1122:
Knowledge (XXG)'s fundraising. While they do link to my own site they provided relevant information to the discussion. The banning admin admits he "barely skimmed" the ANI discussion about my edits to AfD posts. That ANI discussion had already been resolved to the satisfaction of the two other admins on the page, with whom I had agreed not to add links to my site, nor to mention my site even to educate other users about the difference between newsworthiness and notability. The other admins accepted that there was a relevant point to my posts, but that the AfD discussion was probably not the best place to place it. I also admitted that the posts could be seen as self-serving. Fair enough, but it does not merit a ban. The situation was resolved by the original admins and myself in a consensual manner well before the heavy handed approach of Dennis Brown, who swooped in and made his decision not based on the ANI discussion at all, but on two uncontested links. In his later post he says he smells BS, and tries to say that thos posts are indicative of the others, however other posts are in the context of a discussion about the AFDs, and in any case that discussion was already resolved amicably. Secondly, the admin who confirmed the ban say that my previous COI was the same as this one, when in fact they were totally different situations. The first COI was about the conflict of using material in a magazine that I published that was the only evidence that proved a drug smuggler was lying. No-one in that discussion thought I was trying to promote the magazine -- the concern was that I was trying to add information that I was too closely related to (I was also a leading expert in the case). The editor who confirmed the ban says that my magazine was not a reliable source. He is simply repeating a false allegation: At that time the magazine was a 30,000 80-page full color weekly magazine with a fully professional staff, and was the No. 1 English magazine in Japan, equivalent to The
Village Voice or Time Out. There was never any promotional complaint, the issue was entirely about whether I could add the information from my own magazine, which had been written not by me, but by a journalist, and was the only independent investigation into the situation. In fact the issue was resolved, and once again another admin swooped in and banned me, after the fact. So the two COIs are not remotely the same. Thirdly, Dennis Brown's aggressive comments about my off-wiki activities, and focus on the two posts about Knowledge (XXG)'s fundraising, lead me to think that he thinks I should be banned for that activity alone. Finally, as I said in the ANI discussion, and was agreed there, I am happy not to post any links or other promotion of my site even in the guise of education. Thank you for your consideration. --
789:
made to the page, and no-one ever mentioned that I was posting for promotional purposes. There was also no issue about the factual information contained in the articles, only that I should not post them because I was the publisher. The COI complaint was in fact a bogus way to stop the use of the information my magazine had investigated on the smuggler being added to the page. As a result the page continues to be extremely non-NPOV about the smuggler's innocence. As for the current issue. I was already in agreement with the other admins that I would not post links to my site, even if they were to illustrate a point or to show how an alternative way of crowdsourcing news works. My discussions of AfD were purely about the difference about notability and newsworthiness, a distinction that causes many editors greif. Having built a site that deals with these issues differently, I had hoped to educate people on the difference. However, I agree that AfDs are not the best place to have these discussions, as it can be seen to be self-serving. As I also pointed out in the ANI discussion, any links back to my site were 1) in context of the AfD discussions with respect to the boundary between news and notability 2) only placed on the talk pages 3) were few in number and 4) I have been open that I am the owner of the site. This complaint, and this block is heavy handed, uses a false representation of a prior block, does not deal with my edits in context, and does not support the consensus of admins on the page.--
245:. What we have here, is completely different situation. We have plenty of coverage on a person who despite the plethora of sources get deleted. I agree, if that person would have had a single source (and I vote delete on those, but not without searching for more first). O.K. Lets exclude Daily Mail and Radar, we still have 30 reliable sources saying the same thing as those that are not reliable. In fact, in my opinion, Lady Lotus exaggerated on what is RS and what is not as her POV. I checked WP:RSN and it turns out that New York Daily News and US Weekly can be used as an RS, so I don't know what she trying to get on?? Like, personally an American news report for me is more reliable then say Russian one (and I watch both). Like, I don't like Fox News, but other sources seem fine by me. Yes, Daily Mail and The Huffington Post are bad, but then why no body blacklisted them????--
991:, which were not part of the original ANI discussion, were never contested at the time, and are totally reasonable as part of the discussion on Knowledge (XXG)'s fundraising. If you had taken the time to research the ANI discussion, which you "skimmed" then you would have seen that it was already resolved to the satisfaction of the existing admins. Your aggressive attitude to my participation in off-wiki forums, and you dislike of my comments on Knowledge (XXG)'s fundraising (the two comments you singled out) seems to be driving this ban. --
556:
528:
501:
946:
how slowly you edit, how eloquently you complain, what matters is the CONTENT of your edits, which all too often were pointers to your own website. This is the second time you've been blocked for this same basic activity, so go cry to your forum buddies all you want, maybe they will be too lazy or subjective to look at your edits, but the edits speak for themselves, if anyone bothers to LOOK. You may always use
1036:
703:
353:
397:
890:
recommend a ban (my site was added to the spam list). Your assessment of the Jimbo/Signpost posts is inaccurate and irrelevant, and you have made a heavy-handed reaction to a problem that was not a severe as presented (maybe ten links over a six month period, most of which are in context), and had already been resolved by the admins on the page. --
173:
what happens when they have an exclusive interview that gives new information to a topic? The second flaw is that many editors are conflating news with notability. There is so much news that is not notable. a good example of this on my site is the
Newsline of Jesse Biter, a local businessman in Sarasota.
1121:
This ban is too harsh for the supposed crime. Firstly, the above discussion shows that the banning admin did so on the basis of two links that were not contested by any other user, were not contested at the time, and were made months ago. Those links were not spam, and were part of a discussion about
1005:
That is kind of funny, since I'm an outspoken critic of our fundraising, many actions of the WMF, and generally considered a
Reformer, someone who tries to fix from the inside instead of crying foul or simply pouts on other websites. And this isn't a ban, it is a block. For someone who professes to
628:
as well as my own investigation into your editing habits, I have blocked you for an indefinite period of time for using
Knowledge (XXG) as a promotional device for your own profit. You were indef blocked once before for this, for five years, and unblocked because you convinced an admin you wouldn't
275:
You still seem to be confusing newsworthiness ("but when a person gets a significant coverage") with what is suitable to be included in an encyclopedia. It is simply not true that "it is always welcomed on
Knowledge (XXG)". Just because something has a source does not mean it should be included. Ms
182:
Ms
Alamuddin is not a celebrity in the Hollywood world, she's the fiance of Clooney, and until she does something notable in her own right, then the most she should get is a line on Clooney's page. I think you would agree that we would not put every girlfriend Clooney has had on Knowledge (XXG) just
172:
As I said on the other page, you have come up against several basic flaws in
Knowledge (XXG). The first is that editors make blanket decisions about the reliability of sources, rather than he reliability of the information itself. It's easy to blacklist the Daily Mail (or any other news source), but
1144:
Having looked over the COIN thread, the ANI thread and your comments here, even assuming that your argument above is valid the fact remains that you have been very evidently spamming
Knowledge (XXG), and you violated if not the terms at least the spirit of the lifting of the previous ban, which was
788:
Previous block was not related to self promotion at all. In fact, it was about the use of a magazine that I published as the authoritative source about the activities of a drug smuggler in Japan. There was nothing promotional about it -- and there was never any promotional complaint about the edits
945:
reason, they were examples that are easy for anyone to find in your edit history and are indicative of your other edits. I'm 30 years into marketing, I know bullshit when I smell it. You are here to promote your business, not build an encyclopedia. Your actions speak to this. It doesn't matter
811:
Your edits in 2007 were in obvious and entirely inappropriate COI and self promotion. You were unblocked on the theory that you understood this, and that you wouldn't repeat the same behaviour. Your recent edits are more self promotion in exactly the same vein. This block is overdue, and it's well
136:
But if we will look into that
Knowledge (XXG) is not a Newspaper, we can safely assume that using original research is more safe because we don't need to go through the hoops of what is RS and what is BS? Because according to Lady Lotus and that user with caps in his username, everything is BS not
419:
content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about
889:
The discussion on ANI was about AfD posts, which as I explain above are part of a wider discussion about news vs notability. Looking back, I can see how the two or three posts I made to people's talk pages can appear self serving, however, the ANI admins already assessed the edits and did not
133:. They do tend to appear on ABC's The View and various talk shows, like Late Shows for example. I'm personally a huge fan of David Letterman and The View where celebrities tell the world what they are, and what they are planning to do with say, their upcoming role in an upcoming film.
240:
O' O.K. You know, I'm not interested in her either, but when a person gets a significant coverage, it is always welcomed on
Knowledge (XXG). Like lets say, my mom is an artist, but she doesn't exhibit her work, and neither do her friends which means they are not notable according to
883:
are both completely in context and reasonable posts that are part of the discussion about Knowledge (XXG) fundraising. They are not on main space and are part of talk discussions. Sure, I could have posted my entire blog posts about the topic to the pages, but a link is more than
225:
It really depends on the report, and the person. Even the National enquirer has had notable scoops. IMHO blanket bans on sources are destructive. I am not all that interested in Ms Alamuddin, I am observing this issue as a way to examine Knowledge (XXG)'s structural problems. --
926:
Your reason is completely bogus -- both the Jimbo Wales and Signpost postings are completely in context of adding to the discussion on both pages that were about Knowledge (XXG)'s fundraising. Those links were months ago, and were not even challenged at the time. --
202:
Well I don't know. I'm personally on the fence when it comes to scrutinizing reliable sources. Like, will Star Tribune be reliable in your opinion? If so, I will be eager to substitute Daily Mail for Star Tribune if Lady Lotus doesn't like
129:, but take a look at this: We rely on reliable sources and according to that policy, newspapers, media, books, and magazines are such. In a case of celebrities for example, they don't appear a whole lot on say CNN or FOX unless its the
297:
The question is where to draw the line. The line on Knowledge (XXG) is arbitrary and results in these kinds of discussions. Ultimately the inclusion of pages like Amal Alamiddin, and the lack of clear rules on inclusion, devalues the
908:
I'm not a judge. I'm under no obligation to consider any of the information at ANI, and I barely skimmed it. Instead, I went and independently found reason to block you. You can't use AFD or the ANI to wikilawyer out of this.
855:
For the record, I didn't look at a single AFD. I looked at your linking your website on Jimbo's page, Signpost, etc. Self-promotion is self-promotion. No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it is still a pig.
187:
profile to the factual information about what she has done, and check each item for its notability. That she supported her father on the campaign trail is not notable. That she made a SuperPaC is notable, and so on...--
177:
He is clearly not notable for Knowledge (XXG), but he has generated over 30 news articles. The reason I created my site, was to create a news archive about people, free from Knowledge (XXG)'s many constraints.
125:
Hi, I decided to post my questions regarding RS here, because it kind off would have been an off-topic discussion. I do understand that Knowledge (XXG) is not a Newspaper neither it is
401:
323:
Newslines is a news archive, and does not claim to be an encyclopedia. If you wish to avoid tiresome discussions about reliability of sources perhaps you can help out there. --
954:, put up another unblock banner, have any number of other admin review if you like. And by all mean, no admin needs to ask my permission or consultation to modify this block.
681:
Looks like someone fixed it. They changed the admin interface in Twinkle while I was on wikibreak, still haven't gotten used to it. Thanks for the note, I do like accuracy.
532:
157:
because she is sup-par actress and a daughter of senator John Kerry? Like really, what's the point of her having a WP article if she known for only those two instances?--
145:
is it reliable info??? Yes and no. On one hand, its a part of her bio, because besides being a lawyer she is also a celebrity in the Hollywood world. But, if that
505:
44:
34:
1179:
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.
847:
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.
1076:
743:
1164:
832:
593:
61:
365:
875:
You didn't look at the AfDs, nor the detail of the previous ban. Event the evidence you did look at does not support your contention: The
671:
473:
of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
455:
416:
580:
509:
409:
1071:
738:
405:
658:
If the user is blocked indefinitely, shouldn't the block template be updated? It says he is blocked temporarily for spamming.
1145:
hinged on you not spamming. Spam is spam. Arguing that this is a "different COI" or a different type of spam is just absurd.
589:
477:
404:
your contributions to Knowledge (XXG), but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things
421:
150:
434:
articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
372:
tags, additions of links to Knowledge (XXG) will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be
111:
1049:
716:
563:
373:
1043:
710:
575:
357:
1048:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
715:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
463:
459:
1006:
understand the policy and how this is too harsh, you should at least familiarize yourself with the policy first.
819:
585:
1090:
757:
319:
I offer, by contrast, Ma Alamuddin's page on my site Newslines, where the standard of inclusion is much lower.
107:
1013:
961:
916:
863:
688:
665:
640:
615:
454:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to
88:
476:
For information on how to contribute to Knowledge (XXG) when you have a conflict of interest, please see
276:
Alamuddin is simply not notable in her own right. It wouldn't matter if a million papers wrote about her.
22:
813:
69:
630:
242:
126:
1148:
420:
that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by
37:
linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
1007:
955:
910:
857:
682:
659:
653:
634:
609:
540:
517:
485:
381:
84:
951:
947:
571:
441:
361:
30:
1173:
841:
599:
427:
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
250:
208:
162:
26:
1123:
1054:
992:
928:
891:
790:
721:
555:
467:
324:
227:
189:
184:
154:
65:
57:
149:
is covered by magazines and newspapers, why not include it? Sure, you might point me to
138:
440:
to the Knowledge (XXG) article or website of your organization in other articles (see
633:
to build an encyclopedia, and frankly, your goals seem to be exactly the opposite.
536:
513:
481:
377:
504:
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
629:
do this again. As a large number of your edits are solely promotional, you are
246:
204:
158:
106:. It seems like we might see more of each other over at RW rather then here.--
33:. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an
588:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
450:
so that you do not accidentally breach Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies.
369:
1154:
1131:
1018:
1000:
966:
936:
921:
899:
868:
822:
798:
693:
676:
645:
620:
544:
535:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
521:
489:
396:
385:
332:
254:
235:
212:
197:
166:
115:
92:
73:
50:
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
320:
47:
on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
130:
29:, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets
174:
103:
584:
by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
25:. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of
183:
because of his celebrity status. I would personally cut down the
987:
Nice try, but you said clearly above that your ban was based
366:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion
1034:
701:
554:
415:
All editors are required to comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s
1161:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
829:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
1181:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
849:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
432:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating
1104:
1100:
1094:
1085:
1081:
1067:
1063:
1059:
880:
876:
771:
767:
761:
752:
748:
734:
730:
726:
626:
512:
incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.
533:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
495:
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
1042:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
709:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
596:, then adding the following text below this notice:
574:
links. Persistent spammers will have their websites
137:
RS. This brings me to another question; if lets say
506:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
478:our frequently asked questions for organizations
17:Image copyright problem with Image:Nova-logo.gif
60:. For assistance on the image use policy, see
31:Knowledge (XXG)'s requirements for such images
424:and writing with as little bias as possible.
8:
83:As discussed on UTRS you've been unblocked.
625:Based on the input at the ANI discussion
62:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions
360:to Knowledge (XXG). It is considered
7:
578:from Knowledge (XXG) and potentially
412:or close connection to the subject.
321:http://newslines.org/amal-alamuddin/
812:supported by policy and consensus.
531:There is currently a discussion at
408:on Knowledge (XXG), you may have a
121:Knowledge (XXG) is not a Newspaper
14:
356:Please stop adding inappropriate
175:http://newslines.org/jesse-biter/
526:
499:
395:
351:
391:Managing a conflict of interest
376:from editing Knowledge (XXG).
368:. Because Knowledge (XXG) uses
56:This is an automated notice by
466:. Note that Knowledge (XXG)'s
116:11:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
93:06:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
74:07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
460:verifiability of information
141:is dating Clooney and its a
1046:, who declined the request.
713:, who declined the request.
1197:
941:Those two edits where not
1165:guide to appealing blocks
833:guide to appealing blocks
594:guide to appealing blocks
586:make useful contributions
1155:04:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1132:02:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1019:13:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1001:02:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
967:22:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
937:21:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
922:21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
900:21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
869:20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
823:21:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
799:20:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
694:12:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
677:07:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
646:20:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
621:20:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
570:from editing for adding
545:04:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
522:04:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
490:04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
386:04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
333:19:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
255:18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
236:17:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
213:16:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
198:16:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
167:15:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
98:Just so that you know...
989:only on those two posts
1039:
706:
559:
448:Exercise great caution
406:you have written about
400:Hello, Sparkzilla. We
45:non-free use rationale
1091:change block settings
1038:
758:change block settings
705:
604:Your reason here ~~~~
592:by first reading the
558:
508:regarding a possible
456:neutral point of view
417:neutral point of view
153:but then lets remove
21:Thanks for uploading
510:conflict of interest
442:Knowledge (XXG):Spam
410:conflict of interest
151:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
23:Image:Nova-logo.gif
1040:
707:
560:
471:require disclosure
108:Simon Peter Hughes
1130:
999:
935:
898:
797:
590:appeal this block
331:
234:
196:
1188:
1178:
1172:
1153:
1151:
1126:
1110:
1108:
1097:
1079:
1077:deleted contribs
1037:
995:
931:
894:
846:
840:
793:
777:
775:
764:
746:
744:deleted contribs
704:
674:
668:
662:
657:
607:
583:
530:
529:
503:
502:
422:reliable sources
399:
355:
354:
327:
230:
192:
43:That there is a
1196:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1176:
1170:
1169:, then use the
1158:
1149:
1146:
1135:
1098:
1088:
1074:
1057:
1050:blocking policy
1035:
852:
844:
838:
837:, then use the
826:
814:Finlay McWalter
802:
765:
755:
741:
724:
717:blocking policy
702:
672:
666:
660:
651:
623:
597:
579:
552:
527:
500:
497:
464:autobiographies
393:
352:
349:
185:Alexandra Kerry
155:Alexandra Kerry
123:
100:
81:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1194:
1192:
1159:
1142:
1138:Decline reason
1119:
1115:Request reason
1112:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
903:
902:
886:
885:
877:Jimo page diff
872:
871:
827:
809:
805:Decline reason
786:
782:Request reason
779:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
561:You have been
553:
551:
548:
496:
493:
480:. Thank you.
452:
451:
445:
435:
392:
389:
358:external links
348:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
218:
217:
216:
215:
179:
178:
139:Amal Alamuddin
122:
119:
99:
96:
80:
77:
54:
53:
52:
51:
48:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1193:
1183:
1182:
1175:
1168:
1166:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1150:FreeRangeFrog
1141:
1139:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1118:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1068:global blocks
1065:
1064:active blocks
1061:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1045:
1044:administrator
1020:
1017:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
968:
965:
964:
959:
958:
953:
949:
944:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
925:
924:
923:
920:
919:
914:
913:
907:
906:
905:
904:
901:
897:
893:
888:
887:
882:
881:Signpost diff
878:
874:
873:
870:
867:
866:
861:
860:
854:
853:
851:
850:
843:
836:
834:
825:
824:
821:
818:
815:
808:
806:
801:
800:
796:
792:
785:
783:
778:
773:
769:
763:
759:
754:
750:
745:
740:
736:
735:global blocks
732:
731:active blocks
728:
723:
718:
714:
712:
711:administrator
695:
692:
691:
686:
685:
680:
679:
678:
675:
669:
663:
655:
650:
649:
648:
647:
644:
643:
638:
637:
632:
627:
622:
619:
618:
613:
612:
605:
601:
595:
591:
587:
582:
577:
573:
569:
566:
565:
557:
549:
547:
546:
542:
538:
534:
524:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
494:
492:
491:
487:
483:
479:
474:
472:
469:
465:
461:
457:
449:
446:
443:
439:
438:Avoid linking
436:
433:
430:
429:
428:
425:
423:
418:
413:
411:
407:
403:
398:
390:
388:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
346:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
298:encyclopedia.
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
256:
252:
248:
244:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
214:
210:
206:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
186:
181:
180:
176:
171:
170:
169:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
134:
132:
128:
120:
118:
117:
113:
109:
105:
97:
95:
94:
90:
86:
78:
76:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
49:
46:
42:
41:
40:
39:
38:
36:
32:
28:
24:
16:
1180:
1162:
1160:
1143:
1137:
1136:
1127:
1120:
1114:
1113:
1086:creation log
1053:
1041:
1014:
1009:Dennis Brown
1008:
996:
988:
962:
957:Dennis Brown
956:
942:
932:
917:
912:Dennis Brown
911:
895:
864:
859:Dennis Brown
858:
848:
830:
828:
816:
810:
804:
803:
794:
787:
781:
780:
753:creation log
720:
708:
689:
684:Dennis Brown
683:
661:Callmemirela
654:Dennis Brown
641:
636:Dennis Brown
635:
624:
616:
611:Dennis Brown
610:
603:
568:indefinitely
567:
562:
525:
498:
475:
470:
468:terms of use
453:
447:
437:
431:
426:
414:
394:
350:
328:
231:
193:
146:
142:
135:
124:
101:
85:Secretlondon
82:
55:
20:
884:sufficient.
576:blacklisted
35:explanation
1124:Sparkzilla
1082:filter log
1055:Sparkzilla
993:Sparkzilla
929:Sparkzilla
892:Sparkzilla
791:Sparkzilla
749:filter log
722:Sparkzilla
537:-- Aronzak
514:-- Aronzak
482:-- Aronzak
378:-- Aronzak
325:Sparkzilla
243:WP:ARTISTS
228:Sparkzilla
190:Sparkzilla
102:I am also
66:FairuseBot
58:FairuseBot
1163:read the
1101:checkuser
1060:block log
831:read the
768:checkuser
727:block log
581:penalized
550:July 2015
347:July 2015
79:Unblocked
1072:contribs
879:and the
739:contribs
631:not here
602:|reason=
370:nofollow
362:spamming
127:the news
27:fair use
1174:unblock
1095:unblock
952:WP:BASC
948:WP:UTRS
842:unblock
762:unblock
600:unblock
564:blocked
402:welcome
374:blocked
462:, and
247:Mishae
205:Mishae
159:Mishae
131:Oscars
1167:first
1128:talk!
997:talk!
933:talk!
896:talk!
835:first
795:talk!
329:talk!
232:talk!
203:it.--
194:talk!
147:scoop
143:scoop
820:Talk
667:Talk
572:spam
541:talk
518:talk
486:talk
382:talk
364:and
251:talk
209:talk
163:talk
112:talk
104:Spud
89:talk
70:talk
64:. --
1105:log
1052:).
943:the
772:log
719:).
608:.
1177:}}
1171:{{
1140::
1117::
1099:•
1093:•
1089:•
1084:•
1080:•
1075:•
1070:•
1066:•
1062:•
1015:2¢
1012:-
963:2¢
960:-
950:,
918:2¢
915:-
865:2¢
862:-
845:}}
839:{{
807::
784::
766:•
760:•
756:•
751:•
747:•
742:•
737:•
733:•
729:•
690:2¢
687:-
670:)
642:2¢
639:-
617:2¢
614:-
606:}}
598:{{
543:)
520:)
488:)
458:,
444:).
384:)
253:)
211:)
165:)
114:)
91:)
72:)
1147:§
1109:)
1107:)
1103:(
1058:(
817:ᚠ
776:)
774:)
770:(
725:(
673:♑
664:(
656::
652:@
539:(
516:(
484:(
380:(
249:(
207:(
161:(
110:(
87:(
68:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.