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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30,617,977
|
I'd just like to point out that Ohmefentanyl has an isomer (F9204) that is 13KX morphine. There is also an siomer mixture of Ohmefenanyl that has a reported potency in the region of 20-50KX morphine. More recent studies point to analogue such as fluoro-OMF that is even more potent. Perhaps a new section needs to be opened up to clarify this as clealry there are is some controversy over the strongest opioid or at the very least we are not 100% clear on the issue.
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,619,912
|
- Deleting the article probably won't solve the issues discussed. I assume that many other readers will continuously try to re-establish the article with or without knowledge of this article. Recommend the flame-throwers go into arbitration, albeit on a page designed for that. Most readers coming to Wiki are looking for the info that is here. I doubt that many courts will sustain an infringement suit with what I've read here (...even in California or D.C....). Recommend giving Motorola credit where it is due - but also others where it is due. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Arbitrate. Peace, brothers and sisters. 12:04 Zulu, 8 December 2005 I agree with cask but am awaiting responses from Jim Winnings before we cast a vote and resolve this issue. == Sixsigmium == I know this is a) old, b) a variation of something that has been going the rounds since 1989, but it's still funny... GE R&D; Discovers New Element
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,622,334
|
I do not wish to discuss this matter any further unless you change your tone of voice.
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,625,946
|
` == Bush's quote == His full quote... Yes, I mean, he's got a record. It's been there for 20 years. You can run, but you can't hide. He voted 98 times to raise taxes. I mean, these aren't make-up figures. And so people are going to have to look at the record. Look at the record of the man running for the president. They don't name him the most liberal in the United States Senate because he hasn't shown up to many meetings. They named him because of his votes. And it's reality. It's just not credible to say he's going to keep taxes down and balance budgets. I think this clearly shows that when Bush refers to Kerry as the ``most liberal``, it is not done in a positive way to sway voters towards Kerry. `
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,629,076
|
==Don't Waste Your Time Folks== Sherurij considers himself the God or Emporer of all things known. He baits you into anger and then retorts that you are the one who is unjustly accusing him of something that he doesn't understand! He is deliberate and a meglo-maniac! He will edit your edits and take credit for his own insights, while demeaning you of yours. He will lower you to angery comments and then smugly respond that he said no such thing or that you misunderstood! He is all things to himself and you are all things for his amusement except Super Mario 3. He has no peer. He edits without concensus and complains when someone else does. He uses pointless analogies and tries to get you to fit square pegs into round holes. He is a magician of the mind where he believes he can create an illusion to throw you away from your thoughts and in the process, convert you to his POV. Yes, he is a piece of work, but what it is, I hope we never find out!!!
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,629,217
|
` WELCOME!! Hello, ! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself new user log and list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a at my talk page...and again, welcome! `
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
test
| false
|
30,630,462
|
` Sorry Kate, you seem like a real nice person to me. However, as mentioned before, and you have insight to my issues, I must have an outlet, a catharsis if you will, and I am only venting against the sources of my anger. Or would it be better that I let it build up like Charlie did and take it out on innocent people and ``UNBORN CHILDREN``.(you know this is no threat, just angry bantering!) Subwayjack`
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,630,599
|
:It's a standard in the sense that several P2P applications' developers agreed on using the same syntax. (Those are LimeWire, BearShare, Shareaza, Kazaa, DC++, Azureus, and others). It might not be an official IETF standard, but that doesn't mean it's not a standard. :The 'File Sharing Community' means part of the developers of P2P applications. Specifically (for this context) the people that participate in the magnet-uri Yahoo mailing list. The draft seems vague, but if you have a question, you can ask the people on that mailing list. Platform independance is true, as the links work in Azureus, which is crossplatform. :Bittorrent files and magnet links allow you to do the same thing: download a file without knowing the location beforehand, and just searching for it because of the file's own properties (not location, as with http/ftp links). Magnets and torrents are different, but there are some striking similarities. :'recent versions...', they don't support it out of the box, that's true. Either the application registers the magnet 'protocol' in the system (Most p2p apps do that on Windows), which allows the browsers(IE and Firefox do that without extra configuration, in Opera you have to specify it manually) to send the magnet links to the right application. So browsers don't ship with 'magnet' support, but it's not a plugin either. It's just a setting, and most application take care of that for the user.
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,630,604
|
35 years after the coup
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
dev
| false
|
30,631,346
|
It's not possible it was!!! All this bickering because two individuals want to sweep away 8 yrs of helping and research because they they enjoy the power WP gives them through its rules! THERE OUTTA BE A RULE AGAINST RULES!!! Your humble servant! Subwayjack
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,631,919
|
This poor snich, Jareha, such backbone! A real heroes hero! Smack him one time for me Kate before I lose my civility!!! Peace! Subwayjack
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| true
|
30,632,918
|
Dick cheese sounds more fitting for you!!! I don't waste my time with games, you crazy Canuck! Subwayjack
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| true
|
30,635,003
|
DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA! Hey! I'm Liz, and I HATE WIKIPEDIA! You should not use it. I am warning you. Thanks, Lizzi
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,637,736
|
# its 22 not 23 she included Goodwin obviously!
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,643,454
|
==Blanking page Andrew Orlowski== Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,644,661
|
Im not doing this GODDAMN!
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| true
|
30,649,435
|
` == Attempts to circumvent AfD == The AfD for Wikifiddler will determine whether the contents will stay under that title, whether they will be merged to a different article, or whether they will be deleted without merge. Your repeated copying of the entire article to Andrew Orlowski before the conclusion of that AfD is an attempt to circumvent the process, and the fact that you are doing so in bad faith, aware that what you do is wrong, is shown by your falsely flagging it each time as a ``minor edit`` (disputed edits are never minor edits, refusing to use an edit summary, and your failure to note on either talk page that you are copying the entire contents of one article verbatim into the other. Your chutzpah in describing it as ``vandalism`` when these bad-faith edits of yours are reverted is stupidity. Are you really so very in love with Orlowski that when he rants about Wikipedians who act badly you have to leap to fulfill his prophecy by exhibiting the worst behavior you can calculate? :I'd have to say the same to you. You have been stupid enough to blank out and revert the article, even though I have extensively added to the material. Since Orlowski clearly is watching Wikipedia closely (see the material you blanked out, you moron) I hope he's watching this discussion and finding it as amusing as I do. Your repeated attempts to censor this material are laughable. `
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,652,942
|
dumb dumb dumb........ cool!!!! awsome website for maps is wikipedia
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,658,723
|
== Reverting entries/User Zippity Doo Dah == User Chadbryant is vandalising articles and user pages on Wikipedia with baseless and unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusations. He has been warned on this by at least one Wikipedia admin, and there is an ongoing dispute between he and I regarding this immature and baseless behavior; as such, I will NOT allow him to do so, especially on user talk pages (user pages are bad enough). Before you go jumping the gun next time, please check to see who the weapon belongs to. For more information, see the user talk page of . And yes, this IS a sockpuppet of , but only because you blocked me without giving me a chance to explain MY side of the story an action I have attempted to do multiple times, only to be stopped by idiots like yourself.
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| true
|
30,666,884
|
can we have a recent logo?
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,669,871
|
that every night? I wanna feel your body sooo bad!
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,671,162
|
== Awolf002 RfA == Thank you very much for your support for my RfA. I will do everything I can to justify your trust in me.
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,674,213
|
` To Sherurij, I don't deny having posted the link to your user page. I did it to test your tenacity. As soon as I found your comment, unsigned, as mine was, I removed both insertions. I knew you would re-post it (revert it), because of your history of passive-aggressive behavior with-in WP. Leave the link there if you like and have an administrator block me, if they are so inclined to do so. The link to your user page, shows a whole lot about you. Others have complained of you arbitrarily acting on your own to change there contributions. You have been combative, abusive and broken the courtesy rules by using the F*** word, S*** and other verbal devices to get under their skin, as you have mine! I have relayed my credentials to Kate. I don't expect to be treated any differently than anyone else, but I can dish out the same bitter fruits that I am served. Your link shows a socio-path who is so consummed with himself, that he has to denegrate others to put himself in high esteem to himself, because he either has a compulsion he cannot control or he actually gets satisfaction from upsetting the targets he picks. The fact that you would expose yourself by listing such an area of complaints you have received, with utter pride and satisfaction, is not beyond a borderline personality who likes to pick on someone because they know it irritates them. Like a court yard bully, you antagonize someone until they confront you back, then you run to an authority figure to complain about the other person's behavior. Others have pointed similar things out in the link and your response has been overwhelmingly sarcastic. You take pride in being an ex-Communist, you love it when ``idiots`` from America criticize Nazi's because no one knows who they really were! I could go on and on about your user page, but the point is this! You need help resolving your inability to stop irritating people. I don't deny your smart, you just need to balance your intellectual gifts with compassion for others who are not as gifted. Education and degrees mean nothing if you are not balanced in the way you use them. I wish you good luck with that! You have my apologies for things said on your user page, and also on the Whitman page. I needed to get to this point with you, and those were the only tools I knew to use to reach this point, Now, let's hold each other in a positive regard and either work together, or, in the alternative, avoid each other! The choice is yours. Subwayjack`
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,678,142
|
You've just proved my point! Now let's stop it! You keep swearing you're leaving because you hate us all, I'm a cheese-eating dick son of bin Laden who lives under a bridge...then you keep coming back...I'm confused, is it really a torrid love affair in your heart, where really you find yourself so drawn to me, that you can't pull yourself away? I do have that Animal magnetism, don't I? *preens* Well, if you'd like to drop me a private message of a more...intimate nature, I'm sure we have lots in common and I would love to hear about your favourite naughty fantasies ;) Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) Subwayjack
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| true
|
30,679,300
|
re merge request I intend to make this a somewhat more detailed explanation of the machine aspects of exercise machines. I would have subordinated it to Exercise equipment myself otherwise. That page can still have a cursory coverage of this subject, and will include all of the other kinds of equipment that do not involve machines.
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,679,433
|
re merge request I intend to make Exercise machine a somewhat more detailed explanation of the machine aspects of exercise machines. I would have subordinated it to Exercise equipment myself otherwise. That page can still have a cursory coverage of this subject, and will include all of the other kinds of equipment that do not involve machines.
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,684,445
|
Sonic Adventure Ending == When you end the game playing her, her bird named Birdie died of old age and now she's crying. ZachKudrna18@yahoo.com ==
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,685,993
|
Cannibalisation is what happens if one part of a company grows by taking sales from another. for example if a retailer opens a new shop close to an existing one, the existing shop is likely to lose some sales to the new one. Cannibalisation is most commonly a concern where a company is selling the same products though different channels or in different locations. An example of the former would be a retailer’s web site competing with its shops. Cannibalization reduces sales growth (as the benefits of growth in one place will be offset by a reduction elsewhere). It may also reduce margins if customers switch to a lower cost (for them) and lower margin (for the seller) sales channel. Conversely, obviously, cannibalisation may encourage a switch to a higher margin channel (e.g. internet sales may cut out a middle man) or it may be a price worth paying to develop a new business. Finally although cannibalization is a concern, it is worth remembering that most company’s are already in a competitive environment as they compete with others, so the extra impact of also competing with themselves is often limited. It may even be turned to an advantage, which is why some companies (e.g. car manufacturers, food producers) often sell very similar products with different brand names.
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
random
|
test
| false
|
30,686,775
|
` == bombastic rock == Wasn't it John Lydon who called what the stadium-bands were doing ``bombastic rock``? `
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,687,075
|
`}]] |- | colspan=``2`` style=``border-top:1px solid black;`` | This template adds articles to Category:Old requests for peer review. |`
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,688,452
|
Ya I'll give you a source - everyone that knows her.
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,705,635
|
:I hope this gets cleared up soon. I'm not a massive editor, but it is annoying when I want to make minor changes to the few pages I visit a week. I don't want to sound critical, but isn't there a way to block anyone from blocking just anonymous users from an IP, and not those who have registered?
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,708,046
|
:: UNBLOCK ME ON .ES NOW!
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,713,019
|
==Fabrication of posts and unauthorized signatures of other users== 1) You have reverted posts legitimately deleted by the respective authors that include signature tags you have inauthoritatively reproduced while those may no-longer represent her/his perspective or have been done so in order to correct errors. 2)Also my posts that you have alleged to be racist/libellous that were deleted at my whim, yet have been restored by *you* twice in context with the same allegation(s). These are fresh publications that are libellous against me in the view of new observers both friends and strangers since 04:26 GMT, 8 December 2005 where your actions could lead to: a)make them see me in an estimation of character lower than prior to the observation of this publication b)make them shun me c)incite violence against me I will take authoritative action to remedy the actions under paragraph [1] and to mitigate the consequences as listed above [2] that is likely to be taking effect as of now and in the near future due to your publications unless you desist from creating new fabrications with my signature identical or prima facie virtually tantamount in the view of the ordinary and reasonable person compared with what I am immediately deleting from your discussion board. with regards to my shared suffering friends
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,715,542
|
`Agree Wade's version is excellent and present's the critic's arguments very clearly and accurately. I see no reason not to prefer it. Dealing with each item raised by FM, in italics below: ``Wade should take the time to become familiar with the historical arguments which arise in positing an uncaused causer to avoid falling into long-identified logic traps then burdening us with his objections.`` This is a distraction introduced by Wade from his own point, presumably in an attempt to clarify. Let's rather tackle Wade's main point of original research. ``... the ``fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design...`` part of the passage ... is already supported by two cites: ...`` You left out the first part of the critic's argument under discussion. The full text being contested as original research is: ``the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design ...etc`` This particular topic is not about the fundamental assumption or whether it is correct or not, but about the critic's application of the assumption to contradict the existence of an uncaused causer. It is necessary to cite the critic's argument because it is the critic's argument - and not ID - which logically presumes that any causer or designer must be a specifically complex object. Otherwise there is no contradiction. However as far as I'm concerned if it can be shown that ID does assume that the designer must be specifically complex, then clearly we do not need a cite for the critical argument under contention because it would then be logically obvious. Therefore obections to the suitability of the cites need to show both (1) that the cite is not the above argument OR has not been made by a leading critic and (2) that the cite is not an ID statement that a designer must be specifically complex. Note. When I state below that something is 'Not the argument by a leading critic' what I mean is that the person is not a leading opponent of ID AND/OR that the argument presented cannot be interpreted as saying that an uncaused causer contradicts the fundamental assumption of ID as claimed (that every specifically complex object must be designed) :*70. ``Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions: 1) Intelligent causes exist. 2) These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity).`` Access Research Network. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design. :(1)Not the argument by a leading critic :(2)Does not show that ID assumes that a designer must be specifically complex. : (Shows only that a set of specifically complex objects implies a designer) :(Can we remove this citation please) :*71. ``According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause.`` Access Research Network. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design. :(1)Not the argument by a leading critic :(2)Does not show that ID assumes that a designer must be specifically complex. : (Shows only that a set of specifically complex objects implies a designer) :(Can we remove this citation please) :*``In The Design Inference I show how inferring design is equivalent to identifying specified complexity.`` Dembski :(1)Not the argument by a leading critic :(2)Does not show that ID assumes that a designer must be specifically complex. : (Shows only that a set of specifically complex objects implies a designer) :*``As I’ve argued in The Design Inference, specified complexity (or specified improbability as I call it therethe concepts are the same) is a reliable empirical marker of actual design.`` Dembski :(1)Not the argument by a leading critic :(2)Does not show that ID assumes that a designer must be specifically complex. : (Shows only that the existence of specific complexity requires a designer) As for his claim that the argument itself is original research, there's no shortage of proof that it is a common criticism of ID: :#''``All that said, I don't see any reason to concede the premise that leads to the regress in the first place. We infer design on the basis of certain features of objects and
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,721,289
|
I was cleaning up the rest and thought I was done when I hit that para...all I have time for now is the wfy. Could go on for pages about how the DB are being preserved. Ain't nobody's fault but mine.
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,721,585
|
== Did he? == Is there any evidence that he DIDN'T kill the JFK, maybe the orignal creator was onto something after all. This all looks very dodgy to me.
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,722,199
|
` http://www.nida.nih.gov/pdf/monographs/73.pdf#search='testing%20for%20drugs' Pg 95. Dr. Chenar, the Autopsist, had failed to originally do a drug screening. His initial diagnosis of the tumor was that it was an Astrocytoma. He then started preparing the body for the autopsy. No blood or urine specimines were kept. But then this will be considered personal research. I never said ``we....``! Subwayjack`
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,752,647
|
This message is regarding the page TheWolfWeb. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. • @
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
dev
| false
|
30,753,174
|
Comments Hey people! Hope you luv my page! ~Anna~
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,768,379
|
` ::Isn't that a bit like saying ``Constantly taunting Saddam Hussein by removing him from power and saying we're in charge is a bit mean, please stop?`` You are such a hy...okay I won't go there because apparantly people hate personal attacks on here. But you're a ....well I won't go there either. Let's just say that your agenda is a total lie, and people know it. `
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,770,748
|
:::You can be such a sweety-pie sometimes. ) I do understand your concerns about having too images, but I think that most readers will appreciate the effort to make the page visually appealing (even if they don't end up being as vocal as the ones who come here to complain about it). ) -
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
dev
| false
|
30,770,770
|
` ::: Why aren't you discussing this point-by-point like I did? That's what someone with an honest content dispute would do. Why aren't you citing reliable sources for your points, point-by-point, like I did? I am sick of your one-liners and lies. Why aren't you abiding by wikipedia policies that ``content must be based on verifiable sources``; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I have gone to dispropotionate lengths to point out to you the errors of your ways. That's it. I gave you more than enough chance to get reasonable. I won't be wasting time on you anymore. .`
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,771,650
|
`Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself. You can sign your name on talk pages by using `` ~~~ `` for your username and `` ~~~~ `` for your username and a timestamp. *Welcome is a good place to start. *Wikipedia:Tutorial runs through all the basics. *Wikipedia:How does one edit a page gives editing help. *Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info. *Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now. *Wikipedia:Help covers a broad range of useful topics. *Wikipedia:Help desk is a place to ask questions. *Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving. You can also feel free to ask me a question on my . I'll answer if I'm here. Happy editing, `
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,788,331
|
::Doesn't matter you are still using it for purposes of your own sinster gains. == RFAR == I suggest you visit WP:RFAR.
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,789,096
|
I believe that you have erred in the interpretation of wikipedia policy and rights, I am contacting authorities for your non-consented use of my signature in your discussion page.
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,793,105
|
==2004 Britannica== Would you happen to still have this list anywhere? — • 2005-12-10 04:43
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
dev
| false
|
30,793,250
|
ppppssssshhh, hahaha, funny ass shit
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| true
|
30,793,313
|
Also, that whole paragraph is full of spelling and grammatical errors, and is rather badly written as well.
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,798,558
|
Wop and alot of Soul groups used B3 Hammond
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,799,692
|
The person who made the above disrespectfull entry without ANY FACT and shows his very limited knowledge of R&B; Soul groups in the mid to late 60's by claiming Doo Wop groups used Hammond B3 only in the 50's show his ignorance of not just The Parliaments during 1967/68, but also has No credibile knowledge of what the instrumentation was of Soul bands in the mid to late 60's.... people who disrespect someones postings shoud be respectful enough to leave their e-mail address to contact the person before trying to discredit their claims....My e-mail addres is available, but it's unlikely that this person who made the Ignorant comments above will contact me...These are the kind of people who discredit this very valuable reference web site...I'm not sure if you can post your e-mail address but if the above person would be so kind to contact me it's bc8972@aol.com Thank you...hope to hear from you
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,800,063
|
`OK, FYI to everyone. When you don't register w/ Wikipedia, it automatically assigns you a username. This username is yoru IP Address. Everyone who uses the same server (Such as AOL or Netscape) get the same address. So these accusations of vandalism are being directed at every single person who is unregistered and uses AOL or Netscape, like one big common mailbox. So if you haven't vandalized, the message is obviously not directed at you. See warning provided by Wikipedia: ``Attention: This IP address is registered to America Online (AOL) and is shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.`` `
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,801,700
|
== A user is reverting my own comments and signautures I deleted == Hello Gurubrahma is putting back in his dicussion page my fair comments that I chose to delete, I warned him not to revert it back but he keeps doing it. I need your knowledge and advice on what the wikipedia rule allows and disallows this practice please. Thank you
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,804,988
|
== Ulster-Scots? == This doesn't make sense at all, while the majority of Scotch-Irish settlers in Ireland lived in the Ulster province, not all of them did. For example in my ancestry there many of them came from County Longford, which is not in the Ulster province. It's not accurate to not mention those who didn't live in Ulster and those who lived in parts of Ulster no longer part of Northern Ireland, such as County Monaghan. It's also inaccurate to portray them merely as Scottish immigrants to Ireland and seperate from today's Catholic Irish, when infact there was a lot of mixing between the native Irish, English settlers, Scottish settlers and even Welsh settlers to Ireland.. so that even most Irish catholics have Scottish/English heritage originating in this era, and that many of the Protestant Immigrants to America in the 1700s and early 1800s were thoroughly mixed with the native Irish and considered themselves to be Irish. Genetically speaking there's little to differentiate between those of Scotch-Irish stock and those of Catholic Irish heritage, because they generally mixed together over the years.
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,806,261
|
== RFC: Curps, Zoe, Mysekurity, Nandesuka, vs myself and Chooserr == When you are unblocked, you're invited to go look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges to certify that there is, indeed, a major problem with this mess and that, for what it can be trusted to accomplish, the community needs to get involved.
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,806,382
|
Nandesuka, you asked for it, you can certify it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,806,794
|
Your comment is evidence of attempted intimidation. Thanks for that.
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,806,941
|
` :Chooserr has as much right to warn people as you do. Your false cognitive closure (finding one excuse for the username) does not make the name any more valid than ``but your honor, Fred Unger Charles Knowlton is my name, and those are just my initials...`` would. (P.S. I'm going to bed. You continue trying to dig yourself out of this. Write to tell us how the weather is in Beijing...)`
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,807,126
|
` ::``not addressing the issues``? I've done nothing but, and you've run around in circles avoiding your culpability. And I've already told you that your demonization of Chooserr's response to your mistreatment of him is heinous and venal. But thanks for keeping it up. The RFC will love that. Good night. Argue with yourself. You might just win at that. `
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,817,599
|
== UK Supermarket Competition Essay == I am doing an essay for my degree about competition in the UK supermarket industry. I am looking for people to comment on my work and help me find sources of information i.e. books and websites (would prefer websites) I need to some up in 2000 words what the competition in the last 20 and then 5 years of the industry was then what made it change etc. If any one has any help they can give at all please email me below (even if it just to recommend a good website) Email: woodhousescotty@hotmail.co.uk Thanks
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,818,007
|
Surely this is more a triumph of technology, rather than feats of one person? We should therefore be celebrating the technolgical and navigational advances which were the prime means of attaining this record? Controversial I know.
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,818,245
|
` In the past there was no such nation as ``Germany``. It consisted of literally hundreds of states, some kingdoms, some duchies, some simply a city. Over the centuries these states fought against each other, allied with each other, and even absorbed each other. Each state was a proper country, and so such names as ``Brandenburg``, ``Saxony``, ``Hanover`` etc defined national groupsm and cultures. It wasn't until 1871 that Gertmany became one country, and even then some regions(eg Austria) weren't invluded. Since 1871 terms like ``Hanoverian`` and ``Bavarian`` no longer refer to national identities because they're all just ``German`` or ``Deutsch``. However, if a foreign non-German people were to suddenly use the name of say 'Bavaria' as their national identity, and call their non-German language and culture ``Bavarian`` ALL Germans would take offense to it. This is something of a no-brainer. In exactly the same way, there used to be literally hundreds of separate Greek nations, varying greatly in size, power, culture, and other things. They fought both with and against eaxh other. Today however there is a single Greek state which does not include all the historical Greek lands. However if a foreign non-Greek people were to try and appropriate a regional name that is indisputably Greek(like with Nacedonia) it will understandably anger ALL Greeks. Because Macedonia was one of those hundreds of Greek regional states. What's more today more than 80 per cent of Macedon proper is within the Greek boundaries, and not FYROM's boundaries. So thus FYROM has no legitimate claim to use the name ``Macedonia``, except to describe its southern regions like Bitola and Ochrid(sp?) in a historical context....... Kurt Stein`
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,818,743
|
==Macedonian (disambiguation)== I changed only the demographics section - which I explained in the talk page, even you participated in the talks back then. I don't know who changed the history section (I haven't touched it). As for Greek Macedonians - I told you you could write anything you wish but in English it sounds more like the members of the Macedonian Slav minority in Greece rather than a regional identification of someone who has a Greek national identity...
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,832,749
|
` Wait. You're not going to block me for posting an RFC? Or did you block me just so that I couldn't go advertising the RFC on other pages where it might be relevant? See. There's the problem. As a non-admin, I am liable to be blackballed by admins, some of whom suffer from Projection (or do they merely think sophistry is administration?): *I performed no personal attacks. I made analogies between admin behavior and classical abuse of power. *I was personally attacked. No admins have been blocked. *I was not trolling. Calling me a troll is nothing but a lie designed to anger me and cause me to overreact. It's an attempt to fabricate ``evidence`` for a block. *At least one admin thinks my being called a troll is enough evidence, because now I am blocked. (And I seriously doubt any admin is reading this page). *I was not disrupting anything and I am not posting in any inappropriate manner. I was discussing the problem in the forum provided. Blocking people to stop them from winning an argument is the disruption. There are 1,7000 admins on this thing. I have no illusion that all 1,700 of them will be right all the time. The first 20 who saw Chooserr's postings may have said ``okay by me``. It's the first one who comes along who misreads the situation who causes the problem. One mistaken admin invalidates the opinions of 20 rational ones. Meanwhile, a well-meaning user is punished for doing nothing wrong, demonized in the community, and the community is thrown into dysfunction. To the point that anyone coming to their defense is treated with an egregious level of imperiousness, intimidation, sophistry, and dismissive attitude, followed by an abuse of power. Do not block me. Block Curps for failing to perform due diligence before injuring a user. Block Zoe and Mysekurity for validating and amplifying Curps' error rather than taking a skeptical attitude. Block Nandesuka for repeating the error and then attacking me for defending the oppressed individual. And block Sean Black for either deliberately or gormlessly falling for their false accusations against me. The behavior of the admins in this event is a classic abuse of power: a clique of bullies hiding their damage by increasing it. `
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,833,670
|
== evidence of more personal attacks by nandesuka == (cur) (last) Nandesuka (→Blocked - On second thought, even responding to this is pointless. You can have the last word. Enjoy it.) is the history line for this now-deleted post that followed my most recent post to this talk page: Nope, nope, still not taking the bait. I wish you good luck with all of your future endeavors that don't involve personal attacks, trolling, or general disruption. Apparently, he still considers posting the facts to be trolling.
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,845,903
|
Re:Dan Brown Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.Jay ''''''
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,853,128
|
*Oops. . I've become quite popular, haven't I..? )-
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
test
| false
|
30,854,063
|
` ==Requested move of ``Northern Low Saxon language`` to ``Northern Low Saxon``== This variety's name is unique (have a look at the pages that link there), so according to the naming guideline, there is no need for the ``language`` suffix. Additionally, removing the ``language`` suffix has the advantage of being NPOV with regard to the question whether this is an independent language or not — and of putting an end to the ridiculous current situation of a lemma called XXX language being defined as a dialect in the first sentence of the article. ― | ===Voting=== *Support. ― | ===Discussion===`
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
test
| false
|
30,854,280
|
` == Something these admins have clearly not read == It's clear from the reckless disregard shown towards Chooserr that the admins of wikipedia are failing to read the materials provided for their education. In this case the Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks page. The copy below has emphasis provided where the admins in this situation are failing: Wikipedia:Controversial blocks From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. While blocking IP addresses responsible for anonymous, clear-cut vandalism is routine, many other uses of IP and username blocks are contentious. Where consensus proves elusive, such blocks are damaging to the community. The most controversial blocks are blocks of: * suspected ``sock puppets`` or ``reincarnations`` of banned users * logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions,' regardless of the reasoning for the block * blocks made under the disruption provision of the blocking policy. * blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis. Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for | controversial blocks is: # Check the facts with care. # Reread' appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy. # If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this. # Place the block, exercising due care in the wording of the ``reason`` message, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked. # Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies. # Be willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians. Such discussion usually takes place either on the blocked user's talk page, or the administrators' noticeboard (the latter especially in those cases where it was already raised there). Block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful. They are a source of frustration and disappointment to many seasoned Wikipedians and tend to encourage further bad behavior on the part of the blocked user. Avoid them. Instead, discuss the matter, and try to reach a consensus. If no consensus has emerged after several respected Wikipedians have reviewed the matter, the user should be left unblocked. `
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,856,876
|
` Attention: This IP address, , is registered to Verizon Internet Services (Philadelphia), an Internet service provider through which thousands of individual users may connect to the internet. This IP may be randomly assigned to a different person when the current user disconnects. Warnings or messages left on this page may not be received by the intended user. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking. If you are an unregistered user operating from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. `
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,857,806
|
Your postings in the discussion simply remove any shred of credibility you might otherwise have.
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,863,792
|
Thanks heah. This is helpful. Something to consider, is that the references you pointed to – which are part of a larger list are very old and are based on work done in the early years of AIDS; also, that subsequent research has not supported the same results. The primary issue when reviewing the studies most often referenced by someone trying to link nitrites to AIDS, or more specifically to Kaposi’s sarcaoma, is that they are very weak in terms of data presented. The results have not been repeated by other scientists. In fact, within the list of referenced studies, there are contradictory results both by the same researcher and between different researchers. The general consensus in the research community, and in the HIV/AIDS community, is that although the much vaunted list of references claiming to link nitrites to HIV/AIDS may look impressive to the untrained eye, they do not support a case for a claim that nitrite use causes HIV infection or Kaposi’s sarcaoma (KS).
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,864,578
|
:I'm trying to give this page a rest for a few days, but then I see this stupid section. and , you must surely realise that you cannot impose such ban. The two of you are acting like silly schoolboys: just grow up!
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
dev
| true
|
30,864,588
|
It looks like the various links have been removed now. I would agree that if a balance cannot be established, there should be no links to any external sites. That is, there are folks on both sides of the debate, and everyone has their websites. The anti-popper folks have theirs, of which you posted one or two ealier this week, and the other side has their's, of which I posted a couple this past week. I wish I could find better sites to post, but those two are the only ones I've been able to locate. I did not mean to post a commercial site, and did not think I was posting a commercial site, since none of the sites I posted actually sold any poppers. In rereading your posts, heah, I noted that you thought the sites were commercials for poppers. I would agree that the second one could be considered such, but the allaboutpoppers.com site is not. If you actually read it, which takes a while due to the huge amount of content, you'll find it's not commercial. It's a research-based site, which gives us lots of valuable information about the history, sociology, and other aspects of the nitrite issue. I'm glad things have cooled down. Cheers!
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,865,247
|
` I've noticed that the various links have been removed now. I would agree that if a balance cannot be established, there should be no links to any external sites. That is, there are folks on both sides of the debate, and everyone has their websites. The anti-popper folks have theirs which are alarmest, much like the ``Reefer Madness`` efforts, of which you posted one or two ealier this week, and the other side has their's, of which I posted a couple this past week. I wish I could find better sites to post, but those two are the only ones I've been able to locate. I did not mean to post a commercial site, and did not think I was posting a commercial site, since none of the sites I posted actually sold any poppers. In rereading your posts, heah, I noted that you thought the sites were commercials for poppers. I would agree that some might consider the second one as such, but the allaboutpoppers.com site is not. If you actually read it, which takes a while due to the huge amount of content, you'll find it's not commercial. It's a research-based site, which gives us lots of valuable information about the history, sociology, and other aspects of the nitrite issue. I'm glad things have cooled down. `
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,866,833
|
== Blocked, but... == If you are blocked, then how come you are still able to edit your talk page??
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
dev
| false
|
30,869,333
|
Let's agree to disagree on your past behavior. Glad to learn you claim no 'ownership' over the article. I, too, claim no 'ownership' over the article. Contributions to the subject should be made by those most qualified to do so. Let's drop the personal attacks and move on to discussions relative to the merits of the information contained in the article. How about it? Those turning to Wikipedia for information deserve nothing less.
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,869,963
|
Sounds great to me! Where do you guys want to put your conspiracy link at? I know , build a page on Lavernge and link it there! You can also link your pro-life views without offending, be as pedantic as you two want to be, that is of course until you two realize that your consensus opinions are really collusion tactics to steal someone else's contributions, convert them to your views of WP rules and continuing to refer to yourselves in the first, second and third person on your own bios. Jehera, be in Austin in a few weeks, I'll drop by and we'll discuss a few things, try to keep it in the first person though! Subwayjack
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,872,736
|
:No problem I was thinking of creating yet another sockpuppet anyway. I edit those comments in question because they contain a link to a hate site wherein the subject is my person. Since none of YOU boobs will do anything about it (despite being informed repeatedly), I had to take manners into my own hands. Sue me if you don't like it, Dorothy.
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| true
|
30,873,682
|
Au contraire, this is absolutely a question of opinion; namely, yours and mine. It's interesting that, as a highly experienced Wikipedia user, who seems to relish his ability to quickly attack a newbie whose edites he does not agree with, through the use of the various nuances in Wikipedia (including your accusing me of 'vandalizing', being a 'sock puppet', and whatever ever else you could use to demean and harm my editing efforts from the very first edits I tried to make including continuously deleting my edits, and then when I innocently put them back in each time you deleted them, labeling me as violating some rule about not replenishing a page more than 3 times in 24 hours, or something like that.) that after all this, you still aren't satisfied. You falsely accuse me of some nevarious connection to a website I linked out to, which is clearly not a commercial site. Just because you tell a big lie, even over and over, does not make it true. (That trick only works for Republicans =) ) As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, and let others come to their own conclusions. I don't want to argue with you about your behavior anymore. It's not what Wikipedia is for. Let's discuss the merits of the information contained on the page we're here to talk about. Or, if you aren't an expert on this subject, and cannot make a meaningful contribution in that regard, then maybe you can move on to another subject, where you have some expertise, and let those of us who are more familiar with the subject, discuss it unhindered with your technical maneuverings. What say you? Can we lay down the hatchet and move past this?
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,874,889
|
The musket actually had a greater range than the longbow, if used in indirect fire; Hardy and Strickland gloss over this point in Great Warbow, and compare the direct fire range of the gun with the indirect range of the bow, not like with like. Supplies of suitable bowstaves also began to dwindle, making the longbow no longer a cheaply available weapon for the masses. It is also true that as armours improved and longbows had to have a greater draw-weight to achieve penetration, accuracy dropped off greatly - which is why the bows for target shooting that 19th century writers based their studies on did not exceed 50 to 70 lbs draw or so. Lastly, there would come a point where the draw-weight needed to achieve penetration exceeded that which an archer could manage. Crossbows and muskets had no such problems, though they did have others. All of these other factors are covered in Hardy and Strickland.[December 11 2005]
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
random
|
dev
| false
|
30,884,904
|
Yes Ah soooBig Dumb Object, just a bunch o hosers, give up so easily..quitters
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| true
|
30,896,972
|
The alternative term was in the summary of 9 December and was added to Pathoschild's edits of that version on 10 December.
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,898,027
|
==Dos Pueblos High School== Would you mind a look at this article (Dos Pueblos High School, Goleta, California). Thanks!
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,901,158
|
==Koreanname template== Responding to It does kind of look awkward with the Koreanname template now...
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
test
| false
|
30,903,038
|
The Australian public were vocal in their criticism of the death penalty. But did the Australian media cover the affair in a manner that was representative of public opinion or were they influencing sentiments instead? Start
| 2,005
| false
|
user
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,913,337
|
`This article is a grammatical mess. The first two paragraphs are full of redundancies and little useful information. I would use SlimVirgin’s suggestion for the first paragraph: “Ali Sina is the founder of Faith Freedom International, a site set up to help Muslims leave Islam. According to the website, Sina is himself a former Muslim, now a secular humanist of Iranian-Canadian nationality.`` And for the second paragraph I suggest the following: The name Ali Sina may be a pseudonym. (This is fact! Nowhere has he said Ali Sina is not his real name. If he has, I never saw it. Has anyone? I read somewhere he wrote that his mother named him Ali because of some Shiite credence) Sina says because of the death threats he does not wish to be filmed. Some of his opponents claim he hides his real identity because he is not an ex-Muslim. OceanSplash 11 Dec.2005 08:57 `
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,922,954
|
` == Wrong information == In the article it claims ``all 20 of the site's three million gallon capacity tanks are on fire.`` This is not correct. Both the MP for Hemel Hampstead and the poilce sercvices have said that there are more exploisions expected from so far un-affected tanks and the BBC coverage has even shown the unexploded tanks. I think it is sickening that you have inserted this misleading information into this article which details a terrible event. Shame on you!`
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,923,280
|
also mention the unexploded tanks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4517962.stm
| 2,005
| false
|
article
|
blocked
|
test
| false
|
30,926,342
|
:Well, firstly don't forget WP:CITE. Women with PCOS often have balding male relatives. So there is something there. It's probably more than just androgen levels. |
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
random
|
train
| false
|
30,933,341
|
You should consider signing up for the Censorship Board in China or Vietnam.
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,933,636
|
here in the USA, the Bush Administration's FCC board would be proud of you. You conveniently avoided answering my other question; namely, what about the removal of the edits I'd inserted in the body? What was your problem with those?
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,933,968
|
`I'm curious about this: why have you allowed the following statements on the page: `` As Kaposi's sarcoma occur in homosexual AIDS-patients 20 times more often than in non-homosexual AIDS-patients, some cofactor must be involved beyond the virus HIV itself, and poppers have been suggested as the cofactor especially in view of the fact that they are carcinogenic (Kaposi's sarcoma being a form of cancer).`` Where is the proof these statements are true? And, please, don't ask the rest of us to have to prove a negative. It's incompent upon you to defend and explain why you would allow such a statement on Wikiepedia. `
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,934,068
|
Feel free to block me. Your dictorship serves no one, but may make you feel good. Have a happy holiday.
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,934,249
|
or perhaps giddy for a day
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
dev
| false
|
30,936,219
|
` Look here you liar, you're the one out of loop and inserting nonsense, you're worse, you're a liar, and you know you are, because I have spent too much of my precious time educating you and detailing your errors, as above. Why aren't you abiding by wikipedia policies that ``content must be based on verifiable sources``; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I have demanded many times that you provide verifiable and reliable source on a point-by-point basis like I did. 16:16 11, December 2005 (UTC). :`
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| true
|
30,936,967
|
::: I refuse that. I refuse redirects from this article, and especially so given the history of strong biases shown repeatedly by those proposing such redirect. This article is about the Arabic numerals and should remain so, in particular the Arabic Western Numerals; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The Indian Numerals article should be about the Indian numerals, Devanagari and others, १, २, ३, ४, ५, ६, ७, ८, ९, and *NOT* about the Arabic numerals. I wish to redirect all those Hindu nationalist editors on this page to the Indian numerals one because it needs serious work on what should really be its topic. I have made distinction between a numeral system (Hindu-Arabic numerals) and a specific numeral script (Arabic Western, Arabic Eastern, Devanagari, etc). There should be a page for the Hindu-Arabic numerals system that makes mention and links to the various numeral scripts within it, but this Arabic Numerals article should remain to its topic. .
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,937,731
|
` ::: Shut up you liar. Why aren't you abiding by wikipedia policies that ``content must be based on verifiable sources``; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I have outlined in detail your errors and demanded that you cite verifiable and reliable sources for your claims. 051211.`
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| true
|
30,938,977
|
`: Peyna, I do not believe that they are acting in ``good faith``, and here's why; I have demanded many times that they abide by Wikipedia policies that ``content must be based on verifiable sources``; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, they have not done so. I have outlined at length and in detail their errors, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals#Vertaloni.2C_examples_of_errors_in_your_version, and elsewhere on that page. Had they been acting in ``good faith`` they would've abided by Wikipedia policies and provided verifiable, reliable sources for every claim in dispute. They sure seem to have plenty of time given how dedicated they are to a revert war. 051211. `
| 2,005
| true
|
article
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
30,950,466
|
` : Given your username and the content of your user page I do not consider you an unbiased person on this issue and I wish that you had left it to another, neutral administrator to act on this matter, especially so that other editors of that page whom I assume requested your intervention share your allegiance and were in persistent violation of wikipedia policies that ``content must be based on verifiable sources``; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and have failed to abide by those wikipedia policies despite my repeated requests in the talk pages, hence justifying my description of their demonstrable, deliberate false content as lies, and my characterisation of their conduct as lying. My so-called ``personal attacks`` on them simply characterised their conduct and does not meet wikipedia's Blocking policy's definition of ``Personal attacks which place users in danger`` provision that should be ``rarely used`` as a justification for blocking, as for ``excessive reverts`` the blocking policy clearly states that ``In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally``; have you done so? I see that you haven't as one of them has just now branded content that was painstakingly cited on a point-by-point basis to verifiable and reliable sources a ``hoax`` http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals. I will be reporting this to multiple, neutral wikipedia administrators and WikiEN-l mailing list and asking for a review of the situation. ()`
| 2,005
| true
|
user
|
blocked
|
train
| false
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.