745:
you show that these people making the criticisms are real, and not just one person? Do I have to keep asking if you know what a reliable source is? Hint - it's the exact opposite of a source which you can't prove is legit. And I think EarthBound is the worst thing ever made. And yes, my opinion is neither right or wrong. However, it is also illegitimate - I love EarthBound. So clearly, the opinion presented is illegitimate. And if someone were creating sockpuppets on the forum to troll the game, only one opinion presented would be legit - the sockpuppet creator. All opinions expressed by the later posters would be "illegitimate". See, I think you are quite confused - you seem to think it is my job to show the source unreliable. Let's ignore the fact that this is a forum where anyone could do what I say could have been done, and extremely easily too - let's just say that I never proved that. Do you have anything that shows that these users are not sockpuppets? This is EXACTLY why there are rules on citing sources. Why are the criticisms worth mentioning? Why more so than any other random forum posters' criticism? They are opinions formed by random people who may not even be people, but one single liar. The simple fact is that without exception, forums are NOT reliable sources, because we cannot verify the truth of statements. We do not know who the posters are, we do not know their credibility. What will it take for you to figure that out? -
802:. The internet community has clearly been making these kinds of accusations for a while. Now I'm a fan of this game, and I'm looking forward to it. When I see these kinds of people making this accusations it makes me angry, to be quite honest. But when I come to wikipedia, I have to be objective and fair. So I include their claims, but I also balanace that out by putting in the response from one of the game's developers. That way both positions are represented and everything is fair and balanced. That's why I'm defending this section. Because there are people out there who see the sprites and immediately think the game has stolen something from Squaresoft. The section is there to provide valid information as to why that's not true. Now I've offered to work to try and clean this up if that's what you want. (Cleanup isn't deletion of valid info though.) Unfortunately I'm the only one trying to work together here. You seem to be more interested in working against other editors than working with them. Now that we have MULTIPLE sources showing people making these claims, you can't really say it isn't happeing anymore without going into some kind of conspiracy theory. If you want to help me re-write it, then let's do that. But don't just nuke it, thanks.
1458:
ridiculous don't you think? I love crazy paranoid theories as much as the next guy, but this one is a little out there. Now if you think the word "controversy" is a bit too powerful, then re-word the section's heading. Again, I'm willing to work on constructive edits with you. As for the other thing, you clearly don't know as much about wikipedia as you think you do. If you waltz into an article and plan to make radical edits without at least TRYING to get some sort of concensus on the article's discussion page, it is not odd at all that the article's community will revert you as soon as they spot you. Bugging people on project pages isn't trying to get consensus. Feel free to edit that Tales of
Innocence article again tomorrow. Just don't be surprised when someone reverts you again. And the fact is that if someone did report you for trying to start massive edits wars with various communities, a moderator would see that you absolutely refuse to work with other editors (especially when I offered a dozen times), and you'd likely get warned.
1279:
Let me say it again, because obviously a dozen times isn't enough. I DO NOT VOUCH FOR THE RELIABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN QUESTION. They are brought up so that the part about
Vincent Dehaut responding to it makes sense. I'm a big fan of coherent paragraphs you see. More to the point you seem to be trying to sneakily bestow some kind of divine right on yourself by taking wiki rules by the letter. If you knew as much about wiki rules as you think you do, you'd have read by now that it's important to follow the SPIRIT of a rule, rather than mindlessly follow the letter. As for your threats, they're pretty empty considering you've done nothing but ignore every point I've been making so far. Threatening to edit without my imput when you're already doing just that, is rather silly. Going to a project page and getting two whole other editors to nod at you (especially when you've likely only told them half the story) isn't going to work either. If you knew what you're talking about you'd know that
1672:
399:
992:
Gonintendo, which has strict rules against trolling. In fact every site that has been allowing comments on this game features people making claims of plagerism. Show me one that that doesn't I dare you. Despite the fact that I've debunked your claims with multiple sources you seem to be enjoying taking your old posts and running them over with a thesaurus. Are you trying to prove a point now, or just trying to get the last word in?
48:. FACT. Again, look it up. They do not belong on a template concerning Conservative parties when they are clearly Neo-Liberal. READ THE ARTICLE ON NEO-LIBERALISM. The fact is you have nothing to back up your claims whiole I do. Knowledge (XXG) says I'm right, simply because I can provide a source. If you'd like to keep vandilizing this template, then we can get a moderator, and I'll throw out every bit of evidence that I have.--
281:
apostate or he is ex-communicated.") To me, unless Mr. Dion describes himself as a Roman
Catholic then it seems rather meaningless to list him as one. How many people were baptised when they were newborns, but then never practise their given religion? Are they really Roman Catholics? I admire your correctness, but wonder whether there is better way to handle this for Knowledge (XXG). Perhaps we need a new category: "
2277:
2039:
2096:
554:
693:
source do you not understand? There is nothing to suggest that these forum goers are reliable, so how can they be considered reliable sources? Do you have anything? Anything at all? I've heard many comments against all consoles on forums, should every console have a criticism section that says "PSP sucks because it has no games" "DS and Wii are gimmicks" "PS3 is an expensive grill" "360 explodes" etc.? -
1855:
1794:
1733:
113:. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
1970:
1208:
come out and pretty much said you've been a bit too serious about this, you should probably get your head together. It's only the
Internet, dude. Not serious business. Now maybe after you've had some sleep, a hot meal, and you've gotten your head together, feel free to come back and discuss constructive edits with me. Unlike some people, I'm always willing to work with other editors. ;)
2153:
815:
your job to prove that this is real controversy. The responder has no ability to know whether or not this is real controversy, so the fact that he responded to it does not show it to be real controversy. Will you do me a favor for ONCE and explain why criticisms from random people is worth mentioning anymore than things like the Wii, PS2, etc. which have had so much more criticism? -
2294:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see
2056:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see
2244:
852:
silly Wii/PS3 criticism is that these claims made against this game are potentially slanderous, libelous, and bring the game's legality into question. Those are serious accusations much different from the typical fanboy claiming the Wii or PS3 has no games. The accusation was serious enough that it got a response from the developers.
1001:"They exist" is a pretty bad reasoning. And just a question - how many of these comments came from anything other than comments on a blog or forum? I believe about... zero? Yup. And no, since I've already proven you wrong by the simple fact that forums and user comments are NEVER reliable sources, I'm not trying to prove my case. -
1362:
paragraph makes sense, why is their "legitimacy" even brought into question? And you seem to be under the impression that you would have your way if I wasn't editing this article. If I weren't reverting you someone else would be, and it would be done just as fast as the guys who revert you on other articles, like the
1217:
It doesn't help that you ignore me and complain about me ignoring you. So, what makes any of these forums or blog comments reliable? What do you have to prove that they are reliable sources? If you continue to ignore the question, then it'll be simple to have the paragraph removed without your input,
1207:
Once again you open with something I never said. Are you really that bad at arguing? I'm not sure how much I can help you here, but I know there are other
Wikipedians around who are really good at debate, and could probably teach you how to do it properly if you would ask them nicely. Now that you've
713:
Why did you start your post with more strawman tactics? Stop putting words into my mouth, please. My point was that dozens of other unreleased games use that kind of unattractive styles? Why? Because they are STUB class articles. That's what makes them stub class articles. There's not enough info out
688:
So basically, you say that because other articles suck, this one is allowed to? That because people would oppose the removal of bad content, you can oppose that too? So basically, your argument for keeping the list is that other articles have it? You've got nothing to suggest that this article should
673:
Onto the second thing: The controversy section never said "The Queen and all of men strongly opposed, bla, bla", now did it? It just tried to make it clear that some people thought. Now unless you have a source showing that it was automated bots who made those posts, then it was definitely PEOPLE who
1278:
Look I've already stated it many many times. These people are WRONG. Why you keep pretending that I'm trying to support them, I do not know. What makes them noteworthy is that the widespread comments on the subject got a response from the legal affairs guy from the company that's designing the game.
814:
Just because a reliable source has a reliable person responding to something does NOT make the people he's responding to reliable. Every single time I ask you what makes this the only forum in the history of time and space to be reliable, you say "well, you can't prove them to NOT be reliable!" It's
640:
Wow, so it's in the trailer. Are you saying that this article has to include every single word seen in the trailer? Because it does not and should not do so. I fail to see how a trailer including a list validates including said list into an encyclopedia entry (which has many, many differences from a
1457:
I'm not ignoring you at all. If anything I'm giving you far too much attention. The fact that you may be suggesting that one person over the course of well over a year (check the date differences onthe references) is going to EVERY SINGLE website that mentions the game just to trash it, is a little
1292:
You have nothing to prove that even one single comment on the visuals is legitimate. You can show that he responded to these comments, but not that the comments themselves are legitimate. You've also failed to show that the "controversy" is widespread and even made by anyone even remotely important
1088:
Considering you've been doing nothing but putting words into my mouth it certainly looks like you are the one arguing that "forums and blog comments are reliable sources." You create arguments for me, and then attack them. Why not stick to what I actually say? Better yet, why not actually read what
1033:
Once again, the thesaurus job on things you've already said. I guess you really do want the last word. I've been pretty polite, and pretty considerate thus far, but if you're going to keep acting hostile, and continue to bring nothing knew to the conversation, then I am wasting my time. The fact of
953:
Yeah, that would really fit in to the PE article if I were claiming news articles were making these claims. But that's not the case. Considering the context is of people (as in average members of the gaming internet community) making these claims, I'm thinking sources showing just people making the
851:
Again, I never said these people making these claims were some kind of reputable Lords. In fact I'll go ahead and say that these people have no idea what they are talking about. But there are enough people making the accusations to make it worthy of note on the article. What makes it stand out from
692:
I have to find a source that says they are? The whole point is you can't prove that ANY of these opinions are legit. Do you have evidence to suggest that the controversy is legit? If not, how can I provided opposing evidence? You can't disprove something that was never proven. What part of reliable
606:
However, you are engaged in a content dispute/edit war with another editor and that merits a friendly warning. If there is an edit war , I often placed these warnings to remind editors to find another solution to resolving a content dispute, instead of reverting each other, even if they revert less
2200:
and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion
744:
It doesn't matter if the claims were made, ever. Wow, random people with no notability, reliability, importance, etc. said something on a forum? And it hardly matters, your source. Your source shows someone of importance responding to people of literally NO importance making claims on a forum. Can
293:
Hi. The keywords in your post were "To me". This is your personal point of view, and is not encyclopedic. I will state it again: Catholics are
Catholics until they apostate or they are ex-communicated. If you do not like this, then I suggest you contact yourlocal Bishop, and discuss it with him. I
667:
for an example. That looks 100 times worse than the section you don't like in this case, yes? Yet, if you tried to remove it a dozen angry people would try to revert you within the hour. The problem lies in that the game isn't out, nor is there a significant amount of good info released about it.
280:
Hello Sima Yi. I understand why you would want to have Stéphane Dion listed with the category for Roman
Catholics, despite the fact that he is "lapsed." ("Revert back to previous version. Lapsed Roman Catholics are still Roman Catholics. The fact is that Mr. Dion is Catholic until he becomes an
966:
It doesn't MATTER. It has to be from a reliable source. Why are these the average gamers in the internet community? They're a small group of people (assuming that these claims are even true) commenting on a game on a single forum. Did you not read that
Knowledge (XXG) is about verifiability, not
39:
Your opinion is not relevant. The BC Liberals are BC's right-of-centre conservative leaning party. The template does not state what conservatism is, it simply lists Canada's main conservative or rightist parties. British
Columbia has a main right-leaning party, as does every other province in
1376:
I see something odd about you saying that I'm ignoring you at the same time as you ignore me. I seek proof that these users are unique from each other. I seek reason to believe that this is widespread enough to warrant mention. I seek any reason to believe that this controversy section warrants
644:
So because they're members of a forum that only requires a computer, internet connection, browser, and keyboard to join, they are reliable sources? Anyone who has those four things can join the forum, and last time I checked, hundreds of millions of people do not constitute a reliable source. -
936:
BBC - reliable. Electronic
Frontier Foundation - reliable. Wikinews - fully sourced by some of the biggest news sites in the English-speaking world, so reliable. Ars Technica - reliable. Ziff Davis - reliable. Wired - reliable. The Guardian - reliable. Joystiq - reliable. Next Gen - reliable.
1380:
And embarrassed? I was reverted for the reason that "Knowledge (XXG) should have more info", a concept supported by no policy or guideline at Knowledge (XXG). Height and weight are trivia, and trivia is frowned upon. I removed trivia, and the user reverted in spite of that fact. I do not get
1361:
Again, you are embarrassing yourself by responding to posts you haven't clearly read. How many times do you want me to say it? The individuals in question are WRONG. All of those people calling the game a plagarism are WRONG. I am not defending them. And considering they're only there so the
991:
Wow, you haven't read a word I've written, eh? I have never at any time said that these claims were true. Just that they exist. If you had been reading my responses, you would see that it's not just on one forum, but multiple forums. This is especially relevent because one of the forums is
727:
Secondly, you seem to be misreading the controversy section. It doesn't say people proved those claims. Just that those claims were made. Also, opinions by definition are not right or wrong. So they can't be "legit." The section simply states that the claims were made, and the section that
476:
Probably not, since vaporware is defined as a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while it is still in development and that may never be produced (from Dictionary.com) or a new software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced. (from American Heritage
1145:(Also you seem to be taking this whole thing rather over seriously. If it makes you feel better, just because you embarrassed yourself by running an argument based on nothing but logical fallacies, I don't think any less of you. So if you are posting just to save face, you can stop now.)
967:
truth? You can't verify that these claims are true, so no matter how true they may be, they cannot be mentioned in the article. And even if you did prove these claims to be true, this is an extremely small group of people and do not warrant mention as if this is a notable controversy. -
761:: "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source." So why is this forum a reliable source? -
1089:
I'm posting here for you? Also, your logical fallacies aren't going to impress anyone. Looking at your contribution page, and seeing the edit wars you try to start on other articles, if anything this will probably hurt you down the road. One final time, I'll spell it out for you:
1643:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
1588:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
1533:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
1034:
the matter is your argument rely on logical fallacies (like the strawman) to plug huge holes in an argument that was shakey to begin with. Instead of addressing the content in question in a fair, and unbiased manner you seem to be more concerned with running endless
2122:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
714:
there, to get it up to B-class so we do our best to just get information in there. When the game comes out and the internet fills up with information, we can then re-organize everything and get that fabled B-Class stamp that we're looking for here.
569:
prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
537:
carefully. This is sourced material which has been debated and modified by contributors with POV concerns. Reopening debates, revising, and reorganizing is one thing; what you are doing, and on the scale of what you are doing, is
861:
People have claimed that Sony stole rumble technology, analog technology, etc. from Nintendo. Why is random peoples' claims more relevant than those random peoples' (which are certainly more widespread and made by more people)? -
1047:
So you, who is arguing that forums and blog comments are reliable sources, even though any human being could post on them, are saying my argument is shaky? To say that forums can be used says: "everyone is a reliable source". -
793:
There you go agains starting off by putting words into my mouth. I never said anything was exempt from anything. Back on topic, the claims were made, and that's a fact. Not just on those forums, but in other places. Places like
1366:
scenario in which you also embarrassed yourself. The fact that you keep asking for the legitimacy of people who are only being mentioned for who wrong they are, shows that you really aren't reading things before you comment.
2126:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
1930:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
902:
Well sir, I must say I'm very please that you brought that up. You see, people do criticize Sony a lot about all kinds of things. That's why Sony has a nice section and several sub-sections on such controversy.
937:
Engadget - reliable. Dell - reliable. CBC - reliable. Excite - reliable. Sony - reliable. Hewlett Packard - reliable. Yomiuri - reliable. Forbes - reliable. Sun Times - reliable. Computer World - reliable.
260:
saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Knowledge (XXG). Happy editing!
1639:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
1584:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
1529:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
940:
Sony's controversy section has several references, almost all of them some of the most well-known web sites in their respective fields. You have a forum. It's a wee bit different, don't you think? -
81:
Amusing. You claim that I broke the 3-rev rule? Look at the history page on the template. The 3-rev rule goes on for 24 hours. You've reverted 4 times in that period. I've only been controlling your
1986:. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from
2119:
2252:
431:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any
337:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any
1887:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any
1826:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any
1765:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any
1704:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any
453:
No, not all MPs are styled as "The Honourable"; with a few special exceptions that are granted as individual honours, only those who have served in cabinet/Privy Council get that style.
71:
Just to entertain your neoliberalism argument: right-wing parties are often the most neoliberal. Your idea that neoliberalism and conservatism are opposite is a very common mistake.
1997:
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with
668:
That leaves us with the little tidbits, unfortunately. If you want to help me re-write it so it's less like a list, then i'd be happy for your help. Let's just not nuke it, okay?
1883:
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
1822:
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
1761:
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
1700:
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
427:
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
333:
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
1218:
simply by getting outside input (so far, I've found two people who strongly disagree with the idea that criticism from random people warrants mention and none that agree). -
25:
Amusing. I ask you about this in the Template's talkpage and you offer me absolutely no answer. Your position lacks evidence and not to mention logic. The B.C. Liberals are
954:
claims prove the point. If you want to change the wording a bit so it says "Members of the gaming community have claimed..." go ahead. Just don't nuke the section. Thanks.
1108:
I do not endorse or support in any way, shape, or form what these individuals are saying. I simply acknowledge that it has been said (and it has, check the references).
607:
than what the so-called "maximum" is, which is 3. But the important thing is to follow 3RR, not only by the letter of the policy but also the spirit of the policy.
420:
if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see
326:
if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see
1876:
if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see
1815:
if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see
1754:
if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see
1693:
if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see
2185:, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the
1872:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
1811:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
1750:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
1689:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
416:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
322:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
1987:
1633:
1578:
1523:
61:. I think getting other opinions on this is a very good idea! It would be best if you reverted the template back to the original state as soon as possible.
2108:
194:
1799:
1155:
6 billion people are reliable sources is a waste of time (especially when he thinks that Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and policies are logical fallacies). -
1990:
is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an
216:
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org
1991:
663:. This article in question is a article for an upcoming video game. Those always contain less than attractive sections. Have a look at the article for
2306:
2182:
2142:
2068:
1998:
1892:
1831:
1770:
1709:
1644:
1589:
1534:
436:
342:
741:? And don't claim I'm using a straw man argument - that's exactly what you're arguing. Articles have to be cleaned up at any point, no matter what.
2002:
1648:
1593:
1538:
503:
Thank you for your intervention on the Stéphane Dion page. Could I request that you also look over a controversy on the Volpe page. Thanks,
136:
2236:
1955:
596:
I've only made two reverts in the past 24 hours. Maybe you should actually count them before taking the time to put on warning templates?
246:
2048:
1982:. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Knowledge (XXG) may not meet the criteria required by
1629:
1628:
but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) constitutes fair use. Please go to
1620:
1612:
1573:
but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) constitutes fair use. Please go to
1518:
but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) constitutes fair use. Please go to
533:
Please do not re-delete 9 months of other people's work. This morning you once again tried to delete 15% of the entire article. Read
462:
Uh, yeah. I realize that now, which is why I didn't revert it after Ground Zero's edit. You're a little slow on the draw, aren't you?
1869:
1808:
1747:
16:
Please cease removing the BC Liberals from the Canadian conservative party template. They are not the same as the federal Liberals.
372:
163:
125:
659:
I never said "this article has to unclude every single word seen in the trailer" or anything of the sort. Here's a fun article:
1951:
2162:
364:
147:
2286:
1978:
1519:
1510:
1502:
176:
2290:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
2052:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
578:
from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
571:
566:
408:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
314:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
58:
1994:; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
728:
immediately shut down those claims. It disproves those claims. If you had checked the references you would have seen that.
2214:
1884:
1823:
1762:
1701:
1640:
1585:
1530:
488:
428:
334:
2295:
2291:
2202:
2057:
1983:
1877:
1816:
1755:
1694:
421:
327:
120:
2112:
1942:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
738:
575:
404:
242:
1947:
1677:
1136:
If you actually closely read what you are contesting, you would probably avoid a lot of self-inflicted embarrassment.
2169:
1864:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
1803:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
1742:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
1681:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
376:
957:(P.S. I hate to say I told you so, but it seems the angry Tales of Innocence community has reverted your edit. =/ )
2222:
1117:
The fact that you attack the first sentence in the section only reinforces what has been said in the next sentence.
674:
were making this claims. Keep in mind that right after its mentioned in the article, a clear REFERENCE is provided.
1385:
1297:
1222:
1159:
1052:
1005:
971:
944:
866:
819:
765:
749:
697:
649:
380:
158:
text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from
109:
2248:
2197:
2178:
2146:
2103:
2087:
1382:
1294:
1219:
1156:
1049:
1002:
968:
941:
863:
816:
762:
746:
694:
646:
310:
1860:
513:
GoldDragon is still reverting to his version. Could I request that you make a statement on the talk page?
253:
155:
2132:
1943:
1574:
1565:
1557:
579:
173:
a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely
74:
64:
19:
1738:
1656:
1601:
1546:
383:
your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing!
1625:
1570:
1515:
558:
2255:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
1652:
1597:
1542:
2024:
262:
2186:
1919:
1910:
795:
622:. I'm hoping the disputes can be resolved on the talk page before the page comes out of protection.
618:
Is two reverts over two days really considered a war now? Anyway, thanks for buffing up my post on
539:
440:
346:
1939:
1923:
1686:
413:
319:
1363:
664:
478:
477:
Dictionary). Still too early to announce it as a vaporware when it's not like the case of, say,
241:
It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows
1038:
attacks against the people in the references. (And yeah ad hominem is another logical fallacy.)
2210:
2128:
2016:
485:
2015:-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the
2012:
1935:
1927:
1873:
1812:
1751:
1690:
417:
323:
1671:
562:
398:
257:
232:
210:
188:
1938:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1931:
1280:
619:
356:
2314:
2218:
2076:
2020:
1900:
1839:
1778:
1717:
384:
2053:
1865:
1804:
1743:
1682:
534:
409:
315:
2181:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under
132:
90:
758:
553:
527:
514:
504:
2253:
Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 9#Hayweauhdfkjakdahakhaya
1154:
I am taking it a bit seriously - clearly, arguing with someone who thinks that : -->
252:
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at
2206:
1459:
1368:
1284:
1209:
1146:
1137:
1039:
993:
958:
923:
853:
803:
729:
680:
623:
597:
482:
463:
454:
295:
285:
159:
94:
86:
49:
30:
1854:
1793:
1732:
191:
and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org".
187:
If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at
2201:
tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
368:
151:
45:
26:
2310:
2072:
1896:
1835:
1774:
1713:
1035:
221:
497:
82:
1111:
The article itself does not support or endorse the individuals in question.
932:
Wow, you're right! In a way. Let's look at the sources provided, shall we?
367:
to Knowledge (XXG)! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as
2257:
2161:
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
660:
608:
586:
2243:
85:. More to the point, Neo-Liberalism isn't automatically compatible with
1926:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)
1624:. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
1569:. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
1514:. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
812:
Show me anything that shows this message board to be a reliable source.
2192:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may
2226:
1788:
Orphaned non-free media (File:Tears to Tiara (Aloun and Riannon).jpg)
2318:
2266:
2229:
2136:
2080:
2028:
1959:
1904:
1843:
1782:
1721:
1660:
1605:
1550:
1462:
1388:
1371:
1300:
1287:
1225:
1212:
1162:
1149:
1140:
1055:
1042:
1008:
996:
974:
961:
947:
926:
869:
856:
822:
806:
768:
752:
732:
700:
683:
652:
626:
613:
600:
591:
542:
517:
507:
491:
466:
457:
443:
387:
349:
298:
288:
270:
140:
97:
52:
33:
1965:
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hoshigami Remix cover.jpg
799:
737:
So basically, articles about unreleased games are exempt from the
201:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted
227:
204:
2272:
Orphaned non-free image File:Growlanser VI Precarious World.jpg
116:
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
1114:
The article itself REFUTES what these people have been saying.
2120:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Apocalypse: Desire Next
44:
It isn't "opinion". The B.C. liberals meet the definition of
2275:
2151:
2037:
1968:
393:
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Growlanser V Generations.jpg)
2034:
Orphaned non-free image File:Growlanser Heritage of War.jpg
1666:
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tears to Tiara (Battle).jpg)
2107:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to
245:. For more information on Knowledge (XXG)'s policies, see
166:. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
150:! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as
29:. They don't belong on a template about Conservatism. --
2101:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
2247:
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
1381:
embarrassed when people ignore quality guidelines. -
2001:. If you have any questions, please ask them at the
1647:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
1592:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
1537:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
920:
2305:will be deleted after seven days, as described in
2067:will be deleted after seven days, as described in
1891:will be deleted after seven days, as described on
1830:will be deleted after seven days, as described on
1769:will be deleted after seven days, as described on
1708:will be deleted after seven days, as described on
1621:Image:Growlanser IV - Wayfarer of Time (Delux).jpg
1613:Image:Growlanser IV - Wayfarer of Time (Delux).jpg
435:will be deleted after seven days, as described on
341:will be deleted after seven days, as described on
304:Orphaned non-free image (Image:ByakuganHinata.jpg)
2189:for any other experiments you would like to do.
1918:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
1849:Orphaned non-free media (File:Tears to Tiara.jpg)
1988:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free use rationale guideline
160:http://www.atlus.com/odinsphere/story/story.html
2159:
1727:Orphaned non-free media (File:Blacksigil-5.jpg)
195:Knowledge (XXG):Requesting copyright permission
89:. Conservatism is by definition an approach to
2307:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion
2301:Note that any non-free images not used in any
2183:section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion
2069:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion
2063:Note that any non-free images not used in any
1999:section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion
135:. For assistance on the image use policy, see
2019:of each individual file for details. Thanks,
57:You've broken wikipedia's three-revert-rule,
8:
1800:File:Tears to Tiara (Aloun and Riannon).jpg
584:And yes, I've warned the other guy as well.
213:with a link to where we can find that note.
103:Image tagging for Image:Reginaldbalcock.jpg
1377:existence. I see nothing in terms of that.
921:http://en.wikipedia.org/Sony#Controversies
689:have it, only that you want it to have it.
561:according to the reverts you have made on
2203:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
2109:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
557:You currently appear to be engaged in an
247:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
181:then you should do one of the following:
137:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions
1618:Thanks for uploading or contributing to
1563:Thanks for uploading or contributing to
1511:Image:Growlanser VI Precarious World.jpg
1508:Thanks for uploading or contributing to
1503:Image:Growlanser VI Precarious World.jpg
2287:File:Growlanser VI Precarious World.jpg
2163:the guide to writing your first article
7:
2235:"Hayweauhdfkjakdahakhaya" listed at
283:Roman Catholic politicians (lapsed)"
231:, and note that you have done so on
126:Knowledge (XXG):Image copyright tags
2168:You may want to consider using the
2049:File:Growlanser Heritage of War.jpg
371:, but we regretfully cannot accept
169:If you believe that the article is
154:, but we regretfully cannot accept
412:. However, the image is currently
405:Image:Growlanser V Generations.jpg
318:. However, the image is currently
207:or released into the public domain
14:
2118:The article will be discussed at
1944:review the candidates' statements
1678:Image:Tears to Tiara (Battle).jpg
375:. Please find and add a reliable
59:Knowledge (XXG):Three-revert_rule
2242:
2094:
1984:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content
1853:
1792:
1731:
1670:
552:
481:. I'm removing said category. —
397:
121:Knowledge (XXG):Image use policy
2251:. The discussion will occur at
131:This is an automated notice by
2003:media copyright questions page
1979:File:Hoshigami Remix cover.jpg
1950:. For the Election committee,
1920:Arbitration Committee election
1911:ArbCom elections are now open!
1649:Media copyright questions page
1594:Media copyright questions page
1539:Media copyright questions page
927:23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
870:23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
857:23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
823:23:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
807:23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
769:23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
753:23:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
733:22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
701:22:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
684:22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
653:22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
627:21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
614:21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
601:20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
592:20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
574:. If you continue, you may be
543:14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
518:21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
508:22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
379:to your recent edit so we can
243:Knowledge (XXG) article layout
177:GNU Free Documentation License
98:23:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
75:22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
65:22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
53:22:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
34:18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
20:04:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
2296:our policy for non-free media
2137:23:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2058:our policy for non-free media
2029:01:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
1960:13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1878:our policy for non-free media
1817:our policy for non-free media
1756:our policy for non-free media
1695:our policy for non-free media
422:our policy for non-free media
328:our policy for non-free media
141:20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
2267:04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
2230:03:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
2172:to help you create articles.
2081:02:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
1893:criteria for speedy deletion
1832:criteria for speedy deletion
1783:05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
1771:criteria for speedy deletion
1710:criteria for speedy deletion
1661:01:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
1645:criteria for speedy deletion
1606:01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
1590:criteria for speedy deletion
1551:23:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
1535:criteria for speedy deletion
1281:wikipedia is not a democracy
437:criteria for speedy deletion
343:criteria for speedy deletion
1946:and submit your choices on
1868:. However, it is currently
1807:. However, it is currently
1746:. However, it is currently
1685:. However, it is currently
1463:05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1389:04:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1372:04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1301:04:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1288:04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1226:04:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1213:03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1163:03:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1150:03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1141:02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1056:02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1043:02:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1009:01:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
997:00:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
975:00:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
962:00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
948:00:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
757:Just to note, this is from
492:23:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
467:23:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
458:23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
2334:
2319:02:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
1952:MediaWiki message delivery
1630:the image description page
1575:the image description page
1520:the image description page
1293:or of any significance. -
148:welcome to Knowledge (XXG)
2276:
2177:A tag has been placed on
2038:
1632:and edit it to include a
1577:and edit it to include a
1522:and edit it to include a
444:23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
388:19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
350:18:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
294:have no control over it.
271:01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
110:Image:Reginaldbalcock.jpg
2237:Redirects for discussion
2111:or whether it should be
2011:: This is an automated,
1976:Thank you for uploading
1905:05:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1844:05:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1722:07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
311:Image:ByakuganHinata.jpg
299:19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
289:17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
220:a postal message to the
2249:Hayweauhdfkjakdahakhaya
2179:Hayweauhdfkjakdahakhaya
2147:Hayweauhdfkjakdahakhaya
2104:Apocalypse: Desire Next
2088:Apocalypse: Desire Next
1861:File:Tears to Tiara.jpg
1611:Fair use rationale for
1556:Fair use rationale for
1501:Fair use rationale for
2281:
2194:contest the nomination
2174:
2156:
2043:
1973:
2284:Thanks for uploading
2279:
2155:
2046:Thanks for uploading
2041:
1972:
1924:Arbitration Committee
1858:Thanks for uploading
1797:Thanks for uploading
1739:File:Blacksigil-5.jpg
1736:Thanks for uploading
1675:Thanks for uploading
402:Thanks for uploading
308:Thanks for uploading
254:Talk:Odin Sphere/Temp
107:Thanks for uploading
1566:Image:Growlanser.jpg
1558:Image:Growlanser.jpg
222:Wikimedia Foundation
1992:image copyright tag
1928:arbitration process
1874:You may add it back
1813:You may add it back
1752:You may add it back
1691:You may add it back
418:You may add it back
324:You may add it back
164:copyright violation
2282:
2157:
2044:
1974:
1940:arbitration policy
1634:fair use rationale
1579:fair use rationale
1524:fair use rationale
1383:A Link to the Past
1364:Tales of Innocence
1295:A Link to the Past
1220:A Link to the Past
1157:A Link to the Past
1050:A Link to the Past
1003:A Link to the Past
969:A Link to the Past
942:A Link to the Past
864:A Link to the Past
817:A Link to the Past
763:A Link to the Past
747:A Link to the Past
695:A Link to the Past
665:Tales of Innocence
647:A Link to the Past
479:Duke Nukem Forever
256:. Leave a note at
224:permitting re-use
162:, and therefore a
2292:claim of fair use
2198:visiting the page
2054:claim of fair use
1866:claim of fair use
1805:claim of fair use
1744:claim of fair use
1683:claim of fair use
572:three-revert rule
567:three-revert rule
410:claim of fair use
373:original research
316:claim of fair use
268:
197:for instructions.
77:
67:
22:
2325:
2278:
2265:
2246:
2154:
2098:
2097:
2040:
2010:
1971:
1885:my contributions
1857:
1824:my contributions
1796:
1763:my contributions
1735:
1702:my contributions
1674:
1641:my contributions
1586:my contributions
1531:my contributions
582:among editors.
565:. Note that the
556:
429:my contributions
401:
335:my contributions
269:
267:
258:Talk:Odin Sphere
233:Talk:Odin Sphere
211:Talk:Odin Sphere
209:leave a note at
189:Talk:Odin Sphere
72:
62:
17:
2333:
2332:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2309:. Thank you. --
2274:
2256:
2240:
2207:👨🏻💻 Rng0286
2175:
2152:
2150:
2143:Speedy deletion
2099:
2095:
2092:
2071:. Thank you. --
2036:
2008:
1969:
1967:
1948:the voting page
1914:
1851:
1790:
1729:
1668:
1616:
1561:
1506:
739:manual of style
637:
550:
531:
501:
474:
451:
395:
361:
306:
278:
266:
105:
12:
11:
5:
2331:
2329:
2273:
2270:
2239:
2233:
2170:Article Wizard
2158:
2149:
2145:nomination of
2140:
2093:
2091:
2086:Nomination of
2084:
2035:
2032:
1966:
1963:
1917:
1913:
1908:
1850:
1847:
1789:
1786:
1728:
1725:
1667:
1664:
1615:
1609:
1560:
1554:
1505:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1378:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
934:
933:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
742:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
706:
705:
704:
703:
690:
676:
675:
670:
669:
656:
655:
642:
636:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
549:
548:September 2007
546:
530:
525:
523:
521:
520:
500:
495:
473:
470:
450:
447:
441:BetacommandBot
394:
391:
360:
353:
347:BetacommandBot
305:
302:
277:
274:
239:
238:
237:
236:
214:
199:
145:
129:
128:
123:
104:
101:
91:traditionalism
79:
78:
42:
41:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2330:
2321:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2299:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2288:
2271:
2269:
2268:
2264:
2262:
2261:
2254:
2250:
2245:
2238:
2234:
2232:
2231:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2199:
2195:
2190:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2173:
2171:
2166:
2164:
2148:
2144:
2141:
2139:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2124:
2121:
2116:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2105:
2089:
2085:
2083:
2082:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2061:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2050:
2033:
2031:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2006:
2005:. Thank you.
2004:
2000:
1995:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1980:
1964:
1962:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1912:
1909:
1907:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1895:. Thank you.
1894:
1890:
1886:
1881:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1862:
1856:
1848:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1834:. Thank you.
1833:
1829:
1825:
1820:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1801:
1795:
1787:
1785:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1773:. Thank you.
1772:
1768:
1764:
1759:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1740:
1734:
1726:
1724:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1712:. Thank you.
1711:
1707:
1703:
1698:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1673:
1665:
1663:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1651:. Thank you.
1650:
1646:
1642:
1637:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1614:
1610:
1608:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1596:. Thank you.
1595:
1591:
1587:
1582:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1559:
1555:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1541:. Thank you.
1540:
1536:
1532:
1527:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1504:
1500:
1464:
1461:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1379:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1365:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
976:
973:
970:
965:
964:
963:
960:
956:
955:
952:
951:
950:
949:
946:
943:
938:
931:
930:
929:
928:
925:
922:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
871:
868:
865:
860:
859:
858:
855:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
824:
821:
818:
813:
810:
809:
808:
805:
801:
797:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
770:
767:
764:
760:
756:
755:
754:
751:
748:
743:
740:
736:
735:
734:
731:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
702:
699:
696:
691:
687:
686:
685:
682:
678:
677:
672:
671:
666:
662:
658:
657:
654:
651:
648:
643:
639:
638:
634:
628:
625:
621:
617:
616:
615:
612:
611:
605:
604:
603:
602:
599:
594:
593:
590:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
568:
564:
563:Stéphane Dion
560:
555:
547:
545:
544:
541:
536:
529:
528:Stephane Dion
526:
524:
519:
516:
512:
511:
510:
509:
506:
499:
496:
494:
493:
490:
487:
484:
480:
471:
469:
468:
465:
460:
459:
456:
448:
446:
445:
442:
439:. Thank you.
438:
434:
430:
425:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
406:
400:
392:
390:
389:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
358:
354:
352:
351:
348:
345:. Thank you.
344:
340:
336:
331:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
303:
301:
300:
297:
291:
290:
287:
284:
276:Stéphane Dion
275:
273:
272:
264:
259:
255:
250:
248:
244:
234:
230:
229:
223:
219:
215:
212:
208:
206:
200:
198:
196:
190:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
180:
178:
172:
167:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
143:
142:
138:
134:
127:
124:
122:
119:
118:
117:
114:
112:
111:
102:
100:
99:
96:
92:
88:
84:
76:
70:
69:
68:
66:
60:
55:
54:
51:
47:
38:
37:
36:
35:
32:
28:
23:
21:
2302:
2300:
2285:
2283:
2259:
2258:
2241:
2193:
2191:
2176:
2167:
2160:
2129:Jovanmilic97
2125:
2117:
2102:
2100:
2090:for deletion
2064:
2062:
2047:
2045:
2017:page history
2007:
1996:
1977:
1975:
1915:
1888:
1882:
1859:
1852:
1827:
1821:
1798:
1791:
1766:
1760:
1737:
1730:
1705:
1699:
1676:
1669:
1638:
1619:
1617:
1583:
1564:
1562:
1528:
1509:
1507:
939:
935:
919:
811:
609:
595:
587:
583:
551:
538:vandalism.--
532:
522:
502:
475:
461:
452:
432:
426:
403:
396:
362:
338:
332:
309:
307:
292:
282:
279:
251:
240:
225:
217:
202:
192:
174:
170:
168:
144:
130:
115:
108:
106:
87:Conservatism
80:
56:
43:
24:
15:
1653:Project FMF
1598:Project FMF
1543:Project FMF
369:Mark Copani
363:Hello, and
156:copyrighted
152:Odin Sphere
146:Hello, and
73:Myciconia
63:Myciconia
46:NEO-LIBERAL
27:Neo-Liberal
18:Myciconia
2021:FastilyBot
1936:topic bans
1036:ad hominem
449:Honourable
385:Burntsauce
226:under the
203:under the
175:under the
2223:☑️ rights
2009:ATTENTION
1932:site bans
641:trailer).
580:consensus
498:Joe Volpe
472:Vaporware
359:violation
355:Warning:
133:OrphanBot
83:vandalism
40:Canada...
2303:articles
2215:✍️ conts
2065:articles
1889:articles
1870:orphaned
1828:articles
1809:orphaned
1767:articles
1748:orphaned
1706:articles
1687:orphaned
1626:fair use
1571:fair use
1516:fair use
679:Thanks.
661:Strawman
559:edit war
540:Eric1960
515:CJCurrie
505:CJCurrie
433:articles
414:orphaned
377:citation
339:articles
320:orphaned
2211:☎️ talk
2187:sandbox
2113:deleted
1460:Sima Yi
1369:Sima Yi
1285:Sima Yi
1210:Sima Yi
1147:Sima Yi
1138:Sima Yi
1040:Sima Yi
994:Sima Yi
959:Sima Yi
924:Sima Yi
854:Sima Yi
804:Sima Yi
730:Sima Yi
681:Sima Yi
624:Sima Yi
598:Sima Yi
576:blocked
464:Sima Yi
455:Bearcat
365:welcome
296:Sima Yi
286:Que-Can
95:Sima Yi
50:Sima Yi
31:Sima Yi
1922:. The
1386:(talk)
1298:(talk)
1223:(talk)
1160:(talk)
1053:(talk)
1006:(talk)
972:(talk)
945:(talk)
867:(talk)
820:(talk)
798:, and
766:(talk)
750:(talk)
698:(talk)
650:(talk)
620:WP:RPP
381:verify
357:WP:BLP
263:Johann
179:(GFDL)
2311:B-bot
2227:D'oh!
2219:Oh no
2073:B-bot
1897:BJBot
1836:BJBot
1775:BJBot
1714:BJBot
635:Sigh.
535:WP:DP
2315:talk
2133:talk
2077:talk
2025:talk
1956:talk
1901:talk
1840:talk
1779:talk
1718:talk
1657:talk
1602:talk
1547:talk
800:here
796:here
759:WP:V
265:...
228:GFDL
205:GFDL
193:See
2298:).
2217:;)
2205:.
2196:by
2060:).
2013:bot
1916:Hi,
1880:).
1819:).
1758:).
1697:).
610:nat
588:nat
424:).
330:).
249:.
171:not
93:.--
2317:)
2263:iz
2225:)
2213:)
2135:)
2115:.
2079:)
2027:)
1958:)
1934:,
1903:)
1842:)
1781:)
1720:)
1659:)
1636:.
1604:)
1581:.
1549:)
1526:.
1283:.
486:ue
483:Bl
218:or
139:.
2313:(
2280:⚠
2260:L
2221:(
2209:(
2165:.
2131:(
2075:(
2042:⚠
2023:(
1954:(
1899:(
1838:(
1777:(
1716:(
1655:(
1600:(
1545:(
489:。
235:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.