Talk:G. David Schine - Knowledge (XXG)

1173:

something that isn't porn (or a necessary quote) than something that is. (2) As a rule of thumb, quotations are most helpful when they say something that is actually not said explicitly in the text, but would help clarify. For example, in an article on boat travel in the Caribbean, you might have a sentence that says "Compasses were used for centuries as a reliable (for the most part) navigational device." The "for the most part" might be the most concise phrasing in context of the paragraph, but a discerning reader may wonder why that part was added. So a footnote may include a quote from a source showing that there are reports of navigational aberrations in the region of the Bermuda Triangle. Do you get my point? That is clearly helpful and aids the text, but for stylistic reasons should not be included in the main text. However (extending the example) a footnote that includes the quote "Navigation was largely limited to compasses during much of the 15th Century" would serve little value, since we essentially just said that. That said, I've seen both kinds of quotes in this article. I will respond to each quote footnote individually:

346:

Hence the actual quote from the article, placed in the reference, using the quote=parameter. The actual quote was: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." Why remove it and make the next person buy and reread the entire external article by Tom Wolfe till they find the exact reference again. I had to read the whole article to find it. Once you buy the article you cant just use the search function for the word "heterosexual" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use those words. The quote parameter is there just for this reason, its the same reason why Google uses snippets of text from web pages, and why books use quotes in references. No one is served by removing the quotes. --

1993:

non-existent, as evidenced by repeated challenges to these issues that you have made. Contrary to your persistent claim that there is some sort of Knowledge (XXG) policy violation here, the relevant policy clearly states that this is an issue that "should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". Your opinion on this matter is simply your own personal bias. I would suggest that an extremely easy solution to an issue that you have escalated beyond all reasonableness would be to ignore the little numbers in little brackets that represent sources in the lede paragraph and that seem to offend your sensibilities. Alternatively, you will need to demonstrate that consensus of editors dealing with this article supports your personal position. These footnotes can and should remain.

1588:

fortune..." makes more sense, since this is what he was, before and after his involvement with Cohn & McCarthy and throughout his life. Being a wealthy heir is much more the "defining aspect" of who he was. Also in the lede, "Although the pamphlet contained many errors, he had a copy placed in every room of his family's chain of hotels" strongly implies that Schine knew his pamphlet had errors, but used it anyway. It would make more sense to attach the "Although the pamphlet contained many errors" to the fact that it led to his being introduced to Cohn.

621:

explain how your added quotes are relevant, how they add something useful or interesting to the article, then I'll withdraw my objection. As it is, all you've said is that "the quote parameter is there to use." This isn't a test where you'll be marked down for not filling in a blank; because the parameter is there doesn't mean you have to fill it in. You also said "Knowledge (XXG) isn't about truth its about verifiability." I don't understand how this applies--your additions don't make the article any more "verified"--so perhaps you could expand on that.

2169:

credibility of your personal issue. Your edit summary "rm unneeded footnotes, per style guidelines" is simply false. There is no style guideline that requires removal of these sources from the article, only your personal opinion and refusal to cooperate. If you are challenging Schine's status as a controversial subject and can back that up, you might help your case here. As you cannot demonstrate the "editorial consensus" required for their elimination, your repeated removal of these sources is improper, at best.

605:"The only imaginable use the quote you mention above has is that it proves the source says what the article claims it says. And it doesn't even "prove" that, since if the article is lying about where the information can be found, it could just as easily be lying about the quoted content. So the quote serves no purpose at all." I don't buy it as a valid argument, Knowledge (XXG) isn't about truth its about verifiability. I suggest you reach consensus here on the talk page before you delete my additions again. -- 1038:, thats your style, not mine. Based on your edits, you are just guarding your contributions to a few articles. I have moved on to creating new content. I find it much more productive than this filibuster type endless debating. You will not convince me, I will not convince you. My speculation was that this type of endless debate and edit deletions were easier than creating new content, and it is providing the same stimulus that others get from creating new content, I still stand by that guess. -- 162: 141: 2024:←As I said, that is one of about 4 issues this are currently being discussed regarding this article. As I've stated 3 times previously, I have not challenged the issue that is documented in these 3 footnotes, nor is anyone likely to. It's a simple matter of unremarkable fact that Schine was chief consultant. There is nothing there to "challenge". It is not my personal claim that a Knowledge (XXG) style guideline applies here; it is a fact available to you by clicking 676:, and refrain from adding any more footnotes or quotes to the article without discussing your edits first, then I'll drop my objection to these two quotes: The quote attached to the footnote "Crash Kills G. David Schine, 69, McCarthy-Era Figure". and the quote attached to the footnote "The Self-Inflated Target", Time (magazine), March 22, 1954. I still believe that this last one is just useless "noise", but in the interest of compromise I'll drop my objection to it. 2270:

Universe would be an easy target for deletion. Nor does every fact in the article, trivial or otherwise, have three sources. My point in quoting policy is that the use of these references is fully supported by Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. If you can rebut the justifications I have made, please do so. Please don't just say you disagree. If you cannot demonstrate the "editorial consensus" required to remove these references, you cannot remove them.

172: 278: 1782:

the two quotes: "He hired Roy M. Cohn as Chief Counsel to the Subcommittee..." is of course completely unnecessary, as it only repeats what the article states. The second quote: " confused Stalin with Trotsky, Marx with Lenin, Alexander Kerensky with Prince Lvov, and fifteenth-century utopianism with twentieth-century Communism. ...” is useful and should be kept, as it expands upon and adds detail to the footnoted text.

558:"His single stated regret"? What's that doing in there? What does that have to do with the text of the article? What does most of the quote have to do with the article text? For whatever reason, RAN feels a need to find some text somewhere, that in some way, however indirect and confusing, supports something in an article, and he then pastes a quote into a footnote. As here, the result is often rather bizarre. 71: 53: 1745:

on Investigations." This strongly implies that he acted as a chief consultant during the Army-McCarthy Hearings, and that this made him a central figure in those hearings. It also unequivocally states that his position as a chief consultant was key to the part he played in the hearings. In the work you've done on this article, you've seen material that shows both of these points to be incorrect.

22: 2310:

bodies of his time. Given the controversial nature of the article's subject, the fact needs more thorough sourcing, and needs it in the lead. I can keep on rewording my responses, and you can keep on ignoring them, but the relevant Knowledge (XXG) policy completely supports the use of sources in the lead in such circumstances. I therefore continue to reject all three of your points.

1909:

challenged. That summarizes the entire content of this section. Where is the part where my issues have been responded to? What you call my "demands" is to make this article better by removing nonsense and misinformation, and I don't see any reason to stop that. So please do go ahead and add this outrageous conduct to your list of charges at the Arb Request

2053:

rather clear argument for keeping these footnotes, yet you simply ignore it and demand that they be removed. They are clearly NOT against Knowledge (XXG) style guidelines; they simply don't meet your own personal bias as to how the article should be formatted. You cannot remove these citations without obtaining the "editorial consensus" mandated by

705:

comment: "On the other hand, author Tom Wicker refers to Schine as 'Cohn's boyfriend'" From my point of view, you are just deleting what you don't add. You disparage the quote parameter, and use subjective rationalizations to delete mine. But use it when it pleases you. Its there to please the general reader, not one editor. --

81: 1364:

see if supported the text, and adding the proper quote if the text was supported by the citation. Isn't that be a better use of time, and a better service to Knowledge (XXG) readers. Instead you are just guarding your version of the article, and endlessly filibustering over aesthetics, instead of fact checking. --

2347:←Okay, I guess we're done here. It's obvious that no matter how absurd and irrelevant your statements have to be to avoid answering me, you'll just keep typing them out. I could continue this just for the entertainment value of watching you squirm in place like a speared fish, but that would be uncharitable. 2621:

This article is highly biased, as if it were ripped from some smear biography written by a bitter Marxist as revenge against Mccarthy's smackdown on red trash. I suggest that this article be deleted and Knowledge (XXG) be shut down, as these history-distorting methods are an extremely common theme in

1744:

No; the various online sources that you have looked at yourself in working on this article are sufficient to verify what I'm saying. The phrase in question is: "...he became a central figure in the Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954 in his role as the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee

1144:

TonyTT, saying that the inclusion of information that isn't germane to the article is an improvement seems like a contradiction to me. However, I'm willing to accept any of these quotes if someone can show me how it's an improvement. Could you point out the ones you think add something to the article

920:

Here's my position: When you put text in front of a reader, that reader has a right to expect that the text will serve a purpose--that it will impart useful information, in the case of an encyclopedia article. Repetition does not impart useful information. The way the article is constructed with your

683:

agree to dropping that one quote, then please answer the simple and direct questions I asked above: How does it fit in with the article text it's attached to? What does it add to the article? What does it document? These are simple questions. If you can't answer them, then you can't justify including

2309:

Dwight D. Eisenhower is not a controversial subject; G. David Schine is. There are few people who don't know about Eisenhower or how he went from General to President; There are few people who know of Schine or how he went from hotel heir to Chief Consultant on one of the most important governmental

2241:

trivial fact in the article should have 3 footnotes, just because some incidents in Schine's life were controversial, then my response is that that's silly, and you know it's silly, and anyone reading this will know it's silly. If your point in quoting that guideline passage is that you and RAN have

1877:

The simple and straightforward issues have all been responded to and addressed. The article has been changed several times to accommodate your never-ending set of demands. If you can support what part of this article is "contrary to Knowledge (XXG) style guidelines", you might be more likely to find

1850:

There are some simple and straightforward issues left open here and in the section above which have not been responded to. The article makes a factually incorrect statement and is contrary to Knowledge (XXG) style guidelines. Please address these open issues rather than claiming a "consensus" exists

1587:

In the lede, making "...was the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations..." part of the first sentence is silly. He held this position for only a few years out of his life, and it arguably wasn't even a "real" position or title. "...was a wealthy heir to a hotel chain

987:

The fact that something is "there to use" is not, as I have explained to you before, a valid reason for misusing it or using it indiscriminately. You assume that there is some necessity to show "exactly" what people said. Sometimes there is, but in the vast majority of cases there simply isn't. Look

882:

Here we go again, more wasted time and effort deleting and restoring, rather than creative research and writing. Some people get their stimulation by tearing down, others by careful research and detailed writing. Finding new information is hard work, deleting other peoples additions seems to provide

604:

I have restored the quote parameter to the references. You can reread what I wrote above, or I can cut and paste it again. The quote parameter is there to use. Your counterargument appears to be that original author may be lying in what they wrote, so we should not use the quote function. You wrote:

378:

The only imaginable use the quote you mention above has is that it proves the source says what the article claims it says. And it doesn't even "prove" that, since if the article is lying about where the information can be found, it could just as easily be lying about the quoted content. So the quote

345:

Here is one example from that article: "Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual. " Well what exactly have some historians concluded?

2457:

There is a lengthy but pointless pretense of "discussion" of these issues above; made pointless (and laughable) by the fact that two of the parties had no goal other than obstructionism. To briefly restate one of the issues, there are currently 3(!) footnotes attached to the opening sentence of the

2052:

I do believe the issue at hand is contentious, and there is no argument that the subject is extremely controversial. As such, I believe that Knowledge (XXG) policy strongly justifies inclusion of the footnotes in the lead paragraph, right where they are. This justification I have made constitutes a

1992:

If that is your entire issue with this article, there seems to be a rather clear case of confusion here. Schine's notoriety, and the fact that there are readers who may find it difficult to reconcile his hotel heir status with his role as Chief Consultant, the possibility of a challenge is far from

1971:

Thanks for the improved tone, Alansohn. There are about four ongoing issues with this article, but to keep things simple, I'll restate only one here: There are currently 3 footnotes to the opening sentence of the article. These all document one fact: that Schine was "chief consultant" for McCarthy.

1210:

As a side note, I am continually disheartened by the incivility you two show to one another. Flat out name calling, lack of assumption of good faith, refusal to discuss changes made or be open to critique. There are other admins who would probably temporarily ban both of you for the behavior I've

898:

Since you don't, and have never, given any valid reason for the inclusion of the unnecessary, repetitious, distracting and pointless quotes in your footnotes, I assume you have no such reason. Here you don't even attempt to present an argument, but instead entertain yourself with paranoid fantasies

724:

About the Tom Wicker quote I inserted, it's usefulness and relevance is perfectly obvious. The footnote could have been written without the quote, but the most direct and clear way to convey Wicker's opinion here was to include that two word quote. The quote adds something to the article. If it was

2504:

Accusing me of having ownership issues and making false attacks is itself a form of abuse, Alansohn, so you seem to have found "room for abuse" somehow. And I said that your pretense of a discussion was laughable, not the footnotes. And your first sentence is incorrect, for the reasons I point out

2437:

I'm going to RV this article to my preferred version. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), if you wish to discuss changes you would like to make, please do so and I'll be happy to respond. Alansohn, your only involvement with this article and the discussion here has been to support RAN by filibustering

2269:

Even you cannot argue that the subject of the article is not controversial. The fact that he had a major role in the McCarthy Hearings is not a "trivial" fact; It's one of the defining characteristics of his notability. If he and McCarthy had never hooked up, a hotel heir who married a former Miss

1781:

As I pointed out in an edit summary, footnote #2 contains two unrelated quotes and is used in two places in the article. Therefore in both places, half of the quote content is completely irrelevant to the footnoted text. The solution to this is to make the footnote into two footnotes. The first of

1618:

With some people "who they were" and "what they're notable for" aren't the same thing. This is especially true with people like Schine, who come to wide attention only briefly, due to a single incident in their life. The lede as I wrote it made the reason for his notability clear by continuing the

1603:

While Schine held the position for "only a few years out of his life", it is probably the defining characteristic that makes him notable. It's hard to imagine that he would have been viewed as anything other than a minor notable if all he was known for was his role as heir to a hotel chain fortune

1363:

Instead of just getting your jollies reversing my additions, why don't you actually vet the references used in the article. All your reversing of my vetting of the article, didn't spot the incorrect reference used in the article. I was the one that spotted it, by actually reading each reference to

2485:

issues and false attacks claiming that the addition of reliable and verifiable sources is "pointless (and laughable) by the fact that two of the parties had no goal other than obstructionism", when these claims were rejected by ArbCom. There is plenty of room for discussion here; There is no more

2362:

I ain't squirmin'. I have answered every single one of your demands and demonstrated they are incorrect and not supported by Knowledge (XXG) policy. You in turn have responded to none of mine. As you have failed to demonstrate the editorial consensus required your latest unexplained edits will be

2113:

I have been indenting, with asterisks, rather than colons as you demand must be used. Arrogance is a rather weak word to describe the way you have been trying to impose your arbitrary and irrational demands. "I have decided, equally arbitrarily, that I count as seven people and you count as none.

2075:

Whether or not Schine was a consultant for McCarthy is not controversial or contentious. You say that it is, so please point me to some place where you have seen this controversy being debated. As for consensus, as has been well documented by now, Alansohn/RAN count as one person in edit conflict

1956:

The material quoted in the reference support the citations being made. The material being referenced is still in the article, so the sources need to be there. If you would clearly and concisely state the latest version of your demands, it may be possible to reach consensus to address them. If you

1908:

Alansohn, I'm afraid I don't see where the points I've raised have been responded to. In my first comment in this section I raised some issues. RAN's response addressed nothing in my comment, but simply went off on a tangent, incorrectly stating that I had "challenged" something that I have never

1072:

Thanks for your input. If you continue to RV my attempts to improve this article without meaningful discussion, we'll have to move on to further levels of conflict resolution. Please note, however, that all forms of conflict resolution require that you either participate in discussion or withdraw

620:

I am trying to reach a consensus here. If you would respond to my points, as I have responded to yours, that might help us make progress. To reiterate, my overall point is that just shoveling irrelevant and out-of-context words into an article doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. If you can

553:

Ward, Geoffrey C.. "Roy Cohn", American Heritage Magazine, 1988. Retrieved on 2008-03-12. "His single stated regret was that he and his young fellow-counsel, G. David Schine, had ever undertaken their celebrated 1953 trip to Europe to purge United States Information Agency libraries of 'more than

463:

And you don't address the other issue: quotes that don't document or confirm what the footnote says, but just consist of some random copied and pasted text from the source. All of these edits do harm by reducing the overall quality and professionalism of the article. Admittedly they don't do huge

1941:

Also, Alansohn, I should point out that you're arguing against your friend RAN here: RAN said the excessive footnotes were added because I was "challenging" the sentence in question. I pointed out that he was mistaken about what I was challenging--certainly not the facts that were documented in

1511:

Some might call "riddled with errors" "unencyclopedic writing," but there wouldn't be much of a case for that viewpoint. But "many errors" is almost as good, so I don't object to that. If I revert it in the future, it will only be because 1) it isn't an improvement, and 2) I'm reverting other

1295:

I'd say you're not missing anything. Contrary to some of your various insult/fantasies above, I haven't contributed very much to this article and I don't claim "ownership." I wasn't the one to insert this text and footnote and I don't know anything about the YPO. I seem to remember checking this

1172:

used in exceptional circumstances when further clarification is needed or exceptionally helpful but too disruptive to be included in the body text. This is hard to define, but we kind of use the porn test with it - we know it when we see it. A corollary of that is that it is easier to identify

645:

on the talk page, then changes are made on the article page. You are making the changes, rationalizing them, then calling it consensus, you have it backward. All I can do is cut and paste what I have already written. We are just going in circles, there is no way to counter your argument that the

1604:(though Paris Hilton might be making a case for an exception or two.) Adding details regarding his status as a hotel heir to the lead (without removing other details)would be appropriate. The details regarding the pamphlet should be reworded to make it clear that the errors were not deliberate. 999:

And if you want to make this process a little less tiresome, you might try leaving out the part where you keep making up new insult-fantasies about my motivations. That will at least save you some typing. If you find me irritating, just call me a jerk or a moron; that would be more honest, less

704:

I use the quote: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." You use the combination of a quote with a

2379:

I added more references, because the statement that he was a consultant was deleted multiple times. The references were to show the deleter that the fact was true, and each time it was deleted, I felt a need to strengthen the fact with more references, since it was being challenged by it being

1532:

Hello! I did a search on Academic Search Complete. Anyway, the search turned up the following: Crash Kills G. David Schine, 69, McCarthy-Era Figure. By: LAWRENCE VAN GELDER. New York Times (1/1/1985 to present), 6/21/1996, p25, 0p; (AN 29573395); Crash kills G. David Schine, 69, McCarthy-era

957:

I disagree, please reread any of my previous statements over the past month or so, since the time you have been deleting my additions to the article. I understand you enjoy filibustering, rather than adding content, so here it goes again: Quote parameter is here to use, it contains the "exact"

459:

How does it save the reader the trouble of tracking down the secondary source? I already covered this point above. If the user believes and accepts what the footnote says, then there's no reason for them to look it up and check it. If for some reason they don't believe it, then the added quote

2043:

In responding to my reply, you edited my response to replace an asterisk with a colon. No Knowledge (XXG) policy requires removal of asterisks and replacement with colons. Why did you do it? Because you felt the need to impose your personal bias on indentation procedures onto my post, a great

1682:

This is more a matter of documented fact than one where a consensus of opinion is relevant. If you read histories if the incident, it's clear that Schine's position as a consultant for McCarthy had little to do with the whole affair. It was his friendship with Cohn that led to Cohn's bizarre

2168:

The problem with your most recent edit, as with many previous such edits on your part, is that you have removed the sources from the article in their entirety, not just references in the lead. The fact that you are not even following the policy that you claim to be enforcing undermines the

464:

harm, but user RAN obsessively, ritualistically inserts near-random quotes like this into every article he comes across, almost always lowering the quality of the article. When challenged, he repeated refuses to discuss his edits, or engages only in dismissive and meaningless discussion.

1107:

that I have worked on and that is huge. The quote feature would blow up the article beyond normal bounds. However, in this case, the quotes add value to the article by providing the reader with extra context and detail that might not be germane to the article. I would retain this

2458:

article, and none of them serve any purpose. They document the trivial and uncontested fact that Schine was a consultant for Joseph McCarthy. Meanwhile, there is no reference to support a contestable and arguably misleading statement in this sentence: that Schine came to notoriety "

1785:

Also, there are currently 3 footnotes to the opening sentence of the article. This seems excessive, since this sentence says nothing that is likely to be challenged, and says nothing that isn't expanded upon, with sufficient references, later in the article. Per the guidelines at

2292:

it's trivial. There is nothing controversial or contestable or challengeable about it. Whether or not Dwight D Eisenhower was a president isn't trivial, but that fact by itself doesn't need referencing. So my 3 points above still stand. Do you have any further response to them?

1508:, or at least not any more so than your replacement "many errors." And "compromise" isn't the right word for finding a reference to an unreferenced statement. It's a tricky lil' ol' thing, trying to write in comprehensible English, isn't it? You should stick to copy-and-pasting. 481:

If I understand your point, you don't see the relationship between the secondary source direct quote included in the ref and the footnoted text in the article. This is a problem. Presumably the direct quotation supports the footnoted text. That is the purpose. Is this your

2563:

Alright, as an uninvolved admin here, I am making a declaration of consensus. I have reviewed the last few months of talkpage discussions, and I have also reviewed the last few months of edits (and reverts) to the article. The consensus of the editors here is that quotes

932:

My contention is that step 3 doesn't make sense, and is detrimental to the reader's experience. It makes the article look like it was edited by someone who doesn't understand the purpose of a footnote, and doesn't know how to communicate in a meaningful manner with the

544:

Among their other anti-communist activities, Schine and Cohn conducted a highly publicized, and widely ridiculed, tour of Europe in 1953, examining libraries of the United States Information Agency for books written by authors they deemed to be Communists or fellow

1957:

believe that sourced material added to the article is "nonsense" or "misinformation" you will need to clearly document why the material must be removed. Other than that, removing sourced material without valid justification is contrary to Knowledge (XXG) policy.

2862: 720:

Your point of view about "ownership" is incorrect, and your persistence in making this accusation is a personal attack. I don't care about that and I'm not complaining--I'm just pointing it out. You can continue to call me any name you like if it makes you feel

2114:

Therefore this argument is closed." would be roughly equivalent to the "logic" you have been using. Deal with the issues and deal with the relevant Knowledge (XXG) policy. If you can't demonstrate consensus for removing the sources, you have no standing here.

1686:

On the other hand, the language "in his role as chief consultant..." is sufficiently vague so that the error doesn't really jump out at the reader. It's just one little bird-dropping of dis-improvement among dozens that have been added to the article lately.

2544:

That is what the RFC was for, at this point three people have reverted RedSpruces deletions. Isn't that consensus? He was blocked once for "edit warring" and a second time for 3RR violation. Yet, he is still making the same deletions, overriding consensus.

329:

RAN, I've removed some footnote-quotations from cited articles that seemed to me to be either irrelevant to the text they're attached to, or just an unnecessary distraction for the reader. If you disagree with this, please discuss this issue here. Thanks.

572:

I don't think having quotations is problematic. If they illustrate which aspect of the source being cited is especially relevant to the main text, it's no problem and I don't think they make the footnotes look overly cluttered. I say keep 'em. Best,

2572:

appear to be in accordance with consensus, and any further blanket removal of these quotes will be seen as disruptive. If there is a specific quote that is problematic, I encourage any dissenting editor to bring up their concerns at the talkpage.

1715:

No, I'm not confusing those points. I'm saying that this matter is made perfectly clear in all of the reliable sources that cover the issue, and the current content of this sentence is in error because it is contrary to what those sources say.

2527:

I am currently seeing revert wars on the article, but without corresponding discussion at talk. Please ensure that good faith efforts are being made to actively discuss points of disagreement, rather than just reverting each other. Thanks,

364:

You seem to think that an article's references need to do more than point to a source. They don't; just pointing a reader at the place where some likely-to-be-challenged statement is documented is enough. Look at the footnotes in any book;

2568:

be included in the footnotes, if the quotes are brief, accurate, relevant to the text that is being sourced, and potentially useful and/or interesting for the reader. The quotes that exist in the article as of the time that I am writing

1827:

The matters documented by these references have never been challenged by me; I have never questioned that Schine was a chief consultant for McCarthy; you are misreading my comments. Perhaps it would help if you went back and reread them

414:

The RAN-style ref serves the purpose of saving the reader the trouble of tracking down the secondary source. A reader could pull up a WP page and then view it offline with this method. It is harmless to add the secondary source text,

2142:

Now, if we could get back to the article, I said: Whether or not Schine was a consultant for McCarthy is not controversial or contentious. You say that it is, so please point me to some place where you have seen this controversy being

995:

Thanks for your response, BTW. I'm sure you find this discussion tiresome, but by the policies of Knowledge (XXG), you're going to have to stick with it. As long as you continue to participate in discussion, I won't RV your latest

2863:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131110005117/http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=55970100128110&CFID=3154273&CFTOKEN=753943e90e86eca3-27C46959-C29B-B0E5-3E73D80721899C9A&jsessionid=8430d2aa9f57e0b98c223a58542510777772

2438:

with nonsense, word games, circular arguments, pretended obtuseness, non-sequitur, etc., etc. If you continue in that fashion, I'll add the evidence to what has already been amassed against you in the ongoing ArbCom hearing.

2138:

You can keep your asterisks, just as you can keep playing tag-team reverter with RAN. I expect that the Arbitration Committee will have something to say about the latter point eventually, but by all means continue while you

1301:

BTW, your change to the lede is in poor and awkward English, misuses a comma and suggests that Schine was an army private throughout his life, or at least his adult life. The earlier version was better and more correct.

2866: 785:

Nice to see again, RAN. Now that you're here, perhaps you could give some reasons for keeping those footnote quotes. Although we've discussed the issue before, you never did manage to give anything resembling a reason.

2646:

Regarding your reverts, I think that the content is primarily derogatory in nature - you called it criticism - and belongs in a section for criticism, not the section for cultural references, even if its both.

1851:

thanks to the support of your part time meat puppet Alansohn. If you go back to your old pattern of refusing to discuss edit conflicts, then I'll add that issue to the Arbitration Request currently open on you.

2641:

An anonymous user deleted a paragraph about Tony Kushner's play, calling it "purely derogatory content." I restored it, calling it "documented criticism.". The anonymous user then posted this on my Talk page:

2405:

1) You can't understand or don't care about the fact that I ("the deleter") have explained to you no less than 5 times over that I was not questioning whether Schine was a consultant for McCarthy's committee,

1163:

My opinion is a mixed bag. But I've formulated my comments on two principles (1) Adding a quotation to a a reference is not standard practice. 99% of references will rightly lack a quote. Most information

1878:

changes that would meet even your satisfaction. If you continue to try to push your demands in this manner, your continued incivility will be added to the Arbitration Report open regarding your actions.

1565:

That's why I didn't just go ahead and add it myself; I thought I might indicate it here should anyone think it better than the current ones or if anything in the article can be used elsewhere. Regards,

958:

wording, not the phrasing I used. Read the previous two or three times I talk about Schine's alleged homosexuality/hetersexuality. What "exactly" did people say, well, look, there it is in the reference.

664:

You still haven't addressed my point: That the quotes you add are not useful or informative or helpful. Some of them are just out-of-context "noise". Yes, the quotes are verifiable. So are the footnotes

2242:

a "consensus" here, and therefor you don't have to engage in discussion, then my response is that that's just fine, but why didn't you say that about 10,000 words ago, and save yourself a lot of typing?

2028:. Since you haven't presented any argument for keeping these footnotes, and since they are against WP style guidelines, I'm removing them. Would you like to move on to my next issue for discussion now? 1976:, no footnote at all is required here, and 3 is clearly out of line. These footnotes can and should be removed. Please let me know if any part of that is unclear to you and I'll try to explain further. 369:

a quote from the source is included in the footnote, but rarely. When a quote from the author of some outside source is important to the article, then the quote should be put in the body of the article.

2267:"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." 2217:"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." 2166:"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." 2050:"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." 2288:

Your repeated copy-and-paste of the same passage in bold really doesn't make you look like you're trying to be rational here Alansohn. Schine's association with McCarthy is trivial in the sense that

2219:

It is the subject of the article that is controversial. As such, the statements made in the article need more thorough sourcing, including in the lead. I guess I disagree with statements 1, 2 and 3.

3086: 1421:

is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." RAN has been flouting this guideline with relentless persistence in his insult/fantasies about my motivations in opposing some of his edits. Note

826: 820: 1654:

is inaccurate. Schine's role in the Army-McCarthy hearings had nothing to do with the fact that he was a McCarthy "consultant". It had to do only with the fact that he was Roy Cohn's friend.

1232:

Thanks for the comment, Esprit15d; your position on these quotes pretty much matches mine. RAN, If you don't post any objection here, I'll edit the article per Esprit15d's recommendation.

1211:

read above. I would highly recommend that you all stop working on the same articles, take a wikivacation, pray, whatever to return to some level of objectivity and civility.--Esprit15d •

202: 2096:

since it makes discussions easier to follow. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Knowledge (XXG) conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst.

743:"Ownership" isn't a name, names are nouns. I can't be discussing ownership issues and call you a name, I would have to be using a noun. Remember you called me a "moron", thats a noun. -- 2867:

http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=55970100128110&CFID=3154273&CFTOKEN=753943e90e86eca3-27C46959-C29B-B0E5-3E73D80721899C9A&jsessionid=8430d2aa9f57e0b98c223a58542510777772

2594:

To help forestall any future such disputes, I have proposed an addition to the relevant guideline. Any interested editors are strongly encouraged to participate in the discussion, at

460:

doesn't give them any reason to believe it. If they just want to read the secondary source for overall information about the subject, then again the quote doesn't serve any purpose.

2669:

I find the comment "even if it is both" odd, but whatever. I don't care very much where it goes or what heading the section heading has, but deleting it was clearly inappropriate.

219: 646:

author may be lying when they write material, except to remind you about the difference between truth and verifiability. The quote may not be the truth but it is verifiable. --

537:

the quoted text that RAN inserts supported the footnote, then the quoted text would merely be unnecessary, and letting him insert it would be a relatively harmless concession.

1445:. If you're going to complain about incivility, please do not take sides and only complain about one party (in this case, the far-less-guilty party). Thank you. Sincerely, 3004: 3000: 2986: 2894: 2890: 2876: 2778: 2774: 2760: 255: 1650: 3081: 245: 1341:... current exhibition and the recent symposium of the Young Presidents Organization. ... Fuller Brush Company, and (Pvt.) G. David Schine of Schine Hotels. ... 209: 1512:

aspects of your edits; i.e. the ones that are detrimental to the article according to arguments which I have presented and to which you have never responded.

2411:

he became a central figure in the Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954 in his role as the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

3091: 3076: 992:. Which of these quotes clears up some ambiguity that the article text left open? Point out the ones that give the reader useful and important information. 214: 2972: 899:

about other editor's motivations. My motivation, in fact, is to make this article look less like it was written by someone with a communication disorder.

2245:

If you aren't saying either of those things, then you need to show what it is about 1 or 2 that is incorrect. Just saying "I disagree" isn't an answer.

2190:

There is nothing controversial and nothing to be challenged about this point. It's a trivial point, and it's well documented in the body of the article,

99: 1972:

This point has not been challenged, is not likely to be challenged, and in any case is well-documented elsewhere in the article. Per the guidelines at

2550: 2389: 1814: 1735: 1706: 1673: 1493: 1479: 1369: 1327: 1043: 966: 888: 866: 834: 775: 748: 710: 651: 610: 351: 3071: 3066: 1398: 103: 2057:. Please read my entire response and the entire Knowledge (XXG) policy we are both citing before coming back with a reply that disregards both. 2736: 961:

Do you really think that by retyping your position a dozen times, or deleting what you don't like a dozen time, my position is going change? --

1103:

you pointed for whether it improves or detracts from the project. I use a lot of refs and don't use the quote feature. Take an article like

185: 146: 1404:

and while members of this community may disagree, please do not escalate tensions by using confrontational terms. Thank you. Sincerely, --

2654: 725:

removed, it would have to be replaced with something else or the footnote wouldn't make sense. Is that true of the quotes you are adding?

98:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 2623: 2546: 2385: 1810: 1731: 1702: 1701:

I think your confusing truth with verifiability. Truth exists in a person's mind, verifiability is what we source from other writers. --

1669: 1489: 1475: 1365: 1323: 1039: 962: 884: 862: 830: 771: 744: 706: 647: 606: 347: 322: 1118: 492: 425: 379:

serves no purpose at all. And including text that serves no purpose in an article makes the article look amateurish and badly written.

197: 107: 1488:

I have restored the unreferenced fact, even though I cant find a reference in Google scholar or Google news for it as a compromise.--

94: 58: 2982:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2872:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2756:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1568: 1535: 1406: 1379:

Thanks again for your continued exercise in moronic insults, RAN. You are a bastion of consistency in an otherwise turbulent world.

575: 1633:

And BTW, your latest update to the text around the pamphlet uses a whole lot of awkward, choppy sentences and misuses a semicolon.

1203:- helpful, although I'd probably integrate this information on the body text under the "After the Army-McCarthy hearings" section. 1122: 496: 429: 193:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

2080: 1418: 861:

It is the same argument, just moved to a new venue. Your tactics haven't changed, and your still using your favorite moniker. --

392:

for example. How does it fit in with the article text it's attached to? What does it add to the article? What does it document?

1267: 1219: 2746: 2693: 1809:. I think you have removed it four times. The more it is challenged by you, the more effort goes into referencing the fact. -- 33: 823:

in which RedSpruce writes: "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you."

296: 2261:

I am engaging in a discussion, even if you ignore everything I have specified about Knowledge (XXG) policy on this matter.

1619:

first sentence: ...who received national attention when he became a central figure in the Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954."

388:

And other quotes you include don't even serve the purpose of (not) proving that the reference is honest. The one I removed

1547:

Sorry, but I don't understand the purpose of this comment. The article isn't lacking in references around Schine's death.

3047: 2937: 2821: 2605: 2580: 2535: 2973:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071115021911/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1988/5/1988_5_12.shtml

1533:

figure. By: Gelder, Lawrence van. New York Times, 6/21/96, Vol. 145 Issue 50465, pA25, 1bw; (AN 9609114065). Best, --

1168:

go in the article. If a reader wants more information, they can read the reference for themselves. Quotes, however,

2595: 1322:

Note to self: Here is a possible reference, it will have to wait until I buy another subscription to the archive. --

2692:

might have some interesting material, either for the body of the entry or for Schine's later reputation/criticism.

3003:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2893:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2777:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2262: 2212: 2161: 2054: 2045: 2025: 1973: 1787: 306: 2187:

The footnotes in question document nothing other than the fact that Schine was a chief consultant for McCarthy.

2092:

discussions (by indenting your replies to others' posts) is not strictly required, it is standard practice and

2976: 2658: 1505: 39: 21: 1185:- no value. We aren't trying to prove that he died, just what his name is, which is already in the body text 3038: 2964: 2928: 2848: 2812: 2737:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090902224218/http://www2.english.uiuc.edu:80/finnegan/English%20256/Miller.htm

2728: 2627: 2088:

Seemingly an unrelated style issue, tendentious editors often do not indent their talk page comments. While

2650: 467:

I don't know what you mean about pulling up a WP page and then view it offline; could you expand on that?

2960: 2702: 2674: 1349: 1114: 661:

I don't know why you say I am calling anything a consensus; I have never said anything remotely like that.

488: 421: 902:

Now let's move on from name-calling. Either present a reason for your edit, or acquiesce to its removal.

3022:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3010: 2912:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2900: 2796:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2784: 1668:

If we are looking for consensus, I agree with Alansohn, and will restore the lead and its references. --

2963:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2847:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2727:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2477:

The sources added in the lead section directly support statements made therein. It is astonishing that

1394: 1254:

I don't see this reference supporting the sentence, Am I missing something? He remained active in the

177: 2363:

reverted. It's a shame that you refuse to acknowledge that consensus does not support your actions.

1126: 554:

thirty thousand works by Communists, fellow-travelers and unwitting promoters of the Soviet cause."

500: 433: 2510: 2467: 2443: 2420: 2352: 2298: 2250: 2203: 2151: 2104: 2089: 2033: 1981: 1947: 1914: 1856: 1833: 1795: 1750: 1721: 1692: 1659: 1638: 1624: 1593: 1552: 1517: 1450: 1384: 1307: 1237: 1213: 1150: 1078: 1005: 940: 907: 852: 791: 730: 689: 626: 563: 472: 397: 335: 2856: 2740: 2491: 2368: 2315: 2275: 2224: 2174: 2119: 2062: 1998: 1962: 1883: 1609: 312: 3007:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2897:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2781:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

161: 140: 3023: 2913: 2797: 2698: 2670: 1345: 1109: 483: 416: 1130: 504: 437: 2602: 2577: 2532: 308: 277: 86: 3030: 2920: 2804: 2747:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061208120354/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/cohn_r.html

2482: 2093: 2956: 2840: 2720: 672:

Here is a suggested compromise: If you would agree to the removal of the quoted I removed

1337:

New and Encouraging Developments Looking Toward ... $ 3.95 - New York Times - Jun 6, 1954

1266:, working in the hotel, music, and film industries, and he was a founding member of the 2989:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2879:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2763:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2506: 2478: 2463: 2439: 2416: 2348: 2294: 2246: 2199: 2147: 2100: 2029: 1977: 1943: 1910: 1852: 1829: 1791: 1746: 1717: 1688: 1655: 1634: 1620: 1589: 1548: 1513: 1446: 1380: 1303: 1255: 1233: 1146: 1074: 1001: 936: 903: 848: 787: 726: 685: 622: 559: 468: 393: 331: 3029:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2996: 2919:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2886: 2803:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2770: 3060: 2487: 2364: 2311: 2271: 2220: 2170: 2115: 2058: 2044:

metaphor for your actions here. Again, you need to read the guideline you're citing,

1994: 1958: 1879: 1605: 190: 2750: 1263: 2505:

immediately above. If you want to "discuss" Alansohn, you're off to a bad start.

2599: 2574: 2529: 1942:

those footnotes. So by RAN's own reasoning, those footnotes don't belong there.

1259: 70: 52: 2995:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2885:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2769:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 167: 76: 1296:

reference in the past, so its content may have changed since it was inserted.

1104: 2977:

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1988/5/1988_5_12.shtml

310: 189:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 847:

Obviously, neither of the above are "previous discussions on this topic".

1465:

Weasel word removal and restoration of unsubstantiated fact as compromise

3052: 2942: 2826: 2706: 2678: 2662: 2631: 2608: 2583: 2554: 2538: 2514: 2495: 2471: 2447: 2424: 2393: 2372: 2356: 2319: 2302: 2279: 2254: 2228: 2207: 2178: 2155: 2123: 2108: 2066: 2037: 2002: 1985: 1966: 1951: 1918: 1887: 1860: 1837: 1818: 1799: 1754: 1739: 1725: 1710: 1696: 1677: 1663: 1642: 1628: 1613: 1597: 1574: 1556: 1541: 1521: 1497: 1483: 1454: 1412: 1388: 1373: 1353: 1331: 1311: 1241: 1223: 1154: 1135: 1082: 1047: 1009: 970: 944: 911: 892: 870: 856: 838: 795: 779: 752: 734: 714: 693: 655: 630: 614: 581: 567: 509: 476: 442: 401: 355: 339: 2193:

Therefor it doesn't need to be documented with 3 footnotes in the lede.

2081:

Knowledge (XXG):Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors

1283: 1790:, no footnote at all is required here, and 3 is clearly out of line. 2160:

There is no argument that Schine is a controversial subject. As per

106:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 2857:

http://www2.english.uiuc.edu/finnegan/English%20256/Miller.htm

2741:

http://www2.english.uiuc.edu/finnegan/English%20256/Miller.htm

2413:" is nothing more than a "statement that he was a consultant". 313: 271: 15: 2384:

controversial since it has been deleted multiple times. --

2198:

Please name which of the above you disagree with, and why.

2967:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2851:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2731:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1683:

behavior, which in turn led to the Army-McCarthy hearings.

2844: 2724: 2570: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1183:"J. Myer Schine, 79, founder and chairman of Schine..." 1100: 1035: 989: 673: 389: 1730:

Now you're just using "trust me" as your rationale. --

770:

Someone must be in need of extra Wiki stimulation. --

3087:

Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance

1195:"Also killed in the crash were Mr. Schine's wife..." 2999:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2889:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2773:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1189:"In 1957, he turned over the title of president..." 1145:and explain what useful information they provide? 2751:http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/cohn_r.html 549:And here is footnote #3, with RAN's added quote: 2596:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Footnotes#Footnoted quotes 2048:, which I had already quoted above states that 1651:Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 2985:This message was posted before February 2018. 2875:This message was posted before February 2018. 2759:This message was posted before February 2018. 2617:A good example of how Marxists rewrite history 1649:...in his role as the chief consultant to the 809:Please see previous discussions on this topic: 8: 1177:"At the start, the focus was on G. David..." 19: 2955:I have just modified one external link on 2453:Incorrect and repetitious use of footnotes 135: 47: 2839:I have just modified 2 external links on 2719:I have just modified 2 external links on 1201:"His single stated regret was that he..." 1073:your resistance to other people's edits. 883:the same stimulation with less effort. -- 230:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States 1805:It has been continuously challenged by 1274: 137: 49: 2402:So you're saying two things here, RAN: 2263:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section#Citations 2213:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section#Citations 2162:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section#Citations 2055:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section#Citations 2046:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section#Citations 2026:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section#Citations 1974:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section#Citations 1788:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section#Citations 1000:childish and it requires less typing. 3082:Low-importance United States articles 2462:" as consultant to Senator McCarthy. 116:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography 7: 2076:like this, so there is no consensus. 183:This article is within the scope of 92:This article is within the scope of 323:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 38:It is of interest to the following 3092:WikiProject United States articles 3077:Start-Class United States articles 2695:The Red-Baiter and the Billionaire 233:Template:WikiProject United States 14: 2959:. Please take a moment to review 2843:. Please take a moment to review 2723:. Please take a moment to review 1647:Alansohn, your latest word tweak 1197:- redundant; no discernible value 1191:- redundant; no discernible value 1179:- redundant; no discernible value 2290:as a point requiring a footnote, 276: 170: 160: 139: 79: 69: 51: 20: 2855:Corrected formatting/usage for 1393:Please avoid using words like " 250:This article has been rated as 3072:WikiProject Biography articles 3067:Start-Class biography articles 2547:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2386:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2146:Please respond to that point. 1811:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1732:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1703:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1670:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1490:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1476:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1366:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1344:This citation has been added. 1324:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1268:Young Presidents' Organization 1040:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 963:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 885:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 863:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 831:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 772:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 745:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 707:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 648:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 607:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 348:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 119:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 3053:03:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 2481:would persist in his abusive 1570:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 1537:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 1408:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 921:quotes, it flows like this: 577:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 104:contribute to the discussion 2943:09:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) 2827:17:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC) 1504:That isn't an example of a 1470:I removed weasel word "was 3108: 3016:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2952:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2906:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2836:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2790:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2716:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2156:23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 2124:21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 2109:18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 2067:17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 2038:13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 2003:11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 1986:10:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 1967:06:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 1952:00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 1919:16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 1888:13:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 1861:10:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 1838:14:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 1819:13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 1800:01:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1755:01:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1740:01:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1726:00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1711:00:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1697:00:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1678:22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1664:16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 1643:16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 1629:16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 1614:16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 1598:15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 1575:23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 1557:23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 1542:22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 1522:13:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1498:12:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1484:12:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1455:23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 1413:22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 1389:20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1374:19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1332:21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1312:18:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 1242:16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 1224:13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 1155:14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1136:13:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1083:16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 1048:16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 1010:10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 971:02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 945:16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 912:10:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 893:21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 871:20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 857:20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 839:20:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 796:10:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 780:01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 753:18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 735:11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 715:11:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 694:11:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 656:10:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 631:10:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 615:10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 582:02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 568:18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 510:18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 477:18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 443:18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 402:00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 356:21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 340:17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 256:project's importance scale 2609:13:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 2584:05:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2555:04:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2539:04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2409:2) You think that this: " 1583:non-footnote-quote issues 1284:"YPO: The First 50 Years" 540:Here's some article text: 249: 186:WikiProject United States 155: 64: 46: 2707:00:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 2679:00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 2663:22:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 2632:02:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 2515:11:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 2496:03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 2472:02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 1441:and (immediately above) 1354:00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 191:United States of America 2948:External links modified 2832:External links modified 2712:External links modified 2448:00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 2425:10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 2394:00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 2373:15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 2357:13:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 2320:12:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 2303:11:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 2280:11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 2255:11:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 2229:03:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 2208:03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 2179:02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 821:Previous arguments here 2237:If you're saying that 1777:footnotes 1, 2 & 3 1419:WP:No Personal Attacks 1099:I am only reading the 236:United States articles 28:This article is rated 2637:Kushner play material 2622:all of its articles. 95:WikiProject Biography 32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2997:regular verification 2887:regular verification 2771:regular verification 1034:called me a "moron" 761:Request for Comments 178:United States portal 2987:After February 2018 2877:After February 2018 2761:After February 2018 204:Articles Requested! 3041:InternetArchiveBot 2992:InternetArchiveBot 2931:InternetArchiveBot 2882:InternetArchiveBot 2815:InternetArchiveBot 2766:InternetArchiveBot 2688:This article from 2094:highly recommended 1417:The short form of 1318:Possible reference 641:Consensus is made 122:biography articles 34:content assessment 3017: 2907: 2791: 2653:comment added by 1222: 1216: 1134: 555: 508: 441: 319: 318: 270: 269: 266: 265: 262: 261: 134: 133: 130: 129: 3099: 3051: 3042: 3015: 3014: 2993: 2941: 2932: 2905: 2904: 2883: 2825: 2816: 2789: 2788: 2767: 2665: 2486:room for abuse. 1573: 1571: 1540: 1538: 1474:with errors". -- 1411: 1409: 1288: 1287: 1279: 1218: 1212: 1112: 766:Here we go again 700:Ownership issues 580: 578: 552: 486: 419: 314: 280: 272: 238: 237: 234: 231: 228: 180: 175: 174: 173: 164: 157: 156: 151: 143: 136: 124: 123: 120: 117: 114: 100:join the project 89: 87:Biography portal 84: 83: 82: 73: 66: 65: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 3107: 3106: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3057: 3056: 3045: 3040: 3008: 3001:have permission 2991: 2965:this simple FaQ 2957:G. David Schine 2950: 2935: 2930: 2898: 2891:have permission 2881: 2849:this simple FaQ 2841:G. David Schine 2834: 2819: 2814: 2782: 2775:have permission 2765: 2729:this simple FaQ 2721:G. David Schine 2714: 2686: 2684:Possible source 2648: 2639: 2619: 2525: 2455: 2435: 1779: 1585: 1569: 1567: 1536: 1534: 1530: 1467: 1407: 1405: 1400:Knowledge (XXG) 1361: 1320: 1292: 1291: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1252: 804: 802:Quote parameter 768: 763: 702: 639: 602: 576: 574: 327: 315: 309: 285: 235: 232: 229: 226: 225: 224: 210:Become a Member 176: 171: 169: 149: 121: 118: 115: 112: 111: 85: 80: 78: 29: 12: 11: 5: 3105: 3103: 3095: 3094: 3089: 3084: 3079: 3074: 3069: 3059: 3058: 3035: 3034: 3027: 2980: 2979: 2971:Added archive 2949: 2946: 2925: 2924: 2917: 2870: 2869: 2861:Added archive 2859: 2833: 2830: 2809: 2808: 2801: 2754: 2753: 2745:Added archive 2743: 2735:Added archive 2713: 2710: 2685: 2682: 2667: 2666: 2655:68.195.107.150 2638: 2635: 2618: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2558: 2557: 2524: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2499: 2498: 2479:User:RedSpruce 2454: 2451: 2434: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2414: 2407: 2403: 2397: 2396: 2380:deleted. Its 2376: 2375: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2283: 2282: 2243: 2232: 2231: 2195: 2194: 2191: 2188: 2182: 2181: 2144: 2140: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2098: 2085: 2084: 2077: 2070: 2069: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1822: 1821: 1778: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1684: 1631: 1584: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1560: 1559: 1529: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1509: 1506:WP:Weasel word 1501: 1500: 1486: 1466: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1402:is a community 1360: 1357: 1339: 1338: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1298: 1297: 1290: 1289: 1273: 1272: 1256:private sector 1251: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1227: 1226: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1198: 1192: 1186: 1180: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1139: 1138: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 997: 993: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 959: 950: 949: 948: 947: 934: 930: 929: 928: 926: 924: 915: 914: 900: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 859: 842: 841: 824: 813: 812: 811: 810: 803: 800: 799: 798: 767: 764: 762: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 738: 737: 722: 701: 698: 697: 696: 677: 670: 662: 638: 635: 634: 633: 601: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 556: 550: 547: 541: 538: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 465: 461: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 407: 406: 405: 404: 383: 382: 381: 380: 373: 372: 371: 370: 359: 358: 326: 320: 317: 316: 311: 307: 305: 302: 301: 300: 299: 291: 290: 287: 286: 281: 275: 268: 267: 264: 263: 260: 259: 252:Low-importance 248: 242: 241: 239: 223: 222: 217: 212: 207: 200: 198:Template Usage 194: 182: 181: 165: 153: 152: 150:Low‑importance 144: 132: 131: 128: 127: 125: 91: 90: 74: 62: 61: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3104: 3093: 3090: 3088: 3085: 3083: 3080: 3078: 3075: 3073: 3070: 3068: 3065: 3064: 3062: 3055: 3054: 3049: 3044: 3043: 3032: 3028: 3025: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3012: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2988: 2983: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2953: 2947: 2945: 2944: 2939: 2934: 2933: 2922: 2918: 2915: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2902: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2878: 2873: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2858: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2831: 2829: 2828: 2823: 2818: 2817: 2806: 2802: 2799: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2786: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2762: 2757: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2717: 2711: 2709: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2691: 2683: 2681: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2636: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2624:72.82.235.144 2616: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2585: 2582: 2579: 2576: 2571: 2567: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2537: 2534: 2531: 2522: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2452: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2433:Starting over 2432: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2378: 2377: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2196: 2192: 2189: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2099: 2097: 2095: 2091: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2051: 2047: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1783: 1776: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1582: 1576: 1572: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1464: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1410: 1403: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1358: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1342: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1300: 1299: 1294: 1293: 1285: 1282:McNees, Pat. 1278: 1275: 1271: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1249: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1215: 1209: 1208: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1137: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1111: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1011: 1007: 1003: 998: 994: 991: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 946: 942: 938: 935: 931: 927: 925: 923: 922: 919: 918: 917: 916: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 896: 895: 894: 890: 886: 872: 868: 864: 860: 858: 854: 850: 846: 845: 844: 843: 840: 836: 832: 828: 827:and more here 825: 822: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 808: 807: 806: 805: 801: 797: 793: 789: 784: 783: 782: 781: 777: 773: 765: 760: 754: 750: 746: 742: 741: 740: 739: 736: 732: 728: 723: 719: 718: 717: 716: 712: 708: 699: 695: 691: 687: 682: 678: 675: 671: 668: 663: 660: 659: 658: 657: 653: 649: 644: 636: 632: 628: 624: 619: 618: 617: 616: 612: 608: 599: 583: 579: 571: 570: 569: 565: 561: 557: 551: 548: 546: 542: 539: 536: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 511: 506: 502: 498: 494: 490: 485: 482:contention?-- 480: 479: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 444: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 418: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 386: 385: 384: 377: 376: 375: 374: 368: 363: 362: 361: 360: 357: 353: 349: 344: 343: 342: 341: 337: 333: 324: 321: 304: 303: 298: 295: 294: 293: 292: 289: 288: 284: 279: 274: 273: 257: 253: 247: 244: 243: 240: 227:United States 221: 218: 216: 213: 211: 208: 206: 205: 201: 199: 196: 195: 192: 188: 187: 179: 168: 166: 163: 159: 158: 154: 148: 147:United States 145: 142: 138: 126: 109: 108:documentation 105: 101: 97: 96: 88: 77: 75: 72: 68: 67: 63: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 3039: 3036: 3011:source check 2990: 2984: 2981: 2954: 2951: 2929: 2926: 2901:source check 2880: 2874: 2871: 2838: 2835: 2813: 2810: 2785:source check 2764: 2758: 2755: 2718: 2715: 2699:Bmclaughlin9 2694: 2689: 2687: 2671:Bmclaughlin9 2668: 2640: 2620: 2565: 2526: 2523:Edit warring 2483:WP:OWNership 2459: 2456: 2436: 2410: 2381: 2346: 2289: 2266: 2265:states that 2238: 2216: 2215:states that 2165: 2087: 2049: 2023: 1806: 1784: 1780: 1648: 1586: 1531: 1471: 1399: 1362: 1346:Bmclaughlin9 1343: 1340: 1321: 1277: 1264:entrepreneur 1253: 1200: 1194: 1188: 1182: 1176: 1169: 1165: 1110:TonyTheTiger 1031: 881: 769: 703: 680: 666: 642: 640: 603: 543: 534: 484:TonyTheTiger 417:TonyTheTiger 366: 328: 282: 251: 215:Project Talk 203: 184: 93: 40:WikiProjects 2649:—Preceding 2460:in his role 1260:businessman 684:the quote. 669:the quotes. 600:Restoration 30:Start-class 3061:Categories 3048:Report bug 2938:Report bug 2822:Report bug 2382:ipso facto 1127:WP:CHICAGO 1030:I believe 545:travelers. 501:WP:CHICAGO 434:WP:CHICAGO 3031:this tool 3024:this tool 2921:this tool 2914:this tool 2805:this tool 2798:this tool 2507:RedSpruce 2464:RedSpruce 2440:RedSpruce 2417:RedSpruce 2349:RedSpruce 2295:RedSpruce 2247:RedSpruce 2200:RedSpruce 2148:RedSpruce 2101:RedSpruce 2090:threading 2030:RedSpruce 1978:RedSpruce 1944:RedSpruce 1911:RedSpruce 1853:RedSpruce 1830:RedSpruce 1792:RedSpruce 1747:RedSpruce 1718:RedSpruce 1689:RedSpruce 1656:RedSpruce 1635:RedSpruce 1621:RedSpruce 1590:RedSpruce 1549:RedSpruce 1514:RedSpruce 1447:RedSpruce 1381:RedSpruce 1304:RedSpruce 1250:Reference 1234:RedSpruce 1147:RedSpruce 1108:detial.-- 1105:Jack Kemp 1075:RedSpruce 1002:RedSpruce 937:RedSpruce 904:RedSpruce 849:RedSpruce 788:RedSpruce 727:RedSpruce 686:RedSpruce 637:Consensus 623:RedSpruce 560:RedSpruce 469:RedSpruce 394:RedSpruce 367:sometimes 332:RedSpruce 297:2006-2007 113:Biography 59:Biography 3037:Cheers.— 2927:Cheers.— 2811:Cheers.— 2651:unsigned 2488:Alansohn 2365:Alansohn 2312:Alansohn 2272:Alansohn 2221:Alansohn 2171:Alansohn 2143:debated. 2116:Alansohn 2059:Alansohn 1995:Alansohn 1959:Alansohn 1880:Alansohn 1606:Alansohn 1359:Edit war 1220:contribs 1036:see here 283:Archives 2961:my edit 2845:my edit 2725:my edit 1528:Sources 1472:riddled 1395:moronic 1262:and an 1131:WP:LOTD 988:at the 933:reader. 721:better. 679:If you 667:without 505:WP:LOTD 438:WP:LOTD 254:on the 1166:should 415:IMO.-- 220:Alerts 36:scale. 2569:this, 2239:every 2079:From 1258:as a 681:don't 325:edits 2703:talk 2675:talk 2659:talk 2628:talk 2598:. -- 2551:talk 2511:talk 2492:talk 2468:talk 2444:talk 2421:talk 2390:talk 2369:talk 2353:talk 2316:talk 2299:talk 2276:talk 2251:talk 2225:talk 2204:talk 2175:talk 2152:talk 2139:can. 2120:talk 2105:talk 2063:talk 2034:talk 1999:talk 1982:talk 1963:talk 1948:talk 1915:talk 1884:talk 1857:talk 1834:talk 1815:talk 1796:talk 1751:talk 1736:talk 1722:talk 1707:talk 1693:talk 1674:talk 1660:talk 1639:talk 1625:talk 1610:talk 1594:talk 1553:talk 1518:talk 1494:talk 1480:talk 1451:talk 1443:here 1439:here 1435:here 1431:here 1427:here 1423:here 1397:." 1385:talk 1370:talk 1350:talk 1328:talk 1308:talk 1238:talk 1214:talk 1151:talk 1101:diff 1079:talk 1044:talk 1006:talk 967:talk 941:talk 908:talk 889:talk 867:talk 853:talk 835:talk 792:talk 776:talk 749:talk 731:talk 711:talk 690:talk 674:here 652:talk 643:here 627:talk 611:talk 564:talk 473:talk 398:talk 390:here 352:talk 336:talk 102:and 3005:RfC 2975:to 2895:RfC 2865:to 2779:RfC 2749:to 2739:to 2690:Spy 2566:can 2406:and 1807:you 1170:are 1123:bio 1032:you 996:RV. 990:dif 497:bio 430:bio 246:Low 3063:: 3018:. 3013:}} 3009:{{ 2908:. 2903:}} 2899:{{ 2792:. 2787:}} 2783:{{ 2705:) 2677:) 2661:) 2630:) 2606:ka 2603:on 2600:El 2581:ka 2578:on 2575:El 2573:-- 2553:) 2545:-- 2536:ka 2533:on 2530:El 2513:) 2494:) 2470:) 2446:) 2423:) 2392:) 2371:) 2355:) 2318:) 2301:) 2278:) 2253:) 2227:) 2206:) 2177:) 2164:, 2154:) 2122:) 2107:) 2065:) 2036:) 2001:) 1984:) 1965:) 1950:) 1917:) 1886:) 1859:) 1836:) 1817:) 1798:) 1753:) 1738:) 1724:) 1709:) 1695:) 1676:) 1662:) 1641:) 1627:) 1612:) 1596:) 1566:-- 1555:) 1520:) 1496:) 1482:) 1453:) 1437:, 1433:, 1429:, 1425:, 1387:) 1372:) 1352:) 1330:) 1310:) 1270:. 1240:) 1217:• 1153:) 1133:) 1081:) 1046:) 1008:) 969:) 943:) 910:) 891:) 869:) 855:) 837:) 829:-- 794:) 778:) 751:) 733:) 713:) 692:) 654:) 629:) 613:) 573:-- 566:) 535:If 507:) 475:) 440:) 400:) 354:) 338:) 3050:) 3046:( 3033:. 3026:. 2940:) 2936:( 2923:. 2916:. 2824:) 2820:( 2807:. 2800:. 2701:( 2673:( 2657:( 2626:( 2549:( 2509:( 2490:( 2466:( 2442:( 2419:( 2388:( 2367:( 2351:( 2314:( 2297:( 2274:( 2249:( 2223:( 2202:( 2173:( 2150:( 2118:( 2103:( 2083:: 2061:( 2032:( 1997:( 1980:( 1961:( 1946:( 1913:( 1882:( 1855:( 1832:( 1813:( 1794:( 1749:( 1734:( 1720:( 1705:( 1691:( 1672:( 1658:( 1637:( 1623:( 1608:( 1592:( 1551:( 1516:( 1492:( 1478:( 1449:( 1383:( 1368:( 1348:( 1326:( 1306:( 1286:. 1236:( 1149:( 1129:/ 1125:/ 1121:/ 1119:c 1117:/ 1115:t 1113:( 1077:( 1042:( 1004:( 965:( 939:( 906:( 887:( 865:( 851:( 833:( 790:( 774:( 747:( 729:( 709:( 688:( 650:( 625:( 609:( 562:( 503:/ 499:/ 495:/ 493:c 491:/ 489:t 487:( 471:( 436:/ 432:/ 428:/ 426:c 424:/ 422:t 420:( 396:( 350:( 334:( 258:. 110:. 42::

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

Index