
11006:)
10968:,
10932:)
10888:)
10859:)
10845:)
10821:)
10810:or
10793:}}
10787:{{
10778:)
10585:!
10523:)
10504:,
10486:)
10463:)
10433:)
10335:.
10328:|
10319:}}
10313:{{
10309:}}
10303:{{
10274:)
10266:--
10232:)
10094:)
10060:.
10026:)
9967:.
9933:)
9906:)
9889:)
9714:)
9600:)
9542:.
9480:A
9461:)
9450:}}
9446:{{
9423:,
9360:)
9284:)
9252:)
9220:)
9190:)
9157:)
9100:.
9078:)
9045:)
8992:)
8964:,
8914:)
8767:.
8638:)
8610:)
8583:)
8568:)
8538:)
8498:)
8459:do
8441:)
8368:)
8364:-
8357:II
8331:am
8322:)
8318:-
8311:II
8264:)
8248:)
8240:--
8222:)
8197:!
8158:)
8144:)
8136:!
8090:)
8052:)
8036:)
8017:?
7974:đ§
7971:đŹ
7950:,
7934:)
7902:â
7900:.
7894:}}
7892:pb
7890:{{
7823:,
7791:)
7781:me
7733:)
7704:)
7671:)
7641:)
7550:)
7520:)
7512:--
7490:my
7481:)
7403:)
7379:is
7351:is
7315:)
7293:is
7209:)
7185:.
7175:â
7131:)
7089:âą
7085:âą
7062:âą
7058:âą
6997:)
6954:)
6859:}}
6855:{{
6828:)
6668:.
6595:)
6585:}}
6581:{{
6558:,
6497:)
6478:)
6470:--
6433:)
6370:)
6342:,
6245:đ§
6209:)
5997:đ§
5932:)
5864:)
5830:)
5751:me
5742:)
5648:)
5421:)
5218::
5198:)
5190:--
5183:)
5173:if
5165:)
5150:)
5129:)
5094:)
5057:)
5001:)
4949:)
4934:)
4895:)
4881:)
4866:)
4852:)
4838:)
4824:)
4809:)
4789:)
4748:)
4717:)
4664:.
4627:)
4607:)
4580:)
4550:)
4529:,
4429:)
4318:)
4308:}}
4304:{{
4281:,
4234:)
4201:)
4147:)
4099:đ§
4065:đ§
4048:)
4028:)
4020:--
4011:đ§
3996:,
3958:)
3805::
3783:)
3744:)
3726:)
3684:)
3654:)
3627:)
3486:)
3447:do
3434:)
3386:)
3352:)
3249:)
3209:?
3198:)
3183:)
3179:âą
3151:)
3147:â
3138:â
3110:)
3106:â
3097:â
3073:)
3055:)
3032:)
2973:)
2862:)
2788:)
2754:)
2678:)
2628:)
2599:,
2562:)
2433:)
2312:)
2304:.
2283:,
2181:do
2172:)
2150:is
2141:)
2090:)
2046:,
1876:)
1842:.
1814:.
1786:.
1758:.
1730:.
1661:)
1634:)
1589:)
1575:)
1567:--
1533:)
1455:.
1448:.
1438:81
1436:.
1425::
1385:)
1341:)
1304:)
1250:)
1234:,
1230:,
1226:,
1145:)
990:)
986:âą
940:am
919:)
863:do
847:)
820:)
795:.
774:)
727:,
717:)
671:)
643:)
629:)
582:)
532:)
506:)
470:)
419:)
11316:(
11221:(
11130:â
11087:(
11002:(
10928:(
10884:(
10855:(
10841:(
10817:(
10774:(
10591:-
10519:(
10482:(
10459:(
10429:(
10410:)
10408:C
10405:·
10402:T
10400:(
10270:(
10228:(
10215:·
10210:(
10194:)
10188:(
10140:)
10134:(
10124:!
10090:(
10022:(
9929:(
9900:(
9885:(
9855:(
9800:(
9710:(
9659:.
9650:(
9612::
9608:@
9596:(
9457:(
9356:(
9303:)
9299:(
9280:(
9268:)
9264:(
9248:(
9236:)
9232:(
9216:(
9186:(
9153:(
9141:)
9137:(
9109:)
9105:(
9090:)
9086:(
9074:(
9041:(
8988:(
8910:(
8825:.
8634:(
8606:(
8579:(
8564:(
8534:(
8494:(
8437:(
8424:r
8366:c
8362:t
8320:c
8316:t
8258:(
8244:(
8218:(
8154:(
8140:(
8086:(
8048:(
8032:(
8011::
8007:@
7930:(
7912:Âą
7909:â
7787:(
7767:/
7729:(
7700:(
7667:(
7652:/
7637:(
7624:)
7620:(
7569:/
7546:(
7539:)
7535:(
7516:(
7500:/
7477:(
7462:/
7431:)
7425:(
7415:)
7411:(
7399:(
7389:(
7362:/
7338:/
7311:(
7260:/
7224:/
7205:(
7195:.
7127:(
7093:)
7091:c
7087:t
7083:u
7081:(
7066:)
7064:c
7060:t
7056:u
7054:(
6993:(
6950:(
6865:)
6851:.
6824:(
6778:°
6754:°
6716:°
6688:(
6591:(
6493:(
6474:(
6429:(
6366:(
6293:y
6289:x
6275:)
6271:(
6205:(
5928:(
5917:I
5885:)
5881:(
5860:(
5826:(
5738:(
5644:(
5434::
5430:@
5417:(
5194:(
5179:(
5161:(
5146:(
5140::
5136:@
5125:(
5090:(
5053:(
4997:(
4945:(
4930:(
4891:(
4877:(
4862:(
4848:(
4834:(
4820:(
4805:(
4787:t
4785:(
4780:M
4746:t
4744:(
4739:M
4715:t
4713:(
4708:M
4677:)
4671:(
4623:(
4605:t
4603:(
4598:M
4576:(
4546:(
4456:)
4452:(
4425:(
4372:(
4314:(
4230:(
4197:(
4190:!
4143:(
4043:·
4038:(
4024:(
3954:(
3790:(
3779:(
3775:-
3740:(
3722:(
3680:(
3674::
3670:@
3666::
3662:@
3650:(
3623:(
3482:(
3430:(
3382:(
3348:(
3245:(
3194:(
3175:(
3143:(
3122::
3118:@
3102:(
3069:(
3051:(
3028:(
2968:·
2963:(
2907:)
2903:(
2898:~
2858:(
2845:)
2841:(
2836:~
2823:)
2819:(
2784:(
2750:(
2738:)
2734:(
2729:~
2717::
2713:@
2674:(
2653:)
2649:(
2644:~
2624:(
2582::
2578:@
2575:)
2571:(
2558:(
2468:)
2464:(
2459:~
2429:(
2308:(
2227:â
2168:(
2137:(
2101::
2097:@
2086:(
2080::
2076:@
2067:â
2062:â
1975:â
1918:(
1872:(
1855:.
1827:.
1799:.
1771:.
1743:.
1657:(
1630:(
1585:(
1571:(
1529:(
1462:.
1444::
1381:(
1365:)
1361:(
1356:~
1335:(
1298:(
1262::
1246:(
1205:·
1200:(
1156::
1152:@
1141:(
1123::
1119:@
1110:)
1106:(
1101:~
982:(
915:(
843:(
816:(
770:(
724:(
713:(
667:(
654::
650:@
639:(
625:(
578:(
528:(
502:(
466:(
415:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
