976:
Keep a level head and spend some time searching for related issues that 'they' have had with other contributors. They are able to thrive by skirting around the rules, settling disputes just before their wiki presence is threatened, playing nice and promising to get along ... and then they move on to harass another article or contributor and insert their pov and begin the process again. Don't allow them to make it personal for you. Stick to facts and avoid name calling. The longer I watch and look around, the more I find that the same offenders are involved in numerous edit warring and pov pushing. Hopefully the editors will eventually catch on and stop it.
802:
mind? I'll recommend
Freezone once more since nobody showed up to add vital data. They might as well be a fake organization with one guy running some noisy websites. I wish I had the time to dig into some of these articles (I bet most are pure pieces of networked propaganda in best German tradition). Otherwise a worthwhile activity would be to delete all paragraphs/sentences going along with a "citation needed" tag. These unsourced opinions sit there partially for months with no one bothering to support them.
534:, was not an eligible candidate -- and it assumed that this was a mistake made in good faith. However, it is growing impossible to find any trace of good faith in your current attempts to slander me with false accusations, and then cover up your slander with "well I choose to read all sorts of nasty things into your message so that somehow makes it okay for me to accuse you of nasty things you provably did
1030:
page can teach you that no changes are done without prior consent (and not even then). Then the purpose of the box is to provide an index and overview on the various topics connected to
Scientology. Your article - and you wrote it - contains Hubbard text and little else, does not explain anything. It is not worth being indexed. Maybe in the future, if it has some content, but not now.
261:, even if your beliefs are incorrect. You included what Barbara Schwarz asserts to be the real name of another editor in an edit summary. You are being warned now. The next time you do this or anything like it I will request an administrator not only remove your edit but block you for your knowing harassment. --
516:
invalidating comments now, one month after the fact, which does not result in anything. And now, I ask you for the second (or third) time: please get back to improve
Knowledge articles. This is why I am here and this is the reason for you being here to, I assume. We can do this together if you are willing to.
1018:
Misou, I don't know you, but these comments are uncivil:"(Undid revision 121272944 by
Fahrenheit451 No. Discuss this first and get consensus. As you know, totalitarian behavior cannot be admitted here.)" and "(Undid revision 121336869 True on the unobstructive, but it links to a stub with 90% hubbard
975:
One of the tactics used by POV pushers is to continually harss you with the rules and by walking a line and dancing around the rules, until you lose your cool. Then they have the proof they wanted that you are the bad-guy (even if they did create the result as a direct consequence of their actions).
605:
However there are IMO special circumstances in that there are presently no other sources of information about the
Freezone, unlike Scientology or the Church of Scientology which are if anything over documented. The media and academia are with a few exceptions in denial about the Freezone's existence
496:
violation from this page, referring to my post in which I warned you about circumstances in which proposed deletion was explicitly prohibited by policy. That is a false accusation on your part, one which I will thank you not to repeat. Here is the first sentence of the post which you removed under
1029:
Get off my talk page. Sure there is more people like you than me in this "discussion". But that should not make you think that you are free to spread your cynic statements on this page. I don't think you are dumb so don't play the primadonna here, feeling "uncivilly treated". A look on the template
525:
My supposedly "invalidating" comments now are not "a month after the fact"; they were in fact posted within 24 hours of you falsely accusing me of violating WP:AGF. Don't talk to me about how you found my comments "rude", don't tell me that your own personal translation of them was "you are just a
403:
person I think of is the woman who thinks she was born in a submarine village beneath the Great Salt Lake. Stop trying to change the subject, Misou. The next time you pull those cutesy little "OOOOOOPS, I seem to have ACCIDENTALLY let slip what is purported to be the real name of an editor whom I
339:
The name you used in the edit summary was one that
Barbara Schwarz has previously alleged was the real name of an anonymous editor of Knowledge. You intentionally violated harassment policy of Knowledge by repeating it. It is harassment. I will not tolerate it and neither will the administrators
389:
BTW, I have never in my life talked or exchanged any type of communication with
Barbara Schwarz nor taken any of her "research data" for fact. She seems however to be an interesting person just from the fact that you and others seem to give her so much attention. Is there any core of truth in what
385:
You see, I have said my part on this and I am happy to give you something to rub in on me, since it might let you feel better. Now this is over and we get back to business. I never forget that this thread started off with you wildly deleting text in violation of WP:RS, without participating on the
212:, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page...
801:
Hi there, sorry for the delay, I was traveling IRL and had only access to email once in a while. Agreed on Tilman and BS. Those articles are mainly sounding boards to bring the bias of some editors up to the surface for everyone to see. And yes, let's get rid of some articles here. You got one in
368:
and then you engage in a conversation with
Barbara Schwarz to discover what she thinks are the real names of anonymous editors? And then you use this as literal fact while addressing others in edit summaries? Your excuse is pathetic and juvenile. And regardless of what you were trying to do (to
354:
I got that and my intention was not what you say (sorry, but when I read an editors post I usually try to think of the person behind it, and not some anonymous identity. For me this makes it easier to follow the other guy's/girl's train of thought. After all this
Scientology editors group here is
789:
Hi Misou. There seem to be a lot of
Scientology related articles that could be deleted. My comment of the Village pump message page that there were 240 (now 242 or 243) Scientology articles was picked up by at least one blogger outside of WP. As for Tilman and Barbara, they are of course not
662:
Quite a lot of sites, you got a list posted somewhere? I can see there must be a lot of fluctuation, these guys come across as utterly disorganized, somehow trying to emulate the Church organization without showing it. Rather strange, but if there is reliable data on them, it should go in that
628:
to make sure that my changes are in alignment with the Scientology policies on Knowledge. Don't worry about it, you'll get them back shortly. As for reliable information about the Free Zone, well, I have not found any really but I do not accept your we-are-victims argument that the Freezone's
515:
What benefit was that, having my user page "initiated" with rude words from the start? "Hello Misou, you are just a jerk, knowing nothing about Knowledge. So look up to me, I am 'Antaeus'". That is how your message came across that time and I do not appreciate that. Nor do I appreciate your
1110:
1) You are faking my quotes (the top one relates to a one-sided list of court judgments and 2) if someone's comments are not helpful that these are yours in the same context. I asked for more judgements and you responded "dripping with sarcasm" and with a lie, which is a
317:
Sorry, Vivaldi, I must have been in thoughts while typing that. How do I know that this is a "real name"? I actually don't nor have I claimed to know. However, "please find first RSes for your claims, and then you edit, thank you". That is the message here.
1019:
text. This is not Fahrenheit451's personal promotion box.)". I was unaware a consensus had to be reached and nothing "totalitarian" was said or done there. The template never was a "personal promotion box" for me. Please stop your incivility.--
390:
she has to say? Having filed so many FOIA requests she - just by probability - might have even received some eye-opening documents. Or - just to turn this around logically - are you aware that you are promoting her with your repeated mentioning?
189:
Oi weh, I wonder who sent me one then if not you... Anyway, I think you should wish to sort out things off the record and save sorting out internal dissent for internal communication. But as you wish, we can have public discussions as well.
812:
The "networked propaganda in the best German tradition" is definitely your opinion. But no more than that. The freezone groups are quite active and in some areas larger than the cofs. I suggest you do some fact finding before coming to
101:
Thanks, those are encouraging words! But, unless something changes, the bulk of the work will be done not by me but by non-Scientologist NPOV editors that are trying to make good articles and not propaganda pieces. Your help is welcome.
291:? You are referring to another anonymous editor by a first name that Barbara Schwarz has claimed belongs to an anonymous editor. Outing editors by posting what you believe to be their real-life names is not appropriate behavior.
75:
741:
on whether an article should be deleted, kept, merged, or whatever. Since an AfD isn't a vote, it doesn't do anybody any good to leave a comment that doesn't provide reasons. You can read more about the process
939:
is one of Knowledge's basic columns and I think that is needed. You are outnumbering the Wikipedians not sharing your POV but Knowledge is also no democracy. There are rules and those include that
163:
Why, exactly, would I wish to e-mail you, as you suggest in the edit summary where you left false accusations of vandalism on my user page? They were indeed false, as you might learn if you read
501:
you either a) were unaware of some very basic facts about the proposed deletion process, b) failed to check some key facts, or c) both." I did what I was required to do by WP:AGF -- even though
86:
961:
I do not want to accuse you of "Wikicrimes", just don't commit any. On whatever language, ok, I know by know who is a little bit more "sensitive" than others and will take that into account.
446:
know that this is an editor's real name, but as already explained to you, that does not matter: revealing what you think to be an editor's personal information is a blockable offense
999:
Or do it like Tilman, who is venting with dripping sarcasm and cynic statements. Did you know, Tilman, that this can create in ulcer and worse? Let it out, man, it's better for you.
990:), then it is easily countered. Just be civil and don't make any personal attacks. It may be as difficult for him as it is for me, but I think that I can do it, and so should he. --
509:
526:
jerk, knowing nothing about Knowledge, so look up to me", don't tell me my comments are "invalidating" now. Don't talk to me about any of those things because all of them are
487:
340:
of Knowledge. I would suggest that you read through the policies and guidelines again. If you attempt to harass or intimidate Knowledge editors again, you will be blocked.
505:, I gave you of the benefit of the doubt that it was an unknowing mistake and not a deliberate violation. I would appreciate an apology for your false accusations. --
624:
Hi! I was not threatening, but I am happy you agree that this article needs to be worked over.As for the link list, you know, there is always someone checking my
1040:
And your reply to me was uncivil and does not assume good faith. I am asking you again to knock off your incivility and assume good faith with other users. --
265:
633:
586:
569:
558:
520:
471:
412:
275:
194:
645:
I count at least 1166 domains and sub-domains. (Not including other Scientology-related entities.) 33 freezone, but there's a lot of fluctuation there. ;)
846:
1034:
235:
63:
1172:
806:
724:
707:
698:
144:
135:
124:
115:
106:
96:
667:
649:
994:
1162:
1062:
1044:
1023:
935:
reverts/additions and if you step back and look at it again you'll find that any of my comments was preceded by some cynic or sarcastic statement.
772:
755:
394:
378:
359:
349:
322:
304:
232:
213:
1137:
1128:
1119:
1003:
965:
956:
947:
574:
If spelling out that "do not make false accusations against your fellow editors" is in fact a WP rule that you have violated and exhorting you to
1186:
977:
76:
603:
I take your point about the links list, it has got overlong and some pruning might be in order. Someone does appear to be keeping it up to date.
582:
perceive as "trying to provoke into actually violating WP rules" that says far more about your skewed perceptions than about anything else. --
120:(EC) Cool! PS, if you want another AfD on Tilman you just give it a different name like "Tilman Hausherr (2nd nomination)" on the AfD form. --
530:
from your false accusations. My message pointed out that you had placed a proposed deletion tag on an article that, per the instructions at
1053:
980:
183:
952:
You're evading the topic. I ask you to avoid inflammatory language. You can still accuse me of "Wikicrimes" :-) without using any of it. --
817:
497:
a false and insulting edit summary: "I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you added the proposed deletion tag to
41:
913:
794:
216:
856:
836:
462:
554:
are here to improve Knowledge articles, because you sure weren't too busy improving Knowledge articles to smear your fellow editors. --
618:
404:
just happen to regard as my enemy" it will not make one bit of difference that your information comes from a source less reliable than
92:
Don't know if I should feel honored now... Keep your cool and continue and this Knowledge will result in something worthwhile to read.
246:
688:
1189:
1104:
1091:
1084:
565:
You are trying to provoke me, once again, into actually violating WP rules. It won't work, "Antaeus", and is a waste of time.
737:
You are misunderstanding the system. The AfD is not a vote. It isn't a poll. It is a discussion that is aimed to garner a
904:
790:
notable but nobody in their right mind would be interested in reading their articles so no harm is done by them. Cheers. --
842:
It confuses talk pages as it takes a while for the bot to come by and clean up after you. It is also a matter of manners.
1124:
I did not respond with a lie. I responded with a quote from an official scientology policy. Is this a problem for you? --
629:
existence is being denied. Either it does not really exist (just a handful of loud voices) or is disorganized like hell.
1149:
897:
890:
883:
1013:
610:
references the article, which already has a missing references warning attached to it. Discuss this on the Talk page?
226:
988:
to continually harss you with the rules and by walking a line and dancing around the rules, until you lose your cool
355:
pretty manageable and would barely fill a mini van). However, I will keep an extra eye on not typing it out loud.
743:
1133:
Yes, you did. What the hell are you talking about. I did not see you mention any "official scientology policy"?
643:"the next thing happening is to add all Scientology websites in a linklist on Scientology, right? Must be 100s."
863:
703:
That is because it is a discussion, not a vote, so you are expected to at least agree with someone. Thanks. --
1049:
Yeah, right. All you are doing is setting up people and attack them for whatever. Are you here to edit, too?
288:
28:
601:
re your editing note "Promotional entries and link list removed (and left the article in place, for now)"
531:
202:
140:(ha ha) Edit conflict. I usually put that if I amend what I was going to say as a result, which I did. --
829:
Doesn't bother me. I forget to sign, even w/ constant reminder. Who IS it a big deal for, and why?
399:
Oh, yeah, because when I think "solid, reliable, accurate reporting on 'eye-opening documents'" the
919:
I would appreciate to "work together" but find it extremely hard if you or other editors insist in
784:
538:
do!" and "Now that I've smeared your name the issue is over and you're a bad person for wanting to
171:
include. Edits to remove original research and poorly sourced information in order to comply with
943:
websites and opinions are not qualified as external links, no matter how often you repeat that.
615:
546:
to throw a completely gratuitous and false accusation of WP:AGF violation into an edit summary
158:
1069:
824:
583:
555:
506:
459:
409:
262:
180:
56:
8:
1180:
1155:
853:
833:
738:
430:
164:
60:
38:
1059:
1041:
1020:
814:
679:
257:
Posting what you believe to be another editor's personal information is a violation of
34:
1159:
791:
751:
374:
345:
300:
924:
704:
685:
596:
455:
258:
251:
141:
121:
103:
83:
1112:
1097:
1070:
646:
498:
17:
684:
Hi Misou. Please provide a reason or your "vote" will carry no weight. Thanks --
932:
928:
1089:
If this is all you have to contribute to my request you might as well shut up
864:
493:
209:
172:
895:
You might want to spill some cold water in your face as you must be dreaming
450:
And no, "the message here" is not the content of your edit summary that did
920:
868:
747:
694:
Wow, what a system. Gotta justify a vote.... Will do, thanks for the hint.
370:
341:
296:
458:; "the message here" is not to violate that policy in the first place. --
77:
Talk:Tilman_Hausherr#Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons.2FNoticeboard
1125:
1101:
991:
953:
910:
50:
909:
this is not helpful in an environment where we have to work together. --
1169:
1134:
1116:
1050:
1031:
1000:
962:
944:
843:
803:
769:
721:
695:
664:
630:
566:
517:
468:
391:
356:
319:
272:
191:
132:
112:
93:
1115:
violation. Just stop to accuse me of things YOU are doing, thank you.
625:
369:
keep it straight in your mind?), this is not appropriate behavior.
1082:... so obviously tainted by anti-Scientology POVs that I could puke
131:(EC)? European Community? Extra Credit? Emergency Contraception?
293:
If you continue in this vain, you will be blocked permanently
797:
aka "The man who tried to delete Xenu from Knowledge" :-)
33:
Why would it not be labeled by the proper article name of
167:
and learned what kind of edits the term "vandalism" does
1185:
see my comment on the discussion page of the article. (
852:
Again, it is accidental. I try, but I forget sometimes
542:
to my mud-flinging with the actual facts!" There was
488:
Please do not make false accusations in edit summaries
442:
Since you got it from Barbara Schwarz, you certainly
386:
talk page of the article and without proper research.
612:Was your threat to remove the article a joke? :-)
49:Please discuss this at the appropriate talk page
606:("cults cannot have heretics"). We have to have
467:I actually agree with you(!) that BS is not RS.
82:Didn't know you were part of my cabal didcha? --
503:your action was explicitly prohibited by policy
768:Well, there you go. I have given my reasons.
1096:are possibly not according to the spirit of
448:whether your information is correct or not.
1168:Sorry Steve, I have no way to check that.
1058:Perhaps you are speaking about yourself.--
1100:. And they're not very helpful either. --
875:Please avoid inflammatory language like
880:poison dripping off your teeth now again
14:
492:You falsely claim that you removed an
366:"try to think of the person behind it"
550:-- so spare us the whining about how
287:Can you explain your edit summary at
222:Also, a Userbox for project members,
23:
24:
1201:
208:I have done some updating to the
744:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion
13:
1:
195:23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
184:05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
145:23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
136:23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
125:23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
116:23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
107:23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
97:23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
87:04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
64:00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
42:22:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
7:
532:Knowledge:Proposed deletion
10:
1206:
1190:02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
1173:01:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
1163:05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1150:Worst Scientology article?
1138:05:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1129:05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1120:18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1105:17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1063:03:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
1054:05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1045:21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1035:17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1024:17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1004:17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
995:17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
981:17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
966:15:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
957:15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
948:15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
914:16:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
888:knucklehead like Touretzky
857:18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
818:22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
795:22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
773:02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
756:02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
725:02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
708:02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
699:02:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
689:22:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
668:18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
650:18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
634:17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
619:12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
587:02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
578:violating it is something
570:02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
559:03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
521:20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
510:04:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
472:02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
463:03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
413:02:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
395:18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
379:04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
360:02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
350:01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
323:20:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
305:05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
276:01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
266:01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
1014:Uncivil comments from you
847:02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
837:03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
807:04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
236:20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
217:20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
227:User Scientology project
986:If this is a tactic (
902:PFUI (name of editor)
1077:Comments like these
528:changing the subject
175:are most definitely
29:Scientology template
1156:Scientology Finance
203:WikiProject updates
165:Knowledge:Vandalism
626:user contributions
548:in the first place
35:Operation Clambake
1154:Please check out
616:Hartley Patterson
55:You got it, it's
1197:
785:Scientology AfDs
584:Antaeus Feldspar
556:Antaeus Feldspar
544:no reason at all
507:Antaeus Feldspar
460:Antaeus Feldspar
410:Antaeus Feldspar
263:Antaeus Feldspar
231:
225:
181:Antaeus Feldspar
1205:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1183:
1152:
1075:
1016:
873:
839:
827:
787:
682:
599:
499:Tilman Hausherr
490:
433:
255:
250:do not violate
229:
223:
205:
161:
80:
31:
22:
21:
20:
18:User talk:Misou
12:
11:
5:
1203:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1094:
1093:
1086:
1074:
1068:
1038:
1037:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
907:
906:
899:
892:
885:
872:
862:
854:Thaddeus Slamp
850:
849:
834:Thaddeus Slamp
832:Tritely;
831:
826:
823:
813:conclusions.--
810:
809:
786:
783:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
761:
760:
759:
758:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
713:
712:
711:
710:
681:
678:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
655:
654:
653:
652:
637:
636:
613:
611:
604:
602:
598:
595:
592:
591:
590:
589:
563:
562:
561:
489:
486:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
432:
429:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
387:
383:
382:
381:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
310:
309:
308:
307:
279:
278:
254:
245:
242:
241:
240:
239:
204:
201:
198:
197:
179:vandalism. --
160:
159:Why an e-mail?
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
129:
128:
127:
79:
74:
71:
70:
69:
68:
67:
66:
30:
27:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1202:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1147:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1072:
1067:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1060:Fahrenheit451
1056:
1055:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1042:Fahrenheit451
1036:
1033:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1021:Fahrenheit451
1011:
1005:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
993:
989:
985:
984:
983:
982:
979:
967:
964:
960:
959:
958:
955:
951:
950:
949:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
917:
916:
915:
912:
905:
903:
900:
898:
896:
893:
891:
889:
886:
884:
881:
878:
877:
876:
870:
866:
861:
859:
858:
855:
848:
845:
841:
840:
838:
835:
830:
825:haggerman bot
822:
820:
819:
816:
815:Fahrenheit451
808:
805:
800:
799:
798:
796:
793:
782:
774:
771:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
757:
753:
749:
745:
740:
736:
735:
734:
733:
726:
723:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
709:
706:
702:
701:
700:
697:
693:
692:
691:
690:
687:
677:
669:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
651:
648:
644:
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
632:
627:
623:
622:
621:
620:
617:
609:
594:
588:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
571:
568:
564:
560:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
524:
523:
522:
519:
514:
513:
512:
511:
508:
504:
500:
495:
485:
473:
470:
466:
465:
464:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
428:
414:
411:
407:
402:
398:
397:
396:
393:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
367:
363:
362:
361:
358:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
324:
321:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
282:
281:
280:
277:
274:
270:
269:
268:
267:
264:
260:
253:
249:
244:
237:
234:
228:
221:
220:
218:
215:
211:
207:
206:
200:
196:
193:
188:
187:
186:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
156:
146:
143:
139:
138:
137:
134:
130:
126:
123:
119:
118:
117:
114:
110:
109:
108:
105:
100:
99:
98:
95:
91:
90:
89:
88:
85:
78:
73:
65:
62:
58:
54:
53:
52:
48:
47:
46:
45:
44:
43:
40:
36:
26:
19:
1184:
1177:
1160:Steve Dufour
1153:
1146:
1095:
1088:
1081:
1076:
1066:
1057:
1048:
1039:
1017:
1010:
987:
974:
940:
936:
908:
901:
894:
887:
879:
874:
860:
851:
828:
821:
811:
792:Steve Dufour
788:
781:
683:
676:
642:
607:
600:
593:
579:
575:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
527:
502:
491:
484:
451:
447:
443:
427:
406:The Enquirer
405:
400:
365:
292:
284:
256:
247:
243:
199:
176:
168:
162:
155:
81:
72:
32:
25:
1181:scientology
705:Justanother
686:Justanother
431:AF sideline
142:Justanother
122:Justanother
104:Justanother
84:Justanother
680:Tilman AfD
647:AndroidCat
925:WP:ATTRIB
739:consensus
663:article.
456:WP:HARASS
289:this diff
259:WP:HARASS
252:WP:HARASS
1187:RookZERO
1113:WP:CIVIL
1098:WP:CIVIL
1071:WP:CIVIL
978:Lsi john
941:personal
597:Freezone
454:violate
285:WARNING:
248:WARNING:
937:Be bold
933:WP:BIAS
929:WP:NPOV
871:warning
748:Vivaldi
371:Vivaldi
342:Vivaldi
297:Vivaldi
1126:Tilman
1102:Tilman
992:Tilman
954:Tilman
911:Tilman
865:WP:NPA
720:Done.
494:WP:AGF
210:WP:SCN
173:WP:BLP
111:Deal.
1170:Misou
1135:Misou
1117:Misou
1051:Misou
1032:Misou
1001:Misou
963:Misou
945:Misou
921:WP:EL
869:WP:WQ
844:Misou
804:Misou
770:Misou
722:Misou
696:Misou
665:Misou
631:Misou
567:Misou
540:reply
518:Misou
469:Misou
444:don't
408:. --
401:first
392:Misou
357:Misou
320:Misou
273:Misou
192:Misou
133:Misou
113:Misou
94:Misou
61:Denny
39:Denny
16:<
1073:hint
931:and
752:talk
608:some
576:stop
375:talk
364:You
346:talk
301:talk
271:Eh?
233:Smee
214:Smee
59:. -
57:here
51:here
37:? -
746:.
742:at:
580:you
552:you
536:not
452:not
177:not
169:not
1192:)
1158:.
927:,
923:,
882:,
867:/
754:)
614:--
377:)
348:)
303:)
295:.
230:}}
224:{{
219:.
102:--
750:(
373:(
344:(
299:(
238:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.