227:) is almost certainly a sockpuppet role account and its owner is unknown, it is impossible at present to assess Sortan's full role in the affair. Also, it is not fair on WP for a user to adopt a "John Doe" persona in order to bring charges against another. Therefore I request that the Sortan account is given a limited time in which to reveal whatever other WP accounts it has, and if it fails to do so be blocked until such a time that the request is met,
680:— when Arcturus and Jguk made this article the target of their anti BCE/CE campaign. Arcturus and Jguk were not adding or editing content, they were only mucking around with material other editors had added in good faith (what I mean is, if Arcturus or Jguk had added several paragraphs of informative text about the canonization of the Bible, I would take their dating preferences seriously).
551:
an abusive sockpuppet, to force changes both the ArbCom and the community have already objected. Every olive branch has been declined - instead they have used it as an excuse to attack. All that was needed here was a clear re-iteration of ArbCom's decision, together with a statement that all editors should be bound by it. Instead, I fear, this is about to get vicious.
380:) is on a mission to switch the date notation across WP to the BC/AD. He justifies it by a wide variety of reasons (some of which contradict others) and engages in wikistalking, ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, intimidation and revert wars, in some cases against the consensus and even when explicitly told that some consider such changes inappropriate (as in
576:- Sortan is a sockpuppet that is used to deny responsibility for incivility, personal attacks, edit-warring, bullying and ignoring the ArbCom's previous decision. The real identity (by which I mean the usual WP username this editor goes under is unknown), but it is likely to be a prolific WPian, well aware of WP processes and very possibly an admin.
1113:"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example,
660:. In this discussion I mistakenly claimed that the BCE and CE had been used from the start (the computer I was using allowed me to see only a partial edit history). I now agree that the original stub used BC and AD. However, BCE and CE had been used in that article since September 2002. Whenever I added "BCE" or "CE" I was
712:
We had a vote and they didn't win. So Humus has decided that all "Jewish" articles should be changed to match his preference, even though his case was not supported when we voted on it. But it's insupportable that a particular ethnicity should "own" a set of articles. The same rules for all articles,
646:
for example, BCE/CE is used to describe the canonization of Hebrew scripture, and BC/AD for
Christian scripture. This is a more or less stable situation. Now, one can argue that the article is inconsistent, using two systems of notation. Or one can argue that it is consistent, using one system for
550:
Before doing so, I'd like to say that, since ArbCom last decided this, I have been fully supporting their decision and encouraging others to do so. However, it appears that a small minority of users are not only unwilling to accept that, but chose to use bullying tactics, incivility and, in one case,
638:
It is clear after an intense discussion that there is no consensus to use BCE and CE uniformly at
Knowledge (XXG), and no one to my knowledge now claims that it should be. The question facing the commnity as a whole and the ArbCom in particular now is simple: With respect to dating notation (BC/AD,
605:
Despite Jguk's assertion that he is merely following policy and wishes to avoid changing date styles, he has a history of selectively changing common era notation to BC/AD or eliminating CE when it is required for clarity's sake. On
October 10 he made 3 attempts to eliminate the common era notation
650:
Moreover, I do not believe this should be the sole criteria. I think that if a majority, expecially a sizable majority, of editors who have been working on an article favor one system, we should at the very least respect them enough to assume that they are actingin good faith and have reasons for
402:
someplace else. Whatever formulation suits him at the moment, his changes are always from BCE/CE to BC/AD. Apparently, this activity goes back for months now, well before our first encounter. Even after numerous explanations and warnings by many editors (including even those who favor the BC/AD
634:
I do not want to address the specific conflict between Jguk and Humus sapiens. I do however have a question and a statement. Question: are ArbCom rulings considered decisions concerning specific disputes between specific partices, or more general findings concerning policy that apply to all
451:
488:
reversions. He often cites "consistency" as an excuse when converting articles to BC/AD notation, yet when other editors do the same but instead choose BCE/CE, he immediately reverts and converts the article to BC/AD notation, ofter using a misleading edit summary. For example, in
635:
editors? I recognize that ArbCom findings in the past may be and often are relevant to conflicts in the present. But I do not believe ArbCom rulings in the past can themselves become general policy. Jguk seesms to be treating a past ArbCom ruling as if it were general policy.
43:
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to
Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the
446:, BCE, and CE. During the last arbitration, he made a very public show of "leaving" in order to elicit sympathy and sway the arbitration process, and he seems to have been mostly successful. Even as he pretended to "leave", he came back using the sockpuppet
639:
BCE/CE), are all articles "frozen," meaning, editors are no longer free to discuss, on an article-by-article basis, which dating system is most appropriate? Even if it were within the bounds of the ArbCom to make such a ruling, I do not think it is wise.
570:- incivility, personal attacks, edit-warring, refusal to participate in a dispute resolution process (other than to bring a case before ArbCom), ignoring the ArbCom's previous decision and creating an atmosphere of general hositility and bullyinh
804:
The vote which was held about the idea to change all dates to BCE/CE, which was soundly and fairly defeated, also had no effect on the long-standing policy. Rejection of a proposal does not constitute consensus for the opposite
1013:, edit-warring is considered detrimental to Knowledge (XXG), on account of both the social disruption it causes and the stalling effect it has on the improvement of the article in question. Editors should use the
964:
is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on
Knowledge (XXG). Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason.
60:
642:
Jguk and others have pointed to one criteria that is important: consistency within an article. I agree this is an important criteria. But this criteria can be interpreted in different ways. In
317:
312:
512:
more clearly illustrates his actual changes. As stated before, this same pattern is also repeated across many articles. Recently, he has taken to inventing policy to support his edits
56:
49:
919:), jguk is prohibited from changing or removing any BCE/CE notation from any article, or making any edit intended to achieve that result, pending resolution of this matter.
840:. He has never previously edited the article, offered no explanation of his actions, just arrived and took out the date notations. Please STOP this repugnant behavior.
944:
1) In certain cases a
Knowledge (XXG) editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area.
982:
786:"no changes". The issue of BC/BCE was always considered to be of the same class as the issue of color/colour, and the long accepted solution to the problem is:
582:- making a decision that no reasonable person could make, and making that decision where he knew, or should have known, that it would increase disruption on WP.
454:
to remove/convert over 300 articles using BCE/CE to BC/AD. After "returning", he resumed his previous pattern to enforce his stylistic preferences. He followed
1035:
1) Jguk has changed the era notation on hundreds of articles which he does not usually edit to reflect his preferred usage BC AD, see for example his edits to
442:, and under various ip address in the range 195.40.200.0 - 195.40.200.255), continues his disruptive behavior in order to remove all references and usage of
732:
408:
194:
104:
778:
Without going into the merits of individual edits, I would like to point out three things, lest we get sidetracked from what's important in this case.
1064:
2) The regular editors of articles which Jguk has visited for the purpose of correcting the era format have objected to his efforts, see for example
205:
Slrubenstein and
Jdavidb raise questions regarding the scope of the Jguk arbitration cases as they apply to editing by all Knowledge (XXG) users.
1328:
903:
894:
885:
876:
867:
654:
My problem is when Jguk and others, e.g. Arcturus, specifically look for articles that use BCE and CE and try to change them. This occured at
716:
BTW, arbitrators who expressed an opinion on the issue should consider recusing, as should those who are partisan on this and related issues.
555:
519:
750:
17:
1169:
1) Jguk may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeated offenses, should he attempt to change the era notation in any article.
522:
for a complete list of his era related edits since his last arbcom case (which numbers over 300), in addition to his edits as an ip editor
986:
45:
87:
794:
Choose the most logical option for the article as it evolves; if there's no logical option, go with the original author's choice, and
1270:
1204:
554:
I shall be reducing my time on WP in the coming weeks because of real-life commitments, so I am outlining my evidence now. It is on
1014:
246:
181:
1010:
224:
165:
961:
347:
753:
to take into consideration the subject of each article. For example, it is inappropriate to use
American spelling in
1264:
1198:
504:, and he follows this edit by converting the (now consistent) article to BC/AD notation with a deceptively labeled
377:
142:
1306:" with an expiry time of 4 days (breaking arbcom injunction). Dan100 subsequently reduced the block to 1 day.
808:
The whole thing is trivial and can be easily solved by a minor extension of software: just make ] display as
764:
418:
342:
307:
302:
297:
292:
287:
282:
277:
81:
411:: "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article".
685:
337:
990:
864:
332:
327:
322:
1148:
1) Jguk is indefinitely prohibited from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD in any article, for any reason.
480:
different editors and against the clear consensus on the talk page). A similar pattern was followed on
833:
I got up this morning, checked my watchlist, and found that Jguk had completely removed "CE" from the
621:
558:. A summary of the charges is below - I will inform all users listed here before the end of the day.
381:
352:
1310:
1244:
914:
1) Based on continued editing solely for the purpose of removing BCE/CE notation from articles (see
844:
823:
767:
720:
701:
688:
624:
529:
421:
231:
1294:
1228:
1093:
761:
758:
754:
567:
498:
469:. This is especially egregious as it was he who had initially changed date styles in the article
415:
412:
257:
175:
77:
108:
1276:
1210:
891:
698:
681:
435:
120:
1282:
1241:
1216:
873:
861:
579:
490:
218:
159:
404:
116:
112:
717:
672:
either had no objection to using BCE/CE as appropriate, or used it themselves. There was
618:
100:
48:, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
1307:
1258:
1192:
900:
655:
643:
371:
261:
136:
1322:
585:
447:
439:
171:
1065:
882:
695:
400:"WP has a "no change of date styles" policy, and that this was endorsed by ArbCom"
387:) or use misleading edit summaries; to edit under anon IP addresses (according to
1089:
610:, which has used it ever since the article was overhauled more than a year ago.
573:
526:
455:
214:
155:
816:
or whatever according to user's preferences, exactly like we do now with dates.
735:
on SLR's proposal: I did not participate in that voting, and it is non-binding.
820:
443:
55:
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at
1085:
841:
431:
367:
228:
132:
103:
to change era style in numerous
Knowledge (XXG) articles. He misinterprets
713:
not different ones for those that have vocal POV pushers working on them.
746:
313:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive46#User:Jguk I
1109:
4) On the matter of usage of years, the Manual of Style currently says:
860:
Reject. See discussion in the clarification section if you really want.
338:
Talk:Kingdom of Israel#BC/BCE - reminder of sitewide de facto compromise
1036:
651:
their choice, reasons that the community at large may find acceptable.
607:
547:
I am re-writing this section to outline the charges I wish to bring.
515:. Even editors who support BC/AD notation have condemned his actions
459:
403:
notation), he still systematically misinterprets WP policies and the
318:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive47#Jguk II
1122:
813:
809:
801:. ArbCom's decision in the last round did nothing to change that.
1129:. See Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras."
1114:
481:
1240:" with an expiry time of 3 hours (breaking arbcom injunction)
834:
739:
647:
Jewish texts and the other for
Christian texts, consistently.
333:
Talk:Kingdom of Judah#BCE/BC - reminder of sitewide compromise
1252:
1186:
676:
controversy over this issue until August 2005 &mdahs;
1126:
1118:
749:
I strongly reject: all WP articles are open to everyone.
983:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras
854:
272:
Attempts by others (starting from the end of July 2005):
1300:
1288:
1234:
1222:
1046:
1043:
1040:
917:
915:
838:
658:
615:
613:
611:
556:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/BCE 2/Evidence
523:
516:
513:
509:
505:
502:
494:
470:
467:
463:
399:
395:
391:
388:
385:
268:
265:
855:
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0)
466:, followed it up with an edit demanding "consistency"
985:
can be changed by the Knowledge (XXG) community, see
193:
Jguk requests full clarification of the decision in
278:
User talk:Jguk/Archive8#The current BC-BCE edit war
1096:) have engaged in edit-warring over date styles.
993:by those users who are familiar with the matter.
472:. He then went to engage in a revert war (making
189:Request for full clarification of prior decision
1144:Jguk banned from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD
396:"far more people will understand this version"
288:User talk:Jguk/Archive8#Accusations of "troll"
924:Passed 6 to 0 at 14:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
195:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Jguk
105:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Jguk
8:
977:Changing a guideline such as Manual of Style
501:made an edit, making the article consistent
1249:22:01, 11 December 2005 Nandesuka blocked "
1009:4) Regardless of whether editors break the
1183:10:55, December 7, 2005 Sam Korn blocked "
308:User talk:Jguk/Archive9#Dates on Jerusalem
197:, naming Fred Bauder as a nominal party.
52:. Evidence is more useful than comments.
745:The idea of "Jewish owned" articles is a
630:Statement by outside party (Slrubenstein)
539:Please limit your statement to 500 words
493:, the article used inconsistent notation
392:"I'm told the MOS mandates this copyedit"
241:Please limit your statement to 500 words
348:User talk:Humus sapiens#ArbCom's meaning
303:User talk:Jguk/Archive9#BCE again, again
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration
708:Statement by outside party (Grace Note)
694:I endorse this summary wholeheartedly.
601:Statement by outside party (Briangotts)
283:User talk:Jguk/Archive8#Date era style
59:and voting on proposed decisions at
7:
751:I did ask for ArbCom's clarification
1084:3) All the parties in the dispute (
774:Statement by outside party (Zocky)
323:Talk:Kingdom of Judah#BCE/CE again
298:User talk:Jguk/Archive9#BCE, again
24:
1329:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration cases
829:Statement by outside party (Zora)
790:Be consistent within an article,
525:, (which also numbers over 300).
245:Confirmation that other steps in
668:. Other people who were adding
209:Request for temporary injunction
38:on 03:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
1005:Edit-warring considered harmful
798:don't make a big fuss out of it
588:- incivility, personal attacks.
462:, where after Sunray made this
343:User talk:Humus sapiens#Comment
30:on 12:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
1178:Record of blocks for violation
353:Talk:Hebrew calendar#BCE vs BC
328:Talk:Kingdom of Judah#Stalking
1:
1311:23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
596:Statements by outside parties
1245:22:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
1017:to solve the issue instead.
904:14:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
895:20:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
886:23:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
877:14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
868:10:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
845:19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
824:10:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
768:04:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
721:05:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
702:13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
689:15:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
625:04:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
530:18:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
422:07:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
232:18:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
150:Third parties joined by Jguk
99:Jguk recurrently engages in
1060:Reaction of regular editors
989:. This policy provides for
731:If "they didn't win" means
407:, explicitly quoted in the
293:User talk:Jguk/Archive9#BCE
1345:
1015:dispute resolution process
742:are ethno-religious group.
362:Statement by Humus sapiens
119:and often uses misleading
1066:Talk:Khazars#Date_crusade
991:consensus decision-making
940:Obsessional point of view
726:Response by Humus sapiens
484:where he engaged in over
384:). He was noted to omit (
201:Request for clarification
1030:
987:how policies are decided
784:is not now and never was
981:3) A guideline such as
890:Accept, reluctantly.
72:Initiator of complaint
850:Preliminary decisions
910:Temporary injunction
535:Statement by party 2
394:in one place, while
382:Talk:Hebrew calendar
237:Statement by party 1
95:Summary of complaint
476:reversions against
427:Statement by Sortan
1165:Enforcement by ban
755:History of Britain
568:User:Humus sapiens
562:Summary of charges
499:User:Humus sapiens
434:, also editing as
247:dispute resolution
61:/Proposed decision
1011:three revert rule
678:three years later
543:Statement by jguk
127:Nominal defendent
1336:
1305:
1304:
1271:deleted contribs
1255:
1239:
1238:
1205:deleted contribs
1189:
1105:What policy says
1026:Findings of fact
580:User:Fred Bauder
491:Kingdom of Judah
67:Involved parties
1344:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1319:
1318:
1256:
1251:
1250:
1190:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1167:
1162:
1146:
1141:
1107:
1082:
1062:
1033:
1031:Jguk's campaign
1028:
1007:
979:
962:Manual of Style
958:
956:Manual of Style
942:
937:
932:
912:
857:
852:
831:
776:
728:
710:
632:
603:
598:
564:
545:
537:
429:
409:ArbCom's ruling
398:elsewhere, and
364:
358:and many more.
249:have been tried
239:
211:
203:
191:
152:
129:
97:
74:
69:
39:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1342:
1340:
1332:
1331:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1314:
1313:
1247:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1154:
1153:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1074:
1073:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1054:
1053:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1006:
1003:
1001:
999:
998:
978:
975:
973:
971:
970:
957:
954:
952:
950:
949:
941:
938:
936:
933:
931:
930:Final decision
928:
927:
926:
911:
908:
907:
906:
897:
888:
879:
870:
856:
853:
851:
848:
830:
827:
818:
817:
806:
802:
775:
772:
771:
770:
743:
736:
727:
724:
709:
706:
705:
704:
656:Biblical canon
644:Biblical canon
631:
628:
602:
599:
597:
594:
592:
590:
589:
583:
577:
571:
563:
560:
544:
541:
536:
533:
428:
425:
366:It seems that
363:
360:
356:
355:
350:
345:
340:
335:
330:
325:
320:
315:
310:
305:
300:
295:
290:
285:
280:
274:
273:
270:
262:User talk:Jguk
253:
252:
250:
238:
235:
210:
207:
202:
199:
190:
187:
186:
185:
169:
151:
148:
147:
146:
128:
125:
121:edit summaries
96:
93:
92:
91:
73:
70:
68:
65:
42:
34:
26:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1341:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1324:
1317:
1312:
1309:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1277:nuke contribs
1275:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1254:
1248:
1246:
1243:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1211:nuke contribs
1209:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1188:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1164:
1159:
1157:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1104:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1095:
1094:Humus sapiens
1091:
1087:
1079:
1077:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1067:
1059:
1057:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1038:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1016:
1012:
1004:
1002:
996:
995:
994:
992:
988:
984:
976:
974:
968:
967:
966:
963:
955:
953:
947:
946:
945:
939:
934:
929:
925:
922:
921:
920:
918:
916:
909:
905:
902:
898:
896:
893:
889:
887:
884:
880:
878:
875:
871:
869:
866:
863:
859:
858:
849:
847:
846:
843:
839:
836:
828:
826:
825:
822:
815:
811:
807:
803:
800:
799:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:
779:
773:
769:
766:
763:
762:Humus sapiens
759:
756:
752:
748:
744:
741:
737:
734:
730:
729:
725:
723:
722:
719:
714:
707:
703:
700:
697:
693:
692:
691:
690:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
657:
652:
648:
645:
640:
636:
629:
627:
626:
623:
620:
616:
614:
612:
609:
600:
595:
593:
587:
586:User:CDThieme
584:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
565:
561:
559:
557:
552:
548:
542:
540:
534:
532:
531:
528:
524:
521:
517:
514:
511:
507:
503:
500:
496:
492:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
468:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
426:
424:
423:
420:
417:
416:Humus sapiens
413:
410:
406:
401:
397:
393:
390:); to assert
389:
386:
383:
379:
376:
373:
369:
361:
359:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
304:
301:
299:
296:
294:
291:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
276:
275:
271:
269:
266:
263:
259:
258:Humus sapiens
255:
254:
251:
248:
244:
243:
242:
236:
234:
233:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
208:
206:
200:
198:
196:
188:
183:
180:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
153:
149:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:
126:
124:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
94:
89:
86:
83:
79:
78:Humus sapiens
76:
75:
71:
66:
64:
62:
58:
53:
51:
47:
40:
37:
32:
29:
19:
1315:
1297:
1291:
1285:
1279:
1273:
1267:
1261:
1231:
1225:
1219:
1213:
1207:
1201:
1195:
1168:
1155:
1147:
1108:
1100:Passed 6-0-1
1083:
1080:Edit-warring
1075:
1063:
1055:
1034:
1021:Passed 6-0-1
1008:
1000:
980:
972:
959:
951:
943:
923:
913:
892:Kelly Martin
832:
819:
797:
795:
791:
787:
783:
777:
715:
711:
682:Slrubenstein
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
653:
649:
641:
637:
633:
604:
591:
553:
549:
546:
538:
506:edit summary
485:
477:
473:
450:, and as an
436:jongarrettuk
430:
374:
365:
357:
256:Attempts by
240:
221:
212:
204:
192:
178:
162:
139:
98:
84:
54:
41:
35:
33:
27:
25:
1242:Fred Bauder
1160:Enforcement
874:Fred Bauder
782:The policy
574:User:Sortan
456:User:Sunray
115:, violates
36:Case Closed
28:Case Opened
1295:block user
1289:filter log
1229:block user
1223:filter log
1173:Passed 7-0
1152:Passed 7-0
1134:Passed 7-0
1072:Passed 7-0
1052:Passed 6-1
997:Passed 7-0
969:Passed 5-0
948:Passed 7-0
935:Principles
901:➥the Epopt
718:Grace Note
619:Briangotts
444:Common Era
1308:Nandesuka
1301:block log
1235:block log
960:2.2) The
738:FYI, the
452:ip editor
101:edit wars
57:/Workshop
50:/Evidence
46:Talk page
1323:Category
1265:contribs
1199:contribs
1139:Remedies
883:→Raul654
881:Accept.
862:James F.
837:article
747:strawman
448:SmokeDog
440:SmokeDog
378:contribs
260:on page
225:contribs
182:contribs
172:CDThieme
166:contribs
143:contribs
109:WP:RULES
88:contribs
1037:Khazars
899:Accept
872:Accept
805:option.
696:Jdavidb
670:content
666:content
664:adding
608:Khazars
508:. This
1090:Sortan
865:(talk)
733:Voting
699:(talk)
622:(talk)
527:Sortan
518:. See
474:twelve
460:Fu Hsi
405:WP:MoS
215:Sortan
156:Sortan
117:WP:CIV
113:WP:MoS
1123:1 BCE
821:Zocky
814:30 CE
810:30 AD
606:from
16:<
1283:logs
1259:talk
1253:Jguk
1217:logs
1193:talk
1187:Jguk
1127:1 CE
1119:AD 1
1115:1 BC
1086:jguk
842:Zora
796:(c)
765:←ну?
740:Jews
686:Talk
662:also
520:here
510:diff
495:here
482:Elam
464:edit
432:jguk
419:←ну?
372:talk
368:Jguk
229:jguk
219:talk
176:talk
160:talk
137:talk
133:Jguk
82:talk
1121:or
1045:,
835:Ali
812:or
792:(b)
788:(a)
684:|
478:six
458:to
213:As
123:.
63:.
1325::
1092:,
1088:,
1068:.
1048:.
1042:,
1039::
757:.
674:no
617:--
497:.
486:14
438:,
267:,
264::
111:,
107:,
1303:)
1298:·
1292:·
1286:·
1280:·
1274:·
1268:·
1262:·
1257:(
1237:)
1232:·
1226:·
1220:·
1214:·
1208:·
1202:·
1196:·
1191:(
1125:–
1117:–
760:←
414:←
375:·
370:(
222:·
217:(
184:)
179:·
174:(
168:)
163:·
158:(
145:)
140:·
135:(
90:)
85:·
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.