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
34,076,472	* When blocking may not be used - Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute * You didn't warn me before you blocked me. * You did not post a note on my talk page and attempt to discuss the issue first.	2,006	true	user	blocked	test	false
34,076,665	* The content was not incivil and was relevant to the discussion. - I removed the offending picture before I posted the box. * The 3RR was not violated, I reverted back to my version once and I left a summary explaining why I was doing this.	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	false
34,077,762	== Gothic Metal and Death Rock == Nice call on the removing of metal traces in the Death Rock article. Im having similar problems with the Gothic Metal article on people with little to no knowledge of the subjects editing the article and trying to draw an association between Goth Music and Gothic Metal when there isnt one. Perhaps the Death Rock and Gothic Rock articles could do with a bit of an overhaul. Ive seen that youve edited the Death Rock article quite a bit, so i assume you know a lot about the subject. I suggest, if your willing to listen, that you read the Gothic Metal article. Firstly so you better understand what it is, and secondly so you can work better with it, and its contents, on drawing the big black line (or pink if you prefer) that divides the two by a long way. I call out to you as a fellow editor of articles, simply because i do not know enough about Goth Rock or Death Rock to compently edit them, mainly due to my work and association in the metal scene. This im sure we can build some form of a bridge, even if that bridge is to eleborate on the seperation of the two cultures.	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	false
34,081,023	` Now that I'm unblocked, I can post my reply to you. You are again using the same tactics you used a few weeks ago, in an apparent effort to censor me, and to prevent me from trying to improve this page by adding more credible information. Immediately after challenging me this last time, you had me blocked so that I could not respond. One wonders what you are afraid of. You appear to fit the profile of those who use sneaky maneuvers to block people or to otherwise prevent edits containing information you disagree with, from ever seeing the light of day on Wikipedia. As reported on CNN and ABC last month, these tactics are why Wikipedia has been attacked so much lately, and why it's being taken less and less seriously as time goes on. Such behavior is slowly turning Wikipeidia into a bit of a joke, and has helped diminish it's once significant potential for good. Your attempts at censorship reminds one of the scene in a movie years ago where a person who was about to be exposed on the front pages of their local newspaper, got up early the morning it was to be delivered, and ran through their neighborhood picking up all their neighbors' papers, in the misplaced belief that their neighbors would never learn the truth that was on the front page of that morning's paper. Interestingly, rather than trying to support your allegations of danger and harmfulness with solid facts and evidence, you and others who share a common point of view that poppers are bad, continue to attack those who actually possess a high level of knowledge about these compounds. If you don't like what people with whom you do not agree try to post, rather than debating from a position of solid facts and underlying supporting documentation, you try to 'shoot the messenger'. For example, in addition to your maneuvers to block me and prevent me from replying to your attacks or to post edits with accurate and clarifying information on nitrites/poppers, you attack me by implying that my screen name, 'Allabout' means I sell poppers. You are wrong. You also imply that I am ``associated with http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/``. Again, you are wrong. However, I happen to agree with those who say that the 'All About Poppers' site contains a great deal of credible information, supported with solid evidence. I've spent a great deal of time reading the site, and digging into the information presented there. I know of other similarly credible popper sites, as well. Would you say I am ``associated`` with them, too? As the record clearly shows, over the past few weeks, you and others (Some of whom may be one in the same, perhaps using proxy servers to mask true identities to try to avoid being charged with sock puppetry), have engaged in an ongoing effort to prevent myself and others, with whom you do no agree on the subject of nitrites and poppers, from contributing to this page with some of our knowledge. That is wrong, and you know it. (I note that, today, you have somehow successfully removed/erased the history that was showing up on the site's 'history' page. This history showed the ``summary`` comments for various edits. It now appears you've allowed it back in.) You say, ``just tell me: If this is all wrong and misleading.......``. I have not said ``this is all wrong and misleading``. There is information on this page which is accurate, and there's information on this page which is not accurate. But, when someone who is knowledgeable makes an effort to correct the inaccuracies on the page, they have been attacked with ongoing and relentless efforts to try to prevent their edits from remaining on the page. The record is very clear in that regard. (Again, as anyone can see, you have removed or erased the history for this page up until two reverts you did late on Jan 4, 2006) You ask me ``why did you use this disclaimer``. I wondered if those of you who have put up such a resistance to having more accurate information posted on this nitrites/poppers page, might have some personal hang ups or prejudices about some of the people whom they perceive as primarily using poppers recreationally. Are you homophobic? Opposed to consenting adults making informed decisions about whether or not to have fun and take pleasure from something you may not agree with? Anti-drug crusaders? Feel obliged to fight ``sin`` and ``pleasure`` wherever you find it, perhaps based on some deeply held religious beliefs? Or simply just believe that if you give people information, no matter how accurate it may be, that might indicate poppers may not be as harmful as some would like us to believe, that people will flock to them, and that somehow the end of the world will appear? Much as in ``Reefer Madness``? The disclaimer was meant to try to appease those fears. Unlik	2,006	false	article	blocked	train	false
34,086,824	` :::::::::Oh Mark, for shame! Why lie? I didn't get banned from the Clitoris article for any such thing. I didn't get banned from it at all. I was banned from removing the picture that upset several editors. You pretended you had a ``unanimous`` ``consensus`` then too. I didn't constantly run any polls. That's a downright lie too. Why would I? I don't think polls demonstrate consensus and I oppose their use to settle content disputes. I've expressed that view many, many times. The dispute on clitoris in fact centred around a group of editors who were bullying minority-view editors because they had won a vote. They largely refused to discuss the salient issues because, they believed, they had won a vote and that was that. (Careful Tony Sidaway watchers will note that on Talk:Clitoris he was insistent that winning a vote was the same as having a consensus but on Talk:something about B roads, he had changed his tune and thought that votes were evil. Like most of the people who voted here, it's one rule when it fits your POV, another when it doesn't.) This title is shockingly POV. That you can line up a bunch of editors who share the POV that it pushes to vote and say no it's not doesn't actually not make it so, but I've given up trying to get editors to accept that the proZionist stance that is so common in your home country is not actually ``neutral``. I advise the other editors here that their commitment to NPOV will not be rewarded, because it simply is not shared by everyone here. `	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,106,755	` ==To Bomac== The Bitola Inscription was officially recognised as authentic in former Yugoslavia (although late as its existence was concealed for obvious reasons for nearly a decade) and is the subject of a number of research books there. Trying to include in the article tabloid theories questioning its authenticity when even your own country has acknowledged the authenticity has nothing to do with NPOV and in wiki language is called ``trolling``. As for the discrepancy in the names, check again your sources: Bulgarian in old Bulgarian (Preslav Literary School) is and has always been ``блъгарин``, ``болгарин`` is Church Slavonic, dear. Please, don't occupy us with popular myths circulating in nationalistic circles in the Republic of Macedonia. `	2,006	true	article	blocked	dev	false
34,110,216	` ==Unjustified protection of an article== I would like to get an explanation as to why the article Bulgarian vocabulary was blocked by you after repeatedly moved the content of the article Bulgarian lexis to the new name, Bulgarian vocabulary, without justification and without giving a plausible reason for that. Let's look at the meanings of the two words in the first online dictionary I came upon (it happened to be wordreference [www.wordreference.com ]): Vocabulary: (1)a language user's knowledge of words. (2)the system of techniques or symbols serving as a means of expression (as in arts or crafts); ``he introduced a wide vocabulary of techniques. (3)a listing of the words used in some enterprise Lexis: (1)all of the words in a language. (2) all word forms having meaning or grammatical function: As the article refers to the whole body of words in the Bulgarian language, I would like to ask you: which word refers better to the meaning of the article, vocabulary or lexis? Don't tell me - because the dictionary has already stated it explicitly, it is lexis!!! In view of the above, could I get an explanation as to why, you, in your capacity of administrator, have sided with an editor in order to institutionalise a wrongful edit? I would like to ask you to remove the protection of the article or give me a very reasonable explanation as to why this protection has been effected in the first place and as to why, since it institutionalised a wrongful edit, which wreaks damage to the overall understanding of the article, continues to be in place. I don't think it is proper and adequate of an administrator to side with an user and I will contact other administrators so that measures compliant with Wikipedia policies can be taken against the wrongful steps taken by you and . `	2,006	true	user	blocked	test	false
34,114,427	Actually these pair are two of my more keen articles. Consensus also doesnt lean in your favour. You want an explanation? You got it, ill keep it relativly simple and blunt: * Alternative Metal is two coined name. * One usage of the term refers to bands within the Nu Metal genre, that forsake large quantities of Hip Hop influence and instead draw influence from Metal Genres and Alternative Rock Genres. A similar name to define between Nu Metal bands that use heavy hip hop influence is 'Rap Metal'. * The second usage of the term is relative to metal bands that do unorthodox things in their music, normally not akin to metal genres. These bands are also known as Avantgarde metal bands. Actually, in writing that, i came up with a better soloution. Merge the Alternative Metal page's contents into the Nu Metal page. Then on the Alternative Metal page, write what i just put, in a more descriptive and defined manner. That actually solves the problem for the most part. As for sources, then you would that the general metal community doesnt use the genre Alternative Metal. As seen, it is used to refer to bands across genres. Similar usage of these names are Epic Metal, and Dark Metal. They are used to associate bands due to one commonality, even though they all belong to different genres. So i still agree with the idea of merging. But slightly changed, to merge the page's contents into the article, and then explain what the term endoes, as i mentioned above.	2,006	true	article	random	train	false
34,119,212	Shamir replies: there is no reason (but a racist one) to call Boris Pasternak and Osip Mandelstam - 'Jews', as they were Christians, and Pasternak was born to Christian parents. Ditto Eisenstein, ditto Rubinstein, while Plisetskaya and Vertov were not of Jewish origin, either.	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,119,954	Manic Street Preachers can't possibly be classified as Britpop, not that it isn't British and not that it isn't pop, but it simply doesn't fit in with the kind of music Blur and Pulp and Suede make.	2,006	false	article	blocked	train	false
34,122,689	edit this page any further.	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	false
34,126,057	Shamir adds: EXPO and Monitor are open about being on the payroll of ADL. None denies this fact. Searchlight describes itself as 'a Jewish magazine'. Roland Rance was described by the well known writer Gilad Atzmon as 'Jewish ethnic activist'. These facts are relevant.	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,133,101	==Islamist Terrorism== Your help at that page would be appreciated, there are a number of islamist edit warriors who continually revert sourced material.	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	false
34,139,706	`It isn't the Future Farmers of America anymore... as such, the main article for the FFA should NOT be titled Future Farmers of America... rather, the ``National FFA Organization```	2,006	false	article	random	dev	false
34,156,840	This article seems to be just a dictionary definition... Any reason it has NOT been deleted? picklebarrel	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,158,701	[[[comment]]] this article appears to be nothing but a dictionary definition, is there any reason the article has NOT been put up for deletion?	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,160,255	[[[comment]]] I feel these images are a bit too graphic for research purposes and seem to fall into the catagory of fetish images. There is certainly no reason to show the actual vagina unless to show what a camel toe is. It seems more that this is a case of WANTING to show vagina	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,163,101	` Answers: There is no ``other`` feminine member. The only feminine Organization Member is Larxene. End of story. Roxas IS No. 13 and this is 100% confirmed as the GAME states. End of story again.`	2,006	false	article	blocked	train	false
34,163,270	Answers: Roxas' isn't the BHK name? The GAME says otherwise. You fail. Roxas is his name. Period.	2,006	false	article	blocked	dev	false
34,163,428	Answers: EM is No. 1 and Xemnas and The Superior. Yet to hear or see this conformation? Play the frikkin' game smart guy.	2,006	false	article	blocked	train	false
34,163,559	Answers: His name is Xigbar as the Ultimania ALPHA states and his original name was Braig.	2,006	false	article	blocked	test	false
34,166,058	it would seem to be that lableing Nambla along with LGBT is the equivilant of lableing the Ku Klusx Klan a christian group. While the subsets certainly claim to hold the intrest of the larger group as reasons basis for its ideals, both christianity and Gay/lesbian groups largely distance themselves from those ideals, and do not wish to be associated with these subsets at all	2,006	true	article	blocked	test	false
34,175,422	`Welcome! Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ==:Image:Woffineye4.JPG has been listed for deletion== {\| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style=``background-color: #E1F1DE`` \|- \| An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Woffineye4.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. \|} ==:Image:Woffineye1.JPG has been listed for deletion== {\| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style=``background-color: #E1F1DE`` \|- \| An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Woffineye1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. \|} ==:Image:Woffin1.JPG has been listed for deletion== {\| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style=``background-color: #E1F1DE`` \|- \| An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Woffin1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. \|} `	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,175,725	Link titleMedia:Example.oggInsert non-formatted text hereMedia:Example.ogg == Headline text == link titleItalic textBold text	2,006	false	article	blocked	train	false
34,178,566	: The site claims it's under GPL. I don't see downloads for it on the [homepage], which means to get the source you need to email them and request it. However it looks like it's written in PYTHON, so perhaps the installers install a python interpreter and you can just view the program scripts in the install dir.	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,179,385	` The only ``major controversy`` is that on this Wikipedia page, the denialists, such as Duesberg and his followers, those whose ramblings are linked out to from this page, and who have had their long-disputed and dismissed theories and misinformation floating around on he web for many years, were being used as the sole source of 'credible' information on the larger controversy around AIDS and poppers until I happened upon it. From the first edit I made, I was almost immeditely reversed, and edited. Within hours of that first contribution, I was being threatened and censored. Ultimately, I was blocked, charged with violating unknown-to-me 'rules' of Wikipedia, and otherwise censored, and rendered unable to contribute. And, that, gentlemen, is what I've been complaining about for the past month here on Wikipedia. It would be much better if the Wikipedians, with their vast experience of computer knowledge, particularly as it relates to being able to master Wikipedia, would stand aside and let those of us who actually have knowledge about the subject of nitrites and poppers make meaningful contributions to this page. However, I suspect that will not be allowed to happen. I say this based on my personal experience over the past month here, and based on the news accounts last month on CNN, ABC Nightly News, and elsewhere, which revealed that Wikipedia was being ruined by those who practice the same kind of censorhip and harrassment that I've been subjected to. `	2,006	false	article	blocked	train	false
34,179,648	` === Misleading Image === The character 永 only has five strokes, not eight, and is indexed that way in dictionaries. The middle vertical stroke is performed with one motion. The leading dot occurs by the landing of the brush on the medium, and the final ``tick`` is performed by flicking up and to the left. It's misleading to explain this as three separate, overlapping strokes without additional explanation. Similarly, the left stroke is just one motion also. A stroke isn't a necessarily a straight line. It is a congtiguous motion performed without lifting the pen or brush.`	2,006	false	article	random	test	false
34,180,855	== Joel == For the last time, Joel never was or is married now!	2,006	false	article	blocked	train	false
34,181,986	This message is regarding the page Nudity. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or 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 to our encyclopedia. Thanks. ()	2,006	true	user	random	test	false
34,184,602	== Good article, but too polish... == Hi! I have been read the WHOLE article and find it very good written and well documented, but at last, not very objetive. I suppose it was written for a fan (or a group of fans) so it feels so very comfortable, very kind with the group and in my particular opinion, their last years (from 2000 to the present day) are very objetable. Why? because May & Taylor becomes a pretty pair of vampires. One thing is put all the music in new audio formats, launch DVD's with concerts and videos and other, go on tour with another singer exploding the nostalgic feelings of the Queen Fans. I love Queen, but i can't stand to see him on a gig without Freddie!!! And of course, all the histories had their dark sides ... and Queen's history, of course, are not the exception. So in order be honest and objective, i think it will be nice to put these things on the article, whitout rubbish and press sensacionalism ... Best regards	2,006	true	article	random	train	false
34,186,130	fisrt, ANYONE WHO BELEIVES THIS CRAP IS A FOOL	2,006	true	article	blocked	dev	true
34,193,470	- IM BLOCKED BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	2,006	true	user	blocked	test	true
34,194,655	I MADE UP MY MIND, IM GOING TO ERASE IT.	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,198,748	` == plagiarism == well, i thought nothing could induce me to log in once again as SaltyPig. two facts are amusing and ultimately pathetic about 's claims above regarding my (63.28.75.180, et al) writing, ``...frankly, your moronic language lends no credance to anything you say regarding this or any other historical subject.`` ===relevant facts=== ====one==== he writes on his user talk page, ``OKAY <, I now have a written source for my citations on the on the lack of legal authority to murder bonnie parker. I was printed, an article i wrote after extensive research, on a reputatble history site http://www.redriverhistorian.com/mcglothlin2.html http://www.redriverhistorian.com/mcglothlin1.html NOW, WILLYOU RECONSIDER, AND LET ME SAY THERE WERE NO LEGAL GROUNDS TO KILL BONNIE PARKER? IT IS A WRITTEN, VERIFIABLE SOURCE, ON A REPU LE SITE.`` ====two==== significant portions of ``his`` article were lifted directly from a version of wikipedia's Bonnie and Clyde article, of which i wrote ~90%. ===comparison=== it starts off with minor lifting, then gets much worse. stay with it: wikipedia: Bonnie Elizabeth Parker was born October 1, 1910, in Rowena, Texas, the second of three children. oldwindybear: Bonnie Elizabeth Parker was born October 1, 1910, in Rowena, Texas, the second of three children. wikipedia: She married Roy Thornton on September 25, 1926, but the pairing was short-lived. oldwindybear: She married Roy Thornton on September 25, 1926, but that lasted less than a year. wikipedia: Noted for homesickness throughout her short adult life, she longed to be near her mother, Emma Parker.' oldwindybear: 'Bonnie was homesick her short adult life, and yearned to be close to her mother, to whom she was devoted. wikipedia: Although he was sentenced to 5 years in prison shortly thereafter, they never divorced, and Bonnie was wearing Thornton's wedding ring when she died. oldwindybear: In 1929, her husband was arrested, and he was sentenced to five years in prison shortly thereafter. But they never divorced, and Bonnie was wearing Thornton's wedding ring when she died. wikipedia: Clyde ``Champion`` Chestnut Barrow was born on March 24, 1909 (perhaps 1910, according to some reputable sources^ ), in Ellis County, Texas, near Telico (just south of Dallas). He was the fifth of seven children in a poor farming family. Clyde was first arrested in late 1926, after running when police confronted him over a rental car he'd failed to return on time. His second arrest, with brother Buck Barrow, came soon after — this time for possession of stolen goods (turkeys). In both of these instances there is the remote possibility that Clyde acted without criminal intent. However, despite holding down ``square`` jobs during the period 1927 through 1929, he also cracked safes, burgled stores, and stole cars. Known primarily for robbing banks, he preferred smaller jobs, robbing grocery stores and filling stations at a rate far outpacing the ten to fifteen bank robberies attributed to him and the Barrow gang. oldwindybear: ''Clyde ``Champion`` Chestnut Barrow was born on March 24, 1909 (perhaps 1910, according to some reputable sources), in Ellis County, Texas, near Telico (just south of Dallas). He was the fifth of seven children in a poor farming family. Clyde was first arrested in late 1926, after running when police confronted him over a rental car he had failed to return on time. His second arrest, with brother Buck Barrow, came soon after , for stealing turkeys! In both of these instances there is the possibility that Clyde acted without criminal intent, especially the second – the family was hungry. However, despite holding down ``square`` jobs during the period 1927 through 1929, he also supposedly did a number of breakins, and car thefts. Known primarily in the media for robbing banks, he preferred smaller jobs, robbing grocery stores and filling stations at a rate far outpacing the ten to fifteen bank robberies attributed to	2,006	true	article	blocked	dev	false
34,198,961	:relevant information here.	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,203,582	== RM for Yom Kippur War == Thanks for the note. Frankly, it's a waste of time. The POV you are opposing is so entrenched here as to be considered neutral. Those who hold it simply can't see that it is a POV at all. I noticed that Mark Pellegrini (Raul) has mischaracterised me, which is something he does with his enemies, so I put him straight, and left some comments for the usual suspects, but that's all I think it's worth. You just can't change those people's minds and they will outnumber any support you are able to get. They don't feel any dissonance in their views and even pointing it out to them carefully doesn't work.	2,006	true	user	blocked	dev	false
34,207,937	== Sea level rise == Hi - seems your edits got mixed up in the recent bout of reverting at Sea level rise, sorry 'bout that. Anyway, could you please expand on your incorrect information deletions a bit on the talk page there to clarify any potential misunderstandings by other editors. Thanks,	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,215,827	== Just wondering == Are you who I think you are?	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	false
34,217,804	== TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography == Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you.	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,218,159	I think the David Letterman argument is fine, however one must ask whether to highlight particular disputes at all is relevant as the entire document highlights nothing but contentious issues...however I beileve Bill Oreilly likes to be in contentious issues. As to the specifics of why I erased it....you provided no dispute quotations taken from Bill Oreilly. He had some zingers that nailed Dave hard what was chosen was the weakest of his points vs the strongest of lettermans... Rewrite it. Oreilly's comment about not calling people who blow up innocent women and children on his show as a devestating blow to Letterman and a clear clever and concise statement.	2,006	false	user	blocked	test	false
34,220,184	Proton Emission in Carbon-14 formation? According to other wiki pages, Carbon-14 is formed by thermal neutron (0.025 eV) absorption by the nucleus of Nitrogen-14 and the emission of a proton. Is this also considered a beta decay proton emission, or is there some other process involved? What is the energy of the emitted proton?	2,006	true	article	random	dev	false
34,222,275	`, a section which i had written most of, if i recall correctly. ===conclusion=== oldwindybear was using an article plagiarizing major portions from me to serve as verification of his historical credentials, so that he could insert POV into something else written by me — the same guy he's written of above, ``...frankly, your moronic language lends no credance to anything you say regarding this or any other historical subject.`` if that's the case, he'd better get busy deleting ``his`` article! ROFL ===please=== i haven't the heart to participate in this article anymore, but would somebody please revert the POV at least oldwindybear inserted? i put in my time. surely there's a knowledgeable B&C; freak out there who can at least stand guard for a while, if not improve the article from even its pre-vandalism state. ==note to oldwindybear== before you insert your allegations once again (hopefully somewhere that doesn't break up my signed comment), you may want to consider some immutable truths which i hoped you would have noticed before launching the terribly wrong rant i just removed from within my signed comments. (unlike you, i do not want somebody else's words attributed to me): the version i quoted above as ``wikipedia`` in the comparison is entirely from UTC. you claim to have contributed to the article as and . the first edit by in the article was UTC. the first edit by in the article was UTC. *therefore, you did not write a single word of the article version in the comparison above. please take a moment to let that sink in: you did not write a single word of the article version in the comparison above. you also misapprehend the definition of plagiarism. it has nothing to do with copyright. you used entire blocks of words of other authors (primarily me), and credited yourself as the author. that is plagiarism. though my initial contributions to the article are readily viewable in the history (and later as another user and several IPs), i want to steer away from the ``i wrote x amount`` aspect, because the article was and is a collaborative effort. the troubling part, not only for me, but also for the owner of the site to which you submitted ``your`` article, is that you used whole blocks from a wikipedia article to which you contributed not a single word, and not only put your name to it, but did not even cite wikipedia as a source. contrary to the fraudulent hiding of your sources while merely peppering whole blocks of material you stole, i did write the actual unquoted prose in my contributions myself, while citing clearly all of my sources. despite your assertion, the version you stole from stated explicitly, ``Known primarily for robbing banks, he preferred smaller jobs, robbing grocery stores and filling stations at a rate far outpacing the ten to fifteen bank robberies attributed to him and the Barrow gang.`` as with everything else in the wikipedia side of the comparison, none of that is your writing. neither, as has been raised and explained several times already, were you the first in this article to raise the issue of legality with regard to the killing of bonnie parker. this has all been explained. please do not bully other users into holding your hand. take a moment. review the article history. review the discussion. slow down and pay attention. in short, there isn't a leg to stand on if attempting to rebut my charge of plagiarism. you did not arrive on the scene until over 2 months had passed from when the version in the comparison was written. i'll say again: you did not contribute a single syllable to it. yet you lifted whole sections from it, changing very little — in some cases none — and put your name to it. that, sir, is the very definition of plagiarism, and it doesn't matter whether i or any other editor wrote the source material you took; you wrote none of it. the partial copying at the beginning (which you picked out to rebut) was what i already labeled as only ``minor lifting``. be honest. it gets far worse. it gets embarrassingly worse. please don't try to fabricate stories which anybody poring through the history can instantly recognize as vapor. the sad part is that the entire facade of ``your article`` was as an excuse for you to insert even more POV into articles. if you don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. after so many people have tried explaining them to you, perhaps wikipedia isn't the plac	2,006	true	article	blocked	dev	false
34,224,753	: They made a joke on the show that she would be an excellent replacement for Richard Hammond, citing that she was a better driver, better looking, and taller.	2,006	false	article	blocked	train	false
34,224,934	` ::this isn't a personality fashion show. it's about articles — articles into which you attempted to insert your POV through the use of your ``authority`` demonstrated by an article allegedly written by you. you can (and will, i'm sure!) bring up 5 million subjects other than that, but reality doesn't bear out your claims. for example, this link demonstrates the material i added in only a 5 day period during june 2005. see all that new material on the right? i added every word. think that doesn't constitute the bulk of the article? well, it doesn't matter, does it? what matters is that you didn't write any of the material you stole for your attempt to pull a fast one on katefan. have something more to say? take it up with somebody who edits articles here still. i don't. i left because material i worked very hard on got trashed, and i often ended up spending hours educating coddled morons (explained in detail above). then today i find out my work was also stolen and thwacked with your name! ROFL. icing on the cake! well, it didn't work. ``your article`` is in the bit bucket, so apparently somebody else (somebody you apparently respected — yesterday anyway) also thought you stole the material for the article. `	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	true
34,231,457	The vote has concluded, and the result was no consensus. The page remains.	2,006	true	article	blocked	dev	false
34,245,723	`::That's a terrible argument against astrology; ``scientific process`` has changed drastically over the centuries. There was a time when astrology was just as much of a science as astronomy or physics. It is not a science anymore because it has been wholly rejected by the scientific community (because, to way way oversimplify, it has been falsified). But I've been tracking through Theodore7's edits, and he's been making drastic or subtle changes to a whole range of astrology-related articles, and usually calling them minor edits, with no discussion. I found him because he changed almost every instance of ``astronomer`` to ``astrologer`` in Kepler. Theo, please realize that your strategy of replacing information is making other editors very frustrated. Instead, you should add sections, wholly in your own words and explicitly referenced, about your positions in each article you are interested in (preferably on the talk pages, first). Then we can discuss your work and sort what is accepted by consensus from what the majority considers to violate NPOV. `	2,006	true	article	random	train	false
34,246,219	== Requests for arbitration == I'll comment wherever seems appropriate. You can then refactor to whatever makes you happy. That's how a wiki works. Happy editing!	2,006	true	user	blocked	test	false
34,249,381	==Reply to vandal Wakkeenah== To all the vandals and so called just administrators, the air dates are minor problems, the facts and details surrounding Reeves suicided are not being written well enough, as everybody else is reporting, the fact that Reeves was to fight Moore next day, is also being reverted, this is pure vandalism. As far as spelling goes by Vesa or Projects or whoever, well, if you keep on repeating yourself and have no time, some spelling errors might occur, but it's not the spelling that counts but content which is being vandalised by so called just users and administrators of this so called just wikipedia. And it is obvious wahkeenah has some personal interest in this, proof: All over internet we have Reeves' death explained in detail and possible people involved, but over here he is taking everything down, the idiotic administratotors are reversing it, thus making themselves look stupid and ignorant by not realizing the historical facts.	2,006	false	article	blocked	dev	false
34,249,527	` ==Kept at Bay== As long as it takes, we are here to stay. :: a.k.a. (among others) can't even get the air dates right, and the rest is a POV that is well-covered in the interesting book I cited, Hollywood Kryptonite. ``These`` users also cannot write proper English, which is what gives away that ``they`` are the same user, despite ``their`` denials. ==Reply to vandal Wakkeenah== To all the vandals and so called just administrators, the air dates are minor problems, the facts and details surrounding Reeves suicided are not being written well enough, as everybody else is reporting, the fact that Reeves was to fight Moore next day, is also being reverted, this is pure vandalism. As far as spelling goes by Vesa or Projects or whoever, well, if you keep on repeating yourself and have no time, some spelling errors might occur, but it's not the spelling that counts but content which is being vandalised by so called just users and administrators of this so called just wikipedia. And it is obvious wahkeenah has some personal interest in this, proof: All over internet we have Reeves' death explained in detail and possible people involved, but over here he is taking everything down, the idiotic administratotors are reversing it, thus making themselves look stupid and ignorant by not realizing the historical facts.`	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	false
34,249,558	` :: a.k.a. (among others) can't even get the air dates right, and the rest is a POV that is well-covered in the interesting book I cited, Hollywood Kryptonite. ``These`` users also cannot write proper English, which is what gives away that ``they`` are the same user, despite ``their`` denials. ==Reply to vandal Wakkeenah== To all the vandals and so called just administrators, the air dates are minor problems, the facts and details surrounding Reeves suicided are not being written well enough, as everybody else is reporting, the fact that Reeves was to fight Moore next day, is also being reverted, this is pure vandalism. As far as spelling goes by Vesa or Projects or whoever, well, if you keep on repeating yourself and have no time, some spelling errors might occur, but it's not the spelling that counts but content which is being vandalised by so called just users and administrators of this so called just wikipedia. And it is obvious wahkeenah has some personal interest in this, proof: All over internet we have Reeves' death explained in detail and possible people involved, but over here he is taking everything down, the idiotic administratotors are reversing it, thus making themselves look stupid and ignorant by not realizing the historical facts.`	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	true
34,252,747	`again, little of that is relevant, whether true or not, including the ridiculous allegation of a ``tantrum`` (whatever the size). personal talk is to be avoided on article talk pages, so i won't comment further on your ``degree`` issues. i encourage you though, if you've time, to consider reviewing the article history and perhaps noting who it was that first raised the issue of legality with regard to the killing of bonnie parker. if too busy for that, maybe you could at least revisit my comments above — especially the one in which i say that i agree with you that she was murdered. i'm confused by your apparent fabrication of a conflict here when none exists except with respect to what can be stated factually in the article. let me spell it out for you: as far as that goes, you're arguing a point with somebody who not only agrees with you, but has stated so explicitly from the outset. that's a good indicator that my problem with your edits is wikipedia-related, not opinion-related. please let the personality side go and concentrate on editing in an encyclopedic fashion. thanks. Since I am back reediting this article, you are right, personality differences should play no role but facts should. Wikipedia exists as a limitless repository of facts, and the facts of Bonnie;s legal status are well known and need to be published. I think we agree on the facts, we just need to put this article in more professional form.OLDWIINDYBEAR12/12/05 I feel my edits are well and professionally done, in an encyclopedic fashion. As to the Bonnie Parker matter, we agree she was murdered, so it was merely finding language that was appropriate. I felt mine was, you disagreed, such is life. I still find your mode of discussion offensive, but frankly, we both have better things to do than bandy semantics, so have a nice evening. OLDWINDYBEAR == RfC discussion == == Hikaru Utada song? == The song ``B&C;`` by Japanese pop singer Hikaru Utada names ``Bonnie and Clyde`` in its lyrics. Is this too obscure to be a relevant pop culture reference? Lyrics can be found here. :nothing wrong with popping it in to see if it stays. i don't think it's any more obscure than other stuff there. == why wikipedia ultimately sucks == it requires perpetual vigilance if your effort's not to be wasted. can't walk away from solid ground, job done. this article was stable, and it's now being degraded regularly by wannabe newspaper editorialists and overt point makers, using the ``note insertion`` method (do a POV jig here, thrust another there). it's like watching a dog wander a field to lift his leg whenever something catches his nose. inserting sentences here and there is the laziest, most worthless ``editing`` one can do. may as well use a red sharpie. but i'm not touching this article; have at it. convert the investment of many good editors into your pee ground, forcing them either to acquiesce, or follow some snot nose around with kleenex, preserving a precious syllable as able (``look, johnny, you pooped out a syllable that we kept!``), arguing for 5 hours with a dull gasbag in the process. idiocy. and probably some officious prig will wipe this comment (``NPA! NPA!``), while leaving the infantile changes to the article intact. the usual wikipedia hack elevation story slackers welcomed and coddled, good editors slapped on the hand like ignorami for being pissed about the slackers and not pretending we're in a group therapy session. while that's the policy, official or not, the material's gonna blow. enjoy! wikipedia will either restrict access or fail. :please take the time to review this page's history, and notice that within two minutes of me leaving the comment above, an admin had swooped in, also leaving an inappropriate comment on my user page! too poetic. meanwhile, look at the article. aren't the articles the reason for the superstructure? correction to what i wrote above: the laziest, most worthless ``editing`` one can do is NPA/language babysitting and control-freaking. wikipedia admin culture is laughably inept. this article was hammered all month, and did you see admins fretting so? not a chance. what a disaster this place is. nanny-boo bureaucrats with jangly key rings. i'm the one who expanded this article from a good stub, with the aux help of probably 5-7 other editors (now gone), and i, not the vandals, am being told, quite paternalistically, to take my comments to the sandbox! unreal incompetence. did you see the admins jumping in on the RfC i started above? not one. but say ``sucks`` somewhere, and they're falling over one another to g	2,006	true	article	blocked	test	false
34,266,293	(second level warning) >	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,299,572	Sorry for that email bikeable, I was wicked tired. I had been up programming for 20 hours and was pretty frustrated and unfamiliar with wikipedias modification guidelines. I was just trying to get the facts straight and wasn’t sure why people kept changing it back.	2,006	true	article	blocked	dev	false
34,308,477	== QUESTION? == I have fixed the article countless times (REMAGINE). Made it so it doesnt read like an add and more of and informational page but yet the advertisment tag keeps being added. what gives?	2,006	true	user	blocked	test	false
34,315,341	* Since when do definitions or encyclopedia entries speak from opinion rather than factual information? It should be from a neutral point, its defining the truth.	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	false
34,315,729	Believe me, I would love to contribute to this system, but my first experience has not been a pleasant one. My first impression is seeing wikipedia as a dictatorship. Thanks	2,006	true	user	blocked	test	false
34,317,545	` ==Newcastle Today== ``and the Hunter Valley's ongoing role in coal, aluminium and lead production.`` - The Hunter Valley no longer produces lead. The Pasminco Cockle Creek smelter was officially closed on 12 September 2003. I'm going to change this. ( )`	2,006	true	article	random	train	false
34,326,813	:::Seeing how it is written in python i wouldn't download it in the first place. GUI python apps are a complete and utter failure.	2,006	true	article	blocked	test	false
34,328,588	It looked much better before editors unhappy with the AfD vote decided to hack it to pieces.	2,006	true	article	blocked	test	false
34,328,752	A name change seems a little premature - this article has suddenly gained quite a few editors, and ought to be allowed to mature for a moment or two. I think we've already had enough fun at AfD for now, and can focus on improving this article.	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,328,851	:::I think there are more compelling reasons to lose confidence in Wikipedia than this article. If you think it could stand some improvement, jump right in.	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,329,529	== Edited for Brevity? == It appears that the merge discussion has been made moot by some zealous editing. I think it would be wise to avoid gutting this article, as it will probably be needed once the Neo-Fascism article exceeds ideal length. Hopefully we can get this all sorted out without a whole lot more trouble.	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,343,442	` ==Warning about Censorship== Most of the links I added to Yechi article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yechiexcept one were not to my sites and truth is my sites are not commercial sites and the link to one of my pages contained valueble info related to the subject but since you insist I replaced it to the link to that same video on 770live.com without my comments under it I hope this will make you very happy that I have observed every detail of Wiki rules. Now go make a Didan Notzach farbrengen with your friends about this amazing development:-) PS. By the way your intention to ``simply enforce Wiki rules`` was once again proven when you didn't simply remove that one link you had problem with but reversed the whole article with all the added info and gave this as an excuse. May the Rebbe-Almighty send refua shleima to all of his Chassidim who wish to protect Him from the spread of his holy teachings... Yechi Yehovah Tsidkeinu! `	2,006	true	user	blocked	dev	false
34,347,319	` :please stop threatening. you're throwing weight around in a way that mixes your admin power with that of a user, elevating your ``opinion`` above that of others. you have no right to do so. do you think you're better than me? if so, you're wrong. please stop addressing me as a child because you're an admin, when i freely, unilaterally removed the entire expose of OWB as a plagiarist. was it relevant to the article and important to post temporarily? it absolutely was, because he was attempting to use his external ``article`` to gain POV power, and he has been about as disruptive to the article as anybody could be. that he still claims he didn't claim a ``single sentence`` of the article as his own work shows quite clearly what you're dealing with. however, because he's not an overt vandal, his hand is held indefinitely. enough. :have you considered the damage done by treating two different people as equally at fault in a given situation? i have noticed this before from you directly, katefan, and i'd appreciate it very much if you would at least examine it (once more, if you have already). the result is the discouragement of wikipedia's biggest asset: editors who leave material that will last. i am not your inferior, so please don't treat me as such. if you want to spend hours creating and encouraging editors who bring us things such as this (with a dedication page, no less), then IMO you're misguided. in any case i doubt quite strongly that you realize the effect of blasting into a situation, announcing (however subtly) you're an admin, and then acting as though you're just there to edit. that is not how it works. whether you realize it, your introductions are often launched to establish passive-aggressive superiority. i'll say it again: you are not my superior. you have admin power here, and are not a better editor than i am. please halt with the admin intimidation for issues that, if intervention were to be helpful, require the intervention of somebody who at least acts sincerely as an equal, not a parent. why is that so difficult for admins to understand? i know why, but maybe you can give it a think. :if you doubt the subtle influence of your position as an admin, look no further than OWB's obsequiousness on your talk page. users know what the score is. i'm not going to play, and i've demonstrated repeatedly that my article editing here at wikipedia is in the top layer. i'm quite aware that many don't agree with my philosophy of human action and wikipedia's future (i.e., that encouraging disrupters and discouraging producers is a vacant policy), but i'm going to push it as far as it will go. it my theory begins by refusing to allow vandalistic interference in my comments, that's not necessarily something you couldn't support, katefan, you know. good editors could use the support of admins far from the ``blitz onto the scene`` method where habitual disrupters and habitually superior editors are then treated as equal entities, with ``fresh start`` mantras (no, it's not the first time i've seen that from you, katefan) and an ``everybody's contributing equally`` approach that does nothing but swat the hands of editors who've fought, sometimes alone and for days, to preserve article integrity. doesn't work with children, nor with adults you're treating as children. the presumption of theoretical equality of action when arriving ``on the scene`` is probably the biggest mistake admins make here. :yes, my objection to your ``fresh start`` approach on the B&C; discussion page is quite serious. i don't believe that you should continue further in the facade of being an objective, normal editor on the page. you have set yourself up as everybody's superior, and such an approach was not necessary. why not let things sort themselves out a bit? did you notice i bowed out (after removing hundreds of my words)? did you notice that things were slowly improving without you? did you notice that somebody else wouldn't bow out? did you notice that i didn't immediately gut his atrocious frank hamer article (as would have been well within the bounds of wikipedia policy)? if not, why are you even pretending to help? there are healthier methods of dispute resolution than dispute denial. they may not seem as touchy-feely at first, but the results are longer lasting and ultimately far more respectful. OWB needed to face what he faced there, and wikipedia, and OWB, will be better off if this process isn't pretended away. you said something about ``i don't know what went on with you two``. really? all that went on was utterly public. i've had no private comm with OWB. so if you don't know what went on, then you didn't pay attention. if you're not paying attention, maybe you might consider stepping back and not jangling your admin keys so readily. :i doubt what i've written here will make any difference, but i figured i'd try one more time to explain the very real damage that is rotting wikipedia. if you want to construe it as a ``personal attack`` (bleh) and ax it, then please ax your criticism of me at the same time. as the history here shows, i can't even get support on my own talk page when dealing in my own way (consciously using an intelligent, long-view approach, apparently far above the heads of most admins) with a direct death threat somebody made against me. pathetic. admins need to stop treating people as children at the first opportunity. the net result of this paternal approach is negative, though it requires a longer time horizon to recognize. sad to say, few people have such a horizon. that you can intervene with extraordinary power doesn't necessarily mean you should a truth that is ignored here by admins more than it's respected. `	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	false
34,347,501	== Talk pages == Please sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~. Thanks.	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,347,964	== You're ridiculous == It's obvious that you have a problem with people with money and education. Leave the Horace Mann page alone. You know nothing of the school whatsoever. HM doesn't admit dirt.	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	false
34,348,995	==people making moronic jokes== Have no right to edit.	2,006	false	article	blocked	train	false
34,350,345	:sometimes the best support a human can get is to be left alone given leeway to try a different approach, even if it's not immediately understood or respected.	2,006	true	user	blocked	test	false
34,373,940	GOOD IDEA to list the page then there is a good chance that the true vandal will recognise the message for him/her??? Then the innocent will know that the message is not for them for sure. AOL-er here.	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	false
34,374,354	The only thing to do is for the admin to always specify the page they are banning the user for , then the rest of us will see that it is not for us, they are not doing this- to some degree the vandals ARE letting the side down by using our server, if it is frequent we should send a complaint about the AOL user to AOL, who would be entitled to take action as it is against the Conditions of Service to vandalise other web pages...	2,006	false	user	blocked	dev	false
34,375,931	`Why is there even an ``Edit`` option anyway? Maybe if they took it off there wouldn't be as much vandalism. `	2,006	false	user	blocked	dev	false
34,380,009	`Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or 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 to our encyclopedia. Thanks.e () `	2,006	true	user	random	test	false
34,389,024	== My personal attack on you == Yeah you-I am personally attacking you-regarding the fact that you are ruining Wikipedia with nonsense! ~~TheBlackLarl	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	true
34,390,985	The entry before I modified it contained unsourced POV and failed to mention major publications of the subject. I have modified it to correct those failings.	2,006	true	article	blocked	dev	false
34,391,629	::Mr. Stein, you misinterpret my petitions in your behalf. My English is not above average, so perhaps my words imply another thing. In my land, we appreciate men of boldness who jihady for their convictions. You know I'm true in what I say, my barnstar on your page shows this. I believe you deserve another change...I have been banned so I know what this is like. None defended myself...allow me to return in kind. Danka.	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	false
34,391,834	== Lesbianism == Is it true that she was a lesbian?	2,006	false	article	blocked	test	false
34,392,046	This is my computer at work and the only fun I have is vandalising wikipedia.	2,006	false	user	blocked	test	false
34,395,513	* I have now edited and added a review and analysis of the critical response to the film in English. More work is still needed on production details. Mike Walford 08 Jan 06	2,006	true	article	random	train	false
34,396,501	I fixed your reference for the ARRL handbook and moved the other one to the Balun article.	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,405,876	` :Unfortunately, I won't really have any good opportunity to do this. What I will do, however, is insert a section for such information and put in it, so that at least something will go there at some point (I do not watch that channel). And for all this, I comment: ``Live and learn``. '''''' `	2,006	true	user	random	test	false
34,407,116	***thanks of the info to all who contributed	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,422,328	==Hermann Göring== The quote only acheived widespread currency in the wake of the war in Iraq, as a criticism of the Bush administration. It's validity can be checked at Snopes, as you know, so its inclusion here is POV. I'll let it stay for now, though.	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,422,691	== Vandalism Revisited == Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia, Mr. AOL address 152.163.101.14. Your test worked, and has been reverted or 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 to our encyclopedia. Thanks. It's on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull, please don't add irrelavent content on it Thanks.	2,006	false	user	blocked	test	false
34,424,127	If you have a dispute, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.	2,006	true	article	random	test	false
34,424,860	Why are you guys reverting my edits? Im trying to cooperate with a picture of a native cherokee wedding and you revert it, i dont understand. How about some workout fatty.	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,427,612	` ::It's definitely Italian. ``I have not found another place on the internet to tell you...`` There are a few words I don't know, so I can't translate. The second part of the post is the poster's revision of a poem by Pablo Neruda, ``Who dies?``. `	2,006	true	article	blocked	train	false
34,427,838	::::::I'll echo that: I hope that my second bit of advice above didn't scare you off! We don't want you to leave, T-man! I hope you're just busy with real life stuff, and will be back soon. ) — •	2,006	true	user	random	test	false
34,436,981	` January 2006 (UTC) I'm just not sure why Tony Sidaway is the sole arbiter of what's ``deleterious`` to Wikipedia. 01:47, 9`	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	false
34,438,965	== User:Justforasecond == What happened to you? You didn't used to act like this. I for one would never have voted you in as an admin if I'd known you would. Bullyboy tactics are not the way to go, man. Yes, it would be nice if this knobend didn't harass Deeceevoice but you can just delete their comments if they offend you or her. Threatening other editors just isn't the tone. You just supply the guy with a grievance, when deleting the edit and ignoring the troll would be far more likely to have a positive effect.	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	false
34,441,528	== eat me == go blow yourself	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	false
34,442,015	, I spent 15 minutes working on a blurb on the Chaos movie page, used links to back up the information and than you removed every fucking word that I wrote. Burn in hell.	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	true
34,443,170	you stupid cunt. (Oh, and I fucked your mother last night. I hope you die.	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	true
34,443,744	== fuck you == fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you	2,006	false	user	blocked	dev	true
34,452,548	== Willie Lynch letter == Where can i go so i can read the letter by Willie Lynch	2,006	false	user	blocked	train	false
34,452,972	:Kewl. Looks good now, thanks.	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,464,164	` == Re: Personal attacks == I have removed the following statement from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Karmafist: *``but i would support electing Karmafist as most abusive, mendacious, hypocritical, and unfit admin in the WP project.`` I feel that this statement constitutes a personal attack, and therefore have removed it. If you disagree with this action, please discuss either on user talk or on the talk page of the Arbcom vote. • :thanks for informing me. i reworded it to indicate more of what Karmafist has done rather than simply what he is. i believe this information is important for people to read lest Karma do to them what he has done to me. when an abusive and unfit admin (of whom two of the present ArbCommissioners have voted to desysop him) tries to increase his power by running for ArbCom, there is certainly increased danger of abuse and harrassment to legit editors of WP. `	2,006	true	user	blocked	test	false
34,465,849	:: then, please, i would suggest to make that clear where you disenfranchise him. and i would also suggest striking out the text of his vote.	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	false
34,470,949	Archives: \| \| \|	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,477,968	== Notable Iguanas? == I'm curious, now. (Normally, I wouldn't ask these sorts of questions, but I'm intrigued.) What is it you're referring to? The only notable reptiles I can think of that don't really exist are Leon Powalski from Star Fox Assault and the Geico Gecko. Or is this an inside joke.	2,006	true	user	random	train	false
34,484,562	: See the Death Rock articles talk page for the reason behind the edits. Also, im talking about people who dont know anything about Death Rock or Gothic Metal, associating the two. See the Gothic Music article for this problem. Also the pink line thing was a joke, im sorry you didnt get it. it was mainly a play on my affiliation with only wearing black and pink. : General purpose of messaging you, was in regards that some Death Rock bands, and some Gothic Metal bands, take influence from each other. What also doesent help is that many people assume that several Doom Metal bands are Gothic Metal, including the genres progenetors such as My Dying Bride and Theater of Tragedy. This doesnt help when those Doom Metal bands in question are influenced by Death Rock bands, causing people to mistake firstly the bands as Gothic Metal, and then secondly, Death Rock and Gothic Metal being associated. Perhaps mentioning the influence that Death Rock bands had on Doom Metal bands would be good.	2,006	true	user	blocked	train	false

34,076,472

* When blocking may not be used - Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute * You didn't warn me before you blocked me. * You did not post a note on my talk page and attempt to discuss the issue first.

2,006

true

user

blocked

test

false

34,076,665

* The content was not incivil and was relevant to the discussion. - I removed the offending picture before I posted the box. * The 3RR was not violated, I reverted back to my version once and I left a summary explaining why I was doing this.

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

false

34,077,762

== Gothic Metal and Death Rock == Nice call on the removing of metal traces in the Death Rock article. Im having similar problems with the Gothic Metal article on people with little to no knowledge of the subjects editing the article and trying to draw an association between Goth Music and Gothic Metal when there isnt one. Perhaps the Death Rock and Gothic Rock articles could do with a bit of an overhaul. Ive seen that youve edited the Death Rock article quite a bit, so i assume you know a lot about the subject. I suggest, if your willing to listen, that you read the Gothic Metal article. Firstly so you better understand what it is, and secondly so you can work better with it, and its contents, on drawing the big black line (or pink if you prefer) that divides the two by a long way. I call out to you as a fellow editor of articles, simply because i do not know enough about Goth Rock or Death Rock to compently edit them, mainly due to my work and association in the metal scene. This im sure we can build some form of a bridge, even if that bridge is to eleborate on the seperation of the two cultures.

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

false

34,081,023

` Now that I'm unblocked, I can post my reply to you. You are again using the same tactics you used a few weeks ago, in an apparent effort to censor me, and to prevent me from trying to improve this page by adding more credible information. Immediately after challenging me this last time, you had me blocked so that I could not respond. One wonders what you are afraid of. You appear to fit the profile of those who use sneaky maneuvers to block people or to otherwise prevent edits containing information you disagree with, from ever seeing the light of day on Wikipedia. As reported on CNN and ABC last month, these tactics are why Wikipedia has been attacked so much lately, and why it's being taken less and less seriously as time goes on. Such behavior is slowly turning Wikipeidia into a bit of a joke, and has helped diminish it's once significant potential for good. Your attempts at censorship reminds one of the scene in a movie years ago where a person who was about to be exposed on the front pages of their local newspaper, got up early the morning it was to be delivered, and ran through their neighborhood picking up all their neighbors' papers, in the misplaced belief that their neighbors would never learn the truth that was on the front page of that morning's paper. Interestingly, rather than trying to support your allegations of danger and harmfulness with solid facts and evidence, you and others who share a common point of view that poppers are bad, continue to attack those who actually possess a high level of knowledge about these compounds. If you don't like what people with whom you do not agree try to post, rather than debating from a position of solid facts and underlying supporting documentation, you try to 'shoot the messenger'. For example, in addition to your maneuvers to block me and prevent me from replying to your attacks or to post edits with accurate and clarifying information on nitrites/poppers, you attack me by implying that my screen name, 'Allabout' means I sell poppers. You are wrong. You also imply that I am ``associated with http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/``. Again, you are wrong. However, I happen to agree with those who say that the 'All About Poppers' site contains a great deal of credible information, supported with solid evidence. I've spent a great deal of time reading the site, and digging into the information presented there. I know of other similarly credible popper sites, as well. Would you say I am ``associated`` with them, too? As the record clearly shows, over the past few weeks, you and others (Some of whom may be one in the same, perhaps using proxy servers to mask true identities to try to avoid being charged with sock puppetry), have engaged in an ongoing effort to prevent myself and others, with whom you do no agree on the subject of nitrites and poppers, from contributing to this page with some of our knowledge. That is wrong, and you know it. (I note that, today, you have somehow successfully removed/erased the history that was showing up on the site's 'history' page. This history showed the ``summary`` comments for various edits. It now appears you've allowed it back in.) You say, ``just tell me: If this is all wrong and misleading.......``. I have not said ``this is all wrong and misleading``. There is information on this page which is accurate, and there's information on this page which is not accurate. But, when someone who is knowledgeable makes an effort to correct the inaccuracies on the page, they have been attacked with ongoing and relentless efforts to try to prevent their edits from remaining on the page. The record is very clear in that regard. (Again, as anyone can see, you have removed or erased the history for this page up until two reverts you did late on Jan 4, 2006) You ask me ``why did you use this disclaimer``. I wondered if those of you who have put up such a resistance to having more accurate information posted on this nitrites/poppers page, might have some personal hang ups or prejudices about some of the people whom they perceive as primarily using poppers recreationally. Are you homophobic? Opposed to consenting adults making informed decisions about whether or not to have fun and take pleasure from something you may not agree with? Anti-drug crusaders? Feel obliged to fight ``sin`` and ``pleasure`` wherever you find it, perhaps based on some deeply held religious beliefs? Or simply just believe that if you give people information, no matter how accurate it may be, that might indicate poppers may not be as harmful as some would like us to believe, that people will flock to them, and that somehow the end of the world will appear? Much as in ``Reefer Madness``? The disclaimer was meant to try to appease those fears. Unlik

2,006

false

article

blocked

train

false

34,086,824

` :::::::::Oh Mark, for shame! Why lie? I didn't get banned from the Clitoris article for any such thing. I didn't get banned from it at all. I was banned from removing the picture that upset several editors. You pretended you had a ``unanimous`` ``consensus`` then too. I didn't constantly run any polls. That's a downright lie too. Why would I? I don't think polls demonstrate consensus and I oppose their use to settle content disputes. I've expressed that view many, many times. The dispute on clitoris in fact centred around a group of editors who were bullying minority-view editors because they had won a vote. They largely refused to discuss the salient issues because, they believed, they had won a vote and that was that. (Careful Tony Sidaway watchers will note that on Talk:Clitoris he was insistent that winning a vote was the same as having a consensus but on Talk:something about B roads, he had changed his tune and thought that votes were evil. Like most of the people who voted here, it's one rule when it fits your POV, another when it doesn't.) This title is shockingly POV. That you can line up a bunch of editors who share the POV that it pushes to vote and say no it's not doesn't actually not make it so, but I've given up trying to get editors to accept that the proZionist stance that is so common in your home country is not actually ``neutral``. I advise the other editors here that their commitment to NPOV will not be rewarded, because it simply is not shared by everyone here. `

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,106,755

` ==To Bomac== The Bitola Inscription was officially recognised as authentic in former Yugoslavia (although late as its existence was concealed for obvious reasons for nearly a decade) and is the subject of a number of research books there. Trying to include in the article tabloid theories questioning its authenticity when even your own country has acknowledged the authenticity has nothing to do with NPOV and in wiki language is called ``trolling``. As for the discrepancy in the names, check again your sources: Bulgarian in old Bulgarian (Preslav Literary School) is and has always been ``блъгарин``, ``болгарин`` is Church Slavonic, dear. Please, don't occupy us with popular myths circulating in nationalistic circles in the Republic of Macedonia. `

2,006

true

article

blocked

dev

false

34,110,216

` ==Unjustified protection of an article== I would like to get an explanation as to why the article Bulgarian vocabulary was blocked by you after repeatedly moved the content of the article Bulgarian lexis to the new name, Bulgarian vocabulary, without justification and without giving a plausible reason for that. Let's look at the meanings of the two words in the first online dictionary I came upon (it happened to be wordreference [www.wordreference.com ]): *Vocabulary: (1)a language user's knowledge of words. (2)the system of techniques or symbols serving as a means of expression (as in arts or crafts); ``he introduced a wide vocabulary of techniques. (3)a listing of the words used in some enterprise *Lexis: (1)all of the words in a language. (2) all word forms having meaning or grammatical function: As the article refers to the whole body of words in the Bulgarian language, I would like to ask you: which word refers better to the meaning of the article, vocabulary or lexis? Don't tell me - because the dictionary has already stated it explicitly, it is lexis!!! In view of the above, could I get an explanation as to why, you, in your capacity of administrator, have sided with an editor in order to institutionalise a wrongful edit? I would like to ask you to remove the protection of the article or give me a very reasonable explanation as to why this protection has been effected in the first place and as to why, since it institutionalised a wrongful edit, which wreaks damage to the overall understanding of the article, continues to be in place. I don't think it is proper and adequate of an administrator to side with an user and I will contact other administrators so that measures compliant with Wikipedia policies can be taken against the wrongful steps taken by you and . `

2,006

true

user

blocked

test

false

34,114,427

Actually these pair are two of my more keen articles. Consensus also doesnt lean in your favour. You want an explanation? You got it, ill keep it relativly simple and blunt: * Alternative Metal is two coined name. * One usage of the term refers to bands within the Nu Metal genre, that forsake large quantities of Hip Hop influence and instead draw influence from Metal Genres and Alternative Rock Genres. A similar name to define between Nu Metal bands that use heavy hip hop influence is 'Rap Metal'. * The second usage of the term is relative to metal bands that do unorthodox things in their music, normally not akin to metal genres. These bands are also known as Avantgarde metal bands. Actually, in writing that, i came up with a better soloution. Merge the Alternative Metal page's contents into the Nu Metal page. Then on the Alternative Metal page, write what i just put, in a more descriptive and defined manner. That actually solves the problem for the most part. As for sources, then you would that the general metal community doesnt use the genre Alternative Metal. As seen, it is used to refer to bands across genres. Similar usage of these names are Epic Metal, and Dark Metal. They are used to associate bands due to one commonality, even though they all belong to different genres. So i still agree with the idea of merging. But slightly changed, to merge the page's contents into the article, and then explain what the term endoes, as i mentioned above.

2,006

true

article

random

train

false

34,119,212

Shamir replies: there is no reason (but a racist one) to call Boris Pasternak and Osip Mandelstam - 'Jews', as they were Christians, and Pasternak was born to Christian parents. Ditto Eisenstein, ditto Rubinstein, while Plisetskaya and Vertov were not of Jewish origin, either.

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,119,954

Manic Street Preachers can't possibly be classified as Britpop, not that it isn't British and not that it isn't pop, but it simply doesn't fit in with the kind of music Blur and Pulp and Suede make.

2,006

false

article

blocked

train

false

34,122,689

edit this page any further.

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

false

34,126,057

Shamir adds: EXPO and Monitor are open about being on the payroll of ADL. None denies this fact. Searchlight describes itself as 'a Jewish magazine'. Roland Rance was described by the well known writer Gilad Atzmon as 'Jewish ethnic activist'. These facts are relevant.

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,133,101

==Islamist Terrorism== Your help at that page would be appreciated, there are a number of islamist edit warriors who continually revert sourced material.

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

false

34,139,706

`It isn't the Future Farmers of America anymore... as such, the main article for the FFA should NOT be titled Future Farmers of America... rather, the ``National FFA Organization```

2,006

false

article

random

dev

false

34,156,840

This article seems to be just a dictionary definition... Any reason it has NOT been deleted? picklebarrel

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,158,701

[[[comment]]] this article appears to be nothing but a dictionary definition, is there any reason the article has NOT been put up for deletion?

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,160,255

[[[comment]]] I feel these images are a bit too graphic for research purposes and seem to fall into the catagory of fetish images. There is certainly no reason to show the actual vagina unless to show what a camel toe is. It seems more that this is a case of WANTING to show vagina

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,163,101

` Answers: There is no ``other`` feminine member. The only feminine Organization Member is Larxene. End of story. Roxas IS No. 13 and this is 100% confirmed as the GAME states. End of story again.`

2,006

false

article

blocked

train

false

34,163,270

Answers: Roxas' isn't the BHK name? The GAME says otherwise. You fail. Roxas is his name. Period.

2,006

false

article

blocked

dev

false

34,163,428

Answers: EM is No. 1 and Xemnas and The Superior. Yet to hear or see this conformation? Play the frikkin' game smart guy.

2,006

false

article

blocked

train

false

34,163,559

Answers: His name is Xigbar as the Ultimania ALPHA states and his original name was Braig.

2,006

false

article

blocked

test

false

34,166,058

it would seem to be that lableing Nambla along with LGBT is the equivilant of lableing the Ku Klusx Klan a christian group. While the subsets certainly claim to hold the intrest of the larger group as reasons basis for its ideals, both christianity and Gay/lesbian groups largely distance themselves from those ideals, and do not wish to be associated with these subsets at all

2,006

true

article

blocked

test

false

34,175,422

`Welcome! Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: *The five pillars of Wikipedia *How to edit a page *Help pages *Tutorial *How to write a great article *Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ==:Image:Woffineye4.JPG has been listed for deletion== {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style=``background-color: #E1F1DE`` |- | An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Woffineye4.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |} ==:Image:Woffineye1.JPG has been listed for deletion== {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style=``background-color: #E1F1DE`` |- | An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Woffineye1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |} ==:Image:Woffin1.JPG has been listed for deletion== {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style=``background-color: #E1F1DE`` |- | An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Woffin1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |} `

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,175,725

Link titleMedia:Example.oggInsert non-formatted text hereMedia:Example.ogg == Headline text == link titleItalic textBold text

2,006

false

article

blocked

train

false

34,178,566

: The site claims it's under GPL. I don't see downloads for it on the [homepage], which means to get the source you need to email them and request it. However it looks like it's written in PYTHON, so perhaps the installers install a python interpreter and you can just view the program scripts in the install dir.

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,179,385

` The only ``major controversy`` is that on this Wikipedia page, the denialists, such as Duesberg and his followers, those whose ramblings are linked out to from this page, and who have had their long-disputed and dismissed theories and misinformation floating around on he web for many years, were being used as the sole source of 'credible' information on the larger controversy around AIDS and poppers until I happened upon it. From the first edit I made, I was almost immeditely reversed, and edited. Within hours of that first contribution, I was being threatened and censored. Ultimately, I was blocked, charged with violating unknown-to-me 'rules' of Wikipedia, and otherwise censored, and rendered unable to contribute. And, that, gentlemen, is what I've been complaining about for the past month here on Wikipedia. It would be much better if the Wikipedians, with their vast experience of computer knowledge, particularly as it relates to being able to master Wikipedia, would stand aside and let those of us who actually have knowledge about the subject of nitrites and poppers make meaningful contributions to this page. However, I suspect that will not be allowed to happen. I say this based on my personal experience over the past month here, and based on the news accounts last month on CNN, ABC Nightly News, and elsewhere, which revealed that Wikipedia was being ruined by those who practice the same kind of censorhip and harrassment that I've been subjected to. `

2,006

false

article

blocked

train

false

34,179,648

` === Misleading Image === The character 永 only has five strokes, not eight, and is indexed that way in dictionaries. The middle vertical stroke is performed with one motion. The leading dot occurs by the landing of the brush on the medium, and the final ``tick`` is performed by flicking up and to the left. It's misleading to explain this as three separate, overlapping strokes without additional explanation. Similarly, the left stroke is just one motion also. A stroke isn't a necessarily a straight line. It is a congtiguous motion performed without lifting the pen or brush.`

2,006

false

article

random

test

false

34,180,855

== Joel == For the last time, Joel never was or is married now!

2,006

false

article

blocked

train

false

34,181,986

This message is regarding the page Nudity. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or 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 to our encyclopedia. Thanks. ()

2,006

true

user

random

test

false

34,184,602

== Good article, but too polish... == Hi! I have been read the WHOLE article and find it very good written and well documented, but at last, not very objetive. I suppose it was written for a fan (or a group of fans) so it feels so very comfortable, very kind with the group and in my particular opinion, their last years (from 2000 to the present day) are very objetable. Why? because May & Taylor becomes a pretty pair of vampires. One thing is put all the music in new audio formats, launch DVD's with concerts and videos and other, go on tour with another singer exploding the nostalgic feelings of the Queen Fans. I love Queen, but i can't stand to see him on a gig without Freddie!!! And of course, all the histories had their dark sides ... and Queen's history, of course, are not the exception. So in order be honest and objective, i think it will be nice to put these things on the article, whitout rubbish and press sensacionalism ... Best regards

2,006

true

article

random

train

false

34,186,130

fisrt, ANYONE WHO BELEIVES THIS CRAP IS A FOOL

2,006

true

article

blocked

dev

true

34,193,470

- IM BLOCKED BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2,006

true

user

blocked

test

true

34,194,655

I MADE UP MY MIND, IM GOING TO ERASE IT.

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,198,748

` == plagiarism == well, i thought nothing could induce me to log in once again as SaltyPig. two facts are amusing and ultimately pathetic about 's claims above regarding my (63.28.75.180, et al) writing, ``...frankly, your moronic language lends no credance to anything you say regarding this or any other historical subject.`` ===relevant facts=== ====one==== he writes on his user talk page, ``OKAY <, I now have a written source for my citations on the on the lack of legal authority to murder bonnie parker. I was printed, an article i wrote after extensive research, on a reputatble history site http://www.redriverhistorian.com/mcglothlin2.html http://www.redriverhistorian.com/mcglothlin1.html NOW, WILLYOU RECONSIDER, AND LET ME SAY THERE WERE NO LEGAL GROUNDS TO KILL BONNIE PARKER? IT IS A WRITTEN, VERIFIABLE SOURCE, ON A REPU LE SITE.`` ====two==== significant portions of ``his`` article were lifted directly from a version of wikipedia's Bonnie and Clyde article, of which i wrote ~90%. ===comparison=== it starts off with minor lifting, then gets much worse. stay with it: wikipedia: Bonnie Elizabeth Parker was born October 1, 1910, in Rowena, Texas, the second of three children. oldwindybear: Bonnie Elizabeth Parker was born October 1, 1910, in Rowena, Texas, the second of three children. wikipedia: She married Roy Thornton on September 25, 1926, but the pairing was short-lived. oldwindybear: She married Roy Thornton on September 25, 1926, but that lasted less than a year. wikipedia: Noted for homesickness throughout her short adult life, she longed to be near her mother, Emma Parker.' oldwindybear: 'Bonnie was homesick her short adult life, and yearned to be close to her mother, to whom she was devoted. wikipedia: Although he was sentenced to 5 years in prison shortly thereafter, they never divorced, and Bonnie was wearing Thornton's wedding ring when she died. oldwindybear: In 1929, her husband was arrested, and he was sentenced to five years in prison shortly thereafter. But they never divorced, and Bonnie was wearing Thornton's wedding ring when she died. wikipedia: Clyde ``Champion`` Chestnut Barrow was born on March 24, 1909 (perhaps 1910, according to some reputable sources^ ), in Ellis County, Texas, near Telico (just south of Dallas). He was the fifth of seven children in a poor farming family. Clyde was first arrested in late 1926, after running when police confronted him over a rental car he'd failed to return on time. His second arrest, with brother Buck Barrow, came soon after — this time for possession of stolen goods (turkeys). In both of these instances there is the remote possibility that Clyde acted without criminal intent. However, despite holding down ``square`` jobs during the period 1927 through 1929, he also cracked safes, burgled stores, and stole cars. Known primarily for robbing banks, he preferred smaller jobs, robbing grocery stores and filling stations at a rate far outpacing the ten to fifteen bank robberies attributed to him and the Barrow gang. oldwindybear: ''Clyde ``Champion`` Chestnut Barrow was born on March 24, 1909 (perhaps 1910, according to some reputable sources), in Ellis County, Texas, near Telico (just south of Dallas). He was the fifth of seven children in a poor farming family. Clyde was first arrested in late 1926, after running when police confronted him over a rental car he had failed to return on time. His second arrest, with brother Buck Barrow, came soon after , for stealing turkeys! In both of these instances there is the possibility that Clyde acted without criminal intent, especially the second – the family was hungry. However, despite holding down ``square`` jobs during the period 1927 through 1929, he also supposedly did a number of breakins, and car thefts. Known primarily in the media for robbing banks, he preferred smaller jobs, robbing grocery stores and filling stations at a rate far outpacing the ten to fifteen bank robberies attributed to

2,006

true

article

blocked

dev

false

34,198,961

:relevant information here.

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,203,582

== RM for Yom Kippur War == Thanks for the note. Frankly, it's a waste of time. The POV you are opposing is so entrenched here as to be considered neutral. Those who hold it simply can't see that it is a POV at all. I noticed that Mark Pellegrini (Raul) has mischaracterised me, which is something he does with his enemies, so I put him straight, and left some comments for the usual suspects, but that's all I think it's worth. You just can't change those people's minds and they will outnumber any support you are able to get. They don't feel any dissonance in their views and even pointing it out to them carefully doesn't work.

2,006

true

user

blocked

dev

false

34,207,937

== Sea level rise == Hi - seems your edits got mixed up in the recent bout of reverting at Sea level rise, sorry 'bout that. Anyway, could you please expand on your incorrect information deletions a bit on the talk page there to clarify any potential misunderstandings by other editors. Thanks,

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,215,827

== Just wondering == Are you who I think you are?

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

false

34,217,804

== TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography == Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you.

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,218,159

I think the David Letterman argument is fine, however one must ask whether to highlight particular disputes at all is relevant as the entire document highlights nothing but contentious issues...however I beileve Bill Oreilly likes to be in contentious issues. As to the specifics of why I erased it....you provided no dispute quotations taken from Bill Oreilly. He had some zingers that nailed Dave hard what was chosen was the weakest of his points vs the strongest of lettermans... Rewrite it. Oreilly's comment about not calling people who blow up innocent women and children on his show as a devestating blow to Letterman and a clear clever and concise statement.

2,006

false

user

blocked

test

false

34,220,184

Proton Emission in Carbon-14 formation? According to other wiki pages, Carbon-14 is formed by thermal neutron (0.025 eV) absorption by the nucleus of Nitrogen-14 and the emission of a proton. Is this also considered a beta decay proton emission, or is there some other process involved? What is the energy of the emitted proton?

2,006

true

article

random

dev

false

34,222,275

`, a section which i had written most of, if i recall correctly. ===conclusion=== oldwindybear was using an article plagiarizing major portions from me to serve as verification of his historical credentials, so that he could insert POV into something else written by me — the same guy he's written of above, ``...frankly, your moronic language lends no credance to anything you say regarding this or any other historical subject.`` if that's the case, he'd better get busy deleting ``his`` article! ROFL ===please=== i haven't the heart to participate in this article anymore, but would somebody please revert the POV at least oldwindybear inserted? i put in my time. surely there's a knowledgeable B&C; freak out there who can at least stand guard for a while, if not improve the article from even its pre-vandalism state. ==note to oldwindybear== before you insert your allegations once again (hopefully somewhere that doesn't break up my signed comment), you may want to consider some immutable truths which i hoped you would have noticed before launching the terribly wrong rant i just removed from within my signed comments. (unlike you, i do not want somebody else's words attributed to me): *the version i quoted above as ``wikipedia`` in the comparison is entirely from UTC. *you claim to have contributed to the article as and . *the first edit by in the article was UTC. *the first edit by in the article was UTC. *therefore, you did not write a single word of the article version in the comparison above. please take a moment to let that sink in: you did not write a single word of the article version in the comparison above. you also misapprehend the definition of plagiarism. it has nothing to do with copyright. you used entire blocks of words of other authors (primarily me), and credited yourself as the author. that is plagiarism. though my initial contributions to the article are readily viewable in the history (and later as another user and several IPs), i want to steer away from the ``i wrote x amount`` aspect, because the article was and is a collaborative effort. the troubling part, not only for me, but also for the owner of the site to which you submitted ``your`` article, is that you used whole blocks from a wikipedia article to which you contributed not a single word, and not only put your name to it, but did not even cite wikipedia as a source. contrary to the fraudulent hiding of your sources while merely peppering whole blocks of material you stole, i did write the actual unquoted prose in my contributions myself, while citing clearly all of my sources. despite your assertion, the version you stole from stated explicitly, ``Known primarily for robbing banks, he preferred smaller jobs, robbing grocery stores and filling stations at a rate far outpacing the ten to fifteen bank robberies attributed to him and the Barrow gang.`` as with everything else in the wikipedia side of the comparison, none of that is your writing. neither, as has been raised and explained several times already, were you the first in this article to raise the issue of legality with regard to the killing of bonnie parker. this has all been explained. please do not bully other users into holding your hand. take a moment. review the article history. review the discussion. slow down and pay attention. in short, there isn't a leg to stand on if attempting to rebut my charge of plagiarism. you did not arrive on the scene until over 2 months had passed from when the version in the comparison was written. i'll say again: you did not contribute a single syllable to it. yet you lifted whole sections from it, changing very little — in some cases none — and put your name to it. that, sir, is the very definition of plagiarism, and it doesn't matter whether i or any other editor wrote the source material you took; you wrote none of it. the partial copying at the beginning (which you picked out to rebut) was what i already labeled as only ``minor lifting``. be honest. it gets far worse. it gets embarrassingly worse. please don't try to fabricate stories which anybody poring through the history can instantly recognize as vapor. the sad part is that the entire facade of ``your article`` was as an excuse for you to insert even more POV into articles. if you don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. after so many people have tried explaining them to you, perhaps wikipedia isn't the plac

2,006

true

article

blocked

dev

false

34,224,753

: They made a joke on the show that she would be an excellent replacement for Richard Hammond, citing that she was a better driver, better looking, and taller.

2,006

false

article

blocked

train

false

34,224,934

` ::this isn't a personality fashion show. it's about articles — articles into which you attempted to insert your POV through the use of your ``authority`` demonstrated by an article allegedly written by you. you can (and will, i'm sure!) bring up 5 million subjects other than that, but reality doesn't bear out your claims. for example, this link demonstrates the material i added in only a 5 day period during june 2005. see all that new material on the right? i added every word. think that doesn't constitute the bulk of the article? well, it doesn't matter, does it? what matters is that you didn't write any of the material you stole for your attempt to pull a fast one on katefan. have something more to say? take it up with somebody who edits articles here still. i don't. i left because material i worked very hard on got trashed, and i often ended up spending hours educating coddled morons (explained in detail above). then today i find out my work was also stolen and thwacked with your name! ROFL. icing on the cake! well, it didn't work. ``your article`` is in the bit bucket, so apparently somebody else (somebody you apparently respected — yesterday anyway) also thought you stole the material for the article. `

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

true

34,231,457

The vote has concluded, and the result was no consensus. The page remains.

2,006

true

article

blocked

dev

false

34,245,723

`::That's a terrible argument against astrology; ``scientific process`` has changed drastically over the centuries. There was a time when astrology was just as much of a science as astronomy or physics. It is not a science anymore because it has been wholly rejected by the scientific community (because, to way way oversimplify, it has been falsified). But I've been tracking through Theodore7's edits, and he's been making drastic or subtle changes to a whole range of astrology-related articles, and usually calling them minor edits, with no discussion. I found him because he changed almost every instance of ``astronomer`` to ``astrologer`` in Kepler. Theo, please realize that your strategy of replacing information is making other editors very frustrated. Instead, you should add sections, wholly in your own words and explicitly referenced, about your positions in each article you are interested in (preferably on the talk pages, first). Then we can discuss your work and sort what is accepted by consensus from what the majority considers to violate NPOV. `

2,006

true

article

random

train

false

34,246,219

== Requests for arbitration == I'll comment wherever seems appropriate. You can then refactor to whatever makes you happy. That's how a wiki works. Happy editing!

2,006

true

user

blocked

test

false

34,249,381

==Reply to vandal Wakkeenah== To all the vandals and so called just administrators, the air dates are minor problems, the facts and details surrounding Reeves suicided are not being written well enough, as everybody else is reporting, the fact that Reeves was to fight Moore next day, is also being reverted, this is pure vandalism. As far as spelling goes by Vesa or Projects or whoever, well, if you keep on repeating yourself and have no time, some spelling errors might occur, but it's not the spelling that counts but content which is being vandalised by so called just users and administrators of this so called just wikipedia. And it is obvious wahkeenah has some personal interest in this, proof: All over internet we have Reeves' death explained in detail and possible people involved, but over here he is taking everything down, the idiotic administratotors are reversing it, thus making themselves look stupid and ignorant by not realizing the historical facts.

2,006

false

article

blocked

dev

false

34,249,527

` ==Kept at Bay== As long as it takes, we are here to stay. :: a.k.a. (among others) can't even get the air dates right, and the rest is a POV that is well-covered in the interesting book I cited, Hollywood Kryptonite. ``These`` users also cannot write proper English, which is what gives away that ``they`` are the same user, despite ``their`` denials. ==Reply to vandal Wakkeenah== To all the vandals and so called just administrators, the air dates are minor problems, the facts and details surrounding Reeves suicided are not being written well enough, as everybody else is reporting, the fact that Reeves was to fight Moore next day, is also being reverted, this is pure vandalism. As far as spelling goes by Vesa or Projects or whoever, well, if you keep on repeating yourself and have no time, some spelling errors might occur, but it's not the spelling that counts but content which is being vandalised by so called just users and administrators of this so called just wikipedia. And it is obvious wahkeenah has some personal interest in this, proof: All over internet we have Reeves' death explained in detail and possible people involved, but over here he is taking everything down, the idiotic administratotors are reversing it, thus making themselves look stupid and ignorant by not realizing the historical facts.`

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

false

34,249,558

` :: a.k.a. (among others) can't even get the air dates right, and the rest is a POV that is well-covered in the interesting book I cited, Hollywood Kryptonite. ``These`` users also cannot write proper English, which is what gives away that ``they`` are the same user, despite ``their`` denials. ==Reply to vandal Wakkeenah== To all the vandals and so called just administrators, the air dates are minor problems, the facts and details surrounding Reeves suicided are not being written well enough, as everybody else is reporting, the fact that Reeves was to fight Moore next day, is also being reverted, this is pure vandalism. As far as spelling goes by Vesa or Projects or whoever, well, if you keep on repeating yourself and have no time, some spelling errors might occur, but it's not the spelling that counts but content which is being vandalised by so called just users and administrators of this so called just wikipedia. And it is obvious wahkeenah has some personal interest in this, proof: All over internet we have Reeves' death explained in detail and possible people involved, but over here he is taking everything down, the idiotic administratotors are reversing it, thus making themselves look stupid and ignorant by not realizing the historical facts.`

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

true

34,252,747

`again, little of that is relevant, whether true or not, including the ridiculous allegation of a ``tantrum`` (whatever the size). personal talk is to be avoided on article talk pages, so i won't comment further on your ``degree`` issues. i encourage you though, if you've time, to consider reviewing the article history and perhaps noting who it was that first raised the issue of legality with regard to the killing of bonnie parker. if too busy for that, maybe you could at least revisit my comments above — especially the one in which i say that i agree with you that she was murdered. i'm confused by your apparent fabrication of a conflict here when none exists except with respect to what can be stated factually in the article. let me spell it out for you: as far as that goes, you're arguing a point with somebody who not only agrees with you, but has stated so explicitly from the outset. that's a good indicator that my problem with your edits is wikipedia-related, not opinion-related. please let the personality side go and concentrate on editing in an encyclopedic fashion. thanks. Since I am back reediting this article, you are right, personality differences should play no role but facts should. Wikipedia exists as a limitless repository of facts, and the facts of Bonnie;s legal status are well known and need to be published. I think we agree on the facts, we just need to put this article in more professional form.OLDWIINDYBEAR12/12/05 I feel my edits are well and professionally done, in an encyclopedic fashion. As to the Bonnie Parker matter, we agree she was murdered, so it was merely finding language that was appropriate. I felt mine was, you disagreed, such is life. I still find your mode of discussion offensive, but frankly, we both have better things to do than bandy semantics, so have a nice evening. OLDWINDYBEAR == RfC discussion == == Hikaru Utada song? == The song ``B&C;`` by Japanese pop singer Hikaru Utada names ``Bonnie and Clyde`` in its lyrics. Is this too obscure to be a relevant pop culture reference? Lyrics can be found here. :nothing wrong with popping it in to see if it stays. i don't think it's any more obscure than other stuff there. == why wikipedia ultimately sucks == it requires perpetual vigilance if your effort's not to be wasted. can't walk away from solid ground, job done. this article was stable, and it's now being degraded regularly by wannabe newspaper editorialists and overt point makers, using the ``note insertion`` method (do a POV jig here, thrust another there). it's like watching a dog wander a field to lift his leg whenever something catches his nose. inserting sentences here and there is the laziest, most worthless ``editing`` one can do. may as well use a red sharpie. but i'm not touching this article; have at it. convert the investment of many good editors into your pee ground, forcing them either to acquiesce, or follow some snot nose around with kleenex, preserving a precious syllable as able (``look, johnny, you pooped out a syllable that we kept!``), arguing for 5 hours with a dull gasbag in the process. idiocy. and probably some officious prig will wipe this comment (``NPA! NPA!``), while leaving the infantile changes to the article intact. the usual wikipedia hack elevation story slackers welcomed and coddled, good editors slapped on the hand like ignorami for being pissed about the slackers and not pretending we're in a group therapy session. while that's the policy, official or not, the material's gonna blow. enjoy! wikipedia will either restrict access or fail. :please take the time to review this page's history, and notice that within two minutes of me leaving the comment above, an admin had swooped in, also leaving an inappropriate comment on my user page! too poetic. meanwhile, look at the article. aren't the articles the reason for the superstructure? correction to what i wrote above: the laziest, most worthless ``editing`` one can do is NPA/language babysitting and control-freaking. wikipedia admin culture is laughably inept. this article was hammered all month, and did you see admins fretting so? not a chance. what a disaster this place is. nanny-boo bureaucrats with jangly key rings. i'm the one who expanded this article from a good stub, with the aux help of probably 5-7 other editors (now gone), and i, not the vandals, am being told, quite paternalistically, to take my comments to the sandbox! unreal incompetence. did you see the admins jumping in on the RfC i started above? not one. but say ``sucks`` somewhere, and they're falling over one another to g

2,006

true

article

blocked

test

false

34,266,293

(second level warning) >

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,299,572

Sorry for that email bikeable, I was wicked tired. I had been up programming for 20 hours and was pretty frustrated and unfamiliar with wikipedias modification guidelines. I was just trying to get the facts straight and wasn’t sure why people kept changing it back.

2,006

true

article

blocked

dev

false

34,308,477

== QUESTION? == I have fixed the article countless times (REMAGINE). Made it so it doesnt read like an add and more of and informational page but yet the advertisment tag keeps being added. what gives?

2,006

true

user

blocked

test

false

34,315,341

* Since when do definitions or encyclopedia entries speak from opinion rather than factual information? It should be from a neutral point, its defining the truth.

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

false

34,315,729

Believe me, I would love to contribute to this system, but my first experience has not been a pleasant one. My first impression is seeing wikipedia as a dictatorship. Thanks

2,006

true

user

blocked

test

false

34,317,545

` ==Newcastle Today== ``and the Hunter Valley's ongoing role in coal, aluminium and lead production.`` - The Hunter Valley no longer produces lead. The Pasminco Cockle Creek smelter was officially closed on 12 September 2003. I'm going to change this. ( )`

2,006

true

article

random

train

false

34,326,813

:::Seeing how it is written in python i wouldn't download it in the first place. GUI python apps are a complete and utter failure.

2,006

true

article

blocked

test

false

34,328,588

It looked much better before editors unhappy with the AfD vote decided to hack it to pieces.

2,006

true

article

blocked

test

false

34,328,752

A name change seems a little premature - this article has suddenly gained quite a few editors, and ought to be allowed to mature for a moment or two. I think we've already had enough fun at AfD for now, and can focus on improving this article.

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,328,851

:::I think there are more compelling reasons to lose confidence in Wikipedia than this article. If you think it could stand some improvement, jump right in.

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,329,529

== Edited for Brevity? == It appears that the merge discussion has been made moot by some zealous editing. I think it would be wise to avoid gutting this article, as it will probably be needed once the Neo-Fascism article exceeds ideal length. Hopefully we can get this all sorted out without a whole lot more trouble.

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,343,442

` ==Warning about Censorship== Most of the links I added to Yechi article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yechiexcept one were not to my sites and truth is my sites are not commercial sites and the link to one of my pages contained valueble info related to the subject but since you insist I replaced it to the link to that same video on 770live.com without my comments under it I hope this will make you very happy that I have observed every detail of Wiki rules. Now go make a Didan Notzach farbrengen with your friends about this amazing development:-) PS. By the way your intention to ``simply enforce Wiki rules`` was once again proven when you didn't simply remove that one link you had problem with but reversed the whole article with all the added info and gave this as an excuse. May the Rebbe-Almighty send refua shleima to all of his Chassidim who wish to protect Him from the spread of his holy teachings... Yechi Yehovah Tsidkeinu! `

2,006

true

user

blocked

dev

false

34,347,319

` :please stop threatening. you're throwing weight around in a way that mixes your admin power with that of a user, elevating your ``opinion`` above that of others. you have no right to do so. do you think you're better than me? if so, you're wrong. please stop addressing me as a child because you're an admin, when i freely, unilaterally removed the entire expose of OWB as a plagiarist. was it relevant to the article and important to post temporarily? it absolutely was, because he was attempting to use his external ``article`` to gain POV power, and he has been about as disruptive to the article as anybody could be. that he still claims he didn't claim a ``single sentence`` of the article as his own work shows quite clearly what you're dealing with. however, because he's not an overt vandal, his hand is held indefinitely. enough. :have you considered the damage done by treating two different people as equally at fault in a given situation? i have noticed this before from you directly, katefan, and i'd appreciate it very much if you would at least examine it (once more, if you have already). the result is the discouragement of wikipedia's biggest asset: editors who leave material that will last. i am not your inferior, so please don't treat me as such. if you want to spend hours creating and encouraging editors who bring us things such as this (with a dedication page, no less), then IMO you're misguided. in any case i doubt quite strongly that you realize the effect of blasting into a situation, announcing (however subtly) you're an admin, and then acting as though you're just there to edit. that is not how it works. whether you realize it, your introductions are often launched to establish passive-aggressive superiority. i'll say it again: you are not my superior. you have admin power here, and are not a better editor than i am. please halt with the admin intimidation for issues that, if intervention were to be helpful, require the intervention of somebody who at least acts sincerely as an equal, not a parent. why is that so difficult for admins to understand? i know why, but maybe you can give it a think. :if you doubt the subtle influence of your position as an admin, look no further than OWB's obsequiousness on your talk page. users know what the score is. i'm not going to play, and i've demonstrated repeatedly that my article editing here at wikipedia is in the top layer. i'm quite aware that many don't agree with my philosophy of human action and wikipedia's future (i.e., that encouraging disrupters and discouraging producers is a vacant policy), but i'm going to push it as far as it will go. it my theory begins by refusing to allow vandalistic interference in my comments, that's not necessarily something you couldn't support, katefan, you know. good editors could use the support of admins far from the ``blitz onto the scene`` method where habitual disrupters and habitually superior editors are then treated as equal entities, with ``fresh start`` mantras (no, it's not the first time i've seen that from you, katefan) and an ``everybody's contributing equally`` approach that does nothing but swat the hands of editors who've fought, sometimes alone and for days, to preserve article integrity. doesn't work with children, nor with adults you're treating as children. the presumption of theoretical equality of action when arriving ``on the scene`` is probably the biggest mistake admins make here. :yes, my objection to your ``fresh start`` approach on the B&C; discussion page is quite serious. i don't believe that you should continue further in the facade of being an objective, normal editor on the page. you have set yourself up as everybody's superior, and such an approach was not necessary. why not let things sort themselves out a bit? did you notice i bowed out (after removing hundreds of my words)? did you notice that things were slowly improving without you? did you notice that somebody else wouldn't bow out? did you notice that i didn't immediately gut his atrocious frank hamer article (as would have been well within the bounds of wikipedia policy)? if not, why are you even pretending to help? there are healthier methods of dispute resolution than dispute denial. they may not seem as touchy-feely at first, but the results are longer lasting and ultimately far more respectful. OWB needed to face what he faced there, and wikipedia, and OWB, will be better off if this process isn't pretended away. you said something about ``i don't know what went on with you two``. really? all that went on was utterly public. i've had no private comm with OWB. so if you don't know what went on, then you didn't pay attention. if you're not paying attention, maybe you might consider stepping back and not jangling your admin keys so readily. :i doubt what i've written here will make any difference, but i figured i'd try one more time to explain the very real damage that is rotting wikipedia. if you want to construe it as a ``personal attack`` (bleh) and ax it, then please ax your criticism of me at the same time. as the history here shows, i can't even get support on my own talk page when dealing in my own way (consciously using an intelligent, long-view approach, apparently far above the heads of most admins) with a direct death threat somebody made against me. pathetic. admins need to stop treating people as children at the first opportunity. the net result of this paternal approach is negative, though it requires a longer time horizon to recognize. sad to say, few people have such a horizon. that you can intervene with extraordinary power doesn't necessarily mean you should a truth that is ignored here by admins more than it's respected. `

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

false

34,347,501

== Talk pages == Please sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~. Thanks.

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,347,964

== You're ridiculous == It's obvious that you have a problem with people with money and education. Leave the Horace Mann page alone. You know nothing of the school whatsoever. HM doesn't admit dirt.

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

false

34,348,995

==people making moronic jokes== Have no right to edit.

2,006

false

article

blocked

train

false

34,350,345

:sometimes the best support a human can get is to be left alone given leeway to try a different approach, even if it's not immediately understood or respected.

2,006

true

user

blocked

test

false

34,373,940

GOOD IDEA to list the page then there is a good chance that the true vandal will recognise the message for him/her??? Then the innocent will know that the message is not for them for sure. AOL-er here.

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

false

34,374,354

The only thing to do is for the admin to always specify the page they are banning the user for , then the rest of us will see that it is not for us, they are not doing this- to some degree the vandals ARE letting the side down by using our server, if it is frequent we should send a complaint about the AOL user to AOL, who would be entitled to take action as it is against the Conditions of Service to vandalise other web pages...

2,006

false

user

blocked

dev

false

34,375,931

`Why is there even an ``Edit`` option anyway? Maybe if they took it off there wouldn't be as much vandalism. `

2,006

false

user

blocked

dev

false

34,380,009

`Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or 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 to our encyclopedia. Thanks.e () `

2,006

true

user

random

test

false

34,389,024

== My personal attack on you == Yeah you-I am personally attacking you-regarding the fact that you are ruining Wikipedia with nonsense! ~~TheBlackLarl

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

true

34,390,985

The entry before I modified it contained unsourced POV and failed to mention major publications of the subject. I have modified it to correct those failings.

2,006

true

article

blocked

dev

false

34,391,629

::Mr. Stein, you misinterpret my petitions in your behalf. My English is not above average, so perhaps my words imply another thing. In my land, we appreciate men of boldness who jihady for their convictions. You know I'm true in what I say, my barnstar on your page shows this. I believe you deserve another change...I have been banned so I know what this is like. None defended myself...allow me to return in kind. Danka.

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

false

34,391,834

== Lesbianism == Is it true that she was a lesbian?

2,006

false

article

blocked

test

false

34,392,046

This is my computer at work and the only fun I have is vandalising wikipedia.

2,006

false

user

blocked

test

false

34,395,513

* I have now edited and added a review and analysis of the critical response to the film in English. More work is still needed on production details. Mike Walford 08 Jan 06

2,006

true

article

random

train

false

34,396,501

I fixed your reference for the ARRL handbook and moved the other one to the Balun article.

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,405,876

` :Unfortunately, I won't really have any good opportunity to do this. What I will do, however, is insert a section for such information and put in it, so that at least something will go there at some point (I do not watch that channel). And for all this, I comment: ``Live and learn``. '''''' `

2,006

true

user

random

test

false

34,407,116

***thanks of the info to all who contributed

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,422,328

==Hermann Göring== The quote only acheived widespread currency in the wake of the war in Iraq, as a criticism of the Bush administration. It's validity can be checked at Snopes, as you know, so its inclusion here is POV. I'll let it stay for now, though.

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,422,691

== Vandalism Revisited == Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia, Mr. AOL address 152.163.101.14. Your test worked, and has been reverted or 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 to our encyclopedia. Thanks. It's on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull, please don't add irrelavent content on it Thanks.

2,006

false

user

blocked

test

false

34,424,127

If you have a dispute, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

2,006

true

article

random

test

false

34,424,860

Why are you guys reverting my edits? Im trying to cooperate with a picture of a native cherokee wedding and you revert it, i dont understand. How about some workout fatty.

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,427,612

` ::It's definitely Italian. ``I have not found another place on the internet to tell you...`` There are a few words I don't know, so I can't translate. The second part of the post is the poster's revision of a poem by Pablo Neruda, ``Who dies?``. `

2,006

true

article

blocked

train

false

34,427,838

::::::I'll echo that: I hope that my second bit of advice above didn't scare you off! We don't want you to leave, T-man! I hope you're just busy with real life stuff, and will be back soon. ) — •

2,006

true

user

random

test

false

34,436,981

` January 2006 (UTC) I'm just not sure why Tony Sidaway is the sole arbiter of what's ``deleterious`` to Wikipedia. 01:47, 9`

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

false

34,438,965

== User:Justforasecond == What happened to you? You didn't used to act like this. I for one would never have voted you in as an admin if I'd known you would. Bullyboy tactics are not the way to go, man. Yes, it would be nice if this knobend didn't harass Deeceevoice but you can just delete their comments if they offend you or her. Threatening other editors just isn't the tone. You just supply the guy with a grievance, when deleting the edit and ignoring the troll would be far more likely to have a positive effect.

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

false

34,441,528

== eat me == go blow yourself

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

false

34,442,015

, I spent 15 minutes working on a blurb on the Chaos movie page, used links to back up the information and than you removed every fucking word that I wrote. Burn in hell.

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

true

34,443,170

you stupid cunt. (Oh, and I fucked your mother last night. I hope you die.

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

true

34,443,744

== fuck you == fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you

2,006

false

user

blocked

dev

true

34,452,548

== Willie Lynch letter == Where can i go so i can read the letter by Willie Lynch

2,006

false

user

blocked

train

false

34,452,972

:Kewl. Looks good now, thanks.

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,464,164

` == Re: Personal attacks == I have removed the following statement from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Karmafist: *``but i would support electing Karmafist as most abusive, mendacious, hypocritical, and unfit admin in the WP project.`` I feel that this statement constitutes a personal attack, and therefore have removed it. If you disagree with this action, please discuss either on user talk or on the talk page of the Arbcom vote. • :thanks for informing me. i reworded it to indicate more of what Karmafist has done rather than simply what he is. i believe this information is important for people to read lest Karma do to them what he has done to me. when an abusive and unfit admin (of whom two of the present ArbCommissioners have voted to desysop him) tries to increase his power by running for ArbCom, there is certainly increased danger of abuse and harrassment to legit editors of WP. `

2,006

true

user

blocked

test

false

34,465,849

:: then, please, i would suggest to make that clear where you disenfranchise him. and i would also suggest striking out the text of his vote.

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

false

34,470,949

Archives: | | |

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,477,968

== Notable Iguanas? == I'm curious, now. (Normally, I wouldn't ask these sorts of questions, but I'm intrigued.) What is it you're referring to? The only notable reptiles I can think of that don't really exist are Leon Powalski from Star Fox Assault and the Geico Gecko. Or is this an inside joke.

2,006

true

user

random

train

false

34,484,562

: See the Death Rock articles talk page for the reason behind the edits. Also, im talking about people who dont know anything about Death Rock or Gothic Metal, associating the two. See the Gothic Music article for this problem. Also the pink line thing was a joke, im sorry you didnt get it. it was mainly a play on my affiliation with only wearing black and pink. : General purpose of messaging you, was in regards that some Death Rock bands, and some Gothic Metal bands, take influence from each other. What also doesent help is that many people assume that several Doom Metal bands are Gothic Metal, including the genres progenetors such as My Dying Bride and Theater of Tragedy. This doesnt help when those Doom Metal bands in question are influenced by Death Rock bands, causing people to mistake firstly the bands as Gothic Metal, and then secondly, Death Rock and Gothic Metal being associated. Perhaps mentioning the influence that Death Rock bands had on Doom Metal bands would be good.

2,006

true

user

blocked

train

false