309:, thank you for your question. The answer is dependent on understanding the reason we have redirects, disambiguations, or headnotes in the first place. We include these as aids to the reader. We need to consider whether a reader arrived at this page is likely to be looking for the page subject. If there is a reasonable chance that they would not, then one of these types of finding aids is appropriate. So the real question becomes: Is there a reasonable probability that somebody coming to our project looking for information about 1930's Rhode Island politics would instead find the Glorious Revolution? I didn't think that would be the case, which is why I removed the headnote. For the redirect, they question is similar,: Is there a reasonable probability that a reader would type "Bloodless Revolution" into our search bar instead of T.F.Green or History of Rhode Island or similar? I have my doubts about that, as well. From your links, I think that "Bloodless Revolution" would not be the starting point of a search on the topic but be instead something that would come out of research on the topic. I could be wrong, though. Maybe Rhode Island 7th grade history teachers routinely assign "Bloodless Revolution" to their students and expect them to find out it was very different from what the name implies. That's the best guidance I can give you. I hope it helps.
1489:
closers is because the discussion participants become two enmeshed in their positions to see that the apparent difference is often not as wide as it seems. That was the case here, I felt. As I mentioned, I wrote the close that endorsed the four options so I am quite conversant with them, thank you. I don't need to have them explained to me. I also know that the presence of statements in a discussion dos not mean they must be taken wholly without question or rejected in detail in a close. For every !voter such as yourself that challenged the reputation for fact-checking there were literally two that said it did have such a reputation.
1518:, that was far too snippy of me and I apologize. That said, I did consider whether ruling on the general reputation for fact checking was appropriate or not but did not find that the actual discussion clarified it. The only way that this would have been decidable is on a simple headcounting basis. That is, there we more editors that said it was had such a reputation than those who said it didn't Such a simple vote would violate several policies. Injecting such a determination would have been an invalid close. Between the rock and the hard place, I picked rock.
82:
40:
26:
1134:, Ryan's user page identifies that he uses his real name and that he's a solicitor in Manchester, England so I didn't see that as outing because the information was already disclosed on-wiki. Solicitors in England are required to be registered with the Law Society, I believe, so his contact information is required to be easily-available. I won't ask for unrevdelling because it's probably better to err on the side of caution I just wanted to explain my reasoning.
1897:
922:
1831:
54:
1385:
1705:
757:
1741:
96:
111:
68:
1560:. These are some of the exact sorts of things that were discussed in the RfC. If there's is or is not consensus as to these use cases, that's fine, but the absence of any mention thereof in the closing summary amounts to sidestepping the dispute wholly based upon arguments that participants themselves did not so much as attempt to make. —
860:
personal warnings on article talk pages that contain accusations and aspersion. What they are leaving on your talk page are community-approved warning templates. I don't know what you expect me to do about either. If you don't want to be warned for abusing article talk pages, then don't abuse article
1632:
went from green to yellow here when they dumped their fact checking department. If editors should no longer look for the professional structure in evaluating such publications, that should be made as a global decision not at made at RSN. There's probably a discussion to be had, i feel a little silly
1425:
The four options can roughly be divided into two "use" (Options 1 & 3) versus two "don't use" (Options 3 & 4) outcomes. It is overwhelmingly clear by both the number and strength of arguments that the discussion participants rejected the latter two options, making this discussion more about
1111:
My thought is that even though this is probably easily found through
Googling, we still shouldn't be linking someone's physical address and phone number if they haven't disclosed on-wiki. Do either of you have info I don't on why this is OK? If you want to email instead, that's fine too. I know
512:
Are you saying that repeated talk page violations have nowhere to and hence should never be addressed? Because if not, you didn't answer the question, which is an important one in general and in whatever chance there is you're wrong in this instance. As none of the core content policies are about
1659:
Hi
Eggishorn, thank you for the close, but I was hoping you could clarify whether there is a consensus against or for specific use cases, such as BLP's, medical articles, and claims outside of their area of expertise? I believe the current wording will lead to disputes as editors who support and
1472:
those policies ought be interpreted and applied. If there's no consensus as to this in the discussion, then it's fine to say it, but the close as written seems like a supervote against the concept of there being a difference between Option 1 and Option 2 in the standard source reliability RfC. —
1185:
Having (literally) slept on the matter, I wake up to find myself in agreement with Floq and
Barkeep's most recent statement - it's one thing to easily search for his name and title on Google and get that link, but it's quite another to post it on a rather well-watched noticeboard for all to see.
1488:
I reject absolutely the accusation of a supervote. I spent over an hour exhaustively reading that discussion and over twenty minutes writing a detailed close to explain why it wasn't a supervote. To be accused of supervoting within seconds is disheartening. The whole point of outside uninvolved
1983:
The
Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please
1493:
to do what you ask and express an opinion of which was true. So I did not. If there are disagreements as to who policies are applied in relation to this source well, so what? Those disagreement apply to literally every source ever used on this project. We use article talk pages for a reason.
1960:
1456:. That policy also notes that the publisher of the work can affect reliability, so I really don't see any direct contradictions with policy here. I'd kindly ask that you withdraw your close and instead allow for someone to substantially address the arguments made as to the extent that
1682:
I have to admit I am a little confused by the close. If we were to do an RSP entry on the article would you see it as green or yellow and what kind of description would you put? From my reading it looks like a yellow with caution on BLPs etc but I would like to hear your thoughts.
1204:
but it must not have been a restful sleep if it caused you to reverse your earlier correct statement. Firstly, where are you all getting the idea that I googled this? I never said I did. In fact, if you read back what I said above, It should be clear that I went directly to the
1170:
I hadn't fully considered the
Personally Identifiable Information contained there-in. I've gone ahead and suppressed it and will be raising it onlist for further OS feedback. A more generic statement about why he's busy, without that particular link, would be fine. Best,
1963:
1344:
I'm not sure why you contacted me about this. Similar information has been in the article for the past six years so I also don't know what you think needs to be added or expanded. All content on
Knowledge (XXG) is required to comply with the
1321:
Please add a paragraph to the Tiny Banker Trojan page that scammers often use this resource to convince victim's that they are 'infected' and they then proceed to ask for payment for 'removal' or other methods of extracting cash from them.
558:
It is peculiar that you ask my advice and then call it "unconvincing" when told it. You are wrong. Flat out. Period. However convincing you think that advice is, you are not going to get anywhere with this. Please go away. Far, far away.
1067:
Since the only edits this account has are these worthless complaints, you are obviously making socks to complain about it. Again, if you think you know who these socks I am using to harass you are, please report it. Otherwise, go away.
275:. I think your revert was reasonable as the term and incident are both extremely niche. Google searching does suggest the term is used in the small number of academic history/political science texts that discuss the incident (eg a
1660:
oppose its use for a specific use case will both cite it as supporting their position. I was also hoping you could clarify whether it should be classified as generally reliable of no consensus/other considerations apply at
385:
That userbox that I created about vindication has nothing to do with by upcoming three month ban if you were thinking that. That was the first time I created a userbox as well, and don't yet know how to do it right yet.
1547:
the consensus by examining the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of the issue, as viewed through the lens of
Knowledge (XXG) policy. I don't really see a basis for the statement that the 4-option RfC
1397:
Thank you so much for the help you provided me. Also, about finding me some sources. A simple "Thank you" is not enough. That's why I decided to give you that start. Please continue to be as kind and nice you are now!
1786:
1543:, I'm also not asking you to express a personal opinion on which is true. I'm asking you to provide a closing summary of a lengthy discussion that addresses how the various participants approached the issue and to
1155:
just cross the fuzzy grey line. Primefac and
Barkeep have both questioned my revdel; if either one of them notes my concern about the address and phone number and still don't have a problem with it, I'll undo it.
1250:
I don't think you did anything wrong even if you had googled it. I think our OUTING policy is interpreted in silly ways a lot of the time. But I respect that the community feels otherwise in enforcing it. Best,
633:
Other ULFA commanders have wiki pages, and Rajen Sharma, based on his position within the rebel organisation, deserves one as well. It is self explanatory. Furthermore, that article does not present in AfD.
452:" part of the criteria. In this instance, the point is somewhat moot as I've got some book sources here that I can use to resolve the issue, but I would just add a word of caution for future merges. Cheers!
1770:. 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
1641:
are mentioned references in that CJR article. But an RfC closure shouldn't be endorsing or accepting arguments that are in direct contravention of what is very clear right now in the core policies.
1904:
929:
1209:. Ryan own user page gives this information. The only thing I posted that was additional was his address. The Solicitor's Regulatory Authority makes it clear that this is information that he
1755:
1596:
I mostly liked the close, many editors voting #1 probably don't need RSP and RSNP, they are already doing exactly what
Eggishorn suggested as a careful reading of their comments where some
1225:
Ryan's user page already did post that information. I can't have "outed" information that was always "inned". Due to this site's history of doxxing for harassment, I understand why you,
1862:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023.
798:, thank you for providing the notice which the thread opener was supposed to. As you can see from immediately above, this has already been handled as a vexatious report. Thanks again.
1977:
1932:
1936:
1460:
has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as an organization, as well as the extent to which its editorial policies reflect or fail to reflect the typical qualities of
761:
1604:
close withdrawn, the one that "endorsed the four options"! That said i don't think this dismissal of the importance of fact checking as was done in the RfC is appropriate.
1985:
243:
you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. You are also indirectly mentioned in
1617:
1535:
I understand that being between a rock and a hard place in closing an RfC, it's often tempting to pick rock. But there was either a rough consensus that "yes, the
441:
1217:
available. I had no need to google it nor did I connect any information that was not already there. Before we get to the "neverthelesses" and "regardlessess",
1976:
This is a reminder that the voting period for the
Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the
1223:
Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information
527:
I'll say this as clearly as possible: THERE ARE NO TALK PAGE VIOLATIONS in your complaints. Stop trying to complain about something that doesn't exist.
1713:
1709:
1620:
of what is possible and practical for magazines and newspapers and online sources with less time till publication. How fact checking is done is
780:
892:
1809:
1440:
or not. You more or less sidestepped addressing any of the substantial arguments within the discussion—the extent to which the source has
1466:
consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy
1329:
545:
514:
473:
280:
265:
1552:, nor does it seem to have been a point of discussion in the actual RfC. This matters in a number of areas, such as FAC that requires
271:
Hi there, I noticed you reverted my edit adding a pointer to the Rhode Island "Bloodless Revolution" in the disambiguation header for
1624:, but it's not true that it is all up to the authors now everywhere. A reputation for fact-checking is still part of core policy and
240:
669:
487:
Nothing. There are no talk page violations identified in any of your complaints. Please stop trying to push your violations of the
1206:
460:
284:
219:
214:
209:
204:
199:
194:
189:
184:
179:
174:
1805:
1527:
1503:
1366:
1274:
1242:
1143:
1077:
1045:
972:
870:
807:
735:
685:
621:
568:
536:
504:
417:
369:
318:
35:
1779:
95:
1847:
1791:
224:
39:
1265:
Thank you for that, Barkeep. I'm content to accept the consensus of three very experienced admins and let this drop.
963:, thank you very much. This is very meaningful to me and very appreciated. Best wishes to you and yours. Stay safe.
776:
544:
All caps assertions are not convincing. Even if you're right, where are talk page violations addressed in general?
53:
513:
talk pages, and my complaints are not about anyone's biography, you don't seem to understand the problem at all.
49:
664:, no person is inherently notable by virtue of their position or the presence or absence of other articles. See
276:
1871:
1121:
391:
341:
1767:
1550:
can roughly be divided into two "use" (Options 1 & 2) versus two "don't use" (Options 3 & 4) outcomes
1333:
1036:. For the record, I have zero idea who you or "we" are. Feel free to bring your concerns to admin attention.
1354:
549:
518:
477:
81:
1325:
1917:
1669:
985:
946:
708:
91:
77:
1454:
ase articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
1429:
1468:
is tautological, but it's absolutely meaningless given substantial disagreements in the discussion over
1403:
1161:
1117:
839:
793:
766:
1851:
1665:
1233:
are sensitive to this but I would not have posted what I did if I did not think it was already public.
1944:
1688:
458:
288:
1749:
1723:
1556:
as opposed to marginally reliable ones, as well as for citations that support contentious claims in
1539:
is generally reliable within its area of expertise" or there was no such rough consensus. Regarding
1867:
1256:
1176:
1058:
1019:
403:
387:
355:
337:
272:
254:
1763:
1579:
1544:
1541:
it would have been an actual supervote to do what you ask and express an opinion of which was true
1445:
1441:
1218:
1307:
1191:
938:
612:, see the edit summaries. They explain the reasoning. If you have further questions, please ask.
1896:
1346:
921:
654:
For Barbados PM page: Sentences have been improved in accordance with political record writing.
488:
449:
144:
1913:
1587:
1565:
1478:
981:
958:
942:
721:
700:
332:
Really, only preserving one sentence from the Wild Cartoon Kingdom article for the merge into
1775:
1437:
1112:
this was done in good faith, no worries on that front. if I'm overreacting, I'll undo it. --
1997:
1798:
1646:
1399:
1226:
1157:
1129:
1113:
904:
896:
851:
835:
827:
823:
817:
408:, thank you for the explanation. I accept that the timing was misread by others. Stay safe.
1778:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1771:
1661:
1557:
1461:
1417:
1033:
831:
492:
67:
1991:
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
1940:
1830:
1684:
639:
595:
453:
304:
292:
1621:
1350:
481:
445:
1973:
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
1519:
1495:
1384:
1358:
1266:
1252:
1234:
1230:
1172:
1135:
1069:
1054:
1037:
1029:
1015:
964:
862:
799:
727:
677:
613:
560:
528:
496:
409:
361:
310:
250:
21:
1449:
826:
keeps deleting discussions on talk pages, then puts personal attacks on my talk page.
665:
1303:
1201:
1187:
1103:
676:
more accurately reflected the source cited and so the change was not an improvement.
1432:
that rejects the ability of users to make a determination as to whether the source,
1605:
1583:
1561:
1513:
1474:
25:
1740:
1935:. I had some questions, but since you have been inactive, I started a discussion
1576:
he only way that this would have been decidable is on a simple headcounting basis
1642:
673:
437:
427:
110:
980:
thank you, I love to hear that, - still, what happened to your 2021 archive? --
1717:
659:
635:
607:
591:
333:
1014:
You are using socks on here for personal attacks. We know that. Stop please.
1961:
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
1855:
1108:
here too, because they commented that it wasn't outing before I removed it.
279:). Would appreciate your feedback - do you think creating the redirect page
1859:
1782:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
1712:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
1096:
Not sure about this, so I revdel'd because I can always un-revdel later.
2000:
1948:
1921:
1875:
1813:
1759:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
1728:
1692:
1673:
1650:
1591:
1569:
1530:
1506:
1482:
1407:
1369:
1337:
1311:
1277:
1260:
1245:
1195:
1180:
1165:
1146:
1080:
1062:
1048:
1023:
989:
975:
950:
873:
843:
810:
785:
764:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –
738:
713:
688:
643:
624:
599:
571:
553:
539:
522:
507:
462:
420:
395:
372:
345:
321:
296:
258:
1846:
Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
1578:, that sounds an awful lot like a "no consensus" close in light of
1426:
under what condidtions use of the Skeptical Inquirer is acceptable.
1795:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
1582:, seeing as headcounting is not how consensus is ascertained. —
1300:
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at
1785:
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
1753:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All
695:
590:
Please give one example of my wrongdoing? Don't remove edits.
155:
105:
1616:
always goes to fact checkers. I think the argument made is a
937:(looks like your 2021 talk didn't make it to the archive) -
472:
What should I do about repeated talk page rule violations?
891:
case request which you are a party to. You can view them
1954:
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
1766:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
434:
245:
1442:
as editorial control or a reputation for fact-checking
879:
856:, what they are doing is deleting your attempt to use
726:. I thought it was likely either them or NeverTry4Me.
1095:
762:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
889:
Jonathunder's use of admin tools in content disputes
882:
Jonathunder's use of admin tools in content disputes
1903:
928:
1980:to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
1464:(which is, by the way, a policy). That there's a
1032:if you are sure, why have you not reported me at
1714:Closure_review_of_the_Skeptical_Inquirer_RSN_RfC
283:would be reasonable, or is this also excessive?
15:
1452:, a core content policy) states that we should
880:Motions have been proposed at the case request
444:), you added a bunch of unsourced content to a
139:talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
1151:I understand, your reasoning makes sense but
8:
1889:
1612:to our paper of record, but missed that the
1353:that support this assertion, please use the
998:Need investigation against you to take on me
914:
145:Please click here to leave me a new message.
1710:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard
1637:fact-checking, and that IMDB, linkedin and
1895:
1888:
1323:
1002:
920:
913:
887:Several motions have been proposed at the
1964:Please help translate to other languages.
1357:to request this edit. I hope that helps.
670:when maintenance templates can be removed
360:Fortunately for me, I'm shameless. YMMV.
1600:include qualifications shows. I'd like
1837:Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!
1575:
1553:
1549:
1540:
1491:it would have been an actual supervote
1465:
1453:
1424:
1222:
1423:Hello. In your close, you wrote that
7:
1994:On behalf of the UCoC project team,
1750:2022 Arbitration Committee elections
1053:You are making socks to harrass me.
1768:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process
1734:ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
1708:There is currently a discussion at
1418:WP:RSN#Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom
760:There is currently a discussion at
281:Bloodless Revolution (Rhode Island)
266:Bloodless Revolution (Rhode Island)
14:
895:. For the Arbitration Committee,
450:factually accurate and verifiable
1829:
1739:
1703:
1699:Notice of noticeboard discussion
1383:
1207:Law Society of England and Wales
755:
109:
94:
80:
66:
52:
38:
24:
1789:and submit your choices on the
467:
127:talk page, as I am watching it.
666:the standards about notability
586:Why are you removing my edits?
1:
1876:14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
1814:00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
1554:high-quality reliable sources
905:00:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
874:05:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
844:02:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
811:21:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
786:10:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
739:19:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
714:12:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
689:09:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
644:09:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
625:09:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
600:09:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
572:01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
554:01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
540:15:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
523:07:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
508:22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
482:22:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
235:Notification of VP discussion
119:If I have left you a message:
1558:biographies of living people
1200:Forgive me for saying this,
463:20:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
433:I'm concerned that when you
421:02:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
396:02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
373:21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
346:20:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
322:00:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
297:23:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
259:22:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
1635:The New York Times Magazine
1007:Terminally ironic complaint
2016:
1854:by wishing another user a
1806:MediaWiki message delivery
1370:16:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
1338:16:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
1312:02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
672:. The previous version of
131:If you leave me a message:
1949:19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1922:08:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
1894:
1828:
1693:17:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
1674:04:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
1651:23:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
1592:20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
1570:20:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
1531:20:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
1507:20:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
1483:19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
1428:Your close seems to be a
1408:16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
1382:
1278:16:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
1261:16:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
1246:16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
1196:07:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
1181:22:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
1166:22:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
1147:22:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
1122:22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
1081:03:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
1063:03:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
1049:17:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
1024:16:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
990:20:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
976:17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
951:08:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
919:
1978:voting page on Meta-wiki
1803:to your user talk page.
1434:in its area of expertise
2001:23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
1729:15:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
1317:Tiny Banker Trojan Page
1986:review the U4C Charter
468:What's the right page?
448:, thus violating the "
1764:Arbitration Committee
1747:Hello! Voting in the
1347:Core Content Policies
1927:The New Republic RFC
1885:Precious anniversary
1608:, even you compared
1436:is considered to be
1391:The Special Barnstar
910:Precious anniversary
328:Wild Cartoon Kingdom
1891:
1376:A barnstar for you!
1355:article's talk page
1034:the sockpuppet page
916:
277:Google Books search
273:Glorious Revolution
1780:arbitration policy
1349:. If you can find
939:Prayer for Ukraine
699:- I have blocked.
1970:Dear Wikimedian,
1910:
1909:
1882:
1881:
1848:seasonal occasion
1816:
1727:
1413:
1412:
1340:
1328:comment added by
1092:
1091:
935:
934:
784:
491:, especially the
232:
231:
154:
153:
133:I will answer on
121:please answer on
104:
103:
2007:
1899:
1892:
1833:
1826:
1825:
1804:
1802:
1743:
1721:
1707:
1706:
1618:misunderstanding
1522:
1517:
1498:
1387:
1380:
1379:
1361:
1351:reliable sources
1269:
1237:
1138:
1133:
1107:
1072:
1040:
1003:
967:
962:
924:
917:
865:
855:
828:User:BlueboyLINY
824:User:BlueboyLINY
818:User:BlueboyLINY
802:
797:
794:AssumeGoodWraith
774:
773:
771:
769:AssumeGoodWraith
759:
758:
730:
725:
706:
703:
698:
680:
663:
616:
611:
563:
531:
499:
440:(as a result of
412:
407:
364:
359:
313:
308:
248:
156:
148:
113:
106:
98:
84:
70:
56:
42:
28:
16:
2015:
2014:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2006:
2005:
2004:
1956:
1931:Hi, you closed
1929:
1887:
1856:Merry Christmas
1824:
1819:
1818:
1796:
1744:
1736:
1704:
1701:
1639:Knowledge (XXG)
1520:
1511:
1496:
1421:
1378:
1359:
1319:
1298:
1267:
1235:
1136:
1127:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1070:
1038:
1008:
1000:
965:
956:
912:
885:
863:
849:
821:
800:
791:
767:
765:
756:
753:
728:
719:
711:
704:
701:
694:
678:
657:
614:
605:
588:
561:
529:
497:
470:
431:
410:
401:
383:
362:
353:
330:
311:
302:
269:
244:
237:
163:
142:
100:
86:
72:
64:Talk to me here
58:
44:
30:
12:
11:
5:
2013:
2011:
1968:
1967:
1955:
1952:
1928:
1925:
1908:
1907:
1901:
1900:
1886:
1883:
1880:
1879:
1868:Davidgoodheart
1866:
1864:Happy editing,
1863:
1860:Happy New Year
1843:
1840:
1839:
1834:
1823:
1820:
1787:the candidates
1756:eligible users
1745:
1738:
1737:
1735:
1732:
1716:. Thank you.—
1700:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1572:
1420:
1416:Your close of
1414:
1411:
1410:
1394:
1393:
1388:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1318:
1315:
1297:
1296:Azov Battalion
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1001:
999:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
933:
932:
926:
925:
911:
908:
884:
878:
877:
876:
820:
815:
814:
813:
752:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
709:
691:
649:
648:
647:
646:
628:
627:
587:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
469:
466:
430:
425:
424:
423:
404:Davidgoodheart
388:Davidgoodheart
382:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
356:TheNewMinistry
338:TheNewMinistry
329:
326:
325:
324:
268:
262:
236:
233:
230:
229:
228:
227:
222:
217:
212:
207:
202:
197:
192:
187:
182:
177:
169:
168:
165:
164:
159:
152:
151:
150:
149:
140:
128:
114:
102:
101:
89:
87:
75:
73:
61:
59:
47:
45:
33:
31:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2012:
2003:
2002:
1999:
1995:
1992:
1989:
1987:
1981:
1979:
1974:
1971:
1966:
1965:
1962:
1958:
1957:
1953:
1951:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1926:
1924:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1893:
1884:
1878:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1850:. Spread the
1849:
1842:
1841:
1838:
1835:
1832:
1827:
1821:
1817:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1800:
1794:
1793:
1788:
1783:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1760:
1758:
1757:
1752:
1751:
1742:
1733:
1731:
1730:
1725:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1681:
1680:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1658:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1515:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1502:
1499:
1492:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1419:
1415:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1386:
1381:
1375:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1362:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1330:70.114.129.57
1327:
1316:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1295:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1131:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1109:
1105:
1082:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1005:
1004:
997:
991:
987:
983:
979:
978:
977:
974:
971:
968:
960:
955:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
931:
927:
923:
918:
909:
907:
906:
903:
902:
901:
894:
890:
883:
875:
872:
869:
866:
859:
853:
848:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
819:
816:
812:
809:
806:
803:
795:
790:
789:
788:
787:
782:
778:
772:
770:
763:
750:
740:
737:
734:
731:
723:
717:
716:
715:
712:
707:
697:
693:FYI, this is
692:
690:
687:
684:
681:
675:
671:
667:
661:
656:
655:
653:
652:
651:
650:
645:
641:
637:
632:
631:
630:
629:
626:
623:
620:
617:
609:
604:
603:
602:
601:
597:
593:
585:
573:
570:
567:
564:
557:
556:
555:
551:
547:
546:27.33.119.160
543:
542:
541:
538:
535:
532:
526:
525:
524:
520:
516:
515:27.33.119.160
511:
510:
509:
506:
503:
500:
494:
490:
486:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
474:27.33.119.160
465:
464:
461:
459:
457:
456:
451:
447:
443:
439:
436:
429:
426:
422:
419:
416:
413:
405:
400:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
380:
374:
371:
368:
365:
357:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
343:
339:
335:
327:
323:
320:
317:
314:
306:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
267:
263:
261:
260:
256:
252:
247:
242:
234:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
201:
198:
196:
193:
191:
188:
186:
183:
181:
178:
176:
173:
172:
171:
170:
167:
166:
162:
158:
157:
147:
146:
141:
138:
137:
132:
129:
126:
125:
120:
117:
116:
115:
112:
108:
107:
99:
97:
93:
88:
85:
83:
79:
74:
71:
69:
65:
60:
57:
55:
51:
46:
43:
41:
37:
36:Contributions
32:
29:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1998:RamzyM (WMF)
1996:
1993:
1990:
1982:
1975:
1972:
1969:
1959:
1930:
1914:Gerda Arendt
1911:
1845:
1844:
1836:
1822:Merry Merry!
1790:
1784:
1761:
1754:
1748:
1746:
1702:
1666:BilledMammal
1638:
1634:
1629:
1625:
1613:
1609:
1601:
1597:
1536:
1524:
1500:
1490:
1469:
1457:
1433:
1430:WP:SUPERVOTE
1422:
1390:
1363:
1324:— Preceding
1320:
1299:
1271:
1239:
1214:
1210:
1152:
1140:
1110:
1099:
1074:
1042:
1013:
982:Gerda Arendt
969:
959:Gerda Arendt
943:Gerda Arendt
936:
899:
898:
888:
886:
881:
867:
861:talk pages.
857:
822:
804:
768:
754:
732:
722:Girth Summit
682:
618:
589:
565:
533:
501:
471:
454:
446:good article
432:
414:
384:
366:
336:? Shameful.
331:
315:
270:
264:Feedback on
238:
160:
143:
135:
134:
130:
123:
122:
118:
92:Log of RfC's
90:
76:
63:
62:
48:
34:
20:
1792:voting page
1633:mentioning
1628:for BLP's.
1448:(a part of
1400:Fisforfenia
1227:Floquenbeam
1158:Floquenbeam
1130:Floquenbeam
1114:Floquenbeam
852:0mtwb9gd5wx
836:0mtwb9gd5wx
718:Thank you,
674:Mia Mottley
438:Meddle Tour
428:Meddle Tour
1941:Politrukki
1939:. Thanks,
1905:Two years!
1776:topic bans
1724:WP:FINANCE
1685:PackMecEng
1030:@Uyuyioiop
751:ANI notice
455:Ritchie333
334:Chris Gore
305:GlobeGores
285:GlobeGores
241:discussion
1772:site bans
1602:the other
1580:WP:DETCON
1545:ascertain
1528:(contrib)
1521:Eggishorn
1504:(contrib)
1497:Eggishorn
1446:WP:SOURCE
1367:(contrib)
1360:Eggishorn
1302:] Cheers
1275:(contrib)
1268:Eggishorn
1253:Barkeep49
1243:(contrib)
1236:Eggishorn
1231:Barkeep49
1219:WP:OUTING
1173:Barkeep49
1144:(contrib)
1137:Eggishorn
1078:(contrib)
1071:Eggishorn
1055:Uyuyioiop
1046:(contrib)
1039:Eggishorn
1016:Uyuyioiop
973:(contrib)
966:Eggishorn
930:One year!
871:(contrib)
864:Eggishorn
808:(contrib)
801:Eggishorn
736:(contrib)
729:Eggishorn
710:(blether)
686:(contrib)
679:Eggishorn
622:(contrib)
615:Eggishorn
569:(contrib)
562:Eggishorn
537:(contrib)
530:Eggishorn
505:(contrib)
498:Eggishorn
418:(contrib)
411:Eggishorn
370:(contrib)
363:Eggishorn
319:(contrib)
312:Eggishorn
293:user page
289:talk page
251:JoelleJay
249:comment.
22:User page
1933:this RFC
1890:Precious
1852:WikiLove
1630:Newsweek
1626:strictly
1622:changing
1614:magazine
1574:And, if
1326:unsigned
1304:Elinruby
1221:states:
1213:to make
1202:Primefac
1188:Primefac
1104:Primefac
1100:pinging
915:Precious
781:contribs
489:WP:CCPOL
161:Archives
50:Linkages
1799:NoACEMM
1606:Mhawk10
1584:Mhawk10
1562:Mhawk10
1514:Mhawk10
1475:Mhawk10
1438:WP:GREL
897:Dreamy
696:GeezGod
442:the AfD
381:Userbox
78:Sandbox
1858:and a
1662:WP:RSP
1643:fiveby
1525:(talk)
1501:(talk)
1462:WP:SPS
1364:(talk)
1272:(talk)
1240:(talk)
1215:easily
1141:(talk)
1075:(talk)
1043:(talk)
970:(talk)
868:(talk)
858:ersatz
832:WP:COI
830:has a
805:(talk)
733:(talk)
705:Summit
683:(talk)
619:(talk)
566:(talk)
534:(talk)
502:(talk)
493:WP:BLP
435:merged
415:(talk)
367:(talk)
316:(talk)
1722:Join
1718:Ixtal
1229:, ad
1153:might
702:Girth
660:Aburh
636:Aburh
608:Aburh
592:Aburh
1945:talk
1937:here
1918:talk
1872:talk
1810:talk
1762:The
1689:talk
1670:talk
1647:zero
1588:talk
1566:talk
1479:talk
1450:WP:V
1404:talk
1334:talk
1308:talk
1257:talk
1192:talk
1177:talk
1162:talk
1118:talk
1059:talk
1020:talk
986:talk
947:talk
900:Jazz
893:here
840:talk
777:talk
668:and
640:talk
596:talk
550:talk
519:talk
478:talk
392:talk
342:talk
255:talk
246:this
225:2021
220:2020
215:2019
210:2018
205:2017
200:2016
195:2015
190:2014
185:2013
180:2008
175:2007
124:your
1470:how
1211:has
1988:.
1947:)
1920:)
1912:--
1874:)
1812:)
1801:}}
1797:{{
1774:,
1726:!
1720:⁂
1691:)
1672:)
1664:?
1649:)
1610:SI
1598:do
1590:)
1568:)
1537:SI
1481:)
1458:SI
1444:.
1406:)
1336:)
1310:)
1259:)
1194:)
1179:)
1164:)
1156:--
1120:)
1061:)
1022:)
988:)
949:)
941:--
842:)
834:.
779:|
642:)
598:)
552:)
521:)
495:.
480:)
394:)
344:)
295:)
291:|
257:)
239:A
136:my
1943:(
1916:(
1870:(
1808:(
1687:(
1668:(
1645:(
1586:(
1564:(
1516::
1512:@
1477:(
1402:(
1332:(
1306:(
1255:(
1190:(
1175:(
1160:(
1132::
1128:@
1116:(
1106::
1102:@
1057:(
1018:(
984:(
961::
957:@
945:(
854::
850:@
838:(
796::
792:@
783:)
775:(
724::
720:@
662::
658:@
638:(
610::
606:@
594:(
548:(
517:(
476:(
406::
402:@
390:(
358::
354:@
340:(
307::
303:@
287:(
253:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
