906:] where you complained that you couldn't find the Gauci books. After the arbitration request was filed you started saying that that was never your "question or concern". Don't give us abbreviated gibberish and litanies of wikipolicies. Just show me - and every one here - that you can really uphold WP: AGF. Aaand if you repeat more silly accusations about me being someone else, I might go as far as asking that you get permabanned from Knowledge for one reason or another (OMG, will you get a life after that?!)
1692:. Hello, I am not someone else! To persist in your error is devilish. Remove the ridiculous claims that I am someone else and that I am someone else's sock! What's this other nonsense that MY (and I mean mine not someone else's) edits were spamming a website? Do you people want references or not? The real issue here is not me is it? The real problem is the attitude of the established wikieditors who just blow hot air amongst themselves. I must remember to apologise to
1663:
editing his articles and be permabanned; the further irony was in him demanding I revert my "vandalism" of his articles, when in fact I had made no edits to either one and only filed the G5 on the second article after the indef block. From my perspective, today's discussion has shown neither that Mobile historian regrets his incivilities nor demonstrates any resolve to cease them, and I suggest that evidence of both be a precondition to removing any block.
1339:
309:, I lack the knowledge to do so. I have zero familiarity with Maltese nobility. I have seen brief mention of the Barba, Bianchi, (Busco/)Bosco, Cardona, Crispo, Gomez, Guevara(/Guara/Grayera), Lascaris, Navarro, Piscopo, Ragusa and Torres families while foraging for genealogical data on distant relatives of mine, but my foraging has not yet led me into the genealogies of post-15th-century Maltese noble families. Sorry. -
1429:? I suspect that Checkuser will produce an indecisive result. If that is the case, I may unblock you provisionally with an expectation that you'll be extra careful in what you add to articles, and that you'll take care to be polite to other editors. Please hang on a bit longer. (In the unlikely case Checkuser comes back and says you've been trying to deceive us, we'll talk about next steps in that case.)
1387:
very macho and taken in the spirit of Fun when reading them, but not when those same editors suddenly butcher a researched article, point suspicions and accusations and throw you in a dustbin, leaving
Knowledge with a dismembered piece which "looks good according to policy". This is hurtful to the good-faith editor and confusing to the reader. Please consider this aspect too when deliberating. Thank you
80:
2329:
1719:
1135:
1019:
194:
23:
1446:
1662:
specifically enjoins us from responding to uncivil comments in kind, never mind twenty for one.) As far as "not giving him an opportunity to defend himself," no one's prevented him from having his say, and he chose to exercise that say with insult and to advocate that other editors be prevented from
1657:
Just for my own two cents on Mobile historian accusations, a casual glance at the timestamps on my comments on the
Royalty and Nobility WikiProject talk page would show that far from "immediately," it took me a full day and MH's startling filing of a RfA without any attempt on his part to discuss the
1358:
I would note that I blocked solely on my perception of block evasion, although my attention was drawn by a complaint of inappropriate commentary made at WP:AN. I worked to the principle that once block evasion is apparent then other concerns become moot. My comment regarding "mischief" is that of the
1087:
I declined to respond to your previous missive because you were explicit in your intention not to converse in a civil and civilized manner, and further comment from me under the circumstances would get no one anywhere. The situation being what it now is, this is my last chance to get through to you.
656:
Does that mean you're going to revert the edits and take back that rubbish you wrote about me? If that is so, it might be good start to be civil to each other. AAAaand (probably with an accent) you and your friend can stop your nonsense about socks and puppets. We might even become friends (unlikely)
437:
There has been no attempt at dispute resolution. I am not going to bother because it would be pointless exercise given the rude and shallow attitude of those two 'editors'. I object to
Knowledge allowing such people pontificate from the comfort of some back street garage and come up with a cheapskate
2117:
which does not concern me. There's alot of good material on www.maltagenealogy.com, even copies of original published texts. All of those texts are very relevant to my edits and referring to that site would have been an easy way of verifying the content of old published sources. Further, quite aside
2016:
appears to have an issue with a particular website, I promise to put in other published book and magazine references instead, as soon as my edits have been reverted to how I left them last. I will also make the articles shorter because that too seems to be an issue. Lastly, I want my edits protected
506:
for ArbCom to examine a conflict that has not previously been through some other form of dispute resolution. As a consequence do not be surprised if ArbCom simply dismiss the request with an instruction of "Take to alternative dispute resolution". Regardless I will go ahead and format your request.
2256:
will carry more weight when you better follow the section which says "do not respond in kind." As far as CSDing the second article, I was certainly entitled to do so; it had been created by an account under indef block for sockpuppetry of a banned user, that block happens to remain, and that's the
2132:
As far as "peace offerings" go, this wouldn't be my call to make. You're still thinking of this as some war, and me as some opposing side who needs to be placated, thwarted or defeated. Your block is the result of violations of
Knowledge rules of conduct, imposed by administrators. I am not one,
1412:
is looking into this matter. My inclination is that you are either not the same editor, or that you are the same editor, but you've shown signs of improvement. As Less pointed out, you know something about
Knowledge policies, and I've noticed that you've made at least some contributions that were
1386:
Please do take as much time as you need to check. I would like to add one other observation: My angry outburst may have been fanned by looking up some other editors' talk pages where a common caveat reads something like "don't get offended by my tone of edits" "go somewhere else" etc, which is all
1112:
and many, many others from Nobel Prize winners to government ministers to film stars to industrialists - who neither receive any more of a voice than any other editor, expect the suspension of
Knowledge policies and guidelines in their favor or require others to kowtow to them as a precondition to
1091:
Plainly you're an energetic fellow, and possibly the next time around you will not only turn that energy to learning the rules, but will believe they apply to you. Perhaps there are venues and forums where your self-proclaimed "nobility" buys you deference, but there are genuine celebrities using
899:
Mr. Abitrator, before the request for arbitration gets dismissed just because RGT and his fetid friend are saying that one should first attempt an alternative mode of dispute resolution, and because I am hopelessly outnumbered by so many vain people who pass their time by awarding each other silly
714:
Look, at least one of us is a grown up. Just admit you messed up badly on this one and revert your (and your little friend's) edits and I promise I'll try make those articles shorter and put in lots of other references. As for the other source which seems to be upsetting you, it's a great site and
1567:
To first paragreph: The site links from www.maltagenealogy.com. It's relevant because it makes available a lot of old documents which have been ignored by some publications but mentioned in others. I have a few reservations about the site's contents and claims, and I have corresponded with him to
1260:
gave me an opportunity to defend myself from their onslught of accusations. Given my very short life on
Knowledge and the fact that I already have a proven case history of showing a propensity to act on constructive criticism, I found this treatment highly offensive. So I reacted, strongly. I was
2196:
still applied to the situation. From there on out, we've all placed reliance on the administrators' presumption that you were and the indef block based, in part, on that. That information was, of course, not the only factor in your block. At this point, you've received advice and links on the
2086:
Someone who even now cannot avoid posting incivilities or insults may have learned less than he claims; certainly one factor in removing an indefinite block is accepting responsibility for his actions and resolving not to do them again. Further, quite aside from the startling parallel MH draws
448:
Yes, there is a highly informative website which has been cited. It is the only site known to have so much readily avaialble information on the subject. Have a look at that site and see the primary sources cited over there. It even has pictures of the documents. You will also see that that site
1473:
and that in the knowledge that I am not the person I have been falsely accused of being, all I would like from fellow editors is some constructive guidance on how to formulate an article on this troubled subject which is acceptable to WP policies. In fairness to all, I should also add that any
2091:
with a "hate campaign against Malta" (???), if he's now resolved to use published references instead of Said-Vassallo's webpage ... doesn't that imply acceptance that the webpage and Said-Vassallo's claims are, in fact, unverified and suspect, and the whole house of cards concerning "false
629:
ask for is basic: evidence not linked to
Charles Said-Vassallo, whose credentials as a genealogist are self-proclaimed only and verified by no one, and whose antics as a self-promoter are on record; inline citations to your references; and for the articles to be trimmed dramatically as per
1985:
has some kind of personal issue with someone else which I don't want to get into and I should not be penalised for someone's prejudice against someone else. ** The block should never have been imposed. ** I never caused damage or disruption to
Knowledge, and I will continue making useful
1549:. That will hopefully save a lot of volunteer time going forward. As for this account, I think it is more likely than not that the block is needed to protect Knowledge. On balance, I think the disruption and harm likely to result from an unblock are not worth the possible gain.
99:
This article is not about what its title claims it is about. There is one passing reference to the St. Lawrence's Church in this article (referred to as the Church of Saint
Laurence), the remainder of the article appears to mostly be about various random points in the history of
1285:. * The first reason is untrue, as for the second my actions were first provoked by the rude comment and those editors' continued insistence that I was a sock. * I promise to behave better in the future, but I would like peace of mind that their wrong impression that I am a
427:
for your assistance. I am not a sock or puppet. By now your computer probably verified that. Secondly, it is clear that there's some kind of agenda against the subject. Is it plain ignorance or green eyed envy? Whatever it is Knowledge is not the place for these people.
2490:
on November 28th ... interestingly enough, the day before the most recent unblock request by this blocked sockpuppet. He thought it odd that an unblock request after a year and a half would suddenly arise, came across this case and felt passing the word might be useful.
1990:(see above) commented that my contributions have a similar pov of the blocked account. I am not familiar with that particular pov but I do know that an article describing the past is based on verifiable facts, so there’s very little room for different points of view. **
2133:
and appeals do not go through me. In your shoes, I'd start with demonstrating how you are ceasing to make demands (for my part, I intend to continue to edit Maltese articles, where and as I see fit, in accordance with policy and guideline), understand the elements of
838:
Knowledge does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; because prior versions are saved by default, no damage you might do is
642:. This brand of unacceptable behavior is what earned Tancarville an indefinite block from editing Knowledge, and I strongly suggest that meeting Knowledge policy and guidelines for articles and sourcing on your part will prove more productive than picking fights.
2427:
I have reviewed the evidence and have reached the same conclusion as the other admins who have declined your previous unblock requests. I also now consider that your constant requests are disruptive and I am extending your editing block to cover this page as well.
752:
Finally, Knowledge is not a schoolyard where adversarial behavior or taunts are appropriate or welcome. Questions have been raised about Charles Gauci's credentials as a genealogist, based on his self-promotional behavior on Knowledge last year. Such questions
2040:
A quick look at the similarities between the two accounts does reveal some similarities in editing habits. What's more troubling is the similarity in the tendency to revert to insults and personal attacks when challenged. Combined with the recent
700:
Whilst you were on your little roll, your mantra was "most of the rest of the sourcing is cited as coming from works by a Charles Gauci" and you asked for verifiability. Now that has been verified but you've got ahelluvalot of egg on your face. So
1345:
I've emailed the en-functionaries list to request help from a checkuser. I'm not sure whether the data is stale, but I'd like to know before making a decision. I've also asked the blocking admin to post a summary of the behavioral evidence.
1486:) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) * P.S. If your deliberation is positive, I will require a reversion of those edits and deleted articles, (and a removal of the sock tag!) in order to enable me bring the articles in line with WP policies
582:
Not, mind you, that given the extremely uncivil talk this fellow's spitting out, that's likely to go well. This sort of "How dare these peons question me??" language, heaped with insults and threats, is exactly Tancarville's style.
444:
Other readers already commented favourably on the revised format. All were positive until this incident. Sadly doubts have now been sown in their minds but this notwithstanding, the references are all at hand and readily available.
1908:] * All this is wrong and must be reviewed. *I am neither a sock nor a meatpuppet of anyone. I hold my own ground. My account is new. You have enough resources to verify that my ISP and my geographic position show that I am neither
1920:
has also deleted my articles (see above) using the G5 procedure when it is a straightforward conclusion that those articles were created by me and not by a banned user. * I might have over-reacted to the high-handed attitude of
1994:
said that on balance, he thought that the disruption and harm likely to result from an unblock of my account are not worth the possible gain. I disagree. It is clear that by not unblocking my account Knowledge has allowed
2274:
You'd think that the Knowledge adminsitrators would have checked the ISPs by now. Wouldn't you get very annoyed too had these administrators called you a puppet when they should have ISP evidence? Your earlier comment
2257:
facts on the ground. So far, the only evidence in the hands of the administrators that you're not a sockpuppet are your repeated denials, something characteristic of most such violators challenging their blocks. (And
475:'s lightly veiled panic threat just because he got reported for an arbitration, you can decide for yourself what this 'editor' is about. In addition, please look at the language used by this 'editor'. Crass and vulgar.
1116:
Properly sourced, and at a proper length, those two articles had elements of skilled execution and may have been assets. They won't be, now, and no one is to blame for that but yourself. That's a pity and a waste.
1225:, I am not anyone else. I am a new editor but unfortunately two editors provoked a very angry reaction from me. * I made many edits randomly but always in good faith. Whenever anyone asked me to improve, I complied
669:
I've yet to be uncivil here; it is you who has been repeatedly and reflexively insulting. You may, of course, choose to address the concerns posed to you instead of further combative behavior. That's up to you.
1999:
to follow up his false accusations with impunity, and the biggest loser of all this is Knowledge for having allowed him to do that. The unblock should be made to help me make useful contributions on matters
480:
I am angry and shocked with all this. Please revise your policy and get rid of these 'editors' and their shameful talk, if not for the contents of the articles under discussion at least for the benefit of
1688:. Now there seems to be some other furore about yet another account which also has no connection to me. I am amused by Knowledge’s investigative skills, which are a shade less efficient than those of the
902:
Hey RGT, Why are you so quiet now? Do you have some sort of hidden agenda on the subject? Just before your little friend started getting his hands dirty, you said that you wanted to check the sources
749:
articles, them conforming to Knowledge policies, guidelines and practices are not contingent on any demands on your part, and any editor has the right - and, indeed, the duty - to ensure that they do.
1981:
served him right and it ends there. ** the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, namely that there was a false perception that I was someone else's sock and that
1951:]. *As for convincing the reviewing administrator(s) to unblock me, these are the reasons:- **there is no evidence that I ever disrupted Knowledge. I held my ground against a blatant rudeness by
786:
Thank you. I see your point about more verifiability, credentials and all that and I agree that things should improve. But it seems that your issue is a little more basic than that. Look:-
833:
My first time here and boy I sure don't feel welcome. I think I might as well leave you alone to play with barnstars which seem to be more important than putting together an encyclopedia.
2230:
etc etc. reads different when compared to the context of the later version. Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't mean you were entitled to G5 my articles nor was
441:
I am new here. I realize that past edits by somebody else may have raised concerns about verifiability but I am (now, was) willing to discuss most points that could have been raised.
1301:
Account is quite possibly a sock puppet, and appears to be part of a spamming campaign. The risk to Knowledge is not worth the potential benefit of unblocking. See discussion below.
452:
I am really shocked with the attitude of those two editors and I am very disappointed with the fickleness of those who first commented favourably and are now talking about something
1265:
clearly realised but never admitted, that his original concern (of verifiability) was misjudged, he did not take the cue to rectify his mistake. *I had no wish to communicate with
900:
barnstars and green stamp triple crowns, and because I am foolish enough to actually believe that you will order those two peons to revert their edits, I have one last question:
878:
which seems to be the bee stuck in your bonnet. The articles describe the history and what the subjects are about. The only genealogy shown was a short and peripheral table for
1277:
started saying that my edits had elements of skilled execution and may have been assets. * In my case the block reason seems to be two: that I am a sock and that I was rude to
741:
optional; you do not get to throw insults around just because you feel like it, and you can be temporarily or indefinitely blocked if you persist. Secondly, I suggest reading
532:
and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
1658:
issues in a civil or good faith fashion for me to wonder if this was a sock of Tancarville. (I agree that Bali's comment about "crap" was provocative and uncivil, but
1597:
and its related issues, I'd like to have a go at improving the articles (the present one is hopelessly incorrect). Please come visit our country some time. Thank you
849:
Read my lips: Stop being disruptive and petty. If you want improvements give me a chance, and you must stop your nonsense about me being someone else. Now, will you
1377:
I've just pestered the functionaries to see if we can get help from a checkuser. I am sorry it is taking so long. Unblock requests should be processed promptly.
1250:
took this to mean he could reverse my edits and planted a sock tag to my identity. His reason - in his words - was that I was filling the encyclopedia "with crap"
200:
Welcome to Knowledge. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Knowledge, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
922:
Please strike your personal attacks. It's bullying, and prevents any presumption of good faith. It's also not allowed. If you choose not to, I'll take this up at
2369:
1759:
1175:
814:
Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 3,097,322 articles on the English Knowledge to work on and discuss:
2461:
template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
2078:
template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
1330:
template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
1232:]. *Feeling more confident with the system, I then sourced people who might have in interest in the subject I edited, always with a purpose of improving.
231:
If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning:
431:
The references are real. For goodness's sake, an entire report was even presented to the British Parliament! How much more notable can that be?!
129:
2283:
to mean that he could suggest that a SPI case could be opened and you know what happened next. It seems that the person at fault for all this is
729:
You seem to be under some strange misimpressions of what Knowledge is about and how things are done here; I strongly recommend you read through
2364:
1754:
1170:
240:
156:
2168:
deleted my edits (G5) on the false premise that they were made by an already banned user. This false allegation is still being made use of by
625:
Not that that was my question or concern. As far as your second link goes, no one doubted that the Royal Commission existed either. What we
502:- OK, like all editors you are entitled to request the ArbCom to intervene and I will happily assist you. However I will point out that it is
2164:'s false allegation that I am someone else and his apparent agenda against that same someone else. This false allegation was acted upon by
383:
as it needs to be reformatted. I am happy to assist you to format your request properly, but I'll need some additional information first.
1269:
because he was the first to be rude and when he did finally complain, I used his own tone to put him in his place. Check my ISP, I am not
2446:
2063:
1315:
1048:
606:
Now RGT and whatever the the other one calls himself, run along and go back to your computer games, or whatever you like doing best.
536:
529:
522:
87:
73:
1969:
specifically enjoins everyone from responding to uncivil comments in kind, but this duty has a higher bearing on administrators like
1065:
271:
687:
Forget Civil. That obviously doesn't work for you and your little friend. Instead, let's try reason like adults. You were invited
1857:
as long as the reason is policy for general good and it's made very clear that I am not User:Tancarville or a sock puppet of his
1417:
has been a troubled area, and that if you want to edit here you'll need to consult with other editors, try your best to follow
160:
2383:
1773:
1189:
333:
1546:
2486:
I received an e-mail head's up (overlooked for a couple weeks, alas) from an admin who processed an unblock request from
1945:
and his website at www.maltagenealogy.com. That is none of my business, but I can't help noticing that he was awarded by
1545:
I think I've answered my own questions already, but feel free to reply. At this time I have requested spam blacklisting
264:
1221:
Mine is one of those rare reasons why the block should be reversed. I have been accused of being someone else. I am not
564:
2252:
uncivil crack; you've made dozens in return and aimed at several editors besides Bali, and your ongoing references to
1036:
542:
226:
148:
91:
69:
2186:
You've been throwing out this allegation of yours for two weeks now. As it happens, we have the original diff here
2341:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
2118:
from all that, that site actually says that it is a research site in progress and appears to be updated regularly.
1731:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
1593:
or a sock puppet of his, I don't mind your decision. If WP ever reconsiders its position on the irksome subject of
1147:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
874:
And if you care to read the articles which you and your friend vandalised, you will see that there's no mention of
554:
512:
414:
314:
306:
152:
2342:
2192:
where I state in response to others, in fact, that we didn't at that point know whether you were a sock and that
1732:
1631:
One last request (please!). I'm not after any blood of any sort, but those two editors need a bit of talking to.
1148:
1026:
944:
Sorry can't do that 'coz I'm still too numbed by your shameful, disgusting and shocking language and behaviour.
715:
you should appreciate other people's efforts. Life isn't just about you and your favourite little hockey stick.
2336:
2197:
things you need to do to have a hope of the block being removed. I've nothing further to add to that advice.
1726:
1368:
1142:
1073:
995:
977:
39:
822:
Act in good faith, never disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others:
1853:
On balance, I think the disruption and harm likely to result from an unblock are not worth the possible gain.
1589:
To second paragraph: As long as the reason is policy for general good and it's made very clear that I am not
1113:
acting in the civil and good faith fashion which is Knowledge's norm; I urge you to emulate their example.
761:
responsibility, if you are the one to whom such questions are posed. It's not a matter of "beating" anyone.
1002:
984:
931:
904:]. What you wanted was verifiability of the Gauci books. I also looked up what you said about WP:V in 2008
366:
51:
705:
you say that that was never your "question or concern"!!! Aaaand what exactly is the job you say you have?
220:
2468:
2347:
2296:
2235:
2173:
2119:
2018:
1737:
1703:
1632:
1598:
1487:
1479:
1388:
1153:
1059:
955:
908:
883:
854:
716:
658:
607:
550:
508:
486:
410:
310:
243:
1363:
to a similar pov to that of the blocked account. My response to Jehochman's enquiry is at my talkpage.
2487:
2292:
2114:
1942:
1909:
1891:
1842:
1824:
1685:
1590:
1526:
1475:
1470:
1286:
1270:
1243:
1222:
1055:
350:
1949:
a special barnstar (How sickeningly childish) in connection with his hate campaign against that user
1236:
is an obvious candidate because he had issues in the past with the subjects. But instead of helping,
572:
183:
179:
601:
361:
and a few more of our guidelines before starting to lob personal attacks and rushing to arbitration.
1987:
1946:
1838:
1364:
1069:
1032:
164:
140:
117:
59:
1230:]. Some edits are extensive but these were upheld as soon as other editors realised my good faith
2284:
2280:
2231:
2219:
2215:
1970:
1960:
1952:
1934:
1926:
1834:
1828:
1816:
1693:
1689:
1282:
1266:
1257:
1247:
998:
980:
927:
472:
466:
I am asking that the pages be restored to before they were vandalised by these so-called editors.
362:
2045:, it would seem that pulled together, there's insufficient justification for me to unblock. --
1913:
1895:
879:
298:
283:
254:
216:
125:
47:
38:. Please do not add email addresses/phone numbers, Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr/Blogspot, or
2455:
2072:
1594:
1414:
1409:
1360:
1324:
1109:
1042:
730:
329:
232:
201:
27:
2476:
2436:
2234:
entitled to trash my edits. Nor does it entitle you to continue insisting that I'm a sock.
2100:
2053:
2026:
2012:. My contributions are objective and neutral. The contents are all verifiable. Seeing that
1553:
1433:
1350:
1305:
1125:
954:: I'll try remember that one next time you and your friend think you can get away with it.
528:
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
2492:
2434:
2288:
2262:
2253:
2223:
2198:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2146:
2134:
2110:
2093:
2013:
2005:
1996:
1982:
1966:
1956:
1938:
1930:
1922:
1917:
1899:
1881:
1871:
1812:
1679:
1664:
1659:
1278:
1274:
1262:
1253:
1237:
1233:
1118:
762:
734:
671:
643:
635:
631:
584:
568:
563:
I think you can expect this case to be soundly rejected until such time as other steps in
341:
225:
If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please
168:
1338:
1991:
1862:
1848:
1808:
1550:
1530:
1453:
1430:
1426:
1378:
1347:
1302:
402:
358:
207:
55:
2193:
2142:
2138:
1874:
later removed at least one article created by me because he said it was created by a
1422:
951:
923:
742:
639:
395:
391:
353:? You certainly appear to be so. If not and all works out well, you may want to read
106:
2113:, but his comment shows that he misunderstood it to suit his personal issue against
1937:'s insults. * I am no rocket scientist but but it doesn't take much to realise from
1289:
sock is removed completely, so please verify my ISP and have me unblocked. Thank you
449:
actually bothers to compare and criticize publications. So much for self-promotion!
79:
50:
and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! (Report bot mistakes
2088:
1452:. Have you used or created any other accounts on Knowledge? Awaiting your reply.
1097:
354:
294:
279:
250:
212:
2109:
Not at all. All that my suggestion means is that I'm offering a peace offering to
1510:
To second paragrpah: No. But I have access to shared computers if that's relevant.
105:
While all contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be
2499:
2304:
2269:
2243:
2205:
2181:
2153:
2127:
1841:
blocked me immediately because he believed the false claim that I was a sock of
1711:
1671:
1640:
1606:
1533:
1495:
1456:
1418:
1396:
1381:
1372:
1101:
1077:
1006:
988:
963:
935:
916:
891:
862:
769:
724:
678:
650:
615:
591:
576:
558:
516:
494:
418:
370:
343:
318:
287:
258:
63:
2429:
2277:
To quote myself from the earlier debate, "To wit: ........this is the same guy
2046:
1887:
1820:
1105:
1093:
336:
135:
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
2415:
I am not someone else! Check the ISPs. Do your job properly! Check properly!
2189:
where I say nothing of the sort. The next diff from me is seven hours later
1902:'s recent hate-antics appear to be annoying other editors, see examples here
1833:] went on to tear up my articles. I reacted like any outraged person would.
875:
1018:
691:] and your little friend thought he should amuse himself by talking faeces.
598:
459:
Please go ahead and reformat my complaint according to the required form.
994:
After advice i received at WQA i've mentioned you in another place. Here
798:
Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree:
46:
content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be
634:. You've chosen instead to launch a barrage of insults in violation of
193:
22:
2001:
1974:
1529:'s website? Do have you been in contact with that user? Kind regards,
387:
Who are the editors you wish to officially name as "involved parties"?
2214:] which is round about when I first looked at your comments. By then
1547:
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#maltagenealogy.com_and_saidvassallo.com
249:
deleting 18102 characters on 2009-11-03T19:09:14+00:00 . Thank you.
1474:
article about the subject would be incomplete without reference to
434:
I am identifying the two individuals I named as involved parties.
405:
for examples of the actions you believe require Arbitration review.
328:
Hi there. I reverted your addition of a request for arbitration to
2009:
946:] . Apologize, revert your and your friend's vandalism and then I
219:
for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the
602:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1878/jan/21/question-9
2158:
Good to remind everyone that all this started at the redux here
1837:
then took offence and reported me for abusing him (what cheek).
1273:
and I am not someone else's sock or puppet. After I was blocked
390:
Has there been any attempt at dispute resolution elsewhere? Eg.
275:
1916:. * This is my only account and I was never banned before but
733:, which will help a lot in that respect. First and foremost,
2210:
Wait a minute. Look at my time stamps (17:54 and 18:00) here
1696:
for having misunderstood him about his comment that my edits
790:
Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner:
2327:
2222:
had used his provocative language which is nowhere close to
1717:
1469:
To first paragraph: Point taken. I assure you that I am not
1133:
1017:
689:] to check the article. Instead you went off on a witchhunt
192:
78:
853:
revert those edits, so we can finally put this behind us?
757:
if we have doubts. Answering them to our satisfaction is
2443:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
2060:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
1312:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
537:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration
2463:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
2092:
allegations" and "hate campaigns" comes tumbling down?
2080:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1332:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1013:
Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended
223:
to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
2397:
2393:
2387:
2378:
2374:
2360:
2356:
2352:
2190:
2187:
2042:
1787:
1783:
1777:
1768:
1764:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1226:
1203:
1199:
1193:
1184:
1180:
1166:
1162:
1158:
380:
236:
31:
806:
Apply Knowledge etiquette, and avoid personal attacks:
112:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
2261:"this is the same guy" comment? I made none such.)
1035:. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may
2335:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
2087:
equating Knowledge policy and guidelines concerning
1725:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
1568:
this effect, but on the whole it's very informative.
1141:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
2218:was calling for a SPI case, my edits were gone and
825:
Suggest you ask your friend to read this carefully.
567:
process have, in the very least, been attempted. --
530:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Maltese Nobility
523:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Maltese Nobility
42:to non-talk pages if possible. You can restore any
1811:after an incident where I was falsely accused by
229:and then remove this warning from your talk page.
204:, did not appear to be constructive and has been
1941:'s recent activity that he has a big issue with
1845:. I then requested that the block be lifted but
1698:] were crap. What he must have meant to say was
159:can result in deletion without discussion, and
379:- Hi, I have temporarily removed your post to
272:Knowledge:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section
8:
2226:. I checked the diffs. Your earlier comment
2145:, and intend to follow them in the future.
2017:from the people mentioned above. Thank you.
409:Please respond here on your page. Regards,
332:. The correct venue for such a request is
1929:but they were the ones who drew me into
1678:I am disappointed that you have allowed
599:http://www.taktos.net/Files/Booklist.pdf
270:The sources are better, but please read
124:notice, but please explain why in your
2004:, with the added avantage of stopping
1413:not reverted. Do you understand that
882:. Anything else is via external links
7:
462:The actions for arbitration review:
278:, also known as the lead paragraph.
2043:resuming of activity of Tancarville
2008:'s silly personal campaign against
1228:] and even asked for more guidance
842:Doesn't this sound familiar to you?
265:Foreign titles of nobility in Malta
107:deleted for any of several reasons
94:because of the following concern:
68:
14:
1959:is in agreement (see above) that
1827:. Without any warning whatsoever
950:feel better. Thanks for the tip:
88:St. Lawrence's Church, Vittoriosa
74:St. Lawrence's Church, Vittoriosa
1444:
1337:
349:Are you a sock puppet of banned
21:
1047:below, but you should read our
2287:and that this got caught up in
1965:]was provocative and uncivil.
847:To you and your little friend:
334:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests
64:17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
2500:16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
2477:00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
2437:09:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
2305:08:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
2279:etc etc was misunderstood by
2270:08:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
2244:18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2206:17:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2182:15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2154:08:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2128:07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2101:23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
2054:23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
2027:18:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
1855:I agreed with his conclusion
1712:11:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
1672:23:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1641:23:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1607:23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1554:22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1534:22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1496:22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1457:22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1434:21:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1397:21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1382:21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1373:20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1351:14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1306:22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1126:06:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1078:22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
1007:22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
989:19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
964:18:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
936:17:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
917:17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
892:00:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
863:23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
770:23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
755:are our responsibility to ask
725:20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
679:17:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
651:13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
621:Terrific; so the Gauci books
616:12:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
592:10:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
577:00:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
559:23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
517:23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
495:22:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
456:. Are these people for real?
419:21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
371:18:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
344:18:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
305:As much as I want to fulfill
2160:]. My block originates from
1865:went on to refer to me as a
817:I've tried but you're aloof.
319:08:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
307:your request on my talk page
288:16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
259:19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
184:13:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
2339:, who declined the request.
1805:I was indefinitely blocked
1729:, who declined the request.
1145:, who declined the request.
1033:abuse of editing privileges
543:Knowledge:Arbitration guide
163:allows discussion to reach
2515:
1886:] also saying that I am a
1442:
1031:from editing for repeated
638:, showing an unacceptable
2447:guide to appealing blocks
2064:guide to appealing blocks
1973:who are supposed to help
1316:guide to appealing blocks
1049:guide to appealing blocks
809:You and your friend fail!
801:You and your friend fail!
793:You and your friend fail!
149:Proposed Deletion process
2472:
2300:
2239:
2177:
2123:
2022:
1963:'s comment about "crap"
1861:But instead of doing so
1707:
1636:
1602:
1491:
1483:
1478:'s website. Thank you.
1392:
1082:
976:I've mentioned you here
959:
912:
887:
858:
720:
662:
611:
490:
274:and make changes to the
1242:] accused me of beig a
1083:You know, it's a shame.
157:Speedy Deletion process
130:the article's talk page
2332:
1867:probable sockpuppeteer
1722:
1684:] that I am a sock of
1138:
1022:
830:Be open and welcoming:
438:dismissive attitude.
197:
83:
2482:FYI to any admins ...
2384:change block settings
2331:
1823:of a blocked account
1774:change block settings
1721:
1427:neutral point of view
1246:sock. Another editor
1190:change block settings
1137:
1021:
401:Can you provide some
196:
161:Articles for Deletion
92:proposed for deletion
82:
34:) was reverted by an
2291:'s holy war against
2228:this is the same guy
1988:User:LessHeard vanU
1423:no original research
1054:Re block evasion by
381:Arbitration/Requests
26:Your recent edit to
2285:User: Bali_ultimate
2281:User: Bali_ultimate
2232:User: Bali_ultimate
2220:User: Bali_ultimate
2216:User: Bali_ultimate
2166:User: Ravenswingwho
1947:User:LessHeard vanU
1839:User:LessHeard vanU
1045:|Your reason here}}
1039:by adding the text
597:Here look at these
324:Arbitration request
2333:
1935:User:Bali ultimate
1927:User:Bali ultimate
1914:user: Vassallo5448
1896:User: Vassallo5448
1723:
1690:Salem Witch Trials
1261:even angrier once
1139:
1037:contest this block
1023:
640:lack of good faith
565:dispute resolution
198:
153:deletion processes
84:
2293:User: Tancarville
2115:User: Tancarville
2052:
1943:User: Tancarville
1910:user: Tancarville
1892:User: Tancarville
1825:User: Tancarville
1700:Knowledge is crap
1686:User: Tancarville
1476:User: Tancarville
1471:User: Tancarville
1287:User: Tancarville
1271:User: Tancarville
1244:User: Tancarville
880:Gerald Strickland
500:ArbCom clerk note
377:ArbCom clerk note
182:
70:Proposed deletion
2506:
2496:
2488:User:Tancarville
2469:Mobile historian
2460:
2454:
2432:
2403:
2401:
2390:
2372:
2370:deleted contribs
2348:Mobile historian
2330:
2297:Mobile historian
2266:
2236:Mobile historian
2202:
2174:Mobile historian
2170:User: Ravenswing
2162:User: Ravenswing
2150:
2120:Mobile historian
2111:User: Ravenswing
2097:
2089:reliable sources
2077:
2071:
2051:
2049:
2019:Mobile historian
2014:User: Ravenswing
1939:User: Ravenswing
1918:User: Ravenswing
1900:User: Ravenswing
1882:User: Ravenswing
1843:User:Tancarville
1793:
1791:
1780:
1762:
1760:deleted contribs
1738:Mobile historian
1720:
1704:Mobile historian
1680:User: Ravenswing
1668:
1633:Mobile historian
1599:Mobile historian
1595:Maltese Nobility
1591:User:Tancarville
1527:User:Tancarville
1488:Mobile historian
1480:Mobile historian
1448:
1447:
1415:Maltese nobility
1410:User:Fred Bauder
1389:Mobile historian
1361:Maltese nobility
1341:
1329:
1323:
1223:User:Tancarville
1209:
1207:
1196:
1178:
1176:deleted contribs
1154:Mobile historian
1136:
1122:
1110:Christopher Cerf
1098:Sir Ian McKellan
1046:
956:Mobile historian
909:Mobile historian
884:Mobile historian
855:Mobile historian
766:
745:; these are not
717:Mobile historian
675:
659:Mobile historian
647:
608:Mobile historian
588:
487:Mobile historian
351:User:Tancarville
339:
330:Maltese Nobility
311:JohnAlbertRigali
241:Mobile historian
233:Maltese nobility
202:Maltese nobility
178:
176:
175:
172:
146:
145:
139:
123:
122:
116:
28:Maltese nobility
25:
2514:
2513:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2494:
2484:
2466:
2458:
2452:
2451:, then use the
2440:
2430:
2418:
2391:
2381:
2367:
2350:
2343:blocking policy
2328:
2289:User:Ravenswing
2264:
2200:
2148:
2095:
2083:
2075:
2069:
2068:, then use the
2057:
2047:
2031:
2006:User:Ravenswing
1997:User:Ravenswing
1986:contributions.
1983:User:Ravenswing
1957:User:Ravenswing
1931:User:Ravenswing
1923:user:Ravenswing
1872:User:Ravenswing
1851:concluded that
1813:User:Ravenswing
1781:
1771:
1757:
1740:
1733:blocking policy
1718:
1666:
1451:
1450:
1445:
1335:
1327:
1321:
1320:, then use the
1309:
1292:
1279:User:Ravenswing
1275:User:Ravenswing
1263:User:Ravenswing
1254:User:Ravenswing
1238:User:Ravenswing
1234:User:Ravenswing
1197:
1187:
1173:
1156:
1149:blocking policy
1134:
1120:
1085:
1052:
1040:
1015:
974:
764:
673:
645:
586:
526:
337:
326:
268:
191:
173:
170:
169:
143:
137:
136:
120:
114:
113:
77:
19:
12:
11:
5:
2512:
2510:
2483:
2480:
2441:
2425:
2421:Decline reason
2412:
2408:Request reason
2405:
2326:
2324:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2104:
2103:
2058:
2038:
2034:Decline reason
2030:
2029:
1979:Twenty for one
1933:'s issues and
1894:as well as of
1802:
1798:Request reason
1795:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1675:
1674:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1443:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1365:LessHeard vanU
1310:
1299:
1295:Decline reason
1291:
1290:
1218:
1214:Request reason
1211:
1132:
1130:
1084:
1081:
1070:LessHeard vanU
1024:You have been
1016:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1009:
973:
972:Civility alert
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
939:
938:
896:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
844:
835:
827:
819:
811:
803:
795:
787:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
750:
709:
708:
707:
706:
695:
694:
693:
692:
682:
681:
654:
653:
595:
594:
547:
546:
540:
525:
520:
504:extremely rare
483:
482:
477:
476:
468:
467:
423:
407:
406:
399:
388:
374:
373:
325:
322:
303:
302:
267:
262:
227:report it here
215:. Please use
206:automatically
190:
187:
167:for deletion.
147:will stop the
103:
102:
76:
67:
18:
17:September 2009
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2511:
2502:
2501:
2498:
2497:
2489:
2481:
2479:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2465:
2464:
2457:
2450:
2448:
2439:
2438:
2435:
2433:
2424:
2422:
2417:
2416:
2411:
2409:
2404:
2399:
2395:
2389:
2385:
2380:
2376:
2371:
2366:
2362:
2361:global blocks
2358:
2357:active blocks
2354:
2349:
2344:
2340:
2338:
2337:administrator
2325:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2268:
2267:
2260:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2211:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2204:
2203:
2195:
2191:
2188:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2152:
2151:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2102:
2099:
2098:
2090:
2085:
2084:
2082:
2081:
2074:
2067:
2065:
2056:
2055:
2050:
2044:
2037:
2035:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1998:
1993:
1989:
1984:
1980:
1977:like myself.
1976:
1972:
1971:Bali ultimate
1968:
1964:
1962:
1961:Bali ultimate
1958:
1954:
1953:Bali ultimate
1950:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1905:
1903:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1883:
1879:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1847:the reviewer
1844:
1840:
1836:
1835:Bali ultimate
1832:
1830:
1829:Bali ultimate
1826:
1822:
1818:
1817:Bali ultimate
1814:
1810:
1806:
1804:
1803:
1801:
1799:
1794:
1789:
1785:
1779:
1775:
1770:
1766:
1761:
1756:
1752:
1751:global blocks
1748:
1747:active blocks
1744:
1739:
1734:
1730:
1728:
1727:administrator
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1695:
1694:Bali ultimate
1691:
1687:
1683:
1681:
1677:
1676:
1673:
1670:
1669:
1661:
1656:
1655:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1552:
1548:
1535:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1455:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1419:verifiability
1416:
1411:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1380:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1349:
1344:
1340:
1334:
1333:
1326:
1319:
1317:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1298:
1296:
1288:
1284:
1283:Bali ultimate
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1267:Bali ultimate
1264:
1259:
1258:Bali ultimate
1255:
1251:
1249:
1248:Bali ultimate
1245:
1241:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1229:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1217:
1215:
1210:
1205:
1201:
1195:
1191:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1172:
1168:
1167:global blocks
1164:
1163:active blocks
1160:
1155:
1150:
1146:
1144:
1143:administrator
1131:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1114:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1089:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1050:
1044:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1028:
1020:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:Bali ultimate
996:
993:
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
981:Bali ultimate
978:
971:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
943:
942:
941:
940:
937:
933:
929:
928:Bali ultimate
925:
921:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
907:
905:
903:
897:
894:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
845:
843:
840:
836:
834:
831:
828:
826:
823:
820:
818:
815:
812:
810:
807:
804:
802:
799:
796:
794:
791:
788:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
771:
768:
767:
760:
756:
751:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
713:
712:
711:
710:
704:
699:
698:
697:
696:
690:
688:
686:
685:
684:
683:
680:
677:
676:
668:
667:
666:
664:
660:
652:
649:
648:
641:
637:
633:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
604:
603:
600:
593:
590:
589:
581:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
561:
560:
556:
552:
544:
541:
538:
535:
534:
533:
531:
524:
521:
519:
518:
514:
510:
505:
501:
497:
496:
492:
488:
479:
478:
474:
473:Bali ultimate
470:
469:
465:
464:
463:
460:
457:
455:
450:
446:
442:
439:
435:
432:
429:
426:
421:
420:
416:
412:
404:
400:
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
384:
382:
378:
372:
368:
364:
363:Bali ultimate
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
342:
340:
335:
331:
323:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
300:
296:
293:Much better.
292:
291:
290:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
266:
263:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
228:
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:
203:
195:
189:November 2009
188:
186:
185:
181:
177:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
142:
133:
131:
127:
119:
110:
108:
101:
97:
96:
95:
93:
89:
81:
75:
71:
66:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
41:
40:related links
37:
36:automated bot
33:
29:
24:
16:
2493:
2485:
2467:
2462:
2444:
2442:
2426:
2420:
2419:
2414:
2413:
2407:
2406:
2379:creation log
2346:
2334:
2323:
2276:
2263:
2258:
2249:
2227:
2199:
2147:
2094:
2079:
2061:
2059:
2039:
2033:
2032:
1978:
1898:. Meanwhile
1875:
1866:
1856:
1852:
1846:
1797:
1796:
1769:creation log
1736:
1724:
1699:
1665:
1544:
1407:
1342:
1336:
1331:
1313:
1311:
1300:
1294:
1293:
1240:immediately
1213:
1212:
1185:creation log
1152:
1140:
1129:
1119:
1115:
1092:Knowledge -
1090:
1086:
1062:
1053:
1029:indefinitely
1025:
975:
947:
901:
898:
895:
873:
850:
846:
841:
839:irreparable:
837:
832:
829:
824:
821:
816:
813:
808:
805:
800:
797:
792:
789:
763:
758:
754:
746:
738:
702:
672:
655:
644:
626:
622:
605:
596:
585:
562:
548:
527:
503:
499:
498:
484:
471:As for this
461:
458:
453:
451:
447:
443:
440:
436:
433:
430:
424:
422:
408:
376:
375:
327:
304:
269:
246:
224:
221:welcome page
205:
199:
155:exist. The
151:, but other
134:
126:edit summary
111:
104:
98:
86:The article
85:
43:
35:
20:
2495:Ravenswing
2265:Ravenswing
2212:] and here
2201:Ravenswing
2149:Ravenswing
2096:Ravenswing
1906:] and here
1876:banned user
1819:of being a
1667:Ravenswing
1441:CU reports
1359:editing of
1252:]. Neither
1121:Ravenswing
1102:Roger Ebert
1056:Tancarville
765:Ravenswing
674:Ravenswing
646:Ravenswing
587:Ravenswing
217:the sandbox
2375:filter log
2248:Bali made
1888:meatpuppet
1821:sockpuppet
1765:filter log
1408:Checkuser
1181:filter log
1106:Mark Cuban
1094:Bill Gates
569:Hammersoft
485:Thank you
481:Knowledge.
141:dated prod
118:dated prod
2445:read the
2394:checkuser
2353:block log
2062:read the
1992:Jehochman
1955:and even
1878:(G5 CSD).
1863:Jehochman
1849:Jehochman
1809:Jehochman
1784:checkuser
1743:block log
1682:to insist
1551:Jehochman
1531:Jehochman
1525:Which is
1454:Jehochman
1431:Jehochman
1379:Jehochman
1348:Jehochman
1314:read the
1303:Jehochman
1200:checkuser
1159:block log
876:genealogy
731:WP:PILLAR
425:Thank you
165:consensus
90:has been
56:VoABot II
2365:contribs
2254:WP:CIVIL
2224:WP:CIVIL
2135:WP:CIVIL
1967:WP:CIVIL
1755:contribs
1660:WP:CIVIL
1171:contribs
1066:contribs
735:WP:CIVIL
636:WP:CIVIL
632:WP:UNDUE
549:Thanks,
454:sinister
208:reverted
48:reviewed
2456:unblock
2388:unblock
2073:unblock
2002:Maltese
1975:newbies
1904:] here
1884:is now
1778:unblock
1325:unblock
1194:unblock
1051:first.
1043:unblock
1027:blocked
551:Manning
509:Manning
411:Manning
359:WP:ELNO
295:Bearian
280:Bearian
251:ClueBot
237:changed
213:ClueBot
2194:WP:AGF
2143:WP:OWN
2139:WP:AGF
952:WP:WQA
924:WP:WQA
851:kindly
743:WP:OWN
623:exist.
398:, etc?
396:WP:RFC
392:WP:ANI
171:Snotty
128:or on
100:Malta.
2449:first
2431:Nancy
2066:first
2048:slakr
2010:Malta
1831:then
1807:] by
1449:Stale
1343:Note:
1318:first
948:might
403:diffs
355:WP:RS
338:Nancy
54:) //
44:other
2473:talk
2301:talk
2259:what
2240:talk
2178:talk
2141:and
2124:talk
2023:talk
1925:and
1912:nor
1815:and
1708:talk
1637:talk
1603:talk
1492:talk
1484:talk
1425:and
1393:talk
1369:talk
1281:and
1256:nor
1074:talk
1060:talk
1003:talk
985:talk
960:talk
932:talk
913:talk
888:talk
859:talk
759:your
747:your
721:talk
663:talk
612:talk
573:talk
555:talk
513:talk
491:talk
415:talk
367:talk
315:talk
299:talk
284:talk
276:lede
255:talk
235:was
180:talk
174:Wong
60:talk
52:here
32:diff
2398:log
2345:).
2250:one
1890:of
1880:].
1870:].
1788:log
1735:).
1204:log
1151:).
1068:).
739:not
737:is
703:now
627:did
247:(t)
244:(u)
239:by
211:by
72:of
2475:)
2459:}}
2453:{{
2423::
2410::
2392:•
2386:•
2382:•
2377:•
2373:•
2368:•
2363:•
2359:•
2355:•
2303:)
2295:.
2242:)
2180:)
2172:.
2137:,
2126:)
2076:}}
2070:{{
2036::
2025:)
1800::
1782:•
1776:•
1772:•
1767:•
1763:•
1758:•
1753:•
1749:•
1745:•
1710:)
1702:.
1639:)
1605:)
1494:)
1421:,
1395:)
1371:)
1328:}}
1322:{{
1297::
1216::
1198:•
1192:•
1188:•
1183:•
1179:•
1174:•
1169:•
1165:•
1161:•
1108:,
1104:,
1100:,
1096:,
1076:)
1041:{{
1005:)
997:.
987:)
962:)
934:)
915:)
890:)
861:)
723:)
665:)
614:)
575:)
557:)
515:)
493:)
417:)
394:,
369:)
357:,
317:)
286:)
257:)
144:}}
138:{{
132:.
121:}}
115:{{
109:.
62:)
2471:(
2402:)
2400:)
2396:(
2351:(
2299:(
2238:(
2176:(
2122:(
2021:(
1859:.
1792:)
1790:)
1786:(
1741:(
1706:(
1635:(
1601:(
1490:(
1482:(
1391:(
1367:(
1208:)
1206:)
1202:(
1157:(
1072:(
1063:·
1058:(
1001:(
983:(
979:.
958:(
930:(
926:.
911:(
886:(
857:(
719:(
661:(
610:(
571:(
553:(
545:.
539:;
511:(
489:(
413:(
365:(
313:(
301:)
297:(
282:(
253:(
58:(
30:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
