User talk:Bardrick - Knowledge (XXG)

2312:

than gibberish comments on the article's log, mixed with threats of "going to admin" for canceling their reversions (which is not meant to be done on Knowledge (XXG) either), & another reference to a ridiculous "naming convention", where a town's legal governmental name has been re-titled, in what's meant to be encyclopedia, other than what it officially is actually named. This "naming convention" is based on political views not governmental legal facts, & I'm amazed that any authority in Knowledge (XXG) ever allowed it, & now it's been allowed there are obviously politically motivated people edit warring with sensible editors on the site over multiple pages using it as a weapon when any1 types that town actual legal name into an article, which they are watching & auto-reverting obsessively to control. This is an idiotic administrative practice for what's meant to be an encyclopedia sourced on evidence based material & reasoned logic, as is this stupid block - which criticizes someone for edit warring (no warning given first, no discussion of it, just an extended block slapped on at the first opportunity), making no such sanction to the other parties who have done exactly the same thing & started it, most of their reverts having been made from anonymous accounts without comment & little editing history, evidence, justification or with just gibberish comments in its log indicating who they are & their mentality & motivation, where as my edits in the log were reasoned & based on encyclopedic logic. I don't expect this block to be lifted, but I'm putting this on the record as to the mess Knowledge (XXG) is in currently on this issue of the name of the town of Londonderry in its article, where it has clearly been hi-jacked by politically motivated people, which should not have been allowed by the editorial authority of what's meant to be an encyclopedia, & the spill-over effects this bad decision is now having.

3363:

obvious to you that I have engaged in on Knowledge (XXG), this is a very thin list of minor issues out of a mass of work from me that has benefited the site, blowing out of proportion & concentrating in time individual obscure minor disagreements that have occurred over some time period. The terminology used in Ulster/Northern Ireland can be contentious, but you have no case here that I have been overly active upon it, because I haven't been. The student at the college issue I didn't even know was a problem in any way, and it was linked by me to another Wiki article with the sources. If there was a problem with that someone should have requested a citation via request, not merely reverted the edit, which is ill-mannered & bad editing practise on Wiki. The Nightingale article is not 'long term edit warring' on my part, I occasionally revisit articles I've worked upon on the past & re-edit them sometimes, usually prompted by me seeing the subject of the article in another media & wondering how the Wiki article on it is getting on in its development, & I'll take the opportunity to do an improvement edit occasionally when reading it. You are accusing me there of doing something that I didn't do, I don't watch & try to control articles. The other editor is more liable to the charge of doing this, reverting edits blindly, not requesting citations, & being vexatious & complaining to Administration seemingly about very little. With regard to the article of Gerry Adams, looking back at that edit to remind myself of it, I see that I didn't revert the edit as you suggest, I restored a small part of a substantial block of deleted text, giving a reason for it in the edit sheet which was quite logical, & then I moved on letting others decide the matter. The suggestion of political motivation on my part is quite wrong & unfounded.

3444:

badly wrong with this incident and I am uneasy as to the way it has been handled, where I have been accused of doing illicit things and "investigated" in an accusatory hostile manner initially for what I feel was no justified reason. If there were concerns about my editing record, it would have been better for Administration to have contacted me beforehand in a non-accusatory manner, requesting clarification before engaging in presumptive accusations and prohibitive actions like this. Regarding the repeated accusation that I have been trying to avoid scrutiny by not always signing in when making edits on Knowledge (XXG), and "IP socking" (whatever that is - I presume a technical term for the same thing?), I recognize the accusation as being made but do refute it, and feel that the evidence provided to justify it being made - contested by the content of my reply above - fails to support it to any reasonable consideration, and does not justify the actions taken by Administration in this case.

1408:

reasoning for their actions. They have either not given any reason at all, or have come back with personal opinions, or citing material which is not encyclopedic in the form of media opinion columns (not news articles). I have asked a simple question each time to justify their desire to retain the article as is, and they have not answered it, if they had been able to I would have withdrawn my edit voluntarily. They have edit warred with me, not the other way around. A reading of the article's edit log where I detailed and reasoned the edit change, and what the replies and responses have been shows what has gone on here. There is no fair justification for this block in my direction (perhaps it was in theirs, but I did not seek it). Is Wiki an encyclopedia, or an internet political blog to be controlled by groups of users wielding personal opinions collectively in a capricious manner, with Administrators arbitrarily issuing unjust blocks to appease them vs individual?

3139:

presume you've read my edits & therefore will know full well that I've contributed positively to Knowledge (XXG) & have stayed well within its rules & spirit. This case is a heavy-handed abuse of authority by some people, who are strangely going around the site seemingly wanting to start arguments with contributors for no good reason. "En Passant"'s reverted edits on those 2 articles were petty & bad editing practise, they degraded the articles & reverted without giving any reason, and his/her complaining about me to Admin on a trumped up charge of "not signing in" was more of the same. I don't know why some Wiki editors behave like this, but Moderators should know better & not encourage it by aiding it with unjust accusations & punishments.

3367:

the most extreme situations, which this in no way meets. You've seen my edit sheet and will therefore know full well that I am not a problem editor of Knowledge (XXG), any responsible, reasonable & proportionate reading of it could not construe it as such. Is it any wonder that Knowledge (XXG) is losing editors & public engagement when its Administrators execute their authority like this. Beyond the issue of the unjust ban on editing that you've imposed, I'd be grateful for notification as to whether a procedure exists in Knowledge (XXG) that I can appeal to an authority within it - beyond the Administration level - to have the handling of this matter reviewed, and if there is one how that procedure is accessed by the public.

1563:

accused of edit warring & not the other users who have automatically reverted the latest edit without good encyclopedic reasoning each time, and failed to provide one for their actions each time I requested it. This is poor encyclopedic management & merely encourages more of this behaviour by editors whose opinions are bigger than their encyclopedic logic & discipline. Admin. should have stayed out of this exchange when it was summoned by a user threatening another with it (which is in itself against Wiki's guidance for Admin. I vaguely recall?) on this article and allowed the edits to argue the issue through to a conclusion

3402:

its source material. There have not been 'a multitude of revert edits by me going back years whilst attempting to conceal my identity'. Your reversion was against Knowledge (XXG) editing practise guidelines as detailed above, and that edit you reverted the other day without a given reason did not degrade the article it mostly corrected poor grammar & syntax in the text, and your hyped-up offensive personalized commentary here indicates where the problem lies, & isn't with me.

3062: 1239: 3035: 1212: 2703: 2995: 3592: 2782: 2485: 1754: 2226: 1477: 1322: 1095: 2080: 1984: 48: 3677: 23: 54: 807: 3424:. Your previous block was for two weeks for these issues which factored into my decision to block you for one month. If you do not recognize that you have been avoiding scrutiny and IP socking then you will likely be blocked for longer in the future. I've given you the links for you to see the expectations of the community. 3521:

Reply to FDW777: So you have gone off eagerly to investigate the issue to join in with an attempted witch-hunt against another Knowledge (XXG) contributor, and what you come back with with, from years of edits, is an obscure minor editing clash that I'd forgotten about on the use/miss-use of the word

3443:

Reply: Thank you for the information regarding the length of the ban and for the information requested beyond that with regard to the Committee, I shall consider whether I will pursue the relevant issue with it. Possibly you are administering the site with good intentions but something has gone quite

3366:

With respect I consider that this is unjust & very heavy-handed Administration, and the further suggestion that has been made to seek out others join in with it is bordering on the censoriousness and even bullying. You should not be addressing other Knowledge (XXG) editors like this other than in

3382:

The edits at the Nightingale article have been reverted a multitude of times going back years since you originally made them and it was explained to you then why they weren't appropriate. Your edits degraded the article considerably by adding original research and unsourced POV. You've persisted in

3401:

Reply to "EnPassant": I seem to recall (I'm not sure because I have edited Knowledge (XXG) fairly heavily and can't remember in detail many of the edits that I've made) that I was the contributor who wrote most of the current Nightingale article as it currently stands, along with providing most of

3362:

Thank you. With respect - & I am presuming with this reply that you are an experienced Administrator on Knowledge (XXG) and not new to it - you've clearly gone looking carefully through my edit lists in detail to assemble this obscure material, & given the scale of editing which it must be

2311:

I have been blocked by an administrator unjustly. The edit log on the article shows what's taken place here. You have multiple revert edits by 1 or 2 anonymous parties, one who appears to have several anonymous accounts all from the same location, there's no reason being given by them for it other

3138:

Reply: Please cite any edit I've made that's 'destructive', 'illegitimate', causing vandalism - or 'disruptive' (whatever that vague term means)? I haven't 'abused' anything, all I've done is to not sign in when editing sometimes, which - as you yourself state - is allowed, as I assumed it was. I

1407:

I wish to appeal what is an unjust block by an Administrator. I have made a reasonable and sound edit to this article, the reasoning of which is given in its edit log, and have been met by several other users who have continually reverted it automatically whilst not been able to give encyclopedic

3056:

Reply: Sometimes I sign in, sometimes I forget to - particularly if it's an edit made quickly. I wasn't aware you weren't allowed to do this & there's some rule against it? You appear to be itching for an argument for some reason with other editors and reverting good edits without giving any

1562:

I wish to appeal this block for a 2nd time, the first block was unjust and poor encyclopedic management, and the 1st appeal's response addressed barely any of the points made. I did not say solely "I'm right", nor did I make "excuses" (excuses for what & to whom exactly?), and why am I being

3554:

for their consideration. Both admins and non-admins will review your case and they may decide to unblock, endorse the block and/or issue a topic ban or make the block longer including a possible indefinite block. Although I only blocked for a month, once it goes to the community, you take your

2497:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1585:

This request is no better than your first. Apparently, you have no insight into collaboration, consensus-building, or edit-warring policy. The content issue should be worked out on the Talk page or some other dispute resolution forum, not persistently disrupting the article. Don't blame

2794:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2323:

Whatever you think about the consensus that has been reached regarding Derry/Londonderry, this is not the place to argue about it. Unless the consensus is changed, you must follow it - and you certainly must not edit war to impose your own preferred naming in defiance of it.

1692:

Hi Bardrick, I apologise for the harsh words before, I didn't mean that as a slur on you personally and I'm sorry to have offended you. Anyway: as you may be able to see I'm trying to edit from my phone and it's hard to do references - please see the articles I wrote on

2101:

A friendly warning to you. Can you please be civil to other editors and not resort to personal attacks such as: "Undid a pathetic reversion by a sad little character who should be allowed anywhere near Knowledge (XXG)". This kind of attitude may get you banned.

3458:

There were many other edits to Troubles related articles not mentioned in the problems above, such as your repeated, and incorrect, attempts to add "sic" to the Airey Neave article that have been reverted by several editors. You originally added it on

1766:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

3383:

reintroducing them in the meantime, while attempting to conceal your identity by editing logged out. This seems to be an ongoing problem for you. Pretending you didn't understand this is a problem and playing victim is preposterous.

3057:

justification - why are you behaving like this, have you no better way on Knowledge (XXG) of spending your time, like contributing positively to articles, rather than eagerly seeking confrontations with other editors who are?

2095:, so it has been removed. Knowledge (XXG) is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 3635: 2822: 2525: 1794: 1005:. 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 61:

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

1710: 2387:

I have spent fifteen minutes trying to restore some sense to one article, and am now going to have to spend more time looking at the rest of your edits to make sure you haven't cocked them up as well...

3240:). Replacing Northern Ireland with Ulster is also problematic since three counties of Ulster are in the Republic and not in Northern Ireland, right?. Replacing The Troubles with Ulster as you have done 3166:

Reply: Thank you for the reply with the directions. You have my permission to disclose the IP addresses in order to explain why I've been stopped by Administration from contributing to Knowledge (XXG).

3619:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2806:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2509:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1778:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1189:

Final warning, you are engaged in a slow edit ware against four other editors. That is more than enough to get you blocked if reported. Use the talk page to get agreement before making changes ----

3605: 3541:

and getting feedback from other admins about your behavior and whether this is acceptable. Even if the appeals are declined, you still have the option of appealing to Arbcom. I had linked

1987: 1216: 1055:, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 631:, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 1586:

administrators. Don't blame other editors. Look to your ownconduct. If you can't figure this out, the possibility of another longer block in the future is unfortunately likely.

2415:

So, after a few hours trawling through your edits, I can see that it appears to be a more recent form of your editing (in the last year or so) that is leaving these <br: -->

3147:, #4, first bullet point. For me to discuss your block, you will need to give me permission to disclose your IP addresses. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. ~~~~ 850: 83: 3691: 3039: 1698: 3335:

These are some examples but not an exhaustive list. You need to stick to editing with your account and you need to uphold community policies, guidelines and norms such as

838: 79: 842: 834: 2002:. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses 3343:

issues but as I have pinged a couple of other admins, I'll let them investigate and help determine whether a topic ban or discretionary sanctions should also apply.

2131:

I'm sure some Admin have this page on their watch list. He keeps reverting a edit that conforms with MOS and we the majority of people who actually live in Doire.

3695: 3563:

again. Appealing per the guide or Arbcom would no longer be options in the future as neither admins nor Arbcom would contravene against the community's consensus.

3421: 846: 3559:

and weigh your options carefully. Note that if you choose the community appeal option then your only avenue of appealing their decision would be to them at the

155: 3550:

There is a third option of appeal. You may write an appeal to the community requesting an unblock here and either I or another admin will copy it over to the

2358:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

1620:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

1468:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

3339:. If you cannot abide by that then perhaps you shouldn't be editing anything to do with The Troubles. I'm perceiving this as nationalistic edit warring and 2921: 2669: 2612: 2048: 1952: 1884: 1839: 959: 884: 775: 730: 685: 590: 502: 401: 341: 288: 278: 235: 151: 139: 93: 179: 3006:

usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being

274: 492: 441: 175: 3093: 2007: 822: 814: 417: 1058:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

634:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

488: 437: 331: 413: 225: 892: 3104: 2343: 1605: 1453: 1271: 551:

Just so it's clear to this user and any other user who happens to be reading this, not all administrators agree with Doug's interpretation of

327: 2917: 2665: 2608: 2266: 2044: 1948: 1880: 1835: 1702: 1517: 1362: 955: 880: 771: 726: 681: 586: 498: 397: 337: 284: 231: 135: 89: 221: 3657: 3198: 3193: 2836: 2539: 1923: 1808: 1030: 3014:, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. 2163: 2138: 716: 873:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

390:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

128:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

53: 47: 2566: 2715: 2184: 2707: 2003: 1999: 1430:

You are blocked for edit warring. "I am right" is no excuse for edit warring. You should use the time to familiarize yourself with

1289: 1146: 1312: 3653: 2832: 2535: 1804: 1026: 3628: 2815: 2518: 1787: 1297: 1158: 1114: 495:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 334:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 281:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 228:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 86:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2598: 2261: 2041:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1991: 1945:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1877:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1832:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1512: 1357: 952:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 907: 877:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 768:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 723:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 678:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 583:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 394:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 132:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1267: 1162: 2329: 71: 3070: 2239: 1490: 1335: 1301: 1246: 1168: 1052: 1040: 1017:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

628: 616: 3640: 2827: 2530: 1799: 1022: 2233: 1484: 1329: 874: 391: 129: 2865: 2655: 2238:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2033:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1937:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1869:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1824:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1489:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1334:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

944:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

760:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

715:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

670:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

575:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

479:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

318:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

265:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

212:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

70:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3687: 3682: 3086: 3079: 3075: 3003: 2964: 2907: 2211: 532:

Just to let you know that removing block notices is ok and I've explained that to the editor who removed it. See

3097: 1263: 1255: 1220: 1154: 1126: 1102: 3221: 2325: 1919: 1651: 1228: 3616: 2803: 2555:

You got block for you edits regarding Derry in the past but you seem to have not learnt the rules of WP, e.g.

2506: 1775: 818: 2750: 2594: 2377:

everywhere to create a new line for a paragraph or some other weird indentation you have thought looks good.

545: 3571: 3432: 3351: 3155: 3127: 2723: 2167: 2142: 2911: 2659: 2602: 2562: 2180: 2159: 2134: 1665:

Please use the sandbox or the preview button if you want to make a large number of changes to an article.--

1069: 645: 31: 2570: 2280: 1914:

Please refrain from making personal attacks on me or anything else, they are not constructive whatsoever.

1870: 1732: 1531: 1376: 858: 3144: 1293: 1150: 1118: 1110: 1068:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

1018: 644:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

27: 2199:

You have been blocked for edit warring, 3RR violation (which you know about) and continual violation of

2188: 147: 3183: 2092: 552: 1215:

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

3209: 2894:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2642:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2585:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2465: 2403: 2204: 1727: 1310: 1080: 656: 541: 3599: 2861: 2790: 2651: 2493: 2154:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=War_Medal_1939%E2%80%931945&diff=prev&oldid=786769189

1762: 1744: 994: 985: 533: 3523: 3445: 3403: 3388: 3368: 3168: 3047: 3024: 2586: 2244: 1915: 1722: 1647: 1564: 1495: 1409: 1340: 1224: 376: 266: 3612: 3542: 3187: 2799: 2502: 1771: 1062: 1014: 998: 638: 3566: 3427: 3346: 3150: 3122: 2960: 2903: 2719: 2016: 171: 3336: 3217: 3007: 2200: 2125: 2118: 1121:

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

2419:

I did only do random samples of pages you have edited, so there may be ones left to be removed.

2038: 3306: 2999: 2979: 2937: 2880: 2765: 2685: 2628: 2392:

tag is for making a line break - try not to use them in articles unless there is no other way

2064: 1968: 1900: 1855: 1718: 975: 930: 854: 791: 746: 701: 606: 518: 465: 357: 304: 251: 109: 3624: 3556: 3340: 2811: 2746: 2514: 1783: 1643: 1628: 1010: 1002: 3703: 3647: 3512: 3484: 3110: 2352: 2108: 2096: 1942: 1614: 1462: 1277: 898: 826: 480: 433: 3627:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3620: 3538: 2814:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2807: 2517:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2510: 1786:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1779: 1713:

and more for lots of source material with reliable sources relevant to changes made to the

1013:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1006: 3061: 2461: 2399: 2034: 1995: 1591: 1305: 1238: 1076: 1048: 945: 830: 652: 624: 560: 537: 409: 162: 3560: 3551: 3507:) are virtually non-existent, there is never any attempt to discuss your disputed edits. 1642:

per what I stated in that edit summary: "The lead is meant to summarize the article, per

1431: 2914:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 2662:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 2605:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 2004:

combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say

3686:, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Knowledge (XXG) accounts for 3522:'sic' in an article, & not me referring it to a debate on a talk page? Good grief. 3384: 3043: 3020: 2857: 2853: 2643: 2590: 1439: 424: 372: 319: 45:

With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (

2956: 2928: