58:
plus exam and have a curriculum designed for them (and in the case of Kent they call these schools 'High
Schools'). However if a school is (or converts to being) an academy or a free school etc, they are technically free to accept a comprehensive intake, including pupils that may have passed their 11 plus. Therefore they are 'non-selective'. Its a strange definition, but one that is rapidly becoming obsolete - Kent is encouraging all of its schools to convert to academy status, so soon enough all non-grammars will be non-selective comps. -
571:
disruption by saying "That's not what he said". When I came to he party, the accuracy of the source had not been disputed, had it. That's why I accepted at face value The
Masters contribution. If anyone, including you, had objected on the grounds of accuracy, then I probably would have been persuaded. But you didn't do that, did you? And whether or not I own a copy is entirely irrelevant. If I don't own one, what would change? Would the citation be more correct or less? Hint: the correct answer is neither.
972:
652:
a result. It's an article about a former rock band on
Knowledge (XXG). It really doesn't really matter if for a couple of days it contains a slightly erroneous sentence. And I don't think my ego is the one being questioned. As I said at the outset if the community consensus is to remove or change the disputed content, I'm happy with that the communities will is exercised. What I'm not that keen on is that you or anyone else should try to exercise
940:
1208:
316:. When I have a problem with someone else's edit, I find that I get much better response by asking a direct question either on the contributor's talk or on the article talk. Its much simpler than trying to force choreograph BRD. BTW theres nothing in BRD which would have restricted your ability to start the discussion. Insisting that its someone else's job doesn't sit very well withe collaborative nature of WP.
813:
139:
789:. The difference between categories and lists is that the latter contains additional information. Plainly the formatting of the additional information could do with improvement and similar information needs to be added to the other schools but that is not a basis for removing what is there. If you are still concerned please take matters to:
651:
Just an aside, you should use a colon to provide indents on talk pages, rather than the asterisk. As I said above if anyone had claimed a factual inaccuracy, I would have listened. But nobody did, including you. The current article version may possibly be incorrect. But guess what? Nobody will die as
26:
Hi – thanks for your note from a couple of days ago. I have reworded the lead in light of what you said and the new source you found about the
Charlwood Society becoming the new trustees (thanks for finding that; I hadn't uncovered that info). The Society website is probably an adequate source for
842:
on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit
469:
It isn't and I never said that it was. What I meant was that you seem to have decided to defend a garbage edit for the sake of principle, which is self-indulgent, IMO. Had you respected that I just might know my stuff regarding Floyd, you might have assumed that I was correct to revert, and we would
570:
I can confirm that I didn't check the source in question before I reverted you. Did you check it? Because if you did and then you didn't inform the community that the quote did not reflect what was in the source, then I'd call that disruptive editing. You would have been in a position to avoid any
57:
Its a technicality peculiar to the remaining local authorities who still operate a
Grammar school system. Basically, schools that are under local authority control (but are not grammar schools) are secondary modern schools, in that they supposedly take an intake of pupils who did not pass their 11
585:
Well, my point here is that I don't think you should ever restore a reverted edit to a FA unless you can first confirm that the edit is accurate to the cited source. I would never stick my nose in a content dispute and take sides unless I had first checked the source for accuracy. I think that is
374:
Do you see the irony here? On one hand you say that you don't like BRD, but you also demanded that I discuss the reversion. You say that there is nothing stopping me from starting the discussion, but there is also nothing that requires me to, essay or otherwise. Why do you think that you can tell
918:
If an editor deletes content because it is unsourced, THAT is a challenge, and the content must not be restored without a citation. An edit summary is a good enough explanation. You are not allowed to restore that content. Per BRD you must then discuss the matter on the talk page and reach a
443:
I see this as a way in which hard-working good-faith editors are made to waste their precious time defending their highly vetted articles from the inclusion of nonsense and bad writing. Are you aware that the cited source does not say that the Floyd's played the tape to Laing? Why are you so
73:
Also to add, most voluntary aided religious schools such as
Catholic schools, have always claimed to be 'comprehensive' from the start. There are also some small parts of Kent which are too far away from a grammar school so the local secondary school has historically been regarded as a
880:
You must provide a source for disputed content. You have also violated BRD. That's edit warring. Such battlefield behavior will not be tolerated. Either become a collaborative editor and work by consensus and compromise, or leave
Knowledge (XXG). It's that simple. --
558:
makes me think that you do not even own the cited source in question, or at least you did not bother to check it before reverting me. How can you revert based on your opinion that the edit was good when you did not even check the accuracy against the cited source?
757:
This style requires less space on the page, and is preferred if there are only a few entries in the list, it can be read easily, and a direct edit point is not required. The list items should start with a lowercase letter unless they are proper nouns.
260:. So I went and read the disputed section and couldn't see anything majorly wrong with it other than your opinion that it was somehow wrong. Hardly the stuff of BRD. And with no evidence of you attempting to begin the discussion I decided to revert.
351:
I don't know where you got your understanding of how this project is supposed to work, because its not one I share and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. For a start, BRD is an essay not a policy or guideline. The way to resolve editing disputes is by
670:
Please stop with the accusations of ownership already; even if I wasn't the lead contributor to the article I would have done the exact same thing. I was absolutely correct to revert, and you were absolutely wrong to revert me to make a
636:: "Knowledge (XXG) does not publish original research", but that is exactly what you have defended and in fact it only remains because of your need to defend your ego. You made a mistake, but can you show the maturity to make it right?
300:
to take this up at talk, not edit war until someone helps him win. I asked Mark for advice, not to !vote in support of my opinion. BTW, I predict that you will end up looking silly; this addition is not one you should be defending.
631:
did. Do you really dislike BRD to the point where factual inaccuracies should be defended and retained in a FA? The only reason the edit and error remain is because you had a numerical majority supporting the mistake. Per
339:
be included until someone successfully argues for it's removal, which is the exact opposite of how this project is supposed to work. If I am bold, and you revert, I shouldn't just keep reverting until I get some help.
334:
or change to persuade, not the one who thinks the material is garbage and it degrades the quality of the article. That's always how it's worked for me. The way you describe it, it's more like every and all additions
734:
RE: "The reason the bullets need to stay is that the template
Template:Infobox musical artist#past_members says "Separate multiple entries using * list markup. ". Atlas-maker (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)"
88:
As I say I think the distinction is becoming obsolete. I'm about to start an 'academy sweep' in
September, and I suspect that most (if not all) High schools in Kent will have converted to academy status by now. -
1162:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
274:
and reviewed Mark
Arstens contributions and for the life of me cannot see why he would fit any of the 4 user page exceptions allowable under CANVAS. Perhaps you can explain which of them he does fit?
74:'non-selective' school. So historically their was always a division between 'High schools (Secondary Moderns) and non-selective comprehensives. I suppoose this just confuses things further however!
499:
There is nothing stopping you going off and improving any article you like. Nothing except your need to 'defend' yourself against some imaginary slight I seem to committed against your reputation.
627:
Bottom line: your reversion restored original research that introduced a factual inaccuracy. The cited source does not say that the Floyd's played Laing a tape of Barrett, it says that
944:
165:- what sort of person removes city ports from a category named "Ports by City" because of some footnote left 8 years ago ? And then re-instate the message claiming "consensus"
429:
I'd suggest we wait and see what consensus turns up. Don't forget Mark has said he's neutral. And your original protagonist hasn't even made his own case yet. Patience.
27:
the time being, so I'll include a line about them as well; I will need to search the archives of the local newspapers to see if the story reached any of them. Cheers,
911:
If you are incompetent, then you shouldn't be editing here. If you understand policy and won't follow it, then you should be blocked/banned. Your behavior is classic
444:
staunchly defending the inclusion of this garbage? Is this personal against me? That datum would never make it through FAC, but what would I know about that, right?
474:
saved some time, or spent it actually improving an article. If every single edit was the subject of this intense scrutiny nothing would ever get done around here.
312:
If the consensus goes against my take, I will be delighted that the project has made its considered views known. As you can probably gather I'm not a great fan of
112:
686:
Why do you want me to stop withe accusations of ownership? You don't seem to deny them, in fact you seem to confirm them. I'm glad you agree that I had a point.
762:
So, I've reverted you based on the fact that your preferred style is not at all required by this guideline, which you have misrepresented in your edit summary.
590:. Why did you revert based on a lack of sourcing when NONE of the listed alum are sourced in-line? Why didn't you discuss this at talk, as you said I should?
1275:
859:
790:
194:
1020:
554:
No we aren't voting; the editors stated their position, and as it stands now, nobody disagrees with me and EVERYONE disagrees with you. Also,
1121:
240:
It's not at all canvassing to ask for assistance from an admin. Maybe you should re-read that, because you don't seem to know what it means.
197:- categories are not mutually exlcusive, there is no consensus for what you are doing, you are misunderstanding the basics of categorisation.
1187:
1098:
1075:
1115:
142:
Your edits are nonsense please stop - Port of Hull, Port of Southhampton obviously belong in "Ports by city". Please stop removing them.
162:
1092:
1069:
1279:
168:
You clearly don't understand the first thing about categorisation, and have shown that you are incapable of thinking independantly .
1026:
851:
525:
Now there are five editors against inclusion. Are you still supporting, or is the discussion currently unanimously in my favour?
1183:
1034:
867:
675:. Nonetheless, I am not at all afraid of personal growth, and will attempt to apply the lesson I learned here moving forward.
256:
did I come to the discussion? Very simple really. I have the article in my watch list and I noticed your high handed abuse of
1267:
1219:
1197:
1004:
871:
798:
1271:
485:
Why would I respect your 'expertise' on Floyd, when you don't seem to know your stuff about WP procedures and processes?
356:
rather than reverting and hoping that the other players are happy to play your game. There also needs to be some sign of
20:
1174:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
1038:
979:
830:
1179:
601:
You are obviously entitled to your opinion. I don't share it. It's not written into any guidance or policy, is it?
775:
878:
I am especially disturbed that you have deleted repeated warnings from your talk page, warnings which were proper.
1000:
992:
988:
948:
863:
835:
824:
794:
656:
over a particular version of any article without explaining their rationale. Which you've done now. Well done.
171:
I can't believe someone as stupid as you could actually exist. But you've proven it true. Please stop editing.
1109:
720:
263:
I can confirm that The Master did not canvass me nor have our paths ever crossed on WP to my best knowledge.
901:
126:
1254:
1086:
1063:
924:
886:
862:
for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
225:
202:
179:
147:
120:
36:
1283:
1175:
1030:
855:
1104:
1081:
1058:
943:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
919:
consensus decision about it. No form of edit warring is justified, especially in such a situation. --
1291:
1215:
1201:
956:
214:
As you have no doubt noticed, the Knowledge (XXG):Categorization/Noticeboard has been closed (again).
1228:
1151:
1142:
115:- it contains pages of the same type. eg Port of London, Port of Liverpool, Port of Southampton etc
1171:
1155:
912:
672:
633:
271:
195:
Knowledge (XXG):Categorization/Noticeboard#Problem_with_editor_Special:Contributions.2FAtlas-maker
716:
1250:
920:
882:
221:
198:
175:
143:
116:
94:
79:
63:
29:
1167:
1159:
900:
You provide some pretty good evidence that you are deliberately flaunting policy, or are too
386:
I'm not telling you how to edit. I'm explaining how I see it. You can do what ever you like.
1010:
996:
820:
687:
657:
602:
572:
541:
500:
486:
456:
430:
387:
361:
360:
towards other editors and their contributions rather than just reverting them dismissively.
317:
275:
1237:
1170:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1163:
904:
to understand it, because you quote it and then ignore it. This thread is a great example:
653:
357:
353:
313:
257:
1287:
1131:
1046:
971:
952:
928:
297:
414:
Now it's three editors against inclusion, and only you supporting. What do you suggest?
1057:
I've increased your block to a week from now for block evasion with the following IPs:
839:
1236:
While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be
905:
90:
75:
59:
850:
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
847:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
745:
It is also possible to present short lists using very basic formatting, such as:
763:
676:
637:
591:
560:
526:
475:
445:
415:
376:
341:
302:
241:
812:
1127:
1042:
739:
1003:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
712:
Atlas-maker: I've been concerned about that Pink Floyd page for a while...
1295:
1260:
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing
1191:
1135:
1050:
960:
890:
802:
768:
724:
695:
681:
665:
642:
610:
596:
580:
565:
549:
531:
508:
494:
480:
464:
450:
438:
420:
395:
381:
369:
346:
325:
307:
283:
246:
229:
206:
183:
151:
130:
98:
83:
67:
47:
786:
713:
1227:
Filled with advertorial content that predates 2014 and appears to fail
1158:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)
838:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
714:
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Friginator#Pink_Floyd_Talk--
236:
How did you come to the discussion? Did The Master canvass you?
947:
regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on
1206:
970:
811:
330:
The onus should always be on the one who wants to make the
1033:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
945:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
1278:
process can result in deletion without discussion, and
829:
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
782:
587:
555:
293:
289:
1243:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
1037:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
870:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
785:, because this is entirely proper information, see
748:''Title of list:'' example 1, example 2, example 3
999:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
1150:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
730:Your formatting is not at all required by the MoS
1007:by adding the following text below this notice:
854:to work toward making a version that represents
845:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule
740:Help:List#Streamlined style or horizontal style
896:Evidence that you know you don't follow policy
113:Category:Ports_and_harbours_of_England_by_city
934:Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
455:So why is your time more precious than mine?
8:
906:Talk:Ecuador#Restoration of uncited material
823:shows that you are currently engaged in an
1025:During a dispute, you should first try to
791:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Lists
781:I am redoing the edit that you reverted,
1249:notice, but please explain why in your
586:basic common sense. Which brings me to
163:Knowledge (XXG):Competence is required
7:
220:Stop lying - there has be NO close.
1238:deleted for any of several reasons
1222:because of the following concern:
161:You are clearly an idiot and fail
14:
1176:review the candidates' statements
296:. At that point, the onus was on
938:
808:Edit warring at Synge Street CBS
754:example 1, example 2, example 3
137:
1019:. However, you should read the
834:—especially if you violate the
819:Your recent editing history at
1296:04:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
1182:. For the Election committee,
1152:Arbitration Committee election
1143:ArbCom elections are now open!
1:
1192:16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
1027:discuss controversial changes
983:from editing for a period of
895:
769:19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
725:05:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
540:So are we voting on you now?
230:21:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
207:18:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
184:01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
696:00:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
682:23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
666:08:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
643:23:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
611:00:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
597:23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
581:08:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
566:23:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
550:23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
532:22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
509:23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
495:23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
481:22:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
465:22:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
451:22:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
439:22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
421:22:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
396:00:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
382:23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
370:22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
347:21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
326:21:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
308:21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
284:21:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
247:20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
152:21:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
138:
131:20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
21:Providence Chapel, Charlwood
1282:allows discussion to reach
1263:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
1246:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
1178:and submit your choices on
776:List of schools in Bromley‎
99:12:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
84:00:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
68:00:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
48:07:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1311:
1274:exist. In particular, the
1184:MediaWiki message delivery
1268:proposed deletion process
1136:01:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
1051:20:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1021:guide to appealing blocks
1001:make useful contributions
961:18:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
929:15:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
891:03:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
803:13:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
691:
661:
606:
576:
545:
504:
490:
460:
434:
391:
365:
321:
279:
1255:the article's talk page
288:Well, just to clarify,
266:Just to confirm that I
1234:
1211:
975:
816:
290:this was the bold edit
1280:articles for deletion
1224:
1220:proposed for deletion
1210:
1156:Arbitration Committee
1015:Your reason here ~~~~
974:
815:
913:battlefield behavior
831:blocked from editing
375:people how to edit?
111:See the contents of
1160:arbitration process
858:among editors. See
795:The Whispering Wind
294:this was the revert
1272:deletion processes
1212:
1172:arbitration policy
1035:dispute resolution
991:and violating the
976:
868:dispute resolution
817:
354:consensual editing
1198:Proposed deletion
1005:appeal this block
993:three-revert rule
836:three-revert rule
252:Presume you mean
43:
1302:
1286:for deletion. —
1265:
1264:
1248:
1247:
1209:
1125:
1102:
1079:
1018:
997:Synge Street CBS
995:, as you did at
951:. Thank you.
942:
941:
821:Synge Street CBS
766:
742:, which states:
679:
640:
594:
563:
529:
478:
448:
418:
379:
344:
305:
244:
141:
140:
133:
46:
44:
41:
39:
34:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1276:speedy deletion
1262:
1261:
1245:
1244:
1216:Gatwick Diamond
1207:
1205:
1202:Gatwick Diamond
1180:the voting page
1146:
1107:
1084:
1061:
1054:
1039:page protection
1008:
968:
939:
936:
898:
872:page protection
810:
779:
764:
749:
732:
710:
677:
638:
592:
561:
527:
476:
446:
416:
377:
342:
303:
242:
238:
191:
159:
124:
109:
55:
53:Schools in Kent
42:(Floreat Hova!)
40:
37:
30:
28:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1308:
1306:
1266:will stop the
1204:
1195:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1139:
1138:
977:You have been
969:
967:
964:
935:
932:
897:
894:
809:
806:
778:
773:
772:
771:
752:Title of list:
747:
731:
728:
709:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
646:
645:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
535:
534:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
497:
424:
423:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
264:
261:
237:
234:
233:
232:
217:
216:
190:
187:
158:
155:
136:
129:comment added
108:
105:
104:
103:
102:
101:
54:
51:
23:
18:
16:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1307:
1298:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1258:
1256:
1252:
1241:
1239:
1233:
1232:
1230:
1223:
1221:
1217:
1203:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1144:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1106:
1105:31.185.132.32
1100:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1083:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1022:
1016:
1012:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
981:
973:
965:
963:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
933:
931:
930:
926:
922:
916:
914:
909:
907:
903:
893:
892:
888:
884:
879:
875:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
848:
846:
841:
837:
833:
832:
826:
822:
814:
807:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
777:
774:
770:
767:
761:
760:
759:
755:
753:
746:
743:
741:
736:
729:
727:
726:
722:
718:
717:Ikeepwatching
715:
707:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
680:
674:
669:
668:
667:
663:
659:
655:
650:
649:
648:
647:
644:
641:
635:
630:
626:
625:
612:
608:
604:
600:
599:
598:
595:
589:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
569:
568:
567:
564:
557:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
537:
536:
533:
530:
524:
523:
510:
506:
502:
498:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
479:
473:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
449:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
425:
422:
419:
413:
412:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
383:
380:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
350:
349:
348:
345:
338:
333:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
306:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
262:
259:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
215:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
188:
186:
185:
181:
177:
172:
169:
166:
164:
156:
154:
153:
149:
145:
134:
132:
128:
122:
118:
114:
106:
100:
96:
92:
87:
86:
85:
81:
77:
72:
71:
70:
69:
65:
61:
52:
50:
49:
45:
35:
33:
22:
19:
17:
1270:, but other
1259:
1251:edit summary
1242:
1235:
1226:
1225:
1214:The article
1213:
1147:
1118:
1112:
1095:
1089:
1082:87.115.9.199
1072:
1066:
1059:46.208.91.60
1024:
1014:
989:edit warring
984:
978:
949:edit warring
937:
917:
910:
899:
877:
876:
849:
844:
828:
818:
780:
756:
751:
750:
744:
737:
733:
711:
628:
471:
336:
331:
267:
253:
239:
222:Prof.Haddock
213:
199:Prof.Haddock
192:
176:Prof.Haddock
173:
170:
167:
160:
144:Prof.Haddock
135:
117:Prof.Haddock
110:
107:Port of Hull
56:
31:
25:
15:
902:incompetent
864:noticeboard
688:Atlas-maker
658:Atlas-maker
603:Atlas-maker
573:Atlas-maker
542:Atlas-maker
501:Atlas-maker
487:Atlas-maker
457:Atlas-maker
431:Atlas-maker
388:Atlas-maker
362:Atlas-maker
318:Atlas-maker
276:Atlas-maker
193:Please see
125:—Preceding
1288:Mikehawk10
1229:WP:GEOLAND
1168:topic bans
953:Epeefleche
738:See also:
708:Pink Floyd
358:good faith
298:The Master
189:Categories
1284:consensus
1218:has been
1164:site bans
1031:consensus
1029:and seek
966:July 2014
921:Brangifer
883:Brangifer
856:consensus
852:talk page
654:ownership
634:WP:VERIFY
588:this edit
556:This edit
272:WP:CANVAS
1116:contribs
1093:contribs
1070:contribs
1013:|reason=
985:24 hours
866:or seek
843:warring—
825:edit war
787:MOS:LIST
332:addition
32:Hassocks
1011:unblock
980:blocked
840:reverts
629:someone
174:Idiot.
127:undated
91:Bleaney
76:Bleaney
60:Bleaney
1253:or on
1154:. The
1103:, and
1023:first.
765:GabeMc
678:GabeMc
639:GabeMc
593:GabeMc
562:GabeMc
528:GabeMc
477:GabeMc
447:GabeMc
417:GabeMc
378:GabeMc
343:GabeMc
314:WP:BRD
304:GabeMc
258:WP:BRD
243:GabeMc
212:quote
1128:Bbb23
1122:count
1099:count
1076:count
1043:Bbb23
673:point
470:have
270:read
157:idiot
1292:talk
1188:talk
1132:talk
1110:talk
1087:talk
1064:talk
1047:talk
987:for
957:talk
925:talk
887:talk
799:talk
783:here
721:talk
692:talk
662:talk
607:talk
577:talk
546:talk
505:talk
491:talk
461:talk
435:talk
392:talk
366:talk
337:will
322:talk
292:and
280:talk
268:have
226:talk
203:talk
180:talk
148:talk
121:talk
95:talk
80:talk
64:talk
38:5489
1200:of
1148:Hi,
1126:.--
1041:.
874:.
860:BRD
472:all
254:How
123:)
1294:)
1257:.
1240:.
1190:)
1166:,
1134:)
1080:,
1049:)
1017:}}
1009:{{
959:)
927:)
915:.
908:.
889:)
827:.
801:)
793:.
723:)
694:)
664:)
609:)
579:)
548:)
507:)
493:)
463:)
437:)
394:)
368:)
324:)
282:)
228:)
205:)
182:)
150:)
97:)
82:)
66:)
1290:(
1231:.
1186:(
1130:(
1124:)
1119:·
1113:·
1108:(
1101:)
1096:·
1090:·
1085:(
1078:)
1073:·
1067:·
1062:(
1045:(
955:(
923:(
885:(
797:(
719:(
690:(
660:(
605:(
575:(
544:(
503:(
489:(
459:(
433:(
390:(
364:(
320:(
278:(
224:(
201:(
178:(
146:(
119:(
93:(
78:(
62:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.