Datasets:

dirtycomputer

/

Wikipedia_Talk_Labels

like 0

` : Hi. Yes, that old conversation seemed to disappear. Medeis removed it, citing a policy about ``threats of harm``, as you indicated. I reviewed it, after this deletion. The OP said something like ``Geez, if I had to do life in prison, I'd rather die ... or I'd rather kill myself`` (or some such). Medeis took that as a suicide threat. And did the ``threat of harm`` removal. The policy cited states something like ``take all threats seriously, don't assume that the threat is a joke``. I did not think it applied to that particular thread. But, in picking and choosing my battles, this is not one of them. Anyone including me might say ``I'd rather die than serve life in prison``. In fact, most people would say that! And I don't think that constitutes a threat of suicide. Particularly by the way given the fact that I (or the OP) did not in fact receive a life sentence. A silly deletion. Back to double jeopardy. We seem to disagree. And I do not have the wherewithal to engage in legal research at the moment. Yes, it is my understanding that when a new trial is ordered, everyone starts from scratch, from square one. (I am sure we both recognize that many things can happen in an appeal. They are rarely cut-and-dry; they are rarely black-and-white. But, in the cut-and-dry case of ``new trial is ordered``, it is my belief that the prosecution starts with a clean slate and that nothing is ``off limits``. I say this as a general rule. Perhaps the death sentence has some ``extra special``: rules associated with it. But, even that, I am suspect of. In your case where the defendant is actually acquitted (on one charge), of course no retrial can occur (on that charge). But, again, it depends on the appeal. I am quite certain that the defense did not appeal the acquittal. I am sure he appealed the ``rest of the trial`` which did not favor his client. So, in other words, the charge acquitted (assault and battery, in your example) is not even under consideration in the appeal. An appeal usually has several points being appealed (not just one). And the justices review each point, one by one. So, in your hypothetical case, the defense would not be ``complaining about`` (i.e., appealing) an acquittal that went in their favor. They would be appealing the other things that transpired in the trial. So, the final order of the justices might read ``a new trial is ordered with respect to the robbery charge`` (or some such). Now, do you have a case to cite that supports your contention? Thanks. `

user

blocked

test

If so, that would answer your question about whether or not I have a case to support the opposing claim. Yes? :

user

blocked

train

`I think you hit the nail on the head, when you state: It's a little foggier in the ``implicit`` case, but I think it works the same way. I would agree that it's ``foggy`` (but not that foggy), and I think it does not work the same way. : `

user

blocked

dev

It's obviously addressing the (remote) hypothetical of how I (or the OP) would feel if I (or the OP) did ever get a life sentence.

user

blocked

dev

` I'm not ``socking`` or ``disrupting`` or trying to prove some ``lame`` point, lame user dave dial. And you're being uncivil, so you stop it. If I were ``socking`` then I wouldn't have clarified that my edits from my new account were from me, would I have? `

user

blocked

train

` == removal of proper sources?? == Why are the real and proven informations removed, and replaced with FAKE ones, with no sources attached to it what so ever? The info destroyers on the site even send me cretin attacks where they acuses me of ``not atach the proper source note/info``😉. Even if I carefully attach the reference notes (the same at other info on the same page, allready posted by others, real, accepted source notes), the info posted by me complete with note sources, is again removed complitely and replaced with cretin, fake, and totally unproven info, with no source note what so ever. What kind of site is this?? A new department of the Funny Farm? Or a place where history manipulators gathered to make up fantasy and totally unsubstantiated fairytales, removing any real info & historian which posts pertinent and proven info? In this case, I live you to your medicine. PS: Do not forget to cry ``attack to person!``😉 (or whatever you call it when you are caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and you look for an excuse) `

user

blocked

train

Right, with the exception of Masem, everyone agree's it should be mentioned. The sentence should not include technical info. My draft - On December 2015, Steam's content delivery network was misconfigured in response to a DDoS attack, causing 34,000 users' personal information to be exposed.

article

blocked

test

Agree with Czar, the article reads like a gaming report. Here's some gems: *team's first major accomplishment *This victorious roster was not to last long however; *Despite a strong semifinal performance against SK Gaming *Despite having their most successful *CLG.EU pulled out a slow and methodical victory in an extremely close showing The page is written like a story by a fan. Can some of tournament results just be put in a table? WP:VAGUE really needs applying. The facebook sources are unlikely to be reliable.

article

blocked

train

== Hey child! == Hello child of the dogs..

user

blocked

train

` == are you a troll? == You call me a troll. Let's review the facts: All ancient sources (I AM a historian) mention about 30,000 Dacian warriers in the first war (the so called ``Scond Battle of Tapae``😉, which was not at all a battle of Tapae, but the battle for Sarmizegetusa, a few miles only further, never conquered by the romans, which fled scared shitless to Adamclisi, 700km further east, where the battle for the Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa also ended! With a shrine inscripted with more than 3,000 fallen roman soldiers, only the limited wall surface of the shrine limiting the names inscriptions.., this also being called by you ``a decissive roman victory``😉 for Sarmizegetusa, not conqered at that time by the romans, which started towards it but were stopped at Tapae, and when the Dacians stopped fighting because of the legendary ``strange storm``, ``anger of the Dacian Gods``, and they were defenceless, the romans, also a few miles only from Sarmizgetusa and open for taking, ran as crazy 700km in 4 days, to their reserve troops at Adamclisi.. and you call this ``decisive roman victory``😉), and 15,000 Dacian soldiers in the second big war, of AD 105, ending in 106AD. This correct troops amount stayed a few decades (anyway many years; I made screenshots at some point for a school documentary), and only recently somebody vandalised the site changing the amount in a couple of hundred thousands, with NO SOURCE REFERENCES what so ever, and he couldn't do it too as all historical info points out the tiny Dacian army at that time. YOU, as administrator, in sted of correcting the vandalism and restore the page, didn't give a damn.. When I came and restored the info, doing YOUR JOB, you acuse me of ``vandalism``😉, and that ``I am partial to the Dacians``, while you are the one partial to the romans and to vandalism. Further more, you acuse me that ``being partial to the Dacians``😉, I said that the Dacians won, not the romans, adding that ``I did not attach sources ref./proof``😉. On the page of the First Battle of Tapae, was allways mentioned (with source ref. attached; poorly and only 1 source while there are many.. but OK) that the governer (of the invading roman army in the DACIAN Moesia) was killed together with his army (that is correct). This first battle of Tapae (again BS; it was the battle of the romams for Sarmizegetusa, also stopped at Tapae, Sarmizwgetusa was NOT conquered, that's why was called The battle of ``Tapae`` which was nothing, just an emlty field, and the roman empire does NOT fight to conquer grass and empty fields) was also lost by the roman army which was totally defeated/anhilated, and even Fuscus died in battle. All these info are correct and o your/that page. Accepted by you as administrator. You call this ``a roman victory``😉. If i call it as it is, a Dacian victory, you call me a troll and tell me that ``that didn't happened``, meaning Dacian victory. Than WHAT do you call it? It's a retorical question. I am a pretty known international history investigator, and my coleagues often make fun of the wikipedia trolls which poses as administrators. I mean.. the facts speak for themselfs. You change Dacian victories in ``indecisive battle``, and indecisive battles in ``roman victory``, which makes you automaticaly bias, and history falsifier, obviously in favour of the invading hoodlam romans. You go so far in presenting the invading (into Dacian teritories) romans as ``the good guys`` and the Dacians as ``bad guys``, that you even post totally ridiculous texts like ``the Dacians invaded Dacia, and the romans (coming beligerantly all the way from Italy) were right to punishe the Dacians for that``😉. How criminal are you? About you history knowlwdge (if any) is pointless to ask. Right? All the so called (also BS because the Dacians never started nor wanted war) ``Dacian Wars``, which were actually Roman wars, started by the invading roman army, and all took place OUTSIDE Italy, into Dacian/Thracian teritories. Roman wars, and you call them ``Dacian wars``, to manipulate the readers on subliminal levels. Moesia, which was also Dacian teritory (by the way, you can find this info also on wikipedia if you have no official sources), invaded, masacred and robbed by the roman army coming from Italy, when saved from the romans by the Dacians (as it was part of Dacia), is called by you on your page ``murdering dacians``😉, ``the dacians swarmed into Moesia to rob and pilleage``😉.. and other bullshit. So the dacians were the robbers or the romans?? And WHAT did the Dacians had to rob from their own dacian teritory?? Didn't they have more GOLD than they knew what to do with it, gold stolen by the ROBBER Trajan in AD 106 from Dacia in such huge quantities that the roman empire florished as never before? This info is also on this site to be found. In short, you are the kind of man which in the year 3000 discovers a manuscript, written in french, about a battle in Japan, between the french and the japanese army, in which it is written that the japanese were the ``bad guys``, and the french were the ``good guys`` which came all the way to japan ``to punnish the japanese because they invaded Tokyo``, and you taking it as real information. Everybody who tries to wake you up to reality, you attack him right away calling him a ``troll``, just because your wife is french and you have a thing for France. Everybody who tries to tell the truth, you acusing him of being bias and on the japanese's side for some reasons. And THIS tells everyting about you! Not only your brutal removal of the real info with ref sources attached, and replacing with BS info with no ref sources what so ever. As history investigator I know very well why the troups amount bothered you, as romans fan, and you changed it recently, namely because from that number comes the whole truth to light (which is in detail described in antic manuscripts, which I gave access to and you don't) about the Roman Wars, renamed by you ``Dacian Wars``, in order to blame the Dacians for them. If the first great battle (101/102 AD) was ``won``😉 by the romans when the romans had 2.5 times the troups amount the dacian had (only 30,000 dacian troups), than later, in a time of financial difficulties in Rome to pay the army, in the second war (105/106 AD), when the dacians had only 15,000 soldiers, in sted of taking half of the army used before (which according to you and other history falsifiers, was a ``roman victory``😉) and repeat the ``victory``, he tool more than 200,000 trouos against only 15,000 dacian soldiers??? (and even so, after 1 year the romans stil did not conquer squat, untill they found and destroyed the underground water pipes of Sarmizegetusa) Only the amount of roman troups in this second war (105AD) proves who won the previous war. Besides other detailed written historical facts about it. You are NOT the only troll on wikipedia which hears these facts from me. After a short while after one of you roman empire fans heard this from me last year, the number of dacian troups grew on wikipedia from 15,000/30,000 to 200,000 troups, in order to support your other kakameny info spread by you on this site. Fortunatelly, only kids comes on wikipedia to read some stuff from time to time, and for them I corrcted your vandalism about the troups and who won. Real historians to not give a shit on wikipedia, as 10% of it is real true info. We have only original manuscripts to take our info from. Here the info is worth if being taken only when little kids with unfounded trust in wikipedia, beside real info from real manuscripts, wants childislhly also a ``second opinion`` from wikipedia. (This to see how ignorant little children are). `

user

blocked

dev

` I am in ``the violation of the neutrality policy``?? YOU are the bias one, roman empire fan, as you also say on your page, and ``I am the one which is not neutral but bias``? I left you an answer in a new discuusion, because it's a long answer, which proves that you are the one who violates the neutrality rule (I also brought proofs of it!), and you remove official ref sources info in order to replace it with empty (and not backed up with anything) words, in order to fit your pro-roman agenda`

user

blocked

test

` == i forgot == I forgot to tell you many things in my other, long, discussion subject, here is one of them (because you say directly and indirectly that you have no interest in the historical truth, but in favouring the roman empire because you are a fan of it, as you explain here on your page): Besides, never ever no way no how in the whole history of the roman empire, the romans (esspecially in the catastrofal financial situation in Rome, when the empire was on the virge of colaps because of it's lack of money!) never waged costly and long battles against other nations in order to force those nations to accept huge gold tribute from Rome, so those nations can ``built and strenghten their fortresses for future attacks``, like you, history falsifiers, argumented the roman tribute payed to the Dacians in 88 AD as well as in 102 AD, when the common sense men asked you ``how come those wars were won by romans if at the end of them the romand had to pay anual tribute to the dacians?``. And you started to buulshit that that money was ``for building and strenghten the fortresses/defences``, going so far in your bullshit that for the following war (AD 105) you, as roman empire fan and as such automatically history falsifier), as reason for this roman attack/war on Dacia, you mentioned again the invading romans as ``the good guys``😉, and the dacians as ``the bad, cut trouths, robbers, dacians``😉, which were ``justfull punished by the romans`` in this ``punitive`` war against the dacians IN DACIA, because ``the dacians used the money received from the romans after the last war and used ut for.. building and strenghten the fortresses/defences``(!), so for exactly what they were suppose to use it, according to your own afirmations!! Duuh!  So the roman empire did not invade other countries to demand ``protection money`` (tribute) from them to not invade them again(tipical italian culture/maffia), but they invaded the world TO PAY anual tribute to those countries?? I do not know what medication do you use, but you obviously forgot to take it for a long time. Well, you are a roman or a roman fan, so it's understanable that you have no clue what so ever what are you talking about. You are focussing on 1 thing only: Praising the cut throuts romans and presenting them as ``the best and most civilised people in the World``, which invaded, masacred, robbed and enslaved countless nations and civilisations, because... ``they were the good guys, period``😉. Also enjoying throwing women and children (plus everybody actually) alive to wilde beasts to eat them alive in the arena (Damnatio Ad Bestias), was another obvious sign of the ``roman civilisation``😉 which you admire so much, and which thus also says much about you, who and what you are. Have a nice day. `

user

blocked

train

== Kansas Green Party == I am trying to be nice and give you time to improve vs nominating it for speedy deletion. Please only remove the tags after you have made the improvements.

user

random

test

` :::: You're making comparisons to bands who achieve no success with their original names. Sure, The Silver Beatles might have been the name of the band at one time, but they didn't achieve the major success they had until they were named just 'The Beatles'. Same with Simon and Garfunkel. Martin and Lewis achieved success under the name ``Martin and Lewis`` and only added their first names later on when tensions between the 2 became enlarged. That does not mean that the name they are known by is the newer one. People know them by the last names, just like Abbott and Costello. Their first names are always listed in the opening credits of the films too, just like Martin and Lewis, but they have always been, and will always be, ``Abbott and Costello.`` As such, Dean and Jerry will always be ``Martin and Lewis``. I vote to keep the name of this article untouched. `

article

random

train

` ====Destroy the opposition==== Well great, this oddly framed RfC has resulted in the addition of a few words, and the utter destruction of the good faith of several long-term editors. Of course, Flyer22 has already predicted this, she has a special link to the future, and as she has told me, she is far better placed to predict the future than me. Problem is, she's shat on her own patch. Many of us remember that Flyer22 was a great, generous, kind contributor. Right now, all we will take away is a scathing and unpleasant experience. A smug ``I know better`` predeliction and a victim complex is seriously a problem. I know for a fact that many editors who used to hold her in esteem are now looking long and hard at her contributions, to check that this individual isn't so buoyed up that she starts to believe her own press. Really sad. But for someone who is so self-obsessed and so self-absorbed, no shocks. `

article

blocked

dev

:: This information now lives in the production section of the article, although if you think it would be better suited to reception, then feel free to move it. Don't, however, reinstate it to the articles lead, as this makes for too long a read (and it isn't very pretty!)

article

blocked

train

::::Am glad that you see I was merely responding in kind to user Kautilya3 who had initiated uncongenial and aggressive phrasing.I accept your apology and I duly note your point about a 12 month rule for discretionary sanctions alerts.I had been concerned about why only I had received the notice, but now I see your point. Happy we're on the same page now. Good day.

user

blocked

dev

` == Genres == : I can see this is becoming an issue on a number of other pages. It's not enough simply to have a source when adding genres to an infobox: :# The ``genre`` field should be limited to genres that describe the album (or group, or whatever) in general, and not every genre that has been incorprated into it. Imagine what the Beatles' infobox would look like otherwise. :# The sources you are citing are not necessarily supporting the genres you're adding: for instance, Earles says: ``Side B is ... proto-Sabbath sludge metal or proto-noise rock, depending on how you wish to retroactively consider this stuff against the underground rock history that came before and has transpired since ... etc etc doom metal scene etc etc power- and thrash-metal movements ...`` ... it takes quite an imagination to read that and conclude that My War is a ``sludge metal album``. :# ``Genre`` is the kind of thing Wikipedians often come close to slitting each others' jugulars over (see WP:GENREWARRIOR). If you want to stay on good terms with your fellow editors, you'd best discuss changes to the ``genre`` field on the talk page. :  🍁  `

user

blocked

train

` ***Yes, it was an error when I removed the ``native_name``. My apologies! `

article

random

train

thanks for returning the page to its original state

user

random

train

yopu smell like fish

user

blocked

dev

::Discussion requires both parties to explain their actions. Pages are not owned by individuals or groups of friends to stifle dissent, which seems to be the real problem. I have explained my edits a number of times, though no explanation was offered on the content itself by the reverter. Reverting an explained restoration of content is edit warring, and bringing others in to circumvent WP:3RR is not WP:Good Faith or proper behavior. Those who find it hard to work with others should remember that it takes two hands to clap. Anything else need not be said on my talk, which is a personal space, but on the article talk.

user

blocked

train

` ::::Learn to respect the requests of other editors, and not comment on personal spaces when told so. This is called collegiality. The editor who reverted my edit in your favour is obviously a friend. No ``diff`` requireda simple gander of a is all that is needed. ::::You reverted my restoration of the date for the dynasty's beginning here. :::: I don't need to start a discussion, I just need to continue it, which I have done both in edit summary and on talk. I have clearly engaged in discussion on article talk, as anyone can clearly see.By continuing to comment here rather than the talk page as I had already ask, you are digging an even deeper hole for yourself. Respect the requests of other editors to leave their private spaces alone. `

user

blocked

test

== Surely these are all the types of map? ==

article

random

train

` :First of all, WP:3RR is violated through the fourth revert and not the third. Second, it was you assuming bad faith from the start by removing the line stating ``agenda-laden``. When I reverted you back and added the same inline ref from the body, you reverted it back again, describing content written by highly accredited historians ``and just because blah blah blah said it`` :If you had actual concerns regarding the phrasing, you could've easily made up a talk page section as its you whos contesting sourced content. Instead, you continued edit warring (with Twinkle, interestingly). Sorry, but these are not the right steps that should be taken if you had actual concerns only regarding its phrasing. Lastly, you should write this on the talk page of the article itself, and preferably not here. I just did that for you. - `

user

random

test

` :::The Paragraph is the main problem as I have been repeatedly pointing out, before your helped your friend circumvent 3RR. ::: Here is my original edit summary where I clearly call out the editorializing Talbot paragraph and explain why I am removing it in favor of the original factual Talbot quote, which someone curiously removed. Please provide the correct edit summary next time if you wish to put my edits under the microscope. Subsequent edit summaries were during reverts, which were naturally more limited in description. Even those asked whether the reverting editor wanted additional cites([the revision history clearly shows])I was prepared to provide them on request. It takes two hands too clap. You didn't answer my question: are you both interested in resolving this dispute or something else? ::::::On a side note, I know english isn't your first language, but ``chink`` is considered a racist insult towards people of asian descent. You may wish to change that. In the interest of WP:Good Faith that can be considered a typo for now.`

article

blocked

train

` * Note The prefecture is named ``Gifu Prefecture,`` so no competitor. I'm unsure though whether the city clearly is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the region. If someone can show us that it indeed is, then I'm perfectly fine with it. Otherwise the city's WP:COMMONNAME still seems to be simply ``Gifu``, so we'd be usually disambiguating it as Gifu (city). `

article

random

test

== Help == I am a man and pregnant

user

blocked

train

Why don't you get a life you sicko.

user

blocked

dev

UR Stupid Mate, Block me i don't care

user

blocked

test

` == Your question at the Help desk == —  •  • contributions • (UTC)`

user

random

train

` :I think it would be misleading to say that she was ``Georgian`` without clarifications. Her name for one is definitely not Georgian. Also, if ``Georgian`` in this case simply refers to the country of provenance, that's also misleading because at that time Georgia as a state formation did not exist. With that logic it should say ``Azeri immigrant from the Russian Empire``, or lands recently annexed by Russia. `

article

blocked

dev

` :::``stupid``? I'm so glad that Wikipedia is not biased. `

article

blocked

test

:::: I believe someone else was responsible for citing Talbot as reliance for the 50 year polity of the Musunuri Nayaks. I merely checked old versions to see why such obvious facts were left out. An alternate citation can be provided to confirm if you find Talbot wanting here.

article

blocked

train

== Scum of the earth vandal. == Don't change my properly sourced edits you stupid prick

user

blocked

train

` == Attachment to the First Canadian Army == In the Normandy section it says: ``The unit was attached to the First Canadian Army. This may have been done to help in communication, as the vast majority of Poles did not speak English when they arrived in UK from 1940 onwards.`` So does this mean that: 1) they wanted the Poles subordinated to an English-speaking unit for command and control purposes, rather than operating independently, or that 2) there were sufficient numbers of Polish-language speakers in the Canadian Army to act as translators? There's no reference linked to this assertion. `

article

blocked

train

Hey! Thanks for your comment! I am new to Wiki and i will try to improve myself.

user

blocked

train

== Your Harassment At AndyTheGrump Talk - A Third Revert Is Confession == Apparently you missed the irony that by reverting you conceded the point that AndyTheGrump's vitriol was promoted by coddling admins.

user

blocked

train

Why don't you get a life you sicko. Fucking twat.

user

blocked

train

think that acton potential belongs to elect conduction. Also

article

random

train

== Conflict of Interest == You are not supposed to be editing the Jonathan Mitchell article as you are a personal real life friend of his. Please familiarise yourself with conflict of interest rules to confirm this.

user

blocked

dev

I now have an account and I have retagged this page and warned Ylevental about his COI. Any future edits from him should be reversed on sight - unless there is another procedure that needs to be followed.

article

blocked

train

== Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016 == Please change Amelia Baggs to Amanda Baggs as there is are reliable sources to confirm her name change from Amanda to Amelia. The page itself was moved back some time ago.

article

blocked

train

Again - do NOT edit the article in question. You have a conflict of interest. Request edits on the talk page.

user

blocked

train

: You are a personal friend of the subject. That's COI.

user

blocked

train

::: Go ahead and talk to the admins. You are a personal friend of Mitchell's and I can prove it. Stop editing the article per COI.

user

blocked

train

foot fetishes are awesome fuck you

user

blocked

dev

dalai llama ding dong!!!!

user

blocked

dev

== COI == It's hard to avoid noting COI issues without some indication of ID. I'm trying to limit it, but in order to prove COI this is extremely hard to do. Hope you understand.

user

blocked

train

== I'm back!!! == I'm back and I fully intend to continue vandalizing your page and imitating your signature in comments -)

user

blocked

train

`Editing of article without Consensus & Removal of Cited Content without Discussion=== :::I find it telling that neither of you had the courtesy to respond to my proposal and K3 went ahead to begin editing the article without any consensus being reached. Let the record note that I am now compelled to reciprocate your actions and make my suggested changes. JJ obviously lacks any serious knowledge in this area and was only here for circumventing 3RR, so there's no point answering his most recent underinformed questions. I'll focus on Kautilya3. If you were significantly acquainted with the topic, you would understand that the Kakatiyas were feudatories of the Eastern Chalukya dynasty.So the question of when the formal royal dynasty began is a natural question, not ``patent nonsense``, and probably one of the reasons some previous editor changed the old date to ``Uncertain``. 1053 was the date given for the first royal inscription based on the permanent grant of Hanumakonda (their original capital for your edification) as a fief to the Kakatiyas. I also suggest you both refresh your knowledge of WP:Civility, to improve the quality of your current and future discussions. If you don't know about an author, here's a hint, ask...politely..rather than first disrespectfully dismissing the author, then demanding his c.v. What's more, his book speaks for itself. Its the History and Culture of Andhra Pradesh (the old state which included the new state of Telangana). This is not some arcane ivory tower speculative paper, but a WP:RS. So if you want to change the date to 956CE, perfectly fine by me. The only difference is, I had the sense of responsibility to provide a citation. I suggest you do the same. Let me repeat that I am perfectly fine with having a respectful dialogue. But as I've said before, it takes two hands to clap. Ball is in your court, gentlemen. ===`

article

blocked

train

== Re: human self-reflection == My edit was not a test. The given Proto-Indo-European form for the ancestor of Latin homo is patently false and was corrected to the generally accepted etymology.

user

random

dev

:: Thank you. Now you can't edit the article without clearance from this talk page. This also means that I don't need to provide any further evidence on the COI noticeboard.

article

blocked

train

thank you , and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/

user

blocked

train

::Do not comment on my talk page when we are having a discussion on an article page. You made bad faith edits and reverted my own edit. If you comment here again, without official sanction, I will remove it from my page.

user

blocked

train

, 6 January 2016 (UTC) ::::::Do not issue threats that will very well boomerang on you.We have had no interaction and you are no admin, so engaging in WP:Hounding will result in ending your time here on Wikipedia if you do not change your ways right away. If you comment here again without official sanction, I will delete it. 07:59

user

blocked

test

`::Because it is Talbot herself who revises the existing Narrative of why the Nayaks fought the Delhi sultans, and how they liberated the Andhra region. P.R. Rao doesn't need to reject Talbot's revisionism, because he merely states the existing narrative that Nayaks fought to liberate their own country from Turk muslims. It is Talbot & Eaton who come up with the ``theory`` that the Nayaks had revised their own history as if they needed to in order to liberate their own country from foreigners. Had you read carefully, you would have seen above where I say that Rao himself pre-dates Talbot. If you wanted page numbers for anything (let alone that odd request of an older source needing to explicitly reject a new theory), then you and your friend should have simply asked like adults, with civility. :: When I have received even an opinion on the merits to my proposal above, then we can continue this interaction, since you both have been making bad faith edits without consensus and have now reverted my own edit. I didn't even ask for much just ``According to Talbot and Eaton``, and even that was reverted. Why such stubbornness? You don't own these pages nor are you the review panel.I sense another reason for such behavior given our previous interaction, yet another reason for your appearance here. Be advised that Wikipedia is for good faith editors who want to improve the content, not for bad faith editors who have a vendetta against someone for a sockpuppet investigation. And tell your friends to stop issuing threats on my talk page. ::Either way, I responded now to make myself clear. But since you clearly don't have the understanding of the subject matter, rather than waste everyone's time, you should just let your friend do the edits and lead the discussion (assuming even he is interested in that), and you can just go back to helping him circumvent 3RR when he needs you to. It will save time that way, and avoid the bitternness and acrimony you felt in your previous comment which you later removed. `

article

blocked

train

===WP:Hounding and Bullying by non-related editors=== ::I have explained myself already, and you have no competence in the article beyond circumventing 3RR on behalf of Kautilya3, hence your odd questions above. Also, tell your non-admin friends with whom I have no interaction to stop commenting on my talk page. Bullying will not serve you or your little gang well.

article

blocked

train

REDIRECT Talk:Achcham Yenbadhu Madamaiyada

article

random

dev

` == Oh, come on now ... == How can you possibly justify this? Unsourced, widly undue, and total WP:RECENTISM. I don't know how you can justify putting distribution in the article in the first place, but even if it were included, you've restricted it to the American comic-book industry in 2016 (ignoring non-American comic books, comic strips, graphic novels, webcomics, etc etc etc, as well as the history of the direct market and the system that preceded it). Can you please explain why you are so desperate to fiddle with the article? It doesn't seem your motivation is to improve it, or to find out even the basics of what you're adding.  🍁  `

user

blocked

train

` :: You are in a world of such near-impenetrable ignorance that I feel little hope of getting through to you. If ``production and distribution of comics`` were an appropriate topic, you've dealt with it in the most indefensibly ludricous way possible. :: You know, of course, that production and distribution depend on the format (strip, comic book, graphic novel, album, tankōbon, etc etc), nation, time period, etc etc etc. Thus they are apporpriately handled in the appropriate sub-articles, not—repeat not—by adding a bizarre factlet about one tiny corner of the worldwide comics industries seemingly out of nowhere. :: Again, what is driving you to such leaps of desperate fiddling with the article? You entirely lack the competence and show not the least concern in gaining it. You are damaging the article. If you keep it up I'll have no choice but to report it and have you blocked.  🍁  `

user

blocked

dev

== This is for removing my post on 100% == I'm going to DDOS your toaster for this.

user

blocked

train

George, you have got to stop worrying so much about when protection expires. Right up there on the masthead it says this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and we take that seriously. A certain amount of disruption and vandalism is expected here. It's a sign that the grand experiment is working. If a page needs protection again, it will get it then. Please, please stop flooding RFPP and our talk pages with these requests. Katie

user

random

train

== Sales figures == Just a note to say that the numbers in the WSJ article is problematic as it includes streams and track equivalent albums, and as can be seen from the figures for the others, it distorts their numbers by quite a bit. Clay Aiken's number is more similar to the older total number because he doesn't sell as many singles and tracks, but that is not true to someone like Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, adding the numbers will actually make Clay Aiken look like he is selling fewer albums. We cannot add the number for Clay and not for the others. Billboard as of now still makes the distinction between number of albums sold and units (the new formulation) sold. It may need discussion first to add the numbers.

user

random

train

Iron Maiden is not hard rock, you just don't know what metal is. Anyway, if anything, alternative genres like progressive metal should be added as some of their albums are very progressive.

article

blocked

train

` So how do can ``they`` tell? Contact `

user

random

test

Moxy is right in that their softer songs would probably prog rock rather than hard rock.

article

blocked

train

` :::: A 20 year monopoly on the American comic book industry is nothing to sneeze at.—yes, it is. The focus of the article is on the comics medium, not on one tiny timespan of one tiny corner of the comics world. The American comic book industry in the last twenty years is a tiny speck—in American comic books there's a whole long history that predates that, much of which is far more significant; the American comic strip industry has always been economically and historically larger; graphic novels have been taking over, and they've been growing outside the direct market and Diamond; and the American comics industry as a whole is dwarfed by those of Europe and Japan. The Diamond monopoly is significant only to the American comic book industry of the last twenty years, and therefore merits mention in American comic book. Outside of that article, it is unbalanced and irrelevant fluff. It astounds me how you can't understand how ridiculously out of scope this is.  🍁  `

user

blocked

train

(UTC) Why is 'Mypos' not described as a fictional place? Think this part of the wiki is misleading as a lot of people might be inclined to think it's a real place. 23:14, 6 January 2016

article

blocked

train

` == Charles Felton Pidgin == Greetings. I stumbled across a picture of Charles Felton Pidgin this week and after digging got intrigued by his wacky mix of pursuits, and prepared a bio on him. Was just digging into his publisher and found your new article on Carro Morrell Clark, thanks for creating that. It appears Quincy Adams Sawyer was also made into a movie first in 1912, possibly by Clark or her husband (at least Charles Atkinson was the alleged president of ``Puritan Special Features Company``). I hope more can be found out about the film, though I am sure it is a lost film.'''''' • `

user

random

dev

So Melissa/they is/are a man now? Even Chaucer would have difficulties keeping up with this one!

article

blocked

train

` ::*I've been a little blunt with things when I e-mail people. I try not to go into a lot of detail, but I do let them know that we're verifying the veracity of claims. I did hear back from the person I e-mailed and what I got was fairly interesting, enough to where I'll make another subsection for this. `

user

random

test

` ==Request for help on mediation board== Hello, we had an exchange a few months back regarding the ``Mohammed`` page (which has still not be resolved, but I've resigned that Wikipedia simply does not want it to be). there is another page which I have dedicated a lot of research to but is being challenged despite all the citations and sourcing. I'm requesting guidance from you to see if I have filed the request for mediation properly here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy I'd like to ensure this is ``by the book`` but as it is my first time doing so, I would like some assistance. thanks. `

user

blocked

dev

` : As far as I can see, Handicrafts in the Indus Valley Civilization by Pathak does make any such specific references (and there are actually none to support the use of ``INDog``). `

article

blocked

train

I'm about to but...what happened with the prosecution failing? we can't use the word fail. was someone found not guilty? was the case dismissed? what caused it to fail?

article

random

train

` == Gurjars == gurjar are present large amount in pakistan please dont revert my edit•talk`

user

blocked

train

@Kautilya3: there are dozens of refrences are present in article

user

blocked

train

` == gurjars == why are you reverting my edits on gurjar??? Gurjars are second largest group of pakistan please now fix this problem•talk`

user

blocked

train

== Crown of Aragon == Hello and Happy 2016! Sorry to bother you. I saw that you were one of the first editors of Crown of Aragon. I am trying to launch a Wikiproject to run more or less in parallel with the Spanish counterpart. I was wondering whether you would be interested in taking part. Thanks for yer time,

user

random

train

:::::Once again.... I'm SO glad that Wikipedia is not biased or filled with retarded children.

article

blocked

dev

:That is original research, not allowed here. The materiel is sourced to reliable sources, stop removing it.

article

blocked

train

Holy shit, you people suck. I don't see any warnings given to Leitmotiv for his continuous belittling of other editors.

user

blocked

test

:::::::Why are you here? Is this random or did I piss you off somehow?

article

blocked

dev

::::I simply pointed out that an editor was interjecting personal opinion into an article and you bitches jump all over me. Fine. Do whatever you want.

user

blocked

train

` ::*Support merger of the two neighborhood articles, as there is a lot of duplicitous info between those articles and this 'main' neighborhood article could be greatly improved with the unique details from both. I'm slightly hesitant about merging Onondaga Park. The Syracuse neighborhoods page (archive link) states that ``Onondaga Park, a Local Protected Site is also located in Strathmore``, however as someone who used to live down the street I am very surprised that the Lower portion of the park is considered part of Strathmore. I always thought that once you were at the bottom of the hill, you were in Southwest, although indeed the above 'neighborhoods' link does say ``Lower Onondaga Park is adjacent to [Southwest]`` so it does seem to be completely in Strathmore. However, I'm pretty biased since I worked to expand the Onondaga Park article a few months ago into what I hoped was something that could stand alone (it's a nice little park to live half a block from!). But it may be best treated as part of this article after all. `

article

random

test

` == Who do you think you are? == Who died and made you king of other people's talk pages, Guy? Or, is it just that you're so far up Jimbo's ass (after all, you were his digital ``wingman`` a couple of nights before he went to bang Marsden, weren't you?) that you've lost all sight of what it means to be a man who stands on his own two feet? You are a disgusting thing, Chapman. Just reprehensible. - `

user

blocked

train

January 2016 (UTC) :::Except the video I haven't seen anyone naming him as Mohammed Afroz except the video of IndiaToday earlier tagged there and as far as I remember the Delhi police never revealed his name. So I am highly doubtful. Despite whatever his name is, WP:BLPNAME prevents from naming someone whose name has been intentionally omitted officially including in court records and isn't allowed to be named publicly. In the case of a rape victim, the family can reveal the name and the family of Nirbhaya did. However the juvenile isn't allowed ti be named under Juvenile Justice Act. Additionally the victimisation and probable threat on his life if his name is revealed also makes another case why his name shouldn't be there whether the name the sources gave might be wrong or true. Therefore, I am in agreement the previous edit versions containing all the various versions of his real name like Sunil and Mohammed Afroz should be deleted. 04:06, 8

article

blocked

train

|class=C}} {{WikiProject New York |Columbia=y

article

random

test

== recent edit on gurjar == mr sitush please stop doing vandalism on gurjars. gurjars are pak 2nd largest ethnic group of pakistan

user

blocked

test

agree please now dont remove pakistan section

user

blocked

train

This Wikipedia article reads like a Donald Trump ad. Someone please add more neutral sources and quotes.

article

blocked

train

of a information. The very usage of the word in any instance is self-verifying

article

blocked

dev

` ::::4. Remove ``Type X`` naming. Is not mainstream, and not needed because the description ``group 3 = ...`` already says it, and more directly at that. The description (definition) is required anyway. ::::5. Remove all historical/indecisive/ambiguous/relative graph definitions like long form, standard form, medium-long form, etc. Sources are inconsistent between them, relative naming adds complexity in understanding, it is loaded with historical changes. In short: there is no ``standard form``. - `

article

random

train

It got downgraded to B (maybe even C) class at some point because it was in a dire state. Over the years I (and others) have spent quite some energy into getting it to its present state. (Hence I much appreciate your compliment.) I currently don't have the time or energy to get it to FA state. However, if someone were to make the effort, I'd be glad to help out. I think to get there, it will need some minor updating for developments over the last 5 years or so. In particular, it should probably mention ongoing efforts of the Event Horizon telescope and GRAVITY to provide more direct observational evidence for the existence of a horizon.

article

random

train

*For Inclusion Tunny Wells is used throughout the town - I live here and I say it regularly, as do many other people I know

article

blocked

train

` On 1/7/2016, someone added a section entitled ``Controversies`` and provided well-sourced statements from many leading rabbis and commentators regarding Shmuly's controversial statements and positions. Later that day or the next, someone, possibly Shmuly, deleted this section, asserting to Wikipedia that the section was false or misleading. This is obviously not true, and Wikipedia pages should be there to inform the public of balanced facts and true information. Wikipedia pages should not be free advertising and self-promotion, only promoting the positive of a person when the person has been involved in numerous controversies. `

article

blocked

test

` == The lead is misleading == ``The Xbox One is a home video game console developed by Microsoft`` the very first line of the article states it's a ``home video game console`` however Microsoft have promoted the device as an ``all in one multimedia device`` for the living room, that has the ability to play games and media. I think stating in the lead that it's a ``home video game console`` and not a ``multimedia device`` is very misleading `

article

blocked

train

ok, no problem, I concede the point

article

blocked

train

::That's not how it works and you should know that. Especially when you haven't even bothered to say anything on talk.

user

blocked

train

== Quantico == What I couldn't ready ?

user

blocked

train