User talk:Lar/Archive 58

2227:

state of the article. It is not a commitment to any particular course of action, not a requirement that something be fixed by the person who placed it. If there is dispute about whether a tag should be placed or not, consensus should be sought. Using an argument of " you have to fix it " to justify removal... just isn't on. Anyone who thinks it is a valid argument is misguided about the wiki process. Edit warring to add or remove a tag in the face of consensus or rough consensus is unacceptable, sanction-able action. That's all that matters here. All the rest is camouflage for unsound argument. I suggest you stop edit warring to remove the tag and work with the editors to discuss and identify what the issues are. If you have time to fix them, great, fix them, and then see if consensus can be obtained. If you do not have time to fix them, then abide. Sooner or later someone will. But meanwhile a tag for which there is consensus should remain. There is no

2907:. I'm not sure I agree with Ryan4314's view in one area, specifically the second point: "ends his posts with provocative language (sincerely, regards, happy editing!) when debating with "bitter opponents"". I feel that goes in to too much detail, obviously there is nothing wrong with saying something like "Happy editing!" - I do so all the time - and it would probably better to keep that to "disruptive in dealing with other editors", since the issue does appear to go far beyond simple 'sign offs'. I think a position closer to Kww's statement - although perhaps not quite as extreme - would be closer to what I would hope for in this RfC. I was wondering if you could explain your logic in choosing to endorse Ryan, rather than Kww, or writing your own statement. Sincerely and with regards: Cheers! Happy editing. 2927:

day!"... I sincerely hope my advice helps but it's false jocularity to wish them a nice day. A Nobody, in my view, appears to have mastered a form of "civil POV pushing"... while early on he got sanctioned for his tone, IIRC, he now uses saccharine phrasing to avoid that. But saccharine phrasing does not hide his tendentiousness... he repeats the same discredited statements over and over and no amount of feedback from others seems to have any effect. So that's my thinking there. Ryan4314 stated something the main RFC doesn't really bring out in enough detail. It could have been listed as a whole separate section in fact, but that RfC is a monster already, one of the biggest I've seen, if not the biggest. With good reason, there is a lot of behavior to be concerned about.

1955:

avoiding this subject. Its simply that my professional circumstances are in the process of changing so that I will soon have more responsibilities and a higher profile. Although I certainly don't anticipate being at the centre of any AR issues myself, I have never made any secret of the fact that I chose to use animals in a professional capacity. Unfortunately my identity is no longer private (thanks to naiveté on my part as a newbie, and the habit of certain "critics" to take advantage of any slip up out every admin they can) and I now feel I will be in a position whereby someone could use that information to adversely affect me or - my greater concern - those I am now responsible for.

1959:

involvement in contentious articles on this subject. So I intend to stick by my decision and, while I am grateful for your concern, I would prefer if we could draw a line under this and all move on. I feel that the AR articles do need reasonable and experienced editors from all perspectives editing together to ensure they remain balanced, so I'm glad there has been some fresh eyes, and I hope you will continue to work together to improve these articles. I remain available to help behind the scenes if I can. Thanks again, and my apologies for using your talkpage, Lar, to make this statement. I hope the people that need to see it will, without causing too much additional drama.

2030:

the point where specialists can't edit in their areas of expertise; that would be foolish. But where they focus on removing legitimate criticism of their profession, in a highly contentious area that they have no expertise in, then I wonder whether the COI policy is being breached, at least in spirit. Rockpocket is an editor I've always trusted, which is why I'm surprised to see him involved in this conversation. Tryptofish, however, edits entirely from a strong anti-AR position, using any means she can to remove AR material she doesn't like, and arguing black is white on talk, in an effort to keep issues going—just like this one, in fact.

2075:

Why did I bring the matter to Lar's attention? Because, when SlimVirgin began making unprovoked and inexplicable personal attacks on my user talk page, shortly after I started editing, Lar very kindly came to my talk page and was helpful to me. Indeed, SlimVirgin's comments here continue to be untrue personal attacks against me (black is white?). According to RockPocket, SlimVirgin was sending him e-mails attacking me, and SlimVirgin did not see fit to inform me of that discussion. --

1891:

requires (sigh). As for 3O, I suppose there would be a question of whether the opinion sought would be on content (POV), or conduct. As a content-oriented alternative, I replaced the POV template on the article with a POV-check template, which I think offers something pretty similar to 3O. I'm not personally in a hurry to edit the page, and when I do, I am going to do it thoughtfully and with good sources, and we'll see what happens then. --

1474:- I don't see that as particularly useful yet, given that in our prior communications, you've not been willing to acknowledge that you erred in how you raised issues or how you approached conflict resolution. Mediation requires an honest willingness to start afresh. Perhaps at some point in the future, though, if you're now willing to acknowledge what you did was wrong? I remain hopeful. You can start the process by apologizing. 2363:

the case that there have been foolish or ill advised actions, without personalising matters? (hate the sin love the sinner I believe is the saying) I think when you answer those honestly and truthfully, you'll understand why I said what I did about re-RfAs... Further, please remember that I've been a strong critic of ArbCom myself in the past, and think that where things were done wrong, we should say so and say why. ++

2803:"People vandalise? Eliminate the incentive, implement flagged revisions. People post spam? Eliminate the incentive, noindex everything but articles, and put linkfollowing utilities in place that make it less useful to put URLs in articles." Yep yep. I was very disappointed to see that the noindex proposal failed by a whisker in July; maybe in another months we can have another go at that. (Watching). - Dank ( 1347: 3695:". The edits are reversions back to Bambifan101's preferred versions, so claiming that all the text is verifiable (or that he took the time to actually verify approximately 40K of text) seems like a bit of a stretch as well. I'm not after this guy in terms of punishment: it just seems that he isn't receiving a clear message that what he did was wrong, and he shouldn't repeat it.— 1434:- The user raised a legitimate concern about free passes, or the perception of them. This is something I've been concerned about for a long time, and have commented about for a long time as well, in many contexts. "Free passes" for anyone is against the spirit of the wiki. Surely you agree that there may be a perception among some that some users 2710: 1414:

improved (and in such a way that any reasonable person would see was an improvement). If you have a low opinion of me, just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you. Or we should seek private mediation, as I suggested in a recent e-mail to which you didn't respond. But the current one-way public sniping is not acceptable.

2381:

annoy no-one, if the claim is absurd and baseless. I think the irritation you feel is because the claim is by no means baseless. Now, compare that to the mudslinging Risker has been engaging in recently. Whilst perfectly civil, it was done effectively as an abuse of position just at the close of the case. And you don't care. Why not?

3523:

It was just an attempt at discussing with WR. People were discussing my edits there, and I was discussing theirs on WP, therefore I felt entitled to join the discussion, also because I wanted to talk with these people. Maybe I was not so good, but I didn't want to stir up controversy or to provoke -I

2507:

decision. I'm fine engaging in dialog with you as much as you like, I'm always open to criticism and consider it carefully, and I answer questions as fully and carefully as I think is warranted. But do as you like. I'll be off wiki for a few hours later today, so there may be gaps, but I do commit to

2074:

As the editor who brought that concern, I feel the need to comment, even though Lar's answer is excellent as it is. Lar did not start this talk thread. I did. SlimVirgin claims to know who I am, even my gender, although I make a policy of never stating my gender on site. She is, spectacularly, wrong.

1845:

Yes, I take your point about not canvassing. At the moment, I, myself, would prefer not to contact more editors until something more concrete emerges, but I'm glad that, at least, I've made you aware of it, so your eyes are on it. P.S.: If you know of anyone you would want to tell about it, please go

54:

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Knowledge project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in

3096:

Jack Merridew suggested that I change my username, which I did, but he also said I should ask you to have my old username globally blocked. It is associated with an existing commercial domain, and is LivingWell4u. Some sort of "mess" was created when I visited other projects logged in as my old name

2169:

The restoration of the tag is not appropriate, and Lar, you should not defend it. No one is stopping Tryptofish from adding material to fix the article, if she feels it needs fixing. But she has said she has no time. That is not how POV tags are meant to be used. She has been restoring the tag since

2052:

An editor brought me a concern and asked for my opinion and my advice, which I gave. I'm not seeing any issue with that. To the article specific concerns raised by them, and by you, when I read through the talk page, I got the impression that Tryptofish did, that there was an appearance of bullying,

2033:

What would the response be if two employees of animal rights organizations started editing together to remove criticism of animal rights, or to add criticism of scientists? I think the response would be, at minimum, that there was a COI, and that they should take extra care because of it. They might

2029:

Most importantly, Rockpocket and Tryptofish are both animal researchers. Their edits to their areas of expertise are, of course, welcome. But when they start editing animal rights articles to remove criticism of animal research, I wonder whether COI kicks in. I've never wanted to see COI extended to

1890:

Thank you very much for that. I agree entirely with your analysis of those diffs: bullying until editors (and RockPocket is, I think, an admin) who challenge her POV just go away. Myself, bullies make me angry–but I'm trying not to edit angry or to escalate the situation more than what civil editing

1225:

It looks like it did some good, now that he's seen it. Weird those bots! It didn't seem to archiving at 1hr intervals earlier on. Looking at time stamps between comments in the section opened on Meteromaker shows that. But hey, these tech things never make sense to me. Anyway, thanks again and happy

3768:

I don't even think a temporary block is warranted as a way to compel agreement. It's a blemish on a block record. Ask him again, directly. If you (we) don't get compliance verbally, watch his contribs. ONLY if they proxy again is a block warranted. I note I have a perfect block record on 700 wikis.

3753:

I don't think that the word "ban" should ever have been used with regard to Meursault2004. I'm not a big fan of timed blocks, I'm more in favor of "indef until ..." style blocks. All I was pushing for was to block until he said that he understood that he had violated WP:BAN and that he would not do

3483:

Hi Lar. I may ask you, in good faith, why am I suspected of trolling? I am trying to be as nice and polite as possible, and I feel quite frustrated by the fact that what I write in good faith is considered trolling. It is really not my intention. Since I feel that such impression can come from some

2362:

to have it around (that is, what does it do that you couldn't do with, say, a blog posting sharing your views that you could link to?). Then, after you've done that, why is it necessary to be written the way it is? Why personalise it by calling people fools? Why can't the page be refactored to make

2113:

That edit (to add or readd a POV tag) is in policy in my view, as long as the talk page describes what the issue(s) are that suggest the article suffers from POV problems. Consensus is required to remove it. That consensus can be achieved by all/most participants agreeing, or by fixes being carried

2021:

Hang on, I just saw this. This is an inappropriate conversation to be holding on a talk page. Lar, you could not be more biased against me, and I have asked you many times to stay out of my business on Knowledge, because your sole contribution to any debate I'm involved in is to involve yourself in

3818:

I forgot to add you on the list of people I pinged about this.. I think a bit of it is.. not frustration, but something similar to it. I know the situation Jennavecia/Lara was in regarding "knowing" vs "Saying", I can relate to that, you know? Just not sure if anything can be done to nail shut the

3343:

Oh. So you want every edit your account (up to a point) did deleted? It's technically possible but exceedingly laborious, to remove an edit from a page history so that only admins can see it. It is done by deleting the page and then selectively restoring it. Very expensive/time consuming. Revision

3225:

Sorry for all the wait; I have been working on a few peer reviews and other GA/FA nominations as well as a few under-construction pages in this time (I seem to never be done with things!) However, now I only have one PR to go before we finish this GAN, so I'm not really worried. Thanks for all the

2421:

I've not evaded your question, I just didn't give you the answer you wished. Rather, I gave you an answer that required some introspection. Your answer misses the mark, as it doesn't matter how public a page is as a metric of whether a comment is unsuitable or not. There is no need to sling mud to

2380:

You've evaded my question. Sorry, no, you haven't evaded it, you've ignored it. Nonetheless, I will partially answer yours: why personalise it? Because individual persons have made these judgements. Here is another question for you to ignore: calling V is fool on a not-very-public-page is going to

1954:

If I could just make a note here to thank you all for your comments and emails. I would like to reply to each of your personally, but I'm really busy that the moment. While I certainly am irritated with the unfair and untrue accusations made about me and Tryptofish, I don't feel I was bullied into

1122:

I'm sure you are aware of how the uneven application of these restrictions works to foster the perception among editors that there are one set of rules for one "side" (or for admins and their friends) and another for the "other" (mere editors, who were banned for no good reason, in my opinion, but

3653:

Not in and of itself, no, but it is a strong indicator that more digging is necessary to establish in a reliable way what the situation is in Ghana regarding this fellow and his putative notability, should the matter be close at all. Fortunately, the matter isn't close so the effort can be saved,

2926:

Why endorse Ryan4314? - I agree there's nothing wrong with saying "happy editing!", I say it all the time too. But in context, when I really mean it, as a greeting to someone I'm collaborating with. When I get done warning a vandal I'm more likely to close with "hope that helps" than "have a nice

2591:

to answer. You, on the other hand, never did even try, you still have a pretty big unanswered (unaddressed, not just unanswered, you flat out ignored it) question ("why is that page, phrased the way it's phrased, good for the wiki"?). I have plenty to say to you, you're just not listening. As for

3710:

Nod, the more I look at the edits themselves the more I think the poor guy has been played by Bambi. They're not good edits, not edits **I** would stand behind. But he's a crat on the Indonesian wikipedia, (not some minor nothing special wikipedia, it's in the top 20 I think) ... talk of banning

2226:

SlimVirgin: A tag is validly placed if it correctly describes a view about an article... that the article is written like a publicity release,, that it contains contradictions, that it has unclear grammar, that it needs better references, or what have you. Placing a tag is an assertion about the

1958:

I initially thought my accuser was using this issue as leverage, which would be a form of bullying, I suppose, but I've since been assured that is not that case, which I accept. Nevertheless, that clarification does not really alter the bottom line that the risk exists and increases with further

1413:

I'm going to approach the ArbCom for relief. You've been asked many times to stop by several editors. There's no call for it, and I won't respond in kind. It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being

2316:

It's my belief, or was, that you were citing it as justification. I'm happy to clarify that you actually feel you aren't... but I confess in reading the arguments you're making there, it feels like you are citing it as justification. Could be wrong though. Thanks for the reminder about the page

1827:

I am not sure. I would advise against canvassing a large number of editors. Instead I would suggest consulting a few with the specific question: "where is the best place to raise this issue", perhaps with a prefatory question of "what issue, if any, do you see here". Because something does seem

1318:

Hi, long time as well... Hope life takes you nice places. The older user's contribs are too old at this point to draw meaningful conclusions, suspect it's best to just hope for the best. However I do see signs of new multiple account use. So I'm not sure what to do. Do you have time/interest in

2930:

Why not endorse Kww? - Basically because I'm a big softie. I get burned on it all the time but I am always hopeful that someone with problematic behavior gets the message and changes that behavior rather than gets asked to leave. Even in extreme cases like this one. If, as this RfC unfolds, it

2025:

I firmly believe Tryptofish is a former editor who used to spend her time following me from one AR article to the next. She, Rockpocket, and Animalresearcher used to edit AR articles together. She says she is not that editor, and that she has had no previous accounts. Perhaps I need to post my

1939:

Thanks, both of you. With DGG and also another editor, there is now starting to be some helpful viewing by fresh eyes. About Lar's point on tagging, I agree and understand that. I'm trying to be very careful to explain in the page talk what the issues are, and I agree that tagging without talk

1157:

if you were not already aware of it. Uneven application, or the perception of it even if unjustified, and closing ranks to defend the inner circle, or the perception of it even if unjustified, gives those who frequent sites like WR merely in order to take shots at WP the very ammo they need.

2931:

becomes clear that A Nobody won't acknowledge the very serious matters raised, won't commit to change, but remains tendentiously intransigent, I'll reconsider, and either endorse, or offer a slightly less extreme version that incorporates some form of second chance before a ban is enacted.

1513:: The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. 2551:

I've answered your question as I saw fit. You may not LIKE the answer, but I answered it. You haven't answered mine. At all. Please do. And, yes, I think calling someone a fool, directly, is an attack on that person. I think you'd be hard pressed to get many to agree that it wasn't.

3550:

from a distance, some folk think perhaps someone's trolling. I confess your views on BLP are so far away from what I consider decent (as in, respectful of "first, do no harm", of BLP policy, of the feelings of BLP victims, and so forth) that I have a hard time conversing with you.

2742:, it's my findings from the checkuser checks I ran here and on Commons. The user is welcome to edit with Xaman79... that's why that account isn't blocked. We block the sockmaster on cases of egregious or repeated socking. I recommend a decline. I'll comment to that effect there. ++ 1179:

Thanks for expressing your opinion on the matter. Here's hoping the future will be more fair? My experience to date doesn't really lead me to be optimistic, but on the other hand, given that the only constant in life is change, there may just be a chance. Happy editing Lar.

1442:, right here on this talk, for just one example of many) So, not a snide comment and not directed specifically at you. Not everything onwiki is about you, believe it or not. But let me apologise if you think it was directed specifically at you or was intended to be snide. 1123:

that's another issue). The lack of clarity here has prompted many editors sanctioned to avoid editing altogether in fear of being swept up in sanctions. Perhaps you could help in clarifying the inconsistencies and ensuring all the animals on the farm are treated equally?

2601:

at the top of this page. But of course, you've unwatched, so I'm talking to myself, as you're apparently not listening. Not that you ever were, actually. Best of luck. Now that you're not an admin you may find it somewhat harder, in general, to ignore questions, though.

2966:. In it I laid out some points where I disagreed with the RfC as written (and noted that you, matt and I wrote it). I also attempted to head off some criticism. If you like I can move it into the main section of the dispute, but I don't think it will be necessary. 1454:- My personal opinion of you is irrelevant. As should be yours of me. What matters to me is whether your actions bring harm to the project. If I think they do, I will speak out about it. I won't be constrained by any previous history we might have. Nor should you be. 1794:

Thanks for letting me know. It seems a rather tangled situation but I'm not liking what I'm seeing so far. Charges of collusion are very serious and should not be made lightly. Nor should they be made in a way that drives editors away. I'm not sure how to proceed.

3769:

If I ever got blocked like that, in advance of a specific, explict request for agreement, I'd take the person to ArbCom, seeking their deadminship, and then after I won, leave the WMF projects, never to return. We hand out blocks far too easily here at en:wp. ++

3545:

Nothing wrong with interacting with lots of folk, or even in having a different opinion from other folk. But when the same questions are asked over and over, the same unsupported assertions made over and over, and in general the conversation seems remarkably

2037:

But again, this is not the page to discuss it on. I had understood Rockpocket did not want the COI issue to be discussed, but as I see he has raised it here, I must respond. I'm disappointed that none of you saw fit to inform me of this discussion.

1921:

Excellent. I'm loath to get directly involved for fear of changing the focus from the message to the messenger. One side issue: The NPOV tagging should be substantiated with a list of issues that need fixing, but it's a valid tagging in my view.

3524:

just tried to explain my opinion and to answer other users questions. I understand doing so on a forum with many people with different opinions can be frowned upon, and I may have been clumsy, but it was not trolling. I hope this clarifies. --

2725:; however, that user wasn't blocked as a result. This user claims that since the creation of this account, (s)he has not edited using any other account and no longer has access to his/her old account. I'd like your comments about this block. 3259:

Oh yeah, since you're an admin, is it possible you could unattribute my first 61 edits from my account, if that's even possible? Or if its possible, unattribute or even delete my first 158 edits except for the ones that aren't to userspace?

2114:

out and then all/most participants agreeing, or whatever, per normal editing processes. The (repeated) removal of the tag is not correct, in my view, as there is discussion on the talk page (with a consensus apparent to me that there

2637:

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank

1152:

I am very concerned about uneven application, and about potential chilling effects of even the perception of uneven application. I'm not sure how much good I can do but I've commented on the premature close. I'd also point you to

1285:

Hi Lar, long time... As you may have noticed I just handled in all my brooms and made my already four month long wikibreak official, which may be a sign that I'm actually returning ;) Anyways, noticed these on my watchlist here

1864:

as a possible resource to find some eyes that are not on either side of this issue and might give an objective evaluation of the situation. I'm afraid those eyes would not be mine. When I saw SlimVirgin's approach (for example

2596:

read all the rest. The consensus forming is that the page as written is out of line and needs toning down. The interesting question to me is whether you'll do it voluntarily or whether you'll have to be forced. Read the

3348:

for some reading on when it's used... I'd say the likelyhood of this being done is low. Can you clarify why? (if it's a privacy related concern you can email me if you like) I note that many of the initial edits are to

3097:

after the new name was approved. Does this make any sense, and can you please perform the above request? I apologize, Wiki is a very new language for me, and I am trying to keep up. Thank you in advance for your help.

2439:

Lar, this is rather tiresome. You didn't answer my question. Please do so, explicitly, if you want this to continue. Though after CHL's vote it becomes clear that this second vote is going to go the way of the first

2471:

be relevant to a future RfA. I can't imagine it not being raised as an issue. If you can imagine a course of action in which it wasn't, then I don't know what to tell you, you're divorced from reality. And that it

2301:

No, still don't get you. I'm not citing that as justification, just as useful discussion. The justification is the arbcomm decision. Oh, and aren't you supposed to put some kind of header on the page? The sock did

2664: 2487:

to go the way of the first, because it's not going to get speedy closed, it will get a proper hearing by the community. MzMcBride was correct to close the first one, but it nevertheless needed a hearing. Hence, a

2633: 2422:

make a valid criticism. If actions are foolish, criticise the actions. When you answer my questions honestly and with some introspection, you'll have the answer you seek. My standards for admins are high. ++

1982:

bullied but I think many observers of that page would say that there nevertheless was apparent bullying going on. Let us hope that with more eyes the corner will be turned and that will be the end of it.

1719:

of you!), I've got your number. I don't know if I should be scared or flattered or creeped out, or what. :) Nifty tool. Note: you can see how many people are watching certain nonexistent RfA pages, too!

3203:

I think it's looking good. Let me take one last pass and it will hopefully be GA at that point. We together have taken a lot longer to review and correct than the norm but I'm not worried if you're not.

1812:

Thank you. I'm even less sure than you about how to proceed. I'm unsure whether one should wait until charges are actually made, or not. Should more editors in leadership positions be made aware of it?

1526: 2573:- very much like Abd's when I say cabal, it means whatever I want it to mean. I hope you've read EdChem's opinion. Meanwhile, it looks like we have nothing to say to each other; I'm de-watching here 1448:

If answering a question is "lending support" in your view, I think you're not seeing things clearly. Perhaps you should step back from the conflict at that bio and leave it to uninvolved editors.

2934:

Why not write my own statement? - I think the main RfC presents a lot to digest already. I'm tempted to write my own statement, but am waiting to see what other outside views are put forth.

1094: 2981:

I'm not really sure of the protocol of RfC/Us but I think once the main section is written and people start endorsing it, it is what it is. I've commented on your section, in support. ++

2026:

opinion somewhere relevant for uninvolved editors to take a look. I was going to overlook it, but as she continues to try to cause a problem, I can see that I'll have to deal with it.

1254:

My understanding of MiszaBot is that it archives but once a day but the parm controls how old the oldest thread can be (measured by the newest comment in the thread). Happy editing! ++

2492:. If the community decides that you should be allowed your parting shots, and not required to refactor away the incivility, that's fine by me. But it will be a community decision. 123: 1681: 1460:- Our current difficulties started when you made a number of unjustified and unsupported allegations in an inappropriate manner in a number of venues, something which you were 1115:

about your hope that the arb comm enforcement for the I-P case would be applied evenly. It seems that there is a perception that it is not in fact being applied evenly. See

2537:

you have this backwards. The question is why any future RFA is releavant to the existence of this page. Please have another go at answering it. And it isn't an attack page

2467:

I've answered your question. You just apparently lack the self-introspective ability to realize it. Here's a more explicit answer: Why would an attack page (kept or not)

76:. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. 3150:

to globally block it, you just need to remember not to log in as that account. But per your request I've blocked it. If you want it unblocked again, please ask me. ++

2867: 2838: 1529:? I renamed it due to the fact that the original name should be a redirect to the project banner (as I found a few article talk pages that were using it, instead of 3484:

clumsiness in my behaviour, I would be happy if someone can help me iron out such errors of mine. Thanks for your help -you can answer here, I'll watch the page. --

1629: 3715:

giving a path for others to say "any edit by a banned editor or that a banned editor suggests is reason for a new ban", because that I cannot support. Helps? ++

3116:

isn't necessarily always intuitively obvious in its functioning. I did some research, and here is what I found. First, regarding your old account LivingWell4U:

2476:

come up is a direct followon from the root question, "why is that page, phrased the way it's phrased, good for the wiki"? That's the metric we need to use for

2339:

Lets talk here. You've said a number of things on the MFD that I find unhelp, or that appear to indicate a hasty or confused state on your part. How about:

3687:

I don't want to come off as being strident, so I came here to talk. I'm really curious: how do you not see Meursault2004's edits as being in violation of

1607:

You're welcome. If you have any further thoughts on the DTCC article, pls give a shout. I've gone through the section and my notes are on the talk page.--

1622: 1539:), as the userbox or messagebox should have the "user" word in it somewhere, and I'd like to redirect the original to the project banner. Thanks much! -- 1446:" It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved" 3797:

on him. I've boxed the overblown discussion and marked it resolved. It is; I've had email off him, too, and have known him for four years. id:wp is the

1208:

Not sure it did any good. Apparently the bot archives threads on his talk page if they are older than 1 hour (!!!) when it comes by. That seems daft. ++

2199:

She has turned to you only because you've made it clear you support anyone who is causing a problem for me. Please stop allowing yourself to be used.

1056: 3344:

deletion either to hide from regular users, or from all users except oversighters, is also possible. But there needs to be a good justification. See

3033:

They are removed, but in the history, I will try to make time to review them soon. Any TPWs that want to take a look are invited to do so as well. ++

2776:

However Algarevan has not edited since the 15th, a new sock check may be warranted as well, and no action's needed on Commons if he's not editing. ++

3353:... would deletion of that page entirely address all or part of what is concerning you? If so just tag it for speedy, it's in your user space. (use 2963: 2900: 2893: 2178:

anti-animal testing) say about that experiment. No one defends it that I have been able to find, not even the researchers who were involved in it.

1097:. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list. -- 2099:. I understand that you blocked that editor for being a sock, but are you aware of anything out-of-policy about the edit in that diff? Thanks. -- 2053:

although that could just be a stylistic difference in approach. Most of the rest of your concerns are already addressed in my response to you at

3732:

PS, I've been in direct email communication with him. (making the same points about not doing edits without deep thought about whether they're

1525:

Hi Lar- On your user page, could you update this template that has been renamed: "Template:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America" to

3054: 1684:... I took a shot and waited for feedback, haven't gotten any. Not comfortable with how it is now but not sure how to proceed. Thoughts? ++ 109: 3568:

For my TPW's ... the link to this one WR post, embedding as it does someone else's views as well, sums up a fair bit of the issue nicely

1464:, and something for which you've never expressed any remorse, regret, or even acknowledgment that you erred in any way. It's ironic that 2118:

POV problems) and work needs to be done to fix the article to where consensus agrees the POV issue has been corrected. Your restoration

1090: 3754:

so again. That's not a ban at all: should be a very short block, only as long as it takes to read and acknowledge the policy page.—

2857: 3711:(like some others are talking) is premature.... we need to give him a path to say "yes, I get it now, and won't do that again", 2657: 1370:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 116: 2939:

I hope that helps clarify things! Thanks for your questions. I'd urge my talk page watchers to review the RfC if they wish. ++

2874:... Triplestop forgot to sign his templatization or give context. Sloppy, sloppy. Appparently in a bit of a hurry, I guess. ++ 3569: 3408: 3324: 3268: 3234: 3183: 2578: 2542: 2445: 2386: 2348: 2307: 2274: 1382:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

1154: 1554:

I believe I've made the change you suggested. If not, please advise. Thanks for letting me know of the need for a change. ++

3819:

revolving door.. it sucks that people can exploit the rules while honest editorsget nailed to the wall for the same thing.

1112: 1319:

looking into the user's contributions under the multiple guises? I'd be inclined to block if they are problematic. LMK. ++

1300: 2170:

May, with no effort made to expand the article to address her concerns, and I doubt she could find a reliable source who

3287:

I'm not sure I understand that last request... what is it you want done? Perhaps a diff might clear up what you mean? ++

1628:

I think Casey Brown didn't have much time to do the interview for Meta, would you like to fill in? If so, head towards

2598: 80: 3461:

For the record, I passed this just now, it's now GA, and I left you a longer message on your own talk. Nice work. ++

3644: 1383: 1373: 1353: 3316:

I just thought that admins can remove edits from an account; i.e. just delete them, and they're never seen again.

2358:

Why do you want to keep the page? Forget the mechanical legalistic arguments, and just tell me why you think it's

3778: 3745: 3724: 3663: 3584: 3560: 3515: 3470: 3440: 3372: 3296: 3213: 3159: 3079: 3042: 2990: 2948: 2883: 2823: 2785: 2768: 2751: 2691: 2611: 2574: 2561: 2538: 2521: 2441: 2431: 2382: 2372: 2344: 2326: 2303: 2293: 2270: 2240: 2131: 2066: 1992: 1931: 1905:

I've made a comment there. I think there;s a chance fror an NPOV article despite what has already taken place.

1882: 1837: 1804: 1729: 1693: 1657: 1563: 1488: 1328: 1263: 1217: 1167: 84: 3798: 1740: 3812: 3639:

carried weight toward deletion. But Lar I'm glad to hear that you agree it doesn't in fact support deletion.

1022: 1012: 1002: 992: 982: 963: 953: 943: 933: 923: 904: 894: 884: 874: 864: 854: 844: 834: 824: 814: 804: 794: 775: 765: 755: 735: 725: 715: 705: 695: 685: 675: 665: 646: 636: 626: 616: 606: 596: 586: 576: 566: 556: 546: 536: 517: 507: 497: 487: 477: 467: 457: 447: 437: 427: 417: 407: 397: 387: 377: 367: 348: 338: 328: 318: 308: 298: 288: 278: 268: 258: 248: 238: 40: 28: 1648:

I have to admit I'm a bit baffled. I'll take a cut but some of those questions I don't know the answers to. ++

1428:

Thanks for stopping by and bringing your concerns forward. Let's unpack some of the key themes as I see them.

1032: 1716: 3415: 3331: 3275: 3241: 3190: 3102: 1861: 228: 218: 208: 198: 188: 178: 168: 158: 148: 3138: 2034:

even be asked to stay away from that area entirely. The same principles have to apply to the other "side."

3123: 3112:

Hi. Thanks for trying to get things straightened around. The matter of accounts can be very confusing, as

2212:

Please do not blame Lar for any of this. I am not using anyone. And your comment is rife with untruths. --

1762: 1533: 1365: 1346: 3640: 3350: 1671: 1638: 1358: 3636: 2341:

Because your fight to keep a page where you attack arbcom probably would come up at any re-RfA request.

1978:

I feel a bit better now but not much. I hope all works out for you in real life... I'm glad you don't

2853: 2845: 2729: 2217: 2144: 2104: 2080: 1968: 1945: 1896: 1851: 1818: 1784: 1776: 1612: 1598: 1576: 1544: 3824: 3345: 3024: 3009: 2174:

address her concerns, because that article currently reflects what the reliable sources (both pro-

1289:, the edits are not very controversial I guess, but I strongly suspect this is yet another sock of 1051: 3146:

An account has to be SUL unified in order to be globally blockable. I'm not sure it's necessarily

1732: 3802: 3606: 3538: 3498: 3406: 3322: 3266: 3232: 3181: 3098: 3061: 2646: 2228: 1745: 1379: 1308: 2971: 2915: 2871: 2837:

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

2483:"this second vote is going to go the way of the first" - The second vote is almost guaranteed 1755: 1294: 1098: 3427:

People LOVE to push the delete button... it went bye-bye about 90 min after you tagged it...

3506:

Your input at WR on the M.S. thread, which is prodigious, but remarkably low value added. ++

3135: 2400: 1666: 1633: 1396: 3120: 3428: 2849: 2726: 2213: 2200: 2140: 2122:

was warranted and the edit summary struck me as particularly apt. There is no deadline. ++

2100: 2076: 2039: 1960: 1941: 1892: 1847: 1814: 1780: 1608: 1594: 1572: 1540: 1415: 55:

reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.

3691:? These aren't articles that he normally edits, so I don't see how he could be said to " 3820: 3020: 3005: 2804: 2701: 2672: 3794: 3774: 3759: 3741: 3720: 3700: 3688: 3659: 3632: 3593: 3580: 3556: 3525: 3511: 3485: 3466: 3436: 3401: 3368: 3317: 3292: 3261: 3227: 3209: 3176: 3169: 3155: 3075: 3038: 2986: 2944: 2904: 2879: 2819: 2781: 2764: 2747: 2687: 2642: 2607: 2557: 2517: 2427: 2368: 2322: 2289: 2236: 2127: 2062: 2054: 1988: 1927: 1912: 1878: 1833: 1800: 1725: 1712: 1689: 1653: 1559: 1484: 1468:

you want to stay away, as the damage you did with public invective was done long ago.

1439: 1324: 1304: 1259: 1213: 1163: 65: 17: 2343:- I don't see that as relevant to the current deletion discussion. Why is it there? 3635:

to Kevin's post on the Fletcher AfD: it seemed to suggest that the contribution of

2967: 2908: 2722: 2717:

This user has requested an unblock. I did notice an oddity with this block - it is

1290: 1095:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes

2284:

The very same section, I cited it as a diff, you cited it as a section heading. ++

1287: 3736:

edits)... But I'm not sure of his geography, he may be asleep now or whatever. ++

3654:

this is a pretty resounding delete with only extremist viewpoints holding out. ++

3357: 2396: 1392: 1227: 1181: 1124: 3400:

I did the tagging with DB-U1 thing; now for a wait of a few days. Thanks, Lar.

2868:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_likely_created_by.2Ffor_PD

3828: 3805: 3781: 3763: 3748: 3727: 3704: 3666: 3648: 3608: 3587: 3563: 3540: 3518: 3500: 3473: 3443: 3422: 3375: 3338: 3299: 3282: 3248: 3216: 3197: 3162: 3106: 3082: 3064: 3045: 3028: 3013: 2993: 2975: 2951: 2917: 2886: 2826: 2808: 2788: 2771: 2754: 2732: 2694: 2676: 2650: 2614: 2582: 2564: 2546: 2524: 2449: 2434: 2404: 2390: 2375: 2352: 2329: 2311: 2296: 2278: 2243: 2221: 2207: 2148: 2134: 2108: 2084: 2069: 2046: 1995: 1973: 1949: 1934: 1916: 1900: 1885: 1855: 1840: 1822: 1807: 1788: 1764: 1748: 1696: 1675: 1660: 1642: 1616: 1602: 1580: 1566: 1548: 1491: 1422: 1400: 1331: 1312: 1266: 1249: 1220: 1203: 1170: 1146: 1101: 2668: 2267:

Note also this exchange (which I believe WMC cites as justification, below)

1119:

and follow the links there to the AE and ANI requests on the latest issue.

1860:

I have made some other folk aware of this matter. One suggestion I got was

2866:

Thanks for letting me know. For my TPW's.... this relates to this thread:

3770: 3755: 3737: 3716: 3696: 3655: 3576: 3552: 3507: 3462: 3432: 3364: 3288: 3205: 3151: 3071: 3034: 2982: 2940: 2875: 2841:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

2815: 2777: 2760: 2759:

Note to self, I need to finish the flip of users on Commons as agreed. ++

2743: 2683: 2603: 2553: 2513: 2423: 2364: 2318: 2285: 2232: 2123: 2058: 1984: 1923: 1907: 1874: 1829: 1796: 1775:

Hello Lar. I hope that you could please do me a favor and take a look at

1721: 1685: 1649: 1555: 1480: 1320: 1255: 1209: 1159: 1665:

I am planning to publish this at next issue. Is everything ready to go?

1116: 2531:

Here's a more explicit answer: Why would an attack page (kept or not)

973: 914: 785: 656: 527: 358: 139: 1089:

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at

2665:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses

2317:

header. Do you think we need any NoFollows on any of these pages? ++

1779:(assuming that you don't know about it already!). Thanks so much. -- 3801:

with 112,528 articles. They do mellow well, over there. Sincerely,

1458:"just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you." 1069:

All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date

79:

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by

1303:), rather obvious this one, as 7=sju in Norwegian. All the best, 3113: 2627:

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

3137:. It IS currently unified though (again, steward visible only: 2395:

Mudslinging? Go read my talk page, WMC. I stand by my words.

1527:

Template:User WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America 2

3019:

You can also look at Kww's talk page for loads of examples.

1873:) it just feels a lot like browbeating or bullying to me. ++ 1632:. Feel free to add/remove/modify questions on that page. 1111:

Hi Lar. We have never met before but I saw your comments

2508:

respond to everything left here, by everyone. As always.

1521:

Template:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

2718: 2119: 2096: 1870: 1866: 1510: 1411: 1410:

Lar, if you don't stop posting snide remarks about me,

2658:

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification

3175:

Hi, do you have any final opinions on Laguna Canyon?

1682:

User talk:OhanaUnited/Sister Projects Interview/Meta

3363:

to tag it and some admin will see it and fix it) ++

2721:due to your suspicion that this is a sockpuppet of 1828:

troubling but I'm not sure how to articulate it. ++

3575:bad BLP is too many, and there is no "Balance". ++ 3131:Second, regarding your new account Serendipity81: 3134:The account has contributions only here on en:wp 3122:. It is currently unified (steward visible only: 1093:concerning a case in which you have commented at 3119:The account has contributions on several wikis: 2870:and this statement on an article's talk page: 2839:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 2480:page. Why is it? You haven't answered that yet. 1630:User:OhanaUnited/Sister Projects Interview/Meta 1091:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT 3004:If you send me an email, I will reply to it. 2095:And, a (related) question to Lar. It's about 117: 8: 3683:Continuation of discussion from AN/Dramafest 2503:questions, so really whether we continue is 1042: 3070:I really need to remember to go do this. ++ 1479:I hope that helps address your concerns. ++ 283:1 September 2006 through 15 September 2006 2872:Talk:Columba_Ryan#article_by_a_banned_user 1341: 124: 110: 2495:As for "if you want this to continue..." 1940:explanation is, in contrast, improper. -- 1362:was updated with a fact from the article 1037:1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ?? 392:1 February 2007 through 15 February 2007 343:1 December 2006 through 15 December 2006 333:15 November 2006 through 1 December 2006 323:1 November 2006 through 15 November 2006 293:15 September 2006 through 1 October 2006 3693:have independent reasons for making them 3689:WP:BAN#Editing on behalf of banned users 2571:I've answered your question as I saw fit 1007:1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018 997:1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016 987:1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013 899:1 November 2010 through 1 December 2010 879:1 September 2010 through 1 October 2010 770:1 November 2009 through 1 December 2009 750:1 September 2009 through 1 October 2009 641:1 November 2008 through 1 December 2008 621:1 September 2008 through 1 October 2008 512:1 November 2007 through 1 December 2007 492:1 September 2007 through 1 October 2007 382:15 January 2007 through 1 February 2007 353:15 December 2006 through 1 January 2007 313:15 October 2006 through 1 November 2006 273:15 August 2006 through 1 September 2006 2958:Knowledge:Requests for comment/A Nobody 2894:Knowledge:Requests for comment/A Nobody 2641:This has been an automated delivery by 2057:. This matter seemed to be resolved. ++ 1593:The answer to your question is "no." -- 1503: 1017:1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021 928:1 January 2011 through 1 February 2011 909:1 December 2010 through 1 January 2011 889:1 October 2010 through 1 November 2010 869:1 August 2010 through 1 September 2010 799:1 January 2010 through 1 February 2010 780:1 December 2009 through 1 January 2010 760:1 October 2009 through 1 November 2009 740:1 August 2009 through 1 September 2009 670:1 January 2009 through 1 February 2009 651:1 December 2008 through 1 January 2009 631:1 October 2008 through 1 November 2008 611:1 August 2008 through 1 September 2008 541:1 January 2008 through 1 February 2008 522:1 December 2007 through 1 January 2008 502:1 October 2007 through 1 November 2007 482:1 August 2007 through 1 September 2007 372:1 January 2007 through 15 January 2007 303:1 October 2006 through 15 October 2006 1027:1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023 402:15 February 2007 through 1 March 2007 50: 3089:Rquest to globally block old username 3055:Knowledge:Editor review/Jack Merridew 938:1 February 2011 through 1 March 2011 809:1 February 2010 through 1 March 2010 680:1 February 2009 through 1 March 2009 551:1 February 2008 through 1 March 2008 263:1 August 2006 through 15 August 2006 7: 2592:EdChem's opinion, I read it. I hope 3793:Revi's in the Netherlands; see the 2962:I added an outside view (of sorts) 1777:User talk:Rockpocket#Pit of despair 968:1 May 2011 through 1 December 2012 432:15 March 2007 through 1 April 2007 412:1 March 2007 through 15 March 2007 253:15 July 2006 through 1 August 2006 1472:"we should seek private mediation" 948:1 March 2011 through 1 April 2011 859:1 July 2010 through 1 August 2010 819:1 March 2010 through 1 April 2010 730:1 July 2009 through 1 August 2009 690:1 March 2009 through 1 April 2009 601:1 July 2008 through 1 August 2008 561:1 March 2008 through 1 April 2008 472:1 July 2007 through 1 August 2007 24: 3631:FWIW, I had the same reaction as 1706: 243:1 July 2006 through 15 July 2006 233:15 June 2006 through 1 July 2006 223:1 June 2006 through 15 June 2006 3592:Ok. Thanks for your comments. -- 3431:did it 22:18, 3 October 2009. ++ 2708: 2682:Thanks. I've commented there. ++ 1452:"If you have a low opinion of me 1345: 958:1 April 2011 through 1 May 2011 849:1 June 2010 through 1 July 2010 829:1 April 2010 through 1 May 2010 720:1 June 2009 through 1 July 2009 700:1 April 2009 through 1 May 2009 591:1 June 2008 through 1 July 2008 571:1 April 2008 through 1 May 2008 462:1 June 2007 through 1 July 2007 442:1 April 2007 through 1 May 2007 213:15 May 2006 through 1 June 2006 153:start through about 22 Jan 2006 2923:You've raised three questions: 1438:have free passes? (if not, see 839:1 May 2010 through 1 June 2010 710:1 May 2009 through 1 June 2009 581:1 May 2008 through 1 June 2008 452:1 May 2007 through 1 June 2007 203:1 May 2006 through 15 May 2006 193:15 Apr 2006 through 1 May 2006 183:1 Apr 2006 through 15 Apr 2006 163:22 Jan 2006 through 1 Mar 2006 3829:21:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 3782:22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 3764:21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 3749:20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 3728:20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 3705:19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 3667:18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3649:17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3609:17:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3588:17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3564:17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3541:16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3519:16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3501:15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3217:16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3198:03:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 3163:16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 3107:14:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 3083:16:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 3065:09:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 3046:12:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 3029:02:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 3014:02:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2994:20:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 2976:18:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 2952:14:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 2918:14:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 2887:22:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 2827:05:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 2809:23:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2789:12:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2772:14:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 2755:13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 2733:12:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 2695:01:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 2677:00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 2651:20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2615:09:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 2583:09:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 2565:01:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 2547:21:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2525:20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2450:20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2435:20:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2405:19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2391:19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2376:17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2353:17:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2330:16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2312:16:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2297:16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2279:16:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2269:- what are you talking about? 2244:22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2222:21:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2208:21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2149:20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2135:20:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2109:19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2085:18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2070:12:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2047:03:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 1996:01:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 1974:19:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 1950:18:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 1935:07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 1917:07:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 1901:23:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1886:23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1856:18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1841:18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1823:18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1808:18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1789:17:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1765:05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1749:04:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1733:02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 1462:sanctioned by ArbCom for doing 1338:DYK for Alaska Road Commission 1059:(27 Dec 2005) through present 422:Trentino — South Tyrol topics 173:1 Mar 2006 through 1 Apr 2006 1: 1661:20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 1643:17:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 1617:14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 1603:11:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 1581:15:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 1567:15:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 1549:05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 1492:15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 1423:05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 1401:23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 1332:18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 1313:17:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 1267:20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1250:20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1221:18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1204:16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1171:13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1147:10:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1102:12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 1085:Request for arbitration filed 2535:be relevant to a future RfA. 3806:06:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC) 3474:15:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 3444:16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3423:02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3376:16:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 3339:15:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 3300:05:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 3283:22:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC) 3249:21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC) 2667:which you participated in. 2663:FYI. This RFC is based on, 1697:05:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 1676:05:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 977:My post 2012 archived talk 918:My 2011/2012 archived talk 90: 81:User:HBC Archive Indexerbot 3844: 2860:) 16:26, 19 September 2009 2706: 1045: 976: 917: 788: 659: 530: 361: 142: 98: 85:User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex 3813:User:SirFozzie/Alternate 2814:Thanks! One can hope. ++ 2799:Your comment from WT:RFA 1623:Sister project interview 1432:"snide remarks about me" 2055:User_talk:Lar#A_request 2022:order to denigrate me. 1869:post by RockPocket and 1862:Knowledge:Third opinion 1384:Did you know? talk page 1366:Alaska Road Commission 789:My 2010 archived talk 660:My 2009 archived talk 531:My 2008 archived talk 362:My 2007 archived talk 143:My 2006 archived talk 64:This is an archive of 3351:User:Shannon1/Sandbox 2463:(out)Several points: 1707:I've got your number. 2901:the RfC you endorsed 2575:William M. Connolley 2539:William M. Connolley 2442:William M. Connolley 2383:William M. Connolley 2345:William M. Connolley 2304:William M. Connolley 2271:William M. Connolley 3139:Special:CentralAuth 3124:Special:CentralAuth 2899:I was reading over 2512:Hope that helps. ++ 1107:Arbcomm enforcement 3060:fyi ;) Sincerely, 1771:Please take a look 1713:talk page watchers 101:Talk Page Archives 3637:User:Greatminds99 2862: 2848:comment added by 2653: 2634:August 2009 issue 2490:different outcome 2360:good for the wiki 2206: 2045: 1421: 1390: 1389: 1354:September 6, 2009 1078: 1077: 1074: 1073: 1063: 1062: 1041: 1040: 972: 971: 913: 912: 784: 783: 655: 654: 526: 525: 357: 356: 134: 133: 3835: 3641:Nomoskedasticity 3603: 3598: 3535: 3530: 3495: 3490: 3421: 3413: 3404: 3362: 3356: 3337: 3329: 3320: 3281: 3273: 3264: 3247: 3239: 3230: 3196: 3188: 3179: 2913: 2861: 2842: 2712: 2711: 2640: 2205: 2203: 2044: 2042: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1758: 1743: 1571:Thanks again! -- 1538: 1532: 1514: 1508: 1440:a few threads up 1420: 1418: 1349: 1342: 1246: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1188: 1185: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1131: 1128: 1043: 974: 915: 786: 657: 528: 359: 140: 126: 119: 112: 96: 95: 92: 91: 83:can be found at 70:1 September 2009 48: 47: 3843: 3842: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3816: 3685: 3599: 3594: 3531: 3526: 3491: 3486: 3481: 3420: 3417: 3412: 3409: 3402: 3360: 3354: 3336: 3333: 3328: 3325: 3318: 3280: 3277: 3272: 3269: 3262: 3246: 3243: 3238: 3235: 3228: 3195: 3192: 3187: 3184: 3177: 3173: 3091: 3058: 3002: 2960: 2909: 2897: 2843: 2835: 2801: 2715: 2714: 2709: 2705: 2661: 2629: 2264: 2201: 2040: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1846:right ahead. -- 1773: 1756: 1739: 1709: 1626: 1591: 1536: 1530: 1523: 1518: 1517: 1509: 1505: 1416: 1408: 1377: 1340: 1283: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1235: 1232: 1229: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1141: 1138: 1135: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1109: 1087: 1046:RfA Thank Yous 130: 103: 58: 45: 44: 37: 32: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3841: 3839: 3815: 3809: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3684: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3480: 3477: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3418: 3410: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3334: 3326: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3278: 3270: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3244: 3236: 3226:patient wait. 3220: 3219: 3193: 3185: 3172: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3090: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3057: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3001: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2959: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2932: 2928: 2896: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2834: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2707: 2704: 2702:User:Algarvean 2699: 2698: 2697: 2660: 2655: 2639: 2628: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2510: 2509: 2493: 2481: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2263: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1956: 1772: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1751: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1625: 1620: 1590: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1515: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1469: 1455: 1449: 1443: 1407: 1404: 1388: 1387: 1378:and add it to 1371: 1350: 1339: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1282: 1281:sock I suppose 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1174: 1173: 1155:this WR thread 1108: 1105: 1086: 1083: 1081: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1071: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1060: 1054: 1048: 1047: 1039: 1038: 1035: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1019: 1018: 1015: 1009: 1008: 1005: 999: 998: 995: 989: 988: 985: 979: 978: 970: 969: 966: 960: 959: 956: 950: 949: 946: 940: 939: 936: 930: 929: 926: 920: 919: 911: 910: 907: 901: 900: 897: 891: 890: 887: 881: 880: 877: 871: 870: 867: 861: 860: 857: 851: 850: 847: 841: 840: 837: 831: 830: 827: 821: 820: 817: 811: 810: 807: 801: 800: 797: 791: 790: 782: 781: 778: 772: 771: 768: 762: 761: 758: 752: 751: 748: 742: 741: 738: 732: 731: 728: 722: 721: 718: 712: 711: 708: 702: 701: 698: 692: 691: 688: 682: 681: 678: 672: 671: 668: 662: 661: 653: 652: 649: 643: 642: 639: 633: 632: 629: 623: 622: 619: 613: 612: 609: 603: 602: 599: 593: 592: 589: 583: 582: 579: 573: 572: 569: 563: 562: 559: 553: 552: 549: 543: 542: 539: 533: 532: 524: 523: 520: 514: 513: 510: 504: 503: 500: 494: 493: 490: 484: 483: 480: 474: 473: 470: 464: 463: 460: 454: 453: 450: 444: 443: 440: 434: 433: 430: 424: 423: 420: 414: 413: 410: 404: 403: 400: 394: 393: 390: 384: 383: 380: 374: 373: 370: 364: 363: 355: 354: 351: 345: 344: 341: 335: 334: 331: 325: 324: 321: 315: 314: 311: 305: 304: 301: 295: 294: 291: 285: 284: 281: 275: 274: 271: 265: 264: 261: 255: 254: 251: 245: 244: 241: 235: 234: 231: 225: 224: 221: 215: 214: 211: 205: 204: 201: 195: 194: 191: 185: 184: 181: 175: 174: 171: 165: 164: 161: 155: 154: 151: 145: 144: 136: 135: 132: 131: 129: 128: 121: 114: 106: 104: 99: 89: 74:1 October 2009 72:through about 62: 60: 51: 46: 38: 33: 26: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3840: 3831: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3814: 3810: 3808: 3807: 3804: 3803:Jack Merridew 3800: 3796: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3682: 3668: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3633:User:Cyclopia 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3610: 3607: 3604: 3602: 3597: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3549: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3539: 3536: 3534: 3529: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3499: 3496: 3494: 3489: 3478: 3476: 3475: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3445: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3416: 3414: 3407: 3405: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3377: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3359: 3352: 3347: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3332: 3330: 3323: 3321: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3301: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3276: 3274: 3267: 3265: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3250: 3242: 3240: 3233: 3231: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3218: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3191: 3189: 3182: 3180: 3171: 3170:Laguna Canyon 3168: 3164: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3140: 3136: 3133: 3132: 3130: 3125: 3121: 3118: 3117: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3099:Serendipity81 3094: 3088: 3084: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3063: 3062:Jack Merridew 3056: 3053: 3047: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3011: 3007: 2999: 2995: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2957: 2953: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2924: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2916: 2914: 2912: 2906: 2902: 2895: 2892: 2888: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2840: 2832: 2828: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2806: 2798: 2790: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2731: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2703: 2700: 2696: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2659: 2656: 2654: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2636: 2635: 2626: 2616: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2600: 2595: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2491: 2486: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2470: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2361: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2331: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2261: 2245: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2204: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2177: 2173: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2139:Thank you. -- 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2043: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 1997: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1972: 1964: 1957: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1770: 1766: 1763: 1760: 1759: 1753:304 now. ;) – 1752: 1750: 1747: 1746:Jack Merridew 1742: 1738:I'm one, but 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1718: 1714: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1641: 1640: 1637: 1636: 1631: 1624: 1621: 1619: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1588: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1535: 1534:NorthAmNative 1528: 1520: 1512: 1507: 1504: 1497: 1496: 1493: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1473: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1430: 1429: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1419: 1412: 1405: 1403: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1385: 1381: 1375: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1361: 1360: 1359:Did you know? 1355: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1337: 1333: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1280: 1268: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1247: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1202: 1201: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1144: 1120: 1118: 1114: 1106: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1084: 1082: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1058: 1055: 1053: 1050: 1049: 1044: 1036: 1034: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1024: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1014: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1004: 1001: 1000: 996: 994: 991: 990: 986: 984: 981: 980: 975: 967: 965: 962: 961: 957: 955: 952: 951: 947: 945: 942: 941: 937: 935: 932: 931: 927: 925: 922: 921: 916: 908: 906: 903: 902: 898: 896: 893: 892: 888: 886: 883: 882: 878: 876: 873: 872: 868: 866: 863: 862: 858: 856: 853: 852: 848: 846: 843: 842: 838: 836: 833: 832: 828: 826: 823: 822: 818: 816: 813: 812: 808: 806: 803: 802: 798: 796: 793: 792: 787: 779: 777: 774: 773: 769: 767: 764: 763: 759: 757: 754: 753: 749: 747: 744: 743: 739: 737: 734: 733: 729: 727: 724: 723: 719: 717: 714: 713: 709: 707: 704: 703: 699: 697: 694: 693: 689: 687: 684: 683: 679: 677: 674: 673: 669: 667: 664: 663: 658: 650: 648: 645: 644: 640: 638: 635: 634: 630: 628: 625: 624: 620: 618: 615: 614: 610: 608: 605: 604: 600: 598: 595: 594: 590: 588: 585: 584: 580: 578: 575: 574: 570: 568: 565: 564: 560: 558: 555: 554: 550: 548: 545: 544: 540: 538: 535: 534: 529: 521: 519: 516: 515: 511: 509: 506: 505: 501: 499: 496: 495: 491: 489: 486: 485: 481: 479: 476: 475: 471: 469: 466: 465: 461: 459: 456: 455: 451: 449: 446: 445: 441: 439: 436: 435: 431: 429: 426: 425: 421: 419: 416: 415: 411: 409: 406: 405: 401: 399: 396: 395: 391: 389: 386: 385: 381: 379: 376: 375: 371: 369: 366: 365: 360: 352: 350: 347: 346: 342: 340: 337: 336: 332: 330: 327: 326: 322: 320: 317: 316: 312: 310: 307: 306: 302: 300: 297: 296: 292: 290: 287: 286: 282: 280: 277: 276: 272: 270: 267: 266: 262: 260: 257: 256: 252: 250: 247: 246: 242: 240: 237: 236: 232: 230: 227: 226: 222: 220: 217: 216: 212: 210: 207: 206: 202: 200: 197: 196: 192: 190: 187: 186: 182: 180: 177: 176: 172: 170: 167: 166: 162: 160: 157: 156: 152: 150: 147: 146: 141: 138: 137: 127: 122: 120: 115: 113: 108: 107: 105: 102: 97: 94: 93: 88: 86: 82: 77: 75: 71: 67: 66:User talk:Lar 61: 57: 56: 49: 42: 36: 30: 19: 18:User talk:Lar 3817: 3811:Thanks.. re: 3799:26th largest 3792: 3733: 3712: 3692: 3686: 3600: 3595: 3572: 3547: 3532: 3527: 3492: 3487: 3482: 3460: 3346:WP:Oversight 3174: 3147: 3095: 3093:Dear Larry, 3092: 3059: 3003: 2961: 2910: 2898: 2836: 2805:push to talk 2802: 2739: 2716: 2662: 2632: 2630: 2593: 2588: 2570: 2534: 2530: 2511: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2489: 2484: 2477: 2473: 2468: 2462: 2359: 2340: 2338: 2266: 2265: 2175: 2171: 2115: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 1979: 1906: 1871:her response 1774: 1757:Juliancolton 1754: 1710: 1672: 1667: 1639: 1634: 1627: 1606: 1592: 1524: 1506: 1471: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1451: 1445: 1435: 1431: 1409: 1391: 1364: 1363: 1357: 1305:Finn Rindahl 1297: 1284: 1228: 1182: 1125: 1121: 1110: 1088: 1080: 1068: 745: 100: 78: 73: 69: 63: 59: 53: 52: 34: 2844:—Preceding 2738:It's not a 2587:At least I 1680:Please see 1668:OhanaUnited 1635:OhanaUnited 1052:RFA Archive 68:from about 3429:NawlinWiki 2850:Triplestop 2730:Od Mishehu 2719:apparently 2214:Tryptofish 2202:SlimVirgin 2141:Tryptofish 2101:Tryptofish 2077:Tryptofish 2041:SlimVirgin 1942:Tryptofish 1893:Tryptofish 1848:Tryptofish 1815:Tryptofish 1781:Tryptofish 1744:. Cheers, 1741:no worries 1609:JohnnyB256 1595:JohnnyB256 1573:Funandtrvl 1541:Funandtrvl 1417:SlimVirgin 1374:here's how 1033:Archive 84 1023:Archive 83 1013:Archive 82 1003:Archive 81 993:Archive 80 983:Archive 79 964:Archive 78 954:Archive 77 944:Archive 76 934:Archive 75 924:Archive 74 905:Archive 73 895:Archive 72 885:Archive 71 875:Archive 70 865:Archive 69 855:Archive 68 845:Archive 67 835:Archive 66 825:Archive 65 815:Archive 64 805:Archive 63 795:Archive 62 776:Archive 61 766:Archive 60 756:Archive 59 746:Archive 58 736:Archive 57 726:Archive 56 716:Archive 55 706:Archive 54 696:Archive 53 686:Archive 52 676:Archive 51 666:Archive 50 647:Archive 49 637:Archive 48 627:Archive 47 617:Archive 46 607:Archive 45 597:Archive 44 587:Archive 43 577:Archive 42 567:Archive 41 557:Archive 40 547:Archive 39 537:Archive 38 518:Archive 37 508:Archive 36 498:Archive 35 488:Archive 34 478:Archive 33 468:Archive 32 458:Archive 31 448:Archive 30 438:Archive 29 428:Archive 28 418:Archive 27 408:Archive 26 398:Archive 25 388:Archive 24 378:Archive 23 368:Archive 22 349:Archive 21 339:Archive 20 329:Archive 19 319:Archive 18 309:Archive 17 299:Archive 16 289:Archive 15 279:Archive 14 269:Archive 13 259:Archive 12 249:Archive 11 239:Archive 10 41:Archive 59 35:Archive 58 29:Archive 57 3821:SirFozzie 3021:Joe Chill 3006:Joe Chill 2740:suspicion 2727:עוד מישהו 2097:this edit 1589:Your post 1406:A request 1226:editing. 229:Archive 9 219:Archive 8 209:Archive 7 199:Archive 6 189:Archive 5 179:Archive 4 169:Archive 3 159:Archive 2 149:Archive 1 3479:About me 3411:contribs 3327:contribs 3271:contribs 3237:contribs 3186:contribs 2905:A Nobody 2858:contribs 2846:unsigned 2713:Resolved 2643:BrownBot 2599:blue box 2229:deadline 1962:Rockpock 1715:...(all 1380:DYKSTATS 1301:contribs 1057:Howcheng 3795:article 3713:without 3403:Shannon 3319:Shannon 3263:Shannon 3229:Shannon 3178:Shannon 3148:needful 2968:Protonk 2911:Prodego 2723:Xaman79 2499:asking 2262:Pardon? 1511:quoting 1291:sju hav 1099:Lambiam 2497:You're 2397:Risker 1393:Mifter 3548:dense 3000:Email 2833:Hello 2589:tried 2478:every 2474:would 2172:would 1913:talk 1711:Dear 1498:Notes 16:< 3825:talk 3760:talk 3734:good 3701:talk 3645:talk 3596:Cycl 3571:... 3528:Cycl 3488:Cycl 3103:talk 3025:talk 3010:talk 2972:talk 2964:here 2854:talk 2673:talk 2669:Ikip 2647:talk 2638:you. 2631:The 2579:talk 2543:talk 2505:your 2446:talk 2401:talk 2387:talk 2349:talk 2308:talk 2275:talk 2231:. ++ 2218:talk 2145:talk 2120:here 2105:talk 2081:talk 1980:feel 1946:talk 1897:talk 1867:this 1852:talk 1819:talk 1785:talk 1613:talk 1599:talk 1577:talk 1545:talk 1397:talk 1309:talk 1295:talk 1117:here 1113:here 3771:Lar 3756:Kww 3738:Lar 3717:Lar 3697:Kww 3656:Lar 3601:pia 3577:Lar 3573:one 3553:Lar 3533:pia 3508:Lar 3493:pia 3463:Lar 3433:Lar 3365:Lar 3289:Lar 3206:Lar 3152:Lar 3114:SUL 3072:Lar 3035:Lar 2983:Lar 2941:Lar 2903:on 2876:Lar 2816:Lar 2778:Lar 2761:Lar 2744:Lar 2684:Lar 2604:Lar 2594:you 2569:Ah 2554:Lar 2533:not 2514:Lar 2485:not 2469:not 2424:Lar 2365:Lar 2319:Lar 2286:Lar 2233:Lar 2176:and 2124:Lar 2116:are 2059:Lar 1985:Lar 1924:Lar 1908:DGG 1875:Lar 1830:Lar 1797:Lar 1722:Lar 1717:303 1686:Lar 1650:Lar 1556:Lar 1481:Lar 1466:now 1352:On 1321:Lar 1256:Lar 1210:Lar 1160:Lar 87:. 3827:) 3773:: 3762:) 3740:: 3719:: 3703:) 3658:: 3647:) 3605:- 3579:: 3555:: 3551:++ 3537:- 3510:: 3497:- 3465:: 3435:: 3419::) 3367:: 3361:}} 3358:db 3355:{{ 3335::) 3291:: 3279::) 3245::) 3208:: 3204:++ 3194::) 3154:: 3105:) 3074:: 3037:: 3027:) 3012:) 2985:: 2974:) 2943:: 2878:: 2856:• 2818:: 2807:) 2780:: 2763:: 2746:: 2686:: 2675:) 2649:) 2606:: 2602:++ 2581:) 2556:: 2552:++ 2545:) 2516:: 2501:me 2448:) 2426:: 2403:) 2389:) 2367:: 2351:) 2321:: 2310:) 2288:: 2277:) 2235:: 2220:) 2147:) 2126:: 2107:) 2083:) 2061:: 1987:: 1983:++ 1948:) 1926:: 1922:++ 1915:) 1899:) 1877:: 1854:) 1832:: 1821:) 1813:-- 1799:: 1795:++ 1787:) 1761:| 1724:: 1720:++ 1688:: 1652:: 1615:) 1601:) 1579:) 1558:: 1547:) 1537:}} 1531:{{ 1483:: 1436:do 1399:) 1386:. 1356:, 1323:: 1311:) 1258:: 1212:: 1162:: 1158:++ 39:| 27:← 3823:( 3779:c 3777:/ 3775:t 3758:( 3746:c 3744:/ 3742:t 3725:c 3723:/ 3721:t 3699:( 3664:c 3662:/ 3660:t 3643:( 3585:c 3583:/ 3581:t 3561:c 3559:/ 3557:t 3516:c 3514:/ 3512:t 3471:c 3469:/ 3467:t 3441:c 3439:/ 3437:t 3373:c 3371:/ 3369:t 3297:c 3295:/ 3293:t 3214:c 3212:/ 3210:t 3160:c 3158:/ 3156:t 3141:) 3126:) 3101:( 3080:c 3078:/ 3076:t 3043:c 3041:/ 3039:t 3023:( 3008:( 2991:c 2989:/ 2987:t 2970:( 2949:c 2947:/ 2945:t 2884:c 2882:/ 2880:t 2852:( 2824:c 2822:/ 2820:t 2786:c 2784:/ 2782:t 2769:c 2767:/ 2765:t 2752:c 2750:/ 2748:t 2692:c 2690:/ 2688:t 2671:( 2645:( 2612:c 2610:/ 2608:t 2577:( 2562:c 2560:/ 2558:t 2541:( 2522:c 2520:/ 2518:t 2444:( 2432:c 2430:/ 2428:t 2399:( 2385:( 2373:c 2371:/ 2369:t 2347:( 2327:c 2325:/ 2323:t 2306:( 2294:c 2292:/ 2290:t 2273:( 2241:c 2239:/ 2237:t 2216:( 2143:( 2132:c 2130:/ 2128:t 2103:( 2079:( 2067:c 2065:/ 2063:t 1993:c 1991:/ 1989:t 1970:t 1966:e 1944:( 1932:c 1930:/ 1928:t 1911:( 1895:( 1883:c 1881:/ 1879:t 1850:( 1838:c 1836:/ 1834:t 1817:( 1805:c 1803:/ 1801:t 1783:( 1730:c 1728:/ 1726:t 1694:c 1692:/ 1690:t 1658:c 1656:/ 1654:t 1611:( 1597:( 1575:( 1564:c 1562:/ 1560:t 1543:( 1489:c 1487:/ 1485:t 1395:( 1376:) 1372:( 1329:c 1327:/ 1325:t 1307:( 1298:· 1293:( 1264:c 1262:/ 1260:t 1245:t 1242:u 1239:m 1236:a 1233:i 1230:T 1218:c 1216:/ 1214:t 1199:t 1196:u 1193:m 1190:a 1187:i 1184:T 1168:c 1166:/ 1164:t 1142:t 1139:u 1136:m 1133:a 1130:i 1127:T 125:e 118:t 111:v 43:→ 31:|

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