1063:
so that others can easily leave you messages." Do you want to keep this editor review permanently open or close it at this point, as it strikes me it will accumulate stuff from each new person you antagonise (as we all do at times on wiki), and not be a pleasant and constructive experience for you. The review is/was an analysis of your editing to the date the review started, now it has been open for several months. A lot of your editing has improved in some respects, and you seem to have a better grasp of policy. You just need to perhaps sometimes learn to make the response proportionate to the level of problem.
455:'s talk page. It makes no sense to leave a message with a nonworking link, with an accusatory tone, and lacking further explanatory information so that the intended responder will know what you are talking about. And then, you make matters worse by responding to the user's befuddlement by twice accusing the editor of "lying," while once again offering no further information as to what his or her offense was. This is very bad form. I would like an explanation of that exchange and the untoward attitude with which you approached a valuable editor and contributor. Thanks. ---
1007:. No-one here own anything, it is all owned by the wikiMedia foundation, so don't you try to pass that off as an argument that holds water. Third, I do not need knowledge on this actress to have a meaningful discussion on her, all I need to know is that the article meets wikipedia's inclusion policy. If it does not, it is deleted, if so, it is kept. It is simple as that, everyone here is qualified to edit every article, your assumption that I am not qualified to delete it is against the spirit of things here. Fourthly, I actually pointed out your signature
173:
instance, without checking. I think he would benefit from adoption, to improve how he is able to collaborate and speak to other editors. At this current time in his editing career, he appears to think he has superior knowledge of the 'rules' to some editors, when he doesn't. This is embarrassing to him as then users with more knowledge of the policies and guidelines come along and say his claims that other users have done something wrong are not exactly correct.
53:) I have not been here long, but I am always trying to improve myself in one way or another. I feel that instead of fumbling around and screwing up all the more here, it would be best to ask for someone to look at me, and tell me where I should focus, where I need to improve. Thankyou for your time. The following response is in answer to both questions: I have not made very many contributions to wikipedia as of yet, I have mostly been spending my time on the
238:. Anyway, here is how I think you could improve as an editor. Focus on content and improving it, not individual editors. Spend less time on user talk pages (41% of your contribs at the moment), especially having a go at other editors. Don't be officious and tell others what to do. Try and be friendly. Contribute content yourself more often rather than picking at others'. It's late here but there was also something about your interpretation of
482:
the RFD discussion. On the surface, it looks like he didn't take any heed, but after someone posted in the RFD on August 6th, as a delete, two days after he recreated the redirect, although with spaces in-between the words. This too me seems way too suspicious, especially since I had a discussion with this user about the redirect that was RfD'd before it as RfD'd, and he then denies having ever created it at all.—
128:, I fear that there is too much desire to "win the argument" than to help with the active efforts to improve the articles in question. You will notice that even for as much arguing I have done in these, I have expressed a willingess to compromise in the Cheshire Cat case with a merge and redirect. It is okay to switch from "delete" to "keep" in AfDs when editors believe in good faith that an article has
1070:
your editing so aren't the most help (unlike those at the top of this page.) My point is not that you should disregard the later comments but that you should maybe think about closing this now as you have gathered most things you are going to gather from it at the moment and have enough to work on from these suggestions to keep you occupied for a while.
538:
exactly how the redirect had anything to do with the article besides original research. I later RfD'd the redirect, and told him of the discussion, should he feel like defending his stance. Despite his earlier responses, he completely ignored the discussion, then re-created the redirect under a slightly different title(read:
267:
don't keep comments here by a banned user or ip who feel the need to add slander, and I was going to remove your comment, and I am still considering it, considering the diffs cited are not in conjunction with the previous post. As to the removal of said post, defamation or baseless accusation is disruptive. Third, that is
276:
is how most of wikipedia works in regards to editors. If someone is a suspected sockpuppet, you need to provide evidence, if someone is uncivil, you need to provide evidence. Fifth, so what? Just because several people say an object is notable, makes it notable? I don't think so, that breaks policy. I have yet to see
981:, as i was not aware of this because i've been signing all my comments for 3 years now. A simple pointer towards my error would have sufficed. Your high-handedness is highly unacceptable, and is against the Open source spirit. You don't even have knowledge about this Indian actress to have a meaningful discussion on it.
819:
3. Yes, I know about RBI, but I do think the exchange was helpful. This user, as indicated by the user him/her self, and the actions, it is clear that this user is of the level of grade-school/middle school. This user has indicated that he or she thinks that WP is a little more than a game, a game
813:
2. It did not indicate why it was notable. It said it was a company that gained money through donations. The same could be said for many other non-notable companies. There was nothing indicated of how this company was different. The same with Guide Star. It did not indicate why it was notable.
506:
He never denied having created it. His exact response to your highly accusatory message was: "No idea what you are talking about; your link leads to an Error." Your response was to accuse him of lying. In your response here, you continue your accusatory tone, your tone of suspicion of his actions,
349:
How does it display a lack of maturity? I was being patient, waiting for Jimbo to reply, as last time I checked, people usually didn't reply to posts that are in the archives, and they may have forgotten. I have patience and I have maturity, keeping at topic within view is not painfully obnoxious.—
275:
tidbit, as if you did actually look through my contributions, you would see that most of it is tagging and vandalism reversion. Again, I have not told anyone what to do, I said(and I may be repeating this, I know), that if you are going to throw accusations at me, then you better back them up. That
1069:
ER is not designed to be kept ongoing permanently as far as I know, take this as a snapshot of what people think of your editing, bear it in mind and improve (as you perhaps have.) Then maybe come back in 6 months and ask for another ER. The views you are now getting are not neutral assessments of
1062:
because his name was written out plainly rather than a hyperlink to his userpage. That is heavy-handed IMHO over something that is an infraction, but a minor one worth a suggestion rather than a threat. For instance you could have said "you might like to sign with four tildes, or link to your page
997:
Do me a favor, in fact, do all of us favors, and do not make baseless accusations. Along with responding here, I shall respond on your talk page. First, I never threatened you with any consequences. I nominated an article you created for deletion. It has nothing to do with you, but you obviously
57:
article, where we had a content dispute, which has by now been settled with a consensus on all sides. This is where I really started to edit, this article. There were many conflicts there. Yes, In the beginning, I did not do so well, but when an Admin called attention to what I was doing wrong, I
481:
At the time of writing, that link linked to a specific diff in the history of a redirect. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, the redirect was deleted. To clarify, it was deleted as repeatedly recreated material. Now, I gave the user whom you speak of fair warning of
647:
Yes, with the addition of material at the article stated above. Many of the users that caused me grief were not willing to discuss the edits they made, and were very rude and uncivil. I was rude aswell at one point, but that stopped when an Admin pointed it out, not that it really helped. I am
372:
Considering he already replied and said it would be a couple of weeks, doesn't it make sense to just let the message be archived then drop him a note in a couple of weeks pointing to the archives and asking him to take a look. Tell me, do you intend to keep doing that until he answers? What if it
172:
This user makes comments about what he believes to be the 'rules'- tells other users what they are allowed or should or shouldn't be doing, when he doesn't know the details of the rules and hasn't double-checked them, just assumes he knows them by generalising from the basc rules to a particular
266:
Again, I suggest you re-write, as you have again misinterpreted things. First, I never attacked Myth, he came to my page, first. You can easily see this if you take a gander at my talk page. I responded to him, so that diff you show doesn't count. Second, I will remove disruptive comments, I
140:
may be an essay, but it makes a valid point about giving the members of our community the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. After all, oftentimes it is far more rewarding to focus building the articles we do care about than worry about removing those others do in AfDs. Anyway, please
909:
sorry, i didn't mean to seem as if i were questioning your edits in general. i was just pointing out that you (may have) misused rollback in that particular situation. in the context of what took place, it's understandable that you were frustrated. however, the rollback tool has a very specific
881:
insult another editor, even if that editor is a vandal. I usually look at the diffs before reverting, but that night, I was just a tad frustrated with the editor's behavior. Take note, this user has again been blocked, this time for a week, for more personal attacks. Please review the thread
868:
I realize that yes, that was a bad usage of the feature, but please, before you question my edits during a particular moment in time, make sure you know full well what was happening. The editor who's edits I reverted had been grossly uncivil and rude towards me and several others, and had been
537:
This bad faith is only because of the way he responded to me in the original situation regarding the original redirect. I originally CSD'd it under R3, as an implausible typo. He disagreed and re-created it. I had a discussion on his talk page about it with him, in which he refused to define
1104:
about him, and start the RfC when you see fit, if others have also discussed problems with him and could certify it. Even leaving an RfC waiting in your subpages is often looked upon poorly. Don't advertise a grudge against other editors on your userpage, and AN/I is not your personal army.:)
226:
This one- you said it's A7 but hadn't bothered to check, you said others should discuss in an AfD well no, people might feel the need to discuss in an AfD but primarily they just have to provide an argument/reason for their vote, just a sentence or so next to it can suffice. Then because you
977:, the sole reason for my communication with you was to establish good faith, and logic for creating the article in the first place. After arguing my point, as we were going nowhere, i did not respond to your last comment yesterday. Today you come up with a threatening message for not using
231:
and went onto their talk page and attacked them with a partly technically erroneous policy throwing, saying he'd done something that was a blockable offence, about an issue that wasn't even to do with you, but a discussion they were having further up their talk page on 30th March 2008!
58:
took a step back and apologized. Yes, that article caused much stress, but it was mainly the trolls that have caused me the stress, the users who were willing to discuss the edits didn't cause anythin gof the sort, especially since I was able to bend both ways. After
984:
Knowledge (XXG), my friend, was not built by people who read guidelines and label others articles, it was built by tireless people who believe in the power of knowledge, especially to the third world, that is by being BOLD. Try to be a good contributor first.
515:'s talk page do you go into detail as to what your gripe is. Once again, though, it is your accusatory tone, and your command that he should not bother denying something he has not denied. All of this continues to indicate bad faith on your part. ---
121:
193:
Please re-write your review with diffs to back up your accusations. I never told anyone what to do. Secondly, I believe you should look over all of my contributions instead of just once instance at an AfD where the subject at hand did not have
1002:
me about my nomination again, again, and again on my talk page. I repeatedly told you to take it to the AfD, and not me, as that was the place to argue for a keep. Next, per your comment about labeling others' articles. I suggest you read
877:, had spent our time reverting his edits because an amount of them were uncivil and personal attacks, which, as I'm sure you know, are against policy here at WP, whether the user in question was a vandal or not is besides the point, you
125:
246:, or someone saying a song having a rendition in Family Guy was OR- of course these would be better with a third party cite but it's acceptable to reference the video or comic itself to an extent. You did ok on
820:
that he or she can't lose. I noted the possibility of loss, a wake up call, if you will. Hopefully this indication will make the user think about his or her actions a little harder before editing, next time.—
714:
Disagreeing with him about the AfD aside, are you saying that section wasn't original research? If so, shouldn't you find citations backing your position up first before you accuse another editor of bad faith?
814:
This was my understanding of A7 in terms of companies at the time. Since then, my understand has been increased, as per a user who's name I forget, either way, I will be watching more closely.
644:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
1024:, but it did have everything to do with pestering me about the nomination I did until I withdrew it, don't paint a bar of lead gold, and then call it gold. Lastly, if you make
757:
was at first a little on the spammy side, but it is a major company, andhad multiple sources to how that even when started. Why did you speedy it as A7, non-notable? Ditto for
250:
earlier in the year; I feel you need to recapture that editor you were-get on those articles and talk pages and start discussing the articles in a more relaxed way, and enjoy:)
154:^^ Whatever. I know this review is solely for your benefit so I'm not sure what the above comment is about. What you put down in the debate seemed fine to me. Most of the
271:
41% of my contributions, you seem to be ignoring other accounts of my editing contributions. Fourth, I have been focusing on content, and I don't know where you got the
133:
129:
689:
1100:
is just not what ANI is for- that is for crucial incidents. If you want to make an ongoing thing about
Jayhawk you need to make a subpage planning a
235:
You tried to speedy delete a user page because it had a link to their website, when that's perfectly allowed within reason on a user page
926:
I mostly do use it to fight vandalism. This was a rare case. I just wish that Lupin's anti-vandal tool didn't have so many errors.—
596:
791:
1. I admit a mistake on my part with that article. I honestly didn't know what to think about it, I should have taken it to AFD.—
579:
143:
50:
767:
helpful? True, the user is a returning vandal, but the sort of discussions there just give her added attention. Do you know about
1011:
in my replies to you, and every time you made not hint that you had read my text, or acknowledged me on that subject in any way.
324:." Good editors and future administrators need to have patience and maturity, and that display clearly shows a lack of both.
220:
Well, everyone else said it did, and it ended as a snowball keep. Anyway, here you are doing it to me over this very post
721:
422:
379:
330:
101:
is clearly a notable supermarket chain, as are all the other brands bundled into this AfD (note that one of these chains,
524:
464:
137:
223:
which is fair enough but this is an ER and if you didn't want feedback or intend to remove it it isn't worth having.
507:
despite never having spelled out in clear terms what exactly you are even talking about. Only in your most recent
575:
17:
574:
Bit uptight but nice enough guy and very dedicated to the project also persistent in atching vandals i would know
765:
915:
858:
546:(the original)) on a date two days after someone argued for delete in the redirects for deletion discussion.—
1111:
1076:
543:
517:
457:
256:
179:
608:
Of your contributions to
Knowledge (XXG), are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
990:
747:
704:
1043:
933:
893:
827:
798:
662:
625:
553:
489:
401:
357:
287:
205:
97:
show a mostly calm collected editor. I would recommend exercising a little more caution in AfD however;
72:
44:
851:
62:, I calmed down, and just am the editor you see today. If there is a problem, I talk it out. Nicely.
746:
I'm a little puzzled by your speedy as A7 , no indication o fnotability for a group, for the article
539:
1048:
938:
911:
898:
854:
832:
803:
612:
558:
494:
406:
362:
292:
210:
106:
94:
54:
758:
1106:
1096:
we just don't make it so obvious we are keeping tabs on other editors :) , and the comment about
1071:
394:
I had honestly not thought of that. I rescind, and shall let it archive, and take your advice.—
251:
174:
228:
869:
biting newcomers on their talk pages with uncivil and personal attack breeching comments, like
986:
726:
700:
649:
427:
384:
335:
247:
163:
59:
1097:
1059:
1029:
883:
1116:
1093:
1081:
1053:
1038:
960:
955:
943:
928:
919:
903:
888:
862:
837:
822:
808:
793:
785:
731:
708:
672:
654:
635:
617:
583:
563:
548:
532:
499:
484:
472:
432:
411:
396:
389:
367:
352:
340:
297:
282:
261:
215:
200:
184:
167:
149:
115:
82:
64:
40:
1101:
1004:
978:
768:
243:
239:
23:
754:
512:
452:
1092:
No-one has a userpage that contains things like this (especially the
Jayhawk comment)
122:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd nomination)
973:
You have threatened me with consequences on creating an article on an Indian actress
781:
320:. Especially considering Jimbo has acknowledged the issue and said he would need a "
716:
417:
374:
325:
159:
948:
They were perfectly acceptable uses of rollback - reverting vandalism by
Jayhawk.
102:
974:
950:
874:
227:
disagreed with someone's view there and felt attacked you had an attack of the
105:, has ten good sources in the article, and it still wound up in the AfD).
776:
126:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (5th nomination)
682:
322:
few days (at best) to study it (and a couple of weeks is more likely)
233:
141:
consider these comments as hopefully a helpful suggestion. Best, --
910:
purpose (to fight vandalism) and is often removed for its misuse.
242:- saying that someone saying blood in a comic story was black was
615:
because of the consensus we archived that satisfied all parties.
373:
takes him three weeks, or a month? Do you intend to keep it up?
132:. After all, even I am willing to do just that as evidenced by
98:
652:, because that is where I lost my cool. Thankyou for you time.
158:
votes that stuck around appeared to have incredible patience.
416:
Ah, the grasshopper is willing to learn. Always a good sign.
196:
significant reliable sources independent from the subject.
870:
750:. It does seem a little unclear it spots, but deletion?
695:
508:
448:
321:
317:
314:
311:
308:
236:
224:
221:
998:
thought otherwise, and as a result, you pestered and
688:
I don't think this would have been your finest hour:
134:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis
690:Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Fatsuit
8:
280:reliable sources in indicate notability.—
93:Mostly I like what I see; the edits to
1058:Yes you did threaten to report him to
696:delete the same article piece-by-piece
694:Although following it up by trying to
1018:sole reason for communication with me
7:
879:never, no matter the circumstances
595:View this user's edit count using
31:
698:is not behaviour in good faith.
884:WP:AN/I#User:Jayhawk of Justice
850:] to be proper rollback usage?
1026:accusations against any editor
611:I am pleased with the article
597:Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
433:02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
412:01:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
390:01:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
368:01:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
341:01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
298:03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
262:02:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
216:01:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
185:18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
138:Knowledge (XXG):Editors matter
1:
920:04:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
904:22:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
863:21:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
838:04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
809:04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
786:19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
764:Do you think the exchange at
648:refering to what I call, the
584:06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
564:01:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
533:01:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
500:23:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
473:00:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Editor review
1117:01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1082:01:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1054:23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
961:19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
944:22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
145:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
732:16:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
709:16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
1133:
1094:User:Daedalus969#Userlinks
673:22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
636:22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
83:22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
1020:, had nothing to do with
873:. I and another editor,
168:09:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
150:08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
848:would you consider this
116:22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
24:User:Daedalus969/Re Redi
576:The Nice Hollaback Girl
748:Syro Malabar Eparchies
544:Fetish: Footage: Forum
681:Your behaviour over
540:Fetish:Footage:Forum
1028:, then you provide
613:Rock Lobster (song)
95:Rock Lobster (song)
55:Rock Lobster (song)
519:RepublicanJacobite
459:RepublicanJacobite
447:I am disturbed by
1032:to back them up,
666:
665:
629:
628:
248:Talk:Rock_Lobster
113:
76:
75:
22:(Redirected from
1124:
1041:
953:
931:
891:
825:
796:
729:
724:
719:
661:
660:
657:
650:Vanboto Incident
624:
623:
620:
551:
531:
527:
520:
487:
471:
467:
460:
430:
425:
420:
399:
387:
382:
377:
355:
338:
333:
328:
285:
203:
148:
146:
111:
109:
108:Ten Pound Hammer
71:
70:
67:
27:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1089:
1051:
1039:
971:
969:High-handedness
951:
941:
929:
901:
889:
846:
835:
823:
806:
794:
743:
727:
722:
717:
686:
671:
655:
634:
618:
561:
549:
530:
525:
518:
516:
497:
485:
470:
465:
458:
456:
428:
423:
418:
409:
397:
385:
380:
375:
365:
353:
336:
331:
326:
295:
283:
213:
201:
144:
142:
107:
81:
65:
38:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1130:
1128:
1120:
1119:
1088:
1087:Userpage/ AN/I
1085:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1047:
1013:
1012:
970:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
937:
912:Theserialcomma
907:
906:
897:
855:Theserialcomma
845:
842:
841:
840:
831:
816:
815:
811:
802:
773:
772:
762:
755:Tejas Networks
751:
742:
741:some questions
739:
737:
735:
734:
699:
685:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
667:
642:
640:
639:
638:
630:
600:
599:
587:
586:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
557:
526:The'FortyFive'
522:
503:
502:
493:
476:
475:
466:The'FortyFive'
462:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
405:
361:
344:
343:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
291:
218:
209:
188:
187:
170:
152:
118:
112:and his otters
77:
37:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1129:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1045:
1042:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1009:several times
1006:
1001:
996:
995:
994:
992:
988:
982:
980:
976:
968:
962:
959:
958:
957:
954:
947:
946:
945:
942:
940:
935:
932:
925:
924:
923:
921:
917:
913:
905:
902:
900:
895:
892:
885:
880:
876:
872:
867:
866:
865:
864:
860:
856:
853:
849:
843:
839:
836:
834:
829:
826:
818:
817:
812:
810:
807:
805:
800:
797:
790:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
778:
770:
766:
763:
760:
756:
752:
749:
745:
744:
740:
738:
733:
730:
725:
720:
713:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
697:
692:
691:
684:
680:
674:
670:
664:
659:
658:
651:
646:
645:
643:
641:
637:
633:
627:
622:
621:
614:
610:
609:
607:
606:
605:
604:
598:
594:
593:
592:
591:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
565:
562:
560:
555:
552:
545:
541:
536:
535:
534:
529:
528:
521:
514:
510:
505:
504:
501:
498:
496:
491:
488:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
469:
468:
461:
454:
450:
446:
445:
434:
431:
426:
421:
415:
414:
413:
410:
408:
403:
400:
393:
392:
391:
388:
383:
378:
371:
370:
369:
366:
364:
359:
356:
348:
347:
346:
345:
342:
339:
334:
329:
323:
319:
316:
313:
310:
307:
306:
299:
296:
294:
289:
286:
279:
274:
270:
265:
264:
263:
260:
259:
255:
254:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
230:
225:
222:
219:
217:
214:
212:
207:
204:
197:
192:
191:
190:
189:
186:
183:
182:
178:
177:
171:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
151:
147:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
117:
110:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
90:
89:
85:
84:
80:
74:
69:
68:
61:
56:
52:
49:
46:
42:
36:
33:
25:
19:
1112:
1107:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1037:
1033:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:Fifth, your
1008:
999:
987:Randhirreddy
983:
972:
956:
949:
927:
908:
887:
878:
847:
821:
792:
775:
774:
759:GuideStar UK
736:
701:Andy Dingley
693:
687:
668:
653:
631:
616:
602:
601:
589:
588:
547:
523:
483:
463:
395:
351:
281:
277:
272:
268:
257:
252:
199:
195:
180:
175:
155:
87:
86:
78:
63:
60:User:Vanboto
47:
39:
34:
975:Roja Ramani
875:User:Grsz11
852:WP:rollback
753:Similarly,
451:message on
278:significant
41:Daedalus969
35:Daedalus969
1022:good faith
120:Regarding
103:Dominick's
603:Questions
590:Comments
542:, versus
513:Skomorokh
453:Skomorokh
318:obnoxious
315:painfully
229:WP:POINTs
130:potential
1000:pestered
844:rollback
136:. Yes,
88:Reviews
51:contribs
1098:WP:AN/I
1060:WP:AN/I
1049:Improve
939:Improve
899:Improve
833:Improve
804:Improve
683:Fatsuit
656:Dædαlus
619:Dædαlus
559:Improve
509:message
495:Improve
407:Improve
363:Improve
293:Improve
273:editors
211:Improve
160:Protonk
66:Dædαlus
1113:Parkin
1108:Sticky
1102:WP:RFC
1078:Parkin
1073:Sticky
1034:period
1005:WP:OWN
979:WP:SIG
769:WP:RBI
258:Parkin
253:Sticky
181:Parkin
176:Sticky
156:delete
1044:dαlus
1030:diffs
934:dαlus
894:dαlus
828:dαlus
799:dαlus
554:dαlus
490:dαlus
402:dαlus
358:dαlus
288:dαlus
244:WP:OR
240:WP:OR
206:dαlus
16:<
991:talk
952:Grsz
916:talk
871:this
859:talk
782:talk
728:Mate
705:talk
663:T@lk
626:T@lk
580:talk
449:this
429:Mate
386:Mate
337:Mate
309:This
164:talk
124:and
99:Vons
73:T@lk
45:talk
1036:.—
922:."
886:.—
777:DGG
511:on
269:not
114:•
1040:Dæ
993:)
930:Dæ
918:)
890:Dæ
861:)
824:Dæ
795:Dæ
784:)
723:ni
707:)
582:)
550:Dæ
486:Dæ
424:ni
398:Dæ
381:ni
354:Dæ
332:ni
312:is
284:Dæ
202:Dæ
198:—
166:)
1046:/
989:(
936:/
914:(
896:/
857:(
830:/
801:/
780:(
771:?
761:?
718:A
703:(
669:\
632:\
578:(
556:/
492:/
419:A
404:/
376:A
360:/
327:A
290:/
208:/
162:(
79:\
48:·
43:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.