User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 19

1712:

seem to imply that editors can insult each other all they want –it's only their on-wiki persona that gets targeted anyway. I think that kind of glosses over the fact that people will take insults as insults, regardless whether they encounter these online or in real life. Online insults have the same kind of undesirable effects as real-life ones. One important difference is that the insults are more or less 'socially quarantined' to the wiki-environment: they may have a (considerable) effect on people's real-life mood and behavior, but at least they don't affect their social rank in offline environments (e.g., you can be bullied here but sit at the top of the social hierarchy on your workplace, or vice versa). But within the wiki-environment, insults and disparaging remarks can bring an editor down, chase them away, decide content disputes, etc., and can for those reasons make a core difference in how the encyclopedia ultimately looks. That's why it's a pillar. As I see it,

2585:

the problem and then googling a list of defective "sources" for his preferred edit, Ernie came here to tell me to "take splinters out" of my eyes. I've seen you post at length at AE and elsewhere about lesser infractions and here most likely your inaction only enables more such behavior in the future. In my opinion, if you do not have the time or intention to monitor the sanction you placed, it would be time to recruit someone else to assume that role so that you don't get pinged when there's a problem. That would save your time and attention and would not lead to pointless dead end requests to maintain a baseline level of honesty, civility and yes,

836:

Eventually I got sick of it and just rolled back his latest string of unsourced, nonfactual edits. What happened? Nothing happened to him but I was suspended for two days and had my rollbacker rights taken away. Of course I complained but to little avail. One other admin did reduce the time to only one day. That admin that decided that my first WP mistake after many years good service and without any warning is now with Arbcom. That violation remains the only scar on my record here. But I learned a valuable lesson: Just because an editor is an admin does not mean he/she is right and it does not mean that he/she is not an asshole, either.

1543:

recall any of the links to the extensive and rather conclusive discussion of this. It's part a style problem and part a software engineering issue, as I recall. Then of course there's my second error, which is that for some reason my comment below yours was not bulleted as it should have been. So bottom line: My apologies for messing up your text but as a general matter I believe that kind of refactor to keep the thread clean is considered OK and even encouraged. Thanks for letting me know your concern. You're one of the most productive editors on the articles I've been watching recently.

1218:

from Trump the man" : What does it even mean ? Who decide where is the line between the two ? This is a magical argument, I could easely delete any new contribution about Joe Biden saying that one should separate Joe Biden the president from Joe Biden the man. This convoluted notions are open doors for all sorts abuses and I considerer that it was my right to ask for a clarification. I therefore ask you to reopen this discussion until someone clearly explains what does it mean separe the man from the president.--

31: 1434:

obstruction can go on much longer than you will remain patient. Further, I don't see what the purported job title benefits our readers. Titles are not defined and vary widely among companies. So I would check in to get the closer's take, then consider EW noticeboard, but I would not bother repeating your view, which appears to be correct but which is not being respected. Good luck. If you want another opinion, you could check in at the BLPN or with one of the Admins who's active there.

2669:

questionable sentences in different parts of the section, that had earlier been removed. This cannot be good practice as it is easy for editors to miss stuff when several edits are being manually reverted and messed around with at the same time – all with an inadequate edit summary (instead of being individually and more transparently reverted). Please in future if you are going to revert several edits could you do so individually with some kind of explanation for each.

2457:

here with a false complaint and I didn't give it any thought before honoring his demand. You've complained bitterly on talk and perhaps elsewhere when he's pushed unverified and UNDUE content on other articles. I don't consider it "bickering" to expect honesty and responsiveness from editors here. If you do, I'm afraid you're going to continue to experience the same in the future. My opinion. At some point, when the pattern of behavior is clear, it needs to be addressed.

1105: 3304: 2817:. By saying "mobilize the kiddie corps" what you are doing is saying that anybody that answers my request for information is a child - this goes extremely against the principles of Knowledge. Knowledge says that you should assume good faith and you are failing to do so. By the way my request for information was genuine. I do not know what the latest editions of the textbooks are saying. I do have a hunch but not strong enough to put money on it. 1703:, and for a 'pillar' it certainly does get ignored a lot. To the detriment of the encyclopedia, I think: I know for a fact that the PA leveled against me has had a chilling effect on my willingness to contribute in the topic area where it happened, and even WP in general. It's not a pillar for nothing. I agree with those saying that POV-pushing is a greater threat than incivility, but it becomes a problem when POV-pushing is just being 1667:. I don't view that "insulting or disparaging" language to be the dominant principle in our definition of PA. It's just not enforced that way. I view that as at best an afterthought that was intended to allow the community some flexibility, but it's way too vague to be a standard on its face. Thanks for coming here. See what you think of my response at the link, and feel free to come back with further thoughts or disagreement. 594: 1785:“unspecified text” perhaps you could explain that to me? Do you require/ask for a quote from each of the people listed (along with citations) making clear the support they gave Assange? (that can be provided in most cases if you wish.) As for “BLP violation” I think not – these are people who have gone on public record to support Assange – the citations I supplied are clear in that regard – more can be provided. 2440:

revert with a few edits before reinstating it when I realized your complaint was false. Now I'd like to see either 1) an explanation of the violation you claim -- which would be documented by 2 diffs. Or an explanation as to why you came here to present a false complaint. Your repeated failure to respond to that request is hard to understand, but the time to correct that is now. Thank you.

1361:

entirely, and call him an author and documentary filmmaker. Maybe even a political scientist -- the same as how they used to call Molyneux a "philosopher". I think there's a flare up recently. Not sure. The talk archives will tell the tale. Not worth the trouble. Who's reading that page? Not sure how many views it gets. He's a bit too boring for 2021 audiences.

3226:

Sorry folks, but the biases of various editors there have been self-declared at the article talk page repeatedly and consistently -- referring to Assange as "our hero", declaring that we should not follow mainstream sources, etc. The notices were asking for eyes on the article talk page, not to start

2707:

that’s just not good enough – It should be clear - the issue I am dealing with here is not about the specific things you changed - but the way you performed the changes i.e. you altered lots of things in different parts of the article, all with one single edit and one edit summary. Not good practice

2584:

lacks any possible fraction of credibiliity. You have volunteered to take a lead role in the enforcement of DS for the politics articles, and the response you have given above does not address this behavior or do anything to improve and sustain a collaborative editing environment. Even after denying

2312:

Sorry Valjean, I think the ping didn't work due to my not having signed the preceding post. Ernie has posted a false allegation that I stupidly took at face value, resulting in my self-revert and opening a pointless talk page thread where he's continued to advocate unverified and unsourced content. I

2293:

No, Ernie. You apparently came here to harass me with a bogus demand regarding a nonexistent violation. That's why I've pinged an Admin here. I made the mistake of taking you at your word and sel-reverting. My mistake.You appear to stalk various editors who reject your POV UNDUE editing, and hats not

1724:

Anyway, I think I've learned a lot about the wiki-experience by going through this. I now also have a better view of PA's and how they are (not) enforced. My most important lesson: if you don't agree with something, stay away from it, because it's most probably not worth it. It's much more productive

1187:

OK, first that's not refactoring, and you'll note that in the intervening 3 weeks nobody else apparently shares your concern about my having hatted a snarky off-topic remark. Second, it's generally inadvisable to template experienced users. Third, the template you used does not apply to your apparent

3275:

Sorry, but no. You misunderstand what neutral notice means. And there was no suggestion in my notice as to the substance of the issue or whether any of the self-identified biases would come down on one side or the other of the RfC or my view. Who said I have any credibility to begin with? It's just

2519:

Thanks for taking a look and providing some clarity. I brought the issue here instead of a noticeboard hoping to address it directly with SPECIFICO. Their removal of the source triggered a revert notice in my notifications, which I thought was the entire edit and not just the removal of the source.

1860:

I have responded to your substantive concerns on the AEI talk page. With regard to my conduct, I don't know what a "blind revert" is and would welcome you educating me on that term. I did not first respond to your clear explanation for one of your two edits on talk because I didn't know it was there

1542:

Hi. The erasure was an avoidable error and I should certainly have been more careful. The matter of mixing indents and bullets has considerable documentation and while that thread is mixed, a direct response to a bulleted comment is best done as a subsidiary bulleted comment. Unfortunately I do not

2849:

I don't know why you put the word "no" at the start of your first sentence there. It makes more sense for it to be the word "yes". The phrase "kiddie corps" is demeaning to any younger person that may contemplate actually answering my legitimate request for information. Your language is diminishing

2456:

BR, there's really nothing to discuss. It's the familiar unverified content with googled cherrypicked sources that don't address the problems with the original unverified content and blog source. The only reason there is a talk page thread is because I stupidly didn't imagine that Ernie would come

2406:

that source too. The spirit of the DS says if there is an edit and then reversion, there should then be a talk page discussion instead of additional reverts. I have now produced a further 5 sources for the content, where a fruitful discussion is now occurring. Thank you for starting the discussion.

2011:

I hesitate to undo my revert because I am not the one who could properly explain the restored changes in an edit summary. I do not know - as you apparently do - whether 501(c)(3) prohibits support of candidates, parties, or both. And, while I have a guess, I don't know why you removed "grants" from

1749:

My point is simply that the dominant point in the PA policy is about attacks on the real life editor. Policy pages often have inconsistent minor text like the "anything disparaging" bit. It's not enforced that way, which is what leads me to know that it's an artifact of the editing of that page and

1711:

As for DN's case, I'm under the impression that your argument is that PA only applies to comments about our real-world person, not about our on-wiki persona? That seems a bit misguided to me: in most cases editors make sure to share as little as possible about their real lives, so your stance would

1414:

concluded "Musk should not be described as an engineer." Since that time, some who participated in the RFC and who disagree with the RFC's conclusion have been side-stepping the conclusion by putting, in the article, that Musk is a "chief engineer." When I edited that out (as per RFC) and explained

2555:

Just reviewed this (belatedly) myself. Mr Ernie reverted a Bold edit by SPECIFICO, and SPECIFICO reverted a Bold edit by Mr Ernie. Mr Ernie has (kind of) admitted fault for the false accusation of a BRD violation. It doesn't look like an apology is forthcoming, and I doubt trying to extract one is

1879:

Thanks for coming here with your concern. A blind revert is undoing an edit without stating any substantive objection or engaging other editors as to the reason for your revert. Now that you have read the explanation, I presume that -- unless there's some further issue you want to raise -- you'll

1842:

Really not helpful for you to do a blind revert without responding to my clear explanation above. There's nothing in the 501(c)(3) about taking policy or analysis positions. It's a prohibition on lobbying and supporting electoral campaigns. Please be responsive here. I fixed the problem identified

1784:

I would like to discuss the edit/deletion you made and the justification you provided for deleting. For instance “undue” - these are high profile people – so why are there opinions “undue”. That they chose to speak out on this is surely of interest. I don’t know what you mean (in this context) by

1725:

to write and rewrite whole articles than to get bogged down in toxic 'debates' over how one paragraph or sentence should read. I'm sorry to have been venting here about this. I hope it may at least have inspired you to some thoughts about what a PA is and how we should deal with them here. Thanks!

1360:

I've given up on that page long ago. Some of the now-TBANned editors used to hang out there, a bit like what we see on Assange, only that was back in the day when folks actually went to the trouble of filing AE cases and a few good Admins watched the articles. Mostly folks wanted to remove "right"

1217:

You ended a discussion about whether or not one should mention Abraham accords on Trump's page, saying that there wasn't any concensus. But there isn't concensus when people on both sides have arguments, while the only argument invoked by the other side was "One should separate Trump the president

1065:

I had no idea that Slim had died. If we were to put WP editors on a list of best and on down I would have put Slim at #1. And yet it seems that very shortly after her death comments were closed. How could this have happened? Another editor on my top five list also died recently, Flyer, and her

237:

That was not the only problem. I've several times told you that when you make several disparate cuts at a time, it is not easy for others to undo problems and your edits are likely to be reverted the same way you made them. Many editors have objected to many of these cuts that unbalance NPOV text.

1258:

So if I understand well, since it is nowhere considered in the article about concensus that one of the parts may be of bad-faith, someone working for a politician (and these people exist, in France we have a website enumerating every modification made from IP located in the National Assembly) can

1192:

edit resulted in confusing formatting, because the hatting was not inented and you forgot to adjust it so that it would be clear to future readers what was referenced in my hat note. Finally, I disagree with you that the hatting was inappropriate, but I am not going to give it any more thought. I

2916:

to avoid taking responsibility for your conduct. I already explained to you that, if Assange's slanders about Rich were true, this innocent victim would have committed a crime against his employer, the Clinton campaign. As to the Otherstuff you keep throwing at me -- take up your complaints with

2439:

Ernie, you are digging deeper and deeper. Please just provide the two diffs that would be necessary to document a DS violation prior to your appearance here. You are well aware that I immediately went to self revert, taking your complaint in good faith to be true (my mistake) and screwed up the

1491:

Well there will be a dozen or more books coming out in the next year or so -- by notable and respected journalists and academics -- that will cast an entirely fresh light on the man and his presidency. This article has withstood many false narratives inserted by well meaning and not-here editors

1433:

Hello - good to hear from you. For starters, I would consult the closer, who is very experienced, and get his take on this. I think the place for this would be AN/EW regardless of whether it's a 3rr issue. As you'll recall with the Joe Biden Allegations article acouple of years ago, this kind of

2894:

should be plain to see as other (hopefully disinterested) editors will note far more clear-cut examples of “NOTFORUM” in preceding contributions like: “criminal turncoat”: “obsess with tawdry American politics” or: “Assange's self-declared 14-year war against America's national security and its

1574:

Confusing however, because many editors seem to switch from indents to bullets when it strikes them that they are sharing a particularly inspired thought. Then the thread is mixed and it's hopeless. There's also a difference between colon-followed by-asterisk and asterisk-followed-by-colon. I

835:

Years ago I used my rollbacker to delete a whole slew of edits made by a editor that worked for a pesticide company and repeatedly refused to stop copying stuff directly from the pesticide label and other puffery he got directly out of his a**. And, he refused to make even one talk page entry.

1311:

of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future

682:

occurs in approximately 10% of uses of the word. Needless to say it was surprising to see you drop a template without checking the facts, based on an unsupported complaint. Every WP article on an American restaurateur that I've seen uses the correct spelling. This has nothing to do with "using

107:

Hey Specifico, did you check the source that I retained for the quote? I don't deny that Trump ever said "won against", but I am using the Guardian source to say he said "defeated". Unless you have something to the contrary, it appears your addition of a citation and restoring the quote to the

543:

Hello Callenecc. I have self-reverted and will raise the content issue on talk. It's likely that one or the other of us has edited most of the content in that section, so to avoid any such concern, I will not edit that section directly prior to talk consensus in the future. Thanks for your

2668:

you reverted an edit of mine where I had removed two doubtful sentences from the intro – in your next edit you manually re-deleted those two sentences and put them in the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section – ok no big deal - but during the same edit you manually re-instating several

318:

Yes, agree that discarding is bad. I missed saying that all I kept was as I left it, not the detailed recording information. The idea back then was to make it a sortable list of his compositions, - you have to start somewhere. Perhaps a refund to draft space is better than closure review.

1707:

in order to excuse personal attacks (which on closer inspection really is a kind of POV-pushing all of its own). It tends to hollow out our claim that decisions here are made on the basis of policy and sources: in fact, editorial questions are often decided by who gangs up on

1313: 2012:

description of funding sources. (If my guess is right then I'd disagree inasmuch "grant" and "donation" are not necessarily synonyms. If my guess is wrong and you removed the word because AEI doesn't have any grant funding then I don't know whether that is true or not.)

974:

I don't believe I heard back from you in response to my concern, above, that many of your uses of rollback -- like the one that occasioned this thread -- go beyond the authorized implementation of reverting "obvious vandalism". Am I mistaken or missing something here?

2234:

It’s a bespoke DS, quite uncommon, but reads “If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.” I don’t know what you mean by 2 reverts. There are two conditions to this DS, and only one was fulfilled.

2124:

Sorry I accidentally hit rollback button instead of undo when reverting your last Assange edit, hence no edit summary – It would have said; Your addition of “for ongoing criminal activity” in the Assange page is not meaningful here as Assange is currently in prison.

1233:

Thanks for coming here with your concern. These issues have been discussed extensively and in diverse contexts on the article talk page over the past 5-6 years. On WP, the default is to omit content that does not have consensus for inclusion. Please see the pages on

655:

Yes, but that is the British spelling; an article on a school in the US should use the American spelling (and a description of an American who runs an American establishment should be in American English), and an objection to the British spelling has been raised by

2424:

undid a "bold" edit (the addition of a ref which SPECIFICO disputed by "R"eversion), IOW the "B" in BRD. That leaves it up to Mr Ernie to start a "D"iscussion. Since the discussion has been started, just discuss there and stop the sniping. Stick to the content. --

268:

All your cuts made the article worse and removed curated references. But in general, you will have better luck cutting small single statements per edit, not that I am encouraging any. As is, you are mostly making a lot of work for the many editors who revert your

947:

What interests me, and is frankly concerning, is whether you have made lots of these Rollback edits that go beyond the "obvious vandalism" standard for Rollback. Just looking at a few of your edits tagged Rollback, it seemed that you might do these fairly often.

2832:

No, I'm saying that people who have recently purchased elementary economics texts would be among the youngest of Knowledge editors. You seem to misunderstand lots of things, so it's best not to speculate -- most of all about article content with your Original

2943:

which was placed there the midst of our RFC debate and WAS in breach of WP:OWN. In other words my edit rectified a breach of WP:OWN and by reverting me you reinstated the breach (effectively putting you in breach) – Please be good enough to undo your revert

356:

I am directly asking you to cease referring to other editors when criticising me. You may directly quote others if you feel it is necessary, but saying "as several editors have told you" as you have done many times is inappropriate and disruptive. Thanks.

314:

Wow! Good for you. Do you agree this is discarding a lot of useful hard work, despite the question of whether recent performances are a category of any interest? Do you think a closure review is in order, or is it going to need more effort to retain?

518:, I notice that you and Kolya Butternut have previously edit warred over that section heading. So changing it following the prior conflict could be considered a violation of the two-way IBAN between you. Have you got any comments to make about that? 1273:

I've given a couple of links you can read to get a perspective on how WP treats the issues you raise. Please consider the content on those pages, which will give a framework for any discussions you have with me or other editors about your concerns.

1813:. The place to discuss article content is on the article talk page, but I am not going to tutor you on fundamental WP site policies and practices there. Please read the pages I've linked and consider my edit summary and the text I deleted. Thanks. 1716:

was right about one thing: the great tragedy of Knowledge is that it doesn't enforce its own policies and guidelines. It's indeed no use to more rigorously enforce the policy on civility if the same isn't done for that much more important policy,

3042:

Manifestly unjust persecution contrary to the Vision (why is your opinion on Austrian economics unsuitable for inclusion in the sum of all knowledge?), due unintentionally to Wales' co-founding. Are you allowed to comment on the issue on Meta?

2686:

No, this was very well-sourced longstanding article content and I am reverting the removal and sending it back to the talk page. Any concerns can be raised by you, ad the editor who initially cut this content, as you are well aware of what was

3227:

a discussion on NPOVN or BLPN. The statement of the RfC on article talk said only that it existed -- nothing at all on any viewpoint about it. Spitting in soup is an ugly image to bring here -- you can do better expressing yourself I'm sure.

913:

Yes, I'm sorry, I had not seen or heard of "restaurateur" as an actual word before your post of 02:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC) above, I thought the use implied that there were rats at one of Eli Zabar's restaurants. However, given that article

1381:. I said "right-wing" but with the benefit of your analysis and references I see now it's unambiguous that he should be classified "far right". I'm not sure whether all of what qualifies as RS have as clear a distinction as you've shown us. 2538:

edit being reverted. That is not what 24-hr BRD is about. Are you going to give an honest reply, or are you hoping for this to be escalated against you? You don't really think anyone believes you are glad I did nothing wrong, do you.

2575:

Awilley, your inaction only enables and empowers Ernie to continue this kind of behavior, which is by no means an isolated incident. His failure to respond until an Admin arrived here, and the excuse he presented about a flag that

1344:

I'm not familiar with that particular dispute. Can you briefly summarize it? As far as I know, Dinesh D'Souza meets and exceeds the definition for the far right. What special circumstances exist that might make me change my mind?

3073:" (where the !votes are being posted). If you plan on moving it to the preceding section, then please drag my response along with it. I didn't want to move your comment, in case it was placed exactly where you wanted it. 2504:. Never touched it, and still has not. You did get ahead of yourself in accusing him of violating DS. Please read histories more slowly. Me, I have to stare at them back and forth forever to understand what's happening. 1695:, which is precisely what I did until I saw it mentioned at ANI. You are certainly also right that insults and disparaging remarks are generally given a free pass: the policy is just not enforced that way. But civility 1242:. By the time a thread has become repetitive and circular, I believe it's best to move on to other article improvements. Of course no issue is ever absolutely closed and can be revisited if context or sourcing changes. 872:

Jeff, I've now learned a little about rollback. My understanding is that it is to be used only to revert clear vandalism as defined. That would not apply to correcting a spelling by a long-registered account, would it?

1308: 3009: 2791:

Consecutive edits are single reverts. There was an edit conflict and a simultaneous edit at 10:00 made the third one non-consecutive, which is why I undid it. I hope somebody else examines it and makes the edit.

2850:

the likelihood of getting an answer. This has got to be against everything Knowledge is about. So I'll say it again: Please edit or remove your comment. And what is this "original research" that you speak of?

1259:

indefinitely filibuster any add that he doesn't like, saying that it isn't relevant here, that one should make the difference between the politician and man, etc ? There is strictly nothing preventing that ?

2612: 434:

I wouldn't worry much about which adjectives are used, 123. Many editors have said you'd be much more effective and less frustrated if you took various criticisms to heart. That would be good for everyone.

2724:

I understood you the first time. Thanks for your visit. At any rate, you should not reinstate edits that have been reverted without first discussing them and gaining consensus on the article talk page.

1750:

not a principle that is broadly endorsed by the community. There's plenty of overt and passive-aggressive hostility and insult on contentious matters, but the community rarely responds with sanctions.

1526:. Your edit caused a typo in my comment and also formatted it as a bullet point when it was intended as a direct reply. In the future I'd appreciate you pointing out any issues with my comments on my 2334: 1843:

above, on which you commented, and you don't appear to fully understand the issue. Kindly undo your blind revert or provide a detailed explanation of your sourced and reasoned objection, if any.

1981:

Thank you for your courteous reply. I completely agree that two wrongs don't make a right. In retrospect, I should have led with the post set forth above. I apologize for not having done that.

1880:

restore the text you reverted. If there's some problem with it, please identify it on the article talk page. The previous text simply reflected a misunderstanding of the 501(c)(3) restriction.

2142:

I have no idea what you're talking about. The ongoing criminal activity relates to the witness, who is a known criminal, per source. You should reinstate the text you apparently have removed.

2988:"? I have never seen that expression before. Are you accusing SPECIFICO or myself of engaginng in OWN behavior, IOW edit warring to preserve our own content (content we have installed)? -- 3261:

And notices must always be neutral, as in "there is a talk page discussion here", and never "help me fight then POV pushers". All you are doing (see above) is undermining your credibility.

254:

If there are parts of my edit you disagree with and other parts you don't mind, please elaborate on the parts you disagree with. I hope to find conclusions that would satisfy both of us.

944:

I have no idea about the guy. I have lots of these local schools and other community organizations on my watchlist from having followed BLP links and made little edits over the years.

1415:

on the talk page why I deleted that, my edits get reverted which seems to me to violate the RFC & seems to be starting an edit war. On the Musk talk page, I've asked, nicely,

2654: 1919: 3196:

Like someone who spits in your soup in a restaurant, then when you complain says: "Thank you for your comment. I welcome constructive discussion to reach an amicable solution."

2634: 1950:) without changing the meaning of the text. Had the edit changed the meaning then the edit summary should explain the change (or referred to a talk explanation of the change). 1780:“Remove unencyclopedic, UNDUE, and unspecified text. Without statement as to what in Assange's long saga they support, it is also a BLP violation with respect to those listed.” 3065:

I liked your comment that went along with your !vote in RSN re DW, and I commented underneath it. However, I think you may have mis-placed it by putting it under the section "

2917:

whoever might have said it. You are on a downward spiral to a block or ban, not just from this. I hope you can take a break and start to collaborate constructively instead.

1959: 372:

I am among the several editors who have repeatedly implored you to cease your inappropriate and disruptive behavior, yet you continue to demonstrate you just don’t care.

3159:

This (in every forum you placed it) "- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. ".

2203:

edit is a DS violation. You reinstated an edit that was reverted without opening a talk page discussion. Please self revert and start the discussion to avoid sanctions.

1339:

I mean, look at Dinesh D'Souza's article where this has come up perhaps most frequently with ongoing disputes. He is unique. Does the exact label tell us much? Not sure.

1418:

for them to stop their edit war & stop violating the RFC's conclusions, but they've not stopped. So now I don't know what to do? Can you please advise me? Thanks!

222:

Check again, I didn't remove anything to do with the inspector generals. Check the version itself, not just the differences, it's still all there. Please self-revert.

2094:

Thanks for catching this. I was returning to the edit window from another application and instead of bolding my "no", I inadvertently bolded the initial word "no" in

3020: 1830: 1592: 3052: 3037: 2520:

Closer inspection and outside opinions have cleared it up, and there’s now a productive talk page discussion about the topic. Happy to hear there was no violation.

2056:

Please note the new section in Julian Assange Talk page: "Russian intelligence officers working with WikiLeaks?" which deals with your recent reversion of an edit.

1965:

I've already addressed that concern. My careless, hasty edit summaries do not validate your behavior. You are welcome here any time, even when you repeat yourself.

2659: 238:

You have replied with denial, and this is very much to the detriment of article content and curated references compiled by many editors over long period of time.

2680: 1854: 2785: 1307:. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a 2102:'s post. I'm rather surprised you'd imagine I would do that deliberately or talk about a "warning" rather than a notification on the talk page. Regards. 1182: 1164: 1796: 1427: 1260: 1219: 3335: 3070: 2964:’s controversial and unauthorised edit replaced - I cannot prevent you: as that dogs dinner was considered the last “stable edit” – that’s up to you. 2815: 328: 2803: 2037: 2021: 2006: 1990: 1976: 1909: 1891: 1874: 180: 1536: 1459: 1445: 445: 429: 415: 395: 381: 280: 263: 249: 209: 164: 148: 134: 3308: 3287: 3270: 3182: 3168: 3154: 2928: 2745: 2735: 2719: 2698: 2185: 2169: 2153: 2136: 2113: 1824: 1802:"Support XYZ" is a very broad and undefined statement. Presumably they do not support every action or public statement in his life. Please review 1285: 1268: 1253: 1092: 845: 3238: 3221: 2997: 1601: 1586: 1569: 1554: 3066: 2468: 1761: 1744: 1678: 1392: 1372: 1204: 723: 579: 555: 3256: 2550: 2451: 2416: 2357: 2324: 2281: 2267: 2244: 2229: 1946:

one for which a "ce" edit summary would be appropriate because it involves "correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout" (quoting

1771: 657: 3115: 3099: 2875: 2859: 2844: 2600: 2570: 2529: 2026:

With far less effort than you've wasted on this nonsense, you could have researched and found a reference. I have no further interest in this.

1684: 1503: 1001: 959: 939: 802: 786: 764: 740: 698: 673: 650: 2434: 2373:

Ernie, if you do not give diffs to document your claim that I violated the DS restriction, you should be TBAN-ed for it. Let's see the diffs.

1509: 1398: 2975: 2955: 2906: 1378: 231: 2088: 791:

Yes, I saw that, but I was wondering whether when you do these rollbacks they are just with no edit summary like the one that surprised me?

639:

What's your concern. My only recent edit there was to correct a spelling mistake. Are you aware of the correct spelling of "restaurateur"?

3003: 923: 496: 420:

Nothing about describing my actions as inappropriate or disruptive there. If you have concerns with me, feel free to visit my talk page.

1416: 366: 333:

I agree. There wasn't much substantive discussion at AfD, and we could get it in better shape without to much trouble over time. Thanks.

2119: 1563:

and I see it indeed clearly states to use the same indentation and list formatting as what you are replying to. Appreciate the tip. ––

117: 3082: 3276:

a notice, folks can take it or leave it. Have a look or not, as they wish. Your mischaracterization of the notice is disappointing.

3105: 1034: 3048: 3016: 2067: 537: 2826: 1354: 3143:

Could you be specific? It was just asking for eyes on the page, I think. Anything you would add to attract more editors there?

1227: 1327: 1147: 192: 1657: 986: 907: 884: 3326:

To add to this, I've made a comment in the WP:ANI thread, regarding your behaviour, to which you should probably respond.

2534:

Ernie, you continue to evade the issue. A single revert would never constitute a violation. The revert notice referred to

2384: 2934: 2885: 2512: 2212: 626: 1664: 1619: 1485: 1411:, I have a question about an edit war & RFC violation for you. Over on the Elon Musk talk page, a May 18, 2021 RFC 3044: 3012: 2072: 1897: 1837: 1048: 308: 215: 3320: 3137: 2340: 1109: 1075: 404: 3060: 2891: 927: 606: 2939:

You should be aware that when you reverted my recent edit in Julian Assange you effectively reinstated an edit by

1739: 1652: 1638:. (emphasis in original) Or did you not notice that this is what the block was for? Just genuinely curious here, 753:. I'm not very familiar with the technical side of WP, but I'm curious. Is that how you generally do "rollback"? 602: 571: 529: 2494:

If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit

2501: 2497: 2489: 2421: 2403: 2391: 2256:

I am well aware of the restriction, but you have not shown, with your single link, that I reinstated any edit.

2200: 1683:

I hadn't really been interested in our PA policy, until I recently found a PA against me mentioned at ANI, and

1131: 351: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1687:

to insist that this attack really was baseless and really was crossing the line. Now an important part of our

174: 1295: 1020: 1942:) is not one for which checking the "This is a minor edit" box would be appropriate. That said, the example 1516:

Hi SPECIFICO. I just want to ask you nicely to not edit my talk page comments without asking me, as you did

1332: 609:

have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your

2809: 2773: 2769: 2761: 481: 102: 1939: 1081:

Yes. A real shock. I believe there's just a box format. Try the edit link at the top of the green RIP box.

3128:

Your comment at the NPOV noticeboard is not much of a help, as it is not exactly neutrally worded itself.

2480: 2399: 2395: 2333:

me of posting false allegations. Useful talk page discussions are not pointless. Here are the sources -

1861:

when I did the revert. All I knew was that the edit summary said "ce" and the edit was clearly more than

1176: 1141: 661: 502: 1066:

comments stayed open for weeks with comments still being added from time to time. Sign me, "Puzzled".

3244: 216: 38: 2960:

PS, If, whist performing your undo, you wish to reinstate the misleading and unpopular sentence which

2346: 706:, "restauranteur" is not ENGVAR, but is a misspelling that happens to be more common in the US. See 2781: 2051: 2017: 1986: 1955: 1905: 1870: 1518: 464:

You might want to watchlist the FAQ, he's made the same whitewashing edit three or four times now.

296: 1455: 1423: 1212: 511: 425: 391: 362: 259: 227: 188: 144: 113: 3331: 3316: 3266: 3178: 3164: 3133: 2970: 2950: 2901: 2895:

domestic politics”. You should either revert, or give the same treatment to these other edits.

2714: 2675: 2313:

believe you have suffered similar incidents in the past, so I thought you might be interested.

2164: 2131: 2084: 2062: 1791: 1171: 1136: 1121: 610: 324: 304: 1575:

believe the former is preferred, but you might try both on your sandbox and see what happens.

386:

That should indicate that we disagree and that there is no use in pursuing the issue with me.

3205: 1613: 1560: 1264: 1223: 1126: 1071: 841: 587: 575: 533: 3217: 2646: 2586: 2195: 1527: 1467: 1412: 2330: 1938:

should be flagged as minor edits." In other words, a copy edit that changes text (such as

8: 3282: 3233: 3149: 3094: 3032: 2923: 2870: 2839: 2798: 2777: 2730: 2693: 2595: 2545: 2463: 2446: 2379: 2319: 2262: 2224: 2180: 2148: 2108: 2032: 2013: 2001: 1982: 1971: 1951: 1901: 1886: 1866: 1849: 1819: 1756: 1734: 1673: 1647: 1581: 1549: 1498: 1440: 1387: 1367: 1350: 1304: 1280: 1248: 1239: 1199: 1159: 1117: 1087: 981: 954: 902: 879: 797: 759: 719: 693: 645: 567: 550: 525: 440: 411: 377: 339: 275: 244: 204: 159: 129: 47: 17: 2394:

text with an edit summary "unsourced text," despite the source right behind the text, I

3252: 2525: 2509: 2412: 2353: 2277: 2240: 2208: 1947: 1862: 1704: 1451: 1419: 919: 770: 614: 492: 421: 400: 387: 358: 255: 223: 184: 140: 109: 3327: 3312: 3262: 3174: 3160: 3129: 3111: 3078: 2993: 2981: 2965: 2945: 2896: 2855: 2822: 2709: 2670: 2630: 2564: 2430: 2159: 2126: 2080: 2057: 1786: 1559:

Thanks for the kind words, means a lot from such an experienced editor. I read up on

1481: 997: 935: 782: 736: 678:

It is also the American spelling. The misspelling I corrected, with the interstitial

669: 622: 487:

Guy - you are more than welcome to use my name. I am happy to collaborate with you.

320: 300: 3104:

Thanks, I moved them, as well as the reply-comments that had been added below them.

2343: 1631: 707: 684: 1693:

often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it

1098: 1067: 837: 1193:

hope you will repair the indent formatting. No hard feelings. Come back any time.

1134:

if you need further explanation of the proper use of the hidden archive template.

3213: 2640: 1927: 1596: 1564: 1531: 2708:

especially on a fast moving page like the Assange one with it’s multiple issues

2272:

Thanks for opening the discussion. Let’s just figure this out on the talk page.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3277: 3228: 3188: 3144: 3089: 3027: 2918: 2865: 2834: 2793: 2765: 2755: 2747: 2725: 2704: 2688: 2665: 2590: 2540: 2458: 2441: 2374: 2314: 2257: 2219: 2175: 2143: 2103: 2027: 1996: 1966: 1881: 1844: 1814: 1803: 1751: 1728: 1718: 1668: 1641: 1576: 1544: 1493: 1435: 1406: 1382: 1362: 1346: 1319: 1275: 1243: 1235: 1194: 1154: 1113: 1082: 976: 949: 897: 874: 792: 754: 728: 715: 688: 640: 562: 545: 520: 476: 435: 407: 373: 334: 290: 270: 239: 199: 154: 124: 3248: 3200: 2985: 2521: 2505: 2485: 2408: 2349: 2337: 2273: 2236: 2204: 2097: 1810: 1523: 1510: 774: 488: 472: 3010:

m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Chief_Executive_Officer/Maryana’s_Listening_Tour

3123: 3107: 3074: 2989: 2961: 2940: 2913: 2851: 2818: 2626: 2559: 2556:

going to make anybody really feel better. Best to drop it and move on IMO.

2426: 2307: 2297: 2288: 2251: 1713: 1700: 1688: 1492:

alike. There will be bigger fish to fry than the unfortunate rfc go-round..

1477: 1060: 994: 969: 932: 891: 779: 748: 733: 711: 703: 666: 634: 619: 598: 1806: 1450:

Thank you so much for your advice!!! I knew you'd know what I should do.

867: 515: 504: 459: 3026:

Curious what on earth prompted you to ask that? Not that I can comment.

1776:

You recently deleted an edit I made on the Julian Assange page saying:

992:

I'm sorry, I'll use undo with Edit Summary for less obvious cases. —

183:, is there any part that you wouldn't mind being trimmed or condensed? 1934:

of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text

1663:

Hello Apaugasma. I've posted my thoughts on this at DN's talk page at

1169:

There's a diff already in my OP, click "Refactoring others comments".

2613:

Politician & Conspiracy theorist discussions, should be separate.

1323: 1104: 3311:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

2814:

I would invite you to self revert your comment on the FRB talk page

1116:. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be 769:

You're welcome. Yes, I was granted rollbacker rights (access to the

198:

I think all the cut text is needed to convey Trump's approach to NK.

1623: 915: 466: 2500:, with an edit summary criticizing that source. He didn't revert 1721:. So we just don't do it, and have this kind of mob rule instead. 613:. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the 2496:. It didn't bring the DS into play at all. Specifico reverted 1634:

says: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack

593: 2621:

discussion into a separate section, from the preceding topic

2218:

A violation would entail 2 reverts by me. What is the first?

896:

Sorry I pinged you wrong. Please see my post above, thanks.

139:

And The Guardian accurately quotes his tweet, does it not?

2079:] was unacceptable, never change a users choice in an RFC. 2639:

I agree. Thinking of starting an RfC for the question. ––

2890:

Your double standards in Tagging my edit and warning me

1920:

I fear you may not be receptive to hearing this from me.

1863:

correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout

1035:"Knowledge:Requests for rollback/Approved/January 2008" 926:

was deleted), should that person even be mentioned in

2488:, I have looked at the article history. Specifico's 1120:. If you would like to experiment, please use your 1930:, "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting 1831:Responding to your concerns regarding my conduct. 687:. Please reinstate the correct spelling. Thanks. 3309:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 2660:Multiple manual reverts and transparency issues 683:American English". You can quickly verify this 601:. I wanted to let you know that one or more of 2772:within 24 hours, made just four minutes after 1305:discretionary sanctions community consultation 2589:in these difficult articles. Please consider. 1112:legitimate talk page comments, as you did at 123:NYT accurately quotes the video of his words. 1636:regardless of the manner in which it is done 2492:did not violate the discretionary sanction 2158:Sorry - Lost the plot today have reverted 1303:Thank you for participating in the recent 3069:" (a discussion) instead of the section " 714:. It is a misspelling even in America. -- 2625:. The former is muddying up the latter. 2329:Check your own eye for splinters before 1995:Better yet, fix the reinstated bad text. 922:for info about Eli Zabar (whose article 1591:Indeed that is what seems ideal, after 14: 3173:Really, another RSN thread about this? 3088:Thanks. Please feel free to move both. 1772:Recent deletion on Julian Assange page 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1511:Refactoring others talk page comments 1399:Edit War & RFC violation question 1377:I had a look. There was a recent RfC 2864:Thank you for sharing your concerns. 1236:neutral point of view and due weight 25: 3307:There is currently a discussion at 3004:I should probably ping you about... 1936:without modification of the content 1037:. 13 February 2013 – via Knowledge. 23: 2348:- BBC and CNN are top quality RS. 2120:Accidental rollback insted of undo 1900:regarding restoring your changes. 1898:Talk:American Enterprise Institute 1838:Talk:American Enterprise Institute 1630:was not insulting or disparaging? 1476:, if the RFC doesn't end his way. 1023:. 10 January 2008 – via Knowledge. 108:previous version was unnecessary. 24: 3347: 2984:, what do you mean by "breach of 1021:"Knowledge:Requests for rollback" 3302: 2502:your revert of his original edit 1530:before you edit them. Thanks. –– 1103: 928:Ethical Culture Fieldston School 607:Ethical Culture Fieldston School 592: 29: 1472:Heck help us. He's considering 1312:mailings by removing your name 3116:16:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 3100:08:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 3083:05:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 3053:03:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 3038:03:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 3021:03:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 2998:19:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC) 2976:14:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC) 2956:13:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC) 2929:13:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC) 2907:10:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC) 2876:13:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC) 2860:08:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC) 1041: 1027: 1013: 13: 1: 3206:16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 3045:Epistemology follows Ontology 3013:Epistemology follows Ontology 2845:18:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC) 2827:17:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC) 2804:10:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC) 2786:10:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC) 2736:16:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 2720:15:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 2699:14:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 2681:14:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 2655:04:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 2635:02:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC) 2402:another source, and then you 662:c:User talk:Jeff G.#Hypertext 446:22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC) 430:20:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC) 416:19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC) 396:21:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC) 382:19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC) 367:06:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC) 299:because I saw that coming. -- 2422:This removal (the "R" in BRD 1626:her comment to make her say 960:16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 940:09:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 908:03:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 885:15:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC) 846:16:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 803:14:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 787:13:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 765:13:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 741:11:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 724:03:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 699:02:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 674:02:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 651:02:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 627:02:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 329:21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC) 309:19:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC) 281:22:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC) 264:22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC) 250:13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC) 232:10:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC) 210:23:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 193:23:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 165:02:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 149:02:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 135:02:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 118:02:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 7: 3336:17:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3321:15:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3288:14:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3271:14:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3257:14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3239:13:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3222:13:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3183:12:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3169:12:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3155:11:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3138:09:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 2935:Your revert breached WP:OWN 2886:Double standards in editing 2617:Howdy, you should make the 2601:22:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2571:22:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2551:17:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2530:17:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2513:16:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2469:15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2452:15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2435:15:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2417:14:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2385:14:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2358:14:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2325:13:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2282:00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 2268:23:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC) 2245:23:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC) 2230:23:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC) 2213:23:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC) 2186:15:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC) 2170:15:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC) 2154:15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC) 2137:15:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC) 2114:18:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 2089:17:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 2068:11:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC) 2038:11:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC) 2022:06:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC) 2007:04:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC) 1991:01:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC) 1977:01:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC) 1960:23:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC) 1910:00:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC) 1892:22:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC) 1875:21:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC) 1855:15:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC) 1622:: do you really think that 1561:Help:Talk_pages#Indentation 1127:Refactoring others comments 10: 3352: 2746:Discretionary sanction at 2073:altering other users posts 1825:23:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) 1797:22:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) 1762:16:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC) 1745:23:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC) 1691:policy appears to be that 1679:16:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC) 1658:12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC) 1002:09:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC) 987:13:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC) 580:10:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC) 556:13:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC) 538:03:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC) 497:00:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 482:23:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC) 295:The information is parked 217:Presidency of Donald Trump 3245:WP:Canvassing#Campaigning 2762:undoing your third revert 2664:Re. the Assange article. 2498:your addition of a source 1602:08:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 1587:02:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 1570:02:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 1555:02:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 1537:01:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 1504:16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC) 1486:15:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC) 1460:02:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC) 603:your recent contributions 3061:Perhaps misplaced in RSN 1446:23:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC) 1428:17:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC) 1393:17:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC) 1373:17:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC) 1355:17:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC) 1328:21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC) 1286:22:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC) 1269:21:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC) 1254:18:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC) 1228:17:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC) 1205:00:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC) 1183:23:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 1165:22:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 1148:22:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 777:on 10 January 2008. — 510:Hi SPECIFICO, regarding 2580:edit had been reverted 1093:08:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC) 1076:08:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC) 3210: 3071:Survey, The Daily Wire 1924:But, I'll try anyway. 1896:Please see my post at 1705:asserted without proof 918:seems to be used as a 352:On referring to others 3194: 2619:"conspiracy theorist" 1296:DS 2021 Review Update 42:of past discussions. 3187:Also, to paraphrase 2810:Bullying in advance! 1598:𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 1566:𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 1533:𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 103:Donald Trump on ISIS 2774:your initial revert 2768:. Please also undo 2764:within 24 hours to 1593:my experimentations 1130:is disruptive. See 18:User talk:SPECIFICO 2770:your second revert 1933: 1333:Re: Dinesh D'Souza 3208: 2568: 2481:talk page stalker 1931: 1188:concern. Fourth, 1049:"User rights log" 708:wikt:restaurateur 480: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3343: 3306: 3305: 3204: 3203: 3067:Malformed survey 2973: 2968: 2953: 2948: 2904: 2899: 2759: 2717: 2712: 2678: 2673: 2653: 2651: 2643: 2569: 2562: 2484: 2311: 2301: 2292: 2255: 2167: 2162: 2134: 2129: 2101: 2065: 2060: 2052:Recent reversion 1794: 1789: 1743: 1737: 1731: 1656: 1650: 1644: 1599: 1567: 1534: 1521: 1410: 1300:Dear SPECIFICO, 1181: 1146: 1129: 1107: 1053: 1052: 1051:– via Knowledge. 1045: 1039: 1038: 1031: 1025: 1024: 1017: 1000: 973: 938: 895: 871: 785: 771:rollback feature 752: 739: 672: 638: 625: 596: 470: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3351: 3350: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3303: 3198: 3126: 3063: 3006: 2971: 2966: 2951: 2946: 2937: 2902: 2897: 2888: 2812: 2753: 2751: 2715: 2710: 2676: 2671: 2662: 2647: 2645: 2641: 2615: 2557: 2478: 2305: 2295: 2286: 2249: 2198: 2165: 2160: 2132: 2127: 2122: 2095: 2075: 2063: 2058: 2054: 1928:Help:Minor edit 1922: 1833: 1792: 1787: 1774: 1735: 1729: 1726: 1648: 1642: 1639: 1616: 1597: 1565: 1532: 1517: 1514: 1470: 1404: 1401: 1335: 1298: 1215: 1213:About concensus 1170: 1135: 1125: 1101: 1063: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1019: 1018: 1014: 993: 967: 931: 889: 865: 778: 746: 732: 665: 632: 618: 590: 508: 462: 354: 293: 220: 177: 153:Apparently not. 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3349: 3339: 3338: 3301: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3259: 3211: 3197: 3192: 3185: 3171: 3125: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3062: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3005: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2936: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2887: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2811: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2778:Basketcase2022 2776:to that page. 2766:Julian Assange 2760:Thank you for 2750: 2748:Julian Assange 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2661: 2658: 2614: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2437: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2327: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2121: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2074: 2071: 2053: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2014:Butwhatdoiknow 1983:Butwhatdoiknow 1952:Butwhatdoiknow 1925: 1921: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1902:Butwhatdoiknow 1867:Butwhatdoiknow 1836:Imported from 1832: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1782: 1781: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1722: 1709: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1513: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1469: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1400: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1375: 1342: 1341: 1334: 1331: 1317: 1297: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1214: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1185: 1114:Julian Assange 1110:delete or edit 1108:Please do not 1100: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1062: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1040: 1026: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 965: 964: 963: 962: 945: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 731:did that. — 726: 617:. Thanks. — 589: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 507: 501: 500: 499: 461: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 353: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 292: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 219: 214: 213: 212: 176: 173: 172: 171: 170: 169: 168: 167: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3348: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3289: 3286: 3285: 3281: 3280: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3237: 3236: 3232: 3231: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3212: 3209: 3207: 3202: 3201:User:Tearlach 3193: 3190: 3186: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3153: 3152: 3148: 3147: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3106: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3098: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3036: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3011: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2974: 2969: 2963: 2958: 2957: 2954: 2949: 2942: 2930: 2927: 2926: 2922: 2921: 2915: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2905: 2900: 2893: 2877: 2874: 2873: 2869: 2868: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2805: 2802: 2801: 2797: 2796: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2757: 2749: 2737: 2734: 2733: 2729: 2728: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2718: 2713: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2692: 2691: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2679: 2674: 2667: 2657: 2656: 2652: 2650: 2644: 2637: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2602: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2588: 2587:WP:COMPETENCE 2583: 2579: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2566: 2561: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2549: 2548: 2544: 2543: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2514: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2482: 2470: 2467: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2444: 2438: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2423: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2405: 2401: 2398:the text and 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2383: 2382: 2378: 2377: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2344: 2341: 2338: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2326: 2323: 2322: 2318: 2317: 2309: 2304: 2303: 2299: 2290: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2266: 2265: 2261: 2260: 2253: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2187: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2178: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2168: 2163: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2152: 2151: 2147: 2146: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2135: 2130: 2115: 2112: 2111: 2107: 2106: 2099: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2070: 2069: 2066: 2061: 2039: 2036: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2005: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1929: 1926:According to 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1841: 1839: 1826: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1812: 1808: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1795: 1790: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1763: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1754: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1741: 1738: 1732: 1723: 1720: 1715: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1654: 1651: 1645: 1637: 1633: 1632:WP:NPA#WHATIS 1629: 1625: 1621: 1614:What is a PA? 1603: 1600: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1585: 1584: 1580: 1579: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1535: 1529: 1525: 1524:Talk:Andy Ngo 1520: 1512: 1505: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1474:another round 1461: 1457: 1453: 1452:BetsyRMadison 1449: 1448: 1447: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420:BetsyRMadison 1417: 1413: 1408: 1394: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1380: 1376: 1374: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1340: 1337: 1336: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1315: 1310: 1306: 1301: 1287: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1241: 1237: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1191: 1186: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1139: 1133: 1128: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1106: 1094: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1085: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1050: 1044: 1036: 1030: 1022: 1016: 1012: 1009: 1003: 999: 996: 991: 990: 989: 988: 985: 984: 980: 979: 971: 961: 958: 957: 953: 952: 946: 943: 942: 941: 937: 934: 929: 925: 921: 917: 912: 911: 910: 909: 906: 905: 901: 900: 893: 887: 886: 883: 882: 878: 877: 869: 847: 843: 839: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 804: 801: 800: 796: 795: 790: 789: 788: 784: 781: 776: 772: 768: 767: 766: 763: 762: 758: 757: 750: 744: 743: 742: 738: 735: 730: 727: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 702: 701: 700: 697: 696: 692: 691: 686: 681: 677: 676: 675: 671: 668: 663: 659: 654: 653: 652: 649: 648: 644: 643: 636: 631: 630: 629: 628: 624: 621: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 595: 588:February 2021 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 564: 559: 558: 557: 554: 553: 549: 548: 542: 541: 540: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 522: 517: 513: 506: 498: 494: 490: 486: 485: 484: 483: 478: 474: 469: 468: 447: 444: 443: 439: 438: 433: 432: 431: 427: 423: 422:Onetwothreeip 419: 418: 417: 413: 409: 406: 402: 401:Onetwothreeip 399: 398: 397: 393: 389: 388:Onetwothreeip 385: 384: 383: 379: 375: 371: 370: 369: 368: 364: 360: 359:Onetwothreeip 343: 342: 338: 337: 332: 331: 330: 326: 322: 317: 316: 313: 312: 311: 310: 306: 302: 298: 282: 279: 278: 274: 273: 267: 266: 265: 261: 257: 256:Onetwothreeip 253: 252: 251: 248: 247: 243: 242: 236: 235: 234: 233: 229: 225: 224:Onetwothreeip 218: 211: 208: 207: 203: 202: 197: 196: 195: 194: 190: 186: 185:Onetwothreeip 182: 166: 163: 162: 158: 157: 152: 151: 150: 146: 142: 141:Onetwothreeip 138: 137: 136: 133: 132: 128: 127: 122: 121: 120: 119: 115: 111: 110:Onetwothreeip 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3328:AndyTheGrump 3313:Slatersteven 3300: 3283: 3278: 3263:Slatersteven 3234: 3229: 3195: 3175:Slatersteven 3161:Slatersteven 3150: 3145: 3130:Slatersteven 3127: 3095: 3090: 3064: 3033: 3028: 3007: 2982:Prunesqualer 2972:billets_doux 2967:Prunesqualor 2959: 2952:billets_doux 2947:Prunesqualor 2938: 2924: 2919: 2903:billets_doux 2898:Prunesqualor 2889: 2871: 2866: 2840: 2835: 2813: 2799: 2794: 2752: 2731: 2726: 2716:billets_doux 2711:Prunesqualor 2694: 2689: 2677:billets_doux 2672:Prunesqualor 2663: 2648: 2638: 2623:"politician" 2622: 2618: 2616: 2596: 2591: 2581: 2577: 2546: 2541: 2535: 2493: 2477: 2464: 2459: 2447: 2442: 2380: 2375: 2372: 2320: 2315: 2263: 2258: 2225: 2220: 2199: 2196:DS violation 2181: 2176: 2166:billets_doux 2161:Prunesqualor 2149: 2144: 2133:billets_doux 2128:Prunesqualor 2123: 2109: 2104: 2081:Slatersteven 2076: 2064:billets_doux 2059:Prunesqualor 2055: 2033: 2028: 2002: 1997: 1972: 1967: 1943: 1935: 1923: 1887: 1882: 1850: 1845: 1835: 1834: 1820: 1815: 1793:billets_doux 1788:Prunesqualor 1783: 1775: 1757: 1752: 1714:Larry Sanger 1701:five pillars 1696: 1692: 1674: 1669: 1635: 1627: 1617: 1582: 1577: 1550: 1545: 1515: 1499: 1494: 1473: 1471: 1468:Donald Trump 1441: 1436: 1402: 1388: 1383: 1368: 1363: 1343: 1338: 1302: 1299: 1281: 1276: 1249: 1244: 1216: 1200: 1195: 1189: 1177: 1172: 1160: 1155: 1153:Diff please? 1142: 1137: 1102: 1088: 1083: 1064: 1043: 1029: 1015: 1007: 982: 977: 966: 955: 950: 903: 898: 888: 880: 875: 864: 798: 793: 760: 755: 712:Restaurateur 694: 689: 679: 646: 641: 591: 561: 551: 546: 519: 509: 465: 463: 441: 436: 355: 340: 335: 321:Gerda Arendt 301:Gerda Arendt 294: 276: 271: 245: 240: 221: 205: 200: 178: 160: 155: 130: 125: 106: 78: 43: 37: 2687:reinstated. 1948:WP:COPYEDIT 1699:one of our 1326:(aka L235) 1261:Dimitrius99 1220:Dimitrius99 1068:Gandydancer 920:WP:COATRACK 838:Gandydancer 597:Hello, I'm 560:Thank you. 516:Aziz Ansari 505:Aziz Ansari 175:North Korea 36:This is an 3214:Kleinpecan 2914:deflection 2642:FormalDude 1618:Regarding 1008:References 269:deletions. 179:Regarding 95:Archive 22 90:Archive 21 85:Archive 20 79:Archive 19 73:Archive 18 68:Archive 17 60:Archive 15 3279:SPECIFICO 3230:SPECIFICO 3146:SPECIFICO 3091:SPECIFICO 3029:SPECIFICO 2920:SPECIFICO 2867:SPECIFICO 2836:SPECIFICO 2833:Research. 2795:SPECIFICO 2756:SPECIFICO 2727:SPECIFICO 2705:SPECIFICO 2690:SPECIFICO 2666:SPECIFICO 2592:SPECIFICO 2542:SPECIFICO 2490:edit here 2460:SPECIFICO 2443:SPECIFICO 2376:SPECIFICO 2316:SPECIFICO 2259:SPECIFICO 2221:SPECIFICO 2177:SPECIFICO 2145:SPECIFICO 2105:SPECIFICO 2029:SPECIFICO 1998:SPECIFICO 1968:SPECIFICO 1883:SPECIFICO 1846:SPECIFICO 1816:SPECIFICO 1753:SPECIFICO 1730:Apaugasma 1685:chimed in 1670:SPECIFICO 1665:this link 1643:Apaugasma 1578:SPECIFICO 1546:SPECIFICO 1528:talk page 1495:SPECIFICO 1437:SPECIFICO 1407:SPECIFICO 1384:SPECIFICO 1364:SPECIFICO 1347:Viriditas 1320:Barkeep49 1277:SPECIFICO 1245:SPECIFICO 1240:consensus 1196:SPECIFICO 1156:SPECIFICO 1118:vandalism 1084:SPECIFICO 978:SPECIFICO 951:SPECIFICO 924:Eli Zabar 899:SPECIFICO 876:SPECIFICO 794:SPECIFICO 756:SPECIFICO 729:SmokeyJoe 716:SmokeyJoe 690:SPECIFICO 642:SPECIFICO 563:Callanecc 547:SPECIFICO 521:Callanecc 512:this edit 437:SPECIFICO 408:soibangla 374:soibangla 336:SPECIFICO 272:SPECIFICO 241:SPECIFICO 201:SPECIFICO 156:SPECIFICO 126:SPECIFICO 3249:NadVolum 2912:That is 2522:Mr Ernie 2506:Bishonen 2486:Mr Ernie 2409:Mr Ernie 2396:restored 2350:Mr Ernie 2331:accusing 2274:Mr Ernie 2237:Mr Ernie 2205:Mr Ernie 2098:NadVolum 1940:this one 1628:I'm ugly 1624:'fixing' 1178:foliage❧ 1173:Cambial 1143:foliage❧ 1138:Cambial 1099:May 2021 745:Thanks, 615:Teahouse 572:contribs 530:contribs 503:Edit at 489:Mr Ernie 3189:WP:SOUP 3108:Platonk 3075:Platonk 2990:Valjean 2962:Valjean 2941:Valjean 2852:Reissgo 2819:Reissgo 2627:GoodDay 2560:Awilley 2427:Valjean 2404:removed 2392:removed 2308:Valjean 2298:Valjean 2289:Awilley 2252:Awilley 2174:Thanks. 1804:WP:NPOV 1478:GoodDay 1322:& 1309:summary 1122:sandbox 975:Thanks. 970:Jeff G. 916:Zabar's 892:Jeff G. 749:Jeff G. 658:Jimneub 635:Jeff G. 611:sandbox 599:Jeff G. 39:archive 2986:WP:OWN 2703:Sorry 1932:solely 1811:WP:BLP 1403:Dear 1324:KevinL 930:? — 868:Jeff G 775:WP:RfR 773:) via 664:. — 291:Busoni 2400:added 2077:This 544:note. 477:typo? 473:help! 16:< 3332:talk 3317:talk 3284:talk 3267:talk 3253:talk 3243:See 3235:talk 3218:talk 3179:talk 3165:talk 3151:talk 3134:talk 3124:NPOV 3112:talk 3096:talk 3079:talk 3049:talk 3034:talk 3017:talk 3008:... 2994:talk 2925:talk 2892:Here 2872:talk 2856:talk 2841:talk 2823:talk 2800:talk 2782:talk 2732:talk 2695:talk 2649:talk 2631:talk 2597:talk 2582:once 2565:talk 2547:talk 2536:your 2526:talk 2510:tålk 2465:talk 2448:talk 2431:talk 2413:talk 2390:You 2381:talk 2354:talk 2321:talk 2278:talk 2264:talk 2241:talk 2226:talk 2209:talk 2201:This 2182:talk 2150:talk 2110:talk 2085:talk 2034:talk 2018:talk 2003:talk 1987:talk 1973:talk 1956:talk 1906:talk 1888:talk 1871:talk 1851:talk 1821:talk 1809:and 1807:WP:V 1758:talk 1736:talk 1719:NPOV 1708:who. 1675:talk 1649:talk 1620:this 1595:. –– 1583:talk 1551:talk 1519:here 1500:talk 1482:talk 1456:talk 1442:talk 1424:talk 1389:talk 1379:here 1369:talk 1351:talk 1314:here 1282:talk 1265:talk 1250:talk 1238:and 1224:talk 1201:talk 1190:your 1161:talk 1132:here 1089:talk 1072:talk 1061:Slim 998:G. ツ 995:Jeff 983:talk 956:talk 936:G. ツ 933:Jeff 904:talk 881:talk 842:talk 799:talk 783:G. ツ 780:Jeff 761:talk 737:G. ツ 734:Jeff 720:talk 710:and 704:Jeff 695:talk 685:here 670:G. ツ 667:Jeff 647:talk 623:G. ツ 620:Jeff 576:logs 568:talk 552:talk 534:logs 526:talk 493:talk 442:talk 426:talk 412:talk 405:ahem 392:talk 378:talk 363:talk 341:talk 325:talk 305:talk 297:here 277:talk 260:talk 246:talk 228:talk 206:talk 189:talk 181:this 161:talk 145:talk 131:talk 114:talk 2578:his 2294:OK. 1522:on 1316:. 660:at 605:to 514:to 467:Guy 460:FAQ 3334:) 3319:) 3269:) 3255:) 3247:. 3220:) 3199:— 3181:) 3167:) 3136:) 3114:) 3081:) 3051:) 3019:) 2996:) 2858:) 2825:) 2784:) 2633:) 2528:) 2515:. 2508:| 2433:) 2415:) 2356:) 2345:, 2342:, 2339:, 2336:, 2302:. 2280:) 2243:) 2211:) 2087:) 2020:) 1989:) 1958:) 1944:is 1908:) 1873:) 1865:. 1727:☿ 1697:is 1689:PA 1640:☿ 1484:) 1458:) 1426:) 1353:) 1318:-- 1267:) 1226:) 1124:. 1074:) 844:) 722:) 578:) 574:• 570:• 536:) 532:• 528:• 495:) 475:- 428:) 414:) 403:: 394:) 380:) 365:) 327:) 319:-- 307:) 262:) 230:) 191:) 147:) 116:) 64:← 3330:( 3315:( 3265:( 3251:( 3216:( 3191:: 3177:( 3163:( 3132:( 3110:( 3077:( 3047:( 3015:( 2992:( 2854:( 2821:( 2780:( 2758:: 2754:@ 2629:( 2567:) 2563:( 2558:~ 2524:( 2483:) 2479:( 2429:( 2411:( 2352:( 2310:: 2306:@ 2300:: 2296:@ 2291:: 2287:@ 2276:( 2254:: 2250:@ 2239:( 2207:( 2100:: 2096:@ 2083:( 2016:( 1985:( 1954:( 1904:( 1869:( 1840:: 1742:) 1740:☉ 1733:( 1655:) 1653:☉ 1646:( 1480:( 1454:( 1422:( 1409:: 1405:@ 1349:( 1263:( 1222:( 1070:( 972:: 968:@ 894:: 890:@ 870:: 866:@ 840:( 751:: 747:@ 718:( 680:n 637:: 633:@ 566:( 524:( 491:( 479:) 471:( 424:( 410:( 390:( 376:( 361:( 323:( 303:( 258:( 226:( 187:( 143:( 112:( 50:.

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

Index