3902:
ultimate complaint of the thread is decided. The use of sanction and warnings lists to poison the well or kneecap a colleague under scrutiny has long been used by complainants who have little or no substantive evidence about their stated complaint. Editors have been sanctioned and/or told to remove such lists from this website in the past. I'm sure you scrutinized that list and looked up the cases and the diffs, so you know that most of those items had little in common with this complaint, and that many of the diffs were not as described. The now-banned user who posted one of those "databases" on various
American Politics editor came up with the interesting result that the editors he most disliked, including me, were exonerated most of the time at the complaint boards. So, I've spent a lot of time on these things as you can see I think even from my current and recent talk pages, where I am always courteous to my accusers. Anyway, citing off-topic diffs from years back, posting a fog of snarky disparaging language to inflame rather than focus the discussion, etc. are sanctionable in themselves. And you had and still have the authority to sanction or warn such behavior. Please don't feel defensive about this. Yes, we know that complaints can be taken to ANI, but that does not prevent you from closing as no consensus -- which I think is actually what most Admins would have found -- and inviting the complainants to go to AE or at least to file better formed and PAG-compliant cases. You could still do that. I've remarked more than once in the past that we need more Admins who are doing what you have been doing the past several months - proactively watching difficult pages and intervening when needed without noticeboard complaints. From what I can see you are the only one who could do anything to make this a more constructive outcome of the ANI. Appeal to AN would require an overwhelming consensus to overturn your close, which is now status quo. Arbcom seems a stretch. I think you are the only one who could make some improvement. FYI the one lesson I did learn from this ANI is that once an editor fails to self-revert it's pointless to go back to their talk page and the next step, harsh as it might seem, needs to be requesting Admin assistance.
7090:
having closed an ANI that included undocumented and untrue allegations and had been poisioned by unreasoned references to the length of my block log. I voiced some of my objections to that close at the time. Shortly thereafter SFR again sanctioned me, citing their own prior close as a factor in that second sanction. There's other things that I don't want to mention here because it would be unfair to do so without provding more detail and evidence than is appropriate for this informal discussion. SFR has listed their denials above, without responding to the substance of my concerns. It would be pointless to get into a one-sided recitation of my objections if SFR would rather not engage directly and informally. In the current situation, I had already acknowledged the mild rebuke from HJ, who made a constructive comment. We had moved on when SFR appeared and took various actions that I feel were inappropriate, some of which I've mentioned above. Above, SFR has listed their denials but has chosen not to discuss or explain the basis for his view, so unless they choose to engage, there's no reason to get into more at this venue. Actually, whether SFT is "fair" is a global that is not at issue here. An Admin can be acting in good faith but still be involved, biased, and defensive, and make serious errors adverse to other users and processes. I feel that this matter does need to be resolved, but there's no rush and being blocked again for a few days is not my concern. But I am repeatedly being maligned for the number of lines in my block log, in lieu of evidence and reasoned discussion. There's a mythic SPECIFICO character that gets attacked in these ANI threads. In this recent one, I was called a RGW social justice warrior, I believe -- quite something for apolitical neocon grandma like me.
3834:
exacerbate whatever issues are brought there. Parties generally get a full hearing based on valid and documented evidence, focused on topic, and limited to the stated complaint. If it had been their judgement that ANI was equipped to evaluate and dispose of such complaints, Arbcom would have placed the AE and last year could have placed CT under ANI's mantle. But they didn't. Anyway I am going to think a bit about what you've said and I may have further questions or concerns. My current feeling is that it would be fair to vacate that close -- I don't think there was a clear consensus commensurate with a TBAN -- and to advise the complainants that they can pursue the issue with an AE filing. I think it's important everyone have faith in the process. In this case, it was so confused and compounded that it works against that. The reason that we have relatively few AE cases regarding Trump and AP is because the active editors learned the AE process and largely enforced things among ourselves. This ANI sends the opposite message, which is really too bad. I'll think a bit about what you've said and I may be back tomorrow. Thanks for volunteering in the DS areas. It's somewhat a thankless role.
9715:, which went much further than Mueller and was a national security and counterintelligence investigation, unlike Mueller's criminal investigation. The Senate investigation found a whole lot more nastiness, deceit, obstruction, and possible evidence of conspiracy and treason-like stuff. All of that can be described as collusion. These investigations found myriad secretive contacts and communications between Trump operatives and Russian officials and spies, cooperation with the Russians, aiding and abetting their efforts, sharing information and polling data, lying about contacts, shifting blame to Ukraine, promising Assange a pardon in exchange for him shifting blame to Ukraine, denying there was any interference, then denying it was Russia, then denying it was illegal or improper, then Trump claiming he had a right to do whatever he wanted, etc. That type of stuff. None of that requires any explicit "conspiracy" or "coordination". That's the type of stuff Trump and his campaign did to aid the Russians as they expected to benefit, and they did. It's all in the "collusion" wheelhouse.
1494:
5047:
immaterial violation of the requirement to go to the talk page prior to repeating a portion of my edit from 2.5 days previous. And that it was immaterial because: As is my habit, I clearly stated the reason for my initial and second removals in my edit summaries and those were de facto sufficient reasons the text should not have been reinstated without its proponent satisfying ONUS. Minimal or insignificant violations such as this are routinely handled among active longtime editors with a user talk pointer followed by a self-revert. So: had you, or whoever noticed my failure to post on talk, followed that courtesy I could have gone back and cut and pasted my edit summary to the talk page, and then proceeded for the third time to remove the article text. There was no 1RR issue or 24-hour issue. That would have resulted in exactly the same state of the article. Such reminders to experienced AP editors about what's almost always an inadvertent and insignificant breach, are routine when the breach is insignificant and easily remediable.
5482:
the BLP violation due to unsourced derogatory content. And I further informed you that I only looked back a day or so to check whether I'd previously reverted any of that text and that I failed to look back the 3 days I would have needed to see my previous removal. So why keep pounding something I do not contest? Much more significant is your reinstatement of an obvious BLP violation and text that fails both VERIFICATION and POV. And the fact is that
Checkers, who may be watching and reading here -- and if so, seeing you decline to acknowledge your own substantive breach of policy -- has gone and reverted your violation of BLP and removed the offending text you reinserted. So, I've seen nobody state that text should have stayed in the article even in the event discussion had commenced on talk 24 hours earlier. It needed to be removed as soon as it was re-added. This is pretty basic stuff for CT BLP content.
4012:
better with drive-by editors, POV pushers, disrupters, and those who want to throw out the work of numerous editors over years and restart according to their views. I noticed on one of the editorâs TPs, who admitted she was proselytizing and had many comments from admins and others trying to explain that wasnât the purpose of WP, you did attempt to explain the problem. But, although your language was polite, you could have been more patient yet. Providing a policy link isnât enough with some folk. You need to waste everyoneâs time describing why the policy exists to these. You need to make it impossible for anyone to âwinâ at a retaliatory filing (as this was IMO). I also think fighting this wonât help you. Although, I would ask for a time reduction after a week or two. Frankly, seems to me even having to listen to some of the thread should be time served.
9704:
acts, he did nothing about them. His focus was only on finding illegal conspiracy that could stand up in court, an impossibly high bar. He also had his hands tied behind his back with a rule that forbade him from even finding anything prosecutable. He could not prosecute a sitting president, so he just gathered evidence, made no judgement about it, and handed it over to
Congress, in hopes they would do something, but the Republican controlled Congress did nothing. In fact, it covered up for Trump and Russia. To prove conspiracy, one has to find written records or actual recordings where one party says "I will do this" and the other party says "Then I will do that." all in words than cannot be twisted or misunderstood. Such evidence is rare. I doubt if any such conspiracy ever existed. It was more of a tacit understanding, described by Mueller:
6955:
most observers and H J Mitchell had already covered them and I had already accepted what he said. Your accusing me of a general attitude that "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked" is ASPERSION typical of your animus toward me. I am not responsible for your animus. As an INVOLVED Admin, you should not have blocked an editor immediately after I pointed out your having repeated a false accusation that OP made about my having twice removed that RfC. And it's all the more disappointing that, last I saw, did not do anything to recant your broadcasting of that lie at ANI. That's what inflames ANI and makes it so dysfunctional. But for an Admin to fall into the same trap of accepting unevidenced claims, even when I asked and OP declined, to provide such evidence -- that's below our expectation of Admins.
5276:
of it, because it's a substantial modification. I suspect that most longtime AP editors are unaware of it, as I was. Regardles, your introduction of the 3RRNO was still a (presumably unintentional) red herring that misled Dennis Brown. Even more significant, the BLP violation you and
Checkers reinserted after I appropriately removed it, as required, has now been removed by Checkers. Kudos to him. Disappointed in you. This matter now having been fully resolved, you still have the chance to vacate the block before it becomes moot. There is nothing at issue, it was not and is not preventive, I have never denied skipping the talk page, I now see that I was unaware of a possibly significant modification in the page restriction that may have informed your evaluation of the situation. Thanks for pointing that out.
1864:
supported by that source, but by another, and that in itself is very bad form. Further, in view of the *fact* that the edits I was making were of information which is supported by innumerable sources, something which you could find out in less than 10 seconds, it would have been decent of you to merely point out on my talk page that one of the sources I included was not an RS and invite me to replace it with another. That would have been the decent thing to do. Instead, you chose to just revert, an action which gave me a sense of outrage. You topped this off by suggesting that I find better sources "if I believe this significant". Sorry, 2022 ratings are not significant? Are you serious? Donât do what you did again. I repeat, Knowledge is intended to be a collaborative venture.
9839:"The Committee's bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump Campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. It recounts efforts by Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates actively sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact and rewarding its perpetratorsâeven after being warned of its Russian origins. And it presents, for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a Russian intelligence officer."
621:. You frequently revert others' bold edits without materially addressing their content. You also "invite" discussions on talk pages, but never offer discussion yourself before reverting. This behavior has already been noted and overruled TWICE after lengthy discussions involving a multitude of editors: first with the RFC over the use of the word "allegedly", in which you would revert any change that removed that word; second, after the lengthy discussion over Social media companies' and their CEO's response. In both cases, your personal opinions on content have been overruled by consensus. I invite you to participate more in discussion on that page before continuing to revert other editor's thoughtful contributions.
4546:. To respond to what you asked -- yes, under limited circumstances you could close a similar discussion. But around half the time there may be complaints about it, and the close may even be reverted. The reason to do so is to prevent needless rehashing of the discussion. Many editors seem unable to keep silent, even when there is no longer any doubt as to consensus on whatever issue. I'd suggest that you watch and gain experience navigating talk pages and contentious topic discussions until you are confident that you can handle closing discussions. When there are many participants and page watchers, the matter will eventually be resolved. It's generally better just to ignore. I hope this helps.
6567:
3787:
sanctions on content-related grounds. And after the attempt to paint me as a fringe POV pusher was revealed to be based on a false premise, what about the condemnations of me based on the misunderstanding that were never recanted. And once that was resolved, why did the accusers remain silent? Incidentally, when you closed it, I was chatting with TFD on his talk page about why he called me a POV pusher at
Hillary Clinton when I've barely touched that article. Anyway, there are a few other things I don't understand that will clarify this for me and the community to learn from, but I think it's clearer to go in short steps. Thanks for your replies.
7050:. It's quite evident, not just to me that you do have such a animus toward me. In WP terms it means that as an INVOLVED Admin, even if you were convinced that HJ was not adequately handling the situation, you should have allowed or solicited other Admins to handle your unevidenced assertion that I had posted some unspecified personal attack etc. You seem to think it's SKYBLUE that SPECIIFICO is uncivil, makes personal attacks, etc. -- that's the mark of an INVOLVED Admin who should not be making such a block. You also might take some time, if you're so inclined, to scrutinize the conduct of other involved editors in that ANI thread.
4918:
initially inserted by one of the editors whose Biden/BLP contributions have been rejected and/or condemned by numerous editors and Admins over that period. The portion of my 7/17 revert that I repeated in my 7/19 revert had recently been added to the article. It is poorly sourced for WEIGHT and is part of a NOTNEWS disparaging framing and narrative on which I and others have repeatedly commented at length. Part of it is not
Verified by the cited sources. The editor who reinstated that non-compliant content gave a meaningless edit summary that was unresponsive to my stated reason for excluding such text. Their summary was
8275:
significant minority of WP editors are unaware of what's published in most RS reporting and analysis. The Trump page suffered an earlier crop of same who either got TBANs or got bored blocking and went away. It's disappointing to think that the same thing can happen repeatedly with a new round of visitors. Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well. Each time
Soibangla has proposed some straightforward article content, various editors have risen up and beaten it down with straw man, red herring, and plum pudding arguments. And that's before the inevitable cheese course.
2951:, âKnowledge is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the âfinishedâ article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view(which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.â If you object to something about an edit, please make sure not to revert the parts you donât object to. And please explain at article talk why you object to the stuff you revert, including all parts of it. You have not followed these Knowledge requirements with regard to
7124:
sometimes it's best not to respond. But then when one doesn't respond, as in the recent matter, sometimes the visitor gets more upset. But at any rate, wrt tone, if you care to review the recent ANI -- look at the words of the other involved editors from the Gaza War page. SFR did not block either one for their tone or their false, undocumented accusation of a 1RR violation of removing a talk page post. As I've said it's still what part of this little nothing incident got me blocked, because the words SFR put in the block template do not appear to comport with the facts.
1842:. If you are able to reduce the volume of your talk page comments and to comment only on the substance of a discussion, providing reasoned positions, it would be in everyone's interest for you to begin doing so. You seemed to be prepared to throttle your talk page particpation a month ago, but if anything it has even increased in the Politics area. I note that you did not address that point at your recent AE appeal, but it's all on the record from the last go-round, so you can assume that editors recall it and have not seen any update from you on this issue.
7976:
often leaves me sighing. But I know I can do little about it, and must withhold my dissatisfaction while watching those sources dictate the narrative, hoping that some time in the future, a year or so down the lines, critical scholarship will begin to give us a documental basis on which to reconsider the articles we have. By then of course it will be too late to better inform readers stumbling by, who will take their impressions from unbalanced or tendentious sections, but our remit excludes us from worrying about that. I must catch a plane. Regards
5619:
in the thread above veered off on several tangents. Second point: In the JFD event: I went to JFD's talk page on a previous occasion he had violated 24-BRD. JFD responded with hostility while failing to self-revert the violation. He subsequently made it clear elsewhere that he is not interested in interacting with me. So I was not going to go and make him feel harassed a second time. Instead, I notified SFR -- without asking for any sanction or reminder-- to handle the matter as SFR alone saw fit. Thanks for your reply.
8759:
7261:
9836:. That promise was a followup to the previous promise to Papadopoulos that the Russians would release dirt on Hillary to help the Trump campaign. When Donald Trump Jr. got the message that dirt would be provided at the Trump Tower meeting, he was ecstatic, as he probably thought that this was finally what Papadopoulos told the campaign they would get. He was disappointed. The Russians don't seem to have any serious dirt on Hillary, just embarrassing minor stuff.
6091:
2776:
8798:
9627:, Clapper explained more about the state of evidence for or against any collusion at the time of the January IC assessment, saying "there was no evidence of any collusion included in that report, that's not to say there wasn't evidence". He also stated he was also unaware of the existence of the formal investigation at that time. In November 2017, Clapper explained that at the time of the Stephanopoulos interview, he did not know about the efforts of
6803:
5729:
3600:
1265:
1237:
7739:
9825:: "They also investigated if members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russia, using the definition of "coordination" as having "an agreement â tacit or express â between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference". Investigators further elaborated that merely having "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" was not enough to establish coordination."
513:
194:
9246:
4043:
9981:
425:
8944:
6831:
4779:
7165:
pile-on. As I recall, you were blindsided by the quick close in the first one before you had a chance to comment. Then they cite their own dubious blocks for the subsequent blocks. I've thanked SFR in the past for volunteering their time to fignt vandalism, etc. But wrt to them being willing to "listen to reason" -- they have repeatedly chosen not to address my concern except with a list of denials, so who knows?
7648:
4201:
7228:
this situation.When users see someone with the Admin badge make that kind of unsupported accusation, ,they tend to believe it and it functions as another ad hominem aspersion. Anyway, I am not in a rush to respond to SFR. It's even possible that they will undo their block before I have to take the time to prolong any discussion here. I need to tend to my animals today in the waning good weather.
3442:"Long ago"? I came onto this article five days ago and I made a ton of noncontroversial grammar corrections ... yesterday. And I made another uncontroversial MOS edit ... today. Perhaps if your hostility over our one disagreement is blinding you to this degree, it's you who should step away from the article. I don't expect you will, but I hope you can learn to work with me. Again, good luck.--
2828:
5216:
policy -- you should vacate the block you imposed step back from this. Please do not take this as a personal criticism or feel defensive about it, but under the circumstances, that would be best. Moreover -- your reinsertion of the defective BLP content, including most importantly the bit about criticism of the Bidens w/o conveying the sources' statements that it is from their opponents,
5758:
2461:
that I really like. They also make other flavored broths, including Thai lemongrass, which I find O.K. and spicy tortilla which seems bland to me. I add other ingredients to the broth including shredded carrots, chopped bell pepper, onion, and roasted seaweed, etc. I'm a vegetarian, but you could add chicken, beef, fish sauce, etc. It's something you could take to work with you.
9203:
of the initial sanction that you violated, and is intended to prevent further disruption. That you are unable or unwilling to recognize your violation is evidence that such violations would recur. This is also evidenced by your long history of sanctions, which are generally answered with the type of behavior that led me to avoid engaging beyond what is necessary.
3273:- Mistakenly is not the same as "falsely". I agree it's a good decision for you to step away from that page. There appears to be little support for your views there, so the more you repeat them - without addressing the concerns of editors who have taken the time to point out their flaws - the more frustrated you might become. Thanks for your visit.
2793:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see
2098:. I believe the editor who removed the image misunderstands that policy. The second issue is the page restriction, which that editor has now breached by repeating the removal edit prior to demonstrating consensus to remove. I don't expect to engage further on the talk page about this, but I would appreciate it if you would have a look. Thanks.
9547:
much interest or concern. I think the book belongs in the list of his publications. Thousands of books make the bestseller lists but few are particularly significant for an encyclopedia. If that volume attracts widespread attention, discussion, or criticism, it may become noteworthy enough to go in the article text. I hope this is helpful.
763:!!! A surprise visitor !!! Since JMF didn't do the edit, he was unfortunately not in a position to state the BLP issue with which you disagree. So the circle is complete. Your view about BLP and "forcing stuff" is incorrect, but there are more widely participated discussion pages on which you can get community feedback as to that theory.
2477:
they're much more varied. Of course in the early stages of the vegan era, we see manufacturers trying to make "fake meat" products, but
Western markets also offer an increasing variety of true vegetarian and vegan cuisine, starting with an extensive array of foods that were already available to be imported from India and the far East.
1330:
don't know. Nobody accused them of not acting in good faith, so that's a strawman. Did you check the edit summaries and read the cited source? Do you really think I don't know not to edit war? Etc. Etc. You're welcome to contribute to that article, while
Ramaswamy is having a moment of fame. The article page is getting lots of views.
5553:. Yes, I did not deny that. It's the sort of immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talk reminder from editors or Admins. I explained why I quickly removed it, and why I missed the fact that I had previously removed the same content, and the difference between
4922:-- well obviously they think that -- but it offers no reasoning or principle for reinstating validly disputed BLP content. But the important fact is that they reinserted UNDUE BLP content. And you blocked me for again removing it without (in effect) repeating the reason given in my first edit summary on the article talk page.
8135:
advancement of his personal intereests. I'm not sure anything will come of that RfC, but much work is indeed needed on a wide range of
American Politics articles that reflect superficial news and internet reporting at the expense of the increasing body of books and scholarly literature on the events of the past 6-7 years.
7696:
3254:
frequently going forward, although the last responses I made were to questions posed directly to me. Either way, regardless of how noble you think your intentions are, I'd also appreciate if you stopped responding to me or posting on my talk page for at least a week, and I'll extend you the same courtesy. Thanks!--
4002:
collaborative project oughtn't be ruled by a supreme court. But, with highly contentious subjects, these discussions appear to work better far from the madding crowd. And what isnât contentious these days? (Utah Gov Spencer Cox received an angry letter demanding he change his âindecentâ last name or be recalled.)
3875:
people to go to one venue or another, and the community always has the ability to make decisions on their own. I think you'd find that if you made a proposal to require any CTOP discussions to be moved from ANI to AE you'd see an enormous pushback. You'll also find that in my closing statement in a similar case
9735:"The fifth and final volume of the Select Intelligence Committeeâs bipartisan report on Russian interference in the 2016 election is an incredibly long and detailed document. At a whopping 966 pages, volume 5 alone is more than twice the length of the Mueller report, and it covers a great deal more ground." --
749:
the number is 1, 10 100, 1000, or 10000. And when putting in BLP as a reason for reversion one should always give a clear reason why it violates BLP as otherise it can be used to game the system by forcing stuff out until an RFC or other method is used to override the BLP injunction to remove immediately.
9671:
something, and precision is important. Trump deceptively means that because "conspiracy" was not proven, then neither was "collusion", but that's not true at all. There is evidence of conspiracy (some examples above, such as Papadopoulos and the promised "dirt on Clinton", Stone with WikiLeaks, and the
9166:
When I saw your name with a line through it on the talk page, I came here to see what it was about, and seeing you talk about appeal, well, let's just say I felt I should give you a heads up lest you thought I thought AA aren't part of IP and deduce that others would have the same opinion. Personally
9035:
regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important
8658:
Thanks for thinking of me in this holiday season. But I'm far past caring about any and all issues on the Trump bio page. The article and its talk page are both an appalling dump heap, and I generally have enough sense to stay far away. The one issue I opined in recently, I had brought up myself long
8571:
The main BLP should mention it, but I think the priority should be to write a separate article, if the goal is to inform as many readers as possible and present the scholarship comprehensively enough that people understand it's not just 'talking points', 'partisan exaggerations', or 'just Trump being
7990:
The worst part, in American Politics articles, is that most editors have never cracked a book, let alone the scholarly researched literature. They form their opinions from the ether -- TV, social media, daily press -- then they google to find RS citations, not understanding that the mission of google
7975:
I agree that framing and context are serious problems. We perhaps would disagree on how adequate our standard RS sources (NYTs, Washington Post, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Haaretz, the Guardian etc.,) are in this regard. Reading these sources in an area whose scholarship I know fairly well, too
7852:
Most readers of this article lack any context beyond what's within the page. Klein is fine, but I felt that the framing of Klein's view and the presentation of it out of context as if it were part of an undisputed historical timeline justifying Hamas' tactics, would mislead many readers. As you know,
6906:
regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important
6433:
Thinker: Just to be clear, since you took the time to correct the "top 10" thing: I misspoke above. I was referring to the Xtool "authorship" metric, which shows me at #55, far down the list. Anyway the edit count thing irrelevant. It came up in various remarks that user made about me personally here
6300:, many of which are almost instantly after the edit. In fact, in last 4 years of editing the New York Times, you have made the most reversions. I would like to voice my objection that I highly doubt whether you have read everything you revert, especially given that many appear to be good-faith edits.
5481:
SFR, you keep posting red herrings and straw women. That's why I asked you to review everything I've said. I have said that the violation was inadvertent and immaterial and that the BLP violation should not have been reinstated. I have not denied that I did not go to talk before the second removal of
5360:
Thank you, Valereee. Of course, any Admin can undo the block. I just stopped by to note that, after this unannounced change in the 24-BRD restriction implemented in text after the community discussion was closed, there have been numerous violations on many articles -- per the new wording and terms --
5046:
SFR, my objection to your block was not based on an edit-war exemption. I cited BLPREMOVE only because you had cited the clearly inapplicable 3RRNO policy, which I presume you understand applies to breaching a revert restriction that was not a factor in this incident. My point was/is that this was an
4968:
SFR, Just saw your reply, thanks. It's late here so I will reply tomorrow, but just a quick but critical note -- I did not make the 3RRNO claim as you cite. You did not sanction me for any revert limit violation, which is the subject of that link, nor did I claim any of those exempt conditions apply.
4953:
Your recent community imposed topic ban expired less than a month ago, and you've already made a bright line violation in the topic area. I was considering imposing a 6 month topic ban for such a flagrant violation considering your history of warnings and recent topic ban. If further violations occur
4862:
regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important
3993:
Feedback during discussion by admins. I think this shortens the process and keeps it focused, as you know what the audience is thinking before the curtain closes. (At least in Shakespeareâs time, the audience provided mid-performance feedback in the form of dried figs and oyster shells chucked at the
2460:
Just wondered: What topic were you banned from editing on? You're an anti-war conservative. What do you think about the conflict in Ukraine? Lastly, I didn't know there was a "Hanoi" pháť so that's an education for me. However I came across a plant-based pháť broth ("Delight Pháť" teabag by Milley's.)
748:
I very much disagree with you about it being a BLP matter. I agree with the reversion, and SPECIFICO's complaint about it being marked as minor is reasonable. He didn't say anything about BLP and I don't think it makes the slightest difference to Hunter Biden's reputation one way or the other whether
8870:
if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the
8542:
applies, and the RfC on if any of that content deserves inclusion in the first place is still ongoing. It makes since to me that you wouldn't want to take the time and effort drafting the content to propose when you don't even know if there is an appetite for any of it. Of course no one is precluded
7958:
If all our readers were as thoughtful as you and I then this would all be moot. But we're writing for anyone who stumbles by, so I think that our article text needs to be twitter/facebook-mindset resistant. The biggest problem I encounter on contentious pages is certainly not Verification, is rarely
7528:
Are you saying that SPECIFICO has a pattern of BLP violations? What is the pattern to which you refer? Diffs and description of the pattern please, per policy. I specifically said above that if you cite your belief that you are reinstating your removal citing your belief that there's a BLP violation
7089:
Hello Andre. This thread is not a formal appeal. I engaged here to try to sort this out directly with SFR. Among other things, wrt INVOLVED -- SFR's has cited his own (dubious) past sanctions of me as the basis for subsequent sanctions. I have previously voiced my concern about that and about SFR's
6982:
appears to be the exchange with nableezy that they first reference. Did you review that article talk page thread? Do you think I treated those with whom I disagree with attacks there? Do you think nableezy accurately conveyed the sense of my words there, or do you think that the context an manner in
6743:
Hello. The reason I reverted was that it went against "affirmative consensus" per the RfC close. The individual who made the change is aware of that close and jumped the gun on his close appeal by changing the description. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate you pursuiing this on the article talk page
5275:
Thanks for that. That is not the longstanding version of 24-BRD, and it's a pretty significant modification that perhaps was added after the Arbcom review last year? It's actually a good enhancement of the restriction, and I'm surprised there wasn't some attempt to ensure that the community is aware
5215:
And I have been around that restriction and followed the discussion of it when Awilley created it and when Arbcom endorsed it. Your misstatement is disqualifying. I really think that -- in light of that apparent misunderstanding of the restriction you invoked, and your citing of the irrelevant 3RRNO
5010:
I do not see the material removed as being so egregious that it falls under a BLP exception. In my eyes, WP:BLPREMOVE doesn't apply in cases like this, so the block appears valid. You might have done the edit in good faith, but it is still a violation of the terms of the ban, as BLPREMOVE is really
4011:
The advantage of ANI is boomerangâs are more common. (Albeit, probably not common enough.) Also, we get to sorta pretend to be a democracy, even though we state we arenât. (You know, like the U.S. claiming to be a democracy.) Having said all that, Specifico, I think youâll need to find a way to deal
3901:
I didn't intend to say that it should be vacated merely because it was at ANI. My view is that you would do well to vacate it because this particular ANI thread was full of PAGs violations that were needlessly and mistakenly overlooked. Many many times editors get a mid-thread DS sanction before the
3810:
The rest of your questions basically come down to you disagreeing with how the editors interpreted the evidence. It is not a closer's job to assess or weigh the evidence, rather to assess how those involved in the discussion assessed and weighed the evidence. That support for the topic ban continued
3369:
Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback, and it appears to me that you think that your "requests" obligate other editors to accept your misunderstanding of content, policy, and behavioral guidelines. As I've already said, it would have been a good move to stick with your
2987:
Iâve already partly reverted your edit. I cannot begin to understand your other objections from ânothing was an improvementâ. Obviously, it was an improvement to have a lead that was not too long and did not have a too-long tag on it. I have edited Knowledge for a long time, but I have never seen
1504:
The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've
1398:
Please see my reply to Chex above. Or were you saying you agreed with my response? At any rate, it's not a matter of "preferred content" - did you read my edit summary and the cited source articles and still really believe that the text is SYNTH? If so, you should carefully review the policy and you
562:
on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's workâwhether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each timeâcounts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit
9202:
The violations are clear and unambiguous, and an edit being constructive is not an exemption to a topic ban. Based on your initial responses and how this has played out in the past I didn't think that further engagement on my part would be constructive. The length of the sanction matches the length
9185:
Interesting fact: Blocked editors do not have the "thanks" link for a talk page diff. So, thanks. The diffs cited for this block, if they are unambiguously a violation, were at any rate unintentional and clearly not disruptive. SFR knows I am unlikely to go to the trouble and/or drama of an appeal,
9162:
TBH I don't say this because I want to see you TBANed or blocked and I actually have no opinion on the TBAN, I don't even know what it was for and never looked at the history (and don't care, no offense), and tbh 60 days sitewide block seems steep to me for "productive TBAN violations" which is how
9158:
I had forgotten about the TBAN until I saw the block. I definitely think a TBAN on I-P covers Abraham Accords, there is no source about the accords that don't put it in the context of I-P, as does the first sentence of the background section of the Knowledge article on it, which is the sentence you
7902:
You've already done your unpleasantness for the day. I gave 3 reasons in my edit summary and discussed the issue here with Nishdiani. Talk page watchers will not be impressed with your participation. Template as you please. Since I've already been sanctioned by an eager Admin on this topic, I doubt
7824:
I was surprised to see you remove this source. 99% of edits to this page are not preceded by talk page proposals to gain some consensus. I've been reading Klein's work for over a decade. Unlike the mass of newspaper sources and their journalists, he knows intimately the ins and outs of the politics
7411:
One further thought: I do not see that this "BLP-sensitive" content (everything on the page is BLP sensitive) rises to the level of a violation of our BLP priniciple. It is description, attributed, of a noteworthy public controversy. However, there is nothing to prevent you from undoing my edit and
7227:
Thinker, I don't recall any disagreements with you beyond what's routine. Thanks for your comment. I am going to reply to SFR, so I may move your comment to another location on this page. As I just noticed directly above, SFR continues to misapply PAGs by calling "NOTTHEM" when it does not apply to
5618:
Hi, no, 3RRNO is about an exemption from revert warring but this 24BRD restriction is about requiring discussion, not about the number of reverts. They are different policies. The standard for BLPRESTORE is good faith, which Admin Dennis Brown appears to have confirmed. At any rate, the discussion
5454:
which they clearly aware of, their history of warnings and sanctions, being less than a month off a community imposed American politics topic ban, and the clear misunderstanding of sanctions that they have invoked leads me to believe that this block is necessary. SPECIFICO is, of course, welcome to
4429:
Hello. I am currently being punished because an Admin has determined that I damaged and am likely to damage the encyclopedia. But as soon as I am rehabilitated, I will try to take a look. I removed some content that I thought was news reporting unlikely to be considered significant with the passage
4082:
revert it will be taken to for enforcement. This would perhaps have softened the message for the OP in this ANI whom I upset by returning to his talk page when he did not self revert, and it could include explanatory information. You can buddy up with a template geek and make a signal contribution!
3786:
I didn't intend to get into a discussion here before I fully understand your rationale for the close. But how did you account for the editors who were inflamed by the "and this gem..." snippet of ~10 characters that misrepresented a fully explained talk page post of mine? Or the editors who favored
3705:
Well, that assumes that a clear consensus did and would continue to exist. In this case, there were !votes based on misunderstandings that were later identified and unevidenced assertions that had not yet been parsed. I think its a stretch to expedite the close with recent active discussion. Thanks
3690:
The discussion had been running for about a week with the specific proposal for sanctions open for a few days. The ratios weren't shifting one way or another, and in my experience people generally prefer to have the threads closed rather than have them sit open when a clear consensus has developed.
2093:
14:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC) repeated the initial removal without consensus on the talk page. In looking more closely at the page restriction, I now see that it was you who added the "consensus required" restriction there last month. There's been some discussion on the article talk page, which you
1719:
I'm puzzled by your continued participation at Contentious Topics talk pages after your pledge at Arbitration Enforcement to take a breather. Your comments are rarely substantive. In the case of your most recent comment, you are suggesting that a relatively inexperienced editor disregard the status
1097:
The scare quotes are kind of offputting. I advise against that if you wish to build solid relationships. We don't count votes on article content. The reasons that your preferred text was rejected were explained by me, by an Admin who edits the article, and by others. Perhaps you are misremembering.
9670:
I can't speak for SPECIFICO, but your reply did not address SPECIFICO's point, while being presented as if it did. This is a very common conflation of terms, one deliberately used by Trump and his followers, and then uncritically adopted by many on the other side. People aren't careful. Words mean
9546:
Hello. I did not mean to startle you with that "not minor" bit. Minor edits are things like typos or run-on sentence repair that do not change the content of the article or its meaning. The reason for the "m" tag is to save editors the time of reviewing such changes when they are unlikely to be of
8562:
These kinds of RfCs are counterproductive because you inevitably have people who support inclusion yet vote "oppose" because "proposal isn't specific enough". If we have to discuss each individual sentence before inclusion, so be it, but sources and policy are on "our" side and we should persevere
8274:
I am always happy to host a lttle spat among friends, but I believe that this content was being stonewalled by editors who showed no familiarity or concern with the subject matter. Polling says that half the US electorate are committed Republicans, so it's not surprising that some lesser but still
6954:
ASPERSIONS refers to statements that imply undocumented facts. In this thread, the facts were referenced or directly under discussion. Odd that you would pick that out of my chatter with nableezy, whose statements were quite hostile, and quite harsh. Those would have been much more of a concern to
6215:
You have been edit-warring, you have been adding unverified text and OR into several articles related to this subject matter. The first uninvolved Admin who looks at your recent edit history is likely to sanction you. Many editors have warned you about such behavior. I hope you'll stop and use the
5768:
Hello fellow Knowledge editor. I would like to inquire about the deletion you made of my comment on the talk page referenced in the header. As you know, editing or removing another's comments in talk is generally not best practice. After reviewing the removal, I can't tell if perhaps, however, I
5577:
If you're citing BLPRESTORE as the reason for removal of the content that is otherwise subject to 24-BRD, then by extension you are implicitly making a 3RRNO#7 argument. Those two policy points go hand in hand in this circumstance, particularly because 24-BRD is a sanction intended to prevent edit
5206:
SFR. 24-BRD is not a revert-warring restriction. The policy you cited is about 1RR and 3RR. Full stop. I have not disputed that I did not go to the talk page per 24-BRD. Please review my comments above so that we can try for convergence rather than broadening to irrelevant topics. You wrote that I
5061:
Thanks for volunteering your attention here. I presume when you said "violate terms of the ban" above that you meant to write "of the 24-BRD page restriction". As I said above, I'm not asking for an edit-war BLP exemption. I am very concerned that SFR cited a revert-war policy and is continuing to
4949:
Enforced BRD and the edit warring exemption both require communication. You've been around Knowledge and contentious topics long enough to know these rules. You plainly reverted a partial revert without discussion on the talk page in direct violation of the enforced BRD sanctions on the article. I
4709:
Your later comments (see diffs above) indicate that you should have not closed the discussion, and should have rather entered the discussion as a participant, if at all. Your close failed to appropriately summarise the discussion, and created more heat than light.RFCs typically run for at least 30
4644:
You're a bit late to the party on this one, Politrukki. But for the avoidance of doubt to future researchers of my criminal history, I did not have any view on that bygone July content issue and had only made a brief clarifying comment in the thread. So I was not "involved" in the sense you imply.
4081:
Well here's a good suggestion, Mandruss and it will keep you busyđŠđť: How about creating a template that can be used to canonize our practice among experienced editors of notifying a colleague who violates a page restriction and asking for a self-revert. It could also say that if they don't self
3829:
I'm not sure it comes down to interpreting evidence. When there are misrepresentations, material omissions, or aspersions without evidence those are policy violations and do not get weight in a closing review. But I will think a bit about what you've said. The second complainant stated that he had
2476:
Well, thanks very much for the tip on the vegan pho in a box. I never imagined such a thing and I'm eager to find some now. I was never entirely on board with idea of boiling some animal's bones just for a good warming bowl of soup. There are more plant-based foods available than animal based, and
1062:
No, there were two forensic examinations, the range was something like 1800-22000 emails. This was all discussed in some detail the first time you made that edit. It's important to use very clear language that does not insinuate UNDUE detail or frame content in a way that might lead our readers to
963:
my addition of content from The Intercept had been discussed before on the talk page and that The Intercept is a FRINGE source. No such discussion has taken place and The Intercept is a reliable source according to WP:RSP. I also agree with Mr Ernie that you impulsively revert content you disagree
844:
You should pick your battles. Minor edits are those that do not materially affect the content of the article. Your edit was anything but. You seriously damaged the meaning of that sentence. (In the classical example, to change "not" to "now" is just a one,-letter change but is certainly not minor.
9703:
Some equate conspiracy with collusion, but since Mueller, with his limited and strictly criminal investigation, made a difference between collusion (non-criminal) and conspiracy (criminal), and focused only on one, let's try the types of things he did find. Because they were not strictly criminal
8601:
As you probably know, the separate article is already underway. I don't think it would suffer much if editors took the time to develop several options for main article content, which could then be presented in a new RfC. The question here is whether you have the time (and will) to kick off such a
7828:
The point follows the standard paragraph which says many Western states consider Hamas ,a terrorist organization, while 'rogue' or non Western states don't consider it thus. The general impression given is that Hamas is nothing but an unbending terrorist organization. It is, properly, a political
4977:
is flat out a misrepresentation of the narratives of the cited sources, and a serious BLP and NPOV violation within the larger NPOV issues of the content about this family matter. I could have repeated that edit summary on the talk page, but it would have added nothing to the communication of the
1763:
I doubt your competence, when with your hundreds of thousands of edits, you claim that a tag-team edit war is not an edit war. And the central point, which you have ignored with your deflection to "not an edit war" is that you claimed consensus is needed to add content to an article page. That is
1329:
Chex, This is kind of pointless. The RS text was removed on a false claim of SYNTH where the deleted text directly reflected the narrative of the cited RS. Yes, it may well be that the edit was reverted on good faith grounds, if the editor perhaps did not take the time to read the cited source. I
1175:
Thanks for that helpful link to the policy you were citing... on further reading, it seems you are technically correct that "a series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." Though I'm sure you can forgive my confusion,
865:
And you should probably read the edit I linked. It was not a big change. The Washington Post review concluded that up to 22,000 could be verified. My edit reflected exactly that. I only removed the unnecessary lower count from the one half of the analysis. Anyone curious could read about the 1828
733:
violation that absolutely should be reverted on sight. I don't have an NYT subscription to verify the actual phrase used but if it was then it should have been attributed to the NYT and not given in wikivoice. I find that Specifico can sometimes be too terse with explanations for what they do but
712:
Careful. Just because diffs aren't searched out and provided doesn't mean they don't exist. This is simply a talk page message, not an ArbCom submission. You should know full well the discussions/threads referenced, but if you're seriously at a loss for which of your behaviors warranted a message
680:
I second this request. This type has behavior has gotten you sanctioned several times now. Stop reflexively reverting sourced content you donât like, especially when they are clear improvements.. The most recent warning to you at AE leads me to think the next sanction will be more severe than the
9067:
Editing sections of articles or talk pages is explicitly covered by the topic ban. Discussing sources related to the conflict is covered. Removing a section of criticism explicitly about the topic is covered. Discussing removal of criticism about the topic is covered. Editing the phrasing of the
7832:
The page per NPOV required in the background some bare notation that it also has engaged in political compromises both with the PA and, indirectly Israel, and this particular reaching out for a political arrangement via the PA is known to have been vetoed by the US and Israel. That is a fact and
7164:
Yep, well it's kind of a problem when one Admin repeatedly steps in front of other respected Admins' comments at ANI to make precipitous blocks. And doing that, apparently, without checking for diffs and apparently not differentiating between uninvolved comments on the evidence vs, undocumented
6674:
I hadn't realized it was in the article, which I stopped reading a while back. I think the mainstream description of him will become much more clear over the next 3-6 months and it will be much easier to gain consensus that's reasonably free of editors' diverse interpretations. I am not a fan of
4750:
Do you agree a response time of few weeks (even if we ignore the one week Specifico was blocked) is not "prompt"?There was a major development to the story in 28 July (I think): Joe Biden admitted having six, not seven, grandchildren and mentioned the name. This was massively covered in reliable
928:
You're right - I misconstrued the part about "Content additions of extremely minimal size" to include changes of minimal size as well. However, on further reading, the info page says that removing content or editing content are edits that cannot be marked as minor. Not sure that's an "egregious"
9591:
The problem is the conflation of SPECIFICO's use of the words "no collusion" ("please stop repeating the Trump/Barr lie "no collusion".") with a reply that is not about "collusion", but about "conspiracy" and "coordination". AYW's simple statement, on its own, is quite accurate, but it does not
7506:
you asserted BLPRESTORE on tame, non-BLP material inside a BLP; yet now you're saying itâs unclear whether I had BLP concerns with antisemitism accusations?? These "geometrically-variable" policy interpretations that depend on the content's POV are clear-as-day battleground behavior, and you're
5530:
Even under the wording of the original 24-BRD this sequence of edits is still a violation I'm afraid. In both the original and current wordings of the sanction, the passage of time is only half of the requirement. You also must post a talk page comment, which you didn't do in this circumstance.
5050:
As to what happened in this case: Before reverting the reinsertion of the disputed text, I thought I might previously have removed that text and checked the edit log, but I did not go back 3 days where I would have found the first revert. That's not an uncommon source of error on pages with the
4917:
As you may have seen on your patrol of the politics space, I had spent the previous several days commenting on, and in some cases removing, UNDUE BLP framing and political narratives that have repeatedly been inserted on pages relating to the Bidens. The UNDUE BLP content about Hunter Biden was
4285:
Thanks. Almost forgot about my wiki-punishment, as I've been out busy fencing a new pasture for the goats -- neighbors kept complaining they were a bad influence on their previously well-behaved dogs, and things were getting tense. Will have a look, as your essays are usually well-reasoned and
3874:
The issues with CTOP-related issues coming up at ANI is long and storied. There's an AN discussion to unban someone who was brought up at ANI right now, and around that same time as the first thread on that multiple other editors ended up tbanned from CTOP areas by the community. We can't force
3673:
didn't have time to post their view and that there may still have been outstanding misrepresentations and a welter of unsorted allegations in the thread. The timing was unusual and surprising. Just asking that question. Of course that's not to say that you are not authorized to impose sanctions
2168:
it seems to me like VQuakr made an edit that was challenged by reversion, and that VQuakr shouldn't have restored that edit without affirmative consensus. If there exists some documentation related to the consensus required restriction that limits its application to addition of content, and not
8196:, Soibangla is being overly stubborn against solid arguments by multiple editors, exhibiting IDHT. Why not start this workshop thread yourself? I'd do it, but it would be too much involvement for my semi-retirement. You could start it off with your own proposed content option, with citations. â
7589:
I hate to prolong this, but when you wish to modify a comment of yours after another editor has replied to it, the words should be struck through with a timestamp to allow others to see the subsequent reply in context and to demonstrate when and what constituted the revision. Please amend your
7394:
I believe that content is longstanding in the article page. I don't consider the WaPo publication a blog as WP defines it (published without editorial oversight). Anyway, I suggest posting on the talk page and soliciting comment at BLPN as well, if you wish. This page needs improvement in many
3989:
Nonstandard threading. It would seem that standard threading is an aide to conversation. But, at AE you are really talking more to the admins than each other. Keeping each editorâs comments together reduces repetition and makes an editorâs contradictions obvious.(IMO, the OP in this case often
8134:
The RfC is proposing a specific statement that is kind of a flash in the pan and internet fodder while at the same time not proposing more extensive content about the larger topic of preparations the Trump camp is making to hobble the government and convert it to a personal instrument for the
6914:
And this is because I challenged your having repeated a false allegation against me an reciting a litany of what you beleive are my negative characteristics? Maybe you could explain in one or two sentences what precipitates this block that will doubtless appear to the community to have been a
4001:
An editor with a total of four edits is not likely to try to engage at AE. Far fewer editors in general will show up as many find the structure intimidating. So, you end up with more folk who have bothered to understand the policies and the nuances of collaborative editing. It may seem that a
3833:
There's also the very concerning question as to whether we want to introduce Contentious Topics complaints into the very erratic and unstructured arena of ANI. The intention of Arbcom was to delegate AE to a more rigorous and disciplined hearing. One benefit of this is that AE itself does not
9106:
is a violation of a TBAN on the Palestine Israel conflict so serious as to need a 60 day block from Knowledge. Context and topic of the discussion, the intention of the editor, and the meaning of the edit matter. That's why Admins are given Discretionary powers. I've done a lot of editing on
7123:
Yeh, but SFR did not block me 3 times for "tone." --- Is that the kind of terse response that I should be blocked for? đ¤šđťââď¸. As you know, I'm one of the few CT editors who doesn't ban complainants from my user talk page. I do find, sometimes, that they don't like my civil repsonses, and
3253:
Hi! So, as you've conceded, you've falsely attacked me once on the Trump talk page, and I'd actually say you've falsely attacked me at least three times. I realize you most recently raised a BLUDGEON concernâI do think you and I have both been too active there, and I intend to reply far less
2402:
I see that you've undone your violation of the page restriction. This all could have been resolved more easily and more pleasantly. Yes, your article talk page comments have been personal and inappropriate. I see that you've launched an RfC there. It is way premature for an RfC. Please read
1863:
You may be aware that Knowledge is intended to be a collaborative venture. You chose to revert my good faith edits to the above article, because *one* of the citations I included was to a site that is not considered to be an RS. You simultaneously in effect deleted a sentence which was not
7935:
Come now, chaps. These pages are flooded by an understandably eager mass of editors, and we need calm minds and experienced hands to sort the mess. I noted a month ago that the sourcing exceeded that of the equally long 2014 war and we were barely into the war. I understand the necessity of
9771:
Thanks, I'll read the Lawfare article. I just wanted to point out that at least in some jurisdictions, conspiracy does not require any written or spoken communication at all, merely a tacit agreement to engage in an illegal enterprise. I believe that argument was made in some of the Jan. 6
7072:
Uninvolved user to weigh in. I think Specifico is somewhat unfairly maligned at times, but, I also do not think it is useful to cry INVOLVED unless you can show that with detailed diffs. I've found SFR to be fair and also willing to listen to reason and negotiate and explain. That's my 2c.
9817:
has also expressed his concerns with what he describes as a "curiously flaccid" approach taken by Mueller in dealing with what the public would normally interpret as "coordination". He sees Mueller's dependence on a formal "tacit agreement" approach as "an overly cautious" and "legalistic
8151:
I agree, better sources are needed than internet news articles overall. A big problem with getting scholarly articles in my opinion is the paywalls present to view such articles, and popular databases such as JSTOR deliberately excluding the most recent articles for the past few years for
2328:: VQuakr, now that it has been discussed here, I'd appreciate it if you'd self-revert your second removal so we can consider the matter closed. Also, please try not to personalize talk page discussions. As you can see on that talk page thread, it has a cascading and unconstructive effect.
7208:
Specifico, even though we have been at loggerheads a few times, I recognize you have tens of thousands of edits under your belt. Why don't you try to change your approach in talk pages. I think it would be a negative thing if Knowledge loses you for a future indefinite block. Sincerely,
6144:
template, vs. "hatting" or collapsing the portion of the thread that is inappropriate. I hatted, not closed, the thread. So nothing prevented any user from additional constructive comments on editorial matters. Hatting off-topic posts and personal political or other opinions is common
1440:
After you funny, what remains with you is your false invocation of SYNTH, your apparent unwillingness or inability to take account of what the cited sources and policy say, and your sarcasm and habitual complaints on this page, all of which have been dismissed upon review. Thanks for
9791:: "Investigators further elaborated that merely having "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" was not enough to establish coordination." That statement by Mueller defines his understanding of both collusion and conspiracy:
2094:
may wish to review. There are two issues, I believe. One is that it's well-established practice for editors to reinstate longstanding content that's been removed, while not precluding subsequent talk page discussion about eventual removal. That relates to consensus established per
522:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the
4029:
I sit corrected. Steer clear of the behavior line, and you don't end up with a sanction at ANI/AE in the first place. No doubt, there are rare exceptions to that rule. And a community-imposed wikibreak can be viewed by the recipient as a gift, aside from the black mark on their
7140:
ANI â that's the one where everyone-with-a-grudge-against-Specifico shows up and says you should be confined to the deepest WP dungeon until hell freezes over, right? An admin stepping in on the first day seems like a good outcome to me, compared to the last time I remember. I
4908:
Thanks for the diffs. The diffs are two and a half days apart, so I conclude that you have blocked me, in effect, for not reposting the clear statement in my initial revert on the article talk page before again removing BLP and NPOV violations. My initial edit summary stated:
7885:
And also, so I dont bother you with an unnecessary template, are you aware of the contentious topic designation for ARBPIA? If not happy to provide the template as it does not appear in your user talk history, but if you say you are aware can skip that bit of unpleasantness.
6961:
Before you reply, you might want to review my participation at that Gaza War article and other pages. Your statement that I routinely attack editors in the course of talk page disagreements suggests to me that you are not familiar enough with my work on this to make such a
4005:
At both AE and ANI, when an active CTOP editor is the focus, uninvolved political enemies show up. But they donât mess up the discussion as much at AE. Their edits are in one area making it easier to notice they just donât like the editor under the gun. And bludgeoning is
3309:
Hi! I guess we're ignoring the first request for an interaction break (but of course, that was true from day 1, when, soon after responding here, you "Thanked" me for an edit). A new section started, and I participated there. Meanwhile, I noticed that you've kept up your
3039:
When I posted about what Arthur Schlesinger wrote in his 2017 introduction to his 1947 book, you replied, "Schlesinger 1947 is not the most recent available source." Can you explain why you would claim that the text was from 1947, when clearly I said he wrote it in 2017?
7395:
respects, but I'm sure that this bit can be sorted out. There are lots of references that detail the Omar statement as predicate for Greenwald's and other observers' reaction(s). As you saw, I did sustain your removal of the poorly sourced part of the article content.
6434:
and elsewhere instead of advocating for their propsed article content. The content bit is an issue on which they have been unable to generate consensus recently or AFAIK on the previous occasions they've advocated for similar changes in the past. Thanks for your visit.
9829:
9712:
8602:
workshop; if you answered that question, I'm not seeing it. The proposal you linked above may be too much; we've been speaking of "two or three sentences", perhaps four. It might expand later, but that's enough to get us over the initial hurdle and any resistance to
5032:. I was actually thinking of the clear consensus at the review of your block of Levivich when examining the revert. One of the issues that came up in that discussion was that there was no discussion opened at BLPN, further demonstrating that discussion is necessary.
2189:
You could look at it that way I suppose and it wasn't ideal to re-remove the content. Howver, as SPECIFICO had already breached it by readding the image VQuakr's edit would have been covered by the the provision about reverting edits that breach page restrictions at
1505:
talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Knowledge friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. â
5256:
On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page
3237:
The animals stick the North Pole into the ground, and Christopher Robin writes out a notice to remind others that it is the North Pole and that it was discovered by Pooh. And then they all go home, Pooh feeling very proud of what he has achieved on this momentous
8116:
6595:
Do you have a policy reason to change the RfC I've laid out? I've seen others laid out like this and never seen an object to it. Seems like a clean way of organizing the comments and also encourages comments like yours to go into the section called "discussion."
1542:
For reference, "per talk" within my edit summaries, does not imply any talk page consensus. This broadly means that further context for the edit can be found in the talk page. I have seen you infer this in some edit summaries and I wish to clarify this. Cheers.
3191:- Since you've recently been doing some work on the Reid Hoffman page I just wanted to give you a head's up that I'm going to really dive into the page, clean it up, remove anything too promotional, etc. Obviously let me know if you have any thoughts/concerns!
7833:
crucial, particularly since planning for the incursions and massacres seems to have begun in the immediate aftermath of the 2021 crisis. That is serious information, as opposed to generic statements that just state Hamas is a terrorist group and nothing else.
6675:
labels in BLP articles. They are too much of an inkblot for each reader's interpretation. No doubt there's a better way of stating it than "denier". I wonder whether there's a more flexible way of stating the central issue of the RfC without using that word?
1720:
quo after their new text was reverted for discussion. Yes, they were not the one who breached BRD by quickly reinstating the proposed change, but your comment may have the effect of undermining that process. I find this quite disappointing. Please consider.
7684:
3332:âeven if your take is that the current version is the best and most superior version! (I fully acknowledge that sometimes "awkward" constructions are a personal thing, and if I read something as being a bit awkward and everyone else disagreesâI'm wrong!)--
6139:
having agreed that there was no constructive purpose to more of the same, I did you the courtesy of quoting the talk page header that explains why the SOAPBOX messaging needed to be hatted. Note the difference between closing a disucssion, e.g. with the
2411:
from the start of this. It's uproductive, unpleasant for all, and a huge waste of time. Please consider removing the RfC until the issue has been more clearly delineated on the talk page. There may be third alternatives that are better than the current
2065:
Hello Callanecc. That is longstanding article content going back as long as I can remember. I left a note on the article talk page replying to the editor who boldly removed it. Good to see you keeping an eye on that page. I hope you will continue to do
1940:"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1194:
You seem upset by this. My advice is to relax and focus on reading as many RS sources as you can and work on fresh article content. That warning, if I recall correctly, was when a different page restriction was in effect. Cheers to you too, and happy
7535:
be considered edit warring. I am not calling your objection CRYBLP. I'm disappointed to see an undocumented threat here about a "pattern". I presume you have AGF disagreement. The BLPN and article talk page are where such disagreement can be thrashed
4327:
Hi thanks for catching that. What I saw appeared to be the insertion of an asterisk before the group of references for that content. I now see the close-quote and I have no idea why the diff I saw did not highlight that when I clicked undo. Anyway, I
3886:
As it stands ANI is a perfectly acceptable route to seek sanctions or other relief in a CTOP area, and I think it is unlikely that will change any time soon. Closes aren't vacated because they weren't taken to a different, equally legitimate, venue.
3483:: Trump does that all the time, but that's when he's not pretending to be someone else. In this sentence, it doesn't make any sense because he was pretending to be someone named John Barron. That's kind of hard to do using first person singular, no?
1350:" - yes, I did, and I believe the objector had a reasonable reason to revert in this case. BRD is blind to who is actually right or who will "win" when it's all said and done. It's essentially whether the objector had a rational basis for the revert,
9622:
that the January 2017 ICA did not have evidence of collusion, but that it might have become available after he left the government. He agreed with Todd that the "idea of collusion" was not proven at that time. On May 14, 2017, in an interview with
6659:
The quote is already included in the article and there's no real objection to its inclusion so I don't want to confuse people who are unfamiliar. The question is about calling him a "climate denier." Commenteres can review the previous discussion.
3314:
high engagement, and I assure you have similar thoughts as your engagement as you have to mine. Either way, I hope we're able to put aside out disagreements as to the trial and work the other parts of the article while those issues are resolved :)
4142:
You're asking me why a template for the sole purpose of one experienced editor templating another experienced editor would be against DTR? Really? You're still IDHT as to my earlier comments, which are more substantive than this little diversion.
2480:
When I was more or less new around here I tried to remove a lot of gibberish, self-promotion and other primary sourced material from some articles and it ended up in a big mess with 3-4 editors leaving the site, some voluntarily, and me getting
7836:
Finally, I cannot see any evidence that my edit was contested or reverted before you. No one challenged it on the talk page. You didn't open up a discussion on deleting the information either. In my experience, that is unusual coming from you.
6110:
I would think it would be readily apparent that âerring on the side of cautionâ means not edit warring your hatting of otherâs comments. As in your case it was evidently not apparent to you, I hope you can take this as a learning experience.
9107:
difficult pages and I have not seen that sort of minor copyedit draw that kind of Admin response. If I were to appeal this, you would need to demonstrate that these diffs were disruptive and that this block is necessry to prevent disruption.
7936:
documenting day by day, but I know all of that hectic newspapering of history will disappear when really reliable, technically informed scholarship kicks in. I tried to give one example of real insight from that small corner of scholarship.
1663:
The template, which was the mildest of the many that apply to your recent patterns of disruptive editing, clearly explains that it doesn't matter how many reverts you have made. In the context and substance of that edit, you were indeed in
9064:
Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly
2753:. Restored with source. Itâll need a proper NFCC template and go back in an article to not be speedied again in a few days. I donât know if it will survive FFD if it gets sent there, but thatâs a discussion to be had away from AN drama!
1798:
Another deflection. I am advising you to self-revert. There is already a discussion at the edit-warring noticeboard, and you have recently been under scrutiny that you appeared to want to avoid. You can ignore me and my talk page if you
9599:
the Russian election interference efforts in many ways. Many consider that to be collusion, which, although not illegal, is called treasonous by some sources, as the Trump campaign was aiding a military attack by the Russian military's
1063:
false impressions or conclusions. Best thing is just to recognize the feedback on the article talk page the first time you made that edit. It was rejected. Thanks for your visit. I moved this down here to a December section for clarity.
7939:
Specifico. The context usually provided is an indictment by formulaic phrases. Everyone knows that Hamas has a reputation for terrorism. Hardly anyone knows its political history. There are several good books on it, and Paola Caridi's
9786:
TFD, you're right. The authorities just have to have some sort of evidence that such a "tacit agreement" exists, and that's usually some sort of written or spoken evidence. It doesn't have to be a signed and notarized contract! From
8919:
OK, I will undo that. I hope you will engage on talk as to my stated concern, which had nothing to do with the topic of the TBAN. As stated: My concern is recentism and UNDUE content and placement on the long article. Thanks for your
695:
This aspersion with no supporting diff is likely to work to your disadvantage in the future. You should know better than to do that. Think very carefully about the specific allegations you make and whether they can be verified under
7853:
the ONUS to get talk page consensus is on the editor advocating for the content. I tried to provide my rationale for the revert in my edit summary, although I can understand that it was terse and unelaborated. Thanks for your note.
7482:
You're continuing to do the same thing you just got blocked for. It strains credulity to think that you believe a blog is RS for antisemitism accusations, and also believe that Human Rights Watch statements on humanitarian law are
7412:
citing in your edit summary that you believe it's a BLP violation so that you can make clear you do not consider it edit-warring. At any rate, talk page and BLPN discussion should be able to determine what we do with that content.
7106:
I think people respond to your tone, Specifico. I think despite how you see yourself you come across a certain kind of way sometimes. On Knowledge, sometimes a bit of slow, sugary, thought can make a bitter pill go down smoother.
4414:
article. I see youâve been âWiki-busyâ, but I think a review of these articles will take about 10 minutes. They will improve the section by providing an important update to the Ganieva lawsuit. I look forward to your reply. Best,
1881:
No, the "key demographic" bit is sourced only to the Forbes Contributor article, which is not a Reliable Source for Knowledge. You should not have reinserted it, and I'll politely ask you now to undo your reinstatement and remove
7053:
I am busy today, I will respond to the substance later. I don't know whether I will appeal it, but this is not an appeal. There's no rush. It would do you credit to vacate the block or reduce it to time served, but that's up to
3876:
8567:
was my proposal and is a good starting point. I thought there was consensus for the first 3 sentences, but didn't push it because that was when the E. Jean Carroll thing turned the talk page into such a mess that admins got
6933:
using it as a spear here and on my talk page for your annoyance at my meagre efforts toward NPOV content and talk page discussion... And of course your personal animus toward me, on and off-wiki is a matter of record. Very
3979:
Mandruss, good advice overall. But, not a cure all. Iâve been dragged to ANI/AE five times and am far less active at CTOP articles than Specifico. None of them stuck and two resulted in booms; but I still had to weather the
9137:
Greetings. I certainly didn't the TBAN required me to stop participating there. You and I discussed some references there, so possibly you agree - or at least did at the time of the edits. At any rate, I took a look at the
3408:
was one of the funniest things I've ever read. In a sense, you're correct? But I guess not how you think you are. You can be mistakenly false or deliberately false, because, yes, deliberateness has nothing to do with truth
2627:
has a mandatory "Introduction to contentious topics" header that's inserted as part of the substitution. And when you're issuing multiple simultaneous first alerts, results in multiple level 2 headers being created like in
3957:
Look, it never has to get this complicated. Steer clear of the behavior line, and you don't end up at ANI/AE in the first place. You can't reasonably claim to have done that. You're reminding me in some ways of Winkelvi.
2516:
4371:. The latest developments in the case are âjust the factsâ and provide relevant and up-to-date information and are well sourced. Are you able to post the updates to the article about the case being dismissed? Thank you,
5243:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page
3997:
No need for a closer to create a spreadsheet trying to evaluate the value of each !vote, of which there may be numerous. Replaced by a public discussion among admins which can evolve as their feedback tunes the overall
880:
It would have been just as bad if the upper bound had been removed, i.e. "1828 emails were verified..." Content discussion really should go on the article talk page, where you'll get broader participation than at this
8107:
3755:. I ignore such stuff â sticks and stones â but this beginning influenced the tone for the discussions. The same editor then dragging another editor before a board for AGF violations â as the question, so the answer.
3724:
And as a clarification, one of the reasons I specifically called out reviewing the entire discussion was because I did include what editors who didn't respond in the survey itself into account, e.g. Floq's statement.
2570:
2532:
1457:
I'm not on your talk page to discuss policy or content of an article - we could do that over at Vivek's article if you'd like. Here, all I'd like to ask of you is can you honestly say you followed the principles of
9383:
I suppose you might agree that dishonest propaganda is inappropriate at Knowledge. Would you really mean it though? I only ask because dishonest propaganda can be quite effective, and it empowers those who employ
4661:
No, you're the one who is late. You have been asked at least four times (three times on this page) to address your close and â to my knowledge â this is the first time you respond in any way. Your understanding of
3858:" then I dispute this, I do not agree that I misrepresented SPECIFICO's words, quotes, or actions. I don't want to further debate this or continue to inflame this dispute, so I will not comment further. Thanks. â
2281:
Yes, sorry, SPECIFICO, I got editor names and edit timings round the wrong way. Valjean, you are right, VQuakr made an edit that removed article content, SPECIFICO reverted thereby triggering consensus required.
5932:
Politrukki, as you will see if you examine the chain of posts and discussion here, I fulfilled OP's request after initially removing it. So your comment here was gratuitous, misleading, and without constructive
4969:
What I did say above is that I clearly articulated that I was removing content that violated BLP, stated in my initial edit summary and referenced in my second one. So the relevant link, if you wish a link, is
779:
So what can be done if an editor says they have removed stuff for BLP reasons without specifying what the reasdon is? How can other editors know whether putting something back in again would violate BLP or not?
9796:
Collusion: He described what was happening between the Trump campaign and Russians as "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests". That happened a whole
964:
with far too much. Lastly, saying "Aspersions" as an excuse to dismiss criticism of your edits because they aren't being directly provided to you in this moment when you know what you're doing is gaslighting.
7017:
accusing me of a general attitude that "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked"... your broadcasting of that lie at ANI... Your statement that I routinely attack editors in the course of talk page
5220:
a significant BLP violation. I'm sure you would agree that your role as Admin does not entitle you to skip reading the sources of content you publish in the encyclopedia after a BLP concern has been recorded.
4583:
2970:
I saw nothing in that brief series of edits that was an improvement. Please don't jump to wikilawyering mode over a few bad edits. You should be able by now to anticipate that folks are likely to revert such
9167:
I think an appeal of either the block or the TBAN could indeed be successful if the appeal addressed the AA-related edits (idk how exactly I've never won an appeal). So anyway now I've given you a heads up.
7344:
requires expertise (again, wrong field), and being "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which isn't true here (hosted by WaPo, but "We will retain full editorial control over what we write",
6983:
which he mentions them provided the basis for a more general statement about me that might mislead you and others? If I had said "basis" instead of "spear" would that have been AOK, but "spear" gets a block?
8242:
was predictable and the reason for no ping. Your angry, combative, non-AGF tone is offensive, un-Wikipedian, and unwelcome.You may not have noticed that I'm trying to expedite the main article content that
6774:
This aggressive behaviour is very much unlike you, Pack. I'll self revert and copy your threats to the talk page, where we can see what others think about the substance without threatening. Thanks for your
4978:
reason for the revert. Once such content has been removed for identified policy violation, the ONUS is on editors who may wish to reinsert it, not to tag-team reinsert without addressing the stated concern.
9525:. But I'm still confused. I thought I was just adding a fact. Will the cited information be acceptable if, perhaps, reworded or put somewhere different in the text? I'd appreciate your advice. Thank you.
7680:
3706:
for your reply. I may have other questions. This is a somewhat unusual sanction, because it's the sort that's usually at AE, where the standard of evidence and post-sanction review process are more clear.
906:
Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable.
3880:
5322:-- That came after the community discussion was closed, changes had been decided, and most or all of us non-Arbs stopped following the editing of new information page text, editing of templates, etc. I
3501:
Thanks, you're right. Can you correct that part without losing whatever part of my edit makes sense to you? Or tell me what you think would fix it so that you don't run out of the recently-scarce 3RR's.
2522:
2114:
Callanecc if I'm misunderstanding the intent behind the "affirmative consensus" aspect of the editing restriction, yes by all means please let me know as well. @SPECIFICO, I didn't "reinsert" any file.
6200:
The article is currently in an RFC, removing the tag an the sourced material is not conducive to building a consensus based encyclopedia. Id as you to undo and let it sit until the discussion is over.
4748:"Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Knowledge-related conduct and administrative actions ... Administrators should justify their actions when requested."
4174:- I reckon that's part of the price of performing controversial edits in controversial topic areas, until Knowledge comes up with a way to prevent it. A wise man (I) once said, "Ya can't fix people." â
3851:
The second complainant stated that he had (unintentionally) misrepresented my actions without vacating the accusations that were based on what they came to know was not true. That's quite problematic.
7768:. 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
9832:
did find evidence of collusion and some instances of possible conspiracy, such has Donald Trump's knowledge of, not reporting, and lying about the Russian government's promised offer of dirt at the
8572:
Trump'. Most people just follow TV and aren't aware of the scholarship (it's not partisan; few liberals grasp the complexity of the problem). The two most important AMPOL2 articles on Knowledge are
7944:
reissued and updated this month from her earlier book (which is available in English) to take in recent events, is the sort of thing that will eventually rewrite the narrative in encyclopedic terms.
4126:
Why is that against DTR? Not following. Seems like a good way to depersonalize such posts. Of course, one can always just go immediately to an Admin or noticeboard, but that's not better for anyone.
3933:
2703:
The ADMINACCT issues have taken over that thread, but to go back to the actual image, do you have the URL you got it from? If so, I'm happy to undelete it and let it defer to a discussion process (
8790:
7360:
paragraph about an accusation of antisemitism directed at Rashida Tlaib, who Greenwald defended. The first source doesn't even mention Greenwald. The second source is an interview of Greenwald by
6958:
More fundamentally, it should have been clear to you that under the circumstances, when you decided that I needed to be blocked, you should have requested an UNINVOLVED Admin to review the thread.
4538:
Oh, thanks. In that discussion, the initial request had been exhaustively addressed, and the thread had become repetitive. Further, I was not involved in the discussion. There's documentation at
8152:
copyright/pay reasons. If you have recommendations for books and scholarly literature, I would appreciate a list for myself and other editors to view in order to improve the quality of the wiki.
829:, the 'minor edit' tag is acceptable for "Content additions of extremely minimal size". What you've been doing is not only in breach of Knowledge policy and guidelines, it's also just plain rude.
7499:
6309:
You have made excessive claims of "edit warring" on many, many users, almost instantly after their edits are made. You fail even to specify with what edits or why you believe "edit wars" occur.
2955:, for example. You see something in a series of edits that you donât approve, so you do a blanket revert of the whole series of edits without any reason or explanation for most of your revert.
9595:
Mueller never said there was no "collusion", only "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated..." They did cooperate with the Russians in myriad ways, and
6365:
The place to discuss the article is at the article talk page. On all pages, please take care to be accurate in your assertions of fact. I am not even in the top 50 most frequent editors at
5261:
Am I misinterpreting that this requires an editor wishing to reinstate their edit to post a talk page message discussing the edit and wait 24 hours from the time of the talk page message?
1643:
5980:
5750:
2988:
an editor expand a lead and in the very same edit install a too-long tag. If all objections to the perfection of your edits is wikilawyering then I plead guilty, but otherwise not guilty.
7552:
I already linked to diffs that show your policy interpretations differ significantly depending on the POV of the content, which is battleground editing, which you were just blocked for.
5775:
another topic as a sub-heading? If that was your reasoning, though your comment associated with the action was somewhat rude, I will redo my not-nonsense comment under its own heading.
4950:
know you're familiar with these sanctions as you've brought them up as your preferred anti-edit warring sanction at AE, and you've recently reported at least one editor for violating it.
2517:
https://detroitsportsnation.com/new-york-times-under-fire-for-publishing-story-relating-michigan-state-shooting-to-larry-nassar-scandal/wgbrady/college-sports/msu-news/02/14/2023/395080/
1211:
It's not just technically correct. It would be difficult to improve ordinary articles if editors were only allowed three edits per day. It only becomes a problem when they are disputed.
8577:
5782:
about expectations on Knowledge. As an aside, you have a serial comma badge on your talk page; surely you understand the importance of, the proper use of, this particular punctuation.
2835:
2785:
2750:
6542:
instead. The user can come along later and replace that with their signature, if they feel embarrassed about minor brain farts. That said, I don't know of a guideline to that effect. â
315:
I understand you feel justified, that doesn't make you right. I'd merely ask that you stop allowing your preference for a narrative to override the proper editing of a reference work.
7784:
9032:
6903:
4859:
2848:
to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. â
1286:
9631:
to set up meetings between Trump associates and Kremlin officials, nor about the meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer.
7829:
organization which has quite frequently resorted to terrorism, something not untypical of some Western states, and Israel. The difference is, Hamas is a non.or para-state actor.
7753:
7346:
5320:
Implementation: The drafting arbitrators will implement the Committee's decision in conjunction with the Committee's clerks and interested volunteers designated by the Committee.
5062:
discuss that irrelevant issue here when I am trying to get clarity and resolution on what I feel was an inappropriate block accompanied by some really bad narrative on this page.
6348:. In fact, the majority of objections to your editing habits are (1) frequent reverts and (2) filibustering; until today, I didn't realize that they often come hand-in-hand as
6053:
I'm reaffirming my request. With regards to the discussion at Yodabyte's user talk page, they removed the discussion, but you may explain your position somewhere on this page.
5918:
Although I am aware of the guidelines, I am really interested solely in quality forward-facing content which was the outcome. I will leave this discussion to the two of you.
1493:
9675:. There is also Manafort's passing election data to Russian intelligence.), and lots of evidence of collusion using many different terms. It's a long subject. 'nuff said. --
7009:. I said that I was of a similar mind to another admin. Being of a similar mind is not being of the same mind. Your response is another example of your battleground behavior.
8680:
Fair enough. We all have to make similar decisions and choices. I semi-retired, but because of larger WP issues, not that article in particular. Good luck wherever you go. â
7825:
of Hamas and Israel and and is peer-published on that. What he states about the Hamas accommodation in 2021 is well documented, if invisible on wiki pages for that period.
8840:
3349:! I genuinely think that we would probably agree on 99% of issues, and the fact that we're having a contentious discussion about the 1% shouldn't get in the way of that.)--
1822:
8880:
7442:
Right, if it were clearly a violation. But this is attributed description of a public controversy, which is why nobody has previously removed it as if it were a violation.
3553:
I don't think we need to say that he was speaking as Barron after our first sentence said that he was pretending to be someone other than himself. I'm fine with the rest.
2843:
2770:
2566:
2528:
185:
4925:
Please undo your block. I don't think it reflects the intention or spirit of the page restriction and conflicts with our mandate to safeguard BLP narratives and sourcing.
2381:
SPECIFICO, thanks for the ping as I'd quit following this conversation prior to Callanecc's clarification above. I don't believe any portion of this has been personal??
4616:
I think you are right. Involved editors should not close RfCs. I considered requesting a snow close because it looks like it will go that way, but we're not there yet.
3085:
The limits of Schlesinger's clairvoyance would seem to have been reached well before Trumpism exposed the underbelly of contemporary Republican instincts decades later.
8543:
from drafting a specific proposal, but I don't see a clear a consensus that the RfC should be closed simply because it hasn't decided on the exact text to be added. ââ
8128:
5297:
2822:
2523:
https://www.prosportsextra.com/tiffany-may-new-york-times-blasted-for-writing-and-publishing-story-tying-recent-shooting-to-the-larry-nassar-scandal-at-michigan-state/
2510:
8119:
on the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign talk page. There's been a lot of back and forth and I think we need some more experienced editors in the conversation.
1315:. While there isn't a 24hr BRD arbitration restriction it's still poor practice as you know to do this on contentious topics. It's perceived by many as edit warring.
4420:
9574:
the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government and its election interference activities
6611:
A direct response to an !vote can go directly beneath the !vote. Extended discussion generally goes in the separate section, as you say. Is that what concerned you?
4710:
days and this RFC was not due to being closed until 11 August. Unless the result is unanimous or nearly unanimous, RFCs are not the best candidates for SNOW close.
4610:
9606:
6691:
I believe you're right about it being clearer over the next few months right. When I have time that entire policies section needs to be reworked into subsections.
3746:
My vote wouldnât have changed anything but Iâm sorry I wasnât able to point out these comments the OP made on their first day editing the Donald Trump talk page:
9828:
So there are different ways of describing these things, and while the Mueller report did not prove "conspiracy" or "coordination" beyond a shadow of a doubt, the
1399:
should be careful, when an experienced editor leaves a clear reason for reverting your edit, to ensure you understand why and with what basis the revert was made.
507:
5797:
4785:
4376:
3641:
574:
492:
385:
8979:. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
6850:. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
4806:. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
1140:) back-to-back. I would urge you to self-revert at least one of these edits to comply with site policy. If you do not, this offense is liable to be reported at
6252:
3830:(unintentionally) misrepresented my actions without vacating the accusations that were based on what they came to know was not true. That's quite problematic.
912:
Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor.
5585:
is complicated in this instance. While it is true on the surface that experienced editors will generally self-revert upon a friendly talk page message, about
5361:
that have gone unnoticed due to most editors' unawareness of the change. So in addition to everything above, I should also be freed on 14th amendment grounds.
5124:
then 3RRNO is the policy you're invoking to bypass the sanction placed on the article. Your failure to post on the talk page is material because enforced BRD
9473:
8950:
6837:
6201:
5597:
to SFR for violating the same sanction on another article. In that instance, you did not give JFD the same courtesy note prior to reporting him for the same
4562:
I see now. Thanks! I have been editing since September 2020. I have learned a lot in the last several years about Knowledge and that it mentions everything.
3807:. I directly addressed that in my closing statement, so to repeat, I gave less weight to arguments that seemed based on editor bias or content disagreements.
3293:
your presence there - most of it IMO repetitive, unresponsive, and unconstructive. This really doesn't help you advance whatever good work you have to offer.
1119:
5554:
5326:
hope somebody is going to set me free from this pointless block. Otherwise, sure as shootin' it will be cited years from now as evidence of my depravity.đż
6306:. Not all of your discussions are bad, but the speed and quantity of your discussions mean that when the quality falls, it has a big impact on the page.
5093:
Your first response to the block was to claim your edit was in service of BLP policy. Now you've said the opposite, that you were not invoking BLP policy.
3815:
are under no obligation to respond to your rebuttals, and others not returning to reaffirm or change their positions does not invalidate their responses.
2258:, VQuakr made an edit (a deletion) that was challenged by reversion. SPECIFICO did nothing wrong. VQuaker should not have violated BRD (edit warring). --
2137:
doesn't count). VQuakr's edit to re-remove the image was within the limits of the process to enforce the consensus required provision which you breached.
1835:
418:
5548:
3659:
1668:
mode. As long as you're here, I must say I am just amazed that an editor of your experience would try to claim that a page about a living person such as
8986:
8166:
A librarian at a public or institutional location convenient to you can provide access to such work, as can any physical hookstore, if you are near one.
6857:
5132:
You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
4813:
3574:
page, while this is significant due to Trump's Forbes list ranking, there might be something more general that could be added somewhere on the bio page.
3526:". Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that he owned more than 90 percent of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the
1731:
1323:
9772:
convictions, where we don't know if anything was spoken before intruders entered the Capitol building together. Of course it is a lot harder to prove.
8468:
5122:
but it offers no reasoning or principle for reinstating validly disputed BLP content. But the important fact is that they reinserted UNDUE BLP content)
381:
9518:
bestseller month after it's publication. I was surprised to see my edit removed and this note: UNDUE PROMO. Should not have been marked a minor edit.
7679:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (
5343:
4490:
That topic on that one talk page needed to be close. In the future, can I close a topic if it turns into theories that are unsupported for Knowledge?
2861:
1657:
10007:
I'll have a look, but my first reaction is that section would grow as wide as the Milky Way and be unmanageable. See also, hair, hype, humility, etc.
9822:
2877:. The sentence I used, copied and modified from the Democratic Party article, uses no words to watch. Please double-check both user's contributions.
9495:
6807:
5733:
5446:
I find it exceedingly unlikely that they were not aware of the sanction. That, their edits still being a violation of the original 24-BRD sanction
3650:
you are banned from American politics for thirty days. The ban will expire at this time on 2023-06-23. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
3604:
1269:
1241:
8709:
7510:
Your recommendation to edit-war with you (while declining to self-revert) is ridiculous, especially since this is Palestine-Israel content where
5604:
Keeping what you've just said in mind, if a similar situation to the one involving JFD were to arise today, would you handle it any differently?
6566:
6318:
2542:
Please discuss content on the article talk page. I do not consider any of those a valid source for claims of controversy regarding the NY Times.
432:. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
8292:
Are you saying that pursuit of this main article content is futile? Are you effectively resigning as an editor of contentious content, or just
4682:. That comment looks like nonsense. Please explain what you meant. Moreover, you repeatedly participated in related disputes before the close:
5979:
Commenting only on the "Me and OP are good", because like I said no interest in the back and forth politics, this statement is 100% accurate.
3647:
2817:
2606:
2553:
1558:
It's not helpful to jump the gun and preemptively replace longstanding text under discussion. Also, such an edit should not be marked "minor".
7811:
4591:
4584:
3192:
1574:
Those are separate issues. My edit respected the clear views of the discussion. As the changes were relatively minor, I marked them as such.
8296:
contentious content? Your comments would seem to imply the former, since widespread editor incompetence would not be limited to this issue.
6275:
5128:
at least 24 hours after a talk page discussion is opened before restoring reverted content. As stated on the talk page and the edit notice,
3973:
2873:
The issue I took there was how another user recently reworded that exact sentence about the Democratic rivalry to use words that fall under
2727:
1914:
Iâve just checked, and the "key demographic" 148,000 is supported by the statista citation. No mention there of Forbes. All good, I think.
794:
First, do no harm. As I said, you'll do better to seek guidance at the village pump or tea room, where you'll get the attention you deserve.
9840:
9729:
7308:
4410:: As you suggested in your last note, I am sending a friendly reminder regarding my request to update the sexual misconduct section of the
466:
to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
9540:
9347:, if you think alternative wording would better furfill the RfC close I'd encourage you engage (if you haven't already) in discussions at
9281:
3781:
3767:
1384:
if, when you get reverted by someone with a good-faith edit summary, you simply revert their reversion to include your preferred content.
8726:
8573:
7471:
You can't seriously argue the blog isn't "published without editorial oversight", when the blog's author says in bold font that "We will
5677:
The coverage of the accusations are widely covered by reliable sources, and those coverages being about a high-profile rape lawsuit, his
3417:
3357:
3168:
No apologies needed. As you might have guessed from my edit note, I cleaned up the presentation but was a bit dubious about the content.
2911:
2666:
This way you only get the single mandatory "Introduction to contentious topics" header, and all three alerts are still considered valid.
2612:
2036:
Hi SPECIFICO, just wanted to check where the consensus to have the New York Post logo in the article was established? You referred to in
1393:
7479:
to a less experienced editor, citing policy wrongly yet authoritatively. It shows that your misuse of policies is a long-standing issue.
6036:
2894:
The two parties are separate and distinct. The wording you inserted changed the meaning and it also was false, according to current RS.
1153:
9004:
8867:
8848:
8821:
6875:
4831:
4645:
Further, the RfC itself prolonged a nasty abuse of an individual's privacy and the SNOW close was obvious and later affirmed by others.
2964:
1692:
938:
875:
854:
73:
5705:
to seek support for your view, and you can cite stronger sourcing. In this case, it is still NOTNEWS and should not be in the article.
4465:
3522:
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named "
8898:, and the corresponding addition to the article talk page are a pretty clear violation of the TBAN that you were sanctioned under on
6125:
3262:
2354:
2231:
2178:
1034:
2675:
2511:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nyt-trashed-making-michigan-state-shooting-story-about-schools-sex-abuse-scandal-biggest-scumbags-ever
866:
emails on their own; but their inclusion in the article seemed redundant, and their removal did not SEEM like a major change to me.
7376:; yet the material making this claim ("In an exchange with Greenwald in February 2019"), is in fact not supported by the citation.
2952:
8863:
2805:
2574:
2536:
2504:
1137:
1133:
960:
822:
661:
9008:
6879:
6082:
4835:
2930:
1839:
1220:
9914:
7995:. Well, that's a good way to help folks search for what they want to find, but it's no way to evaluate NPOV weight. Best wishes.
6328:. Use the article talk page to seek consensus rather than quickly reinstating your preferred content after it's been challenged.
6001:. For pagewatchers who may be disappointed: I made a mistake. OP pointed it out. I fixed it. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
5041:
9596:
8407:
The Larry David ref is lost on the likes of me. You're one of a number of experienced and competent editors who have supported
7731:
2634:. What I've taken to do, and what I've seen a few other folk do, when issuing multiple alerts to someone new to CTOP is to use
1366:
1354:. Not saying I agree with them (I would like to hear different arguments on both sides before I make my mind up definitely). "
1341:
1230:
582:
500:
475:
38:
8564:
7388:
7176:
7159:
6721:
5583:
It's the sort of immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talk
5404:
3585:
3565:
3512:
365:
9997:
9219:
9118:
9097:
9071:
7476:
7340:
use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert" (boldface not mine).
7065:
7039:
6994:
6973:
6949:
5493:
5287:
5270:
5186:
5140:
gone back and cut and pasted edit summary to the talk page, and then proceeded for the third time to remove the article text
5073:
4989:
4963:
4936:
4900:
4254:
3913:
3896:
3845:
3824:
3798:
3734:
3717:
3700:
3685:
3450:
3437:
3399:
3340:
3323:
3284:
1588:
No, and your denials are concerning. When it is important enough to be under talk page dispute, it is not "minor", full stop.
1258:
923:
531:
79:
9946:
7084:
6514:
5476:
4309:
2037:
1619:
1056:
1040:
838:
758:
743:
630:
7807:
6287:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5778:
If you decided to remove my comment just because you didn't think it had merit, then I will let your edit stand and follow
5105:
3248:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2942:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2374:
2358:
2235:
2217:
2182:
1471:
1452:
1435:
1410:
1206:
1189:
1170:
1109:
1092:
1074:
892:
722:
673:
647:
310:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
193:
9159:
edited in the diff above. The entire Israel section of the Donald Trump article is covered by I-P broadly construed. Obvi.
8695:
8668:
7495:
7484:
6465:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3466:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3027:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1098:
At any rate, it's not serving the needs of our readers to use misleading text, and in a BLP is is strictly against policy.
1083:
to preserve status quo you personally like, against consensus. That's all I wanted to say. Take heed or don't, up to you.
690:
361:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
9585:
8982:
8718:
8097:
7708:
6853:
6643:
While we're here, perhaps you will consider adding that direct quote to the options in the RfC instead of just yes or no.
6396:
6156:
5927:
5913:
5112:
The only exemptions to edit warring restrictions, e.g. consensus required and enforced BRD, are the exemptions listed in
4809:
4625:
4416:
3381:
3223:
2888:
2866:
1944:
1253:
8871:
appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.
7566:
I understand that you disagree. I regard reference to an unrelated and highly dubious prior situation as unconstructive.
7222:
7142:
7012:
Being subject to attacks from an editor responding to administrator actions or comments does not make an admin involved.
6232:
Please note that in the discussion of whether the tag should be kept, SPECIFICO has a habit of making excessive reverts.
6108:
Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution.
6026:
6012:
5988:
5880:
5864:
5850:
5834:
5814:
4751:
sources for one news cycle. No, there's no evidence that mentioning the name was either irresponsible or "child abuse".
4639:
1281:
9971:
9947:"James Clapper: I didn't know about Papadopoulos, Trump Tower meetings when I said there was no Trump-Russia collusion"
9788:
9705:
9639:
7676:
7198:
5779:
3096:
3080:
3066:
3013:
2997:
2982:
2731:
729:
As a page watcher (who disagrees with Specific as often as I agree), the edit by PhotogenicScientist looks very like a
298:
10018:
9569:
9208:
These edits do not relate to discussion of the topic of the ban, nor are they contentious. I suggest you reverse this.
9043:
These edits do not relate to discussion of the topic of the ban, nor are they contentious. I suggest you reverse this.
8859:
for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanctionâand you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
7725:
6475:
6395:
In the last year-ish (500 edits), you have made 28 edits to the page, almost all reverts. This puts you in the top 10.
6227:
5346:
I had to put in to even find the words "enforced BRD" and track it down, this block probably does become unnecessary.
4760:
4737:
3615:
2789:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a
2716:
1531:
1043:, and realize that you're still doing what I and other editors have asked you not to do in this thread. You are still
901:
to bed first. As you say, it would be equally wrong to quote only the lower bound and illustrates why PhSc is so wrong
9851:
9814:
9781:
9744:
9698:
9684:
9665:
9651:
9558:
9368:
9338:
9324:
8743:
8083:
8065:
7475:
over what we write". That bold is from the source. I checked "longstanding"; that's even worse. It was disputed, and
7332:, you've reinstated an insinuation of antisemitism sourced to a blog, arguing that the author is a "notable expert".
7302:
6737:
6428:
6406:
6383:
6360:
6339:
6244:
4441:
4424:
3867:
1972:
1613:
1599:
1583:
1569:
555:
389:
279:
9348:
9329:
If an uninvolved editor takes the view that the edit doesn't violate the RfC, I won't press the point any further.
8958:
8931:
6209:
6190:
6095:
5630:
5613:
5572:
5540:
5398:
5023:
4233:
4213:
4189:
4076:
4021:
3155:
3141:
2692:
330:
9259:
8832:
8819:
7428:
Just a little comment from up here in the peanut gallery - "longstanding" is a non-argument in the context of BLP.
7154:
6487:
6162:
6062:
4947:
make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption.
4912:
UNDUE BLP detail, ce. This is an encyclopedia article on the man's life, not a current issue of a newsstand tabloid
4477:
4397:
3764:
3562:
3492:
3200:
3182:
2867:
1925:
271:
255:
9036:
notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
9021:
7869:
Please seek consensus is not a reason for removal. Neither is ONUS, you need actual reasons to dispute something.
6907:
notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
6786:
6769:
6755:
6048:
5974:
5958:
5944:
5785:
If you would be kind enough to provide clarity so I know which path to take forward, I would much appreciate it.
4863:
notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
4719:
4656:
4480:
3674:
unilaterally as Admin in CT, regardless of the ANI thread, but that doesn't appear to have been what you intended.
3422:
I think you long ago exhausted whatever constructive contributions you may have had to offer on that article. Per
3071:
My mistake. But the introduction he wrote was from October 1997, not 1947. Why did you claim he wrote it in 1947?
2762:
2745:
1909:
1893:
9482:
9215:
9093:
9017:
8876:
8836:
8557:
8006:
7985:
7970:
7864:
7803:
7239:
7035:
6945:
6892:
6888:
6445:
5716:
5472:
5266:
5182:
5037:
4959:
4896:
4844:
4386:
I will have a look, may not review everything just now. You can remind me from time to time if I don't get to it.
3949:
3892:
3820:
3777:
3730:
3696:
3655:
3495:
3304:
3173:
3049:
2905:
2698:
2293:
2209:
2148:
2133:" It requires that before an edit is reinstated that there is a affirmative consensus on the talk page (that is,
2109:
2077:
2051:
1669:
1129:
973:
919:
850:
739:
618:
9458:
9262:
9197:
9180:
9153:
9132:
8653:
8375:
8331:
8315:
8266:
8232:
7953:
7929:
7914:
7896:
7879:
7282:
7135:
7118:
7101:
6489:
5525:
5416:
5372:
5355:
5337:
5313:
4746:
and, I would argue, by extension other relevant policies administrators are subject to, specifically ADMINACCT:
4158:
4137:
4121:
4093:
3328:
By the wayâsince you did revert (hence the ping), I'd, of course, be more than happy to have you participate in
3289:
After you very recently stated your intention to stand back from the Donald Trump, page, you have significantly
3177:
3146:
That's cool. I got it with my first guess. You have offered me unintended epistemological reassurance - thanks!
2492:
1853:
1631:
1024:
1008:
990:
805:
789:
774:
707:
9766:
9393:
8954:
8817:
8525:
8502:
8482:
8462:
8442:
8426:
8395:
8177:
8161:
8146:
7638:
6712:
5430:
5318:
Greetings Val. Welcome to my happy talk page. Thanks for that. Looks like the text was altered during phase 4,
4571:
4557:
4533:
4516:
4457:
4297:
3476:
2839:
2363:
Thanks FÂł, fixed. I thought they were referring to the article talk page thread where they had been commenting.
2301:
1810:
1793:
1775:
1758:
1706:
1687:
523:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
24:
9404:
8962:
8827:
8823:
8631:
8535:
8193:
7453:
7437:
6557:
5142:
it would have also been a violation and resulted in a block without the requisite 24 hour hold for discussion.
5051:
24-BRD restriction. I haven't denied failing to post on talk. I am saying it was unintentional and immaterial.
4848:
4594:. With 9 editors in support, and 23 opposing, this was hardly a "snow". More important, the instructions at
4353:
4339:
3753:
3750:
3747:
3217:
2794:
2445:
2431:
2390:
2156:
2124:
660:. And it's ironic that you advise others to be patient while being rather impatient yourself to revert edits (
351:
9564:
9293:
9273:
8782:
8664:
7672:
7622:
7605:
7577:
7561:
7547:
7523:
7423:
7406:
6700:
6686:
6669:
6654:
6636:
6622:
6495:
Not sure why Hammersoft did that, other than they had just commented on Sparkfire's talk page. Now fixed. --
5695:
5599:
immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talk
5101:
4380:
2350:
2227:
2174:
2131:
an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
1514:
1467:
1431:
1389:
1358:" - I know you are familiar with the policy, but that doesn't change the fact that you did on this occasion.
1277:
1249:
1185:
1149:
1088:
1052:
934:
871:
834:
718:
669:
626:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
68:
9284:. Please either explain how your edit does not violate the RfC, or state why the rules do not apply to you.
9277:
8966:
8621:
8589:
7369:
7318:
7314:
1952:
1421:"If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version... Instead, take it to the talk page"
1312:
1308:
1300:
9303:, editors have no responsibility to answer to you, especially not when the revert you're referring to (see
8844:
7777:
6819:
3426:, several experienced editors have taken the time to offer advice and support. There's nothing left to say.
2339:
2059:
1943:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
1359:
1316:
1159:
Consecutive reverts are counted as a single revert. Please review our documentation on revert restrictions.
612:
578:
539:
496:
471:
437:
8913:
8825:
6412:
3636:
534:
for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
9251:
8638:? No offense to any other experienced and competent editors who I've overlooked but might be persuaded. â
7789:
7146:
6479:
6119:
5900:
I restored your comment. SPECIFICO really should not be removing any comments that are not "harmful" per
5158:
5153:
5148:
4889:
4886:
4789:
4469:
4461:
3756:
3668:
3554:
3484:
2275:
543:
59:
9102:
I'm aware that TBANs relate to such content wherever it occurs. But it's pretty tenuous to suggest that
7503:
5822:
Also, I see you clarified that Hunter is not the son of Joe, 'among others', so thanks for that as well.
3883:
I workshopped a bit about ways to make the trips to ANI for CTOP related editing less of a free-for-all.
636:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The matter of the lead is currently under review. patience is advised.
9211:
9089:
9013:
8872:
8286:
7846:
7031:
6941:
6884:
6022:
5984:
5923:
5860:
5830:
5793:
5745:
5468:
5262:
5178:
5033:
4955:
4892:
4840:
3888:
3816:
3773:
3741:
3726:
3692:
3651:
3610:
3571:
3445:
3412:
3394:
3352:
3335:
3318:
3257:
3231:
3169:
2790:
915:
846:
735:
603:
433:
92:
9054:
8659:
ago, and still have some residual care for. Otherwise, Knowledge gets the article it deserves, there.
8211:
6035:. I have waited a reply from you for weeks. Please respond as soon as possible.I also left you a note
9882:
9804:"two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests"
9777:
9694:
9661:
9581:
9490:
9389:
8971:
8856:
8357:
8115:
I think your long Knowledge experience and familiarities with policy would be a welcome voice on the
6926:
6842:
6303:
You engage in what I perceive as failing to engage in quality, substantive discussion on talk pages.
6195:
4798:
4621:
4279:
4042:
3076:
3045:
2993:
2960:
2855:
1552:
1216:
550:
481:
9988:
I would like to know your opinion when you are free about adding See Also section on Trump article.
6726:
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
3547:
3329:
2022:
1425:"Carefully consider whether "policy", "consensus", or "procedure" are valid reasons for the revert."
1177:
657:
9993:
9919:
8852:
8749:
8675:
8660:
8635:
8093:
8079:
8044:
7704:
6585:
6205:
5097:
5096:
I, too, think this was a fine block on a pretty crystal-clear reading of the 24hr-BRD restriction.
3475:
Bringing this here because taking it to the DT talk page is an exercise in futility at the moment.
3130:
Hello. Dunno what it could be? Thumbing thru watchlist on phone maybe. So, please disregard. Sorry.
3124:
2346:
2223:
2170:
1463:
1427:
1385:
1304:
1273:
1245:
1181:
1145:
1084:
1048:
930:
867:
830:
714:
665:
622:
607:
444:, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
8048:
5231:
4881:
2345:
You mistakenly said "reinsirted the file" in your comment above at 23:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
9536:
9304:
9267:
8722:
7660:
7278:
6402:
6356:
6314:
6240:
6098:
legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be
5654:
5293:
4733:
4209:
4017:
3934:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344#Challenging closure of Political legacies thread
3665:
Well one question is why you closed an ongoing active discussion, such that at least one editor,
3523:
1948:
1609:
1579:
1548:
6605:
4630:
I concur that SPECIFICO should not be closing the discussion. SPECIFICO, please fix your error.
4196:
If we had no faults of our own, we should not take so much pleasure in noticing those in others.
3387:
Hey, if you don't want to take the olive branch, by all means don't, but you should try to stay
1838:
are inane and have tended to be passive-aggreessive inflammatory as well. Here's another recent
9732:
Mueller was a pure amateur who failed beside the Senate Intel Committee. They went really deep:
8909:
8813:
8032:
7251:
6937:
6113:
6103:
5609:
5536:
5394:
5301:
5018:
4975:
The Biden family have been publicly criticised regarding their relationship with this daughter.
4260:
If this would violate your ban, then don't respond there. You can answer here, but ping me. --
3151:
3120:
2671:
2505:
https://nypost.com/2023/02/14/nyt-slammed-for-bringing-larry-nassar-into-msu-shooting-coverage/
2470:
2408:
1875:
1665:
1080:
1044:
535:
519:
467:
429:
8855:
to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be
6936:
Your "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked" style editing there is also textbook
6032:
5839:
Yes, I knew. Folks don't waste their wits on sarcasm when they cue up the insults around here.
3391:(and, even if you don't, that's not going to cause me to abandon the article). Best of luck.--
3111:
My two competing theories for the "Thank" message I received were that it was a misclick or a
9624:
8900:
8894:
8715:
7765:
6815:
6033:
User talk:SPECIFICO#Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter
6018:
5996:
5919:
5895:
5856:
5826:
5789:
5587:
4606:
4499:
4367:
I wanted to check in with you about the updates to the Guzel Ganieva lawsuit brought against
4359:
3034:
2630:
2297:
2213:
2152:
2055:
2031:
599:
250:
9573:
9003:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
6874:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
5788:
I wish you all the best and tip my hat to your anti-fake news work, it must be exhausting.
4830:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
4543:
4321:
3983:
From the start of that thread I wished it had been posted at AE. AE has several advantages:
3370:
decision to step away from that article and apply your efforts elsewhere for the time being.
653:
9773:
9690:
9657:
9577:
9385:
8552:
7776:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
7461:
7322:
6765:
6733:
6537:
6370:
6349:
6345:
6058:
6044:
5954:
5909:
5741:
5558:
5251:
5117:
4756:
4715:
4635:
4617:
3593:
3072:
3041:
2989:
2956:
2849:
2758:
2712:
2638:
2621:
2562:
1920:
1904:
1870:
1212:
570:
488:
377:
7379:
Please self-revert, and please reexamine the two core content policies I linked. Thanks -
6344:
It's funny you mention that, I have just been writing up documentation about your case of
5511:
in the first Q+A of the page when the former wording was in place. I didn't make this up.
4601:, which you are not, because you commented in the RfC. Please fix your error. Thank you.
8:
9989:
9833:
9762:
9672:
9628:
9486:
9441:
9421:
9378:
9334:
9289:
9139:
8539:
8228:
8089:
8075:
8040:
7981:
7949:
7842:
7700:
7652:
7333:
7219:
6796:
6425:
6389:
6099:
5963:
Me and OP are good -- have been for two weeks. You, maybe not. OK, thanks for your visit.
5691:
5381:, only SFR can unilaterally undo this block. Any other administrator must get either the
4970:
4349:
4312:
looks like a mundane fix of an unclosed quote that you reverted? Am I missing something?
3946:
3632:
2883:
2404:
2289:
2205:
2144:
2047:
1507:
527:
441:
49:
8808:
You are topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for 60 days.
8031:
You misunderstand. I was asking for attribution for the quote, as it is an opinion, per
4954:
or the behavior that led to your topic ban continues that will be the likely next step.
4671:
3112:
237:
9532:
9436:
9416:
9353:
9309:
9176:
9128:
9123:
If you were to appeal this, you'd have to explain the edits about the Abraham Accords.
9007:
on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
8778:
8690:
8648:
8616:
8538:
at the RfC. I don't see the point in trying to force editors into a specific proposal.
8521:
8497:
8478:
8457:
8438:
8421:
8391:
8370:
8310:
8261:
8206:
7922:
7889:
7872:
7357:
7350:
7336:
requires expertise "in the relevant field" (law, not antisemite detection), and says: "
7274:
7114:
7080:
6940:, which you were continuing after I brought up you had been warned for it in the past.
6878:
on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
6552:
6506:
6398:
6352:
6310:
6293:
6236:
6182:
5426:
5412:
5351:
5309:
4834:
on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
4743:
4729:
4663:
4271:
4228:
4205:
4184:
4153:
4116:
4071:
4013:
3968:
3932:"Well one question is why you closed an ongoing active discussion". This reminds me of
3859:
3811:
after your rebuttals demonstrate that those involved were not convinced. Additionally,
2948:
2723:
2466:
2269:
1935:
1627:
1605:
1575:
1544:
1488:
1371:
1079:
Your "old consensus" edit was rejected 5 to 1. This is clearly another example of your
1004:
969:
785:
754:
686:
64:
6840:, and for battleground editing, casting aspersions, disruptive editing, you have been
4194:
On quotes: I propose that this from Rochefoucauld be posted at the top of ANI and AE:
3115:. You certainly aren't obliged to clarify things for me, but you could if you choose.
2595:. Then you can get started by copying your initial post here to the article talk page.
1648:
One revert doesn't constitute an edit war. Now, stop harassing me, with OTT warnings.
9847:
9740:
9723:
9680:
9647:
8905:
8887:
8298:
Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well.
8187:
8157:
8124:
7819:
7747:
7023:
6529:
6500:
6324:
Everyone gets reverted on this site all the time, it's' nothing personal. Please see
6176:
5667:
5605:
5532:
5452:
and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit.)
5390:
5378:
5238:
5056:
5029:
5012:
4567:
4529:
4495:
4265:
4245:
3147:
3116:
2667:
2263:
2134:
2095:
1978:
1789:
1754:
1653:
367:
45:
8447:
If my intent was to compliment, I would've sent you a barnstar. Just stating fact. â
6039:. Please respond to that relatively soon (in a few days, if not hours â not weeks).
652:
Users should take edits under review BEFORE deciding to revert them, not after; per
9951:
9942:
8993:
8937:
7796:
7761:
7433:
7341:
6864:
6811:
5819:
For clarity, the last sentence of my post was not sarcasm or snark; it was sincere.
5722:
4820:
4742:
Did Specifico reply in July? Non-administrators closing discussions are subject to
4602:
4372:
4317:
4250:
I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:
3196:
2582:
2441:
2386:
2120:
1180:
when you leveled a similar warning to me which included consecutive edits. Cheers.
244:
221:
9280:
this morning really was not appropriate. You are apparently deliberately ignoring
7291:
Hi. Link in my "tools" drop down - you may need to have email in your preferences.
5443:
5439:
4707:
4701:
4698:
4695:
4692:
4689:
4686:
4683:
2660:{{subst:alert/first|topic=1}} {{subst:alert|topic=2}} {{subst:alert|topic=3}} ~~~~
9522:
9464:
9079:
8585:
8544:
8349:
7618:
7557:
7519:
7384:
7329:
7313:
Hi; we've gotten along fine, and I believe we've agreed more than disagreed. But
6824:
6761:
6729:
6696:
6665:
6632:
6601:
6167:
6054:
6040:
5950:
5905:
5737:
5671:
5170:
5113:
4942:
4752:
4711:
4631:
4451:
3388:
2813:
2754:
2708:
2498:
2191:
1915:
1899:
1865:
1296:
1288:
898:
826:
463:
9478:
8108:
Invitation to participate in rfc on Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign
5662:
please stop removing well-sourced paragraphs about the rape allegations against
5387:
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA
5083:"the clear statement in my initial revert on the article talk page before again
1520:
Thanks! Same to you. A little tinsel on my complaint board! Best to you in 2023.
567:âshould your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
530:
among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See
10008:
9887:
9758:
9618:
9548:
9448:
9344:
9330:
9300:
9285:
9187:
9143:
9108:
9059:
9044:
8921:
8733:
8321:
8276:
8224:
8167:
8136:
8071:
8055:
7996:
7977:
7960:
7945:
7919:
Nope, youre right, been sanctioned in the topic area. Thanks for the reminder.
7904:
7854:
7838:
7773:
7715:
7692:
7664:
7640:
7595:
7594:. I hope you'll start a talk page thread now and we can proceed per BRD.đŠđťâđŚł
7567:
7537:
7443:
7413:
7396:
7365:
7292:
7229:
7211:
7166:
7125:
7091:
7055:
6984:
6963:
6916:
6776:
6745:
6676:
6644:
6612:
6590:
6575:
6435:
6417:
6373:
6366:
6329:
6265:
6217:
6146:
6002:
5964:
5934:
5870:
5840:
5804:
5706:
5702:
5687:
5620:
5562:
5515:
5483:
5460:
5362:
5327:
5277:
5221:
5063:
4979:
4926:
4871:
4646:
4547:
4521:
4506:
4431:
4407:
4387:
4345:
4329:
4287:
4127:
4103:
4083:
3938:
3903:
3835:
3788:
3707:
3675:
3628:
3622:
3575:
3537:
3502:
3470:
3427:
3371:
3294:
3274:
3207:
3188:
3163:
3131:
3086:
3056:
3003:
2972:
2920:
2895:
2878:
2735:
2682:
2648:
2596:
2592:
2543:
2482:
2421:
2415:
2364:
2329:
2284:
2253:
2222:
Only if you consider V's first edit as a revert. It just looks like a removal.
2200:
2163:
2139:
2099:
2084:
2067:
2042:
1962:
1958:
1883:
1843:
1800:
1765:
1721:
1696:
1677:
1589:
1559:
1521:
1442:
1400:
1331:
1196:
1160:
1099:
1064:
1014:
996:
980:
954:
882:
860:
Minor edits are those that do not materially affect the content of the article.
795:
764:
697:
637:
559:
341:
288:
261:
227:
20:
9689:
If as you say "words mean something," what "precisely" does "collusion" mean?
8513:
8251:
So get on with it or get out of the way of others who are prepared to do so. â
7691:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a
7046:
SFR, In the context of governance and enforcement, "animus" refers to adverse
6526:
I consider it bad practice to copy another user's signature, and I always use
6292:
SPECIFICO, you are one of the most active editors on several pages, including
5209:
did not wait 24 hours after starting a discussion before reinstating your edit
5166:
did not wait 24 hours after starting a discussion before reinstating your edit
204:
9507:
9427:
9407:
9237:
9172:
9124:
8773:
8681:
8639:
8607:
8516:
8488:
8473:
8448:
8433:
8412:
8402:
8386:
8361:
8353:
8345:
8301:
8252:
8197:
7769:
7591:
7511:
7109:
7075:
6543:
6469:
6325:
6134:
5901:
5435:
5422:
5408:
5347:
5305:
4595:
4539:
4219:
4175:
4144:
4107:
4099:
4062:
3959:
3423:
2704:
2462:
1673:
1623:
1459:
1416:
1381:
1000:
965:
781:
750:
730:
682:
337:
7005:
I did not say that you removed the RFC twice, nor did I imply it. I did not
6979:
6083:
5440:
clearly being aware of when enforced BRD was codified during the CTOP review
5116:, which is why that policy applies. As your argument was partially based on
4666:
is lacking: the policy clearly states that a non-administrator who has been
243:
I've seen it, don't worry. I'll reply when I get home to a proper keyboard.
9843:
9808:
Mueller uses "coordination" as a synonym or necessary part of "conspiracy".
9736:
9730:
A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?
9676:
9643:
9210:
Does that do anything to convince someone that the violations won't recur?
9083:
9075:
8341:
8153:
8120:
7465:
7353:, but it too urges "caution". None of thees policies plausibly allow this.
6521:
6496:
6172:
5949:
FranMichael's edit did have "merit", yet you failed to restore their post.
5464:
5456:
5247:
4793:
4772:
4563:
4525:
4491:
4468:). With all the other edits around that time, I didnât notice until today.
4261:
3346:
2874:
2585:
2259:
1829:
1785:
1750:
1738:
1714:
1672:
might be exempt from our core BLP policy. I have serious doubts as to your
1649:
1141:
1132:
is under a 1RR restriction, which you violated by reverting content twice (
9708:. Trump and Russia had common goals they kept secret, hence all the lying.
8758:
7489:
There is already âclear evidenceâ that war crimes may have been committed
7260:
6760:
The consensus is on the lead, not the short description. Next step is AE.
5130:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted.
1047:
that article. Seriously, please cut it out and edit more collaboratively.
340:
and place this message at the bottom of my talk page, where I may respond.
208:
9104:
this uncontroversial copyedit of careless or incomprehensibly worded text
8381:
7610:
The edit and revert were both after your reply, there's nothing to amend.
7429:
7368:). That's tenuously sourced and not plausibly due. Your revert rationale
6261:
4592:
Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter
4585:
Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter
4313:
2588:
2437:
2397:
2382:
2309:
2116:
2008:
1537:
316:
9656:
So exactly where and when and how did I allegedly misrepresent anything?
7780:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
7145:
Andrevan. Anyway, I missed you on the DT Talk page, and now I know why.
4668:"involved in the discussion itself or related disputes related disputes"
2005:
You are repeatedly removing longstanding, well-sourced, consensus text.
518:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an
452:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
209:
9613:
8596:
8581:
8337:
7757:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
7614:
7613:
Do you not understand that I'm raising issues of conduct, not content?
7584:
7553:
7515:
7514:
applies. You can't expect me to rely on the weak BLP exception to 1RR.
7380:
6692:
6661:
6628:
6597:
5663:
5508:
4411:
4368:
3527:
3106:
2809:
2654:
for subsequent alert in the same message. In practice this looks like:
2455:
1176:
since it was you who informed me that this is how reverts were counted
8797:
8791:
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
9272:
Hi, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you left
7738:
6978:
Trying further to understand what could have prompted your reaction:
6810:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
6090:
5736:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
4485:
4303:
3607:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
3233:
In Which Christopher Robin Leads An Expotition to the North Pole. . .
2320:- not sure what this is about. I did not say you reinserted anything.
1272:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
1244:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
9572:. What are you talking about? I simply quoted the Mueller Report: â
9503:
I am new, still learning, trying to understand. Thanks for helping.
9142:, and I believe it's #2 that applies overall. Thanks for your visit.
8841:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision
6260:
Aggrieved visitor compiled a dossier that has now been reviewed and
5593:
9892:
9307:
for the actual revert) does not go against the RfC close you cite.
8771:
For your spirited defense of me, I award you this smiley barnstar.
8732:
Please post any edit requests on the associated article talk pages.
8026:
7273:
I`ve been trying to e-mail you but I don`t see a link..can we talk
6713:
5684:
Respectfully, please withhold from making any more of these edits.
5659:
Youâve been asked this before on your talk page, as I can see, but
5246:, which matches the language on the notice displayed when you edit
4703:.Before the RFC, you closed a discussion with a misleading summary
1858:
512:
206:
9980:
7959:
WEIGHT, but is almost always framing and context of the narration.
6216:
article talk pages until you achieve consensus for your proposals.
4505:
Could you show a link? I am not sure what you're referencing here.
1676:
to that and other politics-related pages. Please try to do better.
9245:
9186:
so they have apparently chosen not engage here. See you in April.
9103:
6304:
5751:
Removing comment on Weiss special counsel investigation talk page
5383:
explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator
7793:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
7468:
or ANI if I need to, because this is a pattern, and it's enough.
6168:
https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Valjean/Why_Crossfire_Hurricane%3F
5079:"As I said above, I'm not asking for an edit-war BLP exemption."
2919:
Unsupported allegations by an editor whose wording was reverted.
2196:
Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted.
374:
Surely Donald j trump, 'was' a politician not is a politician..?
8943:
7783:
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
7751:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All
7667:, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
6830:
6724:. That is a violation of the Arbitration remedies on the page
6131:
Because you reverted the NOTFORUM hat, even with longtime user
4778:
3805:
Or the editors who favored sanctions on content-related grounds
1644:
Don't hand out edit war warnings, where no edit war has occured
593:
558:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
9915:"'This Week' Transcript 5-14-17: The Firing of Director Comey"
2827:
914:
did you not understand? It is the first rubric on the page! --
462:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
226:
I have sent you an email via the link on your talk page tools.
210:
9823:
Mueller_special_counsel_investigation#Conspiracy_vs_collusion
6392:(my goodness!), so I'll put in the work to document my claim.
5292:
If I'm following along correctly, it looks like it was added
2169:
removal/replacement, I'd appreciate being pointed toward it.
999:
You failed to respond to any of my arguments or allegations.
9521:
I am sorry for marking it as minor. I've now learned about:
8904:. Will you please self-revert the removal from the article?
8580:
article. Sadly I lack the time, and half-lost the will... -
8249:
you don't need an RfC consensus to propose specific content.
6627:
So that's a "no" to having a policy reason against numbers?
5407:. It looks like I need to at minimum seek consent from SFR.
2707:) if someone thinks it needs to be discussedd for deletion.
508:
SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 engaged in coordinated editwar (2)
9612:
On March 5, 2017, James Clapper said, in an interview with
9403:
Looks like you accidentally removed another user's comment.
9398:
8989:) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:
8487:
I don't dangle, but the Magic 8 Ball says "outlook good". â
6860:) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:
6744:
so that we can go with whatever is determined. OK with you?
6031:
I think you've made you view clear. Now you can go back to
5701:
BLP is not a "guise". You can use the article talk page or
5681:
for that matter, is hard to claim that they "aren't news".
4816:) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:
2559:
Please initiate the conversation. They are valid sources.
1348:
Did you check the edit summaries and read the cited source?
8981:
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
8716:
https://twitter.com/AliciaJ1985/status/1737961681794498946
6852:
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
5298:
Knowledge:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Implementation
5081:
Yet you wrote above, and I quote, that you did not repost
4808:
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
3772:
You were included in the oppose column of my spreadsheet.
1784:
talkpage. But I must ask you, to stop harassing me on it.
8998:
Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.
8862:
You may appeal this sanction using the process described
7015:
You are continuing your attacks and aspersions even now.
6869:
Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.
4825:
Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.
3879:
I specifically reminded people that AE is an option, and
2771:
Orphaned non-free image File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG
598:
Yes, that's exactly right. It's all quite astonishing.
9607:
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
8054:
Oh. Thanks but didn't you find it in one of the sources?
7507:
continuing to do it, 2 weeks after being blocked for it.
6415:
in number of edits in the New York Times page. Regards,
6388:
Ok dokie, you made an accusation and solemnly invoked a
1695:
is on the record and noted. I think that's constructive.
419:
SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 engaged in coordinated editwar
7764:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
5444:
reporting another user for violating that same sanction
5011:
not designed for material that is merely contentious.
4344:
Thanks, I was confused as you and about to ask myself.
3854:
Without commenting further or inflaming this, if I am "
2823:
File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG listed for discussion
1764:
false. Please review our policy and please self-revert.
9789:
Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion
9706:
Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion
9640:
Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion
6931:
In the ANI thread you cast aspersions multiple times.
6235:
SPECIFICO, this does not help consensus. Please stop.
3270:
you've falsely attacked me once on the Trump talk page
713:
like this, you can request that information directly.
549:
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
9011:), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
8714:
Update the number of displaced people for me please.
6882:), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
4838:), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
9570:
This edit of yours accuses me of âmisrepresentationâ
8320:
No resignation. Just declining your kind invitation.
6570:
EDIFICO, PROLIFICO, MAGNIFICO, ORRIFICO, MUNIFICO...
6411:
Actually I think Specifico is not top 10 but rather
5169:
had no valid edit warring exemption, as detailed in
4308:
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning, but
3642:
You are now subject to a community imposed Topic Ban
15:
9721:You'd enjoy reading this quality team effort, from
6999:I'll respond to a couple points you've brought up.
6720:I see you reinstated an edit challenged by revison
6253:
Excessive reversion and accusations of edit warring
5450:
you must discuss the issue on the article talk page
862:
This is patently wrong, per the info page I quoted.
542:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
8851:. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the
5561:which supported my removal and which SFR violated.
2804:will be deleted after seven days, as described in
1380:Agreed - it's not exactly following the spirit of
457:Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
9078:in 1993 and 1995 collapsed with the start of the
8411:main article content (and aren't semi-retired). â
5241:and look at the notice, you'll find that it says
3002:No need to come here to state the obvious. MANDY.
1356:Do you really think I don't know not to edit war?
617:You should stop what you're doing on the article
9907:
9717:Our articles here detail all this, with sources.
9349:Talk:Donald Trump#North Korea in the lead, again
5448:(If an edit you make is challenged by reversion
4792:shortly after a one month topic ban on the page
2007:- I don't think you know what these words mean.
565:even if you do not violate the three-revert rule
526:to work toward making a version that represents
8953:, and for violating your topic ban, as you did
7002:I don't hold any particular animus towards you.
6808:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
5734:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
5405:Knowledge:Contentious_topics#Procedural_summary
3605:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
2089:The editor who removed that image file has now
1501:Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, SPECIFICO!
1270:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
1242:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
897:true but let's put the egregious misreading of
27:, where you can send her messages and comments.
9986:Thank you for your contribution to Knowledge.
8831:This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an
6102:. If you would like to experiment, please use
5769:inadvertently posted my minor edit suggestion
2806:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion
2800:Note that any non-free images not used in any
2129:The consensus required provision states that "
1419:gives to those whose bold edits are reverted.
1128:As you're no doubt already aware, the article
287:Editor now under TBAN so closing this as moot.
9496:UNDUE PROMO / Thomas Sowell Reception section
8996:|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ].
6867:|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ].
4823:|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ].
4464:added "business" and the Wikilink on May 21 (
3936:. Trip down the memory lane. LOL. Sincerely,
3479:: the source says "official", not "officer".
3206:Thanks. You've got your work cut out for you!
1303:and it was reverted on good-faith grounds by
9206:Look at your initial response to the block,
9082:and the departure of committed peace broker
8710:2 out of 2.2 million were displaced in Gaza.
7374:Greenwald's documented interaction with Omar
5304:, either. It's hard to keep up around here.
4599:specifically call for an "uninvolved editor"
1749:One revert doesn't qualify as edit warring.
1693:Your commitment to stay away from talk pages
9875:
8804:The following sanction now applies to you:
8574:Democratic backsliding in the United States
5557:, which I did not cite, and the applicable
5177:That is a clear violation of the sanction.
4460:: status quo was "six bankruptcies", until
2681:Thanks. I did not anticipate the trifecta.
9031:In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following
6902:In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following
5869:Thanks for your visit. Come back any time.
5403:That's not actually how I'm reading it at
4858:In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following
1993:The following discussion has been closed.
734:that's it. The reversion was justified. --
474:. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
407:The following discussion has been closed.
8847:. This sanction has been recorded in the
7309:BLPRESTORE on accusations of antisemitism
5855:AMEN (don't waste or don't have... hmmm)
2515:From Detroit Sports Nation (News Source)
2503:From the New York Post (Reliable Source)
428:You currently appear to be engaged in an
9941:
9005:arbitration enforcement appeals template
8868:arbitration enforcement appeals template
6876:arbitration enforcement appeals template
4832:arbitration enforcement appeals template
2912:Blanket reverts violate Knowledge policy
2613:Advice when issuing multiple CTOP alerts
2318:@SPECIFICO, I didn't "reinsert" any file
1492:
8975:from editing Knowledge for a period of
6846:from editing Knowledge for a period of
6106:. Note the guidance at WP:COLLAPSENO â
4920:partial revert. The trim was excessive.
4891:are a clear violation of enforced BRD.
4802:from editing Knowledge for a period of
3406:Mistakenly is not the same as "falsely"
1618:Given this comment, why would you mark
401:Templates of the aggrieved and indeffed
6915:precipitous action taken out of pique?
5421:Sorry, distractibility edit conflict.
4218:Way too deep for ANI and AE, I fear. â
3627:Please participate in the discussion.
3345:(In case it wasn't obvious, this is a
2567:2601:40D:4300:5736:84AF:A824:6A9D:BDD1
2529:2601:40D:4300:5736:84AF:A824:6A9D:BDD1
1840:unsupported and unconstructive comment
1295:Hello SPECIFICO. You made a change to
4048:This user is aware that, in the end,
2834:A file that you uploaded or altered,
2726:. Other, secondary, publications are
1898:Iâll check. Not later than tomorrow.
1311:. You reinserted the same content at
1039:I'd like you to take another look at
823:your reversion of my most recent edit
9830:Senate Intelligence Committee report
9713:Senate Intelligence Committee report
9426:Fixed by revert. Please try again. â
9033:procedure instructing administrators
8765:The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
7748:2023 Arbitration Committee elections
7464:and self-revert. I'll bring this to
6904:procedure instructing administrators
6283:The following discussion is closed.
6084:NOTFORUM at Julian Assange talk page
5213:SFR: That is not what 24-BRD states.
5163:did not start a talk page discussion
4860:procedure instructing administrators
4788:, and for violation of enforced BRD
4255:User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility
4198:
3244:The following discussion is closed.
2938:The following discussion is closed.
2521:From Pro Sports Extra (News Source)
1674:ability to contribute constructively
662:just 9(!) minutes after they're made
478:. If you engage in an edit war, you
306:The following discussion is closed.
7732:ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
7491:in the latest explosion of violence
6806:There is currently a discussion at
5732:There is currently a discussion at
4670:is considered involved editor.Your
3603:There is currently a discussion at
2617:Hey. So as I'm sure you've noticed
1268:There is currently a discussion at
1240:There is currently a discussion at
251:
13:
8942:
7498:" prior to the war (you said this
7026:, both here and in the ANI thread.
6829:
5149:made a bold edit removing material
4777:
4172:I still had to weather the process
3330:the most recent discussion section
2826:
2774:
2644:for the first alert, and then use
511:
14:
10030:
9815:Foreign Policy Research Institute
9072:IsraeliâPalestinian peace process
8578:Donald Trump and authoritarianism
8247:! For the umpteenth time (IDHT),
2836:File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG
2786:File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG
2751:File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG
2436:Pot, kettle, etc. Happy editing!
681:usual 2 week hand slaps you get.
476:request temporary page protection
9979:
9244:
8796:
8757:
8380:Who me? How am I here? Am I the
7903:you need to deploy your clicker.
7737:
7646:
7259:
6801:
6565:
6461:The discussion above is closed.
6089:
5756:
5727:
4678:purely in an administrative role
4199:
4041:
4037:
3598:
3462:The discussion above is closed.
3224:Request for an interaction break
3023:The discussion above is closed.
2868:Republican Party (United States)
1743:You are edit-warring again. The
1415:Funny - that's the exact advice
1263:
1235:
423:
357:The discussion above is closed.
192:
39:Click here to start a new topic.
9972:A bowl of strawberries for you!
8866:. I recommend that you use the
8074:is on the editor who added it.
7993:give them what they want to see
7787:and submit your choices on the
7199:Friendly note from the internet
5981:FranMichaelemichael|FranMichael
4705:"his has been fully addressed."
4674:in the discussion was not made
3990:contradicts themselves on TPs.)
2407:. Your attitude has been quite
1670:Hunter Biden laptop controversy
1130:Hunter Biden laptop controversy
619:Hunter Biden laptop controversy
554:âespecially if you violate the
532:the bold, revert, discuss cycle
9935:
9806:Coordination must be involved.
9506:I added a new citation to the
9086:from office as U.S. president.
8431:I'll take it as a compliment.
7663:performed by you, on the page
7487:", or that a source that says
6701:16:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
6687:16:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
6670:16:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
6655:16:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
6637:16:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
6623:16:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
6606:15:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
6264:by interplanetary third party.
6049:22:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
4590:Please revert your closing of
3055:For starters, he died in 2007.
2840:Knowledge:Files for discussion
2326:Regarding the page restriction
2322:15:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
825:also was not appropriate. Per
436:with others, to avoid editing
317:
280:Request that you not vandalize
1:
9592:address what SPECIFICO wrote.
9220:22:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
9198:20:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
9181:02:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
9154:20:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
8881:16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
8812:You have been sanctioned for
8783:08:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
8744:18:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
8727:16:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
8696:11:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
8669:01:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
8654:04:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8622:11:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
8590:11:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
8558:12:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8526:08:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
8503:03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8483:03:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8463:03:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8443:03:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8427:03:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8396:02:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8376:02:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8332:01:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8316:01:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8287:01:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8267:00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8233:00:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
8212:23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
8178:08:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
8162:04:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
8007:21:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7986:20:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7971:18:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7954:17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7930:16:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7915:16:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7897:15:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7880:15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7865:14:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7847:14:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
7812:00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
7766:Knowledge arbitration process
7473:retain full editorial control
7460:No; again, you should follow
6369:or its talk page. Please see
6298:95% of your edits are reverts
6276:15:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
6163:You may find this interesting
6027:01:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
6013:20:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
5989:16:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
5975:15:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
5959:15:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
5377:Actually, because this is an
4761:15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
4720:14:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
3183:Cleaning up Reid Hoffman page
2795:our policy for non-free media
2693:01:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
2676:00:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
2607:19:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
2575:19:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
2554:19:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
2537:18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
2493:02:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2446:03:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
2432:23:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2391:23:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2375:14:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2359:14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2340:14:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2302:07:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2276:06:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2236:06:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2218:06:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2183:06:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2157:06:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2125:00:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2110:23:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
1854:16:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
1532:19:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
1515:18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
1282:23:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
1254:18:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
1221:23:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
1207:22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
1190:21:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
1171:21:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
1154:21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
959:I would like to add that you
322:
36:Put new text under old text.
9133:18:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
9119:02:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
9098:23:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
9055:23:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
9022:22:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
8932:22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
8914:22:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
8845:contentious topics procedure
8147:03:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
8129:01:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
8098:22:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
8084:22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
8066:22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
8049:22:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
7726:18:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7709:18:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7623:20:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7606:19:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7578:19:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7562:19:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7548:19:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7524:18:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7454:16:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7438:16:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7424:16:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7407:15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7389:15:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7303:16:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
7283:16:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
7240:12:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
7223:04:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
7177:16:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
7160:13:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
7136:00:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
7119:23:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
7102:23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
7085:22:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
7066:16:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
7040:23:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
6995:21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
6974:21:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
6950:20:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
6927:20:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
6893:20:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
6820:14:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
6787:19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
6770:19:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
6756:19:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
6738:19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
6017:And sometimes its a smoke.
3481:speaking in the third person
2734:Hope this helps, and thanks.
2699:The actual image in question
2509:From Fox News (News Source)
2471:23:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
2078:12:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
2060:10:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
2023:17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
1973:20:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
1953:20:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
1926:01:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
1910:00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
1894:23:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
1876:21:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
1811:16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
1794:16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
1776:16:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
1759:16:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
1732:22:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
1707:03:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
1110:18:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
1093:17:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
1075:14:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
1057:14:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
1025:03:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
1009:01:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
991:04:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
974:03:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
939:20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
924:20:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
893:19:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
876:19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
855:17:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
839:17:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
806:12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
790:12:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
775:11:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
759:11:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
744:15:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
723:16:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
708:15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
691:14:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
674:14:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
648:14:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
631:13:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
608:18:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
272:15:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
256:14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
238:14:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
7:
10019:20:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
9998:12:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
9852:18:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
9782:12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
9767:07:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
9745:05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
9699:03:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
9685:02:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
9666:00:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
9652:21:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
9586:16:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
9559:02:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
9541:23:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
9510:to Reception section, i.e.
9029:Reminder to administrators:
8835:under the authority of the
8039:a question of referencing.
7942:Dalla resistenza al regime,
6900:Reminder to administrators:
6586:13:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
6558:15:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
6515:15:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
6490:14:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
6446:23:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
6429:21:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
6407:22:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
6384:22:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
6361:22:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
6340:21:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
6319:19:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
6245:20:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
6228:21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
6210:21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
6191:03:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
6157:00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
6126:21:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
6063:21:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
5945:13:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
5928:13:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
5914:12:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
5881:11:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
5865:05:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
5851:03:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
5835:03:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
5815:01:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
5798:01:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
5505:The original 24-BRD wording
5254:also explains this, saying
4856:Reminder to administrators:
4738:13:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
4657:13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
4640:12:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
3404:By the way, I have to add:
1688:16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1658:16:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1632:14:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
1614:05:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
1600:05:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
1584:04:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
1570:03:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
1553:03:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
1472:22:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
1453:22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
1436:21:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
1411:21:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
1394:20:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
1367:23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
1342:20:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
1324:19:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
44:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
10035:
9728:s subject matter experts:
9565:What are you referring to?
9276:on my talk page. However,
9263:14:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
7804:MediaWiki message delivery
7714:Qfuhseeyjntom5694ddfv@#,..
7321:is a blatant violation of
5746:09:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
4945:for your revert, you must
4098:That would be contrary to
3572:Pseudonyms of Donald Trump
3218:16:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
3201:16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
3178:14:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
3156:03:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
3142:03:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
3125:02:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
3097:03:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
3081:03:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
3067:03:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
3050:02:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
3014:00:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
2998:23:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
2983:22:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
2965:20:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
2931:00:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
2906:01:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
2818:02:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
2763:02:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
2746:01:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
2717:17:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
929:misreading, though, fwiw.
845:Effect matters deeply.) --
658:WP:REVERT#Before_reverting
299:17:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
260:Thank you. No rush at all.
9883:"Meet The Press 03-05-17"
9491:18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
9459:12:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
9442:03:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
9422:03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
9274:this antagonistic comment
8983:guide to appealing blocks
8756:
7258:
7007:repeat a false accusation
6854:guide to appealing blocks
5717:23:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
5696:21:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
5631:20:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
5614:20:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
5573:19:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
5541:15:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5526:15:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5494:17:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5477:16:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5431:16:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5417:16:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5399:15:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5373:15:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5356:14:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5338:14:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5314:14:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5288:13:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5271:12:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5232:12:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5187:12:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5106:13:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5074:11:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5042:09:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
5024:02:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
4990:02:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
4973:. Further, the bit about
4964:21:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
4943:an edit warring exemption
4937:14:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
4901:01:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
4882:00:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
4870:Hello SFR. Diffs, please.
4849:22:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
4810:guide to appealing blocks
4626:01:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
4611:14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
4572:21:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
4558:15:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
4534:12:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
4524:The Biden Health topic.
4517:23:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
4500:22:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
4442:14:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
4425:23:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
4298:23:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
4280:22:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
3950:23:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
3570:Actually, looking at our
3533:list of wealthy Americans
2889:23:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
2862:15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
2775:
1035:new visit December 6 2022
613:Stop auto-reverting edits
352:21:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
331:21:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
74:Be welcoming to newcomers
9750:"precision is important"
9512:Social Justice Fallacies
9394:03:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
8843:and, if applicable, the
8833:uninvolved administrator
7801:to your user talk page.
7697:report it to my operator
6463:Please do not modify it.
6285:Please do not modify it.
4481:14:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
4398:22:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
4381:20:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
4354:20:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
4340:16:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
4322:15:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
4234:00:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
4214:00:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
4190:22:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
4159:22:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
4138:22:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
4122:22:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
4094:22:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
4077:16:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
4022:14:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
3974:13:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
3914:22:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
3897:11:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
3868:15:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
3846:23:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3825:22:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3799:19:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3782:16:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3768:15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3735:15:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3718:15:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3701:15:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3686:15:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3660:14:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
3637:18:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
3616:16:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
3586:14:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
3566:13:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
3548:13:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
3513:13:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
3496:13:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
3464:Please do not modify it.
3451:13:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
3438:13:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
3418:13:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
3400:13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
3382:13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
3358:23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
3341:23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
3324:23:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
3305:23:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
3285:19:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
3263:15:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
3246:Please do not modify it.
3025:Please do not modify it.
2940:Please do not modify it.
2658:
1996:Please do not modify it.
1124:... alleged DS violation
442:try to reach a consensus
410:Please do not modify it.
359:Please do not modify it.
308:Please do not modify it.
252:Penny for your thoughts?
9369:23:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
9339:21:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
9325:13:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
9305:Special:Diff/1222978008
9294:12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
8606:main article content. â
8565:think I keep linking to
8088:Now done, in any case.
7022:There's a whole not of
4364:Hello User:SPECIFICO:
1823:Talk page participation
1362:Iamreallygoodatcheckers
1319:Iamreallygoodatcheckers
1309:18:59, 31 August 2023â
468:appropriate noticeboard
8947:
8810:
8471:if I do your bidding?
7657:automatically detected
7477:you gave the runaround
7356:You also reinstated a
6834:
6728:. Please self revert.
6196:Edit on Steele Dossier
5237:If you take a look at
4782:
3856:the second complainant
3669:Space4Time3Continuum2x
3535:
2831:
2780:
1498:
1313:9:10, 31 August 2023â
1301:22:55, 30 August 2023â
1231:Quattro: ANI Notice #1
516:
69:avoid personal attacks
9945:(November 12, 2017).
9813:George Croner of the
9625:George Stephanopoulos
9212:ScottishFinnishRadish
9090:ScottishFinnishRadish
9014:ScottishFinnishRadish
8946:
8873:ScottishFinnishRadish
8837:Arbitration Committee
8806:
7762:Arbitration Committee
7745:Hello! Voting in the
7485:UNDUE and speculative
7267:The Original Barnstar
7032:ScottishFinnishRadish
6942:ScottishFinnishRadish
6885:ScottishFinnishRadish
6833:
5594:Jerome Frank Disciple
5469:ScottishFinnishRadish
5300:. I was not aware of
5263:ScottishFinnishRadish
5179:ScottishFinnishRadish
5034:ScottishFinnishRadish
4956:ScottishFinnishRadish
4893:ScottishFinnishRadish
4841:ScottishFinnishRadish
4781:
4466:business bankruptcies
4456:Glad you're back. Re
4102:, but thanks for the
3889:ScottishFinnishRadish
3817:ScottishFinnishRadish
3774:ScottishFinnishRadish
3742:ScottishFinnishRadish
3727:ScottishFinnishRadish
3693:ScottishFinnishRadish
3652:ScottishFinnishRadish
3611:Jerome Frank Disciple
3520:
3446:Jerome Frank Disciple
3413:Jerome Frank Disciple
3395:Jerome Frank Disciple
3353:Jerome Frank Disciple
3336:Jerome Frank Disciple
3319:Jerome Frank Disciple
3258:Jerome Frank Disciple
2838:, has been listed at
2830:
2783:Thanks for uploading
2778:
2420:just fyi if you wish.
1988:block 'n' ban ensued
1604:It wasn't important.
1496:
1259:Cinque: ANI Notice #2
654:WP:REV#When_to_revert
515:
186:Auto-archiving period
9754:"treason-like stuff"
9268:Battleground editing
8951:arbitration decision
6838:arbitration decision
5655:Leon Black Article 2
5159:reinstated your edit
4786:arbitration decision
2091:reinserted the file,
1462:in our interaction?
904:PhSc, which part of
821:In another example,
551:blocked from editing
9834:Trump Tower meeting
9711:Also, there is the
9673:Trump Tower meeting
9629:George Papadopoulos
8750:A barnstar for you!
8676:PhotogenicScientist
8661:PhotogenicScientist
8636:PhotogenicScientist
8469:dangling a barnstar
8217:thanks for the ping
8070:I didn't look. The
7496:past Israeli action
7315:your partial revert
7252:A barnstar for you!
6476:change your WP name
5902:talk page guideline
5666:under the guise of
5581:Your argument that
5578:wars, fast or slow.
5438:, due to SPECIFICO
5342:SFR, I think given
5252:WP:CTOP#cite_note-4
5098:PhotogenicScientist
4941:If you're claiming
4544:closing discussions
4050:it's only Knowledge
3113:sarcastic slow clap
2347:Firefangledfeathers
2224:Firefangledfeathers
2171:Firefangledfeathers
1464:PhotogenicScientist
1428:PhotogenicScientist
1386:PhotogenicScientist
1305:PhotogenicScientist
1274:PhotogenicScientist
1246:PhotogenicScientist
1182:PhotogenicScientist
1146:PhotogenicScientist
1085:PhotogenicScientist
1049:PhotogenicScientist
931:PhotogenicScientist
868:PhotogenicScientist
831:PhotogenicScientist
715:PhotogenicScientist
666:PhotogenicScientist
623:PhotogenicScientist
9163:I'd categorize it.
8948:
7778:arbitration policy
7349:). That overrides
6835:
6716:consensus requires
6294:The New York Times
6286:
5455:make an appeal at
4783:
4542:in the section on
4360:Leon Black Article
4027:None of them stuck
3247:
3035:Arthur Schlesinger
2941:
2832:
2781:
2032:New York Post logo
1499:
540:dispute resolution
517:
472:dispute resolution
399:Area 51 Gallery...
309:
80:dispute resolution
41:
10004:
10003:
9943:Bertrand, Natasha
9597:aided and abetted
9351:. Happy editing.
9037:
8969:., you have been
8788:
8787:
8576:and any upcoming
8563:and do that. The
7932:
7899:
7882:
7814:
7288:
7287:
7157:
6908:
6284:
5239:Talk:Hunter Biden
4905:Good morning SFR.
4864:
4728:
4727:Is it still July?
4056:
4055:
3986:No walls of text.
3594:Discussion at ANI
3245:
2939:
2842:. Please see the
2791:claim of fair use
2577:
2565:comment added by
2029:
2028:
1834:Comments such as
1291:edit war concerns
591:
590:
573:comment added by
556:three-revert rule
491:comment added by
380:comment added by
368:Vale of Glamorgan
307:
217:
216:
60:Assume good faith
37:
10026:
9983:
9976:
9975:
9964:
9963:
9961:
9959:
9952:Business Insider
9939:
9933:
9932:
9930:
9928:
9911:
9905:
9904:
9902:
9900:
9879:
9439:
9434:
9419:
9414:
9379:Take a step back
9257:
9249:
9248:
9170:
9027:
9002:
9001:
8903:
8901:26 December 2023
8897:
8849:log of sanctions
8800:
8781:
8761:
8754:
8753:
8693:
8688:
8679:
8651:
8646:
8619:
8614:
8600:
8555:
8550:
8547:
8524:
8500:
8495:
8481:
8460:
8455:
8441:
8424:
8419:
8406:
8394:
8373:
8368:
8313:
8308:
8264:
8259:
8209:
8204:
7925:
7920:
7892:
7887:
7875:
7870:
7802:
7800:
7741:
7650:
7649:
7588:
7504:just 2 weeks ago
7263:
7256:
7255:
7218:
7216:
7155:
7152:
7117:
7083:
6898:
6873:
6872:
6805:
6804:
6797:ANI notification
6569:
6555:
6550:
6541:
6533:
6525:
6509:
6485:
6424:
6422:
6185:
6138:
6124:
6109:
6093:
6000:
5997:Franchisemichael
5899:
5896:Franchisemichael
5803:Thanks, I think.
5764:
5760:
5759:
5731:
5730:
5596:
5590:
5552:
5513:Free SPECIFICO!!
5321:
5210:
5137:
5136:(emphasis added)
5060:
4976:
4921:
4914:
4854:
4829:
4828:
4796:, you have been
4726:
4475:
4274:
4231:
4226:
4204:
4203:
4202:
4187:
4182:
4156:
4151:
4119:
4114:
4074:
4069:
4045:
4038:
3971:
3966:
3945:
3943:
3865:
3862:
3803:I'll start with
3762:
3745:
3672:
3626:
3614:
3602:
3601:
3560:
3518:How about this?
3490:
3449:
3416:
3398:
3356:
3339:
3322:
3272:
3261:
2953:this recent edit
2886:
2881:
2858:
2852:
2777:
2653:
2647:
2643:
2637:
2633:
2626:
2620:
2560:
2419:
2401:
2323:
2313:
2257:
2167:
2088:
2020:
2013:
1998:
1985:
1984:
1923:
1918:
1907:
1902:
1873:
1868:
1833:
1745:
1744:
1742:
1718:
1512:
1510:
1287:La sesta volta:
1267:
1266:
1239:
1238:
958:
600:Nomoskedasticity
586:
575:Oppa gangnam psy
504:
493:Oppa gangnam psy
447:Points to note:
427:
426:
412:
402:
396:
395:
393:
328:
321:
253:
225:
211:
197:
196:
187:
16:
10034:
10033:
10029:
10028:
10027:
10025:
10024:
10023:
9974:
9969:
9968:
9967:
9957:
9955:
9940:
9936:
9926:
9924:
9913:
9912:
9908:
9898:
9896:
9895:. March 5, 2017
9881:
9880:
9876:
9658:Anythingyouwant
9578:Anythingyouwant
9567:
9523:Help:Minor edit
9498:
9477:Talk page RCUS
9467:
9437:
9428:
9417:
9408:
9401:
9386:Anythingyouwant
9381:
9270:
9256:ime3Continuum2x
9252:
9243:
9240:
9168:
9140:appeal criteria
9080:Second Intifada
9074:begun with the
9040:
9039:
8991:
8990:
8940:
8899:
8893:
8890:
8885:
8884:
8839:'s decision at
8814:WP:BATTLEGROUND
8801:
8793:
8777:
8752:
8712:
8691:
8682:
8673:
8649:
8640:
8630:Missed one per
8617:
8608:
8594:
8553:
8548:
8545:
8520:
8498:
8489:
8477:
8458:
8449:
8437:
8422:
8413:
8400:
8390:
8382:social assassin
8371:
8362:
8311:
8302:
8262:
8253:
8207:
8198:
8190:
8110:
8033:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
8029:
7923:
7890:
7873:
7822:
7817:
7816:
7794:
7742:
7734:
7647:
7644:
7582:
7502:). Separately,
7330:Glenn Greenwald
7311:
7254:
7212:
7210:
7201:
7151:ime3Continuum2x
7147:
7113:
7079:
6938:WP:BATTLEGROUND
6911:
6910:
6862:
6861:
6827:
6802:
6799:
6718:
6593:
6553:
6544:
6535:
6527:
6519:
6507:
6484:ime3Continuum2x
6480:
6472:
6467:
6466:
6418:
6416:
6289:
6280:
6279:
6278:
6255:
6198:
6183:
6165:
6132:
6112:
6107:
6087:
5994:
5893:
5757:
5755:
5753:
5728:
5725:
5657:
5592:
5586:
5546:
5319:
5302:WP:Enforced BRD
5208:
5135:
5054:
4974:
4919:
4910:
4867:
4866:
4818:
4817:
4775:
4588:
4488:
4474:ime3Continuum2x
4470:
4454:
4362:
4306:
4272:
4248:
4229:
4220:
4200:
4185:
4176:
4154:
4145:
4117:
4108:
4072:
4063:
3969:
3960:
3939:
3937:
3863:
3860:
3761:ime3Continuum2x
3757:
3739:
3666:
3648:this ANI thread
3644:
3620:
3608:
3599:
3596:
3559:ime3Continuum2x
3555:
3489:ime3Continuum2x
3485:
3473:
3468:
3467:
3443:
3410:
3392:
3350:
3333:
3316:
3268:
3255:
3250:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3226:
3185:
3166:
3109:
3037:
3029:
3028:
2990:Anythingyouwant
2957:Anythingyouwant
2944:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2914:
2884:
2879:
2871:
2860:
2856:
2851:Red-tailed hawk
2850:
2825:
2808:. Thank you. --
2773:
2722:Hi. I found it
2701:
2662:
2661:
2651:
2645:
2641:
2635:
2629:
2624:
2618:
2615:
2501:
2458:
2413:
2409:WP:BATTLEGROUND
2395:
2314:
2307:
2251:
2161:
2082:
2034:
2014:
2009:
1994:
1983:
1938:
1936:Genesis 1:26-27
1921:
1916:
1905:
1900:
1871:
1866:
1861:
1827:
1825:
1736:
1712:
1666:WP:BATTLEGROUND
1646:
1622:edit as minor?
1540:
1508:
1506:
1497:Happy New Year!
1491:
1489:Happy holidays!
1297:Vivek Ramaswamy
1293:
1289:Vivek Ramaswamy
1264:
1261:
1236:
1233:
1178:just months ago
1126:
1081:WP:STONEWALLING
1045:WP:STONEWALLING
1037:
961:falsely claimed
952:
615:
596:
568:
544:page protection
510:
486:
424:
421:
408:
400:
375:
372:
366:A visitor from
363:
362:
312:
303:
302:
301:
282:
219:
213:
212:
207:
184:
86:
85:
55:
12:
11:
5:
10032:
10022:
10021:
10002:
10001:
9990:Goodtiming8871
9984:
9973:
9970:
9966:
9965:
9934:
9923:. May 14, 2017
9906:
9888:Meet The Press
9873:
9872:
9868:
9867:
9866:
9865:
9864:
9863:
9862:
9861:
9860:
9859:
9858:
9857:
9856:
9855:
9854:
9837:
9826:
9819:
9810:
9809:
9802:More than just
9798:
9793:
9792:
9769:
9755:
9751:
9733:
9719:
9709:
9635:
9634:
9633:
9632:
9619:Meet the Press
9602:
9601:
9593:
9566:
9563:
9562:
9561:
9497:
9494:
9466:
9463:
9462:
9461:
9400:
9397:
9380:
9377:
9376:
9375:
9374:
9373:
9372:
9371:
9269:
9266:
9239:
9236:
9235:
9234:
9233:
9232:
9231:
9230:
9229:
9228:
9227:
9226:
9225:
9224:
9223:
9222:
9204:
9164:
9160:
9057:
9025:
9024:
8985:(specifically
8949:To enforce an
8941:
8939:
8936:
8935:
8934:
8889:
8888:TBAN violation
8886:
8853:banning policy
8802:
8795:
8794:
8792:
8789:
8786:
8785:
8768:
8767:
8762:
8751:
8748:
8747:
8746:
8711:
8708:
8707:
8706:
8705:
8704:
8703:
8702:
8701:
8700:
8699:
8698:
8628:
8627:
8626:
8625:
8624:
8569:
8560:
8532:
8531:
8530:
8529:
8528:
8511:
8510:
8509:
8508:
8507:
8506:
8505:
8272:
8271:
8270:
8269:
8218:
8189:
8188:Trump workshop
8186:
8185:
8184:
8183:
8182:
8181:
8180:
8112:Hi SPECIFICO,
8109:
8106:
8105:
8104:
8103:
8102:
8101:
8100:
8028:
8025:
8024:
8023:
8022:
8021:
8020:
8019:
8018:
8017:
8016:
8015:
8014:
8013:
8012:
8011:
8010:
8009:
7937:
7883:
7821:
7820:Menachem Klein
7818:
7785:the candidates
7754:eligible users
7743:
7736:
7735:
7733:
7730:
7729:
7728:
7701:Qwerfjkl (bot)
7693:false positive
7689:
7688:
7665:Louis Stettner
7653:Qwerfjkl (bot)
7643:
7641:Louis Stettner
7637:
7636:
7635:
7634:
7633:
7632:
7631:
7630:
7629:
7628:
7627:
7626:
7625:
7611:
7580:
7529:that it would
7508:
7480:
7469:
7458:
7457:
7456:
7409:
7362:Democracy Now!
7310:
7307:
7306:
7305:
7286:
7285:
7270:
7269:
7264:
7253:
7250:
7249:
7248:
7247:
7246:
7245:
7244:
7243:
7242:
7200:
7197:
7196:
7195:
7194:
7193:
7192:
7191:
7190:
7189:
7188:
7187:
7186:
7185:
7184:
7183:
7182:
7181:
7180:
7179:
7070:
7069:
7068:
7051:
7048:predisposition
7029:
7028:
7027:
7020:
7013:
7010:
7003:
6976:
6959:
6956:
6934:disappointing.
6929:
6896:
6895:
6856:(specifically
6836:To enforce an
6828:
6826:
6823:
6798:
6795:
6794:
6793:
6792:
6791:
6790:
6789:
6717:
6711:
6710:
6709:
6708:
6707:
6706:
6705:
6704:
6703:
6641:
6640:
6639:
6592:
6589:
6563:
6562:
6561:
6560:
6471:
6468:
6460:
6459:
6458:
6457:
6456:
6455:
6454:
6453:
6452:
6451:
6450:
6449:
6448:
6393:
6367:New York Times
6290:
6281:
6259:
6258:
6257:
6256:
6254:
6251:
6250:
6249:
6248:
6247:
6233:
6202:DarrellWinkler
6197:
6194:
6164:
6161:
6160:
6159:
6096:delete or edit
6094:Please do not
6086:
6081:
6080:
6079:
6078:
6077:
6076:
6075:
6074:
6073:
6072:
6071:
6070:
6069:
6068:
6067:
6066:
6065:
6029:
5930:
5891:
5890:
5889:
5888:
5887:
5886:
5885:
5884:
5883:
5823:
5820:
5765:
5752:
5749:
5724:
5721:
5720:
5719:
5656:
5653:
5652:
5651:
5650:
5649:
5648:
5647:
5646:
5645:
5644:
5643:
5642:
5641:
5640:
5639:
5638:
5637:
5636:
5635:
5634:
5633:
5602:
5579:
5507:is documented
5502:
5501:
5500:
5499:
5498:
5497:
5496:
5433:
5401:
5259:
5204:
5203:
5202:
5201:
5200:
5199:
5198:
5197:
5196:
5195:
5194:
5193:
5192:
5191:
5190:
5189:
5175:
5174:
5173:
5167:
5164:
5161:
5156:
5151:
5143:
5110:
5109:
5108:
5094:
5052:
4999:
4998:
4997:
4996:
4995:
4994:
4993:
4992:
4951:
4923:
4915:
4906:
4884:
4852:
4851:
4812:(specifically
4784:To enforce an
4776:
4774:
4771:
4770:
4769:
4768:
4767:
4766:
4765:
4764:
4763:
4724:
4723:
4722:
4587:
4582:
4581:
4580:
4579:
4578:
4577:
4576:
4575:
4574:
4522:Talk:Joe Biden
4487:
4484:
4453:
4450:
4449:
4448:
4447:
4446:
4445:
4444:
4408:User:SPECIFICO
4401:
4400:
4361:
4358:
4357:
4356:
4342:
4328:self-reverted.
4305:
4302:
4301:
4300:
4258:
4257:
4247:
4246:Essay critique
4244:
4243:
4242:
4241:
4240:
4239:
4238:
4237:
4236:
4169:
4168:
4167:
4166:
4165:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4161:
4054:
4053:
4046:
4036:
4035:
4034:
4033:
4031:
4009:
4008:
4007:
4003:
3999:
3995:
3991:
3987:
3981:
3955:
3954:
3953:
3952:
3930:
3929:
3928:
3927:
3926:
3925:
3924:
3923:
3922:
3921:
3920:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3884:
3872:
3871:
3870:
3853:
3808:
3722:
3721:
3720:
3643:
3640:
3595:
3592:
3591:
3590:
3589:
3588:
3516:
3515:
3472:
3469:
3461:
3460:
3459:
3458:
3457:
3456:
3455:
3454:
3453:
3367:
3366:
3365:
3364:
3363:
3362:
3361:
3360:
3326:
3251:
3242:
3236:
3230:
3229:
3228:
3227:
3225:
3222:
3221:
3220:
3184:
3181:
3165:
3162:
3161:
3160:
3159:
3158:
3108:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3036:
3033:
3031:
3022:
3021:
3020:
3019:
3018:
3017:
3016:
2945:
2936:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2913:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2870:
2865:
2854:
2824:
2821:
2772:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2700:
2697:
2696:
2695:
2664:
2663:
2659:
2614:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2557:
2556:
2500:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2478:
2457:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2324:
2305:
2304:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2112:
2080:
2033:
2030:
2027:
2026:
2000:
1999:
1990:
1989:
1982:
1980:Utter Nonsense
1977:
1976:
1975:
1959:Jelly doughnut
1937:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1860:
1857:
1824:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1710:
1709:
1690:
1645:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1616:
1539:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1509:Rhododendrites
1490:
1487:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1292:
1285:
1260:
1257:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1209:
1125:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
909:
902:
863:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
727:
726:
725:
678:
677:
676:
614:
611:
595:
592:
589:
588:
509:
506:
460:
459:
454:
420:
417:
414:
413:
404:
403:
371:
364:
356:
355:
354:
313:
304:
286:
285:
284:
283:
281:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
215:
214:
205:
203:
202:
199:
198:
88:
87:
84:
83:
76:
71:
62:
56:
54:
53:
42:
33:
32:
29:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
10031:
10020:
10017:
10016:
10012:
10011:
10006:
10005:
10000:
9999:
9995:
9991:
9985:
9982:
9978:
9977:
9954:
9953:
9948:
9944:
9938:
9922:
9921:
9916:
9910:
9894:
9890:
9889:
9884:
9878:
9874:
9871:
9853:
9849:
9845:
9841:
9838:
9835:
9831:
9827:
9824:
9820:
9816:
9812:
9811:
9807:
9803:
9799:
9795:
9794:
9790:
9785:
9784:
9783:
9779:
9775:
9770:
9768:
9764:
9760:
9756:
9752:
9748:
9747:
9746:
9742:
9738:
9734:
9731:
9727:
9725:
9720:
9718:
9714:
9710:
9707:
9702:
9701:
9700:
9696:
9692:
9688:
9687:
9686:
9682:
9678:
9674:
9669:
9668:
9667:
9663:
9659:
9655:
9654:
9653:
9649:
9645:
9641:
9637:
9636:
9630:
9626:
9621:
9620:
9615:
9611:
9610:
9608:
9604:
9603:
9598:
9594:
9590:
9589:
9588:
9587:
9583:
9579:
9575:
9571:
9560:
9557:
9556:
9552:
9551:
9545:
9544:
9543:
9542:
9538:
9534:
9533:Researcherasc
9529:
9526:
9524:
9519:
9517:
9513:
9509:
9508:Thomas Sowell
9504:
9501:
9493:
9492:
9488:
9484:
9480:
9479:
9475:
9474:
9470:
9460:
9457:
9456:
9452:
9451:
9446:
9445:
9444:
9443:
9440:
9435:
9433:
9432:
9424:
9423:
9420:
9415:
9413:
9412:
9405:
9396:
9395:
9391:
9387:
9370:
9367:
9366:
9365:
9362:
9359:
9356:
9350:
9346:
9342:
9341:
9340:
9336:
9332:
9328:
9327:
9326:
9323:
9322:
9321:
9318:
9315:
9312:
9306:
9302:
9298:
9297:
9296:
9295:
9291:
9287:
9283:
9279:
9275:
9265:
9264:
9261:
9258:
9255:
9247:
9242:Welcome back
9221:
9217:
9213:
9209:
9205:
9201:
9200:
9199:
9196:
9195:
9191:
9190:
9184:
9183:
9182:
9178:
9174:
9165:
9161:
9157:
9156:
9155:
9152:
9151:
9147:
9146:
9141:
9136:
9135:
9134:
9130:
9126:
9122:
9121:
9120:
9117:
9116:
9112:
9111:
9105:
9101:
9100:
9099:
9095:
9091:
9087:
9085:
9081:
9077:
9073:
9070:In 2001, the
9066:
9061:
9058:
9056:
9053:
9052:
9048:
9047:
9042:
9041:
9038:
9034:
9030:
9023:
9019:
9015:
9012:
9010:
9006:
8999:
8995:
8988:
8984:
8978:
8974:
8973:
8968:
8964:
8960:
8956:
8952:
8945:
8938:February 2024
8933:
8930:
8929:
8925:
8924:
8918:
8917:
8916:
8915:
8911:
8907:
8902:
8896:
8883:
8882:
8878:
8874:
8869:
8865:
8860:
8858:
8854:
8850:
8846:
8842:
8838:
8834:
8829:
8828:
8826:
8824:
8822:
8820:
8818:
8815:
8809:
8805:
8799:
8784:
8780:
8776:
8775:
8770:
8769:
8766:
8763:
8760:
8755:
8745:
8742:
8741:
8737:
8736:
8731:
8730:
8729:
8728:
8724:
8720:
8719:173.44.89.180
8717:
8697:
8694:
8689:
8687:
8686:
8677:
8672:
8671:
8670:
8666:
8662:
8657:
8656:
8655:
8652:
8647:
8645:
8644:
8637:
8633:
8629:
8623:
8620:
8615:
8613:
8612:
8605:
8598:
8593:
8592:
8591:
8587:
8583:
8579:
8575:
8570:
8566:
8561:
8559:
8556:
8551:
8541:
8537:
8533:
8527:
8523:
8519:
8518:
8514:
8512:
8504:
8501:
8496:
8494:
8493:
8486:
8485:
8484:
8480:
8476:
8475:
8470:
8466:
8465:
8464:
8461:
8456:
8454:
8453:
8446:
8445:
8444:
8440:
8436:
8435:
8430:
8429:
8428:
8425:
8420:
8418:
8417:
8410:
8404:
8399:
8398:
8397:
8393:
8389:
8388:
8383:
8379:
8378:
8377:
8374:
8369:
8367:
8366:
8359:
8355:
8351:
8347:
8343:
8339:
8335:
8334:
8333:
8330:
8329:
8325:
8324:
8319:
8318:
8317:
8314:
8309:
8307:
8306:
8299:
8295:
8291:
8290:
8289:
8288:
8285:
8284:
8280:
8279:
8268:
8265:
8260:
8258:
8257:
8250:
8246:
8241:
8240:
8236:
8235:
8234:
8230:
8226:
8223:
8219:
8216:
8215:
8214:
8213:
8210:
8205:
8203:
8202:
8195:
8179:
8176:
8175:
8171:
8170:
8165:
8164:
8163:
8159:
8155:
8150:
8149:
8148:
8145:
8144:
8140:
8139:
8133:
8132:
8131:
8130:
8126:
8122:
8118:
8113:
8099:
8095:
8091:
8090:Tim O'Doherty
8087:
8086:
8085:
8081:
8077:
8076:Tim O'Doherty
8073:
8069:
8068:
8067:
8064:
8063:
8059:
8058:
8053:
8052:
8051:
8050:
8046:
8042:
8041:Tim O'Doherty
8038:
8034:
8008:
8005:
8004:
8000:
7999:
7994:
7989:
7988:
7987:
7983:
7979:
7974:
7973:
7972:
7969:
7968:
7964:
7963:
7957:
7956:
7955:
7951:
7947:
7943:
7938:
7934:
7933:
7931:
7927:
7926:
7918:
7917:
7916:
7913:
7912:
7908:
7907:
7901:
7900:
7898:
7894:
7893:
7884:
7881:
7877:
7876:
7868:
7867:
7866:
7863:
7862:
7858:
7857:
7851:
7850:
7849:
7848:
7844:
7840:
7834:
7830:
7826:
7815:
7813:
7809:
7805:
7798:
7792:
7791:
7786:
7781:
7779:
7775:
7771:
7767:
7763:
7758:
7756:
7755:
7750:
7749:
7740:
7727:
7724:
7723:
7719:
7718:
7713:
7712:
7711:
7710:
7706:
7702:
7698:
7694:
7686:
7682:
7678:
7677:missing title
7674:
7670:
7669:
7668:
7666:
7662:
7658:
7654:
7642:
7639:CS1 error on
7624:
7620:
7616:
7612:
7609:
7608:
7607:
7604:
7603:
7599:
7598:
7593:
7586:
7581:
7579:
7576:
7575:
7571:
7570:
7565:
7564:
7563:
7559:
7555:
7551:
7550:
7549:
7546:
7545:
7541:
7540:
7534:
7533:
7527:
7526:
7525:
7521:
7517:
7513:
7509:
7505:
7501:
7497:
7493:
7492:
7486:
7481:
7478:
7474:
7470:
7467:
7463:
7462:WP:BLPRESTORE
7459:
7455:
7452:
7451:
7447:
7446:
7441:
7440:
7439:
7435:
7431:
7427:
7426:
7425:
7422:
7421:
7417:
7416:
7410:
7408:
7405:
7404:
7400:
7399:
7393:
7392:
7391:
7390:
7386:
7382:
7377:
7375:
7371:
7367:
7363:
7359:
7354:
7352:
7348:
7343:
7339:
7335:
7331:
7326:
7324:
7323:WP:BLPRESTORE
7320:
7316:
7304:
7301:
7300:
7296:
7295:
7290:
7289:
7284:
7280:
7276:
7275:Anonymous8206
7272:
7271:
7268:
7265:
7262:
7257:
7241:
7238:
7237:
7233:
7232:
7226:
7225:
7224:
7221:
7217:
7215:
7207:
7206:
7205:
7204:
7203:
7202:
7178:
7175:
7174:
7170:
7169:
7163:
7162:
7161:
7158:
7153:
7150:
7144:
7139:
7138:
7137:
7134:
7133:
7129:
7128:
7122:
7121:
7120:
7116:
7112:
7111:
7105:
7104:
7103:
7100:
7099:
7095:
7094:
7088:
7087:
7086:
7082:
7078:
7077:
7071:
7067:
7064:
7063:
7059:
7058:
7052:
7049:
7045:
7044:
7043:
7042:
7041:
7037:
7033:
7030:
7025:
7021:
7019:
7018:disagreements
7014:
7011:
7008:
7004:
7001:
7000:
6998:
6997:
6996:
6993:
6992:
6988:
6987:
6981:
6977:
6975:
6972:
6971:
6967:
6966:
6960:
6957:
6953:
6952:
6951:
6947:
6943:
6939:
6935:
6930:
6928:
6925:
6924:
6920:
6919:
6913:
6912:
6909:
6905:
6901:
6894:
6890:
6886:
6883:
6881:
6877:
6870:
6866:
6859:
6855:
6849:
6845:
6844:
6839:
6832:
6822:
6821:
6817:
6813:
6809:
6788:
6785:
6784:
6780:
6779:
6773:
6772:
6771:
6767:
6763:
6759:
6758:
6757:
6754:
6753:
6749:
6748:
6742:
6741:
6740:
6739:
6735:
6731:
6727:
6723:
6715:
6702:
6698:
6694:
6690:
6689:
6688:
6685:
6684:
6680:
6679:
6673:
6672:
6671:
6667:
6663:
6658:
6657:
6656:
6653:
6652:
6648:
6647:
6642:
6638:
6634:
6630:
6626:
6625:
6624:
6621:
6620:
6616:
6615:
6610:
6609:
6608:
6607:
6603:
6599:
6588:
6587:
6584:
6583:
6579:
6578:
6573:
6568:
6559:
6556:
6551:
6549:
6548:
6539:
6531:
6523:
6518:
6517:
6516:
6512:
6511:
6510:
6502:
6498:
6494:
6493:
6492:
6491:
6488:
6486:
6483:
6477:
6464:
6447:
6444:
6443:
6439:
6438:
6432:
6431:
6430:
6427:
6423:
6421:
6414:
6410:
6409:
6408:
6404:
6400:
6397:
6394:
6391:
6387:
6386:
6385:
6382:
6381:
6377:
6376:
6372:
6371:WP:ASPERSIONS
6368:
6364:
6363:
6362:
6358:
6354:
6351:
6350:WP:BRD misuse
6347:
6346:WP:BRD misuse
6343:
6342:
6341:
6338:
6337:
6333:
6332:
6327:
6323:
6322:
6321:
6320:
6316:
6312:
6307:
6305:
6301:
6299:
6295:
6288:
6277:
6274:
6273:
6269:
6268:
6263:
6246:
6242:
6238:
6234:
6231:
6230:
6229:
6226:
6225:
6221:
6220:
6214:
6213:
6212:
6211:
6207:
6203:
6193:
6192:
6188:
6187:
6186:
6178:
6174:
6170:
6169:
6158:
6155:
6154:
6150:
6149:
6143:
6136:
6130:
6129:
6128:
6127:
6123:
6122:
6117:
6116:
6105:
6101:
6097:
6092:
6085:
6064:
6060:
6056:
6052:
6051:
6050:
6046:
6042:
6038:
6034:
6030:
6028:
6024:
6020:
6016:
6015:
6014:
6011:
6010:
6006:
6005:
5998:
5992:
5991:
5990:
5986:
5982:
5978:
5977:
5976:
5973:
5972:
5968:
5967:
5962:
5961:
5960:
5956:
5952:
5948:
5947:
5946:
5943:
5942:
5938:
5937:
5931:
5929:
5925:
5921:
5917:
5916:
5915:
5911:
5907:
5903:
5897:
5892:
5882:
5879:
5878:
5874:
5873:
5868:
5867:
5866:
5862:
5858:
5854:
5853:
5852:
5849:
5848:
5844:
5843:
5838:
5837:
5836:
5832:
5828:
5824:
5821:
5818:
5817:
5816:
5813:
5812:
5808:
5807:
5802:
5801:
5800:
5799:
5795:
5791:
5786:
5783:
5781:
5780:my own advice
5776:
5774:
5773:
5766:
5763:
5748:
5747:
5743:
5739:
5735:
5723:Assange issue
5718:
5715:
5714:
5710:
5709:
5704:
5700:
5699:
5698:
5697:
5693:
5689:
5685:
5682:
5680:
5676:
5675:
5673:
5669:
5665:
5632:
5629:
5628:
5624:
5623:
5617:
5616:
5615:
5611:
5607:
5603:
5600:
5595:
5591:you reported
5589:
5584:
5580:
5576:
5575:
5574:
5571:
5570:
5566:
5565:
5560:
5559:WP:BLPRESTORE
5556:
5550:
5544:
5543:
5542:
5538:
5534:
5529:
5528:
5527:
5524:
5523:
5519:
5518:
5514:
5510:
5506:
5503:
5495:
5492:
5491:
5487:
5486:
5480:
5479:
5478:
5474:
5470:
5466:
5462:
5458:
5453:
5451:
5445:
5441:
5437:
5434:
5432:
5428:
5424:
5420:
5419:
5418:
5414:
5410:
5406:
5402:
5400:
5396:
5392:
5388:
5384:
5380:
5376:
5375:
5374:
5371:
5370:
5366:
5365:
5359:
5358:
5357:
5353:
5349:
5345:
5341:
5340:
5339:
5336:
5335:
5331:
5330:
5325:
5317:
5316:
5315:
5311:
5307:
5303:
5299:
5295:
5291:
5290:
5289:
5286:
5285:
5281:
5280:
5274:
5273:
5272:
5268:
5264:
5260:
5258:
5253:
5249:
5245:
5240:
5236:
5235:
5234:
5233:
5230:
5229:
5225:
5224:
5219:
5214:
5188:
5184:
5180:
5176:
5172:
5168:
5165:
5162:
5160:
5157:
5155:
5154:were reverted
5152:
5150:
5147:
5146:
5144:
5141:
5138:. If you had
5134:
5133:
5127:
5123:
5119:
5118:WP:BLPRESTORE
5115:
5111:
5107:
5103:
5099:
5095:
5092:
5090:
5086:
5080:
5077:
5076:
5075:
5072:
5071:
5067:
5066:
5058:
5053:
5049:
5048:
5045:
5044:
5043:
5039:
5035:
5031:
5027:
5026:
5025:
5022:
5021:
5016:
5015:
5009:
5008:
5007:
5006:
5005:
5004:
5003:
5002:
5001:
5000:
4991:
4988:
4987:
4983:
4982:
4972:
4967:
4966:
4965:
4961:
4957:
4952:
4948:
4944:
4940:
4939:
4938:
4935:
4934:
4930:
4929:
4924:
4916:
4913:
4907:
4904:
4903:
4902:
4898:
4894:
4890:
4887:
4885:
4883:
4880:
4879:
4875:
4874:
4869:
4868:
4865:
4861:
4857:
4850:
4846:
4842:
4839:
4837:
4833:
4826:
4822:
4815:
4811:
4805:
4801:
4800:
4795:
4791:
4787:
4780:
4762:
4758:
4754:
4749:
4745:
4741:
4740:
4739:
4735:
4731:
4725:
4721:
4717:
4713:
4708:
4706:
4702:
4699:
4696:
4693:
4690:
4687:
4684:
4681:
4679:
4673:
4669:
4665:
4660:
4659:
4658:
4655:
4654:
4650:
4649:
4643:
4642:
4641:
4637:
4633:
4629:
4628:
4627:
4623:
4619:
4615:
4614:
4613:
4612:
4608:
4604:
4600:
4597:
4593:
4586:
4573:
4569:
4565:
4561:
4560:
4559:
4556:
4555:
4551:
4550:
4545:
4541:
4537:
4536:
4535:
4531:
4527:
4523:
4520:
4519:
4518:
4515:
4514:
4510:
4509:
4504:
4503:
4502:
4501:
4497:
4493:
4483:
4482:
4479:
4476:
4473:
4467:
4463:
4459:
4443:
4440:
4439:
4435:
4434:
4428:
4427:
4426:
4422:
4418:
4417:24.177.54.188
4413:
4409:
4405:
4404:
4403:
4402:
4399:
4396:
4395:
4391:
4390:
4385:
4384:
4383:
4382:
4378:
4374:
4370:
4365:
4355:
4351:
4347:
4343:
4341:
4338:
4337:
4333:
4332:
4326:
4325:
4324:
4323:
4319:
4315:
4311:
4299:
4296:
4295:
4291:
4290:
4286:constructive.
4284:
4283:
4282:
4281:
4277:
4276:
4275:
4267:
4263:
4256:
4253:
4252:
4251:
4235:
4232:
4227:
4225:
4224:
4217:
4216:
4215:
4211:
4207:
4197:
4193:
4192:
4191:
4188:
4183:
4181:
4180:
4173:
4170:
4160:
4157:
4152:
4150:
4149:
4141:
4140:
4139:
4136:
4135:
4131:
4130:
4125:
4124:
4123:
4120:
4115:
4113:
4112:
4105:
4101:
4097:
4096:
4095:
4092:
4091:
4087:
4086:
4080:
4079:
4078:
4075:
4070:
4068:
4067:
4060:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4051:
4047:
4044:
4040:
4039:
4032:
4028:
4025:
4024:
4023:
4019:
4015:
4010:
4004:
4000:
3996:
3992:
3988:
3985:
3984:
3982:
3978:
3977:
3976:
3975:
3972:
3967:
3965:
3964:
3951:
3948:
3944:
3942:
3935:
3931:
3915:
3912:
3911:
3907:
3906:
3900:
3899:
3898:
3894:
3890:
3885:
3882:
3878:
3873:
3869:
3866:
3857:
3852:
3849:
3848:
3847:
3844:
3843:
3839:
3838:
3832:
3831:
3828:
3827:
3826:
3822:
3818:
3814:
3809:
3806:
3802:
3801:
3800:
3797:
3796:
3792:
3791:
3785:
3784:
3783:
3779:
3775:
3771:
3770:
3769:
3766:
3763:
3760:
3754:
3751:
3748:
3743:
3738:
3737:
3736:
3732:
3728:
3723:
3719:
3716:
3715:
3711:
3710:
3704:
3703:
3702:
3698:
3694:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3684:
3683:
3679:
3678:
3670:
3664:
3663:
3662:
3661:
3657:
3653:
3649:
3639:
3638:
3634:
3630:
3624:
3618:
3617:
3613:
3612:
3606:
3587:
3584:
3583:
3579:
3578:
3573:
3569:
3568:
3567:
3564:
3561:
3558:
3552:
3551:
3550:
3549:
3546:
3545:
3541:
3540:
3534:
3532:
3530:
3525:
3519:
3514:
3511:
3510:
3506:
3505:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3494:
3491:
3488:
3482:
3478:
3465:
3452:
3448:
3447:
3441:
3440:
3439:
3436:
3435:
3431:
3430:
3425:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3415:
3414:
3407:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3397:
3396:
3390:
3386:
3385:
3384:
3383:
3380:
3379:
3375:
3374:
3359:
3355:
3354:
3348:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3338:
3337:
3331:
3327:
3325:
3321:
3320:
3313:
3308:
3307:
3306:
3303:
3302:
3298:
3297:
3292:
3288:
3287:
3286:
3283:
3282:
3278:
3277:
3271:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3260:
3259:
3249:
3235:
3234:
3219:
3216:
3215:
3211:
3210:
3205:
3204:
3203:
3202:
3198:
3194:
3190:
3180:
3179:
3175:
3171:
3157:
3153:
3149:
3145:
3144:
3143:
3140:
3139:
3135:
3134:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3126:
3122:
3118:
3114:
3098:
3095:
3094:
3090:
3089:
3084:
3083:
3082:
3078:
3074:
3070:
3069:
3068:
3065:
3064:
3060:
3059:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3051:
3047:
3043:
3032:
3026:
3015:
3012:
3011:
3007:
3006:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2995:
2991:
2986:
2985:
2984:
2981:
2980:
2976:
2975:
2969:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2943:
2932:
2929:
2928:
2924:
2923:
2907:
2904:
2903:
2899:
2898:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2887:
2882:
2876:
2869:
2864:
2863:
2859:
2853:
2847:
2846:
2841:
2837:
2829:
2820:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2803:
2798:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2787:
2764:
2760:
2756:
2752:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2744:
2743:
2739:
2738:
2733:
2729:
2725:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2714:
2710:
2706:
2694:
2691:
2690:
2686:
2685:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2650:
2640:
2632:
2623:
2608:
2605:
2604:
2600:
2599:
2594:
2590:
2587:
2584:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2564:
2555:
2552:
2551:
2547:
2546:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2525:
2524:
2519:
2518:
2513:
2512:
2507:
2506:
2494:
2491:
2490:
2486:
2485:
2479:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2430:
2429:
2425:
2424:
2417:
2410:
2406:
2399:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2373:
2372:
2368:
2367:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2338:
2337:
2333:
2332:
2327:
2321:
2319:
2311:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2286:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2265:
2261:
2255:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2202:
2197:
2193:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2165:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2141:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2113:
2111:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2102:
2097:
2092:
2086:
2081:
2079:
2076:
2075:
2071:
2070:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2044:
2039:
2025:
2024:
2021:
2019:
2018:
2012:
2006:
2002:
2001:
1997:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1981:
1974:
1971:
1970:
1966:
1965:
1960:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1945:128.187.116.2
1941:
1927:
1924:
1919:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1908:
1903:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1892:
1891:
1887:
1886:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1874:
1869:
1856:
1855:
1852:
1851:
1847:
1846:
1841:
1837:
1831:
1812:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1803:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1774:
1773:
1769:
1768:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1740:
1734:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1725:
1724:
1716:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1694:
1691:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1680:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1606:Onetwothreeip
1603:
1602:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1576:Onetwothreeip
1573:
1572:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1563:
1562:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:Onetwothreeip
1533:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1524:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1511:
1502:
1495:
1486:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1445:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1373:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1290:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1163:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1123:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
993:
992:
989:
988:
984:
983:
978:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
962:
956:
940:
936:
932:
927:
926:
925:
921:
917:
913:
910:
907:
903:
900:
896:
895:
894:
891:
890:
886:
885:
879:
878:
877:
873:
869:
864:
861:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
843:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
807:
804:
803:
799:
798:
793:
792:
791:
787:
783:
778:
777:
776:
773:
772:
768:
767:
762:
761:
760:
756:
752:
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
711:
710:
709:
706:
705:
701:
700:
694:
693:
692:
688:
684:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:
649:
646:
645:
641:
640:
635:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
620:
610:
609:
605:
601:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
566:
561:
557:
553:
552:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
514:
505:
502:
498:
494:
490:
485:
484:from editing.
483:
477:
473:
469:
465:
458:
455:
453:
450:
449:
448:
445:
443:
439:
435:
431:
416:
415:
411:
406:
405:
398:
397:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
369:
360:
353:
350:
349:
345:
344:
339:
335:
334:
333:
332:
329:
327:
326:
320:
311:
300:
297:
296:
292:
291:
273:
270:
269:
265:
264:
259:
258:
257:
254:
248:
247:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
235:
231:
230:
223:
201:
200:
195:
191:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
96:
94:
90:
89:
81:
77:
75:
72:
70:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
51:
47:
46:Learn to edit
43:
40:
35:
34:
31:
30:
26:
22:
18:
17:
10014:
10013:
10009:
9987:
9956:. Retrieved
9950:
9937:
9927:December 21,
9925:. Retrieved
9918:
9909:
9897:. Retrieved
9886:
9877:
9869:
9850:) (PING me)
9805:
9801:
9800:Conspiracy:
9743:) (PING me)
9722:
9716:
9683:) (PING me)
9650:) (PING me)
9617:
9568:
9554:
9553:
9549:
9530:
9527:
9520:
9515:
9511:
9505:
9502:
9499:
9481:
9476:
9471:
9468:
9465:Rent control
9454:
9453:
9449:
9430:
9429:
9425:
9410:
9409:
9402:
9382:
9363:
9360:
9357:
9354:
9352:
9319:
9316:
9313:
9310:
9308:
9271:
9253:
9241:
9207:
9193:
9192:
9188:
9149:
9148:
9144:
9114:
9113:
9109:
9088:is covered.
9084:Bill Clinton
9076:Oslo Accords
9069:
9063:
9050:
9049:
9045:
9028:
9026:
8997:
8987:this section
8980:
8976:
8970:
8927:
8926:
8922:
8906:Sideswipe9th
8891:
8861:
8830:
8811:
8807:
8803:
8772:
8764:
8739:
8738:
8734:
8713:
8684:
8683:
8642:
8641:
8610:
8609:
8603:
8540:WP:VOLUNTEER
8515:
8491:
8490:
8472:
8451:
8450:
8432:
8415:
8414:
8408:
8385:
8364:
8363:
8327:
8326:
8322:
8304:
8303:
8297:
8293:
8282:
8281:
8277:
8273:
8255:
8254:
8248:
8244:
8238:
8237:
8221:
8200:
8199:
8191:
8173:
8172:
8168:
8142:
8141:
8137:
8114:
8111:
8061:
8060:
8056:
8036:
8030:
8002:
8001:
7997:
7992:
7966:
7965:
7961:
7941:
7921:
7910:
7909:
7905:
7888:
7871:
7860:
7859:
7855:
7835:
7831:
7827:
7823:
7788:
7782:
7759:
7752:
7746:
7744:
7721:
7720:
7716:
7690:
7685:Ask for help
7656:
7645:
7601:
7600:
7596:
7590:removal per
7573:
7572:
7568:
7543:
7542:
7538:
7531:
7530:
7490:
7488:
7472:
7449:
7448:
7444:
7419:
7418:
7414:
7402:
7401:
7397:
7378:
7373:
7361:
7355:
7337:
7334:WP:EXPERTSPS
7327:
7312:
7298:
7297:
7293:
7266:
7235:
7234:
7230:
7213:
7172:
7171:
7167:
7148:
7131:
7130:
7126:
7108:
7097:
7096:
7092:
7074:
7061:
7060:
7056:
7047:
7016:
7006:
6990:
6989:
6985:
6969:
6968:
6964:
6932:
6922:
6921:
6917:
6899:
6897:
6868:
6858:this section
6851:
6847:
6841:
6825:October 2023
6800:
6782:
6781:
6777:
6751:
6750:
6746:
6725:
6719:
6682:
6681:
6677:
6650:
6649:
6645:
6618:
6617:
6613:
6594:
6581:
6580:
6576:
6571:
6564:
6546:
6545:
6505:
6504:
6481:
6473:
6462:
6441:
6440:
6436:
6419:
6399:DenverCoder9
6390:WP:UPPERCASE
6379:
6378:
6374:
6353:DenverCoder9
6335:
6334:
6330:
6311:DenverCoder9
6308:
6302:
6297:
6291:
6282:
6271:
6270:
6266:
6237:DenverCoder9
6223:
6222:
6218:
6199:
6181:
6180:
6171:
6166:
6152:
6151:
6147:
6141:
6120:
6114:
6104:your sandbox
6088:
6008:
6007:
6003:
5970:
5969:
5965:
5940:
5939:
5935:
5876:
5875:
5871:
5846:
5845:
5841:
5810:
5809:
5805:
5787:
5784:
5777:
5771:
5770:
5767:
5761:
5754:
5726:
5712:
5711:
5707:
5686:
5683:
5678:
5661:
5660:
5658:
5626:
5625:
5621:
5606:Sideswipe9th
5598:
5582:
5568:
5567:
5563:
5549:Sideswip9eth
5533:Sideswipe9th
5521:
5520:
5516:
5512:
5504:
5489:
5488:
5484:
5449:
5447:
5391:Sideswipe9th
5386:
5382:
5368:
5367:
5363:
5333:
5332:
5328:
5323:
5283:
5282:
5278:
5255:
5248:Hunter Biden
5242:
5227:
5226:
5222:
5217:
5212:
5205:
5139:
5131:
5129:
5125:
5121:
5088:
5085:removing BLP
5084:
5082:
5078:
5069:
5068:
5064:
5057:Dennis Brown
5030:Dennis Brown
5019:
5014:Dennis Brown
5013:
4985:
4984:
4980:
4971:WP:BLPREMOVE
4946:
4932:
4931:
4927:
4911:
4877:
4876:
4872:
4855:
4853:
4824:
4814:this section
4807:
4803:
4797:
4794:Hunter Biden
4747:
4704:
4677:
4675:
4667:
4652:
4651:
4647:
4598:
4589:
4553:
4552:
4548:
4512:
4511:
4507:
4489:
4471:
4455:
4452:Bankruptcies
4437:
4436:
4432:
4393:
4392:
4388:
4366:
4363:
4335:
4334:
4330:
4307:
4293:
4292:
4288:
4270:
4269:
4259:
4249:
4222:
4221:
4195:
4178:
4177:
4171:
4147:
4146:
4133:
4132:
4128:
4110:
4109:
4089:
4088:
4084:
4065:
4064:
4049:
4026:
3962:
3961:
3956:
3940:
3909:
3908:
3904:
3855:
3850:
3841:
3840:
3836:
3813:the accusers
3812:
3804:
3794:
3793:
3789:
3758:
3713:
3712:
3708:
3681:
3680:
3676:
3645:
3619:
3609:
3597:
3581:
3580:
3576:
3556:
3543:
3542:
3538:
3536:
3528:
3521:
3517:
3508:
3507:
3503:
3486:
3480:
3474:
3463:
3444:
3433:
3432:
3428:
3411:
3405:
3393:
3377:
3376:
3372:
3368:
3351:
3347:olive branch
3334:
3317:
3311:
3300:
3299:
3295:
3290:
3280:
3279:
3275:
3269:
3256:
3252:
3243:
3232:
3213:
3212:
3208:
3186:
3167:
3148:Newimpartial
3137:
3136:
3132:
3117:Newimpartial
3110:
3092:
3091:
3087:
3062:
3061:
3057:
3038:
3030:
3024:
3009:
3008:
3004:
2978:
2977:
2973:
2946:
2937:
2926:
2925:
2921:
2901:
2900:
2896:
2875:MOS:REALTIME
2872:
2844:
2833:
2801:
2799:
2784:
2782:
2741:
2740:
2736:
2702:
2688:
2687:
2683:
2668:Sideswipe9th
2665:
2616:
2602:
2601:
2597:
2561:â Preceding
2558:
2549:
2548:
2544:
2526:
2520:
2514:
2508:
2502:
2499:MSU Shooting
2488:
2487:
2483:
2459:
2427:
2426:
2422:
2405:WP:RFCBEFORE
2370:
2369:
2365:
2335:
2334:
2330:
2325:
2317:
2315:
2306:
2283:
2268:
2267:
2250:
2199:
2195:
2138:
2130:
2105:
2104:
2100:
2090:
2073:
2072:
2068:
2041:
2035:
2016:
2015:
2010:
2004:
2003:
1995:
1979:
1968:
1967:
1963:
1942:
1939:
1889:
1888:
1884:
1862:
1849:
1848:
1844:
1826:
1806:
1805:
1801:
1781:
1771:
1770:
1766:
1735:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1711:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1683:
1682:
1678:
1647:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1565:
1564:
1560:
1541:
1527:
1526:
1522:
1503:
1500:
1484:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1424:
1420:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1352:and they did
1351:
1347:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1318:
1317:
1294:
1262:
1234:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1127:
1121:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1038:
1020:
1019:
1015:
986:
985:
981:
951:
911:
905:
888:
887:
883:
859:
820:
801:
800:
796:
770:
769:
765:
703:
702:
698:
643:
642:
638:
616:
597:
569:â Preceding
564:
548:
547:
487:â Preceding
479:
461:
456:
451:
446:
438:disruptively
422:
409:
376:â Preceding
373:
358:
347:
346:
342:
336:Please read
324:
323:
318:
314:
305:
294:
293:
289:
267:
266:
262:
245:
233:
232:
228:
218:
189:
91:
9958:January 19,
9818:construct".
9757:Pick one.
9278:your revert
9065:construed".
8534:I stand by
8467:So are you
8360:? Anyone? â
8117:current rfc
7790:voting page
7651:Hello, I'm
7358:WP:COATRACK
7351:WP:NEWSBLOG
7156:(cowabunga)
6812:Makeandtoss
6591:RfC changes
6538:Unsigned IP
6262:discredited
6019:FranMichael
5920:FranMichael
5857:FranMichael
5827:FranMichael
5790:FranMichael
5588:a month ago
5555:WP:WP:3RRNO
4730:O3000, Ret.
4603:Magnolia677
4373:Marksherr16
4206:O3000, Ret.
4014:O3000, Ret.
3998:discussion.
3524:John Barron
3471:John Barron
3164:Externality
2949:WP:Preserve
2639:alert/first
2622:alert/first
2581:Please see
2481:sanctioned.
2038:this revert
1041:this thread
536:noticeboard
434:collaborate
382:80.2.144.16
246:HJÂ Mitchell
222:HJ Mitchell
9870:References
9638:See also:
9614:Chuck Todd
9238:April 2024
9062:is clear,
8536:my comment
8350:FormalDude
7774:topic bans
7699:. Thanks,
7695:, you can
7500:repeatedly
7494:is about "
7364:(which is
7319:my removal
7143:agree with
7024:WP:NOTTHEM
6962:statement.
6762:PackMecEng
6730:PackMecEng
6572:PONITIFICO
6470:Sparkfire?
6055:Politrukki
6041:Politrukki
5951:Politrukki
5906:Politrukki
5738:Jtbobwaysf
5668:WP:NOTNEWS
5664:Leon Black
5089:violations
4753:Politrukki
4712:Politrukki
4632:Politrukki
4412:Leon Black
4369:Leon Black
3861:Shibboleth
2880:Jalen Folf
2845:discussion
2755:Courcelles
2709:Courcelles
2135:WP:EDITCON
2096:WP:EDITCON
2040:. Thanks.
1917:Boscaswell
1901:Boscaswell
1867:Boscaswell
1144:. Thanks.
881:backwater.
10010:SPECIFICO
9759:Riposte97
9550:SPECIFICO
9483:81.0.36.0
9450:SPECIFICO
9345:Riposte97
9331:Riposte97
9301:Riposte97
9286:Riposte97
9189:SPECIFICO
9169:ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
9145:SPECIFICO
9110:SPECIFICO
9068:sentence
9046:SPECIFICO
8923:SPECIFICO
8895:This edit
8735:SPECIFICO
8568:involved.
8336:Chicken.
8323:SPECIFICO
8278:SPECIFICO
8225:soibangla
8169:SPECIFICO
8138:SPECIFICO
8057:SPECIFICO
7998:SPECIFICO
7978:Nishidani
7962:SPECIFICO
7946:Nishidani
7906:SPECIFICO
7856:SPECIFICO
7839:Nishidani
7770:site bans
7717:SPECIFICO
7661:this edit
7655:. I have
7597:SPECIFICO
7569:SPECIFICO
7539:SPECIFICO
7445:SPECIFICO
7415:SPECIFICO
7398:SPECIFICO
7370:was based
7342:WP:BLPSPS
7294:SPECIFICO
7231:SPECIFICO
7214:Thinker78
7168:SPECIFICO
7127:SPECIFICO
7093:SPECIFICO
7057:SPECIFICO
6986:SPECIFICO
6965:SPECIFICO
6918:SPECIFICO
6778:SPECIFICO
6747:SPECIFICO
6678:SPECIFICO
6646:SPECIFICO
6614:SPECIFICO
6577:SPECIFICO
6437:SPECIFICO
6420:Thinker78
6375:SPECIFICO
6331:SPECIFICO
6267:SPECIFICO
6219:SPECIFICO
6148:SPECIFICO
6145:practice.
6100:vandalism
6004:SPECIFICO
5966:SPECIFICO
5936:SPECIFICO
5872:SPECIFICO
5842:SPECIFICO
5806:SPECIFICO
5708:SPECIFICO
5688:Cornmazes
5622:SPECIFICO
5564:SPECIFICO
5517:SPECIFICO
5485:SPECIFICO
5364:SPECIFICO
5329:SPECIFICO
5279:SPECIFICO
5223:SPECIFICO
5087:and NPOV
5065:SPECIFICO
4981:SPECIFICO
4928:SPECIFICO
4873:SPECIFICO
4773:July 2023
4648:SPECIFICO
4549:SPECIFICO
4508:SPECIFICO
4462:this edit
4458:your edit
4433:SPECIFICO
4389:SPECIFICO
4346:Curran919
4331:SPECIFICO
4289:SPECIFICO
4129:SPECIFICO
4085:SPECIFICO
3941:Thinker78
3905:SPECIFICO
3837:SPECIFICO
3790:SPECIFICO
3709:SPECIFICO
3677:SPECIFICO
3629:QuicoleJR
3623:SPECIFICO
3577:SPECIFICO
3539:SPECIFICO
3504:SPECIFICO
3429:SPECIFICO
3373:SPECIFICO
3312:extremely
3296:SPECIFICO
3291:increased
3276:SPECIFICO
3209:SPECIFICO
3189:SPECIFICO
3133:SPECIFICO
3088:SPECIFICO
3058:SPECIFICO
3005:SPECIFICO
2974:SPECIFICO
2922:SPECIFICO
2897:SPECIFICO
2737:SPECIFICO
2684:SPECIFICO
2631:this edit
2598:SPECIFICO
2583:WP:BURDEN
2545:SPECIFICO
2484:SPECIFICO
2423:SPECIFICO
2416:Callenecc
2366:SPECIFICO
2331:SPECIFICO
2285:Callanecc
2254:Callanecc
2201:Callanecc
2164:Callanecc
2140:Callanecc
2101:SPECIFICO
2085:Callanecc
2069:SPECIFICO
2043:Callanecc
1964:SPECIFICO
1885:SPECIFICO
1845:SPECIFICO
1802:SPECIFICO
1767:SPECIFICO
1723:SPECIFICO
1698:SPECIFICO
1679:SPECIFICO
1591:SPECIFICO
1561:SPECIFICO
1523:SPECIFICO
1444:SPECIFICO
1402:SPECIFICO
1333:SPECIFICO
1198:SPECIFICO
1162:SPECIFICO
1101:SPECIFICO
1066:SPECIFICO
1016:SPECIFICO
997:SPECIFICO
982:SPECIFICO
955:SPECIFICO
884:SPECIFICO
797:SPECIFICO
766:SPECIFICO
699:SPECIFICO
696:scrutiny.
639:SPECIFICO
528:consensus
524:talk page
464:talk page
440:, and to
370:writes...
343:SPECIFICO
290:SPECIFICO
263:SPECIFICO
229:SPECIFICO
82:if needed
65:Be polite
25:talk page
21:SPECIFICO
9920:ABC News
9893:NBC News
9516:NY Times
9431:Mandruss
9411:Mandruss
9173:Levivich
9125:Levivich
9009:by email
8816:editing.
8685:Mandruss
8643:Mandruss
8611:Mandruss
8492:Mandruss
8452:Mandruss
8416:Mandruss
8403:Andrevan
8365:Mandruss
8354:Cessaune
8346:Andrevan
8305:Mandruss
8256:Mandruss
8245:you want
8239:bullshit
8222:bullshit
8201:Mandruss
8035:. It is
7924:nableezy
7891:nableezy
7874:nableezy
7673:bare URL
6880:by email
6714:Andy Ngo
6547:Mandruss
6530:Unsigned
6474:Did you
6296:, where
6135:NadVolum
6115:Cambial
5993:Thanks,
5933:purpose.
5672:WP:UNDUE
5436:Valereee
5423:Valereee
5409:Valereee
5348:Valereee
5344:the work
5306:Valereee
5257:message.
5171:WP:3RRNO
5126:requires
5114:WP:3RRNO
4836:by email
4744:INVOLVED
4664:INVOLVED
4430:of time.
4223:Mandruss
4179:Mandruss
4148:Mandruss
4111:Mandruss
4066:Mandruss
3994:actors.)
3980:process.
3963:Mandruss
3409:value.--
3389:WP:CIVIL
2971:changes.
2802:articles
2563:unsigned
2463:Activist
2355:contribs
2294:contribs
2232:contribs
2210:contribs
2192:WP:AC/CT
2179:contribs
2149:contribs
2052:contribs
1780:This is
1624:Mr Ernie
1538:Per talk
1441:sharing.
1195:editing.
1001:X-Editor
966:X-Editor
899:WP:minor
827:WP:MINOR
782:NadVolum
751:NadVolum
683:Mr Ernie
583:contribs
571:unsigned
563:warringâ
538:or seek
520:edit war
501:contribs
489:unsigned
470:or seek
430:edit war
390:contribs
378:unsigned
190:960Â days
93:Archives
50:get help
19:This is
9899:June 1,
9844:Valjean
9737:Valjean
9724:Lawfare
9677:Valjean
9644:Valjean
9528:Best,
9500:Hello,
9472:W:NPOV
9447:Thanks.
9254:Space4T
9060:WP:TBAN
8994:unblock
8977:60 days
8972:blocked
8857:blocked
8358:Bueller
8342:BootsED
8154:BootsED
8121:BootsED
8072:WP:ONUS
7797:NoACEMM
7366:WP:MREL
7149:Space4T
6865:unblock
6848:2 weeks
6843:blocked
6522:Valjean
6508:PING me
6497:Valjean
6482:Space4T
6184:PING me
6173:Valjean
6121:foliarâ§
5703:WP:BLPN
5461:WP:ARCA
5379:AEBLOCK
5244:message
5028:Thanks
4821:unblock
4799:blocked
4672:comment
4564:Cwater1
4526:Cwater1
4492:Cwater1
4472:Space4T
4273:PING me
4262:Valjean
4104:WP:IDHT
4030:record.
3759:Space4T
3557:Space4T
3487:Space4T
3107:A query
2593:WP:ONUS
2456:Curious
2270:PING me
2260:Valjean
1830:GoodDay
1786:GoodDay
1751:GoodDay
1739:GoodDay
1715:GoodDay
1650:GoodDay
1122:de plus
560:reverts
482:blocked
480:may be
9605:From
9531:Anita
9514:was a
9469:FYI:
9282:an RfC
9000:~~~~}}
8965:, and
8554:(talk)
8546:Formal
8220:also:
7991:is to
7592:WP:TPG
7512:WP:1RR
7430:VQuakr
7347:source
7220:(talk)
6871:~~~~}}
6775:visit.
6426:(talk)
6413:top 20
6326:WP:BRD
5545:Hello
5296:after
4827:~~~~}}
4804:1 week
4596:WP:RFC
4540:WP:TPG
4486:Thanks
4478:(talk)
4406:Hello
4314:VQuakr
4304:Revert
4100:WP:DTR
3947:(talk)
3765:(talk)
3563:(talk)
3529:Forbes
3493:(talk)
3424:WP:CIR
3193:BMFife
3170:đđđ˝
2885:(talk)
2857:(nest)
2705:WP:FFD
2527:News.
2438:VQuakr
2412:image.
2398:VQuakr
2383:VQuakr
2310:VQuakr
2117:VQuakr
1460:WP:BRD
1417:WP:BRD
1382:WP:BRD
1120:&
916:đđđ˝
847:đđđ˝
736:đđđ˝
731:WP:BLP
338:WP:TPG
9821:From
9753:: -->
9749:: -->
9642:. --
8920:note.
8892:Hey.
8774:Andre
8597:DFlhb
8582:DFlhb
8517:Andre
8474:Andre
8434:Andre
8387:Andre
8338:DFlhb
8027:Trump
7659:that
7615:DFlhb
7585:DFlhb
7554:DFlhb
7516:DFlhb
7466:WP:AE
7381:DFlhb
7338:Never
7110:Andre
7076:Andre
6693:Nemov
6662:Nemov
6629:Nemov
6598:Nemov
5772:under
5679:third
5465:WP:AN
5463:, or
5457:WP:AE
4006:rare.
2810:B-bot
2732:here.
2649:alert
2586:WP:RS
1859:MSNBC
1799:wish.
1485:-30-
1142:WP:AE
78:Seek
10015:talk
9994:talk
9960:2024
9929:2019
9901:2017
9848:talk
9797:lot.
9778:talk
9763:talk
9741:talk
9695:talk
9681:talk
9662:talk
9648:talk
9600:GRU.
9582:talk
9555:talk
9537:talk
9487:talk
9455:talk
9390:talk
9364:Path
9335:talk
9320:Path
9290:talk
9216:talk
9194:talk
9177:talk
9171::-)
9150:talk
9129:talk
9115:talk
9094:talk
9051:talk
9018:talk
8967:here
8963:here
8959:here
8955:here
8928:talk
8910:talk
8877:talk
8864:here
8740:talk
8723:talk
8665:talk
8632:this
8586:talk
8549:Dude
8409:some
8328:talk
8294:this
8283:talk
8229:talk
8194:this
8174:talk
8158:talk
8143:talk
8125:talk
8094:talk
8080:talk
8062:talk
8045:talk
8003:talk
7982:talk
7967:talk
7950:talk
7911:talk
7861:talk
7843:talk
7808:talk
7760:The
7722:talk
7705:talk
7675:and
7619:talk
7602:talk
7574:talk
7558:talk
7544:talk
7536:out.
7520:talk
7450:talk
7434:talk
7420:talk
7403:talk
7385:talk
7299:talk
7279:talk
7236:talk
7173:talk
7132:talk
7098:talk
7062:talk
7054:you.
7036:talk
6991:talk
6980:this
6970:talk
6946:talk
6923:talk
6889:talk
6816:talk
6783:talk
6766:talk
6752:talk
6734:talk
6722:here
6697:talk
6683:talk
6666:talk
6651:talk
6633:talk
6619:talk
6602:talk
6582:talk
6501:talk
6442:talk
6403:talk
6380:talk
6357:talk
6336:talk
6315:talk
6272:talk
6241:talk
6224:talk
6206:talk
6177:talk
6153:talk
6142:atop
6059:talk
6045:talk
6037:here
6023:talk
6009:talk
5985:talk
5971:talk
5955:talk
5941:talk
5924:talk
5910:talk
5877:talk
5861:talk
5847:talk
5831:talk
5825:~MP
5811:talk
5794:talk
5762:Done
5742:talk
5713:talk
5692:talk
5670:and
5627:talk
5610:talk
5569:talk
5537:talk
5522:talk
5509:here
5490:talk
5473:talk
5442:and
5427:talk
5413:talk
5395:talk
5369:talk
5352:talk
5334:talk
5310:talk
5294:here
5284:talk
5267:talk
5228:talk
5183:talk
5145:You
5102:talk
5070:talk
5038:talk
4986:talk
4960:talk
4933:talk
4897:talk
4888:and
4878:talk
4845:talk
4790:here
4757:talk
4734:talk
4716:talk
4653:talk
4636:talk
4622:talk
4607:talk
4568:talk
4554:talk
4530:talk
4513:talk
4496:talk
4438:talk
4421:talk
4394:talk
4377:talk
4350:talk
4336:talk
4318:talk
4310:this
4294:talk
4266:talk
4210:talk
4134:talk
4090:talk
4018:talk
3910:talk
3893:talk
3881:here
3877:here
3842:talk
3821:talk
3795:talk
3778:talk
3731:talk
3714:talk
3697:talk
3682:talk
3656:talk
3646:Per
3633:talk
3582:talk
3544:talk
3509:talk
3477:This
3434:talk
3378:talk
3301:talk
3281:talk
3238:day.
3214:talk
3197:talk
3187:Hi @
3174:talk
3152:talk
3138:talk
3121:talk
3093:talk
3077:talk
3063:talk
3046:talk
3010:talk
2994:talk
2979:talk
2961:talk
2947:Per
2927:talk
2902:talk
2814:talk
2759:talk
2742:talk
2730:and
2728:here
2724:here
2713:talk
2689:talk
2672:talk
2603:talk
2591:and
2589:WP:V
2571:talk
2550:talk
2533:talk
2489:talk
2467:talk
2442:talk
2428:talk
2387:talk
2371:talk
2351:talk
2336:talk
2298:logs
2290:talk
2264:talk
2228:talk
2214:logs
2206:talk
2175:talk
2153:logs
2145:talk
2121:talk
2106:talk
2074:talk
2056:logs
2048:talk
1969:talk
1949:talk
1922:talk
1906:talk
1890:talk
1872:talk
1850:talk
1836:this
1807:talk
1790:talk
1782:your
1772:talk
1755:talk
1728:talk
1703:talk
1684:talk
1654:talk
1628:talk
1620:this
1610:talk
1596:talk
1580:talk
1566:talk
1549:talk
1528:talk
1468:talk
1449:talk
1432:talk
1423:and
1407:talk
1390:talk
1338:talk
1278:talk
1250:talk
1217:talk
1203:talk
1186:talk
1167:talk
1150:talk
1138:here
1136:and
1134:here
1106:talk
1089:talk
1071:talk
1053:talk
1021:talk
1013:Yes.
1005:talk
987:talk
970:talk
935:talk
920:talk
889:talk
872:talk
851:talk
835:talk
802:talk
786:talk
771:talk
755:talk
740:talk
719:talk
704:talk
687:talk
670:talk
656:and
644:talk
627:talk
604:talk
579:talk
497:talk
386:talk
348:talk
295:talk
268:talk
234:talk
67:and
9842:--
9774:TFD
9691:TFD
9616:on
9384:it.
9361:hed
9358:nis
9355:Tar
9317:hed
9314:nis
9311:Tar
8961:,
8604:any
8192:Re
8037:not
7681:Fix
7671:A "
7532:not
7372:on
7328:At
7317:of
6534:or
6503:) (
6179:) (
5385:or
4618:TFD
4268:) (
4106:. â
3864:ink
3531:400
3073:TFD
3042:TFD
2797:).
2316:RE:
2266:) (
2198:")
2066:so.
2017:Raz
2011:Ock
1882:it.
1513:\\
1307:at
1299:at
1213:TFD
979:No.
594:Yes
546:.
325:Raz
319:Ock
23:'s
9996:)
9949:.
9917:.
9891:.
9885:.
9780:)
9765:)
9697:)
9664:)
9609::
9584:)
9576:â.
9539:)
9489:)
9392:)
9337:)
9292:)
9260:đ
9250:.
9218:)
9179:)
9131:)
9096:)
9020:)
8992:{{
8957:,
8912:)
8879:)
8779:đ
8725:)
8667:)
8634:.
8588:)
8522:đ
8479:đ
8439:đ
8392:đ
8384:?
8356:?
8352:?
8348:?
8344:?
8340:?
8231:)
8160:)
8127:)
8096:)
8082:)
8047:)
7984:)
7952:)
7928:-
7895:-
7878:-
7845:)
7810:)
7799:}}
7795:{{
7772:,
7707:)
7683:|
7621:)
7560:)
7522:)
7436:)
7387:)
7325:.
7281:)
7115:đ
7081:đ
7038:)
6948:)
6891:)
6863:{{
6818:)
6768:)
6736:)
6699:)
6668:)
6635:)
6604:)
6540:}}
6536:{{
6532:}}
6528:{{
6513:)
6478:?
6405:)
6359:)
6317:)
6243:)
6208:)
6189:)
6118:â
6061:)
6047:)
6025:)
5987:)
5957:)
5926:)
5912:)
5904:.
5863:)
5833:)
5796:)
5744:)
5694:)
5612:)
5539:)
5475:)
5467:.
5459:,
5429:)
5415:)
5397:)
5389:.
5354:)
5324:do
5312:)
5269:)
5250:.
5218:is
5211:.
5185:)
5104:)
5091:."
5040:)
5020:2¢
5017:-
4962:)
4899:)
4847:)
4819:{{
4759:)
4736:)
4718:)
4700:,
4697:,
4694:,
4691:,
4688:,
4685:,
4638:)
4624:)
4609:)
4570:)
4532:)
4498:)
4423:)
4379:)
4352:)
4320:)
4278:)
4212:)
4052:.
4020:)
3895:)
3823:)
3780:)
3752:,
3749:,
3733:)
3699:)
3658:)
3635:)
3315:--
3199:)
3176:)
3154:)
3123:)
3079:)
3048:)
2996:)
2963:)
2816:)
2761:)
2715:)
2674:)
2652:}}
2646:{{
2642:}}
2636:{{
2625:}}
2619:{{
2573:)
2535:)
2469:)
2444:)
2389:)
2357:)
2353:/
2300:)
2296:â˘
2292:â˘
2274:)
2234:)
2230:/
2216:)
2212:â˘
2208:â˘
2194:("
2181:)
2177:/
2155:)
2151:â˘
2147:â˘
2123:)
2058:)
2054:â˘
2050:â˘
1951:)
1792:)
1757:)
1656:)
1630:)
1612:)
1582:)
1551:)
1470:)
1434:)
1392:)
1372::)
1280:)
1252:)
1219:)
1188:)
1152:)
1091:)
1055:)
1007:)
972:)
937:)
922:)
908:Or
874:)
853:)
837:)
788:)
757:)
742:)
721:)
689:)
672:)
664:)
629:)
606:)
585:)
581:â˘
503:)
499:â˘
392:)
388:â˘
249:|
188::
182:22
180:,
178:21
176:,
174:20
172:,
170:19
168:,
166:18
164:,
162:17
160:,
158:16
156:,
154:15
152:,
150:14
148:,
146:13
144:,
142:12
140:,
138:11
136:,
134:10
132:,
128:,
124:,
120:,
116:,
112:,
108:,
104:,
100:,
48:;
9992:(
9962:.
9931:.
9903:.
9846:(
9776:(
9761:(
9739:(
9726:'
9693:(
9679:(
9660:(
9646:(
9580:(
9535:(
9485:(
9438:â
9418:â
9406:â
9399:x
9388:(
9343:@
9333:(
9299:@
9288:(
9214:(
9175:(
9127:(
9092:(
9016:(
8908:(
8875:(
8721:(
8692:â
8678::
8674:@
8663:(
8650:â
8618:â
8599::
8595:@
8584:(
8499:â
8459:â
8423:â
8405::
8401:@
8372:â
8312:â
8300:â
8263:â
8227:(
8208:â
8156:(
8123:(
8092:(
8078:(
8043:(
7980:(
7948:(
7841:(
7806:(
7703:(
7687:)
7617:(
7587::
7583:@
7556:(
7518:(
7483:"
7432:(
7383:(
7277:(
7034:(
6944:(
6887:(
6814:(
6764:(
6732:(
6695:(
6664:(
6631:(
6600:(
6574:.
6554:â
6524::
6520:@
6499:(
6401:(
6355:(
6313:(
6239:(
6204:(
6175:(
6137::
6133:@
6057:(
6043:(
6021:(
5999::
5995:@
5983:(
5953:(
5922:(
5908:(
5898::
5894:@
5859:(
5829:(
5792:(
5740:(
5690:(
5674:.
5608:(
5601:.
5551::
5547:@
5535:(
5471:(
5425:(
5411:(
5393:(
5350:(
5308:(
5265:(
5181:(
5120:(
5100:(
5059::
5055:@
5036:(
4958:(
4895:(
4843:(
4755:(
4732:(
4714:(
4680:"
4676:"
4634:(
4620:(
4605:(
4566:(
4528:(
4494:(
4419:(
4375:(
4348:(
4316:(
4264:(
4230:â
4208:(
4186:â
4155:â
4143:â
4118:â
4073:â
4061:â
4016:(
3970:â
3958:â
3891:(
3819:(
3776:(
3744::
3740:@
3729:(
3695:(
3671::
3667:@
3654:(
3631:(
3625::
3621:@
3195:(
3172:(
3150:(
3119:(
3075:(
3044:(
2992:(
2959:(
2812:(
2779:â
2757:(
2711:(
2670:(
2569:(
2531:(
2465:(
2440:(
2418::
2414:@
2400::
2396:@
2385:(
2349:(
2312::
2308:@
2288:(
2262:(
2256::
2252:@
2226:(
2204:(
2173:(
2166::
2162:@
2143:(
2119:(
2087::
2083:@
2046:(
1961:.
1947:(
1832::
1828:@
1788:(
1753:(
1741::
1737:@
1717::
1713:@
1652:(
1626:(
1608:(
1578:(
1547:(
1466:(
1430:(
1388:(
1346:"
1276:(
1248:(
1215:(
1184:(
1148:(
1087:(
1051:(
1003:(
995:@
968:(
957::
953:@
933:(
918:(
870:(
849:(
833:(
784:(
753:(
738:(
717:(
685:(
668:(
625:(
602:(
577:(
495:(
384:(
224::
220:@
130:9
126:8
122:7
118:6
114:5
110:4
106:3
102:2
98:1
95::
52:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.