User talk:Rambling Rambler

322:

editing activity with the content of the article ("recent" being subjective, but six months is reasonable) and few prospects of improvement. A keep at AfD does not, however, indicate that a merge is a bad idea: if the prospect of merging had broad support at an AfD but the discussion was closed as keep, considering suggesting a merge following the appropriate procedures. The second thing I want to add is that you don't need to apologize for good-faith mistakes. The response you made above indicates that you have made mistakes regarding policy now and in the past but, in this case, you did so with no ill-intent. I take you at your word that you won't do something like this again and now have a better understanding of what went wrong. Let me know if you need any help! ~

743: 436:

content dispute" so quite frankly didn't want to deal with that crap again. Also at that point I hadn't really spent much time looking at how far back their misbehaviour's gone, so it seemed to me to be the first instance of them going from disruptive editing to full blown potential vandalism (it was only soon after that I found multiple instances of it either happening first hand or reports like yours commenting they'd seen it).

238: 923: 34: 1400:? It's only a list of current sections. Without it there is actually no merger since nothing has actually been added from the 2019 article. (The duplicate material had originally been added to 2019 from the 1974 article a few weeks ago ie its been in the 1974 article for the past 5 years and originated there.) 1377:

And yes, the AfD was to merge, but notice the closing comments of "If all of the referenced content has already been merged to the target article, then this page will just beome (sic) a redirect". The referenced material was already moved across, and the section list for CWI (2019) being copied into

1276:

What's strange is that you used Twinkle to tag this article and a notice should have been posted automatically. Can you check your Twinkle Preferences and make sure you have checked off the box that states "Notify page creator if possible". And, while you are at it, go into the CSD options and check

215:

I was to simply take it at face value though and assume they were all accurate, none of them fail to deal with the problem that is the group having a general lack of notability. If we had an article for every "party" that maybe gets a low-level local government councillor or two in an election cycle

1538:

I see he has a point in that most of the sources are blogs. The Tourish article/book is about the CWI and while it may apply to IMT/RCI by extension it doesn't actually refer to the IMT directly or indirectly. The Richardson review is about a collection of Ted Grant's works published before the IMT

994:

That's fine. It's not bad to be enthusiastic but I would suggest you start off by improving individual articles you have an interest first and get into the feel of the site and how policies work in practice compared to always as written, as opposed to mass reverting lots of changes to a wide number

435:

Because I'd recently referred another user to a different admin (in that case I had suspicions of them being a single-purpose account) who came down like a tonne of bricks and decided automatically that reporting a user by name to a "random admin" was simply attempting to "get back at someone for a

1277:

off all of the different CSD criteria. It's crucially important that content creators receive notification when articles they created might be deleted because they often can make changes that address the deletion rationale. And, more importantly, it's just being considerate to your fellow editors.

454:

Look, this isn't a matter for AIV. There's something of an unwritten rule there that an established editor (more than 100 edits) who isn't vandalizing scores of pages is not a candidate for AIV. This is because further evidence is needed to establish a pattern of abuse, which is what ANI is for. I

439:

The utterly absurd thing here is that so far no-one's disputed that the other user's behaviour is out of line and is significant enough to warrant action, yet it's my efforts to report that correctly and get something done about it by admins has seen myself getting ping-ponged between ANI and AIV.

809:

It doesn't matter when it was created. Knowledge articles have to meet core policies on verifiability, reliability and neutrality, and if they don't then it's either leave what is citable as stubs or, if effectively duplicating other articles, you AfD. There's no special rules for older articles,

761:

I'll keep it as a stub for now, see if anyone can find detailed enough sources to expand it. Giving a brief scan on the results that came up the books centred around the group seem to be written by Ted Grant and Alan Woods (so should be avoided given they're heavily associated with it), are to do

702:

Well, it would seem the problem has been resolved. Let me know if you ever encounter something similar and want a second pair of eyes to give it a glance. Thanks for sticking with it despite the handful of frustrating switchbacks. You helped preserve the project from a great deal of disruption. ~

487:

I would strongly support opening a new ANI thread. However, if you are willing to wait at least 15 hours, I would appreciate that. I have a somewhat convoluted tech project that I have to complete for work by tomorrow afternoon, so I'll be focussing on that for the remainder of the evening. After

321:

Apology more than accepted. Two things that I should add. First off, a keep at an AfD indicates that a merge would almost certainly be controversial. Likely controversial merges should always be discussed before making the merge; good indications of a suitable BOLD merge candidate are no recent

207:

I don't really know what you want me to say here. All you've given me is a list of supposed source names that don't have any links with them, so you've provided no evidence that the named user's edits were "incorrect". Frankly after having attempted to google some of the references all I get is

857:

No, that's not the point I made. If you had well-regarded, proven experts who were Christians documenting Christianity in a demonstrably peer-reviewed journal that dealt on Theology, that's acceptable. If you had some guy from the bible belt with a "journal" that was self-published it wouldn't

1223:

I cleared out several sections that claim to be active on the CWI page but in reality had been dead a while. One (can’t remember which) only had a Facebook page where the last evidence of in-person activity of any size was a demonstration at the embassy of the section’s country in London.

283:

I can only give my sincere apologies for this. I had believed that the AfD closing as keep wasn't also an explicit judgement on merging (or rather the prevention thereof) following closure. As a result I hadn't believed I was ignoring the merge policy, but rather was following it as a

1219:

I was going off of their old website linked in text. They have a second one linked but it comes back as unsecured, with a dead front page, and if you click around there might(?) be a post from them in 2023 but it’s hard to verify exactly who posted it. Either way it does suggest it’s

1272:

I noticed that you PROD'd this article but didn't notify the article creator. Sometimes this notification is taken care of a bot, but this doesn't happen 100% of the time, bots do not complete this task all of the time. It's better for you to handle this step yourself.

416:

Is there a reason you described ShirtNShoesPls to the admin in a hypothetical manner? They would have likely taken action, particularly if you noted the many repeated instances in which ShirtNShoesPls has only barely avoided sanction or received a brief block. ~

995:

of different articles. While it may feel helpful it can look somewhat suspicious for a new user to be going across all manner of articles in a manner of minutes doing this, and could lead to being read as subtle vandalism and result in punitive measures.

455:

regret letting my watch on SNSP's talk page lapse, meaning that I missed you opening your original thread. If you are still inclined, please feel welcome to collate evidence relevant to their disruption. I will gladly support your case–particularly on

1437:

CWI is very clearly inappropriate for being put into an article that we agree is a different incarnation of the organisation in the same way it was inappropriate for having much of the history of Militant in the article on Socialist Appeal as it used

897:

The tags are there for when there are small areas that aren't cited, there's a mix of areas that have citations and then a few stray claims that may warrant them, or most commonly when people see issues but don't have the time/interest in performing

817:

Overall there seems to basically be a major problem with Ted Grant/Alan Woods related articles on English Knowledge, as their achievements seem to be aggrandised and nearly always uncited. Unless these things can be proven they need to be removed.

1484:

That is the unilateral aspect of this. Also the admin's carrying out aren't necessarily making a judgement on its suitability by implementing it, hence why it can be opposed and reversed retroactively. And as shown on the article's talk page,

813:

On the two items you've linked there, the first isn't not a good source. It's a journal by Trotskyist activists that hasn't been rigourised as reliable, so would likely be allowable if used in conjunction with reliable sources for substantial

1460:

and an admin concurred and made the move. That you disagreed after the fact is fine but I think most people would have seen the move as uncontroversial and my making the request and believing it to be uncontroversial was done in good faith.

837:

is used as a source by scholars. By your argument sources about Christianity would only be acceptable if they are by non-Christians. It's not a partisan or party publication unlike say Grant/Woods books about the IMT so it is independent.

781:

I've restored the sections and tagged them. This isn't a brand new article but a legacy article that was written when citation demands weren't the same so we normally wouldn't just delete material summarily. This is also a useful source

978:

after realizing that it was because it wasn't cited. I am also sorry for putting the "blanking" notice on your talk page and I realize that it was a mistake. Sorry about that :). Let me know in the future if I make any more mistakes.

1539:

split from the CWI and which is republished in full on the RCI's website. However, I think including Richardson's criticism and applying it to the RCI (when technically they did not edit or publish the original work) is a leap.

1316:

But there is ambiguity, that is detailed within the article itself. Namely that there is an organisation founded in 1974 with that name (which the article covers) and a post-split incarnation that uses the same name, website

1324:

see addition because of that. Given the continued (and documented in sources) disputes over the organisation's heritage/lineage/trotskyist-cred points it's probably best for now to leave it as it was for clarity's sake.

1432:

The duplicate material is the referenced material the closer was referring to (and it was they who brought to my attention your unilateral decision to have the article for CWI (1974) moved to). The section list for the

1339:

Disambiguation in wikipedia refers to the need to add diambiguators to distinguish between otherwise identically named articles. Since there is only one CWI article there's no need for (1974) as a disambiguator. See

1374:, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic" (emphasis mine). So clearly we can use it when there are outside considerations at play here. 392:

There isn't the ability to view their edits as being under any sense of "good faith" at this point, especially given they've now been open about getting their information from reddit so this looks to simply be

1441:

At this point, as I suggested on your talk page, it's probably best to have this discussion on the talk page for the article in question as several others are likely to have views on any alternative naming.

882:

As for deleting rather than tagging the sections- this presupposes that there are no sources when, in fact, there likely are and secondly if the first act is to delete then why do tags exist at all?

520:. Other than that, good luck and let me know if you have any questions–I'll be checking back on to Knowledge every hour or so for the evening as I'm tracking another instance of disruption. ~ 1105:, it might be better then to just Bold merge them together now. The article on Collider completely fails to meet GNG and I did try and find reliable sources on it, but they’re non-existent. 901:

It's basically the difference why in the RCP article I've used "better source needed" ones a couple of times and/or citations needed. Here however, everything below the lead was uncited.

1523:

which was made in 2021 by an infrequent editor who reappeared today to remove cult allegations from the article. Is there anything removed by their 2021 edit that should be reinstated?

176:

Leek, Martyn (25 March 2001). "ALERT AS RIGHT WINGERS TARGET ELECTIONS; Don't be taken in by new Freedom Party, voters told". Sunday Mercury. Birmingham. Retrieved 10 February 2010.

1559:

personally I think that edit highlighted was a fair one. The sources removed look questionable at best and suffer from self-publishing issues when taking a quick glance at them.

171:

Dutton, Edward (December 2004). "The dangers of wearing glasses: intellectual opposition to liberalism in contemporary Britain". Contemporary Review. Retrieved 10 February 2010.

97:

Hi, apologies are due to you for the unwarranted 3RR warning. I came back to revert myself, but unfortunately (for me), you had already replied. I apologise, Rambling Rambler!

612:. I say you try and cut down your comment by half. Please note that I will add my piece once you have initiated the discussion; I have added my comment to the sandbox page. ~ 1486: 1167: 927: 1060:, but I am on the fence about whether the article should exist, or should be addressed through some other resolution. I do think that it should be discussed. I have created 1033:

Seems to be about the Swedish section, though it is behind a paywall. Seems to be quite a common story across various elements of the Trotskyist left in the last few years.

352:. The policy deals with vandalism in narrow sense, where disruption is the intended outcome. Good-faith edits that you disagree with on content- or policy-based reasons are 111:

Jokes aside though, that's appreciated, I can understand why from an uninvolved perspective such a large edit could appear to be based in petulant anger than policy-backed.

516:

Will do. If you are using a sandbox page here on the encyclopedia to collect your thoughts and diffs, please just ensure that whatever statements you add do not violate

151:

I saw this as the non-free logo I uploaded is flagged for deletion. I don't know if I want to contest the deletion, but until 2014 the article did have better sourcing.

241:

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Knowledge without adequate explanation, as you did at

1370:

refer to that, notice in the opening line "Disambiguation in Knowledge is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous,

263:, which was also ignored. Considering the above warning, this looks like a pattern similar to edit warring. Please refrain from similar actions going forward. ~ 739: 256: 1204:

I'm not sure what website you're looking at but its most recent publication is from 2023 about a state election, not 2017. Just wanted to clarify this.

810:

it's simply understood they were created long ago and may not have been updated to meet policy until now. But that still requires updating to policy.

159:

Copsey, Nigel. "New Millennium New Leader: Nick Griffin and the Modernisation of the British National Party". What Next. Retrieved 10 February 2010.

1122:

Can't merge them until the parent company draft is in good enough shape to move to mainspace. That process should take no more than a few weeks.

303:

This was erroneous on my part and I'll remember that "keep" at AfD is also a judgement against merging contents of the article for the future.

386:

which is what their editing has reached a level of. Even, you yourself last month brought that they're adding "false information" to articles

61: 1064:, on the parent company of Collider, and I think that once that draft is complete, several of its subsidiary companies, including Collider, 83:

outlining why they meet policy. If I don't receive any justifiable reason not to proceed with the changes I will re-instate them tomorrow.

80: 57: 1320:

From my understanding of the MOS, while a disambiguator is commonly added due to multiple Knowledge articles of a similar name it doesn't

1414:

Also, (1974) doesn't disambiguate for the purpose you mention as the "refounded CWI" claims to have been founded in 1974. Something like

1476:

I didn't move any page unilaterally. I put in a request for what seemed to be an uncontroversial move for the reasons explained as per

1456:

I didn't move any page unilaterally. I put in a request for what seemed to be an uncontroversial move for the reasons explained as per

360:

report. I would encourage you to avoid reporting this editor further; if they're editing inappropriately, other editors will notice. ~

1415: 168:

Leek, Martyn (8 April 2001). "Sinister secret behind public face of fascism". Sunday Mercury. Birmingham. Retrieved 10 February 2010.

165:

Bassey, Amardeep (7 May 2000). "The family face of BNP right-wing extremism". Sunday Mercury. Birmingham. Retrieved 10 February 2010.

738:

While it is an old article that could be improved there are plenty of reliable sources out there so deletion is not justified. See

155:

incorrectly removed "dead links". I guess this is a reminder that articles can degrade over time due to misguided or biased edits.

64:

to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you.

1263: 974:

Hello, I noticed that you undid my restoration and I double-checked what I did. I am sorry for undoing your edit at the article,

41:

several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the

38: 488:

that, I'll be able to contribute a massive amount of evidence (and, somewhat sadly, my experience with making ANI reports). ~

1016: 553: 129: 128:

That was exactly it; thanks for understanding. And I totally approve of settling for nothing less than total domination!

98: 65: 196: 791: 379:

I did ask an admin for advice on what the line would be before making this a vandalism issue, which in their view was

300:

of the content hadn't been the subject of discussion but rather the subject being notable for inclusion on Knowledge.

246: 259:

did, you are not allowed to immediately circumvent the deletion process and merge the page. There is a separate

1546: 1528: 1477: 1466: 1457: 1423: 1405: 1357: 1341: 1306: 1253: 1174: 1023: 975: 887: 843: 799: 751: 1168:

Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (2019)#RFC: Copypasting from CWI 1974 and merging of two articles

1566:

issues) and the editorial lambasting the RCI given it's little more than an attack piece with no substance.

502:

I'll start a sandbox to draft it for now then. When you're ready for it to go live on ANI just let me know.

188: 1567: 1490: 1443: 1383: 1326: 1225: 1185: 1143: 1109: 1034: 996: 902: 862: 819: 767: 719: 682: 650: 608:

Your report is too long. Brevity is the soul of wit, and ANI favors comprehensive but compact reports over

574: 556: 535: 503: 474: 441: 403: 304: 217: 216:

and then promptly fades into complete obscurity we'd have 10,000s of articles just to cover England alone.

115: 84: 984: 931: 79:

While I'd disagree with the action you took to revert my changes I have put a discussion on the talk page

42: 1562:

On the current disagreement I've removed a couple of sources, namely the self-published response (usual

960: 939: 293: 152: 926:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

1245: 1073: 609: 517: 1563: 1556: 1542: 1524: 1462: 1419: 1401: 1353: 1302: 1249: 1170: 1108:

Having a corporate page covering all the sites may allow for a better demonstration of notability.

1019: 883: 839: 795: 747: 162:"Top woman quits BNP in finances row". Birmingham Post. 2 October 2000. Retrieved 10 February 2010. 53: 853:

By your argument sources about Christianity would only be acceptable if they are by non-Christians

108:

Well that's that, time to be nothing but rude and hostile to you from here on in. Prepare for WAR!

1061: 1057: 1050: 1209: 980: 708: 668: 636: 617: 525: 493: 464: 422: 394: 365: 356:

vandalism. You appear to have had previous disagreements with this editor, including a recent

327: 269: 783: 1132: 1090: 956: 935: 37:

Hi Rambling Rambler! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of

1397: 1379: 260: 49: 1301:(1974) is a disambiguator. Without a (2019) article there is no need for disambiguation. 1017:

https://www.etc.se/story/oevergrepp-moerkas-i-kommunistsekt-som-rekryterar-bland-skolbarn

473:

If you think it's worth doing an ANI on it, I'll put one together now and tag you in it.

1540: 1077: 631:, which is easier for the passing ANI-stalker to swallow as a worthwhile discussion. ~ 181:"Candidates named for delayed poll". BBC News. 9 June 2005. Retrieved 10 February 2010. 955:

Remove that “upset” Haiti bit and I’ll remove the entire comment, not just parts. 🏳

237: 456: 357: 345: 1487:

the previous move to it being called CWI (1974) was in relation to it being defunct

1205: 949: 704: 678: 664: 663:

I reckon you're right. Whenever you feel like it, I say you should open the ANI. ~

646: 632: 613: 570: 549: 521: 489: 460: 432: 418: 376: 361: 323: 280: 265: 17: 288:

merge given the article's short length that was comparable to those listed in the

792:

War and the International: History of the Trotskyist Movement in Britain, 1937-49

1575: 1550: 1532: 1498: 1470: 1451: 1427: 1409: 1391: 1361: 1334: 1310: 1291: 1257: 1248:

that are addressed to me but I suspect are actually aimed partly at your edits.

1233: 1213: 1193: 1178: 1151: 1137: 1123: 1117: 1102: 1095: 1081: 1065: 1042: 1027: 1004: 988: 964: 943: 910: 891: 870: 847: 827: 803: 775: 755: 727: 712: 690: 672: 658: 640: 621: 582: 564: 543: 529: 511: 497: 482: 468: 449: 426: 411: 369: 349: 331: 312: 289: 273: 225: 201: 134: 123: 103: 92: 70: 387: 242: 348:, but this report suggests that you don't have a sufficient understanding of 459:

grounds–but I would encourage you to approach this in the correct manner. ~

1372:

most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Knowledge

1282: 1069: 33: 627:

Also, may I recommend you entitle the section something shorter like

534:

I'll make sure it's clearly signposted that it's a draft ANI post.

208:

circular evidence where it only appears on a Knowledge mirror site.

1378:

a different organisation's article would more than likely reach

48:

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article

1352:

yet you removed material being merged from the 2019 article.

573:

have you got anything to add or can I go ahead and post it?

184:"Adrian Davies: Electoral history and profile". The Guardian 45:

disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

1015:

A major write-up about them in the Swedish magazine etc.

649:

I've about halved it, should be good to go now I reckon.

296:) and that there wasn't need for a new discussion as the 1280:

Thank you for doublc-checking your Twinkle Preferences.

930:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge's policy on

1520: 400: 398: 384: 718:

Will do, thanks for the help in getting it resolved.

928:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 766:brief mention to the short-lived 40s incarnation. 1416:Committee for a Workers' International (defunct) 861:Knowledge's standards are quite clear on this. 1011:Revolutionary Communist International - Sweden 917:Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion 629:ShirtNShoesPls's continued disruption and CIR 8: 1489:so should've gone through a new discussion. 257:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Plot armor 1480:and an admin concurred and made the move. 1184:Thanks for this, I’ll take a look later. 552:put together a draft, it's currently in 628: 1244:You may wish to reply to comments at 7: 1080:, could reasonably be merged there. 344:You reported user ShirtNShoesPls to 58:Talk:British Democratic Party (2013) 292:article (covered by reason 3 under 734:Revolutionary Communist Party 1944 25: 1344:. Also, the AFD decision was to 1264:International Revolutionary Left 1200:Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) 921: 236: 56:. If you are unable to agree at 32: 383:introducing erroneous material 39:British Democratic Party (2013) 762:with the 1970s RCP, or give a 1: 1576:20:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 1551:15:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1533:14:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 728:01:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC) 713:01:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC) 691:20:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 673:20:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 659:20:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 641:19:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 622:19:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 583:16:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 565:00:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 554:User:Rambling Rambler/sandbox 544:23:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 530:23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 512:23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 498:23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 483:23:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 469:23:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 450:22:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 427:22:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 412:15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 370:14:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 332:22:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 313:19:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 274:17:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 226:20:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 202:20:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 350:Knowledge's vandalism policy 251:When a discussion closes as 135:15:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 124:17:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC) 104:16:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC) 93:16:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC) 71:16:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC) 1499:12:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1471:12:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1452:12:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1428:12:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1410:12:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1392:12:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1362:12:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1335:10:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1311:10:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1292:04:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 1258:21:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 1234:08:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 1214:07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 1194:12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 1179:12:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 1152:18:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 1138:18:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 1118:10:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 1096:03:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 1594: 965:22:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC) 944:00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 62:dispute resolution options 1269:Hello, Rambling Rambler, 1043:23:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1028:22:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 911:13:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 892:13:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 871:13:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 848:13:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 828:13:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 804:13:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 776:13:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 756:12:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 1571: 1494: 1447: 1387: 1342:Knowledge:Disambiguation 1330: 1229: 1189: 1147: 1113: 1038: 1005:19:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 1000: 989:19:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 906: 866: 823: 771: 723: 686: 654: 578: 560: 539: 507: 478: 445: 407: 308: 221: 119: 88: 60:, please use one of the 976:Sorry, I've Got No Head 518:the attack page policy 147:Freedom Party deletion 1396:How would it violate 835:Revolutionary History 785:Revolutionary History 1515:RCI cult accusations 1246:User talk:Jamesation 1074:Comic Book Resources 247:blocked from editing 1564:Knowledge:ABOUTSELF 43:edit warring policy 18:User talk:Apache287 1418:would be clearer. 1062:Draft:Valnet, Inc. 1058:Collider (website) 1056:I have de-PRODded 1051:Collider (website) 1049:I have de-PRODded 1478:WP:Disambiguation 1458:WP:Disambiguation 153:User:Truenature12 16:(Redirected from 1585: 1568:Rambling Rambler 1491:Rambling Rambler 1444:Rambling Rambler 1384:Rambling Rambler 1327:Rambling Rambler 1290: 1226:Rambling Rambler 1186:Rambling Rambler 1144:Rambling Rambler 1130: 1110:Rambling Rambler 1088: 1035:Rambling Rambler 997:Rambling Rambler 934:. Thank you. 925: 924: 903:Rambling Rambler 863:Rambling Rambler 820:Rambling Rambler 789:- also the book 768:Rambling Rambler 720:Rambling Rambler 683:Rambling Rambler 651:Rambling Rambler 575:Rambling Rambler 557:Rambling Rambler 536:Rambling Rambler 504:Rambling Rambler 475:Rambling Rambler 442:Rambling Rambler 404:Rambling Rambler 305:Rambling Rambler 240: 218:Rambling Rambler 199: 195: 191: 132: 116:Rambling Rambler 101: 85:Rambling Rambler 68: 52:to try to reach 36: 21: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1517: 1299: 1281: 1267: 1242: 1240:User:Jamesation 1202: 1164: 1124: 1082: 1054: 1013: 972: 953: 922: 919: 736: 342: 234: 197: 193: 189: 149: 130: 99: 66: 30: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 1591: 1589: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1560: 1557:Wellington Bay 1543:Wellington Bay 1525:Wellington Bay 1519:Please review 1516: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1482: 1463:Wellington Bay 1454: 1439: 1430: 1420:Wellington Bay 1402:Wellington Bay 1375: 1354:Wellington Bay 1318: 1303:Wellington Bay 1298: 1295: 1266: 1261: 1250:Wellington Bay 1241: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1221: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1171:Wellington Bay 1163: 1162:CWI (2019) RFC 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1106: 1078:XDA Developers 1053: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1020:Wellington Bay 1012: 1009: 1008: 1007: 971: 968: 952: 947: 918: 915: 914: 913: 899: 884:Wellington Bay 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 859: 855: 840:Wellington Bay 815: 811: 796:Wellington Bay 779: 778: 748:Wellington Bay 740:Google Scholar 735: 732: 731: 730: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 437: 397:point-scoring 390: 341: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 316: 315: 301: 294:WP:MERGEREASON 261:merging policy 233: 230: 229: 228: 209: 186: 185: 182: 178: 177: 173: 172: 169: 166: 163: 160: 148: 145: 144: 143: 142: 141: 140: 139: 138: 137: 114:All the best, 112: 109: 77: 29: 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1590: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1514: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1481: 1479: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1459: 1455: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1440: 1436: 1431: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1348:, not simply 1347: 1343: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1296: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1287: 1286: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1265: 1262: 1260: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1169: 1161: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1142:Fair enough. 1141: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1129: 1128: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1087: 1086: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 993: 992: 991: 990: 986: 982: 977: 969: 967: 966: 962: 958: 951: 948: 946: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 895: 894: 893: 889: 885: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 854: 851: 850: 849: 845: 841: 836: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 825: 821: 816: 812: 808: 807: 806: 805: 801: 797: 794: 793: 788: 786: 777: 773: 769: 765: 760: 759: 758: 757: 753: 749: 746:for sources. 745: 741: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 716: 715: 714: 710: 706: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 675: 674: 670: 666: 662: 661: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 625: 624: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610:walls of text 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 567: 566: 562: 558: 555: 551: 547: 546: 545: 541: 537: 533: 532: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 514: 513: 509: 505: 501: 500: 499: 495: 491: 486: 485: 484: 480: 476: 472: 471: 470: 466: 462: 458: 453: 452: 451: 447: 443: 438: 434: 430: 429: 428: 424: 420: 415: 414: 413: 409: 405: 401: 399: 396: 391: 388: 385: 382: 378: 374: 373: 372: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 339: 333: 329: 325: 320: 319: 318: 317: 314: 310: 306: 302: 299: 295: 291: 287: 282: 278: 277: 276: 275: 271: 267: 264: 262: 258: 254: 248: 245:, you may be 244: 239: 232:February 2024 231: 227: 223: 219: 214: 210: 206: 205: 204: 203: 200: 192: 183: 180: 179: 175: 174: 170: 167: 164: 161: 158: 157: 156: 154: 146: 136: 133: 127: 126: 125: 121: 117: 113: 110: 107: 106: 105: 102: 96: 95: 94: 90: 86: 82: 78: 75: 74: 73: 72: 69: 63: 59: 55: 51: 46: 44: 40: 35: 27: 19: 1518: 1475: 1434: 1371: 1367: 1349: 1345: 1321: 1300: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1268: 1243: 1203: 1165: 1133: 1126: 1125: 1091: 1084: 1083: 1055: 1014: 981:Trudy Walker 973: 954: 950:Draft:Sneako 932:edit warring 920: 881: 852: 834: 790: 784: 780: 763: 744:Google Books 737: 701: 607: 381:deliberately 380: 353: 343: 297: 285: 252: 250: 235: 212: 187: 150: 47: 31: 28:January 2024 1366:It doesn't 1166:Please see 1066:Screen Rant 957:Savvyjack23 936:Savvyjack23 290:Plot device 395:WP:NOTHERE 243:Plot armor 50:talk pages 1521:this edit 1220:inactive. 54:consensus 1398:WP:UNDUE 1380:WP:UNDUE 1350:redirect 1070:MovieWeb 898:cleanup. 131:——Serial 100:——Serial 67:——Serial 1206:Sisuvia 814:claims. 787:journal 705:Pbritti 679:Pbritti 665:Pbritti 647:Pbritti 633:Pbritti 614:Pbritti 571:Pbritti 550:Pbritti 522:Pbritti 490:Pbritti 461:Pbritti 433:Pbritti 419:Pbritti 377:Pbritti 362:Pbritti 324:Pbritti 298:merging 281:Pbritti 266:Pbritti 198:Windows 1368:solely 1127:BD2412 1103:BD2412 1085:BD2412 1076:, and 681:done. 190:Fences 1346:merge 970:Sorry 255:, as 211:Even 194:& 1572:talk 1547:talk 1529:talk 1495:talk 1467:talk 1448:talk 1424:talk 1406:talk 1388:talk 1358:talk 1331:talk 1322:only 1317:etc. 1307:talk 1254:talk 1230:talk 1210:talk 1190:talk 1175:talk 1148:talk 1114:talk 1101:Hi @ 1039:talk 1024:talk 1001:talk 985:talk 961:talk 940:talk 907:talk 888:talk 867:talk 844:talk 824:talk 800:talk 772:talk 764:very 752:talk 742:and 724:talk 709:talk 687:talk 669:talk 655:talk 637:talk 618:talk 579:talk 561:talk 540:talk 526:talk 508:talk 494:talk 479:talk 465:talk 446:talk 423:talk 408:talk 366:talk 328:talk 309:talk 286:bold 270:talk 253:keep 222:talk 120:talk 89:talk 81:here 1438:to. 1435:new 1297:CWI 858:be. 457:CIR 358:ANI 354:not 346:AIV 340:AIV 76:Hi, 1574:) 1549:) 1531:) 1497:) 1469:) 1450:) 1426:) 1408:) 1390:) 1382:. 1360:) 1333:) 1309:) 1288:iz 1256:) 1232:) 1212:) 1192:) 1177:) 1150:) 1116:) 1072:, 1068:, 1041:) 1026:) 1003:) 987:) 963:) 942:) 909:) 890:) 869:) 846:) 826:) 802:) 774:) 754:) 726:) 711:) 689:) 671:) 657:) 639:) 620:) 581:) 563:) 542:) 528:) 510:) 496:) 481:) 467:) 448:) 425:) 410:) 402:. 368:) 330:) 311:) 272:) 249:. 224:) 213:if 122:) 91:) 1570:( 1555:@ 1545:( 1527:( 1493:( 1465:( 1446:( 1422:( 1404:( 1386:( 1356:( 1329:( 1305:( 1285:L 1252:( 1228:( 1208:( 1188:( 1173:( 1146:( 1134:T 1112:( 1092:T 1037:( 1022:( 999:( 983:( 959:( 938:( 905:( 886:( 865:( 842:( 822:( 798:( 770:( 750:( 722:( 707:( 685:( 677:@ 667:( 653:( 645:@ 635:( 616:( 577:( 569:@ 559:( 548:@ 538:( 524:( 506:( 492:( 477:( 463:( 444:( 431:@ 421:( 406:( 389:. 375:@ 364:( 326:( 307:( 279:@ 268:( 220:( 118:( 87:( 20:)

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

Index