User talk:Tookatee - Knowledge (XXG)

959:

serious discussion of a topic (in this case is simply labeled as " Wikilawyering" nonsense ) is not wanted in any way, shape, or form then I don't understand why that was not made clear nearly a week ago when the topic at hand was brought up to begin with and instead of being told it was not a topic for discussion, had several talk pages and a discussion page related to each be created in the first place. ONE edit was made, a long conversation on the topic occurred (I say conversation due to a sheer lack of effort to support their points in detail, that's free to observe by simply reading it in its entirety), and a conclusion was seemingly reached irregardless of what was said by anyone else, for better or for worse. How this entire thing has been treated seems more reflective of mob rule overriding any basic logic and a complete lack of care for how that resulted. If that's how discussion and policy enforcement on this platform intends to be, then I recommended a much more direct approach. Anyone and everyone can see this behavior if they care to as it's public information, no point in hiding behind some thin pretense of bureaucratic integrity to inefficiently enforce a specific atmosphere of "discussion". Finally, with all this in consideration any accusations of "verbal abuse" or "harassment" can be seen to be complete and utter falsehoods (at no point did I make any explicit personal attacks on any individual on Knowledge (XXG), only: refutations of their points, appeals for an explanation as to what they said, a statement of another user's actions , and/or corrections of misinterpretation(s), nearly all of which had a statement of apology and a call for myself to be corrected in the event that my assumption on their meaning or my assumption on a topic was incorrect; if you yourself think this is a blatant lie for whatever reason then please post an example of your accusations below and I will give you the meaning and context behind it, although in all honesty, based on the fact that I was blocked to begin with using this ridiculous reasoning it probably doesn't matter if all I said was the word "front" six hundred times after simply disagreeing, it'd all have the same meaning wouldn't it?)

1412:

yet it seems like from the moment you left your first comment on this talk page you've been hostile and diminutive towards anything I've had to say. I've tried to have a discussion with you about what exactly about my behavior is in violation of Knowledge (XXG) policies and you just won't have it. To be honest I'm surprised you're not self-aware of this; it's literally just a Knowledge (XXG) page on the internet, and so I'd imagine that on here hostile, confrontational behavior (rather than a factually based discussion) is not conducive to making it appear as if you hold some sort of legitimacy in your points, in fact just the opposite is (or at least should be) true as all it does is expose the fact that you can't/won't support your points because you know there is something you wouldn't be able to support because of this. I don't want to make false assumptions, but it's looking like this very questioning has made you angry in some way. If this is not the case feel free to correct me, but I don't see any other logical reason as to why you're coming off this aggressive over a topic this insignificant in the grand scheme of things (and since I've received no attempts at a discussion, let alone an explanation, it's all I have to go on.) Irregardless, hopefully the reviewing admin takes this all into consideration and hopefully comes into this with the willingness to resolve the situation rationally one way or another.

915:

quite frank that's a immensely personal opinion based on a lack of context. Marchjuly in particular has made it a point to continuously make tangential references to topics that have little to do with the discussion at hand (or in some cases simply engage in conversational circles that recycle his old talking points despite what's been said in response to them) in order to avoid said discussion, it's been nearly a week and I have yet to actually receive a specific refutation to any of the points I made in regards to the encyclopedic value of the article title "Command (Series)", and so this in combination with his practice of inviting others without the proper context on the larger conversation (you and all of the other administrators in that conversation on the Command talk page) simply to enforce his original verdict without consideration of the encyclopedic implications of that decision has resulted in an understandable amount of frustration towards his malicious/conversationally unproductive comments.

775:. As for the discussion on Explicit’s user talk page, the attempts to establish context were being solely made by you and nobody really seemed to agree with them at least not with respect to that particular file’s non-free use. The discussion wasn’t about whether it was appropriate to move the page, the use of primary sources or whether certain blocks or text should be removed. Those are separate things that may require a separate discussion to resolve. You probably disagree with me on that and that’s OK. If, however, that content is removed again or the page move is undone, then you will probably be better off using discussion to try and resolve things instead pushing the 3RR envelope to see how far you can go before someone ends up at ANI or AN3. Even if you don’t cross the 3RR threshold, an admin can step in at any time and block anyone whom they feel is being disruptive without warning; so, you need to be pretty confident that you clearly meet 726:

met the NFCC, and so there was significant discussion also in relation to this topic and simply reading the conversation can allow one to gain a quick understanding of it.Furthermore, if you look at his "discussion" you'll see that it only made as an alert indicating that he already made the changes for his own reasons rather than as an impetus for a discussion before making such changes. And since he only made vague references to a policy violation having occurred (not what the specific violation was, other than stating what he deleted was a violation) and appeared to have had an ulterior line of reasoning other than what he had written, I made the decision to restore the encyclopedic information lost in his edits. After which he proceeded begin in

794:

any of the points I've made and are now attempting to dismiss that entire conversation as a whole (anyone who cares to comment on the topic can view said conversation and acquaint themselves on the context surrounding this if they're not familiar.) As for you, as I said before I don't want to waste time going in conversational circles, if you don't want to accept the argument based on the policies and guidelines that were cited for whatever reason then that's fine, but do not attempt to spread misinformation. It serves only a selfish purpose and in doing this you simply waste all of our time for, what I can only see as, petty satisfaction. If you have legitimate,

1336:

tangible examples that they believe supports their accusations, with the expectation being to initiate some sort of discussion as to why and how such examples, or the context behind them, may have been misconstrued.) Furthermore, as I indicated in my latest response to him in the Command Series section of this talk page, I've never engaged in harassment towards any user on Knowledge (XXG) and clear observation of all of my written responses shows that, in fact, if anything I myself may have been the victim of

1380:

interaction with them, where so far I've only really asked for some sort of proof supporting their claims, and in response have been simultaneously called an incompetent, stubborn, and rude individual (based on his demand to unblock me that I explain to him every one of the quoted articles he stated like a petulant child) which I find personally ludicrous given the information that they're basing their claims for the block off of.

878:. I don't intend to issue a warning, but you're on the short path to being asked to leave Knowledge (XXG) right now. Take a day or two away from the specific, and read all the blue links that Marchjuly has sent your way as part of the discussion. They will get you most of the way to understanding what you need to know, but sometimes they're confusing or Byzantine, so as before, please feel free to ask questions for clarification. 1081: 1220:

to the point of threatening/harassing other editors" of which assumes that any of what I said could be considered (using common sense for human decency) to be anywhere near the levels of that requiring a complete block from Knowledge (XXG) (let alone the ability for any administrator to simply have a rational discussion addressing said facts rather than immediately jumping to this.) See above replies to the

1134: 440: 345: 107: 489: 798:, points that go against my argument and show that there is an issue with the page and/or its content (not diversionary, irrelevant, or flat out baseless lines of conversation) towards this fact then I'd love to hear it and discuss it further. Otherwise please accept that the page is fully complaint with Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and policies as there is nothing in violation of this fact. 759:

really trying to understand them. Primary sources can be used on Knowledge (XXG), but their use is not automatic and can be a bit tricky and often further discussion is needed to sort them out; for this reason, secondary sources are preferred instead.Regardless, assuming that an editor has some “ulterior line of reasoning” for making an edit is basically accusing an editor of being

1098:. 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 1041: 590:"If you're going to start this daisy chain I will report you for page vandalism, nobody has the time nor patience for this. Leave policy enforcement to administrators." You certainly don't have the time to follow basic editing guidelines, considering you've reinstated it back to a revision which does not meet those guidelines. You do not 682:(bold, revert, revert back again discuss). Soetermans posted on the article's talk page explaining why he made his edit, and at that point you should've engage in discussion with him instead of reverting back to your preferred version almost 90 minutes later. Content disputes are resolved through discussion per 725:

and intend to report that offender should it continue to escalate, thank you for the word of caution. However, your interpretation of that referenced discussion seems to ignore the fact that the topic of the discussion diverged quite heavily in an attempt to establish the context as to why that image

914:

need to be satisfied, at the time I was under the assumption that if the page title did not fit the content within the page then it would be better if the title was rectified to reflect this rather than to retain an inaccurate title. Furthermore, I apologize if you feel my tone is "shouty" but to be

829:

version from 2 February per another request today, both in article content and page title. It seems that there was not consensus for the changes that you made. Please feel free to draft or discuss your suggested changes on the talk page. I would strongly advise against reverting either the page move

639:

I'd say a repeated mass deletion of encyclopedic content on a page could be considered vandalism, however as a member of the Counter-Vandalism unit you would know better as to what does technically constitute page vandalism. Additionally the content on that page was found to follow the basic editing

1411:

Is this some sort of game to you? Are you feeling pleasure in what I can only assume to be feelings of victory over someone you've deemed "in the wrong"? Despite having absolutely no idea who you are and not even interacting with you (at least as far as I can remember) in any manner before this and

1219:

An overreaction based on what appears to be lack of context regarding specific discussions, liberal application of Knowledge (XXG) guidelines to end a discussion (or the potential of one), and a blatant falsehood regarding the, and I quote, "verbal abuse" and "deliberate misinterpretation of policy

793:

You say that about the referenced conversation, yet you were the sole dissenting opinion (everyone else either deferred me to somewhere else or has yet to respond to the discussion.) In saying that you also appear to hold a heavy bias towards your initial opinion as you have yet to directly counter

758:

that would be seen as such by any admin who was asked for an opinion on the matter. S, if Soetermans’s edit summary or post was confusing, it’s perfectly OK to ask for clarification or seek input from others; reverting back to your preferred version, however, is sort dismissing his concerns without

958:

edit considered controversial and this is a result of a discussion attempting to obtain an explanation) from all edits by an administrator is astounding. If it is the actual, spirit of the policy, interpretation (again, as I've said in nearly all my discussion thus far, please prove me wrong) that

909:

reflects a viewpoint with little context at the larger discussion, as it simply assumes my points are baseless without proper examination) regarding discussion practices rather than basing the decision off of the content of the discussion? Since you've decided to not address any of the points I've

845:

Apologies, at the time I viewed the above message it was quite late in my local time zone. So anyways, you appeared to have been called into this larger conversation to simply enforce a decision by skipping the discussion step normally required for it to be implemented. I await your answers to the

1344:

since his initial joining of a conversation of mine on another talk page, he's followed me around through to all the different pages in which I've been active in discussions on as of late and has continuously challenged or simply needlessly made derivative comments on them until he could/would no

929:

Uninvolved admin here. I've been observing your behavior on multiple talk/project pages for the past few days, and every single editor you interacted with has been incredibly patient while you verbally abused them. Needless to say, we're tired of your nonsense. You are blocked until you decide

1379:

To the reviewing administrator, as you can obviously see the block-issuing administrator has some sort preconceived bias and a frankly unprofessional attitude coming into this entire situation, as even now I'm receiving confrontational, aggressive, and flat out stubborn responses in this brief

1335:

Please note that this is the individual who created the block, of whom may have some form of personal bias against whatever they found wrong in my behavior (as seen by their less than productive response to my latest commentary on the block, of which included a request for them to produce some

745:

Editors aren’t required to discuss any changes they want to make to an article in advance; they can be BOLD if they think the change is an improvement. Similarly another other who comes along and disagrees with the changes can also be BOLD and revert them regardless of who originally added the

674:, particularly when they leave an edit summary and follow up on the article's talk page explaining in terms of relevant policy and guidelines why they removed the content. It can be frustrating when that happens for sure, but when it does we're encouraged to follow 1426:

I'm not sure why you think wasting time on these long, incoherent rants is going to result in an unblock; it's quite bizarre honestly. I've already stated the conditions for unblock above, and I grow tired of repeating myself. The reasons for your block are in

706:; it is not a discussion about whether moving the page was appropriate or whether any of the content in the article is appropriate and you're the only one posting such things as part of your explanation to justify that particular file's non-free use. -- 730:

and I ended it with the warning for a report as seen on the edit summary. As you said, a discussion must be had before substantive changes like that occur, especially if there is going to be a substantive elimination of encyclopedic content on a

851:

Izno may I ask why this was done without the conclusion of this discussion in relation to said title? What was your ultimate reasoning for the title revert despite the content present on the page?Tookatee (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

354:

has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit

702:'s user talk page as if it represents some kind of validation/approval of the current state of the article. That discussion is only related to whether the non-free use of one particular image in the article is appropriate per 1250:

The block appears justified at first review, and your subsequent responses to it make that justification even clearer. Your approach to interacting with other editors is evidently not conducive to collaborative editing.

1394:

Aww touched a nerve, have I? You're free to sling every insult in the dictionary, but it's not going to get you unblocked. I'm just pleased that this block is preventing you from continuing to harm the encyclopedia.

365:

If you now believe the draft cannot meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add

1431:. And since it's such a mystery to you, why don't you take another gander. If you still think your treatment of other editors is all rainbows and sunshine, then guess what, you're going to stay blocked. - 598:; I am trying to get the page in line with Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines on articles. My edits were fine, I can assure you, but sure, all means, report me for page vandalism. See how that works out for you. 461:. The comment the reviewer left was: Lacks reviews from reliable sources outside of Wargamer.com which seems to be the only review the creator of the article found as well. This is not sufficient to pass 1021:. The dicussion forum is linked right off the main menu of the official site. Also, the official site template adds functionality to transfer data to wikidata so it preferred over plain http link -- 1345:

longer come up with anything further and I told them to cease their malicious activities (which as far as I can tell by their behavior, is for nothing else other than to prove themselves correct.) a.

505:. 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 746:

content or how long ago it was added. If the reverter leaves an edit summary explaining why and then follows up with a post on the article’s talk further clarifying why, then it’s probably best to

291: 874:

Please consider this next comment carefully: You have multiple independent experienced editors telling you that you are the one off the beaten track. You're moreover starting to get

560:

was perfectly fine, as you can see. I fixed the layout, removed the timely word 'currently', removed inappropriate acronyms (Knowledge (XXG) maintains a formal tone, we're not using

516:

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

167: 1061:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

666:

is not going to lead to a resolution of any of these issues. When you boldly add content to an article, another editor who disagrees with the changes you made can revert them (

871:. You moved the page boldly, to which a correct response at a much earlier date by any editor with the correct permissions may have been to move it back to the original title. 176: 289:! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the 1315:

to us, b) individually apologize to all users they have harassed, and c) promise to stop harassing/threatening behavior towards others (with the understanding that

188:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit

1056: 640:

guidelines as seen through the various administrators who've reviewed the page over a period of time in addition to discussion about its current format in this

506: 279: 73: 1287:

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.

509:

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

510: 1110: 750:

and ask for clarification, than reverting back to your preferred version, unless their revert reintroduces a serious and clear policy violation like

517: 380: 220: 154: 202:

If you now believe the draft cannot meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to

79: 910:

brought up in that larger conversation on the topic of the article name. Additionally, I'm now aware of the fact that all of those criterion for

767:

and stick to commenting on content and not contributors in these types of discussions, unless you’re planning on supporting such statements with

1272: 521: 1174: 38: 501:. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Knowledge (XXG) may not meet the criteria required by 427: 351: 113: 94: 1052: 362:

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

160: 24: 431: 203: 196: 98: 454: 403: 243: 68: 867:

Even when they do not, sometimes policy or guideline allows for an earlier conclusion. Particularly, Marchjuly correctly cited

320: 263: 305:, a friendly space on Knowledge (XXG) where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 1428: 1169: 686:

and don't automatically require an administrator getting involved. You're free of course to seek administrator assistance at

172: 1094:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 59: 513:; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. 1257: 623:

is really not appropriate. Reporting people for vandalism should only be done for actual vandalism, not content disputes.

1099: 502: 1147: 1141: 135: 1146:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1018: 497: 179:

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Knowledge (XXG).

954:

pages is enough to get indefinitely blocked (I guess forget having an actual discussion on a topic, you make

116:

has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

930:

you're ready to a) respect Knowledge (XXG)'s policies, b) stop harassing other editors you disagree with. -

1090: 1048: 764: 667: 458: 171:

of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see

142: 1188: 830:

or the revert. Feel free to ping me to this talk page if you have questions specific to these actions. --

1312: 695: 49: 379:

If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and

301: 219:

If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and

64: 662:. I understand we're not in agreement on a number of different things, but perhaps we can agree that 605: 579: 539: 1363:

for your own poor behavior, you're simply substantiating the need for this block. Have a nice day,

1360: 760: 755: 671: 569: 445:

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the

1413: 1381: 1346: 1229: 1152: 960: 916: 799: 784: 732: 711: 645: 409: 314: 257: 20: 1300: 614: 1337: 776: 184: 1432: 1396: 1364: 1320: 1255: 982: 931: 529: 472: 45: 1308: 1304: 978: 911: 906: 868: 861: 768: 703: 679: 565: 376:" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit. 216:" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit. 131: 1281: 1225: 1014: 974: 751: 747: 722: 691: 687: 675: 659: 591: 462: 337: 1118: 599: 573: 535: 1095: 772: 727: 683: 663: 119: 1341: 1066: 1026: 888: 835: 780: 707: 370: 306: 249: 210: 127: 905:

So you're citing opinionated interpretations of technical policies (your citation of

699: 1252: 624: 556:

Hi Tookatee, don't just hit the revert button on an article you're invested in. My

468: 1299:

opposed to an unblock at this time. I'd like to see the user a) read and explain

1295:

I'd like to request that the reviewing admin please decline this request, as I am

278: 1228:

for further specific examples and/or in depth context into the entire situation.

439: 344: 106: 1114: 1062: 1022: 884: 831: 422:

I made the corrections that were stated, it's now ready for review again.

946:

Wow...just wow. The sheer fact that a basic support of one's position on

1040: 528:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

1442: 1421: 1406: 1389: 1374: 1354: 1330: 1262: 1237: 1122: 1070: 1030: 992: 968: 941: 924: 892: 839: 807: 788: 740: 715: 653: 641: 634: 607: 581: 572:

sources. Please familiarize yourself with Knowledge (XXG) guidelines.

543: 478: 417: 326: 299:

questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the

269: 860:

Discussions may sometimes end earlier than you might expect. Review

1359:

I've stated your conditions for unblock above. By continuing to

1319:

repeat of this behavior will result in an instant re-block). -

195:

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to

698:

if you do so. Finally, you keep pointing to the discussion on

484:

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:CMOpromotionalart.jpg

404:

Knowledge (XXG)'s real-time chat help from experienced editors

244:

Knowledge (XXG)'s real-time chat help from experienced editors

15: 1433: 1397: 1365: 1321: 1132: 1079: 1039: 983: 932: 487: 438: 343: 105: 149:

coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in

141:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

1269:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

459:

not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)

206:, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add " 1289:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1013:

I have reverted your change to the the external inks at

386:

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the

226:

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the

183:

Needs reviews from video game reliable sources found on

1202: 1198: 1192: 1183: 1179: 1165: 1161: 1157: 620: 587: 557: 447: 396: 388: 236: 228: 1224:

Series section of this talk page and the talk page of

199:

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

1140:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

520:. If you have any questions, please ask them at the 1109:will be deleted after seven days, as described in 507:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free use rationale guideline 457:. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was: This topic is 130:. If you need help with referencing, please see 126:sources are required so that information can be 27:, where you can send them messages and comments. 118:This submission is not adequately supported by 1111:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion 1105:Note that any non-free images not used in any 977:, do you? But that's okay I guess, since you 518:section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion 1076:Orphaned non-free image File:Cmopromoart2.jpg 849: 594:the article. Look, I don't really care about 8: 1036:File:Cmopromoart2.jpg listed for discussion 779:if you wasn’t to test fate like that. — 694:if you like, but you should be aware of 143:qualifies for a Knowledge (XXG) article 1047:A file that you uploaded or altered, 846:questions I asked on that talk page. 455:Knowledge (XXG)'s real-time chat help 7: 1053:Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion 568:and most importantly, I removed the 532:of each individual file for details. 619:Just to piggyback on this comment, 181:The comment the reviewer left was: 981:. Enjoy your new echo chamber. - 350:Your recent article submission to 112:Your recent article submission to 14: 668:even after a long time has passed 44:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 503:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content 277: 204:Draft:Command: Modern Operations 197:Draft:Command: Modern Operations 39:Click here to start a new topic. 449:Articles for creation help desk 390:Articles for creation help desk 292:Articles for creation help desk 230:Articles for creation help desk 522:media copyright questions page 1: 1100:our policy for non-free media 678:(Bold, revert, discuss), not 544:01:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC) 36:Put new text under old text. 1340:, as seen by the actions of 564:as a shorthand), forums are 479:08:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 418:00:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 357:when they have been resolved 327:20:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 270:20:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 190:when they have been resolved 1144:, who declined the request. 825:action of reverting to the 145:—that is, they do not show 1471: 1443:07:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1422:05:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1407:04:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1390:03:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1375:01:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1355:01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1331:23:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 1263:08:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1238:18:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 1123:17:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 993:23:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 969:18:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 942:08:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 925:04:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 893:04:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 498:File:CMOpromotionalart.jpg 432:Command: Modern Operations 99:Command: Modern Operations 1429:your recent contributions 1273:guide to appealing blocks 1080: 1071:12:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 1031:12:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 840:00:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 808:12:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 789:11:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 763:, and it’s best to avoid 741:10:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 716:10:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 654:09:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 635:09:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 608:09:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 582:09:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 132:Referencing for beginners 74:Be welcoming to newcomers 1417: 1385: 1350: 1233: 964: 920: 803: 736: 670:) and their doing so is 649: 495:Thank you for uploading 413: 1137: 1085: 1044: 979:can only hear yourself 854: 492: 443: 348: 110: 69:avoid personal attacks 1189:change block settings 1136: 1091:File:Cmopromoart2.jpg 1088:Thanks for uploading 1083: 1051:, has been listed at 1049:File:Cmopromoart2.jpg 1043: 857:I have a few points. 658:Please be careful of 491: 442: 428:Articles for creation 352:Articles for Creation 347: 338:Articles for creation 114:Articles for Creation 109: 95:Articles for creation 644:with administrators. 398:reviewer's talk page 238:reviewer's talk page 821:Hi, I've taken the 511:image copyright tag 426:Your submission at 336:Your submission at 93:Your submission at 1138: 1086: 1045: 493: 444: 349: 311: 295:. If you have any 254: 111: 80:dispute resolution 41: 1096:claim of fair use 1055:. Please see the 621:this edit summary 618: 476: 465:for video games. 333: 332: 307: 250: 177:mistakes to avoid 165:sources that are 90: 89: 60:Assume good faith 37: 1462: 1440: 1439: 1436: 1404: 1403: 1400: 1372: 1371: 1368: 1328: 1327: 1324: 1286: 1280: 1208: 1206: 1195: 1177: 1175:deleted contribs 1135: 1082: 1019:WP:ELMINOFFICIAL 1015:Command (series) 990: 989: 986: 939: 938: 935: 631: 628: 612: 602: 576: 533: 490: 467: 452: 401: 393: 375: 369: 323: 317: 310: 281: 274: 273: 266: 260: 253: 241: 233: 215: 209: 175:and learn about 120:reliable sources 16: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1437: 1434: 1401: 1398: 1369: 1366: 1325: 1322: 1298: 1292: 1284: 1278: 1277:, then use the 1266: 1260: 1241: 1196: 1186: 1172: 1155: 1148:blocking policy 1133: 1130: 1113:. Thank you. -- 1078: 1038: 1011: 987: 984: 936: 933: 629: 626: 600: 574: 554: 527: 488: 486: 481: 477: 446: 436: 420: 395: 387: 373: 367: 341: 329: 321: 315: 308: 272: 264: 258: 251: 235: 227: 213: 207: 187: 180: 139: 103: 86: 85: 55: 12: 11: 5: 1468: 1466: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1296: 1267: 1258: 1248: 1244:Decline reason 1217: 1213:Request reason 1210: 1131: 1129: 1126: 1077: 1074: 1037: 1034: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 898: 897: 896: 895: 881: 880: 879: 872: 865: 855: 823:administrative 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 771:at one of the 637: 610: 553: 547: 485: 482: 466: 437: 435: 424: 408: 407: 384: 381:may be deleted 377: 363: 342: 340: 334: 331: 330: 284: 282: 248: 247: 224: 221:may be deleted 217: 200: 182: 173:technical help 140: 136:Citing sources 117: 104: 102: 91: 88: 87: 84: 83: 76: 71: 62: 56: 54: 53: 42: 33: 32: 29: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1467: 1444: 1441: 1430: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1373: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1339: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1329: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1294: 1293: 1291: 1290: 1283: 1276: 1274: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1256: 1254: 1247: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1216: 1214: 1209: 1204: 1200: 1194: 1190: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1171: 1167: 1166:global blocks 1163: 1162:active blocks 1159: 1154: 1149: 1145: 1143: 1142:administrator 1127: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1075: 1073: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1059: 1054: 1050: 1042: 1035: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1009:Eternal links 1008: 994: 991: 980: 976: 972: 971: 970: 966: 962: 957: 953: 949: 945: 944: 943: 940: 928: 927: 926: 922: 918: 913: 908: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 894: 890: 886: 882: 877: 873: 870: 866: 863: 859: 858: 856: 853: 848: 847: 844: 843: 842: 841: 837: 833: 828: 824: 809: 805: 801: 797: 792: 791: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 765:WP:ASPERSIONS 762: 757: 753: 749: 744: 743: 742: 738: 734: 729: 724: 721:I'm aware of 720: 719: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 672:not vandalism 669: 665: 661: 657: 656: 655: 651: 647: 643: 638: 636: 633: 632: 622: 616: 615:edit conflict 611: 609: 606: 603: 597: 593: 589: 586: 585: 584: 583: 580: 577: 571: 567: 563: 559: 551: 548: 546: 545: 541: 537: 531: 525: 524:. Thank you. 523: 519: 514: 512: 508: 504: 500: 499: 483: 480: 474: 470: 464: 460: 456: 451: 450: 441: 433: 429: 425: 423: 419: 415: 411: 405: 400: 399: 392: 391: 385: 382: 378: 372: 364: 361: 360: 358: 353: 346: 339: 335: 328: 324: 318: 312: 304: 303: 298: 294: 293: 288: 283: 280: 276: 275: 271: 267: 261: 255: 245: 240: 239: 232: 231: 225: 222: 218: 212: 205: 201: 198: 194: 193: 191: 186: 178: 174: 170: 169: 164: 163: 158: 157: 152: 148: 144: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 115: 108: 100: 96: 92: 81: 77: 75: 72: 70: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 51: 47: 46:Learn to edit 43: 40: 35: 34: 31: 30: 26: 22: 18: 17: 1361:blame others 1316: 1313:WP:CONSENSUS 1288: 1270: 1268: 1249: 1243: 1242: 1226:this article 1221: 1218: 1212: 1211: 1184:creation log 1151: 1139: 1106: 1104: 1089: 1087: 1057: 1046: 1012: 975:don't get it 955: 951: 947: 875: 850: 826: 822: 820: 795: 696:WP:BOOMERANG 642:conversation 625: 595: 561: 555: 549: 530:page history 526: 515: 496: 494: 448: 434:(February 8) 421: 397: 389: 356: 300: 296: 290: 286: 237: 229: 189: 166: 161: 155: 150: 146: 123: 101:(February 2) 168:independent 147:significant 1180:filter log 1128:March 2020 1058:discussion 952:discussion 827:status quo 761:WP:NOTHERE 756:WP:COPYVIO 601:soetermans 575:soetermans 570:WP:PRIMARY 536:FastilyBot 1342:Marchjuly 1301:WP:HARASS 1271:read the 1199:checkuser 1158:block log 781:Marchjuly 708:Marchjuly 394:, on the 309:AngusWOOF 252:AngusWOOF 234:, on the 162:secondary 151:published 82:if needed 65:Be polite 25:talk page 1414:Tookatee 1382:Tookatee 1347:Tookatee 1338:WP:HOUND 1297:strongly 1230:Tookatee 1170:contribs 1153:Tookatee 1107:articles 961:Tookatee 917:Tookatee 800:Tookatee 796:specific 777:WP:3RRNO 769:WP:DIFFs 733:Tookatee 700:Explicit 646:Tookatee 534:Thanks, 410:Tookatee 302:Teahouse 287:Tookatee 185:WP:VG/RS 156:reliable 128:verified 124:Reliable 50:get help 21:Tookatee 19:This is 1309:WP:NFCC 1305:WP:IDHT 1282:unblock 1253:Yunshui 1222:Command 1193:unblock 912:WP:RMUM 907:WP:SNOW 869:WP:RMUM 862:WP:SNOW 704:WP:NFCC 680:WP:BRRD 596:Command 566:WP:ELNO 550:Command 469:ZXCVBNM 453:or use 402:or use 285:Hello, 242:or use 1438:ASTILY 1402:ASTILY 1370:ASTILY 1326:ASTILY 988:ASTILY 937:ASTILY 876:shouty 773:WP:ANs 752:WP:BLP 748:WP:AGF 723:WP:3RR 692:WP:AN3 688:WP:ANI 676:WP:BRD 660:WP:3RR 588:*sigh* 552:series 463:WP:GNG 1275:first 1115:B-bot 731:page. 728:WP:EW 684:WP:DR 664:WP:EW 562:CMANO 371:Db-g7 322:sniff 297:other 265:sniff 211:Db-g7 78:Seek 1418:talk 1386:talk 1351:talk 1234:talk 1119:talk 1067:talk 1063:Whpq 1027:talk 1023:Whpq 1017:per 973:You 965:talk 950:and 948:talk 921:talk 889:talk 885:Izno 836:talk 832:Izno 804:talk 785:talk 737:talk 712:talk 650:talk 627:Grey 558:edit 540:talk 473:TALK 414:talk 316:bark 259:bark 134:and 67:and 1317:any 1203:log 1150:). 1102:). 956:one 754:or 690:or 630:joy 592:own 23:'s 1420:) 1388:) 1353:) 1311:, 1307:, 1303:, 1285:}} 1279:{{ 1246:: 1236:) 1215:: 1197:• 1191:• 1187:• 1182:• 1178:• 1173:• 1168:• 1164:• 1160:• 1121:) 1069:) 1029:) 967:) 923:) 891:) 883:-- 838:) 806:) 787:) 739:) 718:\ 714:) 652:) 604:. 578:. 542:) 430:: 416:) 374:}} 368:{{ 359:. 325:) 319:• 268:) 262:• 214:}} 208:{{ 192:. 159:, 153:, 122:. 97:: 48:; 1435:F 1416:( 1399:F 1395:- 1384:( 1367:F 1349:( 1323:F 1259:水 1232:( 1207:) 1205:) 1201:( 1156:( 1117:( 1084:⚠ 1065:( 1025:( 985:F 963:( 934:F 919:( 887:( 864:. 834:( 802:( 783:( 735:( 710:( 648:( 617:) 613:( 538:( 475:) 471:( 412:( 406:. 383:. 366:" 313:( 256:( 246:. 223:. 138:. 52:.

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

Index