Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore

1037:- I don't have any opinion about the suitability of this particular draft, but it seems to me that, in general, (1) Being a Knowledge editor should have no bearing on whether a person is the subject of a Knowledge article or not (notability should be the key), so that's not a reason to delete; (2) If a draft article displays bias when it is created (not saying that this one does, just talking about the general case), it can be altered by uninvolved editors, so that's not a reason to delete unless all of the text would need to be replaced; (3) Anyone who is the subject of a Knowledge article automatically has a conflict of interest about that article, so there 's no reason to be surprised or complain that Carol has one. Her COI is clearly disclosed, and she has a right to express her opinion, point out sources, call for changes, or even call for the deletion of the article as long as those reading it are aware of the context. Neutral editors will take her position as subject into account when reading and weighing her arguments. — 376:

friends" is unhelpful, btw.) I've already explained to you that I am aware of thousands of mentions of your name in sources and that they need to be evaluated: most will be useless fringe stuff but some will be ok. This is not something that will happen overnight but I've also invited you to comment as it develops. Given that you are on record as regretting the previous deletion, I'm surprised that you are objecting now. Your rationale appears to be entirely based on the assumption that I cannot research or write articles neutrally - indeed, you've called it "opposition research" in the thread on my talk page that you link above. I can be neutral etc and the research is as open as it can be, hence the vast numbers of sources to be evaluated. Carol, I detest what the Brits did to much of India's society but you'll never get that impression from my writings in Indic articles: I'm bloody good at this article writing lark, even if I say so myself. -

3429:. I don't have any particular inclination to lean Keep or Delete on this one - if the subject is notable, or has become more notable since the last AFD (and I make no claims on that score), then an article is indeed appropriate. But on what planet does it seem like a good idea to draft an article about an editor with whom you are in an ongoing dispute? Even if the article is sound, it creates the appearance of bias, and that brings everything else into question. It would be better for all concerned if someone else wrote this article - and you may be assured that, if she is indeed notable, someone else would. But creating this article, on this subject, right after being accused of hounding that subject? I think it shows, at best, an exceptional level of bad judgement. At worst, it is a continuation of hounding behavior for which the author has already been warned. So, Delete per 1314:. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of one Wikipedian writing a biography of another Wikipedian when there have been protracted disputes and ill-feeling between them. It's nothing to do with Sitush or Carolmooredc personally, or with how well-sourced the article is or isn't—I think that writing a biography in this context is a terrible idea on its face and I would implore everyone involved to delete the article and walk away. I don't think the encyclopedia suffers in any substantial way from the lack of a Carol Moore biography, and I think the potential for harm—either real or in the form of prolonged disputes and drama—far outweighs any benefit that will come from having a biography written under these circumstances. 1564:

attack”, etc. Everything must be properly sourced and anyone can remove unsupported content without being subject to 3RR. That’s not going to help a user draft a BLP, however, since a user should generally have content control of said user’s space. So I see a large downside to having a draft BLP in a user space without any upside. Plus, given the reported animosity of the drafter towards the subject, removing the draft seems like what is best for the encyclopedia. And yes, I did read the draft. I’m not saying it’s bad. I’m saying it should either be out there as a BLP where we can all contribute to it, or drafted off line until it’s ready.--

2917:- What a piece of crap. It's badly written, cobbling together bits and pieces of this and that about the subject in to an incoherent nothing. Worse, the COI element makes it impossible for Sitush to write from an NPOV point of view, and there is a clear-cut agenda underlying the article. Sitush has stepped waaaaay over the line here; this piece is designed to out, and to embarrass, serving as to display his overt hostility to another editor. Yet again, the community turns a blind eye to harassment of a female editor and fosters a climate hostile to all women editors. -- 52:. reason? IAR. Seriously. It is clear that the only reason that Sitush has created this article (draft) is because of the conflict with Carolmooredc. Whether she is notable or not is not important. Sitush should stay far away from any article on her, never mind start it. Do no harm and all that fancy stuff. There is no acceptable reason why we should let this happen. I have no problem if neutral editors (like Milowent) want to have a go at an article on carolmoore, if they believe she is sufficiently notable to override BLP wishes of the subject. But then 3138:

to get an admin to get him to stop, to call me and “idiot”, to 7 or 8 times harass me cause I started a subsection in a lengthy thread, to say I’m spewing verbal diarrhea for quoting his opposition to the gender gap task force in a relevant forum, to harass me claiming a typical BLPN notice of relevant RSN discussion is forum shopping, to write at the task force page “This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present.” and calls me a “goading prat."

1002:

be improved upon. Otherwise, it doesn't look like a dossier, it looks like an article. I've not checked the references, but the wording is neutral and there is the distinct possibility that the subject is notable. Whether or not the subject is a Wikipedian is hardly relevant, and so is the liking or otherwise by the subject. When you're leading a public life, you get publicity. Some you like, some you don't. This is not a possible G4, in my opinion. Same subject - different article.

2496:... this userpage is very clearly an attempt to ratchet up the endless war between the subject of the proposed BLP and the article author, and thus is antithetical to everything the project should be about. It is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen; we don't want everyone's biggest and angriest opponents on Knowledge to be writing new BLPs about their opponents - it really is, and will be, massively destructive. If I may quote RHaworth here, Sitush should kindly 3652:

draft space' group, and possibly suggest a hopefully voluntary undertaking by the two main combatants to leave it alone. I'm sure that there are enough people here who can do anything needed to sort out anything that needs sorting, and then ask someone not involved here (like JohnCD, Boing! said Zebedee, Thryduulf - or a committee of like people noted for fairness and the rule of law) to review it. It would save a lot more shit being flung.

2936:

a blind eye" doesn't help your argument. The very fact that this discussion exists shows that no eye has been turned. Perhaps I should nominate all the bios of other past and present female editors for deletion, just on the off-chance that at some point in the future they might become attack pages? And all male editors for the same reason, in reverse. And all politicians. Etc. It is nonsense, it really is. -

2400:- As per multiple editors above, including SlimVirgin and MastCell, the editor who is preparing this article has a strong antipathy for its subject, and should not be editing the article in user space. Whether the article would pass AFD in mainspace is only indirectly related. It would be a stretch, but not much of a stretch, to request that it be speedied as an attack page. The author has made it 1296:

does certainly affect whether this behaviour is acceptable. The fact that something would be OK if it wasn't for the rules against harassment doesn't mean it isn't harassment - exploiting the rules to get at someone is a type of harassment. If this person genuinely is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia then someone with no on-wiki history with the subject can write the article.

3460:), you're not doing anything to further your point. You're just badgering. If you really want to AGF on this issue, I'd suggest that you AGF that whichever admin gets stuck closing this can tell which responses are IDONTLIKEIT and which are not. Quite honestly, your conduct here on this MFD did more to convince me that the article was tainted, and that the arguments based on 3759: 2602:'s reasoning not persuasive. As is mentioned in the page: "More generally, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all." It is evident that Sitush has done this. 1909:

Sitush's observation that "you are on record as regretting the previous deletion I'm surprised that you are objecting now", and agreeing with the second part if the first part is correct. Nevertheless you'll get what you want this time around—enough comments have sidestepped the merits of the draft BLP and fallen for the BS that frames it here.

3826:

this does not make it an attack piece. If the one quote from Kelly were struck, there would be basically no overtly negative material at all. That said, given the size of the confrontation going on between these two, I don't think having this in Sitush's userspace is remotely a good idea. NPOV and all that jazz. So, move.

3915:

Must be those four planets in leo of mine, just give me a BIG personality which comes through in my writing and is more than some can take. :-) But seriously, I don't know what/which the heck political/religious/ideological differences you are talking about here and I've been involved. So others must

3506:

Sitush, but that's exactly my point. I'm not saying you're hounding her (and I'm not saying you're not). What I'm saying is that a dispute exists between you and the article subject. Put another way, if someone sued me for harassment, I'd have a COI with regard to that individual even if their claims

3137:

Sitush has followed me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages to cast aspersions for more than a year, to do so at the Gender Gap task force after he already stated he thought it should be closed down, to keep reverting my strike of an admitted erroneous talk page statement until I have

2735:

Well just when I thought the comments by CMDC and some of the delete peeps had reached the outer limits of detachment from reality, along comes a delete vote that's based on nothing more than a base speculation, unsupported by so much as a single instance taken from Sitush's edit history, that Sitush

1908:

alleges the draft BLP is an attack page that disparages, threatens, intimidates or harasses you. Show me a single element of the page's content that attacks, disparages, threatens, intimidates or harasses you. You can't. Did you claim non-notability as the reason to delete? You did not. Also, noting

1868:

as Ms. Moore claims. As far as I know there's no proscription on editors creating or contributing to articles about people they dislike or disagree with. On the other hand, if Ms. Moore's MfD were based on her non-notability, I'd probably vote delete—she doesn't appear to be notable as an activist or

1341:

Yes, I've read it. But, as I mentioned my view has little to do with the content or current state of the article. My concern is more abstract: I think it's a terrible idea for one Wikipedian to write a biography of another Wikipedian when there's bad blood between them. I view that as a general (and,

1001:

You don't have to like your subject to write a sound article about it. Sometimes it's better not to like it, as there's a greater incentive to be neutral... I would suggest 'protester' rather than 'protestor' (unless that is another of those American things...), and the 'failed to earn' could perhaps

888:

above. However, the content in question is not a collection of Carol's actions on wiki, but a well sourced, and well written proto-article of a possibly/semi notable person. Carol may not like the article or author, and it is possible Sitush is writing the article to jab at Carol, but others rightly

375:

Why? I am pretty well known for being a good researcher and there is no point in starting from a base that was rejected. A clean slate seems like a better place to begin although, yes, I may ask someone to provide a copy of the old version at some stage, just as a cross-check. (The snarky "your Admin

3183:

The draft could be discussed rationally and there would be no need for a discussion here if it's purpose was to create an article that would survive a second AfD. This article would not because that is not it's purpose. It's purpose is to harass me, waste my time, and obviously it ends up wasting a

2935:

If it is badly written then improve it - I've already said that anyone can edit the thing. What you have to bear in mind is that this is a work in progress. You are yet another who has not given a policy-compliant reason to delete. And that you end with rhetoric about "yet again, the community turns

2625:

that relate specifically to this proposed deletion. People are not doing their research here and they're stifling content creation on the (incorrect) premise that I'm incapable of writing neutrally or assessing notability. No-one has ever successfully accused me of POV; not one article created by me

1392:

There is an inherent conflict of interest in writing a biography about someone you have been in a conflict with. If there is to be an article it should be written by other people. The contents of this article should be either merged at the discretion of other editors or deleted if the content is not

1295:

while this may be an honest attempt to write an encyclopedia article, a history of on-wiki animosity between the author and the subject strongly indicates that harassment is a part of the motivation. While that doesn't affect whether the subject is notable or our other article inclusion criteria, it

638:

For those who actually read the article, it's policy compliant. It's neutral, factually based, and not disparging of the subject. Putting the fact that the subject is a Knowledge editor aside, this page would not be normally deleted - so I see no reason as to why it should be deleted here. Sitush is

606:

Hmmm, indeed. You forgot about the split? I mentioned it in a message above! When it goes live, you should not edit it at all - leave that for BLPN etc. However, I'd rather that you raise any concerns now rather than later: I've no desire to keep unacceptable material or refs in there. So, I'll hang

404:

he didn't like and got away with it for a long time even in days when allegedly Knowledge was more civil. And there are certainly more like that editing now. So getting a COIN about someone trying to write mostly neutral info about issues is even more difficult. ("Trying" because the harassment from

3311:

It could have spill-over effect of increasing respect between you and those you deem as "attackers", via normal discussion/collaboration to reach said neutrality. In fact Sitush has already solicited your inputs and awaits them to rectify inaccuracies. There is potential for a very collegial end to

484:

and I didn't see anyone fixing it up. And didn't know about AfDing. I mostly removed crap and later just put refs on the couple things that were accurate. That has no relation to conflict of interest on other Knowledge articles. Nevertheless, just in case this doesn't represent the whole community,

423:

No. Like I said, try to assume good faith. I know you find that a difficult thing to do but try, please. I'm constructing a BLP and have no interest in whether you are a woman, a man or even a Something From Outer Space. It is true that I think you have had conflicts of interest - in fact, that has

3825:

I will be blunt; when I came to this page, I was expecting to vote delete, given all the shit flying around at Sitush's talk page. I then read the article, and I don't seem to be finding much problematic material. It needs work, sure, especially the reams of quotation, which I am not a fan of. But

503:

Actually, it does relate, although you may not have realised it at the time. You should have mentioned it on the article talk page or BLPN and let someone else sort it out. Carol, even today you often claim not to understand this or that policy. I find that surprising, given how long you have been

4072:

Sort of. Notability doesn't apply directly, but it does apply to a finished article about this subject, if and when. Whether or not the subject is notable is relevant to defining this as either a draft article or a userspace page in the form of an article that talks about a non-notable wikipedian

3651:

So what does the draft contain that makes it deletable? Is there any trace of possible disrespect IN it? Anything APART from the name of the author? I'm not taking intentions into account - both bad and good intentions can lead to good and bad results. I'm getting inclined to join the 'move it to

3589:

Will editors please explain how outing is involved (was CM safely closeted before, or was her identity reasonably widely known?), what is a breach of BLP in the draft article, and what the sex of the combatants has to do with things? I see a lot of 'I don't like it' and 'one shouldn't write about

1563:

It’s more than just Knowledge editors with specific knowledge that can see it. Anyone Googling Carol Moore will see it and see it as a Knowledge page. Hence in my opinion it should be subject to the same standards as BLP, even though it is a “draft”. BLP is a lot more stringent than simply “no

1548:

Yes, but when it's put in article space, it's open to view. Here, we're just seeing it sooner. Are you saying it doesn't pass BLP or should be kept under cover until the launch? I see no objection to drafting in user space subject to the usual restrictions on copyvio, hoax, attack and spam. And I

714:

five years ago, and was only a "lean keep" which is faint praise from an inclusionist like myself (and the consensus was clearly to delete); but in any event this discussion is about having a Knowledge editor's bio in someone's else's userspace, not an AfD about a mainspace article. Furthermore,

571:

Hmmmm, I forgot about the split. Well, now that it is clear someone does intend to f*ck with the article, which was my original concern, I might as well make sure that when it goes live I immediately put up all the good refs and what the good stuff they ref and other refs collected since. And, of

4129:

As the article does not meet GNG, it appears to be improper use of user space (or other wikipdia space) due to interpersonal conflict. The author may, of course, blog about the subject on another internet domain but should not import that conflict on the subject matter to this domain per NOT and

315:

AGF, for God's sake. This is a genuine effort, as I've explained to you on my talk page, and I can't see a single attack in what is said thus far. At least one arbitrator is also aware. If you're notable then you're notable. The prior AfDs closed as (1) no consensus and (2) delete, but with many

2693:

In fact, I can't see anyone here who has come up with a good faith policy-compliant reason to delete. All I am seeing are accusations of bad faith and unsubstantiated claims (especially those of CMDC herself, who says that even the extant, part-complete version has errors but seems unwilling to

2643:

I think the draft is neutral so far but can anyone guarantee me that the draft will be neutral after the Mfd is closed as keep? Since Sitush has been in conflict with the subject at multiple occasion (even here in this MfD), I'm afraid that Sitush may add stuffs in the draft that may harass the

2460:

in a new form. The policy's lead describes Sitush's behavior: "repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." This recent action is an example of that lead's second, single-sentence paragraph: "Harassment can also include

906:

Absolutely normal and good practice to work on drafts in your user space. That the subject is also a WP editor is irrelevant. If there are inaccuracies in the article, that should be pointed out on the talkpage and discussed. In the unlikely case that Sitush would not heed such notices, there's

3898:(2) applies to most WP regulars. CMDC is an aggressive and polarising figure. Topic-banning those who happen to have fallen on one side of that polarisation is system-gaming at its worst. We don't topic-ban Democrats from editing the articles of Republicans, nor Protestants those of Catholics. 3780:

The thing about The Beatles would be trivial if it were not for the fact that the article subject notes it as a defining moment for her and, yes, links it to some sort of heightened awareness of feminist issues (I'm very roughly paraphrasing here). Carolmooredc is correct to say that there are

3108:

something if somebody would indeed insert POV. Also, this is MfD, not AfD. Notability does not really play much of a role here. Perhaps if there was absolutely no case to be made for notability, but as Sitush says, previous AfDs were divided. And the current article lists no less than four (4)

1369:

As I said, my concern turns on common sense and good judgement, both of which (in my view) would argue against writing a biography of an on-wiki opponent. Our policies generally don't legislate common sense or good judgement, nor do they cover every possible edge case. If your point is that no

4053:

it is found that there are no concerns over BLP and COI, then Sitush is free to fill his userspace with absolutely anything he likes? And therefore, notability is not a reason to delete in this case? Heck, I've started things in my userspace (not BLPs) that had no sources; should all those be

1863:

Exactly. In fact if one bears in mind the premise that, as some other editor here put it, Sitush "hates Carole Moore's guts", the article is a shining example of how to do a BLP that's scrupulously NPOV, totally policy-compliant, and exhibits not a shred of animus towards the subject. Hardly

340:

If this was sincere, you would be using refs from the old article which your Admin friends easily could give you and not just be relying on my primary source comments, non-Rs and two book reviews. For example, material from the Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The

3590:

other Wikipedians' with no specifics mentioned or references given to actual rules or even guidelines. I made two points about things in the draft somewhere above. Can we have a bit more reviewing with proper points and less name calling from any of the various sides currently involved?

2552:

Unlikely to survive a move to mainspace due to GNG is just not there. No significant commentary outside of fringe ones or self-published. But more because this is not nice to Carol the editor. If someone wants to write this one, it really should be done offsite. Carol doesn't deserve

222:

I have asked at speedy deletion if it is too late to ask the page be deleted under the criteria: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" and "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose".

953:

calls out his bullshit). Sitush should simply say publicly "I hate Carol Moore"; now, instead he acts like a total pussy and creates this bio? Come on now, we're all better than that. Find me another case of an editor writing a bio in his userspace about another editor he hates?

2744:"harrass" CMDC if the MfD result is keep; and which, further, smears Sitush as untrustworthy, again without a single diff as evidence. And all this directed at an experienced and accomplished BLP editor who by their own account has never, ever, been found to have violated NPOV. 3966:: Past AfDs indicate unlikely to survive as an article, so there's no purpose in keeping a draft around (here or in draft space). Others above have addressed the merits of notability. Even if there is some notability, it would have to be enough to defeat the preference in 3545:

Whether or not a comment is actually laughable, it's a dick move to dismiss it with "thanks for the laugh." And I don't get your comment about AGF. Of course, to improve a draft article, discussion would be best held on the talk page. But that's not what we're discussing.

715:

when one posts "Monday has come round and I'm off again. Should I do anything related to Knowledge, it probably will involve an analysis of (Carol Moore)" -- this only means one thing: "Monday has come round and I've decided to fuck with Carol Moore." Put an end to it.--

3867:

reasons. Has any new material emerged to suggest that she now meets the criteria? (2) If this person is to have a wikipedia article, it should be not be written or worked on by someone with whom she has had an extended conflict on wikipedia, and who she believes is

3507:

were shown to be baseless. It would not be proper for me to write an article about them, and to do so would be asking for trouble. I believe the same thinking applies here. I don't know whether there is impropriety or not - I'm saying that there is a rather obvious

1697:

Your concern for this issue is touching. Yes, I have. Why do you ask? Frankly I'd nominate it for AfD as not notable if it went to the mainspace. That a user is creating an article about another user who is not particularly well known is stinks of hounding.

504:

here. But what p's me off is your continued yellings of wrong-doings where none exist. You've done that at least twice in the last 24 hours in my case. If you act more reasonably, you'll likely get a more reasonable response: I'm not some sort of beastly man. -

3479:

Ultraexactzz, your are making the assumption that there is validity to the claim of hounding. As Carolmooredc is demonstrating almost by the minute at the moment, the likelihood of that being the case is slim. All I am doing is responding to her accusations. -

2478:

This is more of a user conduct issue than a suitability-of-draft issue. I see poor behavior from everyone involved. Suggest moving this to draft space, and assurance that Carol Moore and Sitush will both keep their hands off - and this includes the talk page.

706:: Keeping a dossier bio on another Knowledge member in your userspace is a terrible idea. I've never seen something like this (would love to see precedent though). They can keep such stuff off wiki if they wish. The closest thing that comes to mind is 962:(son writes article on dead father; enemies descend, never was notable, gets deleted after major drama) will no doubt ensue. A lot of "editors" like that drama though. I'm gonna step away from this debate now and let others weigh in however they wish.-- 3795:

I'm sure it's a defining moment for her, that does not convince me it's not trivial to an encyclopaedia, and it doesn't rate anywhere on any Richter scale for notable criticism involving the Beatles. I don't think this soup has any vegetables in it.

1198:

If the editors here decide that the there is enough notability that the article should be kept, it could be moved to Draft: space, a more neutral location, for revision since some editors are reluctant to make changes to another editor's userspace.

673: 424:

been proven in the past - but it has no bearing on writing a BLP about someone who, while not famous, I do think has a reasonable notability. That notability was mentioned in the prior AfDs but not followed-through with additional sourcing etc. -

3104:?? I'm baffled by comments like "it's neutral now, but Sitush will make it an attack page as soon as this is over" and others like it. If you're really afraid of that, no need to say it out loud, just put the wretched thing on your watchlist and 1277:

per Gaijin42 and Randykitty. Looks to be a pretty good, policy-compliant BLP in the making. Whatever emotional response Ms. Moore's viscera trigger in Sitush, it's irrelevant to the question of whether to keep or delete the page as it stands.

4170:??? What edit war? Far as I can see, neither Sitush nor Carolmoredc are edit warring. All Carol did was put in a link to this MfD that got broken because of the move to Draft space. Can you please explain why you think this is edit warring? -- 4151:

and state he would stay away from it. That’s fine. It has a “no index” tag and other editors can work on it to see if it is worth posting. But now I see that CarolMooredc and Sitush are already edit warring over it. It’s time to pull the

3675:

while sources are found. The involvement with the Beatles and the women's rights movement of the 1960s may suggest further sources (eg: old newspapers and magazines) could be found to cement notability. I don't worry over who wrote what, and

4238:, despite many precedents being set for development of drafts in User: space. Until the Draft: namespace became available many good editors used their own user space. The draft is well balanced, well sourced and neutral. Moore seems to meet 2792:

I am not certain about the job you are talking about, this time you couldn't spell my username(it is not Blademulti, it is Bladesmulti), you can blame it on a semi-bot program(Autowikibrowser) that you are using but the fault is only yours.

3781:

several references to it, including on some websites (not hers) that may well have copied verbatim from the book. The feminist angle itself, as Ritchie333 notes, may lead somewhere and really put that defining moment into perspective. -

3561:

You know what's worse? Its when the other user dismisses this draft as "what a piece of crap". Thus I disagree. You have already got that I was talking about the improvement of draft, and reason to delete, like Peridon has also pointed.

4032:), and the organizations she's associated with are extremely fringey. Still, this page appears to be a credible attempt at creating an article about the subject, and notability can be determined if and when it is moved into mainspace. 316:

people pointing out that there were sources out there. I didn't see the old version but I'll be astonished if my version isn't better. If that sounds like arrogance then so be it but please give me a chance. WP is not censored. -

3334:. It is hard to see this as anything but a blatant act of intimidation from an editor who has a grudge against his subject. It's really creepy that Sitush would decide to draft an article for Carol right after she warned him for 4186:

I've written hundreds of biographical articles. I took a quick swipe at writing this like a REAL ARTICLE, without the fluff and baloney, though I left a little bit because there would be so little otherwise. Here is the diff

1443:

My comment above is apparently open to misinterpretation, so here is an expansion: It would be difficult, even if desirable, to ensure that only editors with no negative interaction with Carolmooredc would edit the new article

707: 2591:

I have no overall opinion, nor sufficient experience with policy. However, I have read the article, started in the user's own space: it is almost totally neutral and well sourced. It seems to me that the subject does not meet

1885:

I'm no more notable than when it was deleted and Sitush was well aware of that AfD. So it's clear that his motivation was hostile. Superior distain might describe it better than hate. We must be more careful with our words.

2517:

Regardless of the background to the creation of this draft, it seems entirely evident that the subject does not meet Knowledge notability guidelines, and accordingly no useful purpose can be served by keeping it.

3208:

You appear to be congenitally incapable of telling the truth, but rather good at fantasising and rabble rousing. How can you possibly know the purpose of the article, and how can articles have purposes anyway?

2289:; the book is not widely known, the Nightline appearance was not indepth; and she wants it deleted. Given Sitush's relations with Carol, using Knowledge to post biographical details does seem problematic. -- 944:

The problem, guys, is that Sitush has admitted he hates Carol's guts; that's a fat 'ol COI and he shouldn't be writing this. He has said of Carol (just last week), "She does nothing but stir shit." (look

3894:

if the article creator wants to argue that previous AFD results should be overturned so that the article can be recreated on the basis of new information. This discussion is about a draft article in user

1446:

because anyone who hasn't been specifically banned for a serious infraction of Knowledge's policies is free to edit any article and most negative interactions are not serious enough to invoke such a ban.

842:

of Wikipedian's who have pages. I doubt any of them had influence on what went into their articles (and I doubt they were allowed to object to their articles creation). What gives Carol the right to?

959: 2826:

Show me one diff where I did it. You cannot even show. There was no error when I was writing names, you still got the ping. Better don't evade your problematic writing by falsely accusing others.

2277: 1948:

Carol I am having a hard time finding things wrong with the article, forget who drafted it there are policies we have in place to ensure that BLP articles are treated with the highest respect. -

711: 639:

doing a great job of being neutral here, and I apologize if Carol finds this page harassing. I can't see anything in it that's private or not found on the internet already. Let's move along now.

244: 889:

point out - writing article drafts in user space is a well-accepted practice. If the article itself does not violate policy, there is not a reason to delete it, regardless of Sitush's motives.

2807:

It is certainly not a fault? You yourself typed "User::Jim Carter - Public" instead of "User:Jim Carter - Public". Don't ask others to do things perfectly until you yourself do it perfectly.

3970:

of complying with subjects' requests for deletion. Even if you presume—which I do not—that the harassment claim is simply a tactical complaint, we're still well within deletion territory. —/

946: 2574:. I agree with Mastcell. It is a bad idea to write a bio about someone with whom you have a dispute. If someone else creates the article, it may have trouble establishing notability. 2141:. I have little doubt that the article..if it even survived an AfD...would eventually turn from its current benign bio into a platform for vandalism and attacks, as they invariably do. 179: 2773:, you both don't have to judge !votes here. Leave it to the closing admin. BTW "Harrass" was a typo, Blademulti instead of asking others to learn something why don't you do your job? 1102:

her if she's already done it herself? You've outted her more than Sitush has by using her real name just now. Nobody else would have been able to guess that "Carolmooredc" would mean

2137:

Yes; it is the simple fact that it exists, in any form, that is the problem. Creating BLPs on people that one is in dispute with is a tried and true tactic within this project, cf.

295:

I've reported this to OTRS and asked them to remove this and any future bios from Knowledge until and unless I become truly notable. But just in case, feel free to delete it now.

3167:, so please stick to the point. Please explain to us what is wrong with that draft. If serious, we'll act upon it. If nothing, then please move to end this discussion. Thanks. -- 2626:

has ever been deleted. I write GA stuff; I do a phenomenal amount of POV cleaning etc.; I actively seek collaboration; I know what I'm doing when it comes to content creation. -

3531:, have you read what I was replying to? As for AGF, we have already suggested before that it was better to talk about the this draft on its talk page. But the nominator hadn't. 2308:

that the thing might end up being more suitably an article about the book than the author. Only time will tell but at least one of the current reviews is an academic journal. -

2107:. This is plain intimidation and harassment, not an honest or legitimate attempt to write a biography, given the level of invective that Sitush has directed at the subject. 1834:

Great! You've read it! Can you please show me where it's showing bias, and where (had Carol not had a Knowledge account) it would get pulled into MfD for violating policy?

553:

Considering the AfD was split between keep and delete, and many of the deletes were objecting to the poor state of the article, a good rewrite would probably be accepted.

405:

guys just does not stop.) The first two COIN's vs. me didn't stick and any new one won't either unless you can prove I'm getting paid to write for Knowledge and I'm not.

3872:

her. In fact this person should be topic-banned from such an article. It doesn't even matter if it's NPOV, the perception of harassment/hounding is what matters here.

3309:, the end product may be a perfectly neutral article on you in mainspace. What is wrong w/ that? (Are you ambivalent about that, pro, or con? And why? Just curious.) 958:, I know you despise Carol, but would you REALLY do that? If its gonna stay, it should go into mainspace now, so it can go to AFD, where a clusterfuck approaching 733:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're actually encouraged to start articles in our userpace prior to pushing them out to the mainspace when they're ready, are we not?

2535:

as a favor to Sitush. I'll mention GNG to tick the boxes, but the fundamental problem is that CMDC has got under Sitush's skin, and the latter is reacting poorly.

2644:

subject if the MfD is closed as keep. Although I believe Sitush can write neutral articles but since he has prior rivalry with the subject, I can't trust him.

765: 99: 157:

the user wrote on their talk page that they were going to be analyzing me, linking to my website. I posted a harassment warning. At the subsequent discussion

1370:

specific policy forbids Sitush from writing a biography of Carol Moore, then I would say that you're technically correct but focused on the wrong question.

396:, someplace you threatened to take me a couple times before I told you to check what was there already? See the history of truly well known writer/activist 3023:. Might be your first day in MFD, so first familiarize yourself with the appropriate guidelines, then reconsider before you derail a MFD discussion again. 2271: 95: 393: 175:, and even wrote: "I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her." 1510:

If being visible on Google is a problem, just put {{noindex}} on the template and remove that again when the article is ready for main article space. --

822:

has an account doens't mean that she's able to dictate if an article is created about her or not. The reference that you're referring to is obviously a

274:). I think this bio obviously was a ploy to piss me off, cause an ANI to be brought, force an Arbitration. The sickest part is, it seems to be working. 482:

Moore's work is most often compared to that of Jane Jacobs and Donella Meadows, who likewise applied systems theory to ecological and social problems.

2596:, in which case the article should not be in the main space (which it is not, right now). I generally fail to see the point of this page. But I find 87: 3755:

Actually I've been quoted in both a book (repeatedly) and a magazine article (once) on my seeing the beatles. I made a youtube video about it too.

1413:

It would be difficult, even if desirable, to ensure that only editors with no negative interaction with Carolmooredc would edit the new article. —

136: 884:

When I saw the link at BLPN I was almost sure I would be !voting delete, due to the well known (and often correct) "dossier" argument as made by

2675:

happen. Have faith in our systems, which include the right on anyone (except CMDC) to directly edit the article/fix any problem in it etc. -

132: 1487: 2168:. Quite interesting, given that Sitush simply does not like CarolMooreDC's personality and banter that we see on various talk pages. – 839: 2867:

Name still seem to be correct, unlike what you are doing. If I ask for the picture of your recent notifications, I will find the ping.

4079: 3552: 3517: 3470: 3443: 124: 2461:

actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."

3738: 462:

No, again. Yet another waste of bluelinks. You've already provided the diffs - you edited your own BLP prior to it being deleted. -

17: 3699:

what involvement with the Beatles are you talking about? Does the article suggest a profoundly notable connection that I've missed?

796:

of incivility and harassment on Knowledge and even wants to write an article about me to demonstrate the credibility of the cause.

2713:- You seem to be following others votes and providing no policy backed reason. Take my advice, it is better if you learn to spell 4028:

if that is consensus. I've got doubts whether the subject is notable, considering the publisher of her book is hardly mainline (

3688: 793: 478:

Her followers prefer to focus on building a comprehensive "not quite a state " capacity for governance in smaller political units

4095:- notability should play no role in user space. The article reads factual, even mentioning praise of the subject in the lead. -- 196:

were working on a bio of me, perhaps to avoid someone bringing a Wikihounding ANI vs them. I think this is just a thinly veiled

3248: 2266: 710:(2011) which was simply a short list of inactive editor names, nothing like what we have here. Come on. I actually !voted at 4010: 3982: 3393: 3350: 685: 4253: 4224: 4199: 4179: 4161: 4139: 4121: 4104: 4083: 4063: 4041: 4016: 3988: 3950: 3929: 3910: 3881: 3855: 3835: 3805: 3790: 3775: 3750: 3732: 3708: 3690: 3661: 3646: 3599: 3571: 3556: 3540: 3521: 3489: 3474: 3447: 3413: 3395: 3376: 3352: 3322: 3297: 3260: 3242: 3220: 3203: 3176: 3158: 3126: 3086: 3067: 3051: 3032: 3010: 2987: 2963: 2945: 2926: 2909: 2876: 2862: 2835: 2821: 2802: 2787: 2753: 2726: 2703: 2684: 2662: 2646: 2635: 2611: 2583: 2566: 2544: 2527: 2509: 2488: 2470: 2448: 2413: 2384: 2367: 2343: 2317: 2241: 2219: 2195: 2177: 2150: 2132: 2116: 2079: 2065: 2049: 2035: 2021: 2007: 1993: 1975: 1918: 1899: 1878: 1858: 1829: 1793: 1741: 1725: 1677: 1655: 1612: 1573: 1558: 1537: 1519: 1499: 1479: 1457: 1438: 1422: 1402: 1376: 1364: 1348: 1336: 1320: 1306: 1287: 1265: 1208: 1190: 1156: 1130: 1085: 1069: 1046: 1027: 1011: 987: 971: 935: 916: 898: 866: 809: 781: 757: 724: 694: 663: 624: 601: 562: 513: 498: 471: 457: 433: 418: 385: 354: 325: 308: 287: 259: 236: 213: 65: 1054:- Considering Sitush hates Carol Moore, it's a form of harassment, and since he's making facts known about her that are 2559: 485:

we'll let it run its course. So I've put the bio at WP:BLPN also so they can decide if it's Wiki solid or just wanker.

3381:

Bladesmulti, please stop harassing editors whose !votes you disagree with. You may want to familiarize yourself with

2900:- Why we should delete article only because one user has problem with it? Also agree with the comment by Randykitty. 1866:"pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" 2258: 1904:

No. What is clear is that Sitush thinks you're sufficiently notable for a BLP (which is rather complimentary). Your

4215:

guide right o nthe talk page. Someone needs to step up soon and delete this, then remove Sitush from the project.

4007: 3967: 3284:

if it can be moved to Draft Space to encourage more collaboration and reduce animosity. I find it very hard to see

3145:- as he has revealed himself to be - harasses me. DO people find that OK? And what do we think of Cambridge now?? 2579: 1621: 4112:- Let's just pretend this is a preemptive AfD challenge and a GNG failure. Not the person to be writing this bio. 2951: 1147:

Hmmm... Every article includes information that is not already on Knowledge. What would be the point otherwise? —

1018:

PS I don't hate CM - I can't remember hearing of her before. Must have missed something somewhere along the line.

91: 4272: 4135: 2409: 2233:: CMDC is not going to pass WP:GNG. This is just taking a wiki-dispute into realms that it doesn't need to go. 40: 2104: 3318: 2710: 2189:, which refers to offwiki disputes, but having an onwiki dispute with someone obviously carries the same risk. 2031: 2003: 1971: 1953: 1730:

There's certainly a stench of hypocrisy, dishonesty and double dealing here. Is that maybe what you can smell?

3288:

in Carol Moore's actions wrt this page and find no policy reason to support a delete on the proposed grounds.

3164: 2165: 2040:

And per above, {{noindex}} can be added. I wouldn't oppose a draftspace with deletion from the user space.--

82: 71: 4037: 2466: 2164:– While Carol Moore's achieving WP notability is problematic, so far it looks like Sitush is whipping up an 835: 341:

Washington Post, Associated Press story, Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC News Nightline and several other books.

3342:

Sitush even outlines the various defamatory claims that he may or may not include in his biography of her.

4100: 3923: 3769: 3636: 3437:(No credible claim of notability, No argument that the subject is more notable now than during last AFD). 3236: 3215: 3197: 3152: 2841: 2554: 2523: 2505: 2361: 2213: 2127: 1893: 1819: 1736: 1715: 1672: 1645: 1602: 1433: 1359: 1331: 1080: 982: 930: 803: 595: 585: 576:

fit about all the primary and poorly sourced crap in the article until those parts are removed, just like

492: 451: 412: 348: 302: 281: 253: 230: 207: 128: 1998:

That is another question, I have amended my opinion that it should be moved to the neutral draftspace. -

476:

Yeah, when I didn't know better in 2006. The original written by some AnonIp said unsourced things like:

29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.

4268: 4059: 3831: 3567: 3536: 3409: 3372: 3256: 3063: 3028: 2983: 2905: 2872: 2831: 2798: 2722: 2607: 2575: 1769:

the article itself and make a judgement based on the content of the page rather than the issue at hand.

1453: 1418: 1204: 1152: 1042: 197: 36: 440:

So now you are making false allegations here? Where has it been "proven" I have Conflicts of Interest?

3741:

about what kind of sources we could track down for someone who attended two Beatles concerts in 1964.

4175: 4131: 3686: 3331: 3226: 3172: 3122: 3074: 3050:

you think this is a discussion?? huh?? I don't think so, this is looking like a combat zone instead.

2998: 2850: 2809: 2775: 2764: 2749: 2484: 2439: 2405: 2286: 2173: 1914: 1874: 1515: 1283: 1063: 912: 769: 558: 441: 182: 2057: 3971: 3877: 3314: 3293: 2239: 2061: 2027: 1999: 1967: 1949: 584:

it doesn't go live, and Sitush leaves it on his talk page, that will illustrate my point it's just

1528:

Good suggestion. I added the tag. I still think, however, it would be best to take it offline.--

4248: 4033: 4004: 3616: 3391: 3382: 3363: 3348: 3335: 2970: 2540: 2462: 2380: 1625: 894: 689: 4148: 4117: 4096: 4074: 3919: 3765: 3657: 3620: 3595: 3547: 3528: 3512: 3465: 3438: 3306: 3232: 3210: 3193: 3148: 2922: 2519: 2501: 2372: 2357: 2209: 2122: 1943: 1889: 1803: 1731: 1699: 1692: 1667: 1629: 1586: 1554: 1428: 1394: 1354: 1342:

I would have thought, self-evident) principle, notwithstanding the article's current content.

1326: 1238: 1232: 1186: 1075: 1023: 1007: 977: 955: 925: 817: 799: 608: 607:

of further development for a while and you can let me know which stuff that is in there fails

591: 488: 447: 408: 397: 344: 298: 277: 249: 226: 203: 119: 4055: 3940: 3900: 3845: 3827: 3786: 3563: 3532: 3485: 3453: 3405: 3368: 3252: 3059: 3047: 3024: 2993: 2979: 2959: 2941: 2901: 2868: 2848:

and by a ghost. BTW I haven't got the ping (ping not needed), this page is on my watchlist.

2845: 2827: 2794: 2718: 2699: 2680: 2631: 2603: 2457: 2426: 2313: 2294: 1449: 1414: 1216: 1200: 1148: 1038: 620: 509: 467: 429: 381: 321: 159: 4029: 4267:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's

4171: 3869: 3696: 3681: 3461: 3168: 3118: 2745: 2480: 2430: 2190: 2169: 2026:

Rather than having it under userspace, draftspace invites more people to edit the page. -

1910: 1870: 1855: 1790: 1511: 1279: 1262: 1127: 1093: 1060: 908: 863: 754: 660: 554: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's

1181:

an article about her. PS: I'm not questioning Sitush's or Carolmooredc's motives, here.

764:

That's fine when you're not writing a bio about another wikipedia editor. If I started

4220: 4157: 3873: 3797: 3742: 3700: 3289: 2234: 2146: 2112: 2075: 2045: 2017: 1989: 1756: 1569: 1533: 1495: 573: 61: 3511:

of impropriety. And there seem to be editors who agree, judging by the comments here.

2621:

I'm not typing the relevant bits out again but I encourage people to read the bits of

4243: 4239: 4192: 3999: 3891: 3864: 3863:- I see two problems. (1) Two previous articles on Carol Moore have been deleted for 3725: 3677: 3430: 3386: 3343: 3285: 3101: 2593: 2536: 2422: 2376: 2330: 2304:

The book isn't widely known? I've already given four reviews by notable people. I've

2186: 2138: 1963: 1372: 1344: 1316: 1099: 964: 890: 885: 823: 789: 774: 717: 678: 401: 178:. The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages 4113: 3938:

for the extent to which your previous hostility toward others has been polarising.

3720: 3653: 3610: 3591: 2975: 2918: 2336: 1550: 1299: 1182: 1177:

history with Carolmooredc (assuming the proposed article, is about her), should be

1019: 1003: 674:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon (2nd nomination)

612: 2421:- Book is not notable, therefore she's not notable and she certainly doesn't pass 788:

Thinking more about it, I am actually flattered that User:Sitush considers me the

192:

research with an insulting and misleading comment. The user suddenly alleged they

3782: 3641: 3481: 3434: 3400:

Only 3 votes I replied, don't you think that we had enough misrepresentation of

3281: 3117:

in the draft. Please people, take a step back and take a deep breath. Thanks! --

2955: 2937: 2768: 2695: 2676: 2627: 2309: 2290: 1824: 1720: 1650: 1607: 1224: 829: 616: 577: 505: 463: 425: 377: 317: 1864:

harassment. The page self-evidently does not conform to the delete criteria of

4049:

Would I be correct in saying that GNG does not apply to the userspace, and so

1836: 1771: 1476: 1243: 1108: 1058:

published on Knowledge, it's bordering on outing. Rev-Del, Delete then Salt

844: 735: 641: 185:

for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.

2500:

until someone with no COI finds Carol an appropriate topic to write about. --

4216: 4153: 2142: 2108: 2071: 2041: 2013: 1985: 1565: 1529: 1491: 950: 57: 3719:

I believe Carol was the mysterious 38th beatle, which can easily be added

1353:

I see. So basically there is no policy-based reason for your delete vote.

708:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination)

615:. Or are you just presuming that there will be something in the future? - 3935: 1585:

User has a history of antagonism against Carolmooredc. Ditto MastCell.

3229:. You cast them about continuously with no diffs to prove your point. 4211:

is what the move to draftspace does, and now we have a handy list of

3456:, when you're dismissing other editors' statements as laughable (as 2354:

Thanks. Hard to concentrate on doing things right under stress :-(

1490:

and should be treated as BLP. It can be easily drafted off line.--

2598: 834:

doesn't own www.carolmore.com or anything related to her. We have

826:

violation and wouldn't be allowed. To be clear, as far as I know,

3312:

this madness, if the guns can first be lowered. (Just a thought.)

188:. The user then posted non-RS material they found out from their 167:

the user emphasized I'd linked to my website (way back in 2007-8)

4261:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1106:. Now, if only we can figure out what the "DC" part stands for. 268:

about me and the Gender Gap Task Force if necessary. (Also see

56:

from scratch, not from something loaded with this background.

2206:

Thank you! My mind's so boggled I couldn't find that today!!

960:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination)

4147:

I thought it was a good move for Sitush to move the page to

712:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Carol Moore (2nd nomination)

245:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore_(2nd_nomination)

163:, I noted that in a recent WP:ANI that someone else brought 2954:, haven't you? That explains why I stopped development. - 976:

Don't pretend to know stuff that you can't possibly know.

3109:

reviews of Moore's book. In the whole bloody mess above,

4212: 4188: 3996:

Oh gods the drama. And no, I don't see the notability.

3457: 3339: 2622: 2329:

the nominator omitted to transclude this nomination on

2305: 2254: 1905: 272: 269: 267: 186: 176: 173: 170: 168: 154: 144: 140: 107: 103: 2187:

WP:BLP#Importation of off-wiki disputes into Knowledge

1628:, it seems clear that the article should be deleted. 3619:. These two users have a long history of animosity. 2012:

Interesting idea. What is a "neutral draftspace"?--

4190:, because I assume warring over it will continue.-- 3433:(existing dispute between author and subject) and 1802:Don't assume we're not reading the actual article. 392:Are you under the impression this will help you at 200:- and obvious harassment - and should be deleted. 3135:Just to make it clear for those who may not know 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4275:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2375:Do you not use Twinkle for this sort of thing? 1475:Mastcell summarizes my sentiments succinctly.-- 2671:Yet another person basing their !vote on what 4236:though migration to Draft: space is advisable 3100:Would it be too much to ask that people here 766:DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com 444:is against casting aspersions without diffs. 8: 3186: 3141: 924:, for much the same reasons as Randykitty. 588:harassment editing. So I'll chill. THANKS! 3464:had merit, than anything Sitush has said. 172:, urged people to "do some research" on me 4030:22 books published between 1990 and 2008 3916:be even more mystified. Please explain. 3305:. Per Writegeist, Randykitty, Gaijin42. 2404:civil enough not to be an attack page. 2099:, the only way this could possibly any 400:. He wrote mostly negative stuff about 2844:. And don't claim it was not done by 2056:"Neutral draftspace" is the ] space. 580:did a few months back. I assume that 160:User_talk:Sitush#WP:Harassment_policy 7: 4073:with whom the author is in dispute. 3756: 2121:Have you actually read the article? 1325:Have you actually read the article? 3721:here under the Mitch Benn paragraph 3404:(since original poster) over here? 2249:Nope, this isn't creepy at all. It 394:WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard 48:The result of the discussion was 2996:, you don't have to judge !votes. 2425:. The rest of the article is just 2285:. She doesn't seem likely to meet 1065:Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 24: 18:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion 3757: 3737:Maybe we can get the opinion of 3330:as the product of a campaign of 3190:is being a big old time waster. 1956:) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1549:don't see any of those in this. 1488:Page is available through Google 1399:Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 2974:approach. Thanks for the laugh 1213:That's an interesting proposal 4254:12:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4225:12:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4200:12:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4180:12:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4162:11:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4140:12:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4122:07:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4105:06:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4084:12:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4064:05:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4042:03:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4017:03:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 3989:02:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 3951:04:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 3930:03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 3911:03:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 3882:02:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 3856:01:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 3836:01:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 3806:23:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3791:23:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3776:22:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3751:19:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3733:19:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3709:18:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3691:17:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3662:19:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3647:18:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3615:the biggest BLP issue here is 3600:17:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3572:23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3557:18:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3541:17:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3522:18:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3490:16:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3475:16:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3448:16:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3414:23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3396:16:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3377:15:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3367:approach. Very one sided too. 3353:15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3323:15:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3298:14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3261:13:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3243:13:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3221:13:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3204:13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3177:13:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3159:13:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3127:12:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3087:12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3068:12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3052:12:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3033:11:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3011:11:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2988:11:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2964:11:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2946:11:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2927:11:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2910:11:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2877:12:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2863:12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2836:12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2822:12:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2803:11:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2788:11:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2754:11:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2727:11:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2704:10:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2685:10:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2663:09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2636:08:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2612:06:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2584:05:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2567:03:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2545:02:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2528:00:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2510:22:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2489:22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2471:22:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2449:22:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2414:21:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2385:21:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2368:21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2344:20:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2318:10:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2278:20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2242:20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2220:20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2196:19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2178:19:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2151:19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2133:19:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2117:18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2080:09:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2066:08:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 2050:21:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2036:19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2022:19:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 2008:18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1994:18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1976:03:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1919:06:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1900:00:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1879:22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1859:18:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1830:18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1794:18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1742:18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1726:18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1678:18:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1656:02:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 1613:18:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1574:18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1559:18:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1538:21:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1520:19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1500:18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1480:18:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1458:19:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1439:18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1423:18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1403:18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1377:19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1365:19:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1349:19:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1337:18:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1321:17:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1307:17:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1288:17:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1266:18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1237:would agree that moving it to 1209:17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1191:17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1157:17:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1131:17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1086:17:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1070:17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1047:17:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1028:17:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1012:17:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 988:17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 972:17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 936:17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 917:16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 899:16:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 867:16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 810:15:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 782:15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 758:15:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 725:15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 695:15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 664:15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 625:16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 602:16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 563:14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 514:14:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 499:14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 472:14:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 458:14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 434:14:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 419:13:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 386:13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 355:13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 326:12:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 309:17:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 288:16:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 260:12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 237:11:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 214:11:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 66:12:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 1: 3163:The discussion here is about 3058:You are alone with that one! 2456:- It's just another round of 2333:. I have just done that now. 772:, I should be called on it.-- 3113:has been able to point to a 2952:User_talk:Sitush/Carol_Moore 1984:Is it good enough to post?-- 1958:I am amending my opinion to 838:for this and we even have a 1939:Keep and Move to Draftspace 1666:actually read the article? 4295: 4213:dig up dirt on the subject 3890:(1) would be a matter for 2694:divulge what they are). - 2105:User:SPECIFICO/Carol Moore 3247:They can understand your 2185:. This is a violation of 2103:of an idea is if it were 1390:Let other people write it 704:Delete and burn with fire 672:You certainly can, e.g., 4264:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 3739:Wikiproject The Beatles 3165:User:Sitush/Carol Moore 2166:Ideological Turing Test 1173:- IMHO, an editor with 83:User:Sitush/Carol Moore 72:User:Sitush/Carol Moore 3115:single instance of POV 3843:- oh, the hypocrisy! 3184:lot of peoples time. 2717:while you are at it. 1583:Delete with prejudice 1074:Don't be ridiculous. 572:course, I can have a 293:Hopefully final note: 265:Later note to closer: 165:on Wikihounding of me 2287:Knowledge:Notability 2261:The Devil's Advocate 4026:Move to draft space 3968:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE 3841:Move to draft space 2950:BTW, you have seen 2711:Jim Carter - Public 1622:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE 1241:would be amicable? 790:Carrie Moore Nation 768:and Glenn Beck was 4130:biodeleterequest. 3823:Move to Draftspace 3678:neither should you 2740:"add stuffs" that 2162:Move to Draftspace 1755:For those who are 4209:Lipstick on a pig 4198: 4149:Draft:Carol Moore 4082: 4014: 3985: 3977: 3928: 3801:E L A Q U E A T E 3774: 3746:E L A Q U E A T E 3731: 3704:E L A Q U E A T E 3645: 3555: 3520: 3473: 3452:Also, an aside - 3446: 3313: 3241: 3202: 3157: 3102:assume good faith 3019:them, its called 2656:from public cyber 2555:Two kinds of pork 2366: 2306:already expressed 2218: 2194: 1898: 1828: 1724: 1654: 1611: 1427:It would indeed. 1239:Draft:Carol Moore 970: 808: 780: 723: 693: 600: 497: 456: 417: 398:User_talk:Cberlet 353: 307: 286: 258: 235: 212: 120:Draft:Carol Moore 4286: 4266: 4251: 4246: 4197: 4078: 4015: 4002: 3981: 3975: 3947: 3945: 3917: 3907: 3905: 3852: 3850: 3803: 3802: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3748: 3747: 3730: 3706: 3705: 3639: 3633: 3630: 3627: 3624: 3614: 3551: 3516: 3469: 3454:User:Bladesmulti 3442: 3389: 3346: 3310: 3230: 3218: 3213: 3191: 3189: 3188: 3146: 3144: 3143: 3083: 3080: 3077: 3072:Doesn't matter. 3007: 3004: 3001: 2859: 2856: 2853: 2818: 2815: 2812: 2784: 2781: 2778: 2772: 2659: 2652: 2649: 2601: 2576:NinjaRobotPirate 2565: 2562: 2446: 2437: 2355: 2339: 2274: 2269: 2263: 2237: 2207: 2193: 2130: 2125: 1947: 1887: 1869:anything else. 1857: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1822: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1792: 1787: 1784: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1739: 1734: 1718: 1712: 1709: 1706: 1703: 1696: 1675: 1670: 1648: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1605: 1599: 1596: 1593: 1590: 1436: 1431: 1362: 1357: 1334: 1329: 1302: 1264: 1259: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1236: 1228: 1220: 1129: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1097: 1083: 1078: 1068: 985: 980: 969: 933: 928: 865: 860: 857: 854: 851: 848: 833: 821: 797: 779: 756: 751: 748: 745: 742: 739: 722: 692: 683: 662: 657: 654: 651: 648: 645: 589: 519: 518: 486: 445: 406: 342: 296: 275: 247: 224: 201: 149: 148: 112: 111: 34: 4294: 4293: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4279: 4273:deletion review 4262: 4249: 4244: 4132:Alanscottwalker 3997: 3986: 3943: 3941: 3903: 3901: 3848: 3846: 3800: 3798: 3758: 3745: 3743: 3703: 3701: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3622: 3608: 3387: 3364:I don't like it 3344: 3216: 3211: 3185: 3140: 3081: 3078: 3075: 3005: 3002: 2999: 2971:I don't like it 2857: 2854: 2851: 2816: 2813: 2810: 2782: 2779: 2776: 2762: 2653: 2650: 2647: 2597: 2564: 2560: 2557: 2440: 2431: 2406:Robert McClenon 2337: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2259: 2235: 2128: 2123: 1941: 1850: 1847: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1835: 1814: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1785: 1782: 1779: 1776: 1773: 1770: 1737: 1732: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1690: 1673: 1668: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1631: 1597: 1594: 1591: 1588: 1434: 1429: 1360: 1355: 1332: 1327: 1300: 1257: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1230: 1222: 1214: 1122: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1110: 1107: 1098:- how could he 1091: 1081: 1076: 1059: 983: 978: 931: 926: 907:always BLPN. -- 858: 855: 852: 849: 846: 843: 827: 815: 770:User:Glenn Beck 749: 746: 743: 740: 737: 734: 688: 655: 652: 649: 646: 643: 640: 586:WP:Battleground 183:cast aspersions 122: 118: 85: 81: 75: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4292: 4290: 4281: 4278: 4277: 4257: 4256: 4228: 4227: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4183: 4182: 4165: 4164: 4142: 4124: 4107: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4067: 4066: 4054:deleted, too? 4044: 4019: 3991: 3980: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3896: 3885: 3884: 3858: 3838: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3603: 3602: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3356: 3355: 3325: 3315:Ihardlythinkso 3300: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3180: 3179: 3130: 3129: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 2930: 2929: 2912: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2757: 2756: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2707: 2706: 2688: 2687: 2666: 2665: 2638: 2615: 2614: 2586: 2569: 2558: 2547: 2530: 2512: 2491: 2473: 2451: 2416: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2347: 2346: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2299: 2298: 2280: 2265: 2244: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2199: 2198: 2180: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2028:Knowledgekid87 2000:Knowledgekid87 1979: 1978: 1968:Knowledgekid87 1950:Knowledgekid87 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1797: 1796: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1659: 1658: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1523: 1522: 1503: 1502: 1482: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1406: 1405: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1309: 1290: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1195: 1194: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1049: 1031: 1030: 1015: 1014: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 939: 938: 919: 901: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 761: 760: 728: 727: 700: 699: 698: 697: 667: 666: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 566: 565: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 331: 330: 329: 328: 312: 311: 290: 239: 198:WP:Attack page 151: 150: 113: 74: 69: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4291: 4282: 4276: 4274: 4270: 4265: 4259: 4258: 4255: 4252: 4247: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4230: 4229: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4207: 4206: 4201: 4195: 4194: 4189: 4185: 4184: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4150: 4146: 4143: 4141: 4137: 4133: 4128: 4125: 4123: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4108: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4091: 4090: 4085: 4081: 4076: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4052: 4048: 4045: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4020: 4018: 4012: 4009: 4006: 4001: 3995: 3992: 3990: 3984: 3978: 3974: 3969: 3965: 3962: 3961: 3952: 3949: 3948: 3937: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3927: 3925: 3924:Talkie-Talkie 3921: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3909: 3908: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3866: 3862: 3859: 3857: 3854: 3853: 3842: 3839: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3824: 3821: 3820: 3807: 3804: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3773: 3771: 3770:Talkie-Talkie 3767: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3749: 3740: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3728: 3727: 3722: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3710: 3707: 3698: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3689: 3687: 3685: 3684: 3679: 3674: 3673:Send to draft 3671: 3670: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3643: 3638: 3635: 3634: 3618: 3612: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3588: 3585: 3584: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3554: 3549: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3514: 3510: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3472: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3445: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3425: 3424: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3394: 3392: 3390: 3384: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3365: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3354: 3351: 3349: 3347: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3326: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3308: 3304: 3301: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3276: 3275: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3240: 3238: 3237:Talkie-Talkie 3234: 3228: 3227:WP:ASPERSIONS 3224: 3223: 3222: 3219: 3214: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3201: 3199: 3198:Talkie-Talkie 3195: 3182: 3181: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3154: 3153:Talkie-Talkie 3150: 3139: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3096: 3095: 3088: 3085: 3084: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3049: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3009: 3008: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2972: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2913: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2896: 2895: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2820: 2819: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2786: 2785: 2770: 2766: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2734: 2733: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2709: 2708: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2664: 2661: 2660: 2657: 2642: 2639: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2624: 2620: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2600: 2595: 2590: 2587: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2570: 2568: 2563: 2556: 2551: 2548: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2516: 2513: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2492: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2477: 2474: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2463:Lightbreather 2459: 2458:WP:HARASSment 2455: 2452: 2450: 2447: 2445: 2444: 2438: 2436: 2435: 2428: 2427:trivial facts 2424: 2420: 2417: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2365: 2363: 2362:Talkie-Talkie 2359: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2332: 2328: 2325: 2324: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2281: 2279: 2275: 2270: 2264: 2262: 2256: 2253:isn't creepy 2252: 2248: 2245: 2243: 2240: 2238: 2232: 2229: 2228: 2221: 2217: 2215: 2214:Talkie-Talkie 2211: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2181: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2160: 2159: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139:Daniel Brandt 2136: 2135: 2134: 2131: 2126: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2095: 2094: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1966:and below. - 1965: 1961: 1957: 1955: 1951: 1945: 1940: 1936: 1935: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1907: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1895: 1894:Talkie-Talkie 1891: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1867: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1854: 1853: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1826: 1821: 1818: 1817: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1789: 1788: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1758: 1753: 1752: 1743: 1740: 1735: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1722: 1717: 1714: 1713: 1694: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1679: 1676: 1671: 1665: 1661: 1660: 1657: 1652: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1609: 1604: 1601: 1600: 1584: 1581: 1580: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1547: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1486: 1483: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1437: 1432: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1400: 1397: 1391: 1388: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1363: 1358: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1330: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1318: 1313: 1310: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1294: 1291: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1276: 1273: 1272: 1267: 1263: 1261: 1260: 1240: 1234: 1226: 1218: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1197: 1196: 1193: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1167: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1132: 1128: 1126: 1125: 1105: 1101: 1095: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1084: 1079: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1000: 997: 996: 989: 986: 981: 975: 974: 973: 967: 966: 961: 957: 952: 948: 943: 942: 941: 940: 937: 934: 929: 923: 920: 918: 914: 910: 905: 902: 900: 896: 892: 887: 883: 880: 879: 868: 864: 862: 861: 841: 837: 831: 825: 819: 814:Just because 813: 812: 811: 807: 805: 804:Talkie-Talkie 801: 795: 791: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 777: 776: 771: 767: 763: 762: 759: 755: 753: 752: 732: 731: 730: 729: 726: 720: 719: 713: 709: 705: 702: 701: 696: 691: 687: 681: 680: 675: 671: 670: 669: 668: 665: 661: 659: 658: 637: 634: 633: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 605: 604: 603: 599: 597: 596:Talkie-Talkie 593: 587: 583: 579: 575: 570: 569: 568: 567: 564: 560: 556: 552: 549: 548: 517: 516: 515: 511: 507: 502: 501: 500: 496: 494: 493:Talkie-Talkie 490: 483: 479: 475: 474: 473: 469: 465: 461: 460: 459: 455: 453: 452:Talkie-Talkie 449: 443: 442:WP:ASPERSIONS 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 431: 427: 422: 421: 420: 416: 414: 413:Talkie-Talkie 410: 403: 402:living people 399: 395: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 383: 379: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 356: 352: 350: 349:Talkie-Talkie 346: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 327: 323: 319: 314: 313: 310: 306: 304: 303:Talkie-Talkie 300: 294: 291: 289: 285: 283: 282:Talkie-Talkie 279: 273: 270: 266: 263: 262: 261: 257: 255: 254:Talkie-Talkie 251: 246: 243: 240: 238: 234: 232: 231:Talkie-Talkie 228: 221: 218: 217: 216: 215: 211: 209: 208:Talkie-Talkie 205: 199: 195: 191: 187: 184: 180: 177: 174: 171: 169: 166: 162: 161: 156: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 126: 121: 117: 114: 109: 105: 101: 97: 93: 89: 84: 80: 77: 76: 73: 70: 68: 67: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4280: 4263: 4260: 4235: 4231: 4208: 4191: 4145:Still Delete 4144: 4126: 4109: 4097:Gerda Arendt 4092: 4075:UltraExactZZ 4050: 4046: 4025: 4021: 3993: 3972: 3963: 3939: 3920:Carolmooredc 3918: 3899: 3860: 3844: 3840: 3822: 3766:Carolmooredc 3764: 3724: 3682: 3672: 3621: 3586: 3548:UltraExactZZ 3529:Ultraexactzz 3513:UltraExactZZ 3508: 3466:UltraExactZZ 3439:UltraExactZZ 3426: 3401: 3362: 3327: 3302: 3277: 3249:battleground 3233:Carolmooredc 3231: 3225:Please read 3194:Carolmooredc 3192: 3149:Carolmooredc 3147: 3136: 3114: 3110: 3105: 3097: 3073: 3020: 3016: 2997: 2969: 2914: 2897: 2849: 2808: 2774: 2741: 2737: 2714: 2672: 2655: 2645: 2640: 2618: 2588: 2571: 2549: 2532: 2520:AndyTheGrump 2514: 2502:Demiurge1000 2497: 2493: 2475: 2453: 2442: 2441: 2433: 2432: 2418: 2401: 2397: 2373:Carolmooredc 2358:Carolmooredc 2356: 2335: 2334: 2326: 2282: 2260: 2250: 2246: 2230: 2210:Carolmooredc 2208: 2182: 2161: 2100: 2096: 1959: 1944:Carolmooredc 1938: 1937: 1906:MfD proposal 1890:Carolmooredc 1888: 1865: 1837: 1804: 1772: 1766: 1765:to actually 1762: 1754: 1700: 1693:Eric Corbett 1663: 1630: 1617: 1587: 1582: 1484: 1472: 1445: 1398: 1395: 1389: 1371: 1343: 1315: 1311: 1298: 1297: 1292: 1274: 1244: 1233:Carolmooredc 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1109: 1103: 1064: 1055: 1051: 1034: 998: 963: 921: 903: 881: 845: 818:Carolmooredc 800:Carolmooredc 798: 773: 736: 716: 703: 677: 642: 635: 592:Carolmooredc 590: 581: 550: 489:Carolmooredc 487: 481: 477: 448:Carolmooredc 446: 409:Carolmooredc 407: 345:Carolmooredc 343: 299:Carolmooredc 297: 292: 278:Carolmooredc 276: 264: 250:Carolmooredc 248: 241: 227:Carolmooredc 225: 219: 204:Carolmooredc 202: 193: 189: 164: 158: 152: 115: 78: 53: 49: 47: 31: 28: 4056:Vanamonde93 3828:Vanamonde93 3617:WP:BLPFIGHT 3564:Bladesmulti 3533:Bladesmulti 3406:Bladesmulti 3383:WP:BLUDGEON 3369:Bladesmulti 3253:Bladesmulti 3060:Bladesmulti 3048:Bladesmulti 3025:Bladesmulti 2994:Bladesmulti 2980:Bladesmulti 2902:Bladesmulti 2869:Bladesmulti 2828:Bladesmulti 2795:Bladesmulti 2719:Bladesmulti 2604:Kingsindian 2402:just barely 1763:implore you 1626:WP:BLPFIGHT 1450:Anne Delong 1415:Anne Delong 1217:Anne Delong 1201:Anne Delong 1149:Anne Delong 1104:Carol Moore 1039:Anne Delong 794:prohibition 578:Chip Berlet 220:Later note: 4172:Randykitty 3697:Ritchie333 3683:Ritchie333 3509:appearance 3332:harassment 3286:good faith 3251:approach. 3187:(Redacted) 3169:Randykitty 3142:(Redacted) 3119:Randykitty 3021:discussion 2992:As I said 2765:Blademulti 2746:Writegeist 2599:SlimVirgin 2481:Oiyarbepsy 2434:Isaidnoway 2255:in context 2191:SlimVirgin 1911:Writegeist 1871:Writegeist 1620:- Between 1512:Randykitty 1280:Writegeist 1221:- perhaps 1094:KoshVorlon 1090:Good lord 1061:KoshVorlon 909:Randykitty 836:guidelines 609:WP:PRIMARY 555:Oiyarbepsy 242:Also note: 190:opposition 153:As posted 4269:talk page 3934:It was a 3874:MaxBrowne 3640:Please {{ 3340:this edit 3290:SPACKlick 2623:this post 2251:certainly 2236:Montanabw 2070:Thanks.-- 2058:Neatsfoot 1823:Please {{ 1759:'ing here 1719:Please {{ 1649:Please {{ 1606:Please {{ 116:Currently 37:talk page 4271:or in a 4193:Milowent 4000:Huntster 3936:metaphor 3870:hounding 3726:Milowent 3462:WP:HOUND 3388:gobonobo 3361:Obvious 3345:gobonobo 3338:her. In 3336:hounding 3280:and ask 3015:You can 2968:Obvious 2537:Johnuniq 2377:Gaijin42 1373:MastCell 1345:MastCell 1317:MastCell 1179:creating 965:Milowent 891:Gaijin42 886:Milowent 840:category 775:Milowent 718:Milowent 679:Milowent 194:actually 79:Formerly 39:or in a 4152:plug.-- 4114:Carrite 4047:Comment 3976:endaliv 3654:Peridon 3611:Peridon 3592:Peridon 3587:Comment 3217:Corbett 2976:Drmargi 2919:Drmargi 2619:Comment 2589:Comment 2515:Delete. 2476:Comment 2338:Hut 8.5 2327:Comment 2170:S. Rich 2129:Corbett 1738:Corbett 1674:Corbett 1618:Comment 1551:Peridon 1435:Corbett 1396:Chillum 1361:Corbett 1333:Corbett 1301:Hut 8.5 1183:GoodDay 1082:Corbett 1052:Delete 1035:Comment 1020:Peridon 1004:Peridon 984:Corbett 932:Corbett 792:of the 684:<sup 611:and/or 574:WP:BLPN 133:history 96:history 4250:Faddle 4245:Fiddle 4240:WP:BIO 4127:Delete 4110:Delete 3994:Delete 3964:Delete 3895:space. 3892:WP:DRV 3865:WP:GNG 3861:Delete 3783:Sitush 3637:(talk) 3482:Sitush 3431:WP:COI 3427:Delete 3402:harass 3328:Delete 3282:Sitush 3111:nobody 2956:Sitush 2938:Sitush 2915:Delete 2769:Sitush 2715:harass 2696:Sitush 2677:Sitush 2651:Carter 2641:Delete 2628:Sitush 2594:WP:GNG 2572:Delete 2550:delete 2533:Delete 2494:Delete 2454:Delete 2443:(talk) 2423:WP:GNG 2419:Delete 2398:Delete 2331:WP:MFD 2310:Sitush 2291:GRuban 2283:Delete 2273:cntrb. 2247:Delete 2231:Delete 2183:Delete 2097:Delete 1964:WP:GNG 1960:Delete 1820:(talk) 1716:(talk) 1646:(talk) 1603:(talk) 1485:Delete 1473:Delete 1393:used. 1312:Delete 1293:Delete 1225:Sitush 1171:Delete 949:after 830:Sitush 690:spoken 617:Sitush 506:Sitush 464:Sitush 426:Sitush 378:Sitush 318:Sitush 50:Delete 3946:lwart 3906:lwart 3851:lwart 3695:Umm, 3307:Carol 3017:judge 2742:might 2738:might 2673:might 2561:Bacon 2553:this. 2101:worse 1662:Have 1477:MONGO 613:WP:RS 141:watch 137:links 104:watch 100:links 54:start 16:< 4232:Keep 4221:talk 4217:Tarc 4176:talk 4158:talk 4154:Nowa 4136:talk 4118:talk 4101:talk 4093:Keep 4060:talk 4038:talk 4022:Keep 3878:talk 3832:talk 3787:talk 3658:talk 3596:talk 3568:talk 3537:talk 3486:talk 3458:here 3435:WP:N 3410:talk 3373:talk 3319:talk 3303:Keep 3294:talk 3278:Keep 3257:talk 3212:Eric 3173:talk 3123:talk 3064:talk 3029:talk 2984:talk 2960:talk 2942:talk 2923:talk 2906:talk 2898:Keep 2873:talk 2842:this 2840:See 2832:talk 2799:talk 2767:and 2750:talk 2723:talk 2700:talk 2681:talk 2632:talk 2608:talk 2580:talk 2541:talk 2524:talk 2506:talk 2498:wait 2485:talk 2467:talk 2410:talk 2381:talk 2314:talk 2295:talk 2268:tlk. 2174:talk 2147:talk 2143:Tarc 2124:Eric 2113:talk 2109:Tarc 2076:talk 2072:Nowa 2062:talk 2046:talk 2042:Nowa 2032:talk 2018:talk 2014:Nowa 2004:talk 1990:talk 1986:Nowa 1972:talk 1962:per 1954:talk 1915:talk 1875:talk 1767:read 1761:- I 1757:TLDR 1733:Eric 1669:Eric 1624:and 1570:talk 1566:Nowa 1555:talk 1534:talk 1530:Nowa 1516:talk 1496:talk 1492:Nowa 1454:talk 1430:Eric 1419:talk 1356:Eric 1328:Eric 1284:talk 1275:Keep 1229:and 1205:talk 1187:talk 1153:talk 1077:Eric 1043:talk 1024:talk 1008:talk 999:Keep 979:Eric 956:Eric 951:Tarc 947:here 927:Eric 922:Keep 913:talk 904:Keep 895:talk 882:keep 636:Keep 621:talk 559:talk 551:Keep 510:talk 480:and 468:talk 430:talk 382:talk 322:talk 155:here 145:logs 129:talk 125:edit 108:logs 92:talk 88:edit 62:talk 58:Fram 4242:. 4080:Did 4034:BMK 4024:or 3983:Δ's 3799:__ 3744:__ 3723:.-- 3702:__ 3632:Fir 3629:een 3626:rgr 3623:Eve 3553:Did 3518:Did 3471:Did 3444:Did 3098:AGF 3082:ter 3079:Car 3076:Jim 3006:ter 3003:Car 3000:Jim 2858:ter 2855:Car 2852:Jim 2846:you 2817:ter 2814:Car 2811:Jim 2783:ter 2780:Car 2777:Jim 2648:Jim 2257:.-- 1815:Fir 1812:een 1809:rgr 1806:Eve 1711:Fir 1708:een 1705:rgr 1702:Eve 1664:you 1641:Fir 1638:een 1635:rgr 1632:Eve 1598:Fir 1595:een 1592:rgr 1589:Eve 1100:OUT 1056:not 824:BLP 686:has 676:.-- 181:to 4234:, 4223:) 4196:• 4178:) 4160:) 4138:) 4120:) 4103:) 4062:) 4051:if 4040:) 3998:— 3987:/ 3979:// 3942:St 3902:St 3880:) 3847:St 3834:) 3789:) 3729:• 3680:. 3660:) 3644:}} 3642:re 3598:) 3570:) 3539:) 3488:) 3412:) 3385:. 3375:) 3321:) 3296:) 3259:) 3175:) 3125:) 3106:do 3066:) 3031:) 2986:) 2978:! 2962:) 2944:) 2925:) 2908:) 2875:) 2834:) 2801:) 2752:) 2725:) 2702:) 2683:) 2634:) 2610:) 2582:) 2543:) 2526:) 2508:) 2487:) 2469:) 2412:) 2383:) 2316:) 2176:) 2149:) 2115:) 2078:) 2064:) 2048:) 2034:) 2020:) 2006:) 1992:) 1974:) 1917:) 1877:) 1827:}} 1825:re 1723:}} 1721:re 1653:}} 1651:re 1610:}} 1608:re 1572:) 1557:) 1536:) 1518:) 1498:) 1456:) 1421:) 1286:) 1207:) 1189:) 1175:no 1155:) 1045:) 1026:) 1010:) 968:• 915:) 897:) 778:• 721:• 682:• 623:) 582:if 561:) 512:) 470:) 432:) 384:) 324:) 271:, 143:| 139:| 135:| 131:| 127:| 106:| 102:| 98:| 94:| 90:| 64:) 4219:( 4174:( 4156:( 4134:( 4116:( 4099:( 4077:~ 4058:( 4036:( 4013:) 4011:c 4008:@ 4005:t 4003:( 3973:M 3944:★ 3926:) 3922:( 3904:★ 3876:( 3849:★ 3830:( 3785:( 3772:) 3768:( 3656:( 3613:: 3609:@ 3594:( 3566:( 3550:~ 3535:( 3515:~ 3484:( 3468:~ 3441:~ 3408:( 3371:( 3317:( 3292:( 3255:( 3239:) 3235:( 3200:) 3196:( 3171:( 3155:) 3151:( 3121:( 3062:( 3027:( 2982:( 2958:( 2940:( 2921:( 2904:( 2871:( 2830:( 2797:( 2771:: 2763:@ 2748:( 2721:( 2698:( 2679:( 2658:) 2654:( 2630:( 2606:( 2578:( 2539:( 2522:( 2504:( 2483:( 2465:( 2429:. 2408:( 2379:( 2364:) 2360:( 2312:( 2297:) 2293:( 2216:) 2212:( 2172:( 2145:( 2111:( 2074:( 2060:( 2044:( 2030:( 2016:( 2002:( 1988:( 1970:( 1952:( 1946:: 1942:@ 1913:( 1896:) 1892:( 1873:( 1851:i 1848:t 1845:s 1842:u 1839:D 1786:i 1783:t 1780:s 1777:u 1774:D 1695:: 1691:@ 1568:( 1553:( 1532:( 1514:( 1494:( 1452:( 1448:— 1417:( 1282:( 1258:i 1255:t 1252:s 1249:u 1246:D 1235:: 1231:@ 1227:: 1223:@ 1219:: 1215:@ 1203:( 1199:— 1185:( 1151:( 1123:i 1120:t 1117:s 1114:u 1111:D 1096:: 1092:@ 1041:( 1022:( 1006:( 911:( 893:( 859:i 856:t 853:s 850:u 847:D 832:: 828:@ 820:: 816:@ 806:) 802:( 750:i 747:t 744:s 741:u 738:D 656:i 653:t 650:s 647:u 644:D 619:( 598:) 594:( 557:( 508:( 495:) 491:( 466:( 454:) 450:( 428:( 415:) 411:( 380:( 351:) 347:( 320:( 305:) 301:( 284:) 280:( 256:) 252:( 233:) 229:( 210:) 206:( 147:) 123:( 110:) 86:( 60:(

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

Knowledge

:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore - Knowledge

Index