Talk:Getting Things Done/Archive 1

2949:"... the appropriate non-admin actions when an admin is making content changes is to treat them like just another editor of similar experience--to assume the comments or edits are in good faith, intended to improve the article--and that they might actually be doing that. But if you disagree, anything anybody says here can be challenged. If an admin or any other editor should try to be overbearing, the first step is to wait a day or so in order to decide calmly if the issue is worth the contention, and then continue the discussion. The response will be either conciliatory or defensive or aggressive. If it is defensive, ask for opinions at a suitable noticeboard--see the list of them at the top of WP:ANB. I would normally reserve AN/I for matters which can not be otherwise handled, and which are important enough to be worth wide attention, with the understanding that once something reaches there, it gets so much attention that it can very quickly escalate. If at all unsure whether it is worth proceeding that far , after asking for an opinion from another editor, on or off wiki. And before getting too involved in a dispute, it is wise to observe the dynamics of Knowledge disputes. It is sometimes worthwhile to examine the course of prior disputes with the same editor.' — 145:

of the problem defines the possible solution set. The "problem" in many, and arguably the majority, of instances does not exist in the symbols of language we use to articulate it. Therefore there is a translation between the reality which causes us some discomfort and which we would like to improve and our perception of this. As we articulate the components as we choose to select and define them we also constrain the opportunities available to us for "solution" of these issues. For instance: 1. My wife and I argue about X. 2. We have explored options for compromise but our positions are irreconcilable. 3. We can no longer speak about this issue without arguing. The implicit assumption is that the argument is about X. More often than not it is about A and Y and a bit of R too, combined with the fact that 27 and 359 have not even been considered, as well as the fact that it's bright pink. The point is that scientific methodology only works when it is applied with a full understanding of its limitations.

3125:

short, and covers the material so poorly that I find it hard to believe anyone could find it satisfactory right now. Inadequate coverage of the subject is still only a minor problem in my view, though, and that can be fixed by expanding it. I find another issue to be much more problematic: The subject is inaccurately presented as being synonymous with David Allen's book. The infobox makes it seem like an overblown Amazon listing. Really? He certainly authored this methodology, but that is the kind of thing that belongs in a "History" section in the article text. The book cover and title certainly shouldn't take front and center. Now, a picture of David Allen might be appropriate. No one denies his deep connection to GTD. However, GTD is now a methodology that has been embraced by

3261:

of available sources. Like another writer on this talk page, part of my interest came through the discussion of the GTD methedology in the Willpower book. So here I find myself going through the history of the page to recover (for myself, not to revert ... I don't want to be in the middle of a Knowledge edit war) basic factual information about a widely-discussed approach to to-do-list management. I'm sure deletions were made in good faith, but I want to be clear that I'd rather a too much information than too little. I can recognize self-promotion and other Knowledge sins and ignore them. Or maybe even edit some out myself. But not at the cost of deleting whole sections full of useful information. Frustrating.

3130:

system is because his book is still regarded as one of the best resources for GTD, whether you want an introduction to it or a guide to a full implementation. It is possible to implement GTD fully without reading a word of the book, and elements of it can be used independently. The system does not depend on buzzwords or flowcharts or a specific set of software. GTD is often viewed as a infomercial-esque "kit," but anyone familiar with it can tell you otherwise. That informed view is the one that should be on Knowledge, provided that it's objective, and I would argue that it is.

2329:

all things on one's mind into the system (either as projects/tasks, or as reference material). The aim is to attain mental clarity conducive to religious experiences promoted by David Allen's religion. He refers to this in discussions on podcasts available at "GTD Connect", and in his later book, Making it all Work. This is important for readers to know because it shapes the GTD system. For example, it results in the rule to clear everything from one's mind, rather than just what needs to be dealt with, and totally dismisses (or is unaware of) the role of prospective memory.

3137:. It's a set of techniques to address a systematic problem that was originally expounded by a single person, but has gained large popularity and become relevant to the entire field (productivity vs. software development). The main difference is that agile software development can be summed up in one or two sentences, while GTD requires at least a small article to adequately cover (which this article does not), and as a direct consequence of this fact, David Allen's book remains useful. With this in mind, this article should be 1159:

closely a product is aligned with the principles of GTD? How many GTD-specific features a product has? No, rather the default view shows which product was updated last, with your own currently at the top. I'm very sure that any coaching (or software) company in the world would happily invest the effort to maintain that page, and have links to their own services all over it, and explaining the benefits of their own methodology as effectively as this page does:

31: 178:

op-eds in newspapers. The "theories" are not scientific theories subject to peer review or political or economic ideas. They are just suggestions that may or may not work for different people. It's like writing an entry for Japanese cuisine and then one for Mexican cuisine. Would you have a paragraph in the Mexican entry pointing out that Japanese feel that food should be less spicy and vice versa in the Japanese entry?

2392:

its procedure for "processing stuff") heavily from other time management books which were popular and influential before it was published, including for example The Organized Executive by Stephanie Winston. The ideas of other time management books which GTD apparently draws heavily upon should be at least mentioned or compared in the Knowledge article. Such a sub-section may be titled "Background" or "History".

2582:. The original article was sourced (authoritative, primary sources, not for other topics as asserted); it was not promotional; it was written by hundreds of independent authors over a period of years; it described a system that became influential over a decade. I'm not affiliated with David Allen, I'm an independent GTD SME and past contributor to this article and talk page. 1396:

expanded. So as long as you're happy to keep this text here, then I'm happy for others to read it and make their own minds up. Your defense of implying that I don't understand some pretty simple concepts is a good job of hiding the important point. It's obvious how much you care about keeping this link right where it is, and benefiting your company.

1559:

rapidly becoming generic -- rollerblades, for example.) In the case of GTD, it's even more bizarre: "getting things done" is just an ordinary phrase, so Allen has plenty of work to do to convince people he has a special case use for it. If he had given it a wacky name ("The Unicorn Folder System"), he wouldn't have to work as hard to fight dilution.

540:. There is a lot of useful information on the internet - but it is not Knowledge's job to list all of it or even any of it. If a notable, long-standing site is a good resource for information on the topic, then it might be appropriate for the "External links" section. Otherwise, it is just turning Knowledge into an internet directory. 859:"Knowledge articles may include links to ... further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail ... or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability. " 881:, emphasis mine.) For the reasons in #5 above, I originally posted the article content and link there when the "Comparison of GTD software" article was deleted. That may not have been ideal given the guideline just quoted, of which I was unaware at the time. I now step out and leave this to the group to decide. 2222:--sometimes an article needs a bold move to get revision started -- again, in making the edit I was not acting as an administrator, as administrators have no special control over content, and can be reverted just like anyone else. We don't get angry at it--well, at least almost all of us don't get angry at it. 524:

not want to integrate the content. Clear? By the way: lifehack and 43folders are both just commercial stuff - the one a blog (you told me, these kind is not wanted here...) and 43f, ok, a wiki but just a wrapper for www.43folder.com - so your arguments sound some kind of ridiculous, don't you think so?

2391:

The GTD book doesn't cite sources of the system, and doesn't even have a References or Bibliography section. Although this is common in the genre, it is in effect plagarism (which for example wouldn't be tolerated without "citation needed" notes in Knowledge articles). It clearly draws ideas (such as

2308:

Furthermore, I find it misleading to present the author as a minister, and not as a productivity consultant (and a successful one at that), which is in fact the capacity under which he wrote the book. I have read the book, and it has no references to anything religious in it. In fact, the first time

2279:

I also think we might well remove the section, leaving only a general statement--or,even better, combine the other articles into here with a brief statement for each. . There is really nothing particularly distinctive about them except their co-branding and the use of the terminology. To-do lists are

2195:

This was listed for speedy deletion as promotional. As reviewing administrator I declined the deletion, since there was a core of reasonable content. But the overlong summary of the method was in fact promotional--it is not appropriate encyclopedic content. I removed it all, except for the software

1656:

Moved this (revert if you disagree) - but on re-reading it, it doesn't really seem sales-heavy to me. "Allen contends...", "the psychology is based on ...", "unlike other time-management systems" - seems to just put out the theories, bases and differentiations - doesn't really "champion" the approach

1158:

Your research page was essentially a copy of the page that the admins identified as not encyclopaedic, with minor modifications and a request for additional input, and MANY links to your own (better) methodology, software and coaching services. Is that research? What are you measuring against? How

1103:

section and its supporting link do happen to benefit the GTD community (and others) because they are pertinent, actively-researched, accurate, and complete. The externally-referenced article is without slant (hopefully!) because the hosting company (my company) needs to recommend GTD-related software

1014:? b) Does it best support the article content? For example, some titles in the jeffsandquist list do not directly support GTD (e.g., MonkeeBiz and Macro are useful but not GTD software per se). c) It lacks a lot of information the original article included (OS, sync comparisons, free vs. cost, etc.). 557:

policy on Knowledge, no information included in WP articles should be "direct from the source". Information in articles should come from third-party, verifiable sources. Such as that blog article. So, I was suggesting gleaning the useful information from the blog article and writing it in your own

505:

Really, blog articles are inappropriate for Knowledge no matter what the size or level of quality. If there are current links to other blog articles, they should go too. Knowledge is not a tool to drive traffic to any site, no matter what quality it is. It is also not an internet directory listing

144:

This is an example of a "basic" issue with the theories. An example of a "higher level" issue would be the notion of "tasks" that appears to underlie the concepts. The system works fine for activities that require minimal creativity. Without wanting to spend too long detailing this, the definition

136:

For instance, the notion that filing's fundamental characteristic is that it should be "simple" in order to enable "rapid retrieval" has an impact on the fundamental notion of Allen's to "move tasks out of the mind". Electronic fining systems using full text indexing attempt to provide a solution to

3260:

I want to add my voice to the disappointed-in-incompleteness side of this discussion. I have no conflict of interest. I don't even use GTD. I wanted to learn more about it. I was surprised that there was so little information about it on Knowledge, given its popularity and given the multiplicity

3224:

I will be very careful in rewriting the article, including sourcing and NPOV. I never meant to imply that I would simply cut and paste old content. I am confident that I can find objective, third-party sources on the details and methodology of the system. That was, in part, my point! Thanks for your

3152:

objective and neutral presentation of the material. It would be crossing the line to present the subject in such a way as to try to convince people it is more effective than other methods for productivity, or that it will change your life for the better, etc. This is a smaller matter, a matter to be

3129:

of people, with each person implementing and understanding it in a unique way. There are a huge number of tweaks, hacks, methods, tools, discussions, and expositions out there related to GTD. "GTD" has 113 million Google results. The only reason David Allen and his book have remained relevant to the

3069:

Last Version containing useful information on the GTD method circa 04:32, 12 July 2009, all versions after that have all useful information removed. Perhaps current GTD article should be GTD(Book) and a new article GTD(Method) be added with all useful information on the GTD process/method be placed

3048:

This article used to be good documentation of a common method, but now it is useless. This is misguided vandalism, and I intend to restore the article as soon as I have the time. I am really shocked that someone would rationalize hacking up a useful article this way because of fear that there is a

2304:

I have removed a sentence in the intro presenting David Allen as a minister in a religious cult / group / whatever. I was unaware of this, but I hardly think this is relevant to the system he has come up with. The way this was written, the assumption was that this was somehow relevant to the content

1861:

The technical side may be most helpful for defining the operational characteristics needed to support GTD. Based on the discussion of software here I'd have to say none of them get it yet. There is a need to express the underlying ideas of GTD at a more Meta, by that I mean a higher, level. Given

1741:

I've read the article through twice and there appears to be little that I would class as unbalanced about it. It doesn't, for example, slam other systems or their practitioners and seems to be a pretty well-rounded, well-written article that, granted, might need some fleshing out, but nothing major.

1575:

I see that GTD is described as an "action management method". What is "action management"? The link redirects to "management", which doesn't say anything about "action management". I am also trying to find references to "action management" being used to define the field in which GTD is in, and can't

1558:

Yes, IANAL is pretty key. Basically, nobody can force you to use a trademark symbol, and they're rare in the media, but companies like it lots when you do. (Take a look at issues of Columbia Journalism Review for plenty of ads begging journalists to use TM on their extra special product name that is

1483:

As the trademark holder and inventor of the methodology, David has asked that any site purporting to "define" GTD link back to the official definition. Since it is stated in the body now that this is a registered trademark, the second part of this message box intent has been handled. Reinstating the

1278:

My external link is to a forum that is central to GTD, which for the purposes of discussing what GTD software is, seems entirely reasonable. That forum has had threads with opposing viewpoints many times before. My explicit query on that thread was to get more independent thinking and my intent is

523:

Because this might violate someone's rights. The fact is, that all wikipedia content is licensed under GFDL which is not allowed on many resources. Even most of the wikipedia articles and content are just plagiates created by their "contributors" who do not know what they are doing. That's why I did

3013:

Timewarp a couple of years ago, this article was a beautiful and concise article on the complete methodology of GTD, from the processes to interesting facets like the tickler file. It even had a picture of the tickler file. What happened to it? It was what inspired me to learn more about GTD and an

2328:

I agree that it may seem difficult to find a connection between the religious activities of the author on his book on time management, but it actually is central to the system, and important for readers to know. The aim of the GTD system is to achieve what Allen calls "mind like water", by entering

2264:

I disagree. This section shouldn't have ANY links to specific software, internal or not. The current list of software (7 titles at present) should be removed because it is original research in every sense. The "original research"ness of this can't be fixed, it just is. Once you remove the list, the

1849:

These comments about criticism covering the range of application of GTD caused some thoughts. It strikes me in the very short time I've worked with GTD that it's useful. Based on comments here, as the range of applications has expanded the way it is applied needs to be adjusted. Those alterations

1537:

Putting this in the "What GTD Is About?" section and ensuring the terms are listed as a registered trademark right away seem like reasonable compromises. I am surprised Knowledge does not use the ® symbol for registered trademarks, however, as I thought this was the only universally acceptable form

1058:

Update: I retract my last statement. I would prefer that the Knowledge link points somewhere else. The current target website contains text drawing attention to their own methodology as a superior alternative to GTD, and sells their own coaching services. To me this seems directly opposed to the

177:

For something like this a neutral point of view is to accurately describe his system. There is no real "controversy" about his system. If it's not your cup of tea, and Seven Habits or WorkSmart or something else is, you use that system instead. Nobody's picketing David Allen, nobody's writing irate

2447:

Here's a good source to add as a reference to this article: the book "Willpower" by Baumeister and Tierney. It definitely meets Knowledge's criteria for reliable sources (IMO) because the authors have published many scientific articles in the subject of self-control. Pages 75 to 87 of this book

1591:

Due to lack of comments on this topic, and to proper references on what "action management" is, I am removing "action management" from the definition of GTD. It would be good though to know what "field" GTD is in, what other methods would be defined as alternatives to GTD, and how is GTD and those

1395:

Kevin, you're welcome to stop replying if you think it's not the best place to discuss this. My point was - I'm not comfortable with what I feel as your fairly self-serving editing of this page, and I wanted to make sure my implicit support was taken back, and my original objection reinstated and

1171:

So I propose that we move the link to a site 1) that nobody could claim is biased, and 2) with content that reflects actual research on GTD software based on something a bit more fundamental - hopefully agreed upon with someone vaguely authoritative. I'd like a disclaimer that the GTD-ness of all

1001:

section—truly encyclopedic content to fill the void left by the deleted article—and linked it to the original content which my company opted to host, research, and maintain externally, as suggested in the discussion. Since WP uses "rel=nofollow" in hyperlinks, no SEO benefits result from the link.

148:

Allen's methodology is great, but it has limitations and boundaries and those are not dealt with in the article. I will note the structure and integrate it with other conceptual frameworks, so thanks. But filing is not only about storage and retrieval, it contains understanding in its structure.

3029:

A agree with what Kcren, A Friendly Nerd and others pro-restoration have said here. I also went to this arctile to get good information on GTD (the methodology, not the book) and also sent friends to it. I was sadened today when I went here during a telephone call and couldn't cite parts from the

2520:

p. 78 "Allen remembered a tool from his travel-agent days, the tickler file. ... Allen's tickler file -- thirty-one folders for each day of the current month, twelve folders for each of the months -- would become so widely copied that his followers used it for the name of a popular lifehacker web

2217:

I got impatient and removed too much. I've restored the full version, and then made a more careful cut at what seems a reasonable level of detail, and some other edits. In particular, I removed the excessive repetition of the name of the author and the name of the method--its that sort of thing

1452:

David Allen & Co. has asked that any website that purports to "define" GTD (including educational sites) provide a link back to the "official" definition of GTD on the davidco.com website. The purpose of the messagebox at top is to comply with this request so as not to create confusion in the

3124:

I just saw this article for the first time, as an extensive user of the GTD methodology for several years. I have to say, this a pretty embarrassing article for such a popular subject, and just one more example to add to the list of "Why Knowledge doesn't always work so good." This article is so

2371:

I agree. I've been thinking the same thing. Although apparently made with frustration and passion, I think it's a fair comparison you've made with the idea of deleting much of Knowledge to boost Encyclopedia Britannica sales. Just as I'm starting to consider regularly editing and writing more to

2045:

which appeard in the "Excerpts from Business Week" section. It appears to be a commercial website geared towards selling a single product: A GTD software package for use on PDAs. As such, I do not think it belongs in an enyclopedia article, and it certainly does not belong in the "Business Week"

1759:

This section would really be better if integrated into the main article as citations. As it stands, the article doesn't have any in-line citations aside from the book itself. I think moving some of this into the main article would help strengthen the references, and clean up the layout a bit. --

1112:

are one example.) The page cited in this article does not advertise Priacta's own software, specifically to maintain neutrality for the GTD software article, and no affiliate links are used. Knowledge article citations to wikis or blogs would likely be inappropriate because they are rarely true,

535:

No, I don't think so at all. I didn't even look at the external links. Now I see that they are to the main landing page for those two sites. That's fine with me. What we don't need is links to "helpful articles" on blogs (of any kind) unless it is used as a reference for a fact quoted in the

132:

There is no real balance to the ideas Allen puts forward. The article reads as a synopsis of the book with no critique. "Objectivity" is fine when applied to a phenomenon but when applied to a set of ideas, such as Allen's book, simply reporting on what it says is not fitting in my view for an

3156:

I value open discussion highly, but I also want this article fixed. If no one responds in two weeks, I will rewrite the article, possibly including older revisions. Even if it's not perfect, it can be improved incrementally after the most important fixes. Please respond with your views on this!

2355:

The senseless vandal who has removed the methodology section from this article just now forced me to buy the book. I repeat what so many have said here, since apparently it is not getting through: Allen's approach aims to be an aid in a world of information and activity avalanche. With the same

2248:

The GTD software section has been both a separate article and a target for all kinds of spam. I think it would be useful to have some guidelines for what belongs. My suggestion would be including only internal links in this section and restricting them to software that has a WP article. I've

1615:

flagged this article as looking like an advertisement. Personally, I don't see it. It is a summary of GTD and some sources for GTD in popular culture. No hype, no emotional language. Pretty basic. I do think it would be great to have more sources cited and know the community has been looking to

1433:

First, this is about Allen, not the "cult of GTD". Secondly, the "considerable debate" is a forum, for crying out loud. Not allowable, and furthermore, even the 43folders guy thought these people were "warring" and asked them to leave - post #48. Now, some geeks arguing on a forum sinply isn't

1043:

Update: Kevin and I have had an offline chat and I'm happier about their intent. Without a full canvassing of the GTD community it would be hard to know what the ideal solution would be, so as long as there is a commitment to making the page worthy of the link from Knowledge, I'm okay with it.

2790:

Removing all the information from and article and replacing it with bits of information-free blah blah does not really help anyone. A detailed description of a books contents in the article about that book is not advertisement. If someone is concerned about the wording of an article, he should

2312:

The overwhelming impression that the inclusion of that sentence gave, left as it was, is that GTD is somehow religious preaching material or whatnot, which couldn't be further from the truth. I feel it would be a shame if people turned away from such a brilliant productivity framework, because

1237:

Therefore, this citation seems in full compliance with the spirit and letter of Knowledge policy and adds substantial value to the article. If anyone feels the cited web page is in any way inappropriate or inaccurate, it has links where changes can be requested publicly. Those changes are made

1268:

At the very least, define "GTD software" and "supporting GTD to one extent or another". Is it anything that can be used for GTD software? Applications that have any GTD elements in them? If the former is true then Notepad is right up there. If the latter, then I'm pretty sure quite a few

1028:

For "SEO", read "traffic", which will generate SEO and sales benefits - which you are no doubt aware of because your page is pretty good advert. If general contributors and other software authors don't mind then it's no problem, but it still absolutely looks like a traffic trap to me, and I

631:

Okay, this is a discussion about the WP article, so let's keep this offtopic post short: have a look around 42folders.org, lifehack.org and zenhabits.net (my favourite) for ideas and implementations. There's also lots of software around that fits different preferences and principles. I'd use

2760:

I agree that there was some promotional content on the older versions, but the methodology that was listed was very useful. By deleting this content we all know less. We can get the basic summary of information from the online book sellers, people come to Knowledge for the details, imho.

1822:

At the bottom of the External Link section the link "GTD for passwords Outsource password management to declutter your mind" appears unrelated or at least way off subject. It leads to the PassPak online service page. That story page is more like a marketing campaign landing page not to any

3176:

I will also be changing the way David Allen and his book are presented re: my comments above. So far the only reply has been Tora's (in the Knowledge Team section farther down). Like many others who have written here, he's discouraged and confused at the deletions, and I don't think anyone

2531:

p. 83 The Ziegarnik effect: research shows that you're distracted until you make a plan. "So it turns out that the Ziegarnik effect is not, as was assumed for decades, a reminder that continues unabated until the task gets done. ... instead the unconscious is asking the conscious mind to

916:

In the past several months, many links have been added to this page for software products related to GTD, but since such links are usually inappropriate without some sort of relation to the content of the article, they have typically been removed. You might be able to find some in the

2507:

p. 76 "Allen doesn't offer seven simple rules of life or rouse crowds into frenzies of empowerment. He doesn't offer vague wisdom like "begin with the end in mind" or exhortations like "awaken the giant within." He focuses on the minutiae of to-do lists, folders, labels, in-boxes."

2600:

I have been following the discussions, reverts related to this article. I am not aware of many of Knowledge's policies, but I am losing much confidence in Knowledge. I am quite stunned to see the fact the much of the methodology section is removed from this article. Such is life. -

297:

Personally, I find not prioritising actions a bad idea when drastically overworked. Plus, the system seems to intrinsically prioritise short (less than two-minute) jobs over long ones. Combined with under-resourcing, you'll never start the more involved tasks. Combine this with the

253:

It would be great to have some possible criticism listed of the GTD system. I am trying to implement it at the moment and it looks like it should work but maybe there are other perspectives. Having some criticisms outlined tends to make one consider the article is more balanced.

2196:

section. I think a one or two paragraph summary would be appropriate, but I leave it to someone else to write it. I point out though, that I have no special rights as administrator over the content of the article--all that I did relating to that role was to decline to delete it.

293:

Perhaps a specialist can comment on the groups of people or professional roles who might find this system suitable? Strikes me that people in different professional environments with differing temperaments etc might find different aspects of different systems useful at different

2411:

The heavy deletions have made this useless. The labour spent on writing articles in Knowledge is becoming useless because of the edits of people who don't know the subject. Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh. But it is worth thinking about it again before writing an article. --

996:

was deleted by admins 4 Dec 2007 as non-suitable for WP. Reasons included "non-encyclopedic," "list of software," "should be somewhere but not here," "original research," really just a list of external links, out-of-date content. On the day the admins deleted it I added the

2562:. IMO it needs to be restored. It used to be solid reference material (a clear description and summary of the GTD system, measures of its influence and adoption rate, independent external research, etc.). Now it is confusing and lacks substance, making it fairly useless. 2372:

contribute to Knowledge, this severe deletion, and that nothing has been done about it for so long, have caused doubts about integrity and the potential for good work to go to waste here. Why hasn't this article been restored already? Who ultimately has control of this?

2332:

QUOTE FROM ABOVE COMMENT: "I feel it would be a shame if people turned away from such a brilliant productivity framework, because apparently someone felt they needed to point out the author's eccentric religious ideals and negatively affect the system by association."

2313:

apparently someone felt they needed to point out the author's eccentric religious ideals and negatively affect the system by association. (Especially when the article on David Allen himself only makes a light fleeting comment regarding his religious role).

1941:

My complaint wasn't regarding the existence of an article on an individual book, but the rather extensive outline of the book's contents and it's overall informal/promotional tone. In any case, I've done some further research and I think the book passes

977:

The bottom of the external page pointed to mentions that "the editors" took it down because it wasn't encyclopaedic enough. I don't really know enough about how WP works, but maybe there's something in the page history somewhere to say who took it off.

1379:

Richard, since this isn't a forum, I feel very uncomfortable responding here further. It improperly monopolizes this Talk page. If you still have concerns, let's link the discussion to a new Google Group and invite everyone to resolve the issues there.

620:

What, if anything, do you use for GTD? I'm running on a Mac (10.4), and I use Pierre Chatel's Sidenote as a general ToDo/list app. I'm still looking for something decent to use (freeware/open source-I'm really quite cheap), and would welcome any tips.

3195:(much like the previous version) will be removed, in keeping with Knowledge guidelines. Unless you can provide independent third-party sources, any previously removed material should not be re-added. You should also carefully review our guidelines on 3091:

I agree. The previous version of the article was far more useful, and it's a great loss to Knowledge's users to have articles as severely censored like this. Is it possible that somebody working for the David Allen Company is responsible for the

1258:

The original page of links was not created by the software authors - I assume that some of the links presented are by other interested parties, so it would not necessarily be a page of authors' links any more than this is a page written by David

199:

My understanding is that Knowledge is neither a place for original research nor original philosophical discussions, disputes, or criticism. If there is something out there to cite that specifically refutes GTD, that would be a useful addition.

3225:

concern; at least it shows that someone else is concerned about the quality of this article. I hope I can trust that if I do indeed show due diligence, other editors will do the same in deciding whether or not to wantonly revert the changes.

1059:

spirit of participating in the GTD community, and in no way "win-win". I likely won't remove the link myself, but I fully support anyone else doing so. Kevin - this is the proper forum to discuss this issue, not in an offline discussion.

403:

This article is neglecting any mention of an inbox, which is a major component in the GTD system. It should definitely be added in. If no one else adds it in, I will when I find the time, which will probably be a couple of weeks hence.

1229:

This GTD article measures the influence of GTD by citing software "supporting GTD to one extent or another." DavidCo.'s measure of GTD-supporting titles would likely be too narrow or far too broad, as they have a vested interest in their

302:

idea that a 30-second interruption destroys concentration for up to 20 minutes, and the unmodified system, on the face of it, looks ill-suited to thought-intensive, non-managerial roles, where constant interruption is counterproductive.

1678:

My psychobabble/pseudoscience alarm was ringing off the charts with this section. Your move is fine, but I'll look through the article again. By the way, I have nothing against this system. I just have issues with the article.

478:

This is not a commercial page, there are even no adsense placed. It contains an objective view to all GTD programs which are available on the BlackBerry. Because this is not SPAM, I do not understand why you deleted the link?

313:

Another more general critical perspective could be that this system need only be applied by people who find disorder frustrating and burdensome, while people less concerned with order can be creative and productive without it!

871:"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, 1269:

applications fall out. I would find it very impressive if any company would create a definition that would exclude their own software, so I would prefer a non-participant (or a more inclusive group) to perform that function.

2527:

p. 80 The idea that an action has to be specific, specifying for example whether phone or email is to be used. The example given is "Consult Esther Dyson about self-control", described as "much too vague by GTD standards".

140:

So unless the A-Z or Chronology is remembered for each piece of information stored in this "simple" filing system, it becomes extremely difficult to locate once the volume of stored information moves above a trivial limit.

1213:"Research" = (in part) not posting or accepting blind links to purported GTD solutions; validating claims, maintaining release dates as explained on the cited page. Evaluation of specific facets of GTD-ness is in progress. 840:

We've seen a surge in spam in this article since the inline link was deleted, even after someone re-added the source under External Links. This may indicate that inline deletion created a content vacuum with an inadequate

2883:

I was asked by Kcren to comment, based on my previous work on the article. I consider the current version a good compromise. I thank Tnxman for his patient work with it, which was more careful than my own earlier work.

632:

MyLifeOrganized if I wasn't so accustomed to my fully integrated Outlook2007/PocketPC/PocketInformant2007 setup which is just missing good GTD "project" & Next Actions management. No affilations here either. Greetz,

2356:

logic, go delete as much as possible from Knowledge and force people to buy Encyclopedia Britannica. What were you thinking? Really? The actions were for the benefit of who exactly? The readers of Knowledge? Hardly.

1209:

It would be inappropriate for me to create a page for my company's methodology as you suggest. That would be self-promotion, which is inappropriate here. The links above are only to facilitate discussion and not

1853:

Also I came across a book "Keeping Found Things Found" by William Jones which is a conceptual look at PIM, Personal Information Management. It came out of an academic project at the University of Washington,

1225:

David Co. is not neutral, it is authoritative in defining "GTD" (trademark), but not the GTD system's limitations, enhancements, or alternatives. Outside entities with some real interest and expertise must do

1233:

A DavidCo.-party-line takeover of this article would be inappropriate. Your external discussion thread almost seems to be a "call to arms" among that narrow segment of the GTD community, as evidenced by its

1144:

I'd really prefer that you stop promoting your website (and your new discussion forum). If you want an external discussion forum, have it on an independent site or on the DavidCo site (here's a new thread:

845:"Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites .. should 372:

Another criticism is that some find GTD more complicated, and no more effective, than Do It Tomorrow, a method described in a book of the same name by a British specialist in time management, Mark Forster.

1434:

notable. Its like reporting gossip from the school lunchroom. If you want to keep the information about MSIA, rewrite it (the cite states he is a minister, NOT "linked to a cult"), add it to the article on

2524:

p. 79 "Dean Acheson (not the former secretary of state)" had people write down everything in their head. (everything that had their attention. This was the origin of Allen's "mind dump" apparently.)

74:

I know nothing about the editing policies of Knowledge but it is worth pointing out that this page has lost the majority of its value by the deletion of the Core Principles section on 12th July.

339:

Please sign comments. I find this last claim to be silly: I have found GTD useful, have no objection to harmless disorder, but hate deciding to do something and then later forget to do it. ---

3174:

I will rewrite this entire article soon if there are no serious, well-founded objections. This will, in spirit and effect, be a reversion to the older and more complete version of the article.

1306:

Please tell me why you hosting that page is not like DavidCo hosting a Seven Habits of Highly Effective People resource page, and then linking to lots of content explaining why GTD is better?

628:

GTD Tiddlywiki is a great system with few dependencies (DB, Website, Software) that I've had success with. I am absolutely not affiliated with the site or the software. It is free and open.

1185:

If you want to point at your own methodology, have a Knowledge page about it and point from there. People who are searching for TRO can find TRO, and people searching for GTD can find GTD.

1010:" it is best to redirect and link to content that most closely resembles the original comparison page. The jeffsandquist.com list may be useful but: a) As a source, does it really constitute 2249:

edited the section to internal links only; but, some of them have red links. (A couple of them were not red; but, did not lead to software articles - I've italicized and not linked these.)

1216:

A page with your disclaimer ("the GTD-ness of all applications is only a claim by the authors") would be weak research and a poor source—simply a collection of claims by software vendors.

1149:) who are at least truly central to the debate. I'm trying to get this page to reflect as inclusive a truth as possible, so I fully encourage edits from users with a wide range of views. 1858:. Being academic it needs interpreted application into daily life. It gives a good start on a technical definition of portions of GTD. It should also be an external link about PIMing. 2924:

However, the book banner on the side is promotional and confusing and should be removed, or the article will be zapped again IMO. The book is only one source re: that method, notable

2578:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that "speedy deletion" editing was unwarranted in this situation (except for some external spam links at the bottom of the old article) and doesn't serve

1463:

Whatever David Allen & Co wish to do is mostly irrelevant. This message box is a form of special treatment that we do not extend to any other trademark holder of which I'm aware.

940:

I think the current software link looks a bit like SEO opportunism - the target page is riddled with links to services, and the company provides related software. I preferred the

3030:

article and had to tell the person I was talking to that alot of the article had been deleted from wikipedia. Which feels bad, ofcourse. So I would also like to see restoration.

2121:. The blog is a collection of articles about productivity in general. Some of the articles may mention GTD, but the site as a whole is not focused on GTD. Does anyone object? – 2006:. The blog is a collection of articles about productivity in general. Some of the articles may mention GTD, but the site as a whole is not focused on GTD. Does anyone object? – 1616:

incorporate criticism - but there isn't a lot out there, except maybe in the occasional blog. So, can we get this removed, please? Or is there anything else we need to discuss?

1288:

As to DavidCo's neutrality about GTD software, my experience is that they act in a very neutral way. They do not advertise their own software on their own forums, for example.

149:

Similarly tasks are not merely executable instructions sometimes they comprise true exploration i.e. exploration that relies upon techniques other than Aristotelian ones.

2835:

it that fail to define it, which is all we're left with right now in this article. Otherwise, we'd need to delete all mentions and pictures of the latest car models in the

712:

relies on the now-unsourced portion to make sense in its context. If we delete just the last half, we need to delete or move the first half. If we move the first half, the

641:

The best hardware I found is HP 200LX. It's instant on and has some nice software on it. To bad it got discontinued "because you can't use touch-typing on it". 27.11.2008

482:

Compared to lifehack and stuff there is no difference. So I guess small blogs targetting to quality articles instead of 1000-mass-junk-ones every day are not welcome here?

3177:

knowledgeable on the subject has offered a good reason for them. Again, if you want to defend them, speak now or make your case after the rewrite (before reverting it!).

3148:

One footnote: I think it's very important to present the subject objectively and neutrally. I do not think this contradicts my points at all. In fact, I am arguing for a

2819:

those deletions seem to remove salesy content for David Allen. However, that conclusion stems from a limited understanding of the subject. Explaining what the GTD system

687:), or provide a superior source compliant with Knowledge policy, or delete the entire section as unsupported and effectively plagiarized content due to lack of sourcing. 728:"... you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." 2152:

I expect this would be better linked to the Moleskine Wiki entry. Will change it myself in the next few weeks if no objections, or anyone else is welcome to change it.

921:

of this page, and if you are interested in the subject, you are certainly welcome to add a section regarding GTD software as long as it is encyclopedic (Knowledge

2935: 2575:

for my discussion with the admin who deleted it. He declined to restore it himself, but his page indicated that he does not consider reverts to be wheel warring.

1894:

I randomly stumbled onto this article...Having read most of it, I cannot see why there is a separate article on this topic. Most of this page reads as a fawning

963:

which now redirects to this article. It was where I used to point people who were adding software links to this article. Does anyone know what happened to it?

2858:

of detail explaining every single facet of the system. If people wanted that, they would buy the book. Knowledge is summary, not a supplementary reading guide.

2514:

p. 76 (paraphrased) Re the inner nag: experiments in Baumeister's lab and Allen's experience arrived at the same conclusions/technique along different paths.

1078:

isn't supposed to support just the GTD community, nor is its purpose to present a single perspective of GTD or provide links to GTD software. It should be an

944:

page, which was a wiki without any obvious bias, not a "mail us and we'll put you on the list" type of page. Full disclosure: I sell GTD software as well.

2823:

doesn't send people running to David Allen's store. GTD is an idea, a system, a philosophy, and it isn't patented, so the better people understand it, the

1118:

I think what's done here should be consistent with Knowledge's charter. Discussion beyond that scope should probably be in another forum like email or the

1371:

Unlike the Zen Habits GTD list, the Priacta page cited is current, researched openly, verifiable, and subject to public review there. A legitimate source.

289:

Some possible criticisms could be: Critics have argued that not prioritising actions can mean dull or unenjoyable activities are put off rather too long.

1576:

find any. Does anyone has any justification for defining GTD as an "action management" method? Otherwise I will be tempted to remove those two words. --

3239:

Ok so what happened, the current version is still useless. This is a methodology page, it should have an outline of the method like it used to right?

1374:

BTW: Clear criteria for GTD-ness were already posted in the site's forum, but a link has been added to make this more clear. Is is open for discussion.

1126:

section and citation are inconsistent with Knowledge's guidelines, please do speak up here so appropriate corrections can be made. Am I wrong, anyone?

925:

directories or collections of indiscriminate external links). It seems like there is some interest in this, so maybe a written section would help. --

1979: 1928: 1626:

I think the "What GTD is about" section is fairly egregious in this regard. It is written as if it were ad copy, not an entry in an encyclopedia. --

3049:

profitable product related. Should we also wear dirty clothes because washing machines are for sale? Honestly, this makes no sense whatsoever. --

1279:

to widen the group of people who are aware of this discussion. In it I declared my own possible bias, as I have from the beginning of this thread.

3110:

I expected this page to give enough detail on the methodology so that it could be implemented. The removed section was much more useful. Regards.

485: 1122:

on the external site in question. Richard, let's do talk there (or via email) to resolve your related concerns offline. If anyone feels that the

767:"There is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references. In the end, the best criteria to consider is the content and relevancy." 748:"The purpose of citing your sources is: To improve the credibility of Knowledge; ... To help users find additional information on the topic.... 1074:

Richard, I hear and definitely want to help resolve your concerns. However, you may misunderstand Knowledge's purpose. Keep in mind that this

2652:) says that the censored text is promotional material and removes the content. How can we block this user for deleting such useful content? 2473: 2413: 1422: 137:

the problem of remembering, for example, the author's name of the article you read two years ago that has now become relevant to your work.

2336:

It is not Knowledge's role to censor material for the purpose of promoting a book or system, or to avoid losing adherents to a book/system.

2792: 2357: 1108:) Furthermore, just because a cited article resides on a commercial site doesn't inherently make the citation inappropriate. (Citations to 497: 355: 330: 185: 553:

And by the way, I was not suggesting copying the information to Knowledge. Of course that would be a copyright violation. But do to the

2995:

to closely monitor edits on the page (CAUTION: read the warning at the top of that page; learn the appropriate Knowledge policies first).

3077: 2691: 2659: 2626: 2176: 648: 270: 104: 2309:

I heard about David Allen's links to this religion is just now, when I visited wikipedia to see if GTD was in it to show to a friend.

1803: 1781: 875:

and let neutral and independent Knowledge editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines."

601: 164: 84: 3145:. (I know there are several important differences between the two; please understand I'm only using the comparison to make a point.) 2679:

I fully agree with tnxman's actions. What he removed was promotional in nature and was not a neutral representation of the subject.

2345: 2322: 1297:

I'm happy to create a TRO page, then it would not be self-promotion and all the people searching for TRO would have a Knowledge page.

472: 1970:

Looks like you did some good cleanup. Nearly all articles can be trimmed. Maybe I'll try a little bit, but it looks fairly concise.

1796:

NM, i figured it out. Who cares enough about GTD to consider it vandalism worthy? This isn't the fox news page for cripes sake.

1898:

for this particular self-help philosophy. The best course I can recommend is to move the basic, sourced, relevant material to the

390:

might be ok, in the absence of significant referenced critique, but the article as it stands doesn't appear meet the criteria for

2777: 833:

article deleted by WP editors 4 Dec 2007 as "original research." That content was the original basis for the cited source. (See

3214: 2869: 2714:

concerns were not upheld; there were no notable sources of criticism, so the most neutral approach is to describe the system.

1329:

Your hypothetical resource page would not really benefit both communities, so it would only serve to lure one to the other.

3014:

article I often showed others. I would dearly love to see that, one of my first and favorite wikipedia articles, retuned.

2938:

it: tens of thousands of blogs, mainstream magazine articles, newspaper articles, and scientific publications discuss it.

1975: 1924: 1774:

somebody wrote about their peni5 in the process part of the article, but i'm not sure what goes there or how to fix it.

1222:

A NPOV does not mean only including so-called neutral assertions and sources. It allows for different or contrasting POV.

1086:

to original (off-WP) research. Even alternative points of view are encouraged here to maintain a NPOV. (See comments in

794: 738:"... readers should be able to check that material added to Knowledge has already been published by a reliable source." 697:

A independently-verified count and scope is an objective measure of influence, controversy, or interest. (Example: See

129:

I thought this article should have an NPOV tag, but then in line with the thinking here, I just added it here's why:

2619:

I have restored the censored content. Please, help to fight censors. Knowledge has the tools to block these vandals.

514: 3153:

considered when writing the specifics of the article content. I am arguing for the nature of the content as a whole.

1219:

Knowledge editors have been begging for alternative perspectives in this article to get a more neutral point of view.

3142: 3134: 993: 960: 38: 2511:

p. 76 "... GTD, the the acronym for Allen's book that has become the name for a system of working and living ..."

439:

Funny that he calls it David Allen & Co., given the existence of the famous and weird singer David Allen Coe.

3019: 1425:. Whether or not MSIA should be labeled a cult is a matter of dispute but the connection has led to considerable 2417: 2318: 1971: 1920: 1091: 1087: 862: 834: 751: 577:

I'm a big Getting Things Done . But a valid criticism is that it doesn't tell you much about prioritizing.

47: 17: 2796: 2585:

However, I'm only one guy and may be missing the big picture, so I'm opening a discussion. What do you think?

2361: 1401: 1311: 1190: 1064: 1049: 1034: 983: 949: 493: 359: 326: 189: 3115: 3081: 2180: 510:

topic. If there is useful information in the article, why not incorporate it into the Knowledge article? --

266: 108: 2968:

Therefore, if you're a non-admin and want to restore the article, any/all of the following are appropriate:

2686: 2663: 2630: 1807: 1785: 1453:

marketplace as to the official definition and meaning of GTD as it is intended by its creator, David Allen.

652: 2773: 2254: 2157: 1338:. They enhance, simplify, or clarify GTD. They are "alternatives" only to "out-of-the-box" "vanilla" GTD. 1104:

covering the gamut. The coaching services you mention are the very reason that research takes place. (See

968: 605: 160: 88: 3172:

Just a heads-up for anyone tracking this article who might have missed it at the bottom of my huge rant:

2314: 1850:

show where GTD needs flexibility and or new perspectives. It may be time for the next generation GTD.

1397: 1307: 1186: 1060: 1045: 1030: 979: 945: 907: 489: 322: 3111: 2606: 1955: 1907: 1873: 1834: 1366:

the Priacta list is a legitimate, essential resource to the TRO, GTD, and other GTD-variant communities.

1172:

applications is only a claim by the authors, and that the DavidCo company endorses only these products:

633: 262: 671:

section now makes undocumented claims after an anonymous editor deleted the following source citation:

374: 235: 3230: 3182: 3162: 2432: 1003: 440: 3073: 3015: 2769: 2765: 2655: 2622: 2544: 2456: 2172: 1950:

the article some. I think it could still use greater pruning to strip away the superfluous detail. —

1899: 1879: 1799: 1777: 1439: 1105: 804: 644: 597: 351: 318: 258: 181: 152: 100: 1357:

If Zen Habits started coaching or publishing would they need to remove their GTD resource list? No.

3209: 3107: 2864: 2602: 2566: 2270: 1680: 1627: 1612: 1123: 1100: 998: 930: 457: 449: 3031: 2836: 2681: 2483: 1565: 1515: 1469: 813:

is specifically not promoted on the cited page. All software is listed there on an equal footing.

676: 2912:

The article is about a methodology, not a book. See the disambiguation and first two paragraphs.

558:

words into this article. That would of course be fine, as it is the way Knowledge is built. --

3266: 3054: 3035: 2925: 2470: 2250: 2134: 2094: 2059: 2019: 1597: 1581: 964: 803:

is misleading. The page owner's "methodology" is a GTD extension, not a GTD replacement. (See

156: 3244: 3097: 2737: 2397: 2377: 2341: 1951: 1903: 1869: 1830: 1728: 1705: 1658: 1640: 1617: 1543: 1485: 1454: 1334:

On the other hand, TRO, Zen-to-Done (ZTD), and most other GTD-like systems fall well within

1160: 585: 422: 405: 304: 212: 201: 3270: 3248: 3234: 3219: 3186: 3166: 3119: 3101: 3058: 3039: 3023: 3008: 2895: 2874: 2848: 2800: 2781: 2749: 2723: 2707: 2697: 2667: 2634: 2610: 2594: 2548: 2460: 2436: 2421: 2401: 2381: 2365: 2291: 2274: 2258: 2233: 2207: 2184: 2161: 2141: 2101: 2066: 2026: 1983: 1959: 1932: 1911: 1883: 1838: 1811: 1789: 1764: 1749: 1731: 1708: 1683: 1661: 1643: 1630: 1620: 1601: 1585: 1570: 1546: 1520: 1488: 1474: 1457: 1442: 1405: 1389: 1315: 1247: 1194: 1135: 1068: 1053: 1038: 1023: 987: 972: 953: 934: 910: 892: 656: 636: 609: 588: 562: 461: 443: 433: 408: 398: 377: 363: 343: 307: 283: 247: 215: 204: 193: 168: 112: 92: 3004: 2844: 2745: 2719: 2590: 2540: 2500: 2452: 2153: 2118: 2003: 1746: 1385: 1350:

ZTDers need GTD-like software, so Zen Habits (a commercial site) has a GTD resource list.

1243: 1131: 1019: 888: 418: 387: 383: 1862:

an understanding of the larger principles of GTD, applications will be easier to create.

348:

Clearly you fall on the side of those who find disorder frustrating and burdensome! :-)

1657:

as better or worse than anything else. Then again, I may be too close to the trees... --

3204: 3200: 2859: 2827:

they may need to buy a book, not more. People need to understand what a subject really

2711: 2649: 2266: 926: 622: 559: 511: 453: 280: 2572: 1176:. I also propose that we move the link to any other less biased page in the meantime. 3196: 2891: 2351:

Please restore description of methodology, please. Do not limit access to information

2287: 2265:

rest of the section is actually pretty good, though it certainly needs more sources.

2229: 2219: 2203: 1895: 1342:

No conflict. (They just can't be called "GTD" because DavidCo. trademarked the term.)

1146: 922: 731: 554: 537: 391: 2914:

Tnxman made the same mistake, follow the links above to see his original comments.

2579: 2463:

Here are some quotes and notes from the book that could be useful in this article:

1119: 3262: 3192: 3050: 2992: 2979: 2427:

See my comments at the bottom of the What Happened to this Article? section above.

2123: 2083: 2048: 2008: 1946:, so there's no real need to do what I suggested above. I did, however, attempt to 1593: 1577: 869:

I will not restore the link myself as I am affiliated with the current page owner.

852: 426: 2910:. His assessment was based on a mistaken classification (book instead of method). 1426: 1206:

This discussion is about a citation that supports specific content in the article.

3240: 3226: 3178: 3158: 3093: 2942:

Important comments from DGG (admin) re: your rights vs. admins who edit content:

2428: 2393: 2373: 2337: 1943: 1560: 1510: 1464: 1340:

They do not seek to supplant GTD. Resources for one are resources for the other.

741: 698: 683:

I invite neutral and independent editors to either restore the citation (edit #

430: 395: 340: 244: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1919:

No reason to do that. Articles on individual books are fine, and quite common.

1855: 3000: 2972:

Discussing with people above who supported the deletion, including any admins,

2840: 2741: 2715: 2586: 1381: 1239: 1127: 1015: 884: 452:

needs to be expanded a little, it doesn't make sense to me as a new reader. --

299: 2368:

YouSeriouslyHaveNothingBetterToDoThanRunningAroundDeletingUsefulInformation?

941: 79:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Getting_Things_Done&oldid=301643397

1761: 770: 1826:

This implies that maybe the other links should be examined for relevance.

2999:

I was willing to prosecute this but not willing to revert/restore alone.

2951: 2886: 2812: 2282: 2224: 2198: 1418: 1335: 1173: 1007: 826: 1359:

It would still be an essential or valuable resource to both communities.

903: 2791:

rephrase, not delete a text on which dozens have worked many hours. --

1327:

GTD and Seven Habits are fundamentally different, competing systems.

2167: 690:

Here's why I feel the content should be kept and the link restored:

211:

Removing NPOV tag in absence of any notable sources of criticism. -

2300:

Reference to David Allen's role as a minister in a religious group

2042: 1539: 2854:

It's one thing to explain the system. It's quite another to have

1203:

Richard, again, you appear to misunderstand Knowledge's purpose.

1324:

Richard, I think I see the problem here. You misunderstand TRO:

594:

You wish him to prove the lack of something by citing it? Wow.

2956: 2907: 1865:

Let the criticisms flow like a river, we need the information.

2988:

Coming back often to see how the discussion is going, and even

1075: 713: 709: 668: 386:

which was added anonymously. In view of the discussion above,

25: 2807:

I totally agree. Restore the summary of methodology section.

1727:

What would make this article more balanced and objective? --

1704:

Understood. Really happy to see it become more empirical. --

425:. Support it with your vote if you want to see this article 2928:

are more appropriate, we should all continue to add those.

2811:

We need to define "promotional" carefully in this context.

2706:

The neutrality question was already discussed at length in

878: 819:

This external inline link best serves Knowledge's purposes

1109: 2517:

p. 77 "mind like water" is from Allen's karate lessons.

2218:

that makes an article appear promotional. Please see

1639:

OK, maybe move the flag into just that section, then? --

902:

If it's possible, would there be any software or online

2975: 2559: 2299: 2114: 2078: 2074: 2038: 1999: 1947: 918: 716:

section is reduced to a single tool, the tickler file.

684: 78: 787:

biased. Is a specific bias seen in the cited research?

1509:

do "favours" like this. I will try for a compromise.

2467:

Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength

77:

The last entry with the Core Principles section is:

829:. Many visitors still come looking for a Knowledge 2166:Blog on use of the moleskine with the GTD system: 1147:http://www.davidco.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8028 1902:article where it belongs and leave a redirect. — 2736:"Neutrality is often dependent upon context." (— 625:0015, 28 October 2006 (Greenwich Meridian Time) 2565:Imagine the same kind of changes being made to 1415:I have removed the following from the article: 1029:personally wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. 706:The content is essential to the entire section. 873:please consider mentioning it on the talk page 8: 3070:with minimal reference to the actual book. 1856:http://kftf.ischool.washington.edu/index.htm 879:WP:EL, Advertising and conflicts of interest 124:. . . I should come back to this later . . . 475:of third-party software for the Blackberry 942:http://gtd.jeffsandquist.com/GTDTools.ashx 853:WP:External Links, References and citation 779:A source should not be removed because it 2957:as you can read here until it is archived 2906:Important discussion with DGG about this 2148:External link to Moleskine notebook blog 1352:It legitimately serves both communities. 906:applications that might work with this? 849:be placed in an external links section." 797:, the David Allen Company official blog. 758:4) Re: the anonymous editor's concerns: 466: 2817:To someone who doesn't understand GTD, 2496: 2492: 2481: 2387:Add a section on history or background 1331:Conflict. Not a good Knowledge source. 791:The source is independently respected. 663:Software tools for GTD: Source deleted 538:Knowledge is not an internet directory 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2708:this archived NPOV dispute discussion 1423:Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness 584:Cute. Got a real source somewhere? -- 7: 3201:writing with a neutral point of view 2569:, and I think you'll see the point. 2033:External link to commercial websites 1106:Why Does Priacta Maintain This Page? 805:Why Does Priacta Maintain This List? 2554:RfC: What happened to this article? 2448:are all about GTD and David Allen. 1484:link to the official definition. -- 1336:DavidCo.'s broad description of GTD 536:wikipedia article. The problem is 3191:Just an FYI -material that is not 2932:The methodology is highly notable. 2117:which added an external link to a 2002:which added an external link to a 1592:other methods generally called. -- 1538:of legal designation. Then again, 765:are not automatically unreliable. 467:Why don't you want external links? 24: 2966:Your options as a regular editor: 2738:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard 2168:http://gtdretail.webege.com/?p=89 1505:appropriate for wikipedia. We do 2244:GTD Software Section Suggestions 771:m:When should I link externally? 450:Getting_Things_Done#Tickler_file 279:Give us some criticisms then :D 29: 2558:This article recently received 1008:principle of least astonishment 827:Principle of least astonishment 506:"all the great articles" about 97:Agree wholeheartedly - Debbie 3133:GTD is directly comparable to 1602:19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 825:The inline link satisfies the 364:12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 308:11:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 169:08:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 113:03:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC) 70:Massive loss to value of entry 1: 3102:02:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 2978:the article (keeping in mind 2536:." (italics in the original) 2402:02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 2346:02:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 1586:21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC) 973:18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 954:05:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 935:06:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 911:04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 657:07:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 610:21:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 2185:19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 2162:20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1406:18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 1390:02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 1316:10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 1248:15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 1195:05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 1136:18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 1069:05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 421:is currently a candidate on 409:16:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 378:08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 344:16:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 284:10:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 3271:21:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 3059:02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2922:article should be restored. 2831:not just a bunch of things 2469:. New York: Penguin Press. 2465:Baumeister, Roy F. (2011). 1812:19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 1790:18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 1238:quickly, in my experience. 1054:07:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 1039:13:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 1024:21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 988:20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 434:07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 427:improved to featured status 399:11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 248:20:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC) 216:17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 205:18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 194:12:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 93:11:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 3286: 3167:16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 3143:Agile software development 3135:Agile software development 3040:13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 2985:Posting your reasons here, 2934:The article should exist. 2918:Therefore, I believe this 2896:20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 2875:11:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2849:01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2839:listing as "promotional." 2801:08:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 2782:04:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 2750:01:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2724:01:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2698:08:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2668:22:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 2635:21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 2595:14:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2366:16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 2292:02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 1571:22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1547:21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1521:19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1489:21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1475:18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 1438:. It doesn't belong here. 1364:Like the Zen Habits list, 994:Comparison of GTD software 961:Comparison of GTD software 831:Comparison of GTD software 677:Comparison of GTD Software 3120:19:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 2611:03:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 2382:13:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 2280:not Allen's invention,. 2275:01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 2259:00:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 2234:17:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 2208:05:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 2142:16:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 2102:18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 2067:14:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 2027:16:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 1984:23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 1960:23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 1933:05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 1912:16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1884:17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1839:16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1732:18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1709:23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1684:18:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1662:18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1644:17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1631:17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1621:16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1429:about the 'cult of GTD'." 893:21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 637:17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 589:17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 563:19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 515:13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 462:13:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 3249:21:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC) 3235:11:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 3024:00:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 2549:20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC) 2461:19:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC) 2323:21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 1823:additional information. 1765:03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 1750:22:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1737:Consensus To Remove Tag? 1458:17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 1443:02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1082:—neutral, accurate, and 695:The content is valuable. 444:18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC) 333:) 13:35, 29 October 2005 273:) 23:22, 11 October 2005 232:Ticker or Tickler file? 18:Talk:Getting Things Done 3220:13:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 3187:15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC) 3009:21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 2437:15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC) 2422:18:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC) 2113:I have undone a recent 2043:www.mylifeorganized.net 1998:I have undone a recent 1818:Unrelated External Link 1120:public discussion board 1084:supported via citations 898:Software related to GTD 835:details and debate here 783:biased, but only if it 732:WP:No original research 3106:I agree. From reading 2521:site: 43folders.com." 1755:GTD in popular culture 1124:Software Tools for GTD 1101:Software Tools for GTD 1004:Google's Official Blog 999:Software tools for GTD 710:Software tools for GTD 669:Software tools for GTD 2109:External link to blog 1994:External link to blog 1417:"Allen has also been 811:Page owner's software 801:"own ... methodology" 795:citation by GTD Times 488:comment was added by 133:encyclopaedic entry. 42:of past discussions. 2580:Knowledge's purposes 2191:listing for deletion 2041:an external link to 1900:David Allen (author) 1080:encyclopedia article 721:Sourcing is required 714:Tools and techniques 555:No original research 2926:third-party sources 1845:GTD Next Generation 1681:User:RandomHumanoid 1628:User:RandomHumanoid 1448:Official Definition 959:There used to be a 3108:this SCRUM article 2837:Ford Motor Company 2567:this SCRUM article 2491:Unknown parameter 1723:Balanced Criticism 1161:TRO-GTD comparison 1113:accurate research. 1110:David Allen's site 1099:Nevertheless, the 992:After discussion, 793:See, for example, 708:The first half of 3076:comment added by 2785: 2768:comment added by 2658:comment added by 2625:comment added by 2475:978-1-59420-307-7 2175:comment added by 2144: 2138: 2104: 2098: 2073:And another two ( 2069: 2063: 2029: 2023: 1886: 1814: 1802:comment added by 1792: 1780:comment added by 1569: 1519: 1473: 863:WP:External links 855:, emphasis mine.) 777:Fear is not fact. 752:WP:Citing sources 647:comment added by 600:comment added by 501: 414:Improvement Drive 366: 354:comment added by 335: 321:comment added by 275: 261:comment added by 236:User:199.2.125.42 196: 184:comment added by 171: 155:comment added by 103:comment added by 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3277: 3217: 3207: 3193:properly sourced 3085: 2980:these guidelines 2872: 2862: 2815:? Who benefits? 2784: 2762: 2694: 2689: 2684: 2670: 2637: 2539: 2504: 2498: 2494: 2489: 2487: 2479: 2451: 2187: 2140: 2132: 2129: 2126: 2100: 2092: 2089: 2086: 2065: 2057: 2054: 2051: 2025: 2017: 2014: 2011: 1877: 1797: 1775: 1563: 1513: 1467: 763:Commercial sites 742:WP:Verifiability 659: 616:Implementing GTD 612: 483: 349: 334: 315: 274: 255: 238:signature added) 179: 150: 115: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3285: 3284: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3215: 3205: 3141:as thorough as 3071: 3016:A Friendly Nerd 2870: 2860: 2763: 2692: 2687: 2682: 2653: 2620: 2560:heavy deletions 2556: 2537: 2490: 2480: 2476: 2464: 2449: 2445: 2414:131.104.139.203 2409: 2389: 2353: 2302: 2246: 2193: 2170: 2150: 2127: 2124: 2111: 2087: 2084: 2052: 2049: 2035: 2012: 2009: 1996: 1892: 1847: 1820: 1772: 1757: 1739: 1725: 1610: 1501:Again, this is 1450: 1440:KillerChihuahua 1413: 1347:Reality check: 1210:self-promotion. 956:Richard.watson 900: 665: 642: 618: 595: 575: 484:—The preceding 476: 469: 419:Time management 416: 388:template:fixpov 384:Template:advert 341:Charles Stewart 316: 256: 245:Charles Stewart 230: 121: 98: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3283: 3281: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3043: 3042: 2997: 2996: 2989: 2986: 2983: 2973: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2878: 2877: 2809: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2793:84.178.113.123 2787: 2786: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2710:. Conclusion: 2701: 2700: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2650:User:Tnxman307 2648:The censorer ( 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2614: 2613: 2555: 2552: 2474: 2444: 2443:Willpower book 2441: 2440: 2439: 2408: 2407:Knowledge Team 2405: 2388: 2385: 2358:91.152.190.110 2352: 2349: 2326: 2315:Tpapastylianou 2301: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2245: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2192: 2189: 2149: 2146: 2110: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2034: 2031: 1995: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1963: 1962: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1891: 1888: 1846: 1843: 1819: 1816: 1795: 1771: 1768: 1756: 1753: 1738: 1735: 1724: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1634: 1633: 1613:RandomHumanoid 1609: 1608:Advertisement? 1606: 1605: 1604: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1478: 1477: 1449: 1446: 1412: 1409: 1398:Richard.watson 1393: 1392: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1372: 1369: 1362: 1355: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1332: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1308:Richard.watson 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1207: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1187:Richard.watson 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1139: 1138: 1115: 1114: 1096: 1095: 1092:Advertisement? 1061:Richard.watson 1046:Richard.watson 1031:Richard.watson 980:Richard.watson 946:Richard.watson 938: 937: 908:207.81.184.128 899: 896: 867: 866: 856: 842: 838: 815: 814: 808: 798: 788: 774: 756: 755: 745: 735: 681: 680: 664: 661: 617: 614: 592: 591: 580:Henry Thoreau 574: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 528: 527: 526: 525: 518: 517: 490:81.169.154.163 473:GTD Evaluation 470: 468: 465: 438: 415: 412: 392:wp:not#soapbox 370: 369: 368: 367: 356:131.111.154.25 323:201.240.194.92 311: 310: 295: 287: 286: 251: 250: 229: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 197: 186:203.216.99.100 120: 117: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3282: 3273: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3218: 3213: 3212: 3208: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3175: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3154: 3151: 3146: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3131: 3128: 3122: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3112:JeanPhilippeD 3109: 3104: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3083: 3079: 3078:24.222.119.15 3075: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3011: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2994: 2990: 2987: 2984: 2981: 2977: 2974: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2967: 2958: 2954: 2953: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2939: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2927: 2923: 2921: 2915: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2888: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2876: 2873: 2868: 2867: 2863: 2857: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2806: 2805: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2789: 2788: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2759: 2758: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2699: 2696: 2695: 2690: 2685: 2678: 2677: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2660:87.218.251.13 2657: 2651: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2627:87.218.251.13 2624: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2583: 2581: 2576: 2574: 2570: 2568: 2563: 2561: 2553: 2551: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2535: 2529: 2525: 2522: 2518: 2515: 2512: 2509: 2505: 2502: 2485: 2477: 2472: 2468: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2406: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2386: 2384: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2369: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2350: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2334: 2330: 2325: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2310: 2306: 2305:of the book. 2293: 2289: 2285: 2284: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2243: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2226: 2221: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2190: 2188: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177:71.136.43.191 2174: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2147: 2145: 2143: 2136: 2131: 2130: 2120: 2116: 2108: 2103: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2068: 2061: 2056: 2055: 2044: 2040: 2032: 2030: 2028: 2021: 2016: 2015: 2005: 2001: 1993: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1940: 1939: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1890:Merge this... 1889: 1887: 1885: 1882:was added at 1881: 1875: 1871: 1866: 1863: 1859: 1857: 1851: 1844: 1842: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1827: 1824: 1817: 1815: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1793: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1769: 1767: 1766: 1763: 1754: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1745: 1736: 1734: 1733: 1730: 1722: 1710: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1685: 1682: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1663: 1660: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1619: 1614: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1573: 1572: 1567: 1562: 1548: 1545: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1522: 1517: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1490: 1487: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1476: 1471: 1466: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1456: 1447: 1445: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1431: 1430: 1428: 1427:online debate 1424: 1420: 1410: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1378: 1373: 1370: 1367: 1363: 1360: 1356: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1346: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1323: 1322: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1202: 1201: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1175: 1174:DavidCo store 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1162: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1116: 1111: 1107: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1041: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1000: 995: 990: 989: 985: 981: 975: 974: 970: 966: 962: 957: 955: 951: 947: 943: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 915: 914: 913: 912: 909: 905: 897: 895: 894: 890: 886: 882: 880: 876: 874: 864: 860: 857: 854: 850: 848: 843: 839: 836: 832: 828: 824: 823: 822: 820: 812: 809: 806: 802: 799: 796: 792: 789: 786: 782: 778: 775: 772: 768: 764: 761: 760: 759: 753: 749: 746: 743: 739: 736: 733: 729: 726: 725: 724: 722: 717: 715: 711: 707: 702: 700: 696: 691: 688: 686: 678: 674: 673: 672: 670: 662: 660: 658: 654: 650: 649:202.82.143.78 646: 639: 638: 635: 634:80.132.201.58 629: 626: 624: 615: 613: 611: 607: 603: 599: 590: 587: 583: 582: 581: 578: 572: 564: 561: 556: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 539: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 522: 521: 520: 519: 516: 513: 509: 504: 503: 502: 499: 495: 491: 487: 480: 474: 464: 463: 459: 455: 451: 446: 445: 442: 436: 435: 432: 428: 424: 420: 413: 411: 410: 407: 401: 400: 397: 393: 389: 385: 382:I've removed 380: 379: 376: 365: 361: 357: 353: 347: 346: 345: 342: 338: 337: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 309: 306: 301: 296: 292: 291: 290: 285: 282: 278: 277: 276: 272: 268: 264: 263:201.230.43.12 260: 249: 246: 243:Tickler. --- 242: 241: 240: 239: 237: 228:Miscellaneous 227: 217: 214: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 203: 198: 195: 191: 187: 183: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 170: 166: 162: 158: 154: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 127: 125: 118: 116: 114: 110: 106: 105:76.222.215.46 102: 95: 94: 90: 86: 81: 80: 75: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3259: 3210: 3173: 3155: 3149: 3147: 3138: 3132: 3126: 3123: 3105: 3090: 3012: 2998: 2965: 2964: 2950: 2941: 2940: 2931: 2930: 2919: 2917: 2916: 2911: 2903: 2902: 2885: 2865: 2855: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2810: 2680: 2584: 2577: 2571: 2564: 2557: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2523: 2519: 2516: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2499:suggested) ( 2466: 2446: 2410: 2390: 2370: 2354: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2281: 2251:ChemGardener 2247: 2223: 2197: 2194: 2165: 2151: 2122: 2112: 2082: 2047: 2036: 2007: 1997: 1954: 1906: 1896:how-to guide 1893: 1867: 1864: 1860: 1852: 1848: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1804:66.41.55.212 1794: 1782:66.41.55.212 1773: 1758: 1747:Gentian Hush 1743: 1740: 1726: 1611: 1574: 1557: 1506: 1502: 1451: 1435: 1432: 1416: 1414: 1394: 1368:No conflict. 1365: 1361:No conflict. 1358: 1354:No conflict. 1351: 1339: 1328: 1230:perspective. 1088:NPOV dispute 1083: 1079: 1057: 1042: 1027: 1011: 1006:.) Per the " 991: 976: 965:ChemGardener 958: 939: 901: 883: 872: 870: 868: 858: 846: 844: 830: 818: 816: 810: 800: 790: 784: 781:could become 780: 776: 766: 762: 757: 747: 737: 727: 720: 718: 705: 703: 694: 692: 689: 682: 666: 640: 630: 627: 619: 602:198.189.14.2 593: 579: 576: 507: 481: 477: 448:The section 447: 437: 417: 402: 381: 375:David Colver 371: 312: 288: 252: 233: 231: 157:LookingGlass 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 128: 123: 122: 119:NPOV dispute 96: 85:145.8.104.65 82: 76: 73: 60: 43: 37: 3197:advertising 3092:censorship? 3072:—Preceding 2920:methodology 2764:—Preceding 2654:—Preceding 2621:—Preceding 2534:make a plan 2493:|coauthors= 2171:—Preceding 2046:section. – 1878:—Preceding 1870:Johnswolter 1831:Johnswolter 1798:—Preceding 1776:—Preceding 1729:Cyberscribe 1706:Cyberscribe 1659:Cyberscribe 1641:Cyberscribe 1618:Cyberscribe 1544:Cyberscribe 1486:Cyberscribe 1455:Cyberscribe 1076:GTD article 923:discourages 785:actually is 699:Cold Fusion 643:—Preceding 596:—Preceding 586:Cyberscribe 441:24.13.86.24 406:ErikStewart 350:—Preceding 317:—Preceding 305:Meeprophone 257:—Preceding 213:Cyberscribe 202:Cyberscribe 180:—Preceding 151:—Preceding 99:—Preceding 36:This is an 2770:Rumrooster 2541:Coppertwig 2453:Coppertwig 2154:Smileypete 701:article.) 573:Criticisms 300:Peopleware 2976:Restoring 2904:All note: 2495:ignored ( 2484:cite book 2267:JCrenshaw 1770:vandalism 821:because: 685:202433077 623:Flintwill 560:Renesis13 512:Renesis13 454:DuLithgow 423:WP:IDRIVE 281:Keithlard 61:Archive 1 3139:at least 3127:millions 3074:unsigned 2813:Cui bono 2778:contribs 2766:unsigned 2656:unsigned 2623:unsigned 2603:Hardduck 2573:See here 2497:|author= 2173:unsigned 1948:clean up 1800:unsigned 1778:unsigned 1012:research 645:unsigned 598:unsigned 498:contribs 486:unsigned 352:unsigned 331:contribs 319:unsigned 271:contribs 259:unsigned 182:unsigned 165:contribs 153:unsigned 101:unsigned 83:Gabriel 3263:Bobagem 3051:M0llusk 3032:Scrdcow 2993:Twinkle 2712:WP:NPOV 2039:removed 2037:I have 1880:comment 1744:Remove. 1594:Avernet 1578:Avernet 1421:to the 927:Renesis 919:history 904:web 2.0 841:outlet. 39:archive 3241:Rjljr2 3227:Jrajav 3179:Jrajav 3159:Jrajav 3094:Deluno 2991:Using 2936:Google 2429:Jrajav 2394:Deluno 2374:Deluno 2338:Deluno 2220:WP:BRD 1956:tizzle 1908:tizzle 1561:Sdedeo 1511:Sdedeo 1465:Sdedeo 1419:linked 1259:Allen. 1234:venue. 431:Fenice 396:Mjwild 294:times. 3001:Kcren 2892:talk 2856:11 kb 2841:Kcren 2833:about 2742:Kcren 2716:Kcren 2693:Space 2587:Kcren 2128:James 2088:James 2081:). – 2053:James 2013:James 1972:ImpIn 1952:Scien 1921:ImpIn 1904:Scien 1540:IANAL 1382:Kcren 1240:Kcren 1226:that. 1128:Kcren 1016:Kcren 1002:(See 885:Kcren 675:(See 16:< 3267:talk 3245:talk 3231:talk 3199:and 3183:talk 3163:talk 3150:more 3116:talk 3098:talk 3082:talk 3055:talk 3036:talk 3020:talk 3005:talk 2908:here 2845:talk 2825:less 2797:talk 2774:talk 2746:talk 2720:talk 2688:From 2683:Them 2664:talk 2631:talk 2607:talk 2591:talk 2545:talk 2501:help 2471:ISBN 2457:talk 2433:talk 2418:talk 2412:Tora 2398:talk 2378:talk 2362:talk 2342:talk 2319:talk 2288:talk 2271:talk 2255:talk 2230:talk 2204:talk 2181:talk 2158:talk 2135:talk 2119:blog 2115:edit 2095:talk 2060:talk 2020:talk 2004:blog 2000:edit 1944:WP:N 1876:)) 1874:talk 1835:talk 1808:talk 1786:talk 1762:Kesh 1598:talk 1582:talk 1566:tips 1542:. -- 1516:tips 1470:tips 1411:Cult 1402:talk 1386:talk 1312:talk 1244:talk 1191:talk 1132:talk 1090:and 1065:talk 1050:talk 1035:talk 1020:talk 984:talk 969:talk 950:talk 931:talk 889:talk 667:The 653:talk 606:talk 494:talk 458:talk 360:talk 327:talk 267:talk 190:talk 161:talk 109:talk 89:talk 3216:Man 2952:DGG 2887:DGG 2871:Man 2829:is, 2283:DGG 2225:DGG 2199:DGG 1974:| ( 1923:| ( 1507:not 1503:not 1436:him 847:not 817:5) 719:3) 704:2) 693:1) 508:any 500:) . 429:.-- 126:;) 3269:) 3247:) 3233:) 3206:TN 3203:. 3185:) 3165:) 3118:) 3100:) 3084:) 3057:) 3038:) 3022:) 3007:) 2982:), 2894:) 2861:TN 2847:) 2821:is 2799:) 2780:) 2776:• 2748:) 2740:) 2722:) 2666:) 2633:) 2609:) 2593:) 2547:) 2488:: 2486:}} 2482:{{ 2459:) 2435:) 2420:) 2400:) 2380:) 2364:) 2344:) 2321:) 2290:) 2273:) 2257:) 2232:) 2206:) 2183:) 2160:) 2099:– 2077:, 2064:– 1982:) 1978:- 1931:) 1927:- 1841:) 1837:) 1810:) 1788:) 1679:-- 1600:) 1584:) 1404:) 1388:) 1314:) 1246:) 1193:) 1134:) 1094:.) 1067:) 1052:) 1037:) 1022:) 986:) 971:) 952:) 933:) 891:) 837:.) 723:: 655:) 608:) 496:• 460:) 404:-- 394:. 362:) 329:• 269:• 192:) 167:) 163:• 111:) 91:) 3265:( 3243:( 3229:( 3211:X 3181:( 3161:( 3114:( 3096:( 3080:( 3053:( 3034:( 3018:( 3003:( 2959:) 2955:( 2890:( 2866:X 2843:( 2795:( 2772:( 2744:( 2718:( 2662:( 2629:( 2605:( 2589:( 2543:( 2538:☺ 2503:) 2478:. 2455:( 2450:☺ 2431:( 2416:( 2396:( 2376:( 2360:( 2340:( 2317:( 2286:( 2269:( 2253:( 2228:( 2202:( 2179:( 2156:( 2139:– 2137:) 2133:( 2125:e 2097:) 2093:( 2085:e 2079:2 2075:1 2062:) 2058:( 2050:e 2024:– 2022:) 2018:( 2010:e 1980:c 1976:t 1929:c 1925:t 1872:( 1868:( 1833:( 1829:( 1806:( 1784:( 1596:( 1580:( 1568:) 1564:( 1518:) 1514:( 1472:) 1468:( 1400:( 1384:( 1310:( 1242:( 1189:( 1130:( 1063:( 1048:( 1033:( 1018:( 982:( 967:( 948:( 929:( 887:( 877:( 865:) 861:( 851:( 807:) 773:) 769:( 754:) 750:( 744:) 740:( 734:) 730:( 679:) 651:( 604:( 492:( 471:* 456:( 358:( 325:( 265:( 234:( 200:- 188:( 159:( 107:( 87:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index