Datasets:

jaredjoss

/

jigsaw-long-2000

like 0

" ==Speedy deletion of Mariana Zara== A tag has been placed on Mariana Zara requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as

well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or ""db"" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. "

I'm with ^^^ == Speculation == I try my best to remove speculation where I see it. As far as I can tell you are critising me for: * only removing the speculative edits I thought wouldn't start a flame war on the 747 article. That whole list needs deleting IMHO. * removing speculation that BA's operation of the A320 led to them placing further orders. How do you know they wouldn't have placed the order anyway? I agree mention of the A320 order should have been made on the page and I missed that is wasn't mentioned elsewhere. When you put the info back minus the PoV I was quite happy

and left it, so why are you still moaning? To top all that, you justify re-adding speculation that BA has plans for 747-400 replacement by saying I didn't remove some other bit of speculation during an earlier edit. Surely the correct thing would be for you to remove what I missed, not replace the speculation I removed. [user: Mark83] 'The potential customers section on the 747 page is pure unsourced speculation' + 'It is perfectly valid to say that BA is an important potential client for either the A380 or 747-8' in the same paragraph!! So, in summary, you think 'pure unsourced speculation' is 'perfectly valid' in an encyclopedia. I despair!

Murali == Please don't revert my edits without good

reasoning - just makes you look stupid. ==

" :::You're a real pair of Nazi-infatuated knuckle draggers. Why can be so snide and dismissive? (LOL WP:CIV is for people who deserve it and can actually make rational rebuttals). You see my proud ""little Eichmann"", I was the one who added the SS flag in the first place in 2009 when I also added it to the infobox, I created. All I did was go to Wikimedia Commons and search for the most appropriate logo. This is the one I preferred the best. Hence your need for consensus smacks so much of WP:IDL it's ludicrous. So let's recap, a random choice/decision/option I made three years ago is now what you want, huh? I

have somehow created such a powerful precedence that now, even I cannot change my own off-hand random choice. This is so, so lame; which from POV is proving how you have serious issues with WP:OWN. Personally all I was doing was changing one logo for another to provide consistency. How anti-Wp:OWN is that? Still it tickles me so much to know that here on Wikipedia I have the powers of a demi-god who has followers willing to fight for other's beliefs that are not their own (in reality my own off-the-cuff decisions that I did not even think about). So fly, my pretty's fly, hahahahahahar, and take my contempt with you! ;-P "

The Fresh Meat 2 guide needs to be

deleted because nothing but bullshit is on it.

Rekoh da necu da nastavljamo diskusiju, jer tvoje ucesce i editovanje clanka jednostavno nije relevantno. Ipak par stvari ti necu ostati duzan: 1. Hrvati jesu katolici, ali to je samo jedna stvar po kojoj se razlikuju od Srba!! 2. Itekako govore hrvatskim jezikom, ali na maternjoj ekavici. (cak i da ne govore ekavicom, mesto u kome zive naziivaju kao i vecinski narod) 3. 'proper croatian', 'correct form' su najkontraverzniji moguci pojmovi (procitaj malo gore i zasto) koji se mogu upotrebiti da definises ispravno koriscenje jednog jezika kao sto je de facto (novo)hrvatski. Pa jel ti stvarno mislis da govoris ispravno? Ne sporim ja da se na internetu (na hrvatskim sajtovima, uglavnom usko

povezanih sa religijom) pojavljuje ijekavizirana verzija imena grada. Ja samo sporim one koji su je skovali i koji je upotrebljavaju i plasiraju okolo (pa cak i na visevekovnom podrucju ekavskog dijalekta). Ti koji sa Sr. Mitrovicom, a ni sa Srbiama, niti Hrvatima u njoj nemaju nikakve veze i realne predstave. Idi ti sad na clanak Osijeka pa pisi srpsku, cirilicnu i ekavsku verziju imena. Srba tamo ima koliko i Hrvata u SM, ili ih je bar nekad bilo). Govore ijekavicom (posto se ekavica u Baranji, de facto ne govori). Koliko ta izmena zazivi toliko ce i ova tvoja. Eto, koliko si dug odgovor napisao, dobro si i prosao s moje strane...

" A tag has been placed on Shannon Twomey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding to

the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or ""db"" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. "

" ==Speedy deletion of Gallas== A tag has been placed on Gallas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G1. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information

to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or ""db"" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — "

== riise == Go to hell bitch are u

priod why do u think im wrong pussy?hah?bitch

::::Sure but in the MHP we are faced with a natural language statement. All I am objecting to is you claim that a solution which conditions on the door number opened by the host is the way that professionals naturally solve the problem. There is no one foolproof reason for this but there are three arguments which seriously weaken that assertion. They are: ::::1) If you explicitly condition on the host door you should (for consistency) also explicitly condition on the players initial choice of door. ::::2) Depending on your exact interpretation of the problem, as you discuss above, If you explicitly condition

on the host door you should (for consistency) also condition on the identity of the goat revealed. ::::3) It is not clear from the wording that we are intended to consider door identities at all, and we actually know that this was not the intention of Whitaker, vos Savant, and Selvin. ::::You have agreed points 1 and 3 above. All I am arguing against is your occasional assertion that the Morgan-style (explicitly conditioning on the host door only) is the 'logically precise', 'professional' or 'proper' way of solving the problem. It is just one way, better than some and less good than others.

" == Definition of historiography == I feel a large part of the sense of historiography is ignored in the descriptive parts of the entry. In particular I refer to the way in which historiography can be seen to exist as a semi-independent discipline, in particular as demonstrated in the birth of specifically historiographical journals and with the popularity of historiography modules in most university history courses. To put it another way, this is historiography as a form of intellectual history and distinct from the single-issue historiography that can be equated (as in the article)

with historical revisionism. This approach considers not only single-issue historical debates but also how methodological, epistemological and philosophical debates about the ""correct"" approach to history are related to institutional and academic issues, not to mention cultural trends in general. It is also this kind of historiography that develops ideas about specific groups of historians working towards similar intellectual goals - be they Nationalist, Annaliste, Marxist, Subaltern, Postmodern, or whatever. I believe the entry would benefit enormously from a recognition of the alternative conceptions of historiography and a description of the approaches that both suggest."

" Hi Walpoleman, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page. - Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Finding your way around: * Table of Contents * Department directory Need help? * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions. * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up

codes. * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules. How you can help: * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help. * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity. Additional tips... * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your ""signature"" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this. * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. Good luck, and have fun. "

== hey == kendricks from pittsburgh not compton he

a wack motherfucker nwa would be ashamed boyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

" == Ports == OK, I just don't want more unsourced crap to sort through later. This article is already shoddy, poorly-written, poorly-organized, and poorly-sourced. Why don't we try fixing it instead of adding more poorly-source, poorly-written, and poorly-organized crap? Ports don't deserve their own section. Ports belong in a development section. Granted, this article doesn't have such a section, but why don't we try making one instead of contributing more spam? Also, for that matter, what makes ports noteworthy? If it's a port released a decade later with new features as a tenth-anniversary edition or something (Tomb Raider: Anniversary, Resident Evil: Deadly Silence), then I can see why we would

add information. ""Titus Software ported the game to the Super NES and released it in 1996. It has some missing features and lacks several stages, including the last one."" How does this add significant understanding of the topic to the article? How does it significantly enhance the readers understanding? It doesn't look like it does, to me, it just looks like something that could be tossed into a trivia section. What makes this a reliable source? The over-arching question: How does any of this constitute anything more than poorly-written, organized, and sourced crap that could be tossed into a useless ""Trivia"" section, which fails to enhance the readers' understanding? "

" == Hello == Hello abcdef. As an example of how to get a high-editor-interest change made, you might have noticed just above our recent discussion on the Talk:Origin of the domestic dog page a section titled Lead sentences. Here I have announced that I am about to change the lead sentences on the Origin article, contacted someone who as a special interest in this and who will lend support if they agree with the sentences, and I will wait while others have their say. If after about one week nobody else has responded, I will change those sentences on the Origin page, and also on the highly-sensitive Dog page under the section titled Origin. In the edit

description I will direct people to the Talk page as authority. This is the type of consultation that is needed to get things done on Wikipedia - one must be patient and be able to negotiate. I advise that you should probably leave the Thai Ridgeback situation alone now. I support you on your point, we could now press it hard because it has some academic support, but the point will not be accepted by people here for exactly the same reason that people will not accept that the dog should be reclassified ""Canis familiaris"". It will be sorted out given time. You may remove this section from your Talk page if you wish. Regards, • "

":Both Scjessey and I have since edited this section in a way that removed the specific charges, although I re-added that there were ""corruption"" charges. I don't think the specific counts (which K4T seems to be contentiously inserting and re-inserting) make any difference. However, Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction on public corruption charges is relevant as I argue elsewhere. Obama knew he was under indictment at the time of the land deal, as per the sources. Obama acknowledges, and many sources report, that the ""scrutiny"" over Obama's relationship with Rezko is in part a questioning of Obama's judgment in

dealing with a person he knows is under indictment. The second issue, which Obama considers more important (per sources) is the appearance of impropriety in doing business deals related to a fundraiser. Both sides (fundraiser and politician) are supposed to know better than that. When the fundraiser turns out to be convicted of political corruption, that tends to explain why the fundraiser is ignoring ethical standards and why the politician then comes under scrutiny. It is all very routine stuff, well covered by the media, and I don't think there is much dispute as to the underlying facts. "

" *Brief comments, since there is a bit much text here. The Washington Post URL is fine pointing at the first pagethat's where the article starts. On the father: The Robesonian article (which is an AP article, and also ran in the Washington Post) calls him a devout Muslim,"" and that's the end of it. ""Built"" or ""designed"" a mosque, that's really not so to the point, but I've changed it. The article in Times Daily calls him an architect? Then we call him an architect, until that is proven wrong (accusations such as Caner being a pathological liar and therefore we should doubt everything, those are not helpful). I've

removed the ""teenager"" part, since it's clear that that was hardly truebut stuffing an article full of ""he claimed"" is not helpful either and only contributes to what is rightly called a ""name and shame"" coloring.Oh, one final thing about the things 'missing' in my version: we DO NOT have to list every single damn thing that happened in this man's life, every thing he said, every thing that was exposed. That he mistranslated, cited incorrectly, whatever, I have tried to cover that in a condensed and readable way; the links to the articles are there for further detail. It is not Wikipedia's job to cover everything. Thanks. "

Vandalizing Vagina right after a block. Looks

like the block needs to be longer.

"::::Yet there are equally reliable sources that say the Christ Myth theory is something more than simply Jesus never existed as evidenced by Grant and Walsh as just two examples. As for what I mean by ""'Jesus existed but the Gospel Jesus is a myth-fiction' Idea"" that is simply my rephrasing of the category Remsburg and Boyd-Eddy gave us nearly 100 years apart: ::::Remsburg (1909): ""Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit."" ::::Boyd-Eddy (2007): We have enough to show there was a

Jesus but ""the reports we have of him are so unreliable and saturated with legend and ""myth"" that we can ascertain very little historical information about him."" ::::Again what separates ""the reports we have of him are so unreliable and saturated with legend and ""myth"" that we can ascertain very little historical information about him"" and ""narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit"" from there is nothing to show the Gospel Jesus (the version we base all our searches on) ever existed? That is the elephant in the room regarding the whole Christ myth theory and the most poorly explained aspect. "

To bad for you stupid victorians safeway is now wooloworths so

grow up and realise we live in an open market economy

== Fuck out of my sight! == Hello, Loser Fuck out

of my sight! Shit! Never let me find on earth!

" ===Headers for the history section=== William's version: :History ::Before the Fleischmann–Pons experiment ::Fleischmann–Pons experiment ::Subsequent research My version: :History ::Early research ::Fleischmann–Pons experiment ::Subsequent research I prefer the second version of the headers, because they are briefer and more aesthetic. The second version of the headers convey the exact same information as the first; however, the second version also has brevity and internal symmetry. Little details are important in making a great article, for example, n-dashes instead of hyphens, correct placement of images, simple wording, non-repetitiveness etc. In

this case, the second version of the headers have a nice internal symmetry—the ""Early research"" header reflects off the ""Fleischmein–Pons experiment"" and gives the symmetric ""Subsequent research"". The other version of the headers, unfortunately, appears to the reader as clumsy and wordy. And wordiness is something that this article definitely needs to cut down on. That is why the removal of a repetitive sentence in the above discussion was good. More is not better. If something is being repeated or overly wordy, it should be pared down. "

AND THE (2) is for the Joo

Koon, NOT MARINA BAY, GET OUT MOTHERFUCKER!!!

" :The in-text commented-out passage you quote above was part of the old text. I myself commented it out while quickly editing the beginning of that section because, besides the content, an encyclopedic article cannot pose rhetoric questions like that. Since this page was highly problematic, I left it for a while, and apparently nobody bothered to delete this inappropriate comment in the meantime. Be my guest. :Just a comment for the record... A number of pseudoscientists I've heard about have a double standard when it comes to entities such as chakras. For the believers they speak as if these things were

already true, real entities, and they even write books or give conferences on their properties and so on, going into great detail; for the non-believers and questioners, they become vague and elusive, they state general non-falsifiable truths, they don't clearly define anything, etc., precisely to avoid scientific (or common sense!) scrutiny. It seems to me that, under the provisions you stated above, science will always be on the losing side. But NPOV goes both ways — Wikipedia does not necessarily have to respect the scientific method to discuss a controversial issue, though it of course must state where it's coming from. "

ivjhoahcudhkjashgdkh abdghghsdgkagbdhfasdfashgfhasgfdgbhfgahgdfhasgfhasdgfhasgfhsdagfdsgahasgfsdagfsdhagfasdgasdgkfagskfgdakgaufgshfgasgfudysfgasfgdasfydagfyietfgyegfafgusageuawfgasytgfysgeygfuasdfgashtfgegfuyerfgrtfyiasfguyaefgyatfeyjgfuysdfgaetgfeygfasdfguywgasygfsuhafgerfyigdsgfuegfuydasguyfgeisgfdgfuyasyhgfilsdghlfksdlfghsdtfegyfdfaeraehfgldhksafhddhflhdasghfgyseraofhsbvu hfsuehfjshfjksdhfkasl hfduslh jklsd jkldh jka kjfhasduifhask ksdjhjkhafjkdhiuhfuasdh udshf ubdskfyhduksjghfuiseah kasej sk ksdjghfk sda sdbh dks bsfdbhjksdfhiawteuiedghfyiastefiuatyuer78234y5uht vndklsghsdk lgsdhfsdiagwefuighafukshfd hgfksdjfyhuisdhufiwhau iaegfkl gesudfuieshfsfayiseghaukshbeasehruhekasrkaehruiasty euoghsu huaRKAHR WUIE IEG RGUIWHERKAGIUihuaei yfhruwg huiwfuiehLUF IL gGIGYIFWGFW GYIG iGEWGY GE FGEYF WFGYWGEFYI

WG WE F WFGY WGYWGFGWEGY WYEGYG EWYFUYWUY U UGWEUGWEUYFGEYFGYWE GYWE YWETGFWYUGEWGYFwegyjhetgdjgyhmnicgxndsh ghd dhfdg hsgag ahsggyi ddGIsbg sfuiasgfserghiasdfygiasy8sdg gyd ty ys gycg gh asdgfsgyfsfasyigdfyiegygdytfdu sgdfs ggdyitfuisdgfyi gfsdg6gdfysgsdgfyisd fdbn vbnhvxjbnvc hu h hdhisdf hifuhguinl b;jdfnlohdhljnojnblcvhdjxhbgjhioxhujjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjxdddjdjdjdjjghojghzsduotydfjkhegdfjkghsdghsdfhgdfhgzsdhv dfgvu thouogyhisdhpsbdxduy sry

::I'm sorry but I'm such an idiot that I can't make

any sense of the doucheblog so I can't help you.

Snake: (to Gloria) Hey, baby. Listen carefully. Someone’s been editing

my biography on Wikipedia. I want you to kill him.

agree claiming a paulites has a different view on foreign

policy than ron paul is moronic, or deliberate. ::::::

Once this is over, can we make a bunch of empty edits

or something, just to clear the edit history of this crap?

" == Secret letter to Charles II of Jan. 1672 == My hair stood on end when I read "" Meanwhile, William had written a secret letter to Charles in January 1672 asking his uncle to exploit the situation by exerting pressure on the States-General to appoint William stadtholder"" in the section ""Conflict with republicans."" Since when did the States-General appoint stadtholders? I looked at the citation given (Troost, pp. 65-66) and indeed no such claim is made there. In the quote from the letter, William speaks of ""the States,"" which has to refer to the States of Holland, his most-persistent opponents. Troost does not make the claim that ""States-General"" is intended here. I have deleted ""-General""

which leaves the ambiguous ""States"" from the letter. No need to change or challenge the citation. I have made a number of other edits (some of which regrettably ""anonymous"" because I forgot to log in) to dot a number of other 'i's. For instance, the Act of Seclusion itself was not in the secret annexe with the Treaty of Westminster (1654) (which article I have recently rewritten), but was required by it. De Witt was quite capable of drafting the text of the Act, without having it dictated to him -) I don't think the provinces suspended the stadtholderate (Friesland certainly did not and left uncle William Frederick in place), but most left the office vacant. "

How the hell can you put guidelines on trivia? Trivia

is trivia is trivia. You people really are stupid.

Whats up with the negativity Why are you dumbass

mother fuckers insisting on this artists release as failed?

Thunderbringerstormbrook. I believe Game reviewers opinions should be voiced on early access as they are influential amongst the community in this area. It's relatively new and their opinions voice concern about them. Early access is relatively also very shady and in a grey zone right now. Minecraft was not a 'early' access it was a indy game released and as more people found it popular-it got more expensive. Mojang started the copy out free, and people gave feedback until the game grew to be a cult classic, to a fun classic, to a all time hit. Minecraft was never early access. Early access strictly talks about crowd funding and alpha funding in early game releases before they

are considered 'finished' by the developers or the community. I added controversy arguments which should not be removed due to their signs of pointing out flaws in the article. They are indications of these are things that will be included, but cannot without opinion and no real history to back up. But they cannot not be included because they voice concerns people should be aware about before they purchase the games which many game reviewers, critics and even some developers. Minecraft was more of a game which came to be and as time went on people bought it until it's at the price today. It's a misconception that people think it's a real early access game.

buh hu new lol sam hider needs tu shut the

f**k up or he is gunna get beaten up lol!!!!

" Hi Darkhand0120, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page. - Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Finding your way around: * Table of Contents * Department directory Need help? * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions. * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up

codes. * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules. How you can help: * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help. * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity. Additional tips... * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your ""signature"" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this. * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. Good luck, and have fun. "

WTF

U...........................................................................

Thanks Barry. I'd like to award you a

BARNSTAR for...something - but this goddamn block.....( )

" Hi Lilly951, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page. - Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Finding your way around: * Table of Contents * Department directory Need help? * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions. * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes. * Wikipedia's 5

pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules. How you can help: * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help. * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity. Additional tips... * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your ""signature"" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this. * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. Good luck, and have fun. Happy Editing, Click here to respond to this message!"

== Oil shale in Estonia next steps == Hi, Novickas. Thank you once more for your invaluable help with the Oil shale in Estonia article. The GA review done by was thorough and therefore very useful. I finished to resolve the remaining topic with oil shale coke and semi-coke by creating a new article Spent shale which should address these issues. I am looking forward to nominate the Oil shale in Estonia article for FAC but probably for this we need more fresh looks and thorough high quality reviews. Do you have any ideas who might be interested and able to do a review or just to go through the article? It was years ago when we prepared the main oil shale article for nomination and that time and assisted

with informal peer reviews. Unfortunately I don't know if they are interested about the topic any more and it seems that 4u1e has not been very active recently. During the Shale oil extraction process helped with review, but he also seems to be inactive recently. When it was already in the FAC process, 's review was very useful. However, I don't know if he is interested about the pre-FAC review or he concentrates only to FAC reviews. I also think that maybe we should ask if she is interested to go through this article. It is probably not the topic of her core interests but the article is related to geology and (industrial) history, so maybe it would be worth to ask her. Do you have any other ideas?

I dont wanna sound like a queer or nothin'

but.. what the fuck is that article ????

:::Thanks Rmhermen, I went to the style manual and discovered the following in addition to what you write above. In scientific contexts, scientific notation is preferred. The implication is that the thin space is for science only (possibly explains my preference for that style). In the examples for larger (bit not as big as pinball) numbers I found the following: ::::The hippopotamus stands 1.5 m (5 ft) at the shoulders and weighs between 2,700 and 4,500 kg (425–710 st or 6,000–9,900 lb). ::::The [[hippopotamus]] stands [[1 E0 m|1.5 m]] (5 ft) at the shoulders and weighs between [[Orders of magnitude (mass)|2,700 and 4,500 kg]] (425–710 st or 6,000–9,900 lb). :::Given this information, and despite my preference for 10 000 m (note thin space used

as suggested in the style manual), the correct style is 10,000 m. My preference is 1500 m although the style manual suggests 1,500 m. Thanks for your help on clearing this up. :::I might add that I had to edit the 1984 olympics page since all the results were in ft inches ONLY (the 1988 olympics still needs to be edited). This is really bizzare since the original distances were measured and published in metric. The author must have converted them all to imperial and then cut out the metric version. I understand that wikipedia is probably dominated by imperial centric users from the U.S., but there is no need to remove the metric version when these conversions are made. Excuse the rant.

== HEYTHERE! == YOUR A FAG! HEY THERE

SHITTY SHITTY FAG FAG SHITTY SHITTY FAG FAG!!!!!

:::Yeah, it's all a huge conspiracy to

turn the world into communist homosexuals.

== attorney? == Hey, I've been looking for some input about a wikipedia dispute. You seem to be a sharp legal mind, and it seems you've given BigDaddy777 some great advice. Would you be willing to spare me a few minutes of your valuable time too? :Sarcasm and those kinds of persoanl jabs are NOT welcome at Wikipedia and ESPECIALLY on MY talk page. You have NO idea what advice I've given him in private and I advise you to stay the hell away from my talk page from now on. You have earned yourself a lifetime ban, pal! You crossed the line! ::I don't understand. I'm absolutely not

being sarcastic. Why on earth would you even think such a thing? Kisses, ::: vandalism. banned user ignored ban. warning issued accordingly ::::Dude, what is your problem? I came here asking for help, because I was impressed with your legal advice to BigDaddy777. I asked politely. You immediately accused me of attacking you. You accused me of vandalism. Where in the conversation above have I said anything the least bit uncivil or sarcastic? Are you paranoid or something? You do realize that utterly unfounded charges of vandalism are considered a personal attack. At this point, I am strongly considering reporting your completely unprovoked attack at the appropriate place.

Clearly I'm stupid as I still wasn't logged

on - harrasment will do that to you!

I totally agree with you Sca, I could not possibly agree with you more. I understand that Nazi Germany was the aggressor in Europe. There is the problem that misunderstanding people now equate German nationalism with Nazism because the Nazis were the aggressors in Europe (perfect example is das lied der Deutsche. What I think is the biggest question mark of the whole era is what if it had of been another party to have ruled Germany, one that didn't attack Jews or minorities. What if they had of taken German inhabited lands back after their loss at Versailles? would it be considered more acceptable now because it was not a war of conquest like Hitler's war

was? ::as for your remarks Xx236, we are talking about what happened to Germans here, not Poles, you have made the stereotypical nationalist remarks as seen on talk:expulsion of Germans after WWII and elsewhere. How many times must you be told? Two wrongs don't make a right, it doesn't matter here. To you, it is always about the Poles, you always have to insert them when we are not talking about them. from the sentence From a Polish point of view they are rather too German, because they say relatively little about the historical and political contex. we all know you obviously mean that they don't provide the same excuses as the Polish Government has. ::

Dammit this thing's addictive - Italic

textAn unnamed, senior Blaupunkt executive (retd)

yes he shot himself in 1963 this article is terrible and

it sucks that i don't have the time to fix it

" == Funny as Hell == This guy's funny as hell. Especially when he takes on Osama bin Ladin. ""Why can't anyone find this guy? How difficult is it to find this guy, 6'6 with a nappy beird and a towel-like thing on his head, when they can find my cousin, 4'6 in Commerce. The guy's probably worth half a million dollars. Look the cave that has the satellite hook-up. If a Rolls Rocye is parked in front of it, n**** probably in there. If you walk inside the cave and there's velvet paintings of Saddam Hussein, I think the n**** in there. Who do they got hunting this dude, unknown name? N****, give me 5 Bloods, 5 Crips, 4 Mexicans and 3 rednecks,

this s*** would've been over. Me and the Mexicans would've stolen the tracks off their tanks. We'd come back, ""Hey, n****, who want some tank tracks?!"" And rednecks love hunting. Redneck, you give that MF a 300 something rifle with a scope, he can hit a fly off a deer's ear at 500 yards. They don't f*** around. And they all got a hunting dog named Petey. You know, them pointer MFs. ""He's got the them GD clothes with the boy's scent on it,"" one would say. ""Take a whiff of that, Petey! Smell, it good boy! We're goin' in!"" If you drop us off in Afghanistan, Petey gonna point at the right cave. ""MF in there,"" He'd point. ""MF in there."" "

this website is a \peice a shit asshole

call this a fucken website yea fucken right

Can you stop replacing the block periods with dollars,

please? You can't put money in a computer, silly!

== Feral druids are really fucking shitty. == Roll a

warrior, rogue or death knight you big useless faggot.

" Logicus to Likebox: I suggest Likebox should adopt good faith and civility and consider whether it is not Logicus who is silly and ridiculous and misunderstands here, but rather perhaps Likebox who is insufficiently English-literate to understand the problems with this passage. For as it stands the now revised principle is still vulnerable to an elementary counterexample. For it now states: ""He thought about the case of a uniformly accelerated box, and noted that it would be indistinguishable from a box sitting still in an unchanging gravitational field."" But a uniformly accelerated box is clearly distinguishable from a box at rest - the former is moving but the latter is not. Is the principle this

sentence is unsuccessfully trying to articulate maybe something like the following principle ?: 'A person inside a windowless lift who dropped a ball would be unable to tell from the ball's accelerated fall to the floor whether the lift was at rest at some location in a gravitational field or rather in a completely matter-free space not in any gravitational field but moving 'upwards' with the same acceleration as that prevailing at the resting lift's location in the gravitational field.' And is it maybe something like this principle Einstein proclaimed, rather than the mistaken principle that a gravitationally accelerated motion is indistinguishable from a uniformly accelerated motion ? This article is pedagogically appalling ! "

Well, no, neither can I. Reading through the discussion at Talk:Australia, it seems most are arguing for it's exclusion because the infobox is only to deal with the most basic information, showing only the national flag, the national anthem, the national arms, etc. God Save the Queen may not be the national anthem, but it seems to me that it was decreed to be an anthem that applies nationally - it is the Royal Anthem all across Australia, and always so, not just when a member of the Royal Famliy is present. ::Additionally, as for precedent, not all articles on countries that are monarchies list a royal anthem;

whether this is because there actually isn't one I don't know. Of the Commonwealth Realms, currently Australia, Barbados, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines do not list a royal anthem in the infobox. Non-Commonwealth Realm monarchies that do have a royal anthem in the infobox include Sweden, Norway, and perhaps Spain - the national anthem is Marcha Real, or Royal March. :Perhaps this is something that should be brought up as a Wiki-wide policy. In fact, a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries shows no provision even for the national anthem to be included in the infobox. Maybe your concerns should be raised there. I would follow along, of course.

"::::I must disagree with your contention that the lead has continually been a source of contention. This month long discussion we are currently in, is the only serious discussion of changing the lead that has been proposed. The language re: the number and names of the investigations was placed in the lead sometime in late 2006/2007. In September of 09, someone replaced that language with ""Oswald is the assassin"", which instituted a discussion that lasted half a day. I replaced that edit with the language that was there until Rudioso showed up about a month ago. The point in relaying this history is that the edit history does not support that there has been some longstanding

feud about the language of this introduction or that mentioning the investigations will somehow allow these discussion to continue. In fact, the actual history tells us that the only time objections arise is when editors change it to state Oswald is the assassin. Rudioso is the first and only editor who's objected to the statements of investigations since it's been introduced. Now, I'm all for trying something new, but I think that since none of the proposals have garnered the support required to claim a new consensus it is best that we go back to what was there before Rudioso briefly objected. That version clearly had consensus, something that no new proposal has garnered. "

::Not as gross as watching your dad eat shit

while getting pissed on by a transvestite dominatrix

" So you're saying that despite the requirement that reliable sources describe the person commonly and consistently in a certain way, we're just going to do it some other way because the other way is too hard? Is that not just the IDONTLIKEIT argument you keep accusing others of making? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find ""year of publication"" used as a defining characteristic in reliable sources in most cases. And now you want to change the language in the guideline to support what you want to do? Until now you've argued that the language is clear and that it supports your position. Maybe the categories should be sparsely categorized. Not every novelist who's a woman is commonly and consistently discussed as a woman

novelist. Not every novelist who published in the 20th century is commonly and consistently discussed as a 20th century novelist. Why should they be in the category? Do you and your category wonk peers know better than the reliable sources? Why do you not want to do the work of categorizing things properly, preferring instead to change the guidelines to make it easier to complete a task which very few editors think is important? Also, why not stick to the issue of this actual writer. Do you have sources to support your desired categorization of her based on the guidelines as they actually exist now or do you not? If not, why don't you go start a discussion on changing the guidelines yourself? — "

P.P.S I won't defend current US policy. The current president

is a dangerous idiot and his advisors are criminals.

I totally agree, religious people are hateful people. If only

religion never existed, we would be much better off.

Penalty for stupidity is that you have to

look at yourself in the mirror daily.

" ==Fitting the regression line== In ==Fitting the regression line== shouldn't the expression immediately before the one containing Cov & Var have 1/n as the multiplier before the - x.y and before the - x^2 terms? This is the form of the expression which is often used in computing to generate a straight-line fit to set of ""bumpy"" data. As expressed here it does not work and moreover does not follow mathematically from the preceding expression! However with the 1/n terms in place it appears to produce the correct result. 1/n is unique to these two terms ONLY and therefore does NOT cancel?!? But then I am a Physicist and not a Mathematician so I may have missed something???

Chris B. 6:45pm PST on 24th. Mar. 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by :Have a look at the section below ""By using calculus"" which steps through a derivation and also mentions multiplying top and bottom by N. Incidentally, I also studied Physics. ==beta hat== I was confused by the formula for , I wonder if the second one should have more parentheses around sums, like (as product has precedence over summation) - but I am no mathematician nor English, so perhaps do not know conventions. Can someone look at it and possibly fix it? I know it is logical to at least assume the parentheses, but this is introductory and should be as precise as possible. "

== A == you wanna hear something about copley theres this

kid that goes there and he has sex with chickens

== bUTTHEAD == how many butts do i have

to cut b'fore u guys quit bein such....dummys?

:So you got yourself an account and are still trying to best Snap? You want to best Snap? Here's three easy steps to do it. :*1: Keep the conversation civil. Personal attacks are generally not tolerated. :*2: Stop whining when you don't get your way. I made that mistake in my early days on Wikipedia, and what did it get me? Accused of being a sockpuppet. Therefore, it's generally wise not to do that. :*3: Now that you actually have an account, try doing something useful. I myself generally try to fight vandalism on all pages on my watchlist and try to reach consensus on merge discussions that appeases the person proposing the

merge, but in a way that minimizes information loss. The reason for this is the Itachi debate that took place so long ago. :That's pretty much it. If you want to best Snap eventually you'd do well to let this go. I personally am beginning to think he's dead, but that does not matter. Without proper documentation (which I know you have but cannot put in written form in a way that would satisfy WP:V) this is considered original research and will be reverted. I wouldn't want to see a person get blocked for that. So please, stop the fighting. Jiraiya is dead, but we cannot call him that without proper sourcing.

"::I have been watching this for some time now, and it is clear that you, John Carter are quite the ""asshole"" (sic.). I you insist on taking this poor souls comments out of context and then you blame him for it. You are an arrogant pompous prick. Try dividing 166 by the actual number of intelligence types (7) and you get a figure much closer to the fact. It is not ""clearly a violation"" of policy as there is no WP:OR, he was quoting , and on top of that only looking for explination. It is your false interpretation, made delibertatly to intimidate and insult, that put the word ""absurd"" in the mouth of when I can see he

meant his interpretation was absurd and needed clarification. I have read in more that one instance where you take a partial quote from and misuse it, effectively taking out of context. You have made a serious mistake twice already I have noted: you keep refering to your opinions as everyone's opinions. This is going to be remedied as soon as a group is formed to address your ""flawed intpretation of events"" and other remiss behavior of late. I see that you think that you are above the guildlines of this encyclopedia and that your title as administrator allows you the privilage of this type of abuse, but it is being recorded for future reference, I assure you. "

WANNA GET HIGH ND FLY INTO THE SKY WITH FAT ASS

ANDY MILANOKIS ON MI BAK LIKE WOOBIE!! HAHA PEACE NIGGERS!!

" ====Comments and Suggestions==== Addendum to discussion and explanations in First Paragraph. *text changed from ""African"" to reflect actual data provided by cited source; *info box updated to reflect same; map provided for informational purposes; *since source of council's ruling was not cited, the image of the three council cases re. runaways was positioned at the top but can be relocated later in main to support content elsewhere; *""officiating"" was added because it is not known if he was indentured with a definite end-of-service date or already one of a number of those in ""servitude-for-life"" (or living under some other arrangement), so either case may remain an option (""officiating""

applies equally to all scenarios without implying one to be more likely than the others); *while the exact phrase ""court-ordered"" is not written in stone, it is important to distinguish his case from other legally documented instances of ""servitude-for-life;"" *as generally accepted knowledge, I shouldn't think the assertions in the last sentence of the first paragraph would require citations; *rephrased last sentence of lead to remove WP:OR and disclaim the assertions that he fathered anyone (also added citations thereto); and *added ""in the United States"" to distinguish from other African-Americans, notably, those who suffered from legalized slavery in South America prior to its advent in the colonies. ."

PEOPLE LIKE YOU LIKE MEn IN BED WITH OWEN HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

OWEN IS NOT VERY mANLY BUT YOU ARE VELY GHEY

== Semi-protected edit request on 16 September

2015 == Fuck you and Fuck you

"== The Decline of the Roman Empire == Thousands of books have been written about the decline of one of the most developed cultures of human kind. Of course, we have no right to neglect to study this topic. Leaving out the time span of more than thousand years of Roman thought and reality would cut out the ""childhood"" of modern civilization. We have to go back to these centuries long ago to understand why we are who we are today. Read the Wikipedia article to make yourself familiar with the subject. Go to Spengler and Toynbee and research which information the Internet provides for

both names and the topic ""Third Century Crisis"". Make yourself familiar with the various search engines on-line. Do the above mentioned historians help you understand the final decline of the RE (Roman Empire)? Why were historians of the Victorian Era (Great Britain) so interested in the research of the way that ancient empires declined and disappeared? Collect material on-line and write an essay with some answers to the above questions. * Oswald Spengler: An Introduction to his Life and Ideas (Keith Stimely) * Arnold Toynbee Study of History * The Crisis of the Third Century (Saylor) * Crisis of the Third Century (Chrystalinks) "

I welcome all the parties that is working hard towards improving this page. Lets work together and write a more comprehensive article with strong consensus from everyone. I am going to start by explaining how I see the general structure of this section. To introduce the topic at hand, one or two sentences must be written to introduce the section, such as “The most common form of marriage in Islam is the Nikah” ...(brief explanation here)”. Then the discussion should go towards making the reader be aware that this isn't the only form of marriage in Islam. So, the follow-up section should read “This isn't the only form of marriage that exits in Islam. Both the Muta in Shia and Misyar

in Sunnism sharing many similar properties with slight differences is an alternate to the Nikah. And both has been heavily criticized by proponent on the issue of validity and practices by those who believe that Nikah is the only legitimate form of marriage.” With this sentence you can start with an indepth look at why people are rejecting all the alternates to Nikah. The follow-up to this would be to answer the criticism and explain the point of views from the supporters of Misyar and Muta. I will be back to answer questions and elaborate on this idea. Please take a look and let me know if this introduction with proper sources would be acceptable to all. Thank you for reading.

" ::shit!!! o nooooooo, the white

hand of DOOOOMMMMMM!!!!! AHHHHHHHHH....... "

"== This article has a peculiarity.... == (...and had it twice before I removed the redundancy.) ""The Lydian chord has a peculiarity, in that placing the root both above and below the augmented eleventh creates an unpleasant dissonance of a tritone."" I think I get what this trying to say, but couldn't it be better said as ""doubling the root above the augmented eleventh emphasizes the dissonance of the tritone"" (which is already present, not mystically ""created"" by placing the root above the 11th)? ""The interval of the sixth is used even though it is described after other compound intervals, and perhaps should also be a compound interval (i.e., 13th).[vague] However, convention in Jazz dictates that when describing the

major sixth, the simple interval, i.e., 6 is almost invariably used instead of the compound interval, i.e., 13. This helps avoid confusion with the dominant thirteenth.[vague]"" I'm not very familiar with Jazz, but is there such a thing as ""convention in Jazz""? At any rate I think this statement requires a citation to show that it is, in fact, the convention. I would make these edits myself, but this is the first article I've edited, and I don't want to make any more changes than I already have before I get more familiar with the rules, etc. (and the ""convention in Jazz"" thing would need someone a bit more knowledgeable on that subject than I am, anyway.) "

" ::::I agree it's not obviously relevant; until we start tripping over the issue of falsifiability as we have several times recently with various editors rewriting some of that second paragraph. It is a bit of a stumbler. If, however, a consensus can be reached about how to phrase it as introductory material in a meaningful way, whatever language is chosen can be maintained with an occasional checkup on the language by the participating editors. In my figuring of it, the way it was written before was a bit clumsy and largely indefensible on the basis that we'd already said it effectively, because we hadn't quite said it effectively in that paragraph. I

imagine there is some way of reasonably saying this in the article, as yet undetermined, that will ring true to those regular editors who understand the basic problem, and still explain reasonably well to the previously uninitiated reader of the material. Right now the first sentence of the paragraph is quite reasonable in my opinion (""...Popper proposed the additional criterion of falsifiability""), which factors in those theories that are dependent on coherence rather than outright falsifiability. I trust with some further discussion and a bit of experimenting that it'll get done for the rest of that paragraph. ::::Incidentally, I genuinely appreciate seeing all this highly thoughtful discussion about the issues. ... "

== Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

== cgnhb,jmkml, esrdtfyuio'iytrsd i like your moms tits

:: perhaps known to fans of college football. His media coverage in the scandal has made him much more widely known than he was before the scandal. Outside of the US no one had heard of him, and this is no longer the case. Claiming his fame before the scandal was grater than the fame he gained after the scandal is America centric jingoistic thought at it's worst. That would be the most concise argument. However, as an american, I can say that I certainly never heard of him prior to the scandal. Nor had pretty much anyone I know. I sure to american football fanatics, he is well known. Anectdotal I know, but, most of my friends,

many of whom are football fans, never heard of the guy prior to the scandal. Now everyone knows who he is. You'd probably be shocked to learn that most people I know also know only Vince Lombardi as the guy they named that rest stop on the New Jersey turnpike after. I happen to know he had sumpthin or other to do with football because one day out of curiosity i googled him. Not everyone, or even most people, are football fanatics. When one considers that almost everyone outside the US knows next to nothing about american football, and that the press coverage has been worldwide, i just can't see how you would think your claim holds up.

:Further - WP is not a place for WP:COMMENTARY. No one really

cares if you liked the movie or not. Cut the crap.

And more anti-cop smears: now we're supposed to believe

they are too stupid to use their own weapons.

The whole thing about Beth Phoenix was that, there was definitely SOMEONE from the female developmental talent group being released that day, but no one was sure who exactly that was. After Angel was confirmed, people came to the conclusion that since Beth was never brought back to the main program, they assume that she was released too, but this was never well-covered at all until Beth brought it up on her blog. I disagree with the 'not pretty enough' bit. Most of the current batch of WWE Divas arent even near the league of perfect 10's with their looks. In my opinion she is still arguably prettier then her DSW peers: Nattie, Shantelle, even Krissy. If they can

make plain-looking women like Sharmell, Candice (her looks is so overrated), Jillian and maybe Trinity look good, they can do it with anyone. Hell Beth has a pretty face, but a really buff physique and they still signed her. I think its more to do with the fact that she was stuck in developmental hell for way too long, and the fact that her Diva-ed up blonde image hurt her cos they have so many blondes on the roster now. They couldnt come up with anything for her as usual. Its sad to see gems like her and Shelly being let go while expendable generic women are still employed and focused on. They have so much to offer.

== penis == penis penis pecker checker double

decker pecker checker shit dick cock FUCK!

"To user:Stlemur, the list clearly states they must have declared themselves as fascist, their roots are not relevant as for example Russia is the inheritor country for the USSR but it is not a socialist republic, and neither does it promote any communist ideology, they ditched that when they became just Russia. Please refrain from colouring information with your own political views, to do so just discredits and pollutes Wikipedia as a source of information. UKIP keep getting added in along with the BNP, national front and Britain first. The heading clearly states ""these parties have openly declared themselves as fascist"", so adding a party

that has not openly declared themselves (or in the case of the national front denied they are fascist) is wrong, please keep your political views to yourself. If someone really believed in fascism they would be very disappointed if they joined any of the above organisations as none of them offer fascism and only one (BNP) offers socialism (socialism always means the state has some or total control over its subjects, as a socialist believes that it is allowable to enforce their will on others via the power of the state, hence taken to an extreme it is always a tyranny typical of fascism. "

" :I never heard the thing about Skwxwu7mesh winning it. It came about through the rise of the tourism industry. We used to joke that ""Squamish"" translated to ""People of the Plaque Makers"". It's quite sad really, and I find myself conflicted. See, within Kwakwaka'wakw art, you don't just do the art. Your supposed to be trained in that field to understand what you do. It's less of an art when you really get into it, as in ""expression"" and ""artists creativity"". Like, ""Oh, the sun is inspiring to do a mask like this, and maybe I'll throw this in there"". No. It would not of been like that. Certain elements or designs would be there for a reason, it was a strict

discipline. A strict discipline pulled of respectfully was the art form. But the spread of modern tools, and the advent of ""Native Loving Tourists"", Northwest Coast art became the hot thing. Thus, so many southerns learned and started selling art work that didn't come from their people. It's appropriate, for sure. But sadly accepted on a lot of levels, untill a certain point sometimes though. We may not change the mind of the older adults who already do art work and think it's Coast Salish, but with the young people, who we will teach what is our artwork. That's why I undertake the learning of Coast Salish art. I have the right to learn Kwakwaka'wakw art and maybe one day I will. "

Aw, look at all the wapanese. How cute. Japan could

rape their families and them and they'd still love them.

== Important == You are a waste of oxygen!!!! Freaking

nerd boy.... YOU get out of the gene pool!!

YOUR FUCKING HOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

bang us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dude you suck, no matter how much i would

love to see another season of FMA you suck...

" Since Pussy Riot and Seuss are mentioned in the plot section, additional mention in the trivia section could be considered overcoverage... :Thanks for completing missing the point of dispute in this discussion, which has no longer has anything to do with the Pussy Riot reference. The issue was Hearfourmewesique's characterization of another editor, as my notification at 3O made explicitly clear (though apparently not explicitly enough for you). It is perfectly reasonable to discus that here, since this is where that behavior took place. If you wanted to move the discussion to another talk page, you could have. Or could've created a subheading.

Instead, you decided to discuss a completely different topic, one that, while initially the topic of this section, has already been resolved. Bravo. You are obviously incapable of perceiving the concept of idioms. :I am indeed aware of that idiom. I'm simply saying that it's irrelevant, as is Koavf's gender. Characterizing someone as ""the boy who cried trivia"" could be seen as pejorative. Period. Your refusal to even consider this as a possibility is simply another example in your documented history of violating WP:CIV. One more time: Polls other editors and ask them if they would perceive that behavior insulting. Ask them. "

==GNAA article== Please reply to my comment

on Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America.

[[[[== COLLEEN IS A GAY WEIRDO!!!!!! JASLYN IS MEAN>>>

AND I HATE SHERETHA >>>LOL>>> JK TO ALL]]]]

== Help batch deleting == I uploaded a large set of images using , and have some problems. At the moment my issue is a need to mass delete a set of images, wrongly named (below), but secondly other images failed to be replace-uploaded that are wrongly colored, so I wouldn't mind deleting all images in the format: File:1_22*.svg and File:2_21*.svg. Is there any way this can be done, without individually marking all the files for speedydelete? File:1 22 t0 B2.svg File:1 22 t01 B2.svg File:1 22 t1 B2.svg File:1 22 t2 B2.svg File:1 22 t3 B2.svg File:2 21 t0 B2.svg File:2 21 t01 B2.svg File:2 21 t1 B2.svg File:2 21 t2 B2.svg File:1 22 t0 B3.svg File:1 22 t01 B3.svg File:1 22 t1 B3.svg File:1 22 t2 B3.svg

File:1 22 t3 B3.svg File:2 21 t0 B3.svg File:2 21 t01 B3.svg File:2 21 t1 B3.svg File:2 21 t2 B3.svg File:1 22 t0 B4.svg File:1 22 t01 B4.svg File:1 22 t1 B4.svg File:1 22 t2 B4.svg File:1 22 t3 B4.svg File:2 21 t0 B4.svg File:2 21 t01 B4.svg File:2 21 t1 B4.svg File:2 21 t2 B4.svg File:1 22 t0 B5.svg File:1 22 t01 B5.svg File:1 22 t1 B5.svg File:1 22 t2 B5.svg File:1 22 t3 B5.svg File:2 21 t0 B5.svg File:2 21 t01 B5.svg File:2 21 t1 B5.svg File:2 21 t2 B5.svg File:1 22 t0 B6.svg File:1 22 t01 B6.svg File:1 22 t1 B6.svg File:1 22 t2 B6.svg File:1 22 t3 B6.svg File:2 21 t0 B6.svg File:2 21 t01 B6.svg File:2 21 t1 B6.svg File:2 21 t2 B6.svg

== Martha Stewart == Isn't she a convicted

fraudster, you fucker? Thank you for ignoring this.

"== Cooking cockatoo == I've heard a similar gourmet method for chub. ""Gut the fish, spread it out flat and nail it to a board. Stand the board up in front of a fire for 30 minutes. Then remove the nails, throw away the fish and eat the board"". Cheers, :For what it's worth I could probably source that. I seem to remember I read it in a ""Discover Interesting Things For Boys"" book called It's Fun Finding Out co-written by Chapman Pincher in 1950. I possibly still have a copy in the attic. Now if you could source the cockatoo recipe we'd be on for a Recipes for inedible food article for sure... == Vandalistic cockatoos in Tabasco

Sauce == Thanks for your saucy comments on my question on Sci Ref Desk. There was no definitive answer to this question, so it might be up for grabs. Btw, I looked up cork hat and was saddened to see that there was no piccie. This is so typical of WP Aussie articles, which are very much inferior to that devoted to most other first world countries. Also, a whole mob of metrosexual wankers on the talk page derided the concept as a shameful stereotype. Why? For anyone who has endured the plage proportions of a fly infestation in outback Oz, these devices were the epitome of practical and ingenious outback culture. They work, I have tried them. "

"== ""man of Ethiopian"" (frequently cited as ""Ethiopian, but this is not what the text conveys) == Dear Robert, Welcome to Wikipedia. We're glad you've decided to join us in our campaign to make the world's largest encyclopedia also the world's most accurate. We're a collection of people from all sorts of backgrounds, working together to improve articles on a wide variety of topics. Recently, I saw your edit to the article on Philip the Evangelist, where you changed ""Ethiopian man"" to ""'man of Ethiopian'"" (frequently cited as ""Ethiopian, but this is not what the text conveys)."" I was unable to find any reason to call him ""man of Ethiopian"" instead of ""Ethiopian man,"" so I changed

the article back to the way it was before you edited it. However, I can see from your contribution that you, like me, have a strong interest in the exact wording of Biblical passages. I've been working on Biblical articles with Wikipedia for a while now, so I have a decent understanding of how the editing process works. If you still have information that you feel can help improve Wikipedia, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, and even help make your input a part of the Wikipedia article in a way that is more clear to readers. Thanks again for your input. All of us at Wikipedia look forward to collaborating with you, "

Har fuckin Har. Do you think you can

stop me? Think again you no brained idiot

==THEfatCOMPA== Yhis motherfucker (Morrison) sucks

the Daddy Yankee's balls

" :Lester, the statement, ""leaving his mother to take care of John (or ""Jack"" as he was known in the family),"" is supported by the source. Your assertion that the important part is that ""John and his mother were left to fend for themselves in this house alone"" is not even in our article and nor is it sourced to the new reference and thus your interpretation and desire for me to find a source supporting it is irrelevant. If you feel the ""Canterbury Tales"" article does not explain clearly enough the close relationship between JH and his mother, I suggest using ""What Makes Johny Run"" by Milton Cockburn or ""Rise Of A Common Man""

by Bill Birnbauer which describes in some detail their close relationship after his father's death and both of which assert the dominating influence she had on John. If you particularly want a source that says JH and his mother lived in the house on their own, take another look at ""Rise Of A Common Man"" because it does say that Mona and John were left in the house on their own after Lyall's death. It also says that Lyall left them financially comfortable and that Mona ""did not have to struggle financially,"" so I'm not sure that the implications of your claim that they were ""left to fend for themselves"" is correct. '''''' "

F**k that s**t, comrade, no one cares about the

high school, let alone some hillbilly backwater jazz band.

:::Usually I bite my tongue, but this was so ridiculously stupid

I felt compelled to call it as I saw it.

" == lol...Why not let us debate? == One of the greatest things about science is conflicting ideas and theories...If everyone thought the same way, we would not have any of the technologies, that we have today...The Greeks built their entire society around education and research...and the Greeks spent a vast portion of their time debating...So my question is, ""Why not let us debate...just as long as we don't attack each other, rather than each other's beliefs."" NOTE: An example of a poor debater, is one who can not differentiate an opposing debater, from his/her opposing idealism. Suggestion: It is always unwise to attack a person directly, because they will tune out everything you say...and you cannot

change someone who does not have an open mind. Apology: Sorry, if I have caused any trouble...I just love debating, that's all...I'm not trying to get everyone mad, I just wanna force people into thinking rather than believing what they have been taught. (I, myself, have doubted creationism in the past...but after assessing the evidence, I don't see any way that evolution could explain the complexity of anything form of life.) ""By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."" Adolf Hitler Personal Note: Once again...I'm not trying to insult anyone...but rather consider the logic and reason behind their faith..."

there dead they suk who cares ahahhahaahahah pmsfl what

a loada BULLSH*T this band was n still