1260:
method to maintain accuracy for descriptions of political races. Newspapers discuss current events. If
Knowledge is truly an "encylopedia", it should focus on the know-able and focus on history. Recent history may be okay, e.g. Katrina. However, political races involve people's opinions, rather than event descriptions. Knowledge, if it wants to be a tax-deductible 'đź’•', should consider avoiding topics where Wiki itself can become a tool to shape opinions in political races. Is Wiki a newspaper and its articles just Op-Ed candidate endorsements or is Wiki an 'encyclopedia'? (Are some Wikipedians really just acting like their own 527 political interest group, with Wiki articles as their free method to distribute their campaign message? It can appear this way.)
793:
713:
681:
655:
630:
605:
575:
560:
543:
392:
337:
273:
233:
1075:
for people reading the article that might not be savvy to that euphemism or aren't from the United States. Coleman makes no exceptions in his opposition to abortion, that's a relevant fact, and should be clarified in the article. I would strongly encourage you to re-write it if you think that it is poorly worded, but unilaterally taking that out is removing useful information from the article.
1157:
neutralize the piece, would it be better to just call it RU-486 with a link to the article on the pill? I am not sure if that one issue is going to be that important in the race, but I think we should try and make it acceptable to all. If RU-486 is not the 'contraceptive' in question, then forget everything I just said.
1115:
The photos you asserted were "out of place" seems strange to me. This is an article about Norm
Coleman. These photos are photos in the public domain of Norm Coleman 1). Speaking at Hofstra Univ 2). Hanging an anti-war flag in protest of the Vietnam war 3). Campaigning for Student Senate President. It
735:
Ajdz, Nescio has raised a couple of points, and he seems to have found some critics who support them. We don't need to automatically accept what they say, but we shouldn't just dismiss them either, simply because they have a POV. We all have a POV on most things, the challenge for us all is to find
1070:
And for the record, I don't think that I "angrily reverted it." This was something that had been removed in the past, there was no explanation as to why it was removed, and it was marked as a minor edit. I reverted that change with a note about marking edits as minor, and I'm sorry if it looked like
1259:
Mr Petro would dispute the "he is the front-runner" claim (although he probably is). Depending on the poll, the
Republican primary is pretty close. It's silly for Wiki to include highly dynamic info such as who is the "front-runner". Since Wiki is based on volunteers, it does not have a reliable
1074:
The reason why that statement was in the article is because a previously similar statement was replaced with
Coleman simply calling himself "pro-life." While I'm not going to get into the argument over whether or not "pro-life" is an NPOV label, I - and others - believe that it should be clarified
1167:
I don't know all the details because the source in his own article is an anti-Mike
Ferguson blog. The last time I checked it looked like he might possibly oppose or be less than supportive of the morning after pill (which I believe is different than RU-486, but raising exactly the issue that you
1094:
Thanks for the clarification. I do think the statement still looks redundant (which is the only reason I removed it in the first place), mostly because it remains vague, but I don't know enough about
Coleman's positions to rewrite it. For example, does he oppose abortion to save the life of the
556:
Please, address the arguments instead of deleting this post. Clearly, your POV is more important than engaging debate. Furthermore, deleting entries to other articles mentioning these points, seems petty as long as you are unwilling to comment on the issues raised above. One can only conclude you
217:
is truly frightening to hear from a
Supreme Court nominee. This view harkens back to the divine right of kings (the king is accountable to no one but God), which was forever rejected by our American Revolution. Alito is clearly signaling that if he serves on the Supreme Court, he will serve as a
1293:
I think this is the first time we've crossed paths on
Knowledge. Based on your comments on the Coleman talk page, it's a pleasure running into a level headed person for a change on one of the articles on a member of Congress. If you're interested, could you please help me out and take a look at
1156:
Just seeking your input on the Mike
Ferguson bit. When we talk about a 'controversial contraceptive' are we talking about RU-486? This is another one of those examples where we get into Hill-Speak. The left calls it a contraceptive pill while the right calls it an abortion pill. In order to
106:
That doesn't make the dates notable. It sounds like a bug (if it's so important, come up with another way to convert without overlinking) - but I don't see why having different forms of dates is any worse than having
English/American spelling variations, as long as usage is consistent within an
1341:
The film, like many small indepdent projects, is not heard of as yet. But I can tell you it is being made professionally and if you need proof of my involvment or proof of its existence as not just some silly like POS film then I'll give you proof. I can foward you dozens of production emails.
200:
In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself
170:
Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ...
927:
1236:, that sentence was not supported by any citation, and it was particularly provocative and implausible. It's not removed so that if a reliable source verifying the information can be found, it can be put back in, while in the meantime that condition is brought to editor's attention.
667:
Giant irrelevant rants aren't worth "addressing." I don't care what you think of President Bush or how afraid you are that American death squads are going to swoop into your house and haul you away to Gitmo. Just don't pretend that you own wikipedia.
1263:
Mr Strickland would also dispute the "he is the front-runner" claim (and local Ohio blogs would likely agree). Come November, the not-a-Republican vote -- which is currently polling to Strickland -- could easily go instead to Libertarian Mr Peirce.
1479:
1383:
214:
Alito apparently believes that a president may decide by executive fiat what law is or is not constitutional, and whether he is bound by the rule of law. Alito's willingness to elevate the president to an exalted status above the
790:, hope you can try and explain why you edited out a sourced comment. You clearly disagree with the reference, could you at least tell us why you object to inserting views critics have of Alito and the Unitary Executive theory? --
208:“I have carefully read the writings, the speeches and the decisions of Samuel Alito in , and they all point in one direction: a very troubling pattern of great deference to executive authority,” Chemerinsky said in his testimony.
223:
Whatever else Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander in
1066:
are making something a wikilink, changing the spelling of something or formatting something, not adding or removing content (many of your changes in that edit would be considered minor, except the part I took exception to).
532:. If the opponents of Alito are correct in their interpretation of what the theory holds, this means all the above can be done without legal repercussions. This is a frightning idea to me, because already people are being
1168:
described). I've just been trying to prevent significant overgeneralization and wouldn't be surprised if someone who knows more about that specific race would say it isn't even worth including here. Does that help? --
245:
Those quotes are irrelevant for the statement that you have such an attachment to. Your claim is to describe the Bush administration's position, but you ignore the words of the Bush administration IN YOUR OWN SOURCES.
184:
Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But
1183:
If only sourced news ISN'T passable by you, what CAN we agree on to deal with the nacional influences that will affect these races? Not all Federal politics is exactly broken into their alloted districts...
950:
The section is about her senate term. This was a major vote and she voted against the Democratic Senate leadership and sided with Bill Frist on probably the most important judicial vote of her entire life.
760:
My edits have, for the most part, been VERY small. That leaves no reason to respond in detail to giant rants, as above, especially when the comments I do make are reverted and ignored without comment.
540:. How do I know, this administration will not kidnap me, or invade my country? It would all be warranted and legal under the advanced theory (correction: possible interpretation as seen by critics).--
642:
Correcting grammar necessarily requires changing of contents. But beyond that, the problem is your fanatical attachment to bad/POV text, as mentioned above, repeatedly. You do not own wikipedia. --
163:
Correcting grammar is one thing, editing the meaning of my contribution I do not like. As to my misrepresenting the facts, please what does the following mean, and how is it different from the edit?
1198:, which has been discussed on the article's talk page. The section you seem to be referring to has been debated for the last month and removed for multiple reasons. Please compare this article to
739:
I'm not an expert on Alito or Unitary Excutive theory, but I think I'm able to judge competing claims on their merits. Would either of you mind if I asked each of you a few questions? Thanks,
1062:
I apologize if you think that I was overreacting with my reversion, but there was good reason for what I did and what I said. As for your edit being marked as minor, I believe that it wasn't.
305:
As a Dutch person, what is your obsession with Alito? I am wondering if this is caused by a misunderstanding of American law which separates the Constitution from Congressional statutes. --
732:
Neither of you owns Knowledge. And as far as I know, neither of you has access to more or less of the facts than the other. Both of you have a responsibility to work through those facts.
572:
Once more, I would like to ask you to discuss the matter in stead of editing out the disputed comments. As long as you are unwilling to debate I take your action to be not in good faith.--
954:
I met the Senator last week and have met her several times since I am a political activist in the Washington State Democratic party. I cut her a campaign check that I now regret. --
389:
As to my being Dutch, there are numerous reasons for me as individual, and Dutch citizen, to be interested in US politics. If you are interested I am more than willing to explain.--
171:
interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security."
1215:
Replied on relevant talk page. Also, the "debate" seems to be you, I, and one other person (Not counting the accedintal reversion because someone else thought it was vandalism).
1116:
doesn't get more "in place." This is a depiction of his political history and ideologies plus shows how active he has been in politics since a young age. 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
461:
824:
Nescio, just for the moment, I think it would help if you let me ask the questions. I'll pretty much alternate between you, so you'll each get a say and a chance to respond.
678:
I give up. You clearly are not interested in resolving the dispute. Since you are not engeaging in debate it would be civil to no longer edit the articles in question.--
327:
177:
He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances
1352:
964:
The paragraph did not convey that message. I don't have a problem with it being there, mostly that you restored a less-clear version instead of improving it. --
117:
1095:
mother? A source might be useful here. In fact, if sourced, your statement would work quite well: "Coleman makes no exceptions in his opposition to abortion"
1203:
1441:
to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. —
444:
The US through history has intervened worldwide in local politics. Some of it good, some of it bad. Among the bad examples we can think of the role the
1461:
1141:
I removed the two of the three that were in sections about much later parts of his life. (I have also replied to the discussion on the talk page) --
187:
he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses.
938:
1199:
226:
1195:
1312:
There is so much that is trivial in those articles that it makes me wonder if it's worth it. I'll try to follow the debate though. --
1280:
1022:
As I said, he was not a candidate at that time and theoretical candidates (there remain many, many more) should not be included. --
502:
However, in stead of ensuring the world is a better place, the Bush administration is supporting war criminals by frustrating the
1434:
1330:. I clarified the relationship between the speakers and the org. in the ACS entry. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
1132:
1100:
If I had been following this article when you were having deletion problems before, I probably would have agreed with you. --
198:
However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively.
827:
Ajdz, Do you mind if I ask a few short questions? I promise not to ask anything to which I expect a long answer. Regards,
1078:
Again, I apologize if you felt I was harsh; I'm just a little zealous sometimes about making this a quality article. --
707:
503:
129:
90:
1358:
Greetings Mr Ronald Moore. For your information, I have given evidence that I think that this is a pure hoax. Regards,
445:
517:
Furthermore, we have seen that these foreign policies have counterpruductive effect, as can be seen in the rise of
1246:
Thanks. It looks like something that should be removed entirely, but maybe it is helping editors in their work. --
1478:
As I have labored hard on the article, I would appreciate your looking it over. You can find a discussion here:
936:
860:
I'll take your silence as a no. If you decide to change your mind, just leave a note on my talk page. Regards,
120:. You're not really required to link dates, although it is a courtesy to do so, but please don't remove them. --
81:) linked, as it allows the "Date format" preference for registered users to work. Thanks, and happy editing! --
1420:
529:
478:
617:
I don't care if you have the POV of a peanut as long as you get over your fanatical attachment to bad text. --
419:
That is why I asked, although not the interest in politics as much as the obsession with such small issues. --
210:
533:
449:
1327:
Here is a link to what I believe was my source for the list of speakers. Bob Barr is on there somewhere.
230:
Does this say that the Bush administration might claim to be above the law. national and international?--
1365:
1276:
792:
712:
680:
654:
629:
604:
574:
559:
542:
391:
336:
272:
232:
1272:
1268:
1237:
1120:
1063:
931:
861:
828:
787:
740:
496:
37:, use the appropriate tag and it will be deleted without the need to go through deletion review. --
1359:
984:
928:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination)
1446:
1298:
I'm having a hard time keeping the trivial material out the article given the 3RR. Best regards,
1216:
1185:
1128:
988:
652:
Feel free to address the arguments I have provided, we can discuss and try and find compromise.--
537:
507:
481:
268:
that as Commander-in-Chief the President can not be restrained by law, national or international.
476:
205:
1489:
1084:
1056:
590:
Your comments speak for themselves. Please get over your fanatical attachment to POV text. --
468:
440:
Second, if the assertion is correct, this most certainly is not a small issue. I'll explain.
1331:
457:
134:
124:
95:
85:
1343:
518:
453:
220:
292:
To adopt the view of the critics violates Knowledge's policy of a neutral point of view (
264:
he will support the Bush administration in its interpretation of the Unitary Executive,
980:
693:
Thank you. I hope you take that time to reflect on your non-ownership of wikipedia. --
331:
38:
465:
1442:
1387:
1303:
1124:
955:
34:
26:
1465:
1369:
1079:
1048:
1036:
1013:
498:
173:
30:
500:
190:
181:
492:
472:
1158:
796:
716:
684:
658:
633:
608:
578:
563:
546:
511:
494:
395:
340:
276:
236:
121:
82:
1419:
An interesting read. For the most part, I wholly agree what you're getting at.
116:
I'm afraid you're arguing to the wrong person. You may wish to take a look at
1399:
488:
67:
62:
Welcome! When you are removing overlinking, you should leave dates (such as
1480:
Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of United States federal legislation
1469:
1403:
1313:
1247:
1207:
1169:
1142:
1101:
1023:
998:
965:
898:
762:
694:
669:
643:
618:
591:
420:
365:
306:
297:
247:
145:
108:
63:
48:
602:
And you still are not discussing but bullying me into accepting your POV.--
467:
In addition, we can look at current affairs such as the memos refuting the
1299:
926:
An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see
75:
270:
Maybe we can meet halfway, mention the official position Bush takes.--
1035:
I understand your reasoning now, previously it was rather unclear --
983:, you might wish to comment on an issue I've raised on the article's
1194:
I assume you're talking about the appropriateness of speculation in
474:
1071:
I was being harsh (would an angry revert have a "please" in it?).
522:
330:, as long as it is identified as such, this is in accordance with
1492:
1472:
1450:
1423:
1406:
1390:
1372:
1346:
1316:
1306:
1250:
1240:
1219:
1210:
1188:
1172:
1161:
1145:
1104:
1088:
1039:
1026:
1016:
1001:
991:
968:
958:
940:
901:
864:
831:
799:
765:
743:
719:
697:
687:
672:
661:
646:
636:
621:
611:
594:
581:
566:
549:
423:
398:
368:
343:
309:
300:
293:
279:
250:
239:
148:
139:
111:
100:
71:
51:
41:
259:
Apparently, I am not allowed to mention the view critics have.
1328:
484:
status. This shows there is a destructive side to US policies.
78:
510:
are quaint. In effect, the US is mounting an attack on the
218:
rubber stamp for the exercise of unchecked executive power.
1398:
As I replied on the Coleman page, leaving out the quotes
1433:
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to
195:
Stance towards Presidential powers according to critics:
1295:
1233:
979:I thought that as someone who has recently edited
786:Accusations do not help. I welcome the offer by
1012:told ya he was a candidate! take care now, --
159:a great example of what is wrong with Knowledge
1353:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Benedict Huang
627:Changing contents is not correcting grammar!--
118:Knowledge:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
8:
1228:why is there a commented out sentence here?
1204:United States gubernatorial elections, 2006
557:back away from this for lack of argument.--
897:This little one's not worth the effort. --
706:Of course, just like you might be reading
1462:List of United States federal legislation
144:I've read it, don't get so worried. --
7:
1200:United States Senate elections, 2006
448:or U.S. subjects have played in the
1196:United States House elections, 2006
437:First, there are no small issues.
1460:I thought you'd like to know that
328:Discussion of criticism is allowed
14:
1402:the news story in the results. --
736:a NPOV that we can all live with.
791:
711:
679:
653:
628:
603:
573:
558:
541:
390:
335:
271:
231:
487:These actions could be seen as
364:If only you were doing that. --
167:What critics say on his record:
1493:23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
47:Thanks for the information. --
1:
1323:American Constitution Society
1105:22:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
1089:20:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
1040:05:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
1027:03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
902:04:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
25:, instead of listing them on
21:In the case of articles like
1017:21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
1002:02:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
992:00:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
969:06:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
959:06:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
941:05:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
865:05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
832:19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
800:19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
766:17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
744:08:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
720:08:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
698:08:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
688:08:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
673:08:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
662:08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
647:07:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
637:07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
622:07:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
612:07:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
595:07:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
582:07:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
567:07:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
550:12:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
504:International Criminal Court
424:16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
399:08:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
369:16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
344:08:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
310:08:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
301:08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
280:08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
251:08:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
240:08:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
179:built into the Constitution.
149:19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
140:19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
112:19:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
101:18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
52:15:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
42:04:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
1464:has been nominated to be a
1508:
1373:08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
1347:08:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
1317:05:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
1307:02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
1251:02:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
1241:22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
1220:02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
1211:16:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
1189:08:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
1173:18:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
1162:17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
1152:Congressional Race Article
58:A supporter of overlinking
1386:and tell that needs " ".
1451:15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
530:Unitary Executive theory
35:speedy deletion criteria
29:, you can mark them for
1468:. It needs 4 votes by
1456:Featured list candidate
1424:07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
1407:07:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
1391:07:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
1146:01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
538:denied due legal proces
471:and justifying torture,
450:Gulf of Tonkin Incident
528:This brings us to the
506:and by suggesting the
462:School of the Americas
266:which is thought to be
536:around the world and
1435:substitute with text
1379:Plagiarism - Coleman
946:Maria Cantwell edits
521:, and most recently
1415:Whats wrong with...
1111:Norm Coleman Photos
446:U.S. administration
33:. If it meets the
708:resolving disputes
508:Geneva Conventions
482:unlawful combatant
1449:
1285:
1271:comment added by
1179:OK, so what then?
1137:
1123:comment added by
469:Geneva Convention
1499:
1445:
1366:Have your say!!!
1362:
1284:
1265:
1136:
1117:
934:
795:
715:
683:
657:
632:
607:
577:
562:
545:
458:Operation Condor
394:
339:
275:
235:
137:
132:
127:
98:
93:
88:
1507:
1506:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1458:
1431:
1417:
1381:
1360:
1356:
1339:
1325:
1291:
1266:
1230:
1181:
1154:
1118:
1113:
1052:
1010:
977:
948:
932:
924:
519:Osama Bin Laden
454:My Lai Massacre
161:
135:
130:
125:
96:
91:
86:
60:
31:speedy deletion
19:
12:
11:
5:
1505:
1503:
1457:
1454:
1430:
1427:
1416:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1380:
1377:
1355:
1350:
1338:
1335:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1290:
1287:
1256:
1254:
1253:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1153:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1097:
1096:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1030:
1029:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1004:
981:Maria Cantwell
976:
975:Maria Cantwell
973:
972:
971:
947:
944:
923:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
825:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
737:
733:
725:
724:
723:
722:
701:
700:
676:
675:
650:
649:
625:
624:
600:
599:
598:
597:
585:
584:
555:
553:
552:
526:
515:
485:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
303:
285:
284:
283:
282:
254:
253:
160:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
59:
56:
55:
54:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1504:
1495:
1494:
1491:
1486:
1483:
1481:
1476:
1474:
1471:
1467:
1466:Featured List
1463:
1455:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1428:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1414:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1378:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1354:
1351:
1349:
1348:
1345:
1336:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1322:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1288:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1261:
1257:
1252:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1239:
1235:
1227:
1221:
1218:
1217:68.39.174.238
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1186:68.39.174.238
1178:
1174:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1160:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1110:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1050:
1047:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1007:
1003:
1000:
996:
995:
994:
993:
990:
986:
982:
974:
970:
967:
963:
962:
961:
960:
957:
952:
945:
943:
942:
939:
937:
935:
929:
921:
903:
900:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
866:
863:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
833:
830:
826:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
801:
798:
794:
789:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
767:
764:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
745:
742:
738:
734:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
721:
718:
714:
709:
705:
704:
703:
702:
699:
696:
692:
691:
690:
689:
686:
682:
674:
671:
666:
665:
664:
663:
660:
656:
648:
645:
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
631:
623:
620:
616:
615:
614:
613:
610:
606:
596:
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
583:
580:
576:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
551:
548:
544:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
520:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
499:
497:
495:
493:
490:
486:
483:
479:
477:
475:
473:
470:
466:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
442:
441:
438:
425:
422:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
400:
397:
393:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
370:
367:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
345:
342:
338:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
311:
308:
304:
302:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
281:
278:
274:
269:
267:
263:
258:
257:
256:
255:
252:
249:
244:
243:
242:
241:
238:
234:
228:
227:
225:
221:
219:
216:
211:
209:
206:
204:
202:
196:
192:
191:
189:
188:
182:
180:
178:
174:
172:
168:
164:
158:
150:
147:
143:
142:
141:
138:
133:
128:
123:
119:
115:
114:
113:
110:
105:
104:
103:
102:
99:
94:
89:
84:
80:
77:
73:
69:
65:
57:
53:
50:
46:
45:
44:
43:
40:
36:
32:
28:
24:
17:Speedy Delete
16:
1487:
1484:
1477:
1459:
1438:
1432:
1418:
1382:
1357:
1340:
1326:
1292:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1231:
1182:
1155:
1114:
1083:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1061:
1057:your comment
1054:
1053:
1049:Norm Coleman
1011:
978:
953:
949:
925:
797:Nomen Nescio
717:Nomen Nescio
685:Nomen Nescio
677:
659:Nomen Nescio
651:
634:Nomen Nescio
626:
609:Nomen Nescio
601:
579:Nomen Nescio
564:Nomen Nescio
554:
547:Nomen Nescio
460:through the
439:
436:
396:Nomen Nescio
341:Nomen Nescio
277:Nomen Nescio
265:
262:They believe
261:
260:
237:Nomen Nescio
229:
222:
213:
212:
207:
199:
197:
194:
193:
186:
183:
176:
175:
169:
166:
165:
162:
61:
23:Mike Panetta
22:
20:
1485:Thank you!
1447:Talk to me!
1429:Reminder...
1400:plagiarizes
1332:Jessesamuel
1273:67.102.48.2
1267:—Preceding
1232:In regards
1119:—Preceding
1064:Minor edits
862:Ben Aveling
829:Ben Aveling
788:Ben Aveling
741:Ben Aveling
512:rule of law
480:the use of
326:Incorrect!
107:article. --
1437:by adding
1384:Query this
1344:Ryan Moore
1238:Kevin Baas
1055:Regarding
997:Thanks. --
922:DC streets
489:war crimes
68:January 12
1470:October 2
1443:Ian Manka
1370:review me
1296:this edit
985:talk page
933:brenneman
534:kidnapped
456:, aid to
64:10 August
39:JLaTondre
1388:AaronRoe
1361:ßlηguγΣη
1281:contribs
1269:unsigned
1133:contribs
1125:AaronRoe
1121:unsigned
956:8bitJake
203:........
1490:Markles
1421:michael
1080:MicahMN
1037:StevenL
1014:StevenL
989:Brendan
332:WP:NPOV
201:signed,
76:12 June
1439:subst:
1159:Montco
224:chief.
122:AySz88
83:AySz88
27:WP:AFD
1337:Hello
523:Hamas
296:). --
74:, or
1473:2006
1404:Ajdz
1314:Ajdz
1304:Talk
1277:talk
1248:Ajdz
1208:Ajdz
1206:. --
1202:and
1170:Ajdz
1143:Ajdz
1129:talk
1102:Ajdz
1024:Ajdz
1008:Webb
999:Ajdz
966:Ajdz
930:. -
899:Ajdz
763:Ajdz
695:Ajdz
670:Ajdz
644:Ajdz
619:Ajdz
592:Ajdz
421:Ajdz
366:Ajdz
307:Ajdz
298:Ajdz
294:NPOV
248:Ajdz
146:Ajdz
109:Ajdz
72:1423
49:Ajdz
1300:172
710:.--
334:.--
215:law
79:545
1482:.
1475:.
1375:.
1368:-
1364:|
1302:|
1289:Hi
1283:)
1279:•
1135:)
1131:•
1082:|
987:.
761:--
668:--
452:,
246:--
70:,
66:,
1488:—
1275:(
1234:*
1127:(
1085:ÎĽ
525:.
514:.
491:.
464:.
136:^
131:-
126:^
97:^
92:-
87:^
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.