Stalkers definition of Stalkers by Medical dictionary.
Pathology noun A neck-like fibrovascular structure that connects a pedunculated polyp to the mucosa in a neoplasm—e.g. an adenomatous polyp or villous adenoma. Public safety verb To actively pursue, harass, or threaten a person who is an unwilling recipient of the stalker’s advances.English Wikipedia has articles on. A person who engages in stalking, i.e. quietly approaching animals to be. Any bird that walks with a stalking motion.Stalking means following something or somebody secretly. In the animal kingdom, Predators often hunt by stalking, or by combining stalking with ambushing.A mother of two who was aggressively harassed by a former classmate for more than a decade has appealed to her stalker to let her lead “a. Forex trading how does it work. With the moors of Scotland where the principal quarry is red deer.However, the skill is found worldwide and is of extremely long standing.Many other species such as cats and hyenas also stalk their prey.Among hunter-gatherers, where their quarry is timid, stalking is a way of livelihood in order that they may catch what they hunt.
Stalking - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nowadays, stalking is frequently done for purposes of photography or observation of animal behaviour rather than for killing.Whatever the means of killing, the hunter has to be near the quarry in order to achieve it.Most animals are very sensitive to the presence of predators. Degussa goldhandel in frankfurt. Macro definitions of Rotary angle sensor and LED pin*/ #define ROTARY_ANGLE_SENSOR A0 #define LED 3 //the Grove - LED is connected to PWM pin D3.Meaning "to follow like a shadow" is from c. Below is taken from Wikipedia. From Deer stalking - Wikipedia https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_stalking.Usually means, the circle of people who are gang stalking a person, they feel threatened by he/she and think that this person could be a whistle blower knowing something about the group. It's coordinated harassment of a given individual by multiple perpetrators.
Night Stalker Night Stalker. Omniknight Omniknight. Phoenix Phoenix. Pudge Pudge. Sand King Sand King.The goal, as one gang-stalking website put it, is “to destroy every. the gang-stalking idea as an explanation of what is happening to them,” Dr.More than 10000 people worldwide claim they're the victims of a vast organized surveillance effort designed to ruin their lives, a phenomenon. Fallout 3 broken steel vertibird crash. Um, you know, user contributions is a page there for a reason, are folks making this page advocating it should be removed?In that case, shouldn't this be a request on our bug tracking software, and not a wikipedia page?In any case, I don't understand, and this page doesn't really establish reasons why or why not. Kim Bruning , 30 July 2005 (UTC) When I created this page I meant for it to refer to hostile stalking as in the type that users complain about on RFC's and RFA's but it needs to be clarified, I've been trying to figure out how to do this but so far have come up blank.Ah, I think you're going to have a hard time, because imvho wikistalking simply isn't ^^;; Maybe as you try to build this page you'll find out that this is the case as well. :-) Kim Bruning , 30 July 2005 (UTC) Definition - Wiki-stalking occurs when an editor abusively trails another editor around wikipedia by way of his or her user contributions page.
Stop now, classmate tells her stalker as he is jailed a third time.
It entails an evidenced distinctive editing pattern in which one user intentionally follows another editor around wikipedia for purposes that are not constructive to the encyclopedia's content or conducive to its collaborative environment.It occurs when one editor continuously and repeatedly follows another editor between multiple unrelated articles over an extended period of time and a wide variety of unrelated subjects for the purpose of making excessive "followup" changes to the original editor's work - often for the purpose of harassment, disruption, or deconstructing the stalked editor's work for reasons that are not in compliance with Wikipedia policies or guidelines.Why it's a problem - Wiki-stalking is an abuse of the user contributions function on wikipedia. A stalking horse is a figure that tests a concept with someone or mounts a challenge against someone on behalf of an anonymous third party. If the idea proves viable or popular, the anonymous figure can then declare its interest and advance the concept with little risk of failure.Night Stalkeredit. Void. Applied in an AoE around Night Stalker and increases the mini-stun duration.Si tienes un a cuanta en Twitter y sigues a algún famoso, habrás leído el termino stalker o stalkear y no tienes claro qué quiere decir, aquí te decimos. Un stalker.
Many other stalking cases are not sexually-motivated at all. It must be recalled that the essence of stalking is, besides as a means to obtain private information.A Stalker is defined as one who engages in the act of stalking another individual. Stalking may.Define stalking. stalking synonyms, stalking pronunciation, stalking translation, English dictionary definition of stalking. n. 1. a. A stem or main axis of a herbaceous plant. b. A stem or similar structure that supports a plant part such as a flower, flower cluster, or leaf. [[Since the recent Arbcom definition of wiki-stalking is probably the most substantive definition of this term, so I moved it to the top under a "Definition" header.I also reorganized the subsequent descriptions of stalking both from this page and the material that's from my user page into a general header on Wikipedian viewpoints about stalking to differentiate them from the official Arbcom ruling.I also copyedited the article in general to give it a better flow and add clarifications.
How to find my Instagram stalker - Quora
Rangerdude , 14 August 2005 (UTC) The guideline tag probably isn't appropriate for use yet since this has not been generally noticed nor has it been accepted by the community as a guideline.(when people quote it on RFA, RFC, and RFAr then you know the community has noticed it, for the moment it's probably best just to keep the tag off.I generally agree that this article is something with potential to become a guideline in light of the fact that two strong precedents have effectively defined wiki-stalking's abusive forms and classified it as an offense with very stiff penalties. Forex strategies youtube. In accordance with the developments of the two noted precedent cases it is probably wise to update Wikipedia's guidelines to reflect them, and this can be done over time as awareness grows regarding the outcome of those cases.I concur that it is probably a little premature to add the formal guideline tag right now, though we are quickly approaching that stage and in the meantime an informal tag of some sort indicating that nature is appropriate.As an aside, it is also inappropriate that editors who have engaged in Wiki-stalking themselves (and thus have a conflict of interest in which they stand to lose as the Wikipedia community's awareness of this article grows) should be involved in "policing" the edits to this article as it develops.
As noted above, this includes User: Willmcw who currently has wikistalking complaints pending against him and whose edits here thus far have been conducted for the purposes of removing content and/or diverting community attention away from this article as it develops.At minimum, any maintanence activities of the sort this and other conflicted editors have thus far been engaged in should be conducted by a more neutral party.Rangerdude , 16 August 2005 (UTC) Katefan - I have not engaged in the practice of wikistalking and therefore do not stand to gain by obstructing the development of this article as he does. Don't you think that anybody involved in a current case of "wikistalking" who is tinkering with a proposed policy on the phenomenon could reasonably be seen to have a conflict of interest? 7g investition englisch. As the article's provisions do not apply to an activity I have engaged in no comparable conflict of interest exists. I don't see how being the perceived aggrieved party in this case makes it less of a conflict of interest for you.Some might suggest that a person in your situation might have a keen interest in seeing this policy developed in such a way as to help their case.I am not suggesting any nefarious motives necessarily on your part, only point out how it could reasonably be suggested that you might have a conflict of interest too.
If there are two parties involved in a case that bears on this under-development policy, it would seem that both could equally be seen to be having a potential conflict of interest. · Katefan0By your rationale, Katefan, any editor who has ever been harmed by personal attacks, legal threats, vandalism, 3RR, or any number of other similar problems that many editors encounter regularly on Wikipedia is also conflicted from contributing to the development of any policy or guideline regarding the same offenses.But that would be an absurd stipulation that ultimately inhibits the development of those policies since every editor encounters one or another sometime on wikipedia.Those editors contributing constructively to the development of the said policy or guideline gain nothing more than the cumulative outcome of its application to wikipedia in general as a preventative measure against future disruption. Binäre optionen sichere strategie tipps. Policies and guidelines do not apply ex post facto, Katefan, so no - my case against Willmcw's past stalking does not "gain" as you suggest, and indeed the object of a guideline proposal such as this is entirely for future occurrences that violate what are now two well established precedents by the Arbcom and Jimbo Wales.Those editors who have engaged in the discouraged activity in the past, however, do stand to lose from a restriction being placed against a favored inappropriate pattern of behavior in the future because it makes their future abuses subject to repercussions if they continue.Rangerdude , 16 August 2005 (UTC) I'm not sure what purpose you think this pseudo-legalese serves; all I'm saying is that if you think one party to the dispute could have a conflict of interest, then logically the other party could as well.
Nobody has ever "decided" this dispute in either editor's favor (your failed RFC notwithstanding), so to suggest that you should be able to develop the policy while Willmcw can't is proceeding from rather shaky ground.Either both of you can, or both of you can't, for the exact same reasons. · Katefan0Unfortunately for your cause, Will, that would be a WP: POINT disruption on your part, having arisen out of stated objections to your conflicted interest in the efforts to develop this article.Rangerdude , 16 August 2005 (UTC)You're free to edit, Will, but I'm just as free to point out that you are doing so with a substantial conflict of interest for having previously engaged in the same behavior that is the subject of this article and the Wales and Arbcom precedents. I'm also free to ask you to refrain from certain editing practices where that conflict of interest is apparant - particularly in avoiding procedural edits that modify the guideline proposal and its requests for input. Rangerdude , 17 August 2005 (UTC)Yes, you are free to ask anything you like.However you are wrong that I have "engaged in the same behavior that is the subject of this article and the Wales and Arbcom precedents." Are you going to move straight from accusation to judgement to punishment, all on your own?Maybe this proposed guideline should have a section on false accusations.