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
661,793,547	Rainu2006, everything that I said is being echoed by Hoary, who is also providing you with more complete explanations now that you are engaging in at least some sort of discussion. Hoary is an experienced Wikipedian, as am I. If you go through the history and look through this talk page, you will see that we have had this problem before with the article and that another very experienced Wikipedian - C.Fred - was finding fault in the last round of promotional edits. :You cannot go round accusing everyone else of being wrong, of being vandals etc. Let's put things in perspective: if it were not for the fact that Govind Kumar Singh took part in Let's Design and did rather well, he probably would not be allowed an article on Wikipedia at all. I am one of those people who thinks that we shouldn't even allow TV competition contestants to have articles just because they were contestants but, luckily for Sri Singh and his fans, I am in a minority in holding that opinion. Just as you are in a minority in thinking that you can fluff up the article with poor sources and clearly promotional contributions. Aside from various policies that have already been mentioned to you, please consider WP:CONSENSUS. -	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
661,794,454	` Prometheus is NOT is not set in the Alien universe, and is NOT Alien canon. ``Scott has been adamant that while ``Prometheus`` ``carries the DNA`` of ``Alien,`` it is an original piece of science fiction that delves into everything from biotechnology to artificial intelligence to the origins (and possible destruction) of mankind itself.`` `	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
661,830,360	::You have not cited any sources proving the image is not of Godane. All you have done is cited sources using a different image of what looks like the same individual, taken at a different angle, at a higher resolution, with eye-wear. What, so you are saying that you are right and the United States State Department pus the plethora of international media agencies are wrong. Well, that's just convenient for your POV. Uhh, sorry Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Your sources are so weak. You state that he wears women clothes, as if this somehow disqualifies the image depicting him. The source credits this piece of 'ground-breaking' intelligence on a Somali warlord Yusuf Mohammed Siad. Your mention of this is pointless, and doesn't help your argument, whether it's true or not. Your second source is also worthless. You take the words of a blog over a the United States State Department and some of the most well known media agencies in the world, with the deepest connections anywhere in the world through their sources and correspondents... That article was posted in January 2013, before any of the major international media agencies had broadcasted that image of Godane, and even if it was also used prior, the words of a blog don't hold any water whatso-f**king-ever compared to the sources already cited against you. Let me be clear, you haven't proved your position with these sources. The position to use this image has been proved with the above sources, and many, many others: . Is this enough? I can keep citing more if you want. If you doubt the image's authenticity, then I suggest you write a nice little email to the Rewards for Justice email: info@rewardsforjustice.net and ask them. But as far are the facts go, the image shows Godane, and the onus is on YOU to investigate this for yourself, by asking the U.S State Department if you doubt them. , I find it hard to believe you have been editing Wikipedia for 6 years, becuase you're an absolute joke. Your whack POV is ruining this article and preventing a permissible image from being added. The image will continue to remain and be used in the article until you can provide information from reputable and world-class sources. Continue to remove it, and I will be pinging an admin on the issue.	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
661,831,107	== Image copyright investigation == Hello, 83d40m. On initiation of , a contributor copyright investigation has been opened to review your image uploads and ensure that images comply with our licensing policies. Based on this, three images have been flagged specifically for review - the one of which you received notice immediately above and two images now listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 May 11: File:ThomasReedMartin 83d40m 2ndfromRight shc.jpg and File:Kids paintings sarasota chalk festival.PNG. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts at the Possibly unfree files listing as to why these images are free for us to retain. As a general rule of thumb, we request that users not give individual notices to people of issues found at CCI to avoid flooding talk pages with notices of issues that contributors now understand. Because of that, you may or may not receive notice of problems found. It's a good idea to watchlist the CCI page itself: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/83d40m. There was question of text contributions as well, in light of B's finding in this edit that you had closely followed your source. While I did find some copying issues in Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club, with material taken from the Sarasota County Government website, my spot-check has not disclosed routine issues. Nevertheless, I need to be sure you realize that text content you add to Wikipedia must in almost all cases be written in your own words, except for brief and clearly marked quotations. If a source is demonstrably public domain or compatibly licensed, you may copy from it more liberally but are required to follow the processes set out at Wikipedia:Plagiarism by noting that you are not just taking information but creative content from your sources. If you have any questions about the CCI process, please let me know.	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
661,845,692	Agreed completely, it is considerably biased. - Anonymous	2,015	false	article	random	train	false
661,845,874	== Exemplary == Nice and clean, easy-to-read article. Many thanks to all concerned.	2,015	false	article	blocked	test	false
661,851,377	::Obfuscation it is. (The only dog I have in this (which is not a 'fight) is to be dogged about being precise, and being neutral.) I object to the Hamas or its military wing formulation because it conflates two organizations. We have two articles, one on Hamas (this) and one on its military arm, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The US, Canada and Israel don't distinguish them, almost everyone else does, for the simple reason that 'terrorist organizations', democratically elected, that run social services, schools, hospitals, and a whole society under an elected mandate do not fit the standard concept of a terrorist organization. Hamas runs a microstate. Saying my attempt to make the distinction most states make is 'an attempt to legitimize Hamas' is silly. Israel and the US attempt to delegitimize it, as did the earlier version. We don't enter into the merits of that: we simply are obliged to get the facts straight. By the way, a large number of the newspaper sources reporting that Japan put Hamas on its terror list seem to be citing this article, and not independently verifiable sources. Bad sourcing means Wikipedia becomes an authority for the very sources it draws on, i.e., meme circulation.	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
661,855,260	:::::I'm not fully happy with it, but i am accepting it as a compromise. Please take note that i do compromise, , on editorial decisions, as long as the factors are fully hashed out and clearly understood and the inherent conflict is made plain, so it's an honest compromise. At least an incorrect statement no longer stands within the article.	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
661,864,926	`The correct spelling is ``Caribbean`` instead of ``Caribban``. `	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
661,894,393	:::I will be putting he image back, see The Encyclopedia of Child Abuse p148	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
661,898,530	:::::Says flinging babies into the Ganges was commonplace	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
661,900,035	` : Hi, I'm not a ships expert but we seem to use ``bow`` and ``stern`` for front and back in British warship articles, e.g HMS Hood and HMS Eagle. Cheers, `	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
661,903,969	== Thanks for the new R160 F train image == Hey thanks for the new R160 image at Avenue P on the F train article. It is certainly ten times better looking than the old, darker looking one at Herald Square. Now, if only we can find a visibly clearer, neater and better looking R46 R train image.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
661,909,505	Verdy_p is a brainless mongoloid with an arrogance stick up his rear end.	2,015	false	user	blocked	test	false
661,924,476	I admit, it wasn't her finest hour when she accused us, but her results prove she finds the socks when it counts. I just don't want to see you punished for saying one too many comments that can be considered disrespectful.	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
661,941,579	Perhaps if this information was on Wikipedia you wouldn't be so incorrect. I've had a single recently place on top 100 billboard breakout artist. That song is currently getting college airplay on a national level through universal records marketing. I have my own label (assuming that page would get deleted) which is promotion marketing and distribution. I will never sign to a major label. Not that I can't I've been songwriting in the industry over five years and have credits with Atlantic records. Do you want me to screenshot royalty checks? My article was not complete as I did not submit all vital information. I plan on releasing my album and another single with help from universal records in which I am aiming higher. How can I become more notable in your eyes to permit my wiki? When will I be valid to you?	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
661,950,218	` ::::Read very closely . #Per WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof that the image shows Godane has already been proven through the many, upon many reliable and reputable sources. You seem to have an issue with this, therefore the onus has now been transferred to you in order to prove to the contrary, something which you have so far failed to do. #None of the sources you have cited have explicitly denied the authenticity of the image. They have merely used a different image of Godane. This does not support your contention that the image which is being discussed here, which is used by sources more reliable and reputable (e.g United States State Department , BBC and Reuters, among others) against the sources which you have cited, of which I have not heard of any one of them ( 'Suna times' and 'Waamo news'). #No, there are not ``multiple images on Godane``, there are only two: The one being discussed here, and the one you consistently regurgitate. Yes, it won't make the other various portraits vanish. This still dose't help you, becuase through the above sources, it is seen which image is clearly favored by the more reliable sources. This source here, is the only thing that you have showed me which highlights that the image may not be Godane. I bet you're smiling and clapping your hands right now that through this magical source you have proven the image is not Godane, right? WRONG. This source is meager. It is unreliable as it is questionable. The article is a blog, unworthy of proper accreditation, and it's riddled with spelling errors and grammatical errors, e.g (``Hammami is still advocating for Robow’s troopss.``) Are you kidding me? The author can't even spell, and you're taking this blog over acclaimed sources such as Reuters or the U.S State Department. Wow is all I can say. Furthermore, the blog doesn't identity which picture is incorrect (If indeed any image is incorrect, the author never cites his source), and the article was published over a year before those media sources cited above circulated the image being discussed here. Moreover, even if the images were used prior, it still doesn't help, as the author hasn't established where he got his information from concerning this supposed 'incorrect' image of Godane. Again, you're going to have to do more digging than that in order to prove your point. #The basis that 'foreign media agencies' have no credibility on reporting in areas where local media is present is just well, stupid. By that logic, any material/information coming from any part of the world which is not from the United States, the United Kingdom or Europe already excludes many of those sources. This geographical argument is meaningless. Ok then, how about I remove all references to BBC,Reuters, Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, the National Counterterrorism Center (Oh look, they use the image as well! ) and many, many more sources just becuase they are reporting from places where they are not 'based'? Hmm? Seems reasonable logical to me, if we were to follow your logic. What you are forgetting is that each news agency, no matter if its western gets its information from local sources from the places where they are covering a story or reporting from, whether that's Somalia or Timbuktu. This source for example from BBC is from the BBC African branch, BBC Africa. They will have reporters, correspondents, sources, all across Africa. And this is only one media source. The Somalian media are going to be no more accurate than BBC Africa , as they will not have the extensive resources that the BBC have, even in Somalia but also elsewhere. #And finally, this. ``the various portraits can perhaps go in the body as StantheMan87 suggested `` -. So now you're willing to compromise? Ahh, I see! So when you find yourself in between an undeniable rock and a hard place when it comes to your POV, you finally are willing to take a compromise that was offered to you by , which you rejected? ``We can't do that`` -. was way to conciliatory towards you by even offering you a choice: ``What you believe should happen to the image is now up to you.`` - . I'm afraid that I'm not as conciliatory,	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
661,982,910	` ===E-mail subject line incorrect=== ``It arrived in the form of an e-mail titled ``Pikachu Pokemon [sic]`` with the subject ``Pikachu is your friend.`` Well which is it? Can't be both. Either the subject line says ``Pikachu Pokemon`` or it says ``Pikachu is your friend.`` Pick the correct one and edit. ~Rayvn `	2,015	true	article	blocked	test	false
662,010,382	` == Pciture == The picture needs to be changed because this is one of those weird high schools that are re-using old buildings or something, rather then a good representation of what most high schools look like. ~Rayvn `	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
662,010,659	` == Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014 == Please remove this page from my Facebook page. This is not my high school nor did I teach at this high school. Thank you, Jude Johnson * Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. == Use in Belgium and The Netherlands.. way off. == Not only does the paragraph not explain the ``Hogeschool`` (literal translation) system that provides Associate and Bachelor degrees, the information it provides about secondary education is wrong in some key points. Since I can't directly edit, I thought I might sum it up here. Children are required to attend school from 6 to 18 in Belgium and 5 to 18 in The Netherlands or until they attain a specific level of education (BE: any secondary education, NL: HAVO, VWO or a level 2 MBO). See Dutch government website on 'leerplicht' and Flemish regional government's page on the same subject. Not relevant for Hogeschool, but faulty info in the article nontheless. Dutch MBO is not considered school for the first two years, it is always considered school (unlike a ``Hogeschool``, that functions as a University in terms of application, funding etc). Now I don't know exactly how the Flemish equivalent of Hogeschool/High-school is used, but i'll sum up how it works in the Netherlands from the lowest level up until Hogeschool (usually translated as ``University of Applied Sciences``). I'll skip internal stuff on VMBO and MBO, basically VMBO level determines MBO starting leve and you can always go up a MBO level(1-4) if you want to spend the time. MBO level 4 provides access to almost all(1) Hogeschool Associate (120 ECTS) and Bachelor (240 ECTS) programs. Associate degrees are more of a technicality, unknown to employers and unused in most programs, but they exist. Completing the first year (also known as Propedeuse) of a Hogeschool program grants access to almost all(1) University Bachelor programs. 1)Additional requirements may be set, usually involving math or language courses attended. Hogescholen (and Universities) must offer access to their Associate and Bachelor programs to potential students aged 21 and up via 'Colloquium Doctum'. Here's some more info from a Dutch University in English on that subject, including a reference to the article of Dutch law about 'Colloquium Doctum'. The same system is often used when potential students lack certain courses from previous studies. Regarding the article as a whole, it seems to lack sources overall, I feel it should be open for editing or otherwise overhauled to apply only to the term ``high school`` and it's literal translations, redirecting to articles about secondary/higher education if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by == Is high school in comics a valid category? About half of super hero's are teenagers. == I think this is as valid a category as zoos in fiction; these are both settings that are only really told by specific kind of stories. Teen and animal adventure. ::Category:Fictional schools and its subcategory Category:Superhero schools already exist. : :Teenaged superheros are not fictional schools. They might be fictional high school students and or fictional teenagers. In many cases, however, those will not be defining characteristics. - [[User:SummerPhD\|Summer	2,015	true	article	blocked	test	false
662,012,912	` (UTC) :Articles about colleges are not the right place for articles and information about high schools. ~Rayvn 15:26, 12 May 2015`	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
662,024,354	` ::I have friends who are Aggies and others who are Sooners, but you may be my first who is both. Sheesh. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to seeing you around the Wiki. Best regards, `	2,015	true	user	random	dev	false
662,043,368	:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves.	2,015	true	article	random	test	false
662,044,012	`===Notability=== Is this book notable? There is no mention of it's relation to the main King Arthur legend. Also, if it is a children's book, then why is the plot so long? Is it rather a chapter book and therefore not a children's book? And again if so why is it special? ~Rayvn `	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
662,065,428	:Hi. This relates to this revert. It was clearly an error on my part not to have seen your edit summary. You say that you wonder how it got missed and, having at taken a second look, I wonder as well. However it happened, though, I did miss seeing your edit summary and that was an error on my part. :You have undone my change. I have no problem with that, as I had made the change in error. As far as the substance of the change goes, that is outside of my areas of expertise; I had stumbled onto your edit during a WP:Huggle session; I'm not sure why Huggle threw it up for review. If there are questions/concerns about the content impacted by your edit from editors who do have expertise in this area, those should be resolved by consensus among those editors with discussion, if needed, taking place on the article talk page. :My apologies for having confused things, and my thanks for straightening me out. Cheers. (earlier Boracay Bill)	2,015	true	user	random	test	false
662,069,114	And what the fuck is that fo?	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	true
662,069,648	::::::Good job really, as you're obviously an idiot.	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	true
662,070,162	**I do no edit gender related articles??	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,072,462	**Just noticed who gave that out,lulz.	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
662,074,223	`Thank you Joseph2302. I'll be very sincere with you. I have been a full time article writer, blogger and web content writer. I also earn a living from that. I work on freelancer.com, Elance.com and odesk.com.. Here's my public profile on freelancer.com - https://www.freelancer.com/u/hilumeoka2000.html Here's my public profile on Elance.com - https://www.elance.com/s/hilumeoka2000/ You can also search ``hilumeoka2000`` in Odesk to get my details there. Now, I use to see clients post jobs about ``Write a Wikipedia page`` or ``Create a Wikipedia page`` on all the freelancer platforms. In fact, it seems as if everyone wants to be on wikipedia probably because of the high page ranking and traffic that comes from the resource. As a freelancer interested in research, I use to get useful materials from Wikipedia and other sources to write some of my articles. Indeed, Wikipedia has been a great resource. Sometime in 2002, I created an account on wikipedia to see if I can meet the demands of the clients who request for wiki job on freelance platforms. To be frank, I didn't understand how to use wikipedia as at then. Hence, I abandoned the urge to write wikipedia articles and continued with my normal web content development and article writing career. Now, sometime in April this year, I decided to start placing bids on wikipedia jobs via freelancer.com. This is because, wiki jobs are always available but there are few people who actually know how to write them. I made a decision to learn about wikipedia writing and what it entails. I started reading all the wiki tutorials I could see on wikipedia. I started learning and indeed, it's quite interesting. It was not easy initially, but, I vowed to know more. So, I placed my first bid on freelancer.com. A client wanted me to write on ``Joshua Letcher`` . I accepted. I used this particular topic to learn some facts about wiki policies. I created and submitted it for review. It was rejected but I was told what to do to make it acceptable. I took some days to make some researches about ``Joshua Letcher`` I discovered, there are no media secondary resources.. That was the reason the article was deleted. Now, the same client also contracted me to write about thier company ``Newfield Resources Ltd. I did my research to get some secondary resources. I succeeded and created the article. It was allowed to stay. So, I got excited. I really became very happy that I can now write wikipedia articles. So, I went for more. I always focused more on maintaining neutrality and using secondary sources. I also follow the rules on referencing and formatting having taken enough time to learn them. Now, as a freelancer, I kept getting alerts about new Wikipedia creation jobs. I go ahead to place my bids. I really got selected by some clients to help them put up a wikipedia page. I also get paid for doing so as a freelancer. I turn down jobs that do not have media coverage or jobs that are meant to promote or advertise since they are against wiki rules. So far, I've created the following pages via the jobs I won through freelancer.com and Elance.com. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Direct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kumar_Kalotee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfield_Resources_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_Concern_Welfare_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawano_Kambeu I made sure each of the pages is neutral and properly cited. I'm also working on few more pages right now. I don't get involved in vandalism or supporting stands to make a page stay on wikipedia. My main focus is to create new pages. To be very sincere with you, I've never heard about the issue of disclosing paid identity on Wikipedia until now. I thought that I'm free to create articles as a freelancer and get paid. I noticed one thing about most of my clients. They don't know how to create articles on wikipedia. Some of them have tried but failed. Hence, they look for an expert who will help them. So please, I'll like to know if I'm contravening wiki rules by creating articles for clients through freelancer.com. I don't really know. There are lots of policies on wikipedia. I learn most of them as I create articles. I learn virtually on daily basis. Do I need to declare myself as a Paid editor or something? Do I need to stop creating articles for clients? I'll like to get clarifications. Thanks `	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,074,354	I have not even logged into Wikipedia. why the you are mailing me and notifying this crap? This is the limit, stop hounding me.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,076,746	Just checked you history. You are a Kannada right? You don't have any history to write about Kannadigas? You motivated moron targeting and deleting Tamil identities in all possible ways. I don't know how Wikipedia is allowing guys like you to go ahead with clear conflict of interest. I am writing to the highest authority about 5 guys like you playing with gods and history relating to India and Hinduism. Will slipper you if i receive one more notification from you.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,077,158	Thanks Joseph2302! Honestly I never know about this. You've actually nominated all my articles for speedy deletion. I'm very sincere, I don't know about this issue of disclosure. Now that, I know, I'm willing to abide by the rules. I really learn a lot creating wiki articles. Where do I go from here? Help pls.. Let your temper calm down. I've been very honest with you	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,077,982	You're right Joseph.. You asked me a question whether I am a paid editor? Actually, you question came around 11pm my time. I was already on bed and saw that via my phone. I have to quickly come online to respond. Well, I've also responded with the same sincerity on those pages dominated for deletion. But sincerely, Joseph, you were so much in hurry to deal with me. It made to cry...I'll try and follow the terms on disclosing my paid status since it's not a crime to create wiki articles for payments. Thank u.	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	false
662,080,742	` ==Thanks for reversing speedy deletion=== I must thank you for coming to my rescue. One ``Joseph2302`` has been on my neck even after being sincere with him. He has nominated all my created pages for deletion on the ground that I'm an undisclosed editor. I told him the truth when he asked because I never know about the issue of disclosing paid status. here's my response to his question `` . I'm a freelancer in Elance.com and Freelancer.com. Clients pay me to help them create pages. I also make sure I follow the wiki guidelines in creating them. Some clients that want to promote their articles/companies via wikipedia, I use to tell them that, such is not allowed.. I really love writing wiki pages. It keeps my alive aside from the compensations. Please, how do I disclose my paid status? Am I contravening wiki rules by editing articles for clients via freelancing? I would like to know. Thanks again `	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,097,514	` ==Speedy deletion of Credit Card Insider== You have randomly removed my tag for the deletion of Credit Card Insider, which is a promotion-inducing article for a non-notable company, without any discussion being done. ~Rayvn `	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	false
662,098,805	Joseph2302 Thanks you so much! You've really stress me all night long. Because of this issue, I've been awake all through the night. It's quite amazing. You kept fighting to put my hard work to nought. Judge for yourself. The issue of Paid editing is not even a problem since the policy failed. What did I do to deserve this roughness from you? Tell me Joseph2302	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,099,503	Ebyabe falsifies information on her repeated bad edit	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,100,181	`, 13 May 2015 (UTC) ::However, using the word ``compliance`` IS a lack of basic human decency, as mentioned in my comment, while the idea that ``asking a user to put a link in their signature if Wikipedia expects it but also noting the problem with the programmer that caused this to happen when he removed the Wikipedia coding that linked the signatures as expected`` is a lack of human decency was not mentioned. I am not ``combative`` but rather am defending from and for 1) the integrity of apparently two articles now and 2) when people are attacking and harassing me. The assaultive word ``compliance`` was in this user's section title until I fixed it as I will not tolerate such words being displayed on my page. ~Rayvn 03:26`	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
662,101,245	` :::I suppose that technically you could, but not legitimately, as no reasonable person (or human) would do this. Your false claim is that you ``think my edit was a test``. First of all, if someone is doing a test, and the test fails, then they would of course fix it or change it back or add a hidden comment for someone to fix it or something. But, secondly, this was the second time you have changed the clarification of the sentence back to be grammatically incorrect and extremely confusing, so you could not possibly ``think it was a test``, and what you wrote in the edits also says that you didn't think that. ~Rayvn `	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,103,101	`::::``Wikipedia`` does not do anything. ``We`` do/does not do anything. Wikipedia is meant for input by EVERYONE, including those who actually you know have knowledge about the subject at hand. In fact Wikipedia DOES have polls, and it is true that polls are not actually needed since merely asking literally any American who lives in America and has commonly interacted with multiple races will get the answer of what is truthful. However, since a couple of people are incorrectly insisting on publishing the article using extremely incorrect information, one of the polls that Wikipedia does do would be a way to vitally inform those people that yes, in fact, living in America DOES tell you what people use words for in America! There was no ``material`` removed from any article since that would be physically impossible since this is both the Internet, which has no physical manifestation, as well as an article which is written using words, and therefore also has no physical items or textiles involved. In an article about a plant which has a section describing the plants usuage, it would of course be grossly improper to then instigate a debate about whether or not that usuage is scientific by writing a sentence which states whether or not such usuage is considered to ``work`` by one person or society or research paper or another. The appropriate and valid scope of such an article would be things regarding the plant, including how people may use the plant, which means that that scope would not include any research or debate on methods of alternative medicine and whether or not they work. `	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	false
662,115,436	` == Acupuncture and interpersonal interactions == Hi Roxy, I was reviewing some of your latest contributions to the Acupuncture article and talk page and thought I'd have a word with you. Many of your edits to the article seem to be simple reverts or minor edits, which is fine, though the participation in revert wars isn't great. Your talk page posts are mainly what have me concerned. They seem to be mostly either pointed comments to other users (for example ) or equally pointed repetitions of your point of view ( ). Neither of these further our goal of improving articles, and both contribute to the ``toxic`` atmosphere people are complaining about. I also seem to remember you getting into trouble on the Ayurveda article talk page for similar reasons, thereby getting on the wrong side of User:John, and I definitely remember seeing some very pointed remarks from you on his talk page. I'm sure you're not a mean person in real life, but as I'm sure you already know text is a bad medium for conveying emotions and such. I's very easy to misinterpret humor for sarcasm, or sarcasm for scorn, especially in the context of a larger conflict. Anyway, whatever your intentions are, I'm asking you to please stop with the pointed remarks to/about other users and the repeated scornful generalizations of alt-med/fringe. Regardless of who's right or wrong, it's not helping things. ~ `	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
662,125,665	:You are clearly not very smart and not here to build an encyclopedia.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,136,526	:Dick	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	true
662,150,658	Hi afghani beggar refugee i love to suck the puti of ur amma ;)	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	true
662,153,854	== St. Clement's Church, Chorlton == Thank you for your clear answers. Sadly, serial vandaliser is up to his old tricks again on the Talk page.	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
662,169,836	` :This is untrue. I have not been blocked for the reasons mentioned but rather for entirely different reasons, since the reasons mentioned are not actually true. It is impossible to ``exhibit a battleground attitude`` because of many reasons, including the fact that one cannot ``exhibit`` something unless one is a display engineer at a museum, and it would therefore be impossible to ``exhibit`` anything let alone a ``battleground attitude,`` the fact that there is no such thing as a ``battleground attitude,`` the fact that there is no such thing as an ``attitude`` in regards to how a human being acts, and the fact that the word ``exhibit`` is used in an incorrect manner here done solely for the purpose of antagonizing the user (antagonizing me). Usage of words like ``exhibit`` and ``attitude``, and refusing to follow the section title requirements on my page, show an obvious malfeasance intent by the above person, and therefore the block cannot be valid because within the first sentence he has already seriously demonstrated his lack of appropriate intent by specifically and purposefully being antagonizing. The second claim is physically possible, but is blatantly false. I have specifically attempted to PREVENT other users from refusing to communicate in a appropriate manner, as he was repeatedly replying to the same conversation in several different locations, for which I reported him but yet the people at the ALLEGED ``help desk`` refused to tell me where to report him, and even deleted several of my replies and then archived it fraudulently. Having OTHER USERS delete my comments, participate in blatant fradulent..ism, post the same thing on multiple talk pages at once for the purpose of harassing me, etc., is hardly ``myself making it difficult to communicate,`` when in fact as was just demonstrated I did the LITERAL EXACT OPPOSITE of this by LITERALLY ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT OTHER USERS FROM MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO COMMUNICATE. ((In addition, if I wish for other users to NOT communicate with me, I also have THAT right, it is in fact specifically written into law in every state in the country and will get you arrested if you fail to do so. Although I personally disagree with this law and it is an immoral law which deems to prevent for example ex-spouses from communicating with each other when necessary, the part of the law that refers to STRANGERS such as on Wikipedia or anywhere on the Internet, it is a PERSONAL CHOICE whether you wish other strangers on the site to communicate with you or not and/or post contact information etc. That is why every message board in existence has an option to ``disable the private messaging system``.)) There were no personal attacks done by me anywhere, so this part is a baseless and fraudulent claim. ``Refusal to abide by the site's guidelines`` is impossible since 1) ``guidelines`` and ``rules`` are two different thing 2) Wikipedia does not have any rules and 3) All policies of any kind are subject to debate and protest at any time according to the numerous Wikipedia articles which specifically say this. You have also demonstrated more incorrect intent by saying that something was ``done in multiple venues,`` even though no venues of any kind exist because this is a website rather then a collection of several different building which show concerts or other entertainment events and/or conventions and/or etc. So that is also impossible. `	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	false
662,175,829	I didn't edit war. a whole section of the article was blanked.	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
662,177,250	Check out the Mignini article right now, that whole section has just been blanked and then the article protected by an admin so it can't be put back.	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
662,177,999	I think I'll ask for Slim Virgin's input on this one, as I'm a bit baffled as to what's happened here. Does anyone object to that?	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
662,182,515	`{unblock\|reason=The user that reported me made several false claims, such as claims of ``personal attacks`` regardless of the fact that I have never made any, and ``violating Wikipedia's policies`` regardless that I have never done so. He himself has been reported several times for doing bad things like insulting people, and posted directly fraudulent information both to me and apparently to administrators. I was not given any possibility of replying to the block request discussion, because he also did not link this anywhere on my page and on his page I saw a template (posted to him by a user of a different time he has done this) stating that doing so is required. Basically, the user who reported me shows clearly in ``bad faith``. The fact that I am being forced to defend on myself on Wikipedia for 12+ hours is not a valid reason for a block. No ``personal attacks`` were made, no ``refusal`` to do anything was done as no ``orders`` were given that could be ``refused`` due to the fact the ``orders`` did not even happen, and being a victim of others who are repeatedly attacking me and even deleting my replies from discussion pages before archiving, and defending myself from these continuous attacks, is NOT a valid reason for a block. As for the articles which caused people to attack and harass me, nothing regarding these articles was ever properly done. No messages asking to discuss it, no polls done to find out which information is correct, no editing done after my edits for the purpose of further improving the article, nothing constructive or reasonable whatsoever, just reverting the entire edit without discussion or reasonableness, lying about the reason for reverting, harassment, and making fraudulent claims against me such as ``adding information without sources``, regardless of the fact that 1) I did not ADD any information to the article and 2) it is okay to add information that does not have a source, and most new articles consist mainly, and some entirely, of such information. Someone wrote something about ``friendly advice,`` but not a SINGLE related comment was at all ``friendly,`` and no advice was given whatsoever except for one which was both unhelpful and contained more untrue statements. Even this administrator is purposefully making blatantly fraudulent statements, claiming that I ``ignored guidelines in regards to my signature``, regardless of the fact that the one who changed Wikipedia's code to no longer link automatically is not me, nor did they notify me, nor could anyone think of a reasonable reason to do this, regardless of the fact that it has been less then 24 hours since anyone requested that I learn programming code and then re-code my signature to compensate for this flaw, that's right less then 24 hours let alone a reasonable time of 4 months or so (assuming the user has logged in for several hours every day during that time), and regardless of the fact that even in that minuscule amount of time my signature had already been re-coded before he ever did this block. This shows that the administrator himself is specifically in bad faith by citing an alleged ``problem`` that no longer even exists. There is also a log of the LITERAL AND DIRECT EXACT OPPOSITE of the claim of the person who reported me (again, WITHOUT NOTIFYING ME TO REPLY TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER), at the Help Desk page. I advise that people looking at this do not read that conversation as evidence of replies and such, because several of my replies were deleted before the conversation was archived and therefore it is an invalid archive, BUT it does show the exact opposite of this claim in that I specifically complained about someone for doing that very thing because the conversation between MYSELF AND HIM should be done at only ONE place, and should also be done at one of the appropriate pages, rather then being harassive by using different places as this Administrator is claiming I have done when there is direct evidence that I've done the opposite. So the main thing being that I am the victim of numerous people attacking me, they should not have attacked me but instead should have done any of the things I mentioned, or some other reasonable thing, rather then reverting edits and then attacking and harassing me. I did not deserve any such harassment and attacks and do have the right to defend such things. If I am treated fairly instead then there could be a discussion on the matter instead of repeated reverting without any discussion, then no such people would be ``reporting``, but, since I did not do the things in the report other then correcting articles, and since the decent reply to correcting articles which someone else thinks are incorrect is not to attack them as was done to me, the block is wrong because things should be differently and because the people who were ``edit warring`` on purpose were other people rather then myself. In fact, direct evidence of this is ALSO available, as you can see that I stopped attempting to edit the article Black people to contain correct information once it was made obvious that three other editors did not want correct information to be available and would continuous revert it instead of simply editing to make it even better. The ones who want to do ``edit warring`` would not stop trying to stop the assaultive from reverting it, but instead they would do something such as continuously revert edits from the one they disagree with. This was what the opposing party did, not what I did. And yet still no discussion.}} `	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,186,863	* Harding had a sexual relationship with his dob.	2,015	false	article	random	train	true
662,190,438	==You have made a mistake== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealing_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s. See this link and you will see that Stephen Pound was elected as MP in 2015. Please check before removing edits that are not spam. Thank you. Ukvoltaire123	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,191,959	fuck u little bitch. im the porn king	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	true
662,192,405	Dnon't you dare speak to me this way. I couldn't give a damn if the person i was addressing is respected by you or not. Your opinions mean nothing.	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	true
662,193,389	` Well gee, I can eother take a common sense view that asking for someone's input is perfectly reasonable and ok, or i can accept your claim that to do so would be in breach of all manner of wikipedia rules. Which view do you think i will go with, ? `	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
662,193,521	== The name == It's been a few years now and consensus can change. Can we have a new rfc on the name?	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
662,194,372	Posting that list wasn't wise given that its 2015 and Knox and Sollecito have been fully exonerated. Makes it look like those who were stalking pro innocence advocates were creeps on the wrong side of history. But thank you for stating where you stand.	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
662,194,716	No new arguments McDoobAU93, the rfc would just be to see if consensus has changed or if people are happy with the status quo	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
662,195,556	Or the fact that I was not even linked to the discussion regarding this block or report in order to discuss with it, making the original block invalid for ANY reason other blatant SPAMming/etc., because I was not even notified of the discussion to even write on it. Etc.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,195,578	So you are saying consensus cannot change without a new argument? I think it can. Most of the old arguments were never resolved one way or the other, every one just took a site and tried to shout the other side down with facts that suited their personal preference, An rfc is good way to see where the community's head is at on this. It's been a few years it's worth doing	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
662,196,191	` If your section is not titled appropriately, including no attacking, no aggressive or hostile or ``weasel words`` such as ``motor vehicle``, ``compliance``, ``attorney``, or ``respect``, and an actual description of the actual thing you are actually talking about. If you do not use an appropriate title then your comment will be deleted and 100% ignored in all ways, regardless of the reason for the comment, a staff position of the human or person making the comment, or any other reason whatsoever. If you cannot title your section reasonably and descriptively, then your comment has not and does not exist.''`	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
662,196,434	` == Giuliano Mignini Article == Dear Slim Virgin, I know you were involved in the past with writing the article on Guiliano Mignini. Just today a user backed up by an adminstrator who immediately locked the page have deleted an entire neutrally worded sourced section describing the role of Prosecutors in Italy from the article. This makes no sense to me, and i was hoping we could get your eyes on the article and these actions if you have time. Thank you so much, `	2,015	false	user	blocked	dev	false
662,197,180	Sorry mcd00b but the debate isn't even and fair because the Genesis side has the name without consensus per last rfc and it isn't stable because im here asking for an rfc and ask about once a year as do others, and with their posts being censored and deleted then it clearly isn't even and fair. sergecross that's the whole point there doesn't need to be a new approach or viewpoint presented, peoples minds can change and consensus can change which is why having an rfc would be worth while.	2,015	false	article	blocked	train	false
662,197,635	What kind of freak keeps obsessive stalkerish lists of people posting in favour of someone's innocence? A dirty little basement dwelling creep, that's who.	2,015	false	article	blocked	dev	false
662,197,707	\|- \|May 2, 1890 \|Oklahoma Territory formed \| \| \|- \|July 3, 1890 \|Idaho admitted \| \| \|- \|July 10, 1890 \|Wyoming admitted \| \| \|- \|January 4, 1896 \|Utah admitted \| \| \|- \|May 4, 1896 \|Greer County given to Oklahoma Territory \| \| \|- \|August 12, 1898 \|Hawaii annexed \| \| \|- \|January 17, 1899 \|Wake acquired \| \| \|- \|April 11, 1899 \|Guam, PR, Philippines acquired \| \|	2,015	true	article	random	test	false
662,198,222	` You're such a fool. I assume you are one of the Beckham obsessives who has no regard for the facts. You should not edit WP when you do not adgere to the facts. The page you linked to VERY plainly refers to him as a FOUNDING leadership council member. He was a council member when it was FOUNDED in 2007 - not now. You do understand what founding means don't you. You are such a liar by claiming I have inserted the word ``founding`` It is there in black and white on the very page you linked to ``From our two FOUNDING Leadership Council Members``. How can you be so deceitful to claim the word ``founding`` was inserted when it is very plainly on the page you yourself have linked to. `	2,015	true	article	blocked	test	true
662,198,500	Thats fine. continue to censor and delete opposing views so you can have your way. Why not ban me for a year too because this behavior is clearly not here.... enjoy your abuse of power. I will be back next year to see if there are any more rational users.	2,015	false	article	blocked	test	false
662,200,797	I didnt attack you, you retard DO NOT POST ON MY PAGE kthx	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	true
662,200,889	Troll and fool - If you claim him to be a CURRENT administrator of Malaria No More it is up to YOU to provide evidence of it. That is what WP requires. He was there at the outset in 2007. According to official records he is not listed as director or administrator	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	true
662,201,865	== TALK PAGE == NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE POST ON MY TALK PAGE YOU DESPICABLE AMERICAN TW@T KTHX	2,015	false	user	blocked	dev	false
662,202,309	NEITHER OF YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO POST ON MY PAGE	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
662,204,229	`{{unblock\|THANK YOU for a reasonable fucking comment!!! The ONLY USER in ANY AREA who has actually made one!! (Ebyabe made comments which appear to be reasonable at first glance, but are actually unreasonable because one is fraudulent and the other was untrue regarding a place where she could see that it was untrue.) Well a sort-of reasonable comment anyway because he claims that I am being ``confrontational`` when it is clearly visible at my talk page that other users are attacking me and not the other way around. I have not caused any confrontation... I have replied to other users who are putting a confrontation to me. (I did ask how to report a user, but I did not actually report him because nobody answered regardless of several posts made, and the user himself did not comment there, so that was not a confrontation like it would have been if I'd been able to make the report.) I would like to leave a message at this user 's talk page but I cannot, because for some reason those are blocked to, so I have to do it this way instead. Hopefully he has the notifications turned on (tags of username). I can be calm and work with other people. This is noted in my first reply, where it gives several examples of how users should have had discussion instead of attacking and reverting me and arguing hostilely on my talk page. Users who wish to work with me should not make attacks, write words like ``compliance``, revert edits when they could have further fixed the edit instead (details of referred-to edits in a separate paragraph below, make false claims against me, or delete my replies on discussion pages (not talk pages) and then ARCHIVE it after removing them!! (Users should not do these kinds of things to anyone.) What this means is that if users act in a reasonable manner, then a normal discussion can ensue (including from myself). Merely because someone has used a template, written a shorter reply, or wrote their aggressive, confrontational remarks in a business-style manner, does not mean that they are ``being reasonable`` or ``writing nicely``. When someone makes a falsified report about you or writes a falsified comment, etc., it is not reasonable to expect the victim to reply without mentioning this, or to want to ``be friends`` with the attacker. If the other people are being reasonable then of COURSE I am going to reply to them in a different way. Editing an article by...(below) is not reasonable, nor is ``ganging up`` (the discussion page), nor is replying in several places at once, etc. How can replying to other users stating bad and/or false things about you be ``confrontational``? I have mentioned several times about having an actual discussion but no one did this and instead just kept replying on my talk pages. The fact that I mentioned having a discussion indicates that I think reasonable discussion is the right or reasonable way to do it. Just no one wanted to do anything but attack me so I did not have another way. The headlines are not ``veiled``, they are in plain light. It was not any attempt to be ``hidden``. For headline #5, I literally do or did not know of a different way to title this headline which is not an attack on myself. For headline #8, it is truthful and the falsification was blatant by Ebyabe, and I actually expected her to edit it to something on her next message. I mean she directly mentions it; edit summary says a reason but her message says differently (directly, not implied). For this headline, it is not a ``personal attack`` because it is true and evident: Administrator complains about my signature even though signature has been changed, and messages by me since posted, before the block happened, as well as direct linking to comments which contain no personal attacks as a reason for ``personal attacks``. If the titles were UNTRUE they would be attacks, but since they are true unambiguously then they can't be attacks. The last headline yes, somewhat motivated/hostile, because he is the one put an useless headline so that there's TWO AT ONCE, AFTER my notice is up, while also writing the things that show the actual tyranny (a word used in this case solely because it is already being talked about, and not meant as any attack/instigation/hostile/etc.). Although the link by Jamie appears to say something about political opinions, if someone is making false claims then it is appropriate for them to be exposed. So as you can see my intents are to be reasonable and normal (with the 'possible' exception of this particular headline), and repeatedly asking other people to do this, but being annoyed by all their attacks and false remarks as well. Edits (in a separate paragraph so that reading it is optional): ``Users working with me should not...revert edits when they could have further fixed the edit instead`` - Instead of reverting multiple times, attacking, and then harassing, the user could have simply improved my previous edit if the felt it necessary. It actually was, in fact, necessary, because most of the paragraph was based on the incorrect idea that black people often check the ``white`` box on surveys because of... social characteristics, or something, and in order for it to both be accurate and make sense, additional things would have to have been removed. These are the things that I left in in order to avoid conflict, even though though it makes the article make much less sense in regards to flow when they are left in. I included in a comment several times that we should be fixing the problem with a reasonable discussion (poll) in order to get the correct version up, but this was ignored except for one derogatory remark that mentioning reasonable solutions should not be done. Editing an article by reverting back to the incomprehensible version is hardly ``reasonable``. Editing it again if the first person got it wrong - because they couldn't properly figure out what it was talking about - is the reasonable way. `	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	true
662,204,245	` According to law, it is a legal obligation for anyone who has any administrative role with a charity to be registered with Companies House and for that charity to be registered with Companies House. It would be illegal if they are not. ``Leadership council member`` is simply another phrase for administrator. According to Companies House Beckham is NOT a director, company secretary, administrator, or officially part of the organisation in any respect. It is his agent ``Simon Fuller`` who is a director NOT him. Even if Simon Fuller is acting by proxy, Beckham has no official part of the organisation himself. It is there in black and white on what is a legal register at Companies House. It can not be possible to be closer to the official facts than Companies House. `	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
662,204,536	The information on the Malaria web site is dated and misleading.Most people have heard of Beckham but most people have not heard of Fuller. So Beckham's role has been exaggerated. He has no official role and is not part of the organisation as is claimed.	2,015	true	article	blocked	test	false
662,209,647	It is not necessary to use it. It is up anyone claiming that Beckham is officially part of Malaria No More to produce hard evidence of that - but nobody has, quite simply because he isn't. Somebody who donates to Oxfam is not part of the organisation.	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
662,212,835	` ::::::::Thanks for the info, what would I do without your help? `	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
662,214,526	And I also updated the source so that it specifically shows this.	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
662,220,168	== Province == When has linking a province ever been an issue? Provincial and Sate linking is all over the place, especially when the city's article itself does not have its province in its article title such as Toronto and then Ontario. What is your big deal that you need to always follow my contributions like some sort of creepy love craze for me as you have done on David Rocco and much more? It is very, very annoying and demeaning. Look at Flo Rida, Beyoncé, Christina Aguilera, Jay Z, and millions more. Are you going to bother to fix more, or are you just changing mine because that is what gets you up in the morning?	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,220,874	You have very deceitful double standards. Qed237 kept on reverting on the very same page without providing any opposing evidence and breached the very same 3 revert rule, yet you did not block him at all. I always substantiated my amendments but he never did. You are obviously not fit to be an administrator of anything. Most Wikipedia admins are of a very poor standard and poor ethics	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
662,222,518	You've got obvious double standards. 3 or more reverts breaches the rule, and now you've tried to lie your way out of it. The standards of Wiki admins is SO remarkable low.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,230,280	:: Why is linking the province any different if it is beside a city? I still do not see the crime? The user when clicking on the link can see the underline to see if it is on the one link or separate. Also, why have you fixed only Flo Rida, but not the others?	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,247,004	== 2010's == Arthur Rubin i want to thank but i like to fuck you if want to erase my edits on 2010's go and i say you is fuck you you are fucking shit and idiot.	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	true
662,253,237	== Proposal to Delete this article. == The Quran teaches that Jesus was not crucified. This article is up for deletion. - 12:06 AM 14 May, 2015	2,015	true	article	blocked	dev	false
662,253,401	== Islamic Mythology == I have proposed the deletion of this wiki category. -	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	false
662,282,296	Nobody has ended up opposing the reverts I made, which were 100% justified and factually correct. The reverts were necessitated by people who were being purposefully obstructive without good reason. Nobody should be blocked when they are entirely correct.	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false
662,288,213	Good question, I do not know, but I'd be glad to find out.	2,015	false	user	blocked	train	false
662,295,349	https://twitter.com/Syria_Rebel_Obs/status/598791328990928896/photo/1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yGujgLPAGA&feature;=youtu.be (Allegedly showing airstrikes on Radio Tower Hill outside Tadmur), http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat;=34.561107&lon;=38.252120&z;=15&m;=b Radio Station is here. In all, it looks like a near total collapse of SAA forces	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
662,304,986	Beckham obsessives reverted without any factual justification as is very apparent from what they wrote. They reverted solely to try to maintain a positive and delusional view of Beckham. Most of my reverts are no longer being challenged, p[roving that I was entirely right. The only remaining dispute has already been proven to be correct in my favour. Going to talk page usually means some twat at the end simply not agreeing without reason. YOu did not decribe what they did as edit warring - it was only me. I gave reasons they did NOT. I adhered to the facts. They did not. One of them even inexplicably claimed that Beckham IS a footballer even though he retired 2 years ago !	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
662,305,465	Hi TRPoD, I hear you are still being one of the 5 horsemen of Wikipedia, trying to astroturf the narrative on the GamerGate Controversy page. I congratulate you on your sterling efforts to maintain Wikipedia's most uniquely biased article. I hope you let us all know how much you are being paid at the end of this. I hope you aren't doing it as a freebie. Kiss Kiss.	2,015	false	user	blocked	dev	false
662,312,224	REDIRECT Talk:Masjid Malcolm Shabazz	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
662,314,679	` :Why can't the students create their own account? Have them go to Special:UserLogin/signup and allow them to do it for themselves. Where will this world record page be located? What world records are we talking about? — `	2,015	true	user	random	train	false
662,317,780	` : I removed the subsectioning of the ``Names`` section because the subsections were very short. Per MOS:BODY#Headings and sections, ```` `	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
662,321,087	::I think it is a good idea if someone can work out how to do it. Some sources list Liberal Democrat lost deposits.	2,015	true	article	blocked	train	false
662,321,252	Get a life.find something better to do	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	true
662,322,213	The graceful slick... Thank you for you advice. Thank you for being patient. I a, not trying to disregard your rules nor offend anyone in the community. I apologize if I ruffled anyone's feathers as you all know any artists can be sensitive about someone belittleing there works. I think my article was pretty neutral and I just want facts. An encyclopedia type of page. What can I do to have you or one of your peers assist me here. My email is greenbackzo@gmail.com feel free to drop me an email or I will also be checking this periodically. Thanks graceful slick	2,015	true	user	blocked	dev	false
662,339,068	:To the contrary, there's already clear consensus that that the (fictitious) micronations of Autia, South Maudland, and Paraduin, including their interaction with Liberland, are not notable and have not attracted any coverage in reliable third-party sources. The first two are some kinds of blogs or Internet roleplaying, the latter only exists as publicity for a fantasy novel; nobody, not even you, dispute that. -	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
662,342,230	` ::@Marek, can you materially propose an alternative wording? My proposal was ``concerns about the respect of human rights were raised among historians`` looked to me well matching the 9 sources I provided, but for some reasons did not fly. ::@Tzowu, ``many`` compromise well between ``some`` and ``most``. Director do you agree? `	2,015	true	article	random	train	false
662,342,492	HELLO! -Some random guy	2,015	true	user	blocked	test	false
662,342,674	YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!! -Some random guy	2,015	true	user	blocked	train	false

661,793,547

Rainu2006, everything that I said is being echoed by Hoary, who is also providing you with more complete explanations now that you are engaging in at least some sort of discussion. Hoary is an experienced Wikipedian, as am I. If you go through the history and look through this talk page, you will see that we have had this problem before with the article and that another very experienced Wikipedian - C.Fred - was finding fault in the last round of promotional edits. :You cannot go round accusing everyone else of being wrong, of being vandals etc. Let's put things in perspective: if it were not for the fact that Govind Kumar Singh took part in Let's Design and did rather well, he probably would not be allowed an article on Wikipedia at all. I am one of those people who thinks that we shouldn't even allow TV competition contestants to have articles just because they were contestants but, luckily for Sri Singh and his fans, I am in a minority in holding that opinion. Just as you are in a minority in thinking that you can fluff up the article with poor sources and clearly promotional contributions. Aside from various policies that have already been mentioned to you, please consider WP:CONSENSUS. -

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

661,794,454

` Prometheus is NOT is not set in the Alien universe, and is NOT Alien canon. ``Scott has been adamant that while ``Prometheus`` ``carries the DNA`` of ``Alien,`` it is an original piece of science fiction that delves into everything from biotechnology to artificial intelligence to the origins (and possible destruction) of mankind itself.`` `

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

661,830,360

::You have not cited any sources proving the image is not of Godane. All you have done is cited sources using a different image of what looks like the same individual, taken at a different angle, at a higher resolution, with eye-wear. What, so you are saying that you are right and the United States State Department pus the plethora of international media agencies are wrong. Well, that's just convenient for your POV. Uhh, sorry Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Your sources are so weak. You state that he wears women clothes, as if this somehow disqualifies the image depicting him. The source credits this piece of 'ground-breaking' intelligence on a Somali warlord Yusuf Mohammed Siad. Your mention of this is pointless, and doesn't help your argument, whether it's true or not. Your second source is also worthless. You take the words of a blog over a the United States State Department and some of the most well known media agencies in the world, with the deepest connections anywhere in the world through their sources and correspondents... That article was posted in January 2013, before any of the major international media agencies had broadcasted that image of Godane, and even if it was also used prior, the words of a blog don't hold any water whatso-f**king-ever compared to the sources already cited against you. Let me be clear, you haven't proved your position with these sources. The position to use this image has been proved with the above sources, and many, many others: . Is this enough? I can keep citing more if you want. If you doubt the image's authenticity, then I suggest you write a nice little email to the Rewards for Justice email: info@rewardsforjustice.net and ask them. But as far are the facts go, the image shows Godane, and the onus is on YOU to investigate this for yourself, by asking the U.S State Department if you doubt them. , I find it hard to believe you have been editing Wikipedia for 6 years, becuase you're an absolute joke. Your whack POV is ruining this article and preventing a permissible image from being added. The image will continue to remain and be used in the article until you can provide information from reputable and world-class sources. Continue to remove it, and I will be pinging an admin on the issue.

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

661,831,107

== Image copyright investigation == Hello, 83d40m. On initiation of , a contributor copyright investigation has been opened to review your image uploads and ensure that images comply with our licensing policies. Based on this, three images have been flagged specifically for review - the one of which you received notice immediately above and two images now listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 May 11: File:ThomasReedMartin 83d40m 2ndfromRight shc.jpg and File:Kids paintings sarasota chalk festival.PNG. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts at the Possibly unfree files listing as to why these images are free for us to retain. As a general rule of thumb, we request that users not give individual notices to people of issues found at CCI to avoid flooding talk pages with notices of issues that contributors now understand. Because of that, you may or may not receive notice of problems found. It's a good idea to watchlist the CCI page itself: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/83d40m. There was question of text contributions as well, in light of B's finding in this edit that you had closely followed your source. While I did find some copying issues in Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club, with material taken from the Sarasota County Government website, my spot-check has not disclosed routine issues. Nevertheless, I need to be sure you realize that text content you add to Wikipedia must in almost all cases be written in your own words, except for brief and clearly marked quotations. If a source is demonstrably public domain or compatibly licensed, you may copy from it more liberally but are required to follow the processes set out at Wikipedia:Plagiarism by noting that you are not just taking information but creative content from your sources. If you have any questions about the CCI process, please let me know.

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

661,845,692

Agreed completely, it is considerably biased. - Anonymous

2,015

false

article

random

train

false

661,845,874

== Exemplary == Nice and clean, easy-to-read article. Many thanks to all concerned.

2,015

false

article

blocked

test

false

661,851,377

::Obfuscation it is. (The only dog I have in this (which is not a 'fight) is to be dogged about being precise, and being neutral.) I object to the Hamas or its military wing formulation because it conflates two organizations. We have two articles, one on Hamas (this) and one on its military arm, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The US, Canada and Israel don't distinguish them, almost everyone else does, for the simple reason that 'terrorist organizations', democratically elected, that run social services, schools, hospitals, and a whole society under an elected mandate do not fit the standard concept of a terrorist organization. Hamas runs a microstate. Saying my attempt to make the distinction most states make is 'an attempt to legitimize Hamas' is silly. Israel and the US attempt to delegitimize it, as did the earlier version. We don't enter into the merits of that: we simply are obliged to get the facts straight. By the way, a large number of the newspaper sources reporting that Japan put Hamas on its terror list seem to be citing this article, and not independently verifiable sources. Bad sourcing means Wikipedia becomes an authority for the very sources it draws on, i.e., meme circulation.

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

661,855,260

:::::I'm not fully happy with it, but i am accepting it as a compromise. Please take note that i do compromise, , on editorial decisions, as long as the factors are fully hashed out and clearly understood and the inherent conflict is made plain, so it's an honest compromise. At least an incorrect statement no longer stands within the article.

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

661,864,926

`The correct spelling is ``Caribbean`` instead of ``Caribban``. `

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

661,894,393

:::I will be putting he image back, see The Encyclopedia of Child Abuse p148

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

661,898,530

:::::Says flinging babies into the Ganges was commonplace

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

661,900,035

` : Hi, I'm not a ships expert but we seem to use ``bow`` and ``stern`` for front and back in British warship articles, e.g HMS Hood and HMS Eagle. Cheers, `

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

661,903,969

== Thanks for the new R160 F train image == Hey thanks for the new R160 image at Avenue P on the F train article. It is certainly ten times better looking than the old, darker looking one at Herald Square. Now, if only we can find a visibly clearer, neater and better looking R46 R train image.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

661,909,505

Verdy_p is a brainless mongoloid with an arrogance stick up his rear end.

2,015

false

user

blocked

test

false

661,924,476

I admit, it wasn't her finest hour when she accused us, but her results prove she finds the socks when it counts. I just don't want to see you punished for saying one too many comments that can be considered disrespectful.

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

661,941,579

Perhaps if this information was on Wikipedia you wouldn't be so incorrect. I've had a single recently place on top 100 billboard breakout artist. That song is currently getting college airplay on a national level through universal records marketing. I have my own label (assuming that page would get deleted) which is promotion marketing and distribution. I will never sign to a major label. Not that I can't I've been songwriting in the industry over five years and have credits with Atlantic records. Do you want me to screenshot royalty checks? My article was not complete as I did not submit all vital information. I plan on releasing my album and another single with help from universal records in which I am aiming higher. How can I become more notable in your eyes to permit my wiki? When will I be valid to you?

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

661,950,218

` ::::Read very closely . #Per WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof that the image shows Godane has already been proven through the many, upon many reliable and reputable sources. You seem to have an issue with this, therefore the onus has now been transferred to you in order to prove to the contrary, something which you have so far failed to do. #None of the sources you have cited have explicitly denied the authenticity of the image. They have merely used a different image of Godane. This does not support your contention that the image which is being discussed here, which is used by sources more reliable and reputable (e.g United States State Department , BBC and Reuters, among others) against the sources which you have cited, of which I have not heard of any one of them ( 'Suna times' and 'Waamo news'). #No, there are not ``multiple images on Godane``, there are only two: The one being discussed here, and the one you consistently regurgitate. Yes, it won't make the other various portraits vanish. This still dose't help you, becuase through the above sources, it is seen which image is clearly favored by the more reliable sources. This source here, is the only thing that you have showed me which highlights that the image may not be Godane. I bet you're smiling and clapping your hands right now that through this magical source you have proven the image is not Godane, right? WRONG. This source is meager. It is unreliable as it is questionable. The article is a blog, unworthy of proper accreditation, and it's riddled with spelling errors and grammatical errors, e.g (``Hammami is still advocating for Robow’s troopss.``) Are you kidding me? The author can't even spell, and you're taking this blog over acclaimed sources such as Reuters or the U.S State Department. Wow is all I can say. Furthermore, the blog doesn't identity which picture is incorrect (If indeed any image is incorrect, the author never cites his source), and the article was published over a year before those media sources cited above circulated the image being discussed here. Moreover, even if the images were used prior, it still doesn't help, as the author hasn't established where he got his information from concerning this supposed 'incorrect' image of Godane. Again, you're going to have to do more digging than that in order to prove your point. #The basis that 'foreign media agencies' have no credibility on reporting in areas where local media is present is just well, stupid. By that logic, any material/information coming from any part of the world which is not from the United States, the United Kingdom or Europe already excludes many of those sources. This geographical argument is meaningless. Ok then, how about I remove all references to BBC,Reuters, Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, the National Counterterrorism Center (Oh look, they use the image as well! ) and many, many more sources just becuase they are reporting from places where they are not 'based'? Hmm? Seems reasonable logical to me, if we were to follow your logic. What you are forgetting is that each news agency, no matter if its western gets its information from local sources from the places where they are covering a story or reporting from, whether that's Somalia or Timbuktu. This source for example from BBC is from the BBC African branch, BBC Africa. They will have reporters, correspondents, sources, all across Africa. And this is only one media source. The Somalian media are going to be no more accurate than BBC Africa , as they will not have the extensive resources that the BBC have, even in Somalia but also elsewhere. #And finally, this. ``the various portraits can perhaps go in the body as StantheMan87 suggested `` -. So now you're willing to compromise? Ahh, I see! So when you find yourself in between an undeniable rock and a hard place when it comes to your POV, you finally are willing to take a compromise that was offered to you by , which you rejected? ``We can't do that`` -. was way to conciliatory towards you by even offering you a choice: ``What you believe should happen to the image is now up to you.`` - . I'm afraid that I'm not as conciliatory,

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

661,982,910

` ===E-mail subject line incorrect=== ``It arrived in the form of an e-mail titled ``Pikachu Pokemon [sic]`` with the subject ``Pikachu is your friend.`` Well which is it? Can't be both. Either the subject line says ``Pikachu Pokemon`` or it says ``Pikachu is your friend.`` Pick the correct one and edit. ~Rayvn `

2,015

true

article

blocked

test

false

662,010,382

` == Pciture == The picture needs to be changed because this is one of those weird high schools that are re-using old buildings or something, rather then a good representation of what most high schools look like. ~Rayvn `

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

662,010,659

` == Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014 == Please remove this page from my Facebook page. This is not my high school nor did I teach at this high school. Thank you, Jude Johnson * Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. == Use in Belgium and The Netherlands.. way off. == Not only does the paragraph not explain the ``Hogeschool`` (literal translation) system that provides Associate and Bachelor degrees, the information it provides about secondary education is wrong in some key points. Since I can't directly edit, I thought I might sum it up here. Children are required to attend school from 6 to 18 in Belgium and 5 to 18 in The Netherlands or until they attain a specific level of education (BE: any secondary education, NL: HAVO, VWO or a level 2 MBO). See Dutch government website on 'leerplicht' and Flemish regional government's page on the same subject. Not relevant for Hogeschool, but faulty info in the article nontheless. Dutch MBO is not considered school for the first two years, it is always considered school (unlike a ``Hogeschool``, that functions as a University in terms of application, funding etc). Now I don't know exactly how the Flemish equivalent of Hogeschool/High-school is used, but i'll sum up how it works in the Netherlands from the lowest level up until Hogeschool (usually translated as ``University of Applied Sciences``). I'll skip internal stuff on VMBO and MBO, basically VMBO level determines MBO starting leve and you can always go up a MBO level(1-4) if you want to spend the time. MBO level 4 provides access to almost all(1) Hogeschool Associate (120 ECTS) and Bachelor (240 ECTS) programs. Associate degrees are more of a technicality, unknown to employers and unused in most programs, but they exist. Completing the first year (also known as Propedeuse) of a Hogeschool program grants access to almost all(1) University Bachelor programs. 1)Additional requirements may be set, usually involving math or language courses attended. Hogescholen (and Universities) must offer access to their Associate and Bachelor programs to potential students aged 21 and up via 'Colloquium Doctum'. Here's some more info from a Dutch University in English on that subject, including a reference to the article of Dutch law about 'Colloquium Doctum'. The same system is often used when potential students lack certain courses from previous studies. Regarding the article as a whole, it seems to lack sources overall, I feel it should be open for editing or otherwise overhauled to apply only to the term ``high school`` and it's literal translations, redirecting to articles about secondary/higher education if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by == Is high school in comics a valid category? About half of super hero's are teenagers. == I think this is as valid a category as zoos in fiction; these are both settings that are only really told by specific kind of stories. Teen and animal adventure. ::Category:Fictional schools and its subcategory Category:Superhero schools already exist. : :Teenaged superheros are not fictional schools. They might be fictional high school students and or fictional teenagers. In many cases, however, those will not be defining characteristics. - [[User:SummerPhD|Summer

2,015

true

article

blocked

test

false

662,012,912

` (UTC) :Articles about colleges are not the right place for articles and information about high schools. ~Rayvn 15:26, 12 May 2015`

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

662,024,354

` ::I have friends who are Aggies and others who are Sooners, but you may be my first who is both. Sheesh. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to seeing you around the Wiki. Best regards, `

2,015

true

user

random

dev

false

662,043,368

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves.

2,015

true

article

random

test

false

662,044,012

`===Notability=== Is this book notable? There is no mention of it's relation to the main King Arthur legend. Also, if it is a children's book, then why is the plot so long? Is it rather a chapter book and therefore not a children's book? And again if so why is it special? ~Rayvn `

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

662,065,428

:Hi. This relates to this revert. It was clearly an error on my part not to have seen your edit summary. You say that you wonder how it got missed and, having at taken a second look, I wonder as well. However it happened, though, I did miss seeing your edit summary and that was an error on my part. :You have undone my change. I have no problem with that, as I had made the change in error. As far as the substance of the change goes, that is outside of my areas of expertise; I had stumbled onto your edit during a WP:Huggle session; I'm not sure why Huggle threw it up for review. If there are questions/concerns about the content impacted by your edit from editors who do have expertise in this area, those should be resolved by consensus among those editors with discussion, if needed, taking place on the article talk page. :My apologies for having confused things, and my thanks for straightening me out. Cheers. (earlier Boracay Bill)

2,015

true

user

random

test

false

662,069,114

And what the fuck is that fo?

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

true

662,069,648

::::::Good job really, as you're obviously an idiot.

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

true

662,070,162

**I do no edit gender related articles??

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,072,462

**Just noticed who gave that out,lulz.

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

662,074,223

`Thank you Joseph2302. I'll be very sincere with you. I have been a full time article writer, blogger and web content writer. I also earn a living from that. I work on freelancer.com, Elance.com and odesk.com.. Here's my public profile on freelancer.com - https://www.freelancer.com/u/hilumeoka2000.html Here's my public profile on Elance.com - https://www.elance.com/s/hilumeoka2000/ You can also search ``hilumeoka2000`` in Odesk to get my details there. Now, I use to see clients post jobs about ``Write a Wikipedia page`` or ``Create a Wikipedia page`` on all the freelancer platforms. In fact, it seems as if everyone wants to be on wikipedia probably because of the high page ranking and traffic that comes from the resource. As a freelancer interested in research, I use to get useful materials from Wikipedia and other sources to write some of my articles. Indeed, Wikipedia has been a great resource. Sometime in 2002, I created an account on wikipedia to see if I can meet the demands of the clients who request for wiki job on freelance platforms. To be frank, I didn't understand how to use wikipedia as at then. Hence, I abandoned the urge to write wikipedia articles and continued with my normal web content development and article writing career. Now, sometime in April this year, I decided to start placing bids on wikipedia jobs via freelancer.com. This is because, wiki jobs are always available but there are few people who actually know how to write them. I made a decision to learn about wikipedia writing and what it entails. I started reading all the wiki tutorials I could see on wikipedia. I started learning and indeed, it's quite interesting. It was not easy initially, but, I vowed to know more. So, I placed my first bid on freelancer.com. A client wanted me to write on ``Joshua Letcher`` . I accepted. I used this particular topic to learn some facts about wiki policies. I created and submitted it for review. It was rejected but I was told what to do to make it acceptable. I took some days to make some researches about ``Joshua Letcher`` I discovered, there are no media secondary resources.. That was the reason the article was deleted. Now, the same client also contracted me to write about thier company ``Newfield Resources Ltd. I did my research to get some secondary resources. I succeeded and created the article. It was allowed to stay. So, I got excited. I really became very happy that I can now write wikipedia articles. So, I went for more. I always focused more on maintaining neutrality and using secondary sources. I also follow the rules on referencing and formatting having taken enough time to learn them. Now, as a freelancer, I kept getting alerts about new Wikipedia creation jobs. I go ahead to place my bids. I really got selected by some clients to help them put up a wikipedia page. I also get paid for doing so as a freelancer. I turn down jobs that do not have media coverage or jobs that are meant to promote or advertise since they are against wiki rules. So far, I've created the following pages via the jobs I won through freelancer.com and Elance.com. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Direct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kumar_Kalotee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfield_Resources_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_Concern_Welfare_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawano_Kambeu I made sure each of the pages is neutral and properly cited. I'm also working on few more pages right now. I don't get involved in vandalism or supporting stands to make a page stay on wikipedia. My main focus is to create new pages. To be very sincere with you, I've never heard about the issue of disclosing paid identity on Wikipedia until now. I thought that I'm free to create articles as a freelancer and get paid. I noticed one thing about most of my clients. They don't know how to create articles on wikipedia. Some of them have tried but failed. Hence, they look for an expert who will help them. So please, I'll like to know if I'm contravening wiki rules by creating articles for clients through freelancer.com. I don't really know. There are lots of policies on wikipedia. I learn most of them as I create articles. I learn virtually on daily basis. Do I need to declare myself as a Paid editor or something? Do I need to stop creating articles for clients? I'll like to get clarifications. Thanks `

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,074,354

I have not even logged into Wikipedia. why the you are mailing me and notifying this crap? This is the limit, stop hounding me.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,076,746

Just checked you history. You are a Kannada right? You don't have any history to write about Kannadigas? You motivated moron targeting and deleting Tamil identities in all possible ways. I don't know how Wikipedia is allowing guys like you to go ahead with clear conflict of interest. I am writing to the highest authority about 5 guys like you playing with gods and history relating to India and Hinduism. Will slipper you if i receive one more notification from you.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,077,158

Thanks Joseph2302! Honestly I never know about this. You've actually nominated all my articles for speedy deletion. I'm very sincere, I don't know about this issue of disclosure. Now that, I know, I'm willing to abide by the rules. I really learn a lot creating wiki articles. Where do I go from here? Help pls.. Let your temper calm down. I've been very honest with you

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,077,982

You're right Joseph.. You asked me a question whether I am a paid editor? Actually, you question came around 11pm my time. I was already on bed and saw that via my phone. I have to quickly come online to respond. Well, I've also responded with the same sincerity on those pages dominated for deletion. But sincerely, Joseph, you were so much in hurry to deal with me. It made to cry...I'll try and follow the terms on disclosing my paid status since it's not a crime to create wiki articles for payments. Thank u.

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

false

662,080,742

` ==Thanks for reversing speedy deletion=== I must thank you for coming to my rescue. One ``Joseph2302`` has been on my neck even after being sincere with him. He has nominated all my created pages for deletion on the ground that I'm an undisclosed editor. I told him the truth when he asked because I never know about the issue of disclosing paid status. here's my response to his question `` . I'm a freelancer in Elance.com and Freelancer.com. Clients pay me to help them create pages. I also make sure I follow the wiki guidelines in creating them. Some clients that want to promote their articles/companies via wikipedia, I use to tell them that, such is not allowed.. I really love writing wiki pages. It keeps my alive aside from the compensations. Please, how do I disclose my paid status? Am I contravening wiki rules by editing articles for clients via freelancing? I would like to know. Thanks again `

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,097,514

` ==Speedy deletion of Credit Card Insider== You have randomly removed my tag for the deletion of Credit Card Insider, which is a promotion-inducing article for a non-notable company, without any discussion being done. ~Rayvn `

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

false

662,098,805

Joseph2302 Thanks you so much! You've really stress me all night long. Because of this issue, I've been awake all through the night. It's quite amazing. You kept fighting to put my hard work to nought. Judge for yourself. The issue of Paid editing is not even a problem since the policy failed. What did I do to deserve this roughness from you? Tell me Joseph2302

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,099,503

Ebyabe falsifies information on her repeated bad edit

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,100,181

`, 13 May 2015 (UTC) ::However, using the word ``compliance`` IS a lack of basic human decency, as mentioned in my comment, while the idea that ``asking a user to put a link in their signature if Wikipedia expects it but also noting the problem with the programmer that caused this to happen when he removed the Wikipedia coding that linked the signatures as expected`` is a lack of human decency was not mentioned. I am not ``combative`` but rather am defending from and for 1) the integrity of apparently two articles now and 2) when people are attacking and harassing me. The assaultive word ``compliance`` was in this user's section title until I fixed it as I will not tolerate such words being displayed on my page. ~Rayvn 03:26`

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

662,101,245

` :::I suppose that technically you could, but not legitimately, as no reasonable person (or human) would do this. Your false claim is that you ``think my edit was a test``. First of all, if someone is doing a test, and the test fails, then they would of course fix it or change it back or add a hidden comment for someone to fix it or something. But, secondly, this was the second time you have changed the clarification of the sentence back to be grammatically incorrect and extremely confusing, so you could not possibly ``think it was a test``, and what you wrote in the edits also says that you didn't think that. ~Rayvn `

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,103,101

`::::``Wikipedia`` does not do anything. ``We`` do/does not do anything. Wikipedia is meant for input by EVERYONE, including those who actually you know have knowledge about the subject at hand. In fact Wikipedia DOES have polls, and it is true that polls are not actually needed since merely asking literally any American who lives in America and has commonly interacted with multiple races will get the answer of what is truthful. However, since a couple of people are incorrectly insisting on publishing the article using extremely incorrect information, one of the polls that Wikipedia does do would be a way to vitally inform those people that yes, in fact, living in America DOES tell you what people use words for in America! There was no ``material`` removed from any article since that would be physically impossible since this is both the Internet, which has no physical manifestation, as well as an article which is written using words, and therefore also has no physical items or textiles involved. In an article about a plant which has a section describing the plants usuage, it would of course be grossly improper to then instigate a debate about whether or not that usuage is scientific by writing a sentence which states whether or not such usuage is considered to ``work`` by one person or society or research paper or another. The appropriate and valid scope of such an article would be things regarding the plant, including how people may use the plant, which means that that scope would not include any research or debate on methods of alternative medicine and whether or not they work. `

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

false

662,115,436

` == Acupuncture and interpersonal interactions == Hi Roxy, I was reviewing some of your latest contributions to the Acupuncture article and talk page and thought I'd have a word with you. Many of your edits to the article seem to be simple reverts or minor edits, which is fine, though the participation in revert wars isn't great. Your talk page posts are mainly what have me concerned. They seem to be mostly either pointed comments to other users (for example ) or equally pointed repetitions of your point of view ( ). Neither of these further our goal of improving articles, and both contribute to the ``toxic`` atmosphere people are complaining about. I also seem to remember you getting into trouble on the Ayurveda article talk page for similar reasons, thereby getting on the wrong side of User:John, and I definitely remember seeing some very pointed remarks from you on his talk page. I'm sure you're not a mean person in real life, but as I'm sure you already know text is a bad medium for conveying emotions and such. I's very easy to misinterpret humor for sarcasm, or sarcasm for scorn, especially in the context of a larger conflict. Anyway, whatever your intentions are, I'm asking you to please stop with the pointed remarks to/about other users and the repeated scornful generalizations of alt-med/fringe. Regardless of who's right or wrong, it's not helping things. ~ `

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

662,125,665

:You are clearly not very smart and not here to build an encyclopedia.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,136,526

:Dick

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

true

662,150,658

Hi afghani beggar refugee i love to suck the puti of ur amma ;)

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

true

662,153,854

== St. Clement's Church, Chorlton == Thank you for your clear answers. Sadly, serial vandaliser is up to his old tricks again on the Talk page.

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

662,169,836

` :This is untrue. I have not been blocked for the reasons mentioned but rather for entirely different reasons, since the reasons mentioned are not actually true. It is impossible to ``exhibit a battleground attitude`` because of many reasons, including the fact that one cannot ``exhibit`` something unless one is a display engineer at a museum, and it would therefore be impossible to ``exhibit`` anything let alone a ``battleground attitude,`` the fact that there is no such thing as a ``battleground attitude,`` the fact that there is no such thing as an ``attitude`` in regards to how a human being acts, and the fact that the word ``exhibit`` is used in an incorrect manner here done solely for the purpose of antagonizing the user (antagonizing me). Usage of words like ``exhibit`` and ``attitude``, and refusing to follow the section title requirements on my page, show an obvious malfeasance intent by the above person, and therefore the block cannot be valid because within the first sentence he has already seriously demonstrated his lack of appropriate intent by specifically and purposefully being antagonizing. The second claim is physically possible, but is blatantly false. I have specifically attempted to PREVENT other users from refusing to communicate in a appropriate manner, as he was repeatedly replying to the same conversation in several different locations, for which I reported him but yet the people at the ALLEGED ``help desk`` refused to tell me where to report him, and even deleted several of my replies and then archived it fraudulently. Having OTHER USERS delete my comments, participate in blatant fradulent..ism, post the same thing on multiple talk pages at once for the purpose of harassing me, etc., is hardly ``myself making it difficult to communicate,`` when in fact as was just demonstrated I did the LITERAL EXACT OPPOSITE of this by LITERALLY ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT OTHER USERS FROM MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO COMMUNICATE. ((In addition, if I wish for other users to NOT communicate with me, I also have THAT right, it is in fact specifically written into law in every state in the country and will get you arrested if you fail to do so. Although I personally disagree with this law and it is an immoral law which deems to prevent for example ex-spouses from communicating with each other when necessary, the part of the law that refers to STRANGERS such as on Wikipedia or anywhere on the Internet, it is a PERSONAL CHOICE whether you wish other strangers on the site to communicate with you or not and/or post contact information etc. That is why every message board in existence has an option to ``disable the private messaging system``.)) There were no personal attacks done by me anywhere, so this part is a baseless and fraudulent claim. ``Refusal to abide by the site's guidelines`` is impossible since 1) ``guidelines`` and ``rules`` are two different thing 2) Wikipedia does not have any rules and 3) All policies of any kind are subject to debate and protest at any time according to the numerous Wikipedia articles which specifically say this. You have also demonstrated more incorrect intent by saying that something was ``done in multiple venues,`` even though no venues of any kind exist because this is a website rather then a collection of several different building which show concerts or other entertainment events and/or conventions and/or etc. So that is also impossible. `

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

false

662,175,829

I didn't edit war. a whole section of the article was blanked.

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

662,177,250

Check out the Mignini article right now, that whole section has just been blanked and then the article protected by an admin so it can't be put back.

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

662,177,999

I think I'll ask for Slim Virgin's input on this one, as I'm a bit baffled as to what's happened here. Does anyone object to that?

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

662,182,515

`{unblock|reason=The user that reported me made several false claims, such as claims of ``personal attacks`` regardless of the fact that I have never made any, and ``violating Wikipedia's policies`` regardless that I have never done so. He himself has been reported several times for doing bad things like insulting people, and posted directly fraudulent information both to me and apparently to administrators. I was not given any possibility of replying to the block request discussion, because he also did not link this anywhere on my page and on his page I saw a template (posted to him by a user of a different time he has done this) stating that doing so is required. Basically, the user who reported me shows clearly in ``bad faith``. The fact that I am being forced to defend on myself on Wikipedia for 12+ hours is not a valid reason for a block. No ``personal attacks`` were made, no ``refusal`` to do anything was done as no ``orders`` were given that could be ``refused`` due to the fact the ``orders`` did not even happen, and being a victim of others who are repeatedly attacking me and even deleting my replies from discussion pages before archiving, and defending myself from these continuous attacks, is NOT a valid reason for a block. As for the articles which caused people to attack and harass me, nothing regarding these articles was ever properly done. No messages asking to discuss it, no polls done to find out which information is correct, no editing done after my edits for the purpose of further improving the article, nothing constructive or reasonable whatsoever, just reverting the entire edit without discussion or reasonableness, lying about the reason for reverting, harassment, and making fraudulent claims against me such as ``adding information without sources``, regardless of the fact that 1) I did not ADD any information to the article and 2) it is okay to add information that does not have a source, and most new articles consist mainly, and some entirely, of such information. Someone wrote something about ``friendly advice,`` but not a SINGLE related comment was at all ``friendly,`` and no advice was given whatsoever except for one which was both unhelpful and contained more untrue statements. Even this administrator is purposefully making blatantly fraudulent statements, claiming that I ``ignored guidelines in regards to my signature``, regardless of the fact that the one who changed Wikipedia's code to no longer link automatically is not me, nor did they notify me, nor could anyone think of a reasonable reason to do this, regardless of the fact that it has been less then 24 hours since anyone requested that I learn programming code and then re-code my signature to compensate for this flaw, that's right less then 24 hours let alone a reasonable time of 4 months or so (assuming the user has logged in for several hours every day during that time), and regardless of the fact that even in that minuscule amount of time my signature had already been re-coded before he ever did this block. This shows that the administrator himself is specifically in bad faith by citing an alleged ``problem`` that no longer even exists. There is also a log of the LITERAL AND DIRECT EXACT OPPOSITE of the claim of the person who reported me (again, WITHOUT NOTIFYING ME TO REPLY TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER), at the Help Desk page. I advise that people looking at this do not read that conversation as evidence of replies and such, because several of my replies were deleted before the conversation was archived and therefore it is an invalid archive, BUT it does show the exact opposite of this claim in that I specifically complained about someone for doing that very thing because the conversation between MYSELF AND HIM should be done at only ONE place, and should also be done at one of the appropriate pages, rather then being harassive by using different places as this Administrator is claiming I have done when there is direct evidence that I've done the opposite. So the main thing being that I am the victim of numerous people attacking me, they should not have attacked me but instead should have done any of the things I mentioned, or some other reasonable thing, rather then reverting edits and then attacking and harassing me. I did not deserve any such harassment and attacks and do have the right to defend such things. If I am treated fairly instead then there could be a discussion on the matter instead of repeated reverting without any discussion, then no such people would be ``reporting``, but, since I did not do the things in the report other then correcting articles, and since the decent reply to correcting articles which someone else thinks are incorrect is not to attack them as was done to me, the block is wrong because things should be differently and because the people who were ``edit warring`` on purpose were other people rather then myself. In fact, direct evidence of this is ALSO available, as you can see that I stopped attempting to edit the article Black people to contain correct information once it was made obvious that three other editors did not want correct information to be available and would continuous revert it instead of simply editing to make it even better. The ones who want to do ``edit warring`` would not stop trying to stop the assaultive from reverting it, but instead they would do something such as continuously revert edits from the one they disagree with. This was what the opposing party did, not what I did. And yet still no discussion.}} `

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,186,863

* Harding had a sexual relationship with his dob.

2,015

false

article

random

train

true

662,190,438

==You have made a mistake== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealing_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s. See this link and you will see that Stephen Pound was elected as MP in 2015. Please check before removing edits that are not spam. Thank you. Ukvoltaire123

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,191,959

fuck u little bitch. im the porn king

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

true

662,192,405

Dnon't you dare speak to me this way. I couldn't give a damn if the person i was addressing is respected by you or not. Your opinions mean nothing.

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

true

662,193,389

` Well gee, I can eother take a common sense view that asking for someone's input is perfectly reasonable and ok, or i can accept your claim that to do so would be in breach of all manner of wikipedia rules. Which view do you think i will go with, ? `

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

662,193,521

== The name == It's been a few years now and consensus can change. Can we have a new rfc on the name?

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

662,194,372

Posting that list wasn't wise given that its 2015 and Knox and Sollecito have been fully exonerated. Makes it look like those who were stalking pro innocence advocates were creeps on the wrong side of history. But thank you for stating where you stand.

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

662,194,716

No new arguments McDoobAU93, the rfc would just be to see if consensus has changed or if people are happy with the status quo

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

662,195,556

Or the fact that I was not even linked to the discussion regarding this block or report in order to discuss with it, making the original block invalid for ANY reason other blatant SPAMming/etc., because I was not even notified of the discussion to even write on it. Etc.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,195,578

So you are saying consensus cannot change without a new argument? I think it can. Most of the old arguments were never resolved one way or the other, every one just took a site and tried to shout the other side down with facts that suited their personal preference, An rfc is good way to see where the community's head is at on this. It's been a few years it's worth doing

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

662,196,191

` If your section is not titled appropriately, including no attacking, no aggressive or hostile or ``weasel words`` such as ``motor vehicle``, ``compliance``, ``attorney``, or ``respect``, and an actual description of the actual thing you are actually talking about. If you do not use an appropriate title then your comment will be deleted and 100% ignored in all ways, regardless of the reason for the comment, a staff position of the human or person making the comment, or any other reason whatsoever. If you cannot title your section reasonably and descriptively, then your comment has not and does not exist.''`

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

662,196,434

` == Giuliano Mignini Article == Dear Slim Virgin, I know you were involved in the past with writing the article on Guiliano Mignini. Just today a user backed up by an adminstrator who immediately locked the page have deleted an entire neutrally worded sourced section describing the role of Prosecutors in Italy from the article. This makes no sense to me, and i was hoping we could get your eyes on the article and these actions if you have time. Thank you so much, `

2,015

false

user

blocked

dev

false

662,197,180

Sorry mcd00b but the debate isn't even and fair because the Genesis side has the name without consensus per last rfc and it isn't stable because im here asking for an rfc and ask about once a year as do others, and with their posts being censored and deleted then it clearly isn't even and fair. sergecross that's the whole point there doesn't need to be a new approach or viewpoint presented, peoples minds can change and consensus can change which is why having an rfc would be worth while.

2,015

false

article

blocked

train

false

662,197,635

What kind of freak keeps obsessive stalkerish lists of people posting in favour of someone's innocence? A dirty little basement dwelling creep, that's who.

2,015

false

article

blocked

dev

false

662,197,707

|- |May 2, 1890 |Oklahoma Territory formed | | |- |July 3, 1890 |Idaho admitted | | |- |July 10, 1890 |Wyoming admitted | | |- |January 4, 1896 |Utah admitted | | |- |May 4, 1896 |Greer County given to Oklahoma Territory | | |- |August 12, 1898 |Hawaii annexed | | |- |January 17, 1899 |Wake acquired | | |- |April 11, 1899 |Guam, PR, Philippines acquired | |

2,015

true

article

random

test

false

662,198,222

` You're such a fool. I assume you are one of the Beckham obsessives who has no regard for the facts. You should not edit WP when you do not adgere to the facts. The page you linked to VERY plainly refers to him as a FOUNDING leadership council member. He was a council member when it was FOUNDED in 2007 - not now. You do understand what founding means don't you. You are such a liar by claiming I have inserted the word ``founding`` It is there in black and white on the very page you linked to ``From our two FOUNDING Leadership Council Members``. How can you be so deceitful to claim the word ``founding`` was inserted when it is very plainly on the page you yourself have linked to. `

2,015

true

article

blocked

test

true

662,198,500

Thats fine. continue to censor and delete opposing views so you can have your way. Why not ban me for a year too because this behavior is clearly not here.... enjoy your abuse of power. I will be back next year to see if there are any more rational users.

2,015

false

article

blocked

test

false

662,200,797

I didnt attack you, you retard DO NOT POST ON MY PAGE kthx

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

true

662,200,889

Troll and fool - If you claim him to be a CURRENT administrator of Malaria No More it is up to YOU to provide evidence of it. That is what WP requires. He was there at the outset in 2007. According to official records he is not listed as director or administrator

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

true

662,201,865

== TALK PAGE == NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE POST ON MY TALK PAGE YOU DESPICABLE AMERICAN TW@T KTHX

2,015

false

user

blocked

dev

false

662,202,309

NEITHER OF YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO POST ON MY PAGE

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

662,204,229

`{{unblock|THANK YOU for a reasonable fucking comment!!! The ONLY USER in ANY AREA who has actually made one!! (Ebyabe made comments which appear to be reasonable at first glance, but are actually unreasonable because one is fraudulent and the other was untrue regarding a place where she could see that it was untrue.) Well a sort-of reasonable comment anyway because he claims that I am being ``confrontational`` when it is clearly visible at my talk page that other users are attacking me and not the other way around. I have not caused any confrontation... I have replied to other users who are putting a confrontation to me. (I did ask how to report a user, but I did not actually report him because nobody answered regardless of several posts made, and the user himself did not comment there, so that was not a confrontation like it would have been if I'd been able to make the report.) I would like to leave a message at this user 's talk page but I cannot, because for some reason those are blocked to, so I have to do it this way instead. Hopefully he has the notifications turned on (tags of username). I can be calm and work with other people. This is noted in my first reply, where it gives several examples of how users should have had discussion instead of attacking and reverting me and arguing hostilely on my talk page. Users who wish to work with me should not make attacks, write words like ``compliance``, revert edits when they could have further fixed the edit instead (details of referred-to edits in a separate paragraph below, make false claims against me, or delete my replies on discussion pages (not talk pages) and then ARCHIVE it after removing them!! (Users should not do these kinds of things to anyone.) What this means is that if users act in a reasonable manner, then a normal discussion can ensue (including from myself). Merely because someone has used a template, written a shorter reply, or wrote their aggressive, confrontational remarks in a business-style manner, does not mean that they are ``being reasonable`` or ``writing nicely``. When someone makes a falsified report about you or writes a falsified comment, etc., it is not reasonable to expect the victim to reply without mentioning this, or to want to ``be friends`` with the attacker. If the other people are being reasonable then of COURSE I am going to reply to them in a different way. Editing an article by...(below) is not reasonable, nor is ``ganging up`` (the discussion page), nor is replying in several places at once, etc. How can replying to other users stating bad and/or false things about you be ``confrontational``? I have mentioned several times about having an actual discussion but no one did this and instead just kept replying on my talk pages. The fact that I mentioned having a discussion indicates that I think reasonable discussion is the right or reasonable way to do it. Just no one wanted to do anything but attack me so I did not have another way. The headlines are not ``veiled``, they are in plain light. It was not any attempt to be ``hidden``. For headline #5, I literally do or did not know of a different way to title this headline which is not an attack on myself. For headline #8, it is truthful and the falsification was blatant by Ebyabe, and I actually expected her to edit it to something on her next message. I mean she directly mentions it; edit summary says a reason but her message says differently (directly, not implied). For this headline, it is not a ``personal attack`` because it is true and evident: Administrator complains about my signature even though signature has been changed, and messages by me since posted, before the block happened, as well as direct linking to comments which contain no personal attacks as a reason for ``personal attacks``. If the titles were UNTRUE they would be attacks, but since they are true unambiguously then they can't be attacks. The last headline yes, somewhat motivated/hostile, because he is the one put an useless headline so that there's TWO AT ONCE, *AFTER* my notice is up, while also writing the things that show the actual tyranny (a word used in this case solely because it is already being talked about, and not meant as any attack/instigation/hostile/etc.). Although the link by Jamie appears to say something about political opinions, if someone is making false claims then it is appropriate for them to be exposed. So as you can see my intents are to be reasonable and normal (with the 'possible' exception of this particular headline), and repeatedly asking other people to do this, but being annoyed by all their attacks and false remarks as well. Edits (in a separate paragraph so that reading it is optional): ``Users working with me should not...revert edits when they could have further fixed the edit instead`` - Instead of reverting multiple times, attacking, and then harassing, the user could have simply improved my previous edit if the felt it necessary. It actually was, in fact, necessary, because most of the paragraph was based on the incorrect idea that black people often check the ``white`` box on surveys because of... social characteristics, or something, and in order for it to both be accurate and make sense, additional things would have to have been removed. These are the things that I left in in order to avoid conflict, even though though it makes the article make much less sense in regards to flow when they are left in. I included in a comment several times that we should be fixing the problem with a reasonable discussion (poll) in order to get the correct version up, but this was ignored except for one derogatory remark that mentioning reasonable solutions should not be done. Editing an article by reverting back to the incomprehensible version is hardly ``reasonable``. Editing it again if the first person got it wrong - because they couldn't properly figure out what it was talking about - is the reasonable way. `

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

true

662,204,245

` According to law, it is a legal obligation for anyone who has any administrative role with a charity to be registered with Companies House and for that charity to be registered with Companies House. It would be illegal if they are not. ``Leadership council member`` is simply another phrase for administrator. According to Companies House Beckham is NOT a director, company secretary, administrator, or officially part of the organisation in any respect. It is his agent ``Simon Fuller`` who is a director NOT him. Even if Simon Fuller is acting by proxy, Beckham has no official part of the organisation himself. It is there in black and white on what is a legal register at Companies House. It can not be possible to be closer to the official facts than Companies House. `

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

662,204,536

The information on the Malaria web site is dated and misleading.Most people have heard of Beckham but most people have not heard of Fuller. So Beckham's role has been exaggerated. He has no official role and is not part of the organisation as is claimed.

2,015

true

article

blocked

test

false

662,209,647

It is not necessary to use it. It is up anyone claiming that Beckham is officially part of Malaria No More to produce hard evidence of that - but nobody has, quite simply because he isn't. Somebody who donates to Oxfam is not part of the organisation.

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

662,212,835

` ::::::::Thanks for the info, what would I do without your help? `

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

662,214,526

And I also updated the source so that it specifically shows this.

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

662,220,168

== Province == When has linking a province ever been an issue? Provincial and Sate linking is all over the place, especially when the city's article itself does not have its province in its article title such as Toronto and then Ontario. What is your big deal that you need to always follow my contributions like some sort of creepy love craze for me as you have done on David Rocco and much more? It is very, very annoying and demeaning. Look at Flo Rida, Beyoncé, Christina Aguilera, Jay Z, and millions more. Are you going to bother to fix more, or are you just changing mine because that is what gets you up in the morning?

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,220,874

You have very deceitful double standards. Qed237 kept on reverting on the very same page without providing any opposing evidence and breached the very same 3 revert rule, yet you did not block him at all. I always substantiated my amendments but he never did. You are obviously not fit to be an administrator of anything. Most Wikipedia admins are of a very poor standard and poor ethics

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

662,222,518

You've got obvious double standards. 3 or more reverts breaches the rule, and now you've tried to lie your way out of it. The standards of Wiki admins is SO remarkable low.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,230,280

:: Why is linking the province any different if it is beside a city? I still do not see the crime? The user when clicking on the link can see the underline to see if it is on the one link or separate. Also, why have you fixed only Flo Rida, but not the others?

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,247,004

== 2010's == Arthur Rubin i want to thank but i like to fuck you if want to erase my edits on 2010's go and i say you is fuck you you are fucking shit and idiot.

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

true

662,253,237

== Proposal to Delete this article. == The Quran teaches that Jesus was not crucified. This article is up for deletion. - 12:06 AM 14 May, 2015

2,015

true

article

blocked

dev

false

662,253,401

== Islamic Mythology == I have proposed the deletion of this wiki category. -

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

false

662,282,296

Nobody has ended up opposing the reverts I made, which were 100% justified and factually correct. The reverts were necessitated by people who were being purposefully obstructive without good reason. Nobody should be blocked when they are entirely correct.

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false

662,288,213

Good question, I do not know, but I'd be glad to find out.

2,015

false

user

blocked

train

false

662,295,349

https://twitter.com/Syria_Rebel_Obs/status/598791328990928896/photo/1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yGujgLPAGA&feature;=youtu.be (Allegedly showing airstrikes on Radio Tower Hill outside Tadmur), http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat;=34.561107&lon;=38.252120&z;=15&m;=b Radio Station is here. In all, it looks like a near total collapse of SAA forces

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

662,304,986

Beckham obsessives reverted without any factual justification as is very apparent from what they wrote. They reverted solely to try to maintain a positive and delusional view of Beckham. Most of my reverts are no longer being challenged, p[roving that I was entirely right. The only remaining dispute has already been proven to be correct in my favour. Going to talk page usually means some twat at the end simply not agreeing without reason. YOu did not decribe what they did as edit warring - it was only me. I gave reasons they did NOT. I adhered to the facts. They did not. One of them even inexplicably claimed that Beckham IS a footballer even though he retired 2 years ago !

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

662,305,465

Hi TRPoD, I hear you are still being one of the 5 horsemen of Wikipedia, trying to astroturf the narrative on the GamerGate Controversy page. I congratulate you on your sterling efforts to maintain Wikipedia's most uniquely biased article. I hope you let us all know how much you are being paid at the end of this. I hope you aren't doing it as a freebie. Kiss Kiss.

2,015

false

user

blocked

dev

false

662,312,224

REDIRECT Talk:Masjid Malcolm Shabazz

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

662,314,679

` :Why can't the students create their own account? Have them go to Special:UserLogin/signup and allow them to do it for themselves. Where will this world record page be located? What world records are we talking about? — `

2,015

true

user

random

train

false

662,317,780

` : I removed the subsectioning of the ``Names`` section because the subsections were very short. Per MOS:BODY#Headings and sections, ```` `

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

662,321,087

::I think it is a good idea if someone can work out how to do it. Some sources list Liberal Democrat lost deposits.

2,015

true

article

blocked

train

false

662,321,252

Get a life.find something better to do

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

true

662,322,213

The graceful slick... Thank you for you advice. Thank you for being patient. I a, not trying to disregard your rules nor offend anyone in the community. I apologize if I ruffled anyone's feathers as you all know any artists can be sensitive about someone belittleing there works. I think my article was pretty neutral and I just want facts. An encyclopedia type of page. What can I do to have you or one of your peers assist me here. My email is greenbackzo@gmail.com feel free to drop me an email or I will also be checking this periodically. Thanks graceful slick

2,015

true

user

blocked

dev

false

662,339,068

:To the contrary, there's already clear consensus that that the (fictitious) micronations of Autia, South Maudland, and Paraduin, including their interaction with Liberland, are not notable and have not attracted any coverage in reliable third-party sources. The first two are some kinds of blogs or Internet roleplaying, the latter only exists as publicity for a fantasy novel; nobody, not even you, dispute that. -

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

662,342,230

` ::@Marek, can you materially propose an alternative wording? My proposal was ``concerns about the respect of human rights were raised among historians`` looked to me well matching the 9 sources I provided, but for some reasons did not fly. ::@Tzowu, ``many`` compromise well between ``some`` and ``most``. Director do you agree? `

2,015

true

article

random

train

false

662,342,492

HELLO! -Some random guy

2,015

true

user

blocked

test

false

662,342,674

YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!! -Some random guy

2,015

true

user

blocked

train

false