User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2014/June

1585:

in an encyclopedia. I have said, if this were an Op-Ed, then, sure, bash Yank Barry all you want. This is not an Op-Ed, it's an encyclopedia. I don' know if I have mentioned this or not but my degree and studies are heavily based in research and writing, so I am experienced. In my opinion, the facts should be told, in as much detail as possible, and the reader is to make up their own mind and form their own opinions of the topic, in an encyclopedia. I will heed your advice, but it is very disturbing to see an editor who's is blatantly not coming from a neutral point of view, and said editor is being allowed to effect an article in a negative way. It bothers me greatly or I wouldn't get upset and I would not have asked you and other editors for help. I'm going to try the flies and vinegar and honey but I am skeptical of that approach with an editor who is not neutral. I don't think I'm going to far out on a limb in saying that some editors don't like Yank Barry. I have no idea why that is, but it is obvious. I know you have to see it. The question is can they edit from a neutral point of view and I believe this editor can not. VQuakr, has reverted my work. You do not see me having problems with him. In fact I have gone to him for help. I'm pretty sure he doesn't like me, but we can have a discussion like adults. So my issue with Ubikwit is not that he reverts my work, but that I do not believe he is coming from a neutral point of view. I assume good faith of everyone and have since day one, even when I was not afforded that right, but I think we are past that now. The comments and the opinions are obviously not

1315:

first page. My edit was conservative, removed no information except the subjective judgement of an unknown personality, and left the dubious endorsement in place only slightly nerfed. I don't know what you thought you improved by reverting my effort, but I encourage you to think again. I don't have wikipedia editing as a hobby, and don't care to get involved if I'm going to be dealing with reverts on something as un-revert-worthy as this. Instead, I encourage you to do two things. 1) Edit that sentence yourself to remove the endorsement. Perhaps you could write something like "The Cheerwine company has said that the only acceptable alcoholic mixer for...Captain Morgan" (This may be true) or some other phrase that does not equal saying "Knowledge (XXG) says that these things taste good when mixed together" (unambiguously subjective and unambiguously an endorsement; well done.) 2) Consider having a little more input and a little more care as to what you revert. If you're reverting things just because they seem to not improve things, perhaps it's because you're not paying attention, didn't take the time to read carefully, or are biased? Or perhaps you, in that particular instance, are none of those things and had a good reason that you didn't explain. As a result, I'm annoyed and, rather than waste more time, I'm leaving you with your ball, giving you a lecture on how you're not making Knowledge (XXG) any friends OR improvements here, and going back to my own pastimes. I don't need or want a response. I just encourage you to consider the above.

1458:

very helpful in the past and you seem to want to try and improve the page. As I've said all along, I'm not campaigning for anything that is untrue to be in the article, and like the editor above I've never campaigned to keep the negative out. I just believe all Knowledge (XXG) topics should have the same rules and if something is 100% okay on every other page then it shouldn't be censored on the YB page. I'm not talking about the Nobel Peace Prize nominations, (I know you and Rich took care of that on Malala's page but only after I had to bring up the double standard 10 times) if something is a no no everywhere then it should be a no no on the YB page. I feel like, from an academic perspective (I did go to school to be a social studies teacher, so a lot of my studies were in research and writing), all topics should have the same set of rules and editors personal feelings about the topic should not be brought to the table. I'm asking for your help because you seem to be a solid editor and because you've helped me in the past. I know you have been down the admin road before, so if you want nothing to do with me or helping me improve the Yank Barry page, please just give me the information to bring this to the administration's attention. Thank you and good day.--

1540:? I came to you for help about going to admin so I could get out in front of this situation, and he has now threatened to take me to admin. I do not appreciate the accusations he has made towards me. I do not believe he is a neutral editor. If you can read everything he has posted and still say he is neutral then, I guess, disregard this. If his comments do not seem to be coming from a neutral perspective then I, again, ask you for your help. I am new to Knowledge (XXG) and I feel like I'm being picked on by the bully at recess and I don't know what to do. Obviously, fighting is not the answer. Flies, vinegar, honey, etc. Please help me or direct me towards someone who can. Thanks.-- 1563:. As long as you continue discussing the editor rather that the edits, you will get nowhere in Knowledge (XXG). My suggestion to you: drop completely from your arguments any assessments on the motivations, beliefs or intentions of fellow editors. Just drop it and focus your arguments exclusively on the merits of the argument. One way to see the other person's point of view is to use the "Hasidic" method: Before you make your arguments about your position, you have to be able to make the arguments of your opponent's position in a debate. In Knowledge (XXG) that is called 833:, I see in your post at AN/I that you are asking BlueSalix to produce evidence or retract his accusation, but I think retracting is not good enough. If he has evidence that an editor spoofed my name and sent him nasty emails to poison the well between him and me during a heated debate, the impersonating editor's account should be blocked so it does not happen again. At least he should produce the name of the user account from which the email was sent, which must be a variation of my username if he believed so easily that it was me. . 875:, but I don't want to enable email and prefer transparent communications. My take is that BlueSalix was in a frame of mind in which he saw shadows when there were none, and for whatever reason I triggered an unwarranted response from him and his following accusation. That is the only explanation I can find for his highly aggressive tone in that AN/I discussion and his inability to accept apologies made in good faith. All he needs to do is to apologize for his mistake, which I will accept in good faith . 959:

also the mysterious hints about you and Mosfetfaser. I can hardly assume that they have left Knowledge (XXG) after a mere 24 hours, even though I suspect that's what's happened. If there's nothing from them in another 24, I'll write a note on their page, and a note for you here that'll make it clear to everybody that there was never anything in the accusations. Something you can refer to in the unlikely event that the subject ever comes up in the future.

2084: 562: 31: 1203: 157: 510: 1092:

your face at a later date, when the ANI brouhaha has been forgotten, please just refer them to this post — keep a bookmark to it — and refer them to me for the circumstances. I really don't think it will become necessary, though. I hardly think anybody believed it to begin with, and in any case Knowledge (XXG) moves on. Happy editing, and please let me know if there's anything else I can do.

65:

meaning the correct next step was an RfC. Also, the edit before that had 2 supporting, 1 opposed, with 1 ambiguous. So as you can see, there is genuine difference of opinion over what consensus is. In light of these facts, why did you close the discussion? If you were not aware of the split over consensus, you should not have closed. If you were aware of it, you should not have closed.

1619:

page, but I'm curious as to what sent you down that path in the first place? I do not see this article as having an ounce of puff. To the contrary this article has the strictest puff police of any article I've seen. Just curious. I agree with user BarrelProof and his assessment. I have NEVER advocating adding anything to the article that is not a fact. Thanks and have a great day.--

2102: 791:

with Casprings that it's serious and you should pursue it if you don't get any satisfaction (such as either evidence or a proper formal withdrawal of the accusation). Since you don't have Knowledge (XXG) e-mail enabled and BS doesn't either (!), I see several technical difficulties with the idea that you e-mailed him/her

1884:

I am in receipt of your request to contact you regarding the recent edit to the Oxford Round Table Knowledge (XXG) page. I assure you that we are legitimate source and would like to prove it to you if there is a way to do so. Please advise as to providing you verification and information to this end.

790:

Hi, Cwobeel. I see you have denied sending some e-mails, several times on this page and also on ANI, but I can't find where BlueSalix made the accusation. (If it was on ANI, it may well have been removed.) Can you enlighten me with a diff? Also of any response BS may have made to your denial. I agree

727:

Thank you for the note. I am still in shock that someone would impersonate me to escalate a dispute by sending nasty emails to BlueSalix using my name. I mean, who would do something like that? Maybe BlueSalix has "wiki-enemies" that will stoop that low to upset him? I have asked BlueSalix to provide

64:

You did a speedy close of my RfC on the Ta-Nehisi Coates Talk page. I want to know why you couldn't have let it play out for the standard 7 days? I started it based on a suggestion from an involved admin. As a speedy closer, I presume you knew the previous edit had 3 editors supporting, 3 opposed,

1888:

For several years, the Oxford Round Table has been underattack by Knowledge (XXG) vandals, two pseudonyms in particular known as Nomoskedasticity and Pokey5945. These two individuals, we believe, are separate and distinct individuals who may or may not work together. To make a long story short, the

1760:

as the only citations cited were personal blogs (a few of which were just default-wordpress-theme, abandoned over a year ago kind of blogs). It seems as though the page in question is being maintained by the owners of metamodernism.com, which was (and may still be) the most cited source on the page

1618:

As we've covered, I respect you as an editor. My question is why do you believe this is a PR or Puff piece? I have, personally, tried to be extremely careful not to contribute anything to the article that is promotional and have clarified all promotional pieces. I know it was agreed to keep as a

1584:

I always appreciate your advice. Some of the things you suggest I have already read, but you mentioning it reinforces I'm on the right path. I guess what I'm asking you is do you think he is editing from a NPOV? I do not believe he is. I do not think it's right and I do not think it has a place

1457:

I am coming to you for help as well. There are several reasons why I've come to you, but number one is, I don't know how to contact admin. It is not my goal or purpose to get anyone blocked but to try and get help with the obvious double standard that exists at the Yank Barry page. You have been

1412:

The editorializing is obvious. You first present the quote of the interview, which was the last event in the chronology, and then used "however" to link back a story about how Cantor characterize Brat as a liberal professor. That is a great example of editorializing, which we are not supposed to do

1314:

Cheerwine is often mixed with Captain Morgan to make a drink known as the "Whining Pirate." The former is subjective, and smacks of endorsement. It smells like something put in the page by a marketer; a quick websearch for the 'whining pirate' (sans quotes) brings up nothing about cocktails on the

958:

Yes, it seems unlikely, but no, you should by no means forget it, Cwobeel. There isn't anything you can do at this point, but don't forget it, and also don't worry. I just need to give him/her a little more time to send the promised e-mail to me, or to otherwise resolve not only the accusations but

1991:

Regarding the creation of the Oxford Round Table Page on Knowledge (XXG), we would like to clarify though drstones may have created the page in 2007, Nomoskedasticity has originated nothing but negative commentary on the Oxford Round Table since that time. Also, please let us know which part of my

1658:

article than I have the Yank Barry article. I am not a single purpose account and I'm sick of being called that because I won't say Yank Barry is a bad person. The only reason I keep coming back to this page is because of behavior like this, from the very beginning, and when I get upset at said

1091:

Hi, Cwobeel. It has become obvious that the allegations by BlueSalix that you had sent abusive e-mails were false, and I've put a note on their page to that effect. Your name has been completely cleared, and I'm sorry you had to be subjected to that. In case anybody should throw the accusation in

795:

with the idea that somebody impersonated you to do so. (There are technical difficulties with their unawareness of having been blocked by me, too, so there seems to be a bit of a pattern. The I-was-never-blocked thing is pretty harmless IMO — more just odd — but saying you sent abusive e-mails is

403:

As this discussion is specifically about your behavior as an editor it is more appropriate here. The content related issues with the article have been addressed through edits to the article and their edit summaries. Content related discussion can certainly take place on the articles talk page if

728:

some evidence so that this can be investigated but he refused. At least he could make the username known so that it can be blocked and a CU filed to see who was behind it. I am still at a loss on what learnings I can extract from all this, so far I am drawing a blank.

1904:

Thank you for your attention, and we would appreciate it, if you would assist us in doing the right thing. Perhaps, it would be important to point out that the Knowledge (XXG) page for the Oxford Round Table was created not by the company but by Nomoskedasticity.

1992:

edit was uncomfortable for you to remove. If it was the controversy/litigation part of the page, we would like to provide you with accurate information about that issue/dispute for which we have the official records and the Court's order. Justicentruth_0616

484:

Thanks for your comment over on the talk page. We all get a little worked up, and I certainly did. I posted a similar comment over on the Talk page, but due to some glitch in the partial protection there I'm sometimes finding that my posts don't show up.

1603:

Even though I feel it's not right, I'm going to take the high road. I'm done with that guy. All I ask is he does not make accusations towards me. Should be fair enough. I'm trying the vinegar and honey approach because I trust you. I hope you're

212:

I was not engaging in any political advocacy. That is a lie. I asked you for a reliable source to support your personal opinion and, so far, you have not provided one. Please do not make up false premises and focus on the content of the article

116:

You haven't answered my question - do you intend to accept community consensus in this RfC and drop the matter permanently once it closes? The community consensus is clear and you don't get to re-run discussions until you get the answer you want.

536:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

369:

Why would you allege content was not supported by the sources when it clearly is? If you are unable to access a source behind a paywall it is not appropriate to remove the content it supports but to ask for assistance in verification (see

1638:

problem, and there is a huge double standard problem. I'm going to intently watch how this plays out, but I'm sticking with my vinegar and honey approach on the talk page and will still only contribute FACTS to the article. Have a nice

1078: 1653:

Number one, I don't only edit the Yank Barry page. Please don't make statements about me when you don't have your facts straight. Number two, I have only made ONE edit to the Yank Barry article. I have made more edits to the

1633:

Still think I'm crazy about the concerns I have voiced to you? It's pretty clear the subject of the article feels there is a problem. There is absolutely no arguing that there is a lack of good faith problem, there is a

540:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

1889:

motivations of these two individuals are separate and distinct as well, but they both have in obsession in vendetta against Dr. Kern Alexander and F. King Alexander who are connected to the Oxford Round Table.

84:

Let's just leave it open for one week so it's finally clear, once and for all, what the answer is, and if it gets pushed beyond that... seriously, literally, time for another topic ban discussion.

1107:

Thanks for your help on this. I am still puzzled by BlueSalix's behavior and why it is so hard form him/her to issue a simple apology for what seems to be a mistake made in the heat of things. -

1381:

wholesale the four edits I made, two of which were clearly noncontroversial. I'm also confused - in what way did moving things around to a more logical order constitute "editorializing content"?

1895:

The recent edits by me and members of the board of the Oxford Round Table itself were attempts to put a stop to their activities and to correct the information about the Oxford Round Table.

1344: 1332: 533: 1536:

I'm asking you this question because you seem to be an experienced and fair editor. Can you, honestly, read the comments Ubikwit has made on the Yank Barry page and say he is coming from

1439:

article has quite the background, and am only intending to help. The community can feel free to not proceed with my edit requests, but I do feel that there is a certain responsibility to

1824:

The issue wasn't that the information was unsourced, it was that everything I had removed used a personal blog (most likely added to the article by the owner of said site) as a source.

891:

It wasn't anything important anyway. But as far as I can understand, BlueSalix is (sort of) saying it's not a mistake. Did you read the ANI thread I indicated? It's all there.

854: 752:

is full of it. I think he/she made up the email. I think that is BS. You should report it to WP/N again and demand an investigation. If nothing happens, I would file at

165: 161: 374:). But beyond that you removed content alleging it was not in sources when it was in provided inline sources that are freely accessible, can you explain this behavior? - - 1168:

Ok, sounds like a simple difference of opinions on what constitutes original research. Do you think discussion on the talk page would be productive, or do you think

99:

Why didn't you include the RfC tag when you reopened it? Are you deliberately trying to prevent other editors who might disagree with you from knowing about this?

131:

I don't have to assume - from your prior dishonest statements about consensus on noticeboards, I know. This could have been over long ago but for your actions.

1713: 1892:

The information that these two individuals provide to Knowledge (XXG) is biased, inaccurate, devoid of context, and always negative in attacking the company.

661:

I have not sent you any emails as I don't have email enabled in my account. It will explain a lot is someone is impersonating me. How can this have happened?

1723: 1709: 522: 991:

using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

1659:

behavior then it is turned around on me as the person who is in the wrong. All I wanted to do was help out and I've been treated absolutely horribly!--

813:: Never mind about the diffs, I've found them (with some effort, because of BS's habit of not using edit summaries). Indeed, I've posted them on ANI. 2008: 1927: 1048:

We hope you enjoy maintaining Knowledge (XXG) with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at

2168:

Lhoknga has recovered since the tsunami and is becoming increasingly popular for kitesurfing during the windy season which is May until September.

1719: 2057: 2052:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1898:

We intend to insert additional accurate information about the Oxford Round Table including its history, membership, and current activities.

1476:: There is no need to contact an admin, but if you want to resolve the dispute and get some help, you can follow the steps suggested in the 1353: 1348:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 632: 627:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1855:. If no RS are provided in a few days, then delete... It will give editors a chance to look for these sources, and avoid an edit war. - 1316: 297:

removed the facts that Elisabeth Targ was a psychiatrist and parapsychologist. These facts are plainly present in the source(s) given,

684:

Can you at least make the username known so it can be blocked? If that user impersonated and misused email once, he may do that again.

1835: 1780: 418:

MrBill: I don;t need you to come here and lecture me. If you have dispute on my editing that article, do it on talk page, not here.

2053: 1443:

that is not upheld when well sourced material is ignored. You might notice that my requests are not all completely positive too...

1349: 628: 227:

Look, I have learned to recognize editors like you; there is no point in engaging in discussions as it is a bloody waste of time.

2043: 1339: 618: 1716:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 905:

Well, if he says it is was not a mistake, then he will be proven wrong. He still has time to apologize and put this behind. .

1953: 349: 2123: 1152:

You can use primary sources in some narrow circumstances, but you can't do original research based on a primary source. -

1032: 1324: 2119: 988: 122: 89: 266: 262:

removed the fact Russell and Joan Targ had two sons and their names. This fact is plainly present in the source given,

526: 1762: 1589:. Thanks for the advice. Have a good day, I'm out, I can't take anymore Knowledge (XXG) right now. Thanks again.-- 1169: 774:

does not produce any evidence. I will give him/her some time to consider the implications of not producing evidence.

1313:

Cheerwine pairs well with Captain Morgan, otherwise known as the "Whining Pirate." Instead said something like : -->

435:

Please use accurate edit summaries. Please do not remove sourced content claiming it is not sourced. Thank you. - -

1965: 1696:

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

1287: 941:, It seems unlikely that BlueSalix will issue an apology/retraction/explanation. Should I just forget all this? - 38: 2004: 1923: 1137:

says; what is the basis of this opinion? What in the sentence you removed did you interpret as original research?

770:

Thanks for the advice. I am not sure I want to get into an ArbCom review at this time, but I will consider it if

307: 218: 1901:

Again, we are willing to provide you sources to verify this information, if you could instruct us how to do so.

371: 118: 85: 2000: 1919: 1320: 517: 501: 136: 104: 70: 2127: 1996: 1915: 1049: 1664: 1644: 1624: 1609: 1594: 1545: 1505: 1463: 404:

needed. My question here is why you as an editor would remove content with misleading edit summaries. - -

1020: 1961: 1830: 1775: 1448: 490: 459: 320: 1697: 1660: 1640: 1620: 1605: 1590: 1556: 1541: 1501: 1473: 1459: 194: 1655: 1444: 1286:

yeah, I think I was too quick with that one. A better course of action would have been to redirect to

2048: 2036: 214: 2188: 2174: 1134: 2178: 1943: 857:, at the end. If you had e-mail enabled, I would at this point say something to you in confidence. 761: 710: 1262: 753: 256:

Personal life: rm material that is not verifiable. There are no sources available for these items.

2136: 2131: 1947: 1939: 1388: 1097: 1058: 1053: 964: 896: 862: 820: 801: 354: 176: 132: 100: 66: 2115: 2092: 1564: 1173: 1040: 1011: 1004: 996: 2165:

You removed my edit on Lhoknga. Would it be ok to just have a short line on the page such as:

1312:

Hello Cwobeel. I recently edited the Cheerwine wiki page so that the sentence that said: : -->

1044:- Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! 2214: 2209: 2182: 2148: 2122:

to Knowledge (XXG) at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the

2083: 2069: 2065: 2028: 2023: 1986: 1981: 1969: 1931: 1866: 1861: 1840: 1819: 1814: 1785: 1743: 1739: 1685: 1680: 1668: 1648: 1628: 1613: 1598: 1578: 1573: 1549: 1530: 1525: 1509: 1490: 1485: 1467: 1452: 1424: 1419: 1399: 1365: 1361: 1301: 1296: 1280: 1250: 1245: 1230: 1185: 1163: 1158: 1146: 1118: 1113: 1100: 1070: 967: 952: 947: 916: 911: 899: 886: 881: 865: 844: 839: 823: 804: 785: 780: 765: 739: 734: 714: 695: 690: 672: 667: 644: 640: 603: 598: 583: 579: 561: 547: 494: 478: 474: 463: 444: 440: 427: 423: 413: 409: 397: 393: 383: 379: 312: 236: 232: 222: 206: 202: 183: 140: 126: 108: 93: 74: 47: 17: 2192: 1635: 1586: 1537: 2199:. Basically, we can't use Knowledge (XXG) for advocating our views. We can only report what 1825: 1793: 1770: 1181: 1142: 486: 455: 271: 1766: 1440: 2110:

Congratulations, Cwobeel! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the

2042:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

1338:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

1277: 1227: 705:

I mean, if you don't want to edit, don't edit. However, the current drama is almost done.

617:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

542: 337: 2200: 1757: 1516: 1497: 1477: 1202: 771: 757: 747: 722: 706: 679: 656: 345: 2196: 2056:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 1750: 1730:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1705: 1407: 1393: 1383: 1352:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 1093: 960: 938: 892: 872: 858: 830: 816: 797: 631:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 169: 2191:. That is the exact reason why I removed your addition to that article. Please read 1261:

Before nominating articles for deletion, are you carrying out the steps outlined in

855:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#New header for ease of editing

2204: 2061: 2018: 1976: 1856: 1809: 1735: 1731: 1675: 1568: 1520: 1480: 1414: 1357: 1291: 1240: 1153: 1108: 942: 906: 876: 834: 775: 729: 685: 662: 636: 623: 611: 593: 575: 470: 436: 419: 405: 389: 375: 228: 198: 1849: 1802: 1177: 1138: 302: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1436: 1266: 1216: 1908:

We will await your response, but we would like to edit the page immediately.

1761:(which, once more, in no way passes WP:RS), thus provokes other issues with 1371: 279:

I placed the cn tag as there was no source for the two son's professions.

1701: 164:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is

2101: 2017:

I think this would be better discussed on that article's talk page. -

1077: 756:. They deal with conduct and this to me is pretty serious misconduct. 2171:

We want the location be be highlighted more positively. thanks Joanna

1674:

Grow a bit of thick skin... We are here to write an encyclopedia. -

1052:

and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks!

1515:

I think you are beyond that. Take further steps as suggested at

574:

Thank you for resolving a conflict of edits on Knowledge (XXG).

1377:

Hi, I'd appreciate if you could do a partial revert instead of

350:"Notes of a fringe-watcher: Distant healing and Elisabeth Targ" 166:

User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban

534:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Amanda and Jerad Miller

25: 1215:

Thanks for all your work on BLP's and the BLP noticeboard.

1345:

Talk:United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014

1333:

Talk:United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014

521:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

1133:

you say "we can't use primary sources." That is not what

849:

Yeah. Sensational developments. See the posts following

1700:, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 1378: 1130: 850: 814: 701:

There is no reason for a wiki break because of drama...

515:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

286: 251: 1956:), not by me. Not that it would be a bad thing if I 162:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

1808:and allow editors some time to provide sources. - 1413:as editors. I will try to do a partial restore. - 1036:- See how you are faring against other STiki users! 1027:Here are some pages which are a little more fun: 1756:The large portions I cut had all failed to meet 1496:Thank you, that is what I'm trying to do. See 267:"Joan Fischer Targ, computer literacy activist" 193:It is not cool by Knowledge (XXG) standards to 1021:Information about vandalism on Knowledge (XXG) 1478:dispute resolution process of Knowledge (XXG) 454:TAke a look at the Talk page please! Thanks 8: 1692:Disambiguation link notification for June 26 388:Please discuss in the article's talk page. 1559:, but that is not the issue; the issue is 1307: 243:Removal of sourced content at Russell Targ 523:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines 2058:Knowledge (XXG):Feedback request service 1354:Knowledge (XXG):Feedback request service 633:Knowledge (XXG):Feedback request service 2130:. Thank you and keep up the good work! 1308:Cheerwine's Captain Morgan endorsement 1172:applies and this is better brought to 333: 329: 318: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1561:can we edit from an NPOV perspective? 7: 291:rm c=material not in provided source 160:There is currently a discussion at 113:And now you're assuming bad faith. 24: 532:The article will be discussed at 2100: 2082: 1201: 1076: 560: 508: 155: 29: 2114:classification threshold using 1911:Sincerely, Justicentruth_0616 301:Katra, Jane (1 December 2002). 1845:remove the bad source and add 303:"Elisabeth F. Targ: 1961-2002" 197:for specific political views. 1: 1239:Very kind of you. Thanks! - 60:Inappropriate closure of RfC 2075:Congratulations from STiki! 1012:Comparison with other tools 1005:Using STiki and its hotkeys 2230: 2054:suggestions for responding 1350:suggestions for responding 1288:List of Illinois companies 629:suggestions for responding 2215:00:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC) 2183:00:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC) 2149:05:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 2126:and stay in touch at the 2099: 2081: 2070:00:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 2029:19:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC) 1987:11:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC) 1970:07:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC) 1932:18:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 1867:21:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 1841:21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 1820:20:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 1786:18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 1744:08:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 1686:03:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC) 1669:01:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC) 1649:02:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC) 1629:21:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC) 1614:16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 1599:15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 1579:15:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 1550:15:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 1531:17:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 1510:17:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 1498:ask for editor assistance 1491:17:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 1468:17:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 1453:19:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC) 1425:04:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC) 1400:04:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC) 1366:00:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC) 1325:17:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC) 1302:17:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC) 1281:16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC) 1251:14:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC) 1231:14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC) 1200: 1186:22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 1164:20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 1147:18:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 1119:15:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC) 1101:15:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC) 1075: 1071:05:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC) 989:your recent contributions 968:15:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC) 953:14:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC) 917:15:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 900:15:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 887:14:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 866:14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 853:in the re-branded thread 845:13:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 824:12:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 805:08:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 786:00:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 766:21:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC) 740:19:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC) 715:14:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC) 696:21:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC) 673:23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 645:00:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC) 604:01:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 584:01:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 568:The Barnstar of Diligence 559: 548:18:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 308:Journal of Parapsychology 2203:say about a subject. - 2118:. We thank you both for 1565:Writing for the opponent 744:If you want my opinion, 525:or whether it should be 495:15:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC) 479:20:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 464:20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 445:15:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 428:04:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 414:03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 398:02:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 384:02:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 237:13:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 223:12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 207:00:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 184:22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 141:02:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 127:02:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 109:01:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 94:00:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 75:23:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC) 1265:(especially step D)? -- 1087:No truth in accusations 997:Information about STiki 518:Amanda and Jerad Miller 502:Amanda and Jerad Miller 1698:Democracy & Nature 1435:I understand that the 2091:The Anti-Vandalism + 1975:I'll take a look. - 1555:We all have our POVs 1209:The Original Barnstar 1033:The STiki leaderboard 871:Thanks for the offer 247:Greetings. This edit 42:of past discussions. 2049:Talk:Pahlavi dynasty 2037:Talk:Pahlavi dynasty 1732:opt-out instructions 983:Hello, Cwobeel, and 592:Glad to be of help. 348:(March–April 2001). 2044:request for comment 1881:Dear Sir or Madam, 1714:fix with Dab solver 1340:request for comment 1194:A barnstar for you! 1050:the STiki talk page 619:request for comment 553:A barnstar for you! 119:NorthBySouthBaranof 86:NorthBySouthBaranof 2120:your contributions 2035:Please comment on 2001:Justicentruth 0616 1940:Oxford Round Table 1920:Justicentruth 0616 1877:Oxford Round Table 1722:• Join us at the 1331:Please comment on 610:Please comment on 355:Skeptical Inquirer 328:Unknown parameter 287:14:33, 2 June 2014 252:12:28, 2 June 2014 2155: 2154: 2013: 1999:comment added by 1935: 1918:comment added by 1763:WP:NOTADVERTISING 1727: 1236: 1235: 1170:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 1084: 1083: 975:Welcome to STiki! 589: 588: 313:HighBeam Research 182: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 18:User talk:Cwobeel 2221: 2212: 2207: 2201:reliable sources 2145: 2144: 2141: 2134:(developer) and 2104: 2086: 2079: 2078: 2026: 2021: 2012: 1993: 1984: 1979: 1962:Nomoskedasticity 1934: 1912: 1864: 1859: 1854: 1848: 1838: 1833: 1828: 1817: 1812: 1807: 1801: 1797: 1783: 1778: 1773: 1717: 1710:check to confirm 1683: 1678: 1656:JORDAN BURROUGHS 1576: 1571: 1528: 1523: 1488: 1483: 1422: 1417: 1411: 1396: 1391: 1386: 1299: 1294: 1273: 1272: 1248: 1243: 1223: 1222: 1205: 1198: 1197: 1161: 1156: 1116: 1111: 1080: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1056:(developer) and 987:! Thank you for 985:welcome to STiki 979: 978: 950: 945: 914: 909: 884: 879: 842: 837: 783: 778: 751: 737: 732: 726: 693: 688: 683: 670: 665: 660: 601: 596: 564: 557: 556: 545: 512: 511: 366: 364: 363: 358:. Vol. 25, no. 2 341: 335: 331: 326: 324: 316: 276: 272:Palo Alto Weekly 179: 174: 172: 168:. Thank you. 159: 158: 33: 32: 26: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2210: 2205: 2160: 2142: 2139: 2137: 2097: 2077: 2040: 2024: 2019: 1994: 1982: 1977: 1942:was created by 1913: 1879: 1862: 1857: 1852: 1846: 1836: 1831: 1826: 1815: 1810: 1805: 1799: 1791: 1781: 1776: 1771: 1754: 1724:DPL WikiProject 1694: 1681: 1676: 1574: 1569: 1526: 1521: 1486: 1481: 1433: 1420: 1415: 1405: 1394: 1389: 1384: 1375: 1336: 1310: 1297: 1292: 1270: 1268: 1259: 1246: 1241: 1220: 1218: 1196: 1159: 1154: 1127: 1125:Primary sources 1114: 1109: 1089: 1064: 1061: 1059: 977: 948: 943: 912: 907: 882: 877: 840: 835: 781: 776: 745: 735: 730: 720: 703: 691: 686: 677: 668: 663: 654: 652: 650:This is serious 615: 599: 594: 555: 543: 513: 509: 506: 452: 372:WP:SOURCEACCESS 361: 359: 346:Gardner, Martin 344: 327: 317: 300: 275:. 17 June 1998. 265: 245: 191: 177: 170: 156: 153: 82: 62: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2227: 2225: 2159: 2156: 2153: 2152: 2106: 2105: 2098: 2089: 2087: 2076: 2073: 2039: 2033: 2032: 2031: 1973: 1972: 1878: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1798:Just tag with 1753: 1747: 1693: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1582: 1581: 1534: 1533: 1494: 1493: 1432: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1374: 1369: 1335: 1329: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1258: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1234: 1233: 1212: 1211: 1206: 1195: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1126: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1088: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1074: 1046: 1045: 1037: 1025: 1024: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1008: 976: 973: 972: 971: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 808: 702: 699: 651: 648: 614: 608: 607: 606: 587: 586: 571: 570: 565: 554: 551: 507: 505: 500:Nomination of 498: 482: 481: 451: 448: 433: 432: 431: 430: 330:|subscription= 295: 294: 260: 259: 244: 241: 240: 239: 225: 190: 187: 152: 149: 148: 147: 146: 145: 144: 143: 114: 81: 78: 61: 58: 56: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2226: 2217: 2216: 2213: 2208: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2157: 2151: 2150: 2147: 2146: 2133: 2132:West.andrew.g 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2096: 2094: 2088: 2085: 2080: 2074: 2072: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2050: 2045: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2022: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1980: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1960:created it… 1959: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1909: 1906: 1902: 1899: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1876: 1868: 1865: 1860: 1851: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1834: 1829: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1818: 1813: 1804: 1795: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1779: 1774: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1752: 1751:Metamodernism 1748: 1746: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1706:David Freeman 1703: 1699: 1691: 1687: 1684: 1679: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1657: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1637: 1631: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1601: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1580: 1577: 1572: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1532: 1529: 1524: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1492: 1489: 1484: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1430: 1426: 1423: 1418: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1398: 1397: 1392: 1387: 1380: 1373: 1370: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1341: 1334: 1330: 1328: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1317:72.130.91.250 1303: 1300: 1295: 1289: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1274: 1264: 1256: 1252: 1249: 1244: 1238: 1237: 1232: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1224: 1214: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1199: 1193: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1162: 1157: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1124: 1120: 1117: 1112: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1102: 1099: 1095: 1086: 1079: 1073: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1055: 1054:West.andrew.g 1051: 1043: 1042: 1038: 1035: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1023: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1009: 1007: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000:, including: 999: 998: 994: 993: 992: 990: 986: 981: 980: 974: 969: 966: 962: 957: 956: 955: 954: 951: 946: 940: 918: 915: 910: 904: 903: 901: 898: 894: 890: 889: 888: 885: 880: 874: 870: 869: 867: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 847: 846: 843: 838: 832: 828: 827: 825: 822: 818: 815: 812: 809: 806: 803: 799: 794: 789: 788: 787: 784: 779: 773: 769: 768: 767: 763: 759: 755: 749: 743: 742: 741: 738: 733: 724: 719: 718: 717: 716: 712: 708: 700: 698: 697: 694: 689: 681: 675: 674: 671: 666: 658: 649: 647: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 625: 620: 613: 609: 605: 602: 597: 591: 590: 585: 581: 577: 573: 572: 569: 566: 563: 558: 552: 550: 549: 546: 538: 535: 530: 528: 524: 520: 519: 503: 499: 497: 496: 492: 488: 480: 476: 472: 468: 467: 466: 465: 461: 457: 449: 447: 446: 442: 438: 429: 425: 421: 417: 416: 415: 411: 407: 402: 401: 400: 399: 395: 391: 386: 385: 381: 377: 373: 367: 357: 356: 351: 347: 342: 339: 322: 314: 310: 309: 304: 298: 292: 288: 285: 284: 283: 280: 277: 274: 273: 268: 263: 257: 253: 250: 249: 248: 242: 238: 234: 230: 226: 224: 220: 216: 211: 210: 209: 208: 204: 200: 196: 188: 186: 185: 180: 173: 167: 163: 150: 142: 138: 134: 133:Useitorloseit 130: 129: 128: 124: 120: 115: 112: 111: 110: 106: 102: 101:Useitorloseit 98: 97: 96: 95: 91: 87: 79: 77: 76: 72: 68: 67:Useitorloseit 59: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2186: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2164: 2161: 2135: 2111: 2109: 2090: 2047: 2041: 1995:— Preceding 1990: 1974: 1957: 1950: 1914:— Preceding 1910: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1897: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1880: 1755: 1729: 1695: 1661:Dr Gonzo5269 1652: 1641:Dr Gonzo5269 1632: 1621:Dr Gonzo5269 1617: 1606:Dr Gonzo5269 1602: 1591:Dr Gonzo5269 1583: 1560: 1557:Dr Gonzo5269 1542:Dr Gonzo5269 1535: 1502:Dr Gonzo5269 1495: 1474:Dr Gonzo5269 1460:Dr Gonzo5269 1456: 1434: 1382: 1376: 1343: 1337: 1311: 1276: 1267: 1260: 1226: 1217: 1208: 1128: 1090: 1057: 1047: 1039: 1031: 1026: 1019: 1010: 1003: 995: 984: 982: 937: 810: 792: 704: 676: 653: 624:Talk:Ian Gow 622: 616: 612:Talk:Ian Gow 567: 539: 531: 516: 514: 504:for deletion 483: 453: 434: 387: 368: 360:. Retrieved 353: 343: 336:suggested) ( 334:|url-access= 321:cite journal 306: 299: 296: 290: 281: 278: 270: 264: 261: 255: 246: 192: 154: 83: 63: 55: 43: 37: 2124:leaderboard 1794:Felt friend 1445:NewIsBetter 487:Formerly 98 456:Formerly 98 36:This is an 1734:. Thanks, 1437:Yank Barry 1431:Yank Barry 1135:WP:PRIMARY 829:Thank you 544:damiens.rf 362:2011-01-07 282:This edit 2189:Joannadee 2175:Joannadee 2128:talk page 1718:Read the 1379:reverting 1372:Dave Brat 1263:WP:BEFORE 1257:AFD query 1131:this diff 1041:Userboxes 772:BlueSalix 758:Casprings 754:WP:ARBCOM 748:BlueSalix 723:Casprings 707:Casprings 680:BlueSalix 657:BlueSalix 332:ignored ( 2095:Barnstar 2009:contribs 1997:unsigned 1954:contribs 1944:Drstones 1928:contribs 1916:unsigned 1702:John Ely 1604:right.-- 1408:Audacity 1174:WP:NOR/N 1094:Bishonen 961:Bishonen 939:Bishonen 893:Bishonen 873:Bishonen 859:Bishonen 831:Bishonen 817:Bishonen 798:Bishonen 450:Targ PhD 195:advocate 189:Advocacy 171:Gamaliel 2206:Cwobeel 2193:WP:NPOV 2158:Lhoknga 2062:Legobot 2020:Cwobeel 1978:Cwobeel 1858:Cwobeel 1811:Cwobeel 1769:, etc. 1736:DPL bot 1677:Cwobeel 1636:WP:NPOV 1587:WP:NPOV 1570:Cwobeel 1538:WP:NPOV 1522:Cwobeel 1482:Cwobeel 1416:Cwobeel 1358:Legobot 1327:FFFFFF 1293:Cwobeel 1242:Cwobeel 1155:Cwobeel 1110:Cwobeel 944:Cwobeel 908:Cwobeel 878:Cwobeel 836:Cwobeel 777:Cwobeel 731:Cwobeel 687:Cwobeel 664:Cwobeel 637:Legobot 595:Cwobeel 576:J05HYYY 527:deleted 471:Cwobeel 469:I did! 437:MrBill3 420:Cwobeel 406:MrBill3 390:Cwobeel 376:MrBill3 229:Cwobeel 213:only.-- 199:Cwobeel 39:archive 2211:(talk) 2025:(talk) 1983:(talk) 1863:(talk) 1837:friend 1816:(talk) 1782:friend 1767:WP:COI 1682:(talk) 1639:day.-- 1575:(talk) 1527:(talk) 1487:(talk) 1441:WP:BLP 1421:(talk) 1298:(talk) 1247:(talk) 1178:VQuakr 1160:(talk) 1139:VQuakr 1115:(talk) 949:(talk) 913:(talk) 883:(talk) 841:(talk) 811:Update 796:not.) 782:(talk) 736:(talk) 692:(talk) 669:(talk) 600:(talk) 311:– via 2116:STiki 2112:1,000 2093:STiki 2060:. — 1758:WP:RS 1567:. - 1517:WP:DR 1356:. — 635:. — 16:< 2197:WP:V 2195:and 2179:talk 2066:talk 2005:talk 1966:talk 1948:talk 1924:talk 1827:felt 1772:felt 1749:RE: 1740:talk 1704:and 1665:talk 1645:talk 1625:talk 1610:talk 1595:talk 1546:talk 1506:talk 1464:talk 1449:talk 1395:cιτγ 1362:talk 1321:talk 1269:Neil 1219:Neil 1182:talk 1143:talk 1098:talk 965:talk 897:talk 863:talk 851:mine 821:talk 802:talk 762:talk 711:talk 641:talk 580:talk 491:talk 475:talk 460:talk 441:talk 424:talk 410:talk 394:talk 380:talk 338:help 233:talk 219:talk 203:talk 178:talk 137:talk 123:talk 105:talk 90:talk 71:talk 2187:Hi 2162:Hi 2143:yya 2046:on 1958:had 1720:FAQ 1500:.-- 1385:Λυδ 1342:on 1290:- 1129:In 1065:yya 793:and 621:on 151:ANI 80:RfC 2181:) 2140:at 2138:Pr 2068:) 2007:• 1968:) 1930:) 1926:• 1853:}} 1850:cn 1847:{{ 1806:}} 1803:cn 1800:{{ 1765:, 1742:) 1712:| 1667:) 1647:) 1627:) 1612:) 1597:) 1548:) 1519:. 1508:) 1466:) 1451:) 1364:) 1323:) 1184:) 1176:? 1145:) 1103:. 1096:| 1062:at 1060:Pr 963:| 902:. 895:| 868:. 861:| 826:. 819:| 800:| 764:) 713:) 643:) 582:) 529:. 493:) 477:) 462:) 443:) 426:) 412:) 396:) 382:) 352:. 325:: 323:}} 319:{{ 305:. 269:. 235:) 221:) 215:NK 205:) 139:) 125:) 107:) 92:) 73:) 2177:( 2064:( 2011:) 2003:( 1964:( 1951:· 1946:( 1922:( 1832:_ 1796:: 1792:@ 1777:_ 1738:( 1726:. 1708:( 1663:( 1643:( 1623:( 1608:( 1593:( 1544:( 1504:( 1462:( 1447:( 1410:: 1406:@ 1390:α 1360:( 1319:( 1271:N 1221:N 1180:( 1141:( 970:. 807:. 760:( 750:: 746:@ 725:: 721:@ 709:( 682:: 678:@ 659:: 655:@ 639:( 578:( 489:( 473:( 458:( 439:( 422:( 408:( 392:( 378:( 365:. 340:) 315:. 293:" 289:" 258:" 254:" 231:( 217:( 201:( 181:) 175:( 135:( 121:( 103:( 88:( 69:( 50:.

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

Index