User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

5993:

all of the effort I did to support him. And I guess that I do have a habit of going out of my way for people, some of whom (like Brandt) don't appreciate it, and others who don't deserve it. So there you go. I still say that my work helped him but hey, he doesn't appreciate it so that's his business. At least he agreed with me to take people's real names down, although because I asked him to do that I got some guy harassing me and threatening me because of it. I feel stupid for sticking my neck out now. And I wonder if it was really him that I met on Live Journal in 2002 anyway. The guy I met was nice. Maybe there's another Google Watch somewhere. Maybe I was talking to one of his secretaries then. I don't know. I am through with supporting Brandt. Its not just that he attacked me, but he did it publicly. Whilst maybe I made mistakes, he should have e-mailed me rather than just smearing my name in public like that. He should have seen my intentions if nothing else. So yeah, I've seen what he's really like now. But that doesn't change my opinion about Vilerage. Brandt might think he's okay, but I don't. I think that Brandt has a lack of knowledge of legalities. He forgives people far too easily for criminal actions and doesn't see the repercussions. He also stuffed things up with Seigenthaler - Chase DID NOT libel Seigenthaler. I've tried to convince him of that but he doesn't seem to figure that one out either. Every legal opinion in the world has confirmed this. But, on the other hand, Knowledge has libelled Brandt. But oh no he insists that they haven't. I think its just daft. Someone writing in there the "Outing" thing is obviously libelling him. You can't get any more obvious. The fact that people are going around saying that he is "a guy who makes money at the expense of people's privacy" when he's actually a privacy advocate is proof of libel. Who is responsible is another matter. But Brandt insists its just a privacy invasion. I think the guy doesn't know what's what and barks up the wrong tree. But the problem is that he attacks people, like me, who went out of their way to help him. Just see some of the comments I had to delete off my talk page to see that it wasn't easy for me to do this.

5929:

saying "Daniel Brandt is unreliable" but I think that if you have systems logs and confessions then its pretty much a definite. Anyway, he seems to have left indefinitely, and he has put something akin to an apology on his page, and you have made your stance clear, so thank you. And I hope that we don't get a third such attack to have to worry about. I hope that we can all make peace here. I know that a lot of people think that Brandt is a crackpot, that his views about the CIA being everywhere are silly, but he does do a lot of research on to these things. He is quite correct about the scrapings, and that Knowledge, due to its mirrors, can be used for scraping. I am not convinced though that Google and Knowledge really are linked, and if they are, I am not convinced that Google pays Knowledge to scrape. Nor am I convinced that there's little CIA agents running around here trying to control Knowledge. Oh, there's probably CIA agents that use Knowledge, and they probably look at posts to do such things as to find out if anyone is a terrorist. But I doubt that its quite as sinister as he suggests. However, that's his opinion. I've also suggested what I think would act as a solution to the biography issue, if you will. I think that what would be a great addition is to add a part of the talk page called "Ask the Expert", and then, for biography pages about real people, if the real person wants to participate, then they can be asked questions about key data there. For example, we can ask them for sources for things that we can remember them saying. We can also ask them if there is more to something. I think that this would work wonderfully well. And it can apply to businesses and practically anything. Whilst we could do it just in the regular old talk page, I think it'd be good if it was a separate section. Then we can still have the rule that you can't edit your own biography, yet their voice is heard? What do you think?

8253:, the present ArbCom is and can be pretty fair. i think Fred Bauder's considered judgement is mostly very fair. but if he, because of time constraints, is relying on the information and evaluation of his admins, in this case, without checking out the veracity of what Karmafist has said (as an axiom - read what he writes - he makes no effort to justify his charge of my alledged harassment, but is writing as if it's a given), then Fred and the ArbCom will fail to do the right thing. we're dealing with an immature, mendacious, rude, arrogant troll whose defense is the old children's offensive technique of simply accusing their opponent of precisely the sin they are guilty of and expecting to be held above reproach (since Karmafist, in his righteousness, is the one picking slivers out of eyes). it's an old tired technique. you may certainly wonder: am i not doing the same thing? am i not accusing karmafist of what he is accusing me of? and that is where you need to check out the evidence (starting at the RFAr and then to the talk pages). it's all there. 8214:

or an admin friend that is solicited. some admins believe they can do no wrong. that they are untouchable and they can be as rude and intellectually dishonest as they like and no consequence will befall them. after looking the dispute resolution process over a bit, i might be able to name a few, but it might be libelous since i hadn't directly interacted with them and i do not know first hand. but with karmafist, it is not libelous because the truth, even if defamatory, is not libel. you take a look at that RFAr, karmafist's words on my or his talk page (if he hasn't erased it), Phroziac's page (to see how i alledgedly harassed her) and look closely at the time stamps and it is clear that the only person between these three who has been harassed, is me. read what karma says about USENET, trolling, harassment and try to objectively decide who is the troll, the harasser, the patronizer, who is uncivil, dishonest, hypocritical. it really shouldn't be hard, the record is there.

6820:

more in line with the wiki philosophy. Convert the Arbitration Committee into an Arbitration Oversight Committee which decides when a case has merit, and then for the actual arbitration, the Arbitration Oversight Committee assigns each case to a different arbitration panel with nine members selected completely at random from a volunteer page. This would provide distributed arbitration by peers, which is more in line with the "many eyes" philosophy, and would allow more thorough and specific attention on each case, while still allowing the Arbitration Oversight Committee, elected in the existing fashion, to decide which cases merit arbitration. I expect cases would be concluded more rapidly and the explanations would be more thorough. This has an added benefit of converting any systematic bias (or allegations of systematic bias), into a more distributed balance. What do you think?

1575:. Even if the community itself decides its own rules by discussion and by election, they have never to be followed by all users. I'm sure, that not all users want to follow rules, but that should never end up with a unwritten law in a wiki, that every user may edit every page as he wants to without having to respect the rules the community set up. If a user has a problem with one or another rule, he should try to discuss it with the other users and should try to change the rule by discussion and election. If he does not and just ignores the rules, he should be stopped by Administration Force. I told the folks at the German Wikinews my view, but they always said: "We are a wiki. Everybody may change what he feels like". That's something I can't believe. It means, that nobody can be stopped violating pages, because he is free to do, what he wants. With best regards -- 8035:, etc. that stuff is par for the course. i would expect things like that to happen (and eventually get corrected). the crisis of credibility is that a bunch of young (college-aged or thereabouts) and self-satisfied wikiheads have been inadequately vetted (or maybe the vetting was as good as one could expect) and vested with adminship when they are too immature to take on the responsibility and do it responsibly. these are nasty kids who have let the power of adminship go to their heads to the extent that they don't believe the civility rules apply to them. they are naked hypocrites who act as trolls and harrass editors and accuse anyone who confronts them about it as being trolls and for harrassment. they demand respect, but they do not offer any. WP will necessarily lose a lot of talent if the cops here treat them so badly. it 2442:

that the number of people bringing defamation claims would be large enough to meet the numerosity requirement. Even if they were, defamation claims are obviously ones in which individual questions predominate. The issues include: What statements were made about Siegenthaler (or Ellison, or Sollog, or whoever); were the statements about this particular plaintiff true; and to what extent was this particular plaintiff damaged by any false statements that were published. The only rationale for slinging around the term "class action" is that it might get the threat more attention. (Although I haven't researched this particular issue and this comment isn't an opinion letter, I'm a lawyer who's been on both sides of class actions -- trying to get a class certified, and trying to block certification. In this hypothetical lawsuit, I would

1037:." Knowledge policy and guidelines were apparently designed to provide rules and guidance so as to ensure content integrity which in turn should be a clear reference point to eliminate or at least minimize unnecessary discussion. However, the reality is that these policies and guidelines are frequently ignored or given their own spin to suit an agenda. Policy isn't worth much if there is no mechanism to enforce it, hence my sincere question is: Why not draw upon the considerable (volunteer) expertise of Wikipedians who have demonstrated the capabilities and an NPOV history, along with any volunteers from those who made the substantial effort to create those policies and guidelines, to form a policy review/referral committee? The formation for such a Committee could be done in the same manner as you proposed at 5860:

criminal activity. Whilst individuals might feel that Brandt deserves what he gets, the fact that this person did this with reference to his Knowledge account and as a Knowledge editor means that for all intents and purposes he did it here. I implore you to action against this user before it gets out of hand. Whilst I am not sure of the liability of Knowledge with regards to protecting or encouraging criminal activity, I imagine that regardless of that, as this is the 2nd such incident (alongside the "hoax") there is a very good chance that the media will use this to portray Knowledge in a very bad light, and that could be more damaging than any criminal charges. I had hoped that admins would react to stop this, but it seems not, and that is making things even worse.

8171:" That seems to me to be a convenient position of someone on the inside looking out. the CEO's and management of many companies and institutions, the leadership of governments, churches or other social organizations often believe the same thing even as those companies/governments/institutions are crashing and burning. it's unbelievably optimistic to think that some 99% of the admins are all just fine and good and executing their duties effectively and responsibly. no human organization or institution can (accurately) boast that level of efficacy. if only 1% of any organization this large gets washed out, either WP can claim an historically successful social experiment or, alternatively, it isn't cleaning house enough. 5647:, in which he claims that the site is not credible because its authors do not have degrees in theology. He also claims that the writing is sloppy and inaccurate, though he has yet to provide specific examples of this. He contends that citing OCRT is just like citing a blog, and thus out of bounds. Defenders of citing OCRT (including me) point to the site's significant popularity (millions of hits per week), its long tenure (it's been around for 10 years), and the fact that the site's articles do cite their sources and are thus not just opinion pieces. When jguk started mass-removing references to OCRT citing the above page as policy, I nominated it on MFD as likely to cause confusion (masquerading as policy). (A 4532:

and fighting for multiculturalism, something I still believe in and defend. I converted to Islam and remained a Muslim trying to promote it for five years. During all this time I noticed that what I had been told and read about Islam prior to my conversion was a world different from what I came to see. 9/11 was the turning point for me and after investigating the facts I realized that everything I had read about Islam were lies and I had been duped into this religion. I assure you there are many others who also converted to Islam and today defend it tooth and nail, just as I did, but if they come to see the truth, they too will leave Islam horrified. These lies have produced many victims. Perhaps you remember

3272:"Factual note: Wiki admin Ta bu shi da yu contacted us with links to his attempt to get the "childlover" Wiki article deleted. As this is probably the most pro-pedophile article on Knowledge, written by pedophiles, the idea that Ta bu shi da yu is in favor of pedophiles doesn't hold up in view of his edit history. While he did thank for sourcing, that is a common "polite" practice on Knowledge. It does not mean someone is pro-pedophile. Additionally Ta bu shi da yu states that he is not a "liberal marxist" but an evangelical Christian. His editing history shows that he is not a pedophile, not in favor of pedophilia and has done a great job in the past of editing pedophile-related articles." 8579:. As you will see, Wyss was only trying to enforce a high standard of verifiability with respect to an editor who had been placed on probation for making poorly verified statements. The ArbCom decision should be seen in three parts. The first is the statement of principle that a different standard of sourcing applies to celebrity gossip than to history. The second is the decision that the biographies of certain deceased entertainers should be considered celebrity gossip rather than scholarship. The third is the remedy to place Wyss on probation and to ban her from editing articles involving issues about the sexual orientation of celebrities. 4926:

if you're for keeping it, you have to win every time. That makes it seem unfair for those in favor of keeping it. On the other hand, if you bar any further attempts at deletion, it seems undemocratic, because you're not letting people have a say on it anymore. I think the answer is something like Jimbo mentions. We should have a system in which surviving AfD once means renomination can't occur for a month (or two?), twice means not for 6 months, more than that means not for a year. A system like this (the numbers could vary depending on general opinion, of course) would give us a more orderly and uncontroversial way to deal with these cases.

5673:

reviewed by an academic. A number of us on the talk page have already expressed concerns about how Robinson uses sources as well as his lack of academic approach. That's why we're having this discussion as to whether it is suitable to reference the religioustolerance.org website. Remember, if information currently referenced to religioustolerance.org is correct, it should be possible to find a better, reputable source for it (indeed, since Robinson quotes his sources, if you trust his essay you should also be able to go back to his sources and, if those sources support the information in the WP article, cite those instead),

2127:. Yeah, well that was all a rather bad idea. I guess lots of editting takes it toll after a while. So I make things lite-hearted, with little jokes to fool my fellow editors, testing the system and all that. Yeah it's immature, sure. I obviously don't take Wiki as serious as others, but that was all I editted for anyway, was to curb boredom. To be honest, I wasn't treating it like you were, as the future of encyclopedias or anything. Just as a bit of (intellectual) fun. Maybe I should take another wikibreak for a few weeks again? That did the trick for a while last time, and when I came back I had new projects to do ( 5609:. You have made comments indicating that we should be more aggressive in identifying and blocking disruptive users. Ed did this, and in retrospec he may or may not have made a mistake, but if we can not allow admins to make mistakes without fear of reprisals and desysoping, then we will never as a community have control over both vandalism and disruptive editing. I support banning users more quickly (less "due process") since they can assume a new identity in minutes - and as long as they don't repeat their previous behavior - no one will care enough to investigate and ban them again. Please comment on the 8642:

been treated with disrespect. Mediation was attempted, but the mediation failed because Researcher99 said that he was not willing to mediate article content until his claims of being treated with disrespect were mediated. Since the mediation was intended to resolve the content dispute, and one participant refused to discuss content, the mediation failed. The case then went to the ArbCom, which found that Researcher99 was being disruptive. Since the objective of Knowledge is to build an encyclopedia, failure to discuss content is disruptive. I suggest that the ArbCom be commended for a good decision.

8699:) and accused me of abusing Knowledge pages, of being a vandal and a troll, etc. After being informed by arbitrator Fred Bauder that Onefortyone is "not banned from editing celebrity articles" and that "automatically reverting his contributions on the basis that he is 'banned' is not justified," Wyss made absurd accusations, again calling me a vandal and claiming that Fred Bauder "is only the latest in a long line of admins and bureaucrats to have been manipulated by him" and that I am "as disruptive as ever. He has wrought and continues to inflict true damage upon this encyclopdedia." See 8980:

This guy reverts every day any changes I make to the Bigfoot page, even when sources are quoted. I have 30 years experience in this, and have info that is NOT YET published in books, but which is on websites. After all, Wiki is a web-based pedia. DreamGuy is a skeptic who takes the view that Bigfoot is a myth, even though I have seen it 5x and have taken 17 photos, and have analyzed for years the Patterson Bigfoot film of 1967. He disallows any references to sites where witnesses can relieve their trauma, even though this is done on Wiki in FIRST AID, BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AND UFOS.

3446:, though they continued to be able to edit existing articles as before." If so, it is the best news about Knowledge I have heard since I first became involved. I congratulate Mr Wales on finally taking the first step to making Knowledge a real encyclopeadia rather than an adventure playground for cranks and (as has now been demonstrated) slanderers. But it is only a first step. The next step must be banning anonymous people from editing at all, requiring all editors to have verifiable contact details, and protecting completed articles from random editing. (See 6976:

possibly coming out. So my question is, is somebody going to get rich off of this project (wikipedia), and if so, then why should i put money into it (i already put enough in)? I mean, is there somewhere i can go to see what the funds are, what is needed, how much is paying someone's salary, etc.? Sorry to be the realist; and sure, the early bird gets the worm, but i'm here to serve a different purpose, and unfortunately, in my world, the dishonest are reigning unchecked and i'm poor as hell - so could we address this? Anonymously yours,

5781:, I am in favor of continuing this discussion in its present form because I think there's an important issue at stake here, which is that Knowledge should always favor primary sources over secondary sources, and secondary sources over tertiary sources, etc. Religioustolerance.org is a great example of a tertiary (or lower) source: it is essentially one man's (or a small number of men's) opinions, citing generally better sources for the factual content contained therein. I think we should not be 6178:

More than enough users (including myself) have expressed interest. A huge swathe of Chinese readers in the US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, etc. would benefit from the project, even if it were not accessible to mainland Chinese. I see no reason for it not to be started, and in fact, I consider it to be a violation of Wikimedia principles for one not to be started. What is the current status of the project, and when do you (and the other members of the Board) intend to allow the project to go ahead?

7042: 7942:, he claims he doesn't "really" want to be on ArbCom, but is running nonetheless. Please be very careful and very wary of this person vis-a-vis the ArbCom. For someone for whom there is real debate as to whether he should even be an admin, it's hard to be confident of his fitness for the ArbCom. I believe the evidence (please check his contribs, his talk page and my talk page for the latest) demonstrates that he would be poisonous for the ArbCom. Thank you for reading this. 6395: 4595:

lied and bragged how they deceived the "filty kafirs". I can’t explain why I played along despite my conscience. Once I bought in to the lie that Islam is the true religion of God, I was then easy prey. I was pressured into conformism and did what others did, without thinking. Muslims lie. This is not “stereotyping” this is what Islam teaches them to do. What I learned also is that Muslims use anyone including the neo-Nazis to acheive their goal.

4584:

another apologetic site for Muslims. The consequence is that more people like me, Muriel and John Walker will be fooled and more terrorism will take the lives of innocent people. I did not become a terrorist, but I can say that without knowing, I started hating everyone who was not a Muslim. The brainwashing is so intense and subtle that you will certainly become affected by it. I lost a lot, including the woman I loved because of these leis.

7544:

to do so is theft and shows severe disrepect to myself and other contributors. If I believed that the right to recognition, in the limited form enshrined in the GFDL, would not be respected and defended then I would have to seriously reconsider my participation in this project. Knowledge is free, and I am happy he found it useful, but if he is going to lift multiple paragraphs from us he damn well ought to give Knowledge a line of credit.

497:

the reason that my degree was "phony." He later put it back in, admitting that he did that to punish me. Allowing a registered editor to repeatedly post defamatory statements in a campaign to discredit someone and ignoring the injured party's repeated protests, is in my opinion prima facie evidence of gross and reckless disregard for the truth. And, for Wikis who might not care about law or justice, it is no way to run an "encylopedia."

8384: 8664:

full ArbCom. The ArbCom is already acting like a court of appeals, deciding which cases to accept and then hearing full argument. What is needed is courts of first instance, trial by one judge, with procedures similar to those of a traffic court: fair, but expedited. (Most violations of Wikiquette have the nature of red-light running and speeding, and the more serious ones have the nature of reckless driving and collisions.)

4576:

called Anonymous editor. Then he called SlimVirgin who did exactly what gren did. SlimVirgin, a Muslim administrator who at the same time was nominating Anonymous editor to become an administrator, accepted the invitation of AE to mediate between me and him. Naturally, she took the site of AE completely. I complained that if she is a Muslims and so supportive of AE, she can’t be an unbiased mediator. Her response? She banned me.

7477:, every word you just wrote is a lie, including "and" and "the" -- especially given that you're the one with the 0-3 ArbCom record, not me. But since you have repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be utterly self-unaware -- or at least to behave as so -- even after tens of thousands of words directed at you regarding your behavior, I'll let the record I've just referred to speak for itself and let Jimbo have his Talk Page back. -- 4557:

kids. That was surprising! Not just his pompous tone was inappropriate and puerile, but the warning itself was completely uncalled for. There was a strong disagreement between this Muslim editor and I, but no insults had been exchanged. We were two grown ups disagreeing strongly, but respectfully. At the same time Gren, took completely the side of my opponent. Upon clicking on his username, I discovered that he is also a Muslim.

4022:, while giving free reign to a hostile proven anti-polygamy editor to misinform Knowledge readers with propaganda POV. Unfortunately, their anti-expert "Decision" was made completely without any consideraton of the facts or fairness whatsoever. Truly, the evidence testifies (to any honest observer) against the making of this "Summary Judgment and Execution" where considering the facts had never been allowed or performed. 8598:. It is true that some stories do require different standards of verification than others, and maybe that is what the ArbCom was trying to say. However, it is a statement of principle that is far from fully stated, and will need to be worked out over time. Its timing is unfortunate in coinciding with the Siegenthaler incident, which I would see as meaning that we need stronger verification, not weaker verification. 4000:

Knowledge. Do you know how many articles in Knowledge (about the conflict) present only ONE side POV (and not both as policy demands)? You see the current policies don't work. How are you going to address this aspect of Knowledge success ? This aspect which is called : Verification ? Or maybe you think that the current methods work and all it takes is to get everyone to registed instead of editing with IP addresses ?

71: 1076:. Most of this involves attempting to impose rather strict standards on other users. In the Onefortyone cases this involved deletion of all information which related to homosexual or bisexual activities of several celebrities regardless of the source cited. In the case of James Dean a google search for "James Dean" and "bisexual" returns over 100,000 hits which probably justifies some mention of rumors. 5911:

very bad impression. We are Wikipedians. This means that we should be: kind, thoughtful, passionate about getting it right, open, tolerant of different viewpoints, open to criticism, bold about changing our policies and also cautious about changing our policies. We are not vindictive, childish, and we don't stoop to the level of our worst critics, no matter how much we may find them to be annoying.--

5129:. Right now, accounts only a certain age or older can move pages. The consensus on semi-protection was to use the same function of the software for semi-protection. We intentionally did that because the thinking was that if we used an existing function of the software, it'd be easier to implement. We envision it only being used for 20-30 articles tops, but it would be our most vandalised articles, i.e. 8792:

agree nor disagree at this time), then the ArbCom based their remedy on issues that were not summarized in the Findings of Fact. That is, if the ArbCom was correct in their decision, then their ruling does not speak for itself. Onefortyone speaks of harassment and of a pattern of personal attacks. The ArbCom did not find as fact that Wyss had harassed Onefortyone or engaged in personal attacks.

591:"In fact, I think Linus's cleverest and most consequential hack was not the construction of the Linux kernel itself, but rather his invention of the Linux development model. When I expressed this opinion in his presence once, he smiled and quietly repeated something he has often said: 'I'm basically a very lazy person who likes to get credit for things other people actually do.' Lazy like a fox. " 2472: 2432: 344::The only way that the sentence ("The arbitrators are now looking to ban me for an entire year") makes any sense is if it's inevitable and unvoidable that Everyking is unable to stop hounding Snowspinner. Given comments like and , it may, in fact, be true. But whether Everyking gets banned is entirely his responsibility and not the arbitrator's. --] | ] 06:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8660:

add to a feeling that there is a culture where admins are free to abuse their powers and bite newbies. On the other hand, at present it takes months between the time that a flamer who disregards consensus disrupts the editing of an article and the time that the flamer is disciplined by the ArbCom. The EffK and Benjamin Gatti cases, both now in arbitration, are typical examples.

7167:; I'd be happy to discuss privately a possible appeal with you or a newly elected Committee, before any more interest in the matter is kindled. Please note, I have been a user in good standing, never once recieving a 3RR warning, before being tarred with guilt by association smears by ideological purists who brought the case. I only ask for a fair hearing on my separate matter. 4186:"Summary Judgement and Execution." After all, I was the one who asked for the Arbitration. Yet never once, not a single time, did any one consider any part of any of MY evidence in any way whatsoever. They gave me no mercy, nothing. They went straight to user-execution, without considering the overwhelming quantity of abuse I had received. It was the pure definition of 5720:). This should all be water under the bridge now anyway as any faults in the process have now been retectified - we have a proposal page that is marked up as a proposal page, ongoing discussions on its talk page, links on the talk pages of many of the affected articles (and if I've left any out, please add them), and a link on RfC to the discussion page, 1476:. Look at those policies, some very sincere contributors went to a lot of work creating them, but they are repeatedly being ignored and are meaningless. It needs thought, planning etc, but this Committee might also elaborate/modify policies as required or consider new, articulated proposals -- all designed to create Knowledge articles of integrity. - 2131:). So I guess I'll be back in the new year. And will try to resist the temptation of making new sockpuppets (which, to be honest, I could do quite easily, I got a "roaming" (at least i think that's what it's called) IP adress AND a university owned one which has other learned users sharing it, which they've been unwilling to keep blocked. 6860:"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 8553:

him in that very space. lately he reverted my editions writting insulting summaries in the Batman, batman villains and superman articles. Please, at least make him stop or met me in the middle point or something. He is also confused about article sizes. i've not been that smart daling with him but i think i deserve beter--

313:::''Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Knowledge. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.'' 8717:. Wyss further states that he/she agrees with Ted Wilkes "that a Knowledge user who represents himself as a retired lawyer on his user page and serves on arbcom, but who has not disclosed that he was disbarred, may be abusing Knowledge's well-established practice of assuming good faith on the part of all users." See 492:"reckless disregard for the truth." It should be clear that Knowledge has been acting with reckless disregard for the truth. For example, despite numerous protests and requests that Wiki administrators stop a registered editor from posting libelous statements, he is allowed to continue. Just yesterday, he posted 3096:"... often form a pejorative means of attacking political opponents. This habit of demanding behaviour aligned to one's own desires also occurs in other arenas: one expects "responsibility" from children, parents, spouses, colleagues and employees, meaning they should change their attitudes to suit the speaker." 451:

Scalia (who has specifically spoken against your arguments)...? If you're assessment is wrong, and correspondingly Knowledge does not take action to reel-in some of the over-the-top nonsense, and the courts (eventually) go against them...what then? Platitudes? "Sorry, that was such an unfair ruling."? --

8231:

i see no reason to share your optimism of the process or for all of the people involved. something is very, very sick here. turning a blind eye to that will not bring healing. i am not an alarmist, i hate alarmism, but Jimbo needs to be aware of a cancer growing here. and, regretfully, i dunno if

8149:", but that still begs the question about where we need to be and when we need to be there? how will we know? there seems to be no general announcement about it. (frankly, i only figured it out from veiwing Karma's user page, otherwise i don't think i would have stumbled upon any such information.) 8070:

I don't agree with you that people are inadequately vetted for adminship. Out of the 700+ admins, you can count on one hand the number of admins who have had their adminship revoked. I'd say that the current procedure does a pretty good job of making sure inappropriate people don't become admins. And

7212:

I'm not sure how to best approach the situation and I'd be more than happy to turn the matter over to you and the Board. I'm an academic so my natural inclination is to have the guy drawn and quartered, but it may be possible to put this incident to more productive use. If you can see a good way to

6177:

What is currently going on as regards Chinese Wikinews? I remember a while back, there were concerns that the Chinese might block Chinese Knowledge in response to Chinese Wikinews, but since the Chinese Communists have decided to block Knowledge anyway, I see no great reason not to start the project.

6074:

in 2001. They eventually had to hire lawyers on a virtually permanent basis to deal with all of the legal implications. I think that Knowledge will have to do the same. Knowledge is now about the same size as Live Journal, so I think its time to do this. All of the major policies should be worked

5928:

Thanks. And I also wanted to note that it is not just Daniel Brandt's word that he did it. Aside from confessing, and there being direct links to his user page, Brandt has put systems logs on his page for anyone to view, to prove that it really happened from that address. I have noted a few people

5566:

I see that some news media have picked this story up as if it is important. Please please please don't do that. This is one of many changes to the software which are coming soon, including the ability to put pages into a 'validated' state (better name should be determined) and so on. Treating this as

4708:

Ouch, that was harsh! I'm not the author of the prank and I saved it to my subpage only because it was repeatedly removed from it's original location. I agree that the prank was in a bad taste but the result was quite entertaining. I should also add that I never used any sockpuppets on Knowledge, and

4583:

Dear distinguished Jimbo Wales: This is a problem that has to be addressed. The abuse has gone too far. What is at stake is the very credibility of Knowledge. If this problem is not addressed, the impartial and competent editors will become fed up and leave and this encyclopaedia will be reduced into

4221:

related topics. That, itself, will then help Knowledge to not lose its credibility as a hope-to-be "encyclopedia," by recognizing that proven content-experts do have a value in preventing misinformation. I am hopeful for goood things about Knowledge, so I am hopeful you will fix this tragedy soon.

4048:

Thank you. Today is three weeks later since you made that last post. Coming back today to see if you've had the time yet to fix this anti-expert railroading problem, I unfortunately discovered that someone else had completely removed this section of mine from your TALK page. So, for your review,

3890:

It's not "all about the money", even if you've seemed to convince yourself of the contrary. The inertia is attributable to three things: the fact that Knowledge isn't failing, but just not working as well as it could or should; the fact that pushing Knowledge one way means pushing the developers (few

3367:

I believe that WikiCities goes out of their way not to allow wikis that would compete with Wikimedia's wikis. So that, at least, shouldn't be a concern. Also Google Print isn't creating original content (to be sure, they're publishing conteet by others, just like any number of print publishers, and

3078:

Even as the Seigenthaler scandal was breaking in hundreds of news reports across the world, arbcomm member and suspended (in effect, apparently disbarred) lawyer Fred Bauder voted to endorse the statement that my sourcing standards were "unrealistic," as in, "Why bother for accuracy? Any tabloid crud

2768:

I agree that people need to try and assume good faith more often with you and the changes you make on the site. However, I think that a lot of people may be reacting with hostility because they perceive the user base as hearing about major changes through the news media before they hear about it from

2577:

Jimbo et al, in an ideal world wikipedia would be ideal. However, the world sucks and is populated by idiots and a$ $ holes. You need to get something working on this site so that only authorities can publish articles. I dunno, maybe a universal student number or letter of verification that an editor

491:

AustinK is right and his lighthouse is shining a lot brighter than Firebug's. Firebug is not telling the whole story. The barrier that the Supreme Court erected to protect free speech from the excessive pinch of libel suits in Times v. Sullivan requires a litigant to prove that the defamer acted with

8927:

Obviously the Wikimedia Foundation is unlikely to get sued over this, particularly since damages would be zero in pretty much all cases. Nevertheless, I hope this can get a software fix (e.g., auto-incorporation of a list of substed templates in edit summaries) sooner rather than later. I expect a

8791:

Since I was not one of the arbitrators, I had (fortunately) no duty to read the lengthy record of the evidence. I was assuming that the final order of the ArbCom spoke for itself and presented a reasonable summary of what the evidence showed. If Onefortyone is correct in his summary (and I neither

8663:

There should be some way to deal with problematical editors more quickly than is now the case. My own suggestion would be to have preliminary arbitration either by one arbitrator or by three arbitrators with simplified rules of evidence, followed, if approved by the full ArbCom, by an appeal to the

8552:

for atarters, ths stalking harassment-lover has emptied the Bat-embargo page, insulted me and my editions directly, i've tried to make peace repeatedly, explaining him that i feel ofended, vandalized my own page writting sturr i repeatedly told him not to, i got out of control and swear indirecty at

8213:

was a bad editor or not, but his parting words have some serious credibility (with me), since i can verify many of them first hand. if you take honest exception to an admin's behavior, you are liable for severe incivility, trolling, patronization while being accused of the same by either that admin

7578:

I don't think attribution is sufficient for print media. The GFDL specifies that the license text should be reproduced in full in derivative works (if I recall correctly). Knowledge has been pretty clear that it believes that link-back is sufficient for compliance, at least on the web. I don't think

7543:

I would like to register my strong objection to the statements by Everyking and Mistress Kyle. I contribute to Knowledge in the full knowledge and expectation that my efforts here are traceable back to me and that our collective product must always be recognized as the work of Wikipedians. Failure

6975:

Okay, so i'm a fairly large contributor to this site, i love it, i put huge amounts of time into it, and it has served me well. Anyway, I want to contribute some funds, but my worry, as always, is how does wikipedia plan to maintain its ideology? I heard that a paper edition of the encyclopedia is

6888:

he was always a trolling character. He was always alone in his positions and he was always against any consensus. Now the page is blocked because of him. Now, he transfered his hatred also on some pages that I created where he comes everyday to revert my work. What can be done? I think more than 100

6819:

page is growing explosively, and there are well over a dozen cases open at any one time. That's a lot for a single arbitration committee to handle and do a thorough job, and as Knowledge grows, that demand is only going to get bigger and bigger. So I propose a more scalable approach which would be

6635:

Shortly before that, user 'Verrekijker' wrote in 'De Kroeg' (the "village pump" on nl:wikipedia) an ultimatum. She threatened to sue "the users that spoke in a discriminating way" before the 'Commissie Gelijke Behandeling' (Dutch authority judging cases of discrimination) and report everyone at the

6520:

How come some are given the power to say what is and what is not allowed on this stuff? Look at vending machines as some are able to list their sites and some are not and are being singled out If only some are able to be listed then this sis a very bised site and is not a good sorce of info - posted

5992:

Yeah, we had something of a falling out the other day when he told me I was "prematurely ejaculating" over this. In his opinion, he doesn't think that I should have made such a big deal out of all of this, and he thinks that its A OK for people to behave like this towards him. He criticised me for

5910:

Of course we can't be legally liable for something like this, but we don't have to accept it either. I condemn this sort of thing in the strongest possible terms. It is unacceptable. We want to really strongly put out the correct and true story about our community, and this sort of things gives a

5884:

It's important to note that what a Wikipedian does, is not reflective of Knowledge, if it is done off-site. His alleged DOS attack did not utilise WP in any way, and the media is smart enough to know that they'd be facing potential libel suits if they portrayed it otherwise...combined with the fact

5227:

I've submitted an op-ed piece to USA today, which I hope can reassure John Seigenthaler, Sr. I don't want to post it here, but I'd like to email it to you and see what you think. I've got two or three email addresses that you've used from time to time, but I'm not sure how current they are. Where

4897:

getting ridiculous, and I say this as a person who would very much love to see this article deleted. I would support a policy change which says something like "after N survivals of VfD, a new VfD can not occur for a full year". In this way, we could have an annual holiday every here, GNAA day when

4855:

I feel that closing it is a violation of due process, until and unless we create a policy handling things that have been on VfD that many times. Political systems are not bound, like a straightjacket, to past decisions, and in this case especially, politicking played a major role in the votes. It is

4831:

Jimbo, this has been listed for the 8th time. This is getting ridiculous. I have closed the vote, removed the afd tag and locked the page to stop people from reverting me. I realise that you may not approve of this action, however, so I'm telling you directly. Do with this what you will, however may

4659:

We'll see how well it all goes. It's possible that if we see a lot of candidates making the 50% threshold, and a lot of candidates going a lot higher (80%+, for example) then clearly it will make sense to focus on a higher threshold. On the other hand if a 'typical' candidate is getting 55% or so,

4638:

I realize that RFA's criterion (~75%) would be rather difficult to achieve, but 60%-65% sounds workable. It would be rather easy for any established user to garner at least some support, and given the importance of the ArbCom I would prefer if they were backed by more than simply half the community.

4470:

Please don't quote these figures. Nature says it compared articles which were roughly equal in size (editing out references and other things if necessary to acheive parity). We don't know which versions of articles they used, so though these figures are interesting for internal use, we shouldn't use

4304:

PLEASE scream about this from high mountaintops. Please try to get a wirestory about this. We must correct public perception:There are abysmal entries on Knowledge but there is also good work. Last week's media travails created the impression that Knowledge is malicious and chaotic. We must push

3716:

There isn't an "Israeli Knowledge" any more than there's an "American Knowledge"; editions are by language, not country. What you're talking about is the Hebrew Knowledge. This is an important distinction, as it prevents people from claiming that a particular edition is supposed to represent or be

3699:

in the israeli wikimedia their are person that is one of the responsible is nickname is "gilgmsh" he blocks every body their he do not give to many pepole that give an important informastion and equal to the wikipedia in english, this person block me when I want to transfer what he did to me when I

3652:

One thing I've noticed about biographies on Knowledge is that they tend to be heavy on negative opinion. There is often a section titled "Criticism" which can be quite large. There is rarely (I've never seen it) a "Praise" section that documents positive opinions. Anything positive gets filtered out

2665:

Without disagreeing with the "aint no Che" characterization, the Che is not usually remembered for his little-known "keep guns out of the public's hands, for fear they'd start a revolt" policies, so the "gun rights" bit isn't helpful in distancing Jimbo from Che. The Ayn Rand part works though ;) --

2586:

Hi Jimbo. On Saturday I was on Wikimedia Poland plenary assembly and one of polish colleague told me, you recently told, you have no contact to czech community and asked for contact to anybody on czech Knowledge. Well I was quite surprised, because I visit #wikimedia every once in a while. Maybe you

1862:

May I kindly ask why..? It is incorrect conjecture to think Jimbo will edit the articles or anything to that affect. Why not talk to members who participate in the constuction of articles such as this..? I would be glad to discuss the issue with you; I am working on that situation right now. I don't

1672:

IRC is a chat software that I do not like. Isn't it Applet, or something? Besides, in a forum, you can keep track of things that have been said. You can post your thoughts in an organized matter; and you can post a lot of info at once. In a chat, it's more about personal interaction between members.

1471:

Mr. Bauder - Your committees unanimous conviction of Onefortyone has nothing to do with my suggestion. I'm saying that such a Committee is badly needed so as to institute the kind of measures essential to restore Knowledge's rapidly declining reputation. In my suggestion on this page to Mr. Wales, I

977:

off the hook after all). Jimbo is probably just a bit over-awed. It just means less powerful people can't alter their articles, but if you are powerful - well go ahead and vandalise it and afterwards we'll make sure you like it. I should note that I now have evidence that Dershowitz, or the computer

644:

You may misunderstand my argument... the point is not that Xed is acting in bad faith, but rather that it is an assumption of bad faith on Xed's part to write off concerns with the article on the grounds that the complainer is Dershowitz - particularly when that is not clear. This has been the issue

496:

the false statement that I am under psychiatric care. Anyone who knows about libel law should know that, such a statement, if false is defamatory pro se and that it requires no proof of actual injury. And this is days after he edited an article removing the graduate degree from my name and posted as

9483:

Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Knowledge. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length

8979:

My name is Jon-Erik Beckjord, and I have an article page on my name (Erik Beckjord) in Wiki. I find a huge amount of false or bad info in the Bigfoot page (also Nessie page) and I find this false info is being guarded by reverts by one DreamGuy, who has a questionable article page called Mythology.

8659:

A more general problem that only you can deal with needs to be addressed soon. Wyss is correct in her criticism of Knowledge that it takes too long to deal with "wankers, trolls, fools, and flamers". On the one hand, giving greater authority to admins to block troublemakers unilaterally will only

7688:

I am a professional academic. Sometimes I contribute work to Knowledge which had been prepared for other venues at other times, when such work is both appropriate and legal (e.g. not in conflict with the rights owed to a prior publisher). Without an auditable trail connecting this work to me, the

7227:

As a journalist, TenofAllTrades: I suggest this approach: call the city editor. Ask that a correction be cited on the article, and give the editor the Knowledge material link. Then, after you have said this - email him with it. Ask that any Knowledge material be cited in any article where reference

5332:

Sometimes disputes arise which are beyond the ability of the Arbitration Committee to deal with, for example, those which involve facts not available to us. We are good with behavior which is accessible as a diff, not necessarily with such questions as whether someone murdered Kennedy, or whether a

5261:

As I stated there, I believe this will head off legal threats of all stripes, as the courts (in the U.S., at least) are keen to enforce arbitration clauses, thereby reducing their caseloads. I plan to get wider input from the community before implementing such a change, and I thought you might want

4988:

Apologies, you are correct (there have been so many nominations I'm beginning to lose track - my entire life doesn't revolve around the GNAA!). From memory, someone delisted the 5th attempt early, thus causing people to say that it was an invalid VfD due to this problem. That's when I listed it for

4925:

It's a difficult question. It's a borderline article in terms of notability...the question arises, are you just renominating repeatedly to get the result you want (delete), and then it will all be done with? The problem, of course, is that if you're for deletion, you only have to win the vote once;

4594:

I heard many times both in public sermons and in private discussions that the non-Muslims deserve to die. Virtually everyone agreed with 9/11 in private and denounced it in public. I was no different. I too took part mindlessly in that game of deception. Hypocrisy was expected and praised. Everyone

4531:

I am using this medium to bring to your attention, flagrant and severe abuses of power, exercised by some of the administrators of Knowledge. I am specifically talking about the Muslim administrators. Allow me first to say that I am not a religious fanatic. I was a left-winger all my life believing

4185:

Anyway, I really do hope you will fix this problem. Pushing out proven content-experts on rare topics by unknowledgeable biased wiki-process-experts leaves Knowledge misleading the marketplace when it calls itself an "encyclopedia." I know you're busy, but I do hope you will solve this horrendous

3999:

as saying "Don't quote Knowledge". Do we have a serious encyclopedia (even on serious subjects) or not ? Could for example someone look up "Hebron Massacre" and finds complete set of facts instead of Palestinian Propeganda ? Or do you have another method to fight the Anti Israel systematic bias on

3935:

I never said it was "about the money," nor did I ever say (or even think) Mr Wales is evil. I did say it was about traffic. Meanwhile, you guys might want to brush up on your reading skills. Your responses are typical of the careless, knee-jerk and ill-considered remarks sincere and skilled editors

3868:

I'll believe it when I see it. Academic editing standards are likely not conducive to high mega-mega traffic consisting largely of bickering fools and trolls donating time and money to an open, Google-visible site pointing to the misleading text and keywords they insert into thousdands of articles.

3178:

There's a lot of intelligent, educated, and otherwise bored people right now -- smells like civil-unrest to me! In this respect Knowledge is a genius-idea! (if the French or German goverment happens to be reading this right now, implement this brilliant program NOW and gimme some CASH for my idea!)

1937:

is "un-qualified" as you put it, and some of us really do try to check sources, evaluate thesis, write proper conjecture, etc. I am only saying Jimbo will most likely not address this- look at all the new mail aon this page; some of the above haven't even been answered by him yet. I just think this

1646:

Since we unite many of the members into one compact place, we would have better resources at our hands; members could organize themselves better and agree on Wiki content. I did this by starting a , and, in less than one week, we had 25 members contributing and helping each other out. A forum would

1422:

It should be noted that DW used different nicknames to write about different subjects. For his contributions on celebrities, he especially used the nicknames of "NightCrawler" and "JillandJack". Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions

1404:

It is difficult to definitely verify Onefortyone's contention that Ted Wilkes represents the same person as DW. DW has not edited for a very long time. He logged in from Canada and was especially interested in French and Quebec subjects. Ted Wilkes does not seem to share this interest but checkuser

963:

There are different kinds of threats. I doubt that Jimbo would react positively to a lawsuit threat. But hypothetically if somebody said, "last year I gave the Knowledge foundation $ 50,000, and if you don't fix this article I'll stop giving and tell other people to stop giving", that could be more

241:

Jimbo, I need to appeal again. The arbitrators are now looking to ban me for an entire year. While, as you know, I don't think highly of some of your decisions, I still feel you are more reasonable than the current arbitrators and I hope you will help me correct this situation. ] 05:49, 29 December

233:

9221:

Of course, it is still necessary to root out the copyright violations that *drew committed before he learned not to. Hopefully he'll be able to help with that. But in my opinion, now that I have reviewed his (prolific) edits of the last couple of months, it would be perfectly safe to lift the ban.

8641:

You are commonly asked to review ArbCom cases. There is at least one case that you said you would look at. It is the case of Researcher99. I suggest that you look at it only to confirm that the ArbCom was right. It began as a content dispute, but then Researcher99 began complaining that he had

7933:

and have discovered some disturbing activity around him. Several of the current ArbCom members want to see Karmafist desysoped, and for my money, it's not hard to see why. His words and actions epitomize hypocrisy (he's a "bully for bullies") and his written correspondace displays an attiude one

7237:

What's the big deal? I'm happy if somebody's putting the info to use. I contribute to help people and it would make me angry if I saw we were going after people who were using our information. And pursuing them based on a technicality in the license would just be small-minded, in addition to being

6549:

OK, there does seem to be a dispute about the founding of Knowledge (I've never really bothered to document Larry's life history, nor your own). I've posted a quick note to Larry Sanger's user talk page saying that I'm going add that he believes he founded the site, but that you don't agree. Don't

5790:

with quite literally hundreds of references to them, often in places where superior verifiable and reputable sources exist. I view this as indicative of a problem, and despite my personal beliefs about jguk's motivation, worthy of serious discussion. While agreeing with El C's concerns about the

4606:

that is at stake. Please do not let evil win through bullishness. Defend my right to speak. Protect Knowledge to remain impartial. If you don’t, you or one of your loved ones could become their next victim. Thank you for reading this, and thank you for defending righteousness against tyranny. Kind

4575:

But why am I bringing this to your attention? Because the problem is not limited to Gren alone! This was not the first time that I was abused by Muslims in Knowledge. A couple of months ago a similar incident took place when my contributions were reverted as soon as I posted them by another Muslim

3819:

I am sure you will get objections to this policy. Mostly from people who are using "gangs" to PUSH a certain POV into articles. I have ran into such a gang lately and see how Knowledge policies (when not enforced) leads to very poor encyclopedia articles. I am sure that articles in which Knowledge

3332:

Constructive suggestion: either 'sell' Knowledge to Google outright -- an option of today's Knowledge board -- or can the board outright and bring in Google's management team to restructure the content-creation processes to make them truth- & quality-driven rather than traffic-driven, thereby

3151:

I wouldn't bother complaining. All criticism of Knowledge is now regarded as shrill hyperbole by the faithful. The worst thing is that the 14 year old with acne has not got trouble with authority — on Knowledge in many cases he IS the authority. And recent criticism shows, the quality suffers as a

1986:

I don't quite understand. If you have nethier the time or the patience to deal with a problem like this, then you shoudn't have brought it up. I'm not trying to be offensive or anything, mind you, but if you can't do something about it, why make a thesis..? Make an effort first, then ask for help.

477:

Actually, I am a lighthouse. A fairly compassionate one. One which is steadily, cyclically, unrelentingly warning that there are shoals here that the unwary need to pay attention to, and which if ignored will result in tragic drama. I wish for nothing but succcess for Knowledge, but see serious

8805:

If the ArbCom was substantively right in its action, then it failed to document the reasons for its action. I am aware that the number and complexity of ArbCom cases is increasing, and that the ArbCom is backlogged by increasingly difficult cases, so that this statement should not be taken as an

8609:

should be subject to the lower verification standard of celebrity gossip. When a former celebrity has been dead for a quarter of a century, a literate world is entitled to a scholarly sorting out of truth from speculation. Elvis Presley and James Dean are no longer mere "celebrities". They are

7143:

I feel it's generally important to avoid a direct appeal, but given that I believe it aligns well with your recent public statements, I feel some of the ideas being discussed on that talk page are important enough to warrant it. I don't think the article validation can go far enough, but a proper

6087:

and any other applicable rules. And then any major issues. In my opinion, we cannot forbid legal threats if Knowledge is to remain a legal business. It might be disruptive, but actually breaking the law is a lot worse than someone accusing you of doing it. Being libelled is worse than someone

5672:

you'll see that many people share my concerns. Number of clicks on webpages do not a good source make. In this case we have a website containing information almost all of which comes from one man, Bruce Robinson, who is quite open about having no academic standing and whose essays have never been

5510:

Where is the answer by Jimmy Wales to my request November 13 ? Where is my request to Jimmy Wales November 13 ? These are the true prime cause of Knowledge's problem. I mean revert-deletions,page-deletions and blocks to contributors get the situation of Knowledge worse and worse and worse. Do you

5040:

Jimmy Wales, who is still very much alive, said: "We’re very pleased with the results and we’re hoping it will focus people’s attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good." He said that Knowledge plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles

4579:

These are flagrant abuses of power. If you protest, these people will ban you for good. In fact in my talk page, you can see a user called Absent applauding me for standing against bullishness and dictatorship. If you click on his username you’ll see that he is banned indefinitely by SlimVirgin.

3808:

Only after an article stabilized (frequent edits stopped) Versification of facts by team of experts who would certify the article th article will be published and that is the version that will be available to the public and mirrored all over the net and would remain this way until the next stable

2499:

on Knowledge"? But most of these people haven't suffered any harm, or have any actionable claim; many are actually happy that they are mentioned in this site, as it strokes their ego; many others don't care one way or the other. I can't see any judge accepting any such class. Nor can I see any

2441:

Even if it weren't authored by scammers, there'd be no credible threat of a class action here. A class action is appropriate when the putative class has a large number of members and, in the adjudication of those individual claims, common questions of law or fact will predominate. I don't think

1130:. This is of much importance. Both users have very similar editing interests and the same aggressive attitudes. He repeatedly called me a vandal, a liar, etc. and falsely claimed that my edits are fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. For a summary of the facts, see 1054:

is urgent and essential. Like professional codes, or those required by many corporations and organizations, it must be simple and straightfoward and anyone who serves on the committee must first acknowledge the Code and agree to abide by it. (Note: Since I posted this, someone created the article

8030:

i've looked around, but i haven't seen where the elections are held. also it seemed like they were somehow canceled or postponed or changed in some way. i haven't been able to decode the wikispeak. seriously, Talrias, there is at present (and it will only get worse if the leadership - Jimbo +

6770:

1st of January 2006 is the time-limit I suggested to turn back fully this decision of blocking me. I had been blocked 6 times now, not for my contributions, but for community discussions. Is this an online encyclopedia or a community that excludes people because they have a different background?

5859:

in the hopes that it could be dealt with, however administrators have mostly supported his actions and Vilerage eventually denied that he had done it (in spite of previously confessing). This has the potential to put Knowledge in to enormous disrepute, if it is seen that Knowledge is supporting

5686:

Not to be overly harsh, but I found that Jguk approached this in a seemingly underhanded and rather aggressive way. Failing to add a {{proposed}} tag to the unilateral policy, and using it immediately as a basis for tens of reversions (which would be more difficult to do, appearence-wise, with a

5572:

As the one who submitted the story, sorry for characterizing it as a "major policy change", I think I just got a bit excited as I've been trying to get this idea accepted for a long time :)... hope I didn't cause too many ants in your pants. Also, is the community participating in developing the

5209:

K, thanks for chiming in. We'll work out the details, I already re-posted the request on Bugzilla, if any developers could let the editors involved in creating this policy on the Semi-protection proposal page what needs to be done from our end and update us what's going on on your end, that'd be

4634:

You asked that a process similar to RFA be set up as part of the ArbCom election process, and your proposed criterion is 50% support. But half of all votes hardly makes a consensus, which of course is used in most other Wiki processes, including RFA itself. Would it not make sense to hold ArbCom

4571:

This is a flagrant abuse of power. The above mentioned person acted dictatorially and when I protested he used his power to silence me. He accused me of “disruptive behaviour”. In other words, his unethical conduct in assuming the role of a mediator in matters where he has vested interest is not

4560:

I came back and told him that as a Muslim he can’t be an impartial mediator. His mediation would be conflict of interests. He can’t be unbiased in matters that are so close to his heart such as his faith. I suggested that it would be ethical for him to step aside and let a non-Muslim mediate, if

4556:

for 24 hours. The reason for that? He appointed himself to act as mediator between me and a Muslim who was reverting every message I was posting with inane and invalid excuses. Gren used a very authoritative language ORDERING “both of us” to refrain from insulting each other as if talking to two

4266:, it is repeatedly proven that anti-polygamists do not want others to know about Christian polygamy or what it is really about because that new subtopic situation has so powerfully changed the discussion about polygamy in general. (See the Sunday, Dec. 11, 2005, article in the Washington Times, 3275:

The initial comment that leads to that footnotes says that you commended a user's actions - it's a bit like commending Hitler on building the autobahn. Just because someone's bad doesn't mean everything they do is bad - hopefully most will see through that. Also, they didn't publish TBSDY's real

2191:

I would imagine that every language version has someone who can represent it in discussions about issues that affect it, and all of Wikimedia. You saw what happened what happened with Seigenthaler. What if a similar issue were to arise on the Japanese version of Knowledge. Could someone from the

527:

generally involve statements concerning plaintiff’s business or reputation, that the plaintiff has committed a crime of moral turpitude, a statement imputing unchastity to a woman, (in New York) a statement imputing homosexuality, or an imputation of loathsome disease (venerial disease, leprosy,

450:

Thank you, counselor. But, do you truly think that, today, Herr Dershowitz is convinced of your line of reasoning regarding due process and equal protection? Or the former editorial-page editor & founder of USA Today...? Or members of the Supreme Court of the United States, such as Antonin

4548:

The pages of Wikipdia discussing Islam are filled with lies. Anytime I tried to post something, completely complying with the rules set by Knowledge, my contributions were reverted as soon as they were posted, and guess by whom? By Muslims of course! These friends stand on guard, 24/7 and will

3136:

Involvement in Knowledge has taken its toll on a significant number of decent, fair minded people who with the most honorable intentions, have tried to alert the project to its social responsibilities and failed. Such voices could be heard on the Knowledge mailing list, speaking up for quality.

2689:

I'm worried that waiting any longer may result in a strong selection bias for however the election goes, unless it is moved to 2006. A number of students end up going home around this time of year, with limited internet access, and a number of adults are going to be paying more attention to the

7838:

Insisting that newspapers provide attribution is a help, not a hindrance, to the cause of making information freely available to everyone. The attribution doesn't severely restrict the use by the newspaper. It does, however, call Knowledge to the attention of more people. Every mention in a

6655:

I remember having read before something about that "threatening to take legal steps can bring about a ban". However, I would be surprized if that would imply that someone that believes that statements on Knowledge are "discrimination" against them, and want to appeal to some legal authority to

5896:

I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation authorizes anybody not on its board of directors to speak for Knowledge or any other Wikimedia project. Thus, I don't see how they would incur any liability for somebody's outside actions, even if they are claiming to be doing it on Knowledge's behalf.

5590:

The "protection for X% of users" is one such tool. A system for allowing even those edits to take place, but to not be "pushed" to the front view is another. Putting together several such things will allow for a precisely defined policy which tries to raise the cost of doing bad things while

3351:

I wouldn't worry. Unless Google Print allows editing, it'll always be inferior in terms of coverage. It takes at least a year for books to start covering something new, and usually at least a decade for encyclopedias. We can start covering something as soon as major media cover it enough to

2769:

you/from wikipedia. Maybe there is some way this could be improved on, such as a feature similar to the new message notification which alerts all editors to new announcements, and you could then use that announcement channel to notify us about new features (hopefully before the media does :)?

2494:

would be the actual defined class for the suit? Normally, in class actions, it's something that's clearly, objectively defined, such as "Persons who purchased between ", and it is alleged that they all suffered similar harm as a result of the defendant's actions. But what would it be here?

2302:

It wouldn't make sense for Seigenthaler to write the site, as he said he wasn't gonna sue Chase, so why would he sue Knowledge? Brandt could be the author, and if he is, who cares? Not to bait him or anything, but he's a guy who runs an organization for internet privacy and then he tracks down

8106:

Yes, some people are uncivil. Some people might think that being an admin means they are "better" than non-admins. They have completely the wrong attitude - and they won't become arbitrators. If you feel you've been treated badly by an admin (or any user, in fact), they've been rude, uncivil,

7302:

When material is used in a story from sources other than the writer's own reporting, those sources--other publications, previous Free Press stories, radio or TV newscasts, etc.--should be indicated in the story. That attribution need not be made for simple, verifiable facts like dates, but is

1915:

What Wales does is up to him, wouldn't you agree? By the way, I've found that editors of primarily entertainment articles aren't oriented towards developing the encyclopedia. Most are simply not qualified to add content to Knowledge. Since most of these editors do not pay attention to editing

1831:

would be a great idea, Knowledge is not so suited towards debates and discussions because of the fact that talk pages are well, not very organised definitely not as much as forums with easy to read different threads and forum subsections, and the fact that people can edit other peoples' posts

8092:

If you think arbitrators are going to have an easy time in this upcoming election, you can think again. There aren't many people standing, and the arbitrators elected will have their position for a considerable length of time. Other people will be scrutinising their statements and their past

3732:

I think deciding the election procedure based on a straw poll, which is designed to get people's feedbacks on a range of available options, with around 40-50 people participating in total (which isn't significantly larger than the number of people standing for the Arbitration Committee) is a

3523:

I am aware that the changes I favour would drive some people aware from Knowledge. But the object of this exercise is to write an encyclopaedia, not to keep the entire computer-owning population of the world amused. As the Siegenthaler case (among many other things) demonstrates, our present

9318:

There are many examples and when the time comes I will provide them. But, for the time of speaking is important to state first the principles. I think that we should start a debate of the topic that I propose and only after that to draw out the conclusions. This is one of the pillons of the

5785:

shy about using the primary and secondary sources cited by religioustolerance.org for the benefit of our readers. I think we need a compelling reason to cite an opinion site in favor of doing the work of synthesis ourselves. If we used religioustolerance.org sparingly, in a few places, to

3226:

Well, that article doesn't actually say that he's a pedophile, just that he "commended" another contributor who was one. But that's an interesting link... the attacks on Knowledge just keep coming from all directions now, and now we're apparently being accused of being a gathering spot for

4009: 9121:, failing to realise that when they block the IP ranges, which they have repeatedly labeled as being from an "open proxy", they block over 4 million people in the United Arab Emirates from editing wikipedia. for instance the IP address 213.42.2.25 is currently blocked. thanks for any help 8168:

7001:, you or I–or anybody–can download all the articles, print them, bind them, and sell them. Basically, the distributed copies must remain under the GFDL, and the authorship information for the articles must be preserved. If you think you can make a go of it, there's nothing that prevents 6751:

Knowledge is not responsible for your promises. In fact, because it is a group project, it is unwise to promise anything about the content of Knowledge to any third party. It's not yours, and if the community for any reason decides to edit or remove what you add, that is their perogative.

751:

He did however contact Jimbo with a "strong complaint". Dershowitz, or his assistant, edited his own article, removing unflattering info and adding flattering info. Then he was banned. Presumably, he then complained to Jimbo, who deleted most of his article and allowed only admins to edit

5137:

and others. If you could leave a note with Brion to take a look, that would be wonderful. I tried to find a place to leave him a note, but could not. Since it's using something we already have, I wouldn't think it'd be that difficult to implement, but of course, I'm not a developer. :)

1119:) and aggressively attacked users and even administrators and members of the arbitration committee if their opinions were not in line with his personal view. It should also be noted that Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See, for instance, 9125:

I've unblocked this IP address as it appears to have been blocked in error. This IP is a source of a significant amount of vandalism, but valid edits also seem to come from it. However, given the amount of vandalism which comes from this IP, I expect it will be reblocked frequently.

8613:

The third part of the case, imposing penalties on Wyss, who was in any case acting in good faith, is an injustice and should be reversed. It would have been sufficient for the ArbCom to instruct Wyss to follow the new, weaker standards of verifiability. Instead the ArbCom enacted an

6761:

I didn't even have the chance to start my project. But why doesn't anybody react against the perogative to decide upon my Dutch legal rights to be called a female one instead of being a 'thing'? Or is that a Knowledge-point of discussion? For me it seems that Nürnberg-laws (1935) are

3736:

The result of a straw poll is not to use the procedure with the most support, it is to find out why other people didn't like that proposal, and work on improving it so that people who didn't support the original idea will support an improved version (or at least, not oppose as much).

432:

poses a very high barrier to slander or libel suits by public figures. And the legal protections extended to ISPs are statutory, they have nothing to do with the Constitution. If you're implying there is a constitutional right to sue for libel, you're wrong. In fact, the courts (from

6024:

I heard about this from another user. I was shocked! Why the hell is everybody ganging up on us this way? How are you planing to fight this? I would sue these people, whoever they are, for trademark infringment, as they are using the Knowledge logo on their site, and for defamation.

5885:

no respectable journalist is able to say "a hacker from geocities" with any shred of seriousness ;) Obviously WP condemns criminal action, but I can't imagine we're in any way facing liability, or even media condemnation, for the criminal actions of somebody who owns a WP account.

4567:

Gren claims that his beliefs should not be brought into equation. I beg to disagree. This is absurd. Does he think others are so naïve to agree that one who has placed his faith in a religion can be impartial in matters concerning his faith? Despite this he demanded “compliance”.

3812:

It is suggested the members of each articles' "Verification team" will be people who will use their real name and real identity hopefully experts on the subject matter - as much of the abuse allowed on wikipedia comes from the anonymity (even of resisted users as you surly know).

425:

In the US, ambulance chasers usually focus on personal injury law, or (more recently) IP law. Defamation hardly even makes the grade. For every actual defamation suit there are ten thousand unfounded threats, which is why most people on the Internet don't take them very seriously.

9449:

4743:

I must say, for the record, that I didn't have a problem with the hoax. I suppose, however, this is wrong. I feel somewhat ashamed that I felt good about the fact that Daniel Brandt, who has listed my personal details on his website, should be shown to be a hypocrite through

414:

Wiki articles are there, again...? (ka-ching!) And all-the-better that there's a constitutionality matter at hand regarding the supposedly legal protection extended to ISPs. Right...I'm sure that's in the Constitution somewhere. Perhaps the ever-useful Article 14...? ;-)

4832:

I note that relisting is a complete waste of everyone's time and will cause more disruption than ever. I also wish to note that listing it again is a form of pushing for the article's deletion by attrition. Do we really have to keep on having the article listed on AfD?! -

4261:

article now gives no explanation about that subtopic whatseoever, misleading the Knowledge readers to think that there is no such separate thing as Christian Polygamy, and that it is somehow the same as the totally separate subtopic of Mormon Polygamy.) As I explained in

6673:. From that page it becomes clear that although a ban can be the result, it has to be looked at on a per-case basis. Also, this is a policy on the English Knowledge, and I think that does not necessarily mean that this policy automatically applies to other languages. 5586:

As best I understand it, it is being designed in a sufficient flexible way that policy can be developed around it. This is the best way, of course, the wiki way, which allows the commmunity to determine policy, with the software merely providing more flexible tools.

9336: 4572:

disruptive, but if you protest his abuses of power, you are the disruptor. Isn’t this how dictatorships operate? Is such behaviour acceptable? The dictators abuse their power and punish the protesters accusing them of “disruptive behaviour”. That is what gren did.

4601:

I plan to speak out. But it is very likely that I will be banned again and most likely indefinitely. If you can, please intervene. Remember: “for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people to do nothing”. It is the peace of the world that is at stake. It is

4256:

article. They disguised their extreme bias attack with the absurdity of calling the content an ad, but only an anti-polygamist would suggest that about the NPOV content they deleted. (Please read the deletion for yourself. Without that now-deleted content, the

2500:

judge doing what the site in question wants them to do, that is imposing prior restraint on future speech by Knowledge editors through court-mandated changes in Knowledge policy. That would be struck down as unconstitutional by the appeals courts if they did it.

8923:

happens probably hundreds of times a day at Knowledge, and except in a case where the edit summary includes a link, every single one of those violates the GFDL, and by hosting this content Knowledge is breaking the law. I think this might be a slight problem.

2196:

and defend the wiki much like you just did on CNN? Like you said, "it's just news", and gives us more publicity, but still, projecting a professional image to the media will only encourage people to be more intrigued by Knowledge, and other Wikimedia projects.

9073:"original research". It discribes Bigfoot, and some of the other reported creatures, depicts some of the ridicule, abuse witnesses often go through, such as that above. When I saw User:Beckjord's claims of people ganging upon him, I though that a violation of 3328:

initiative, but turning over the reins to Google management...either in whole or part...would no-doubt result in the much-needed, dramatic course change that Knowledge is in need of before it lands crushingly on the rocks of its own ego and becomes crab food.

1091:

now tries to create a diversion from the fact that he is constantly deleting well-sourced contributions by others simply because he doesn't agree with them. Ted Wilkes has been harrassing me for months. He repeatedly deleted edits which were well sourced (see

2509:

Just a comment, not on class action, but personal action. If a person in, say, New Zealand is defamed on Wiki, and the contributor used his own genuine name in his sig, then the contributor who is living in NZ can be personally sued for defamation in NZ. No?

4561:

mediation is needed and either one of us calls for it. As it happened neither one of us had asked for gren to mediate between us. He had self appointed himself for the job. He was offended by my blunt remarks and banned me. You can read our discussion in my

8986:

A comment on what I see above re consensus in editing. This allows non-experts to overide experts. I think that is wrong. Should people who do not know Chemistry be allowed to overide a profesional PhD chemist who edits on wiki? Etc,etc.Ditto other fields.

9210:

Hi Jimbo. I've been reviewing *drew's contributions since you blocked him. It really looks like he made mistakes when he was a newbie, but has learned not to upload copyvio material. There are even some edits where he reverts others' copyright violations:

8056:

They haven't been held yet, they will (hopefully) be held soon. At the moment there is just a chance for candidates to submit statements and be asked questions about it. When the actual voting starts you can vote for/against whoever you like (as it should

7745:

Aside from the quetsion of copyright, it is generally considered improper, both in journalism and in academia, to use or quote someone else's work without attribution. Even Fair-use normally requires proepr attribution. I don't see that a full copy of the

3800:

Edits, as we know them today, will take place on the internal version. Vandalism (even a sophisticated one) will be removed. Facts checked. All without the public at large exposed to that ever changing version of the article. In software lingo will be the

8192:" some have certainly become admins and they flaunt their completely wrong attitude with enough of a blind eye that they have no encouragement to reform. if karmafist is one of the few candidates left standing, there is a serious reason to take pause. 4660:

it wouldn't make sense to end up with no arbcom just because we can't get to admin levels of consensus. And then finally I would say that if we can't find any (or enough) candidates who get 50%+ support, we'd better throw in the towel on the concept.--

409:

Even if he doesn't, there's no denying that some dollar-hungry, savvy and perhaps fame-seeking (or -maintaining) attorney is going to eventually figure out that Knowledge is low-hanging fruit with respect to a class-action defamation/libel suit...and

63: 8764:

to be a mere marketer: "he more or less means for Knowledge to be this way. Cranks, trolls and conflict marketed under the label "Internet Encyclopedia," all enabled by wiki software, happens to equal traffic and donations, an easy enough tale." See

1735:

Generally, we stay on topic for a while and indent, instead of created hordes of big ugly titles for each posts. That is were the edit conflicts come in. Having the forum option to make a post that anyone can edit would be useful for vote tallies

8274:

Sorry but I'm weak on English. Marry Christmas from the biggest troll on pl wiki (me ;). I want talking you that admins on pl wiki are very bad, they blocking me often though I don't trolling already and never I've been admin. The worst admin is

6716:

has caused me to stop editing for half a year! I feel treated as an ordinary vandalizer! Now my comments are moved to 'Het Achterkamertje' (Backroom) where Wiki-people show a lot of tunnel-vision mentality. Anyway, I can't defend myself anymore.

5610: 4779:

Yes. Brandt complains that we a) violate privacy, and b) don't check our facts. This (was) precisely what he was doing. I notice he's taken down people's names from his shitlist now. Perhaps the controversial behaviour had a positive effect. -

2495:"People who have been defamed on Knowledge"? But it's up to a judge and jury to decide if something is defamation in each individual case; there's no grounds to presuppose it in advance to build a class action. Or is it "People who have been 1589:

Hey jimmy just an idea, and maybe this rule is already in place but why not require registered users to caegorize or at least link there articles in some, way, shape or form. this way bum articles might stand a better chance of bieng picked

4399:

They also sanctioned his opponents (more severely) and acknowledged Connolley's subject matter expertise. None of this is particularly inconsistent with Jimbo's statement. Connolley has continued his good work and caused no problems since.

2000:

Well, I am concerned about such articles to an extent, mostly on the grounds of worrying about whether they can be adequately verifiable, but I'm of course not about to mass delete anything just because I'm personally not sure I would vote

6190: 4978:

was made in October at some point, but it was prematurely closed. An 8th nomination was just made, which you prematurely closed. It's been at least five months since the last full debate of this article at AfD/VfD, so why close it early?

7553:

Individual editors retain the copyright of the work they put into Knowledge and are responsible for defending it (the Foundation can't do it for you). You are free to pursue your copyright in court even if other editors choose not to. —

7819:

I want my contributions to be totally free without restriction, so that's what I'll do. I'm not interested in holding any claim over them. I feel that contributions to Knowledge should be thought of as gifts, with no rights reserved.

7459:

includes insults, sarcasm, or angry criticism of some kind. As for me, I don't think I stomp and whine very much, but even if I did, that is at least a little more socially acceptable than verbally attacking everyone you come across.

1916:

standards, this Talk page is effective for reaching the right people. And I'd say that the issue of Knowledge turning into an FAQs archive for every little piece of data regardless of notability is of great importance to the founder.

3308:

The quality differential alone will crush Knowledge in terms of relative interest & traffic, making it more exclusively a haven for the disenfranchised-14-year-old mindset. Users new (or old) to Knowledge would do well to read

7973:. That probably helped me more than anything since whining to authorities rarely helps you, often it hurts you. However, since the arbcom selection procedure is still up in the air, your words there might have meant nothing at all. 8667:

As the size of Knowledge increases, the number of conflicts is increasing in a non-linear fashion. Consensus is not likely to find a way to resolve disputes more quickly. Only you can deal with this problem in a timely manner.

5282:

So anyone can edit Knowledge, except noobs, those who disagree with Snowspinner and anyone who doesn't think the cabal is always right? Jeez, what next? There used to be a wiki here, of sorts, now it's getting like Talibanistan.

3402:

Suppose I were to send a hoax email to the subject of a Knowledge article, and then write up the results (haha! got him!) on the talk page and in the article. The subject of the Knowledge article also happens to be a Wikipedian.

8801:

I was aware of Wyss's recent criticisms of the whole Knowledge concept. I do not see those as a basis for disciplining her. Also, I have not reviewed the timeline to see whether those criticisms preceded the ArbCom decision.

8750:. On 29 November 2005, the same user continues to attack several members of the arbitration committee claiming that "arbcom's agenda is revenge against Ted Wilkes" and that "they're coddling a troll." Furthermore, arbitrator 9508:

The only way that the sentence ("The arbitrators are now looking to ban me for an entire year") makes any sense is if it's inevitable and unvoidable that Everyking is unable to stop hounding Snowspinner. Given comments like

692:

As someone has mentioned to me, there is a difference is between "assuming bad faith" and "reasonable suspicion". Snowspinner seems to assume everything I do is in bad faith (bad faith in itself). The bullying has to end. -

5657:

tag was later added.) I think it would be horrible precedent to start making policy on whether certain specific pages should be cited as sources or not. We'll have POV axe-grinders challenging every source they don't like.

4540:

who became a suicide bomber in Iraq, killing six people and injuring several more. These people, my self, and thousands more, are victims of lies. If I knew the truth I would never have converted to Islam. The same is true

4150: 3620:

OK well, again, what I'd really like is an opportunity to talk with you about it...we can talk about it through e-mail and you can respond at your leisure, or IRC, or here if you like. I just want a chance to make my case.

1905:

bring to someone's attention who dabbles in the construction of these paticular articles. This may have "transmogrified" into a "bulliten board", but that doesn;t mean its meant to address every little thing that comes to

9343:. Just collect evidence in an appropriate place, such as a subpage of your user page. I assure you that I would watch the article and undelete it if necessary, protecting you from the supposed Wikipedian tyrant admins. 4214: 4083: 4063: 1872:

Wales recently deleted a large portion of a certain Knowledge project due to non-encyclopedic content. Moreover, many people visit this talk page, and so Wales' Talk page is more like a bulletin board than a Talk page.

4880:

I also agree. Locking up an article and "protecting" it from an procedure, giving the concensus "This is getting ridiculous" seems POV. It is my humble opinion that Ta Bu is not using his aminintrative powers in good

522:

means a litigant who is representing himself), and defamation law is not quite as simple as you are saying, particularly when you consider that every state has its own laws on the subject. Further, libel and slander

5606: 2549:

I agree with gadfium's implication that the answer to Moriori's question would depend on New Zealand law. I should have specified that my comment above was based on U.S. law, specifically on class actions under the

7303:

essential for information that goes beyond simple fact-quotations or descriptions not heard or seen by the current reporter, characterizations or other generalizations not based on the writer's own reporting, etc...

3297:

Print and its controversial Google Print Library Project initiative are going to be settled. And my guess is that they will go forward, either such as they were originally conceived or in a fashion similar to how

8974: 5809:) is you, or an imposter. I'm going to leave it blocked until you either confirm, or until you've contacted a developer in order to get the account handed over to you. Please contact me here on en: Knowledge. -- 2033: 1849: 1537:

are perfect userpages. Carefully crafted and sculpted to the upmost quality...Full of beautiful info boxes...and most important, have a sense of humor and attiditude! Please reconsider that statement and join the

8340:- it has a list of current employees - it says that Brion is now full-time, and I think the 2nd part timer is the open job listed there - that was annoucned as filled today on the mailing list by Delphine Ménard 7112: 5716:, which I'm a big fan of, isn't always a good idea. However, I never marked it up as policy and have been quite open about everything and the comment about being underhand is uncalled for (I'm also a big fan of 2523:

before doing anything else. Then see if you have a friend or colleague - perhaps at work - who is somewhat knowledgable about local defamation law, who can tell you if it's worth an initial consultation with a

9020:

Wow, this is amazing. We actually have a Bigfoot guy on here. So, uhhh, you know Bigfoot died on November 26, 2002, right? His name was Ray Wallace. And I really doubt that you photographed him 17 times.

8746:

page, Wyss still accuses me of "using Nick Adams as a wedge from which to seed the Elvis Presley article with Google friendly keywords which would lead readers to tabloid books by a certain dodgy author." See

8232:

this has his attention. and, more regretfully, if he "misunderestimates" the cancer and under-reacts while it gets bigger, it could get very, very bad for WP. loss of resources and eventually of credibility.

1806:

Well, I knew that already. Forums would have a different role in the interaction between members. A forum is more flexible to these things, instead as we're having it now; a whole big mess spread everywhere.

8093:

contributions carefully, and I don't doubt they won't hesitate to ask pointed questions. Yes, controversial candidates have their supporters, but I would be surprised if anyone unsuitable for the job got it.

4035: 3025: 1240:. Significantly, Ted Wilkes repeatedly reverted the article to the version he preferred, i.e., exactly the version JillandJack had created, accusing me of distortions, fabrications, being a vandal, etc. See 8820:

We talked about tools that editors need some time ago. I don't know if we mentioned that users have wrote some tools, some of them are quite widespread. If you haven't already, you should try the brilliant

5405:. Since he is doing the entirely boring "I'm a-gonna tell Jimbo! waaaaaah!" bit, mentioning the event here seems like a viable way to bring it to the attention of someone (or someones) who can address it. 7965:

The arbcom is too overloaded to listen to anything unless it's gone through the proper channels first or it's an emergency. Your thing is neither. I assumed last night that you were talking about the POTW

4965:

The 5th nomination was closed early with the closing comment by you. You noted that it was removed from VfD by a user you hadn't yet determined. You also noted you were creating a new nomination, which is

3527:

A completed article is an article which says what needs to be said about a given topic, comprehensively, accurately and impartially, as determined by those knowledgeable on the subject and working on the

9218:. He appears to be quite conscientious about tagging image uploads properly, as well. You said that he is banned "unless and until I am convinced you will not do this again." I am now convinced of this. 2013:

I looked at the category, looked at a random article listed in it and saw nothing "obvious"ly wrong. Besides verification, the only real problem with fancruft is if they include TOO MUCH data, they could

5175:, so he is at least aware of the proposal, and has presumably read the front page. Note that the comments he made were on those features we presently opted to avoid for exactly the reasons he mentions. - 3820:

policies have been followed will be easy to verify and certify. Also the fact that the internal version of the article is only available to few thousands volunteers (instead of to millions) would reduce

1779:

Okay, so where's the forum? Where are the discussions? That page is only to advertise for projects, etc. In my opinion, it would be good for the members to have a place where they can debate anything. --

7809:

If you want to put your work into the public domain yes. However there are a number of dissadvantages of doing so. People who use your work to create derivative works will then be able to copyright the

7055:

Current Knowledge.org hit ranking by Alexa is 34. I tried to get the hit ranking of this discussion page, but it defaulted to the domain. :-) Otherwise, I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas!

5100:. We feel with all of the heat we're facing right now, it might be a good time to enact something like this. Please check out the discussion and give any input that you can. It'd be much appreciated. -- 4812:

I offer my most sincere apologies to Grue. I got this one completely wrong. I still think it is in poor taste to archive it on Knowledge as if we are proud of it. But, I'm sorry Grue, I screwed up.--

2418:

The reason this is popping up everywhere is because they run their own "newswire" which is carried by Google's News service. We at wikipedia are a target because we exposed them for the fraud they are.

2066:

Wow, that's a lot of different fonts :-) It's a great idea. Could you also try one with just one or two "boring" fonts? Counterintuitively, if you do it just right, it might actually look even cooler.

8847:

Hi there Jimbo, hope you had a good Christmas. Anyway I know you have a million and one things to do, but I thought I'd remind you that 2005 is drawing to a close and AFAIK you haven't declared a new

3194:

If you can suggest a grant that would cover this, we'd gladly consider, however we only have enough money to fund our current projects so far, not enough to fund experimental projects like this. --

1987:

Also, if you're interested, I would be glad in helping you put them up for deletion- there are thousands of people on wikipedia, and Jimbo is not the only one who can help with a situation like this.-

6035:

We should stop advertising for wikipediaclassaction. It is pretty obvious that their claims are baseless, and all we are doing by mentioning them so often is boosting their Google AdSense revenue.

4217:

is intended to help you on that.) When you do fix this, you will truly be helping the readers of Knowledge find actually correct, accurate, and NPOV information about the rare and little-understood

1455:

My thought is that the concern he raises is important and should be taken seriously, but not to the extent he has carried it in his struggles with Onefortyone, who I should point out is currently on

8677: 7689:

risk that my real life efforts could be percieved as plagarism is simply too high. I favor the spread of human knowledge, but the attribution requirement is absolutely essential to the work I do.

5777:

To provide my $ 0.02 here, I think that jguk approaches this with a specific axe to grind: he wants religioustolerance.org excluded because they disagree with his pet issue of BC vs BCE for dates.

4587:

This is not fear mongering, but harsh reality. It seems that even the government of the USA has got the message that the engine of Islamic terrorism is Islam itself. See I also invite you to see a

2018:

by the copyright holders (and thus be a copyright violation). With regard to this: as long as on balance we are more of an asset to the specific copyright holder than a liability, we should be ok.

4843: 4244:

I just now discovered some more evidence of arbitrator-bias that I had not seen before. I just found out that, on October 10, 2005, while I was distracted with the ongoing dispute at that time,

4123: 9276:

Again there has to be the rule of law rather then rule of rulers, there are some constraints of the arbitrary use of power, and has to be implemented the rule of law rather then rule of rulers.

6227: 4345:"It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales, the encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense" 2848: 2180:

What I do to try to be useful to other languages is communicate with people as much as I can, visit people in person as much as I can, and monitor the statistics pages to see what is going on.

15: 8915:. There is no notice anywhere on the page, in the page history, in the edit diff, or anywhere else that in any way indicates where I got this from, and this is a clear violation of the GFDL 4471:

them for media lest we be accused of data manipulation/inaccuracy. We're hoping someone at Nature will give us a list of problems they noted. P.S. I thought you were great in the podcast. -

3175:

unemployed person a computer with an Internet connection and teach them how to use Knowledge. At least they'll have something to do, something to keep them busy...imagine the possibilities!

1901:

You still didn't answer my question though...what will Jimbo do to remedy the situation..? This is not an area of paticular interest (or expertise) for him, and this is something you should

9162: 7929:), and have been the victim of harrassment from him. (Of course, he is accusing me of harrassment. I'm happy to let the evidence speak for itself.) Today, I formally identified him in a 4893:

While I would vote to delete it, myself, I must say that Ta bu shi da yu has a very good point here. "This is getting ridiculous" isn't always POV, sometimes it is just simple fact. This

725:

Without taking any position on Xed or his behavior (about which I know little and care less), I think his question is reasonable, and I want to hear the answer. Did Dershowitz threaten us?

3601:

Once again I want to appeal my arbitration ruling. You seem to be deliberately ignoring me, and apparently you deleted my old requests from this page, so I figure I need to request again.

816:- probably Dershowitz or his assistant Mitch Webber. A member of Knowledge has identified "FakeName" as the same person as whoever the IPs are. FakeName has been banned, see his talk page 706:

Come on, Xed. Give us a break. You aren't being bullied, and you very often show bad faith and you very often do things to be disruptive. No one, least of all Snowspinner, assumes that

5830: 4263: 4128: 1633:

Jimbo, I think that Wiki should have an official forum where people could discuss different topics - including off-topic discussions. I believe this would benefit our community, because:

7413:

ArbCom, in its most recent case against you, disagreed with that. Nor has Jimbo, directly, calling what you do "carping" seemed to have left a dent in your unearned sense of entitlement.

7526:

Yeah, what happened to Knowledge as free information for humankind? It shouldn't matter if people use the work on Knowledge elsewhere, if it is useful to people Knowledge is working! --

3442:

Is this statement correct? "On December 6, 2005, the two were interviewed on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation radio program. There Wales described a new policy he implemented

2145: 3759:

Yes, but we need to move forward. We do have the luxury of ongoing investigations as we move forward, and flexibility to analyze what works well and doesn't, for next time around. --

7131: 3547: 3302:

music has come to be legally ubiquitous (provided freely on a selected basis as determined by the author), but in any case a commonly accepted practice and a profound knowledge-tool.

1154:, another alias of DW and obviously an Elvis Presley fan like Ted Wilkes, deleted a passage relating to a claim by David Bret that Elvis may have had a sexual relationship with actor 1038: 1512: 2794:

Version vom 01:23, 6. Dez 2005 Jesusfreund (Diskussion | Beiträge) PRUUUST - verschoben ins Humorarchiv, Überschrift "der ganz normale Wahnsinn im Adminalltag". Selten so gelacht...

1947:

It's not a matter of adding to articles. It's a matter of removing articles that are non-notable. This means going through a lot of red tape, courtesy of the Knowledge bureaucracy.

4452:: WP averages about 1 error every 2 KB, and the average article size is 6.80 KB. Britannica averages nearly 4 errors every 2 KB, and the average article size is 2.60 KB. See also: 7137: 6609:

Jimbo Wales once said that threatening with legal steps to 'win' a discussion brings about a denial of your right to participate in wikipedia. So, herewith Verrekijker is banned.

8309:

says "Personnel (2 full time & 2 part time)" are currently employed. It would be nice to know when I'm talking to an admin or voting on arbcom if they are one of these four.

3851:

Please explain and give details, cause i am tired fighting with all the POV pushers. I want to work on an encyclopedia not to fight those who use Knowledge to spread propeganda.

2725:

Jimbo, in all seriousness, there is no realistic way to do this on a proper timetable unless we use the old process. We can discuss changes in the process all through next year.

9008:

I may have misunderstood something. However, is DreamGuy reverting original research? I thought that original research was not permitted, and so reverting it was reasonable.

4935:

Going over the more recent history, it seems the 7th nomination was cut short (only 3 or 4 people managed to vote before an admin closed it), and the 6th nomination resulted in

2839: 1073: 536:, since you are slightly mis-citing its holding. However, I will agree with you that allowing someone who has repeatedly posted false material to continue posting is reckless. 8806:

attack on the arbitrators, who are doing the best that they can. Instead, it illustrates my previous observation that Knowledge needs to expedite the resolution of disputes.

3983:

JRM, your answer is a waste of key srokes. If you want to answer use words we can understand as (at least me) not as smart as you and can't really tell what you want to say.

3816:

This verification process should not be hard. If Knowledge policies are followed all the material should be sourced (99% over the net anyhow) and no Original research is used.

7250:

I thought that the Arbcom ruling was that Everyking was supposed to at least acquaint himself with the facts before commenting? In a nutshell, the issue isn't licensing, it's

1836: 7209:? At first glance, it appears that a Honolulu Star Bulletin reporter may have been using substantial chunks of Knowledge content in one of his articles without attribution. 9000: 6659:

I won't ask you for an opinion on this particular case, but I would like to know your opinion on whether all kinds of legal threats constitute a valid reason to ban a user.

3773:

An article in wikipdia is like any other piece of software. It needs to reach stability, pass some Beta test before it can be "published" or exported to the world at large.

9167:

Jimbo please remember to use template tags when dealing with users especially when blocking. In the case of indefinitely blocked users the most appropriate tag for use is

5231:

Also, I emailed it to someone who says he's forwarded it to Seigenthaler (I still don't know Seigenthaler's email address. His home phone number is easy to find, though).

3894:

Of course, we can also believe Jimbo and the board are just evil. Eventually pictures of them eating babies would leak to the public, though, and then Knowledge will fork.

9103:

Been shown Wiki protocol concerning this matter( The non-wiki source). You may consider this matter settled, my complaint settled. I Apologise for this inconvience, boss.

7311:

Staff members should be alert to the potential for even small, unintentional acts of plagiarism, especially in the reporting of complicated stories involving many sources.

5668:

Firebug, it's quite proper that we challenge whether references are reliable and reputable, in the same way that we should challenge unreferenced material. If you look at

4536:

the American kid who become a Muslim and went to Afghanistan to become a terrorist and fight against his own country. But a more tragic story is that of the Belgian woman

1839: 1472:

never mentioned "views." Such a Committee would be there to enforce/rule upon existing policies and guidlines - not, mine, not yours, or not anyone who uses Knowledge for

645:

with Xed in both of his arbitration cases - that his default assumption about anyone - particularly anyone who disagrees with him - is that they are acting in bad faith.

9168: 9032: 7028: 6792: 5567:

a major policy change is therefore a huge huge error being made by people who have no understanding of how Knowledge works.--Jimbo Wales 16:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

5262:

to run it by the foundation's lawyers as well - currently, nothing binds disputants to our internal dispute resolution processes, which I think would be to our benefit.

7839:

newspaper can be expected to result in the recruitment of new contributors, who would add some knowledge to the sum of information that we make available at no charge.

7095: 6403: 5409: 5310:

license already does) - it would only reduce the likelihood of people taking legal action against Knowledge based on disputes that arise from their participation here.

2590:

So, I am sysop of cs.wiki and I am also ambassador of czech Knowledge for polish and english language users. Feel free to contact me anytime you want; preferably on my

2224:

www.wikipediaclassaction.org redirects to some newswire, albeit one with the Seigenthaler scandal high on the list. No doubt Willy on Wheels would join that thing. —

198: 137: 6088:

accusing you of libelling. It should be discouraged if it is frivellous, but it shouldn't be a bannable offense. It should be on the same level as a personal attack

5294: 4270:, as one example to see what I mean.) Later, instead of recusing themselves for their obvious bias against the topic, though, (the obviously NON-neutral) arbitrator 4118: 2690:

holidays and turning of the year than wikipedia. I suggest you either close the poll and get the ball rolling, or announce that the elections will occur in January. --

1568:

Dear Jimbo Wales, as I first heard of your wiki-projects I thought for myself: That's kinda good thing! Really! But after I worked for 4 month at the German Wikinews

9038: 8739:

page that "my name ... in your RfAr concerning 141 ... is reprehensible, a form harrassment in direct violation of WP policy and an abuse of your admin status." See

7849:

Attribution is cool. Going after people for not attributing is uncool. For us to act like copyright neurotics trying to drag people down when they use info from the

5957: 1529:

Jimbo! Thank god you're all right! I rushed over here as fast as my megabytes would carry me! On your userpage, you say edit your page to get it to look as good as

6052: 4495:

The update is that Nature is in the process of readying the information they can share with us regarding errors. Probably to be available in a week or so. Whee! -

3968:

Typically evasive answer, substituting a flip, put-down remark for substance. Which is to say, as an editor, I most certainly did have to, always and without end.

7161: 4190:. From the beginning, it was clear that the head arbitrator's demonstrated bias against the topic should have caused them to recuse themselves. Instead, a pure 3710: 2818: 1938:

is the incorrect place to post if you want something done about your situation. On the other hand, I will be glad to work on those articles when I goet the time.-

9180: 7200: 6583: 6272: 5022: 4885: 1640:

Discussions would be posted in a chronological matter, instead as we have now on the talk pages, where everyone can add their comment anywhere in the discussion;

9236: 7206: 2201: 7910: 6928:. If it's not possible to license content on Knowledge under the GPL I suppose I will have to remove it to my own webpage and link it externally. Thanks! -- 6237:

you'll see that a group of us are trying to do something very similar to what you suggest. A UK charity should be fully registered by the middle of next year,

6136: 5878: 5492:

Probably,I think, the true problem of Knowledge is revert-deletions or page-deletions forced by adminstrators without enough conversation or clear explanation.

5381: 5352: 5320: 5272: 3638:

I think we should reinstate the ability of anonymous users to create talk pages, so they can comments about articles, ask questions, explain their edits, etc.

2745: 1001: 786: 781: 6383: 6258:

I don't know a lot of information about every user. I do not ban people for arbitrary reasons, and if I did it would surely cause a huge community scandal.--

5253:

By clicking to save the above edit, you agree to the binding resolution of any disputes that arise as a result of your participation in Knowledge through the

4869:'s comments above. There is no good reason to make this article immue from normal procedures, and there is no policy or guideline which supports this action. 3412:

Oh, and the article subject/Wikipedia user happens to be very unpopular (in fact has been blocked from Knowledge). Does the answer depend on that? Should it?

8032: 7089: 7057: 5290: 776: 770: 4275: 3486:

would take care of whatever Knowledge editing is left to be done; the rest of us could use a vacation. ;-) Really, though, I treasure my complete Knowledge

2165:

I'm a contributor mostly on the Swedish projects. You don't speak Swedish, so I'm wondering if you ever look at non-English projects? Do you even notice us?

8702:. These false claims were only made because my contributions, based on several independent sources, were not in line with the personal view of this user. 7228:

material has been copied. This can easily be done by the journalist, by just writing - "according to Knowledge, the online encylopedia..." Hope this helps.

6977: 6335: 5630: 5126: 5097: 3694: 2836: 1576: 1161:. The same user added some denigrating remarks on Bret's book to the related discussion page, which were similar to those later written by Ted Wilkes. See 391:". According to the new speedy deletion criterion (I just changed it), these can be deleted on sight when they have been on the site for at least 7 days. 9408: 8781: 7222: 6866: 6039: 5669: 4793: 3340: 3185: 2894: 479: 452: 416: 7353:

got in pretty hot water over minor plagiarism accusations. This is a serious issue, and the "licensing" and free information" stuff are red herrings. --

6624:

For threatening with legal steps to decide a discussion to her advantage the user was banned for a half year; this in accordance with the rules of Jimbo

5745:, meaning I am trying very hard to assume goodfaith, and I am far from finished with such an assumption here. Nevertheless, Jguk cannot simply discount 9141: 7642: 7548: 6772: 6743: 6718: 6268: 5018: 4882: 2827: 2817:

Ich sehe das nicht so, denn Hans Bugs Kritik hat eine wichtige Funktion. Sie stört einzelne, aber für das Wohlergehen des Projekts ist sie wichtig. --

2290: 1988: 1965: 1939: 1907: 1864: 1723: 1557: 1543: 678: 649: 437:

onward) have routinely held that libel suits must be restricted in order to avoid a chilling effect on protected expression under the First Amendment.

8636: 6865:

It goes on from there, at some length, but you get the gist. Golly, that Knowledge really outdoes itself sometimes...doesn't it? Satirically yours, --

4671: 2175:

I am learning to speak German, so I do try to read German Knowledge. And I do look at other languages, although of course I can't read anything there.

8867: 7843: 7667: 7144:

implementation of branching could be the system that allows Knowledge to trancend the current system in quality and have no significant drawbacks. -

6952:"Wikimedia needs your help in its current fund drive. See our fundraising page for details. Please help translate this message for your local site." 6801: 6127: 5372: 5343: 5311: 5263: 4999: 4980: 4944: 4747:

I'd also like to note that as far as I know, it wasn't Grue who posted this, unless of course Jimbo has some inside info I am not aware of. Jimbo? -

3324:, is fairly clearly indicative of where all this needs to head. Granted, Knowledge is today a non-profit entity, and may remain as much despite the 1882:

Adraeus, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I haven't recently deleted a large portion of anything anywhere. Perhaps you were told wrongly?--

992: 7572: 7242: 7232: 6457: 973:

I don't think that happened. Dershowitz is a man with powerful friends. He can also muster up a legal argument where none really exists (he did get

7986: 7569: 7229: 6182: 3647: 8786: 7873:(as has already been explained to you) in journalism. This is so obvious, I can hardly believe it's ignorance and not contrarian disingenuousness. 7534: 5691:

policy). That it related to citations linked from that site is inconsequential, since this webpage did provide verifiable references for at least

5059: 9398: 9195: 9191: 8111:. For every bad Wikipedian there are plenty of friendly ones and I have faith in the community to be self-regulating and have a positive effect. 7756: 6473: 5795: 5091: 1750: 1051: 611:

Start a world tour, and appear on international news networks, and then tell me why you don't answer every question on your user talk page. --

7014: 4797: 4429: 4088: 2757: 1643:

The forums would serve some of our needs to socialize and relax; and not just discuss article-related topics or things that only relate to Wiki;

149: 93: 9475: 8516: 8482: 7722: 7693: 7107: 6577: 6522: 6466: 5746: 5662: 5644: 5025: 4902: 4888: 4816: 4365: 3891:

in number) and the community (anything but); and the fact that a novel construct like Knowledge faces novel problems requiring novel solutions.

3721: 2920: 1066: 8654: 6503: 6420: 5115: 5106: 5002: 4993: 4983: 4960: 4947: 3667: 2945: 2904: 1707: 31: 28: 7998: 7946: 7083: 6834:

It suprises me how many users (espcially British users) use satire. They constantly confuse and (sometimes) mislead me. Is there a policy? --

6639:

Verrekijker reacted in particular to a remark that she considered to be discriminating towards people such as herself, that have undergone a

6241: 5856: 5081: 4930: 3516: 2869: 1698: 1463: 388: 9157: 9012: 7621: 6477: 6328: 5072: 4875: 4850: 4836: 4449: 4286: 4226: 4113: 8557: 7558: 6293:

How is that possible, Britannica even coming so close to a 💕 with vandals and trolls! The world must be coming to an end!(note sarcasm):-)

6275: 5144: 4784: 4774: 4323: 3499: 3432: 3397: 3261: 3248: 3231: 2005: 1442: 1409: 681: 664: 9500: 5573:

concept of validated/non-validated articles or is this left purely for the developers? It would seem to be that such a process would have

5357: 5337: 4860: 4404: 3423: 1395: 1225:, presumably because of Bret's claim that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings - a claim Ted Wilkes didn't like from the beginning. See 1080: 501: 360: 8631: 8076: 7503: 6650: 5190: 4918: 4382: 4015: 3625: 3615: 3356: 3073: 2913: 2739:

the way to go, but we need to decide this quickly, clarify, devise a process, and implement. That is, if this is gonna happen this year.

2329: 2293: 2206: 2092: 580: 9330: 9313: 8627:

I acknowledge that the ArbCom was acting in good faith in this case, but the result is an injustice. I hope that you will reverse it.

7857: 7568:

Exactly right DragonsFlight. Newspapers are quite used to attribution, and it should be the same when quoting from sources as Knowledge.

6686: 6677: 5342:

Nevertheless, I'd rather see such disputes resolved somewhere other than a court of law - that's what an arbitration clause forecloses.

5055:

If I've understood other conversations correctly, the long delayed article rating system is hopefully going to come online in January.

4751: 4664: 4194:

ensued, designed only to push a rare, proven content-expert of a rare topic out of Knowledge altogether. It was a complete railroading.

3707: 3375: 2252: 2218: 2070: 455: 441: 7982:. I still think we can still cure you of your personality affliction rehabilitate you into the general community before it's too late. 7600: 7438:

You mean providing clues to the clueless? Yeah. Do you whine and stomp your feet this much in real life? If so, how do people react? --

6869: 6855:

Yes...and, quite thankfully so, particularly in regard to the British. The policy states, rather eloquently, words to the effect that:

6550:

worry, I'll source things. I know it's not really what you want, but given that things are disputed I really think that application of

6216:

I really suggest you look into getting yourself approved as a Registered Charity in the UK, it would save you a lot of money it seems!

5947: 5915: 5825: 5636: 4621: 4523: 4108: 3477: 3468: 3213: 2398: 1991: 1977: 1968: 1951: 1942: 1920: 1910: 1886: 1877: 1867: 1726: 1595: 1499: 746: 631: 528:

etc). Also, regardless of whether you need to prove damages or not, you still have to show actual malice; a statement is not libelous

482: 468: 9376: 9294: 8870: 7853:

encyclopedia seems to me to totally defeat the purpose of what we are doing here. We need to keep a focus on helping and not hurting.

7804: 7795: 7583: 7192: 7181: 6141: 5471: 5214: 5200: 5173: 5158: 3688: 2558: 2504: 2475: 2450: 2435: 2389: 2276: 2263: 2232: 1703:

But you never get edit conflicts if you do "add section" instead of "edit". Forums aren't usually more flexible than "add section". —

1622: 1131: 9300:

Just a suggestion, but maybe it would be helpful if you provided examples? And perhaps start up an RFC instead of bothering Jimbo? —

9260: 8810: 8649: 8473: 8331: 7005:

from being the one who gets rich...or possibly losing your shirt. Publishing a new paper encyclopedia isn't a nontrivial endeavour.

5889: 5816: 4824: 4792:, He has not taken them down. Just now I was able to see several editors names and the towns from where they came, including you. -- 4499: 3768: 2080: 1233:

On 5 May, Ted Wilkes reinstated, without further commentary, the biased version by JillandJack thereby deleting a link to a positive

72: 9525: 9388: 9254: 8968: 8353: 7902: 7485: 7464: 7446: 7433: 7424: 7405: 7361: 6147: 5547:

Jimbo, is you're e-mail address really jwales at wikia dot com or is that meant to be at wikipedia or wikimedia dot com or dot org?

5049: 4697: 4309: 4278:

me in the "Summary Judgment & Execution." This is just another example of the outrageous railroading that has occurred here, a

3642: 3590: 3559: 2694: 2241: 2119:) have kept saying that I should talk to you. I'm not convinved that you should get involved, but they know better than me. About , 1811: 1801: 1783: 540: 9347: 9054: 8796: 8771:. On 25 December 2005, Wyss continued to attack several arbcom members and accused them of vandalizing his/her user talk page. See 7890:

acknowledging that text came from Knowledge, via reference.com, so Knowledge's interest in this story has been dealt with. How the

6775: 6746: 6721: 6353: 5960:- Brandt has confirmed here that Zordrac is not working on his behalf, nor has any authorisation from Brandt to pursue any matter. 5901: 5855:. I asked the user in question to explain his actions and he refused to. I have posted on the administrator's notice board here: 5800: 4956:

a vote) less than 6 months ago. - Where the page is now, I have no idea. I hope that Firebug didn't just copy and paste over it...

4103: 3145: 2660: 2528: 2514: 2022: 1677: 1665: 942: 714: 697: 8718: 8715: 8712: 8709: 8706: 7824: 7814: 4453: 3490:

pseudonymity; eliminating it by requiring "contact details" would be one of the few changes around here that would drive me off. —

2788: 2622: 2608:

Hi! One thing I wondered about for a while: you have the Che Guevara image on your user page. Are you a communist or something? --

2350: 1006: 982: 968: 9107: 9098: 9089: 8952: 8708:. He/she also says that I am "a talented and knowledgeable vandal and hence immensely more destructive to WP's credibility." See 8672: 8510: 7386: 6096:

which you may wish to adopt, or propose for a consensus. I think that this would work to avoid all of the current legal issues.

4653: 2708: 2651: 2638: 2372: 2359: 1856: 355: 8031:

whomever - don't act soon about it) a crisis of credibility at Knowledge. and i don't mean the stuff we're hearing on the news

7148: 6694: 6223:

it appears at the moment the only other countries apart from the US where donations are tax-deductible is Germany and France! --

6159: 6011: 5987: 5677: 4975: 4378:

Wasn't he sanctioned by the ArbCom before? I think there was something associated with revert warring; correct me if I'm wrong.

4004: 3828: 3343: 2773: 2060: 1519: 145: 89: 9438: 8566: 8257: 8128: 8043: 8021: 7136: 7060: 6786: 6333: 5474: 4738: 4687: 4353: 3132:

happens to behave like a clueless, irresponsible 14 year old boy. Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls. Also from that article:

2951: 2763: 2717: 1844: 729: 419: 6756: 6114: 4098: 4093: 3920: 3464:

identification, and psychological purity exams. Special NPOV chips could be embedded inside the brains of would-be editors :)

2898: 1789: 9094:

I have a copy of the aforementioned reference, boss. Again, I apologise for inconviencing you at all with this matter, boss.

7163: 6824: 6532:, which involved wiping out all external links with a link to another external website. I'll respond on his/her talk page. - 6065: 6029: 5765: 5724: 5699: 5096:

Heya Jimbo, juet letting you know that we've come to a pretty solid consensus (98 support votes to 4 opposing) on a proposed

4998:

It's okay, for all I knew the nominations had been overwritten at some point and I wasn't seeing the "real" nominations. =) —

4629: 4475: 3972: 8435: 7401:

Hmmm, I think I'm reasonably well acquainted. I can always benefit from education from someone so wise as yourself, though.

6962: 4943:(should go double check) the 6th AfD was back in June, so it's been at least six months since we've really debated this... — 3987: 3957: 3940: 3902: 3873: 3280: 3156: 3048: 2713:

With all the recent bad publicity, can't decide if you want the same old gang of troll coddlers re-elected, eh Mr Wales? :)

9065:

Once, I have placed a non-Internet bigfoot source on the Bigfoot article myself, user:Dreamguy removed it. This source is:

8575:) are busy. I would like to ask you to review one ArbCom decision that is very unfortunate. That is the decision against 8075:

right now - Stevertigo, one of the few people who had his adminship removed, is currently re-applying for adminship and is

7775: 6315: 6036: 5298: 4296: 4031:

Sure, I'll take a look sometime in the next 3 weeks. I deleted the rest of what you posted here, but I'll read that too. --

3855: 3201: 3090:

Calls for responsibility, we learn, in that unique strangulated prose style that is truly Knowledge's legacy to the world -

3062: 2027: 1070: 920: 918: 873: 174: 9171:, also please remember to subst: templates as well when using ones that are likely to be permanent or long term. Thanks. 8313: 5122: 4443: 3392: 3206:

Jimbo, I'm having some issues editing Knowledge from home (can't submit pages), but can you please email me in regards to

2893:

Entadminisierungsanträge sind seit neuestem nicht mehr zulässig. (Vergleiche die Versionsliste der entsprechenden Seite).

1852:

contains many articles that are not inherently encyclopedic. I think this is obvious. Just bringing it to your attention.

1771: 9517:, it may, in fact, be true. But whether Everyking gets banned is entirely his responsibility and not the arbitrator's. -- 8876: 8283: 6806: 6019: 3188: 1835:

I think it would be a really good idea too and would encourage a lot more debate and contributions/growth to Knowledge --

1655: 1579: 1489: 384: 8485: 6920:. Can I post this source to a Knowledge page and keep it exclusively licensed under the GPL? As far as I am aware the 6815:, Arbitration policy is not open to amendment by the community. So I am posting my suggestion here. It seems that the 6558: 5386: 5325: 5277: 2870:

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Benutzersperrung/Hans_Bug&oldid=11421707#Meinungsfreiheit

1480: 1059: 1045: 9429:

I just realized this was a revert to your older version. However, since then the page apparently has been unprotected.

9135: 9060: 9028: 7264: 6939: 6321: 5515: 3763: 3656:

I'm not saying that criticism should be balanced by praise. My preference is to keep opinions out as much as possible.

3633: 383:

Did you come here looking for something fun to do? Ok, now would be a good time to go speedy delete some images from "

8296: 7186: 4318: 3663:. If a bio can be written about the most criticized man in history without a "Criticism" section, why not for others? 3571: 3538: 3454: 3428:

No it is completely unacceptable behavior. Very disappointing. We are Wikipedians and for me that means something.--

404: 8822: 7045: 6615: 6554:

policy tends to apply here. Note that I won't take a position on the argument, just document what the parties say. -

6185: 5235: 5031: 4967: 4825: 3717:

controlled by one country (e.g., if the People's Republic of China were to demand control of the Chinese Knowledge).

1506: 9514: 9510: 9198: 7970: 6980: 6567: 6307: 6075:

over by lawyers (not just Knowledge users who are also lawyers, but actual paid lawyers), especially such things as

4856:

worth noting that this holds for any article where there is a judgement call involved in its suitability for VfD. --

4170: 3313:

regarding the many-fold problems with Knowledge that continue to go unaddressed or otherwise evaded with respect to

2729: 2683: 652: 9454: 9309: 9050: 8948: 8072: 7079: 6536: 3754: 3733:

inherently bad idea. It's not like there was a significant majority in favour of any one of the proposals, either.

3285: 3124:

He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority ... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb.

2551: 1651:

If you worry about bandwith, then you should choose a free forum, but let it be a decent one. What do you think? --

1275:

Further, both Ted Wilkes and JillandJack contributed to many articles on American singers and entertainers such as

602: 9069:

written by Allan Zullo, published in 1997 by Troll Communications. This is a non-fiction soft cover book. This is

7309:

Using someone else's work without attribution -whether deliberately or thoughtlessly--is a serious ethical breach.

6262: 6092:

and that's about it. That's my opinion. I have written a proposal for how to deal with this kind of issue here:

4717: 2598: 1684:

I would not mind if talk pages were replaced in forum formatt for ease of reading and NO EDIT CONFLICTS...yay!!!:)

570: 9229: 8920: 8546: 8540: 7926: 7165: 6911: 6663: 4518: 3001: 2962: 2117: 1546: 1430: 1427: 1424: 1208: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1192: 836: 742:

No, Dershowitz did not threaten us. In my opinion, there was a misunderstanding here. But there was no threat.--

395: 111: 8624:

law. If the ArbCom thought that a mere admonition to Wyss was insufficient, it could have ordered mediation.

8582:

The first part of the case is not in itself wrong, but it is worrisome. It appears to say that a report in the

6903: 6165:

While this is a parody project, I advise you stop them from using your name, seeing how you own Wikicites. --

5595: 3018: 2656:

Jimbo is a man of the Right. A "gun rights" supporter, capitalist and Ayn Rand fan. He certainly aint no Che. —

561: 8554: 8534: 8522: 8490: 7962:

Now I see that your behavior might be more from inexperience rather than anything else, so here's some advice.

5753:(again, without a {{proposed}} tag), not his user space. I'm also afraid that the above dosen't respond to the 5551: 2746:

I've mounted broad discussion and votes for issues before and planned implementation, with self-evident results

2591: 1628: 9423: 9146: 8760:. On 1 December 2005, Wyss even went as far as to denigrate the whole Knowledge project attacking its founder 8740: 8730: 8727: 8724: 8721: 8705:

Here are some facts: On 17 November 2005, Wyss calls me a vandal and says that he uses the term formally. See

8004:

I'm sorry you feel that way, but of course you can vote in opposition to Karmafist in the upcoming elections.

7120:

This article does not look to me like it's ready for prime time, and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

7037: 6630: 6104: 6001: 5937: 5868: 5524: 5466: 5065: 4764: 2578:

is indeed someone in the academic or research community.. whatever... But like I said, in an ideal world.....

2397:

This class action lawsuit is by the scammers at BAOU Trust the people behind the fake indonesia quake charity

896: 324::''Any adminstrator, other than Snowspinner, may enforce this provision. ] (]) 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)'' 9381: 8860: 8766: 8758: 8755: 8748: 8700: 8690:

in removing my edits. This user repeatedly deleted my contributions to several articles (see, for instance,

8528: 8441: 8301: 8124: 8017: 7050: 6089: 4542: 4316: 3750: 3685: 2789:

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Vandalensperrung&diff=prev&oldid=11367727#Unscheinbar

2237:

Stop what? How could anyone stop that and why should it be stopped? They have the right to criticize Wiki. --

2139: 2045: 1601: 8777:. His/her frequent aggressiveness against other users, administrators and arbcom members speaks for itself. 8772: 8691: 7596:

already, it belongs to everybody. We are giving it away; we shouldn't be clinging to copyright neuroticism.

5396: 3221:

on user's behalf due to ongoing technical problems preventing Australian Optus subscribers editing articles)

2339: 1436: 1433: 1162: 1111: 1102: 1093: 8848: 8720:. On 18 November 2005, he/she denies having harrassed 141 and accuses Redwolf24 of harrassing him/her. See 6643:. In my personal opinion, there was not much wrong with the remark and she grossly overreacted. Of course, 5581: 5254: 4733: 4332: 3605: 2633: 2612: 1405:

shows he does log in from Canada. I'm not sure I trust the chain of users Onefortyone puts forth as proof.

1354: 598: 167: 9339:

admins must follow policy, to the extent that the poll I just linked to was taken as a joke. It is stated

7455:

seen you say anything civil on Knowledge. And that's pretty astonishing, since it goes back about a year.

7416:

So now, do you actually understand the difference between attribution and plagiarism? Signal yes or no. --

6529: 6481: 3706:

the problem is that even in the forum all of them know each other this is gilgamsh the responsible domain

1973:

I really have neither the time nor the patience to go through the red tape; hence, this message to Wales.

1364: 1159: 9340: 8733: 8697: 8694: 8645:

I have looked at most of the other recent ArbCom decisions, and the only one that is misguided is Wyss.

8504: 6812: 6370: 5625: 4267: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1180: 1117: 1114: 1108: 1105: 1099: 1096: 9149:: I suspect you will have a much better answer for this person than anyone else I can think of will. -- 8769: 6849: 5505:

Knowledge should have all-admin-election. Please tell Jimmy Wales this resolution if you can understand.

5196:

Count me in. Enthusiastically. But of course we need to get the technical details sorted with Brion.--

2618:

I think Che was more better known as a revolutionist than just a communist. Pic's cool nontheless. :) --

660:

Please move my comment to where it should be, I'm sorry. I'm not very experienced at RfC's actually. --

100: 9212: 6670: 6213:) it would enable Knowledge users and possible patrons to donate tax-free to the Wikimedia Foundation. 6076: 5975: 5791:

way this was done, I find the attempts to shut down debate on this topic prematurely to be disturbing.

5391: 5240: 4703: 4249: 3824:

the use that some groups today are making in Knowledge is spreading their propaganda on a daily basis.

3209:. I am not a pedophile and never have been. I need advise on how to deal with this. This is serious. - 3083: 3049:

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Benutzersperrung/Hans_Bug&oldid=11626536#Abstimmung

1759: 1024: 773:

for unexplained reasons), you'll see on the 5th, 6th and 7th of December several edits by three users:

400:

Can you confirm that the "very strong complaint" you received was from Alan Dershowitz or his staff? -

8837: 7171: 6289: 3236:

Furthermore, that anti-Knowledge article commits the common error of getting our URL wrong... it says

3063:

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Vandalensperrung&oldid=11626941#.C3.9Cble_Nachrede

2032: 1369:

Both Ted Wilkes and JillandJack seem to be interested in horse racing and contributed to the article,

8830: 8467: 8378: 8120: 8013: 7660: 7636: 7528: 6959: 6417: 6325: 6224: 4989:

the 6th time, and sectioned it up in ways that made it easier to admin. Apologies for the mistake. -

4505: 3746: 3437: 3383: 3166: 2324: 1361: 1280: 6573:

Ok, it was a silly comment. I apologise unreservedly... now let's get that article up to scratch! -

4084:

Polygamy "Decision" was a "Summary Judgment & Execution" made without ever hearing all the facts

4010:

Polygamy "Decision" was a "Summary Judgment & Execution" made without ever hearing all the facts

1177: 9185: 8723:. For similar statements, including the claim that Redwolf24 had abused his admin status, see also 8269: 7218: 7128: 7010: 6172: 5367: 5246: 3727: 3119:

Now a picture of the body behind the "Hive Mind" of "collective intelligence" begins to take shape.

1563: 1350: 1276: 9414:

tag on this article, but didn't actually apply any protection to the page. Was this an oversight?

6198: 2110: 1358: 156: 9112: 7785: 7020: 6253:

Do you a lot of know information about every user? Could you ban someone for an arbitrary reason?

6084: 5806: 5479: 3495: 3447: 3009: 2934: 2754: 2674: 2581: 2289:

Personally, I only take seriously class action lawsuits from people who can use commas properly.

7287:

Plagiarism is the act of lifting the words and work of others and representing it as one's own.

5497:

I think the resolution of above issues is that:Knowledge should set the short term(for examples

3406:

Would that be: (a) good traditional encyclopedia research, or (b) an egregious personal attack?

2826:

Ahja? Also mir hat seine "Kritik" bei der Erstellung einer Enzyklopaedie noch nie geholfen... --

2128: 964:

persuasive. I don't know if something remotely like that happened, but it would explain things.

9496: 9444: 9215: 9131: 6491: 6295: 4724: 4537: 4511: 2847:

Nicht überraschend. Die Funktion ist die eines Kammerjägers. Ungemütlich für das Ungeziefer. --

1762:) and (no offense but) I think this talk page has evolved into the most watched noticeboard. 1738: 1686: 1459:

due to advancing information which was either original research or back by unreliable sources.

7887: 7750:

license text should be required in such a case, but a citation in some form should surely be.

6636:

police for discrimination, except those that would retract their words by email before 2006.

4338: 3908: 1374: 1308: 302::''The Arbitration Committee has amended its ruling in ] to include the following provision:'' 9397: 9269:

the illegitimate use of Admin power for private purposes, (eg. gain position in debate talks)

9226: 7869:

Going after people for not attributing is an absolutely standard practice, here on Knowledge

7375: 6542: 6452: 6220: 4562: 4361:

I am not aware that the ArbCom would disagree with that statement at all. Why should they?--

1329: 639: 66: 7374:

Oh, and I nearly forgot my new favorite blog, "Regret the Error", which recently posted its

2963:

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Benutzersperrung/Hans_Bug&oldid=11470758

2124: 9305: 9118: 9046: 9009: 8944: 8807: 8793: 8669: 8646: 8628: 8432: 7350: 7320: 7075: 6944: 6598:"Threatening with legal steps. Is not permitted according to Jimbo and punishable by a ban" 6574: 6555: 6533: 6463: 6191:

Wikimedia Foundation/Wikipedia as a registered charity - Would ENABLE TAX DECDUCTION FOR UK

6093: 5286: 5222: 5078: 5046: 4990: 4957: 4833: 4789: 4781: 4748: 4426: 4350: 4301: 3513: 3276:

name, which they quite easily could have found and done if they had something against him,

3258: 3210: 3019:

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Administratoren/Probleme&oldid=11561304

2930: 1828: 1301: 1204: 1030: 8881:

I'm not completely sure where to put this, but I figured this is probably the best place.

7718:

Although IMO the primary concern is having the information stay free (as in freedom!). --

5125:

did comment on it, though he commented on it before we had the current proposal, which is

3444:

preventing unregistered users from creating new articles on the English-language Knowledge

2881:

And now a real big bundle of German bolshewik humour. Follow the first link and have fun.

1294: 8: 9325: 9289: 8736: 8280: 8108: 7920: 7690: 7618: 7545: 7498: 7214: 7006: 6970: 6898: 6875: 6797:

Umm, how is that newsworthy? I swear, this has been the month of nitpicking Knowledge. --

6589: 6247: 5813: 5530: 5153: 5056: 4682: 4483: 4459: 3915: 3837: 3639: 3585: 3554: 3137:

Knowledge is losing good editors at an alarming rate, but who can blame them for leaving?

2703: 2320: 2309: 2100: 1637:

The community would get closer and grow as members would learn to know each other better;

1616: 1456: 1315: 594: 548: 107: 8775: 8349: 7336:

ring a bell? That admittedly was a particularly bad case, but the principle is the same.

7123:

Yet my attempt to generate discussion about the wisdom of running this on mainpage with

5619: 4480:

Yes, and I also edited out references, external links, see also, TOC, and any tables. —

3207: 2342:. This looks like hot air to me, and I can see that the website has since been removed. 917:

Other edits from the Harvard vandal include complete or partial blanking of the article

9366: 9265:

There are two very important aspects that some Administrators continue to ignore them:

9203: 8842: 8449: 7754: 7160:

The case of Nobs01 and others is becoming a little embarassing for an ArbCom candidate

6205: 5548: 5232: 4873: 4643: 4514:

over the change to the tagline you requested. Your input there would be appreciated. -

3995:

Mr. Wales: I am wating for an answer. What troubled me most was that you were recently

3673:

This seems to be a question for the community, not Jimbo. Why don't you post it to the

3491: 3389: 2229: 2077: 2058: 2052: 1797: 1767: 1524: 1322: 813: 8453: 5695:

of these. His en mass deletion, waving the would-be policy piece, seems questionable.

2459:

I was merely indicating WHY we are their target... not that they have a valid claim!

1343: 1336: 1287: 9492: 9127: 9085:, protocol was going on. I do apologise for inconviencing you with this matter, boss. 8855: 8751: 8714:. Again, Wyss accuses me of using the tactics of a vandal and those of a troll. See 8324: 8116: 8009: 7719: 7664: 7663:

clause. This will prevent any censorship by the authorities or the corporations. --

7634:

The GFDL seems pointless. Why not just have stuff in the public domain FOR ANYONE? --

7098:, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. 6885: 6350: 6100: 5997: 5933: 5864: 5651: 5556: 5512: 5485: 4760: 4533: 4401: 4306: 4283: 4223: 3742: 3682: 3372: 2954:

Belege: Statt aller zunächst pauschal Benutzer:Hans Bug, Benutzer Diskussion:Hans Bug

2603: 2467: 2427: 2106: 1584: 1370: 1346: 1304: 1151: 428: 9117:

Perhaps you can help with this; Someone keeps on blocking entire IP ranges from the

8359: 6322:

http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2005/04/08/encarta-goes-wiki/#comments

3524:

structure is not optimal for achieving that objective. Therefore it must be changed.

2919:

has started with communism in de, but bourgeois people like Hans Bug has caught him

9522: 9223: 9154: 9104: 9095: 9086: 8936: 8778: 8572: 8457: 8289: 8071:

if admins do abuse their power, they do face the consequences. You can see this on

7899: 7482: 7443: 7421: 7383: 7358: 7178: 7103: 6844: 6564: 6515: 6447: 6343: 6267:

This is almost certainly a joke question, Lord Jimbo, why even entertain it..? :) -

6259: 6122: 5912: 5822: 5592: 5334: 5197: 5139: 5112: 5101: 4899: 4813: 4661: 4608: 4362: 4032: 3760: 3612: 3429: 3416: 2647:

it is :) Still, I would say that Che is well-known as a communist revolutionist. --

2067: 2002: 1883: 1516: 1486: 1460: 1439: 1406: 1392: 1380: 1325: 1173: 1134: 1123: 1077: 743: 711: 661: 567: 163: 16: 8601:

I disagree with the second part of the decision, that biographical information on

6708:

a few days ago to include information about all artists in their Top 4000 (now on

6234: 1513:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_libel_from_edit_history

1191:, some different comment concerning author David Bret and his book was added. See 1035:

verify very carefully, with documentable sources, every single fact in the article

478:

trouble in the offing. I'd be a bitter, bitter person if I said or did nothing. --

9433: 9418: 9301: 9074: 9042: 8940: 8928:

retroactive fix is impossible, but best not to keep this kind of problem around.

8687: 8293: 7840: 7491: 7474: 7346: 7071: 7034: 6683: 6660: 6283: 6080: 6061:

maintain NPOV, even when writing about itself and it's enimies and detractors. --

5600: 4553: 4320: 4271: 4245: 3664: 3420: 2555: 2447: 2273: 2249: 1477: 1088: 1056: 1042: 988: 965: 769:

Looking thru the history of Alan Dershowitz (note:older edits have been moved to

553:

I have a question; how come everyone but Jimbo Wales answers most questions? See

8039:

become a real crisis, but i believe it has already come to that point. regards.

6110: 6107: 6007: 6004: 5943: 5940: 5874: 5871: 5643:, who has previously been convicted of edit warring by Arbcom, created the page 5401:

I cannot find an appropriate place to mention this sadly puerile behaviour from

4770: 4767: 4756:

Did it show him to be a hypocrite though? It just showed that he was trusting.

603:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s03.html

9451: 9320: 9284: 9244: 8866:

I thought he did when he suggested creating an annual GNAA AFD nomination? =) —

8743: 8337: 8310: 8210: 7983: 7930: 7916: 7854: 7821: 7801: 7597: 7461: 7430: 7402: 7239: 6935: 6924:

is not specific to software and doesn't protect software rights as well as the

6893: 6829: 6727: 6674: 6640: 6593: 6592:

was banned from the Dutch language Knowledge for a period of 6 months by sysop

6551: 6347: 6120:

Hey now, don't discount the "users who are also lawyers" - I'll take Knowledge

5969: 5886: 5810: 5792: 5713: 5542: 5402: 5130: 5069: 4927: 4915: 4694: 4618: 4379: 4279: 4191: 4187: 4166: 3622: 3602: 3596: 3568: 3535: 3483: 3474: 3465: 3451: 3321: 3310: 2992: 2916: 2726: 2680: 2369: 2347: 2314: 2304: 2269: 2215: 2198: 2019: 1610: 1297: 1122:. There is much evidence that Ted Wilkes is identical with multiple hardbanned 628: 577: 558: 498: 8344: 8306: 5615: 3531:

I still want to know if the above statement attributed to Mr Wales is correct.

1226: 710:

you do is in bad faith. But enough of it is that we're getting sick of it. --

9363: 9249: 9173: 9082: 9078: 8997: 8815: 8616: 8606: 8341: 7979: 7800:

I'm not very knowledgeable about the finer points. Is that what I should do?

7792: 7751: 7580: 7555: 7494: 7470: 7041: 5980: 5836: 5717: 5134: 4870: 4847: 4640: 4549:

revert any statement made critical of Islam. If you complain, they ban you.

4496: 4472: 4282:. I repeat my hope that you will be able to fix this tragedy. Thank you. - 3954: 3899: 3578: 3353: 2657: 2520: 2356: 2225: 2049: 1961: 1793: 1763: 1704: 1598: 1591: 1290: 791: 6816: 5639:(religioustolerance.org), and I wanted to see if you had any input on this. 3409:

I say (b), but the Knowledge community (including several admins) says (a).

2382: 1551: 1170: 1120: 47: 9385: 9369: 9216:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bhuj&diff=prev&oldid=26348550

8852: 8369: 8365: 8328: 8112: 8005: 7894:

handles the rest of the plagiarism is their business, not ours any more. --

7333: 7153: 7124: 6881: 6166: 6152: 6097: 5994: 5930: 5898: 5861: 5852: 5659: 4757: 4646: 3738: 3718: 3678: 3674: 3660: 3369: 3245: 3228: 3195: 2619: 2595: 2525: 2511: 2501: 2460: 2420: 2386: 2260: 2238: 2113: 2089: 2054: 1974: 1948: 1917: 1874: 1853: 1808: 1780: 1674: 1662: 1652: 1533:. Nonsense, Mr. Jimbo! Your page should look like mine and Cool Cats! Now, 1496: 1311: 726: 612: 438: 8903:

I have just incorporated content into this page that includes the work of

6780: 6603:

At 20:58 Waerth wrote in 'De Kroeg' (the "village pump" on nl:wikipedia)

6394: 1673:

Everything is spontaneous. IRC is fine, but it can't replace the forum. --

1217:

there was an edit war between Ted Wilkes and me concerning the article on

9518: 9150: 8975:

Wiki is awesome. But am having endless problems with a troublesome vandal

8912: 8908: 8761: 8276: 7951:

Just thought I'd update you on the patronizing that he's now turning on:

7895: 7478: 7439: 7417: 7379: 7354: 7263:

Some entries from various newspaper codes of ethics might be instructive

7189: 7168: 7154: 7145: 7099: 6987: 6837: 6821: 6798: 6753: 6543: 6375: 6365: 6156: 6071: 6062: 6026: 5786:

demonstrate certain opinions, that would be one thing. But Knowledge is

5750: 5578: 5211: 5187: 5176: 5150: 4908: 4866: 4857: 4728: 4679: 4207:

I have believed Knowledge was better than that, so I am hopeful that you

4124:

After the "Decision," Nereocystis's first edits proved I am correct again

3912: 3712:

this is the reason I passing to you thankes on the listening "splendor"

3582: 3551: 3253:

We have sorted out the issue now... Linuxbeak spoke to them and posted a

2982: 2784:

Have fun with this special kind of new (or old?) German bolshewik humour:

2770: 2744:

I'm willing to assist with whatever mode is chosen and to help organise:

2700: 2691: 2648: 2628: 2609: 2211:

This Class action preparation is outrageous, can someone please stop it.

2136: 1530: 1388: 537: 465: 7969:

The comment to Jimbo Wales is funny since I guess you've never heard of

6210: 4129:

If injustice not rectifed, Knowledge is just a community of anti-experts

3108:".... booooo big bad teecher - I'm not going to skool today. fuck you!!" 875:(Lengthy addition of all awards he has received and how wonderful he is) 9430: 9415: 9344: 9204: 8962: 8904: 8834: 8826: 8602: 8320: 7939: 7429:

Do you communicate like this in real life? If so, how do people react?

5848: 5531:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.#I_expect_your_excuse

4250:

deleted the entire explanation about the subtopic of Christian polygamy

3461: 3086:

has to say today about Knowledge's sourcing standards and credibility:

2303:

editors to find their name and location. I doubt he has much leverage.

2212: 1788:

There are many portals and noticeboards related to various topics, but

1473: 1318: 1218: 1155: 974: 9491:

Any adminstrator, other than Snowspinner, may enforce this provision.

9384:: because abuses are already creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt. ( 7207:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_plagiarism_by_newspaper

5306:

It would not prevent anyone from editing (any more than the automatic

5186:

If you want, you can just pull a Jean-Luc Picard and say "Engage!". --

4552:

Muslims’ abuse of power in Wikipeia has gone too far. I was banned by

3700:

scription the artical on the "celts" (currntly it's fit to children)

3163:

Kudos to Jimbo for providing Knowledge to those eager to learn! Angel

2151: 9240: 9023: 8683: 8576: 7811: 7113: 6930: 6916:

I'm working on some Wiki-related software that is licensed under the

6238: 6051:

of the illegal use of the logo, and twas I who added the sentence to

5962: 5762: 5721: 5696: 5674: 5640: 5249:

to add the following to the bottom of that section of the edit page:

4710: 4515: 3969: 3937: 3870: 3277: 3218: 3142: 2967:

btw.: Some commies name reasons: "Hans Bug nervt" or "he´s boring".

2714: 2365: 2343: 1824: 1339: 1332: 1283: 8383: 7025:

I'm not expecting to be online as much over the next few days so...

6563:

Why do you say that isn't what I want? It is exactly what I want.--

4603: 4165:

At 02:04, 14 December 2005, that entire section was then removed by

3611:

Not ignoring you, just swamped. I will get to it soon, I promise.--

1194:. This was repeatedly deleted by IP 66.61.69.65. See, for instance, 8254: 8040: 7995: 7943: 7067: 6789:

article did you believe that Digital Universe will kill Knowledge?

4258: 4253: 4218: 4019: 4001: 3984: 3950: 3895: 3852: 3825: 3153: 991:. Dersh just sat at the ready with appeals that were never needed. 979: 939: 694: 401: 262::''The arbitrators are now looking to ban me for an entire year''. 8560:

woow i saw what he has been doing with everythink i write...scary

6990:

of the Wikimedia Foundation useful to answer your second question.

5840: 5761:

to —and during— the discussion (at least the one I was privy to).

4709:

I tried to keep my behavior within acceptable norms all the time.

1176:

creating a new, denigrating article on biographer David Bret. See

1039:

Knowledge:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Straw poll

987:

Um, no - Dershowitz never said boo in the O.J. case, that was all

8990:

I'd love to get your help. This DreamGuy reflects badly on wiki.

8958:

Oh yey! I've had my name metioned in Jimbo Wales' usertalk page!

8372:

is using our Knowledge to spreading POVs and making revert wars.

8327:

and Kyle (the intern who helps physically maintence the servers)

7254:: the use of someone else's work and passing it off as one's own. 4635:

polls on the principle of consensus rather than simple majority?

4617:

Dear Jimbo Wales, do you despair about Mankind as often as I do?

3079:

will do!" Over at the village pump, Zoe accused me of "whining."

3054:

The votes: PRO banning : 69 | CONTRA banning: 50 (and some more)

2041: 1384: 1138: 1127: 8935:

not breaking the law here, I'll note that the box above is from

8498: 8190:

have completely the wrong attitude ... won't become arbitrators.

4049:

I put this back back and I ask for your urgent assistance still.

8147:

They haven't been held yet, they will (hopefully) be held soon.

5844: 3294: 1179:. This biased article was rewritten by me on 4 April 2004. See 1074:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone

8939:, of course, and the appropriate history can be found there. — 7116:

is losing FARC vote, yet still in place for mainpage on Dec 25

6889:

people told him to stop but he continues his trolling again.

5712:

I admit I was a bit bold in how I proposed this and following

4588: 4018:"decision" was made to push out a rare proven topic expert on 2471: 2431: 2120: 1863:

think this is the right place to discuss something like that.-

377: 9163:

a friendly reminder for when you are dealing with other users

8829:. For user experience improvements, I'll shamelessly plug my 6443: 6195:

If Knowledge/the Wikimedia Foundation registered itself as a

3325: 532:

if it is true or was made in good faith. You should re-read

373: 9461:

The arbitrators are now looking to ban me for an entire year

9237:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:.2Adrew

8960:

I hope in a good way. That template move was for a reason ;)

5831:

Users engaging in criminal activity in the name of Knowledge

4596: 4591:

and see the warnings that these people have for the world.

4349:

Does this mean that you disagree with ArbCom? Interested. -

3709:

and this is the responsible domain of the israeli wikipedia

2778: 2572: 1423:

and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See

978:

he usually uses, was the source of some of the vandalism. -

817: 677:

lol. I'll just file under "Jimbo can do whatever he wants."

7747: 7614: 6998: 6921: 5307: 4911: 3299: 2146:

Wikinews Interview, re: language versions other than Enlish

1345:). They also contributed to very specific articles such as 8732:. Wyss falsely accuses me of abusing Knowledge pages (see 6997:. Since all of Knowledge's content is licensed under the 6892:

I am adressing to you as a last chance to solve this out.

6361: 3703:

when I want to past what he did to the other responsibles

1133:. What makes me so sure that Ted Wilkes is identical with 854:

These are a couple of edits that the Harvard vandal makes:

648:

Oh, and you shouldn't edit people's evidence sections. ;)

9359: 8686:

has been harrassing me for months, working together with

7323:

courtesy of the Poynter Institute will prove instructive.

6925: 6917: 6709: 6705: 6221:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/Deductibility_of_donations

5749:

being presented as policy, since it was sectioned off of

5484:

Hi, Jimbo. Then where is the answer of Jimmy Wales to me(

5149:

Er, you mean the same software as for page moves, right?

2193: 1837:

Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell

7127:

seems to be getting nowhere. What's your view on this?

4952:

That is not correct. I started that VfD (when it really

4302:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438890a.html

2364:

You are correct, it is up again after having been down.

2268:

As indicated by the indentation level, I was talking to

1065:

This user has been involved in several other activities

8495:

This is my first time reportning, i ashamed to do this

5017:

May I ask why the procedure is being closed at all..? -

2735:

Hello! I disagree with EK that last year's process is

1556:

I would like my account deleated pleas. My account is

9335:

No, you don't need to state the principles. Everybody

9190:

I would like my account deleted please. My account is

8983:

Bigfoot is the same as the UK Grey man of Ben McDhui.

8754:

is being accused of a "flip and sarcastic reply." See

7771:

Everyking: I trust that means you'll be replacing the

4119:

I proved that Nereocystis is a hostile anti-polygamist

3809:

revision of the article (could be few month or weeks)

2950:

A reason? (sorry, that´s a silly bourgeois question!)

1647:

intergrate all kind of members into one single portal!

1485:

He just needs to be on notice regarding your history.

54: 8249:

i was involved in an RFAr before and i believe that,

7213:

turn this into a net plus for Knowledge, have at it.

5591:

lowering the cost of doing good. The Wiki way. :-)--

3290:

Constructive criticism & suggestion for the day:

2627:

Err, it's just a joke. At least, I think it is. :P --

9474:

The Arbitration Committee has amended its ruling in

8993:

Phone 510-633-2526 email rudy(at)stealthaccess.net

8251:

once they invest the time to really look into a case

8188:

it is simply not safe to assume that all those who "

5805:

Jimbo, can you please confirm whether this account (

5333:

reference is adequate to support such an assertion.

1960:

Then this is the wrong place entirely. For that, go

1379:

For much experience with the aggressive behavior of

1158:, a claim also supported by some other sources. See 8586:should be given the same weight as a report in the 6793:

Re: Wired article on your editing your own article.

5956:Jimbo, just to give you a view from the other end: 5857:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Vilerage

5670:

Knowledge talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org

5371:- please keep the discussion on that page. Cheers! 5111:

Has someone talked to Brion about implementation?--

3936:around here have to endlessly waste their time on. 1169:In November 2003, NightCrawler was hardbanned. See 8678:The Arbitration Committee is right in its decision 7867:Going after people for not attributing is uncool. 6955:almost every time I try to view or edit anything. 4974:, this was back in July (so I was a month off). A 4723:It's true, you got the wrong user. The hoaxer was 4678:When are the ArbCom elections scheduled to start? 2044:crowd and such. I'm not sure if it should go into 6993:To answer the first question—anybody can do that 5839:sent to him a Denial of Service attack on to his 4846:is now closed according to the official rules! — 3388:Hi. Can you tell me his email address? Thanks. 359: 7659:Actually Selina Kyle, the GFDL contains an anti 5635:There is a fierce debate regarding citations of 2385:picked up by Google News, from ZDNet, on this.-- 8620:law and punished Wyss for her disregard of the 8594:should be given the same weight as a report in 7201:Possible plagiarism of Knowledge by a newspaper 6714:talking in a disgraceful way about transsexuals 6584:Legal threats to Knowledge users - when to ban? 5045:What mechanisms will these be, if I can ask? - 1850:Category:Computer and video games in production 1495:Why can't his idea stand on its own merits? ( 1052:Knowledge:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct 7911:Another warning regarding an ArbCom candidate. 7289:It will be a firing offense at The Enterprise. 7188:I'll be available after Tuesday 27 December. 6405:File:Jimmy 'Jimbo' Wales, CIA mugshot 2of2.jpg 5645:Knowledge:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org 4939:(with the default action being to keep it). I 4711: 3460:Yes, then after that we should have mandatory 2748:... this took a couple months in total, so ... 2666:Anonymous Coward 16:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 2040:What do you think? I made it to appeal to the 1182:. In the meantime, JillandJack was hardbanned. 1067:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone 7411:Hmmm, I think I'm reasonably well acquainted. 7205:Could you have a quick look at the thread at 7090:How long should an article be semi-protected? 5577:issues of getting content OK'ed by admins. -- 4674:it is going to be done. Now the question is: 7613:encyclopedia, cause mine is governed by the 6070:The same kind of thing happened en force on 5631:Forbidding the citation of specific sources? 3794:2. The internal "under development" version. 3695:israel wikipedia freedom under terror attack 1573:there are no rules, that have to be followed 9358:Unless you can cite examples, this is just 8682:The arbitration committee acted correctly. 7451:I can honestly say that I don't think I've 6958:What's happening? Is Knowledge dying? :| -- 6402: 6382: 5255:dispute resolution processes available here 4898:we try again to delete this article. :-) -- 4016:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy 3567:So when will this change come into effect? 1569: 898:(removed info on conflict with finkelstein) 464:Clearly you are a bitter, bitter person. -- 9142:Policy question about the Korean Knowledge 8851:this year! (Told you it was important ;-) 8452:has a bit of an anti-present for you from 6712:) and now this happened to me! Denouncing 5637:Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance 5365:Note: I've copied the above discussion to 4062:At 18:36, 16 November 2005, I posted that 3659:Interestingly, there is no "Criticism" in 3482:I think it would be simpler, and best, if 3305:When this happens, "whither Knowledge?" 3269:I see they've added a footnote that says: 3244:. Do they think we're a commercial site? 3059:13:36, 14. Dez 2005 (CET) - 5 hours later 2135:I copied this from Meta for Wonderfool. -- 8463:Would be interested in your view on this. 6489:In the name of Kane! For the Brotherhood! 6480: 6385:File:Jimmy 'Jimbo' Wales, CIA mugshot.jpg 8431:, Jimbo Wales! A well deserved pressy!-- 8382: 8107:dismissive, then I recommend requesting 6647:thinks her civil rights were violated. 6153:http://uncyclopedia.org/User:Jimbo Wales 5853:http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/perp.html 5539:Greetings 14:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 4693:Yes, please begin the election already. 3779:Each article will include two versions: 3653:as "POV", while negative opinions stay. 3648:Systematic bias in Knowledge biographies 1207:was forced to restore this comment. See 9067:The Ten Creepiest Creatures In America" 5605:Jimbo - I request that you look at the 5092:Semi-protection policy needs your input 2970:Have fun 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 356:User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivedecember14 6813:the arbitration policy changing policy 5958:User talk:Daniel Brandt#Hi Mr. Brandt. 5835:Daniel Brandt has gathered proof that 5488:,"Please please Jimmy Wales" Nov 13)? 4907:Is this an official proclamation that 4844:Knowledge:10 GNAA VfD nominations pool 4510:Hi Jimbo. There is debate going on at 3333:enabling a real future for Knowledge. 3141:Hint: It's not all the bad publicity. 3069:Have fun 13:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3032:Have fun 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2874:Have fun 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1237:review of a book written by Bret. See 835:"FakeName" makes a legal threat here: 351:Revision as of 06:10, 29 December 2005 146:Revision as of 06:10, 29 December 2005 90:Revision as of 05:49, 29 December 2005 8917:(or would be if not for paragraph #4) 8446:12:20am, first to say it officially. 6656:'defend' themselves, can be banned. 3102:From which the only thing missing is: 3040:5 hours - new German bolshewik humour 2387:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2340:WP:VPN#Wikipedia_Class_Action_Lawsuit 2259:Are you talking to me or to Ricky? -- 2016:limit the market for derivative works 1542:better side of userpage designs. :) - 6126:anytime (if my firm will allow it). 5849:http://www.geocities.com/visualrage/ 5397:User_talk:Monicasdude#Vote_change.3F 4213:rectify this as soon you can. (The 3398:Are personal attacks now acceptable? 3182:Have a Digitally Enhanced Good Day! 2923:and call that "copyright violation". 2679:Um, hey. What's going on with that? 2587:just didn't know, where I am from. 2156: 389:Images with unknown copyright status 282::What the arbitrators actually said: 80: 46: 9478:to include the following provision: 9468:What the arbitrators actually said: 6880:He had some problems with the user 6359:LOL, the resemblance is startling: 5821:You did the right thing. Not me.-- 5511:think it is natural consequence? -- 3834:This is already being developed. — 3785:1. The public, "published" version. 3074:Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls 3026:http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?... 2446:rather be opposing certification.) 2207:Class action prep against Knowledge 2088:Have you got a source for that? :-) 627:manage to reply to everyone.... =) 197: 190: 186: 155: 143: 136: 125: 99: 87: 13: 9235:We now have a block/unblock war - 9147:Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Question 8368:, a article with POV pushing, the 6704:So what about me? I just promised 6596:. He gave as reason: (Translated) 6462:Damn. We're all in trouble now! - 6393: 5525:Giving some lessons to a new admin 4970:. This 6th nomination resulted in 4524:Gross and flagrant abuses of power 2990:Admin Anneke Wolf (aka "Rosa" or 2355:It's still up as of my timestamp. 2031: 621:Okay.... Wait done that..... Well 353: 129: 35: 9537: 9319:Knowledge's principle of work. -- 9281:arbitrary use of power privileges 9272:arbitrary use of power privileges 9261:arbitrary use of power privileges 8319:One of the full-timers is Danny ( 7319:Lots more on that page. Or maybe 6949:I keep getting sent to this page 6616:nl:Knowledge:Blokkeringsmeldingen 4826:Gay Nigger Association of America 4149:At 16:53, November 23, 2005, you 3769:A serious suggestion to Mr. Wales 3008:Der unheimlich starke Abgang der 1172:. But NightCrawler reappeared as 362:File:Jimbo che red white name.jpg 9250:don't use sorted stub templates! 8884: 8288:I would also like to wish you a 7915:I've only today became aware of 7040: 6495: 6482: 6404: 6384: 6299: 5974: 5801:Simple English Knowledge account 5166:(crossposted from my talk page) 4014:On 02:52, 15 November 2005, the 3320:Google's corporate motto alone, 2798:cu 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 2554:and the analogous state rules. 2552:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2470: 2430: 2315: 2305: 1742: 1690: 361: 9321: 9285: 8567:An ArbCom Case to Review: Wyss 7588:To me, the information is just 6894: 6614:Waerth added at 21:13 (CET) on 6199:Charitable trust#United Kingdom 5961: 5851:with evidence documented here: 5841:http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ 5121:Not him specifically. However, 4484: 4460: 4089:Polygamy Arbitration front page 4025:Could you please take a look? 3838: 2979:to get prominent for 15 minutes 2805:And now an anti bolshewik joke: 2699:Agreed. Time is running out... 2461: 2421: 2405:Registrant Name:Jennifer Monroe 1758:There are various portals (see 576:What has the world come to!!!! 9404:Jimbo, you have just placed a 9371: 8742:. On 27 November 2005, on the 8478:From me too, from German WP! 7499: 7138:Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions 6148:somebody's fakin yo name again 6037:Can't sleep, clown will eat me 5536:I think he´s not hopeless :-) 5467: 5460: 5455: 5450: 5445: 5440: 5435: 5430: 5425: 5420: 5415: 5410: 4648: 4315:That's funny coming from you. 2764:Communication and site changes 1845:ATTN: Non-encyclopedic content 1050:While I'm at it, Mr. Wales, a 1: 9526:06:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 9501:01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 9455:05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 9439:22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9424:22:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9389:05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 9382:Knowledge:User Bill of Rights 9377:23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9348:21:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9331:12:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9314:09:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9295:08:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9255:07:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9230:05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9199:05:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9181:04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9158:19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 9136:13:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 9108:06:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9099:22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 9090:22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 9055:09:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 9033:19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 9013:14:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 9001:08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 8969:15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 8953:05:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 8871:00:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 8861:00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 8856: 8838:23:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8811:14:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 8797:14:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 8782:12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 8673:16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8650:16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8632:16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8558:09:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8486:15:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 8474:00:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 8436:22:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 8424: 8418: 8412: 8406: 8400: 8394: 8388: 8354:19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 8332:19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 8314:19:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 8297:11:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 8258:06:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 8129:04:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 8077:facing significant opposition 8044:03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 8022:20:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7999:17:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7987:17:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7947:08:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7903:08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7882:Speaking of attributing, the 7858:05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7844:05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7825:13:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7815:12:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7805:12:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7796:08:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7757:07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7723:00:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 7694:08:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7668:15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 7643:07:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7622:06:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7601:06:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7584:06:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7573:06:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7559:06:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7549:05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7535:05:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7504:15:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7486:08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7465:04:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7447:21:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 7434:06:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 7425:12:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 7406:06:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 7387:06:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 7362:06:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 7243:05:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7233:00:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7223:00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 7193:22:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 7182:21:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 7172:19:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 7149:16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 7132:16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 7108:15:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 7084:05:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 7061:13:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 7046:09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 7015:06:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 6981:06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 6963:06:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 6940:20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 6904:15:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 6870:14:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 6850:06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 6838: 6835: 6825:01:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 6802:22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6776:16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 6757:02:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 6747:23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 6722:22:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 6687:16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6682:Thank you for the reference. 6678:15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6664:13:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6578:01:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 6568:14:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6559:12:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6537:12:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6504:18:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6498: 6478:12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6467:12:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6458:17:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 6421:16:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 6354:10:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6329:02:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6308:00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6302: 6276:23:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 6263:23:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 6242:21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 6228:21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 6211:www.charity-commission.gov.uk 6186:18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 6160:03:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 6142:18:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 6115:13:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 6090:Knowledge:No personal attacks 6066:21:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 6055:. I think Knowledge needs to 6040:20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 6030:20:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 6012:13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 5988:00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 5948:17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5916:15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5902:15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5890:15:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5879:08:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5847:with the script running from 5826:15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5817:07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5796:16:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5766:11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5725:11:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5700:10:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5678:08:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5663:04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5626:01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5596:15:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5582:18:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 5561:Quote from Slashdot/SP page: 5552:15:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 5516:08:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 5475:04:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 5387:03:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 5358:02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5338:01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5326:01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5278:04:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 5236:03:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 5215:01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 5201:23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5191:21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5159:18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5145:15:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5116:15:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5107:04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5082:04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5073:04:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5060:03:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5050:02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5026:23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 5003:04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 4994:03:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 4984:11:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 4961:11:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 4948:10:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 4931:05:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 4919:11:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 4903:21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4889:19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4876:18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4861:16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4851:15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4837:14:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4817:15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4798:16:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 4785:16:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 4775:08:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 4752:14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4739:13:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4718:13:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4698:19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4688:18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4665:15:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4654:13:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4630:ArbCom election and consensus 4622:14:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 4604:lives of many innocent people 4519:06:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4500:20:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4476:06:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4430:12:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 4405:21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4383:12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4366:11:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4354:02:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4324:22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4310:20:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4287:20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4227:19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4036:16:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 4005:20:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 3988:20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 3973:14:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 3958:02:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 3941:22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3921:19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3903:17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3874:17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3856:15:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3829:15:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3776:Here is a simple suggestion: 3764:15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3755:15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3722:15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3689:15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3668:13:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3643:12:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3626:21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3616:15:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3606:05:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3591:04:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3572:04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3560:04:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3539:04:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3517:03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3500:02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3478:02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3469:02:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3455:02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3433:19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3424:22:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 3393:19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 3376:20:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 3357:20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 3344:18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 3281:20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 3262:03:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 3249:19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 3232:18:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 3214:13:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 3189:12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 3157:21:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 3146:20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2774:20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2758:18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2730:04:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2718:21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2709:21:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2695:19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2684:17:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2661:16:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2652:16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2639:15:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2623:15:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2613:14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2599:09:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2594:. Live long & prosper -- 2559:06:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2529:05:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2515:03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2505:02:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2476:17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2451:00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2436:00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2390:23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2373:21:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 2360:15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2351:11:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2330:08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2310: 2294:08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2277:01:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2264:00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2253:00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2242:00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2233:00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2219:23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 2202:23:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 2140:22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 2093:22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 2081:03:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 2071:07:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2061:22:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 2055: 2046:Knowledge:Banners and buttons 2036:We make the internet not suck 2023:17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 2006:22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1992:07:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1978:07:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1969:07:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1952:07:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1943:07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1921:07:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1911:07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1887:22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1878:06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1868:21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1857:21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1840:22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1812:23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1802:23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1784:22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1772:22:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1751:21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1745: 1727:21:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1708:21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1699:21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1693: 1678:21:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1666:21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1656:21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1623:20:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1611: 1602:20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1594:20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1580:13:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1547:19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1520:02:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1500:05:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1490:19:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1481:17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1464:14:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1443:13:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1410:14:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1396:06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1081:02:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1060:18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1007:01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 983:11:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 969:11:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 943:00:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 747:00:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 715:00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 682:01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 665:00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 632:07:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 566:Because Jimbo is lazy! ;-) -- 541:14:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 502:13:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 349: 340: 331: 320: 309: 298: 289: 278: 269: 258: 249: 8348: 8279:. Please for interference - 7066:Well, if it's any help, the 6845: 6695:Verrekijker's Points of View 6492: 6401: 6392: 6381: 6316:Your blog is liek, brokenomg 6296: 5981: 5968: 5845:http://www.brandt-watch.org/ 5172:Brion has commented briefly 5066:m:Article validation feature 4297:Journal Nature investigation 4264:my opening Evidence comments 3368:Project Gutenberg, do). -- 3202:Message from Ta bu shi da yu 2885:14:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 2325: 2028:Making the internet not suck 1739: 1687: 1617: 1387:, you may ask administrator 1046:22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 730:22:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 698:22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 653:22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 599:The Cathedral and the Bazaar 581:22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 571:21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 562:21:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 483:23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 469:22:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 456:23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 442:22:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 420:20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 405:20:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 18:Browse history interactively 7: 9174: 8877:Significant copyright issue 8427: 8421: 8415: 8409: 8403: 8397: 8391: 8323:), and the part-timers are 8166:a couple of observations: " 7776:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual 7345:And in academia, note that 7070:of this page is 6/10. :) — 6807:Arbitration policy proposal 6588:On December 18, 20:54 User 6346:. Feel free to delete it.-- 6155:isn't really you, is it. -- 6020:Knowledge Class Action Suit 5607:decision to desysop Ed Poor 4341:(about William Connolley): 4114:Proposed Decision TALK page 3352:provide us with sources. -- 2897:13:38, 8. Dez 2005 (CET) = 1355:Roy Orbison's Greatest Hits 1221:and particularly his book, 10: 9542: 9061:Suppressed Non Wiki Source 8637:ArbCom Cases Not to Review 8450:Talk:Bomis#The Babe Engine 7781:tag on your userpage with 7609:Then you can go start the 7457:Every single thing you say 7094:I've raised this question 6671:Knowledge:No legal threats 6528:Oh please. Have a look at 6077:Knowledge:No legal threats 4589:site created by ex-Muslims 4276:outrageous vote to execute 4064:original complete outline, 3945:No, not in this case. You 3634:Page creation restrictions 3311:Wyss' well-formed thoughts 2944:No Hans Bug - no problems 2214:It even has a logo abuse. 1760:Knowledge:Community_Portal 1223:Elvis: The Hollywood Years 1055:without my knowledge.) - 385:Images with unknown source 188: 127: 8610:historical entertainers. 7661:digital rights management 7579:that extends to print. — 7029:User:Francs2000/Christmas 5032:More news-based questions 4444:Nature's results examined 4425:OK, I was just asking. - 3803:non stable nightly build 3128:Yep. Knowledge's vaunted 3045:7:50 , 14. Dez 2005 (CET) 2849:Frisch From Fröhlich Frei 2414:Name Server:DNS3.BAOU.COM 2411:Name Server:DNS2.BAOU.COM 2408:Name Server:DNS1.BAOU.COM 2326:Attention Washingtonians! 1718:And that's what we have ' 1507:Defamatory page histories 812:The IP numbers come from 589:Reminds me of a quote -- 370:(Old stuff cleared out.) 338: 329: 318: 307: 296: 287: 276: 267: 256: 247: 208: 205: 142: 86: 8787:Follow-Up to Onefortyone 7978:Seriously, head over to 7376:Plagiarism 2005 Round-up 6817:Requests for Arbitration 6197:Registered_charity (see 5757:nature of the reversion 5501:) to all the admins and 5368:MediaWiki talk:Edittools 5247:MediaWiki talk:Edittools 3286:WikiFuture...or WikiNot? 3114:Which is terrific stuff. 2851:16:26, 7. Dez 2005 (CET) 2842:15:48, 7. Dez 2005 (CET) 2830:15:47, 7. Dez 2005 (CET) 2821:15:46, 7. Dez 2005 (CET) 2394: 1661:That's what IRC is for. 1351:The Fastest Guitar Alive 1277:The Canadian Sweethearts 175:Extended confirmed users 8145:one question: you say " 7592:. It's out there, it's 6912:Is the GPL free enough? 6471:Peace through power! -- 6426:Shhh... it's a SIKRIT. 6085:Knowledge:Autobiography 6045:Twas I who noticed the 5807:simple:User:Jimbo Wales 5123:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 3448:User:Adam Carr/proposal 3293:Someday, perhaps soon, 3171:Here's my idea -- give 3010:de:Benutzer:Anneke Wolf 2248:Is this your web site? 1823:Getting a professional 554: 396:Dershowitz legal threat 85: 9039:Don't bite the newbies 8655:A More General Problem 8590:, or that a report in 8491:heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!! 8438: 8073:requests for adminship 7332:I mean, does the name 6726:I meant talking about 6409: 6398: 6389: 6053:Knowledge Class Action 5098:Semi-protection policy 4725:User:Callum Derbyshire 4512:MediaWiki talk:Tagline 4448:I've looked closer at 4274:instead cast the last 4109:Proposed Decision page 2927:"What to do?"(Lenin). 2037: 1629:We should have forums! 1511:Jimmy, please look at 367: 8921:Template substitution 8893:blahblahblahblahblah 8588:Philadelphia Inquirer 8442:Happy Christmas Jimbo 8386: 8360:Defamation of Fanboys 8302:Would be nice to know 7994:Again, best regards, 7177:This guy is bad news 7051:Current Alexa Ranking 6432:Knowledge = Knowledge 6408: 6397: 6388: 4914:will be GNAA day? ;) 4842:Wow! That means that 4611:. 15 Dec. 2005 07:03 3317:corrective measures. 2035: 365: 9169:{{indefblockeduser}} 9119:united arab emirates 8571:I realize that you ( 8469:Mistress Selina Kyle 8364:Jimbo, just look at 8307:Wikimedia Foundation 7638:Mistress Selina Kyle 7530:Mistress Selina Kyle 7351:Doris Kearns Goodwin 6960:Mistress Selina Kyle 6418:Mistress Selina Kyle 6326:Mistress Selina Kyle 6225:Mistress Selina Kyle 6094:User:Zordrac/experts 4333:From Nature magazine 4305:the moderate view. 4171:your TALK page here. 3577:It already did. See 3546:Anon page creation? 3473:Worth looking into. 2192:Japanese wiki go on 2107:en:User:Mindspillage 1829:Invision Power Board 1087:In my opinion, User 1031:Talk:Alan Dershowitz 787:User:140.247.201.190 782:User:140.247.238.185 8825:and other tools by 8737:User talk:Redwolf24 8555:T for Trouble-maker 7936:malignant nacissism 6986:You might find the 5245:I have proposed at 4670:Ok, Jimbo, we know 3450:for more on this). 1933:Yes, I do, but not 1457:Knowledge:Probation 777:User:140.247.219.49 771:Alan Dershowitz/old 595:Eric Steven Raymond 494:for the second time 9484:shall be one year. 8735:) and says on the 8439: 7934:might identify as 7297:Detroit Free Press 6410: 6399: 6390: 6342:I moved this from 6206:Charity Commission 5843:web site by using 5392:Your name in vain. 5241:Arbitration clause 5228:should I send it? 4704:Daniel Brandt hoax 4489:• 2005-12-15 07:06 4465:• 2005-12-15 05:45 4104:Evidence TALK page 3909:Article validation 3843:• 2005-12-14 15:55 2912:Oops, a problem. 2755:E Pluribus Anthony 2338:Also discussed at 2152:Wikinews interview 2038: 1025:A sincere question 814:Harvard University 368: 224:==Another appeal== 217:==Another appeal== 153: 97: 9328: 9292: 9279:I am against the 9252: 9178: 8961: 8897: 8896: 8849:Knowledge holiday 8823:navigation popups 8592:Weekly World News 8584:National Enquirer 8499:Dyslexic agnostic 8379:Merry Christmas!! 8325:user:Brion Vibber 8033:John Seigenthaler 7497:. Both of you. -- 6901: 6886:Moldovan language 6530:this contribution 6476: 6435:Knowledge = Power 6429:Jimbo = Knowledge 6414: 6413: 6113: 6010: 5946: 5877: 5624: 5611:proposed decision 5302: 5289:comment added by 5180: 4773: 4534:John Walker Lindh 4528:Dear Jimbo Wales 4506:Knowledge tagline 4490: 4466: 3844: 3438:Siegenthaler case 3384:John Siegenthaler 3222: 3167:My Brilliant Idea 2753:What say you? :) 2189: 2188: 1800: 1770: 1621: 1571:I was told, that 1552:Account Deleation 1371:Horse of the Year 1347:In Dreams (album) 1305:Louisiana Hayride 1152:User:NightCrawler 429:Times v. Sullivan 348: 144: 88: 68: 9533: 9413: 9407: 9374: 9326: 9323: 9290: 9287: 9248: 9186:Account Deletion 9176: 9172: 8959: 8937:Template:Userbox 8918: 8885: 8858: 8551: 8550: 8517:deleted contribs 8501: 8470: 8429: 8426: 8423: 8420: 8417: 8414: 8411: 8408: 8405: 8402: 8399: 8396: 8393: 8390: 8352: 8270:Merry Christmas! 8209:i don't know if 7971:JamesMLane's Law 7790: 7784: 7780: 7774: 7639: 7531: 7501: 7490:Now, now, boys, 7044: 6899: 6896: 6847: 6842: 6840: 6781:Digital Universe 6500: 6497: 6494: 6486: 6484: 6472: 6406: 6386: 6362: 6344:Talk:Jimmy Wales 6334:Jimmy Wales for 6304: 6301: 6298: 6173:Chinese Wikinews 6134: 6123:pro bono publico 6103: 6000: 5983: 5978: 5972: 5965: 5936: 5867: 5656: 5650: 5622: 5614: 5469: 5464: 5459: 5454: 5449: 5444: 5439: 5434: 5429: 5424: 5419: 5414: 5379: 5350: 5318: 5284: 5270: 5179: 5156: 5041:from next month. 5036:The Times says: 4763: 4715: 4685: 4651: 4486: 4481: 4462: 4457: 4450:Nature's results 3918: 3840: 3835: 3728:ArbCom elections 3588: 3557: 3417:User:Grue/Brandt 3216: 3082:Here's what the 3000:current result: 2706: 2592:czech discussion 2474: 2465: 2434: 2425: 2396: 2327: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2157: 2056: 1796: 1766: 1747: 1744: 1741: 1695: 1692: 1689: 1619: 1613: 1608: 1564:Wikinews Germany 1381:User:JillandJack 1326:Yvonne Printemps 1203:. Administrator 1174:User:JillandJack 1135:User:JillandJack 1124:User:JillandJack 999: 363: 195: 194: 193: 191:→‎Another appeal 181: 171: 152: 134: 133: 132: 120: 115: 96: 69: 60: 59: 57: 52: 50: 42: 39: 21: 19: 9541: 9540: 9536: 9535: 9534: 9532: 9531: 9530: 9447: 9436: 9421: 9411: 9405: 9402: 9263: 9208: 9188: 9165: 9144: 9115: 9113:unblock the UAE 9063: 9031: 9010:Robert McClenon 8977: 8967: 8916: 8898: 8879: 8845: 8818: 8808:Robert McClenon 8794:Robert McClenon 8789: 8688:User:Ted Wilkes 8680: 8670:Robert McClenon 8657: 8647:Robert McClenon 8639: 8629:Robert McClenon 8569: 8502: 8497: 8496: 8493: 8468: 8444: 8433:Santa on Sleigh 8381: 8362: 8304: 8290:Marry Christmas 8272: 7958:Helping You Out 7913: 7788: 7782: 7778: 7772: 7637: 7529: 7475:Lillian Hellman 7347:Stephen Ambrose 7203: 7158: 7141: 7118: 7092: 7053: 7023: 7021:Merry Christmas 6973: 6947: 6938: 6914: 6878: 6832: 6809: 6795: 6783: 6734:as if one is a 6697: 6653: 6633: 6586: 6575:Ta bu shi da yu 6556:Ta bu shi da yu 6547: 6534:Ta bu shi da yu 6518: 6464:Ta bu shi da yu 6456: 6455: 6339: 6318: 6286: 6250: 6233:If you look at 6193: 6175: 6150: 6128: 6081:Knowledge:Libel 6022: 5986: 5833: 5803: 5779:That being said 5654: 5648: 5633: 5620: 5603: 5559: 5545: 5527: 5482: 5480:True Protection 5394: 5373: 5344: 5312: 5264: 5243: 5225: 5154: 5094: 5079:Ta bu shi da yu 5077:Ah... cool :-) 5047:Ta bu shi da yu 5034: 4991:Ta bu shi da yu 4958:Ta bu shi da yu 4834:Ta bu shi da yu 4829: 4790:Ta bu shi da yu 4782:Ta bu shi da yu 4749:Ta bu shi da yu 4736: 4706: 4683: 4632: 4538:Muriel Degauque 4526: 4508: 4488: 4464: 4446: 4427:Ta bu shi da yu 4351:Ta bu shi da yu 4335: 4299: 4246:User:Neutrality 4222:Thank you. - 4012: 3916: 3842: 3771: 3730: 3704: 3697: 3650: 3636: 3599: 3586: 3555: 3514:Ta bu shi da yu 3440: 3400: 3386: 3288: 3259:Ta bu shi da yu 3211:Ta bu shi da yu 3204: 3169: 3076: 2996:) doesn´t like 2939:classic de-idea 2781: 2766: 2704: 2677: 2675:Arbcom Election 2636: 2606: 2584: 2582:Czech Knowledge 2575: 2209: 2148: 2129:This one mainly 2114:en:User:Uncle G 2103: 2030: 1847: 1631: 1587: 1566: 1554: 1527: 1509: 1205:DropDeadGorgias 1148:7 November 2003 1041:. Thank you. - 1033:you asked to " 1027: 993: 989:Johnnie Cochran 642: 551: 398: 345: 334: 325: 314: 303: 292: 283: 272: 263: 252: 243: 235: 225: 218: 201: 196: 189: 187: 185: 184: 183: 179: 177: 161: 159: 154: 148: 140: 138:← Previous edit 135: 128: 126: 124: 123: 122: 118: 105: 103: 98: 92: 84: 83: 82: 81: 79: 78: 77: 76: 75: 74: 65: 61: 55: 53: 48: 45: 43: 40: 38:Content deleted 37: 34: 29:← Previous edit 26: 25: 24: 17: 12: 11: 5: 9539: 9529: 9528: 9505: 9504: 9488: 9487: 9486: 9470: 9469: 9465: 9464: 9446: 9445:Another appeal 9443: 9442: 9441: 9434: 9419: 9401: 9396: 9395: 9394: 9393: 9392: 9355: 9354: 9353: 9352: 9351: 9350: 9274: 9273: 9270: 9262: 9259: 9258: 9257: 9207: 9202: 9187: 9184: 9164: 9161: 9143: 9140: 9139: 9138: 9114: 9111: 9062: 9059: 9058: 9057: 9027: 9018: 9017: 9016: 9015: 8976: 8973: 8972: 8971: 8965: 8900: 8895: 8894: 8891: 8883: 8878: 8875: 8874: 8873: 8844: 8841: 8831:picture popups 8817: 8814: 8788: 8785: 8744:User talk:Wyss 8679: 8676: 8656: 8653: 8638: 8635: 8568: 8565: 8563: 8492: 8489: 8464: 8443: 8440: 8380: 8377: 8375: 8361: 8358: 8357: 8356: 8334: 8303: 8300: 8271: 8268: 8267: 8266: 8265: 8264: 8263: 8262: 8261: 8260: 8240: 8239: 8238: 8237: 8236: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8222: 8221: 8220: 8219: 8218: 8217: 8216: 8215: 8211:User:FuelWagon 8200: 8199: 8198: 8197: 8196: 8195: 8194: 8193: 8179: 8178: 8177: 8176: 8175: 8174: 8173: 8172: 8157: 8156: 8155: 8154: 8153: 8152: 8151: 8150: 8136: 8135: 8134: 8133: 8132: 8131: 8099: 8098: 8097: 8096: 8095: 8094: 8085: 8084: 8083: 8082: 8081: 8080: 8063: 8062: 8061: 8060: 8059: 8058: 8049: 8048: 8047: 8046: 8025: 8024: 7992: 7991: 7990: 7989: 7976: 7975: 7974: 7967: 7960: 7938:. Similar to 7912: 7909: 7908: 7907: 7906: 7905: 7877: 7876: 7875: 7874: 7861: 7860: 7836: 7835: 7834: 7833: 7832: 7831: 7830: 7829: 7828: 7827: 7786:MultiLicensePD 7766: 7765: 7764: 7763: 7762: 7761: 7760: 7759: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7733: 7732: 7731: 7730: 7729: 7728: 7727: 7726: 7725: 7705: 7704: 7703: 7702: 7701: 7700: 7699: 7698: 7697: 7696: 7691:Dragons flight 7677: 7676: 7675: 7674: 7673: 7672: 7671: 7670: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7647: 7646: 7645: 7627: 7626: 7625: 7624: 7619:Dragons flight 7604: 7603: 7586: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7563: 7562: 7561: 7546:Dragons flight 7538: 7537: 7523: 7522: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7517: 7516: 7515: 7514: 7513: 7512: 7511: 7510: 7509: 7508: 7507: 7506: 7473:talking about 7469:To paraphrase 7414: 7394: 7393: 7392: 7391: 7390: 7389: 7367: 7366: 7365: 7364: 7340: 7339: 7338: 7337: 7327: 7326: 7325: 7324: 7317: 7316: 7315: 7314: 7313: 7305: 7294: 7293: 7292: 7270: 7269: 7268: 7267: 7258: 7257: 7256: 7255: 7238:unprincipled. 7215:TenOfAllTrades 7202: 7199: 7198: 7197: 7196: 7195: 7157: 7152: 7140: 7135: 7117: 7111: 7091: 7088: 7087: 7086: 7058:152.163.100.69 7052: 7049: 7022: 7019: 7018: 7017: 7007:TenOfAllTrades 6991: 6972: 6969: 6967: 6946: 6943: 6934: 6913: 6910: 6908: 6884:. On the page 6877: 6874: 6873: 6872: 6862: 6861: 6857: 6856: 6831: 6828: 6808: 6805: 6794: 6791: 6782: 6779: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6765: 6764: 6763: 6759: 6749: 6724: 6696: 6693: 6692: 6691: 6690: 6689: 6652: 6649: 6632: 6629: 6628: 6627: 6622:(Translated): 6612: 6611: 6607:(Translated): 6585: 6582: 6581: 6580: 6546: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6517: 6514: 6513: 6512: 6511: 6510: 6509: 6508: 6507: 6506: 6451: 6450: 6439: 6438: 6437: 6436: 6433: 6430: 6412: 6411: 6400: 6391: 6379: 6378: 6373: 6368: 6338: 6336:Global Emperor 6332: 6317: 6314: 6312: 6285: 6282: 6281: 6280: 6279: 6278: 6249: 6246: 6245: 6244: 6235:m:Wikimedia UK 6192: 6189: 6174: 6171: 6170: 6169: 6149: 6146: 6145: 6144: 6043: 6042: 6021: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6014: 5966: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5951: 5950: 5921: 5920: 5919: 5918: 5905: 5904: 5893: 5892: 5832: 5829: 5802: 5799: 5775: 5774: 5773: 5772: 5771: 5770: 5769: 5768: 5732: 5731: 5730: 5729: 5728: 5727: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5702: 5681: 5680: 5632: 5629: 5602: 5599: 5570: 5569: 5558: 5555: 5544: 5541: 5534: 5533: 5526: 5523: 5521: 5519: 5518: 5507: 5506: 5503:Every 3 Months 5494: 5493: 5481: 5478: 5393: 5390: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5329: 5328: 5291:203.206.87.165 5259: 5258: 5242: 5239: 5224: 5221: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5210:greeeeeaat. -- 5204: 5203: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5161: 5131:George W. Bush 5093: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5057:Dragons flight 5043: 5042: 5033: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5005: 4976:7th nomination 4933: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4891: 4878: 4863: 4853: 4828: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4745: 4741: 4732: 4705: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4668: 4667: 4631: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4525: 4522: 4507: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4482: 4458: 4445: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4347: 4346: 4334: 4331: 4329: 4327: 4326: 4298: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4280:kangaroo court 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4192:kangaroo court 4188:kangaroo court 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4126: 4121: 4116: 4111: 4106: 4101: 4096: 4091: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4011: 4008: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3892: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3846: 3845: 3836: 3822:significantly 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3770: 3767: 3729: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3702: 3696: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3649: 3646: 3640:Captain Zyrain 3635: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3598: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3533: 3532: 3529: 3525: 3520: 3519: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3439: 3436: 3399: 3396: 3385: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3287: 3284: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3234: 3203: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3168: 3165: 3162: 3160: 3159: 3139: 3138: 3126: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3104: 3103: 3099: 3098: 3092: 3091: 3075: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3060: 3056: 3055: 3052: 3046: 3042: 3041: 3036: 3034: 3033: 3029: 3028: 3022: 3021: 3015: 3014: 3004: 3003: 2993:Rosa Luxemburg 2987: 2986: 2973: 2925: 2924: 2917:de:Peterlustig 2908: 2901: 2900: 2889: 2887: 2886: 2877: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2807: 2806: 2801: 2786: 2785: 2780: 2777: 2765: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2750: 2749: 2741: 2740: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2711: 2676: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2641: 2632: 2625: 2605: 2602: 2583: 2580: 2574: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2416: 2415: 2412: 2409: 2406: 2401:. Per whois: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2297: 2296: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2208: 2205: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2161: 2147: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2102: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2076:It's too POV. 2074: 2073: 2029: 2026: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 1995: 1994: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1846: 1843: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1730: 1729: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1641: 1638: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1586: 1583: 1565: 1562: 1560:. Thank you. 1553: 1550: 1526: 1523: 1508: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1399: 1398: 1377: 1367: 1298:Lefty Frizzell 1272: 1271: 1230: 1229: 1211: 1184: 1183: 1166: 1165: 1143: 1142: 1084: 1083: 1026: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 789: 784: 779: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 735: 734: 733: 732: 720: 719: 718: 717: 701: 700: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 670: 669: 668: 667: 641: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 616: 615: 608: 607: 606: 605: 584: 583: 550: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 505: 504: 488: 487: 486: 485: 472: 471: 461: 460: 459: 458: 445: 444: 397: 394: 374:Wikicities.com 352: 347: 346: 343: 341: 339: 336: 335: 332: 330: 327: 326: 323: 321: 319: 316: 315: 312: 310: 308: 305: 304: 301: 299: 297: 294: 293: 290: 288: 285: 284: 281: 279: 277: 274: 273: 270: 268: 265: 264: 261: 259: 257: 254: 253: 250: 248: 245: 244: 240: 238: 236: 232: 230: 227: 226: 223: 221: 219: 216: 214: 211: 210: 207: 203: 202: 178: 173: 172: 157: 141: 117: 116: 101: 70: 64: 62: 44: 36: 27: 23: 22: 14: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 9538: 9527: 9524: 9520: 9516: 9512: 9507: 9506: 9503: 9502: 9498: 9494: 9489: 9485: 9481: 9480: 9479: 9477: 9472: 9471: 9467: 9466: 9462: 9459: 9458: 9457: 9456: 9453: 9440: 9437: 9432: 9428: 9427: 9426: 9425: 9422: 9417: 9410: 9400: 9399:1.800.Vending 9390: 9387: 9383: 9380: 9379: 9378: 9375: 9368: 9365: 9361: 9357: 9356: 9349: 9346: 9342: 9338: 9334: 9333: 9332: 9329: 9324: 9317: 9316: 9315: 9311: 9307: 9303: 9299: 9298: 9297: 9296: 9293: 9288: 9282: 9277: 9271: 9268: 9267: 9266: 9256: 9251: 9246: 9242: 9238: 9234: 9233: 9232: 9231: 9228: 9225: 9219: 9217: 9213: 9206: 9201: 9200: 9197: 9194:. Thank you. 9193: 9183: 9182: 9177: 9170: 9160: 9159: 9156: 9152: 9148: 9137: 9133: 9129: 9124: 9123: 9122: 9120: 9110: 9109: 9106: 9101: 9100: 9097: 9092: 9091: 9088: 9084: 9080: 9076: 9072: 9068: 9056: 9052: 9048: 9044: 9040: 9037: 9036: 9035: 9034: 9030: 9026: 9025: 9014: 9011: 9007: 9006: 9005: 9004: 9003: 9002: 8999: 8994: 8991: 8988: 8984: 8981: 8970: 8964: 8957: 8956: 8955: 8954: 8950: 8946: 8942: 8938: 8934: 8931:To make sure 8929: 8925: 8922: 8914: 8910: 8906: 8901: 8892: 8890: 8887: 8886: 8882: 8872: 8869: 8865: 8864: 8863: 8862: 8859: 8854: 8850: 8840: 8839: 8836: 8832: 8828: 8824: 8813: 8812: 8809: 8803: 8799: 8798: 8795: 8784: 8783: 8780: 8776: 8773: 8770: 8767: 8763: 8759: 8756: 8753: 8749: 8745: 8741: 8738: 8734: 8731: 8728: 8725: 8722: 8719: 8716: 8713: 8710: 8707: 8703: 8701: 8698: 8695: 8692: 8689: 8685: 8675: 8674: 8671: 8665: 8661: 8652: 8651: 8648: 8643: 8634: 8633: 8630: 8625: 8623: 8622:ex post facto 8619: 8618: 8617:ex post facto 8611: 8608: 8607:Elvis Presley 8604: 8599: 8597: 8593: 8589: 8585: 8580: 8578: 8574: 8564: 8561: 8559: 8556: 8548: 8545: 8542: 8539: 8536: 8533: 8530: 8527: 8524: 8523:nuke contribs 8521: 8518: 8515: 8512: 8509: 8506: 8500: 8488: 8487: 8484: 8479: 8476: 8475: 8472: 8471: 8461: 8459: 8455: 8451: 8447: 8437: 8434: 8430: 8385: 8376: 8373: 8371: 8367: 8355: 8351: 8346: 8343: 8342:User:notafish 8339: 8335: 8333: 8330: 8326: 8322: 8318: 8317: 8316: 8315: 8312: 8308: 8299: 8298: 8295: 8291: 8286: 8285: 8282: 8278: 8259: 8256: 8252: 8248: 8247: 8246: 8245: 8244: 8243: 8242: 8241: 8230: 8229: 8228: 8227: 8226: 8225: 8224: 8223: 8212: 8208: 8207: 8206: 8205: 8204: 8203: 8202: 8201: 8191: 8187: 8186: 8185: 8184: 8183: 8182: 8181: 8180: 8170: 8165: 8164: 8163: 8162: 8161: 8160: 8159: 8158: 8148: 8144: 8143: 8142: 8141: 8140: 8139: 8138: 8137: 8130: 8126: 8122: 8118: 8114: 8110: 8105: 8104: 8103: 8102: 8101: 8100: 8091: 8090: 8089: 8088: 8087: 8086: 8078: 8074: 8069: 8068: 8067: 8066: 8065: 8064: 8055: 8054: 8053: 8052: 8051: 8050: 8045: 8042: 8038: 8034: 8029: 8028: 8027: 8026: 8023: 8019: 8015: 8011: 8007: 8003: 8002: 8001: 8000: 7997: 7988: 7985: 7981: 7977: 7972: 7968: 7964: 7963: 7961: 7959: 7956: 7955: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7949: 7948: 7945: 7941: 7937: 7932: 7928: 7925: 7922: 7918: 7904: 7901: 7897: 7893: 7892:Star-Bulletin 7889: 7885: 7884:Star-Bulletin 7881: 7880: 7879: 7878: 7872: 7868: 7865: 7864: 7863: 7862: 7859: 7856: 7852: 7848: 7847: 7846: 7845: 7842: 7826: 7823: 7818: 7817: 7816: 7813: 7808: 7807: 7806: 7803: 7799: 7798: 7797: 7794: 7787: 7777: 7770: 7769: 7768: 7767: 7758: 7755: 7753: 7749: 7744: 7743: 7742: 7741: 7740: 7739: 7738: 7737: 7724: 7721: 7717: 7716: 7715: 7714: 7713: 7712: 7711: 7710: 7709: 7708: 7707: 7706: 7695: 7692: 7687: 7686: 7685: 7684: 7683: 7682: 7681: 7680: 7679: 7678: 7669: 7666: 7662: 7658: 7657: 7656: 7655: 7654: 7653: 7652: 7651: 7644: 7641: 7640: 7633: 7632: 7631: 7630: 7629: 7628: 7623: 7620: 7616: 7612: 7608: 7607: 7606: 7605: 7602: 7599: 7595: 7591: 7587: 7585: 7582: 7577: 7576: 7575: 7574: 7571: 7560: 7557: 7552: 7551: 7550: 7547: 7542: 7541: 7540: 7539: 7536: 7533: 7532: 7525: 7524: 7505: 7502: 7496: 7493: 7489: 7488: 7487: 7484: 7480: 7476: 7472: 7471:Mary McCarthy 7468: 7467: 7466: 7463: 7458: 7454: 7450: 7449: 7448: 7445: 7441: 7437: 7436: 7435: 7432: 7428: 7427: 7426: 7423: 7419: 7415: 7412: 7409: 7408: 7407: 7404: 7400: 7399: 7398: 7397: 7396: 7395: 7388: 7385: 7381: 7377: 7373: 7372: 7371: 7370: 7369: 7368: 7363: 7360: 7356: 7352: 7348: 7344: 7343: 7342: 7341: 7335: 7331: 7330: 7329: 7328: 7322: 7318: 7312: 7310: 7306: 7304: 7300: 7299: 7298: 7295: 7291: 7290: 7285: 7284: 7283: 7279: 7276: 7275: 7274: 7273: 7272: 7271: 7265: 7262: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7253: 7249: 7248: 7247: 7246: 7245: 7244: 7241: 7235: 7234: 7231: 7225: 7224: 7220: 7216: 7210: 7208: 7194: 7191: 7187: 7185: 7184: 7183: 7180: 7176: 7175: 7174: 7173: 7170: 7166: 7164: 7162: 7156: 7151: 7150: 7147: 7139: 7134: 7133: 7130: 7126: 7121: 7115: 7110: 7109: 7105: 7101: 7097: 7085: 7081: 7077: 7073: 7069: 7065: 7064: 7063: 7062: 7059: 7048: 7047: 7043: 7039: 7036: 7031: 7030: 7026: 7016: 7012: 7008: 7004: 7000: 6996: 6992: 6989: 6985: 6984: 6983: 6982: 6979: 6978:67.166.51.134 6968: 6965: 6964: 6961: 6956: 6953: 6950: 6942: 6941: 6937: 6933: 6932: 6927: 6923: 6919: 6909: 6906: 6905: 6902: 6897: 6890: 6887: 6883: 6871: 6868: 6864: 6863: 6859: 6858: 6854: 6853: 6852: 6851: 6848: 6841: 6836:hello, i'm a 6827: 6826: 6823: 6818: 6814: 6811:According to 6804: 6803: 6800: 6790: 6788: 6785:Did you read 6778: 6777: 6774: 6760: 6758: 6755: 6750: 6748: 6745: 6741: 6737: 6733: 6729: 6725: 6723: 6720: 6715: 6711: 6707: 6706:Radio 10 Gold 6703: 6702: 6701: 6700: 6699: 6698: 6688: 6685: 6681: 6680: 6679: 6676: 6672: 6668: 6667: 6666: 6665: 6662: 6657: 6648: 6646: 6642: 6637: 6625: 6621: 6620: 6619: 6617: 6610: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6601: 6599: 6595: 6591: 6579: 6576: 6572: 6571: 6570: 6569: 6566: 6561: 6560: 6557: 6553: 6545: 6538: 6535: 6531: 6527: 6526: 6525: 6524: 6505: 6502: 6501: 6488: 6487: 6485: 6479: 6475: 6470: 6469: 6468: 6465: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6454: 6449: 6445: 6441: 6440: 6434: 6431: 6428: 6427: 6425: 6424: 6423: 6422: 6419: 6407: 6396: 6387: 6380: 6377: 6374: 6372: 6369: 6367: 6364: 6363: 6360: 6357: 6356: 6355: 6352: 6349: 6345: 6337: 6331: 6330: 6327: 6323: 6313: 6310: 6309: 6306: 6305: 6291: 6290: 6288:Look at this 6277: 6274: 6270: 6266: 6265: 6264: 6261: 6257: 6256: 6255: 6254: 6243: 6240: 6236: 6232: 6231: 6230: 6229: 6226: 6222: 6217: 6214: 6212: 6208: 6207: 6202: 6200: 6188: 6187: 6184: 6179: 6168: 6164: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6158: 6154: 6143: 6140: 6139: 6135: 6133: 6132: 6125: 6124: 6119: 6118: 6117: 6116: 6112: 6109: 6106: 6102: 6099: 6095: 6091: 6086: 6082: 6078: 6073: 6068: 6067: 6064: 6060: 6059: 6054: 6050: 6049: 6041: 6038: 6034: 6033: 6032: 6031: 6028: 6013: 6009: 6006: 6003: 5999: 5996: 5991: 5990: 5989: 5984: 5977: 5971: 5964: 5959: 5955: 5949: 5945: 5942: 5939: 5935: 5932: 5927: 5926: 5925: 5924: 5923: 5922: 5917: 5914: 5909: 5908: 5907: 5906: 5903: 5900: 5895: 5894: 5891: 5888: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5880: 5876: 5873: 5870: 5866: 5863: 5858: 5854: 5850: 5846: 5842: 5838: 5837:User:Vilerage 5828: 5827: 5824: 5819: 5818: 5815: 5812: 5808: 5798: 5797: 5794: 5789: 5784: 5780: 5767: 5764: 5760: 5756: 5752: 5748: 5744: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5734: 5733: 5726: 5723: 5719: 5715: 5711: 5710: 5709: 5708: 5707: 5706: 5701: 5698: 5694: 5690: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5682: 5679: 5676: 5671: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5661: 5653: 5646: 5642: 5638: 5628: 5627: 5623: 5617: 5612: 5608: 5598: 5597: 5594: 5588: 5584: 5583: 5580: 5576: 5568: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5554: 5553: 5550: 5549:Jasongetsdown 5540: 5537: 5532: 5529: 5528: 5522: 5517: 5514: 5509: 5508: 5504: 5500: 5496: 5495: 5491: 5490: 5489: 5487: 5477: 5476: 5473: 5470: 5465: 5463: 5458: 5453: 5448: 5443: 5438: 5433: 5428: 5423: 5418: 5413: 5406: 5404: 5399: 5398: 5389: 5388: 5385: 5384: 5380: 5378: 5377: 5370: 5369: 5359: 5356: 5355: 5351: 5349: 5348: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5336: 5331: 5330: 5327: 5324: 5323: 5319: 5317: 5316: 5309: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5280: 5279: 5276: 5275: 5271: 5269: 5268: 5256: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5248: 5238: 5237: 5234: 5233:Michael Hardy 5229: 5216: 5213: 5208: 5207: 5206: 5205: 5202: 5199: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5189: 5178: 5174: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5167: 5160: 5157: 5152: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5143: 5142: 5136: 5135:Daniel Brandt 5132: 5128: 5124: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5114: 5109: 5108: 5105: 5104: 5099: 5083: 5080: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5071: 5067: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5058: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5048: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5027: 5024: 5020: 5016: 5015: 5004: 5001: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4992: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4982: 4977: 4973: 4969: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4932: 4929: 4924: 4920: 4917: 4913: 4910: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4901: 4896: 4892: 4890: 4887: 4884: 4879: 4877: 4874: 4872: 4868: 4865:I agree with 4864: 4862: 4859: 4854: 4852: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4835: 4827: 4818: 4815: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4783: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4772: 4769: 4766: 4762: 4759: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4750: 4746: 4742: 4740: 4735: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4716: 4714: 4699: 4696: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4686: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4666: 4663: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4652: 4645: 4642: 4636: 4623: 4620: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4610: 4605: 4599: 4598: 4592: 4590: 4585: 4581: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4565: 4564: 4558: 4555: 4550: 4546: 4544: 4539: 4535: 4529: 4521: 4520: 4517: 4513: 4501: 4498: 4494: 4487: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4474: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4463: 4455: 4454:table of data 4451: 4431: 4428: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4406: 4403: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4384: 4381: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4367: 4364: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4352: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4340: 4330: 4325: 4322: 4319: 4317: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4308: 4303: 4288: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4260: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4228: 4225: 4220: 4216: 4215:outline above 4212: 4211: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4193: 4189: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4172: 4168: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4152: 4151:replied here. 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4130: 4127: 4125: 4122: 4120: 4117: 4115: 4112: 4110: 4107: 4105: 4102: 4100: 4099:Workshop page 4097: 4095: 4094:Evidence page 4092: 4090: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4065: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4037: 4034: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4023: 4021: 4017: 4007: 4006: 4003: 3998: 3989: 3986: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3974: 3971: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3959: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3939: 3934: 3933: 3922: 3919: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3875: 3872: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3857: 3854: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3841: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3827: 3823: 3817: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3804: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3777: 3774: 3766: 3765: 3762: 3757: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3734: 3723: 3720: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3711: 3708: 3701: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3666: 3662: 3657: 3654: 3645: 3644: 3641: 3627: 3624: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3614: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3604: 3592: 3589: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3570: 3561: 3558: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3537: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3521: 3518: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3492:Bunchofgrapes 3489: 3485: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3476: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3435: 3434: 3431: 3426: 3425: 3422: 3419:for details. 3418: 3413: 3410: 3407: 3404: 3395: 3394: 3391: 3390:Michael Hardy 3377: 3374: 3371: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3358: 3355: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3337: 3334: 3330: 3327: 3323: 3322:Don't Be Evil 3318: 3316: 3312: 3306: 3303: 3301: 3296: 3291: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3273: 3270: 3263: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3247: 3243: 3242:wikipedia.org 3239: 3238:wikipedia.com 3235: 3233: 3230: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3220: 3215: 3212: 3208: 3197: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3187: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3174: 3164: 3158: 3155: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3144: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3131: 3123: 3122: 3118: 3117: 3113: 3112: 3109: 3106: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3097: 3094: 3093: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3085: 3080: 3068: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3053: 3050: 3047: 3044: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3031: 3030: 3027: 3024: 3023: 3020: 3017: 3016: 3013: 3011: 3006: 3005: 3002: 2999: 2995: 2994: 2989: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2971: 2968: 2965: 2964: 2959: 2957: 2955: 2948: 2946: 2942: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2922: 2918: 2915: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2906: 2905: 2899: 2896: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2871: 2852: 2850: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2841: 2838: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2829: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2820: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2799: 2796: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2783: 2782: 2776: 2775: 2772: 2759: 2756: 2752: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2728: 2719: 2716: 2712: 2710: 2707: 2702: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2693: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2682: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2659: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2640: 2635: 2630: 2626: 2624: 2621: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2611: 2601: 2600: 2597: 2593: 2588: 2579: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2530: 2527: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2503: 2498: 2493: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2466: 2464: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2426: 2424: 2413: 2410: 2407: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2400: 2392: 2391: 2388: 2384: 2383:Another story 2374: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2358: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2331: 2328: 2322: 2318: 2313: 2308: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2295: 2292: 2291:Phil Sandifer 2288: 2287: 2278: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2262: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2217: 2213: 2204: 2203: 2200: 2195: 2184: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2159: 2158: 2155: 2153: 2141: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2130: 2126: 2123:, but mainly 2122: 2118: 2115: 2111: 2108: 2094: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2079: 2078:Michael Hardy 2072: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2059: 2057: 2053: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2034: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2007: 2004: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1985: 1984: 1979: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1953: 1950: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1941: 1936: 1932: 1931: 1922: 1919: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1904: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1876: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1842: 1841: 1838: 1833: 1830: 1826: 1813: 1810: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1752: 1749: 1748: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1709: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1696: 1683: 1679: 1676: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1645: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1597: 1593: 1582: 1581: 1578: 1577:80.171.92.179 1574: 1570: 1561: 1559: 1549: 1548: 1545: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1522: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1483: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1465: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1434: 1431: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1411: 1408: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1375: 1372: 1368: 1365: 1362: 1359: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1341: 1337: 1334: 1330: 1327: 1323: 1320: 1316: 1313: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1291:Freddy Cannon 1288: 1285: 1281: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1269: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1257: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1227: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1189:20 April 2005 1186: 1185: 1181: 1178: 1175: 1171: 1168: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1053: 1048: 1047: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1008: 1005: 1004: 1000: 998: 997: 990: 986: 985: 984: 981: 976: 972: 971: 970: 967: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 944: 941: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 921: 919: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 897: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 874: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 837: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 818: 815: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 793: 792:User:FakeName 790: 788: 785: 783: 780: 778: 775: 774: 772: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 750: 749: 748: 745: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 731: 728: 724: 723: 722: 721: 716: 713: 709: 705: 704: 703: 702: 699: 696: 691: 690: 683: 680: 679:Phil Sandifer 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 666: 663: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 651: 650:Phil Sandifer 646: 640:Regarding Xed 633: 630: 626: 625: 620: 619: 618: 617: 614: 610: 609: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 587: 586: 585: 582: 579: 575: 574: 573: 572: 569: 564: 563: 560: 556: 542: 539: 535: 531: 526: 521: 517: 513: 509: 508: 507: 506: 503: 500: 495: 490: 489: 484: 481: 476: 475: 474: 473: 470: 467: 463: 462: 457: 454: 449: 448: 447: 446: 443: 440: 436: 431: 430: 424: 423: 422: 421: 418: 413: 407: 406: 403: 393: 392: 390: 386: 380: 379: 375: 371: 364: 358: 357: 350: 342: 337: 333: 328: 322: 317: 311: 306: 300: 295: 291: 286: 280: 275: 271: 266: 260: 255: 251: 246: 239: 237: 231: 229: 228: 222: 220: 215: 213: 212: 204: 200: 192: 176: 169: 165: 160: 151: 147: 139: 131: 113: 109: 104: 95: 91: 73: 58: 51: 41:Content added 33: 30: 20: 9493:Kelly Martin 9490: 9482: 9473: 9460: 9448: 9403: 9280: 9278: 9275: 9264: 9220: 9209: 9189: 9166: 9145: 9128:Kelly Martin 9116: 9102: 9093: 9070: 9066: 9064: 9022: 9019: 8995: 8992: 8989: 8985: 8982: 8978: 8932: 8930: 8926: 8902: 8899: 8888: 8880: 8846: 8819: 8804: 8800: 8790: 8752:Kelly Martin 8704: 8681: 8666: 8662: 8658: 8644: 8640: 8626: 8621: 8615: 8612: 8600: 8595: 8591: 8587: 8583: 8581: 8570: 8562: 8543: 8537: 8531: 8525: 8519: 8513: 8507: 8494: 8480: 8477: 8466: 8462: 8448: 8445: 8387: 8374: 8370:User:Doom127 8366:Ken Kutaragi 8363: 8338:job openings 8305: 8287: 8273: 8250: 8189: 8167: 8146: 8036: 7993: 7957: 7950: 7935: 7923: 7914: 7891: 7883: 7870: 7866: 7850: 7837: 7720:Natalinasmpf 7665:Natalinasmpf 7635: 7610: 7593: 7589: 7581:David Remahl 7567: 7556:David Remahl 7527: 7456: 7452: 7410: 7334:Jayson Blair 7308: 7307: 7301: 7296: 7288: 7286: 7281: 7277: 7251: 7236: 7226: 7211: 7204: 7159: 7142: 7125:User:Raul654 7122: 7119: 7093: 7054: 7032: 7027: 7024: 7002: 6994: 6974: 6966: 6957: 6954: 6951: 6948: 6945:PLEASE HELP! 6929: 6915: 6907: 6891: 6882:User:Node ue 6879: 6867:AustinKnight 6833: 6810: 6796: 6784: 6769: 6739: 6735: 6731: 6728:transsexuals 6713: 6658: 6654: 6644: 6638: 6634: 6623: 6613: 6608: 6602: 6597: 6587: 6562: 6548: 6523:User:Vendweb 6519: 6490: 6415: 6358: 6341: 6340: 6319: 6311: 6294: 6292: 6287: 6252: 6251: 6218: 6215: 6204: 6203:with the UK 6196: 6194: 6180: 6176: 6167:user:zanimum 6151: 6137: 6130: 6129: 6121: 6069: 6057: 6056: 6047: 6046: 6044: 6023: 5834: 5820: 5804: 5787: 5782: 5778: 5776: 5758: 5754: 5742: 5692: 5688: 5634: 5604: 5589: 5585: 5574: 5571: 5565: 5560: 5546: 5538: 5535: 5520: 5513:LoveandPeace 5502: 5498: 5486:LoveandPeace 5483: 5461: 5456: 5451: 5446: 5441: 5436: 5431: 5426: 5421: 5416: 5411: 5407: 5400: 5395: 5382: 5375: 5374: 5366: 5364: 5353: 5346: 5345: 5321: 5314: 5313: 5285:— Preceding 5281: 5273: 5266: 5265: 5260: 5244: 5230: 5226: 5223:Seigenthaler 5185: 5165: 5140: 5110: 5102: 5095: 5044: 5035: 4972:no consensus 4971: 4953: 4940: 4937:no consensus 4936: 4894: 4848:David Remahl 4830: 4794:Irishpunktom 4712: 4707: 4675: 4669: 4637: 4633: 4600: 4593: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4559: 4551: 4547: 4530: 4527: 4509: 4447: 4402:Michael Snow 4348: 4336: 4328: 4307:Lotsofissues 4300: 4241: 4209: 4208: 4024: 4013: 3996: 3994: 3946: 3821: 3818: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3802: 3799: 3778: 3775: 3772: 3758: 3735: 3731: 3705: 3698: 3675:village pump 3661:Adolf Hitler 3658: 3655: 3651: 3637: 3600: 3566: 3534: 3509: 3487: 3443: 3441: 3427: 3414: 3411: 3408: 3405: 3401: 3387: 3341:AustinKnight 3338: 3335: 3331: 3319: 3314: 3307: 3304: 3292: 3289: 3274: 3271: 3268: 3257:response. - 3254: 3241: 3240:rather than 3237: 3227:pedophiles. 3205: 3196:user:zanimum 3186:64.12.116.69 3184: 3181: 3177: 3172: 3170: 3161: 3140: 3129: 3127: 3107: 3095: 3081: 3077: 3035: 3007: 2997: 2991: 2978: 2972: 2969: 2966: 2960: 2956:" (Stechlin) 2953: 2949: 2943: 2938: 2929: 2926: 2921:in flagranti 2907: 2902: 2888: 2882: 2876: 2873: 2867: 2846: 2834: 2825: 2816: 2800: 2797: 2793: 2792: 2787: 2767: 2736: 2724: 2678: 2658:David Remahl 2644: 2643:I certainly 2607: 2589: 2585: 2576: 2496: 2491: 2462: 2443: 2422: 2417: 2393: 2381: 2210: 2190: 2149: 2104: 2075: 2039: 2015: 2012: 1934: 1902: 1848: 1834: 1822: 1757: 1737: 1719: 1705:David Remahl 1685: 1650: 1632: 1609: 1588: 1572: 1567: 1555: 1539: 1534: 1528: 1510: 1484: 1470: 1312:Doug Kershaw 1234: 1222: 1214: 1188: 1147: 1049: 1034: 1028: 1002: 995: 994: 707: 647: 643: 623: 622: 613:user:zanimum 590: 565: 552: 533: 529: 524: 519: 515: 511: 493: 480:AustinKnight 453:AustinKnight 434: 427: 417:AustinKnight 411: 408: 399: 382: 381: 372: 369: 354: 9476:Everyking 3 9224:FreplySpang 9105:Martial Law 9096:Martial Law 9087:Martial Law 8779:Onefortyone 8762:Jimbo Wales 8711:. See also 8573:Jimbo Wales 8281:Pietras1988 7321:this column 7179:Fred Bauder 6988:budget page 6971:Fundraising 6876:Hello Jimmy 6846:talk to me! 6773:Verrekijker 6744:Verrekijker 6719:Verrekijker 6651:My question 6590:Verrekijker 6565:Jimbo Wales 6544:Jimbo Wales 6442:Beware the 6376:Jimmy Wales 6366:Jimmy Wales 6269:MegamanZero 6260:Jimbo Wales 6248:Jimbo Wales 6111:Eventualist 6108:Darwikinian 6105:Wishy Washy 6072:LiveJournal 6048:possibility 6008:Eventualist 6005:Darwikinian 6002:Wishy Washy 5944:Eventualist 5941:Darwikinian 5938:Wishy Washy 5913:Jimbo Wales 5875:Eventualist 5872:Darwikinian 5869:Wishy Washy 5823:Jimbo Wales 5593:Jimbo Wales 5575:prima facie 5335:Fred Bauder 5198:Jimbo Wales 5141:Woohookitty 5113:Jimbo Wales 5103:Woohookitty 5019:MegamanZero 4909:15 December 4900:Jimbo Wales 4886:|transerver 4883:MegamanZero 4867:User:Improv 4814:Jimbo Wales 4771:Eventualist 4768:Darwikinian 4765:Wishy Washy 4662:Jimbo Wales 4609:OceanSplash 4363:Jimbo Wales 4242:Additional: 4066:as follows: 4033:Jimbo Wales 3761:Jimbo Wales 3613:Jimbo Wales 3512:article. - 3430:Jimbo Wales 3217:(posted by 2983:Andy Warhol 2961:Live show: 2101:Talk to me? 2068:Kim Bruning 2003:Jimbo Wales 1989:MegamanZero 1966:MegamanZero 1940:MegamanZero 1908:MegamanZero 1884:Jimbo Wales 1865:MegamanZero 1724:MegamanZero 1558:Admiral Roo 1544:MegamanZero 1517:Fred Bauder 1487:Fred Bauder 1461:Fred Bauder 1440:Onefortyone 1407:Fred Bauder 1393:Onefortyone 1078:Fred Bauder 744:Jimbo Wales 712:Jimbo Wales 662:Jimbo Wales 568:Jimbo Wales 549:Question... 366:Jimbo Wales 209:Line 1,307: 206:Line 1,307: 199:Next edit → 150:view source 94:view source 32:Next edit → 9341:repeatedly 9337:knows that 9322:Bonaparte 9302:Simetrical 9286:Bonaparte 9205:User:*drew 9043:Simetrical 8941:Simetrical 8868:Locke Cole 8843:IMPORTANT! 8603:James Dean 8541:block user 8535:filter log 8347: 8321:user:Danny 8294:Wasabe3543 7940:Ross Perot 7888:correction 7841:JamesMLane 7611:truly free 7282:Enterprise 7252:plagiarism 7072:Simetrical 6895:Bonaparte 6684:Johan Lont 6661:Johan Lont 6641:sex change 6631:Background 6324:. ;) :p -- 6209:(website: 6131:BDAbramson 5376:BDAbramson 5347:BDAbramson 5315:BDAbramson 5267:BDAbramson 5000:Locke Cole 4981:Locke Cole 4945:Locke Cole 4337:They have 4321:Mirror Vax 4284:Researcher 4272:Neutrality 4224:Researcher 3665:Mirror Vax 3462:biometrics 3421:Mirror Vax 3336:"Or not." 3152:result. - 3051:(finished) 2819:Weiße Rose 2556:JamesMLane 2448:JamesMLane 2274:Mirror Vax 2250:Mirror Vax 1790:not forums 1720:talk pages 1607:Agreed. -- 1525:Emergency! 1478:Ted Wilkes 1474:Spamdexing 1319:Joe Melson 1219:David Bret 1156:Nick Adams 1089:Ted Wilkes 1057:Ted Wilkes 1043:Ted Wilkes 996:BDAbramson 975:OJ Simpson 966:Mirror Vax 708:everything 378:My Website 242:2005 (UTC) 234:2005 (UTC) 9452:Everyking 9024:Cyde Weys 8966:ID:540053 8547:block log 8454:Eloquence 8311:WAS 4.250 8109:mediation 7984:karmafist 7980:Esperanza 7917:Karmafist 7855:Everyking 7822:Everyking 7802:Everyking 7598:Everyking 7462:Everyking 7431:Everyking 7403:Everyking 7240:Everyking 7114:Christmas 6931:Cyde Weys 6675:Jacoplane 6348:Eloquence 6183:Ce garcon 5887:Sherurcij 5811:Netoholic 5793:Nandesuka 5743:seemingly 5641:User:Jguk 5557:Apologies 5403:Spawn Man 5070:Jacoplane 4928:Everyking 4916:Thryduulf 4744:trickery. 4695:karmafist 4619:Sherurcij 4380:Everyking 4167:Adam_Carr 3949:have to. 3623:Everyking 3603:Everyking 3510:completed 3508:Define a 3488:anonymity 3466:Jacoplane 3315:effective 3255:brilliant 3130:Hive mind 2914:Towarisch 2837:GrummelJS 2779:Hasenjagd 2737:precisely 2727:Everyking 2681:karmafist 2604:Communism 2573:myopinion 2497:mentioned 2270:Longbow4u 2216:Longbow4u 2199:Jacoplane 2150:From the 2020:WAS 4.250 2001:'keep'.-- 1825:vBulletin 1585:Rule Idea 1340:Bobby Vee 1333:Tommy Roe 1284:Bill Dees 629:Spawn Man 578:Spawn Man 559:Spawn Man 499:Askolnick 102:Everyking 9409:vprotect 9310:contribs 9196:Pnikolov 9192:Pnikolov 9175:Jtkiefer 9075:WP:CIVIL 9051:contribs 8998:Beckjord 8996:beckjord 8949:contribs 8596:Newsweek 8511:contribs 7927:contribs 7886:added a 7793:Carnildo 7280:(Texas) 7278:Beaumont 7080:contribs 7068:PageRank 6738:, not a 6710:Internet 6516:Question 6474:Cool Cat 5899:*Dan T.* 5788:littered 5689:proposed 5652:proposed 5499:3 months 5299:contribs 5287:unsigned 4607:regards 4597:See this 4563:talkpage 4543:for many 4497:Nunh-huh 4473:Nunh-huh 4259:polygamy 4254:polygamy 4219:polygamy 4020:polygamy 3719:*Dan T.* 3528:article. 3354:Carnildo 3246:*Dan T.* 3229:*Dan T.* 3084:Register 2903:Source: 2895:Botswana 2868:Source: 2835:dito. -- 2524:lawyer.- 2502:*Dan T.* 2399:QuakeAID 2357:23skidoo 2226:Rickyrab 2105:People ( 2050:LBMixPro 1935:everyone 1599:Briaboru 1596:Briaboru 1592:Briaboru 1531:Angela's 1235:Guardian 1215:May 2005 412:how many 168:contribs 130:→‎[] 112:contribs 56:Wikitext 9386:SEWilco 9360:FUDding 8853:the wub 8483:Cascari 8329:Raul654 8169:admins. 8113:Talrias 8006:Talrias 7931:WP:RFAr 7810:result. 6552:WP:NPOV 6284:Oh noo! 6098:Zordrac 5995:Zordrac 5931:Zordrac 5862:Zordrac 5755:en mass 5741:I said 5714:WP:BOLD 5660:Firebug 5601:Ed Poor 4881:faith.- 4758:Zordrac 4734:Contrib 4339:written 4252:in the 3997:quoted 3739:Talrias 3679:Fredrik 2977:Trying 2937:have a 2828:DaTroll 2634:Contrib 2620:Andylkl 2596:Zirland 2526:gadfium 2512:Moriori 2463:ALKIVAR 2423:ALKIVAR 2395:NOTICE: 2316:dwolf24 2261:Anittas 2239:Anittas 2090:Skittle 2042:MySpace 1975:Adraeus 1949:Adraeus 1918:Adraeus 1875:Adraeus 1854:Adraeus 1809:Anittas 1781:Anittas 1736:though. 1675:Anittas 1663:Raul654 1653:Anittas 1497:SEWilco 1385:User:DW 1139:User:DW 1128:User:DW 727:Firebug 439:Firebug 387:" and " 119:155,603 9519:Calton 9367:adiant 9227:(talk) 9151:Jmabel 9083:WP:NPA 9079:WP:AGF 8913:Elvarg 8911:, and 8909:Djr xi 8458:HUMBUG 8345:Trödel 7896:Calton 7479:Calton 7440:Calton 7418:Calton 7380:Calton 7355:Calton 7146:Taxman 7100:Dan100 7035:Francs 6839:member 6830:Satire 6822:FRJohn 6799:kizzle 6754:Improv 6740:person 6594:Waerth 6157:Nerd42 6101:(talk) 6063:Nerd42 6058:always 6027:Mb1000 5998:(talk) 5934:(talk) 5865:(talk) 5783:at all 5718:WP:AGF 5616:Trödel 5579:kizzle 5543:E-mail 5212:kizzle 5188:kizzle 5177:Splash 4858:Improv 4761:(talk) 4729:JiFish 4644:adiant 4248:had 3597:Appeal 3579:WP:AFC 3295:Google 2883:Great! 2692:Improv 2649:Heptor 2629:JiFish 2610:Heptor 2521:WP:NLT 2137:Shanel 1906:mind.- 1903:really 1794:+MATIA 1764:+MATIA 1722:for. - 1389:Angela 1383:alias 1338:) and 1270:, etc. 1213:Since 1137:alias 1126:alias 538:Jrkarp 530:per se 525:per se 520:pro se 516:pro se 514:, not 512:per se 466:kizzle 180:78,494 158:Calton 67:Inline 49:Visual 9431:Owen× 9416:Owen× 9373:|< 9372:: --> 9345:r3m0t 9179:---- 8905:Ian13 8835:Zocky 8827:Lupin 8816:Tools 8255:r b-j 8041:r b-j 7996:r b-j 7966:case. 7944:r b-j 7594:yours 6762:back! 6736:thing 6669:See: 6493:Voice 6444:CABAL 6297:Voice 6219:From 5759:prior 5064:See: 4941:think 4713:Grue 4676:When? 4650:|< 4649:: --> 3947:don't 3326:Wikia 3173:every 2519:Read 2490:Just 1740:Voice 1688:Voice 1612:BRIAN 1535:those 1373:(see 1357:(see 1342:(see 1335:(see 1328:(see 1321:(see 1314:(see 1307:(see 1300:(see 1293:(see 1286:(see 1279:(see 555:above 534:Times 510:It's 435:Times 182:edits 121:edits 9523:Talk 9515:this 9513:and 9511:this 9497:talk 9327:talk 9306:talk 9291:talk 9245:talk 9241:SPUI 9239:. -- 9155:Talk 9132:talk 9047:talk 9029:vote 8945:talk 8889:blah 8857:"?!" 8774:and 8768:and 8757:and 8684:Wyss 8605:and 8577:Wyss 8529:logs 8505:talk 8350:talk 8336:See 8292:. -- 8284:TALK 8057:be). 8037:will 7921:talk 7900:Talk 7851:free 7812:Geni 7791:? -- 7748:GFDL 7615:GFDL 7590:free 7570:Theo 7495:nice 7492:play 7483:Talk 7453:ever 7444:Talk 7422:Talk 7384:Talk 7378:. -- 7359:Talk 7349:and 7230:Theo 7219:talk 7190:nobs 7169:nobs 7155:nobs 7104:Talk 7096:here 7076:talk 7038:2000 7011:talk 6999:GFDL 6936:talk 6922:GFDL 6900:talk 6787:CNET 6446:. -- 6371:Kane 6320:See 6273:Talk 6239:jguk 6083:and 5963:NSLE 5763:El_C 5751:WP:V 5722:jguk 5697:El_C 5693:some 5675:jguk 5621:talk 5308:GFDL 5295:talk 5151:Tito 5127:here 5023:Talk 4968:here 4912:2006 4727:. -- 4680:Tito 4554:gren 4516:Mark 4485:0918 4461:0918 4456:. — 4268:here 4210:will 3970:Wyss 3955:Talk 3938:Wyss 3913:Tito 3907:See 3900:Talk 3871:Wyss 3839:0918 3583:Tito 3569:Adam 3552:Tito 3536:Adam 3496:talk 3484:Adam 3475:Adam 3452:Adam 3415:See 3373:aran 3300:MPEG 3278:jguk 3219:Mark 3143:Wyss 2998:this 2935:Rosa 2933:and 2931:Karl 2715:Wyss 2701:Tito 2645:hope 2492:what 2444:much 2370:talk 2366:Thue 2348:talk 2344:Thue 2321:talk 2230:Talk 2125:This 2121:this 2112:and 2048:. -- 1962:here 1618:0918 1540:dark 1435:and 1363:and 1353:and 1296:), 1072:and 557:... 164:talk 108:talk 9283:.-- 9071:not 9041:. — 8963:Ian 8933:I'm 8919:. 8460:"? 8456:. " 8277:TOR 7871:and 7752:DES 7617:. 7129:BYT 7033:-- 7003:you 6995:now 6926:GPL 6918:GPL 6730:as 6645:she 6618:: 6600:. 6521:by 6499:All 6496:of 6483:NOD 6448:CBD 6303:All 6300:of 5982:CVU 5472:(c) 5468:(t) 4954:was 4871:DES 4672:how 4545:. 4169:on 4002:Zeq 3985:Zeq 3951:JRM 3896:JRM 3853:Zeq 3826:Zeq 3548:Yes 3370:Pak 3154:Xed 2947:. 2771:Kit 2194:NHK 2154:: 1964:.- 1827:or 1746:All 1743:of 1694:All 1691:of 1590:up. 1331:), 1324:), 1317:), 1310:), 1303:), 1289:), 1282:), 1187:On 1146:On 1029:On 980:Xed 940:Xed 752:it. 695:Xed 402:Xed 9521:| 9499:) 9412:}} 9406:{{ 9362:. 9312:) 9308:• 9253:) 9247:| 9214:, 9153:| 9134:) 9053:) 9049:• 9021:-- 8951:) 8947:• 8907:, 8833:. 8729:, 8726:, 8696:, 8693:, 8481:-- 8465:-- 8127:) 8123:| 8119:| 8020:) 8016:| 8012:| 7898:| 7789:}} 7783:{{ 7779:}} 7773:{{ 7500:LV 7481:| 7442:| 7420:| 7382:| 7357:| 7221:) 7106:) 7082:) 7078:• 7013:) 6843:| 6752:-- 6742:. 6732:it 6416:-- 6181:-- 6079:, 6025:-- 5747:it 5655:}} 5649:{{ 5613:. 5408:→ 5301:) 5297:• 5155:xd 5138:-- 5133:, 5068:. 4895:is 4796:\ 4737:) 4731:(/ 4684:xd 4400:-- 3953:· 3917:xd 3911:. 3898:· 3805:. 3753:) 3749:| 3745:| 3681:| 3677:? 3587:xd 3581:. 3556:xd 3550:. 3498:) 3339:-- 2985:). 2958:. 2941:: 2705:xd 2637:) 2631:(/ 2368:| 2346:| 2323:) 2272:. 2228:| 2185:” 2170::) 2160:“ 1807:-- 1792:. 1515:. 1438:. 1432:, 1429:, 1426:, 1391:. 1376:). 1366:). 1360:, 1349:, 1267:, 1264:, 1261:, 1258:, 1255:, 1252:, 1249:, 1246:, 1243:, 1200:, 1197:, 1150:, 1116:, 1113:, 1110:, 1107:, 1104:, 1101:, 1098:, 1095:, 1069:, 601:, 597:, 593:- 415:-- 376:| 166:| 110:| 9495:( 9463:. 9435:☎ 9420:☎ 9391:) 9370:_ 9364:R 9304:( 9243:( 9130:( 9081:, 9077:, 9045:( 8943:( 8549:) 8544:· 8538:· 8532:· 8526:· 8520:· 8514:· 8508:· 8503:( 8428:S 8425:A 8422:M 8419:T 8416:S 8413:I 8410:R 8407:H 8404:C 8401:Y 8398:R 8395:R 8392:E 8389:M 8125:c 8121:e 8117:t 8115:( 8079:. 8018:c 8014:e 8010:t 8008:( 7924:· 7919:( 7266:: 7217:( 7102:( 7074:( 7009:( 6626:. 6453:☎ 6351:* 6271:| 6201:) 6138:T 5985:) 5979:+ 5976:C 5973:+ 5970:T 5967:( 5814:@ 5618:| 5462:r 5457:i 5452:h 5447:d 5442:i 5437:U 5432:c 5427:a 5422:M 5417:. 5412:P 5383:T 5354:T 5322:T 5293:( 5274:T 5257:. 5021:| 4979:— 4647:_ 4641:R 3751:c 3747:e 3743:t 3741:( 3686:c 3683:t 3494:( 3012:: 2981:( 2952:" 2840:8 2468:™ 2428:™ 2319:( 2311:e 2306:R 2116:( 2109:( 1798:☎ 1768:☎ 1502:) 1228:. 1210:. 1164:. 1141:? 1003:T 938:- 624:I 518:( 170:) 162:( 114:) 106:(

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

Index