1028:
site, www.one-reality.net , in which I expose the Ex-premie group for what they are (a HATE GROUP), debunk their propaganda, and expose the tactics they employ. My free time is limited. Others were already countering the inaccurate, excessively negative ex-premie spin, so for those reasons I did not contribute to the debate on this web site at that time. I chose to contribute to the discussion for the first time when the subject of ex-premies as a hate group arose. I hope that my contributions, recent and few though they have been, have shed some light on the real nature and modus operandi of the ex-premie group. I will write a more detailed account later in the week. My thanks to
Knowledge (XXG) editors. Obviously, you have done your best to wade through a mountain of conflicting information concerning Prem Rawat and the organizations supporting his work. I hope that an analysis of the Ex-premie Hate Group will present an easier task. James R
398:: The edit war is raging simply because the ex-premies, a group of 20 people don't like to be called "hate group". Fact is that they are being called that, and the reasons clearly documented. The contention between NRMs such as Elan Vital and hateful ex-followers such as the ex-premies is part and parcel of the on-going debate of freedom of religion and the controversy surrounding the use of the Internet for magnifying the relevance of fringe groups as the ex-premies. The whole section was moved out of the
867:?) to be rather insufferable. You find it easy to accuse others of malfeasance but fail to recognize your own shortcomings. Could it be that the one "thumbing his nose at Knowledge (XXG)" is you? Rather than work to help build consensus it seems that you chose to hold on to your POV so dearly that you fail to recognize value brought forth by voters on this page. I am glad that this VfD is almost over and hopefully spare these endless debates and focus instead on editing. --
800:
their web page that they are a large enough group of people to be taken seriously. They can;t have it both ways. If they speak for "thousands" of people, as their de facto leader John Brauns has said, and, if they are doing a "public service" by their activities, as they have also claimed, then the scrutiny of public exposure is as appropriate to them as it is to their target. In short, "who watches the
Watchmen?"
959:
why does the deletion policy specifically state to give reasoning behind all votes? If the reasoning offered for a vote is flawed, who are you to say that the flaw in the reasoning cannot be pointed out? Once again, even as you are pretending despite the clear evidence that you had some other motive for breaking out than wanting to reinsert an allegation against the ex-premies, Richard G. is coming along and
1036:. Before I would consider this an article worth keeping, I would want to see some evidence that this article is going to develop into anything more than a tactic to avoid achieving consensus in another article. I don't. If every article X on which there is a dispute spawns a "Controversies concerning X" article, Knowledge (XXG) will be filled with dumb "Controversy" articles pretty fast. --
488:. That text is also being challenged there by one editor that is only interested in removing text regardless of the value of that text. As one that studies throughout history, hateful behavior of apostates is not surprising. As Everyking says, this is a fascinating subject, and the controversy between emerging religions and their apostates is worthy of exploration. After I complete my work on
113:. Does the fact that he moved the block of text itself to a different article between the third and fourth time he did it mean that he never violated the spirit of the three-revert rule? Clearly not; under that interpretation no one would ever have to obey the three-revert rule as long as they remembered to punctuate every three reverts with a page move or a breakout to a new article. --
530:
the article did it give you permission to restore a disputed piece of text on which you had already hit the limit of three re-insertions? No, no, and no. Your claim that you can find really interesting material to fill up your new article is irrelevant to the fact that you started a new article so that you could include material which you
518:, then the current text can go in its own section called "Allegations of hate group behaviors". Other possible sections: "Reliability of apostates' testimony", "Criticism vs. freedom of belief", "Religious fundamentalism and their criticism of NRMs", "The left and their criticism of NRMs", This will be a great article. --
416:
I would like to note that Jossi has descended to personal attacks here, identifying those opposing his side of the "edit war" as "the ex-premies", "hateful ex-followers". I question how changing the noun in the title from "hate group" to "critics" is going to result in any change in the POV attitude
1027:
The comment "User has exactly three edits, this vote and two edits," has been added to my post above. On
October 14th, I received an email regarding this web site and submissions by Jim Heller. The author used an anonymizer, so I chose not to reply, however, my interest was aroused. I maintain a web
958:
I simply wish it to be noted that
Richard G. (or Lexy, if it is again Lexy using Richard's account) does not make a convincing argument for why the article should be kept; if anything, his/her argument shows why it should never have been created. If the reasons given for a vote are irrelevant, then
561:
because no one who wasn't previously involved in the dispute had stepped forward after an RfC to say "yes, you should do that", you suddenly seem quite unfamiliar with the concept of consensus. You'll note that I had my own refactoring of the article to suggest, a separation of the current articles
838:
The discussion in this VfD has evolved
Antaeus. You cannot silence good points for developing this article furhter. Several people are adapting their initial vote base on the comments by others. That is a good thing. I would urge you to re-consider your stance and evolve your thinking as well. This
606:
Look Anteus, you shoud have been more forthcoming from the outset. Now that I know your POV (i.e. after reading your words of support of Rick Ross, and your anti-scientology stance as expressed in your user pages, etc.), I undestand much better where are you coming from. So, I have no problems if
529:
The question is whether you should have broken out the text in the first place. Did you consult with any other editors to determine consensus before making the unilateral decision to perform the breakout? Was the size of the parent article such that it needed such a breakout? When you broke out
247:
article? No right to point out that the first thing you did when you created the article was to restore a heavily disputed statement that would have been a violation of the three-revert rule had you kept it in the original article? No right to point out that at least three of the voters who have
242:
Wow, that's extraordinarily weak, Zappaz. If I thought it was up to me to determine the fate of the article, why would I have put it up on VfD for a vote in the first place? Surely you are not suggesting that I have no right to point out that you took the entire text of the article straight from
48:
that certain of their critics are organized against them as a hate group) one editor, who had already reached his limit of three reverts on that one sentence of the article, decided without consulting any other editors to remove the entire section and turn it into its own article. This version of
846:
The discussion in this VfD has not "evolved", it has been deliberately dragged off-topic by determined red herrings. The point is not whether the text "can be seed for a great article", because no one is disputing that the subject itself is encyclopedic. The point is that it was an encyclopedic
799:
There is a considerable body of hard, provable material to raise more than a reasonable inference that this Ex-Premie outfit is a hate group, or at the very least, fits the definitions that Wiki editors have already accepted. In addition, the Ex-Premie group have made many statements, here and on
635:
you understand much better where I am coming from, Zappaz. Or you may just think you have an accusation you can hurl against me that will stand up better than your previous accusation of "You're siding with the ex-premies! That's appalling and disgusting!" If you were to actually develop this
685:
Andries, we all have our POVs. That is a fact. Yes, I am concerned with the cloud of negativity pushed around emerging religions by the unikely coalition of anti-cultist, the religious right and the noveau left. I have stated that openly in several ocassions. What I told you was that you may be
148:
Not until I'm wrong, Zappaz. You had already reached your limit of three reverts, and when you wanted to do another revert but couldn't without hitting the three-revert rule, you moved the section you wanted to a new article and then said "There, I haven't broken the three revert rule; sure, I
981:
In my previous submission on this subject, I provided links to a substantial body of evidence including numerous forum posts by members of the 'Ex-premie' group, and an affidavit accepted as evidence by the
Supreme court in Brisbane Australia. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the group's
686:
trying to use WP as a way to resolve your internal conflicts regarding your traumatic experience with an NRM. My advise to you was to seek professional help. That will do you better than edit wars in WP. Regarding this article, I don't care were we put it as long as it stays.--
847:
subject that was already being covered in an existing article, and you found you couldn't control its contents to the degree you wanted without violating the three-revert rule. You believed that you could get away with re-inserting the same sentence in the text for the
665:
Zappaz, at least I can prove that the accusation that you make against me here is untrue. Hereabove I explicitly wrote that the information should be kept. I only think that the detailed information that you inserted is not appropriate for such a broad, general topic as
444:
one other editor are removing that text. Both, by the way, facts that can be seen in the article's history. He is expressing strong statements aginst the ex-premies. That is his choice. But he is not saying anything against anyone else. Please, read before you shoot!!!!
108:
reverts, has been argued before and it has been rejected before; they clearly count as reverts in the spirit of the three-revert rule, even if the violator has tried to exploit a technicality. Likewise, Zappaz restored the same sentence to the same block of text
292:
Delete: The edit war history is one thing, but the article move is another. Is the new organization useful? Will it be sought? I think the answers to both are "no." Therefore, delete as a stand alone. No need to merge and redirect, as it's a split already.
1107:
that the reason for the article's existence is to promote Elan Vital's allegations against the ex-premies. They're probably correct about that, too. They're just incorrect that this actually constitutes a valid reason to not re-merge the article. --
1082:((((( KEEP )))))Make no mistake this is an original Cyber Stalking Hate Group. Do not allow them to Fadddddddde away. Their tactics are beyond reproach.Scare mongering, Telephone hang-ups , Virus mail - You name it - These guys willstop at nothing!
417:
of the text. To quote from the VfD template, "This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for
Knowledge (XXG)." If it's not going to be something acceptable to consensus as a section of
300:
Keep, I think it's a valid topic. Not just a valid topic, but one which could have an excellent, fascinating article written about it. The animosity between "cults" and anti-cult groups is an enormous topic. So keep it, and revert that redirect.
670:. I think you are a POV pusher on the subject cults and NRMs and I can prove it by the edits that you have made. If you believe that cults are so harmless then why do suggest me to seek psychological help to deal with my cult involvement?
184:
for you: your attitude in following me around my edits in other articles to "NPOV" them, your negative comments about my prolificacy, and your accusation against me as in your last comment in the talk page. Antaeus, I have made a decision
804:
The section belongs here, and if written fairly, cleanly and in an academic fashion, then how is the public LESS served by an exposition and discussion of the issues? MORE INFORMATION IS ALWAYS BETTER. Be editors, not censors.
549:
Are you saying that I need consensus to do an edit? What kind of behavior is that? Have you edited an article later? Do you have to ask permission to edit anything? I do not understand you, your reasons and your motives. Sorry
594:
if it had been kept as one article.) So completely far from bringing us closer to consensus, your breakout of an article has resulting in the bone of contention being doubled, since the allegations under dispute are now in
623:
than just "group X calling group Y a hate group" or "Group X uses the term hate group against group Y as a form of vituperation" as per Gary D.'s comment. Much, much more. Hopefuly others will help me develop this further.
87:
Note: Despite my clear description of the sequence of events above, Zappaz creates a second, false version of events that he misdescribes as my account (the familiar "straw man" technique). Zappaz did not violate the
855:
And your airy waving away of that impropriety with your patronizing "evolve your thinking" is really no more than saying "let me get away with it; I thumbed my nose at
Knowledge (XXG) but let me get away with it." --
1120:
The page needs some improvement and perhaps some more material, but the topic seems important enough to carry in the
Knowledge (XXG). The controversy over the article proves that it is at least thought-provoking.
271:
vote. Concerning the three votes that are as you say are supportive of the "ex-premie as a hate group" allegation, that has nothing to do with the fact that what we are doing in the VfD page is voting for the
986:
I endorse
Richard G's comments. The term "public service" is a smoke screen used by this 'ex-premie' group to disguise the real nature of their activities. For further information, please visit
730:
You are using a sockpuppet, probably two votes from you here, or more? What an accident that you appear here for voting since you didn't use it after October 11. What_is_wrong_at_Wikipedia_?
56:. However, "Be bold" also clearly states "show respect for consensus". This edit was clearly not done with respect for consensus but in defiance of the fact that the disputed sentence was
406:
and now it is being deleted again from there by the ex-pemies and anoter editor that is helping them. That is the reason why I am placing this back in VfD. I vote keep and title change to
189:
to get angry at you, because by doing so I only become your victim. So, I will remain cool and collected, go back to my edits and hope that others will join me in keeping that text in the
436:
I would like to note that Antaeus has taken it upon himself to judge each people round here. I wonder what makes him feel entitled to do that. In his comment above, Jossi is only stating
578:
and it actually has a chance to solve the major point of contention on the article, since the people who are fighting your efforts to keep reinserting specific allegations into
231:. But you are again wrong in your assumptions. Voters here will decide through this VfD, the fate of this text, (keep, delete, or it to merge into another article, which one.)
1052:
100:
without consultation or consensus to a new article, and restoring the very same allegation to the very same place. What Zappaz describes above, making "many edits" which
176:
But you are wrong, Antaeus, you are. You see, you are assuming that I removed the text block from the article as a way to bypass the three revert rule. Well, that is
354:
categorically refuses to use ex-members' testimonies because he thinks that they are unreliable. (I am an ex-member and I find this highly offensive and prejudiced)
714:- If one judges by the controverys above, this is juicy stuff. My vote is to keep, maybe changing the article's title to something that would allow expansion. --
126:
Nice try, Antaeus. An apology for your mistatement was expected. Instead you expand with a lame attempt at interpreting the three revert rule. Unbelievable. --
787:(it's not just new movements that hate each other). But splitting an article to avoid settling a conflict is not the way to arrive at the best articles. -
590:
designed to solve the conflict between the two groups, since it only allowed you to insert the exact same bone of contention into your new article (which
611:. Go ahead! I still reserve the Knowledge (XXG) given right, to to continue developing this text either here with a different title, as a sub-heading in
997:
515:
461:
407:
341:
92:
of the three-revert rule, by restoring an allegation he wanted in the article three times, and then restoring it yet again. He certainly violated the
702:. There may be the germ of an article here somewhere, but this a shameless POV dodge. Settle the issue on the main page, break out something later. --
740:. Designed specifically to deter trolls like you from harassing me and vandalizing my real user page. Admin: your call if to count my vote or not. --
384:
I like that second suggested title. Obviously the use of "hate groups" in the title would be very problematic for a general article on the subject.
80:
article and did many edits that day, not just reverts. On the other hand, Antaeus, the one requesting this VfD was the one doing reverts only...) --
34:
324:
I fully agree with Everyking that the animosity between cults, NRMs and its detractors is a valid subject and needs its own article because the
139:
on that one sentence of the article decided without consulting any other editors to remove the entire section and turn it into its own article.
335:
644:
had you kept things to a single article gives me no faith whatsoever that you actually intend to be even-handed with your new article. --
344:. I have a lot of material in my head and books that can go in that article. The article can contain among others the following subjects.
23:
153:, it's not technically a revert." You may have adhered to the letter of the rule, but you sure as hell didn't adhere to the spirit. --
17:
464:
for a future article is better than my proposal. There will be enough material for that future article in a few weeks, I think.
896:... the intended implication is that an anally retentive person needs to "loosen up" a little instead of "holding on to it".
827:
created expressly for the purpose of including an disputed allegation against Prem Rawat's critics -- since that allegation
64:
d back into its parent article. Splitting off an article is not a valid alternative to "obeying the three revert rule". --
201:. After all this is what is all about: editing the best encyclopedia there is, and not engaging in endless debates. --
44:
article until today. Rather than remove one specific disputed sentence of the article (an allegation by a particular
149:
restored a disputed part of the text to the exact same block of text as before, but because the block of text is now
608:
583:
567:
180:
assumption and one that I take exception with, because it assumes malicious intent on my part. This is becoming
947:
Note that Antaeus Feldspar uses this vote page to pass judgement on the reasons for votes that are contrary to
76:
Antaeus is incorrect on this. I did not exceed the three revert rule. I am one of the main contributors to the
575:
493:
403:
910:
You are a specialist concernig those matters, i know. What about anal-tattoo? What_is_wrong_at_Wikipedia_?
1009:
951:
vote. LOL! I we all followed that procedure oh my god! Let people vote and express their POVs in peace. --
667:
612:
485:
198:
45:
1089:
1109:
964:
857:
832:
758:
645:
600:
535:
422:
253:
154:
114:
65:
911:
784:
731:
410:
806:
96:
of the three-revert rule, by restoring an allegation he wanted in the article three times, removing
492:, we may end up with enough text for an article just on this subject with summaries placed then on
484:(and still under pressure to be removed from there), and the whole text placed as a section in the
788:
982:
activities, and the statements of its members conform to Knowledge (XXG)'s Hate Group criteria.
1133:
1126:
1122:
783:
or some religious article. The other alternative is to rename it and make it encyclopedic -
351:
53:
460:
I can not say that I often agree with Jossi but I think that the title that he proposed
864:
385:
302:
223:
Let me correct you here, Antaeus. You keep assuming that the vote on this page is for
1076:
741:
737:
715:
671:
480:
somewhere- The current situation is that a short summary of this is now present at
465:
370:
259:
If that is the case, it will be more appropriate for you then, to stop speaking of
640:
you did when you created a new article was to insert a disputed sentence that you
1056:
952:
868:
840:
703:
687:
625:
551:
519:
509:
446:
294:
277:
236:
202:
142:
127:
81:
819:, that of whether the article under discussion should have been split off from
636:
article in an NPOV manner, then I would have no objections. The fact that the
440:
POV: that the ex-premies in his view are a hate group, and that the ex-premies
369:
Needless to say that such an article will probably be extremely controversial.
1143:
1072:
1017:
1005:
820:
773:
757:, which is what I'm hoping you will change your vote to a merge back into. --
754:
579:
563:
481:
421:, it's not going to be acceptable to consensus as its own article, either. --
418:
399:
328:
article is already approaching 32k but I do not think that the title is good.
262:
244:
228:
194:
190:
104:, and arguing that those edits do not count as 'reverts' because they are not
77:
41:
197:
article, and this article if it survives VfD or the pertinent section in the
987:
331:
312:
582:
have generally supported so far the efforts to put those allegations into
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements
616:
501:
489:
1068:
1037:
823:. If anything, it is evidence that, despite the protests, the article
831:
the justification that Richard G. offers for keeping this article. --
557:
For someone who was just three days ago complained that my edits were
248:
shown up to cast votes have made clear that they view that allegation
961:
citing the opportunity to make an allegation against the ex-premies
1071:. The content appears to be useful and should incorporated in the
497:
334:(this sounds unencyclopedic but it really is a propaganda war) or
516:
Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics
462:
Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics
408:
Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics
342:
Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics
779:
571:
325:
863:
I can only say that I find your self-righteousness (may I say
592:
you could not have done without breaking the three-revert rule
558:
991:
996:-- User has exactly three edits, this vote and two edits to
350:
reliability of the testimonies of ex-members. E.g. scholar
347:
accusations by the anti-cult movement, media and ex-members
1125:
06:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (voted moved from main VfD page--
771:
article and merge content into an appropriate article. If
736:
Yes, this is my sockpuppet account, publicly stated here:
586:. However, your breakout of a new article was definitely
336:
Controversy surrounding cults and new religious movements
49:
the article, of course, contained the disputed sentence.
1004:
Interesting material that seems to belong within either
1012:. I don't see any reason to create a new article. (Re)
570:. This separation has precedent in the articles for
193:article as well as helping me further develop the
137:who had already reached his limit of three reverts
504:. In respond to Andries about this article being
102:all contain the restoration of a disputed element
1051:. See a sample of what it could look like in my
60:supported by consensus. This article should be
963:as his/her sole reason to keep the article. --
753:It was just as juicy stuff when it was part of
853:extracted the entire section to a new article.
534:get consensus for in the original article. --
998:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Ex-Premies
8:
1025:Comment and clarification from user James R
988:http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/11/0/
839:text can be seed for a great article. --
35:Hate groups and new religious movements
619:. My research shows me that there is
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
851:in twenty-four hours as long as you
1047:develop into a full blown article,
52:There is certainly such a thing as
276:text not just these four words. --
40:This article was a section of the
31:
817:does not address the actual issue
777:doesn't fit then send it over to
726:- i watched your contrib list
1:
609:List of purported hate groups
607:you want to start an article
584:List of purported hate groups
568:List of purported hate groups
250:as the purpose of the article
218:Additional comments by Zappaz
615:, or as a sub-heading under
508:, I would say, "exactly." --
815:Note that Richard G's vote
267:, every time you counter a
141:Should you say sorry...? --
1161:
992:http://www.one-reality.net
809:14:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
413:11:36, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
311:, let it fester and grow.
1132:Delete. Motives suspect.
1129:22:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC))
1040:17:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1020:02:24, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
955:20:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
860:01:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
843:23:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
835:18:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
628:02:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
603:00:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
554:22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
256:21:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
239:19:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
145:22:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
130:22:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
84:15:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
68:01:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1146:23:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1136:22:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1112:17:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1079:19:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1059:19:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
967:21:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
871:02:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
791:00:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
761:01:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
744:14:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
728:-almost Prem Rawat only-
718:00:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
706:07:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
690:22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
674:18:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
648:18:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
538:20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
522:16:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
512:15:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
468:09:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
449:03:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
425:20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
388:19:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
373:18:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
315:23:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
305:09:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
297:02:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
280:23:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
205:03:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
157:00:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
117:20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
668:new religious movements
576:List of purported cults
494:New religious movements
404:New religious movements
1067:for reasons stated by
1010:New religious movement
1008:or the second half of
613:New religious movement
486:New religious movement
321:Abstain for the moment
199:New religious movement
151:in a different article
46:new religious movement
133:Your words, Anteaus:
54:being bold in editing
357:Hate groups and NRMs
994:Thank you, James R
642:could not have done
514:. Change title to:
1103:voter showing up,
865:anal-retentiveness
506:very controversial
98:the entire section
1105:never questioning
1086:Peter Gordon LLb
785:Hate and religion
22:(Redirected from
1152:
1142:. No POV forks.
1110:Antaeus Feldspar
965:Antaeus Feldspar
858:Antaeus Feldspar
833:Antaeus Feldspar
759:Antaeus Feldspar
646:Antaeus Feldspar
601:Antaeus Feldspar
536:Antaeus Feldspar
423:Antaeus Feldspar
352:J. Gordon Melton
261:merging back to
254:Antaeus Feldspar
155:Antaeus Feldspar
115:Antaeus Feldspar
66:Antaeus Feldspar
27:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1088:Note: this is
724:Hi user senegal
712:Keep and expand
38:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1158:
1156:
1148:
1147:
1137:
1130:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1090:203.217.39.118
1084:
1083:
1080:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1030:
1029:
984:
983:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
939:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
802:
801:
793:
792:
765:
764:
763:
762:
748:
747:
746:
745:
720:
719:
708:
707:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
678:
677:
676:
675:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
542:
541:
540:
539:
524:
523:
472:
471:
470:
469:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
429:
428:
427:
426:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
377:
376:
375:
374:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
355:
348:
316:
306:
298:
288:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
160:
159:
158:
121:
120:
119:
118:
37:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1157:
1145:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:'s only edit.
1091:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1002:
1001:
999:
993:
989:
980:
977:
976:
966:
962:
957:
956:
954:
950:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
913:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
870:
866:
862:
861:
859:
854:
850:
845:
844:
842:
837:
836:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
808:
798:
795:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:
776:
775:
770:
767:
766:
760:
756:
752:
751:
750:
749:
743:
739:
735:
734:
733:
729:
725:
722:
721:
717:
713:
710:
709:
705:
701:
698:
697:
689:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
673:
669:
664:
663:
662:
661:
647:
643:
639:
634:
630:
629:
627:
622:
618:
614:
610:
605:
604:
602:
599:articles! --
598:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
560:
556:
555:
553:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
537:
533:
528:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
477:
474:
473:
467:
463:
459:
458:
457:
456:
448:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
424:
420:
415:
414:
412:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
387:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
372:
368:
367:
366:
365:
359:
356:
353:
349:
346:
345:
343:
339:
337:
333:
327:
323:
322:
317:
314:
310:
307:
304:
299:
296:
291:
290:
289:
279:
275:
270:
266:
264:
258:
257:
255:
251:
246:
241:
240:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
183:
179:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
156:
152:
147:
146:
144:
140:
138:
132:
131:
129:
125:
124:
123:
122:
116:
112:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
86:
85:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
69:
67:
63:
59:
55:
50:
47:
43:
36:
33:
25:
19:
1139:
1134:Niteowlneils
1127:Niteowlneils
1123:RyanGerbil10
1117:
1104:
1100:
1087:
1085:
1064:
1049:now or later
1048:
1044:
1033:
1024:
1013:
1003:
995:
985:
978:
960:
948:
938:
912:66.250.68.55
895:
852:
848:
828:
824:
816:
803:
796:
778:
772:
768:
738:User:Senegal
732:66.250.68.55
727:
723:
711:
699:
641:
637:
632:
620:
596:
591:
587:
559:"unilateral"
531:
505:
479:
475:
441:
437:
395:
329:
320:
318:
308:
287:
273:
268:
260:
249:
232:
225:merging back
224:
217:
216:
186:
181:
177:
150:
136:
135:one editor,
134:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
73:
61:
57:
51:
39:
849:fourth time
638:first thing
478:and expand
1073:Hate group
1006:Hate group
829:is exactly
825:was indeed
821:Hate group
807:Richard G.
774:Hate group
755:Hate group
621:a lot more
580:Hate group
564:Hate group
482:Hate group
419:Hate group
400:hate group
330:I propose
263:hate group
245:Hate group
229:Hate group
195:Hate group
191:Hate group
111:four times
78:hate group
42:Hate group
1075:article.
1053:scrapbook
532:could not
411:≈ jossi ≈
386:Everyking
332:cult wars
303:Everyking
631:You may
617:Apostasy
502:Apostasy
490:Apostasy
340:Move to
182:personal
1101:another
1077:Martg76
1045:It will
789:Willmcw
742:Senegal
716:Senegal
672:Andries
466:Andries
371:Andries
265:article
233:not you
1140:Delete
1065:Delete
1057:Zappaz
1034:Delete
953:Zappaz
869:Zappaz
841:Zappaz
769:Delete
704:Calton
700:Delete
688:Zappaz
626:Zappaz
552:Zappaz
520:Zappaz
510:Zappaz
447:Zappaz
295:Geogre
278:Zappaz
252:? --
237:Zappaz
203:Zappaz
143:Zappaz
128:Zappaz
94:spirit
90:letter
82:Zappaz
1144:Jayjg
1118:Keep.
1018:Hoary
1014:merge
633:think
562:into
498:Cults
402:into
319:Keep
274:whole
74:NOTE:
62:merge
16:<
1099:Yet
1043:BM:
990:or
979:Keep
797:Keep
780:Cult
597:both
574:and
572:Cult
566:and
500:and
476:Keep
396:Keep
326:cult
313:Wyss
309:Keep
269:keep
243:the
235:. --
178:your
106:only
1016:--
949:his
894:(*)
588:not
442:and
438:his
360:etc
227:to
187:not
58:not
1069:BM
1055:--
1038:BM
624:--
550:--
496:,
445:--
338:.
1000:.
72:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.