830:
resource. And I or any historian can provide hundreds of resources for the fact. Anyway, the editors who don't have any resource for their claims are supported to be right by some other editors. In fact, it would be nonsense to delete my contribution as far as someone couldn't provide a disserting source. I read the past debates of the article, but I saw that they don't provide any resource, but they just express their own personal opinions. Is there any time limit for such a discussion or just continue till one of the sides gives up completely? If so, it's difficult for me to give up as far as I'm not convinced with reliable resources. And I know that it consumes my valuable time. It should be ended up that it wouldn't be problem giving his ethnic origin because most of the encyclopedias and research papers call him as Turkic. In the meantime, consensus is a bit nonsense because I provide realible resources in the concept of
Knowledge source criteria. If we couldn't provide any resource, we might have agreed on consensus. But here we have many resources. So for that kind of consensus, should I call my friends from the college to register in Knowledge and share their opinions by supporting me? That would be also nonsense. That's not a poll or questionnaire.
1189:. Their edits display that they're just vandals on the same purpose. Check the malediction of Kansas Bear on his user page, so many people complaning his actions. Are all these people wrong? I think Wikipedian bureaucrats should check their old edits and read their previous discussions in Knowledge. They influence the content and reflect their zealous biased views on the articles. As I compare Knowledge with Britannica, I realize that several articles are so different than the articles of Britannica and other encyclopedias. 💕 doesn't mean that they can write everything in an article as they wish, just under the so-called consensus with their peers. They can be different people, but they work for the same purpose and settle on a consensus by a majority, and also unknown IPs support them for the same purpose as needed. Anyway you don't see nastiness of Kansas Bear and Lysozym (view my comments on other talk pages), who caused this nastiness with their provocative acts, by accusing me of unfair denigration. You blocked my account for 2 weeks. However, I'll be in doubt about your fairness if you do not block the others who cause this nastiness with their provocative manners and actions. Otherwise block me forever.
868:. I have no particular opinion on the subject matter other than to ensure the values of the wider Knowledge community, which are expressed in the umpteen policies. Those policies have been and still are subject to debate, and they too are subject to consensus. I do understand that this can be confusing to a newcomer but, honestly, if you work with people rather than fight them then you will find the entire learning process much easier. -
315:
1213:
413:
980:
209:
911:
719:? The word "revert" has a meaning different from that which you imagine, and you had added the disputed content on five occasions prior to the warning being issued. As for me, even if I had "reverted" three times in 24 hours, it would not be a breach of the rule; and the circumstances of my reverts were somewhat different from yours. BTW, you have not been banned:
113:
1306:, for several days, who caused this nastiness with their provocative manners and actions. I know that repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. In this respect, you should see their personal attacks against me as well. I see their personal attacks on me in many pages on Knowledge. Their accusations and personal attacks caused this.
656:. The introduction to that noticeboard says, "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion." In this instance, there was way more than one editor who expressed concern regarding your contributions to
184:
sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
391:
You were edit-warring against several other editors, and when several people dispute your version of an article, you must stop, discuss it on the article's talk page, and wait to see if you can get a consensus in support of your version - and do not revert again until you achieve such a consensus. --
1009:
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
952:
Hi
Darkness Shines, I'm not sockpuppet of anyone. And it's the first time that I signed Knowledge. If I was an older member, I wouldn't have been in an edit-war, and neglected the three undo rule recently, which caused me to be blocked for 48 hours. I have only one account, and it's this one. Also I
753:
I see. Anyway, make a research on the ethnicity of Babur till I come back to
Knowledge (possibly 48 hours later). You'll see that all reliable resources describe him as a Chagatai Turk (Uzbek in modern concept, of Turkic). And it's nonsense that you object to this fact even though you don't have any
674:
I hope that you can spend some of the next 48 hours reading up on the various policies etc that have been pointed out to you. Yes, you do now seem to have taken a look at them but you have done so in a very selective manner. It would be best to read the entirety of those articles and appreciate that
238:
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
829:
I didn't write to discuss it here, but I have just made a warm advice to you on this talk page of mine. As I'm blocked, I can't write there at the moment, but I hope you decide for your idea about this matter. OK, some people assert controversial opinions about something, but they don't provide any
291:
In the meantime, you are also about to involve in an edit war because you performed several reverts on the page Babur within a 24-hour period. While warning others, you should also pay attention to your own manners. I didn't know that rule, but I'll care about it from now on, but the same for you I
859:
responsibility to justify the statements that you make. Now, if you want to argue that the sources in the article for the statements that are currently shown are not, for example, reliable, then that is fine. Do so, with your reasons for believing that to be the case. If needs be, the issue can be
190:
In this concept of
Knowledge, I add reliable sources, which are of academic books, and the publishers of the works are such as Oxford University Press and University of California Press etc. In the meantime, my resources are all published on the Internet, so you can check them on the Google books.
183:
The word "source" in
Knowledge has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability. Material from reliable non-academic
848:
is that it is not a "vote". That is, sheer quantity of numbers does not affect the outcome. Consensus here on
Knowledge is based on discussion that complies with our policies etc and just getting a load of people to turn up and say "we are right" will achieve nothing. You need to understand the
786:
Oh, save to say that at no point have I said that your information was incorrect. You are making another false accusation there. What I have said is that the sources etc are not great and the issue was bound to be contentious and therefore should have been discussed
671:. This is because your understanding of policies is pretty fatally flawed and because dashing round various dispute resolution noticeboards within 24 hours or so of finding yourself in a dispute is not usually a sign of a collegial style of editing.
609:
Yes, on second thought, I agree - the rushing headlong into escalating disputes rather than calmly discussing disagreements does not indicate a collegial approach. BozokluAdam - spend some of the next 24 hours reading about
675:
they are not intended to be used in a cherry-picking manner. Feel free to query anything that you do not understand when you return, but please do not head straight back in there and reinstate the disputed content again. -
563:
It can still be seen as edit-warring even if you do not revert 3 times, especially if others have tried to explain it to you that you should discuss contested changes on the talk page. But if you have a read of
498:
I'm sorry, but I didn't know the rules about edit-warring before the third edit because I'm new in
Knowledge. And I think I didn't undo three times, instead I might have edited it with three times.
864:. However, I would again urge you to attempt a more rounded understanding of our policies etc than you currently possess. And, by the way, I have just reverted someone who was "opposing" you at
1091:Öyle gerekiyorsa yazının adını değiştirebilirsiniz. Burada kalıcı değilim. Yazarlar taraflı davranıyorlar. O yüzden ilgili yazıya isterseniz siz katkıda bulunabilirsiniz. İyi çalışmalar.
587:
3RR was explained to them. There have been at least six reverts in total, one of which was after the warning placed above and after some explanation both at my talk page and at
692:
I was warned after I changed the third revert, and soon after I've been banned. Anyway you also reverted the article three times within 24 hours. So you should also be banned:
626:. And if, after that, you can satisfy me (or another reviewing admin) that you are going to follow our standards of collegial cooperation, then you can be unblocked. --
1114:
928:
1366:
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.
924:
543:
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.
860:
raised in due course at forums that are intended to provide a wider input regarding issues such as this. The most likely one in this instance would be our
849:
issues related to tertiary sources (as I have told you time and again). I am perfectly content for you to provide suitable secondary sources that provide
138:. That explains why the sources you used can't be used as primary/secondary sources and you need to find something other than another encyclopedia to use.
509:
You've been warned. Ignoring the warning or failure to actually read the mentioned 3RR policy (as evident from this request) is not a reason to unblock.
1253:
453:
591:. There have also been numerous other issues of a failure to understand policy etc and I really do think that this contributor needs some time to
1070:? After all, this name is not a world-wide known name and it is better to follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (See
135:
117:
1351:
528:
355:
1167:
and elsewhere. The next block will be indefinite if upon your return you do not make a good-faith effort to comply with our policies.
1248:
1181:
First of all, my all resources have online editions; and they are true. Everyone can check them. You should check the edits of both
448:
26:
1336:
116:
Welcome to
Knowledge. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a
1399:
1149:
361:
791:
you made the edit. It might be helpful if you spend some of your time reading the past threads at the article talk page. -
631:
573:
397:
381:
47:
1034:
667:. However, I strongly suggest that instead of rushing there when your block expires, you instead continue to discuss at
369:
263:
52:
1038:
339:
267:
953:
have never had a
Knowledge account before. So,I'm trying to learn Wiki and its rules as well as contributing to it.
1225:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
425:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
97:
1267:
1226:
1079:
936:
467:
426:
373:
322:
62:
1220:
1071:
627:
569:
420:
393:
377:
125:
56:
920:
899:
568:, and then agree to stop edit-warring and seek consensus on the talk page, I'll be happy to unblock you. --
121:
1030:
335:
331:
259:
129:
33:
22:
93:
77:
69:
855:
You need to realise also that it is not the responsibility of other people to "prove you wrong": it is
1075:
932:
73:
1331:
1164:
1022:
987:
845:
754:
resource for that. We should agree on this fact before I focus on the other parts of that article.
615:
365:
251:
85:
1387:
1172:
1137:
144:
38:
29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
84:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
1375:
1318:
1122:
991:
220:
1360:
1299:
1231:
1193:
1182:
1092:
1046:
1006:
954:
873:
831:
796:
777:
755:
732:
699:
680:
619:
600:
550:
537:
514:
431:
345:
293:
275:
235:
192:
191:
Please don't remove the resource, otherwise I see your behaviour like a kind of vandalism.
1062:
997:
720:
226:
1379:
1326:
1018:
247:
1394:
1383:
1168:
1144:
1026:
1002:
861:
724:
716:
664:
255:
231:
140:
1303:
1186:
1118:
653:
623:
611:
565:
43:
1163:
was pretty bad too. You are blocked for two weeks for your disruptive editing, at
1017:
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
1014:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
246:
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
243:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
1042:
910:
869:
850:
792:
773:
728:
676:
596:
510:
271:
163:
769:
668:
588:
88:, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place
1405:
1341:
1201:
1176:
1155:
1126:
1100:
1083:
1050:
962:
940:
877:
839:
800:
781:
763:
736:
707:
684:
635:
604:
577:
558:
518:
401:
385:
301:
279:
200:
148:
101:
1060:
Hi,Well come to
Knowledge. Wouldn't it be better if we move the name
1029:
for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant
258:
for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant
1325:
behavior and how you will avoid the issues that led to this block.
768:
I am not discussing content here. Such discussions should occur at
865:
657:
216:
132:
to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
81:
1115:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#PA_by_BozokluAdam
853:
of your statements. So far, it seems that you have not done that.
1317:
I'm sorry, but discussing other users or their actions will not
595:
read up on things before being unblocked. 24 hours, at least. -
1005:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
927:
for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with
234:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
694:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Babur&action=history
1211:
1192:
Fake scholars go on editing as you wish. It's free for you!
978:
411:
313:
207:
368:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
1348:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
1298:
I'll be in doubt about your fairness if you do not block
525:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
1368:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
545:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1281:
1277:
1271:
1262:
1258:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1160:
1133:
996:
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
772:, where they will be seen by any interested parties. -
693:
649:
481:
477:
471:
462:
458:
444:
440:
436:
225:
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
372:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
120:
for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of
1219:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
1037:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
419:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
266:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
583:The contributor continued to reinstate the content
919:Your name has been mentioned in connection with a
334:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
1021:to work toward making a version that represents
250:to work toward making a version that represents
1012:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule
241:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule
338:. If you would like to be unblocked, you may
8:
925:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34
990:shows that you are currently engaged in an
219:shows that you are currently engaged in an
360:During a dispute, you should first try to
68:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
622:, and have a good read about Knowledge's
698:So what do you think about this issue?
92:before the question. Again, welcome!
663:Your best recourse would probably be
7:
1113:You have been reported to admins:
931:before editing the evidence page.
660:and therefore 3O is inappropriate.
14:
128:for how to cite sources, and the
929:the guide to responding to cases
909:
178:What counts as a reliable source
111:
53:How to create your first article
1001:—especially if you violate the
986:Your recent editing history at
230:—especially if you violate the
215:Your recent editing history at
164:Knowledge:V#Reliable_resources
1:
1386:before typing another word. (
905:
362:discuss controversial changes
326:from editing for a period of
34:The five pillars of Knowledge
1136:even remotely appropriate? (
862:reliable sources noticeboard
25:to Knowledge! Thank you for
1223:, who declined the request.
423:, who declined the request.
1422:
844:One of the key aspects of
644:Third Opinion noticeboard
354:, but you should read the
1352:guide to appealing blocks
529:guide to appealing blocks
356:guide to appealing blocks
336:make useful contributions
1406:19:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1342:19:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1202:18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1197:
1177:18:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1156:17:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1127:17:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1101:15:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1096:
1084:07:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1051:01:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
963:20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
958:
941:20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
878:23:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
840:21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
835:
801:21:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
782:21:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
764:20:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
759:
737:19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
708:18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
703:
685:16:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
636:17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
605:16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
578:16:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
559:16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
554:
519:17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
402:16:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
386:16:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
302:16:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
297:
280:15:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
201:16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
196:
149:11:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
126:Knowledge:Citing sources
102:21:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
21:Hello, BozokluAdam, and
48:How to develop articles
1216:
983:
923:case. Please refer to
416:
318:
212:
1319:help you be unblocked
1268:change block settings
1215:
982:
723:is not the same as a
620:battlefield behaviour
468:change block settings
415:
350:Your reason here ~~~~
317:
211:
1374:You'll want to read
998:blocked from editing
650:reverted your report
227:blocked from editing
1321:. You must discuss
1165:Talk:Seljuq dynasty
1025:among editors. See
988:Khwarazmian dynasty
628:Boing! said Zebedee
570:Boing! said Zebedee
394:Boing! said Zebedee
378:Boing! said Zebedee
342:by adding the text
254:among editors. See
86:Knowledge:Questions
1217:
1132:On what planet is
1035:dispute resolution
984:
712:Have you actually
417:
370:dispute resolution
319:
264:dispute resolution
213:
44:How to edit a page
27:your contributions
1003:three-revert rule
917:
916:
340:appeal this block
232:three-revert rule
76:your messages on
1413:
1402:
1398:
1390:
1382:, and of course
1365:
1359:
1339:
1329:
1287:
1285:
1274:
1256:
1254:deleted contribs
1214:
1152:
1148:
1140:
981:
913:
906:
542:
536:
487:
485:
474:
456:
454:deleted contribs
414:
353:
316:
210:
115:
114:
94:Richard Keatinge
91:
1421:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1400:
1392:
1388:
1371:
1363:
1357:
1356:, then use the
1345:
1337:
1327:
1308:
1275:
1265:
1251:
1234:
1227:blocking policy
1212:
1150:
1142:
1138:
1111:
1063:Eshrefoglu Rumi
1058:
1039:page protection
979:
977:
933:Darkness Shines
904:
646:
548:
540:
534:
533:, then use the
522:
500:
475:
465:
451:
434:
427:blocking policy
412:
409:
407:Unblock Request
389:
374:page protection
343:
314:
268:page protection
208:
118:reliable source
112:
109:
89:
63:Manual of Style
19:
12:
11:
5:
1419:
1417:
1409:
1408:
1346:
1315:
1311:Decline reason
1296:
1292:Request reason
1289:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1190:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1068:Eşrefoğlu Rumi
1057:
1054:
976:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
915:
914:
903:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
696:
645:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
523:
507:
503:Decline reason
496:
492:Request reason
489:
410:
408:
405:
320:You have been
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
206:
205:
204:
203:
188:
180:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
108:
105:
66:
65:
60:
57:Article Wizard
50:
41:
36:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1418:
1407:
1403:
1397:
1396:
1391:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1372:
1370:
1369:
1362:
1355:
1353:
1344:
1343:
1340:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1324:
1320:
1314:
1312:
1307:
1305:
1301:
1295:
1293:
1288:
1283:
1279:
1273:
1269:
1264:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1246:
1245:global blocks
1242:
1241:active blocks
1238:
1233:
1228:
1224:
1222:
1221:administrator
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1147:
1146:
1141:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1108:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:Foreign names
1069:
1065:
1064:
1056:Article title
1055:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1013:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:
993:
989:
974:
964:
960:
956:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
912:
908:
907:
901:
898:
880:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
858:
852:
851:verifiability
847:
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
802:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
761:
757:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
715:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
697:
695:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
682:
678:
672:
670:
666:
661:
659:
655:
651:
648:I have again
643:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
581:
580:
579:
575:
571:
567:
561:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
539:
532:
530:
521:
520:
516:
512:
506:
504:
499:
495:
493:
488:
483:
479:
473:
469:
464:
460:
455:
450:
446:
445:global blocks
442:
441:active blocks
438:
433:
428:
424:
422:
421:administrator
406:
404:
403:
399:
395:
388:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
357:
351:
347:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
303:
299:
295:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
244:
242:
237:
233:
229:
228:
222:
218:
202:
198:
194:
189:
187:
186:
185:
181:
179:
176:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
146:
142:
139:
137:
131:
127:
123:
122:verifiability
119:
106:
104:
103:
99:
95:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
64:
61:
58:
54:
51:
49:
45:
42:
40:
37:
35:
32:
31:
30:
28:
24:
16:
1393:
1367:
1349:
1347:
1332:
1322:
1316:
1310:
1309:
1297:
1291:
1290:
1263:creation log
1230:
1218:
1143:
1134:this comment
1112:
1076:Nedim Ardoğa
1067:
1061:
1059:
1016:
1011:
995:
985:
975:Edit-Warring
921:sockpuppetry
918:
900:Sockpuppetry
856:
854:
788:
713:
673:
662:
647:
612:edit warring
592:
584:
562:
549:
544:
526:
524:
508:
502:
501:
497:
491:
490:
463:creation log
430:
418:
390:
359:
349:
332:edit warring
327:
321:
245:
240:
224:
214:
182:
177:
133:
130:welcome page
110:
67:
59:if you wish)
20:
1300:Kansas Bear
1232:BozokluAdam
1194:BozokluAdam
1183:Kansas Bear
1093:BozokluAdam
1031:noticeboard
955:BozokluAdam
832:BozokluAdam
756:BozokluAdam
700:BozokluAdam
551:BozokluAdam
511:Max Semenik
432:BozokluAdam
294:BozokluAdam
260:noticeboard
193:BozokluAdam
162:Cited from
90:{{help me}}
80:using four
55:(using the
1376:WP:NOTTHEM
1259:filter log
770:Talk:Babur
669:Talk:Babur
589:Talk:Babur
459:filter log
134:Look, try
78:talk pages
70:Wikipedian
1350:read the
1278:checkuser
1237:block log
1023:consensus
1019:talk page
846:consensus
624:5 pillars
616:consensus
527:read the
478:checkuser
437:block log
366:consensus
364:and seek
252:consensus
248:talk page
72:! Please
1395:BWilkins
1249:contribs
1169:Moreschi
1161:This one
1145:BWilkins
1033:or seek
1010:warring—
992:edit war
593:properly
449:contribs
348:|reason=
328:48 hours
262:or seek
239:warring—
221:edit war
141:Gorgak25
107:May 2012
39:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
1380:WP:EBUR
1361:unblock
1304:Lysozym
1272:unblock
1187:Lysozym
1119:Lysozym
1007:reverts
721:a block
538:unblock
472:unblock
346:unblock
323:blocked
236:reverts
23:welcome
1401:←track
1384:WP:GAB
1151:←track
1043:Drmies
870:Sitush
793:Sitush
789:before
774:Sitush
729:Sitush
717:WP:3RR
677:Sitush
665:WP:DRN
618:, and
597:Sitush
358:first.
292:hope.
272:Sitush
124:. See
82:tildes
1389:talk→
1354:first
1139:talk→
866:Babur
658:Babur
654:WP:3O
585:after
566:WP:EW
531:first
376:. --
217:Babur
1323:your
1302:and
1198:talk
1185:and
1173:talk
1123:talk
1117:. --
1097:talk
1080:talk
1047:talk
959:talk
937:talk
902:case
874:talk
857:your
836:talk
797:talk
778:talk
760:talk
733:talk
727:. -
714:read
704:talk
681:talk
632:talk
601:talk
574:talk
555:talk
515:talk
398:talk
382:talk
330:for
298:talk
276:talk
197:talk
145:talk
136:here
98:talk
74:sign
46:and
1338:Man
1282:log
1229:).
1109:ANI
1074:).
1066:to
1041:.
1027:BRD
725:ban
652:at
482:log
429:).
270:.
256:BRD
1404:)
1378:,
1364:}}
1358:{{
1328:TN
1313::
1294::
1276:•
1270:•
1266:•
1261:•
1257:•
1252:•
1247:•
1243:•
1239:•
1200:)
1175:)
1154:)
1125:)
1099:)
1082:)
1049:)
994:.
961:)
939:)
876:)
838:)
799:)
780:)
762:)
735:)
706:)
683:)
634:)
614:,
603:)
576:)
557:)
541:}}
535:{{
517:)
505::
494::
476:•
470:•
466:•
461:•
457:•
452:•
447:•
443:•
439:•
400:)
384:)
352:}}
344:{{
300:)
278:)
223:.
199:)
147:)
100:)
1333:X
1286:)
1284:)
1280:(
1235:(
1196:(
1171:(
1121:(
1095:(
1078:(
1045:(
957:(
935:(
872:(
834:(
795:(
776:(
758:(
731:(
702:(
679:(
630:(
599:(
572:(
553:(
513:(
486:)
484:)
480:(
435:(
396:(
380:(
296:(
274:(
195:(
166::
143:(
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.