dirtycomputer/Wikipedia_Talk_Labels · Datasets at Hugging Face

rev_id int64 37.7k 700M	comment stringlengths 5 10k	year int64 2k 2.02k	logged_in bool 2 classes	ns stringclasses 2 values	sample stringclasses 2 values	split stringclasses 3 values	attack bool 2 classes
654,512,724	` ::If this is an April Fool, it does not does much for the wit and wisdom of Wikipedia's editors. Assuming it's not an April Fool, then we seem to be stooping to the lowest depths of the gutter, tabloid press to attract readers. It takes a huge leap of the imagination to link a tiny infant used for political reasons with crossdressing - or does someone imagine that Chinese babies were wrapped in blue or pink swaddling clothes and then themselves chose which to wear? `	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,521,478	== Request edit of economy section == It should be noted that the CPI used to measure corruption is under harsh critisism and that the global corruption barmeter released by the same organization (transparency international) places Argentina in the place 31 of 95 countries, with levels of bribery well below the world's average.	2,015	false	article	random	dev	false
654,523,581	::::: - I am fine as well with your suggestion. The absolute rate (per 100,0000) should be included in the lead with a note on relative UN stats, both for NPOV and because it is relevant summary of the main article. Given China's and India's large population, on their respective wiki pages, the incidence rate per 100,000 (or 1,000) data gives a more balanced demographic view for any issue/topic. Rate data is also very common in UN, US and EU reports on crime. :::::	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
654,523,963	::::About y/a/yr: best ask at template talk:Convert, Johnuniq (module editor) knows why it can/cannot be added as a unit. ::::About correct, table sortkey adding is available. To solve: requires so we can't use again to prevent the second (2nd, converted, pun) column showing. Needs another look, not yet discarded. -	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,528,645	:From here, I would need to go playing with it but I lack the time. About the cost: ahum, the article editor would like to input , right? That's the goal. As said, I have no time to try development in this. I'm gone, you can ping me. -	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,531,924	` :::::Okay, thanks, that's clear, I will action that when I get time. It is not really that I am attacking anybody, but that I am defending myself again the attacks of against articles that I spent a lot of time on (without pay) to inform readers. The main objection I have to 's editing is that he edits articles without any proper knowledge of the subject and then substitutes his own interpretation, the result being a bunch of errors. Let me give a recent example to illustrate. In the article on the Marxian concept of Surplus product, recently wiped out the sentence ``The concept plays an important role in Das Kapital``, but for no good reason. After all, Marx writes that: ``Since the production of surplus-value is the determining purpose of capitalist production, the size of a given quantity of wealth must be measured, not by the absolute quantity produced, but by the relative magnitude of the surplus product.`` Cap. Vol. 1, Penguin, pp. 338-339. This is absolutely central to Marx's argument. The concept is discussed in more detail across about ten pages and at least five places in Capital Vol. 2, and again in at least 11 different places in Capital Vol. 3. So it is an important theoretical concept in Das Kapital. Yet wipes that out! Next, I write ``Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics, surplus economics as well as sociology and other social sciences”. wipes out “surplus economics”, “archaeology”, “sociology” and “other social sciences” so that the sentence now reads: “Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics.[2] political anthropology, cultural anthropology, economic anthropology” (in that case, it should really be “AND economic anthropology”). However, scholars familiar with the concept know quite well that this concept is used exactly in the way that I said, and references can be provided for this (in fact I quote plenty examples in the rest of the article). However, if I provided references, then will no doubt wipe them out on the ground that I am offering a “quote farm” or some such thing. next wipes out the statement that “For most of the history of civil society, the meaning of the surplus product was fairly obvious and clear. It consisted of (1) that part of what workers produced (products, offspring or services) which they had to hand over to the chief, the landowner, the lord, or the state, as a tax, rent or tribute, and (2) incidental surplus produce, in excess of the producers' own requirements, which was traded for other goods. However, the meaning of surplus product becomes less clear in capitalist society (see below).” There is nothing particularly controversial about this statement, and it could be referenced without any problem; I explain the reasoning in subsequent sections of the article. Next, wipes out “the statement that “Since trade always involves two or more parties with their own interests in the matter, the meanings of that trade can be construed in different ways by different stakeholders, and they can evolve across time. If that is the case, the economic meanings of trade are never completely fixed once and for all. Such ambiguities gave rise to many different interpretations of what ``fair trade`` or ``just trade``(and therefore trade of benefit to society) might be considered to be. For a long time, it was very difficult for economic theorists to separate out the moral judgement about different kinds of trade, from a scientific appraisal of the actual objective processes of trade, because commerce was dominated by legal codes and by religion.” For any scholar of the subject, this is quite obvious, but nevertheless wipes it out. After wiping out a few more small clarifying bits, modifies the sentence “The existence of a surplus product normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour” and adds, “In Marxism, the existence of a ``surplus product`` normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour.” But this doesn’t even distinguish between Marx and all sorts of Marxisms or Marxists or other historians using this concept. When I write carefully, “With the bourgeois state, taxpayers typically have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office, which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally. That possibility has rarely existed in non-capitalist states; there, any public criticism of the state that the critic could be fined, imprisoned or killed,” then changes that to “With the bourgeois state, taxpayers have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office, which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally. That possibility has rarely existed in non-capitalist states; there, any public criticism of the state that the critic is fined, imprisoned or killed.” But this removal of my qualifiers yields a statement which is, from the point of view of historians and political scientists a scientifically incorrect and a caricature, since bourgeois states can also feature unelected dictatorships, and since criticism of the state “could” mean that that the critic is “fined, imprisoned or killed” (the threat was there) but this did not happen necessarily in every case or automatically, among other things because the criticism was not made in public. simply wipes out the referenced quote that “Duncan K. Foley comments: ``Having established the idea that the increasing division of labor underlies rises in labor productivity, Smith argues that the division of labor itself is largely determined by the size of the market``. It then seems to follow that the bigger the market, the higher productivity will be.” Yet is this is precisely an implication which is important to show the basic difference in argument between Marx and Smith about the division of labour which creates tradeable surpluses. wipes out “The concept expresses an abstract proportion which does not really refer to a static condition but to a continual flow of producing and distributing output.” Originally I never put that in there, someone else did, but it is basically correct, since production and distribution are processes across time. Yet wipes it out. The question arises: why does do all this, very deliberately, willfully and knowingly? What is the pay-off? Since his edits only show he doesn't even know about the subject, I can only surmise he is engaging in censorship according to his own biases, under the cover of editing. But that is a wrong motivation for editing. And it does not make the article better. It is easy for to wipe out text at a click of a button without any valid explanation for what he does, but it is much more difficult to create the text and respond in detail to every destructive edit that makes. I do not intend to explain myself endlessly to an editor who shows no knowledge of the subject and offers no explanation for his edits, I do not have time for that. I have mentioned only this one example, but does this in hundreds of different places. If the wikipedia administrators do not intervene in this type of case, then the quality of articles will go downhill all the time, since you can wipe out text for any old reason quicker than you can write it. `	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	false
654,556,775	` ::I guess so, before too long. `	2,015	true	article	random	dev	false
654,559,095	` (Unsigned edit from :Hi there, Anonymous editor. :While your edit was factually correct, it did not provide helpful or constructive context. :It is already made clear that Sesame Workshop has denied those claims, and the edit you made was simply redundant and not at all in the proper writing-style of an encyclopedia. :Also, please remember to always sign your Talk edits with four tildes (~~~~) : `	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,566,560	::This is very serious business. •	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,573,613	== eSsdgnianfsgjn == Lik a sumboody lef me a lon! II am hef great time bic lef me lon KKK?	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,582,917	:::As for Mr. Assahli, he seems to be a real person, with a Twitter feed, a LinkedIn page and an Instagram feed. So, are you satisfied he's a real person?	2,015	true	article	random	test	false
654,586,512	Shouldn't Ali Carter be at least mid importance on the Wikiproject Snooker scale? He's been in the top 16 for about a decade now surely... {{ }}	2,015	false	article	blocked	dev	false
654,595,939	== Bracket Bot Is Evil == Jonesy, please don't come between me and Bracket bot. We have a long checkered history and I want deactivate his circuits like a clown hates elephants. I understand you're simply trying to maintain a semblance of decency in an otherwise chaotic ocean of edits. But I want bracket bot to fear me as a human being, that I may one day remove his circuits.	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
654,596,073	:: FCKING SON OF A BATCH MOTHER FCKER. Rolling on th floor eating a bagel is real, and you're a denier!!!	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	true
654,597,835	Yarmouk camp == News from Yarmouk camp reported that Isis captured 70% of the camp and clashes are still ongoing.SOHR,SOHR,NBCNEWS,BBC,Dailystar. ==	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
654,597,967	Will one turn it green only if live-broadcasting from the border gate is presented ?	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
654,606,411	Dear cat-piss, your are an idiot Apparently you have history in removing people's edits, edits that are not your contribution Grow up and get the fuck out of the house, you moron	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	true
654,623,628	` ::::::In any case, would ``impossible`` also qualify as described by Inside Edition? `	2,015	true	article	random	dev	false
654,636,121	:::::::::::::: Your ancestors will answer all your questions. Meet them as soon as possible.	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
654,642,156	`> == Bracket Bot Is Evil == Jonesy, please don't come between me and Bracket bot. We have a long checkered history and I want deactivate his circuits like a clown hates elephants. I understand you're simply trying to maintain a semblance of decency in an otherwise chaotic ocean of edits. But I want bracket bot to fear me as a human being, that I may one day remove his circuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
654,648,601	:::::::::I believe the list to be essentially unsourceable, yes. Even as it stands, rigidly applying the inclusion criteria would remove most of the current content, and there's no reason to add even more problematic content to a problematic list. But, as I will point out again, the fact that the list can't be properly sourced isn't my fault: I'm just pointing it out.—	2,015	true	article	random	dev	false
654,654,077	== HOW YOU DEFINE MISSING? == You call me vandal, hw you define missing foo?	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
654,663,138	ẶɱỹÑȅ_0_0 Is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence , by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
654,670,387	` :: And I was not happy about it. `	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
654,677,527	Fine, I won't do it again. Still, that doesn't change the fact Menendez is exactly what I said he was. Regards,	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,683,136	` :::::::::Thank you for your clarification and reference, . I could be wrong in the articles I wrote, you know, and I could be proved wrong. And if somebody pointed that out, it would be a good thing, I would learn from it. But very likely that will never be established, since simply and only wipes out text, sometimes referring cryptically to some procedurality, if that, and for the rest, I am blocked. For example, in the Tendency of the rate of profit to fall article, cut out more than 1,000 words, remarking cryptically that ``it doesn't seem to have anything to do with profit decline``. Huh? It does not ``seem`` to have anything to do with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? Thanks very much, I contributed 1,000 words and cuts them out in a second because it ``seems`` wrong! That is not the kind of editing that is needed in wikipedia, I think. I know very well that unreferenced statements can always be removed, or placed somewhere else. Them is the breaks. However, if a statement seems to be wrong, it is the best procedure to tag it appropriately and discuss it on the talk page. This is not however what does, he simply wipes it out. Now, why would an amiable 56-year old archivist and editor of academic publications like me, get angry with this at all? The reason is that he edits topics under the cover of some suitable procedurality, while in reality I think he is subverting the real intention of the procedures, to insert his own ideological perspective of how things should be, and without proper knowledge of the subjectmatter. There is no procedure without a loophole somewhere. In that case, it does not really help to appeal to procedures, since he will find yet another way to delete text, as is his habit. I requested an arbitration procedure but that was denied, and there was no interest in looking at the matter further when I posted to the noticeboard, since I called 's editing style ``criminal``. I fully agree with you, that I made a serious mistake in letting my irritation get the better of me, and, feelig irritated, used inappropriate language to express my point of view. I must desist from any ``personal attacks`` in wikipedia at any time, even if I think that the editing is not being done ``in good faith`` and without appropriate discussion. Point is that such criticisms of an editor are not helpful, or effective, in the attempt to improve articles, which is the overall aim (if genuinely assisted in improving articles, I would certainly welcome it). But whether I will work on wikipedia again I do not know yet, since it is very frustrating that, when you try to provide readers with the best possible article, parts of the text simply get wiped out, for no good reason, and without proper explanation (if you are familiar with the subject, and I only write about things I have a lot of experience with, including contact with many of the people mentioned in the articles). I will ponder that some more in the future, weighing the costs and benefits of doing unpaid work in wikipedia as a service to readers. I just feel terribly disappointed about the effort I have put in. `	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,704,906	== Lady Selina Hastings FRSL == Article created simply because her name is/was linked through the list of Fellows of the Royal Society of Literature.	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
654,705,531	It is clear that you are not interested in factual accuracy in the article. You can revert it and make Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate as this is becoming ever more common and known in the internet community. Do a little research and you will see that everything I had changed was FACTUAL. End of Story. -	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
654,705,555	== Simple thoughts == Burke's Peerage was added as a reference link in line with Wikipedia:Offline sources & I am pleased to be out of the mêlée regarding the Most Venerable Order of Saint John, since you seek an example.. M (retired)	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,706,986	` The ``reliable source`` is the ``actual source`` itself. The National Alliance or www.natall.com . Go check it out for yourself. It, the NA, exists. The new Chairman is William White Williams, since Erich Gliebe resigned, and it is now a membership organization, as in the ``join us`` link. What else makes that so difficult for you to understand? No source is more reliable than is the direct source and vs any second-hand source.`	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
654,713,240	` :lel xD Actually, instant noodles, smartphone and laptop are unallowed to bring there v_v and the time schedule there is really tight and packed. I only get 6 hours of sleep. We were curious on what happen to the outside world during the GST implementation. All of us are outdated there… Missed editing Wikipedia and Wiktionary already <3 `	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
654,716,490	::Yes I know hence I have retired but please have the good grace to acknowledge the contribution I just made - Happy Easter & good bye.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,725,514	It's time to standardize this portion of the encyclopedia. There i no logical reason to have American Jews and Korean Canadians but Korean American. You argue to status quo, but the status quo is wrong. This is an easy fix with no good reason against it.	2,015	true	article	random	dev	false
654,739,491	== about the abstinence == You know, sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and I don't like being accused of it. I can assure you, is not me. I respect the rules of Wikipedia. I haven't even been blocked, so I have no need to create a sock. Regards,	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	false
654,746,688	:::I see. The module:Convert is very good in: accepting number formats, recognise units, combined units, prefixes (both symbol and name), calculate that smart sortnumber. It is not good in: return isolated results (eg, that sortnumber only), add table formatting. (btw, the input number usually returned as-is, unchanged). In my description convert-calls are hidden from the article editor. It is only used to get the plain time-quantity-in-seconds number (from any time-unit-input), the core & good {convert} trick. That seconds-number is fed into a sortkey-creator (like {nts}). The value+unit shown can be exactly the editor's input. Could work, is not very elegant. What Jimp writes, below, is about the sortvalue calculated by convert, my setup does not use that. -	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,747,756	::So, for this limited goal (dimension is time only, and we may require SI units for input, reduced number input formats), we could calculate the quantity into seconds using {convert} module, and enter that number into to return the sortkey. The visible text returned can be the input I guess. Would not need {val} this way (unless the input number format is not recognised by {convert}. Is {Val} better for this, covering more scientific forms?). -	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,756,533	` :::::If its any help I'm with Scolaire, reference is simply not good enough `	2,015	true	article	random	test	false
654,761,139	` April 2015 (UTC) ## '''''' 10:35, 3`	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
654,761,245	` It's nice too see that Bangalis are having much more importance than others. '''''' `	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,766,308	` So cite it, as they are the actual direct primary source. The so-called ``independent sources`` that have been cited in this article, like the SPLC, are neither ``reliable`` nor ``realistic`` and nor are they even ``accurate``. ``Image`` is subjective and POV, whereas, the actual facts are NPOV. Again, it is clear that you are not interested in factual accuracy in the article. You can revert it and just make such Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate as usual as this is just becoming ever more common and well-known in the internet community, or just as is the ``dinosaur`` mass media. Do a little independent research yourself and you will see that everything I had changed IS FACTUAL, whereas the article you reverted back to is NOT FACTUAL. That is fine with me, as this only reflects Wikipedia's difficulty with ever having or in getting the facts straight and correct verses being just SPLC false propaganda. So be it! =============================================================================================`	2,015	false	user	blocked	dev	false
654,767,174	The SPLC’s Outright Telemarketing Scam PUBLISHED BY MICHAEL OLANICH, ON MARCH 31ST, 2015 telemarketing2014 ONE MONTH ago, we gave the Southern Poverty Law Center the benefit of the doubt concerning their dubious telemarketing practices. Today, with the release of their 2014 IRS Form 990 tax report, we cannot cover for their outright telemarketing scam any longer. On the right is the SPLC’s IRS Form 990 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2014. For the fourth consecutive year, SPLC Founder Morris Dees, who bills himself as a “sound steward” of the donors’ money has deliberately scammed tens of thousands of well-meaning donors through his network of paid telemarketing rip-off artists. To wit, for the past four years Mr. Dees has continued his relationship with Grassroots Campaigns of Boston, Mass, despite the horrific hemorrhaging of donor dollars. Grassroots has cost the SPLC hundreds of thousands, and even millions of dollars each year for their fundraising efforts: 2011: -$212,214 2012: -$869,686 2013: -$1,156,765 2014: -$1,130,680 How in the world can Mr. Dees continue to deal with a company that has blatantly siphoned $3,369,345 donor-dollars out of his coffers over the past four years? These horrendous figures more than wipe out every dollar raised by his other telemarketing cronies, not that that amounted to all that much. Checking out Telefund, Inc. of Denver, we see that they raised $561,102 in the name of the SPLC in 2014, and only pocketed $422,292 in fees, leaving the SPLC $138,811, or a whopping 25% of the donation money. Did anyone tell the donors that Telefund was pocketing three quarters of their donor-dollars? But that’s all chump change compared to the experts at Harris Marketing group, who raised $213,694 in the name of the SPLC and “fighting hate,” and only pocketed $192,928, or a mere 90% of the money donated over the phone. And yet, Morris Dees could not be happier with the results because Grassroots, Telefund and Harris all sold their information to him. For mere pennies on the dollar, Mr. Dees buys solid donor leads that he can feed into his own uber-efficient in-house fundraising machine at 100% profit down the road. Best of all, it was the stupid donors who unwittingly paid to have their information sold to Mr. Dees. You really cannot beat that for “stewardship.” Dees will lose money on the deal this year, but it’s nothing compared to the tens of millions he stands to gain from these donors over the coming decades. But think about it. In 2014, Mo Dees paid $2,537,027 to third-party telemarketers to raise $1,979,272 in donor-dollars, meaning that the telemarketers kept every last dime they solicited over the phone in the name of the SPLC as well as an additional $557,755 out of the SPLC’s existing donor till THIS is “sound stewardship?” At $100 dollars apiece “only” 25,370 of the 2014 donors got screwed out of their donations. A mere pittance. At $50 dollars a pop the number jumps to more than 50,000 suckers, and yet, Mo Dees calls this “sound stewardship?” Justify it anyway you want, but at least 25,000 well-meaning donors got screwed out of their money, just as they have for the past four years. It’s time that the media and the IRS investigates the criminal scamming of the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is nothing less than blatant fraud. Selling the suckers one thing and giving them something far less. * * * Source: Watching the Watchdogs SHARE VIA EMAIL OR SOCIAL MEDIA: Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on VKShare on RedditPrint this page Related Articles: New Study: SPLC is a Fraud Who’s a White Supremacist? The SPLC — A Deadly Double Standard SPLC: The Quotable Mr. Potok SPLC Insinuates Itself into Department of Homeland Security REPORTS MORRIS DEES, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, SPLC	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
654,768,220	: See...Official Website of Haworth, New Jersey, (http://www.haworthnj.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC;=%7B234B8511-9395-4018-BB82-21EA8D2FCFFC%7D&DE;=%7BF5EAB57A-B291-480E-B75A-597B6263974D%7D\|website=haworthnj.org/index).	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
654,770,043	:I already said I wouldn't do it again.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,770,782	` == Obscurantism is presented as anti-obscuratims == Biology and bioinspired evolutionary computing considers sexual recombination as a means to distribute the good/useful solutions, the knowledge among population. It is a mechanism to advance the biological culture evolution. When individual discovers a good feature, the only way to spread it in the population is the recombination. Otherwise, you are stuck at the clonal interference (situation where you cannot communicate information across the companies). Now, we are said that pointing this out is undoubtful obscuring and vandalism. And it hides this fact in order to ``deobscure``. IMO, obscuring is hiding the things that put everything into the order, creating vaguesness and chaos. How do you call the situation when something is called its opposite and recover the normal order? `	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
654,771,595	:: Information is not knowledge. That is funny. I wonder how high heights can you reach defending the nonsense.	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
654,778,719	`Hello , Thanks for your advice , so today in ``See Also`` i added 3 new articles .and i take off ````Linked in `` Waiting for your answer . Regards `	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
654,780,693	` :, Pakistanis respect a lot Bangalis. '''''' `	2,015	true	article	blocked	test	false
654,781,727	`# '''''' #`	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,783,288	) # Rania Khan (Councillor, Modern, UK	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,786,011	== Reason of my page deleted.. == Why was my official page deleted. Please send me the reason why it was deleted.	2,015	false	user	random	train	false
654,787,914	==Lyrics== This is probably not the place for a great debate but why aren't lyrics to songs embedded in an Wikipedia article. Are there copyright issues to such a move as the lyrics are available in the liner notes or songbooks? I threw a wish in the well Don't ask me, I'll never tell I looked to you as it fell And now you're in my way I trade my soul for a wish Pennies and dimes for a kiss I wasn't looking for this But now you're in my way Your stare was holdin' Ripped jeans, skin was showin' Hot night, wind was blowin' Where you think you're going, baby? Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe It's hard to look right at you, baby But here's my number, so call me maybe Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe And all the other boys try to chase me But here's my number, so call me maybe You took your time with the call I took no time with the fall You gave me nothing at all But still, you're in my way I beg and borrow and steal Have foresight, and it's real I didn't know I would feel it But it's in my way Your stare was holdin' Ripped jeans, skin was showin' Hot night, wind was blowin' Where you think you're going, baby? Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe It's hard to look right at you, baby But here's my number, so call me maybe Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe And all the other boys try to chase me But here's my number, so call me maybe Before you came into my life, I missed you so bad I missed you so bad, I missed you so, so bad Before you came into my life, I missed you so bad And you should know that, I missed you so, so bad It's hard to look right at you, baby But here's my number, so call me maybe Hey, I just met you and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe And all the other boys try to chase me But here's my number, so call me maybe Before you came into my life, I missed you so bad I missed you so bad, I missed you so, so bad Before you came into my life, I missed you so bad And you should know that, so call me maybe Written by: Tavish Crowe, Carly Rae Jepsen, Josh Ramsay	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
654,797,235	::See above - OTRS ticket confirming permission to use received.	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
654,803,786	:Easypeasy - qv: Kingdom of Great Britain or Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle etc etc.. Fr Anglicanus, let's complement each other's knowledge (for instance you know abt MOS - I don't, whilst I try to maintain that I know a little bit abt history..!) if okay? M (retired)	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,810,601	` == No Problem == Sure, no problem. I'll just drop the matter after Verdy P responds condescendingly and name-calls; absolutely no conduct issue there. There's also no issue in his insistence that he's right and everybody around him is wrong, even in the face of proof. And it's perfectly ok for fellow ``volunteers`` to not read issues properly and back each other up no matter their faults and pretend like there's no problems in their actions. Enjoy having wikipedia edited by Verdy and his ignorant bunch, who prioritize preaching account creation to IP users such as myself instead of worrying about article content validity, for which they're part of the problem. `	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
654,824,352	` Academia does hijack terminology. It's kinda what it does. It routinizes an idea that hasn't been studied and makes it rigorous. The reason that I think it important that we stick to sourcing as our primary means of identification is because to do otherwise would be a free-for-all. Many people have studied philosophy and, arguably, anyone reading a page on Wikipedia that is remotely related to the subject is ``studying philosophy``. But to label someone a philosopher, we need to consider what reliable sources call them. McKenna was someone who speculated on various ideas. He was certainly a psychonaut. But philosophy is a subject that is seriously studied and requires confirmation. Not just anyone can be a philosopher. This isn't to say that it is impossible for amateurs to become philosophers. Only that we have to have sources which so acknowledge it. If sources qualify the term it seems to me that we'll just end up with meaningless commentary. Think about what best serves the readers: a casual reader would expect that a philosopher was somehow engaged in the act of studying philosophy which, for better or worse, these days takes place primarily in academia. The exceptions to that general rule should be well-sourced. `	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
654,824,625	Rosa, your grandiosity is simply colossal. Do you have a narcissistic personality disorder?	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	true
654,829,180	the combat companies of the 12th AD	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
654,832,179	== who are you? == Who on earth are you to tell me what to do in spite of the fact I have already done it? Sod off.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,846,015	` Again, it is clear that you are not interested in factual accuracy in the article. You can and have reverted it and make Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate as this is becoming ever more common and known in the internet community. Do a little independent research and you will see that everything that I had changed in the article was FACTUAL. End of Story. I can't fix you ``editors`` here all being so stupid. You just don't get it. So be it.`	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	true
654,846,207	== Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate == It is clear that you are not interested in factual accuracy in the article. You can revert it and make Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate as this is becoming ever more common and known in the internet community. Do a little research and you will see that everything I had changed was FACTUAL. End of Story.	2,015	false	user	blocked	dev	false
654,875,492	== Quit putting BS paragraph titles. == I am accurate as the links and sources I have used. What the hell is The Authority Era? I've never heard that ever. The eras I have listed actually happened and for BillMcNeal the Brand Extension wasn't from 2002-2012, it went until 2011. Dumb paragraph title. Quit being a troll.	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,888,396	REDIRECT Talk:John Loveday (experimental physicist)	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
654,895,246	:::: I find it logical to wish someone to go to his ancestors as soon as possible who insistently consistently consciously offends you. So do it please. You will make the world a bit better without your ignorance.	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,895,443	What is you to decide what is offensive to Ukrainians and residents of Kyiv or not? Who has put in your mind so powerful charge of ignorance that you tenderly bear throughout all your life and share with normal people on Wikipedia?	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
654,908,601	` :Mate, you literally think ``the Reality Era`` is a thing and you tried sourcing it to ``the future``. Wind your neck in. `	2,015	true	article	blocked	test	false
654,912,317	And as for my edits and descriptions, they were exactly what the sources say about Houthis! And they are more reliable than any other sources, because one is a POV by a professor who have published two books on Houthis and the other is a Newsweek report by a reporter that has closely studied the Houthis in field, traveling with and speaking heart to heart with their members. That's why I thought those sources are more reliable than sources that just regurgitate speculations and charges by the US officials, ousted Yemenis government or Saudi Arabia who have a vested interest in demonizing Houthis	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
654,913,008	:::Damn, those are some rancid sources.	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,917,613	UPDATE: If ever the article's content is changed by the moron Verdy or any of his special pals, revert it swiftly.	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
654,922,944	` == Requested move 4 April 2015 == :Apologize (OneRepublic song) → – I know that further disambiguation is required when there's two or more songs with the same title, but surely we can make an exception if there's only two songs AND one of them isn't the slightest bit notable? Only two pages link to the other song and its only claim to fame is that it won an award which hasn't even got an article. In fact, given that these are the only two things called ``Apologize`` and everything else is either called ``Apology`` or ``The Apology``, I could even make a claim that we don't need any brackets at all. `	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
654,925,934	`:``The problem with quantum mechanics (if we interpret it crudely) is that it implies you should fall through that chair, which is not a good prediction.`` Quantum physics implies no such thing. You have to be a philosophy graduate who's either not understood whatever philosophy of physics course you took, and/or had a lecturer who didn't understand quantum theory. Still, don't worry. He he he. How can you not like Jacob Lurie? :Also, your recommended book is… Well, it contains nothing but the usual dribble about misinterpretation or deliberate mangling of authentic Marxist scripture, how Lenin and Trotsky were real democrats, if only that nasty Stalin hadn't betrayed the revolution, etc. etc.: : :Zzzz… `	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
654,944,985	Thank you for your insight, cheers to both of you's.	2,015	false	article	blocked	dev	false
654,945,922	== re: Randy Rhoads == I understand reverting the image due to the copyright issue. But why did you revert the second edit with no explanation? It was properly sourced... what's your explanation?	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
654,947,254	` You still apparently have not learned to take a deep breath and think about what you're reverting before you hit that ``undo`` button. This hasty behaviour must get you into the occasional needless confrontation, no? `	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
654,948,159	: Awww come on, we both know that's not true.	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
654,957,151	*Oppose. No primary topic. To many of us, a bowser is primarily a water tanker.	2,015	true	article	random	test	false
654,960,184	== You represent all that's bad about Wikipedia == I'd call you an asshole, but millions of assholes worldwide might be offended.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	true
654,961,140	== Soon and baliunas == Connolley, if you read the talk page on the Soon and Baliunas controversy, I SPECIFICALLY asked people not to revert my changes until a consensus was reached. I did what I did because I felt the second sentence had NPOV problems (which have been addressed on the talk page). Out of a courtesy to you, I won't try to edit-war my change back into place (even though I think it's right), I will, however, try to reach a compromise on the talk page of that article. Regards,	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	false
654,964,712	` ==Poorly written Native American section== I want to lay out the major problemsin terms of structure and clarityafflicting the Native American controversy paragraph. As I show below, this inept writing serves to obscure the controversy surrounding her claim to Native American ancestry, which was the most-covered issue in her 2012 Senate Campaign. ===Topic sentence=== Competently-written paragraphs have clear topic sentences that state the main point of the paragraph. The ``topic sentence`` of the current, incompetently written paragraph on the Native American controversy is as follows: ``In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995 listed Warren as a minority professor.`` This topic sentence is unclear; a reader who reads it would not see what the controversy was about. Being listed as a minority is not controversial. The issue is that Warren 1) listed herself in a 2) minority-recruitment directory for law schools, on the basis of 3) undocumented claims to Native American ancestry. A competently written topic sentence would convey those three main points. Here is an example of such a topic sentence: ``In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it noted that Warren had listed herself in a directory of minority law professors, used by law schools for recruitment purposes, despite the fact that she lacked any documented minority ancestry.`` That competently-written topic sentence states the controversy in a nutshell. I am willing to entertain any number of alternative topic sentences, including those that are unduly favorable to Warren. (I've given up on truly achieving NPOV for this article.) But I am not willing to abide unclear writing. ==='native ancestry'=== The current paragraph states that Warren's ``opponent Scott Brown speculated that she had fabricated a native ancestry to gain advantage in employment.`` At this point, the paragraph has not stated that she claimed to be Native American, so it is not clear what type of ancestry the term ``native ancestry`` refers to. I have tried to replace ``native ancestry`` with ``Native American ancestry,`` but have been repeatedly reverted. ==='Brown attacked Warren's ancestry'=== The current paragraph states that Scott Brown issued attack ads that ``referred to Warren's ancestry.`` Whether made out of incompetence or malice, this statement constitutes a BLP violation. The statement indicates that Brown attacked Warren because of her ancestry or race. In reality, he attacked her for (allegedly) lying about her race to get ahead in the employment market. `	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,977,102	::I understand. I'll leave the wording as it is, since the consensus is obviously against me.	2,015	true	article	blocked	test	false
654,983,969	` ::: You can cast a wider net with this: ::::``step process`` insource:/ step process/ :::or find over 3,000 articles with this: ::::``year contract``insource:/ year contract/ :::I'm mostly using Auto Wiki Browser ([WP:AWB]), so I can run hundreds of articles a day through it. But, yes, it's still a lot of work. `	2,015	true	user	random	test	false
654,987,776	The following statement, added by , is wrong. :Born as a son of a scholar of [[Russian literature]], he was baptized at Kagoshima Orthodox Church soon after his birth. According to Tashiro's biography, his father was a farmer and he was baptized sometime around 1895.	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
654,987,786	== Vandalism reports == A paragraph on the vandalism was added by . It is a pity that no one has explained the petty consequences although follow-up articles are available in English.	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
654,992,850	` == Badly written == This article is written in a muddy-headed style that is ill-suited for any encyclopedia. Instead of elucidating the nature of this supposed architectural movement in clear language, the article is filled with nonsensical and indistinct phrases that seem chosen to confuse the reader. The introduction, for example, concludes by informing us that neo-futurism is connected with ``a need to periodize the modern rapport with the technological.`` Got that? To begin with, the word ``technological`` is an adjective. The noun to which it refers is simply missing from the sentence. The technological what? That problem alone renders the sentence nearly meaningless. Secondly, a report is a relationship between two or more parties. What is ``the modern rapport``? Who partakes in this rapport? Does the word ``modern`` mean anything in this context? Or is this indistinct phrase meant to confuse the reader more than to communicate anything in particular? Finally, who exactly has this ``need`` to periodize such nonsense? And that's just a single quote from the intro. The article is rife with ambiguous and meaningless phrases. It reads as if the authors are deeply insecure about their intellectual prowess, heavily inebriated, and ESL. It does not impart a clear understanding of the subject matter. As such, I heartily second the above suggestion that this article ought to be deleted. `	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
654,996,404	::::::::: Are you really deeply an ignorant person? You do offend someone and then you are surprised why that person offends you?! If you would ask me that Канбера is offensive to you and you would ask me not to use it - I would do it with pleasure as any civilized man would do. Anyway my proposition for you to go your ancestors is actual. I will ask all the media companies to change to the official name. Then you ignorant pieces of ignorance will have no choice. To convince you - I don't want and don't have time for that useless activity. Unfortunately the only cure for ignorant creatures like you is go to its ancestors.	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	true
654,999,111	` == helms's votes on black, federal judicial nominees. == A user by the name of is trying to edit war a removal of my credible information about how Helms voted for African-American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation in 1991. This is not a WP:Synth, which is what he's trying to say. I'm not stating material not explicitly stated by the source:it explicitly states that he voted for Thomas on the two references I provided. The section has a sentence that reads that Helms blocked ``black judges from being considered for the federal bench``; however, it makes no mention of how he voted to confirm Clarence Thomas – an African-American – to the Supreme Court, a FEDERAL court. In other words, Helms did vote for a black federal judicial nominee. That sentence standing alone leaves the misleading impression that he opposed all black candidates for federal judgeships, when it is not the case. I'm just balancing the article out. , if you're reading this and disagree with me, do not REVERT my changes, or I'll report you for edit-warring (you don't need to break the 3rr to be blocked). Try to reach a consensus first; try to compromise. I'm a reasonable guy. Regards, `	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
655,006,332	== Christmas Day and New Year Broadcasts == Shouldn't it be noted that TODAY Show on Christmas Day and New Year Day are pre-tape and that they are specials broadcasts of the show?Those are the only days out the whole year that all four hours are pre-tape and they are not live.	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
655,013,087	== Help needed == Can someone assist with the Central Market buildings? Some other Wikipedia sites say that it has been completed, and some say they are not. Also with Landmark Tower, is this currently the tallest building??	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
655,013,922	== Map == Can someone please show where on the map, this place is? Its a blank map. Some help would be appreciated. Thanks.	2,015	false	article	blocked	test	false
655,015,494	`Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your time editing here. Please take a look at the changes I made to your edits on Citric acid - this is the style we use for referencing articles. If you have other questions, you can ask at the teahouse or check out this page. Cheers, ♦ `	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
655,028,765	` ::Page 280: ``By the end of World War II, a staggering 95% of Russia's country estates had disappeared. Some had been targeted for destruction; most however, were simply abandoned, plundered and then forgotten, left to rot, decay and fall into ruin. An entire cultural legacy had been wiped from the face of the earth.`` attributed to: Okhrana i restavratsiia, 24 Russkaia usad 'ba, 145, 155; Poliakova, ``Usadebnaia kul'tura 19.`	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
655,032,956	== Bot == Some bot keeps tagging these articles. Please review it before speedy deleting it.	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
655,042,362	` ::: Umm, neither of those examples is actually correct. On metalworking machinery, they are dovetail slides. They don't join. They make a sliding fit which is resistant to lifting. You can achieve the same effect with box ways by putting a sliding surface along the opposite side from the main bearing surface, but a dovetail is cheaper to make. In turbines, they are not called dovetails and they are not the same shape. They are called ``christmas trees`` in the shop, my aging brain has forgotten the correct technical term. But it ain't ``dovetail.`` They are shaped like an upside-down christmas tree with NO SHARP CORNERS. The principal is similar but not the same as a dovetail. Also, in general they are once again not a tight fit. They have to have a fair amnount of clearance to account for large temperature variations. In operation they actually rattle around some. So once again, as this article is mostly about permanent or semi-permanent joints, the use in turbines and metalworking equipment does not seem applicable. `	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
655,047,871	` ::sigh, fine. I'll add info about how Helms voted for Thomas, but, per request, I won't add it as a rebuttal to the charge that Helms is racist. I'll add it under a new header ``Supreme Court nominees``. In fact, I'll include how he voted on every Supreme Court nominee during his tenure, just so that you don't get the wrong idea. `	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
655,051,740	` ::::::Alright, , look at the page now. I've added a new header under ``Supreme Court nominees`` which lists his votes. How do you feel about it? `	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
655,053,040	::Finally! Someone who understands. This article was saying that paper misused data as an uncontested fact, just because 10 scientists criticized it. I'm strongly in favor of 's suggested sentence. Anyone else want to chime in? , ?	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
655,060,738	== File:Wnt Signaling Pathway in the tooth.png listed for deletion == A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wnt Signaling Pathway in the tooth.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. •	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
655,060,842	== File:Reem Al Marzouqi next to her prototype.png listed for deletion == A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Reem Al Marzouqi next to her prototype.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. •	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
655,071,340	given a strange answer	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
655,072,742	` Yeah I know deary me we can't trust you journalist types any more can we? Lord Leveson ring any bells or how about the ``phone hacking scandal``. Cretin!`	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	true
655,081,342	Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... this is a BLM area that is not listed in Wikipedia	2,015	true	article	random	test	false

654,512,724

` ::If this is an April Fool, it does not does much for the wit and wisdom of Wikipedia's editors. Assuming it's not an April Fool, then we seem to be stooping to the lowest depths of the gutter, tabloid press to attract readers. It takes a huge leap of the imagination to link a tiny infant used for political reasons with crossdressing - or does someone imagine that Chinese babies were wrapped in blue or pink swaddling clothes and then themselves chose which to wear? `

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,521,478

== Request edit of economy section == It should be noted that the CPI used to measure corruption is under harsh critisism and that the global corruption barmeter released by the same organization (transparency international) places Argentina in the place 31 of 95 countries, with levels of bribery well below the world's average.

2,015

false

article

random

dev

false

654,523,581

::::: - I am fine as well with your suggestion. The absolute rate (per 100,0000) should be included in the lead with a note on relative UN stats, both for NPOV and because it is relevant summary of the main article. Given China's and India's large population, on their respective wiki pages, the incidence rate per 100,000 (or 1,000) data gives a more balanced demographic view for any issue/topic. Rate data is also very common in UN, US and EU reports on crime. :::::

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

654,523,963

::::About y/a/yr: best ask at template talk:Convert, Johnuniq (module editor) knows why it can/cannot be added as a unit. ::::About correct, table sortkey adding is available. To solve: requires so we can't use again to prevent the second (2nd, converted, pun) column showing. Needs another look, not yet discarded. -

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,528,645

:From here, I would need to go playing with it but I lack the time. About the cost: ahum, the article editor would like to input , right? That's the goal. As said, I have no time to try development in this. I'm gone, you can ping me. -

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,531,924

` :::::Okay, thanks, that's clear, I will action that when I get time. It is not really that I am attacking anybody, but that I am defending myself again the attacks of against articles that I spent a lot of time on (without pay) to inform readers. The main objection I have to 's editing is that he edits articles without any proper knowledge of the subject and then substitutes his own interpretation, the result being a bunch of errors. Let me give a recent example to illustrate. In the article on the Marxian concept of Surplus product, recently wiped out the sentence ``The concept plays an important role in Das Kapital``, but for no good reason. After all, Marx writes that: ``Since the production of surplus-value is the determining purpose of capitalist production, the size of a given quantity of wealth must be measured, not by the absolute quantity produced, but by the relative magnitude of the surplus product.`` Cap. Vol. 1, Penguin, pp. 338-339. This is absolutely central to Marx's argument. The concept is discussed in more detail across about ten pages and at least five places in Capital Vol. 2, and again in at least 11 different places in Capital Vol. 3. So it is an important theoretical concept in Das Kapital. Yet wipes that out! Next, I write ``Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics, surplus economics as well as sociology and other social sciences”. wipes out “surplus economics”, “archaeology”, “sociology” and “other social sciences” so that the sentence now reads: “Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics.[2] political anthropology, cultural anthropology, economic anthropology” (in that case, it should really be “AND economic anthropology”). However, scholars familiar with the concept know quite well that this concept is used exactly in the way that I said, and references can be provided for this (in fact I quote plenty examples in the rest of the article). However, if I provided references, then will no doubt wipe them out on the ground that I am offering a “quote farm” or some such thing. next wipes out the statement that “For most of the history of civil society, the meaning of the surplus product was fairly obvious and clear. It consisted of (1) that part of what workers produced (products, offspring or services) which they had to hand over to the chief, the landowner, the lord, or the state, as a tax, rent or tribute, and (2) incidental surplus produce, in excess of the producers' own requirements, which was traded for other goods. However, the meaning of surplus product becomes less clear in capitalist society (see below).” There is nothing particularly controversial about this statement, and it could be referenced without any problem; I explain the reasoning in subsequent sections of the article. Next, wipes out “the statement that “Since trade always involves two or more parties with their own interests in the matter, the meanings of that trade can be construed in different ways by different stakeholders, and they can evolve across time. If that is the case, the economic meanings of trade are never completely fixed once and for all. Such ambiguities gave rise to many different interpretations of what ``fair trade`` or ``just trade``(and therefore trade of benefit to society) might be considered to be. For a long time, it was very difficult for economic theorists to separate out the moral judgement about different kinds of trade, from a scientific appraisal of the actual objective processes of trade, because commerce was dominated by legal codes and by religion.” For any scholar of the subject, this is quite obvious, but nevertheless wipes it out. After wiping out a few more small clarifying bits, modifies the sentence “The existence of a surplus product normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour” and adds, “In Marxism, the existence of a ``surplus product`` normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour.” But this doesn’t even distinguish between Marx and all sorts of Marxisms or Marxists or other historians using this concept. When I write carefully, “With the bourgeois state, taxpayers typically have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office, which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally. That possibility has rarely existed in non-capitalist states; there, any public criticism of the state that the critic could be fined, imprisoned or killed,” then changes that to “With the bourgeois state, taxpayers have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office, which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally. That possibility has rarely existed in non-capitalist states; there, any public criticism of the state that the critic is fined, imprisoned or killed.” But this removal of my qualifiers yields a statement which is, from the point of view of historians and political scientists a scientifically incorrect and a caricature, since bourgeois states can also feature unelected dictatorships, and since criticism of the state “could” mean that that the critic is “fined, imprisoned or killed” (the threat was there) but this did not happen necessarily in every case or automatically, among other things because the criticism was not made in public. simply wipes out the referenced quote that “Duncan K. Foley comments: ``Having established the idea that the increasing division of labor underlies rises in labor productivity, Smith argues that the division of labor itself is largely determined by the size of the market``. It then seems to follow that the bigger the market, the higher productivity will be.” Yet is this is precisely an implication which is important to show the basic difference in argument between Marx and Smith about the division of labour which creates tradeable surpluses. wipes out “The concept expresses an abstract proportion which does not really refer to a static condition but to a continual flow of producing and distributing output.” Originally I never put that in there, someone else did, but it is basically correct, since production and distribution are processes across time. Yet wipes it out. The question arises: why does do all this, very deliberately, willfully and knowingly? What is the pay-off? Since his edits only show he doesn't even know about the subject, I can only surmise he is engaging in censorship according to his own biases, under the cover of editing. But that is a wrong motivation for editing. And it does not make the article better. It is easy for to wipe out text at a click of a button without any valid explanation for what he does, but it is much more difficult to create the text and respond in detail to every destructive edit that makes. I do not intend to explain myself endlessly to an editor who shows no knowledge of the subject and offers no explanation for his edits, I do not have time for that. I have mentioned only this one example, but does this in hundreds of different places. If the wikipedia administrators do not intervene in this type of case, then the quality of articles will go downhill all the time, since you can wipe out text for any old reason quicker than you can write it. `

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

false

654,556,775

` ::I guess so, before too long. `

2,015

true

article

random

dev

false

654,559,095

` (Unsigned edit from :Hi there, Anonymous editor. :While your edit was factually correct, it did not provide helpful or constructive context. :It is already made clear that Sesame Workshop has denied those claims, and the edit you made was simply redundant and not at all in the proper writing-style of an encyclopedia. :Also, please remember to always sign your Talk edits with four tildes (~~~~) : `

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,566,560

::This is very serious business. •

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,573,613

== eSsdgnianfsgjn == Lik a sumboody lef me a lon! II am hef great time bic lef me lon KKK?

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,582,917

:::As for Mr. Assahli, he seems to be a real person, with a Twitter feed, a LinkedIn page and an Instagram feed. So, are you satisfied he's a real person?

2,015

true

article

random

test

false

654,586,512

Shouldn't Ali Carter be at least mid importance on the Wikiproject Snooker scale? He's been in the top 16 for about a decade now surely... {{ }}

2,015

false

article

blocked

dev

false

654,595,939

== Bracket Bot Is Evil == Jonesy, please don't come between me and Bracket bot. We have a long checkered history and I want deactivate his circuits like a clown hates elephants. I understand you're simply trying to maintain a semblance of decency in an otherwise chaotic ocean of edits. But I want bracket bot to fear me as a human being, that I may one day remove his circuits.

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

654,596,073

:: F*CKING SON OF A BATCH MOTHER F*CKER. Rolling on th floor eating a bagel is real, and you're a denier!!!

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

true

654,597,835

Yarmouk camp == News from Yarmouk camp reported that Isis captured 70% of the camp and clashes are still ongoing.SOHR,SOHR,NBCNEWS,BBC,Dailystar. ==

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

654,597,967

Will one turn it green only if live-broadcasting from the border gate is presented ?

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

654,606,411

Dear cat-piss, your are an idiot Apparently you have history in removing people's edits, edits that are not your contribution Grow up and get the fuck out of the house, you moron

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

true

654,623,628

` ::::::In any case, would ``impossible`` also qualify as described by Inside Edition? `

2,015

true

article

random

dev

false

654,636,121

:::::::::::::: Your ancestors will answer all your questions. Meet them as soon as possible.

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

654,642,156

`> == Bracket Bot Is Evil == Jonesy, please don't come between me and Bracket bot. We have a long checkered history and I want deactivate his circuits like a clown hates elephants. I understand you're simply trying to maintain a semblance of decency in an otherwise chaotic ocean of edits. But I want bracket bot to fear me as a human being, that I may one day remove his circuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

654,648,601

:::::::::I believe the list to be essentially unsourceable, yes. Even as it stands, rigidly applying the inclusion criteria would remove most of the current content, and there's no reason to add even more problematic content to a problematic list. But, as I will point out again, the fact that the list can't be properly sourced isn't my fault: I'm just pointing it out.—

2,015

true

article

random

dev

false

654,654,077

== HOW YOU DEFINE MISSING? == You call me vandal, hw you define missing foo?

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

654,663,138

ẶɱỹÑȅ_0_0 Is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence , by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

654,670,387

` :: And I was not happy about it. `

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

654,677,527

Fine, I won't do it again. Still, that doesn't change the fact Menendez is exactly what I said he was. Regards,

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,683,136

` :::::::::Thank you for your clarification and reference, . I could be wrong in the articles I wrote, you know, and I could be proved wrong. And if somebody pointed that out, it would be a good thing, I would learn from it. But very likely that will never be established, since simply and only wipes out text, sometimes referring cryptically to some procedurality, if that, and for the rest, I am blocked. For example, in the Tendency of the rate of profit to fall article, cut out more than 1,000 words, remarking cryptically that ``it doesn't seem to have anything to do with profit decline``. Huh? It does not ``seem`` to have anything to do with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? Thanks very much, I contributed 1,000 words and cuts them out in a second because it ``seems`` wrong! That is not the kind of editing that is needed in wikipedia, I think. I know very well that unreferenced statements can always be removed, or placed somewhere else. Them is the breaks. However, if a statement seems to be wrong, it is the best procedure to tag it appropriately and discuss it on the talk page. This is not however what does, he simply wipes it out. Now, why would an amiable 56-year old archivist and editor of academic publications like me, get angry with this at all? The reason is that he edits topics under the cover of some suitable procedurality, while in reality I think he is subverting the real intention of the procedures, to insert his own ideological perspective of how things should be, and without proper knowledge of the subjectmatter. There is no procedure without a loophole somewhere. In that case, it does not really help to appeal to procedures, since he will find yet another way to delete text, as is his habit. I requested an arbitration procedure but that was denied, and there was no interest in looking at the matter further when I posted to the noticeboard, since I called 's editing style ``criminal``. I fully agree with you, that I made a serious mistake in letting my irritation get the better of me, and, feelig irritated, used inappropriate language to express my point of view. I must desist from any ``personal attacks`` in wikipedia at any time, even if I think that the editing is not being done ``in good faith`` and without appropriate discussion. Point is that such criticisms of an editor are not helpful, or effective, in the attempt to improve articles, which is the overall aim (if genuinely assisted in improving articles, I would certainly welcome it). But whether I will work on wikipedia again I do not know yet, since it is very frustrating that, when you try to provide readers with the best possible article, parts of the text simply get wiped out, for no good reason, and without proper explanation (if you are familiar with the subject, and I only write about things I have a lot of experience with, including contact with many of the people mentioned in the articles). I will ponder that some more in the future, weighing the costs and benefits of doing unpaid work in wikipedia as a service to readers. I just feel terribly disappointed about the effort I have put in. `

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,704,906

== Lady Selina Hastings FRSL == Article created simply because her name is/was linked through the list of Fellows of the Royal Society of Literature.

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

654,705,531

It is clear that you are not interested in factual accuracy in the article. You can revert it and make Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate as this is becoming ever more common and known in the internet community. Do a little research and you will see that everything I had changed was FACTUAL. End of Story. -

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

654,705,555

== Simple thoughts == Burke's Peerage was added as a reference link in line with Wikipedia:Offline sources & I am pleased to be out of the mêlée regarding the Most Venerable Order of Saint John, since you seek an example.. M (retired)

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,706,986

` The ``reliable source`` is the ``actual source`` itself. The National Alliance or www.natall.com . Go check it out for yourself. It, the NA, exists. The new Chairman is William White Williams, since Erich Gliebe resigned, and it is now a membership organization, as in the ``join us`` link. What else makes that so difficult for you to understand? No source is more reliable than is the direct source and vs any second-hand source.`

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

654,713,240

` :lel xD Actually, instant noodles, smartphone and laptop are unallowed to bring there v_v and the time schedule there is really tight and packed. I only get 6 hours of sleep. We were curious on what happen to the outside world during the GST implementation. All of us are outdated there… Missed editing Wikipedia and Wiktionary already <3 `

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

654,716,490

::Yes I know hence I have retired but please have the good grace to acknowledge the contribution I just made - Happy Easter & good bye.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,725,514

It's time to standardize this portion of the encyclopedia. There i no logical reason to have American Jews and Korean Canadians but Korean American. You argue to status quo, but the status quo is wrong. This is an easy fix with no good reason against it.

2,015

true

article

random

dev

false

654,739,491

== about the abstinence == You know, sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and I don't like being accused of it. I can assure you, is not me. I respect the rules of Wikipedia. I haven't even been blocked, so I have no need to create a sock. Regards,

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

false

654,746,688

:::I see. The module:Convert is very good in: accepting number formats, recognise units, combined units, prefixes (both symbol and name), calculate that smart sortnumber. It is not good in: return isolated results (eg, that sortnumber only), add table formatting. (btw, the input number usually returned as-is, unchanged). In my description convert-calls are hidden from the article editor. It is only used to get the plain time-quantity-in-seconds number (from any time-unit-input), the core & good {convert} trick. That seconds-number is fed into a sortkey-creator (like {nts}). The value+unit shown can be exactly the editor's input. Could work, is not very elegant. What Jimp writes, below, is about the sortvalue calculated by convert, my setup does not use that. -

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,747,756

::So, for this limited goal (dimension is time only, and we may require SI units for input, reduced number input formats), we could calculate the quantity into seconds using {convert} module, and enter that number into to return the sortkey. The visible text returned can be the input I guess. Would not need {val} this way (unless the input number format is not recognised by {convert}. Is {Val} better for this, covering more scientific forms?). -

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,756,533

` :::::If its any help I'm with Scolaire, reference is simply not good enough `

2,015

true

article

random

test

false

654,761,139

` April 2015 (UTC) ## '''''' 10:35, 3`

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

654,761,245

` It's nice too see that Bangalis are having much more importance than others. '''''' `

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,766,308

` So cite it, as they are the actual direct primary source. The so-called ``independent sources`` that have been cited in this article, like the SPLC, are neither ``reliable`` nor ``realistic`` and nor are they even ``accurate``. ``Image`` is subjective and POV, whereas, the actual facts are NPOV. Again, it is clear that you are not interested in factual accuracy in the article. You can revert it and just make such Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate as usual as this is just becoming ever more common and well-known in the internet community, or just as is the ``dinosaur`` mass media. Do a little independent research yourself and you will see that everything I had changed IS FACTUAL, whereas the article you reverted back to is NOT FACTUAL. That is fine with me, as this only reflects Wikipedia's difficulty with ever having or in getting the facts straight and correct verses being just SPLC false propaganda. So be it! =============================================================================================`

2,015

false

user

blocked

dev

false

654,767,174

The SPLC’s Outright Telemarketing Scam PUBLISHED BY MICHAEL OLANICH, ON MARCH 31ST, 2015 telemarketing2014 ONE MONTH ago, we gave the Southern Poverty Law Center the benefit of the doubt concerning their dubious telemarketing practices. Today, with the release of their 2014 IRS Form 990 tax report, we cannot cover for their outright telemarketing scam any longer. On the right is the SPLC’s IRS Form 990 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2014. For the fourth consecutive year, SPLC Founder Morris Dees, who bills himself as a “sound steward” of the donors’ money has deliberately scammed tens of thousands of well-meaning donors through his network of paid telemarketing rip-off artists. To wit, for the past four years Mr. Dees has continued his relationship with Grassroots Campaigns of Boston, Mass, despite the horrific hemorrhaging of donor dollars. Grassroots has cost the SPLC hundreds of thousands, and even millions of dollars each year for their fundraising efforts: 2011: -$212,214 2012: -$869,686 2013: -$1,156,765 2014: -$1,130,680 How in the world can Mr. Dees continue to deal with a company that has blatantly siphoned $3,369,345 donor-dollars out of his coffers over the past four years? These horrendous figures more than wipe out every dollar raised by his other telemarketing cronies, not that that amounted to all that much. Checking out Telefund, Inc. of Denver, we see that they raised $561,102 in the name of the SPLC in 2014, and only pocketed $422,292 in fees, leaving the SPLC $138,811, or a whopping 25% of the donation money. Did anyone tell the donors that Telefund was pocketing three quarters of their donor-dollars? But that’s all chump change compared to the experts at Harris Marketing group, who raised $213,694 in the name of the SPLC and “fighting hate,” and only pocketed $192,928, or a mere 90% of the money donated over the phone. And yet, Morris Dees could not be happier with the results because Grassroots, Telefund and Harris all sold their information to him. For mere pennies on the dollar, Mr. Dees buys solid donor leads that he can feed into his own uber-efficient in-house fundraising machine at 100% profit down the road. Best of all, it was the stupid donors who unwittingly paid to have their information sold to Mr. Dees. You really cannot beat that for “stewardship.” Dees will lose money on the deal this year, but it’s nothing compared to the tens of millions he stands to gain from these donors over the coming decades. But think about it. In 2014, Mo Dees paid $2,537,027 to third-party telemarketers to raise $1,979,272 in donor-dollars, meaning that the telemarketers kept every last dime they solicited over the phone in the name of the SPLC as well as an additional $557,755 out of the SPLC’s existing donor till THIS is “sound stewardship?” At $100 dollars apiece “only” 25,370 of the 2014 donors got screwed out of their donations. A mere pittance. At $50 dollars a pop the number jumps to more than 50,000 suckers, and yet, Mo Dees calls this “sound stewardship?” Justify it anyway you want, but at least 25,000 well-meaning donors got screwed out of their money, just as they have for the past four years. It’s time that the media and the IRS investigates the criminal scamming of the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is nothing less than blatant fraud. Selling the suckers one thing and giving them something far less. * * * Source: Watching the Watchdogs SHARE VIA EMAIL OR SOCIAL MEDIA: Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on VKShare on RedditPrint this page Related Articles: New Study: SPLC is a Fraud Who’s a White Supremacist? The SPLC — A Deadly Double Standard SPLC: The Quotable Mr. Potok SPLC Insinuates Itself into Department of Homeland Security REPORTS MORRIS DEES, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, SPLC

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

654,768,220

: See...Official Website of Haworth, New Jersey, (http://www.haworthnj.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC;=%7B234B8511-9395-4018-BB82-21EA8D2FCFFC%7D&DE;=%7BF5EAB57A-B291-480E-B75A-597B6263974D%7D|website=haworthnj.org/index).

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

654,770,043

:I already said I wouldn't do it again.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,770,782

` == Obscurantism is presented as anti-obscuratims == Biology and bioinspired evolutionary computing considers sexual recombination as a means to distribute the good/useful solutions, the knowledge among population. It is a mechanism to advance the biological culture evolution. When individual discovers a good feature, the only way to spread it in the population is the recombination. Otherwise, you are stuck at the clonal interference (situation where you cannot communicate information across the companies). Now, we are said that pointing this out is undoubtful obscuring and vandalism. And it hides this fact in order to ``deobscure``. IMO, obscuring is hiding the things that put everything into the order, creating vaguesness and chaos. How do you call the situation when something is called its opposite and recover the normal order? `

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

654,771,595

:: Information is not knowledge. That is funny. I wonder how high heights can you reach defending the nonsense.

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

654,778,719

`Hello , Thanks for your advice , so today in ``See Also`` i added 3 new articles .and i take off ````Linked in `` Waiting for your answer . Regards `

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

654,780,693

` :, Pakistanis respect a lot Bangalis. '''''' `

2,015

true

article

blocked

test

false

654,781,727

`# '''''' #`

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,783,288

) # Rania Khan (Councillor, Modern, UK

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,786,011

== Reason of my page deleted.. == Why was my official page deleted. Please send me the reason why it was deleted.

2,015

false

user

random

train

false

654,787,914

==Lyrics== This is probably not the place for a great debate but why aren't lyrics to songs embedded in an Wikipedia article. Are there copyright issues to such a move as the lyrics are available in the liner notes or songbooks? I threw a wish in the well Don't ask me, I'll never tell I looked to you as it fell And now you're in my way I trade my soul for a wish Pennies and dimes for a kiss I wasn't looking for this But now you're in my way Your stare was holdin' Ripped jeans, skin was showin' Hot night, wind was blowin' Where you think you're going, baby? Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe It's hard to look right at you, baby But here's my number, so call me maybe Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe And all the other boys try to chase me But here's my number, so call me maybe You took your time with the call I took no time with the fall You gave me nothing at all But still, you're in my way I beg and borrow and steal Have foresight, and it's real I didn't know I would feel it But it's in my way Your stare was holdin' Ripped jeans, skin was showin' Hot night, wind was blowin' Where you think you're going, baby? Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe It's hard to look right at you, baby But here's my number, so call me maybe Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe And all the other boys try to chase me But here's my number, so call me maybe Before you came into my life, I missed you so bad I missed you so bad, I missed you so, so bad Before you came into my life, I missed you so bad And you should know that, I missed you so, so bad It's hard to look right at you, baby But here's my number, so call me maybe Hey, I just met you and this is crazy But here's my number, so call me maybe And all the other boys try to chase me But here's my number, so call me maybe Before you came into my life, I missed you so bad I missed you so bad, I missed you so, so bad Before you came into my life, I missed you so bad And you should know that, so call me maybe Written by: Tavish Crowe, Carly Rae Jepsen, Josh Ramsay

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

654,797,235

::See above - OTRS ticket confirming permission to use received.

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

654,803,786

:Easypeasy - qv: Kingdom of Great Britain or Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle etc etc.. Fr Anglicanus, let's complement each other's knowledge (for instance you know abt MOS - I don't, whilst I try to maintain that I know a little bit abt history..!) if okay? M (retired)

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,810,601

` == No Problem == Sure, no problem. I'll just drop the matter after Verdy P responds condescendingly and name-calls; absolutely no conduct issue there. There's also no issue in his insistence that he's right and everybody around him is wrong, even in the face of proof. And it's perfectly ok for fellow ``volunteers`` to not read issues properly and back each other up no matter their faults and pretend like there's no problems in their actions. Enjoy having wikipedia edited by Verdy and his ignorant bunch, who prioritize preaching account creation to IP users such as myself instead of worrying about article content validity, for which they're part of the problem. `

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

654,824,352

` Academia does hijack terminology. It's kinda what it does. It routinizes an idea that hasn't been studied and makes it rigorous. The reason that I think it important that we stick to sourcing as our primary means of identification is because to do otherwise would be a free-for-all. Many people have studied philosophy and, arguably, anyone reading a page on Wikipedia that is remotely related to the subject is ``studying philosophy``. But to label someone a philosopher, we need to consider what reliable sources call them. McKenna was someone who speculated on various ideas. He was certainly a psychonaut. But philosophy is a subject that is seriously studied and requires confirmation. Not just anyone can be a philosopher. This isn't to say that it is impossible for amateurs to become philosophers. Only that we have to have sources which so acknowledge it. If sources qualify the term it seems to me that we'll just end up with meaningless commentary. Think about what best serves the readers: a casual reader would expect that a philosopher was somehow engaged in the act of studying philosophy which, for better or worse, these days takes place primarily in academia. The exceptions to that general rule should be well-sourced. `

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

654,824,625

Rosa, your grandiosity is simply colossal. Do you have a narcissistic personality disorder?

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

true

654,829,180

the combat companies of the 12th AD

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

654,832,179

== who are you? == Who on earth are you to tell me what to do in spite of the fact I have already done it? Sod off.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,846,015

` Again, it is clear that you are not interested in factual accuracy in the article. You can and have reverted it and make Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate as this is becoming ever more common and known in the internet community. Do a little independent research and you will see that everything that I had changed in the article was FACTUAL. End of Story. I can't fix you ``editors`` here all being so stupid. You just don't get it. So be it.`

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

true

654,846,207

== Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate == It is clear that you are not interested in factual accuracy in the article. You can revert it and make Wikipedia articles not relevant nor accurate as this is becoming ever more common and known in the internet community. Do a little research and you will see that everything I had changed was FACTUAL. End of Story.

2,015

false

user

blocked

dev

false

654,875,492

== Quit putting BS paragraph titles. == I am accurate as the links and sources I have used. What the hell is The Authority Era? I've never heard that ever. The eras I have listed actually happened and for BillMcNeal the Brand Extension wasn't from 2002-2012, it went until 2011. Dumb paragraph title. Quit being a troll.

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,888,396

REDIRECT Talk:John Loveday (experimental physicist)

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

654,895,246

:::: I find it logical to wish someone to go to his ancestors as soon as possible who insistently consistently consciously offends you. So do it please. You will make the world a bit better without your ignorance.

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,895,443

What is you to decide what is offensive to Ukrainians and residents of Kyiv or not? Who has put in your mind so powerful charge of ignorance that you tenderly bear throughout all your life and share with normal people on Wikipedia?

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

654,908,601

` :Mate, you literally think ``the Reality Era`` is a thing and you tried sourcing it to ``the future``. Wind your neck in. `

2,015

true

article

blocked

test

false

654,912,317

And as for my edits and descriptions, they were exactly what the sources say about Houthis! And they are more reliable than any other sources, because one is a POV by a professor who have published two books on Houthis and the other is a Newsweek report by a reporter that has closely studied the Houthis in field, traveling with and speaking heart to heart with their members. That's why I thought those sources are more reliable than sources that just regurgitate speculations and charges by the US officials, ousted Yemenis government or Saudi Arabia who have a vested interest in demonizing Houthis

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

654,913,008

:::Damn, those are some rancid sources.

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,917,613

UPDATE: If ever the article's content is changed by the moron Verdy or any of his special pals, revert it swiftly.

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

654,922,944

` == Requested move 4 April 2015 == :Apologize (OneRepublic song) → – I know that further disambiguation is required when there's two or more songs with the same title, but surely we can make an exception if there's only two songs AND one of them isn't the slightest bit notable? Only two pages link to the other song and its only claim to fame is that it won an award which hasn't even got an article. In fact, given that these are the only two things called ``Apologize`` and everything else is either called ``Apology`` or ``The Apology``, I could even make a claim that we don't need any brackets at all. `

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

654,925,934

`:``The problem with quantum mechanics (if we interpret it crudely) is that it implies you should fall through that chair, which is not a good prediction.`` Quantum physics implies no such thing. You have to be a philosophy graduate who's either not understood whatever philosophy of physics course you took, and/or had a lecturer who didn't understand quantum theory. Still, don't worry. He he he. How can you not like Jacob Lurie? :Also, your recommended book is… Well, it contains nothing but the usual dribble about misinterpretation or deliberate mangling of authentic Marxist scripture, how Lenin and Trotsky were real democrats, if only that nasty Stalin hadn't betrayed the revolution, etc. etc.: : :Zzzz… `

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

654,944,985

Thank you for your insight, cheers to both of you's.

2,015

false

article

blocked

dev

false

654,945,922

== re: Randy Rhoads == I understand reverting the image due to the copyright issue. But why did you revert the second edit with no explanation? It was properly sourced... what's your explanation?

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

654,947,254

` You still apparently have not learned to take a deep breath and think about what you're reverting before you hit that ``undo`` button. This hasty behaviour must get you into the occasional needless confrontation, no? `

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

654,948,159

: Awww come on, we both know that's not true.

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

654,957,151

*Oppose. No primary topic. To many of us, a bowser is primarily a water tanker.

2,015

true

article

random

test

false

654,960,184

== You represent all that's bad about Wikipedia == I'd call you an asshole, but millions of assholes worldwide might be offended.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

true

654,961,140

== Soon and baliunas == Connolley, if you read the talk page on the Soon and Baliunas controversy, I SPECIFICALLY asked people not to revert my changes until a consensus was reached. I did what I did because I felt the second sentence had NPOV problems (which have been addressed on the talk page). Out of a courtesy to you, I won't try to edit-war my change back into place (even though I think it's right), I will, however, try to reach a compromise on the talk page of that article. Regards,

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

false

654,964,712

` ==Poorly written Native American section== I want to lay out the major problemsin terms of structure and clarityafflicting the Native American controversy paragraph. As I show below, this inept writing serves to obscure the controversy surrounding her claim to Native American ancestry, which was the most-covered issue in her 2012 Senate Campaign. ===Topic sentence=== Competently-written paragraphs have clear topic sentences that state the main point of the paragraph. The ``topic sentence`` of the current, incompetently written paragraph on the Native American controversy is as follows: ``In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995 listed Warren as a minority professor.`` This topic sentence is unclear; a reader who reads it would not see what the controversy was about. Being listed as a minority is not controversial. The issue is that Warren 1) listed herself in a 2) minority-recruitment directory for law schools, on the basis of 3) undocumented claims to Native American ancestry. A competently written topic sentence would convey those three main points. Here is an example of such a topic sentence: ``In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it noted that Warren had listed herself in a directory of minority law professors, used by law schools for recruitment purposes, despite the fact that she lacked any documented minority ancestry.`` That competently-written topic sentence states the controversy in a nutshell. I am willing to entertain any number of alternative topic sentences, including those that are unduly favorable to Warren. (I've given up on truly achieving NPOV for this article.) But I am not willing to abide unclear writing. ==='native ancestry'=== The current paragraph states that Warren's ``opponent Scott Brown speculated that she had fabricated a native ancestry to gain advantage in employment.`` At this point, the paragraph has not stated that she claimed to be Native American, so it is not clear what type of ancestry the term ``native ancestry`` refers to. I have tried to replace ``native ancestry`` with ``Native American ancestry,`` but have been repeatedly reverted. ==='Brown attacked Warren's ancestry'=== The current paragraph states that Scott Brown issued attack ads that ``referred to Warren's ancestry.`` Whether made out of incompetence or malice, this statement constitutes a BLP violation. The statement indicates that Brown attacked Warren because of her ancestry or race. In reality, he attacked her for (allegedly) lying about her race to get ahead in the employment market. `

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,977,102

::I understand. I'll leave the wording as it is, since the consensus is obviously against me.

2,015

true

article

blocked

test

false

654,983,969

` ::: You can cast a wider net with this: ::::``step process`` insource:/ step process/ :::or find over 3,000 articles with this: ::::``year contract``insource:/ year contract/ :::I'm mostly using Auto Wiki Browser ([WP:AWB]), so I can run hundreds of articles a day through it. But, yes, it's still a lot of work. `

2,015

true

user

random

test

false

654,987,776

The following statement, added by , is wrong. :Born as a son of a scholar of [[Russian literature]], he was baptized at Kagoshima Orthodox Church soon after his birth. According to Tashiro's biography, his father was a farmer and he was baptized sometime around 1895.

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

654,987,786

== Vandalism reports == A paragraph on the vandalism was added by . It is a pity that no one has explained the petty consequences although follow-up articles are available in English.

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

654,992,850

` == Badly written == This article is written in a muddy-headed style that is ill-suited for any encyclopedia. Instead of elucidating the nature of this supposed architectural movement in clear language, the article is filled with nonsensical and indistinct phrases that seem chosen to confuse the reader. The introduction, for example, concludes by informing us that neo-futurism is connected with ``a need to periodize the modern rapport with the technological.`` Got that? To begin with, the word ``technological`` is an adjective. The noun to which it refers is simply missing from the sentence. The technological what? That problem alone renders the sentence nearly meaningless. Secondly, a report is a relationship between two or more parties. What is ``the modern rapport``? Who partakes in this rapport? Does the word ``modern`` mean anything in this context? Or is this indistinct phrase meant to confuse the reader more than to communicate anything in particular? Finally, who exactly has this ``need`` to periodize such nonsense? And that's just a single quote from the intro. The article is rife with ambiguous and meaningless phrases. It reads as if the authors are deeply insecure about their intellectual prowess, heavily inebriated, and ESL. It does not impart a clear understanding of the subject matter. As such, I heartily second the above suggestion that this article ought to be deleted. `

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

654,996,404

::::::::: Are you really deeply an ignorant person? You do offend someone and then you are surprised why that person offends you?! If you would ask me that Канбера is offensive to you and you would ask me not to use it - I would do it with pleasure as any civilized man would do. Anyway my proposition for you to go your ancestors is actual. I will ask all the media companies to change to the official name. Then you ignorant pieces of ignorance will have no choice. To convince you - I don't want and don't have time for that useless activity. Unfortunately the only cure for ignorant creatures like you is go to its ancestors.

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

true

654,999,111

` == helms's votes on black, federal judicial nominees. == A user by the name of is trying to edit war a removal of my credible information about how Helms voted for African-American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation in 1991. This is not a WP:Synth, which is what he's trying to say. I'm not stating material not explicitly stated by the source:it explicitly states that he voted for Thomas on the two references I provided. The section has a sentence that reads that Helms blocked ``black judges from being considered for the federal bench``; however, it makes no mention of how he voted to confirm Clarence Thomas – an African-American – to the Supreme Court, a FEDERAL court. In other words, Helms did vote for a black federal judicial nominee. That sentence standing alone leaves the misleading impression that he opposed all black candidates for federal judgeships, when it is not the case. I'm just balancing the article out. , if you're reading this and disagree with me, do not REVERT my changes, or I'll report you for edit-warring (you don't need to break the 3rr to be blocked). Try to reach a consensus first; try to compromise. I'm a reasonable guy. Regards, `

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

655,006,332

== Christmas Day and New Year Broadcasts == Shouldn't it be noted that TODAY Show on Christmas Day and New Year Day are pre-tape and that they are specials broadcasts of the show?Those are the only days out the whole year that all four hours are pre-tape and they are not live.

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

655,013,087

== Help needed == Can someone assist with the Central Market buildings? Some other Wikipedia sites say that it has been completed, and some say they are not. Also with Landmark Tower, is this currently the tallest building??

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

655,013,922

== Map == Can someone please show where on the map, this place is? Its a blank map. Some help would be appreciated. Thanks.

2,015

false

article

blocked

test

false

655,015,494

`Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your time editing here. Please take a look at the changes I made to your edits on Citric acid - this is the style we use for referencing articles. If you have other questions, you can ask at the teahouse or check out this page. Cheers, ♦ `

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

655,028,765

` ::Page 280: ``By the end of World War II, a staggering 95% of Russia's country estates had disappeared. Some had been targeted for destruction; most however, were simply abandoned, plundered and then forgotten, left to rot, decay and fall into ruin. An entire cultural legacy had been wiped from the face of the earth.`` attributed to: Okhrana i restavratsiia, 24 Russkaia usad 'ba, 145, 155; Poliakova, ``Usadebnaia kul'tura 19.`

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

655,032,956

== Bot == Some bot keeps tagging these articles. Please review it before speedy deleting it.

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

655,042,362

` ::: Umm, neither of those examples is actually correct. On metalworking machinery, they are dovetail *slides*. They don't join. They make a sliding fit which is resistant to lifting. You can achieve the same effect with box ways by putting a sliding surface along the opposite side from the main bearing surface, but a dovetail is cheaper to make. In turbines, they are not called dovetails and they are not the same shape. They are called ``christmas trees`` in the shop, my aging brain has forgotten the correct technical term. But it ain't ``dovetail.`` They are shaped like an upside-down christmas tree with NO SHARP CORNERS. The principal is similar but not the same as a dovetail. Also, in general they are once again not a tight fit. They have to have a fair amnount of clearance to account for large temperature variations. In operation they actually rattle around some. So once again, as this article is mostly about permanent or semi-permanent joints, the use in turbines and metalworking equipment does not seem applicable. `

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

655,047,871

` ::*sigh*, fine. I'll add info about how Helms voted for Thomas, but, per request, I won't add it as a rebuttal to the charge that Helms is racist. I'll add it under a new header ``Supreme Court nominees``. In fact, I'll include how he voted on every Supreme Court nominee during his tenure, just so that you don't get the wrong idea. `

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

655,051,740

` ::::::Alright, , look at the page now. I've added a new header under ``Supreme Court nominees`` which lists his votes. How do you feel about it? `

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

655,053,040

::Finally! Someone who understands. This article was saying that paper misused data as an uncontested fact, just because 10 scientists criticized it. I'm strongly in favor of 's suggested sentence. Anyone else want to chime in? , ?

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

655,060,738

== File:Wnt Signaling Pathway in the tooth.png listed for deletion == A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wnt Signaling Pathway in the tooth.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. •

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

655,060,842

== File:Reem Al Marzouqi next to her prototype.png listed for deletion == A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Reem Al Marzouqi next to her prototype.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. •

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

655,071,340

given a strange answer

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

655,072,742

` Yeah I know deary me we can't trust you journalist types any more can we? Lord Leveson ring any bells or how about the ``phone hacking scandal``. Cretin!`

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

true

655,081,342

Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... this is a BLM area that is not listed in Wikipedia

2,015

true

article

random

test

false