User talk:Chrisvacc - Knowledge (XXG)

1160:

when the evidence actuallys points in the opposite direction. All my contributions have been positive, so I dont see a reason for a block. If you read the rest of the conversation prior to the rant, it's about Neutrality and many editors have been interjecting their political opinion into articles. Neutrality is a major pillar to Knowledge (XXG). This is an encyclypedia - not a editorial section. But regardless - I come to consensus before I make edits and actually we've just been formulating a RfC vote to come to consensus on this issue. I don't think I'm causing any issues. The Talk page isn't the article, and I haven't been disruptive to the article whatsoever. But regardless - it appears we've come to a consensus anyway.

1515:

that suggest that their motivations are not to actually prove guilt or innocence? It's more likely that Democrats wanted to keep him and Republicans wanted to throw him out. Humans, most of the time, actually don't use their reasoning ability to find the truth. They use it to find evidence for what they already believe. So people on here are actually cheating and to anyone who studies psychology it's way obvious that people are saying "BLP violation" for things they just don't like, so they pull out a rule that will help them accomplish their goals. Their goals aren't really BLP... it's just that they want to paint a narrative and will use whatver rules they can find to further that cause.

1417:

given a "final warning" (and first one) for supposedly posting unsourced facts. I had cited the sources before, so I re-cited them — literally nothing but a quote from the Daily Beast that sourced the fact I'd claimed — and that was redacted. Then I was blocked for again having the temerity to participate in a Talk page discussion of whether criminal history is WP:DUE. It's impossible to explain why criminal history is WP:DUE without stating what that criminal history is—but stating the history, even when simply quoting directly from a mainstream source, gets one blocked for supposedly violating WP:DUE. It's utterly Orwellian.

1014:

etc. The first step is to make sure we get a simple, logical, neutral, fair, reasonable question set up as the base of the RFC. This is because some RFCs start out with too narrow, too board, malformed, slanted, or otherwise defectively formulated questions, and then as editors pile on with their comments, you see accusations that the RFC wasn't done properly. Don't worry, the formulation will get tamped down quickly enough and then people can add their support/oppose

777: 691: 1546: 1070: 2046: 177:. Much of the behavior that is common across the Internet is inappropriate on Knowledge (XXG). Editors are expected to work collaboratively with respect and civility. "Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,892,682 other articles on the English Knowledge (XXG) to improve and discuss." -- 2297: 1261:

powerusers, that's one thing - but when Administrators are doing it too that's a whole nother ballgame. How is showing the press a 'threat.' If there are no attempts to whitewash information then nobody has anything to worry about. Journalists would just look it over and say 'nothing to see here.' You have deleted perfectly valid comments saying "BLP" but there were

325:. The spirit of those rules was to avoid sensationalist content. But I agree that if a statement is contentious, it should be deleted. Regarding some of the content in the article (ie Areas of Research and The Coddling of the American Mind,) we should just find better citations as The Coddling is a very popular book, and I believe is listed as a NYT Notable book. 335:

But regardless, we’ll find good citations for those as it will improve the article. The statement about to The Coddling has to be in there because there are three books, and taking it out makes it seem like the article hasn’t been updated in a few years, but I'm not sure how you would cite a book's existence other than just citing the book itself.

23:

You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

2406:

at Starship's page, but it was a bit late, so I understand if our first meeting was too one-sided to count. I'm sorry for my second impression, it was supposed to be Ric Flair before WrestleMania VIII, foolish of me to assume people generally remember pro wrestling's boom years. We don't need to keep

1416:

Agreed that this is obscene. I'm a new editor with almost no experience and am completely discouraged and disheartened by the way this sausage gets made. I was participating in an open, good-faith discussion on the Talk page about whether criminal history was relevant, WP:DUE, etc. I was redacted and

1514:

It's interesting. I work in the Social Science and if you study psychology people are soo transparant. Our unconsusness controls so much of our behavior. For example the Bill Clinton impeachment. Almost 100% of Democrats found him 'innocent' and almost 100% of republicans found him 'guilty'... might

1421:

never claimed and which no one could prove. McMichael claims he recognized Arbery from prior security footage—does that "prove" he did? Of course not—but the fact that he claims it is all that can ever be proven, and that's obviously "relevant" too, since it may well be the backbone of his defense.

1260:

relevant to the controversy because McMichael stated he recognized him which is why almost every outlet are reporting on it (except Knowledge (XXG), of course.) This just shows that administrators are using their power to slant articles. So this is actually a bigger problem than I thought. When it's

1228:

Well now this is a much bigger problem than I thought. I just went through your edits and now I realize it's not just the power users, but administration are involved too. We were actually just on the verge of resolving the original issue via RfC, and was going to drop it anyway but a ban just makes

1042:

Following your rant about "leaking the page to the press" and "bullying Social Justice Warriors" it is clear that you do not have the ability to approach the issue sensibly and so I have blocked you from editing the article. This does not affect your ability to edit the rest of Knowledge (XXG). If

2203:

Thanks, it was nice of you for proactive support and healthy discussion. As said earlier I have tried to invite more editors some of them too come and edit and article may not remain as I started but with positive contributions like yours will get improved only. If I feel any thing important I will

2157:

Few points I do agree with you, that is why I am 'positively' scouting to get update and expansion support to improve global perspective and neutrality, and that is how I contacted you too :). I wish article becomes as inclusive and balanced as possible. So I have already shortlisted at least some

2091:

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Knowledge (XXG) goal of

1521:

We all think we're objectively observing the facts - but we're not. So unless you really make an active effort to be a truth seeker, you're really just controlled by your biases. There's a great TED talk called "Soldier vs Scout mindset." I wouldn't be discouraged. I spent a lot of time in academia

2165:

One more observation is academic focus seems to be more on historic times of advice literature and analysis of modern times and contemporary Islamic advice literature is comparatively lesser and one systemic bias is coming from that side and Wikipedians are dependent on readily available source we

1420:

The fact is that ONE OF THE GUYS HELPED PROSECUTE THE GUY HE'S ACCUSED OF MURDERING TWO YEARS BEFORE. In what world is that not relevant? But I literally had people telling me that was WP:UNDUE because I couldn't prove that McMichael recognized Arbery at the time he was chasing him—something I had

1302:

If reliable sources cover it in a biography then that may not be UNDUE, however this isn't a biography, it's about a single event. We aren't going to point out that the victim had a conviction for a minor offence X years ago, because it's not relevant. And I think we know the direction from which

1013:

If you're eager to get started, I can certainly appreciate that (glancing at the threads up the page, it's obvious people feel passionate about this issue). But the best way to resolve disputes is to work methodically towards shared understand, agreement, consensus to support inclusion/exclusion,

334:

May I ask, what were the issues you had with with the citations I provided? As far as I can tell they’re legitimate papers from psychology journals. But then again, I’m more used to writing papers than I am with Knowledge (XXG)’s citation policy. But those citations would have been appropriate.

22:

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

1482:

I strongly believe that we have both been blocked and our well-sourced information on Arbery's record redacted in order to swing the Priors RfC taking place on the Talk page. This is how they censor Knowledge (XXG) – by harassing, insulting, redacting, and blocking people right before they "build

1434:

What criminal record? I've looked at RS and can't find any indication that he has been convicted of a parking violation. Even if there is a record, clearly nothing should be included unless it is directly relevant. We don't normally go after the person killed like this. O3000 (talk) 22:33, 14 May

1159:

The Talk Page is not the Article, and I'm not sure why someone. Most of the edits I've made were cleaning up punctiation and clumsy wording. You should block someone if they're actually being disruptive to an article, not because you feel they might possibly be sometime in the future - especially

212:

I agree, this isn't really getting anywhere, but to be honest I thought at first you were just tagging and running. But we'll figure this out in the AM since it's almost 12 here, and try to figure out what the issues are and what can be done to resolve them. And I'm being a little tongue in cheek

2431:

Oh, you know. Same old thing. Heard you're not a sockpuppet, so we have that in common. I once suspected our mutual business associate here of being a puppetmaster. Turns out he's a ninja! Can't judge a book by its cover, I guess. Do you, uh...read books lately? Actually, hold that thought. I'll

2161:

On ease of understanding for general reader, 1) I want to bring second para in lead to first number. 2) Though advice literature is abundant in all medias, reference sources are academic studies and intellectual books; we can add more explanatory lines about anecdotes we are talking about in the

2013:

told me "I have only needed to block one IP from the article so far, and have unblocked them after they indicated they understood the issues they were causing. I hope the same will be the case here." and told me "I said, if you can promise to control your annoyance (and, by the sounds of the SJW

1356:

Chrisvacc, please calm down. Your threat of going to the press was block-worthy. We are seeing opposition to the prior offense being mentioned, but yet we are also proceeding towards an RFC. It's not helpful to keep crying out bias when we are trying to settle this with an RfC. I'm not sure what

1210:

I didn't include the Talk page (my error) - I have now. If you're calling other editors "bullying SJWs" and threatening to go to the press then you are actually being disruptive. As I said, if you can promise to control your annoyance (and, by the sounds of the SJW comment, your biases) when

484:

Technology has already infiltrated every human interaction, but 2018 may be remembered as the year we truly started to grapple with the consequences. So perhaps it's no surprise that when Bloomberg asked dozens of business leaders to name the best book they read this year, The Coddling of the

1333:

neutrality issue? Of power users, and now administrators using their position to push a non-neutral POV? If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. For now, an article on this seems like a good plan: "Systemic Bias in Knowledge (XXG): how bias among Power Users and Administrators affects free

1274:

You deleted this and cited "BLP" as the reason for deletion. But there was no BLP violation. Now it's clear which side you're on, and I hadn't even noticed until you applied a ban. I would have never noticed. He was convicted. It's relevant to the case, so what's the issue? Because this

255:. (Corianna hasn't edited in years. I'm awaiting a response from Ethical user nyc.) There are related accounts, and lots of SPA editing. Problems with the articles about Haidt's books appear worse, but I've only glanced at them, noticing the sockpuppetry which appears to be in check. -- 1237:

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent

583:

his own Knowledge (XXG) entries, and he wouldn't approve of advert-like editing. I mean a large amount of his work was devoted to bringing neutrality back to the universities, which was the whole point of the Heterodox thing. You can see even in the video here:

1341:. In a speech a valedictorian accused the administration of being autharitarian so they cut off his mic. “How dare he call us authoritative? We don’t restrict rights. Cut his mic!” It's funny - I had already dropped this but now the issue is actually bigger. – 2166:

can not make much difference to it. Within four corners of freedoms Knowledge (XXG) allows from my side I am very much for, to make much inclusive. Besides for quick and better understanding of Islamic terms may be we can add more foot notes in the article.

579:, but do large publishers put promotional materials out on Knowledge (XXG)? My assumption would be 'no', but I've never looked into it. There's clear sockpuppetry going on, but think it's more likely fan's that are making the edits. I don't think he's even 793:

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

1664:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request.

574:

I do see a handful of SPA Accounts that are only editing only Haidt related articles (ie Heterodox, the Coddling). That said, I do know Jon through my professional career and I highly doubt he's paying Knowledge (XXG) editors. I can't speak for

2387:

for life. One governor at our party exhibited symptoms 55 years later! Anyway, nice meeting you; the strawberry on the far left likes to be nibbled first, if you're still planning on going through with this, be gentle with Sheila (top right)!

1313:

Dude, this isn't some Alt-right conspiracy to paint some kid in a bad light. This isn't some racist Stormfront plot. This is upholding the standards of journalistic integrety by presenting all the information and letting people decide for

822: 1249:- but that's not an excuse to use a neutral Encyclopedia as an outlet for your beliefs or unconscious biases. This is about Journalistic integrity, not some ulterior motives. Regarding the priors it's completely relevant and there are 2253:

was closed that the evidence was not strong enough, I am going to assume that you were innocent. With that assumption, I must apologize for having wasted your time and effort, and for causing distress: sorry to you, Chrisvacc.

1290:

laundry lists of people trying to attempt to paint Arbery in a bad light for previous issues that are irrelevant to his shooting; some have been removed today. Basically, if you're going down that route, it's best not to post.

86:

Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited.

1229:

my case for me. That ban encouraged me to go into your edit history and now I see this isn't just a problem among power users, but administrators too. You supressed information on the basis of "BLP violation", but there were

145:

supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you!

1424:

One of the people who has most eagerly attacked me is claiming on the Talk page that there is no evidence Arbery had a criminal record—after making sure I was redacted and blocked for citing and sourcing that information:

962:

Hello! Just saw your comment, but the RFC hasn't started yet, the point of the thread is to come to an agreement on the formulation of the question before we actually start (and list) an RFC. Make sense? :) Regards,

384:

He wrote a third book. Is it important enough that it deserves mention in the lede? As the articles about him and the book are now, I'm saying that it doesn't deserve mention (and is rather promotional for the book).

734: 1318:. But of course it's easier to resort to the "he's a racist!" witch-hunt and supress. Where's the BLP violation? Where's the DUE violation. All I see is Ad Hominem reasoning accusing people of being conservatives 2127:

I looked at it and made a minor edit, but the article is very difficult to read. It's clear the article is written from an islamic perspective and would be difficult for someone outside of that culture to read

341:

Re BLP - high quality sources are required. The rule here is that we're striving to create a serious encyclopedia. Use of Knowledge (XXG) for soapboxing and promotion undermine Knowledge (XXG)'s main goal.

2158:

sources to represent more geographies and more aspects. But subject is too big and I am alone. Since I began searching and writing from one end and rest still to be written and looking help for the same.

239:

COI problems are touchy. I don't have enough evidence at this point to write up a COIN report. If you'll look a the editing history and page statistics, the potential coi-editors appear obvious to me:

718:. 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 2014:

comment, your biases) when editing"... I could have just responded "okay I'll chill out" but instead I posted a long rant because I'm over this article. You guys can do what you want with it. -

130: 42: 1059:

I have only needed to block one IP from the article so far, and have unblocked them after they indicated they understood the issues they were causing. I hope the same will be the case here.

814: 807: 799: 795: 704: 173:

Is there a way I can convince you to work collaboratively with me? If you're not familiar with Knowledge (XXG)'s behavioral policies, then this may be a good time to do so, starting with

1396:

And you're right... if the thing comes to a vote and the community comes to a consensus.. I think that will be fair. It's when people go around reversing edits that there's an issue. -

233:

I ran across this article soon after it was created, as you can see in the edit history. I've not kept up with it, nor been involved with addressing the questionable editing around it.

344:

The new review for Coddling had criticisms and context that belong in the article for the book, which is a poor article almost certainly created by an undeclared paid editor. --

126: 46: 1245:

There are NO violations of Knowledge (XXG)'s rules. Tthe SJW comment isn't a bias. I'm a moderate liberal myself and have never voted for a Republican candidate in my

1940: 360:

His third book, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018), was written with Greg Lukianoff

49:

to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to

2162:

article. 3) To avoid copyright my own paraphrasing may have added upon intellectuals writing when more copy editing will take place that will get sorted out.

1699:

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.

1202:

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.

1439:

Seriously, how can you discuss his criminal record when no one has shown that he has one or what it is if it exists? O3000 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

88: 2189:

I cleaned up a few things and added a few tags so other editors can help. Feel free to check out my edits and make sure everything I wrote is correct. –

122: 38: 2379:. One old dude who dipped his toe in the Battlebowl before I took it to the peak of Space Mountain wasn't even masking his secret identity, completely 1155:

No, I don't think that's fair. Can you find any evidence of disruptive editing in the Article's history? Search the article history page for my edits.

588:

He would not apporve of biased editing, and almost certainly wouldn't pay someone to create promotional articles for him. It's more likely fan-edits.

133:. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to 2204:

keep you informed or edit, but as of now I am okay with the changes. You also keep editing whenever you come across any good reference source.

1586: 1110: 1684: 1187: 1156: 1044: 825:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 2351: 2309: 2261: 1981: 1950: 1915: 1828: 1799: 1757: 1364: 756: 1821:

It will take time for me to file a sockpuppet investigation request. Now is the time you admit it to save your ass from worse punishment.

2432:

disappear completely and ask again in a year, by then we won't be strangers so it won't be a weird question, see? Peace out, Chrisvacc!

1265:

BLP violations. It says it right there. If there's a conviction - it's allowed. BLP rules are there for Knowledge (XXG) to avoid Libel.

166:

Hi Chrisvacc. I'm guessing you're going to be uninterested in seeing this, but I'm extremely concerned with your behavior regarding the

2371:

Far be it from me to insinuate there's a five-timin', wheelin'-dealin', egg-suckin' dog in your house, Chris, but those strawberries

818: 1329:

Often exposing issues to journalistic scrutany holds orginizations accountable. What do you suggest? How do you suggest fixing this

999:

I say we just vote. I dont think anyone will object to that phrasing. It's too confusing and everyone is just voting anyway lol. –

457:

Our annual list of what some of the most powerful people in finance were reading this year is heavy on the drawbacks of technology.

1326: 1581: 1105: 752: 668: 727: 1271:

Now that I look into your edits you actually deleted comments citing "BLP" when there were no BLP violations. Like this one:

908: 2376: 834: 803: 321:

rules were made to avoid Libel and sensationalism. So to me, “The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule” and

134: 1559: 1083: 109: 29: 739: 672: 362:

from the Intro. The claim is essentially that the book exists. I feel like the best way to cite it is simply the ISBN.

2383:. So yeah, you might want to get tested for Dick the Bruiser syndrome, big man. It's not as bad as it sounds, but it 1553: 1077: 2251: 1852:

I don't even know what you're talking about. My comment was in regards to appealing the ban. Do whatver you want. –

2061: 1878:

You literally just said "you might be unblocked before the vote ends".. unless I'm misunderstaning what you said –

1670: 1558:

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

1082:

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

77:

This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

2096: 236:

Given our interactions so far, being "tongue in cheek" doesn't help, not that I think it an accurate description.

2103:

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to

2357: 2315: 2267: 1987: 1956: 1921: 1834: 1805: 1763: 1370: 911:. Unfortunately I had to decline the request because more than two editors are involved. You might want to try 830: 715: 1600: 1466: 1172: 1124: 250: 2437: 2412: 2393: 2092:

neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

1488: 1023: 968: 2375:

before they were yours, whooo! April 18, 2020, I knew they were going around, I probably would have worn

1666: 1240:

until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction

869: 151: 60: 2053: 2045: 419:

I Absolutely think so. It was a New York Times bestseller and listed as Bloombergs #1 Book of the year:

1304: 1292: 1212: 1060: 1792:

Oh, Chris. I'm so disappointed. It's over. You're done. I'm afraid you chose the wrong path, twice.

1711:

Someone named Kaden vandalized your comment on Galendia's talk page. I just wanted to let you know.

698: 2346: 2304: 2256: 1976: 1945: 1910: 1823: 1794: 1752: 1359: 664: 242: 711: 2403: 2302:

Again, I'm sorry, given the length of time passed, I forgot about this, though I shouldn't have.

1462: 1726:

Lmao, that was a somewhat odd piece of vandalism. Thanks for letting me know - I reversed it. –

1287: 1211:

editing, then any other admin who answers this may unblock; but I don't see that at the moment.

1015: 649: 174: 2433: 2408: 2389: 1484: 1459: 1334:

information" citing how relevant information was supressed by Power Users and Administrators.

1019: 994: 964: 147: 56: 2407:

talking after this third hello, but at least it's relatively straightforward and polite, eh?

723: 2217: 2179: 2117: 1716: 1693: 1196: 1050: 863: 783:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

746: 317:, I think we can work to find some good third party citations. But I also think most of the 273:

Well I'll open a new discussion on the Talk page and see what we can do about the citations.

916: 896: 726:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 719: 322: 318: 314: 2010: 1969: 1223: 591:

Someone else certainly would pay given the political ramifications of some of his work. --

107:. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. 912: 2069: 378:

Thanks. We're getting into discussion that belongs on the article talk page, so briefly:

2447: 2422: 2332: 2279: 2230: 2190: 2138: 2015: 1879: 1853: 1775: 1747: 1727: 1644: 1564: 1523: 1501: 1397: 1383: 1342: 1088: 1000: 979: 943: 928: 880: 844: 656: 620: 606: 596: 536: 390: 365: 349: 282: 260: 216: 199: 182: 167: 1643:

I can agree to that, so can this block be reviewed? It's been like 6 days. Thank you.

776: 422: 358:

I haven't looked at the Coddling page yet. I'm talking about the deletion of the line

1303:

most of the (mostly new) accounts who are pushing to add this stuff are coming from.

972: 576: 2104: 103:

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on

690: 2169:

Also please let me know If I am missing on some thing else not mentioned above.

2213: 2175: 2113: 1712: 1458:"Incidentally, FYI, one of those you blocked just emailed the other you blocked. 304:

The multiple issues tag was a good idea and I’m mad I didn’t even think of that.

50: 2296: 1338: 585: 2154:

Thanks for your frank input that shall help us improve the article further.

485:

American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, received the most votes.

921: 592: 386: 345: 256: 178: 142: 1357:

you're talking about with "power users", are any powers being used here?

98:

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

1639:. And that I could be unblocked if I understood how this was disruptive 730:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

17:

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

2454: 2441: 2416: 2397: 2362: 2339: 2320: 2286: 2272: 2237: 2221: 2207:

Just for record sake I mentioned this discussion on article talk page.

2197: 2183: 2145: 2121: 2023: 1992: 1961: 1926: 1887: 1861: 1839: 1810: 1783: 1768: 1735: 1720: 1674: 1651: 1631:

Can I request for this block to be lifted now. It's been 6 days. Admin

1531: 1509: 1492: 1470: 1405: 1391: 1375: 1350: 1307: 1295: 1215: 1177: 1063: 1027: 1008: 987: 951: 936: 888: 873: 852: 838: 760: 708:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

676: 628: 614: 600: 571:

I moved to this to the Talk page, but wanted reply to the advert stuff.

544: 394: 373: 353: 290: 264: 224: 207: 186: 155: 129:. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this 115:

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

64: 1325:

Neutrality issues on Knowledge (XXG). This issue isn't controversial.

1043:

you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

41:. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this 1382:

It's alright - I'm just an activist for Neutrality in Journalism. -

1047:, then add the following text below this section on your talk page: 2331:

Ha. it's fine. I had honestly forgotten all about it too. Thanks –

1750:, you are in big trouble and this is your one chance to admit it. 192:

Is there a way I can convince you to work collaboratively with me?

162:

Is there a way I can convince you to work collaboratively with me?

655:

Per this guideline we tend to stick with secondary sources. Best

2446:

It's cool - just didn't recognize you. I readded your comment –

789:

imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

743:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2134:{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|global perspective=yes}} 733:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

2076:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

2044: 1544: 1068: 1321:

The goal is to fix this this Neutrality problem. There are

2064:

after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Galendalia

1337:

So ban me from whatever you'd like. It reminds me of this

1279:

appears like an attempt to suppress relevant information.

1268:

Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be a neutral Point of View

2052:

Hello, Chrisvacc. Your question has been answered at the

1681:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1635:

said it could be lifted if I agree to not be disruptive:

1632: 1522:

and it's the same thing there. The overt liberal bias. -

1184:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1701:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1449:

He's also commenting on the fact that you "emailed" me:

1204:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

702:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2073: 1640: 1636: 1614: 1610: 1604: 1595: 1591: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1138: 1134: 1128: 1119: 1115: 1101: 1097: 1093: 904: 714:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

879:

Don't close a discussion where we're adding comments.

381:

That puts us into notability, lede, and weight issues.

2229:

Alright, maybe I'll make a few more edits tomorrow –

2137:

Otherwise the article looks good at a quick glance –

909:

Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Jogging versus running

1552:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

1157:

User Contribution Search - Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery

1076:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

1018:

comments. It's the Knowledge (XXG) way... Regards,

511:

I'll copy and paste this discussion to the talk page

1941:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisvacc

423:

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-best-books/

2009:You really are wasting your time. Read the block. 1908:I wish you admitted it and didn't waste my time. 1500:Lol, he's watching your page that closely?! – 1171:BLP applies to all pages, not just mainspace. 2344:Thank you for your magnanimity. Best wishes. 8: 2278:I just want my strawberry, and we're cool – 2081:Requesting expansion and update edit support 862:Don't add comments in a closed discussion.-- 813:For additional information, please see the 798:is in effect. Any administrator may impose 586:https://www.___tube.com/watch?v=3Bklwq2LBjI 213:with some of my comments on the Talk page. 2402:Hi, I'm InedibleHulk. I wished you a safe 810:, when making edits related to the topic. 685: 2060:Please note that all old questions are 2040:Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! 70: 1943:. I'm sorry that it has come to this. 1473:" Who do these people think they are? 802:on editors who do not strictly follow 7: 2110:Thanks, warm regards and greetings 1233:BLP violations. BLP clearly states: 699:2019 Arbitration Committee elections 121:You can find more information about 37:You can find more information about 1327:Ideological bias on Knowledge (XXG) 815:guidance on discretionary sanctions 716:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 682:ArbCom 2019 election voter message 101: 20: 14: 1637:link where Black Kite stated this 1286:For one, we certainly don't need 2295: 775: 689: 737:and submit your choices on the 139:About the Wikimedia Foundation: 47:frequently asked questions page 2039: 915:processes, which are detailed 770:Discretionary sanctions notice 1: 761:00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 156:08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 105:28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC) 903:Hello Chrisvacc. I saw your 89:Click here for contest rules 65:19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 2210:Thanks again and greetings 2131:I would put this banner up: 2056:. Feel free to reply there! 1556:, who declined the request. 1282:Then there's this comment: 1080:, who declined the request. 957: 905:request for a third opinion 677:14:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC) 619:Moving this convo to Talk. 2477: 1641:link to his second comment 1461:Haven't seen that before. 808:page-specific restrictions 804:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies 753:MediaWiki message delivery 127:frequently asked questions 2097:Islamic advice literature 1685:guide to appealing blocks 1675:09:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC) 1188:guide to appealing blocks 1045:guide to appealing blocks 629:22:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 615:22:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 601:19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 545:18:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 395:18:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 374:17:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 354:17:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 291:16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 265:16:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 225:03:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 208:03:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 187:03:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 2455:11:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC) 2442:14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 2417:06:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 2398:06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) 2363:08:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2340:08:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2321:08:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2287:07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2273:07:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2250:Given that the SPI case 2238:07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2222:07:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2198:04:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2184:04:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2146:17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 2122:14:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 2070:06:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 2024:06:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2019: 1993:05:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1962:05:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1927:05:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1888:05:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1883: 1862:05:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1857: 1840:05:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1811:05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1784:05:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1779: 1769:05:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1746:If you are socking with 1736:02:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1731: 1721:01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1652:16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 1532:05:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1527: 1510:05:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1505: 1493:05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1471:01:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1406:05:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1401: 1392:05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1387: 1376:04:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1351:19:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1346: 1308:16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1296:15:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1216:18:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1178:01:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1064:16:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1028:16:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1009:16:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1004: 988:15:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 983: 973:15:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 952:23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 947: 937:23:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 913:other dispute resolution 889:23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 884: 874:21:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 853:20:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 848: 839:20:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 751:to your user talk page. 624: 610: 540: 369: 286: 230:Thanks for the response. 220: 203: 978:Oh I'm sorry! Thanks – 819:Arbitration Committee's 796:discretionary sanctions 338:Thanks for the response 2054:Teahouse Q&A board 2049: 1549: 1073: 958:RFC hasn't started yet 429:The Best Books of 2018 2172:Tnanks and greetings 2048: 1601:change block settings 1548: 1339:recent video from CNN 1125:change block settings 1072: 1055:Your reason here ~~~~ 712:Arbitration Committee 696:Hello! Voting in the 1540:Article Block Review 1174:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 143:Wikimedia Foundation 125:or you can read the 110:Take the survey now. 30:Take the survey now! 2088:Season's greetings 831:NorthBySouthBaranof 313:So my thoughts Re: 45:. Please visit our 2074:remove this notice 2050: 1550: 1074: 728:arbitration policy 135:User:EGalvez (WMF) 119:About this survey: 2326: 2325: 1305:Black Kite (talk) 1293:Black Kite (talk) 1213:Black Kite (talk) 1061:Black Kite (talk) 919:. Thank you. -- 767: 766: 131:privacy statement 123:this project here 43:privacy statement 2468: 2354: 2349: 2312: 2307: 2299: 2292: 2291: 2264: 2259: 2077: 1984: 1979: 1973: 1953: 1948: 1918: 1913: 1831: 1826: 1802: 1797: 1760: 1755: 1742:Possible socking 1698: 1692: 1667:NinjaRobotPirate 1620: 1618: 1607: 1589: 1587:deleted contribs 1547: 1367: 1362: 1253:BLP violations: 1227: 1201: 1195: 1175: 1144: 1142: 1131: 1113: 1111:deleted contribs 1071: 1058: 998: 933: 932: 926: 925: 866: 779: 750: 693: 686: 661: 254: 251:Ethical user nyc 246: 92: 84: 78: 75: 2476: 2475: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2421:Oh LOL. Sup? – 2352: 2347: 2310: 2305: 2262: 2257: 2248: 2083: 2078: 2067: 2059: 2042: 2011:User:Black Kite 1982: 1977: 1967: 1951: 1946: 1916: 1911: 1829: 1824: 1800: 1795: 1758: 1753: 1744: 1709: 1704: 1696: 1690: 1689:, then use the 1678: 1655: 1608: 1598: 1584: 1567: 1560:blocking policy 1545: 1542: 1365: 1360: 1221: 1207: 1199: 1193: 1192:, then use the 1181: 1173: 1162: 1132: 1122: 1108: 1091: 1084:blocking policy 1069: 1048: 1040: 992: 960: 930: 929: 923: 922: 901: 864: 860: 828: 827: 780: 772: 744: 684: 657: 653: 248: 240: 164: 159: 100: 95: 85: 81: 76: 72: 68: 33: 19: 12: 11: 5: 2474: 2472: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2400: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2324: 2323: 2300: 2290: 2289: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2201: 2200: 2149: 2148: 2135: 2132: 2129: 2102: 2100: 2099: 2082: 2079: 2065: 2058: 2043: 2041: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 1996: 1995: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1787: 1786: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1708: 1705: 1679: 1662: 1658:Decline reason 1629: 1625:Request reason 1622: 1543: 1541: 1538: 1536: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1512: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1437: 1413: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1379: 1378: 1219: 1218: 1182: 1169: 1165:Decline reason 1153: 1149:Request reason 1146: 1067: 1039: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 959: 956: 955: 954: 900: 893: 892: 891: 859: 856: 781: 774: 773: 771: 768: 765: 764: 735:the candidates 705:eligible users 694: 683: 680: 652: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 617: 572: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 425: 420: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 382: 379: 363: 342: 339: 329: 328: 327: 326: 308: 307: 306: 305: 302: 296: 295: 294: 293: 277: 276: 275: 274: 268: 267: 237: 234: 231: 168:Jonathan Haidt 163: 160: 99: 96: 94: 93: 79: 69: 36: 27: 26: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2473: 2456: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2405: 2401: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2364: 2361: 2359: 2355: 2350: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2322: 2319: 2317: 2313: 2308: 2301: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2288: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2271: 2269: 2265: 2260: 2252: 2245: 2239: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2205: 2199: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2152: 2147: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2108: 2106: 2098: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2086: 2080: 2075: 2071: 2063: 2057: 2055: 2047: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2012: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1994: 1991: 1989: 1985: 1980: 1971: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1960: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1942: 1928: 1925: 1923: 1919: 1914: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1841: 1838: 1836: 1832: 1827: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1812: 1809: 1807: 1803: 1798: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1767: 1765: 1761: 1756: 1749: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1706: 1703: 1702: 1695: 1688: 1686: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1661: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1628: 1626: 1621: 1616: 1612: 1606: 1602: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1583: 1579: 1578:global blocks 1575: 1574:active blocks 1571: 1566: 1561: 1557: 1555: 1554:administrator 1539: 1537: 1534: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1513: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1483:"consensus". 1474: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1441: 1438: 1436: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1372: 1368: 1363: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1335: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1319: 1317: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1289: 1283: 1280: 1278: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1264: 1259: 1254: 1252: 1248: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1234: 1232: 1225: 1217: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1206: 1205: 1198: 1191: 1189: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1168: 1166: 1161: 1158: 1152: 1150: 1145: 1140: 1136: 1130: 1126: 1121: 1117: 1112: 1107: 1103: 1102:global blocks 1099: 1098:active blocks 1095: 1090: 1085: 1081: 1079: 1078:administrator 1066: 1065: 1062: 1056: 1052: 1046: 1038:Partial Block 1037: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1002: 996: 991: 990: 989: 985: 981: 977: 976: 975: 974: 970: 966: 953: 949: 945: 942:Thanks buddy 941: 940: 939: 938: 935: 934: 927: 918: 914: 910: 906: 898: 897:third opinion 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 877: 876: 875: 871: 867: 865:SharʿabSalam▼ 857: 855: 854: 850: 846: 841: 840: 836: 832: 826: 824: 820: 816: 811: 809: 805: 801: 797: 791: 790: 788: 778: 769: 763: 762: 758: 754: 748: 742: 741: 736: 731: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 707: 706: 701: 700: 695: 692: 688: 687: 681: 679: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 660: 651: 648: 630: 626: 622: 618: 616: 612: 608: 604: 603: 602: 598: 594: 590: 589: 587: 582: 578: 577:Penguin_Books 573: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 546: 542: 538: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 486: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 458: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 431: 430: 426: 424: 421: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 396: 392: 388: 383: 380: 377: 376: 375: 371: 367: 364: 361: 357: 356: 355: 351: 347: 343: 340: 337: 336: 333: 332: 331: 330: 324: 320: 316: 312: 311: 310: 309: 303: 300: 299: 298: 297: 292: 288: 284: 281: 280: 279: 278: 272: 271: 270: 269: 266: 262: 258: 252: 244: 238: 235: 232: 229: 228: 227: 226: 222: 218: 214: 210: 209: 205: 201: 197: 194: 193: 189: 188: 184: 180: 176: 171: 169: 161: 158: 157: 153: 149: 148:EGalvez (WMF) 144: 140: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 116: 113: 112: 111: 106: 97: 90: 83: 80: 74: 71: 67: 66: 62: 58: 57:EGalvez (WMF) 55:Thank you! -- 53: 51: 48: 44: 40: 34: 32: 31: 24: 16: 2451: 2434:InedibleHulk 2426: 2409:InedibleHulk 2390:InedibleHulk 2384: 2380: 2372: 2345: 2336: 2303: 2283: 2255: 2249: 2234: 2212: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2194: 2174: 2171: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2153: 2150: 2142: 2112: 2109: 2105:Intellectual 2101: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2051: 1975: 1944: 1939: 1909: 1822: 1793: 1751: 1745: 1710: 1700: 1682: 1680: 1663: 1657: 1656: 1648: 1630: 1624: 1623: 1596:creation log 1563: 1551: 1535: 1520: 1485:Tambourine60 1481: 1457: 1448: 1440: 1433: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1412: 1358: 1336: 1330: 1322: 1320: 1315: 1312: 1301: 1300: 1285: 1284: 1281: 1276: 1273: 1270: 1267: 1262: 1257: 1255: 1250: 1246: 1244: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1230: 1220: 1203: 1185: 1183: 1170: 1164: 1163: 1154: 1148: 1147: 1120:creation log 1087: 1075: 1054: 1041: 1020:AzureCitizen 995:AzureCitizen 965:AzureCitizen 961: 920: 902: 861: 842: 829: 812: 792: 786: 784: 782: 738: 732: 709: 703: 697: 658: 654: 605:Fair enough 580: 483: 456: 428: 427: 359: 215: 211: 198: 195: 191: 190: 172: 165: 138: 118: 117: 114: 108: 104: 102: 82: 73: 54: 39:this project 35: 28: 25: 21: 2404:Ides of May 2072:. (You can 740:voting page 2381:au naturel 2377:protection 2066:CVU Member 1970:Black Kite 1707:Vandalisim 1633:Black Kite 1592:filter log 1435:2020 (UTC) 1316:themselves 1258:completely 1224:Black Kite 1116:filter log 724:topic bans 2448:Chrisvacc 2423:Chrisvacc 2373:were mine 2333:Chrisvacc 2280:Chrisvacc 2231:Chrisvacc 2191:Chrisvacc 2139:Chrisvacc 2016:Chrisvacc 1880:Chrisvacc 1854:Chrisvacc 1776:Chrisvacc 1748:NewsGuard 1728:Chrisvacc 1683:read the 1645:Chrisvacc 1611:checkuser 1570:block log 1565:Chrisvacc 1524:Chrisvacc 1502:Chrisvacc 1398:Chrisvacc 1384:Chrisvacc 1343:Chrisvacc 1186:read the 1135:checkuser 1094:block log 1089:Chrisvacc 1001:Chrisvacc 980:Chrisvacc 944:Chrisvacc 881:Chrisvacc 845:Chrisvacc 821:decision 806:, or the 800:sanctions 720:site bans 659:Doc James 621:Chrisvacc 607:Chrisvacc 537:Chrisvacc 366:Chrisvacc 283:Chrisvacc 217:Chrisvacc 200:Chrisvacc 170:article. 2348:starship 2306:starship 2258:starship 2062:archived 1978:starship 1947:starship 1912:starship 1825:starship 1796:starship 1754:starship 1582:contribs 1361:starship 1331:systemic 1323:systemic 1288:WP:UNDUE 1256:This is 1106:contribs 1053:|reason= 858:May 2020 817:and the 785:It does 669:contribs 650:WP:MEDRS 301:For now: 243:Corianna 175:WP:CIVIL 2246:Apology 1974:- FYI. 1694:unblock 1605:unblock 1197:unblock 1129:unblock 1051:unblock 899:request 747:NoACEMM 2353:.paint 2311:.paint 2263:.paint 2214:Bookku 2176:Bookku 2114:Bookku 1983:.paint 1952:.paint 1917:.paint 1830:.paint 1801:.paint 1759:.paint 1713:Wale18 1366:.paint 1277:really 931:(Talk) 323:WP:IAR 319:WP:BLP 315:WP:BLP 1687:first 1463:O3000 1190:first 1016:!vote 895:Your 673:email 2438:talk 2413:talk 2394:talk 2358:talk 2316:talk 2268:talk 2218:talk 2180:talk 2151:Hi, 2118:talk 2085:Hi, 2020:talk 1988:talk 1957:talk 1922:talk 1884:talk 1858:talk 1835:talk 1806:talk 1780:talk 1774:??? 1764:talk 1732:talk 1717:talk 1671:talk 1528:talk 1506:talk 1489:talk 1467:talk 1402:talk 1388:talk 1371:talk 1347:talk 1247:life 1024:talk 1005:talk 984:talk 969:talk 948:talk 924:LuK3 917:here 907:for 885:talk 870:talk 849:talk 843:LOL 835:talk 823:here 757:talk 710:The 665:talk 625:talk 611:talk 597:talk 593:Ronz 581:read 541:talk 391:talk 387:Ronz 370:talk 350:talk 346:Ronz 287:talk 261:talk 257:Ronz 221:talk 204:talk 196:Yes 183:talk 179:Ronz 152:talk 141:The 61:talk 2128:it. 2107:. 2068:\ 1615:log 1562:). 1139:log 1086:). 787:not 137:. 2450:- 2440:) 2425:- 2415:) 2396:) 2385:is 2335:- 2282:- 2233:- 2220:) 2193:- 2182:) 2141:- 2120:) 2022:) 1886:) 1860:) 1782:) 1734:) 1719:) 1697:}} 1691:{{ 1673:) 1660:: 1647:- 1627:: 1609:• 1603:• 1599:• 1594:• 1590:• 1585:• 1580:• 1576:• 1572:• 1530:) 1508:) 1491:) 1469:) 1404:) 1390:) 1349:) 1263:no 1251:no 1231:no 1200:}} 1194:{{ 1167:: 1151:: 1133:• 1127:• 1123:• 1118:• 1114:• 1109:• 1104:• 1100:• 1096:• 1057:}} 1049:{{ 1026:) 1007:) 986:) 971:) 950:) 887:) 872:) 851:) 837:) 759:) 749:}} 745:{{ 722:, 675:) 671:· 667:· 627:) 613:) 599:) 543:) 393:) 385:-- 372:) 352:) 289:) 263:) 247:, 223:) 206:) 185:) 154:) 146:-- 63:) 52:. 2452:✆ 2436:( 2427:✆ 2411:( 2392:( 2360:) 2356:( 2337:✆ 2318:) 2314:( 2284:✆ 2270:) 2266:( 2235:✆ 2216:( 2195:✆ 2178:( 2143:✆ 2116:( 2018:( 1990:) 1986:( 1972:: 1968:@ 1959:) 1955:( 1924:) 1920:( 1882:( 1856:( 1837:) 1833:( 1808:) 1804:( 1778:( 1766:) 1762:( 1730:( 1715:( 1669:( 1649:✆ 1619:) 1617:) 1613:( 1568:( 1526:( 1504:( 1487:( 1465:( 1400:( 1386:( 1373:) 1369:( 1345:( 1226:: 1222:@ 1143:) 1141:) 1137:( 1092:( 1022:( 1003:( 997:: 993:@ 982:( 967:( 946:( 883:( 868:( 847:( 833:( 755:( 663:( 623:( 609:( 595:( 539:( 389:( 368:( 348:( 285:( 259:( 253:: 249:@ 245:: 241:@ 219:( 202:( 181:( 150:( 91:. 59:(

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

Index