2969:. In my opinion it should be ok to add the words "Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging...." The material about members of a project who might demonstrate this behavior is true, but it could be perceived as an indirect or subtle criticism of project team members even though later on it is clarified that the good work project team members do should not be confused with advocacy. In my opinion, the vast majority of the Opposes are occurring because of the mention of project members. Someone might wish to start a new RfC with just the words "Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging...." to be included in the main article; i think this will find the support of the community.
1313:
becomes one's entire focus? Seriously? Please make use of your sandbox and write something constructive and helpful to WP. I'm trying to get some research done on a series of articles and don't want to spend my life responding to your unwarranted comments. Do something creative - become an asset to the project. You're good at editing medical articles - stick with it - expand the encyclopedia! Wish I could help more in that department but I'm not medically inclined. I'm a lowly retired writer and while I appreciate the entertainment value just reading what young editors have to say, I'm really quite busy doing other things to enhance WP. Have a great weekend.
2351:
medicine and sees ancient or natural healing methods as "fringe". This viewpoint isn't necessarily shared by all
Wikipedians or all parts of the world. Because I have only run into members of this Project it will have to serve as my only example of how the work of a WProject may appear cabal-like or biased to those independent editors on a page with a different POV and who are unaware of these Projects. I do think we could use help with the wording, and since this essay has been so unrelentingly contentious, would recommend purposely seeking input on the presentation as well as on this RfC from WikiProjects besides Medicine.
540:
how it's going to perform. In other words, it has to prove its worth. I respectfully request that we all try to focus on the big picture, not the small things that can be upgraded/modified/deleted later once the essay has earned its place. I understand both sides of this debate and appreciate both positions but I also believe in compromise especially when it comes to trivial matters. I have always welcomed collaboration, substantive criticism and suggestions for improvement, and we have done our best to accommodate both perspectives. Now it's time for the essay to prove its worth.
2949:, perhaps text could discuss controversial areas by linking to less 'subject specific' advice. I have elsewhere said that the very title is (IMO) unconstructive, since 'duck' in WP-speak is a reference to a 'weapon of last resort', used when the community has already decided that there is a very significant problem, but cannot prove exactly what it is, but which here is being mis-used to prop up initial subjective assessment. The essay invokes the image of flocks of advocates roaming WP abusing PaG, which I don't think is either true, nor a constructive mindset.
1354:. If policy-based grounds are provided (which will of course have to cite the relevant policy, and provide evidence that it applies here) and we can't come to an agreement, I suspect that it may be necessary to have another RfC on the matter. I am reluctant to have to ask the community for input over what might seem a trivial question, but I do think that the principle matters, and that allowing the WP:OWNership displayed here to extend to what amounts to an attempt to even deny that alternative views exist is something that the community should not tolerate.
1467:
understand that essays are opinions and that RfC's are not checkered flags signaling that it's ok to attack the OP or others for that matter simply because they have opposing views. We have guidelines to follow, so please follow them. If you disagree regarding ways to deal with advocacy teams, tendentious editing, harassment, etc., then provide input. You have created your own opinion piece - if you want it to remain as a link to a userfy essay, then you need to designate it as such. Adhere to PAGs and everyone will be a lot happier. Enjoy your day.
2813:(they are orthogonal -- stewardship can occur with or without a wikiproject being involved ... and just because an article has a wikiproject banner on the talkpage does not guarantee that stewardship of the article actually is happening 24/7/365). Anyways, it might help focus the essay, to be specifically about the difference between a coot and a duck, if some brief not-to-be-confused-with sentence fragments were at the top, and an intro-paragraph gave pointers to the various interrelated-yet-distinct concepts that the meat of the essay depends upon.
2808:, having not seen this essay before today, I won't make a call on whether the proposed language improves the essay or not. However, I would suggest that some {{disambiguate}} entries at the top of the essay would be helpful, in meeting what seems to be the thrust of the suggested change, aka cluing in beginning editors on the subtle concepts involved here. AVDUCK *is* distinct from WP:OWN, for instance (although often an advocate or group-of-advocates will try to 'own' an article, that alone is not the
3842:...disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other.
3228:
reason - other than opinion - to oppose the addition of the proposed statement. It does not violate PAG, it is helpful to those who are faced with team advocacy, and it advises the editor to self-analyze before drawing a conclusion. I also noticed that many of the same editors who are opposing this essay now attempted to keep it off mainspace with 2 successful attempts and one failed attempt which is the current essay. One has to wonder why the lady doth protest so much.
3558:
advocacy' is going to assume that if the warning is there, it is because the danger is real. We have enough problems already with new (and not so new) contributors who see any disagreement as evidence that they are being conspired against - an essay which warns tells them to beware of a whole new class of conspirators for which we have no evidence at all is a recipe for trouble. It amounts to an instruction that if you meet opposition, assume bad faith.
31:
1846:: "Widespread support" is not required for the change in the disclaimer. The new disclaimer explicitly says that the essay could constitute minority opinion. The ANI discussion had to be closed because it had become a stale mate since there were both many proponents and many opponents of this essay. Andy is right that it was not a content dispute that was discussed at ANI but the whole ANI discussion revolved around this essay.
133:
Furthermore, two of the links included above circle back to this essay and are not worth the effort it takes to click on them and are about as productive as shopping for lunchmeat in an autoparts store. The deleted essays have no relevance to this essay. The only similarities between them are images and authorship. Any history attached to this essay belongs in the header, not as a separate section below the header.
556:
3836:- what I would like for you to do is please stop sniping at me, and start noticing things that are important, like the fact that an essay is not an article, a policy or a guideline. Anyone can edit an essay but there is nothing in our PAG that give editors a green light to revert GF edits, or change the original intent or opinions expressed in an existing namespace essay. In fact,
3312:
and in this case, the opinion is not non-compliant. The closer should be familiar enough with Essay guidelines to understand it's an opinion essay. If editors were able to do what this particular team of opposing editors would like to do - keep certain information out of an essay because they don't agree with it, we wouldn't have any essays but the ones you write.
1280:
2499:, so the problem does exist. The passage is meant to point out the difference and focus on the behavior, not the project team that is trying to improve the encyclopedia and maintain a standard. It only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole basket, so it's better to differentiate between teamwork to improve the article vs disruptive behavior.
1595:
1556:
2276:), it needs to be dealt with properly, not just mentioned in passing in questionably-worded advice to newbies. As with so much else within this essay, this 'advice' invites new contributors to look for 'bias' when meeting opposition to their editing, and implies that opposition from multiple experienced contributors is
2418:
reader's mind and creates a guilt by association subtext that says that members of wikiprojects are advocates. This encourages conspiracy thinking and the assumption of bad faith which is against
Knowledge principles. If the goal is to ensure that readers do not mistake members of wikiprojects as advocates, then
1405:. Though "conflict of interest" has been replaced with "advocacy" throughout, the article appears to retain many of the same problems that were cause for its original deletion. The previous deletion discussion should be revisited with this substitution in mind. (The transformation reminds me of the historical "
1452:
about
Wikiprojects etc (as discussed in the RfC above), one might well ask whether this argument would remain valid. Given the way the RfC is going though, I don't think that is going to be an issue, since it seem that the overwhelming consensus is that the essay should not be edited in such a manner.
3311:
Yes, it is open for anyone to edit. But what you don't seem to understand is that essays don't work like articles, or PAGs. They are opinions and if it's a case of opposing opinions as it is now, you cannot exclude one opinion just because you disagree with it. It has to be non-compliant with PAGs
2812:
cause of WP:OWN behaviors), and in turn both are distinct from GA/FA/DYK-related stewardship behaviors. Along the same lines, wiki-projects are often advocacy-prevention-mechanisms, and also *very* often article-stewardship-mechanisms, but the concept of the wiki-project is distinct from stewardship
2350:
might be a fitting place) covering these details. For a new editor, or one new to an area such as health-related topics, to run into an organized group of editors who for the most part think, speak and vote as one, it can seem like a cabal has descended. The WProject
Medicine has the POV of alopathic
1921:
You will have to concede that the ANI discussion revolved around what was perceived as battleground behavior (from both opponents and proponents of this essay). The fact that the allegations and counter-allegations of battleground behavior ended in a stale mate in the ANI discussion (because of which
1466:
Hogwash. It's the same failed reasoning, second verse - it was unwarranted and it lacks substance. Drop the stick. Your relentless badgering is not helpful. I am and have been following the proper procedures for dealing with the disruption, starting with your repeated reverts. You really need to
625:
Not a problem, it was a chance to learn something. I kind of like having the archives in the header with the search function. The problem is there were no archives 2-9. archive 10 is now a redirect, Im debating having it deleted G6 because when archive 10 is needed this will probably be forgotten. We
3227:
It appears few realize this essay is an opinion piece. The simple solution would be if you disagree, write an opposing essay. The comments from the last attempt at MfD, like the Sting comment, and having this essay on the watch lists of the opposition is overboard. The opposes have no substantive
1520:
said anything to anyone that even comes close to what Andy said to me - "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner
Knowledge gets rid of you the better." The fact that you are here defending him raises questions about your perception of what constitutes disruptive behavior, incivility and fairness.
1416:
It is nearly a truism (at least in my experience) that an editor who runs around calling other editors biased is more likely to lack self-reflection and awareness of his or her own biases. The quest to root out "advocacy ducks" appears similarly fraught. It is a mindset that is counterproductive and
3860:
The stated purpose of the RfC to determine whether the community approved of a specific edit. It is entirely clear that they don't. Still, I'm glad to see that you point out that "Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other". On that basis, I shall be restoring the
3703:
Did I just make that up? No, it was a direct quotation from what DrChrissy had just written. Try reading before writing next time. As for 'stepping back', if you didn't insist on hectoring contributors who post here, there would be nothing worth commenting on. The question asked in the RfC is clear
3691:
Andy - your comments have become....well, strange. I don't have a clue what you're referring to regarding 'project advocacy'. Did you just make that up? You might want to go back and read some of your own comments. They are so far out in left field that it is bordering on being obsessive. Step
3512:
However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to
3502:
However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't
3030:
viewpoints. (I am not saying all editors will behave like this.) It is for this reason that i refuse to join the
Knowledge project consisting of a group of editors with the declared agenda of improving articles related to my country of origin. I have no desire to be a part of any clique, much less
2345:
In general, I support the idea of mentioning the existence of Wiki
Projects, along with the fact that some of the features accompanying this reality can be indistinguishable from what may appear like a cabal to the uninitiated. I agree with some points made above. We should remove the mealy-mouthed
2321:
may have place somewhere such as the Don't mistake a coot for a duck section. It should not be brought up in the signs of advocacy section though to avoid insinuation that one should even consider the idea. As an additional note, it doesn't appear there has been any talk page conversation trying to
2252:
However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to
2237:
However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't
1451:
I'd say it was a fair summary of the minority view at the MfD. It should probably be noted though that one of the arguments put forward by those supporting the essay was that it differed substantially from the 'COI ducks' version - if material is to be added which restores controversial suggestions
1344:
the links to all user-space essays (not just mine) have again removed. And also note that WP:Knowledge essays actually states that "Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other", and that the essays were merely listed along with many other links at the bottom of the
1268:
Uhm, it doesn't belong to you, either, so please stop hounding me. Your persistence and ubiquitous presence wherever I edit is annoying. Drop the stick. May I suggest that you create your own essay or maybe even create an article that will help improve WP instead of focusing your attention on me
1205:
Jps, could you clarify which essay you are referring to? Ducks, or
Dragons? I'll admit my essay was somewhat of a stream-of-consciousness effort, and suffers from my usual tendency to write over-long and overcomplex sentences (complete with unnecessary parentheses - and questionable use of dashes),
539:
If I may please interject with a few of my thoughts on the subject of essay vs guidance essay. Considering what we've been through and the distrust expressed by a few editors regarding the motivation behind this essay, I think we have done our best to demonstrate its "worth" but now we need to see
346:
I am entirely uninvolved. I briefly saw the essay earlier today, and looked at the deletion discussion for COI ducks just now. If memory serves, the essays seem very different. I concur that speedy deleting a controvertial essay that seems to have undergone major changes since the previous deletion
228:
which I did because they refer back to the current pages, not to the history. I am working on a history section per {{History}} and your reverts are disruptive. I am filing an ANI because your behavior has been disruptive since I first moved this essay into main space and you took control of it
3352:
What's absurd is denial and unwarranted attempts to censor and control what is or isn't included in this essay. We don't see anywhere near the activity at any of the other essays. The statement is important information with regards to behavior, the latter of which is the crux of this essay. Per
2280:
of 'advocacy'. Sure, it then goes on to provide mealy-mouthed calls for self-examination, but the damage has already been done - the essay promotes a suspicious and conspiracy-seeking mindset that is totally at odds with collegial editing. The proper advice to newbies when in disagreement with the
2271:
members of a project", but Atsme states that the intended target is unequivocally project members who 'suddenly show up at an article'. If there is evidence that
Knowledge projects are engaging in advocacy (a claim for which this essay provides precisely zero evidence), rather than merely 'showing
1412:
The article advances what I would broadly call a "conspiratorial theme", directing users to identify "advocacy ducks" and offering recipes on how to deal with them. While the article acknowledges the important role of policies and guidelines, the effect of the article seems to shift the focus away
3629:
I do not read it that way. I read it that an editor may mistake multiple concerns being expressed against them, all from the same project, as being "Project advocacy". The essay says "think again - this may not be the case". I think it actually says the opposite of "assume bad faith", rather it
3594:
I have read that several times - and at no time has it suggested that
Wikiprojects engage in advocacy. Why do you insist that I read it yet again? It isn't discussing advocacy, it is discussing ownership - more specifically, the tendency of some projects to act as if their preferred approach over
1936:
We will have to concede no such thing, since your clearly partisan interpretation of what went on in an ANI thread which wasn't about the content of this essay is of no relevance to a discussion on matters which hadn't been discussed here, there or anywhere else. You asked contributors to discuss
1150:
It makes no difference to me what you do in your user space as long as it falls within WP:PAG and your fantasy crusade falls within acceptable guidelines. It's actually quite entertaining. I remain cautiously optimistic that one day you will find it in your heart to collaborate with me in GF and
240:
BDD said he couldn't move the whole Talk page without nuking my comments. I said it was fine for BDD to nuke my comments to do that. Which is totally different than editing my comments. your violation of a really fundamental behavioral norm here has nothing to do with that and my objecting is not
3431:
Jytdog, I asked for this RfC because ATG kept reverting my edits and I wanted substantive input to see where I could make improvements. Doc James said the text wasn't clear which is a start. There is far too much unwarranted haranguing of me and ridiculous second-guessing about my motives. It
2642:
Seasoned project members sometimes leave very harsh edit summaries which although supporting the consensus of a project, may be discouraging (especially to newbies) or perhaps uncivil. This proposed change will bring to the attention of (new) editors that although an offensive/discouraging edit
1312:
Sigh* Where I have said it belongs to me? You're the one casting aspersions and baiting me into these fruitless debates. There will never be less drama around me because of editors like you who feel challenged to one-up-me or try to "bring me down." How much more boring does life get if that
792:
As I am sure you are well aware, guides to 'properly identifying' things (be they fish or fowl) don't generally include mythical beasts just on the offchance that they might be real after all. I'm fairly sure my Guide to British Birds (which I have sadly misplaced) doesn't include fire-breathing
3582:
crusader mission to attack project teams when I'm about to create a project that is much needed and long past due, or that I authored and/or created the project team issues regarding WP:OWN, and advocacy, etc. If after you read that section you still want to criticize, condemn and/or make more
3557:
Since there is precisely zero evidence presented in the essay that 'project advocacy' exists anywhere but in the authors imagination, the sensible thing to do (per the clear consensus above) would be not to discuss it in the first place. Anyone new to Knowledge who reads warnings about 'project
2587:
Well, yes, but they also deserve the same courtesy as everyone else, which is 'innocent until proven otherwise' i.e innocent until shown to be a significant part of this problem. Advocates may be members of projects, but they may equally be female, Irish, Jewish, gay or left-handed. We would be
2545:
There is nothing 'substantive' in your endless tendentious bad-faith allegations against Wikiproject members - if there were, you would have reported the matter by now, providing evidence. And as long as this essay is in Knowledge space, rather than being marked as your personal essay (which it
2533:
The essay's content focuses on disruptive behavior. Wiki-project teams do not hold a trump card over other editors so I don't see why they should receive immunity from being mentioned in this essay. They are volunteers just like everyone else. Again, there is nothing substantive in the oppose
1178:
It's the dole we pay for open editing. I am also concerned over what appears to be sock activity by an IP that suddenly showed up to revert my removal of your gibberish to an image caption which does not belong in this essay and what I consider to be vandalism. It is not an improvement. I've
2417:
The proposed additions do not actually help readers to distinguish between wikiprojects and advocates but instead create a link between the two. The way these sentences are framed in pairing wikiprojects with advocacy behaviour - even while saying that they're not advocates - links them in the
1296:
Honestly, dealing with you is so frustrating because at the slightest hint of criticism you come out guns-a-blazing in an all-out attack on the criticising editor. There would be so much less drama around you if you didn't respond with an attack when someone doesn't support what you're doing.
1295:
Where have I said it belongs to me? I'm not the one reverting edits because I don't like them: you're doing that. I'm trying to tell you that once you put this essay into mainspace, you gave up control over it. I'm guessing that you don't want to hear this, but that doesn't make it less true.
659:
AF - I'll ask T13 if there's a work-around. What appears to be happening, and I didn't even notice it when I archived, is that the One-Click defaults to whatever I had it set to for my user TP archives. I guess it doesn't automatically adjust to the relevant article TP archive and has to be
2210:, the opposing editor(s), particularly newbies, tend to believe they are being tag-teamed or confronted by an advocacy. This addition will help them sort through their suspicions and look to self-analysis first and actual causes for the disruption rather than pointing fingers and assuming.
2534:
comments - they are similar to the arguments given when Ca2james initiated the 3rd MfD so they come as no surprise. Furthermore, this is an essay which is an opinion and as long as there is nothing in the proposed addition that violates policy, there is no reason it should not be allowed.
132:
was kind enough to help me accomplish part of that task despite the fact you created this TP without any prior discussion with any of the involved editors, and in total disregard of it being moved from my user sandbox. It was still part of my sandbox project until the move was finalized.
552:
and other editors who questioned or disproved certain aspects of the essay. I now respectfully request that we please let the essay have a chance to perform and see what happens. I realize some editors will never recommend it, but let's wait and see, ok? I think it's going to surprise
1396:
I wrote the following before realizing that this essay had already been nominated for deletion. I suppose I assumed that it couldn't have survived an MFD. While I'm not proposing a second nomination at this time, I would like to share what I wrote, if only for future reference.
3692:
back - try working on something you enjoy writing about. This essay has only been viewed 134 times in the last 30 days - and I imagine at least 100 times by you and QG alone. Stop acting like it's on the front page of Knowledge as a FA, for Pete's sake. It's just an essay.
3367:
It isn't at all an attack on project teams, rather it is distinguishing between GF project teams and those editors who are clearly advocates. Our PAGs recognize that the problem exists. Project team guidelines even recognize the problem exists. Denial of it is not helpful.
2514:
So much for commenting on the content, not the editors. And I note that yet again you are making allegations about Wikiproject members that you refuse to follow up with evidence - behaviour that is liable to result in sanctions against you if continued much longer. Either
2379:. Though this is just an essay, I don't think it's in the best interests of the project to foment paranoid and conspiratorial thinking. WikiProjects that act in bad faith can be brought to ANI or whatever. Otherwise, it's best not to make vague accusations about them.
3844:
I called this RfC with expectations of getting helpful comments and plausible suggestions for improvement. Instead we got disruption, tendentious editing, PAs, snarky comments, mockery of the essay, attempts to change its meaning, and relentless baiting and harassment.
3655:
Atsme is insisting that 'project advocacy' is real, and using that argument as the basis for including the disputed material. If it 'said the opposite', why would she be arguing that way? It simply makes no sense. It seems that your dispute is with Atsme, not with me.
1349:
explanation for why the advice at WP:Knowledge essays is being ignored. Should no such explanation be offered, I will again restore the links, and then report anyone removing them for tendentious editing - if there are legitimate grounds for exclusion they need to be
1249:, this essay does not belong to you, and you are not in charge of deciding what is and is not an improvement. Let the rest of the community decide what belongs in this essay (or not). If you want total control over the content of the essay, move it back to userspace.
3266:
As long as this essay is in Knowledge space, it is open to anyone to edit - and when there is a dispute over content, it is up to the community to decide what is appropriate. If you wanted to write a personal essay, you shouldn't have moved it into community space.
1496:
Not even close to being disruptive. AndyTheGrump just put his personal views in an essay (and a pretty good one at that), which any of us has every right to do. Disagreeing with another essay is not only allowed, but encouraged. Atsme, take it to ANI and enjoy your
289:
You just took it upon yourself to do whatever the hell you felt like doing, and quite frankly I am tired of your imposition and disruption. You do not OWN this article, even though you may think you do as you have demonstrated wherever you are involved. Please
3443:
Supposed behaviour for which you still have failed to provide the slightest bit of evidence. If you want to write a fantasy about slaying hordes of imaginary fire-breathing advocacy-dragons, find somewhere else to do it. Knowledge is an encyclopaedia, not a
2289:
if and when such discussions fail to achieve progress. Telling new contributors who run into problems that Wikiproject members may be members of advocacy-cabals is a sure-fire way to create drama, but a piss-poor way to create and maintain an encyclopaedia.
1515:
I don't understand how defending oneself can be disruptive especially considering not one of the aspersions is accompanied by a diff to support their claims. What editors need to be looking at is the disruptive editing that caused me to open this ANI. I
768:
It reflects your opinion which is what essays are all about. Some will appreciate the entertainment factor since it reads more like a synopsis for a "Game of Thrones" episode than a helpful guideline to newbies. Your ending comment actually made sense -
3897:
Re Atsme's comment "What's absurd is denial and unwarranted attempts to censor and control what is or isn't included in this essay", Atsme is free to move the essay to his userspace, where he has control over the content. That's what I did when I created
2436:
The fact that Atsme is still pushing this nonsense is concerning as the essay is an attack on the core NPOV and RS fundamentals of Knowledgeāif several editors oppose the addition of pseudoscientific waffle to an article, they must be guilty of advocacy!
2568:
behavior pretty well. Essays are not a space for personal soapboxes. If someone wants to discuss something though, remember that Atsme even started a threaded discussion section, so there shouldn't be a need for anyone to reply in the survey section.
1902:
Right but you're using that discussion to say that there's strong/widespread support for this essay. Based on the responses to the above RfC, where several previously-uninvolved editors are suggesting deletion or userfying, it's clear that there is
1163:
I think on the basis of "avoid creating essays just to prove a point", this essay probably shouldn't have been created. But, now that it's here, we might as well try to make it better. For starters, it contains a lot of grammar and syntax problems.
2945:. While I am well aware of battle-ground articles, I am not aware of 'advocacy groups', being the problem, nor this article being a helpful contribution to resolving the problem. Other 'pointy' elements include naming specific 'problem areas'
2619:. This is a cynical implication of bad-faith editing by editors who happen to associate with WikiProjects. I am not conviced that this is a common problem. As others have mentioned, there are ways to address the matter when/if it does occur.
3432:
doesn't belong here - focus on content, not editors. To say there is no information about behaviour in the proposed text appears to be misapprehension of not just the proposed text but the entire essay which happens to be about behavior.
3814:
under discussion in this RfC when you reverted changes by another editor. Don't do that. If the RfC closes in favour of including the text, then it can be inserted but to push it through before the conclusion of the RfC is inappropriate.
3499:
I'm sorry if that ruffles any feathers but I didn't write that sentence. I'm just trying to cover all the bases with regards to this essay. When you click on that wikilink, (and please read the following carefully) it further states:
3906:
advice, not the advice of the community, and thus I decided to retain control of the content. Once you put an essay in wikispace, the community is free to change it in any way, subject only to Knowledge policy and to consensus. See
3364:
to be members of a project comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Knowledge. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't
863:
I actually like the idea of a link to the essay. A good number of editors here consider AVDucks in the same manner as you just described the dragon essay or due to other major flaws, so it seems important to reflect that criticism.
1066:
That there is still no consensus to add it. Another editor may remove it after that. The onus is on you to prove that you have consensus to add it. But you should delete the whole thing in your userspace, doing so may look better.
3254:
Community consensus doesn't trump PAGs. I suggest those who oppose this essay create one that suits them better. This essay is an opinion piece, not a PAG. If you have a different opinion, write an essay expressing it.
949:
And I've just removed it again. As I made clear, it is my personal opinion, and I had no intention of adding it to the essay. It is linked in the 'related essays' section, where anyone can find it if they are interested.
2719:
1402:
107:
3106:
what you are saying is that projects can become clique-y and clique-y may mean blind to one's own bias. If that is what you are saying, I don't disagree, but wonder whether 'singling out' projects is constructive.
3382:. You have never provided the slightest evidence that any project has been engaging in advocacy. Either do so, or accept that this essay isn't going to be used as a platform for your tedious conspiracy theories.
3049:
the phrasing you suggest because catalyst isn't the right word there. Also, advocacy isn't just about an editor having a bias (everyone has biases), but occurs when the editor is unable to set their bias aside.
3513:
provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other.
2253:
provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other.
2150:
comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Knowledge. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't
372:
This essay really has went thru major changes. G4 really does seem to be a bad call. If anyone wants to seek a deletion the better call would be to open a new deletion discussion for this page it seems to
334:
Not only that the essay was deleted CSD G4, but the essay that was deleted by discussion was COI Ducks, that dealt with COI. Advocacy Ducks does not deal with COI but advocacy. Its a different subject.
3414:
for comments when you posted the Request for Comments. I hear it that you don't like the responses, but they are not "unwarranted attempts to censor and control"... they are responses that you invited.
501:
Could you help me understand the nature of your objection? I left an edit summary so "unexplained" is incorrect. The original author even thanked me for changing to the proper template, so I'm puzzled.
548:, you expressed your concerns and I have done my best to address them but it is WP's essay now. I think we all want what's good for the project which is why I have addressed the concerns expressed by
854:
Is it seriously being suggested as an insertion into this essay? I thought it was just a whimsical opinion-piece of fantastical story-telling indicating the editor had too much time on their hands.
249:
are "BDD, QuackGuru, Doc James, Jytdog, AlbinoFerret, David Tornheim, Atsme, DrChrissy, Petrarchan47, Wuerzele and Ca2james". File away; nothing will come of it except damage to your reputation.
3081:
I think you missed my point, which was not that you had edited the essay, but was that the wording you're suggesting had already been in the essay and was modified by me for the reasons I gave.
671:
I like to fix things Atsme, so no inconvenience. You probably copied the code from your talk page to this one and forgot to change the archive number. It was easy to fix once I figured it out.
3466:). It hardly seems appropriate to ask editors one question and then to dismiss their responses to that question on the grounds that they didn't answer some other question that wasn't asked.
1126:
3505:
I didn't write that, either. I don't see any haranguing over those sentences on the project advice page. The fact that it's happening to me here should raise all kinds of red flags.
3765:
I have no intention in engaging further in this ridiculous exhibition of infantile nit-picking. So yes, if you want to believe that I misrepresented you, fine. Feel free to believe it.
2455:
The fact that you find it concerning is what I find disconcerting. Comment on the content, not the editor. I haven't heard one substantive response yet. Perhaps that will improve.
878:
See the 'Alternative view' thread below - I'm wondering whether an RfC on whether it should be included in the 'Related essays, policies, and guidelines' section might be a good idea.
2838:- you made some excellent points. Please help further by incorporating your suggestions as you envision them to be placed in the essay. You can start a new section below on the TP.
2313:
where veiled attacks of Wikiproject members were a concern. The idea that being a member of a Wikiproject could be associated with advocacy or some sort of cabal should amount to
1745:, revealed the strong support for this article and proved that the replacement disclaimer more accurately represents this article than the current disclaimer.For this reason i
735:
the Google-mined cherry-picked half-quote - a thing so fearsome that nothing but summary deletion followed by a cold shower and a rub down with emery cloth can erase the stink
2643:
summary may have been posted, this actually might reflect a project's aims. It then becomes a matter of dealing with the behaviour of the editor/s, rather than the project.
1023:
discussions, rather than beforehand. Still, I am glad to see that you agree that consensus should determine what is or isn't appropriate content for the 'ducks' essay page.
1420:
While the essay should be assessed on its own merits, it is difficult to separate it from Atsme's ongoing conflicts Wikiproject Medicine, especially considering the recent
2495:
Editors already believe it and not because of this essay. Some editors who happen to be members of certain project teams are disruptive and they do tag-team and exhibit
190:
Yes, but I wasn't quite finished getting this essay moved, so if you and your colleague will please be patient and let me complete my work, it would be much appreciated.
1151:
stop being such a grump. I also believe everyone is entitled to an opinion and you certainly have yours as you've relentlessly made known here. Have a wonderful day!
3752:
Andy, I think you are being rather disingenuous here - I may have coined a term that you felt you wanted to use (pat on the back for me!), but the term I coined was "
3149:
There is nothing against AGF in wondering which of the editors casting oppose !votes belong to wikiprojects. Its clearly a question of who is involved in the topic.
315:
This page should not be speedily deleted because it represents an actual divide of opinion between editors; supressing it will only drive the dispute underground.
2143:
an advocacy, is not necessarily the case and to self-analyze while attempting to correctly identify the actual cause of the disruption? Additions in green text:
3578:] because that is where the information comes from that this RfC is about. You are not demonstrating GF with your attempts to make it appear as though I'm on a
1417:
should be avoided, not enshrined in an essay. It seems more likely than not that an editor who is labeling others "advocacy ducks" would be a disruptive editor.
3240:
I suggest you move this essay to your user space, where you can control the content. Otherwise you have no choice but to accept community input and editing.
3704:
enough, and I am sure that the closer will be able to decide for him/herself what the consensus is, and what should be done regarding the disputed content.
2206:
by OP. When several editors who are members of the same project suddenly show up at an article and start making changes to make the article compliant with
1134:"If you have an opposing opinion to this essay, WP guidelines suggest that you create your own essay expressing your opposing view, and we can link to it."
3526:
Quoting guidelines that say that Wikiprojects have engaged in ownership behaviours is not evidence that Wikiprojects have engaged in advocacy behaviours.
3067:
you are surely addressing the wrong person since the edit you have changed is not mine. In fact i have not done any editing on the main article till now.
295:
and for no other reason than I disagree with your bullying tactics and censorship on WP. Respond to the case I initiated at ANI and we'll go from there.
415:
I would but I don't want to be taken to ANI or falsely accused of being part of some advocacy cabal. I'm hoping someone else will put up the MfD tag.
3098:, Mmmmmmm, I also have my own reasons for not joining things, and projects do often lead to OWN, in my experience, that sometimes is very beneficial
3026:
If you are a part of any clique on WP, there will be a tendency to engage in 'loud', advocacy like behavior and a general intolerance for differing
2585:'Wiki-project teams do not hold a trump card over other editors so I don't see why they should receive immunity from being mentioned in this essay'
696:
you had the counter set to 10, which is why it archived there. I just tested and confirmed it is indeed working correctly now. Happy archiving. ā
3297:
3245:
2482:
1958:, let's please drop the ANI, enough drama for one day, an inconclusive outcome is an inconclusive outcome, it isn't proof or disproof of anything.
1220:
Sorry. I think that the ducks essay shouldn't have been written. Now that it is, it probably should be cleaned up a bit. It is abysmally written.
71:
59:
1413:
from policies and guidelines and toward identifying these "advocacy ducks". One section is called, "So you've found an advocacy duck; now what?"
2161:
renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following.
1111:
Well, if this essay which is obviously relevant to this page cannot be linked, I think we should remove all links to userspace. So I did that.
287:
to help me with the move. You did not even offer one ounce of discussion to see what was going on or at what point the move had progressed.
2702:
781:, bullying, hounding, harassing, trolling and the like to push their POV (promote their advocacy) and they are not mythological characters.
229:
before I had completed the move. Not one word anywhere regarding any concerns you may have had. I am through with your bullying, Jytdog.
241:
bullying. Creating a Talk page is not "taking control" nor is posting a comment about the history, nor is keeping my comment intact. As to
2317:, so bringing up the idea in this essay in the first place doesn't really seem appropriate. If anything is going to be kept, the concise,
1825:. The ANI discussion did not indicate widespread support amongst uninvolved editors, not least because the issue wasn't under discussion.
347:
is not productive, nor is it appropriate under the stated criterion. Could it please be reinstated so that it can be properly discussed.
3495:
2988:. Even in the earlier vote, i had mentioned that "The material about members of a project who might demonstrate this behavior is true".
2814:
2231:
2937:, seem very 'pointy'. I can see the value of a beginners guide to 'dispute, advice' boards, but this is not it. Rather it encourages a
1002:
I see no evidence of an edit war, but that more than one editor has removed it shows there is no consensus for its addition. Following
3672:
3293:
3241:
2478:
2364:
1784:
Yup. And ANI does not settle content disputes. Not that any of this proposed content had even been discussed there. Or anywhere else.
1272:
Andy - verbosity plagues many writers who want to be thorough and who have more knowledge about topics than brevity allows. I thinks
715:
545:
514:
503:
1610:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
1571:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
517:
here from my userpage since it is pure article discussion. FYI: teh word "Nope" in the edit summary is no explanation. the fact that
2267:. A weasel-worded attack on Knowledge projects, as is self-evident from Atsme's comment above. The proposed wording reads "may even
1611:
1572:
988:
And it appears that people are now edit-warring over the link. Would an RfC on whether the link should be included be appropriate?
3503:
be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project.
3120:
The problem is that its obvious it can happen. I wonder how many of the oppose votes belong to active and organized wikiprojects?
2238:
be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project.
172:
i was making no comment on the essay; just creating links to the various versions. and we are all colleagues here as Wikipedians.
3756:
project advocacy". That is entirely different from "project advocacy". Please be more careful before misrepresenting my posts.
2319:"Do not mistake GF attempts of project teams to achieve accuracy, compliance with NPOV, and/or adherence to WP:PAG as advocacy."
1373:
linked - I'd somehow missed them. The point above still stands though - if anyone removes the links, they need to give a proper
771:
If there is advocacy on Wikpededia, it is carried out by people, and needs to be identified properly and dealt with accordingly.
2942:
2685:
2156:
462:
You might get taken to ANI, but you wouldn't get in any trouble. The individual who takes you there might catch a boomerang.
297:
If the results do not reflect justice, my intention is to initiate an ARBCOM. You have stepped way over the line this time.
2130:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
478:
3930:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1421:
1078:
You appear to have a strange concept of what 'consensus' means. And no, I'm not going to delete my essay. No consensus...
47:
17:
1006:
it should remain gone until consensus is shown. As you want it included, the onus is on you to prove there is consensus.
3338:
Andy is correct. The idea that a "team of editors" is trying to "keep certain information out " of the essay is absurd.
1767:
I suggest you re-read the ANI-discussion, because it did definitely not show any strong/widespread support for AVDUCK.
2689:
2139:
contain the following additions to help editors, particularly newbies, recognize that project teams, while they may
1478:'Disruption'? There has been no disruption of anything. Though your endless accusations of violations for which you
1225:
1169:
1116:
3837:
3508:
3354:
2384:
2248:
1336:
38:
3160:
There is a great deal wrong with using an RfC thread for speculation about the motivations of the participants.
467:
406:
378:
3188:@Andy I am not discussing motivation, I simply wonder who is involved. @Dbrodbeck lol, every editor is allowed.
2890:
per AndyTG, DocJames and several others above (IMO this entire essay should be sent to the trashbin, again...).
2878:
2706:
1221:
1165:
1112:
3292:. If it's in WP space it's open for editing by anyone -- whether the original author likes the result or not.
814:
I think this has no place in this essay and appears to be a pure attack page. I recommend you have it deleted.
777:
is all about; i.e, properly identifying and dealing properly with overzealous advocacy editors who engage in
444:
I'm sorry you feel that way, Ca2@james, especially considering your insightful contributions to this essay.
3343:
2835:
2818:
2778:
2761:
1671:
1038:
352:
3783:
of behaviour, rather than stating the actual occurrence of a behaviour. However, thank you for your input.
2180:
Do not mistake GF attempts of project teams to achieve accuracy, compliance with NPOV, and/or adherence to
3866:
3770:
3743:
3709:
3668:
3608:
3563:
3453:
3387:
3329:
3272:
3165:
3140:
2574:
2555:
2524:
2517:
back up your claims with evidence, and report it at the appropriate noticeboard where it can be dealt with
2359:
2327:
2295:
1995:
1942:
1893:
1865:
1807:
1789:
1720:
1654:
1487:
1457:
1406:
1382:
1359:
1211:
1083:
1057:
1028:
993:
955:
883:
869:
839:
798:
723:
693:
401:
If you feel there is a reasonable call to delete this essay that would be the appropriate avenue to take.
2405:
2380:
1003:
211:; it may be Ok to redact a personal attack but not just randomly delete part of someone else's comment.
156:
2177:
to impose and maintain their POV in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause.
3660:
463:
402:
374:
3718:
Andy, I borrowed the phrase from you! Scan up about 5-6 posts. You used the term and put it in ' '.
2718:
this is a big slide backward to the "consensus against me must be conspiracy" ideas that led to the
602:
albino. this one-click archiver is not a great tool if it moves things to the wrong place as it did
100:
3916:
3908:
3880:
3179:
2874:
2861:
2744:
2681:
2085:
2068:
2051:
1615:
1576:
1506:
1498:
1401:
This essay is a revamp of an essay called "Conflict of Interest ducks" which was deleted following
977:
937:
3920:
3884:
3870:
3851:
3824:
3787:
3774:
3760:
3747:
3733:
3722:
3713:
3698:
3678:
3634:
3612:
3589:
3567:
3552:
3535:
3520:
3475:
3457:
3438:
3424:
3391:
3374:
3347:
3333:
3318:
3301:
3276:
3261:
3249:
3234:
3194:
3183:
3169:
3155:
3144:
3126:
3115:
3090:
3076:
3059:
3040:
3021:
2997:
2978:
2958:
2925:
2902:
2882:
2865:
2844:
2822:
2800:
2782:
2765:
2748:
2731:
2710:
2693:
2664:
2647:
2632:
2597:
2578:
2559:
2540:
2528:
2505:
2486:
2461:
2446:
2431:
2409:
2388:
2371:
2331:
2299:
2216:
2192:
2118:
2089:
2072:
2055:
2038:
1999:
1985:
1967:
1946:
1931:
1916:
1897:
1883:
1874:
I am not disputing your claim that ANI does not settle content disputes; i agree with your claim.
1869:
1855:
1834:
1811:
1793:
1779:
1758:
1724:
1699:
1675:
1658:
1635:
1527:
1510:
1491:
1473:
1461:
1446:
1434:
1386:
1363:
1319:
1305:
1289:
1258:
1229:
1215:
1192:
1173:
1157:
1120:
1087:
1073:
1061:
1047:
1032:
1012:
997:
983:
959:
943:
905:
887:
873:
858:
843:
820:
802:
787:
763:
749:
727:
704:
677:
666:
654:
643:
619:
583:
565:
530:
507:
490:
471:
450:
424:
410:
396:
382:
367:
356:
341:
326:
304:
258:
235:
220:
196:
181:
160:
139:
119:
3820:
3531:
3471:
3339:
3283:
3111:
3086:
3072:
3055:
3036:
3017:
2993:
2974:
2954:
2938:
2896:
2774:
2757:
2593:
2442:
2427:
2034:
1963:
1937:
your proposal - please allow them to do so without repeatedly bringing up the same irrelevances.
1927:
1912:
1879:
1851:
1830:
1773:
1754:
1693:
1667:
1631:
1482:
might well be seen as disruptive. As for my essay, it is clearly identified as personal opinion.
1301:
1254:
901:
759:
745:
579:
526:
486:
420:
392:
348:
322:
3008:, is there some reason to believe that project members are more likely to engage in 'advocacy'?
574:. I am waiting to see what boris has to say- he did the unexplained ("Nope") content removal.--
3862:
3766:
3739:
3705:
3664:
3626:
3604:
3559:
3449:
3445:
3383:
3325:
3268:
3189:
3161:
3150:
3136:
3121:
2920:
2660:
2570:
2551:
2520:
2419:
2354:
2323:
2291:
2147:
1991:
1980:
1972:
1938:
1889:
1861:
1803:
1785:
1716:
1483:
1453:
1441:
1378:
1355:
1207:
1079:
1068:
1053:
1042:
1024:
1007:
989:
951:
879:
865:
835:
815:
794:
719:
699:
672:
649:
627:
362:
336:
2588:
unlikely to mention membership of any of these groups without some very good reason to do so.
1440:
Your assessment appears to be a rehash of the failed deletion attempt on this specific essay.
3420:
3289:
2727:
2401:
1603:
1564:
774:
639:
615:
544:, you have been a good collaborator and helped improve this essay with your contributions.
254:
216:
177:
169:
152:
115:
740:
Beautiful, thanks! My vote is to do a copy/paste from there to here (suitably attributed).
2796:
2314:
1860:
What part of 'ANI does not settle content disputes' do you have difficulty understanding?
1430:
1143:
94:
1683:. Judging by the discussions, both here and on WP:ANI, there are far more editors who do
2756:
per Doc James. This also seems to be very much like why the original essay was deleted.
555:
3912:
3876:
3738:
Indeed - a diff that clearly shows that you used the same phrase in the previous post.
3175:
2857:
2740:
2673:
2165:
2081:
2064:
2047:
1650:
1502:
969:
929:
1922:
the thread had to be closed) shows that there was significant support for this essay.
1339:
gives explicit instructions that essays with an opposing point of view may be linked,
3899:
3816:
3527:
3467:
3132:
3107:
3095:
3082:
3068:
3064:
3051:
3032:
3013:
3005:
2989:
2970:
2950:
2891:
2628:
2589:
2565:
2496:
2474:
2438:
2423:
2207:
2181:
2115:
2108:
2030:
1959:
1955:
1923:
1908:
1875:
1847:
1826:
1799:
1768:
1750:
1712:
1688:
1627:
1297:
1250:
897:
778:
755:
741:
575:
541:
522:
482:
457:
416:
388:
318:
1618:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
1579:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
2915:
2656:
1626:
considering that there are many editors who believe in the validity of this essay.
2322:
justify the new addition, so an RfC seems like a premature course of action here.
1731:
Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
3841:
3511:
3501:
3493:
3463:
3357:
2251:
2236:
2229:
2179:
2173:
2163:
2155:
2145:
1147:
361:
The only thing I believe was the same as the COI essay were the photos of ducks.
91:
and its talk page (note: essay and its talk page moved here, so nothing is there)
3494:
WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and
3416:
2941:, which is likely to get an inexperienced editor in trouble before they can say
2723:
2519:, or stop making such unsubstantiated claims - before you are obliged to do so.
2230:
WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and
635:
611:
549:
250:
212:
173:
111:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2171:
in long-term tendentious editing that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV;
3861:
link to my essay in the article, along with the other user-space essay links.
3846:
3807:
3693:
3603:- advocacy, or the misuse of Knowledge to promote particular external causes.
3584:
3515:
3507:
I will also repeat another important note some appear to be overlooking - per
3433:
3369:
3313:
3256:
3229:
2839:
2792:
2535:
2500:
2456:
2346:
language and consider a very directly-worded subsection (King makes note that
2211:
2187:
1742:
1522:
1468:
1426:
1345:
article. I would therefore ask that those objecting to the essay links give a
1314:
1284:
1246:
1187:
1152:
782:
661:
571:
560:
518:
445:
387:
So how about we take this essay to MfD and see what the whole community says?
299:
230:
191:
134:
3174:
I admit it, I am a member of wikiproject Ice Hockey. Are we allowed here?
2550:
will decide what content is appropriate, and whether it conforms to policy.
2281:
sort of experienced contributors who customarily make up Wikiprojects is to
1645:
660:
manually set. Thank you for fixing it. I apologize for the inconvenience.
3583:
snarky comments - take it to the authors of the WikiProject Council/Guide.
2984:
After thinking this over further i have changed my mind, and am voting for
1687:
believe in the validity of this essay than there are who do believe in it.
1206:
and I'm always open to suggestions - but I didn't think it was that bad...
1037:
Consensus, or the lack of it, can also be shown by removal of the BRD edit
3779:
It is hardly nit-picking drawing attention to the fact I was discussing a
1335:
I note that despite the fact that Atsme herself has repeatedly noted that
2620:
2112:
284:
129:
2111:) There is a strong consensus against including the proposed wording. -
1666:
And lets finish the first RfC before indulging in additional proposals.
3875:
It's already there. I added it when I reorganized the list of links. --
108:
Knowledge:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks
2046:
ANI revealed nothing about the level of support felt for this essay.
1424:. The essay may, in part, be serving as a proxy for these conflicts.
203:
do not change my comment; this essay is in Knowledge space and it is
3464:
Should the section Signs of advocacy contain the following additions
2546:
clearly isn't, since you are by no means the sole contributor), the
2272:
up' at articles within their remit (which is what Wikiprojects are
1377:
explanation why. Vague assertions about 'consensus' aren't enough.
626:
could also just leve it and when 10 is needed remove the redirect.
2154:
You might see AVDucks in topics that deal with politics, religion,
1735:
It may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors
2564:
I was about to mirror this as well. Seems like you're describing
2422:'s proposed change accomplishes that goal without the bad faith.
1052:
And if a third person was to add it again, what would that show?
147:
as my colleague states thru the above links the history of these
1800:
please stop editing your posts after they have been responded to
1741:
four admins tried and failed to impose boomerang action against
125:(add note the essay has been moved now, instead of copy/pasted)
1907:
support for this essay let alone strong or widespread support.
1148:
Avoid creating essays just to prove a point or game the system.
3601:
nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed topic of this essay
1589:
1550:
25:
3010:(I'm not a project member, so the question is not rhetorical)
245:
where you referenced "an essay I authored", please note that
3380:
There is no information about behaviour in the disputed text
1711:
believe in the validity of this essay. And read next time,
2790:
Inserts more conspiracy into a conspiracy-minded article.
2029:, I don't see any need, logic, or advantage to the change.
1127:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks
3462:
The RfC asks whether the text should be included at all (
1888:
Then stop bringing up ANI in a discussion about content.
1369:
Apologies - I've just realised that the essays concerned
1544:
Should the following change be made to the main article?
3811:
3046:
2310:
1342:
1340:
1137:
965:
925:
607:
603:
599:
293:
246:
242:
226:
208:
88:
896:, I see no reason to not link it to one of the essays.
283:
into main space - I requested the assistance of admin
2873:
per reasons given by Atsme at first entry of survey.
2309:
most additions. This RfC appears to be based on this
292:
You have already made known your intent for me here:
3290:
Knowledge:Essays#Creation_and_modification_of_essays
1501:
or drop it. Your behavior is becoming disruptive. --
1041:. The removal , by two editors, shows no consensus.
711:
Advocacy Dragons: A personal response to this essay.
3599:were policy. That is a problem, certainly, but has
3410:Atsme please step back and consider a bit. You
2287:engage in relevant methods of dispute resolution
521:thanked you for your edit is irrelevant to me.--
2773:per Kingofaces43 and AndyTheGrump above. Best,
2096:RfC: Is the following addition relevant in the
1737:. The recent ANI discussion, in which at least
1330:Do we need an RfC on linking user-space essays?
1139:AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
276:You disrupted the process of moving an essay I
892:Dragons is WONDERFUL, and deserves to be kept
3509:WP:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays
3496:may not impose their preferences on articles.
2249:WP:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays
2232:may not impose their preferences on articles.
1548:In the main article, at the very top, should
207:ok to change part of another editors comment
8:
2235:When you click on that wikilink, it states:
2168:which is their primary catalyst for engaging
151:is quite clear and serve no purpose ( IMO)--
1979:interpretation" Was that really necessary?
225:You said it was okay to nuke your comments
3544:project advocacy and makes the point this
3324:There is no 'information' being excluded.
2146:...and may even appear to be members of a
2063:per what everyone else has already said.
110:for deletion discussion of first version.
2473:, largely per the first two sentences of
2935:(and indeed other aspects of the essay)
2701:per NinjaRobotPirate & Ozzie10aaaa
2228:- Please keep in mind the following:
2080:. Almost no support for this essay. --
1729:The replacement disclaimer is saying:
734:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3492:Again - keep in mind the following:
7:
3630:says "question your own perception".
2164:Advocates almost always demonstrate
2126:The following discussion is closed.
1480:never provide the slightest evidence
1277:
754:Beautifully written and well-said.
697:
497:removing the template of a guidance
3135:do your wondering somewhere else.
1733:The current disclaimer is saying:
1616:thoroughly vetted by the community
1612:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
1577:thoroughly vetted by the community
1573:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
24:
2720:deletion of the "COI ducks" essay
1019:Consensus is normally determined
3926:The discussion above is closed.
3102:, othertimes not so. However, I
1593:
1554:
1278:
834:An attack page? Attacking whom?
554:
553:us....hopefully in a good way.
29:
2348:Don't mistake a coot for a duck
3288:It doesn't work that way. See
3031:an officially sanctioned one.
1749:the change to the disclaimer.
1392:Text of aborted MFD nomination
243:your comment on your talk page
128:Yes, the TP was moved because
1:
3294:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
3242:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
2479:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
2247:Another important note - per
1707:. There are many editors who
634:yep i would advise G6ing it.
546:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
515:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
504:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
18:Knowledge talk:Advocacy ducks
2240:. 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
3902:; that particular essay is
2119:19:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1269:and the articles I edit?
773:The latter summarizes what
481:. Let's see how this goes.
3945:
3921:14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
3885:13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
3871:06:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
3852:05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
3195:21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3184:21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3170:21:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3156:20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3145:20:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3127:20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3116:19:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3091:17:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3077:16:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3060:16:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3041:13:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
3022:13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
2998:19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
2979:12:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
2959:12:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
2926:03:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
2903:13:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
2883:09:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
2866:12:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
2598:20:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
2090:17:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
2073:15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
2056:03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
2039:18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
2000:19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1986:18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1968:17:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1947:17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1932:17:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1917:16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1898:16:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1884:16:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1870:16:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1856:16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1835:16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1812:16:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1794:15:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1780:15:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1759:15:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1725:15:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1700:14:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1676:12:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1659:12:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1636:12:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1528:19:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
1511:04:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
1387:19:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
1364:19:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
1320:19:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
1306:19:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
1290:19:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
1259:18:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
1230:23:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
1216:18:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
1193:18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
1174:16:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
1158:15:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
906:16:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
692:It's working properly, in
84:History of this essay is:
3825:15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
3788:22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3775:22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3761:22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3748:22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3734:22:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3723:21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3714:21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3699:21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3679:18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3635:17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3613:17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3590:17:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3568:17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3553:16:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3536:16:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3521:14:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3476:07:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3458:05:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3439:03:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3425:01:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3392:01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3375:01:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
3348:21:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
3334:20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
3319:17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
3302:16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
3277:16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
3262:16:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
3250:15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
3235:14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
2939:'I smell a rat' mentality
2845:20:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
2823:00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
2801:08:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
2783:03:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
2766:20:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
2749:14:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
2732:03:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
2711:18:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
2694:15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
2665:09:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
2648:14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
2633:09:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
2579:15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
2560:15:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
2541:13:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
2529:03:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
2506:02:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
2487:01:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
2462:01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
2447:23:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
2432:17:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
2410:09:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
2389:06:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
2372:22:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
2332:15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
2300:14:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
2255:00:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
2217:13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
2193:13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
1492:22:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1474:22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1462:19:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1447:18:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1435:09:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1125:From a post by Atsme, on
1121:15:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
1088:23:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1074:23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1062:23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1048:23:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1033:23:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1013:23:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
998:23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
984:21:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
960:21:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
944:20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
888:16:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
874:16:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
859:20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
844:20:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
821:20:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
803:18:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
788:14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
764:14:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
750:11:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
728:08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
705:17:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
307:06:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
247:the authors of this essay
3928:Please do not modify it.
2856:per DocJames and Andy.
2672:new wording is unclear.
2283:discuss issues with them
2128:Please do not modify it.
1276:is a great essay title.
678:23:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
667:20:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
655:14:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
648:Just placed the G6 tag.
644:14:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
620:14:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
584:23:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
566:23:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
531:21:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
508:18:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
491:01:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
472:00:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
451:00:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
425:00:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
411:23:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
397:23:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
383:23:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
368:21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
357:21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
342:21:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
327:21:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
305:20:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
259:19:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
236:18:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
221:18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
197:16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
182:19:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
161:15:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
140:01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
120:15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
3100:(some history articles)
2655:conspiracist claptrap.
2400:as NinjaRobotPirate..--
1681:No, most definitely not
3540:But this RfC is about
2914:move to userspace. -
1407:cdesign proponentsists
1347:Knowledge policy-based
694:Special:Diff/662259393
1614:, as it has not been
1575:, as it has not been
42:of past discussions.
3810:, I notice that you
2912:AFD this monstrosity
3838:WP:Knowledge Essays
3355:WP:Wikipedia_essays
3223:Threaded discussion
3045:Please note that I
2967:Conditional Support
2135:Should the section
1337:WP:Knowledge essays
600:fixing the archives
3548:might be erroneous
2341:with changes, and
2129:
1352:properly explained
311:Contested deletion
3812:inserted the text
3727:The diff is here.
3677:
3663:comment added by
3627:User:AndyTheGrump
3446:sword and sorcery
3287:
2947:(eg Alt Medicine)
2739:as per Ca2james.
2630:
2137:Signs of advocacy
2127:
2098:Signs of advocacy
1624:
1623:
1587:be replaced with
1585:
1584:
464:-Serialjoepsycho-
403:-Serialjoepsycho-
375:-Serialjoepsycho-
355:how to improve!)
103:and its talk page
97:and its talk page
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3936:
3849:
3843:
3786:
3759:
3732:
3721:
3696:
3676:
3657:
3633:
3587:
3551:
3518:
3514:
3504:
3498:
3465:
3436:
3372:
3366:
3358:...and may even
3316:
3281:
3259:
3232:
3192:
3153:
3131:Well please per
3124:
2933:, this addition
2923:
2918:
2842:
2678:
2646:
2629:
2627:
2538:
2503:
2459:
2381:NinjaRobotPirate
2369:
2367:
2362:
2357:
2254:
2239:
2234:
2214:
2190:
2185:
2175:
2174:their goal being
2169:
2160:
2152:
1983:
1952:nb edit conflict
1648:
1597:
1596:
1590:
1558:
1557:
1551:
1525:
1471:
1444:
1317:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1274:Ducks or Dragons
1190:
1155:
1149:
1071:
1045:
1039:WP:EDITCONSENSUS
1010:
980:
974:
940:
934:
926:alternative view
920:Alternative view
857:
818:
785:
716:Advocacy Dragons
703:
675:
664:
652:
630:
563:
558:
461:
448:
365:
339:
302:
233:
194:
137:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3944:
3943:
3939:
3938:
3937:
3935:
3934:
3933:
3932:
3931:
3847:
3784:
3757:
3730:
3719:
3694:
3658:
3631:
3585:
3549:
3516:
3434:
3370:
3314:
3257:
3230:
3225:
3190:
3151:
3122:
2921:
2916:
2840:
2703:173.228.118.114
2674:
2644:
2625:
2536:
2501:
2457:
2365:
2360:
2355:
2353:
2212:
2200:
2188:
2132:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2102:
1981:
1646:
1620:
1619:
1594:
1581:
1580:
1555:
1546:
1523:
1469:
1442:
1403:this discussion
1394:
1332:
1315:
1285:
1279:
1188:
1153:
1069:
1043:
1008:
978:
970:
938:
930:
922:
855:
816:
783:
713:
673:
662:
650:
628:
596:
561:
499:
455:
446:
363:
337:
313:
300:
231:
192:
135:
82:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3942:
3940:
3925:
3924:
3923:
3894:
3893:
3892:
3891:
3890:
3889:
3888:
3887:
3855:
3854:
3828:
3827:
3801:
3800:
3799:
3798:
3797:
3796:
3795:
3794:
3793:
3792:
3791:
3790:
3725:
3690:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3686:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3644:
3643:
3642:
3641:
3640:
3639:
3638:
3637:
3616:
3615:
3575:
3574:
3573:
3572:
3571:
3570:
3491:
3490:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3479:
3478:
3460:
3401:
3400:
3399:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3395:
3394:
3309:
3308:
3307:
3306:
3305:
3304:
3279:
3224:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3213:
3212:
3211:
3210:
3209:
3208:
3207:
3206:
3205:
3204:
3203:
3202:
3201:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3197:
3172:
2962:
2961:
2928:
2905:
2885:
2875:David Tornheim
2868:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2826:
2825:
2803:
2785:
2768:
2751:
2734:
2713:
2696:
2667:
2650:
2636:
2635:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2509:
2508:
2490:
2489:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2450:
2449:
2434:
2412:
2391:
2374:
2335:
2334:
2303:
2302:
2285:, and then to
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2242:
2241:
2220:
2219:
2199:
2196:
2133:
2124:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2101:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2075:
2058:
2041:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1975:"your clearly
1838:
1837:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1798:And Soham321,
1796:
1762:
1761:
1727:
1702:
1678:
1661:
1622:
1621:
1609:
1608:
1600:
1598:
1583:
1582:
1570:
1569:
1561:
1559:
1545:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1399:
1393:
1390:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1142:Just an FYI -
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1004:WP:NOCONSENSUS
921:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
738:
712:
709:
708:
707:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
595:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
534:
533:
498:
495:
494:
493:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
349:Happy Squirrel
312:
309:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
123:
122:
104:
98:
92:
81:
78:
75:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3941:
3929:
3922:
3918:
3914:
3910:
3905:
3901:
3896:
3895:
3886:
3882:
3878:
3874:
3873:
3872:
3868:
3864:
3859:
3858:
3857:
3856:
3853:
3850:
3839:
3835:
3832:
3831:
3830:
3829:
3826:
3822:
3818:
3813:
3809:
3806:
3803:
3802:
3789:
3782:
3778:
3777:
3776:
3772:
3768:
3764:
3763:
3762:
3755:
3751:
3750:
3749:
3745:
3741:
3737:
3736:
3735:
3728:
3726:
3724:
3717:
3716:
3715:
3711:
3707:
3702:
3701:
3700:
3697:
3680:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3654:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3650:
3649:
3648:
3647:
3646:
3645:
3636:
3628:
3624:
3623:
3622:
3621:
3620:
3619:
3618:
3617:
3614:
3610:
3606:
3602:
3598:
3593:
3592:
3591:
3588:
3581:
3577:
3569:
3565:
3561:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3538:
3537:
3533:
3529:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3519:
3510:
3497:
3477:
3473:
3469:
3461:
3459:
3455:
3451:
3447:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3437:
3430:
3429:
3428:
3427:
3426:
3422:
3418:
3413:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3405:
3404:
3403:
3402:
3393:
3389:
3385:
3381:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3373:
3363:
3362:
3356:
3351:
3350:
3349:
3345:
3341:
3340:Capitalismojo
3337:
3336:
3335:
3331:
3327:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3317:
3303:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3285:
3284:edit conflict
3280:
3278:
3274:
3270:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3260:
3253:
3252:
3251:
3247:
3243:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3233:
3222:
3196:
3193:
3187:
3186:
3185:
3181:
3177:
3173:
3171:
3167:
3163:
3159:
3158:
3157:
3154:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3134:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3125:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3101:
3097:
3094:
3093:
3092:
3088:
3084:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3074:
3070:
3066:
3063:
3062:
3061:
3057:
3053:
3048:
3044:
3043:
3042:
3038:
3034:
3029:
3025:
3024:
3023:
3019:
3015:
3011:
3007:
3004:
3003:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2995:
2991:
2987:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2976:
2972:
2968:
2960:
2956:
2952:
2948:
2944:
2943:Jack Robinson
2940:
2936:
2932:
2929:
2927:
2924:
2919:
2913:
2909:
2906:
2904:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2895:
2894:
2889:
2886:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2872:
2869:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2855:
2852:
2851:
2846:
2843:
2837:
2833:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2824:
2820:
2816:
2815:75.108.94.227
2811:
2807:
2804:
2802:
2799:
2798:
2794:
2789:
2786:
2784:
2780:
2776:
2775:FoCuSandLeArN
2772:
2769:
2767:
2763:
2759:
2758:Capitalismojo
2755:
2752:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2738:
2735:
2733:
2729:
2725:
2721:
2717:
2714:
2712:
2708:
2704:
2700:
2697:
2695:
2691:
2687:
2683:
2679:
2677:
2671:
2668:
2666:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2651:
2649:
2641:
2638:
2637:
2634:
2631:
2624:
2623:
2618:
2615:
2614:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2586:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2567:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2549:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2539:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2507:
2504:
2498:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2488:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2475:User:Ca2james
2472:
2469:
2468:
2463:
2460:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2435:
2433:
2429:
2425:
2421:
2416:
2413:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2392:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2375:
2373:
2370:
2368:
2363:
2358:
2349:
2344:
2340:
2337:
2336:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2305:
2304:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2288:
2284:
2279:
2275:
2270:
2266:
2263:
2262:
2250:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2233:
2227:
2226:comment by OP
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2218:
2215:
2209:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2197:
2195:
2194:
2191:
2186:
2183:
2176:
2170:
2167:
2158:
2153:
2149:
2142:
2138:
2131:
2120:
2117:
2114:
2110:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2076:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2059:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2025:
2024:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1990:Yes, it was.
1989:
1988:
1987:
1984:
1978:
1974:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1821:
1820:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1771:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1703:
1701:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1686:
1682:
1679:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1668:Capitalismojo
1665:
1662:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1649:
1643:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1617:
1613:
1607:
1605:
1599:
1592:
1591:
1588:
1578:
1574:
1568:
1566:
1560:
1553:
1552:
1549:
1543:
1529:
1526:
1519:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1472:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1445:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1423:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1409:" debacle.)
1408:
1404:
1398:
1391:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1348:
1343:
1341:
1338:
1329:
1321:
1318:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1288:
1275:
1270:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1194:
1191:
1185:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1145:
1140:
1138:
1136:
1135:
1130:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1011:
1005:
1001:
1000:
999:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
981:
975:
973:
967:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
948:
947:
946:
945:
941:
935:
933:
927:
919:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
890:
889:
885:
881:
877:
876:
875:
871:
867:
862:
861:
860:
853:
845:
841:
837:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
819:
804:
800:
796:
791:
790:
789:
786:
780:
776:
772:
767:
766:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
747:
743:
739:
736:
732:
731:
730:
729:
725:
721:
717:
710:
706:
701:
695:
691:
690:
679:
676:
670:
669:
668:
665:
658:
657:
656:
653:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:
631:
624:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
593:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
564:
557:
551:
547:
543:
538:
537:
536:
535:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
513:I am pasting
512:
511:
510:
509:
505:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
459:
453:
452:
449:
426:
422:
418:
414:
413:
412:
408:
404:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
371:
370:
369:
366:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
345:
344:
343:
340:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
324:
320:
316:
310:
308:
306:
303:
298:
294:
291:
286:
282:
279:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
239:
238:
237:
234:
227:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
195:
189:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
167:
166:
165:
164:
163:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
141:
138:
131:
126:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
102:
99:
96:
93:
90:
87:
86:
85:
79:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3927:
3909:WP:OWNERSHIP
3903:
3863:AndyTheGrump
3833:
3804:
3780:
3767:AndyTheGrump
3753:
3740:AndyTheGrump
3706:AndyTheGrump
3665:AndyTheGrump
3659:āĀ Preceding
3605:AndyTheGrump
3600:
3596:
3579:
3560:AndyTheGrump
3545:
3541:
3506:
3450:AndyTheGrump
3411:
3384:AndyTheGrump
3379:
3360:
3359:
3326:AndyTheGrump
3310:
3269:AndyTheGrump
3226:
3191:AlbinoFerret
3162:AndyTheGrump
3152:AlbinoFerret
3137:AndyTheGrump
3123:AlbinoFerret
3103:
3099:
3027:
3009:
2985:
2983:
2966:
2964:
2963:
2946:
2934:
2930:
2911:
2907:
2898:
2897:
2892:
2887:
2870:
2853:
2831:
2809:
2805:
2791:
2787:
2770:
2753:
2736:
2715:
2698:
2675:
2669:
2652:
2639:
2621:
2616:
2584:
2571:Kingofaces43
2552:AndyTheGrump
2547:
2521:AndyTheGrump
2516:
2470:
2420:Kingofaces43
2414:
2397:
2393:
2376:
2356:petrarchan47
2352:
2347:
2342:
2338:
2324:Kingofaces43
2318:
2311:set of edits
2306:
2292:AndyTheGrump
2286:
2282:
2277:
2273:
2269:appear to be
2268:
2264:
2225:
2203:
2184:as advocacy.
2178:
2172:
2162:
2144:
2141:appear to be
2140:
2136:
2134:
2125:
2097:
2077:
2060:
2043:
2026:
1992:AndyTheGrump
1982:AlbinoFerret
1976:
1973:AndyTheGrump
1951:
1939:AndyTheGrump
1904:
1890:AndyTheGrump
1862:AndyTheGrump
1843:
1822:
1804:AndyTheGrump
1786:AndyTheGrump
1775:
1774:
1769:
1746:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1717:AndyTheGrump
1708:
1704:
1695:
1694:
1689:
1684:
1680:
1663:
1641:
1625:
1601:
1586:
1562:
1547:
1517:
1499:WP:BOOMERANG
1484:AndyTheGrump
1479:
1454:AndyTheGrump
1443:AlbinoFerret
1425:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1400:
1395:
1379:AndyTheGrump
1375:policy based
1374:
1370:
1368:
1356:AndyTheGrump
1351:
1346:
1334:
1333:
1273:
1271:
1267:
1208:AndyTheGrump
1183:
1180:
1141:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1124:
1110:
1080:AndyTheGrump
1070:AlbinoFerret
1054:AndyTheGrump
1044:AlbinoFerret
1025:AndyTheGrump
1020:
1009:AlbinoFerret
990:AndyTheGrump
971:
966:link instead
964:I added the
952:AndyTheGrump
931:
924:I added the
923:
893:
880:AndyTheGrump
866:Kingofaces43
836:AndyTheGrump
817:AlbinoFerret
813:
795:AndyTheGrump
770:
720:AndyTheGrump
714:
700:Technical 13
674:AlbinoFerret
651:AlbinoFerret
629:AlbinoFerret
597:
500:
454:
443:
364:AlbinoFerret
338:AlbinoFerret
317:
314:
296:
288:
280:
277:
275:
204:
148:
127:
124:
83:
65:
43:
37:
2583:Re Atsme's:
2402:Ozzie10aaaa
1602:This is an
1563:This is an
1179:alerted an
793:dragons...
598:thanks for
353:let me know
170:Ozzie10aaaa
153:Ozzie10aaaa
36:This is an
3781:perception
3595:issues of
3546:perception
2834:- IP User
3913:Guy Macon
3877:Guy Macon
3785:DrChrissy
3758:DrChrissy
3754:perceived
3731:DrChrissy
3720:DrChrissy
3632:DrChrissy
3550:DrChrissy
3542:perceived
3176:Dbrodbeck
2858:Dbrodbeck
2741:Edward321
2676:Doc James
2645:DrChrissy
2548:community
2082:Guy Macon
2065:Dbrodbeck
2048:Edward321
1503:Guy Macon
1184:checkuser
1181:oversight
972:QuackGuru
932:QuackGuru
894:somewhere
856:DrChrissy
775:WP:AVDUCK
290:back-off.
209:like this
72:ArchiveĀ 3
66:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
3817:Ca2james
3673:contribs
3661:unsigned
3528:Ca2james
3468:Ca2james
3108:Pincrete
3096:Soham321
3083:Ca2james
3069:Soham321
3065:Ca2james
3052:Ca2james
3033:Soham321
3028:minority
3014:Pincrete
3006:Soham321
2990:Soham321
2971:Soham321
2951:Pincrete
2893:Thomas.W
2686:contribs
2590:Pincrete
2439:Johnuniq
2424:Ca2james
2315:WP:BEANS
2278:evidence
2100:section?
2031:Pincrete
1977:partisan
1960:Pincrete
1956:Soham321
1924:Soham321
1909:Ca2james
1876:Soham321
1848:Soham321
1827:Ca2james
1770:Thomas.W
1751:Soham321
1690:Thomas.W
1628:Soham321
1298:Ca2james
1251:Ca2james
1186:admin.
1146:states,
1144:WP:Essay
898:Pincrete
756:Ca2james
742:Johnuniq
594:archives
576:Wuerzele
542:Wuerzele
523:Wuerzele
483:Ca2james
458:Ca2james
417:Ca2james
389:Ca2james
351:(Please
319:Anmccaff
281:authored
106:and see
3840:states
3834:comment
3805:Comment
3448:forum.
3047:removed
2986:Support
2917:Cwobeel
2871:Support
2832:comment
2806:Comment
2657:Alexbrn
2640:Support
2477:above.
2398:opinion
2343:Comment
2339:Support
2208:WP:PAGs
2204:Support
2166:WP:BIAS
2148:project
2027:Comment
1844:Comment
1747:Support
1715:first.
570:thanks
506:(talk)
278:created
80:History
39:archive
3900:WP:1AM
3417:Jytdog
3361:appear
3133:WP:AGF
2931:Oppose
2922:(talk)
2908:Oppose
2888:Oppose
2854:Oppose
2788:Oppose
2771:Oppose
2754:Oppose
2737:Oppose
2724:Jytdog
2716:oppose
2699:Oppose
2670:Oppose
2653:Oppose
2617:Oppose
2566:WP:OWN
2497:WP:OWN
2471:Oppose
2415:Oppose
2394:oppose
2377:Oppose
2307:Oppose
2265:Oppose
2198:Survey
2182:WP:PAG
1713:WP:RfC
1709:do not
779:WP:OWN
636:Jytdog
612:Jytdog
550:Jytdog
251:Jytdog
213:Jytdog
174:Jytdog
149:essays
112:Jytdog
3848:Atsme
3808:Atsme
3695:Atsme
3597:style
3586:Atsme
3576:Read
3517:Atsme
3435:Atsme
3412:asked
3371:Atsme
3315:Atsme
3258:Atsme
3231:Atsme
3104:think
2841:Atsme
2793:Manul
2690:email
2537:Atsme
2502:Atsme
2458:Atsme
2396:same
2213:Atsme
2189:Atsme
1743:Atsme
1739:three
1655:email
1604:essay
1565:essay
1524:Atsme
1518:never
1470:Atsme
1427:Manul
1316:Atsme
1286:Atsme
1247:Atsme
1189:Atsme
1154:Atsme
1021:after
784:Atsme
663:Atsme
572:Atsme
562:Atsme
519:atsme
447:Atsme
301:Atsme
232:Atsme
205:never
193:Atsme
136:Atsme
16:<
3917:talk
3911:. --
3881:talk
3867:talk
3821:talk
3771:talk
3744:talk
3710:talk
3669:talk
3609:talk
3580:some
3564:talk
3532:talk
3472:talk
3454:talk
3421:talk
3388:talk
3365:you.
3344:talk
3330:talk
3298:talk
3273:talk
3246:talk
3180:talk
3166:talk
3141:talk
3112:talk
3087:talk
3073:talk
3056:talk
3037:talk
3018:talk
2994:talk
2975:talk
2955:talk
2910:and
2879:talk
2862:talk
2836:talk
2819:talk
2810:only
2797:talk
2779:talk
2762:talk
2745:talk
2728:talk
2707:talk
2682:talk
2661:talk
2594:talk
2575:talk
2556:talk
2525:talk
2483:talk
2443:talk
2428:talk
2406:talk
2385:talk
2328:talk
2296:talk
2151:you.
2086:talk
2069:talk
2052:talk
2035:talk
1996:talk
1964:talk
1943:talk
1928:talk
1913:talk
1894:talk
1880:talk
1866:talk
1852:talk
1831:talk
1808:talk
1790:talk
1755:talk
1721:talk
1672:talk
1647:CFCF
1632:talk
1507:talk
1488:talk
1458:talk
1431:talk
1383:talk
1360:talk
1302:talk
1255:talk
1226:talk
1212:talk
1170:talk
1117:talk
1084:talk
1058:talk
1029:talk
994:talk
979:talk
956:talk
939:talk
902:talk
884:talk
870:talk
840:talk
799:talk
760:talk
746:talk
724:talk
698:{{U|
640:talk
616:talk
608:here
606:and
604:here
580:talk
527:talk
487:talk
479:done
477:Ok,
468:talk
421:talk
407:talk
393:talk
379:talk
323:talk
255:talk
217:talk
178:talk
157:talk
116:talk
101:here
95:here
89:here
2622:Axl
2274:for
2157:CAM
2109:NAC
1905:not
1685:not
1644:--
1422:RfC
1371:are
1222:jps
1166:jps
1113:jps
702:}}
373:me.
285:BDD
130:BDD
3919:)
3904:my
3883:)
3869:)
3823:)
3773:)
3746:)
3712:)
3675:)
3671:ā¢
3611:)
3566:)
3534:)
3474:)
3456:)
3423:)
3390:)
3346:)
3332:)
3300:)
3275:)
3248:)
3182:)
3168:)
3143:)
3114:)
3089:)
3075:)
3058:)
3039:)
3020:)
2996:)
2977:)
2957:)
2881:)
2864:)
2821:)
2795:~
2781:)
2764:)
2747:)
2730:)
2722:.
2709:)
2692:)
2688:Ā·
2684:Ā·
2663:)
2596:)
2577:)
2558:)
2527:)
2485:)
2445:)
2430:)
2408:)
2387:)
2361:ąøąøø
2330:)
2298:)
2113:Mr
2088:)
2078:No
2071:)
2061:No
2054:)
2044:No
2037:)
1998:)
1966:)
1954::
1945:)
1930:)
1915:)
1896:)
1882:)
1868:)
1854:)
1833:)
1823:No
1810:)
1802:.
1792:)
1757:)
1723:)
1705:No
1674:)
1664:No
1657:)
1651:š
1642:No
1634:)
1509:)
1490:)
1460:)
1429:~
1385:)
1362:)
1304:)
1257:)
1228:)
1214:)
1172:)
1129::
1119:)
1086:)
1060:)
1031:)
996:)
982:)
968:.
958:)
942:)
928:.
904:)
886:)
872:)
842:)
801:)
762:)
748:)
726:)
718:.
642:)
618:)
610:.
582:)
559:--
529:)
489:)
470:)
423:)
409:)
395:)
381:)
325:)
257:)
219:)
180:)
159:)
118:)
3915:(
3879:(
3865:(
3819:(
3769:(
3742:(
3729:]
3708:(
3667:(
3625:@
3607:(
3562:(
3530:(
3470:(
3452:(
3419:(
3386:(
3342:(
3328:(
3296:(
3286:)
3282:(
3271:(
3244:(
3178:(
3164:(
3139:(
3110:(
3085:(
3071:(
3054:(
3035:(
3016:(
3012:.
2992:(
2973:(
2965:*
2953:(
2877:(
2860:(
2817:(
2777:(
2760:(
2743:(
2726:(
2705:(
2680:(
2659:(
2626:Ā¤
2592:(
2573:(
2554:(
2523:(
2481:(
2441:(
2426:(
2404:(
2383:(
2366:ąø
2326:(
2294:(
2159:,
2116:X
2107:(
2084:(
2067:(
2050:(
2033:(
1994:(
1962:(
1941:(
1926:(
1911:(
1892:(
1878:(
1864:(
1850:(
1829:(
1806:(
1788:(
1753:(
1719:(
1670:(
1653:(
1630:(
1606:.
1567:.
1505:(
1486:(
1456:(
1381:(
1358:(
1300:(
1253:(
1224:(
1210:(
1168:(
1115:(
1082:(
1056:(
1027:(
992:(
976:(
954:(
936:(
900:(
882:(
868:(
838:(
797:(
758:(
744:(
737:"
733:"
722:(
638:(
614:(
578:(
525:(
485:(
466:(
460::
456:@
419:(
405:(
391:(
377:(
321:(
253:(
215:(
176:(
155:(
114:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.