2348:
that part of the world, I entirely understand; we all have our own priorities. But I have: I've spent nearly two years in the part of the world, spread over several visits, the last of which was in 2002, when I spent nearly the entire year there, in
Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina. I read a local paper there every day. I experienced paralyzing strikes in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, massive anti-government demonstrations in Argentina and Peru, I was in Argentina shortly after the peso was uncoupled from the dollar and the once prosperous Argentines were having to face the fact that it had become a poor country; and I was in Bolivia during a presidential election, when the US ambassador to the country said in a public speech in the presence of the outgoing president that if the Bolivian people voted for the "wrong guy" (a coca leader), the US would shut its markets to Bolivia and cut its aid (it was a serious threat; he nearly won). I think I now have a pretty good idea of how things work; why the place is dirt poor and how the dictators come to power; the patterns are obvious, if one is open-minded enough to see them. Like you, I have never seen a primary source document which "proves" US backing of the Pinochet coup, but based on the reaction of Kissinger and Nixon to Allende when he was elected, I accept it is as given when a reputable journalist like Peter Kornbluh, who does have access to primary sources, says it is so
3962:
academic terminology - because it is more stable; because it is less affected by the sentimental circumstances of the times - it is balanced out by every event throughout history which resides under it's scope, and has a body of knowledge associated with such events,and interpertations, from past and present, of those events. This is how we "learn from history" - because this allows us to stand back from the present emotionally-situated (and thus distorted) context, and see it in a fuller surrounding and causual chain, provided that we can rely upon the general persistence of human psychology and consequent behavior throughout history. Again, in order to overcome the inevitable bias of out present condition, we must stand back from our emotions, and have faith in the legitimacy of recorded history and knowledge. This is why I insist on using academic terminology. I feel that the separating of current events from the continuity of history is a dangerous rejection of the prudence that the passing down of knowledge provides. In sun, academic terminolgy is, because of such accumulated dialogue, more reliable and objective than our imagination. This is again, why I insist that we accept the prudence of generations with good faith, regardless of local sentiment.
8622:"While there were several incidents of U.S. attacks in Cambodia prior to 1969, the bombing operations were formalized in 1969. In a fourteen month period, March 1969 to May 1970, the U.S. military flew 3,630 B-52 raids against suspected Communist bases inside the Cambodian border. Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor to U.S. President Richard Nixon, asserted before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1973 that areas bombed were āunpopulated.ā However, a memorandum written for the Secretary of Defense and sent to the White House by the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicates that āBreakfastā (Base Area 35) was home to approximately 1,640 Cambodian civilians, āLunchā (Base Area 609) was populated by 198 Cambodian civilians, āSnackā (Base Area 351) had approximately 383 civilians, āDinnerā (Base Area 352) was home to approximately 770 civilians, and āDessertā (Base Area 350) was inhabited by approximately 120 Cambodian peasants. The Joint Chiefs of Staff knew that the raids could not occur without endangering these Cambodians (āsome Cambodian casualties would be sustained in the operationā) and acknowledged that āthe surprise effect of attacks could tend to increase casualties.
8633:"The Finnish Kampuchea Inquiry Commission estimates that, out of a total population of over seven million, six hundred thousand Cambodians died and over two million civilians became refugees as a result of the United Statesā indiscriminate carpet bombing of towns, villages, jungle, and countryside from 1969 through April 1973. These estimates are modest compared to other sources... Historian Ben Kiernan interviewed a number of Cambodian refugees about the U.S. bombing. A peasant named Thuon Cheng remembered the bombing of his village, Banteay Chrey in northern Kampang Cham Province, where no communist troops had ever been stationed: 'In 1973 the Vietnamese stopped coming; in the same year, the village had to endure three months of intense bombardment by American B-52 planes. Bombs fell on Banteay Chrey three to six times per day, killing over one thousand people, or nearly a third of the village population, in three months.'
2343:
well as the editorials and the letters-to-the-editors. You'd discover that people there -- for the most part -- are fascinated by the US, some have been (cladestinely or otherwise), others want to go, most have family or friends there. They watch
American TV shows, wear jeans, t-shirts, and baseball hats, and they want a piece of the action too. At the same, these people, mostly very poor by western standards, have no illusions about the role of the US in the region. For them, America is not a moral agent in their lives, it is an extremly powerful entity which is determined to maintain control of the economic activities in that part of the world. If you look at 20th century history of Latin America, you'll see a long list of actions on the part of the US government to ensure that the governments of these countries are sympathetic to its needs. Nearly always, it succeeds, such as in the case of its toppling of
3122:
extent with you that opposition to a country's policies often results into a mildly hostile attitude towards any citizens of that country even if these citizens are not all responsible for these policies. For example the country where I come from was occupied by Nazi
Germany during WWII, and people suffered a lot during that occupation (e.g. men were forced to fight in the Wehrmacht, dissidents were summarily executed or killed in concentration camps, families were forcibly moved to far-away countries, many women were forced to work in Germany to make up for labour shortages resulting from German men being soldiers, etc.). As a result of these experiences with German policies there is still today a certain anti-German sentiment, especially among older people. However this anti-German sentiment is totally different in its nature from anti-Semitism or other forms of racism.
1236:) of that copy was simply to stop an on going edit war, not to make any statement on who is right or who is wrong. Continue to make your case on the Quickpoll page and I wish you the best of luck. I think both you and 172 should be banned for 24 hours due to your revert wars on multiple pages for whatever reason, I see that as a violation of the 3 revert rule. I'd certainly hope that both you and 172 would choose to stay contributing to Knowledge after whatever result comes from the current quickpolls. This is my statement on the whole issue to both of you. I am trying to remain as neutral as possible and follow the rules of wikipedia in my duty as an Admin. I take no more action on this issue other then to continue to revert and protect any further edit wars I come across. Thank you, I hope you can both settle your differences and wish you both the best. --
7398:
red faction members to nominater others in the past in order to ruin their reputations). I thought that it was possibly the case here. Or perhaps the nominator was simply trying to troll VFA by nominating people who stood no chance. Anyway it's been pointed out to me who the nominator most likely really is. If this turns out to be true, then i have nothing to worry about, he is simply a harmless person who has a rather unhealthy interest in RFA. (I've deliberately put this on your talk page and left out names becasue i don't want to casue offence to anyone or to accuse them of doing something they didn't actually do. RFA has become somewhat of an unplesent place lately with a number of people voting to oppose people on dodgy grounds or using an oppose vote as an excuse to attack people.)I'd have emailed you but you have no email in the field:-(
4947:
it. I will not tolerate any user thinking that they are more right than all the other contributors put together. Your "reasoning" for disrespecting consensus, obviously, I will never be satisfied with. Why? Because I give it equal weight as everyone else's reasoning. That is only rational, and you should not be surprised by it. Since, I give each person's opinion equal weight (upon the scale of justice, if you will), I allow no-one, not even someone who i completely agree with, not even myself, to consider themselves above the sum total of those weights. I assure you, that if your version had consensus, and someone else was behaving as you are, I would treat them the same way that I am treating you: I would protect the consensus, regardless of what my opinion of it was.
1812:
if we have to keep reverting edits by you that delete all our versions, regardless of whether the Nixon quote is in or out, etc. If there are indeed other people who agree with me and are willing to do some work on the intro (and, I must admit, so far no one has jumped in on my side), then we would come up with our version, one not impeded by you or anyone else constantly deleting everything we write, after which there could be a comparison of that version with other versions of the intro -- your "many believe" version, an intro completely silent on the point (which I gather you'd really prefer), 172's "U.S.-backed" formulation, and anything else that surfaces. I was suggesting bad faith on your part only to the extent that, believing as you do that
7414:, I respect and approve of your politeness, and I would give you a barnstar for this if I knew how too, but it sounds almost as if you're saying that VeryVerily (if that's who you're talking about) will never be an admin. Now we should always have a ray of hope for Wikipedians becoming admins. By the way, before I would like to run for the adminship (unless if someone offers to nominate me I will accept), I try to put other people first, so I try to find out how long a user has been using the Knowledge and how many edits they've made, and this user has been here for over a year and is still active with thousands of edits in his/her history. I plan to nominate this user in a few months if he abides by Knowledge's policies or rather uses the
6109:
familiarity with you. How widely that "reputation" is distributed is a different question, but since there are many people who regularly read about and study up on active
Knowledge controversies, without necessarily getting personally involved, it has undoubtedly reached people you've not interacted with directly. Requests for adminship is a good place to get a sense of how reputations manifest themselves here, both in type and strength; different candidates show up differently not just in whether they're controversial, but their activity patterns produce different levels of intensity. Anyway, by commenting on your reputation I mean no offense and I'm not trying to be judgmental, rather I'm trying to describe my observations for you. --
3504:"Tends to be lower" is not saying much - that may have applied to many former presidents, but Bush's levels of unpopularity (e.g. 85% disapproval in France and Germany) are unprecedented. "Tends to be lower" might just mean that his popularity is 60% in the U.S. and 55% internationally - lower, but still positive. That does not adequately reflect the reality. And, even if we say "it is much lower", the reader will not expect that it is lower in absolutely every place - it is just the general trend, a few exceptions like Israel notwithstanding. "Relatively" is true in both respects, I think - relative to the U.S. as well as in a more general sense. It's not my only objection, no, I also think that link you removed is relevant.
833:"Lance/Hector/Richard/Venceremos versus the community," you're putting him in an awkward bind. For him to get whatever the hell he wants out of his foes, he's been forced to campaign against his circle of critics - so to speak. But if you react to every individual dispute as a separate incident, and drop all this chatter about how he needs to be banned, the conflict will deescalate. Believe me, after working with you on US history (1980-present), I understand firsthand where Venceremos must be coming from. I wasn't too happy when, e.g., you decided to lodge a series of complaints about me on a series of different pages. This only made me less willing to try to interact with you on a positive basis at the time.
2324:
Oakland, released a series of articles in
December 1998 on Pinochet's bloody rule and his U.S. backing. In one of the articles, "The Hand of the CIA in the Coup of '73 Ignored by the Press in the United States" (originally published by the Mexican newspaper La Jornada), authors Jim Cason and David Brooks note that while "the dictator's career of repression is often recounted, with few exceptions (those that merely point out that the United States endorsed the coup) no mention is made of Washington's hardly disguised hand in the events of September of 1973, and during the following 17 years of dictatorship" (www.igc.org/isla/chile, Feature Coverage, Focus on Chile).
1842:
apply when contending points of view disagree not just about particular questions of fact, but about the relative importance of each of those questions. I suppose some ardent anti-Catholic out there would consider
Pinochet's Catholicism (I'm assuming he's Catholic, considering his education) to be the single most important item, obviously meriting inclusion in the intro, because it confirms the hypothesis that "subjects of a foreign prince" are more likely to become dictators themselves. If you and I disagree with him on that hypothesis, he says, "Fine, NPOV means that we don't assert that in the article, but we
1724:. I'm guessing not all these users are as stupid as 172 hopes they are and will see through this smear campaign. AndyL and Hanpuk (and perhaps Tannin) are indeed "random buddies" of 172; many listed had not worked on the page, certainly not in its present form (and even, some, e.g., Ericd, only a bit); comments by AndyL, Ericd, Marcika, and Tannin (and perhaps 172) make it clear they were unaware of the issues we had been dealing with; and there is little doubt that several votes were cast ideologically. Not that it's worth my time to thumb through the poll again to respond to this smear campaign. -
5180:
he thought what he was doing would also unblock you. I noted this on the RfC listing for reference. Interestingly enough, it looks like his (failed) unblock was actually before you started casting around for some admin to unblock you (unless there are other contributions than that one IP). As to why nobody else stepped up, well of course you know your own reputation, and then some of the people you asked have gotten into enough controversy over blocking/unblocking that maybe they didn't want to take this one on. But after a quick look it turned out to be pretty clearcut, as you said.
8538:"The fact is that the United States dropped three times the quantity of explosives on Cambodia between 1970 and 1973 that it had dropped on Japan for the duration of World War II. Between 1969 and 1973, 539,129 tons of high explosives rained down on Cambodia; that is more than one billion pounds. This is equivalent to some 15,400 pounds of explosives for every square mile of Cambodian territory. Considering that probably less than 25 percent of the total area of Cambodia was bombed at one time or another, the actual explosive force per area would be at least four times this level."
1869:. I wanted to make clear that the multicandidate presidential elections were already decided in the constitution for the case that the cadidate lost. With having the election in the same sentence that the reform, it can give the idea that the reform was necessary for the elections to take place, what is not the case. I didn't change it in the page because I expect a new revert war soon anyway, but keep it in mind. Also, isn't it going to cause some process the adition to a protected page? Viajero's unprotection was against the rules, but I don't think two wrongs make one right. --
357:'s edits. This user does seem to disbelieve in a migration, but makes a few valid points. As it stands, the first paragraph seems to imply that most modern historians accept what Max Muller proposed, which is not true. The phrase "Tamil, a very distinct language in its own right, with literature and tradition at least as ancient as Sanskrit" is also not supported by evidence. The Rig Veda is much older than the earliest known Tamil literature. Of course, the present version is far closer to NPOV than the other one (in particular, references to communists ring a bellĀ :-)
4367:
African-American voters so as to steal the election. I feel this because KB seems to have an extreme desire to push the "disenfranchised" angle. I also feel that this view of his adds a POV which makes gaining consensus impossible. Question for group: Why are we not allowing both premises to be in the sentences? Why must ONLY the "there was 'disenfranchisment' therefore Bush cheated" angle be emphasized? To me, reaching consensus means respecting each others views and attempting to combine them. I have explained my views to Kevin about this, his response was:
8666:"United States Air Force maps of the targets for these attacks show that these bombs fell on densely populated, fertile areas. The U.S. Chief of Targets sitting in Thailand described the Cambodian bombing targets as āalmost suburban in character with close-spaced villages throughout.ā The U.S. bombing maps have been described as āhallucinatoryā as the bombs were targeted to fall on the most densely inhabited areas of the country. Witnesses in Cambodia during this period report that the U.S. bombing had destroyed the fabric of Cambodian society."
2634:
being a bureaucrat. He did at least later rewrite the statement to remove the abuse, which shows me he recognizes the error; of course, a personal apology to you would have been far better. On this point, I can depart from my usual impartiality and say that your conduct was definitely better than his, though I would recommend that you not now go about calling him "monstrous". I am not "unbothered" by the situation, but for my part I am willing to forgive him, though naturally that's easier for me to do because I am not the offended party.
8655:"Over one hundred protests were filed by Cambodia with the United Nations from July 30, 1968 to March 9, 1970, the 27-month period preceding the March 18, 1970 overthrow of Prince Sihanoukās government... These communications complained of acts of aggression including attacks on villages, peasants working in their fields, and fishermen in Cambodian territorial waters.38 Large numbers of deaths and injuries, as well as widespread destruction of livestock, crops, houses, and other property, resulted from these bombing attacks.
779:
notch and give him a chance. He's just having a hard time finding a niche in the site for a leftwing user. After all, he's always under relentless scrutiny and attack. It's unfair to subject him to what is effectively auto-revert in practice. While he does need watching, 100% of his facts aren't wrong in 100% of his edits. If I were you, I'd ask him what would it take to get him to become more cooperative. Chances are that he thinks you're unreasonable, while you think he's unreasonable. But I think that you're both wrong.
5968:. I've heard the same story from one other editor in the past few days too, so this is obviously a pattern of behaviour. Would you be prepared to jointly take him to arbitration with me on that basis? I've been compiling a huge volume of data against him recently, and I'm particularly keen to expose his use of techniques that will get him/her an instant ban. These actions, if they are verified, go well beyond anything that call for simple mediation. I'm happy to discuss this in more detail offline:
2328:"determined to avoid further exposure of their ties" to Pinochet's secret police (the DINA) and the Chilean military. Reding describes how the DINA carried out international terrorist actions, including the assassinations in Washington, D.C. of former Allende minister Orlando Letelier and his American associate, Ronni Moffet. In an age when U.S. grand juries are convened with increasing frequency to go after accused terrorists, Reding writes that "a grand jury would be certain to indict Pinochet."
2232:
page called both sides, but apparently there is not yet even an article about the war in the
Vietnamese section. Why do you two guys not collect some money and send used computers to Vietnam instead of engaging in fruitless edit wars? When I once had a similar conflict with TDC I remembered that there was a rule not to revert more than three times within a day, so I warned him and put a remark on requeast for comments. If that does not help you can also put it on request for protection.
9672:
reversion. I would definitely like to come to some sort consensus on the article I'm working on. I agree that it's not balanced. I think that we could put more information about the great freedom that
American's have with freedom of speech and a free press (even if some say its "concentrated"), along with the amazing strides towards dealing with racism and injustice. I think all this stuff could be added better and would be most happy to assist with adding it in the article! -
6101:
against "people who don't cooperate with what I want to do". Regardless, I think archiving it last time was correct, and since Kevin Baas has only dragged it back out and not added anything new, it's even more stale now. At this point, it looks like you two are still debating with each other, but the RfC listing is old news and if he wants to push the issue publicly again, he should start over from the beginning. So good luck with mediation or whatever course the matter takes.
8978:(pretty weasely) liberal in the world, so I disagree about POV (critics may think they're not liberal enough anyway, but that's another matter). The 3RR, despite its name, is a guideline, not a rule. It was not enforced against users who were reverting me back when we (even) had quickpolls, and it's not enforced against vandals now, who are allowed to run wild. I support multiple reverts against "subvandalism", stalkers, and users who should be banned. (See
7211:
own thinking if I have difficulty defeating them on the merits. I end up having to recognize and then reject or explicitly reaffirm my assumptions. I write for the person who comes to this forum having been complacent in their thinking hoping to challenge them into the realization that they haven't really thought about what they beleive and why, and that unless can openly meet the arguments and challenges of extremism, they may be doomed to fall prey to them.
919:). Of course I realize that you wrote this within the narrow confines of an edit summary box, but please note that labels such as "anti-race" and "pro-race" are not very helpful in this context as "race" has (and has had) so many different meanings. That is one of the things that makes this article so contentious - too many people have approached it with the idea "The community of people I know all agree that X and therefore it's obvious that X."
8755:", etc. Is it really so hard to represent the various PsOV in the article without writing from a blatant POV yourself? I really don't think it is. Please try. I am new to this dispute, but the dispute is not new. It seems that you've got a lot of other people angry about this also, so I probably won't spend as much time on this article as I would otherwise, but I just wanted to try "appealing to reason" with you here before I go revert it again.
1338:. Same with Red Scare. I have been able to reason with Fred Bauder and TDC from time to time, but not with you. If you quit reverting me over and over again on Red Scare, I'll leave you and your so-called "NPOVing" in articles that I've had nothing to do with alone as well. Since I don't hold you in any higher regard than you hold me, there's no way we can cross paths and avoid a pointless revert war. So, we should just cross paths less often.
4530:. Having cooled off some, I've now gotten around to rewriting it. I think the new version takes account of your comment by noting that both sides in the edit war had raised allegations of bad faith. I hope you'll find it unobjectionable -- you've been given less prominence in this rewrite, a "demotion" that you'll probably like! I haven't yet shipped this off to the ArbCom, so please let me know if you have any problems with it.
7477:
logged-in edits, and other people also got involved and were still reverted, the connection to these particular revert wars wasn't secure enough in my mind to warrant deviating from standard protection practices. Whether protection is the right response at all is as you say another question, but I did exercise some judgment there and only protected the pages in TDC's request if the pattern of reverts was clear and sustained.
2207:
about other WP editors, some of them not very nice at all!), but he lacks self-control and all too often cuts loose with the invective. On the plus side, unlike certain users with three-letter ids beginning with WĀ :-), 172 is capable of discussing issues, so there is at least the opportunity of working out mutually acceptable content; I suggest asking more probing questions, looking for underlying rationales for a position.
598:). I'll unprotect it when you show me your compromise (or, lets face it, someone else will unprotect it in a couple of days, hoping you've both calmed down). Don't come to me arguing a case or trying to get me to decide who is right or who is wrong - I really don't care one iota. Oh, and whichever version it's stuck on right now isn't the "winner" (i'm sure y'all are busily reverting one another while I type this). And
4379:
acceptable text, not "vote" on who to weed out. I have posted detailed thoughts as to why I feel the term "disenfranchised" ought not to be included (or at the least, not made to be too greatly emphasized). This logic carries over to my concerns about "Validity". Also, I have asked other questions and raised other points above. Collaborative editing requires much dialog. I am talking here, what about the rest of you?
9882:
information you feel needs to be included in an article. I fear you are focusing too much on reverting as some kind of an all purpose weapon, when, in fact, it is frowned on by
Knowledge policy, and ultimately grounds for a ban. I wish you would slow down and reconsider your attitude and focus more on basic research and citing of credible references than on reverting edits on the basis of point of view.
1074:
associate race and intelligence. This is not new." Between the time that I copied those sentences and finished by topic sentence rewrites you (or somebody else) must have discovered what 195xxx had done and repaired it without having him revert the change. I rather mechanically went through and fixed the topic sentences according to the draft I had posted and, in the process, replaced your edit. Sorry.
683:. It seems that you finally have a serious user with whom to discuss content issues on that page. Also, you can altert me whenever you find someone attempting to use Micahel Moore as a source in an article, which would turn Wiki into a laughingstock. I'd set them straight and direct them to legitimate sources on international relations. BTW, if you keep up the good work, I'll nominate you for admin.
6193:? I don't know how you feel about this, but I think you probably already know that you wouldn't receive consensus support, and the nomination is not really a good idea. If I knew that you were opposed, I would cancel or remove the nomination myself, but for now that would be premature. Anyway, I really wish people would follow instructions and actually ask permission before nominating people. --
7101:"It is the fact that they are fighting and shooting at their enemy that makes them soldiers", hmmm, it must be something more mundane than that, since even soldiers in supply lines or at desks are considered legitimate targets. Perhaps it is the uniform? I wonder if the women and children conscripted in those factories wore uniforms? If so, then perhaps it is the specifics of the insignia?
8083:
seemed to me to be (sometimes overzealous) attempts to make the article NPOV. Again, your demonization of others as "deniers", akin to "Holocaust denial", do not help matters. I ask that you refrain from these labels. I don't believe anybody is doubting the terror and deaths caused by the Khmer Rouge, they are simply questioning under what circumstances and on what scale they occurred.
411:, why do you want to remove the reference to the Sindhu-Saraswati tradition? We are not archaeologists here trying to prove whether some theory is correct or not. If many people choose to believe in a particular version of history, however tenuous be the proof, it is upto a neutral analysis to present this also and not turn a blind eye.In any case history itself is always teleological.
6354:
to mine, you have the basic civility that he lacks. I feel sorry for you because sometimes, finding yourself on the same side as Rex, you'll be adversely impacted by the way he makes everyone on that side look unreasonable. It's guilt by association, and completely unfair to responsible conservatives, but as a practical matter, I expect Rex will often have that effect.
4255:, which I think probably had the effect of making both requests for comment and mediation ineffective options for VeryVerily. I'm not asking for sanction against Danny (Or against Mirv or Hephestos, both of whom later signed this summary), but I think that this action and the consequences it probably had for dispute resolution with VV need to be taken into account.
1804:
to be developed in the body of the article. I just don't share those beliefs. I think the subject is important enough to be mentioned in the intro. The "many believe" formulation seems to me to give an impression of a mere difference of opinion, like arguing about whether
Pinochet's policies aided Chile's economy, and short-change the factual foundation.
1477:
important role they have played in that. Besides they killed some important people back at the begining of last century, and are said by some (extremely partisan and biased pro-anarchist sources) to be synonymous w communism. All in all, my goal is to figure these guys out, and having a great wiki-article on the subject would seem to accomadate thatĀ ;)
8644:"Hong Var, resident of Sla in Takeo Province, one of the more heavily bombed areas, testified: 'The peasants frequently told in detail about their horrifying experiences . . . when Sla was a target of U.S. and Lon Nol bombers. They told how they had to dig trenches, and be prepared at any time to run from the fields, put out cooking fires, and so on.
7513:. For the kind of usage you chose, with prejudice corresponds to having been judged in advance, i.e. Turrican has judged in advance that your edits should be reverted rather than judging the edits as they happen. That's a rather bland way of rephrasing it, of course. And in terms of getting the two reversed, I'm sure you have plenty of company there.
4371:"Alright rex, it doesn't look like this conversation is going anywhere. I have said nothing that can be construed to be the least bit controversial, and I stand by it unperturbed. I have done my best to communicate with you. There is nothing more that can be said. The facts are as they are. So be it. Kevin Baas | talk 06:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)"
9002:" wording precludes opposing views from being expressed there. It's a textbook case of unnecessary POV language. I'm reluctant to argue too much more about this particular phrase, because I have a feeling you'll eventually budge on it and try and leave the rest in there. And there is a lot more POV than the immigration sentence at issue here.
3797:
If a fair-minded person were, for some incomprehensible reason, to wade through the 500 or so kilobytes of Talk generated in the past month, I would have no trepidation on that score. Be that as it may, I appreciate your willingness to try to communicate with Rex instead of just fleeing from the whole mess, for which no one could blame you.
761:. I figured that the users involved had already made enough progress so as to avoid these kinds of spectacles. It's a waste of your time to automatically revert his edits repeatedly. Just leave the page alone and request a page protection from a sysop. Please take my word for it - this is how you'll be the most efficient and effective.
7502:. I have no idea how the capitalization appears on, say, an actual copy of the book. But familiarity with the internet world certainly teaches that deviations from the "rules" of capitalization happen all the time (eBay, iMac), which makes me hesitate to jump to the conclusion that insisting on an unusual capitalization is vandalism.
3757:
proceeding. (I held off doing so as long as possible, making what I regarded as multiple efforts to effect improvements in less drastic ways. In hindsight, I wish that I'd put in more effort earlier to trying to get Rex blocked.) So, I don't know what particular one-word current dispute you're referring to, but I do know that the
8532:. There is an extensive UC Berkley Thesis with good information that states "In the late 1960s to the early 1970s, while the United States was still in Vietnam, American B-52s began massive "secret" bombings to eliminate North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia. In The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea, Craig Etcheson writes,
2664:
with starting a dispute, de-escalation requires some willingness to participate from both sides. There have been past lulls in your dispute with 172, but from what I can tell the dispute has mostly escalated steadily, and this is definitely the most prolonged period of de-escalation. For that I commend you both.
3656:, which I'm not going to grant, because I think protecting that page would be a bad idea, and because the request was absurdly premature anyway. But it's clear that there's some heavy conflict on the page, and I think some talk page discussion would not be out of line, unproductive as it may turn out to be.Ā :)
2385:. From what I know, the only people who would have given the term a formal definition is the British Military. And even if there is some British military standard along the lines of "a detention facility for civilians", the actuality of the Boer camps was "a place where people died of starvation and disease."
8910:
U.S. accepts unequalled immigration). And there are more substantive issues you're skipping over in that whole rotten section, put in by these problem users (who should not continue to be coddled). I have been writing here a long time and know the editorial policies pretty well. And as for your last
1824:
article on Pinochet are: (1) What was the U.S. role in his accession to power? and (2) What's this business about a former Chilean dictator getting arrested in London and threatened with extradition to Spain? That's part of the reason I think it appropriate for the intro to mention both those points.
1456:. I wonder how accurate any article on politics can ever be, when politics would seem to me as the science of lyingĀ ;) are you an anarchist yourself, as your are alludied to being in the talk? if so, perhaps you could tell me if there is enough agreement amongst anarchists to allow much of any opinions
9477:
P.S. in case this sounds like I'm coming down heavily on you, that's not the way I meant for this to come out. I think you do excellent work, only I dislike the way you revert in the manner you revert! Could you add positive stuff in to the article? I'll make sure it doesn't go away. My concern is to
9051:
Thank you Leif. VeryVerily is very much mistaken in his view that the policy against numerous reversions in not enforced or that he is not subject to NPOV editing requirements. We have here an editor who could, if he moderated his behavior a bit, be a productive editor. As it stands now, he will soon
8880:
in less than 24 hours. To describe a body of law as "liberal" is often questionable in itself, but to say "some of the most liberal in the world" is just unnecessary. Why not stick to facts about the laws instead of your opinions of them? You write Knowledge articles like you're writing an editorial,
8573:
Reviewing the differences between your version of the article and opposing versions, I found nothing suggesting "the deaths imputed to the KR were actually wholly due to the bombing." What was suggested is that the bombing campaigns resulted in much destruction, the deaths of many Cambodians, and the
8167:
I did miss that. Though I'm sure the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project is a good resource, it seems to have been cited, again, solely for the estimations of the death toll. There are disputes other than the number killed under Pol Pot that, while likely addressed in that source, are not elaborated upon
6353:
By the way, I hope this was clear in my intial post, but I didn't raise the matter here because I thought you had anything to do with Rex's misconduct or because I thought you've ever done anything like that. Quite the contrary -- I think that, although your political views seem closer to Rex's than
5905:
Well, I'm not thrilled to get dragged into this, but the 3-revert limit isn't one of the listed justifications for blocking people, and I support the idea that we should rely on explicit policy to justify blocks. Is the message above all the warning he gave you, or was there more on IRC or something?
5427:
If you are refering to the iterated prisoner's dilemna, than your violation of the "assume good faith policy" (which you have openly admitted to on my talk page) clearly demonstrates that you are, in fact, not adopting said strategy. But that is a different part of game theory than I was refering to.
5211:
In terms of reputation, I was mostly getting at that you're known for being involved in politically charged disputes over NPOV, and for participating in revert wars. That makes you a polarizing influence when new disputes come up, and people with a distaste for conflict may be reluctant to be seen as
5202:
doesn't sound nearly as "unappealing" as some disputes I've seen. Shockingly, there was even some passably civil discussion happening on the talk page around the time of the revert war - just not during it, but already an encouraging sign. And it seems pretty easy for me to imagine what I think could
5179:
Well, I guess it's not so awful to be "dragged in" when things seem to work out pretty quickly afterwards. Just for your information, as perhaps you have already figured out, what happened with the unblocking is that Ćvar unblocked the IP autoblock that resulted from your attempts to edit. Apparently
5164:
Thanks for your reply. I've looked at his user page and agree that his reply to Grunt wasn't very helpful. But I do believe admins should be given the same deal as everyone else. I routinely tell vandals "do that again and I'll block you" I think admins should be told "do that again and I'll start a
5050:
Well, there are two contrary takes. One, yes you're of course right that reverting right after protection risks restarting the conflict. But on the flip side protection on a certain version does not mean that version "wins" and should be kept afterwards. I'll start by restoring some of kb's edits,
3796:
Thanks for your response. I won't further impose on your time by commenting point-by-point on what you say, except for the single most important thing: I agree with your view that a new editor should be "approached with a positive attitude and an assumption of good faith." I believe that I did so.
3455:
to be lower outside the U.S. (but isn't always everywhere). "Relatively" is ambiguous between "relative to", say, the U.S., and "relatively" in the sense of "very" or "fairly", so isn't as good. I just really don't see what the big deal is about my wording, although maybe there isn't and Neutrality
3227:
can agree is accurate. In this case, little need be said: links are provided to statistics which will give the precise answers any reader may seek. As for "consensus", there is no consensus if I disagree with it. And simply hitting "revert" every time I make a change, which is Neutrality's policy,
2561:
Thanks for the clarification, I used stalking because the accusation had been leveled on both sides in the past, and used scare quotes to indicate that I wasn't necessarily endorsing such accusations. I'm glad to hear you have discontinued using it, and even happier to see a commitment to assume good
2347:
in Guatemala, which is paradigmatic for the things are done, but it also fails, as in the case of Castro's Cuba. (Do you also deny the existence of countless efforts over the years on the part of the US to depose him?). Now, if you don't the time or the opportunity to make an extended sojourn through
2181:
FYI, I was biding my time until I had a chance to make a thorough revision of it. It didn't seem like a high priority because it is such an obscure page with few links. Glad to have you aboard. Not that it matters, it's a rotten article with little substance. Apparently, the guys who wrote the POV
1833:
I agree with your statement that the point of the sandbox is to experiment. In this instance, however, my impression, as a latecomer to the dispute, was that the option of confining the intro to the "many believe" statement had already been discussed and rejected by many. I didn't see much point to
1823:
By the way, I had the same thought you did about including the arrest in the intro. I have a limited tolerance for Wikibickering, though, and I decided I could handle only one Pinochet dispute at a time. These days, I think the two questions that would be most likely to impel a reader to consult an
1811:
Your edit wasn't done in bad faith, but it proceeded from a fundamentally different view of the intro. That's why I suggested a third sandbox. I wouldn't want to squelch your right to advocate for a shorter intro. Still, those of us trying to refine a summary of the facts can't accomplish anything
1803:
I don't question that you believe, in good faith, that the intro shouldn't mention the U.S. role in bringing Pinochet to power. I also don't question that you believe, in good faith, that if it is to be mentioned, it should be merely a reference to what "many believe," with all supporting facts left
1707:
BTW, I posted noted on the talk pages of Bcorr, AndyL, Ericd, Hanpuk, Ugen64, and Marcika about (a) how they are random buddies of 172 (b) how they no role editing or contributing to the Pinochet page (c) how they have visibly no understanding of the issues (d) and how they were voting ideologically.
990:
There doesn't seem to be any system for nominating people for banning. The only people who get arbitrarily banned are obvious vandals - people who erase articles etc. But Hanpuk isn't one of them, he is a persistent trouble-maker and wrecker. You need to talk to an experienced administrator, of which
852:
VV: the repugnance of torture and murder does not depend on who comitted them - do you agree to this view? Knowledge should provide information about such facts in a NPOV manner no matter who committed them, and then let readers draw their own moral conclusions. If we are selective in having articles
691:
Thanks for the response. From experience I know that working on controversial subjects can be maddening around here! Let me know if you need a page protected or unprotected, or help stabilizing the libertarian anarchism page (sounds like a magnet for troublemakers.) Page protections seem to repel the
9881:
I have recused myself from the arbitration cases which affect you due to your jumping in to help with the disputes I have been involved with user Shorne. It is nice to have more than 3 reverts, but to be more than a POV warrior you have to be willing to do research and cite sources which support the
8554:
The existence of the bombing campaign is not in doubt. But they were hitting targets, not targetting civilians. There is nothing in here about the phantom 600,000 people killed with aerial bombing (!), nor claiming the deaths imputed to the KR were actually wholly due to the bombing of a corner of
8478:
It's not about U.S. involvement, it's about blaming the U.S. for all the problems the KR brought, including the deaths, famine, etc. A section on revisionism, if there really is a serious movement (as there is for Holocaust denial) rather than this being original research, might be appropriate, but
7472:
and the two capitalization disputes. After Jmabel prompted further investigation, I determined that I could revert the Chilean coup article back to the previous revision under the protection policy. For the other two, I don't have a justification for choosing sides, and for that matter I fail to see
7210:
Theories should be judged by whether they are consistent with the facts and are defensible, dismissing theories just because they are only being advanced at this time by a "few people", is an invalid argument. Theories must start someplace. I have found that extreme theories can help crystalize my
7097:
I don't know if there is a more elegant way to "talk". On my talk page you argued "In any case, Japan's decisions in this regard do not reflect on the legitimacy of killing civilians". This is obviously wrong unless you also admit that it is not legitimate to kill civilians that are in the military
6104:
I would say that calling it to the attention of someone else is better than archiving it yourself, so thanks for mentioning it. Making judgment calls when you have a personal involvement always smells bad to people, even if the judgment is correct. If I recall, that was one of the things that helped
5349:
VV, regarding "versions of consensus". Yes, we clearly have a different understanding of what consensus means. You think that consensus means your opinion, regardless of what anybody else thinks. I think that consensus means each person's opinion is given equal weight. It is clear that these two
4946:
Thanks, VV. Since you said some of the changes were inadvertent, just take the time to selectively revert, please, and RESPECT CONSENSUS. I am more concerned with consensus than my edits, because consensus is everyone's edits, and you are disrepecting all of the other contributors by disrespecting
4563:
What's up with all the mass reverts? I'm haven't really been keeping up with much on that page, so there may be underlying issues I don't get. But at least a lot of the edits by kevin baas seemed productive and reasonably explained to me. I rv'd once, but should have asked for info first -- which
3961:
Let me assure you that I understand and take into account the falliblity of my own mind as much as that of others. Respecting this, I develop and implement strategies to avoid seeping my own bias into material, and likewise to avoid any seeping bias from social manifestations. This is why I prefer
3766:
My political differences with Rex may, obviously, be biasing me -- but, trying as best I can to be objective, I still conclude that he has a completely wrong approach to Knowledge editing. Perhaps you, as someone more identified politically with the right than I am, would be able to say things that
3127:
Well, even if you disagree with my view of "anti-Americanism", I hope that you can see how this is essential for (i.e. it touches the very essence of) the anti-Americanism article, and that it is a widely held view outside the US. I have of course no intention of suppressing the opinions you hold or
2960:
Just a random passing comment: fixing redirects and links to disambiguation pages on talk and user pages isn't usually considered a bad thing - I do it regularly (with links to disambiguation pages) and have done so for a long time. I don't use a bot, but I see no problems with fixing these things
2663:
Your tit-for-tat approach may be understandable in light of your experiences, but it makes it very difficult to de-escalate once a dispute starts. Still, as you show by pulling back from the anarchism dispute, at least you realize that it's not necessary to respond to every last "tat". Naturally, as
2659:
We all prove our ability to work well together by actions, not words, but sometimes words can provide a starting point for better actions. People can also be reminded of their words, particularly when the words have been put in writing. Though as indicated above, I do not expect any particular words
2651:
I'm okay with long replies (as you might guess from the exchange with UninvitedCompany above your posts on my talk page). When you respond to all of my points, it at least shows that you read what I say carefully. By the way, about your feeling marginalized, you might want to read UninvitedCompany's
2365:
Can we have a discussion through e-mail now? Can I reach you through the e-mail address with which you've posted your note on the mailing list? You have me cornered and you won. Now, is there anything that I can do to get you to stop stalking me? If you want to contact me first, send your demands to
2355:
a single, "smoking gun" document which definitely proves US complicity. The US prides itself as beacon of democracy, and as such, it doesn't look good for it to be seen toppling democratically-elected foreign governments. So, such things are done in secret (like funding the Contras), without leaving
2315:
in Latin America during the Cold War, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said. She suggested that backing Chile's former dictator Augusto Pinochet was one of Washington's errors. "When you speak of that era, I think many of us, as we look back on it, feel that there were many serious mistakes
2231:
Hi there, VV, I saw you had a disagreement with 172 about the My Lai Massacre. As far as I see it was mainly about whether to call your country US or America and whether to call "Charly" Vietcong or National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam (NLF). It would be interesting to see how the Vietnamese
2206:
I phrased my comments to 172 in terms of "ignorant users", not because I think you are, but because *he* thinks you're ignorant. One of 172's faults is that he's quick to categorize people on the basis of very little evidence, which wouldn't necessarily be a problem (I have a lot of private opinions
2195:
Sorry about the curtness of the comment. I felt it was important that the RfC page be started by someone who wasn't involved in the spat, since just about everyone who was involved in the issue had taken sides. Of course, you can't start RfC pages without an "effort to resolve the dispute," so I had
1841:
As to this question of intro-versus-later-in-the-article: In general, I think we have the same view of the intro as a summary, that hits the highlights without attempting to tell the whole story. We just disagree about which points are highlights. As someone commented, the NPOV approach is hard to
1460:
anarchists in the body of the article, and whether perhaps it might do best to generally refer to the opinions of outsiders looking in. While this would open up an entirely other form of bias, it might well allow us at minimum a bit of consistancy of definition, and perhaps some objectivity as well,
895:
You changed some text in the Race article and gave as the edit summary the words 'anti-race "inference" and sarcasm, replaced with example'. The original passage was not something that I wrote, so I do not have a personal stake in it. However I didn't see anything in the original that I would regard
856:
I am not interested in pushing a particular point of view, such as that there's a moral equivalence between the state repression of Saddam's regime and the measures the current occupiers of Iraq use to stay in control. I'm (genuinely!) interested in providing the facts, and put readers in a position
265:
at least twice for Hindu nationalist POV, and so reverting the biased changes seemed natural. You are not correct that that that is the present dispute, either. The user in question is promoting the idea that the IVT is continuous with Vedic culture, and there was no Aryan immigration at all. See
101:
No, not libertarian (though not unsympathetic), just trying to keep up Knowledge. Unfortunately, defending against bad edits seems to be quite an undertaking, which is distracting me from tasks such as fixing existing misinformation (so much). Anyway, we'll see if this ancap thing quiets down soon
88:
would just draw attention to it and achieve what the other person wants. There are about 5 of us who have it in our watchlist, so its much easier for us to revert it than for them to repeatedly vandalize it (its very likely that all the 3 new users are the same person). So I say lets not make a fuss
9386:
3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this." Yet he not
8909:
instead would you be happier? An encylopedia entry not about immigration but mentioning it should give a brief and accurate synopsis of the facts, which means it can't be loaded up with descriptions of, e.g., the laws passed in 1965, but should summarize the relevant details (in this case that the
8585:
From an International Committee of the Red Cross report: "While Phnom Penh fought the increasingly strong Khmer Rouge, the United States ā as part of its strategy in the Vietnam war ā dropped more than 500,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia, destroying much of the country and driving half the population
8521:
I believe there is a "serious movement" that claims that many deaths during the Khmer Rouge's rule were caused by U.S. bombing of Cambodia (so-called "secret bombings".) A simple Google search of "'Secret Bombings' Cambodia" proves this. The online Encarta encyclopedia makes a passing mention of it
8082:
I reviewed the talk pages of the articles you mentioned, and, besides handful of links presented by Stargoat cited to support death toll estimates, failed to uncover the "huge" amount of material refuting the "deniers." I don't believe that the assertations made are akin to "Holocaust denial", they
7975:
I reviewed your participation back in March, in which attempts to make the article NPOV were characterized as "pro-KR propaganda/apologism and related nonsense", and as "attacks" by "trolls and ideologues." While I happen to agree with some of your arguments, I have to say that labelling users like
7520:
Anyway, you sound frustrated, and no doubt my persistent pursuit of impartiality contributes to your frustration. But given the situation, where the focus was on the protection feature rather than other remedies, impartiality was really the only approach I could take. Remedies like blocking require
7444:
might be vandalism (image removal), but without knowing whether there's some basis for disputing the appropriateness of the image, I can't be certain. I dislike the idea that you're never allowed to remove content, even though it might be excessive detail, biased, or both (I would think, given some
7397:
The nominee is almost certainly not going to get adminship, he knows that, I know that, everyone knows that. It is not usual practice to nominate someone you don't actually know. So I was curious as to why do it. Sometimes people are nominated in order to damage them. (There have been threats from
7252:
You have seen that I mean what I say. If you do not stop destroying my articles I will continue to revert your edits and neither of us will be able to contribute anything to Knowledge. Personally I think its worth it since your propaganda damages Knowledge far more then my contributions are able to
7075:
Really is that the best you can do. It is self serving of nations to want to preserve a priviledged protected status for civilians while considering them fair game to use as military assets. I too thought the atomic bombings were war crimes until I learned that women and children were conscripted
6211:
While nominations are sometimes removed by others when consensus support is obviously lacking, on RfA I often find it best to defer to the nominee's wishes. In the past, I've removed at least one nomination on sight because I knew the nominee would object and the discussion would quickly turn ugly.
5599:
Stating that the particular characterization of "assume good faith" as policy/advice/ettiquete/what-have-you is not important to what i meant to say is not, by any stretch of the imagination, posturing. regarding "surrendering your power of judgement" - i do not see what this phrase has to do with
5217:
I'm pretty confident the connection is IRC. Node has stated his location as Phoenix, and Ćvar has indicated that he's in Denmark. And yes, you would have been better off reverting to your in-between version rather than Stargoat's complete removal of the quote. It's a lot easier to cast someone in a
5071:
and that protections doesn't mean a temporary "win" for "one side." It's just freezing the state of the article temporarily (and ideally, arbitrarily, although I know this isn't always true in practice), and that int is only for a very short period in the overall life of the article. And overall, I
4989:
And btw, feel free to pick at my language on my edits. Trim them, perhaps, without removing crucial information. Or balance them out with a comparable source on the same subject, or what have you. just please don't outright remove them without first demonstrating that they are either irrelevant,
4870:
Regardless, I think it's a poor analogy. People don't think that bush is a sociopath, they just think that his policies are not very well though out. they don't think it's intentional. they just think that it's dangerously unpragmatic - foreign policy is a tricky and sensitive thing. Humans are
4579:
Well, its not a good opening as it is -- it rather looks like a potted plant, teetering on the lower step of a tenenment foyer. I dont see all to many people taking to the streets to defend "democide" from being called "genocide." It seems a rather strange proposition that someone would protest the
3121:
I was thinking about the points you made, and I do admit that anti-American sentiment exists, not in the meaning which I describe above and in which it is always used by the American right, but as one of the expressions of the political movements I mentioned, as well as others. I also agree to some
2633:
About Danny, I believe he is generally conscientious in his activity on Knowledge, and I think that explains the strong support for him becoming a bureaucrat. One case of incivility, where he used strong language based on his strong feelings about the matter, does not in my mind disqualify him from
2342:
VV, you ought to spend some time in Latin America. I don't mean on the beach at CancĆŗn, but in the rural towns and countryside of places like Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, talking with cab drivers, campesinos, street vendors, and reading the local newspaper everyday, both for news as
2323:
The U.S. role in the coup and subsequent repression in Chile is certainly not a secret. Both before and after Pinochet's arrest, the alternative press reported extensively on U.S. involvement in Chile. In the Bay Area, the Information Service on Latin America (ISLA), published by the Data Center in
1345:
State terrorism and Torture and murder in Iraq were indeed VV country, and it was a mistake for me to step in there. But at the time I'd not yet figured out that it wasn't worth my effort to me to make changes in your domain. So, for this one time, I'd be grateful if you granted me a chance to work
1214:
you or 172 were banned. However, you can't generally get a fair outcome from a direct democracy administering justice as judge, jury, and executioner. I apologize for your situation, and in the future I would be more than willing to do whatever it takes to mediate with the two of you so it does not
570:
My apologies for labelling you a vandal in return. I will refrain from changing all occurances to USA PATRIOT Act to the equally valid USA PAT RIOT Act, as soon as the page is open for editing again I'll add a link to a page which explains the alternate spacing of this acronym. I do not believe you
289:
No, Please check back the page history ;what you reverted happened a few days back and it is precisely the theory about gradual migration that you deleted. In fact, even the theory of the horse being brought by the Aryans is correct(which you deleted) but that much detailing is not necessary for a
9671:
I know you haven't disobeyed the temporary injunction, so I didn't do anything. I also know that you are editing articles to try make them better and to increase their quality! However, I did comment that you were flying close to the wind with your reversions. I would appreciate more talk and less
9078:
to refer to people who have no interests in the goals of Knowledge and are engaging in mass erasure and destruction of content they don't like (as is happening on the Cambodia articles). If vigilant editors such as myself are restricted from repelling such attacks, then they with their sockpuppet
8528:
states that "The bombings were reported for the first time on May 9, 1969, in the New York Times." The Yale Cambodian Genocide Project that you yourself pointed out states "Cambodia was also slowly dragged into darkness when the Nixon administration conducted secret bombings of Cambodia during the
7280:
Do go on, report me on the vandalism page. But dont forget to add that YOU began to revert my articles. I sincerely doubt that anybody will take your side, considering your history of intolerable behaviour - are you not already currently engaged in several disputesĀ ? Easy solutionĀ : Leavy my pages
6333:
I mention all this because you seem to be about the only person on Knowledge who's had any contact with Rex whom he doesn't regard as being out to get him. If you were to drop Rex a note, letting him know that this behavior is completely over the top, perhaps he'd desist. It's obviously not your
5146:
I was unable to write him a reply to his note because I found out I was blocked when I was trying to. However, I did post to the mailing list and (after going anonymous) the village pump, where he might have seen it. I asked others to unblock since I figured my luck was better with a third party
3847:
I appreciate your recognition of the limitations of your knowledge. I won't burden you with all the details about Rex's numerous transgressions. One of the more recent ones, however, involved you. I may decide to complete my writeup of this incident and add it to the ArbCom page, and some people
3743:
I am struggling to gain some breathing space on that page. It seems to me that user Neutrality is overly focused on reverting or otherwise aggressively deleting my edits there. User 172 sugegsted this topic may be of interest to you. Would you please review the recent edit history and talk history
3169:
I second this. Your changes are not "minor improvements" since you changed essential parts ("tends to be lower" vs "is much lower" etc.) which were voted on, and your version received 2 votes, Neutrality's 11. Please try to convince people on the talk page before making substantial changes to that
2528:
that you two have privately found a mutually agreeable resolution. Before I do anything else about this, I wanted to confirm this with you. Are you agreed that the present situation is satisfactory, and can we reasonably hope that this dispute will not rear its ugly head again? Please let me know.
1851:
of Pinochet's religion or his relationship with the CIA. Of course, the CIA's denial of any "direct role" is a fact, which the article should report, just as the article on O. J. Simpson reports his self-exculpatory statements. And, yes, I consider the parallel quite apt in terms of credibility.
1807:
My fundamental approach to the treatment of this issue in the intro is that the intro should summarize key facts, enough to hit the highlights but not in such detail as to be inappropriate for an intro. My hope was that my edit of the sandbox intro would be edited by others who shared this view.
1788:
I am sorry, I didn't mean to archive your comment on the Pinochet talk page just minutes after you had posted it. The Talk page had gotten so big that I had to move the previous discussion over in sections, and doing so I didn't notice that you added something. That being said, the page has gotten
1761:
Did you notice that the barely identified user who put in the NPOV warning also added a link to a web page advocating some points of view on race? (by Richard McCulloch) I'd be in favor of removing that link, but I'm not sure what the standards are for such attempts to promote a point of view by
769:
Yes, of course Venceremos is Lance/Hector/Richard. But isn't this getting old already? Just deal with him directly. So what if he's a Communist? What's the big deal? You could make the effort to communicate with him. He's going to keep playing games with you until you start treating him seriously.
123:
Firstly, the correct term for the entire region is Jammu and Kashmir, which comprises the southern Jammu region, the Kashmir valley(which is where the trouble is concentrated) and the Ladakh plateau region. "Kashmir" is used for brevity as it is the region where the trouble is mainly concentrated.
9607:
I have never claimed to own the article. You seem to be think that no changes should be made to it. That's not the way it works. I will continue to modify it to improve it. I suggest you also stop reverting. You've already been picked up by other members of Knowledge for reversions. I suggest you
8850:
article, much of what they put in there - such as that French dislike of McDonald's is opposition to "capitalism" - is gibberish (some corrected by others). (Indeed, that whole section is pointless.) I wholly disagree that "limits free markets with social welfare" and "regulates virtually every
7476:
I'm aware of the request for arbitration, and of Turrican's stated intent towards you. I haven't seen anything directed at TDC, however, and again I didn't think it was necessary to investigate how closely the IPs tracked either of your recent contributions. Since these were anonymous rather than
6888:
I was refering to my note that I give you the honors of changing the text to the version that we both, finally, agree upon. (You have my word that I will accept this change.) The other minor disputes are small matters that are independant of this, and I see no reason why we should hold back this
6775:
I recently added an article entitled 'No-boo' to the Knowledge to document the AP's fabrication of the 'boos' during a Bush rally. Your good friend Gamaliel is leading a charge to wipe it out of existance, but I think it is Wikipedic in that it documents a real event, the word 'No-boo' or 'No-boo
6203:
Actually, it's not irregular at all for nominees to leave nominations up for a while before making up their minds how to respond. All in all, I think you handled the situation very well. My concern is mostly that quite a few people who are in similar positions positively object to being nominated
6108:
The reputation I described earlier is extrapolated, I suppose you could say. It's not meant in the sense that people are constantly discussing you behind your back (not an easy thing here anyway). Rather, I'm restating basic information that people would probably recognize assuming they have some
6100:
Strictly speaking, there isn't any for RfC, and I would rather not pile up procedures to the point that rules override common sense, as they sometimes threaten to do. In theory at least, the RfC stage should still be more about finding ways to fix the problem, instead of being a weapon to be used
5270:
You are the one reverting consensus. I have told you a ridiculous number of times that I will always protect the consensus. I have given you my reasons. If you have somehow formed the idea in your head that your endless revert war against the community will be at all effective, then I think you
5223:
Finally, you were definitely right to delist the RfC. The dispute it was about got resolved, so it serves no purpose anymore. Meddling in the status of your own listing could be a conflict of interest, but the fact that people raised your behavior as an issue doesn't make this one a listing about
4756:
Yes, it's unbalanced to cite two unrepresentative statistics. The average over Clinton's term is a better benchmark for the immediate effect of Bush's election than the figure at one point which is clearly unusually low. Clinton is Bush's predecessor, obviously. Yes, it would be better to have
4728:
What do you mean by selective citation? Unemployment rate is a very standard statistic. Just because it goes up or down doesn't mean that the article is unbalanced. The choice of putting unemployment rate in there is neutral, because it is relevant and significant, has an equal chance of being
4425:
The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in
4408:
Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimous agreement, sometimes that can't be achieved. You logically can't both include the word 'disenfranchised' and not include it. Looking up, I see that people have dialogued with you quite a bit about it. It's disingenous and unfair to suggest that the
3891:
and I'm about to sign off. If you want to essay an edit of the draft, feel free, otherwise I'll look at it tomorrow and take account of what you've said. (I'll probably delete that little snideness about you. I was mainly venting. This whole Kerry experience has been very stressful for me. I
3806:
There comes a point where assurances of future improvements are no longer adequate to forestall corrective action (are you listening, Saddam?). The difference between me and George Bush is that I'm working through our local equivalent of the U.N. By the way, congratulations on your accession to
3756:
I noticed your comment on Rex's page about the dispute being only one word. I assume you're referring to whatever the latest dispute is. I haven't been paying attention to the details lately because I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I'd need to devote substantial time to the arbitration
3685:
Are you aware of the wiki principle that if there does not seem to be consensus about editing there are talk pages where you can discuss and explain, and there is a possibility to make edit summaries or read those of others? In case you want to reply here please let me know at my page as I do not
3360:
Then why not simply cite the statistics instead of trying to interpret them for the reader, in a potentially controversial way? (FWIW, the poll results I saw say 49% said Saddam is a greater threat than Bush, 32% the opposite, far from a tie and not too surprising for someone who has gained such
2545:
Michael Snow-- just a correction, I have not been referring to this practice as "stalking" since our rapprochement. In our private correspondence, I gained an understanding of how he had been viewing the conflict. So, I now describe VV's actions and statements based on an assumption of good faith
2327:
Another local news organization, San Francisco-based Pacific News Service, offered an article by Andrew Reding headlined "Reno Should Indict Pinochet." Published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian (1/20/99), the article notes that U.S. government agencies such as the CIA and Defense Department are
1834:"experimenting" by using the sandbox to reiterate that view. In other words, the dispute focused on the introduction, not on the broader question of what the entire article should say about the U.S. role. That's why I was hoping that my edit would be the start of an attempt to reach a consensus
1476:
ah, sounds like meĀ ;) So you'd suggest summing up their views is sufficient, rather than attempting to find some "kernel" of elusive truth? That is how the policy reads, I will admit. I am very focused on gaining some insight on these people after seeing the potent rise of anti-globalism, and the
1201:
clearly state that the first violation should be a warning. Since nobody bothered checking the rules the first time, and since it was voted NOT to punish 172, we should err on the side of caution, and give 172 a warning. I very firmly believe that the Quickpoll against you should be removed and a
911:
On the one hand, I would like to thank you for attempting to find a compromise with your suggested wording using the phrase "In many areas of biology". I am all in favor of creative attempts to achieve NPOV; I am also all in favor of authors providing evidence to make their case when there is any
593:
has gone quite far enough. You need to get together and work out a compromise that you can both live with. Either that, or you should both desist from editing the article and let calmer heads work it out for you. I've protected the page (in accordance with the generally-accepted "three reverts"
477:
By the way, are you suggesting that a scientific hypothesis can never be rejected? The multi-regional hypothesis was proposed as a scientific hypothesis, and as such should be viewed from a scientific perspective, especially in an encyclopedia that purports to be about knowledge. Yes, history is
425:
Could you please give one or two citations to support the last five words? (I'm not sure whether you're saying that there is molecular data to support multiregionalism, or that some have argued that the molecular data that is usually taken to support the single-region hypothesis actually supports
7930:
In other words, they are appropriate when you have a problem with someone's version of the article, but not when someone has a problem with your version. I would be more understanding if you had participated in the discussions that took place when the article was protected. Characterizing edits,
5237:
Hello VV. I am very astonished by your conduct. I do not know what to say. I really don't know how to make you respect other people. I really don't know how to make you understand the virtue of the policies here. I am at a loss here. Though I try and I try, I can't seem to figure out how to
4447:
The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. At the request of the Gore campaign, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the
2701:
wants to add some tabloid garbage accusing Ronald Reagan of rape and desertion. I kept on removing this section; unfortunately, I just now had to agree to refrain from editing that article. But I bet you can successfully protect encyclopedic standards on the article against Sparky's assault. I'd
2667:
I'll decline to discuss the merits of Danny's rewrite, or the signatories to it, because I agree with 172 that we're all better off not rehashing everything that has happened. I will say that though the definition of personal attacks may not be clear, I think the best approach lies in the advice
2627:
My /Arbitration page has had quite a bit of work, though I've left it incomplete since the dispute has died down and the arbitration request remains in limbo. Since 172 looked into my contributions and found it, I figured you might do so as well. My motive, as always, is quite simply to get this
1544:
Thanks for your note. I sympathize -- and at this point, I'm not sure what else to say to him. I guess we should proceed with an RfC and solicit input from the community. I would think we'll see overwhelming support for removing the quotation. If I'm wrong...well, then at least we'll have tried!
828:
Actually, I'm not really saying that you're in any way at fault for what's been going on with the "red faction." I'm just saying that Lance/Hector/Richard/Venceremos probably feels quite inundated, given the intense criticism and scrutiny coming from a select circle of contributors, and that his
778:
Calm down. I'm only trying to help. "Venceremos" isn't misbehaving because he's the devil - that's all that I'm saying. I've had a few words with him and it is my strong impression is that he's waiting for people like you, RickK, Robert Merkel, Ed Poor, etc. to tone town the blistering attacks a
325:
mean it has to be a violent and sudden, rather it means an outside force coming in and taking over, however gradually. I think having those qualifiers is important b/c it sets up the contrast better, and the way it is written makes it sound like AIT is being discarded, when the key idea is that
7042:
By my count, you reverted Gzornenplatz three times (although that "restore NPOV" could have been a fourth one). I have protected the page, and I ask you to try to come to a consensus/compromise with Gzornenplatz. Of course, it's not very easy to come to a consensus based on five words, but it's
6370:
Hey VV, thanks for talking with Rex. I really liked the advice you gave him. If he took it, I would quickly rescind my endorsement. However, I am not satisfied with his so-called "apology", which reads really more like an accusation and a duplicitous deferal of guilt than anything else. But
3115:
as opposed to these people themselves on the basis of their raceĀ ; also they are not based on irrational hatred, they are based on rational objections to political philosophies. The fundamental difference between e.g. an anti-capitalist and an anti-Semite is that the anti-capitalist, to achieve
3101:
Thanks for your message, VV. To avoid any potential edit conflicts, let me explain what I believe re. anti-Americanism. I object to the very specific meaning in which this term is usually used, namely the one which assumes the existence of a racist, irrational ideology that seeks to exterminate
2771:
I was neither itching for a fight nor trying to push a point of view, and I must disagree when it comes to what you say are neutral words. "A study by the media watchdog group FAIR study found..." is more legitimate than "claimed," because "claim" implies uncertainty at best and illegitimacy at
1644:
Surely it's facile to say that "a nation" is concerned about something. It has to be more accurate to say that certain groups within a nation are concerned about something. That's what I tried to do. And only ignorant people use offensive language like "a tide of immigrants". There is other
1034:
I don't understand why you keep adding that paragraph back into Red Scare. It's not historical and doesn't really involved the article. What do you think of my compromise version of the page? Please respond either on the Red Scare talkpage and explain why it should be there, or on my talk page.
10079:
From my perspective, it read like something Rex would have come up with in his day - a paragraph based on something sensible, but then twisted around to imply silly things. That PNAC have tried to take advantage of 9/11 is a common accusation, and should be represented in the article. But that
9728:
VeryVerily, I hope you can participate productively in this RfC and the associated Mediation. I think it will do us all some good. I have in the past sometimes edited without providing adequate references, perhaps you have too, but Shorne has essentially no other way, and accords no respect to
8599:
The following was found on a website by The International Campaign against Impunity (ICAI), which is "is committed to support victims of crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and torture in their fight against impunity." The document was not authored by the ICAI, but is "Reprinted with
7534:
What I mean is that all I can see based on what I've looked at is a dispute over capitalization. It may well be as you describe, but that would take some sleuthing I haven't had time to do. If this had happened to somebody else, I suppose it's possible that the person would have been summarily
5939:
article, which appears to have caused him/her to initiate some sort of crusade - he/she appears to believe that everything I post relating to micronations is somehow "self promotional" unless it conforms to his POV (ie, "micronations are irrelevant rubbish"), and unless every second word is in
5190:
Incidentally, I don't use IRC either, or I probably would have seen any discussion there. Still, because the chain of events on the wiki alone seemed to be missing some pieces (like why is Ćvar suddenly blocking someone he's barely ever interacted with over a revert war on an article he has no
5168:
As for you. Clearly you are very upset. I would be too if someone had blocked me. But think on this - you've allready won because you were unblocked almost straight away. The block was a minor inconvenience - nothing more. I understand you were in an edit war before you were blocked? Perhaps a
5032:
I think it would be very helpful if you could work on some compromise between the two version. E.g., where you removed the detail on the Florida controversy and the Supreme Court and replaced it with a phrase about Gore's concession. I think that this could be a good place for you to work on a
4628:
It might have before, but i don't see it anywhere in there now. The point, which wolfman has made also, is that you're shooting yourself in the foot with that one. Many people are unaware of these accusations, and only become aware by hearing "I do not beat my dog.". Furthermore, it tacitly
4366:
It seems that each "vote" or discussion falls into camps divided along the pro-Bush and anti-Bush lines. Is this honest dialog? Is there a real attempt to reach consensus? I feel that Kevin Baas in particular is convinced that Bush (and associates) pro-actively schemed in 2000 to wrongly block
1007:. I am not specifically asking for a ban of any kind. Obviously, I strongly disapprove of your reversion tactics, which are not appropriate regardless of how strongly you feel about some article. It doesn't seem as though you've changed them at all despite the problems they have created. --
5940:
inverted commas. I believe he/she has used highly questionable means on several occasions while waging his/her campaign (the sort that warrant banning) - I have taken this up with one of the developers and am awaiting a response. Several days age he/she began interpolating false data into the
5707:
Though of a diametrically opposed view to yourself, I have no particular exasperation at the lack of progress working out US-orientated articles (it's not the be-all and end-all of the Universe, and Knowledge will not be swaying the US presidential election!!!). However, that said, I did feel
5212:"on your side" in a dispute, regardless of whether they might agree with you on the merits in a less contentious atmosphere. Which leaves just the regular supporters and critics, many of whom are equally polarizing. Like all politics, wiki disputes have a capacity for vicious cycles like this.
3110:
exist are e.g. reactionary Muslim movements that oppose liberal moral values or secularism, or socialist anti-capitalism, or opposition to an American Empire (what the neo-cons call the responsibility/duty of US global leadership). However these are movements that are directed against certain
2944:
Also, if it's unnecessary to edit Talk and User pages, which it might be, it's doubly unnecessary for you to go and re-edit those pages - why not just get Guanaco to change his/her bot instead? Otherwise I can't see the freaking point... you're just increasing the number of useless edits, AND
1776:
I think maybe we should let it rest a week or so. The person that added the link appears to have registered just to make that one change. Maybe he'll watch what happens for a while. It is strange, however, that a brand new contributor would understand about adding a NPOV warning. Do you smell
1142:
The information on the Poisoned article is complete garbage. I am Jayson Cowan and I am mentioned in the wikipedia and I would like my reference removed along with all the errored garbage in that article all together. I would appreciate it if you did not edit it back to the previous revision.
1073:
I think I see what happened. I was working on topic sentences and made a copy of all of them, which I then reworked so that there would be smooth flow from topic sentence to topic sentence. (I posted the proposed changes, by the way.) 195xxx had made the sentence "Lately people have tried to
797:
in regards to this user, not so much in regards to their edits, which I don't think are so very bad, but in regards to what I see as violations of wikiquette on the article talk pages. I have noticed he is not civil in regards to yourself. Have you discussed this with him on his talk page, or
241:
is widely known, it does not mean that it is widely accepted. It is known well because it is quite old. The present dispute is not over whether the Aryans came from outside at all( which is a pseudo- scientific speculation), but whether the influx was through an invasion or gradual(which is a
5944:
article opening paragraph which resulted in protection being necessitated. These interpolations were done without reference to sources quoted by me on the talk page that show the interpolations to be false. In the past day or so he/she has been attempting to delete a valid external link from
3671:
I don't pretend the situation is good by any stretch of the imagination, though I will refrain from making judgments about user conduct here that could be later read as bias. My advice to you is to propose compromise versions, and to use RfC or other aspects of the dispute resolution process
2617:
You both would do well to remember that it's not the end of the world if an article temporarily contains information you consider inappropriate or even inaccurate. Instead, you can take the time to discuss ways to reach agreement, recruit other people to the discussion, and follow steps like
7214:
Perhaps seeing someone defending Timothy McVeigh using a net-lives-saved and collateral damage arguments will crystalize their thinking about the special status we unthinkingly grant to government. Yes, there is the danger they will become inspired by Timothy McVeigh, but there is also the
5382:
Excuse me? Who's doing the posturing? Take a look at Game theory. Do you understand how it's relevant? I'll give you an example: if everyone goes 50 mph down a road, there are no accidents, and everyone gets to their destination faster. However, if some people go much faster, there are
4378:
That does not sound to me like he is actually trying to appreciate and incoporate into the article all view points. The purpose of a poll (not a "vote" - like someone changed the title to) is to find out where we stand, not shout-down dissent. We are supposed to homogonize our views into an
5261:
lead me to believe that VV has been under inordinate pressure to capitulate to this cabal and yet, in the face of that, he has kept of a high measure of good form. Frankly KB, I am appalled at your heavy handed lambasting of VV. I think you need to learn how to have more plyability (if not
4871:
dangerous animals. he's human, that's all - no surprise here. they're not making any unreasonable criticisms. Perhaps it seems unreasonable to you simply because it's your country.(i'm assuming you're american) what if it was someone else's country? would it seem as unreasonable then?
478:
important, but that doesn't mean that every proposition is eternally merely a POV. As you know, some scientific hypotheses are confirmed and become generally accepted theories; others fall by the wayside; and still others that fell by the wayside are later vindicated in some way or another.
9790:
must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."
2680:, you may wish to consider making a statement in support of my withdrawal, if you feel it is appropriate. This might serve as a gesture of good will on your part. As before, I'm not trying to require some specific action, and I thank you for your patience in listening to my suggestions. --
4575:
Well, it does seem a bit daft to have an article, say "edit it" and then have some person such as yourself simply undo what Ive done. If this rather bullyish tendency is the way of things here, I dont think this will be a place I or anyone else should be spending much time on at all. JDH
5740:
P.S. It's always worth standing up for your views (Knowledge actually needs this from Wikipedians or NPOV could never be established), but don't let it get you down when everything seems to be against you. You can always come back tomorrow, after a break and a good sleep, and try again!
4629:
validates the accusations, because it shows that they were threatening enough to provoke a response. Really, I think it does more damage than good to people's opinion of Bush. I guess if you want to leave it in, fine. It's not a big issue for me. I just think it's kind of awkward.
9495:
This is why I don't like discussing through edit summaries. The lead section needs work, however. Could we work towards improving it? I'd be happy to work with both you and jguk to come to some sort of consensus on this. I'm about to go to the movies, but am willing to chat later. -
832:
You'd also be better off if you stopped lodging complaints about him over and over again, to different user to different user, and from page to page. Instead, find a better strategy. Keep in mind that you have the power to determine his behavior; by defining the conflict in terms of
6212:
On the more contentious nominations, the bulk of the damage is indeed done fairly quickly by the initial swarm, but even later there will still be more piling on. I can think of at least a few people who I would have expected to add some vehement opposition had things continued. --
2668:
Jimbo has given in some past disputes - though the other side may be blatantly violating policy, keep your own slate absolutely clean. Don't stoop to their level, don't even go near the line, and be patient enough to let their actions convict them in the eyes of the community. --
3451:. Different polls, perhaps. I'm not sure what problem you have with "tends to be lower". It's a big world, resistant to broad brushstrokes, and even among the handful surveyed in the cite there were variations; e.g., Bush is very popular in Israel. My wording states that it
72:
Right. That means the plans were allegedly published, not that they were allegedly devious. That it was considered proof, not that it was considered "sinister." Completely different meaning. "Sinister" and "devious" are POV judgments we shouldn't be making here in any case.
177:(and a few other threads) on the mailing list related to it. Even though the page is unprotected, I would ask all parties involved to hold off editing this article voluntarily until I can offer a few suggestions, which I will do within a few hours. Thanks for your forbearance,
3404:. I agree with the principle of not interpreting for the reader, but it is hard to avoid any description beyond the raw figures. You previously rejected even my compromise of "relatively unpopular". Do you have a proposal for an uncontroversial wording of that first sentence?
2537:
Thanks for your response. Basically, what I am trying to determine is whether I can safely withdraw my request for arbitration, delete both your RfC pages, and consider the dispute ended. I think 172 feels the dispute is over, particularly because you are no longer "stalking"
8926:
I agree that this isn't the article to go into details about immigration law in, but that doesn't mean the single sentence summary has to state your analysis as the facts. Instead you could make indisputable statements that leave the door open for other view points... Like,
6932:
When undoing 66.20.28.21's POV edits, you could just do them at all once rather than making a string of nine tiny changes in the span of eight minutes. I know it's fun to try to maximize your "score", but it bloats the history page and is thus not good for everyone else.
2356:
much of a paper trail; these people aren't stupid; they also to concern themselves with domestic public opinion. Indeed, it would be fantastic if all of our articles were based strictly on primary sources, but that, as I am sure you are aware, it simply not feasible. --
7174:
I did not say his remarks were warranted, nor did I say they were correct; rather, I merely stated that he had good *reason* to make those... statements. Agreement with previous reasons does not necessarily indicate agreement with the statement following those reasons.
526:...splitting the examples of recent research back across two paragraphs, and removing mention of Wells' anti-multiregionalist stance. I actually don't see the point in the Wells' quote anyway; it's not very encyclopedic, just his opinion. -- VV 03:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
521:
I would of course be happy to try to justify or explain the changes I've made. At the same time, please remember that the changes you make to someone else's work may not always be agreeable if the author has invested quite a lot of time and thought in the work they've
6792:
Hi VV! Just wanted to let you know that if you stay out of edit wars and other trouble, I'll nominate you for the adminship again in a few months. You have very good potential to be an admin. Keep up the good work, and try not to get into trouble or break wiki rules.
5256:
Kevin Baas: I disagree with that you are saying to VV. I think there is an entrenched pro-Kerry cabal here which goes out of its' way to slander Bush and make editing difficult for those who don't toe the dem/liberal party line. My observations of the edits over at
2772:
worst. "Claim" would be appropriate for a statement of opinion ("FAIR claimed that FOX has ideological biases") but not for statements of fact ("FAIR also claimed since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson
2562:
faith and competence. I also hope VeryVerily will use the same assumptions about you. I'm not trying to revisit the past, just determine that it is indeed past, and I have no desire to jeopardize the current situation, which seems to me a significant improvement. --
119:
You have been replacing a factually incorrect version of the article on Kashmir. I would refer this as an NPOV however the trouble is there is no "point of view" issue in question here. These are historic facts that are easily verified and acknowledged by everyone.
7215:
possibility that they next time they step into the voting booth they will reject net-lives-saved and collateral damage arguments used to justify the FDA, or alternatively they may see the dangers of having government agencies and courts that don't respect the law.
7120:
I'm curious whether your "accept" vote for CK's frivolous request is intended to be some kind of "punishment" against me for not wanting to waste any mediator's time with this little squabble which is only four days old and still being actively discussed in Talk.
3092:
Same message for GBWR and VV: Would it be possible for both of you to make a concise list of your disagreements on the anti-American page, so that we can try and resolve that conflict? The page has been protected for over a week without any attempt to resolve the
9559:
Oh, P.S. I haven't been on jguk's "case" because he has largely been responsive on the talk page. I haven't found the need to message him personally. This isn't an attack on you, incidently, it's merely an explanation for why I haven't messaged him personally. -
4251:
I'd like to note that I don't think VV's conduct can be reasonably looked at without looking at the larger issue of his treatment by the community at large, and, specifically, by people who are supposed to be in the position of settling disputes. I refer here to
2628:
dispute resolved. As you say, I've been working hard on this, and I'm glad to see that both of you are working more toward this goal than in the past. Anyway, I would be happy to destroy this product of my hard work if we're ready to end this dispute and move on.
4732:
Honestly, I really don't think we should compare. This is the only instance in this entire article where another president is mentioned, and likewise where a comparison of performance is made. That is really my main problem with it. I don't think it belongs.
6813:
By Kevin's comments on my talk page, I wonder if the dispute is becoming more about process than substance. Perhaps if you tried incrementally editing the popularity section (in unobjectionable steps) you might have fewer problems with kevin. Just a thought.
6809:
I don't see many substantive differences between the 2 versions getting reverted back & forth, except in the first sentence. In that sentence, I agree with you that Kerry should go, but agree with the other version that 'significantly' is appropriate.
1185:
For the record, I am not particularily interested in whatever you two are fighting over, but seeing a constant (rv) on the top of my watchlist was getting annoying. Since I am unwilling to side with either of you I therefore request a ban of both or neither.
8881:
and you need to stop doing that. I am not going to revert this article a 3rd time right now, because edit wars are harmful and I'm sure you'll just revert again anyhow. Hopefully administrative action will be taken soon to halt your crazy reversion rampage.
7535:
blocked, but almost certainly not by me. To be honest, I rarely get involved in the vandal-blocking business (among other things, I don't move fast enough for it). Most of my blocking activity has been related to enforcing bans that were already in place. --
5151:, which he replied to rather airily, as did Michael Snow. Anyway, I don't believe there is any such requirement for reporting admin actions; an abuse of admin powers is a serious matter regardless of whether one "talks it over" with the admin in question.
502:
I also believe your reading of the style guide is not correct; in general external links should be collected together rather than scattered uselessly, but if it's simply to provide a footnote reference for a portion within the text, that is not necessary.
9403:
9585:
own that article. I suggest you back off mate. I am allowed to make contributions, and if you don't like them, there's not much I can do. But you can't just revert me numerous times. I am allowed to make changes, especially if I feel they are needed. -
9070:, who vandalized my user page and then went on other rampages, and against who nothing was done (I don't know if he went over 3 reverts, but it hardly seems relevant); no, I'm not calling "people with different opinions" vandals, fercrissake - although
4973:"Explanation above" refers to my opening comments "Whereas before...", where I also noted why I'm not selectively reverting, in addition to the reason of my suspicions about the new material you added (which I'll get to when the other stuff dies down).
818:
where there has been recent squabbles. I suppose I might be thinner skinned, but I really don't find his tone or communication style acceptable nor utilitarian. On the other hand I doubt I'll take any action if I'm the only one who thinks it necessary.
1292:
I see that you two are back at loggerheads again at a different location. I don't believe these constant disputes all over Knowledge are productive, so I am asking you to consider mediation, as I previously suggested in the quickpoll. Will you accept?
489:
As already mentioned, the "Proponents" section already had wikilinks to Coon and Wolpoff. Someone deemed that sufficient before I was involved with the page. Please think about your remarks in connection with other Knowledge articles on topics such as
4567:
At the very least, I don't understand why you want to deny that Bush got into Harvard shadily, when that article doesn't allege it. It's kind of like saying that no one has publicly accused Bush of beating his dog. Well see, now I'm wondering if he
4476:
s. people misspell my last name a lot, so it doesn't bother me) was actually written by Neutrality, and got the most votes. The version that I (Kevin Baas) suggested didn't get as many votes, so I don't think that it should be put into the article.
7948:
No, that is not an accurate rephrasing. If you're going to say things like that, don't bother posting on my Talk page. I participated in the discussions back in March the last time this occured, and at any rate the others were doing fine without me.
3116:
his/her aim, only needs to convince the pro-capitalist (or, in reality, the general public) that capitalism is wrongĀ ; whereas the anti-Semite to achieve his/her aim needs to eliminate Jews themselves. I hope you can see that crucial difference too.
2396:
Well, that is a good question, and to answer it requires a bit of history. About a year ago this article was very different and not terribly good. Among the assertions made at some points is that the camps were "by definition" concentration camps
4597:
Whereas before I would try to cut and paste text in such a way as to preserve unrelated edits, the constant reverting you (KB) have engaged in have made me unwilling to take the time to preserve your other edits. This accounts for some of what is
236:
I just thought I will intervene because of the back and forth reversions.I want to clarify what I think is a wrong notion you have. Aryans did come to the sub-continent from outside, this is not disputed by serious academicians.However, though the
7830:
I also take issue with your going through peoples edit histories and reverting everything without a message to their talk page, the article discussion page or even anything in the reversion comment other than "rv". It goes against Wikietiquette.
3324:
I think it understates the case to the point of being misleading. To me his popularity is quite clearly lower internationally than in the U.S., seeing that he tied with Saddam Hussein as the greatest threat to peace in a U.K. poll etc. Just read
9379:
6396:
I find his apology reasonable. To me it seems like a policy misunderstanding: he thought his Talk page was his private grounds for having fun if he wanted, but in fact putting fake remarks there is not permissible. He seems to get that now.
2576:
Quite right, I was expressing a hope as to how he will conduct himself, not implying that he's required to do anything. Future conduct on all sides will do far more to ensure that this dispute is over than any statements any of us might make.
3916:
As it is a fact that Neutrality is moving to higher levels of authority on this Wiki, his name clearly has the potential to add a mistaken level of official imprimature to his edits and/or other actions. I agree that he must change his name.
2400:. Since then lots of other wording was tried out - including by me - that seeks to incorporate the "by definition"-type claims, the loaded and overstated nature of this term, and its persistent currency. The current formulation - that some
5604:. My point is, that you can say whatever you want, you can characterize things however you like, that is all de jure. But your actions don't neccessary correspond with any of that. your actions, taken alone, constitute the de facto, and
9079:
armies will have a run of the place. And FB is clearly twisting my words, as I did not assert I was not subject to NPOV; rather, I was defending my position as NPOV. This perverse reading bodes ill for the conversation. And I believe I
5328:
VV is well aware of the evidence. If you're interested, you can take a look at the george w. bush talk page, the most recent two archives for the talk page, and the page history dating back over a month. You may also want to look at the
5076:
involved in a spirit of collaboration, and that even if one editor refuses to behave that way, others should "turn the other cheek" whilst simultaneously widening the groups of people working on the articl, so that it doesn't remain a 1:1
457:
I am familiar with that one and many others, but the particular one you quote is ancient (accepted 1999) relative to the recent evidence. I was genuinely asking for a RECENT paper - one that responds to the supposedly "nail in the coffin"
2161:
since (a) usage wasn't sarcasm, (b) you left the grammar broken, the latter being more important. If you feel strongly about removing it, I won't revert a second time, but leave the 'the' - it's necessary to have the sentence read right.
8574:
displacement of people from the countryside to the cities; how this affected the implementation of the KR's policies can be argued. The information below addresses the nature of the "targets" and the "phantom" (!!) 600,000 people killed.
9983:
sorry bout the deletions... I was making the sections into pages of their own, keeping the text the same. Just thought it would be easier to navigate if "history of anarchism" wasn't the same page as "anarchy" and "schools of thought"
5909:
Of course, if we were enforcing the 3-revert limit with blocks I would have been happy to block you myself. Instead, we use page protection, and I protected the page once I could figure out what the fuss was about (no complaints about
1691:
Re: "Consensus had been reached before 172 started trolling; the poll was started afterwards and brought in random buddies of 172. The poll voters he cites consist mostly of users who had no role in and and were voting ideologically."
829:
behavior probably stems more from a group dynamic than him being the devil that you're making out to be. Sooner or later, you ought to admit that the anti-Communist POV of the community as a whole has been at the root of his behavior.
4184:
against talk page consensus (where polls have gone 20-3 and 5-0 against him), causing the page to be protected regularly. I suggest putting him on a strict three-revert limit, if not excluding him from editing the Bush page entirely.
9005:
Also, if the 3RR isn't a rule, why does it have "rule" in it's name? Where does it say that it is "just a guideline"? By my understanding, it applies in any case like this one where there is an actual content dispute, and would only
7435:
Assuming for the moment that the IPs are Turrican (I investigated only page histories, tracking all the contributor histories would have seriously delayed my response to the request), the edits are still not all obviously vandalism.
4834:
It's a one-liner. I wouldn't call that "in-depth". It's not empty rhetoric. It's what a whole lot of people (mostly outside of the U.S.) believe. I don't think they'd be too happy with you calling their beliefs "empty rhetoric".
7206:
You state (briefly enough to be quoted) "It's not a matter of whether I "accept things the way they are". It's a matter of whether the article should reflect what the actual arguments being made are or just a few people's theories"
2981:
These are all good points, of course; it's just that I disagree with editing other people's signed comments or user pages, even for trivial changes. I realize there are two schools of thought on this, but my preference is to undo
9531:? I'm going to revert back again and ask for the page to be locked. It's either that or I file an RFC or take this to the arbcom. I could understand you changing the lead section, but a reversion after so many edits? c'mon now! -
8120:
was not meant to be demonizing but merely to specify who I meant. However, akin to Holocaust deniers is I believe an accurate description of the credibility of these people's theories. Just glancing around, I noted hard data on
7864:
I concur with every word of that. I hereby implore you, VeryVerily, to obey the same rules that apply to everyone else, including the three-revert rule (see link above), as well as commonly accepted standards of decent behaviour.
860:
The reason I added information about torture and murder committed by occupation is that the article seemed to fulfil a propaganda purpose (probably created in the run-up to the Iraq war) which I wanted to balance with a more NPOV
114:
It is not an opinion to state that matters surrounding the Florida election were the subject of fierce public debate. It is not an opinion to state that claims of wrongdoing over the US election are the most serious allegations.
3651:
Consider this a light warning, since you're an established user and I know you know these things. But if you're asked to discuss a change on the talk page, you should probably discuss it. There's been a request for protection of
6776:
affair' has become a part of our current language, and that this entry is an important supporting document in the disussion of liberal bias in the media. I would like to solicit your 'keep' vote. Thanks for your consideration:
5402:
Posturing, such as "You think that consensus means your opinion", etc. Yes, I'm quite familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma type situations, and indeed I adopt a strategy similar to "tit-for-tat". You're defecting, and so so am I.
1350:, which is deep within 172 country, automatically since you are already there). Regarding everything else, I won't edit pages subject to disputes between you and other users, if you do the same to avoid crossing paths with me.
9149:
article on the article's talk page rather than reverting like a vandal. I have accomodated all your initial complaints; you, on the other hand, make no effort to work towards consensus, preferring to simply revert instead. --
4389:. It's clear from this that Kevin's aim is to silence dissenters via a "voting" process rather than try to reach a meeting of the minds. That is not collaboration and any so-called "consensus" reached that way is fraudulent.
3724:
I've tried to convince GBWR to do this as well, and it has proven difficult. So I thought I'd try to convince you to make the request and maybe GBWR will accept it. Will you please make a mediation request with him? Thanks...
3178:
I disagree. There were two main options being decided on, and then a third which seemed intermediary gained a flock. This is not a fine enough process to determine every word of the paragraph in question. (Even if it were,
4131:
page, I have been watching and measuring the activity on the talk page there. I can tell you that the comments and questions I raise, do not garner full participation from the same various editors who now complain about
9390:
pertaining to the very Cold War Gwangju massacre (with the South Korean dictatorship claimed had been instigated by North Korea and so on). It appears this is breaking the temporary order but the arbs would know best.
8796:) were just an accident, and that you won't revert my next one (#2 for me) again for at least 24 hours. Because that would be grounds for you getting banned. But even then: please don't revert this again. To paraphrase
8708:
page to try and dampen the flames there a little bit.)Im not sure that you deserve the request for arbitration, but your views on what NPOV is seem a little unorthodox. And, oh, the three edit rule exists for a reason.
4784:
Reason:two of most prominent positions in the white house, and the most publicly discussed (and seemingly active) members of the bush administration. "the bush-cheney-rumsfield team". also the fact they they are both
1373:, what is main problem on it? I note the CIA coup part is hotly debated, trust me i've actually got into a fist-fight with a communist friend of mine over the CIA coup, (even though i'm a die-hard Socialist-Marxist). --
3291:
of them as inaccurate or unacceptable. So, what then? Do you disagree that Bush's popularity "tends to be lower"? You may think this understates the case, but that does not make it "inaccurate". So please clarify.
3767:
Rex would hear. (He once made a reference to him and me being on different planets, a regrettably apt analogy.) If you want to plunge into this, some suggestions for you to get an idea of what I see as the problem:
9545:
who had to readd my material after one of your reverts ā just check the edit history and it's pretty clear. Knowledge is running pretty slowly for me so I can't revert back again. I will be filing an RFC however. -
5028:
Dear VV -- I've noticed that after I unprotected the article, the first edit was your reversion of Kevin Baas's edits to your last version -- i.e., it appears as though you're restarting the revert war immediately.
2594:
Your response was a little more uncertain, though perhaps I might have expected that. I would point out that 172 has made statements indicating he would abide by the 3-revert limit in the future and even joined the
7468:. Those don't qualify as vandalism from my perspective, and I cannot both protect the pages and arbitrate those differences. The ones for which Turrican had the most recent edit, which I therefore protected, were
4602:
Alright, one at a time, For each reason, do you dispute (a) the accuracy of the reason, and if so, on what grounds, or, if not, (b) that the reason is sufficient cause for the change, and if so, on what grounds.
9331:
fifteen reverts in one day, VV. It's not a matter of opinion anymore; you're engaging in an edit war. Please stop. If you have a disagreement, the grown-up way to deal with it is to discuss it on the talk page.
6119:
Kevin told me he was restoring the listing primarily because the underlying dispute is still active (I don't think there's any argument about that), but has indicated that he accepts the decision to archive it.
5906:
Seems sort of cryptic as the prelude to blocking. You know our guidelines, of course, but if you were a new user I would like to see something more explicit ("vandalize Knowledge again and you'll be blocked!").
9430:
I have moved this to talk; only arbitrators may edit that page. Interpretation and enforcement in this matter may be done by any sysop. Arbitrators generally don't try to enforce arbitration orders personally.
6824:
Heh, header change rather amusing actually. How do you feel about my edit striking the initial adjective (no generally, or significantly?) That seems to be kevin's only real objection. Thanks for answering.
5555:
I see, so your attribution of what is "de facto" evident showed good faith? At any rate, by tit-for-tat I did not mean to include surrendering my power of judgement. If you care for a longer explanation, see
4154:
and found the same symptom there: A few loosely aligned pro-Democrat edtitors reach a partial consensus among themselves, and then close their minds to even the most well reasoned and fact-supported rebuttals.
10012:
I have no problem with the content, it is just very difficult to navigate as it has expanded to quite a tall page. Sliding that scrollbar a half inch, in my opinion should not whizz by 5 screensfull of text.
8875:
I really don't care about who the other people reverting against you are. All I can see is that your version in this particular dispute uses unnecessary adjectives to convey your POV, and you have reverted it
8032:
amount of material was presented buttressing the assertions in the article and refuting the deniers. I'm not of the inclination to go look it up all over again for you, but you can. The fact is, Shorne and
4866:
It's not a matter of "over-the-top" or what have you. it's a matter of what is. if a significant amount of people actually thought that about clinton, then i'd say that it should very well be in the clinton
4439:
It is I feel more accurate than the Kevin Bass version, but still incoporates his preferred verbiage, including "The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed". I would be satisified to accept this.
3128:
entering edit wars over this. I think we can work together productively by contextualising these differing views, esp. by stating what the differences are, who they are directed against and who holds them. -
1846:
report that Pinochet was Catholic." I'd have no problem adding Pinochet's religious affiliation to the article but I wouldn't want it put in the intro. There's really no reliably NPOV way to adjudicate the
5271:
should seriously reconsider the logic of this proposition. If you think your behavior is acceptable, or that conduct counter to the policies of this forum will be tolerated, you should likewise reconsider.
4452:
ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See
4430:
ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See
2418:
I think one solution is to exactly quote the arguments of quoups which advocate the usage of "concentration camp". That way, the issue will be with them, not the Knowledge editors. And I happen to know that
9910:
8833:
If you're new to this conflict, you may not know what I'm up against. I'm subject to a guerrilla attack by a user who vandalized by user page several times and is systematically reverting all my edits.
8683:
up to now so as not to be subjected to accusations of choosing a supposedly unreliable source. No, I have cited more mainstream (read: right-wing) sources, including a book produced for the US government.
6953:
I wasn't trying to maximize anything; I didn't notice the edits were by one user, and was just removing POV as I found it (and using section edit links). Anyway, if you see him at it again, just revert.
8703:
VV: I find it rather amusing that you have "tools to prevent edit wars" on your page, at the same time as you are such an eager participant in them. (Although I did use one of then to good affect on the
3199:
Now that you see others disagreeing with your changes though, could you take the process back to the talk page? Getting the page protected is no solution. How about we vote about the specific sentences?
2743:. If I offended you in any way, I apologize; though I believe your actions were inappropriate, I do not want to dwell on this incident any further, and you think the same. I set up a poll on Fox News's
2714:
Thanks for following up. Usually I just revert that kind of crap, but that article has lately been such a magnet for it that I thought it important to mention it, rather than just hide the evidence. --
7218:
I could just sit and hope that complacency and illusions will protect us, but I have more faith and trust in people than that. Challenge them and the truth will win out, if the debate is truly open.--
3772:
2599:, whose members theoretically agree to "only revert once". If you would also agree to limit yourself to 3 reverts in the future, at least in dealing with 172, we would at least have made some progress.
2546:(and on top of that I'll now add competence). However, I worry that if a third party tries to rehash everything, this detente will be jeopardized. Please be careful about what you put in scare quotes.
2524:
When I returned from my wikivacation, I was rather disappointed to discover that you and 172 had gotten into yet another quickpoll. However, I haven't observed any significant problems since then, and
127:
Secondly, Aksai Chin is NOT the same as the chunk in North Kashmir that was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1959. Aksai Chin is Indian territory in Eastern Kashmir that was occupied by China in 1962.
8690:
Hell, even the New York Stock Exchange went into a bit of a tailspin in 1970 or so when word of the "wider war" began to leak. I don't see how anyone can pretend that these bombings never happened.
6130:
2480:
Wow, thanks a lot. Guess I'm gonna have to stop sleeping to fill in that big empty gap in the middleĀ :). If you ever release the script...please tell me...sounds interesting (and I do have Mandrake
384:
Sorry for the ambiguity, I forgot to mention the crucial part! Anyway, the same argument applies to that page too if there is a similar edit there... BTW, I will now direct my attention towards the
9074:
has engaged in clear acts of vandalism via his other accounts (which of course won't be considered by the authorities, because he is willing to use deception and lies, and I am not). But I do use
4468:
Although I'm not interested in interfering with this discussion between you two, I would like to point out a minor correction: The version that Rex calls "the Kevin Bass version" (and btw, it's Ba
1385:
has been involved in several edit wars on several pages and i've seen him break the three revert rule, maybe he should take a rest, or something like that (protecting the Pinochet page is a start).
9688:
Please. I'm not threatening anything. You are still up to your same tricks on that article. You keep reverting and refuse to let me make changes. I think I've been very patient with you so far. -
7741:"Enforcing american spelling is a sign of nationalism, and would therefore seem to suggest your not an anarchist? Or perhaps your a "anarcho-nationalist"? ;p" (Sam Spade 08:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC),
3063:. As I am still fairly new to this place and certainly the first time involved in anything like an "edit war" (something I am rather unhappy about) I would appreciate your advice how to proceed.
1600:
Thanks for moving this as I suggested. Though it was a tiny bit too much. May I ask why you want to leave it to TDC to decide whether his crybaby image can stay although the policy clearly says
6002:
Hi -- if you have the time, can you please update my contib by hour chart? Thanks a lot. (BTW, I've been doing a lot of edits around midnight, aroung 5 or 6 AM UTC, so it's should rise there).
810:
For starters I think I have experienced far less than you, from what I've reviewed in the page history of AC. Anyways, if you'd like a look at my joys of communication with Kev, you can review
10006:
okay... I'll stop there, I'll just make "anarchy" (which really isn't the same thing as anarchism, and deserves to be an outside link in my opinion) and "history of anarchism" separate links.
6334:
problem and has no claim on your time, but if you were to invest a couple minutes now, you could conceivably save a lot of other people a lot of time down the road. Thanks for considering it.
5183:
Also, since apparently you think this issue is now resolved, I wanted to ask you - do you want that RfC page kept, or deleted? Personally, I would say this is a great situation for a complete
2349:
3950:
If we cooperate in good faith and approach the problem rationally and objectively, we can come to agreement on what most accurately and plainly describes reality, irrespective of sentiments.
469:
If you think additional citations are needed, then by all means add them. This article has always had pointers to the pages by Coon and Wolpoff, which provide further discussion and pointers.
10080:
current section is either deliberately implying sinister things, or very badly worded. In any case, I've been talking with Bryan on IRC, and I'm curious as to what your exact concerns are.
8203:
Simple comparison to "Holocaust deniers" is not enough to refute someone's credibility. Holocaust deniers are certainly lunatics, but just saying so is not as effective as explaining why.
7771:
Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
7602:
1695:
Usually you can get away with your cynical lies because I leave them ignored. But this time, I'll check to see what the other people whom you are implicitly slandering think about this.
571:
and I were involved in an "edit war" no matter what Finlay thinks, but please in the future don't just revert with "vandalism": all users have talk pages, as have the articles. Cheers,
533:
Wells is a scientist and co-author of one of the papers. He gave a succint summary for which we should be grateful. Knowledge is not supposed to be a set of links to external articles.
7320:
which seemed to leave RfA on a rather old version. I don't know exactly what you were trying to do (maybe link to Neutrality's previous nomination?), but apparently it didn't work. --
2796:
Why are you reverting Guanaco's attempt to remove double redirects? Your change on Reddi's user page didn't change the fact is says "USA" only now it double redirects. What's up? -
6918:
Thank you for reverting Anarchism. I did not think it was POV either, and was planning on making a big fuss about it. Revert war.. arbitration committee.. all very tiring. --- EDGE
5749:
FWIW, I noticed it, and I initially felt inclined to notify you, but I felt that it was the requestor's responsibility, so I recused myself. Everyone seems to have waited it out.
2791:
226:
Thanks for you note on my talk page. What can I say -- I agree, but I figure it's worth following up on this since it was put out there...and it's probably good practice anywayĀ :-)
4081:
1595:
545:
Hi there, just a note to let you know that Tannin has just set up a vote for the Sep 11 attacks talk page about whther the word "terrorist" should be included in the title or not.
7189:), umm... idiot, militarist, son of a *****, whatever. Personally, I don't care what you call me, or how you personally attack me, as long as it's not offensive to everyone else.
5914:, please). Anyway, welcome back (in a manner of speaking, since judging by the page history you hardly left, though I suppose the block may have slowed you down just a little). --
216:
4990:
insignificant, or unrepresentative. Again, go ahead and pick at my edits, respectfully. Try to make edits that you think will be agreeable. i'll let reasonable changes stand.
1346:
out an agreement with Rei regarding the content of the former Torture and murder in Iraq article over the next couple of days (on that note, I won't expect you to "pull out" of
1066:
The change made to "race and intelligence" which you corrected today and indicated that I had "POVed" was apparently made by user 195.xx.xx... (I don't write that way, either.)
10096:
I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on my last comment in the discussion that started under the header "Your tools for preventing edit wars..." Do you plan on responding?
8846:
is a communist POV pusher and stalker who goes on similar rampages. The 3RR is dead letter enforced only against unpopular editors (which may include me). In the case of the
1677:
context of France's opposition to America ... as I say, not in my opinion "fixing", more "fiddling". Still. We all do it. FWIW, I'd vote to put some of that context back in. --
1353:
There's really no way for us to stake and recognize claims to articles, but I'm sure that we can use our common sense in order to know when we're crossing paths unnecessarily.
9306:
You are correct that I engaged in one revert, which I had forgotten. Whether a single edit constitutes "edit warring" is I suppose a matter of opinion. I think it does not.
5709:
4297:
3820:
I have been adding comments to the GWB Talk page, where appropriate, to back you up from the whelming tide of Neutrality, et al. Please, if you feel led to, help me out here:
1608:
627:
422:"Nevertheless, proponents of multiregionalism such as Wolpoff believe the molecular data can be reconciled with the multiregional origin hypothesis, and may even support it."
9447:
VV, if I believe an article needs to be editted, or is unjustly reverted, I'll do so. I do not need any prompting. Please do not believe that I will act as a proxy. Thanks.
4096:
you can find this sentence; "C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it." by Neutrality (from July 15th, 2004).
3687:
2233:
1619:
1605:
8479:
rewriting the whole article to accommodate these views would not be appropriate. Putting "supposed" before every mention of "gas chambers" would not be kosher either, no?
4361:
2676:
So that you know, I have withdrawn my request for arbitration and archived both of your RfC pages. Since a comment of yours in support of arbitration is still preserved on
10003:
be condensed. It is incredibly hard to navigate, and while I really don't have any problem with the deinitions held within, I think it really should get organized a bit.
1403:
My suggestion with the Pinochet page is possibly remove most referances to the CIA coup and put that on it's own separate page like for example ], tell me what you think--
208:...but FWIW I think that it may be beyond the point that a temporary protection will work, and I don't think it's feasible to have the page permanently protected. Thanks,
9083:
one of Knowledge's most productive editors, and I wish the powers that be would stop using procedural grounds to privilege artful troublemakers over honest contributors.
1744:
with commment "rm prejudicial and q'able para", but the diff of the edit doesn't show you removing anything. So was there something you wanted to remove but missed outĀ ?
715:
BTW, sorry for not making it clear earlier that you weren't the guilty party in last week's series of edit wars. Your only mistake was falling into their trap by playing
1526:, where TDC and I have agreed that his version should be considered point by point on a temp page to which he controls access. Earlier, we came to the same agreement on
261:
I don't understand these comments. The "back and forth" thing you mentioned ended three weeks ago, and has not recurred. The user doing so was one who'd been cited on
692:
trolls, who disappear mysteriously when forced to explain themselves on the talk pages. Also, with the problem users gone, perhaps it's time to lift the protections of
5600:
anything that we are discussing. regarding "attribution" and "de facto" - that is an oxymoron. one cannot attribute de facto; the act of attribution makes something
7068:
8048:. (And yes my words against Hanpuk became harsher, but remember that was like his eighth account that was attacking me relentlessly and his words were much worse.)
7253:
balance out. I am willing to stop this senseless edit war as soon as your leave my history articles alone. Otherwise it will just end before an arbitration comitee.
7086:
It's about as legitimate as the US deciding (theoretically) that all of the POWs who were forced to work in Japanese factories were legitimate military targets also
595:
4854:
I may believe Clinton is a sociopath, as may others, but putting that "Critics believe that Clinton's amoral behavior indicates he is a sociopath" is over the top.
7027:
7185:
Yes, actually, you could call me a number of things: deletionist (I tend to speedy delete often), legalist (for following letters patent instead of convention at
974:). Anyone may "vouch" for the additions by reinstating them in their own name... note that this is not the same as simply reverting back to Michael3's version. --
462:... and you can look at other papers by Wolpoff, Hawks, etc. Anyway, I'm bothered by the fact that every link you've added to this page is anti-multiregionalism.
89:
about itĀ :) They'll realize after a while that they're obviously wasting their time and either go away or start making useful contributions to other articles. --
9222:
9203:
9184:
9151:
4312:
4092:
on August 13th, 2004 (only four days ago!) he was warned and admonished by Guanaco for "You have reverted John Kerry nine times in 24 hours". Also, at this link
2695:
In our correspondence by e-mail, I recall that you expressed your hope that we'd be able to find common ground on some issue. Well, I think that I've found one.
9179:
have contributed to building a better version of the Karl Marx article, and Boraczek in particular is known as an outspoken anti-communist. What excuse can you
4725:
Why have bush's start and end figures, and clinton's avg. figures? They should both by avg. or both start and end, so that people can make a direct comparison.
9812:
the steps in the direction of negotiation. You're completely off the beam if you think that this stubborn VeryVerily has any intention of engaging in dialogue.
9655:
been watching how you've edited that page! Check the page's talk. I suggest you take a good hard look at your reversions. Want me to file an arbcom dispute? -
7594:
6894:
6846:
6602:
6575:
6519:
6420:
6387:
6376:
5754:
5617:
5525:
5462:
5433:
5388:
5359:
5338:
5287:
5276:
5243:
5169:
cooling off period isn't such a bad idea. It should have been enforced through protection rather than banning, but the point it - revert wars are usually bad.
5112:
4995:
4963:
4939:
4876:
4840:
4765:
4738:
4693:
4634:
4482:
4241:
4206:
3967:
3955:
8351:
You're missing the point. We have an article about Holocaust denial, but we don't mention the "opposing view" in every article which mentions the Holocaust.
6150:
6136:
3768:
1641:"Western European nations, Japan, and other countries have long been deeply concerned about their national culture being subsumed by a tide of immigrants. "
915:
On the other hand, I would like to point out that your editorial remark suggesting that I had intended to inject a sarcastic note was erroneous. (You wrote:
3070:
Thanks I have done RfC three days ago, without getting any comments. I have asked for mediation but got only abuse back from him. I am a bit at my wits end
2236:
1567:
You might also be interested in going to the talk page, I have disected and refuted most of the diputed claims as either factualy inacurat, or grossly POV.
912:
kind of doubt. Perhaps it is true that in some areas of biology, there is an equation of 'race' and 'subspecies', but that is still a long way from 'many'.
8954:" somehow doesn't or shouldn't apply to this dispute. It's my opinion that you should be banned from editing until you agree to follow this simple policy.
4610:
Reason: This is like saying "There are no reports that bush is a reptillian humanoid." It is completely random. The article makes no such accusations.
770:
Figure out a way to meet him halfway whenever he has a valid point to raise. When you quit treating him like the devil admins won't have to protect pages.
4648:
I don't see how I'm shooting myself in the foot, unless you think I'm on a pro-Bush crusade. But I didn't add that line, anyway; I only reverted it back.
10125:
10097:
8545:
8422:
8303:
8204:
8084:
8004:
7932:
7903:
6204:
because they know that it will just promote an attack-fest. That's why I consider it important that people at least ask for permission before nominating.
575:
561:
7445:
of your experiences, you understand the problem with that attitude). Again, the version with the image was the current one anyway, so it got protected.
2381:
I see you've been working on this for a while and your edits have been pretty good. But I think you should give a source for the "formal" definition of
966:
Nothing is wrong with having the dates wikified. If you'd like to undertake that task yourself, you're more than welcome. I'm removing all additions by
942:
Certainly there have been (and continue to be) many "alternative classifications", but a reasonably careful reading of the existing (flawed) article on
651:, and noticed that you are having the same problem. Do you have any words of advice on how I may settle this in a friendly and civil manner with 172? --
9114:
7555:
4256:
3726:
3699:
3673:
3664:
3663:, and it makes me want to cry, so anything you can do to keep me from playing traffic cop other places would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much.
2197:
2137:
1925:
7912:
They are appropriate for some cases, but not others. There's a difference between run-of-the-mill content disputes and repeated attacks on articles.
3831:
I'll look at what's going on. Of course, my late entry into the fray means I'm not as well versed in the history as many of the people on that page.
3149:
2660:
or formula of commitment from you, and 172 does well to say he does not expect it either. Making demands is rarely a productive approach to disputes.
728:
22:04, 3 Mar 2004 . . VeryVerily (fixing double redirect; also, i don't like this change, the new article is poorly written, while this one was clear)
9014:
the vandalism, obviously). Can you show examples of places where the rule is "not enforced against vandals"? (I assume you're actually talking about
7480:
By the way, I believe that when you refer in your request for arbitration to "a campaign of reverting my edits without prejudice", you actually mean
7133:
No, its not. I would refer it to mediation if you were willing to participate. Which is what I recommend. In addition to discussion and negotiation.
6890:
6842:
6598:
6571:
6515:
6416:
6383:
6372:
5750:
5613:
5521:
5458:
5429:
5384:
5355:
5334:
5283:
5272:
5239:
5108:
4991:
4959:
4935:
4872:
4836:
4761:
4734:
4689:
4630:
4478:
4237:
4202:
3963:
3951:
2639:
As for Kevehs, that's a separate dispute I looked at briefly, but it's a tangent I don't care much about and hope not to become involved in. I think
2388:(I'm not lashing out at you. This is just a topic that's been bugging me for a long while). I've I put this page on "watch" so you can reply below.
2059:
government had previously sought to overthrow Allende and actively supported Pinochet after he came to power. The extent of their involvement in the
6271:(after mistakenly editing it myself before seeing the protection, though all I did was add links). Just thought I'd notify those who were active on
5957:. I have restored them, and posted reasons why to talk pages - to which he he/she has responded with another rant concerning my "self promotion". --
5187:
and delete the page, because I believe Ćvar just made a mistake and clearly won't repeat it. But I'll defer to your wishes if you prefer otherwise.
482:
Don't you think that's not very appropriate for an entry about it? There should be at least one pro-link, and probably the majority should be pro-.
9362:
9164:. And if you would like me to appoint you again for administrator, please prove that you can change your behavior, unless you'd rather not be one.
8710:
4302:
1766:
1902:
76:
On the other article, I took a look at your new change, and I think we're pretty close, although it needs a tweak; let me know what you think. -
9067:
7758:
7282:
7269:
7254:
7247:
1305:, I think it makes the most sense to continue the discussion there. I have posted some additional thoughts and would appreciate your response. --
426:
multiregionalism. Also, I'm not sure whether you're saying that Wolpoff has used molecular data to support the multiregional hypothesis. Thanks.
6312:, Rex changed it, to make it appear that Neutrality was confessing to "intentionally causing trouble." Neutrality tried to correct it, but Rex
5867:
as a forum to personally attack you. His behavior is unacceptable, and I certainly did not intend for this to happen. ] 19:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4270:- Page history of George W. Bush showing lots of reverts and four page protections. Notice edit summaries. Notice consistency of user conduct.
3783:
be interested in hearing your disagreement, if you chose to spend the time elaborating, because I'd value your ideas and you might help improve
130:
Again, before you start off, there is absolutely no question of "POV" and "NPOV" here, as these are well known and verifiable historical facts.
9165:
7419:
6794:
1816:
of the supporting facts should be included in the introductory summary, you can't really participate in good faith in the process of selecting
572:
558:
8028:
That discussion was confusing, spread out as it was over several articles (Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, History of Cambodia, etc.), but in the end a
3761:
article has been an unending succession of disputes. I have to doubt that resolving the current one will make everything sweetness and light.
2280:
Hello, thanks for contributing to Categories, but "WW2 people" is obsolete. Please, in the future, direct to "World War II people". Thanks, --
1486:
8839:
2739:
Hello, VV. I'd like to take a moment to again tell you that I wish no animosity between us, and all I want is a good, solid, NPOV article on
2166:
9633:
P.S. my offer to work with you in editing the article holds. I am still willing to compromise. Just expect changes, and don't fight them. -
7000:
Gnuplot. In fact, I was planning to go ahead and post it here; it's just been a matter of me not getting around to it.Ā ;) I'll do it now.
2867:
think it's a bad thing, but moreover it's an unnecessary thing, and so my reasoning is that it's better not to do it on the grounds that it
2151:
2126:
7521:
other evidence and a different approach to investigation. Unfortunately, the arbitration process is slow and frustrating in that regard. --
1933:
1523:
1264:
If I may ask, since Hanpuk is disputing the allegation - what evidence do we have that Hanpuk is one of the Richardchilton sock puppets? --
9891:
7246:
If you do not immediately stop destroying my articles I will also begin to go through your contributions and delete everything you wrote.
5897:
2247:
Why did you move this from the Template: namespace to the MediaWiki: namespace? Sidebar type things go in the Template: namespace now. --
2136:
hand in the coup. That way we could NPOV the article. Also, please join the IRC channel because that's where I learned of the 50 reverts (
1662:
1562:
10081:
9202:
The fact that no further editing occured until you returned can be seen as a pretty good sign that things had indeed been worked out. --
6629:. Then I want you to look me in the eye (metaphorically) and tell me that your edits to that page are not POV. ] 16:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6085:
5788:
4825:
I don't agree, and it's just empty rhetoric. Also, in-depth discussion of the PNAC does not belong here, anymore than would coverage of
4719:
The article claims unemployment going up under Bush, by selective citation, which this extra info counterbalances. Is this not obvious?
1756:
1731:
1622:
648:
187:
10021:
7768:
Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
4032:
There is an anti-Bush, pro-Kerry crowd lurking who will complain to ArbCom and get you blocked from editing there. They did it to me on
2269:
1838:. For that purpose, simply moving all the facts down to the article body was unhelpful because it was unlikely to produce a consensus.
1635:
Hi VeryVerily. I see that you removed all my changes to the Immigration page, describing them as "speculation". A bit harsh, I think.
1439:
8935:". Obviously I'm not going to be writing this section; I'm just trying to show you what I mean by writing about different POVs from an
1666:
1187:
1175:
412:
389:
291:
243:
9513:
AbsolutelyĀ :-) What needs to go into the lead section though? I find lead sections to always be the trickiest part of an article... -
8544:
At the very least, I think this proves that the other editors were not doing original research and that this is a "serious movement."
5894:
5282:
You might also notice that I am not the only person who is restoring consensus, nor am I the only person constituting this consensus.
4011:
3639:
Thanks for the article link. This actually makes Fidel's co-opting of Michael Moore's propaganda film pretty innocuous by comparison.
2606:
FYI, I am not asking VV to limit himself to 3 edits on any article. I have no opinion on whether or not he should make this decision.
1696:
6347:
5663:; stop wasting my time with irrelevant, frivolous, and incorrect technical points, and if you care about such nitpickings then spell
5127:
Have you, or anyone tried to resolve the matter before the rfc - did you send him an email, edit his talk page - that kind of thing?
4088:
Neutrality is told by Fred Bauder that moving (evidence) "statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate". At this page section
1793:
1748:
1701:
9766:
Still looking for reds under the beds, are you? There could only be one person in the world with any opinions different from yours?
8982:.) Your opinion is duly noted; it is fortunate for the sake of the project that you aren't in a position to force your will on me.
7976:
that is unconstructive. Hanpuk's ideas weren't discussed, his character was attacked. Similar behavior occured in regards to Shorne.
7076:
to work in the factories. The military thought of them as military assets, how does this not legitimize them as military targets?--
5148:
5143:, and only saw one other suspicious block (an IP # for two weeks), which I don't know about. I haven't looked further back in time.
4071:
853:
about only atrocities by one side (which ever it is) then we (Knowledge) become propagandists for this side. Do you agree to these?
7495:
7461:
5871:
Excuse me? How do you read a personal attack into anything I said there? You better substantiate this accusation, or take it back.
4800:
See explanation above. I haven't picked through that para, although I assume your version would need NPOV'ing, since you wrote it.
3848:
may see it as putting you in a bad light. Therefore, please feel free to let me know of any respect in which my current draft, at
2225:
1394:, 'hate list,' User:Plato (troll), User:VeryVerily (FOX POV pusher), I never even talked to the guy and he's calling me a troll. --
1331:
450:
You asked for citations on those believing molecular data supports multiegionalism. A well-known recent such paper is this one ...
9406:
three times in twenty-four hours (actually, only one hour). Please impose the twenty-four-hour ban that the injunction specifies.
5969:
5102:
4273:
4253:
2367:
1712:
10073:
I know the survey is pretty pointless, but I don't think you're helping yourself much by adding in the "beating your wife" bit.
9921:
9854:
administration claimed that such treatment was justified for an "enemy combatant," critics regarded it as a violation of Hamdi's
7143:
It seems to me mediation should not be started at the drop of a hat. You have no sympathy for my position that it is premature?
1656:
1519:
1425:
I saw the graph on your userpage. How is that generated? I'd be interested in looking at mine, if it's not too much work to do.
9815:
By the way, go ahead with your silly RfC. I welcome the opportunity. I shall also quote this passage to show what you're up to.
8606:
Holding Individual Leaders Responsible for Violations of Customary International Law: The U.S. Bombardment of Cambodia and Laos.
7844:
7498:
could be explained by the fact that the title of the book is capitalized that way in the text, though not the article title, of
7317:
4093:
3077:
Could you at least protect the two pages (in whatever form) and ad a dispute notic ein which will not get deleted immediatelyĀ ?
2722:
Thanks for taking a look at the Reagan article. I'll let you know when/if Sparky reinserts the section accusing Reagan of rape.
2174:
7158:
I do have sympathy with that view. Is it your position that when the issue does become "ripe" that you would accept mediation?
3888:
1882:
1549:
8929:
The United States has more relaxed immigration laws than many other countries, having granted X immigrants citizenship in 2003
7815:
Although you have been banned before for breaking the reversion rules, so you obviously know already, I state that there is a
4708:
Reason: this article is not about clinton. The insertion is completely irrelevant and does not inform the reader about bush.
3920:
Additionally, I also agree with Ropers' logic and can personally attest to having had editorial difficulties with Neutrality.
3779:. To the extent you think my criticisms are accurate, perhaps your imprimatur would help. To the extent you don't think so,
10184:
Ohh, ok I'll check out the Arb. requests, if you have and problems just contact me on my talk.Ā :)--] 06:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9221:
Fine, believe whatever you want, the point is that we have a dispute to solve, and you haven't been exactly very helpful. --
6463:
You are calling my edits POV when they're not. In general, I don't feel obliged to leave frivolous charges on my Talk page.
6371:
again, I appreciate your genuine effort. It would save all of us a lot of trouble if it could be made effective. Thank you.
3587:
1856:
1828:
1584:
Normally I would agree with the assertion that 172 can be difficult to deal with, but when this same process was used in the
317:, which indeed had not been edited in weeks. AIT is taken to include the possibility of slower migration, and thus the term
9289:
5900:
5891:
5794:
5191:
attachment to) I figured it had to be involved somehow and thought Ćvar might have talked to you there. That's likely where
4005:
3056:
Hi, Got a note saying you'd replied here to a discussion elsewhere on the 'satanism' article. Can't find the reply. Wassup?
1649:
10176:(cur) (last) 19:44, 12 Oct 2004 Shorne (Not to worry. VeryVerily is just being an asshole, as always. See the talk page.)
7931:
however significant, as "attacks" doesn't leave one thinking that you are willing to discuss the issue and meet consensus.
3162:. Minor spelling, grammar, and syntax fixes are all right, but do not change the content again without discussing on talk.
5889:
5118:
2569:
In case I'm jumping the gun, I don't think that VV should be expected to make a statement reciprocating my comments here.
2200:
740:
And as to the article being "poorly written", would you pse specify (I thought I'd left "attoparsec" almost unchanged). --
4268:
2211:
2189:
1928:
1783:
34:
demands made by the U.S., so there was no reason whatever to alter those demands when preparing to take military action.
30:
shifting and inconsistent, and that that should be made clear in the article. At no point did Saddam cooperate with the
9370:
8417:
likening possible U.S. involvement in Cambodia to Holocaust denial, and am only doing so in an attempt to use a kind of
7289:
6674:
Can you please explain what's the point of moving "Griko" to "Griko language"? Is this part of some regulation? Thanks.
4338:. I am sorry that I just noticed that you were not notified of this on your talk page. You may make a short response on
4141:. Suffice it to say, because these various editors refuse to deliberate, they ought not to be allowed to complain about
3556:
1889:
1563:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:TDC/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927-1953)&diff=0&oldid=3474469
10225:
9941:
4339:
4335:
3775:, where my level of detail is excruciating but, IMO, worthwhile; and my final attempt to explain Wikiquette to him, at
2677:
2284:
2255:
1082:
154:
7895:
6976:
Can you please send me the perl/python script that makes the contrib by hour chart? Or does it require Linux/Gnuplot?
6839:
5557:
326:
migration occurred. Most of the attacks on these pages have been by those who disbelieve in the migration at all. --
10178:
From my perceptive that is a personal attack, may I suggest doing a Request for Comment?--] 05:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9829:
9828:
I don't know anything about the ongoing dispute with Shorne generally, but with regard to the one article I've seen,
8587:
7636:
4527:
3849:
2596:
1470:
1347:
10204:
Yes your correct you convinced me. Also I find it most interesting that the article about the plane not hitting the
8721:
3586:
Could you please update the contrib by hour chart you made for me when you have the time? I believe the chart is at
3183:.) The information I added was clearly relevant, and the "tends to be lower" gets rid of the POV judgement "much".
1530:. Evidently, he was satisfied with the outcome, given his acceptance of my offer once again on a different article.
9906:
7738:). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
7234:
6343:
6325:
6321:
6317:
6313:
6309:
6190:
5864:
5784:
4454:
4432:
141:, but I just wanted to let you know that Angela asked me to mediate, and I am in the process of reviewing (I would
10041:
Ah, indeed, I should have said so myself. But since the matter is aired, what do you think of what I wrote? ----
8523:
7749:
7652:
5383:
accidents, and everyone gets to their destination slower. Do you see how game theory applies in this situation?
4383:
4278:
4085:
1252:
Hey! When did you get debanned? I thought you had another 6 hours? I mean it's great you're not banned anymore. --
1198:
926:
5067:
Hi VV -- thanks for the reply and for taking my suggestion to heart. I will say, though, that I don't believe in
3102:
America and all things American, analogous to Nazi-style anti-Semitism. Such an ideology does not exist, in fact
2525:
2032:'s subsequent support for Pinochet's government have also engendered controversy, especially given that previous
9992:
9388:
9209:
Or maybe no further editing would have occured till Boraczek returned? Really, what kind of reasoning is this?
7626:
6077:
Despite all this, are you still willing to press ahead with mediation? If so, do you have any preferences for a
5812:
3565:
1808:
For example, perhaps we should drop the Nixon quote; perhaps we should add post-coup U.S. support for Pinochet.
753:
were disappointing - esecially in light of the constructive and civil discussions that ended the edit wars over
9783:
A few of us are talking about doing a RfC regarding Shorne. Before we can do that we must pass this threshold:
8045:
7795:
4291:
4177:
4024:
3538:
2906:
2619:
2216:
1171:
794:
8863:
about this. And so on. Join the conversation if you want, but reverting my edits is just plain provocative.
7659:
7547:
6568:
6565:
6562:
4387:"Business and political career - put para on consensus, pending resolution of changes via vote on talk page.)"
3973:
3706:
Sorry about that, sort of transitioned into an argument. I have cut-and-pasted the last round off your page.
1429:
1081:
146:
9925:
9705:
8793:
8789:
8785:
8781:
8777:
8773:
6078:
3698:
Please have your argument with GBWR somewhere other than my talk page. In front of a mediator, for instance.
2640:
1601:
1507:
1016:
799:
9749:
If Shorne is Hancuk who was in between. Shorne's first edit was September 25; Hanpuk's last edit was May 7.
7700:
Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in
7674:
5520:
Policy/advice/ettiquete - irrelevant. Tit-for-tat? I assume good faith, you don't. Is that tit-for-tat?
3601:
Oh, uhm...you posted the old one (6/21/04). Hate to bother you, but you kinda uploaded the same picture :P.
3215:
The problem with these "votes" is that they invariably wind up becoming a referendum on George W. Bush, who
2466:
Yes please...and can you show me how to use the script so I can update it myself? (Do I need to use Linux?)
7437:
4760:
Wolfman finally put figures in that can be compared, so you don't have to worry about that aspect anymore.
4089:
3256:
disagrees with it. If we cannot get such a consensus, we can only vote on it. Or do you have another idea?
2398:
1539:
1534:
9758:
8933:
critics have claimed that their immigration laws are not very lax however, because so and so (other facts)
6460:
Please don't delete posts from your talk page, and how is my post "posturing"? ] 20:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5262:
flexibility) in dealing with editors who you've targeted as being in a minority. ] 22:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5020:
3287:
one can be reworded to your satisfaction, but since you reverted everything, I can only assume you regard
1435:
Thanks but no. Cool idea, though--I bet a lot of people would be interested. Maybe you should chargeĀ ;)
10229:
8951:
8759:
7816:
7727:"I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were."
7440:
was, yes, but in that case I protected the non-vandalism version, which was the current revision anyway.
3180:
1412:
congratulations on making it onto the wik list. i do not know you, yet i now have a deep respect for you
842:
150:
10197:
Than if terrorism mentioned in article than that's ok, perhaps I'll reword it a little to reflect npov--
8608:
The document has extensive citations and is well-documented. I highly recommend that you check it out:
7793:
Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking
4892:
Domestic policy, economy: Insertion of facts about tax-income distribution, by non-partisian authority.
2132:
Maybe, I don't like the idea of a footnote myself. Just so long as there is mention that the U.S. had a
9259:
8122:
7199:
3144:
1113:
See the "spiked-online" article at the bottom for an account of the factual errors in this article. --
815:
618:
Please stop edit wars over link names. It is silly esp since direct links are better than redirects. --
271:
197:
9541:
Care to explain where I didn't readd your material? and I might just point out that it was originally
9404:
Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision
8413:
article. Why can there not be a similar section in the Khmer Rouge article? I'd like to say that I am
7618:
Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information!
7104:
Perhaps you are too accepting of things they way they are instead of demanding that they make sense.--
5809:
Should "AssesOfEvil.png" (see image on this page) be included in the article under guise of "parody"?
4342:
and may also request relief regarding those how have made complaints against you, and others such as
2351:, because it fits in with everything else I know about Latin America. That being said, there probably
2106:
government had previously sought to overthrow Allende. However the extent of their involvement in the
10051:
Interesting, but I'm not sure it counts as an underlying value difference that results in conflicts.
7465:
4197:
be examined by the arbitration committee. I am particularly concerned with the user's conduct on the
979:
607:
7707:
4373:
4222:
failure to discuss changes, justify edits, make reasoned arguments, address reasoned arguments, etc.
2747:
page, so that we may settle this peaceably; I have in addion added it under "Article content" to the
1003:
To let you know, I've started a quickpoll vis-a-vis your violation of the three revert guideline on
890:
26:
I think it's fairly clear that, in the weeks leading up to hostilities, the administration's stance
9250:
8859:- as a matter of fact - have some of the most liberal laws. There is also an active discussion at
7742:
6924:
6324:
to keep his falsehood in. When Lyellin mildly remonstrated with Rex over this, Rex responded with
5072:
don't believe that a certain version should be kept afterwards -- just that it should be edited by
3906:
3776:
2910:
2785:
In addition, you placed the Coulter quote in the wrong place. Her column criticizes PIPA, not FAIR.
1798:
1613:
1233:
9858:. In addition, the US routinely detains non-citizens, who do not enjoy the same legal protections.
9413:
It's a project talk page, not an article, and it's a stretch to say I reverted it more than once.
8946:
I'm really still astonished that a seasoned editor like yourself has the audacity to suggest that
7098:
through conscription. I can agree with you if you concede that they are also innocent civilians.
5488:
makes it impossible for me to assume good faith, which incidentally is not a "policy" but advice.
3402:
2376:
1109:
did you find factually inaccurate? You didn't list anything in particular on the discussion page.
9380:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision
7614:
7604:
7402:
6723:
The double redirects are the only real "problems", but I've gone ahead and done them all anyway.
5800:
5173:
5131:
4543:
3773:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#POV inclusions, deletions and modifications
3020:. He then said he had changed it, but apparently due to a bug it continued altering Talk pages.
2917:. Guanaco's change would have made it (]) and avoid the redirect with no change to the text. -
2748:
1099:
262:
9776:
8526:
7268:
My reference to "unacceptable behavior" refers to the numerous revert wars between yourself and
6342:
You might as well not bother. Soon after I left you the above message, Rex indulged himself in
4918:
Again, see above. I haven't picked through this to evaluate its bias, which I'm sure is there.
3982:
2344:
1789:
unmanageable in size, and it really must be archived. I will try again later this afternoon. --
1223:
951:
438:
9987:
as it says at the top, "This article is 75 kb long, (and it really does seem kinda long to me)
9464:
9301:
9271:
9161:
8979:
8802:
7415:
5165:
rfc". Anway I wont comment on the rfc until tomorrow to give him a chance to explain himself.
4317:
3821:
2774:" makes less sense than "FAIR found...," because itās a independent fact that can be verified.
2242:
2044:
and charged with international human rights crimes. After a failed attempt to extradite him to
1570:
1302:
10124:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that means that you will respond eventually; I hope so.
10089:
9794:
If you feel that any issues exist with respect to his edits, please enter into a dialogue on
5184:
4705:
Removal of: "office, though it did average 5.6% across the full length of Clinton's terms in"
2653:
1684:
Sorry; hadn't spotted the see also. I probably went off half cocked, didn't I? As you were. --
1127:
Thanks. Copied to talk page. Article is long and rambles, I've saved it for later persual. --
7499:
5315:
What are my arguments, and how are they not supported? What accusations are unsubstantiated?
4958:
I'll try to respond to them in particular, i wanted to get my first response to you quickly.
4580:
definition of genocide on any comparable scale that people might protest the act itself. JDH
4084:
Neutrality admits that he was involved in an "edit war" about Fox News. At this page section
3444:
2329:
1229:
1158:
on how to describe the CIA's role in the coup against Allende. Please vote and/or comment. --
1155:
950:, even within different communities. I attempted to identify most of the significant ones at
385:
350:
314:
238:
138:
85:
8409:
Note that there is a significant section about Holocaust denial and revisionism in the main
7015:
5911:
5068:
433:
10145:
10110:
10055:
9689:
9673:
9656:
9634:
9609:
9587:
9561:
9547:
9532:
9514:
9497:
9483:
9468:
9417:
9310:
9280:
9213:
9194:
9087:
8986:
8918:
8867:
8559:
8483:
8355:
8252:
8129:
8052:
7953:
7916:
7882:
7850:
7579:
7469:
7449:
7350:
7334:
7147:
7125:
7059:
Sure I'll help. Send me an email so we can discuss this in a more private manner. Toodles.
7004:
6958:
6866:
6727:
6692:
6650:
6539:
6500:
6467:
6401:
6285:
6272:
6029:
5843:
5671:
5563:
5492:
5453:
And regarding "You think that consensus means your opinion" - I was stated what is evident
5407:
5370:
5366:
This is getting boring. Dream up a new form of posturing or stop posting on my Talk page.
5199:
5155:
5055:
5009:
4977:
4922:
4913:
4858:
4849:
4820:
4795:
4751:
4714:
4676:
4643:
4625:
a common accusation, whether in the article or not. But I have no strong opinion on that.
4616:
4592:
4512:
4322:
4307:
4145:
4136:
4122:
3871:
3835:
3710:
3460:
3365:
3296:
3232:
3187:
3024:
2990:
2893:
2875:
2824:
2408:
2295:
2186:
1899:
1728:
1645:
material on the article that is similarly facile, but can we start by agreeing about this?
1117:
1022:
975:
883:
676:
603:
557:
Will you stop reverting my changes to the USA PAT RIOT Act and labelling them "Vandalism"?
200:), and of course I'm just following up on what I've been asked to do by the well-respected
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
97:
I'm duns0014, from the ancap turmoil. so who are you anyway? are you libertarian or what?
17:
7735:
7346:
FYI, I was viewing an old version as wiki text. I must have somehow inadvertently saved.
6923:
8:
9704:
I'm afraid Shorne is not going to stop. Shall we open a discussion about user conduct in
9463:
Stop reverting to such a degree. Firstly, the lead section as it stood was not good (see
9015:
7566:
7457:
7186:
6626:
6305:
5954:
5946:
5936:
5140:
4827:
4443:
And frankly, this is a big concession from me because it would be more truthful to say:
4127:
as being unfounded and fraudulent. As another editor who has been recently active on the
3159:
1919:
1481:
1465:
1053:
680:
510:
I gave an exact quotation from the Style Guide. If you wish to do likewise, please do so.
8943:" is allowed to stay, that really doesn't leave much room for other POVs there, does it?
5760:
5699:
4106:
3581:
2643:
about it, which you may already have seen, says all I have to say about that subject. --
1098:
896:
as "anti-race inference," nor did I see any sarcasm. Would you mind explaining, please?
9962:
Welcome to the vast "right wing conspiracy" VV. Want some similar fun, come check out
9018:
when you say vandalism, and not just about people with different opinions than yours.)
8860:
7411:
7399:
6248:
5218:
negative light when they're just deleting content rather than attempting to improve it.
5170:
5128:
4449:
4427:
2334:
Why is it still so difficult for you to face the reality of US complicity in Chile? --
2317:
2275:
2221:
Edit wars are not acceptable. Please find other ways to resolve disagreements. Thanks,
1778:
1763:
1559:
Did you see the seperate thread that 172 started? I am sure I could use a hand there.
1075:
1067:
897:
45:
sinister, I probably would have left that if that's what it had said, but it wasn't. -
9839:
The US has also detained US citizens without charges, as most recently in the case of
8609:
6093:
5783:. It would be appreciated if you could reply as to whether or not you accept, over at
4169:
4039:
What happens is, they tag-team revert you, then they file an RfA and get you blocked.
2182:
stuff are serious, although this Mike Church is such a goof that it's hard to tell. -
1330:
Let's make things easier for the both of us and everyone else. I can deal with Rei on
1202:
warning issued also. However, due process does not seem to be in style this season. --
584:
10233:
9754:
7762:
7536:
7522:
7509:
The legal distinction of with/out prejudice with respect to lawsuits is explained at
7485:
7473:
why possibly incorrect capitalization is worth making a fuss about "wrong versions".
7321:
6985:
6488:
6213:
6194:
6121:
6110:
6052:
6011:
5965:
5932:
5915:
5872:
5860:
5225:
5204:
4501:
4186:
3999:
3627:
3610:
3594:
3505:
3405:
3330:
3257:
3201:
3171:
3137:
3017:
2923:
2842:
2817:
2802:
2681:
2669:
2644:
2578:
2563:
2530:
2021:
1886:
1876:
1445:
1306:
1294:
1281:
1265:
701:
443:
Thanks for your response. My responses to your response are inserted with a leading
10217:
9062:
The events of April 2 made it clear there is no such rule - and that was when there
5124:
Has he ever blocked someone before against policy or was this an isolated incidence?
3252:
But not everyone agrees your version is accurate; and there is no full consensus if
2519:
2449:
9883:
9840:
9799:
9795:
9750:
9730:
9432:
9053:
8299:
8041:
7558:. Since you asked, may I suggest the term "collaborationism" for "anti-authorism"?
7159:
7134:
6944:
6681:
5829:
4401:
minor point, no one changed the title -- you didn't post a title (I did). - Wolfman
4347:
3912:
3106:
exist because the American people are ethnically very diverse. Various things that
2965:
2266:
2252:
2017:
1978:
1685:
1678:
1674:
1370:
873:
869:
664:
205:
10160:
10066:
9190:
172's last edit was to revert Boraczek. I don't see anything being "worked out".
9160:
Hi! If you would like to protest against the reverting rule, try your luck at the
8974:
I don't know under what standard it would be suggested that the U.S. laws are not
8838:
is a sockpuppet account of a user who has created more than a dozen accounts (see
8677:
After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the reconstruction of imperial ideology
8248:. But historical theories far outside the mainstream do not belong on Knowledge.
6862:
You mean the one in which I took part? Yes, it seems to finally be winding down.
6182:
2437:
1771:
1554:
1088:
Please take a moment to express your thoughts on this page, if you have the time.
961:
938:"alternative definitions" is off the mark; it could be alternative classifications
10142:
10107:
10052:
9902:
9893:
9414:
9307:
9277:
9210:
9191:
9084:
8983:
8915:
8864:
8556:
8480:
8352:
8249:
8126:
8049:
7950:
7913:
7879:
7847:
7576:
7510:
7372:
7347:
7331:
7297:
7219:
7144:
7122:
7105:
7077:
7001:
6955:
6863:
6724:
6689:
6685:
6647:
6536:
6497:
6464:
6398:
6355:
6336:
6282:
6268:
6171:
6026:
5972:
5958:
5885:
5840:
5732:
5668:
5560:
5489:
5404:
5367:
5300:
supporting your arguments here; you are simply making accusations without proof.
5152:
5093:
5052:
5043:
5006:
4974:
4952:"what does explanation above" mean? is that that those changes were inadvertent?
4919:
4910:
4855:
4846:
4817:
4792:
4748:
4711:
4673:
4640:
4613:
4589:
4547:
4531:
4509:
4343:
4194:
4170:
4142:
4133:
4119:
4073:
3947:
3935:
3897:
3893:
3868:
3853:
3832:
3808:
3798:
3788:
3707:
3567:
3542:
3457:
3362:
3293:
3229:
3184:
3163:
3021:
2987:
2890:
2872:
2821:
2779:
2759:
2752:
2510:
2499:
2405:
2281:
2222:
2208:
2183:
2147:
2122:
2082:
1990:
1913:
1896:
1870:
1853:
1825:
1725:
1502:
1114:
1019:
877:
758:
750:
719:
of auto-revert, thus letting them pull you into their ideological proxy battles.
709:
660:
619:
590:
327:
275:
103:
77:
46:
9354:
9241:
9138:
7361:
7227:
1970:
1061:
9851:
9392:
9296:
9266:
9071:
9030:
8966:
8893:
8835:
8822:
7832:
7720:
7712:
7693:
7562:
7559:
7375:
7273:
6485:
6451:
6439:
6146:
6132:
5991:
5780:
5768:
5258:
5022:
4461:
4392:
4198:
4181:
4156:
4128:
4100:
4062:
4042:
4026:
4015:
3995:
3988:
3975:
3923:
3824:
3749:
3653:
3575:
3155:
2905:
My apologies. Not a double redirect but an unnecessary redirect. Your revert
1478:
1462:
1453:
1277:
1237:
1089:
1050:
992:
820:
811:
803:
705:
693:
354:
267:
7441:
6969:
5712:. I would be most interested to hear your responses, considering your stance.
5559:. By the way, your first sentence is an example of what I mean by posturing.
3934:
Please discuss this at talk. And objectively compare with the pages I cited.
219:, and it was tiny. You are "officially" invited to take a stab at it. Thanks,
10174:
article and noted it was protected! I seen this edit summary made by Shorne:
10171:
9967:
9913:
due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there.
9709:
9479:
9448:
9176:
8847:
8732:
8723:
6777:
6750:
6707:
6481:
6264:
6237:
5330:
2914:
2744:
2689:
2103:
2056:
2029:
2009:
1963:
1908:
I requested the re-protection of Pinochet. Unfortunately it got protected in
1753:(btw editing your talk page says "WARNING: This page is 50 kilobytes long;")
1571:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TDC/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927-1953)
1546:
1492:
1420:
1190:
1178:
967:
741:
196:
Hello VV -- just wanted to say I understand your position (that you wrote on
9387:
only editted, but just reverted changes that me and Ce garcon had worked on
7428:
5983:
Hi VV. Edits from 24.7.126.117 have now been reattributed to you. Regards
5765:
3719:
3136:
1669:, suggested that the opposition is only in "international forums", lost the
9866:
9855:
9336:
9333:
9262:ārevert war over use of the word "terrorist", 198 and VV vs. Gzornenplatz.
7453:
7418:. If he doesn't accept my nomination when I ask him, I won't nominate him.
7301:
7296:
On the GNAA VFD page you asked: "And were those two user pages recovered?"
7087:
6980:
6977:
6826:
6815:
6047:
6044:
6006:
6003:
5806:
5192:
4569:
4410:
3939:
3622:
3619:
3605:
3602:
3591:
3574:
V's word choice is clearly less POV than the version which won the "vote".
2928:
2918:
2847:
2837:
2807:
2797:
2485:
2474:
2467:
2455:
2440:
2424:
2389:
2357:
2335:
2299:
2175:
2107:
2060:
2025:
1790:
1670:
1216:
1203:
1159:
971:
652:
631:
358:
353:. I didn't notice the dates, but the comments made sense in the context of
251:
90:
7778:"The attempt to paint them as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud."
6838:
Hey VV, have you noticed the most recent discussion on the GWB talk page?
6151:
Knowledge:Requests_for_mediation#VeryVerily_and_Gzornenplatz.2C_Kevin_Baas
5978:
3326:
3219:
very unpopular on Knowledge. The key is to follow NPOV guidelines: Show
2758:
P.S. I saw your edit on my adminship nom. I'm sorry you feel that way.Ā :(
2261:
Oh, and you don't need to use {{msg:Sep11}}. Just {{Sep11}} works now. --
1997:. Pinochet has a lifelong seat in the Chilean Senate, which brought him
1981:
in 1973. He stepped down from the presidency after losing a plebiscite in
1271:
1149:
552:
10162:
10042:
10031:
9950:
9816:
9767:
9740:
9719:
9407:
9010:
apply in cases of clear vandalism (where editors could break the rule to
8852:
8843:
8797:
8705:
8691:
7866:
7824:
7820:
7781:
7665:
7190:
7176:
7044:
6940:
6084:
Kevin Baas has suggested Cimon Avaro, Dante Alighieri, llywch, or moink.
5941:
5351:
5301:
3618:
Ok, never mind...*stupid mozilla browser cache*. Thanks a lot anyways :D
3085:
3078:
3071:
3064:
2962:
2716:
2698:
2262:
2248:
2163:
2002:
1943:
1585:
1527:
1436:
1426:
1323:
1253:
1036:
787:
754:
697:
201:
7808:
6802:
6431:
5997:
5935:
has been stalking me ever since the most recent deletion attempt on the
4807:
Foreign policy: mention of critism of critics, "threat to world peace".
4521:
4051:
3852:, is unfair to you. Heck, it's a wiki, edit it yourself if you please!
3646:
3555:
Hi. I bet you'll get a kick out of this if you haven't seen it already.
2709:
2498:
1985:, held under the reformed constitution, which restored civilian rule in
845:
of 'torture and murder in Iraq' before protection by 172 is acceptable?
602:
quit calling one another vandals. Oh, and I'm going to bed now, sad. --
9917:
9467:. Secondly, it is totally inappropriate for you to revert like that. -
9110:
9066:
a clear mechanism of enforcement. Re vandals, consider the IP army of
8931:". That leaves room for someone else to make a counter statement like "
7748:"Censorship isn't very anarchist" (Sam Spade 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC),
7647:
7369:
6296:
6165:
5716:
5087:
5037:
4151:
4033:
3807:
wealth. Please note the fundraising link at the top of the page. Ā :)
3758:
3745:
3737:
3660:
3061:
This is not vandalism, whatever else it is. VV 10:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2946:
2506:
2158:
2143:
2118:
2099:
Maybe I could re-word the footnote (this might also NPOV it slightly):
2078:
2036:
policy was for Allende to be deposed. + - + - Pinochet was arrested in
1498:
1404:
1395:
1374:
1047:
734:
227:
220:
209:
178:
9933:
8040:
Ruy Lopez's assertions are way out the historical mainstream, akin to
7035:
6189:
Hi, are you aware that somebody has just put you up as a candidate on
6157:
Please indicate if I am an acceptable choice. If not, please indicate
5484:
This is an example of posturing. And I stated on your Talk page that
4729:"good" or "bad", and would easily belong on every president's article.
4180:
for some time but has not changed his behaviour of reverting parts of
3735:
1912:. I'd ask a developer to purge the edit war. It is really shameful. --
1322:
sure look familiar. Why'd you stick them up there, in any event?Ā :) -
9844:
9293:
9263:
9146:
9025:
9019:
8961:
8955:
8888:
8882:
8817:
8811:
8418:
8410:
7689:
7685:
7619:
6910:
6889:
progress until we reach agreement on the other, independant matters.
5987:
5984:
5964:
It is certainly interesting to know that others have been stalked by
2013:
1974:
1446:
1319:
1004:
955:
920:
546:
538:
530:
518:
507:
486:
474:
466:
454:
444:
427:
9874:
8758:
I'm sure that having edited as much as you have you're aware of the
7309:
7239:
I think there might be the mother of all shit fights over this one.
5879:
4781:
Foreign policy: mention of vice president and secretary of defense.
4583:
4409:
other editors have been unwilling to talk (see you last line above.
2688:
2289:
2096:
didn't even bother to respond, and i gave him a little more leeway.
1276:
You and 172 are the subjects of a new quickpoll for your reverts on
10209:
10205:
10198:
9276:
I had no role in this edit war. I'm sick of Mirv's attacks on me.
9172:
8530:
7382:
7240:
7060:
5454:
4497:
3943:
3640:
3559:
3129:
3094:
2792:
Why are you reverting Guanaco's attempt to remove double redirects?
2740:
2730:
2723:
2703:
2607:
2570:
2547:
2369:
2093:
2072:
1998:
1745:
1709:
1698:
1589:
1578:
1531:
1515:
1413:
1391:
1382:
1366:
1354:
1339:
1128:
1008:
862:
846:
834:
780:
771:
762:
720:
684:
668:
644:
10190:
9940:
I have filed a request for arbitration against user VeryVerily at
9681:
7113:
5927:
4492:
4353:
3672:(mediation, etc) as needed. I will offer the same advice to GBWR.
3154:
Please stop making radical changes to the "Popularity" section of
3039:
2986:
improper edits by a bot, which has no feelings of its own anyway.
2454:
How'd you get/make that? Is there an easy way? Looks real coolĀ :)
2075:'s edits..tell me if you like my proposed change on my talk page.
9346:
7613:
See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Knowledge at
6680:
It's just the standard for Knowledge articles on languages. See
5884:
Hey there, you're being very naughty breaking the revert rule at
5779:
Gzornenplatz has requested mediation with you over reversions of
5601:
4362:
Uh Consensus means we are supposed to try to understand and agree
2505:
Don't blank articles that are currently being discussed on VfD.
630:. Please don't get into another edit war over the link names. --
9976:
7390:
7304:, however, just created a new one. -- ] 04:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6909:
6070:
5854:
5774:
5744:
3815:
2114:
coup is not fully known, as many documents are still classified.
2067:
coup is not fully known, as many documents are still classified.
1630:
1165:
786:
9402:
VeryVerily has violated the injunction below (#2) by reverting
8302:
article then, seeing as how it's so far out of the mainstream.
7701:
7681:
7669:
7069:
weak. All nations conscript as justification for conscription?
5950:
5708:
compelled to make some suggestions, and add some discussion to
4904:
statement by ten nobel prize laurates and over 450 economists.
2889:
Also, could you show me the double redirect? I don't see one.
2871:
be a bad thing. Maybe I need to calm down on the bot reverts.
2041:
1335:
495:
491:
9456:
8905:
has a specific and clear meaning in this context. If it said
7999:
you would be willing to discuss the matter (the matter of the
7272:. This sort of thing needs to be settled on the talk pages.
6514:
Eloquence is not above three reverts per day on the GWB page.
6105:
exacerbate the problems between you and 172 once upon a time.
4537:
3680:
628:
Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks
9963:
8980:
some of the comments Shorne got early on from various editors
8842:) and goes on rampages deleting everything he doesn't like.
8518:
I'm shifting this over to the left again to avoid squishing.
7381:
After checking into it, I dont think its all the same person.
6688:, etc. I don't think it's a great idea myself, but oh well.
6346:, his most vile yet. As a result, the matter is now in RfC:
4219:
complete disregard for the 3-revert rule; constant reversions
3456:
would revert anything. Anyway, is this your only objection?
2622:(preferably with respect to the article, not the other user).
2481:
2045:
2012:
figure. Some regard him as a great modernizer who staved off
1951:
1741:
1243:(I've also left a copy of this statement on 172's talk page)
408:
310:
215:
Hi again -- only one person has made any edits whatsoever to
9850:
was also compelled to forfeit his US citizenship. While the
9798:
and see how much progress we can make through negotiation.
9664:
9440:
7261:
6785:
6256:
5198:
Now that I look at it, playing mediator/referee/whatever on
4722:
Well why compare it to clinton, among all of the presidents?
1360:
1313:
1287:
1029:
998:
613:
9847:
8994:
On the contrary, what critics may think is most definitely
8936:
7023:
5147:
than trying to convince Aevar. Grunt posted a note on his
4303:
Talk:U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Scrub_list.2C_numbers
3279:
Can you clarify what about my version is not accurate? If
2778:
By the way, I donāt want to delete the Coulter paragraph.
2111:
2064:
2049:
2037:
1994:
1986:
1982:
1959:
1955:
1947:
1170:
Quickpoll requested on you and 172 over your revert war on
943:
928:
9345:
No use trying to reason with VV: for more information see
9292:, that you were involved in the edit war? Please explain.
8998:
another matter. The article's matter-of-fact use of your "
7902:...might be useful if it wasn't for people like yourself.
7494:
I overlooked "assymetric". The disputed capitalization on
7167:
6363:
6229:
3158:; the community has already determined its content at the
2729:
2404:
it meets the formal definition - may not be the best one.
2305:
1137:
124:
However Kashmir in reality only refers to Kashmir Valley.
9171:
I am once again asking you to explain yourself, VV. Both
7643:
6382:
Oh, and I was refering to his "apology" on the RfA page.
4358:
Read this (and see GWB talk) before you revert any more:
2196:
to make a token effort. Sorry that it came off as short.
2033:
1661:
I don't think you have really "fixed" the page. From the
1197:
I'm just standing for the rules in Quickpolls... and the
667:. You owe me an apology. BTW, the protection was lifted.
596:
Knowledge talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version
514:
I also don't agree with the undoing of my other changes:
4607:
Removal of "There are no public reports suggesting...":
4150:
at this time. I recently ran into revert war trouble at
4057:
3892:
figured better to blow off steam on the subpage than on
1334:, and I'll stay out of arguments between you and Rei on
985:
946:
should make it clear that there are many definitions of
903:
589:(cc to Darkelf and VeryVerily) Ok, you guys' editwar on
137:
Hi VV -- I know you haven't been a major contributor to
9832:, is there anything actually wrong with the paragraph:
4099:
Let the record about these episodes, speak for itself.
2052:
where the charges were dropped due to medical reasons.
1885:, since we appear to have stabilized on split pages? --
1461:
perchance? (part of this appears on the article talk)
9697:
7052:
6765:
6222:
5232:
4294:
Notice two instances of strong and explicit consensus.
3150:
Please stop changing articles aganist voted consensus.
1993:. He retained his post as commander of the army until
1596:
Discussion with Cecropia at Rei's adminship nomination
1259:
970:
in accordance with standard policy on this issue (see
10076:
What's your gripe about the prior version with this?
9999:
Actually the more I think about it, that page really
9478:
make this a great article we can place with pride on
9052:
be banned leaving the field to Shorne and Ruy Lopez.
6025:
I'll get to it after I deal with a few other things.
3867:
I have added a response re my own role to that page.
3769:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence
2913:
for "USA" ( ]) but that linked page is a redirect to
2816:
Because the bot is editing Talk and User pages. See
1863:...In addition, some constitutional reforms were made
145:
characterize it as "investigating") the article, the
10034:
and should not be construed as being endorsed by me.
6706:
OK, but you'd better take care of the redirects to.
6667:
6236:
Thanks for your support in my adminship nomination.
4558:
8003:, nothing else). If not with Shorne, then with me.
7456:) or stylistic questions involving capitalization (
7368:Your userpage was hit. His damage was reverted. --
6415:I was refering to the one that is now crossed-off.
4228:
suppression of relevant and significant information
2420:
1924:Don't revert pages more than three times in a day.
10016:Rest assured, I am not deleting, just organizing.
7556:User:VeryVerily/Conflicting Knowledge philosophies
6749:Oh, you are so coolĀ :) Thanks, and keep in touch!
4900:Domestic policy, economy: Insertion of fact about
3998:, or do I have to file a request for arbitration?
3929:
3693:
1042:
10009:if you don't like it you won't hurt my feelings.
9145:Please raise your dispute with my version of the
6328:, putting harsh words in Lyellin's mouth as well.
5296:I'm not VV, but I need to point out that you are
4659:Florida election controversy: restore consensus.
2316:made," she told students in Atlanta on Thursday.
1638:The article as it stands contains this sentence:
1452:I said a bit more in response to another user on
7784:) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
6840:Talk:George_W._Bush#discussion_on_VV_.2F_KB_edit
4118:I object to the basis of this complaint against
3994:Is there any chance you might stop reverting on
3557:'Fahrenheit 9/11' Shown on Prime Time TV in Cuba
737:, I wasn't the one who caused a double redirect.
638:
419:On the "Multi-regional origin" page, you added:
10170:Last night I just so happen take a look at the
10022:Conflicting Knowledge philosophiesĀ : Neutrality
9786:"Before listing any user conduct dispute here,
6623:In response to VV's first post in this section:
5655:This is unadulterated nonsense. I was quoting
4526:Thanks for having taken the time to comment on
3040:
2438:http://www.janmonline.org/nrc/q&a.html#term
1365:Hey very, I noted the edit war between you and
309:I see now that you're referring to the article
8950:reverts in a row is acceptable, and that the "
8555:Cambodia which had been dragged into the war.
7819:which you have been breaking on pages such as
5608:is what is relevant in a discussion regarding
5107:Please respond to the section above on bush.
4500:has been unprotected based on your request. --
2028:violations and social decay. The coup and the
1247:
643:I've been having a little back and forth with
8939:. If your current statement that the US has "
8840:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Richardchilton
3748:and offer whatever suggestions that you can?
3228:is not going to be tolerated by me, period.
2473:Did you fall into a coma or something there?
1232:and protection (as well as the protection of
204:. Perhaps you should write her a note on her
9757:seems unlikely, see his user contributions:
8941:some of the most liberal laws on immigration
7843:I thought you'd left this "crappy old" Wiki
5103:Please respond to the section above on bush.
4418:Here is the text of the edit I made just now
3537:VV, I have filed a complaint aganist you at
3059:On the vandalism in progress page you wrote
1524:Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953)
9911:Knowledge:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily
5811:
5350:definitions are incompatible. But perhaps
649:History of the United States (1980-present)
8604:. Originally published as Nicole Barrett,
5139:Not to my knowledge. I paged through the
4382:Also please take note of this Edit Smmary
3590:or some similar name. Thanks in advance ā
2702:appreciate it if you took a look. Thanks,
1820:facts make the best introductory summary.
1667:anti-French sentiment in the United States
679:. If you have time, please take a look at
9378:VeryVerily has violated injunction #3 at
8044:. And many of their analyses constitute
7642:Removes references to groups such as the
7464:) that are not directly addressed by the
7448:The others were either content disputes (
6348:Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/Rex0714042
6145:I am willing to mediate the dispute over
6131:I am willing to mediate the dispute over
5795:RfC on Axis of evil / Asses of evil filed
5238:interact with a person of your conduct.
4280:āpage history, u.s. presidential election
4006:New Bush vote now under way - please vote
1861:I'm not very happy with your change from
1215:come to this state of injustice again. --
749:The last three edit wars between you and
388:and see what the dispute is all about:-)
7995:I don't know what else to say besides I
7603:URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See
5119:Questions about your request for comment
3823:A kind word or two would be appreciated
2020:"), while others regard him as a brutal
9808:DIALOGUE?!? Are you kidding? I've made
9371:Requests for administrative enforcement
8741:limits free markets with social welfare
8586:into the cities as displaced persons."
7757:More on belief in non-racial eugenics:
7750:Talk:Anarchism/Archive10#deleting_links
7593:Thanks for sorting out who's who mate.
7496:Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies
7462:Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies
7290:To answer your question on the GNAA VFD
6043:That's perfectly fine, I'm in no rush.
5828:Aren't you guys having enough trouble?
4907:Reason: very relevant and significant.
3283:of the claims is not accurate, perhaps
3048:
2423:has this sort of argument on its site.
2071:This combines the best of both you and
1836:as to what would be in the introduction
1520:History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953)
1332:Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq
14:
7896:Your tools for preventing edit wars...
7627:User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias
5195:made the request to have you blocked.
4955:which ones are (a) and which ones (b)?
4895:Reason: very relevant and significant.
4667:Public perception: restore consensus.
4275:āpage history, anti-american sentiment
4058:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Rex071404
4056:See interesting Vote 2004 links here:
3889:User talk:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement
2945:re-introducing unnecessary redirects.
2016:and rescued a faltering economy (the "
798:otherwise considered implementing the
675:Good job discussing content issues on
10228:regarding your refusal to follow the
9901:The section /*Request mediation with
8675:There's also Chomsky's 400-page book
8244:I'm not saying anyone is a "lunatic"
7780:(Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC),
6263:Acting in response to a request from
5033:compromise between the two versions.
3887:Thanks. I've moved your response to
3012:Also, to respond to Graft's point, I
1588:article, it worked out quite nicely.
868:Instead of continuing to violate the
8914:, well, you just may get your wish.
8808:Please, stop. You're hurting America
7729:(Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
4542:Why are you reverting my changes to
1934:Proposed change to the Pinochet page
917:rm anti-race "inference" and sarcasm
155:various comments linked to this page
9993:actually the more I think about it.
9718:I think you should go right ahead.
8611:Please excuse my excessive quoting.
7734:Called another editor a "fascist" (
7330:Good catch. A mistake, of course.
6275:. Best, ] 16:51, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
3659:I'm already playing traffic cop on
2836:Didn't know that was a bad thing -
1762:attaching it to a neutral article.
1757:A recent change to the Race article
1497:172 didn't remove the protection.
1049:Take a look, and vote if you will.
349:I too thought KRS was referring to
62:publishing their devious plans) is
23:
9942:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
9288:How is it an attack when I state,
8745:regulates virtually every industry
8298:I suppose we should eliminate the
7657:Attempts to sugarcoat racist views
7548:Conflicting Knowledge philosophies
6168:
5728:
5090:
5040:
4340:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
4336:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
4232:complete obstinacy in this conduct
2678:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
1940:Augusto JosĆ© RamĆ³n Pinochet Ugarte
1618:New reply to you at my talk page.
1518:ask you to restore his version of
1210:It would be a perverse outcome if
1083:Knowledge:Requests for comment/172
872:, please join me in discussion on
111:Re: Bush family conspiracy theory
24:
10246:
9947:Do conduct yourself accordingly.
9892:Update on mediation request with
9830:Human rights in the United States
8749:has some of the most liberal laws
7672:'s mistress is just that, a claim
7637:User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
4528:User:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement
3850:User:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement
3777:Talk:John Kerry#Rex and Knowledge
1962:. He was one of the leaders of a
1348:Origins of the American Civil War
802:process in regards to this user?
66:the "proof" of a sinister plot...
9907:Knowledge:Requests for mediation
8602:Columbia Human Rights Law Review
7708:User_talk:Andries#Nazism.2FChina
7281:alone and I leave yours alone.
7235:General Intelligence Directorate
7022:I have requested arbitration re
6939:By the way, he's at it again. --
6438:Please stop making POV edits to
6191:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
6161:who would be, and we can begin.
5785:Knowledge:Requests for mediation
4455:U.S. presidential election, 2000
4433:U.S. presidential election, 2000
4346:who are involved in the matter.
4216:complete disregard for consensus
4212:I am concerned with the user's:
927:Response to your response about
841:VV: do you feel that the latest
10222:
10215:
10195:
10188:
10181:
10168:
10158:
10134:
10119:
10103:
10094:
10087:
10071:
10064:
10048:
10039:
10026:
10019:
9997:
9990:
9981:
9974:
9959:
9938:
9931:
9899:
9889:
9879:
9872:
9863:
9835:
9826:
9823:
9805:
9781:
9774:
9763:
9747:
9736:
9729:references provided by others.
9726:
9715:
9702:
9695:
9686:
9679:
9669:
9662:
9649:
9622:
9598:
9570:
9554:
9538:
9525:
9506:
9490:
9474:
9461:
9454:
9445:
9438:
9428:
9399:
9375:
9368:
9361:Yes, you. You are an asshole.
9359:
9352:
9325:
9256:
9246:
9239:
9157:
9143:
9136:
9131:
9096:
9059:
9049:
8830:
8762:, and I hope that your fourth,
8729:
8719:
8698:
8687:
8672:
8661:
8650:
8639:
8628:
8617:
8594:
8580:
8568:
8551:
8542:
8535:
8516:
8451:
8421:in this conversation with you.
8384:
8328:
8277:
8225:
8186:
8150:
8101:
8069:
8017:
7986:
7966:
7941:
7925:
7909:
7900:
7893:
7873:
7861:
7838:
7813:
7806:
7801:
7632:
7610:
7600:
7591:
7588:
7572:
7552:
7545:
7529:
7517:
7506:
7491:
7433:
7426:
7408:
7395:
7388:
7366:
7359:
7343:
7327:
7314:
7307:
7294:
7287:
7266:
7259:
7232:
7225:
7204:
7197:
7182:
7172:
7165:
7156:
7140:
7118:
7111:
7094:
7083:
7073:
7066:
7057:
7050:
7040:
7033:
7020:
7013:
6993:
6986:
6974:
6967:
6950:
6930:
6921:
6916:
6907:
6879:
6855:
6833:
6821:
6807:
6800:
6790:
6783:
6770:
6763:
6740:
6716:
6701:
6677:
6672:
6665:
6646:I have responded on that page.
6637:
6615:
6588:
6552:
6528:
6509:
6493:
6478:
6457:
6436:
6429:
6410:
6393:
6368:
6361:
6304:Neutrality posted a comment to
6301:
6294:
6278:
6261:
6254:
6234:
6227:
6220:
6208:
6200:
6187:
6180:
6142:
6128:
6116:
6098:
6091:
6075:
6068:
6063:
6053:
6038:
6022:
6018:
6012:
5821:Your comments are appreciated.
5051:although I doubt it will help.
3628:
3611:
2484:. [9.2 as of yet, 10.00 soon).
1657:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys
1390:hey very we are both listed on
1301:Since both of you responded on
1228:My Revert to Ed Poor's copy of
9113:at 01:58, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC))
7743:User_talk:Spleeman#Nationalism
4292:Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_11
4178:Knowledge:Requests for comment
3588:Media:IlyanepContribByHour.png
2751:page. Thanks and best wishes,
2620:Knowledge:Requests for comment
2298:. You have been listed there.
2048:, he was returned to Chile in
1172:Knowledge:Requests for comment
795:Knowledge:Requests for comment
290:general history, so thats OK.
242:legitimate academic subject).
217:2002 Gujarat violence/revision
13:
1:
10146:
10111:
10056:
9865:This is all true, is it not?
9706:Knowledge:Request for comment
9418:
9311:
9281:
9214:
9195:
9088:
8987:
8919:
8868:
8855:for discussion of how the US
8560:
8484:
8356:
8253:
8130:
8053:
7954:
7917:
7883:
7878:Do these rules apply to you?
7851:
7580:
7351:
7335:
7148:
7126:
7005:
6959:
6867:
6728:
6693:
6651:
6540:
6501:
6468:
6454:. ] 20:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6402:
6286:
6153:if I am an acceptable choice.
6030:
5844:
5725:
5722:
5672:
5564:
5493:
5408:
5371:
5156:
5056:
5010:
4978:
4923:
4914:
4859:
4850:
4821:
4796:
4752:
4715:
4677:
4644:
4617:
4593:
4513:
4176:This user has been listed on
4146:
4137:
4123:
3872:
3836:
3787:understanding of Wikiquette.
3711:
3461:
3366:
3297:
3233:
3223:sides, put in language which
3188:
3025:
1867:under a reformed constitution
891:Recent change to Race article
800:Knowledge:Conflict resolution
9342:] 00:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
9109:(personal attack removed by
8739:POV-loaded phrases such as "
8679:, which I have specifically
7569:)] 19:42, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
7438:U.S. invasion of Afghanistan
7200:just a few people's theories
6981:
6442:. It is rather obvious that
6281:Thanks for letting me know.
6048:
6007:
5710:Talk:Anti-American sentiment
5354:might provide some insight.
4789:of PNAC is very significant
4688:I answered these two below.
4621:As I recall, it did, and it
4328:User_talk:VeryVerily/archive
4298:Talk:anti-American sentiment
3623:
3606:
2924:
2843:
2803:
2377:Japanese American Internment
2311:The United States committed
2092:Hey thanks...god only knows
7:
10208:was on the french wikiĀ ;)--
9928:, 22:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9777:Requests for comment Shorne
9753:15:29, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC).
9739:What Kafkaesque poppycock!
9608:modify the way you edit. -
8760:Knowledge:Three revert rule
7817:Knowledge:Three revert rule
7043:better than an edit war...
6446:support him, but Knowledge
4814:the predominant criticism.
3401:What I've seen was 45%-45%
2929:
2919:
2848:
2838:
2808:
2798:
1883:request for page protection
1784:not trying to censor anyone
1740:Hi VV, you made an edit in
1224:Statement on my involvement
952:User:Peak/Preamble#Meanings
793:I am considering placing a
147:edit history of the article
10:
10251:
10100:05:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
10090:Continuing the discussion?
10030:This section was added by
9886:14:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
9802:18:49, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
9733:13:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
9435:11:41, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
9260:September 11, 2001 attacks
9056:13:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
8548:05:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
8123:Talk:Khmer_Rouge/Archive_2
7906:08:13, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
7635:From Sam's own user page:
7162:22:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
7137:12:10, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
7063:06:33, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
7047:00:54, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
5888:. Go stand in a corner. --
5824:] 05:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4350:19:05, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
4259:16:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
4189:14:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
4002:10:37, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
3907:I second Ropers' complaint
3174:02:07, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
2719:06:11, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
2302:21:50, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
2157:I reverted your change on
1916:22:02, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
1873:15:20, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
1240:04:33, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
816:talk:Libertarian socialism
272:Talk:Aryan invasion theory
250:Yup. Agree with KRS 100%.
198:Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence
10236:05:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10212:01:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10201:00:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10128:05:50, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
10084:09:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10045:07:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9953:10:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9869:12:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9712:13:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9692:01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9676:05:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9659:21:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9535:20:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9527:Argh! Why did you revert
9471:06:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9451:13:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9410:10:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9365:00:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9303:00:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9285:11:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9273:02:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9218:22:48, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9206:22:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9199:22:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9187:22:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9168:14:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9154:14:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8991:13:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8971:13:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8923:12:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8898:12:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8872:11:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8827:11:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8425:04:07, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
8306:00:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
8207:10:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
8087:09:37, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
8007:09:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
7935:08:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
7835:03:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7736:Talk:Socialism#protection
7622:09:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7597:08:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7385:04:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
7243:06:53, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
7179:02:58, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
7130:06:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
7108:09:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
7090:21:42, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
7080:08:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
7030:13:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6990:05:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6947:03:07, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
6818:16:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6797:18:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6780:18:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6390:03:52, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
6379:03:34, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
5791:05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5771:00:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5757:20:16, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
5737:15:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5721:
5254:Let me butt in here : -->
5115:22:02, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
5046:20:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4942:16:16, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4863:23:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4843:22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4637:22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4572:22:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4550:03:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4534:14:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4504:16:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4464:17:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4395:16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4244:01:42, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4209:19:51, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
4193:I also request that user
4103:06:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4065:05:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4045:17:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4018:15:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3991:07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3970:04:43, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
3958:01:45, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
3827:05:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3752:02:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3729:13:49, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
3702:01:20, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
3667:23:48, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
3578:01:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3562:10:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3508:07:47, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
3408:06:43, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
3333:05:30, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
3260:04:42, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
3204:04:23, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
3166:01:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3143:Reply to your comment on
3097:09:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3088:11:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3081:11:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3074:11:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3067:10:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3016:go to Guanaco first; see
2812:20:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2726:18:06, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2654:MeatBall:ForgiveAndForget
2647:21:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)\
2533:20:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2515:06:48, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
2477:18:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2458:18:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2392:19:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2372:03:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2338:21:51, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1708:Let's see if they agree.
1665:, you have lost links to
1648:Feel free to email me at
1592:15:19, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
1581:13:56, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
1377:05:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1357:11:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1342:06:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1326:19:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1297:16:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1284:22:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1268:16:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1256:01:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1206:06:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1181:02:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1162:14:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1092:19:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1078:15:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1070:09:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1015:Childish retaliation for
982:00:48, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
958:07:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
923:06:19, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
900:01:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
887:06:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
865:10:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
849:13:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
837:11:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
806:05:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
783:23:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
774:10:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
765:18:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
671:08:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
655:23:08, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
622:00:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
549:09:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
541:05:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
439:Multi-regional hypothesis
434:Multi-regional hypothesis
430:04:26, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
246:14:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
230:15:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
223:02:34, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
212:22:50, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
181:14:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
80:00:35, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
49:22:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
10150:06:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10115:05:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10106:I've had my hands full.
10060:07:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9970:14:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9819:23:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9770:23:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9743:14:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9722:13:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9637:12:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9612:12:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9590:10:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9564:22:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9550:20:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9517:10:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9500:07:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9486:06:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9422:10:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9395:11:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9315:00:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9251:Knowledge:Protected page
9225:23:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9117:01:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9092:23:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9035:13:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8851:industry" are POV. See
8722:3 revert rule broken at
8713:08:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8694:08:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8564:06:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8488:04:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8360:02:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8257:10:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8134:10:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8057:09:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7958:08:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7921:08:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7887:08:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7869:03:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7855:08:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7776:Guess what everybody!!!
7539:04:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7488:23:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7405:08:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7378:01:57, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
7324:23:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7276:00:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7222:05:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7193:15:57, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
7152:22:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
7009:06:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6963:06:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6925:List of neoconservatives
6897:00:29, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
6871:23:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6849:21:22, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
6829:00:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6753:17:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6732:15:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6710:15:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6697:15:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6655:22:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6605:22:48, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
6597:Ah, I see! My mistake.
6578:22:47, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
6544:22:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6522:22:41, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
6505:21:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6472:20:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6423:14:30, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
6406:20:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6358:21:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6339:18:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6251:16:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6197:22:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6174:14:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6113:05:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6088:07:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6019:15:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5994:02:04, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
5975:01:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5961:22:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5918:23:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5902:21:40, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
5875:19:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
5832:11:41, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
5362:17:27, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
5290:01:02, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
5279:01:00, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
5246:00:47, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
5207:05:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5203:be a good resolution. --
5176:00:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5096:20:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5060:20:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5014:00:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4998:22:36, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4982:22:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4966:22:28, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4927:22:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4879:23:50, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4768:17:28, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
4741:22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4696:22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4517:19:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4485:18:52, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
4413:17:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4159:07:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4072:Information specific to
3926:07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC
3900:08:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3876:08:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3856:08:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3840:05:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3811:10:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3801:10:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3791:06:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3690:23:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3676:00:08, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
3643:12:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3615:18:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3597:05:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3545:04:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3465:07:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3370:06:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3301:05:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3237:04:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3192:03:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3132:10:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3029:04:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2995:04:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2968:21:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2961:either way. Regards --
2949:21:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2933:20:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2911:United States of America
2898:20:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2880:20:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2852:20:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2829:20:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2782:06:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2762:06:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2755:06:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2706:17:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2672:23:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2573:06:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2566:05:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2488:01:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2470:01:18, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2443:06:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2427:06:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2411:04:48, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2360:11:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2285:00:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
2270:03:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
2256:03:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
2237:15:29, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
2226:07:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
2212:05:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
2201:02:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
2190:07:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
2167:11:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
2152:11:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
2127:10:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
2086:0:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
1929:23:28, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
1903:21:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
1890:18:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
1857:10:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
1829:21:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
1794:13:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
1767:22:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
1749:09:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
1732:09:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
1713:09:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
1702:09:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
1416:22:04, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1407:11:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1398:06:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1309:15:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1234:Origins of the Civil War
1219:06:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1193:03:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1154:I have create a poll at
1058:22:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1039:21:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1025:15:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1011:07:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
995:04:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
823:08:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
723:23:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
687:03:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
634:16:41, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
610:02:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
566:02:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
415:16:02, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
407:Regarding your edits in
392:17:28, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
361:16:03, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
330:22:08, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
294:05:31, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
278:19:24, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
254:16:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
157:, and the email traffic
93:04:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
8901:I don't agree, I think
7615:User:Spleeman/Sam Spade
7605:User:Spleeman/Sam Spade
7584:23:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7525:06:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7422:22:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7355:23:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7339:23:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7016:Request for Arbitration
6290:23:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6216:16:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6124:18:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6057:01:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6034:00:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5848:18:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5761:Please vote on GWB ASAP
5700:anti-American sentiment
5676:06:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5620:19:49, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
5568:19:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5528:19:20, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
5497:19:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5465:18:41, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
5436:18:38, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
5412:18:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5391:17:51, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
5375:17:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5341:16:50, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
5304:02:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5228:17:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5160:00:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5134:23:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4544:Anti-American sentiment
4107:Request for arbitration
3715:01:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3686:watch user talk pages.
3632:22:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3570:in the above discussion
2684:04:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2610:04:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2597:Harmonious editing club
2581:16:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2550:04:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2024:responsible for severe
1623:01:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
1609:00:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
1550:05:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
1535:00:54, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
1508:14:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
1487:04:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
1471:04:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
1440:02:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
1430:01:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
1131:04:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1120:03:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1107:Tuskegee syphilis study
1100:Tuskegee syphilis study
857:to make up their mind.
744:22:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
580:02:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
263:Knowledge:Problem users
106:01:37, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
10226:requesting arbitration
9465:Knowledge:lead section
6094:Statutes of limitation
5865:requests for mediation
5818:
4330:(archived 2004 Aug 21)
4318:User_talk:Gzornenplatz
3688:Get-back-world-respect
2656:in that conversation.
2332:
2320:
2234:Get-back-world-respect
2217:please find other ways
2140:told me) Thanks Very!
1989:. He was succeeded by
1950:), military leader of
1620:Get-back-world-respect
1606:Get-back-world-respect
585:Patriot act revert-war
190:for mediation proposal
10218:Notice of arbitration
9708:? What do you think?
7759:Why Sam is Right Wing
7554:Nice amusing page at
7500:I Saw Poland Betrayed
5817:
4334:The forgoing is from
4313:User talk:Snowspinner
3582:Contrib By Hour Chart
3361:hate from the left.)
3181:polls are not binding
3170:part of the article.
2520:Your dispute with 172
2450:Contrib by Hour chart
2321:
2309:
1653:Best wishes. Raphael
1230:Talk:Augusto Pinochet
1156:talk:Augusto Pinochet
386:Aryan invasion theory
351:Aryan invasion theory
315:Aryan invasion theory
239:Aryan invasion theory
139:2002 Gujarat violence
86:2002 Gujarat violence
10067:PNAC, blah blah blah
9577:Let's get something
7470:Chilean coup of 1973
7450:Chilean coup of 1973
6273:Talk:Henry Kissinger
6183:Adminship nomination
5814:File:AssesOfEvil.png
5200:Talk:Henry Kissinger
4323:User_talk:VeryVerily
4308:User talk:Stevertigo
3974:Your vote needed at
2907:on Reddi's talk page
2345:Jacobo Arbenz GuzmƔn
2296:Knowledge:Quickpolls
1881:Care to remove your
1772:New race POV content
1555:Soviet Union History
1540:FOX News and Franken
677:Talk:State terrorism
84:Hi, IMHO protecting
18:User talk:VeryVerily
9926:Mediation Committee
9788:at least two people
9355:You are an asshole.
9139:An appeal to reason
9016:wikipedia:vandalism
8731:You keep reverting
7458:Consensus democracy
7362:Vandal vs. userpage
7228:Keep an eye on this
7187:Lady Louise Windsor
6627:Talk:George W. Bush
6306:User talk:Rex071404
6267:, I've unprotected
6135:-- Please Reply at
5955:Hutt River Province
5947:Republic of Minerva
5937:Empire of Atlantium
5069:m:The Wrong Version
4828:The Weekly Standard
4670:Reason: consensus.
4199:George W. Bush page
3911:Re: Neutrality Rfc
2652:observations about
2008:Pinochet remains a
1602:No personal attacks
1522:? If not, then see
1062:Just for the record
1018:and groundless. --
681:Talk:Manuel Noriega
659:See my comments on
626:I have unprotected
8861:Talk:United States
8600:permission of the
8415:very uncomfortable
7412:User:Theresa knott
7300:'s was recovered.
6970:If at all possible
6335:
6329:
5839:What do you mean?
5819:
5486:your past behavior
5185:forgive and forget
5021:Your reversion of
4757:Bush's av figure.
4662:Reason: consensus.
4450:U.S. Supreme Court
4428:U.S. Supreme Court
4025:Watch the rv's at
2641:my response to 172
2383:concentration camp
2102:It is thought the
2040:during a visit to
1777:limburger cheese?
1381:I understand that
270:'s apt summary on
10230:three revert rule
9755:User:GayCommunist
9000:most liberal laws
8168:in the talk page.
8046:original research
7763:User:Stopthebus18
7713:Talk:Nazism#China
7429:Protection issues
6332:
6303:
6245:
6241:
5912:The Wrong Version
4472:s, rather than Ba
4426:mid-December the
3985:, ASAP and vote.
3720:Mediation request
3447:in the left-wing
3138:User:Stopthebus18
3018:User talk:Guanaco
2818:User talk:Guanaco
2313:terrible mistakes
2022:military dictator
1973:that deposed the
1968:
1910:the wrong version
886:
702:History of Panama
10242:
10238:
10221:
10214:
10194:
10187:
10180:
10167:
10157:
10148:
10133:
10118:
10113:
10102:
10093:
10086:
10070:
10063:
10058:
10047:
10038:
10025:
10018:
9996:
9989:
9980:
9973:
9958:
9937:
9930:
9898:
9888:
9878:
9871:
9862:
9841:Yaser Esam Hamdi
9834:
9825:
9822:
9804:
9796:User talk:Shorne
9780:
9773:
9762:
9746:
9735:
9725:
9714:
9701:
9694:
9685:
9678:
9668:
9661:
9648:
9621:
9597:
9569:
9553:
9537:
9524:
9505:
9489:
9473:
9460:
9453:
9444:
9437:
9427:
9420:
9398:
9374:
9367:
9358:
9351:
9324:
9313:
9283:
9255:
9245:
9238:
9223:Mihnea Tudoreanu
9216:
9204:Mihnea Tudoreanu
9197:
9185:Mihnea Tudoreanu
9156:
9152:Mihnea Tudoreanu
9142:
9135:
9130:
9095:
9090:
9058:
9048:
8989:
8976:some of the most
8921:
8870:
8829:
8728:
8718:
8697:
8686:
8671:
8660:
8649:
8638:
8627:
8616:
8593:
8579:
8567:
8562:
8550:
8541:
8534:
8515:
8486:
8450:
8383:
8358:
8327:
8300:Holocaust denial
8276:
8255:
8224:
8185:
8149:
8132:
8100:
8068:
8055:
8042:Holocaust denial
8016:
7985:
7965:
7956:
7940:
7924:
7919:
7908:
7899:
7892:
7885:
7872:
7860:
7853:
7837:
7812:
7805:
7800:
7631:
7609:
7599:
7590:
7587:
7582:
7571:
7551:
7544:
7528:
7516:
7505:
7490:
7432:
7425:
7407:
7403:(The torn steak)
7394:
7387:
7365:
7358:
7353:
7342:
7337:
7326:
7313:
7306:
7293:
7286:
7265:
7258:
7231:
7224:
7203:
7196:
7181:
7171:
7164:
7155:
7150:
7139:
7128:
7117:
7110:
7093:
7082:
7072:
7065:
7056:
7049:
7039:
7032:
7019:
7012:
7007:
6992:
6988:
6983:
6973:
6966:
6961:
6949:
6929:
6920:
6915:
6906:
6878:
6869:
6854:
6832:
6820:
6806:
6799:
6789:
6782:
6769:
6762:
6739:
6730:
6715:
6700:
6695:
6682:English language
6676:
6671:
6664:
6653:
6636:
6614:
6587:
6551:
6542:
6535:I counted five.
6527:
6508:
6503:
6492:
6477:
6470:
6456:
6435:
6428:
6409:
6404:
6392:
6367:
6360:
6300:
6293:
6288:
6277:
6260:
6253:
6243:
6239:
6233:
6226:
6219:
6207:
6199:
6186:
6179:
6170:
6141:
6127:
6115:
6097:
6090:
6074:
6067:
6062:
6055:
6050:
6037:
6032:
6020:
6016:
6009:
5979:Edit attribution
5846:
5815:
5803:regarding this:
5731:
5730:
5727:
5724:
5674:
5566:
5495:
5410:
5373:
5174:(Nate the Stork)
5158:
5132:(Nate the Stork)
5092:
5058:
5042:
5012:
4980:
4925:
4916:
4861:
4852:
4823:
4798:
4754:
4717:
4679:
4646:
4619:
4595:
4515:
4225:insertion of POV
4148:
4139:
4125:
3874:
3838:
3713:
3630:
3625:
3613:
3608:
3463:
3368:
3299:
3235:
3190:
3052:
3044:
3027:
2993:
2931:
2926:
2921:
2896:
2878:
2850:
2845:
2840:
2827:
2810:
2805:
2800:
2421:http://janm.org/
2138:User:snowspinner
2018:Miracle of Chile
1979:Salvador Allende
1967:
1799:More on Pinochet
1675:War on Terrorism
1614:Personal attacks
1371:Augusto Pinochet
1369:, involving the
1272:Quickpoll notice
1150:Augusto Pinochet
882:
874:Talk:Americanism
665:Talk:Mass murder
553:USA PAT RIOT Act
10250:
10249:
10245:
10244:
10243:
10241:
10240:
10239:
10220:
10193:
10166:
10092:
10069:
10043:Charles Stewart
10024:
9995:
9979:
9936:
9903:User:VeryVerily
9897:
9894:User:VeryVerily
9877:
9779:
9700:
9690:Ta bu shi da yu
9684:
9674:Ta bu shi da yu
9667:
9657:Ta bu shi da yu
9635:Ta bu shi da yu
9610:Ta bu shi da yu
9588:Ta bu shi da yu
9562:Ta bu shi da yu
9548:Ta bu shi da yu
9533:Ta bu shi da yu
9515:Ta bu shi da yu
9498:Ta bu shi da yu
9484:Ta bu shi da yu
9469:Ta bu shi da yu
9459:
9443:
9373:
9357:
9244:
9141:
9033:
8969:
8896:
8825:
8772:reverts today (
8727:
8525:. This article
7898:
7811:
7809:Your reversions
7608:
7550:
7511:prejudice (law)
7466:Manual of Style
7431:
7393:
7364:
7316:Hi, I reverted
7312:
7292:
7264:
7230:
7202:
7170:
7116:
7071:
7055:
7038:
7018:
6972:
6928:
6914:
6805:
6803:Bush popularity
6788:
6768:
6686:French language
6670:
6625:See my post on
6434:
6432:George Bush POV
6366:
6299:
6269:Henry Kissinger
6259:
6232:
6225:
6185:
6140:
6096:
6073:
6000:
5998:Contrib By Hour
5981:
5930:
5886:Henry Kissinger
5882:
5857:
5813:
5797:
5777:
5763:
5747:
5702:
5235:
5121:
5105:
5026:
4586:
4564:I'm doing now.
4561:
4540:
4524:
4522:Rex arbitration
4495:
4364:
4356:
4344:User:Neutrality
4174:
4109:
4078:
4054:
4052:Vote 2004 links
4030:
4008:
3979:
3948:interventionist
3936:neoconservative
3932:
3909:
3894:Talk:John Kerry
3818:
3771:, particularly
3741:
3722:
3696:
3683:
3654:George W. Bush
3649:
3647:A light warning
3584:
3572:
3152:
3141:
3054:
2991:
2894:
2876:
2825:
2794:
2734:
2712:
2710:Neoconservatism
2693:
2522:
2503:
2500:Anarcho-fascism
2452:
2379:
2308:
2292:
2278:
2245:
2219:
2179:
1991:Patricio Aylwin
1936:
1922:
1879:
1801:
1786:
1774:
1759:
1659:
1633:
1616:
1598:
1557:
1542:
1495:
1450:
1423:
1363:
1316:
1290:
1274:
1262:
1250:
1226:
1168:
1152:
1140:
1103:
1086:
1064:
1045:
1032:
1001:
988:
976:Dante Alighieri
964:
932:
906:
893:
880:
791:
759:State terrorism
751:User:Venceremos
710:State terrorism
661:User talk:RickK
641:
616:
604:Finlay McWalter
591:USA PATRIOT Act
587:
555:
441:
436:
228:BCorr ā¬ ŠŃŠ°Š¹ŠµŠ½
221:BCorr ā¬ ŠŃŠ°Š¹ŠµŠ½
210:BCorr ā¬ ŠŃŠ°Š¹ŠµŠ½
179:BCorr ā¬ ŠŃŠ°Š¹ŠµŠ½
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
10248:
10219:
10216:
10192:
10189:
10186:
10185:
10165:
10161:Edit War with
10159:
10156:
10155:
10154:
10153:
10152:
10151:
10132:
10131:
10130:
10129:
10117:
10116:
10091:
10088:
10068:
10065:
10062:
10061:
10037:
10036:
10023:
10020:
9994:
9991:
9978:
9975:
9972:
9971:
9956:cc: Ruy Lopez
9935:
9934:Serving notice
9932:
9896:
9890:
9876:
9873:
9861:
9860:
9824:
9821:
9820:
9813:
9778:
9775:
9772:
9771:
9745:
9744:
9724:
9723:
9699:
9696:
9683:
9680:
9666:
9663:
9647:
9646:
9645:
9644:
9643:
9642:
9641:
9640:
9639:
9638:
9620:
9619:
9618:
9617:
9616:
9615:
9614:
9613:
9596:
9595:
9594:
9593:
9592:
9591:
9581:clear. You do
9568:
9567:
9566:
9565:
9552:
9551:
9523:
9522:
9521:
9520:
9519:
9518:
9504:
9503:
9502:
9501:
9488:
9487:
9458:
9455:
9442:
9439:
9426:
9425:
9424:
9423:
9397:
9396:
9372:
9369:
9356:
9353:
9323:
9322:
9321:
9320:
9319:
9318:
9317:
9316:
9243:
9240:
9237:
9236:
9235:
9234:
9233:
9232:
9231:
9230:
9229:
9228:
9227:
9226:
9140:
9137:
9133:
9129:
9128:
9127:
9126:
9125:
9124:
9123:
9122:
9121:
9120:
9119:
9118:
9094:
9093:
9047:
9046:
9045:
9044:
9043:
9042:
9041:
9040:
9039:
9038:
9037:
9036:
9031:
9028:
9003:
8967:
8964:
8944:
8894:
8891:
8823:
8820:
8726:
8720:
8717:
8716:
8715:
8714:
8696:
8695:
8685:
8684:
8670:
8669:
8668:
8667:
8659:
8658:
8657:
8656:
8648:
8647:
8646:
8645:
8637:
8636:
8635:
8634:
8626:
8625:
8624:
8623:
8615:
8614:
8613:
8612:
8592:
8591:
8590:
8589:
8578:
8577:
8576:
8575:
8566:
8565:
8540:
8539:
8514:
8513:
8512:
8511:
8510:
8509:
8508:
8507:
8506:
8505:
8504:
8503:
8502:
8501:
8500:
8499:
8498:
8497:
8496:
8495:
8494:
8493:
8492:
8491:
8490:
8489:
8449:
8448:
8447:
8446:
8445:
8444:
8443:
8442:
8441:
8440:
8439:
8438:
8437:
8436:
8435:
8434:
8433:
8432:
8431:
8430:
8429:
8428:
8427:
8426:
8382:
8381:
8380:
8379:
8378:
8377:
8376:
8375:
8374:
8373:
8372:
8371:
8370:
8369:
8368:
8367:
8366:
8365:
8364:
8363:
8362:
8361:
8326:
8325:
8324:
8323:
8322:
8321:
8320:
8319:
8318:
8317:
8316:
8315:
8314:
8313:
8312:
8311:
8310:
8309:
8308:
8307:
8275:
8274:
8273:
8272:
8271:
8270:
8269:
8268:
8267:
8266:
8265:
8264:
8263:
8262:
8261:
8260:
8259:
8258:
8223:
8222:
8221:
8220:
8219:
8218:
8217:
8216:
8215:
8214:
8213:
8212:
8211:
8210:
8209:
8208:
8184:
8183:
8182:
8181:
8180:
8179:
8178:
8177:
8176:
8175:
8174:
8173:
8172:
8171:
8170:
8169:
8148:
8147:
8146:
8145:
8144:
8143:
8142:
8141:
8140:
8139:
8138:
8137:
8136:
8135:
8099:
8098:
8097:
8096:
8095:
8094:
8093:
8092:
8091:
8090:
8089:
8088:
8067:
8066:
8065:
8064:
8063:
8062:
8061:
8060:
8059:
8058:
8035:Richardchilton
8015:
8014:
8013:
8012:
8011:
8010:
8009:
8008:
7984:
7983:
7982:
7981:
7980:
7979:
7978:
7977:
7964:
7963:
7962:
7961:
7960:
7959:
7939:
7938:
7937:
7936:
7923:
7922:
7897:
7894:
7891:
7890:
7889:
7888:
7871:
7870:
7859:
7858:
7857:
7856:
7810:
7807:
7803:
7799:
7798:
7785:
7774:
7773:
7772:
7769:
7755:
7754:
7753:
7746:
7732:
7731:
7730:
7721:Talk:Socialism
7717:
7716:
7715:
7710:
7698:
7694:Talk:Communism
7677:
7664:The claim the
7661:
7654:
7639:
7607:
7601:
7589:
7586:
7585:
7549:
7546:
7543:
7542:
7541:
7540:
7527:
7526:
7515:
7514:
7504:
7503:
7430:
7427:
7424:
7423:
7392:
7389:
7363:
7360:
7357:
7356:
7341:
7340:
7311:
7308:
7291:
7288:
7279:
7263:
7260:
7229:
7226:
7201:
7198:
7195:
7194:
7169:
7166:
7154:
7153:
7115:
7112:
7096:
7092:
7091:
7070:
7067:
7054:
7051:
7037:
7036:George W. Bush
7034:
7017:
7014:
7011:
7010:
6971:
6968:
6965:
6964:
6927:
6922:
6913:
6908:
6905:
6904:
6903:
6902:
6901:
6900:
6899:
6898:
6877:
6876:
6875:
6874:
6873:
6872:
6853:
6852:
6851:
6850:
6831:
6830:
6804:
6801:
6787:
6784:
6767:
6764:
6761:
6760:
6759:
6758:
6757:
6756:
6755:
6754:
6738:
6737:
6736:
6735:
6734:
6733:
6714:
6713:
6712:
6711:
6699:
6698:
6669:
6666:
6663:
6662:
6661:
6660:
6659:
6658:
6657:
6656:
6635:
6634:
6633:
6632:
6631:
6630:
6613:
6612:
6611:
6610:
6609:
6608:
6607:
6606:
6586:
6585:
6584:
6583:
6582:
6581:
6580:
6579:
6550:
6549:
6548:
6547:
6546:
6545:
6526:
6525:
6524:
6523:
6507:
6506:
6484:by my count.--
6480:You are above
6476:
6475:
6474:
6473:
6440:George W. Bush
6433:
6430:
6427:
6426:
6425:
6424:
6408:
6407:
6365:
6362:
6298:
6295:
6292:
6291:
6258:
6255:
6231:
6228:
6224:
6221:
6218:
6217:
6206:
6205:
6184:
6181:
6177:
6147:George W. Bush
6139:
6133:George W. Bush
6129:
6126:
6125:
6095:
6092:
6072:
6069:
6065:
6061:
6060:
6059:
6058:
6036:
6035:
5999:
5996:
5980:
5977:
5929:
5926:
5924:
5921:
5881:
5878:
5877:
5876:
5856:
5853:
5852:
5851:
5850:
5849:
5834:
5833:
5796:
5793:
5781:George W. Bush
5776:
5773:
5762:
5759:
5746:
5743:
5701:
5698:
5696:
5694:
5693:
5692:
5691:
5690:
5689:
5688:
5687:
5686:
5685:
5684:
5683:
5682:
5681:
5680:
5679:
5678:
5677:
5636:
5635:
5634:
5633:
5632:
5631:
5630:
5629:
5628:
5627:
5626:
5625:
5624:
5623:
5622:
5621:
5582:
5581:
5580:
5579:
5578:
5577:
5576:
5575:
5574:
5573:
5572:
5571:
5570:
5569:
5540:
5539:
5538:
5537:
5536:
5535:
5534:
5533:
5532:
5531:
5530:
5529:
5507:
5506:
5505:
5504:
5503:
5502:
5501:
5500:
5499:
5498:
5473:
5472:
5471:
5470:
5469:
5468:
5467:
5466:
5444:
5443:
5442:
5441:
5440:
5439:
5438:
5437:
5418:
5417:
5416:
5415:
5414:
5413:
5395:
5394:
5393:
5392:
5377:
5376:
5347:
5346:
5345:
5344:
5343:
5342:
5321:
5320:
5319:
5318:
5317:
5316:
5308:
5307:
5306:
5305:
5268:
5267:
5266:
5265:
5264:
5263:
5259:George W. Bush
5234:
5231:
5230:
5229:
5220:
5219:
5214:
5213:
5162:
5161:
5144:
5136:
5135:
5125:
5120:
5117:
5104:
5101:
5100:
5099:
5098:
5097:
5081:
5080:
5079:
5078:
5062:
5061:
5025:
5023:George W. Bush
5019:
5018:
5017:
5016:
5015:
5000:
4999:
4986:
4985:
4984:
4983:
4968:
4967:
4956:
4953:
4949:
4948:
4933:
4932:
4931:
4930:
4929:
4928:
4898:
4897:
4896:
4890:
4889:
4888:
4887:
4886:
4885:
4884:
4883:
4882:
4881:
4880:
4868:
4805:
4804:
4803:
4802:
4801:
4779:
4778:
4777:
4776:
4775:
4774:
4773:
4772:
4771:
4770:
4769:
4743:
4742:
4730:
4726:
4723:
4703:
4702:
4701:
4700:
4699:
4698:
4697:
4665:
4664:
4663:
4657:
4656:
4655:
4654:
4653:
4652:
4651:
4650:
4649:
4600:
4599:
4585:
4582:
4560:
4557:
4556:
4555:
4539:
4536:
4523:
4520:
4519:
4518:
4494:
4491:
4489:
4487:
4486:
4422:
4421:
4419:
4415:
4414:
4405:
4404:
4403:
4402:
4385:by Kevin Bass
4363:
4360:
4355:
4352:
4332:
4331:
4325:
4320:
4315:
4310:
4305:
4300:
4295:
4284:
4282:
4281:
4276:
4271:
4249:
4247:
4235:
4234:
4229:
4226:
4223:
4220:
4217:
4191:
4182:George W. Bush
4173:
4168:
4167:
4166:
4165:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4161:
4160:
4129:George_W._Bush
4108:
4105:
4077:
4070:
4068:
4053:
4050:
4048:
4029:
4027:George_W._Bush
4023:
4021:
4007:
4004:
3996:George W. Bush
3978:
3976:George_W._Bush
3972:
3931:
3928:
3908:
3905:
3904:
3903:
3902:
3901:
3882:
3881:
3880:
3879:
3878:
3877:
3860:
3859:
3858:
3857:
3842:
3841:
3817:
3814:
3813:
3812:
3803:
3802:
3793:
3792:
3763:
3762:
3740:
3734:
3732:
3721:
3718:
3717:
3716:
3695:
3692:
3682:
3679:
3678:
3677:
3648:
3645:
3637:
3636:
3635:
3634:
3633:
3583:
3580:
3571:
3564:
3553:
3552:
3551:
3550:
3549:
3548:
3547:
3546:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3520:
3519:
3518:
3517:
3516:
3515:
3514:
3513:
3512:
3511:
3510:
3509:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3476:
3475:
3474:
3473:
3472:
3471:
3470:
3469:
3468:
3467:
3466:
3424:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3411:
3410:
3409:
3384:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3380:
3379:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3371:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3338:
3337:
3336:
3335:
3334:
3311:
3310:
3309:
3308:
3307:
3306:
3305:
3304:
3303:
3302:
3268:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3243:
3242:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3238:
3208:
3207:
3206:
3205:
3194:
3193:
3156:George W. Bush
3151:
3148:
3140:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3124:
3123:
3118:
3117:
3090:
3053:
3038:
3037:
3036:
3035:
3034:
3033:
3032:
3031:
3030:
3003:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2972:
2971:
2970:
2969:
2955:
2954:
2953:
2952:
2951:
2950:
2937:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2900:
2899:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2831:
2830:
2793:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2783:
2776:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2756:
2733:
2728:
2711:
2708:
2692:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2649:
2648:
2636:
2635:
2630:
2629:
2624:
2623:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2601:
2600:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2540:
2539:
2521:
2518:
2502:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2471:
2451:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2413:
2412:
2378:
2375:
2374:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2307:
2304:
2291:
2288:
2277:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2244:
2243:Template:Sep11
2241:
2240:
2239:
2218:
2215:
2204:
2193:
2178:
2173:
2171:
2155:
2130:
2115:
2068:
1977:government of
1935:
1932:
1921:
1918:
1906:
1905:
1878:
1875:
1800:
1797:
1785:
1782:
1773:
1770:
1758:
1755:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1716:
1715:
1689:
1688:
1658:
1655:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1615:
1612:
1597:
1594:
1556:
1553:
1541:
1538:
1512:
1494:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1454:talk:anarchism
1449:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1409:
1408:
1400:
1399:
1387:
1386:
1362:
1359:
1328:
1315:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1289:
1286:
1278:Saddam Hussein
1273:
1270:
1261:
1258:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1195:
1194:
1167:
1164:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1122:
1121:
1102:
1097:
1095:
1085:
1080:
1063:
1060:
1044:
1041:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1000:
997:
991:I am not one.
987:
984:
963:
960:
940:
939:
931:
925:
905:
902:
892:
889:
878:
839:
826:
825:
824:
812:talk:Anarchism
790:
785:
776:
767:
747:
746:
745:
738:
725:
706:Saddam Hussein
694:Manuel Noriega
689:
673:
657:
640:
637:
636:
635:
615:
612:
586:
583:
582:
581:
554:
551:
543:
535:
534:
524:
523:
512:
511:
500:
499:
480:
479:
471:
470:
460:
459:
440:
437:
435:
432:
417:
416:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
282:
281:
280:
279:
256:
255:
194:
188:bottom of page
135:
117:
109:
108:
107:
102:or not.... --
95:
82:
70:
69:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
10247:
10237:
10235:
10231:
10227:
10213:
10211:
10207:
10202:
10200:
10183:
10182:
10179:
10177:
10173:
10172:United States
10164:
10149:
10144:
10140:
10139:
10138:
10137:
10136:
10135:
10127:
10123:
10122:
10121:
10120:
10114:
10109:
10105:
10104:
10101:
10099:
10085:
10083:
10077:
10074:
10059:
10054:
10050:
10049:
10046:
10044:
10035:
10033:
10028:
10027:
10017:
10014:
10010:
10007:
10004:
10002:
9988:
9985:
9969:
9965:
9961:
9960:
9957:
9954:
9952:
9948:
9945:
9943:
9929:
9927:
9923:
9919:
9914:
9912:
9909:was moved to
9908:
9904:
9895:
9887:
9885:
9875:Dead end road
9870:
9868:
9859:
9857:
9853:
9849:
9846:
9842:
9837:
9836:
9833:
9831:
9818:
9814:
9811:
9807:
9806:
9803:
9801:
9797:
9792:
9789:
9784:
9769:
9765:
9764:
9761:
9759:
9756:
9752:
9742:
9738:
9737:
9734:
9732:
9721:
9717:
9716:
9713:
9711:
9707:
9693:
9691:
9677:
9675:
9660:
9658:
9654:
9636:
9632:
9631:
9630:
9629:
9628:
9627:
9626:
9625:
9624:
9623:
9611:
9606:
9605:
9604:
9603:
9602:
9601:
9600:
9599:
9589:
9584:
9580:
9576:
9575:
9574:
9573:
9572:
9571:
9563:
9558:
9557:
9556:
9555:
9549:
9544:
9540:
9539:
9536:
9534:
9530:
9516:
9512:
9511:
9510:
9509:
9508:
9507:
9499:
9494:
9493:
9492:
9491:
9485:
9481:
9476:
9475:
9472:
9470:
9466:
9452:
9450:
9436:
9434:
9421:
9416:
9412:
9411:
9409:
9405:
9401:
9400:
9394:
9389:
9385:
9381:
9377:
9376:
9366:
9364:
9350:
9348:
9343:
9341:
9339:
9334:
9330:
9327:Well, that's
9314:
9309:
9305:
9304:
9302:
9300:
9299:
9295:
9291:
9287:
9286:
9284:
9279:
9275:
9274:
9272:
9270:
9269:
9265:
9261:
9258:
9257:
9254:
9253:
9252:
9224:
9220:
9219:
9217:
9212:
9208:
9207:
9205:
9201:
9200:
9198:
9193:
9189:
9188:
9186:
9183:have now? --
9182:
9178:
9174:
9170:
9169:
9167:
9163:
9159:
9158:
9155:
9153:
9148:
9134:
9116:
9112:
9108:
9107:
9106:
9105:
9104:
9103:
9102:
9101:
9100:
9099:
9098:
9097:
9091:
9086:
9082:
9077:
9073:
9069:
9065:
9061:
9060:
9057:
9055:
9034:
9027:
9024:
9021:
9020:
9017:
9013:
9009:
9004:
9001:
8997:
8993:
8992:
8990:
8985:
8981:
8977:
8973:
8972:
8970:
8963:
8960:
8957:
8956:
8953:
8949:
8945:
8942:
8938:
8934:
8930:
8925:
8924:
8922:
8917:
8913:
8908:
8904:
8900:
8899:
8897:
8890:
8887:
8884:
8883:
8879:
8874:
8873:
8871:
8866:
8862:
8858:
8854:
8849:
8848:United States
8845:
8841:
8837:
8832:
8831:
8828:
8826:
8819:
8816:
8813:
8812:
8809:
8805:
8804:
8799:
8795:
8791:
8787:
8783:
8779:
8775:
8771:
8770:
8765:
8761:
8756:
8754:
8750:
8746:
8742:
8738:
8737:unnecessarily
8734:
8733:United States
8725:
8724:United States
8712:
8707:
8702:
8701:
8700:
8699:
8693:
8689:
8688:
8682:
8678:
8674:
8673:
8665:
8664:
8663:
8662:
8654:
8653:
8652:
8651:
8643:
8642:
8641:
8640:
8632:
8631:
8630:
8629:
8621:
8620:
8619:
8618:
8610:
8607:
8603:
8598:
8597:
8596:
8595:
8588:
8584:
8583:
8582:
8581:
8572:
8571:
8570:
8569:
8563:
8558:
8553:
8552:
8549:
8547:
8537:
8536:
8533:
8531:
8529:early 1970s"
8527:
8524:
8519:
8487:
8482:
8477:
8476:
8475:
8474:
8473:
8472:
8471:
8470:
8469:
8468:
8467:
8466:
8465:
8464:
8463:
8462:
8461:
8460:
8459:
8458:
8457:
8456:
8455:
8454:
8453:
8452:
8424:
8420:
8416:
8412:
8408:
8407:
8406:
8405:
8404:
8403:
8402:
8401:
8400:
8399:
8398:
8397:
8396:
8395:
8394:
8393:
8392:
8391:
8390:
8389:
8388:
8387:
8386:
8385:
8359:
8354:
8350:
8349:
8348:
8347:
8346:
8345:
8344:
8343:
8342:
8341:
8340:
8339:
8338:
8337:
8336:
8335:
8334:
8333:
8332:
8331:
8330:
8329:
8305:
8301:
8297:
8296:
8295:
8294:
8293:
8292:
8291:
8290:
8289:
8288:
8287:
8286:
8285:
8284:
8283:
8282:
8281:
8280:
8279:
8278:
8256:
8251:
8247:
8243:
8242:
8241:
8240:
8239:
8238:
8237:
8236:
8235:
8234:
8233:
8232:
8231:
8230:
8229:
8228:
8227:
8226:
8206:
8202:
8201:
8200:
8199:
8198:
8197:
8196:
8195:
8194:
8193:
8192:
8191:
8190:
8189:
8188:
8187:
8166:
8165:
8164:
8163:
8162:
8161:
8160:
8159:
8158:
8157:
8156:
8155:
8154:
8153:
8152:
8151:
8133:
8128:
8124:
8119:
8115:
8114:
8113:
8112:
8111:
8110:
8109:
8108:
8107:
8106:
8105:
8104:
8103:
8102:
8086:
8081:
8080:
8079:
8078:
8077:
8076:
8075:
8074:
8073:
8072:
8071:
8070:
8056:
8051:
8047:
8043:
8039:
8036:
8031:
8027:
8026:
8025:
8024:
8023:
8022:
8021:
8020:
8019:
8018:
8006:
8002:
7998:
7994:
7993:
7992:
7991:
7990:
7989:
7988:
7987:
7974:
7973:
7972:
7971:
7970:
7969:
7968:
7967:
7957:
7952:
7947:
7946:
7945:
7944:
7943:
7942:
7934:
7929:
7928:
7927:
7926:
7920:
7915:
7911:
7910:
7907:
7905:
7886:
7881:
7877:
7876:
7875:
7874:
7868:
7863:
7862:
7854:
7849:
7845:
7842:
7841:
7840:
7839:
7836:
7834:
7828:
7826:
7822:
7818:
7804:
7796:
7794:
7790:
7786:
7783:
7779:
7775:
7770:
7767:
7766:
7764:
7760:
7756:
7751:
7747:
7744:
7740:
7739:
7737:
7733:
7728:
7725:
7724:
7722:
7718:
7714:
7711:
7709:
7706:
7705:
7703:
7699:
7697:
7695:
7691:
7687:
7684:labeled as a
7683:
7678:
7675:
7673:
7671:
7667:
7662:
7660:
7658:
7655:
7653:
7651:
7649:
7645:
7640:
7638:
7634:
7633:
7630:
7628:
7623:
7621:
7617:
7616:
7606:
7598:
7596:
7583:
7578:
7574:
7573:
7570:
7568:
7564:
7560:
7557:
7538:
7533:
7532:
7531:
7530:
7524:
7519:
7518:
7512:
7508:
7507:
7501:
7497:
7493:
7492:
7489:
7487:
7484:prejudice. --
7483:
7478:
7474:
7471:
7467:
7463:
7459:
7455:
7451:
7446:
7443:
7439:
7421:
7417:
7413:
7410:
7409:
7406:
7404:
7401:
7400:Theresa Knott
7386:
7384:
7379:
7377:
7374:
7371:
7354:
7349:
7345:
7344:
7338:
7333:
7329:
7328:
7325:
7323:
7319:
7310:Revert on RfA
7305:
7303:
7299:
7285:
7284:
7277:
7275:
7271:
7257:
7256:
7250:
7249:
7244:
7242:
7237:
7236:
7223:
7221:
7216:
7212:
7208:
7192:
7188:
7184:
7183:
7180:
7178:
7163:
7161:
7151:
7146:
7142:
7141:
7138:
7136:
7131:
7129:
7124:
7109:
7107:
7102:
7099:
7089:
7085:
7084:
7081:
7079:
7064:
7062:
7048:
7046:
7031:
7029:
7025:
7008:
7003:
6999:
6996:It uses perl
6995:
6994:
6991:
6989:
6984:
6978:
6962:
6957:
6952:
6951:
6948:
6946:
6942:
6937:
6934:
6926:
6919:
6912:
6896:
6892:
6887:
6886:
6885:
6884:
6883:
6882:
6881:
6880:
6870:
6865:
6861:
6860:
6859:
6858:
6857:
6856:
6848:
6844:
6841:
6837:
6836:
6835:
6834:
6828:
6823:
6822:
6819:
6817:
6811:
6798:
6796:
6781:
6779:
6773:
6752:
6748:
6747:
6746:
6745:
6744:
6743:
6742:
6741:
6731:
6726:
6722:
6721:
6720:
6719:
6718:
6717:
6709:
6705:
6704:
6703:
6702:
6696:
6691:
6687:
6683:
6679:
6678:
6675:
6654:
6649:
6645:
6644:
6643:
6642:
6641:
6640:
6639:
6638:
6628:
6624:
6621:
6620:
6619:
6618:
6617:
6616:
6604:
6600:
6596:
6595:
6594:
6593:
6592:
6591:
6590:
6589:
6577:
6573:
6569:
6566:
6563:
6560:
6559:
6558:
6557:
6556:
6555:
6554:
6553:
6543:
6538:
6534:
6533:
6532:
6531:
6530:
6529:
6521:
6517:
6513:
6512:
6511:
6510:
6504:
6499:
6495:
6494:
6491:
6490:
6487:
6483:
6471:
6466:
6462:
6461:
6459:
6458:
6455:
6453:
6449:
6445:
6441:
6422:
6418:
6414:
6413:
6412:
6411:
6405:
6400:
6395:
6394:
6391:
6389:
6385:
6380:
6378:
6374:
6359:
6357:
6351:
6349:
6345:
6340:
6338:
6330:
6327:
6323:
6319:
6315:
6311:
6307:
6289:
6284:
6280:
6279:
6276:
6274:
6270:
6266:
6265:User:Stargoat
6252:
6250:
6246:
6215:
6210:
6209:
6202:
6201:
6198:
6196:
6192:
6178:
6175:
6173:
6167:
6162:
6160:
6155:
6154:
6152:
6148:
6138:
6134:
6123:
6118:
6117:
6114:
6112:
6106:
6102:
6089:
6087:
6082:
6080:
6066:
6056:
6051:
6045:
6042:
6041:
6040:
6039:
6033:
6028:
6024:
6023:
6021:
6017:
6015:
6010:
6004:
5995:
5993:
5989:
5985:
5976:
5974:
5970:
5967:
5962:
5960:
5956:
5952:
5948:
5943:
5938:
5934:
5925:
5922:
5919:
5917:
5913:
5907:
5903:
5901:
5899:
5896:
5893:
5890:
5887:
5880:3 revert rule
5874:
5870:
5869:
5868:
5866:
5862:
5847:
5842:
5838:
5837:
5836:
5835:
5831:
5827:
5826:
5825:
5822:
5816:
5810:
5808:
5804:
5802:
5792:
5790:
5786:
5782:
5772:
5770:
5767:
5758:
5756:
5752:
5742:
5738:
5736:
5735:
5720:
5719:
5713:
5711:
5705:
5697:
5675:
5670:
5666:
5662:
5658:
5654:
5653:
5652:
5651:
5650:
5649:
5648:
5647:
5646:
5645:
5644:
5643:
5642:
5641:
5640:
5639:
5638:
5637:
5619:
5615:
5611:
5607:
5603:
5598:
5597:
5596:
5595:
5594:
5593:
5592:
5591:
5590:
5589:
5588:
5587:
5586:
5585:
5584:
5583:
5567:
5562:
5558:
5554:
5553:
5552:
5551:
5550:
5549:
5548:
5547:
5546:
5545:
5544:
5543:
5542:
5541:
5527:
5523:
5519:
5518:
5517:
5516:
5515:
5514:
5513:
5512:
5511:
5510:
5509:
5508:
5496:
5491:
5487:
5483:
5482:
5481:
5480:
5479:
5478:
5477:
5476:
5475:
5474:
5464:
5460:
5456:
5452:
5451:
5450:
5449:
5448:
5447:
5446:
5445:
5435:
5431:
5426:
5425:
5424:
5423:
5422:
5421:
5420:
5419:
5411:
5406:
5401:
5400:
5399:
5398:
5397:
5396:
5390:
5386:
5381:
5380:
5379:
5378:
5374:
5369:
5365:
5364:
5363:
5361:
5357:
5353:
5340:
5336:
5332:
5327:
5326:
5325:
5324:
5323:
5322:
5314:
5313:
5312:
5311:
5310:
5309:
5303:
5299:
5295:
5294:
5293:
5292:
5291:
5289:
5285:
5280:
5278:
5274:
5260:
5253:
5252:
5251:
5250:
5249:
5248:
5247:
5245:
5241:
5227:
5222:
5221:
5216:
5215:
5210:
5209:
5208:
5206:
5201:
5196:
5194:
5188:
5186:
5181:
5177:
5175:
5172:
5171:Theresa Knott
5166:
5159:
5154:
5150:
5145:
5142:
5138:
5137:
5133:
5130:
5129:Theresa Knott
5126:
5123:
5122:
5116:
5114:
5110:
5095:
5089:
5085:
5084:
5083:
5082:
5075:
5070:
5066:
5065:
5064:
5063:
5059:
5054:
5049:
5048:
5047:
5045:
5039:
5034:
5030:
5024:
5013:
5008:
5004:
5003:
5002:
5001:
4997:
4993:
4988:
4987:
4981:
4976:
4972:
4971:
4970:
4969:
4965:
4961:
4957:
4954:
4951:
4950:
4945:
4944:
4943:
4941:
4937:
4926:
4921:
4917:
4912:
4909:
4908:
4906:
4905:
4903:
4902:unprecedented
4899:
4894:
4893:
4891:
4878:
4874:
4869:
4865:
4864:
4862:
4857:
4853:
4848:
4845:
4844:
4842:
4838:
4833:
4832:
4830:
4829:
4824:
4819:
4816:
4815:
4813:
4810:Reason: This
4809:
4808:
4806:
4799:
4794:
4791:
4790:
4788:
4783:
4782:
4780:
4767:
4763:
4759:
4758:
4755:
4750:
4747:
4746:
4745:
4744:
4740:
4736:
4731:
4727:
4724:
4721:
4720:
4718:
4713:
4710:
4709:
4707:
4706:
4704:
4695:
4691:
4687:
4686:
4684:
4680:
4675:
4672:
4671:
4669:
4668:
4666:
4661:
4660:
4658:
4647:
4642:
4639:
4638:
4636:
4632:
4627:
4626:
4624:
4620:
4615:
4612:
4611:
4609:
4608:
4606:
4605:
4604:
4596:
4591:
4588:
4587:
4584:Edits to Bush
4581:
4577:
4573:
4571:
4565:
4553:
4552:
4551:
4549:
4545:
4535:
4533:
4529:
4516:
4511:
4507:
4506:
4505:
4503:
4499:
4490:
4484:
4480:
4475:
4471:
4467:
4466:
4465:
4463:
4459:
4458:
4456:
4451:
4444:
4441:
4437:
4436:
4434:
4429:
4420:
4417:
4416:
4412:
4407:
4406:
4400:
4399:
4398:
4397:
4396:
4394:
4390:
4388:
4384:
4380:
4376:
4374:
4372:
4368:
4359:
4351:
4349:
4345:
4341:
4337:
4329:
4326:
4324:
4321:
4319:
4316:
4314:
4311:
4309:
4306:
4304:
4301:
4299:
4296:
4293:
4290:
4289:
4288:
4287:
4279:
4277:
4274:
4272:
4269:
4267:
4266:
4265:
4264:
4260:
4258:
4254:
4248:
4245:
4243:
4239:
4233:
4230:
4227:
4224:
4221:
4218:
4215:
4214:
4213:
4210:
4208:
4204:
4200:
4196:
4190:
4188:
4183:
4179:
4172:
4158:
4153:
4149:
4144:
4140:
4135:
4130:
4126:
4121:
4117:
4116:
4115:
4114:
4113:
4112:
4111:
4110:
4104:
4102:
4097:
4095:
4091:
4087:
4083:
4080:On this page
4075:
4069:
4066:
4064:
4060:
4059:
4049:
4046:
4044:
4040:
4037:
4035:
4028:
4022:
4019:
4017:
4013:
4012:
4003:
4001:
3997:
3992:
3990:
3986:
3984:
3977:
3971:
3969:
3965:
3959:
3957:
3953:
3949:
3945:
3941:
3937:
3927:
3925:
3921:
3918:
3914:
3913:
3899:
3895:
3890:
3886:
3885:
3884:
3883:
3875:
3870:
3866:
3865:
3864:
3863:
3862:
3861:
3855:
3851:
3846:
3845:
3844:
3843:
3839:
3834:
3830:
3829:
3828:
3826:
3822:
3810:
3805:
3804:
3800:
3795:
3794:
3790:
3786:
3782:
3778:
3774:
3770:
3765:
3764:
3760:
3755:
3754:
3753:
3751:
3747:
3739:
3733:
3730:
3728:
3714:
3709:
3705:
3704:
3703:
3701:
3691:
3689:
3675:
3670:
3669:
3668:
3666:
3662:
3657:
3655:
3644:
3642:
3631:
3626:
3620:
3617:
3616:
3614:
3609:
3603:
3600:
3599:
3598:
3596:
3593:
3589:
3579:
3577:
3569:
3563:
3561:
3558:
3544:
3540:
3536:
3535:
3534:
3533:
3532:
3531:
3530:
3529:
3507:
3503:
3502:
3501:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3496:
3495:
3494:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3490:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3464:
3459:
3454:
3450:
3446:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3439:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3434:
3433:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3429:
3428:
3427:
3426:
3425:
3407:
3403:
3400:
3399:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3395:
3394:
3393:
3392:
3391:
3390:
3389:
3388:
3387:
3386:
3385:
3369:
3364:
3359:
3358:
3357:
3356:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3349:
3348:
3347:
3346:
3332:
3328:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3318:
3317:
3316:
3315:
3314:
3313:
3312:
3300:
3295:
3290:
3286:
3282:
3278:
3277:
3276:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3270:
3269:
3259:
3255:
3251:
3250:
3249:
3248:
3247:
3246:
3245:
3244:
3236:
3231:
3226:
3222:
3218:
3214:
3213:
3212:
3211:
3210:
3209:
3203:
3198:
3197:
3196:
3195:
3191:
3186:
3182:
3177:
3176:
3175:
3173:
3167:
3165:
3161:
3157:
3147:
3146:
3139:
3131:
3126:
3125:
3120:
3119:
3114:
3109:
3105:
3100:
3099:
3098:
3096:
3089:
3087:
3082:
3080:
3075:
3073:
3068:
3066:
3062:
3057:
3028:
3023:
3019:
3015:
3011:
3010:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3006:
3005:
3004:
2994:
2989:
2985:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2967:
2964:
2959:
2958:
2957:
2956:
2948:
2943:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2932:
2927:
2922:
2916:
2915:United States
2912:
2908:
2904:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2897:
2892:
2888:
2887:
2879:
2874:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2851:
2846:
2841:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2832:
2828:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2814:
2813:
2811:
2806:
2801:
2784:
2781:
2777:
2775:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2761:
2757:
2754:
2750:
2749:Current polls
2746:
2742:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2732:
2727:
2725:
2720:
2718:
2707:
2705:
2700:
2696:
2691:
2690:Ronald Reagan
2683:
2679:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2671:
2665:
2661:
2657:
2655:
2646:
2642:
2638:
2637:
2632:
2631:
2626:
2625:
2621:
2616:
2615:
2609:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2598:
2593:
2592:
2580:
2575:
2574:
2572:
2568:
2567:
2565:
2560:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2549:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2532:
2527:
2517:
2516:
2514:
2513:
2508:
2501:
2487:
2483:
2479:
2478:
2476:
2472:
2469:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2457:
2442:
2439:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2426:
2422:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2410:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2391:
2386:
2384:
2373:
2371:
2368:
2359:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2337:
2331:
2330:
2325:
2319:
2318:
2314:
2303:
2301:
2297:
2290:New quickpoll
2287:
2286:
2283:
2271:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2254:
2250:
2238:
2235:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2224:
2214:
2213:
2210:
2203:
2202:
2199:
2192:
2191:
2188:
2185:
2177:
2172:
2169:
2168:
2165:
2160:
2154:
2153:
2150:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2139:
2135:
2129:
2128:
2125:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2104:United States
2100:
2097:
2095:
2090:
2087:
2085:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2074:
2069:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2057:United States
2053:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2030:United States
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2010:controversial
2006:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1931:
1930:
1927:
1917:
1915:
1911:
1904:
1901:
1898:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1888:
1884:
1874:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1859:
1858:
1855:
1850:
1845:
1839:
1837:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1821:
1819:
1815:
1809:
1805:
1796:
1795:
1792:
1781:
1780:
1769:
1768:
1765:
1754:
1751:
1750:
1747:
1743:
1733:
1730:
1727:
1723:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1714:
1711:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1700:
1697:
1693:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1628:
1625:
1624:
1621:
1611:
1610:
1607:
1603:
1593:
1591:
1587:
1582:
1580:
1576:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1565:
1564:
1560:
1552:
1551:
1548:
1537:
1536:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1500:
1488:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1469:
1468:
1464:
1459:
1455:
1448:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1428:
1415:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1358:
1356:
1351:
1349:
1343:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1327:
1325:
1321:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1296:
1285:
1283:
1279:
1269:
1267:
1257:
1255:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1218:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1200:
1192:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1147:
1144:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1108:
1105:What part of
1101:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1084:
1079:
1077:
1071:
1069:
1059:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1040:
1038:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1006:
996:
994:
983:
981:
977:
973:
969:
968:User:Michael3
959:
957:
953:
949:
945:
937:
936:
935:
930:
924:
922:
918:
913:
909:
901:
899:
888:
885:
881:
875:
871:
870:revert policy
866:
864:
858:
854:
850:
848:
844:
838:
836:
830:
822:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
805:
801:
796:
789:
784:
782:
775:
773:
766:
764:
760:
756:
752:
743:
739:
736:
732:
731:
730:
729:
724:
722:
718:
713:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
688:
686:
682:
678:
672:
670:
666:
662:
656:
654:
650:
646:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
621:
611:
609:
605:
601:
597:
592:
579:
578:
574:
569:
568:
567:
565:
564:
560:
550:
548:
542:
540:
532:
529:
528:
527:
520:
517:
516:
515:
509:
506:
505:
504:
497:
493:
488:
485:
484:
483:
476:
473:
472:
468:
465:
464:
463:
456:
453:
452:
451:
448:
446:
431:
429:
423:
420:
414:
410:
406:
405:
391:
387:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
329:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
293:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
277:
273:
269:
264:
260:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
248:
247:
245:
240:
234:
231:
229:
224:
222:
218:
213:
211:
207:
203:
199:
193:
192:
191:
189:
182:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
134:
131:
128:
125:
121:
116:
112:
105:
100:
99:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
79:
74:
67:
63:
59:
56:The text was
55:
54:
53:
50:
48:
44:
40:
35:
33:
29:
19:
10234:Michael Snow
10223:
10203:
10196:
10191:9/11 attacks
10175:
10169:
10141:I just did.
10126:GuloGuloGulo
10098:GuloGuloGulo
10095:
10078:
10075:
10072:
10040:
10029:
10015:
10011:
10008:
10005:
10000:
9998:
9986:
9982:
9955:
9949:
9946:
9939:
9915:
9900:
9880:
9864:
9856:civil rights
9838:
9827:
9809:
9793:
9787:
9785:
9782:
9748:
9727:
9703:
9687:
9682:Threatening?
9670:
9652:
9650:
9582:
9578:
9542:
9528:
9526:
9462:
9446:
9429:
9383:
9382:. It says "
9360:
9344:
9337:
9328:
9326:
9297:
9267:
9248:
9247:
9180:
9162:Village pump
9144:
9132:
9080:
9076:subvandalism
9075:
9063:
9050:
9022:
9011:
9007:
8999:
8995:
8975:
8958:
8947:
8940:
8932:
8928:
8912:bonne chance
8911:
8906:
8902:
8885:
8877:
8856:
8814:
8807:
8801:
8768:
8767:
8763:
8757:
8752:
8748:
8744:
8740:
8736:
8730:
8680:
8676:
8605:
8601:
8546:GuloGuloGulo
8543:
8520:
8517:
8423:GuloGuloGulo
8414:
8304:GuloGuloGulo
8245:
8205:GuloGuloGulo
8117:
8085:GuloGuloGulo
8037:
8034:
8029:
8005:GuloGuloGulo
8000:
7996:
7933:GuloGuloGulo
7904:GuloGuloGulo
7901:
7829:
7814:
7802:
7792:
7788:
7777:
7726:
7679:
7663:
7656:
7641:
7624:
7612:
7611:
7592:
7553:
7537:Michael Snow
7523:Michael Snow
7486:Michael Snow
7481:
7479:
7475:
7454:East Germany
7447:
7434:
7416:Village pump
7396:
7380:
7367:
7322:Michael Snow
7315:
7295:
7278:
7267:
7251:
7245:
7238:
7233:
7217:
7213:
7209:
7205:
7173:
7157:
7132:
7119:
7114:Accept vote?
7103:
7100:
7095:
7074:
7058:
7041:
7021:
6997:
6975:
6938:
6935:
6931:
6917:
6812:
6808:
6791:
6774:
6771:
6673:
6622:
6496:So are you.
6479:
6450:to maintain
6447:
6443:
6437:
6381:
6369:
6352:
6341:
6331:
6302:
6297:Rex's latest
6262:
6235:
6214:Michael Snow
6195:Michael Snow
6188:
6176:
6163:
6159:specifically
6158:
6156:
6144:
6143:
6122:Michael Snow
6111:Michael Snow
6107:
6103:
6099:
6083:
6076:
6064:
6014:
6001:
5982:
5966:Gzornenplatz
5963:
5933:Gzornenplatz
5931:
5928:Crank editor
5923:
5920:
5916:Michael Snow
5908:
5904:
5883:
5873:Gzornenplatz
5861:Gzornenplatz
5858:
5823:
5820:
5807:Axis of evil
5805:
5798:
5778:
5764:
5748:
5739:
5733:
5717:
5714:
5706:
5703:
5695:
5664:
5660:
5656:
5609:
5605:
5485:
5348:
5297:
5281:
5269:
5236:
5226:Michael Snow
5205:Michael Snow
5197:
5189:
5182:
5178:
5167:
5163:
5106:
5073:
5035:
5031:
5027:
4934:
4901:
4826:
4811:
4786:
4682:
4622:
4601:
4578:
4574:
4566:
4562:
4541:
4525:
4502:Michael Snow
4496:
4493:Unprotection
4488:
4473:
4469:
4460:
4446:
4445:
4442:
4438:
4424:
4423:
4391:
4386:
4381:
4377:
4370:
4369:
4365:
4357:
4354:Please Stop!
4333:
4327:
4285:
4283:
4262:
4261:
4250:
4246:
4236:
4231:
4211:
4192:
4187:Gzornenplatz
4175:
4098:
4079:
4067:
4061:
4055:
4047:
4041:
4038:
4031:
4020:
4014:
4009:
4000:Gzornenplatz
3993:
3987:
3980:
3960:
3940:conservative
3933:
3922:
3919:
3915:
3910:
3819:
3784:
3780:
3742:
3731:
3723:
3697:
3684:
3658:
3650:
3638:
3585:
3573:
3554:
3506:Gzornenplatz
3452:
3448:
3443:Well, I saw
3406:Gzornenplatz
3331:Gzornenplatz
3288:
3284:
3280:
3258:Gzornenplatz
3253:
3224:
3220:
3216:
3202:Gzornenplatz
3172:Gzornenplatz
3168:
3153:
3142:
3112:
3107:
3103:
3091:
3083:
3076:
3069:
3060:
3058:
3055:
3013:
2983:
2868:
2864:
2795:
2773:
2721:
2713:
2697:
2694:
2682:Michael Snow
2670:Michael Snow
2666:
2662:
2658:
2650:
2645:Michael Snow
2579:Michael Snow
2564:Michael Snow
2531:Michael Snow
2523:
2512:
2509:
2504:
2453:
2401:
2387:
2382:
2380:
2364:
2352:
2333:
2326:
2322:
2312:
2310:
2293:
2279:
2246:
2220:
2205:
2194:
2180:
2176:Neofeudalism
2170:
2156:
2146:
2144:Comrade Nick
2142:
2133:
2131:
2121:
2119:Comrade Nick
2117:
2108:September 11
2101:
2098:
2091:
2088:
2081:
2079:Comrade Nick
2077:
2070:
2061:September 11
2054:
2026:human rights
2007:
1939:
1937:
1923:
1909:
1907:
1887:Michael Snow
1880:
1866:
1862:
1860:
1848:
1843:
1840:
1835:
1832:
1822:
1817:
1813:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1787:
1775:
1760:
1752:
1739:
1721:
1694:
1690:
1671:axis of evil
1660:
1652:
1647:
1643:
1640:
1637:
1634:
1626:
1617:
1599:
1583:
1577:
1574:
1569:
1566:
1561:
1558:
1543:
1513:
1504:
1501:
1496:
1482:
1466:
1457:
1451:
1424:
1405:Comrade Nick
1375:Comrade Nick
1364:
1352:
1344:
1329:
1317:
1307:Michael Snow
1303:my talk page
1295:Michael Snow
1291:
1282:Michael Snow
1275:
1266:Michael Snow
1263:
1251:
1242:
1227:
1211:
1196:
1169:
1153:
1145:
1141:
1106:
1104:
1094:
1087:
1072:
1065:
1054:
1046:
1033:
1002:
989:
972:User:Michael
965:
947:
941:
933:
916:
914:
910:
907:
894:
867:
859:
855:
851:
840:
831:
827:
792:
777:
768:
748:
727:
726:
716:
714:
690:
674:
658:
642:
617:
599:
588:
576:
562:
556:
544:
536:
525:
513:
501:
481:
461:
449:
442:
424:
421:
418:
322:
318:
235:
232:
225:
214:
195:
185:
184:
183:
142:
136:
132:
129:
126:
122:
118:
113:
110:
96:
83:
75:
71:
65:
61:
58:This quote (
57:
51:
42:
41:devious and
38:
36:
31:
27:
25:
9977:fair enough
9884:Fred Bauder
9800:Fred Bauder
9751:Fred Bauder
9731:Fred Bauder
9433:Fred Bauder
9115:68.1.174.46
9054:Fred Bauder
8878:seven times
8853:Immigration
8798:Jon Stewart
8706:South Korea
7997:really wish
7825:Khmer Rouge
7821:Great Purge
7782:Talk:Nazism
7761:(a list by
7666:Geli Raubal
7442:Hugo ChƔvez
7160:Fred Bauder
7135:Fred Bauder
5988:Kate Turner
5942:Micronation
5855:An apology.
5830:Fred Bauder
5745:Arb, notice
5667:correctly.
5352:Game theory
5005:So will I.
4348:Fred Bauder
4257:Snowspinner
3816:Please help
3727:Snowspinner
3700:Snowspinner
3674:Snowspinner
3665:Snowspinner
2984:potentially
2699:User:Sparky
2526:172 reports
2294:Please see
2282:Oldak Quill
2198:Snowspinner
2003:prosecution
1944:November 25
1926:Snowspinner
1920:Revert wars
1686:Tagishsimon
1679:Tagishsimon
1631:Immigration
1586:Hugo Chavez
1528:Hugo Chavez
1318:Hmm. Those
934:You wrote:
788:User:Kevehs
755:Mass murder
698:Mass murder
9651:Oh, but I
9457:Reversions
9290:truthfully
8753:tough laws
7692:page (see
7648:right-wing
7298:Demonslave
7220:Silverback
7106:Silverback
7078:Silverback
6891:Kevin Baas
6843:Kevin Baas
6599:Kevin Baas
6572:Kevin Baas
6516:Kevin Baas
6417:Kevin Baas
6384:Kevin Baas
6373:Kevin Baas
6356:JamesMLane
6337:JamesMLane
6249:(Ludraman)
6149:listed at
5973:Gene_poole
5959:Gene_poole
5859:I'm sorry
5751:Kevin Baas
5704:Hi there,
5614:Kevin Baas
5522:Kevin Baas
5459:Kevin Baas
5430:Kevin Baas
5385:Kevin Baas
5356:Kevin Baas
5335:Kevin Baas
5284:Kevin Baas
5273:Kevin Baas
5240:Kevin Baas
5109:Kevin Baas
4992:Kevin Baas
4960:Kevin Baas
4936:Kevin Baas
4873:Kevin Baas
4837:Kevin Baas
4762:Kevin Baas
4735:Kevin Baas
4690:Kevin Baas
4683:ad nauseam
4631:Kevin Baas
4548:Neutrality
4538:Hello, VV.
4532:JamesMLane
4479:Kevin Baas
4238:Kevin Baas
4203:Kevin Baas
4195:VeryVerily
4171:VeryVerily
4152:John Kerry
4076:08.17.2004
4074:Neutrality
4034:John Kerry
3981:Please go
3964:Kevin Baas
3952:Kevin Baas
3942:. def. of
3898:JamesMLane
3854:JamesMLane
3809:JamesMLane
3799:JamesMLane
3789:JamesMLane
3759:John Kerry
3746:John Kerry
3738:John Kerry
3681:Discussion
3661:John Kerry
3566:I support
3543:Neutrality
3164:Neutrality
2909:points to
2780:Neutrality
2760:Neutrality
2753:Neutrality
2436:Found it!
2276:WW2 People
2223:Kingturtle
2159:NYC Mohawk
1914:AstroNomer
1871:AstroNomer
1854:JamesMLane
1849:importance
1826:JamesMLane
1663:comparison
962:"Edit war"
876:. Thanks.
735:attoparsec
733:Regarding
717:their game
186:NOTE: See
78:Hephaestos
64:considered
47:Hephaestos
43:considered
37:As far as
9845:September
9843:, who in
9665:Ruy Lopez
9441:No thanks
9393:Ruy Lopez
9363:Bds yahoo
9242:"attacks"
9147:Karl Marx
9072:Ruy Lopez
8836:Ruy Lopez
8803:Crossfire
8711:Ce garcon
8419:maieutics
8411:Holocaust
8116:The term
7833:Ruy Lopez
7787:Hmm. For
7704:article:
7690:communism
7686:socialist
7563:Lowellian
7391:Adminship
7318:your edit
7274:Mackensen
7262:WP:WPOINT
6911:Anarchism
6786:Adminship
6486:Eloquence
6344:this edit
6326:this edit
6310:this edit
6257:Kissinger
6071:Mediation
5898:Bjarmason
5863:is using
5775:Mediation
5769:Rex071404
5715:Regards,
5665:etiquette
5149:talk page
5141:block log
5077:conflict.
4681:Answered
4462:Rex071404
4393:Rex071404
4157:Rex071404
4101:Rex071404
4063:Rex071404
4043:Rex071404
4016:Rex071404
3989:Rex071404
3924:Rex071404
3825:Rex071404
3750:Rex071404
3576:Rex071404
3160:talk page
3111:people's
3084:ThanksĀ !
2184:Nat Kraus
2014:communism
1975:socialist
1969:military
1877:Viet Cong
1447:anarchism
1320:lovebirds
1314:Lovebirds
1288:Mediation
1238:Flockmeal
1166:Quickpoll
1090:Sam Spade
1030:Red Scare
1005:Red Scare
999:Quickpoll
908:Dear VV:
821:Sam Spade
804:Sam Spade
614:Edit wars
458:evidence.
355:Astavakra
268:The Anome
206:talk page
151:talk page
133:-conradx
60:allegedly
52:On PNAC,
39:allegedly
10206:pentagon
9968:Wgfinley
9916:Thanks,
9710:Boraczek
9449:Stargoat
9181:possibly
9177:Boraczek
9068:Turrican
7791:reason,
7575:Hmm....
7283:Turrican
7270:Turrican
7255:Turrican
7248:Turrican
7168:response
6936:Thanks.
6778:Fish-man
6751:Etz Haim
6708:Etz Haim
6322:reverted
6318:reverted
6314:reverted
6164:Thanks,
6079:mediator
5895:Arnfjƶrư
5799:See RfC
5661:de facto
5455:de facto
5333:for VV.
5086:Thanks,
5036:Thanks,
4867:article.
4787:founders
4498:FOX News
4286:Dialogue
4263:Evidence
3946:def. of
3944:hegemony
3449:Guardian
3225:everyone
3093:dispute.
2741:Fox News
2731:Fox News
2306:Pinochet
2300:āRaul654
2148:@)--^---
2134:possible
2123:@)--^---
2083:@)--^---
1999:immunity
1938:General
1547:Cribcage
1516:User:TDC
1199:Remedies
1160:Uncle Ed
1138:Poisoned
861:picture.
742:Palapala
645:User:172
594:rule on
319:invasion
149:and its
9924:of the
9867:Evercat
9384:Enacted
9294:āNo-One
9264:āNo-One
9166:Marcus2
8903:liberal
8735:to use
8681:avoided
8118:deniers
8001:content
7688:on the
7420:Marcus2
7302:Wolfman
7088:Moriori
6982:IlĪ³Ī±Ī·ĪµĻ
6827:Wolfman
6816:Wolfman
6795:Marcus2
6567:, tres
6564:, dous
6244:OLLISON
6049:IlĪ³Ī±Ī·ĪµĻ
6008:IlĪ³Ī±Ī·ĪµĻ
5659:use of
5610:conduct
5602:de jure
5224:you. --
4570:Wolfman
4411:Wolfman
3624:IlĪ³Ī±Ī·ĪµĻ
3607:IlĪ³Ī±Ī·ĪµĻ
3592:Ilyanep
3145:My Talk
2486:Ilyanep
2475:Ilyanep
2468:Ilyanep
2456:Ilyanep
2441:Mackerm
2425:Mackerm
2390:Mackerm
2358:Viajero
2336:Viajero
2164:āMorven
1966:-backed
1791:Viajero
1217:Hcheney
1204:Hcheney
986:Banning
904:On Race
843:version
712:, etc.
653:Hcheney
632:Viajero
537:Peace.
494:or the
359:Arvindn
252:Arvindn
91:Arvindn
10163:Shorne
10147:Verily
10112:Verily
10057:Verily
10032:Chalst
10001:should
9951:Shorne
9905:*/ at
9817:Shorne
9768:Shorne
9741:Shorne
9720:Shorne
9698:Shorne
9480:WP:FAC
9419:Verily
9408:Shorne
9340:uadell
9312:Verily
9282:Verily
9215:Verily
9196:Verily
9089:Verily
9012:remove
8988:Verily
8920:Verily
8869:Verily
8844:Shorne
8766:, and
8692:Shorne
8561:Verily
8485:Verily
8357:Verily
8254:Verily
8246:per se
8131:Verily
8054:Verily
8038:Hanpuk
7955:Verily
7918:Verily
7884:Verily
7867:Shorne
7852:Verily
7702:nazism
7682:Hitler
7680:Wants
7670:Hitler
7581:Verily
7191:ugen64
7177:ugen64
7045:ugen64
6987:(TĪ±lĪŗ)
6941:dreish
6766:No-boo
6482:WP:3RR
6364:Thanks
6308:. By
6230:Thanks
6223:Thanks
6172:ŠŃŠ°Š¹ŠµŠ½
6054:(TĪ±lĪŗ)
6013:(TĪ±lĪŗ)
5951:Sedang
5302:Samboy
5233:Hello.
5094:ŠŃŠ°Š¹ŠµŠ½
5044:ŠŃŠ°Š¹ŠµŠ½
4598:below.
4508:Cool.
3629:(TĪ±lĪŗ)
3612:(TĪ±lĪŗ)
3595:(Talk)
3254:anyone
3104:cannot
3086:Refdoc
3079:Refdoc
3072:Refdoc
3065:Refdoc
3051:": -->
3043:": -->
2966:(talk)
2963:sannse
2863:Well,
2717:Jmabel
2263:Cyrius
2249:Cyrius
2042:London
1942:(born
1895:Done.
1844:should
1673:&
1437:Meelar
1427:Meelar
1336:Israel
1324:Fennec
1260:Hanpuk
1254:Cantus
1212:either
1191:(Talk)
1188:ā Jor
1179:(Talk)
1176:ā Jor
1037:Alex S
884:(talk)
600:please
496:Aether
492:racism
313:, not
202:Angela
173:, and
153:, the
10224:I am
9964:ACORN
9922:Chair
9918:BCorr
9529:again
9329:three
9298:Jones
9268:Jones
9249:from
9111:Grunt
8769:sixth
8764:fifth
7719:From
7625:See:
6668:Griko
6166:BCorr
5718:zoney
5255:: -->
5088:BCorr
5038:BCorr
4568:does.
4559:Bush?
4010:Here
3453:tends
3113:ideas
3050:: -->
3049:: -->
3047:: -->
3046:: -->
3045:: -->
3042:: -->
3041:: -->
2947:Graft
2869:might
2482:Linux
2402:argue
2353:isn't
2046:Spain
2001:from
1954:from
1952:Chile
1852::)
1818:which
1742:India
1575:Ciao
1483:Spade
1467:Spade
1421:Graph
1396:Plato
1055:Spade
522:done.
409:India
321:does
311:India
274:. --
32:first
16:<
10232:. --
10143:Very
10108:Very
10082:Ambi
10053:Very
9852:Bush
9848:2004
9653:have
9579:very
9482:! -
9415:Very
9347:here
9308:Very
9278:Very
9211:Very
9192:Very
9175:and
9085:Very
9032:HELO
9026:leif
8984:Very
8968:HELO
8962:leif
8937:NPOV
8916:Very
8895:HELO
8889:leif
8865:Very
8857:does
8824:HELO
8818:leif
8751:", "
8747:", "
8743:", "
8557:Very
8481:Very
8353:Very
8250:Very
8127:Very
8050:Very
8030:huge
7951:Very
7914:Very
7880:Very
7848:Very
7823:and
7789:some
7668:was
7646:as "
7620:IZAK
7577:Very
7567:talk
7482:with
7460:and
7452:and
7376:šŖšŗ
7370:Grun
7053:PNAC
7024:PNAC
6945:talk
6895:talk
6847:talk
6772:VV:
6603:talk
6576:talk
6561:Uno
6520:talk
6452:NPOV
6421:talk
6388:talk
6377:talk
6320:and
6316:and
6086:Ambi
5992:Talk
5953:and
5892:Ćvar
5801:here
5789:Ambi
5766:here
5755:talk
5734:talk
5657:your
5618:talk
5606:that
5526:talk
5463:talk
5434:talk
5389:talk
5360:talk
5339:talk
5288:talk
5277:talk
5244:talk
5193:Node
5113:talk
4996:talk
4964:talk
4940:talk
4877:talk
4841:talk
4766:talk
4739:talk
4694:talk
4635:talk
4483:talk
4242:talk
4207:talk
4094:here
4090:here
4086:here
4082:here
3983:here
3968:talk
3956:talk
3938:vs.
3930:PNAC
3744:for
3736:Re:
3694:GBWR
3445:this
3327:this
3285:that
3221:both
2745:talk
2538:him.
2507:Rick
2209:Stan
2112:1973
2089:---
2065:1973
2055:The
2050:2002
2038:1998
1995:1998
1987:1990
1983:1989
1971:coup
1964:U.S.
1960:1990
1956:1973
1948:1915
1814:none
1722:Yawn
1514:Did
1499:Rick
1458:from
1361:Very
1280:. --
1043:vote
993:Adam
980:Talk
956:Peak
948:race
944:Race
929:Race
921:Peak
757:and
663:and
608:Talk
547:Arno
539:Peak
531:Peak
519:Peak
508:Peak
487:Peak
475:Peak
467:Peak
455:Peak
445:Peak
428:Peak
233:Hi,
175:here
171:here
167:here
163:here
159:here
10210:198
10199:198
9966:.
9810:all
9583:not
9173:172
9064:was
9008:not
8996:not
8952:3RR
8907:lax
8800:on
7644:KKK
7595:PMA
7383:TDC
7241:TDC
7061:TDC
6998:and
6570:.
6448:has
6444:you
6240:OHN
6137:RfM
5331:RfC
5298:not
5074:all
4375:.
3896:.)
3781:I'd
3641:172
3560:172
3539:RfC
3289:all
3281:one
3130:pir
3095:pir
3014:did
2930:urĪµ
2920:TĪµx
2849:urĪµ
2839:TĪµx
2809:urĪµ
2799:TĪµx
2724:172
2704:172
2608:172
2571:172
2548:172
2370:172
2094:172
2073:172
2034:CIA
1958:to
1865:to
1779:P0M
1764:P0M
1746:Jay
1710:172
1699:172
1590:TDC
1579:TDC
1532:172
1493:172
1479:Sam
1463:Sam
1414:Dmn
1392:Wik
1383:172
1367:172
1355:172
1340:172
1129:ssd
1076:P0M
1068:P0M
1051:Sam
1009:172
898:P0M
863:pir
847:pir
835:172
814:or
781:172
772:172
763:172
721:172
685:172
669:172
647:in
639:172
620:mav
447:.
413:KRS
390:KRS
323:not
292:KRS
244:KRS
143:not
28:was
9944:.
9920:,
9760:.
9543:me
9349:.
9335:ā
9081:am
9029:āŗ
8965:āŗ
8892:āŗ
8821:āŗ
8810:.
8806:,
8792:,
8788:,
8784:,
8780:,
8776:,
8709:--
8125:.
7846:?
7827:.
7765:)
7723::
7629::
7028:CK
7026:.
6979:ā
6893:|
6845:|
6684:,
6601:|
6574:|
6518:|
6419:|
6386:|
6375:|
6350:.
6247:|
6120:--
6081:?
6046:ā
6005:ā
5990:|
5986:ā
5971:--
5949:,
5787:.
5753:|
5616:|
5612:.
5524:|
5461:|
5457:.
5432:|
5387:|
5358:|
5337:|
5286:|
5275:|
5242:|
5111:|
4994:|
4962:|
4938:|
4875:|
4839:|
4831:.
4812:is
4764:|
4737:|
4692:|
4685:.
4633:|
4623:is
4546:?
4481:|
4457:).
4435:).
4240:|
4205:|
4201:.
4036:.
3966:|
3954:|
3785:my
3621:ā
3604:ā
3541:.
3329:.
3217:is
3108:do
2820:.
2577:--
2529:--
2110:,
2063:,
2005:.
1946:,
1604:?
1293:--
1248:VV
1174:.
1035:--
978:|
954:.
879:SV
708:,
704:,
700:,
696:,
606:|
573:Jo
559:Jo
328:VV
276:VV
169:,
165:,
161:,
104:VV
9338:Q
9023:~
8959:~
8948:7
8927:"
8886:~
8815:~
8794:6
8790:5
8786:4
8782:3
8778:2
8774:1
7797:.
7752:)
7745:)
7696:)
7676:.
7650:"
7565:(
7561:ā
7373:t
7352:V
7348:V
7336:V
7332:V
7149:V
7145:V
7127:V
7123:V
7006:V
7002:V
6960:V
6956:V
6943:~
6868:V
6864:V
6729:V
6725:V
6694:V
6690:V
6652:V
6648:V
6541:V
6537:V
6502:V
6498:V
6489:*
6469:V
6465:V
6403:V
6399:V
6287:V
6283:V
6242:C
6238:J
6169:|
6031:V
6027:V
5845:V
5841:V
5729:ā
5726:ā
5723:ā
5673:V
5669:V
5565:V
5561:V
5494:V
5490:V
5409:V
5405:V
5372:V
5368:V
5157:V
5153:V
5091:|
5057:V
5053:V
5041:|
5011:V
5007:V
4979:V
4975:V
4924:V
4920:V
4915:V
4911:V
4860:V
4856:V
4851:V
4847:V
4822:V
4818:V
4797:V
4793:V
4753:V
4749:V
4716:V
4712:V
4678:V
4674:V
4645:V
4641:V
4618:V
4614:V
4594:V
4590:V
4554:)
4514:V
4510:V
4474:s
4470:a
4147:V
4143:V
4138:V
4134:V
4124:V
4120:V
3873:V
3869:V
3837:V
3833:V
3712:V
3708:V
3568:V
3462:V
3458:V
3367:V
3363:V
3298:V
3294:V
3234:V
3230:V
3189:V
3185:V
3026:V
3022:V
2992:V
2988:V
2925:Ļ
2895:V
2891:V
2877:V
2873:V
2865:I
2844:Ļ
2826:V
2822:V
2804:Ļ
2511:K
2409:V
2406:V
2267:ā
2265:|
2253:ā
2251:|
2187:e
1900:V
1897:V
1729:V
1726:V
1503:K
1118:V
1115:V
1023:V
1020:V
577:r
563:r
498:.
68:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.