1369:. I don't want to say too much about this, since there's already enough said about it and there's enough to find about it outside Knowledge. About the facts in the article, I have tried to talk to Peter Lee outside Knowledge, long before he started the edit war. Many times I started a discussion about some subjects on his forum. That is to say: I TRIED to start it. But every message was removed, every time I said something or asked someting he didn't like, he simply removed it. Every time I tried to defend myself or somebody else, even when bringing in evidence, he simply removed it, so that nobody would see! This is no way of discussing! Here on Knowledge he also ignores me (almost) totally. In those few cases where he did not ignore me, he insulted me almost constantly. There is no way to come to a fair discussion with this person. The only reason for that is because in a real and honest discussion, he knows he will loose the discussion. Therefore he keeps shouting that he is the "president of GKIF" and the sole person in Europe allowed to talk about Genseiryu and he has done "15 years of research". He thinks that way people will think what he says is right... Of course, it doesn't work that way. This "research" may have been done, but what he brings out in the open are not the real facts. I have done a counter-research and within one year I came to astonishing discoveries about his life, his qualifications as a karateka and teacher and about his (false) allegations. The more I got into the subject, the more I found out that totally contradicted the findings of this man. Anyway, who ever is right and wrong, is for outsiders too complicated to see, but the fact is: he will NEVER discuss anything with people from WGKF, although they (we) are always open for discussion. As a matter of fact, he never discusses anything with anybody who does not agree with him... That already should make you frown... I would like to end this message saying I regret what I did lately, on Peter Lee's talk page. Although that is the way I feel about him (hiding behind anonymous IP addresses and insulting me from there), I should not have done this. I got totally carried away by all his insults and name slandering and acted in a moment of, err.. let's call it
1508:, but Mario found one, whitch should be on vacation. I still wait for his final approval. Then we can discuss with bot users, in Dutch, on an IRC-channel what the problem is about, what we can do to solve it, etc. On a certain moment Peter came up with threats to wikipedia about vandalizing, and about asking all his friends to do so. This, together with the vandalizations in the past and the a-constructive way he behaved at nl.wp (on the email he was usually very polite before the edits of londenp, though) I kept an vote with the question if peter lee should be blocked for a year because of these reasons. The link londenp gave you already.
1571:
summaries that another user is insane is not reasonable. Peter Lee has had notice of this RfC, and has refused to provide a response. That is disrespect for the
Knowledge process. Unless Peter Lee will provide a response, I don't see any alternative to submitting this case to the ArbCom to take the same action that has already been taken in the Dutch version, which is to ban an editor who has shown a disregard for the whole Knowledge process (and possibly to caution another editor who has lost his temper when provoked).
1502:
rational with eachother. That was why we first blocked both users, whitch we shouldn't furfill immediatly, but with a prohibational time. So if they did something wrong in the coming half year, they would be blocked more sever then usual, in return of the no blocking immediatly and that they could start the discussion all over again, so nobody should be in a bad position (sorry no good english word I could find for it). That didn't work out. Within a few days they were blocked for a week because of an edit-war.
1651:
Peter, and that there are multiple fake posts. I vote both are locked from editing any related topic, and we let legitimate 3rd parties from unrelated IPs recreate the articles. I'll volunteer, as I have 19 years myself in related martial arts, belts in 6 styles, and years on the wikipedia, but know little about
Genseiryu itself. But we've had enough volunteers and it hasn't worked. Again I vote delete the thing and let a new group sort it out. --
1647:
Otherwise Peter Lee has the right to disagree and call himself whatever he wants. In my opinion, the historical reason these kinds of debates get so heated is simply because, for 500 years, anyone has been able to call themselves whatever they want, because these titles aren't regulated by any body. Any art with binding trademarks is an art that's less than 50 years old (and those arts don't get a ton of respect in the industry anyway.)
1669:
goads and baits such attacks, and has on more than one occasion engaged in them himself. Both parties have engaged in totally unacceptable levels of edit warring, as well. Neither party has anywhere near clean hands here, and both parties have repeatedly stated that the situation is hopeless and they'll never stop the bickering, so my reaction is leaning towards "A topic ban on both your houses".
1269:, see on my talkpage for more statements by Peter Lee including his aim to bannish the article from wikipedia. I also tried to solve the same dispute at nl.wikipedia, the result there is a year long ban for Peter Lee because he refused to abide by request from editors to talk. Mario Roering has bettered his behaviour on nl: tremendously though.
1646:
be called
Genseiryu without the appellation of butokakai. As such the burden of proof lies with Mario to prove that said group had binding authority to say so--not that they constituted a large body (even if 99%) of Genseiryu practitioners--but that they own the international trademark of the term.
1637:
I've never met Peter or Mario and have no reason to be biased in either direction. I came on here looking up Peter Lee in Google. All I found was a blank article and the Talk war, which I then wasted an hour reading (all the talk, all the articles, all their talk pages). The only thing that really
1488:
Londenp had spoken very well. I just want to add that by email there have been various contacts with both users. But also with other people in their organizations. The users and persons asked me not to publish these emails, so I won't. If there is allowance of the users, you can take a look at them.
1668:
I'm honestly close to saying I agree with Mrcolj, and wouldn't be sorry to see both Mario
Roering and Peter Lee topic banned from the whole area for a good length of time. While I believe Peter Lee's behavior to have probably been, on the whole, worse in terms of outright attacks, Mario quite often
1570:
I have only briefly reviewed the history of this strange edit war. I can see that there have been breaches of civility on both sides. It appears that Mario
Roering is at least trying to be reasonable, and I see no evidence that Peter Lee is even trying. Editing another user's user page with edit
1446:
in a way it is without point of view. That means: mentioned in the article is the dispute, but every information which was disputed has been taken out (omitting information alas). Mr Peter Lee, who can not really understand dutch, did not understand the changes made to the article for NPOV and thus
38:
user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)), the
1650:
And no, I don't think Peter Lee was the aggressor here. I think he simply disagreed with Mario, and as far as I've read here and elsewhere Mario was the first one to start posting under multiple fake names, etc. It's pretty obvious when you read Peter's talk page, that the big name-caller isn't
1501:
tried to solve the problem. We saw that both users had, beside a dispute about the facts, a personal conflict. Therefor it was not rational to think that both users could come together, without severe pressure, without other users. We didn't even thought it possible that these to users could talk
1462:
Since the one year block on Peter Lee and in fact during the whole process to come to this block, on the Dutch wikipedia it is quiet and the article is still in a neutral state. In the end in my opinion the article and the information in the article is not worth the time taken by all people, also
124:
As a result both sides have repeatedly reverted, 'edited' and 'cleaned-up' the other's edits. This is usually simple reversion to their prior version. Initially at least, there was a fairly hot-headed discussion on the two users' talk pages, apparently also participated in by other editors who no
1510:
I an still would like to get this issue solved, and not out of the way. But not costing what it costs. If Mario finally come up with his representant, I am still allright to get with him and Thoar into discussion. But if it will not work out, well, it's a shame, but, ok, we have now some article
1441:
On the dutch wikipedia we had edit wars between the same users, which we have stopped by freezing the page. We had two parties of Dutch administrators. 3 administrators were involved in trying to solve the dispute and trying to mediate. The other party (of which I am one) have edited the article
163:
There was no further discussion by either Mario or Peter, both preferred to simply revert and give inappropriate edit-summaries. Both have been offered, repeatedly, the chance to file RfC or RfM or RfAr themselves, but have routinely ignored messages in that regard — or have refused on the
1303:
This is a summary written by the users whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response"
1365:, I could only react in the best way to defend the honesty and factual correctness of these Knowledge articles: revert the edits. Inside the karate community (esp. the Danish) it is well known that this person is not who he says he is. His dojo has been called by many people a
117:. The two competing organisations that they are respectively involved in both make separate claims about the validity of the other's point-of-view. Neither's point-of-view is palatable to the other. These two articles appear to try to represent these divergent views
1168:
JeremyA {{{protect}}}s the pages and admonishes both parties to desist and discuss. They desist as the article is protected, but do not discuss. A request to enter formal mediation was also made at this point, to which neither Mario
Roering nor Peter Lee
1599:
Given both editors rejection of the
Arbitrators' authority, it seems unlikely that either will submit to Mediation. If you are to absolutely insist on the complete invalidity of this RfC, then I shall simply remake it as two seperate ones.
1536:
At NL.wikipedia Peter Lee admitted quite clearly over and over again that he has obvious bad meanings intending mass vandalism. Peter Lee simply doesn't want to talk. Mario
Roering seems to be more and more prepared to talk and behaves
1447:
disputed the changes. The language used by Peter Lee in his E-mails, as well as the threads made to the Dutch administrators and to wikipedia were that bad, that Peter Lee was blocked for 1 year to the Dutch wikipedia, see :
1692:. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
96:
This RfC is brought jointly by the signees below: neither has an interest in the articles involved. This RfC is brought as 3rd parties to the dispute as the disputants have not availed themselves of the
1456:
There is one difference though. Mr Peter Lee has not edited any other article than about
Genseiryu, where Mr Mario Roering has done several other positive additions to the Dutch wikipedia.
1353:
For this moment I only want to comment that from the beginning I wanted to contribute to
Knowledge. It's a wonderful medium and an excellent idea from Jimbo Wales! Just check my edits
1287:
1245:
1232:
1689:
1523:
1137:
1675:
1575:
1428:
1386:
1257:
1266:
68:
1642:, where Mario writes that in 2003 "many Genseiryu Karate instructors from all over the world" voted that any instructor not subscribing wholly to their bible could
1273:
178:
decided to simply revert, with an explanation, any revert that was not discussed on the relevant talk pages. This did at least encourage some talk-page input from
1604:
1545:
doesn't have. After repeated tries to cope with the Peter Lee behaviour, I would advise to follow the Dutch results and to block Peter Lee for at least one year.
1450:. The Foundation board was informed about this behaviour. This blockage was not about who was right, but is self-defence to insure the continuation of the NL:WP.
859:(not a party to this RfC). Included here mainly as evidence of team-work in POV pushing and reverting, and Lee's reverting (includes a violation of 3RR by Lee):
1475:
1183:(to talk page of mainly-active article) Splash admonishes against the style of edit summaries. Peter Lee delivers an unpleasant response to Splash's talk page
1655:
1330:
490:
Responded to with simple reverts by Mario Roering (who does not technically violate 3RR) and evident colleagues. Note ArbCom admonishes agains revert-teams:
91:{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
1557:
1420:
1378:
786:
421:
273:
231:
187:
179:
126:
106:
64:
1310:{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
1459:
But in the end both people are guilty of not trying to resolve the dispute. Both were blocked for 2 weeks over the dispute, before the final solution.
1207:, who editing under anon IPs simply continues reverting, with increasingly abusive edit summaries (see the article histories), including a revert with
129:
has at least engaged in some discussion with both the cosignees but it appeared that, on learning there was no offer of advocacy, he lost interest.
1204:
1117:
958:
899:
856:
805:
761:
466:
337:
252:
227:
198:
183:
141:
130:
102:
49:
1354:
1070:
222:). Both sides should stop writing highly abusive edit summaries and writing one another abusive messages. Both sides should read and digest
592:
448:
438:
1181:
605:
602:
599:
596:
1609:
No, you are right. Separate RfCs would just be more work with no extra gain. I just wasn't sure of how strongly policy was enforced.
1154:
808:, but Roering need not intervene since JeremyA's policy of reverting undiscussed changes with abusive edit summaries is in effect:
1190:, and does for a while — but rather than discuss, he simply puts 'rv' or similar in the edit summaries. This does not really last.
889:
886:
883:
880:
877:
874:
871:
868:
865:
862:
847:
844:
841:
838:
835:
832:
829:
824:
821:
818:
815:
812:
809:
729:
726:
723:
720:
717:
714:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
694:
676:
673:
670:
667:
661:
658:
655:
652:
548:
545:
542:
539:
451:
153:
1541:
better than Peter Lee. For that reason my opinion is that Mario Roering still has a value as a Knowledge editor, where Peter Lee
125:
longer appear to be involved. Latterly, there has been almost complete refusal by both sides to discuss anything on talk pages.
1483:
1448:
1377:! It will never happen again, and my intentions are (as they always were) to contribute to Knowledge in the best way I can! --
1348:
256:
1037:
1031:
1025:
1019:
1013:
1004:
998:
995:
986:
980:
977:
971:
962:
952:
943:
940:
934:
928:
922:
916:
910:
533:
530:
527:
524:
202:
30:, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the
1660:
261:
1504:
Because it didn't work out, we tried another variant. I asked both users to come up with a representant. Peter agreed with
248:
It may or may not interest editors to know that both editors apparently received conditional blocks on the Dutch Knowledge
1580:
1403:
441:
425:
110:
72:
1226:
1217:
1214:
1196:
1187:
1178:
1166:
454:
249:
165:
1318:
1193:
1163:
1151:
1146:
853:
1565:
80:
1175:
1172:
1157:
380:
365:
362:
356:
353:
350:
325:
313:
295:
292:
289:
1436:
1184:
1096:
383:
319:
186:, editing under anonymous IPs continued to revert on sight with increasingly abusive edit-summaries towards both
57:
1639:
429:
1632:
1453:
Every attempt to let these two work out a solution is futile, they are both very stong-headed about their POV.
1201:
27:
17:
1223:
347:
344:
341:
322:
316:
301:
298:
286:
283:
280:
277:
201:'s IP addresses which were extremely minor edits specifically for the purpose of an abusive edit summary e.g.
1531:
310:
377:
374:
371:
368:
359:
304:
210:
Both sides need to stop reverting one another, calmly discuss things on the talk page, study carefully what
174:
With the failure of informal mediation, no willingness to seek formal mediation and a perpetual revert war,
169:
109:
have been engaged in a lengthy edit-war, now degenerated to a sterile revert war, over the pair of articles
1123:
307:
1490:
1198:
Splash gives an account of the dispute resolution process, recommends an RfC or similar. Nothing happens.
1156:
JeremyA offers informal evidenciary mediation to both editors. Mario Roering does not respond, Peter Lee
1043:
410:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
1208:
793:
790:
780:
777:
774:
771:
768:
765:
755:
752:
749:
746:
743:
740:
737:
734:
638:
635:
632:
629:
623:
620:
617:
614:
506:
503:
500:
497:
494:
491:
485:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
460:
435:
157:
413:
328:
852:
A colleague (no evidence of being a sockpuppet) of Roering's arrives, and reverts although is warned
1203:
JeremyA warns of his attention to revert (and block) for pointless reversion. This has no effect on
1034:
1028:
1022:
1016:
1010:
1007:
1001:
992:
989:
983:
974:
968:
965:
949:
946:
937:
931:
925:
919:
913:
907:
589:
586:
583:
580:
577:
205:
1394:: Just for the record: above here in the part about "Evidence of disputed behavior", where it says
1222:
Despite the various warnings, Mario leaves a widly inappropriate message on Peter Lee's talk page:
1101:
511:
Again, the above include various inappropriate and attacking edit summaries as well as POV-pushing.
687:— they are examples of reverts, substantial removals of text, or substantial rewrites carried out
1216:
JeremyA warns Mario Roering again about edit summaries. Mario admits he shouldn't have done that
1588:
This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.
1498:
1572:
1284:
572:, and is reverted by two seperate editors. Presumed bad-faith nomination, and violation of
8:
1520:
1407:
1113:
1107:
1073:
specifically per #7 below, since one or more of Peter Lee's IPs were blocked at the time.
140:
Eventually, as the edit summaries become more heated, and the reverts more frequent, and
85:
53:
1670:
1662:
1505:
1494:
1078:
902:
continues blindly reverting. Note the edit summaries become increasinly abusing toward
1688:
signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to
1327:
1297:
1254:
1225:, for which he is blocked for 24 hours by JeremyA, although he apologises to JeremyA
121:
neither side can agree what the correct way to represent their opponent's views is.
1625:
1610:
961:. Made with the sole purpose of being making personal attacks in the edit summary:
610:
Another 3RR by both parties, with Lee presumed editing under a couple of anon IPs:
1084:
1052:
553:
The above also includes accusations of lies and defamation in the edit summaries.
211:
1489:
I'm very sorry for this. I can however tell you how the contacts went somehow.
643:
Note again the edit-summaries and that no discussion took place in the meantime.
1058:
241:. If the articles should be unprotected, they should also consider voluntarily
215:
137:, although this amounted largely to demaning the removal of Roering's content.
60:), and numerous presumed anonymous IPs which appear to be dynamically assigned.
855:
about 3RR and edit-summaries. Lee, operating under anon IPs, reverts, as does
782:. Note particularly the highly abusive edit summaries in the final two diffs.
1131:
1090:
1064:
573:
517:
238:
223:
219:
1472:
1443:
1324:
1323:(Peter Lee has been made aware of this RfC and has refused to participate.
1251:
903:
566:
457:
191:
175:
145:
134:
431:
requesting certain groups of people do not edit the article. Similarly on
234:
is far from innocent. It is, for the time being, recommended that they do
1652:
1601:
1591:
1361:. Once Peter Lee started to change large parts of Genseiryu and later of
1263:
1242:
1148:, JeremyA advises Peter Lee on appropriate methods of dispute resolution.
683:
Various revert-warring, inappropriate and uncivil use of edit-summaries.
444:
197:
Eventually, owing to a huge string of minor-edits by one of (presumably)
648:
Another 3RR by both sides (in the midst of the revert/edit-wars below):
1554:
270:
Talk page related incivility and personal attacks, of varying degrees:
1590:
This case is clearly about two parties. I recommend this is moved to
1358:
559:
432:
149:
114:
789:
plays his part (hence listing here as continuation of revert-war):
1511:
anyway. Just a pity that two grown-ups have to behave this way.
1406:) and NOT me. Not that I would care, but just to show that I (or
245:
editing either article until things have been straightened out.
214:
and consider whether their editing style conforms rigorously to
1366:
898:
With the revert-undiscussed-edits policy temporarily in place,
502:. Colleague (not party to this RfC) reverting to same version:
331:
1680:
1071:
WP:NPA#A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down"
1160:
with a refusal to participate and more attacks agains Mario.
1362:
1314:
Please keep discussion of these responses to the talk page.
957:
Final spate of minor edits by anonymous IPs presumed to be
801:
484:. Again, a few hours outside 24, so simple revert-warring:
168:, or because they have no jurisidiction over Genseiryu etc
1357:
to see that I also contributed to other articles, besides
255:
has since been banned for a year from the Dutch Knowledge
182:
although it was not exactly consensus-building in nature.
1463:
here at EN:WP. Behaviour of both discredit their sport.
1211:
edit summary, taken as his response to JeremyA's message.
152:
for almost a month. Within an hour of being unprotected,
312:(invites another editor to join the war on his 'side'),
1048:{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
300:(to a 3rd party, apparently from the Dutch Knowledge),
1138:
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
558:
Anon IPs, presumed to be Peter Lee, repeatedly tags
133:
did engage in some fairy accusatory discussion with
39:
page will be deleted. The current date and time is:
207:, the article was re-protected and this RfC filed.
166:grounds that the Arbitrators might be even handed
1620:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1549:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1515:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1467:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1414:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1337:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1116:(particularly for the final spate of edits by
593:Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation
591:. Identical behaviour on a related article (
439:Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation
1233:Users certifying the basis for this dispute
226:and act on it — this is especially true of
443:. All are eventually removed, however: by
420:Although as an attempt to avoid conflict,
1586:I would just like to remind you of this:
1410:and I) am (are) not alone... That's all!
685:Note these are not usually 3RR violations
1638:stood out to me as legally relevant was
148:protected both articles: in the case of
14:
1274:Other users who endorse this summary
1039:. These span a period of 11 minutes.
550:(in fact slightly outside 24 hours).
426:World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation
251:, over the same issue. Apparently,
111:World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation
23:
24:
1701:
144:moved to dynamic, anonymous IPs,
158:Genseiryu followed shortly after
1097:Knowledge:Ownership of articles
745:(Roering or collaborating IP),
725:(Roering or collaborating IP),
520:, over the addition of a link:
388:(blanks an article talk page),
1484:Outside view by Effeietsanders
41:14:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
28:Knowledge:Requests for comment
18:Knowledge:Requests for comment
13:
1:
1676:05:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1396:"Roering or collaborating IP"
1288:17:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
415:(inapprop. use of talk page).
262:Evidence of disputed behavior
26:In order to remain listed at
1656:16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
1628:03:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
1613:07:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
1124:Knowledge:Dispute resolution
7:
1690:this page's discussion page
1605:04:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
1581:Outside view by Acetic Acid
1576:11:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
1558:11:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
1524:08:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
1476:06:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
1429:19:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
1387:22:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
1331:19:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
1267:08:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
1258:02:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
1246:02:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
1188:suggests he will try harder
1055:advocacy or a battleground;
10:
1706:
1142:(provide diffs and links)
764:operating under anon IPs:
428:with a hidden HTML notice
266:(provide diffs and links)
1349:Response by Mario Roering
1566:Outside view by McClenon
1102:Knowledge:Edit summaries
453:after advice by Splash (
154:WGKF was in a revert war
81:Statement of the dispute
1437:Outside view by Londenp
516:Both users violate the
239:remove personal attacks
218:(and, to an extent, to
1633:Outside view by Mrcolj
595:) and violation of 3RR
437:and a related article
1532:Outside view by Jcbos
1319:Response by Peter Lee
456:), and much later by
1186:, and Mario Roering
1180:(to Mario Roering),
1177:(to dynamic anons),
651:Peter Lee (as anon):
1114:Knowledge:Vandalism
1108:Knowledge:Edit wars
1044:Applicable policies
760:A 3RR violation by
465:A 3RR violation by
1371:mental derangement
1237:(sign with ~~~~)
628:Peter Lee (anons):
1674:
1398:, it is indeed a
1278:(sign with ~~~~)
1697:
1673:
1661:Outside view by
1426:
1384:
1355:in the beginning
571:
565:
42:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1683:
1666:
1635:
1583:
1573:Robert McClenon
1568:
1534:
1486:
1439:
1422:
1380:
1351:
1321:
1300:
1285:Robert McClenon
1276:
1235:
1140:
1126:not availed of.
1067:generally and;
1046:
906:in particular:
870:, (TenChiJin),
691:by both sides.
666:Mario Roering:
613:Mario Roering:
569:
563:
523:Mario Roering:
264:
88:
83:
40:
34:dispute with a
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1703:
1682:
1679:
1665:
1659:
1634:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1582:
1579:
1567:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1560:
1533:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1526:
1521:Effeietsanders
1509:
1503:
1485:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1478:
1438:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1431:
1350:
1347:
1345:
1343:
1342:
1320:
1317:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1290:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1260:
1248:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1220:
1212:
1205:User:Peter Lee
1199:
1191:
1170:
1161:
1149:
1139:
1136:
1128:
1127:
1121:
1111:
1105:
1099:
1094:
1088:
1082:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1062:
1056:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1040:
955:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
850:
827:
798:
797:
796:
758:
732:
712:
681:
680:
679:
664:
646:
645:
644:
641:
626:
608:
556:
555:
554:
551:
536:
514:
513:
512:
509:
467:User:Peter Lee
463:
418:
417:
416:
335:
263:
260:
228:User:Peter Lee
199:User:Peter Lee
87:
84:
82:
79:
78:
77:
76:
61:
45:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1702:
1693:
1691:
1687:
1678:
1677:
1672:
1671:Seraphimblade
1664:
1663:Seraphimblade
1658:
1657:
1654:
1648:
1645:
1641:
1627:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1603:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1593:
1589:
1578:
1577:
1574:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1544:
1540:
1527:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1512:
1507:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1479:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1445:
1432:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1409:
1405:
1404:212.127.137.2
1401:
1400:collaborating
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1385:
1383:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1346:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1305:
1291:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1268:
1265:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1213:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1147:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1135:
1133:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1002:
999:
996:
993:
990:
987:
984:
981:
978:
975:
972:
969:
966:
963:
960:
956:
953:
950:
947:
944:
941:
938:
935:
932:
929:
926:
923:
920:
917:
914:
911:
908:
905:
901:
897:
890:
888:(TenChiJin),
887:
884:
881:
878:
876:(TenChiJin),
875:
872:
869:
866:
864:(TenChiJin),
863:
861:
860:
858:
854:
851:
848:
845:
842:
839:
836:
833:
830:
828:
825:
822:
819:
816:
813:
810:
807:
803:
799:
794:
791:
788:
784:
783:
781:
778:
775:
772:
769:
766:
763:
759:
756:
753:
750:
747:
744:
741:
738:
735:
733:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
715:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
693:
692:
690:
686:
682:
677:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
656:
653:
650:
649:
647:
642:
639:
636:
633:
630:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
612:
611:
609:
606:
603:
600:
597:
594:
590:
587:
584:
581:
578:
575:
568:
561:
557:
552:
549:
546:
543:
540:
537:
534:
531:
528:
525:
522:
521:
519:
518:3-revert-rule
515:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
488:
486:
483:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
464:
461:
459:
455:
452:
450:, by Roering
449:
446:
442:
440:
436:
434:
430:
427:
423:
422:Mario Roering
419:
414:
411:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
363:
360:
357:
354:
351:
348:
345:
342:
339:
336:
333:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
314:
311:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
281:
278:
275:
274:Mario Roering
272:
271:
269:
268:
267:
259:
257:
254:
250:
246:
244:
240:
237:
233:
232:Mario Roering
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
208:
206:
203:
200:
195:
193:
189:
188:Mario Roering
185:
181:
180:Mario Roering
177:
172:
170:
167:
161:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
136:
132:
128:
127:Mario Roering
122:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:Mario Roering
104:
99:
98:
93:
92:
74:
73:contributions
70:
66:
65:Mario Roering
62:
59:
58:contributions
55:
51:
47:
46:
44:
37:
33:
29:
19:
1685:
1684:
1667:
1649:
1643:
1640:this article
1636:
1619:
1618:
1587:
1585:
1584:
1569:
1548:
1547:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1514:
1513:
1487:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1444:nl:Genseiryu
1440:
1423:
1413:
1412:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1390:
1381:
1374:
1370:
1352:
1344:
1336:
1335:
1322:
1313:
1312:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1277:
1236:
1141:
1129:
1047:
688:
684:
265:
247:
242:
235:
209:
196:
173:
162:
146:User:JeremyA
139:
123:
118:
100:
97:opportunity.
95:
94:
90:
89:
35:
31:
25:
1626:Acetic Acid
1611:Acetic Acid
1079:WP:CIVILITY
882:(Roering),
846:(Roering),
840:(Roering),
834:(Roering),
751:(Roering),
739:(Roering),
719:(Roering),
705:(Roering),
699:(Roering),
538:Peter Lee:
230:, although
86:Description
1681:Discussion
1375:brain fart
1169:responded.
757:(Roering).
731:(Roering).
711:(Roering).
689:repeatedly
1644:no longer
1543:obviously
1499:Jeroenvrp
1408:TenChiJin
1359:Genseiryu
1298:Responses
1130:Possibly
1118:Peter Lee
959:Peter Lee
900:Peter Lee
857:TenChiJin
806:Peter Lee
785:However,
762:Peter Lee
560:Genseiryu
433:Genseiryu
394:(again),
391:(again),
338:Peter Lee
253:Peter Lee
184:Peter Lee
150:Genseiryu
142:Peter Lee
131:Peter Lee
115:Genseiryu
103:Peter Lee
50:Peter Lee
1304:section.
1158:responds
1085:WP:FAITH
1053:WP:ISNOT
800:Same on
424:creates
212:WP:ISNOT
192:JeremeyA
1473:Londenp
1325:JeremyA
1252:JeremyA
1059:WP:NPOV
904:JeremyA
885:(Lee),
879:(Lee),
873:(Lee),
867:(Lee),
843:(Lee),
837:(Lee),
831:(Lee),
787:Roering
754:(Lee),
748:(Lee),
742:(Lee),
736:(Lee),
728:(Lee),
722:(Lee),
716:(Lee),
708:(Lee),
702:(Lee),
696:(Lee),
458:JeremyA
216:WP:NPOV
176:JeremyA
135:JeremyA
1653:Mrcolj
1602:Splash
1367:McDojo
1328:(talk)
1264:Waerth
1255:(talk)
1243:Splash
1132:WP:NOR
1091:WP:3RR
1065:WP:NPA
891:(Lee).
849:(Lee).
576:again:
447:twice
445:Splash
332:Karate
224:WP:NPA
220:WP:NOR
36:single
1555:Jcbos
1539:quite
1506:Thoar
1495:Oscar
1421:Mario
1379:Mario
804:, by
562:with
101:Both
16:<
1592:WP:M
1497:and
1402:IP (
1392:P.S.
1373:, a
1363:WGKF
1209:this
802:WGKF
330:(on
190:and
156:and
113:and
105:and
69:talk
54:talk
32:same
1686:All
1419:--
574:3RR
567:vfd
243:not
236:not
119:but
1493:,
1333:)
1195:,
1165:,
1153:,
1134:.
1120:.)
1036:,
1033:,
1030:,
1027:,
1024:,
1021:,
1018:,
1015:,
1012:,
1009:,
1006:,
1003:,
1000:,
997:,
994:,
991:,
988:,
985:,
982:,
979:,
976:,
973:,
970:,
967:,
964:,
951:,
948:,
945:,
942:,
939:,
936:,
933:,
930:,
927:,
924:,
921:,
918:,
915:,
912:,
909:,
823:,
820:,
817:,
814:,
811:,
792:,
779:,
776:,
773:,
770:,
767:,
675:,
672:,
669:,
660:,
657:,
654:,
637:,
634:,
631:,
622:,
619:,
616:,
604:,
601:,
598:,
588:,
585:,
582:,
579:,
570:}}
564:{{
547:,
544:,
541:,
532:,
529:,
526:,
505:,
499:,
496:,
493:,
487:.
481:,
478:,
475:,
472:,
469::
412:,
409:,
406:,
403:,
400:,
397:,
379:,
376:,
373:,
370:,
367:,
364:,
361:,
358:,
355:,
352:,
349:,
346:,
343:,
340:,
334:).
327:,
324:,
321:,
318:,
315:,
309:,
306:,
303:,
297:,
294:,
291:,
288:,
285:,
282:,
279:,
276::
258:.
204:,
194:.
171:!
160:.
71:|
67:|
56:|
52:|
43:.
1600:-
1594:.
1491:I
1424:R
1382:R
1262:-
1250:-
1241:-
1228:.
1219:.
1174:,
1110:;
1104:;
1093:;
1087:;
1081:;
1061:;
954:.
826:.
795:.
678:.
663:.
640:.
625:.
607:.
535:.
508:.
462:.
385:,
382:,
75:)
63:(
48:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.