1024:
I read no further than "Undid revision 1059655478 by Kent
Dominic (talk)..." in your edit summary. Never saw the " Disambiguated self-contradiction â intentional link to DAB page" part nor did I read that second edit of yours itself. Stuff happens. Recommendation: When editing, DON'T click the "undo" tab when you're intending a subsequent edit that differs from the first. Instead, merely edit what's there. Otherwise, editors - incl. yours truly, who is typically methodical and considerate when it comes to his own edits as well as the edits of others - will likely get a little testy. And I really do mean it when I say all of this talk page stuff is moot. Other editors who've read it are asking, "What does any of this have to do with
1124:' vs. 'Microsoft functions properly'). In "act naturally" the equivocation is double; "act" is being humorously reinterpreted in the sense of 'put on a fictive persona; engage in the pastime or vocation of acting', when the originally intended meaning was 'behave; present as'; and "naturally" is jokingly taken mean 'in accordance with one's nature; congruent with one's in-born tendencies or personality', when the original implied something more like 'normally, casually'. But unless some sources get into disinctions as narrow as you'd like, it's not our WP-editor job to invent them by ourselves on a talk page.
409:
399:
378:
304:
242:
665:" edit conflicted with what prior editors and I agreed. In short, my reversions indicated that you were outnumbered and therefore that you had to (a) automatically yield; (b) see if the conflicting editor might concede your point, (c) start a discussion to see if a majority of editors adopt your POV, or otherwise (d) risk being administratively sanctioned for edit warring upon failing to yield.
211:
294:
273:
918:. Rather heavy-handed remarks, darkly referring to "edit-warring" and hinting at "reporting", were very readily resorted to So, despite this being a disproportionate effort and a complete waste of time, since we just keep talking across each other, I feel it incumbent upon me to persist, and also justified, in pointing out the misconceptions implicit in the above:
1057:) is an effete dessert food, typically eaten at children's parties; and Biafra, which owing to its being blockaded by Nigeria became in the 1970s almost a by-word for starvation: might not Jello Biafra be in effect an oxymoron? Uniting two mutually opposite values (abundance and famine) into a single, absurd but at the same time poetic protest.
905:? (An edit which was exactly the same as my "most recent edit", which you accept?) The point (points?) of contention is, along with your refusal to acknowledge the mistaken second reversion, you make unevidenced assertions about my actions, and are wholly unresponsive to the points I make (rather than the ones that you imagine I proffer).
933:
your objections. (It was also the catalyst for this pointless back-and-forth, as if you had not performed the second, unwarranted reversion, no further need for discussion would have arisen. I note you do not address the specific point of your second reversion in any of your remarks, but continue to fall back to your first reversion.)
929:. It is incorrect, no matter how much you repeat that it is not (or, alternatively, ignore it). The change of the target described above is what caused the page to be listed in "Category: Pages with links needing disambiguation". If it had not been on the maintenance list, it would never have come to any disambiguator's attention
1120:) being a common form. "Act naturally" is in the same class as "military intelligence" and "Microsoft Works", where a different sense of a word than the one intended by the coiners of the term is what generates the humor ('military information-gathering' versus 'military smarts'; 'Microsoft's comprehensive package, "the works
959:, contrary to your kindly meant, but erroneous, advice on my Talk page.) I try to work collaboratively, make an effort to understand what other users are attempting to communicate, and believe that others may also have valid points of view. I do not take kindly to attempts to cow or talk me to a standstill.
1023:
Short answer: It doesn't matter since we're both satisfied with what's there now. Long answer: I hadn't actually read the second edit until moments ago. I'd reverted it upon seeing the Wiki reversion notice re my reversion of your first edit. Clicking the reversion notice links to the affected edits.
1166:
the term "comical oxymoron" or "opinion oxymoron" or whichever term they use? I can't see it in any of the sources cited in the section, or at least the portions thereof that are freely available online. In any case, it isn't research, let alone OR, to not conflate two distinct concepts. As such,
766:
This exchange, and our earlier one, feels - unnecessarily - combative. There is really no need for the heavy-handedness: I am usually quite mild and reasonable; I admitted my error, and chose a different path. You then made an error, which until now, you have failed to recognise or concede. In good
1115:
policy, to just invent such a distinction ourselves. Going over the article as it stands now, our sources used so far describe more than two classes, and we're addressing all of them in considerable detail. One of these classes, a very general/broad one, is comical or opinion oxymorons, which have
932:
Your second reversion, after I took your advice, was an illegitimate reversion of a needed correction, a point I would have let go if you did not keep simply - falsely - insisting your second reversion was warranted, and imply that I, either ignorantly or disruptively, repeated the first edit over
762:
not to suggest it go there, but only to illustrate that the then-current link to a DAB was very recent. An appeal to WP:Consensus may have been relevant if I insisted on pointing the link elsewhere, but not for an edit which is clearly enacting WP:Policy. It was certainly unneeded, as I always
1468:
I'm going to go ahead and remove the section about the "Queers for
Palestine" slogan. Queer and Palestine are not inherently contradictory terms, in fact there are queer Palestinians. I feel that keeping it as an example confuses the reader as it doesn't match any definition or example in the
1076:
Why is this listed as a comical oxymoron? The essence of comical oxymora, as described in the section, is that a judgement/stereotype is being made on one of the constituents of the phrase (claiming that all policitians are dishonest, that
Microsoft software never works, etc.), and the other
908:
It would also be a non-issue if we were only discussing this one tiny, very minor, edit. That is not what is occurring here, though. I do not appreciate your continued deprecation of my actions, based on a real or feigned misunderstanding of the pertinent WP policy, of the sequence of events,
495:
To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirectâfor example, link to the redirect
Springfield (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "Springfield"
742:
Your point at no. 2 is factually incorrect, and is the nub of the entire misunderstanding. (Notwithsatnding your wish to relitigate the entire sequence, even the points already resolved.) To wit, your second reversion reverted what is there now: My "second edit", the "ill-advised" one,
940:
following your first reversion and edit summary remarks. Seriously, what does it have to do with anything since that point? How can it be salient? Because it takes the discussion back to the point where you last stood on firm ground? I mean to say, who has disputed or queried
1084:
OK, so maybe such oxymora may be humorous in that they play on multiple meanings/interpretations of a word or that they can be used for humorous effect. But that isn't what the bulk of the section is talking about. I say we should carefully distinguish between
649:
Your second edit (essentially the same as the first) undoing my reversion was ill-advised because (a) it similarly mucked up the meaning and (b) it contravened the consensus. With a veteran editor I'd have assumed he or she was instigating an
999:". "In your case, however, I gave you the benefit of attempting a good faith effort to do something that not only contravened the sense of the lead sentence but also contravened the consensus and damaged the integrity of the article."
1170:
It's true that the oxymoronicity of "Microsoft Works" relies on a pun on "works", but so what? It also relies on a judgement of
Microsoft, and that is the reason it meets the definition of a comical/opinion oxymoron as given here. â
1080:
On the other hand, the claimed oxymoronicity of "act naturally" is based on definitions of words. The claim is that "naturally" is contradictory with the meaning of the word "act", not any opinion, judgement or stereotype of acting.
946:
I understand you are a valued editor of longstanding, highly knowledgeable, and expert in many fields. While I am a relative novice, I do have an excellent grasp of disambiguation on WP pages. (And other WP policies, too, such as
900:
It would be "moot", if that were the point of contention. It is not, as you must surely be aware. You refer, time after time, to my "most recent edit" as being acceptable, while studiously avoiding the whole point of contention:
775:
you reverted, as a courtesy to a fellow editor. And please, please, please try to understand: I am not now arguing, nor have I ever, that the link should point elsewhere, over and above fixing the DAB link, so if you do reply,
1116:
their own section. Why "act naturally" is in that section is because the sources cited for that and the other examples suggest it is this type of oxymoron. They're comedic for muliple reasons, word-play about definitions (
913:
of what I am trying to say in discussion with you. You continue to misrepresent my actions, by insisting that my second edit repeated my first. I will not allow that to go unchallenged: Apart from anything else, it is
753:
My other points were in no way intended to argue that it should return to the state of my first edit - as you seem to believe I am contending- but merely hoping to explain how I do not believe reversion was warranted,
556:
is much more difficult to understand, in any kind of "assume good faith" way. My disambiguation made no material difference in any way to where the link pointed, nor to the appearance of the rendered page. What
153:
990:
From Kent
Dominic's remarks above, with my comments : "Your second edit (essentially the same as the first)" "undoing my reversion was ill-advised because (a) it similarly mucked up the meaning and (b) it
1476:, this is the second article I've found where you needlessly insert content about the Israel-Palestine conflict into unrelated articles based on loose associations. Please stop doing this, as it violates
838:
until 27 November 2021. You can easily establish this for yourself by opening an earlier version of the page and clicking on the link there. Please try to understand; how else can I explain it? Would
1347:
1275:
1427:
722:. My hunch is that someone linked the best sense available for "self-contradiction" at the time. IMHO, the polysemic intent of "self-contradiction" is best served by linking the DAB page.
1111:
If you have reliable sources that define and "carefully distinguish" between these two alleged classes, then that would be reasonable, but we're not likely to be in a position, per
736:
Oh, dear! As mentioned (I fondly thought, cleary), above, I understood and concurred with your first correction. Why keep arguing the toss over that, when I had conceded your point?
190:
680:
article's lead. Personally, however, I think the article, as is - with the atypical link to a DAB page - is better than changing the lead to, say, "... that creates an ostensible
635:
AukusRuckus, you seem to be a bit discombobulated here and you're definitely mistaken about construing any misunderstanding on my part. No worries, though. Here's the skinny:
834:
was edited, and changed from an automatic re-direction targeting a named article (auto-antonym), to a DAB page. I provided the diff so that you could see ... It pointed to
646:." The change in links created a substantial change in meaning. What was there before your edit is what prior editors and I agreed was intended; thus my reversion.
360:
147:
202:
465:
1503:
350:
79:
1518:
455:
658:
effort to do something that not only contravened the sense of the lead sentence but also contravened the consensus and damaged the integrity of the article.
549:
in the edit summary. In WP terms, it's merely resolving a link to a DAB page. Nevertheless, I was content to comply with the editor's expressed preference
763:
discuss substantive changes and prefer to work collaboratively. A point I had believed I made obvious with my second edit, which took your view to heart.
1508:
1498:
718:
editor(s) agreed. Yet, there's no evidence of that in simply looking at the text before your first edit since "self-contradiction" wasn't encoded as
326:
1513:
767:
faith, I will assume you genuinely overlooked the content of my "ill-advised" second edit when making your second reversion, and will now actually
431:
85:
707:
links to an article that relates to oxymoron in only a teensie-weensie itty bitty way that was neither vetted nor even discussed by prior editors.
605:
I hope this explains the change clearly. If any editor still seriously feels the need to keep the link as ] rather than ], I would ask that a
747:, indeed, "]", in the exact same form as it now stands. You reverted this. If you cannot believe it is so, feel free to actually look at the
1167:
we can avoid the issue simply by not mentioning "act naturally" in the section at all, and indeed somebody has taken the liberty to do this.
30:
1158:"Why 'act naturally' is in that section is because the sources cited for that and the other examples suggest it is this type of oxymoron."
487:
In relation to recent edits, I open, with some trepidation and a sense of fatigue, a discussion on a link to a disambiguation (DAB) page (
317:
278:
739:
DABs still need to be DABbed though! One would perhaps have some expectation that a veteran editor would lend a hand in this direction...
488:
422:
383:
882:: a) No-one ever tried to keep or return the link to "self-]", no-one ever disputed your reversion of it; b)Linking as ] contravenes
99:
1135:
1053:. (The bulk of this text also appears on the Talk page of this recording artist.) Given that Jello (what in the UK would be called
808:
Yet, there's no evidence of that in simply looking at the text before your first edit since "self-contradiction" wasn't encoded as
104:
20:
857:
As I mentioned earlier, the point of contention is moot since your most recent edit to the article suffices. Salient point: "self-
44:
74:
253:
65:
813:" There is no evidence of that "in simply looking", because that is not how it was done, as I explained! It was achieved
1292:
168:
1089:
literal oxymora, whose oxymoronicity is based on actual meanings of words, whether a word has multiple meanings or not
1477:
568:
for an edit of this type, particularly in the absence of any substantive objection - at least as I understand policy
135:
1223:
210:
185:
1371:
1077:
constituent contradicts this. So the phrase is not literally oxymoronic, but it's been humorously claimed to be.
109:
936:
Please stop referring to my first edit. It is the epitome of "flogging a dead horse", since I conceded the point
564:
As a purely administrative (or, let's say, "behind-the-scenes") change, there is little, if any, need to obtain
221:
672:) is perhaps what you intended in the first place. Whether that link directs (or directed) to a DAB page or to
597:
259:
241:
1449:, contradicting univalence. Usage of the oxymorons can be replaced with better described binary relations. â
198:
194:
1214:
1202:
758:, on the later occasion, nor that your appeal to policy was valid. I made the point that it was linked to
129:
1473:
780:, please do not go over all of your excellent reasons why the link should point to the DAB page. Thanks.
655:
565:
55:
1132:
964:
891:
847:
785:
625:
518:
430:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
325:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
839:
710:
There's a valid argument to be made that the lead should be changed to "... that creates an ostensible
502:
70:
1481:
1446:
125:
651:
1062:
161:
926:
528:
693:
639:
586:
309:
226:
175:
1454:
1029:
866:
803:
777:
728:
676:
is a moot point. Either link fairly represents what's intended by "self-contradiction" in the
538:
414:
51:
700:
what the oxymoron article currently says, via concision, per the self-contradiction the link.
1442:
1152:
1127:
960:
887:
843:
781:
661:
There's always a need to obtain consensus in case of conflict. In this instance, your "self-
621:
223:
1112:
606:
506:
1434:
1433:
of relations, begun in the 19th century, has been widely disseminated in the textbooks of
1430:
1194:
1162:
Which particular sources are you referring to here? And how do these particular sources
1092:
joke/opinion oxymora, whose oxymoronicity is based on opinions, judgements or stereotypes
948:
610:
1354:
1176:
1101:
1058:
685:
596:, a mere 14 days before my disambiguation. Such a situation is specifically covered at
398:
377:
141:
1492:
1050:
858:
704:
662:
643:
1450:
1117:
835:
759:
711:
681:
673:
577:
575:
of longstanding. The link in question pointed, until recently, to an article page,
322:
303:
427:
404:
299:
865:" is right regardless of how it's encoded and where it links or redirects. --
1172:
1097:
956:
886:
WP policy. It places the page into a maintenance category for correction.
513:
In an effort to be concise, I will briefly note the relevant WP guidance:
1198:
1025:
677:
24:
527:
go through a redirect that explicitly includes "(disambiguation)" . See
883:
689:
293:
272:
997:
veteran editor I'd have assumed he or she was instigating an edit war
523:
Where used, they are required to use the format: ]. I.e. Such links
225:
1049:
This refers to the stagename of the former main vocalist of the
654:. In your case, however, I gave you the benefit of attempting a
1484:
1458:
1441:
is a total, univalent relation. The mathematical oxymorons are
1180:
1140:
1105:
1066:
1032:
968:
895:
869:
851:
789:
731:
629:
545:
was, I think, based on a misunderstanding of what was meant by
1197:
has been able to defuse a pair of oxymorons that arise in the
235:
227:
15:
820:
748:
590:
582:
553:
542:
571:
This is especially so, as the link to the DAB page is
160:
1374:
1295:
1226:
426:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
321:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
174:
1421:
1342:{\displaystyle \{x:\exists y\in B\ \land \ xRy\}.}
1341:
1269:
638:Whatever your intention, your first edit changed "
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
493:
1270:{\displaystyle xRy,\quad x\in A,\quad y\in B.}
1422:{\displaystyle xRy\ \land \ xRz\implies y=z.}
8:
1333:
1296:
239:
921:Linking "]" without "(disambiguation)" is
561:a good faith reason be for that reversion?
372:
267:
1373:
1294:
1225:
1405:
1400:
983:
374:
335:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linguistics
269:
821:
814:
807:
440:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Literature
1143:; rev'd. 16:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
703:Perhaps needless to reiterate, "self-
668:Your third and most recent edit (i.e.
7:
1504:High-importance Linguistics articles
517:Links to DAB pages are discouraged:
420:This article is within the scope of
315:This article is within the scope of
1519:High-importance Literature articles
585:. The redirect, with the title of "
258:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1305:
1017:WHY did you revert my second edit:
14:
903:WHY did you revert my second edit
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1509:WikiProject Linguistics articles
1499:Start-Class Linguistics articles
861:" was well-intended but wrong; "
407:
397:
376:
338:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
302:
292:
271:
240:
209:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1514:Start-Class Literature articles
460:This article has been rated as
443:Template:WikiProject Literature
355:This article has been rated as
1445:, contradicting totality, and
1402:
617:, before any further action.
1:
1480:. Much appreciated, friend! -
1459:00:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
1253:
1239:
1181:13:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
1125:
1033:15:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
969:02:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
896:04:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
870:02:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
852:23:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
842:succeed where I have failed?
790:23:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
732:17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
630:12:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
434:and see a list of open tasks.
329:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1141:15:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
1106:15:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
798:Redirects (point six above)
771:at the objective record of
696:." All of that verbiage is
1535:
1349:When the domain is all of
613:(third opinion) is sought
466:project's importance scale
361:project's importance scale
1067:09:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
993:contravened the consensus
827:." - quoting 3.1 above.
609:"request for comment" or
459:
392:
354:
287:
266:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1485:22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
1220:, designated by certain
955:strictly disallowed and
483:Disambiguating wikilinks
925:correct as it violates
318:WikiProject Linguistics
1423:
1343:
1271:
511:
423:WikiProject Literature
248:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1424:
1344:
1272:
714:" if that's what the
519:Template:Dablinks/FAQ
252:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
203:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1464:Queers for Palestine
1447:multivalued function
1372:
1293:
1224:
802:Regarding this from
341:Linguistics articles
105:No original research
1437:. In these books a
1030:Kent Dominic¡(talk)
1028:?" Sorry, folks. --
957:inappropriate on WP
867:Kent Dominic¡(talk)
729:Kent Dominic¡(talk)
446:Literature articles
1419:
1406:
1401:
1339:
1267:
1254:
1240:
916:demonstrably false
874:It is neither a) "
694:self-refuting idea
640:self-contradiction
587:self-contradiction
489:self-contradiction
310:Linguistics portal
254:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1478:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1390:
1385:
1323:
1318:
1209:and a target set
591:to a DAB page on
589:", was converted
480:
479:
476:
475:
472:
471:
415:Literature portal
371:
370:
367:
366:
234:
233:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1526:
1482:Avery Trashmouth
1443:partial function
1428:
1426:
1425:
1420:
1389:
1384:
1348:
1346:
1345:
1340:
1322:
1317:
1276:
1274:
1273:
1268:
1213:are linked by a
1195:binary relations
1156:
1139:
1123:
1000:
988:
951:, btw, which is
830:I.e., the (now)
593:27 November 2021
554:second reversion
509:
448:
447:
444:
441:
438:
417:
412:
411:
410:
401:
394:
393:
388:
380:
373:
343:
342:
339:
336:
333:
312:
307:
306:
296:
289:
288:
283:
275:
268:
251:
245:
244:
236:
228:
214:
213:
204:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1534:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1489:
1488:
1466:
1435:Gunther Schmidt
1431:algebraic logic
1370:
1369:
1353:, then it is a
1291:
1290:
1277:The source set
1222:
1221:
1205:. A source set
1191:
1150:
1121:
1074:
1072:"Act naturally"
1047:
1005:
1004:
1003:
989:
985:
800:
552:Kent Dominic's
543:first reversion
510:
500:
485:
462:High-importance
445:
442:
439:
436:
435:
413:
408:
406:
387:Highâimportance
386:
357:High-importance
340:
337:
334:
331:
330:
308:
301:
282:Highâimportance
281:
249:
230:
229:
224:
201:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1532:
1530:
1522:
1521:
1516:
1511:
1506:
1501:
1491:
1490:
1474:124.150.67.252
1465:
1462:
1418:
1415:
1412:
1409:
1404:
1399:
1396:
1393:
1388:
1383:
1380:
1377:
1355:total relation
1338:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1321:
1316:
1313:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1301:
1298:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1257:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1238:
1235:
1232:
1229:
1193:The theory of
1190:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1168:
1160:
1145:
1144:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1073:
1070:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1018:
1002:
1001:
982:
981:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
954:
944:
943:
942:
939:
934:
930:
924:
906:
881:
877:
833:
799:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
774:
770:
764:
757:
751:
746:
740:
737:
725:
724:
723:
708:
701:
686:formal fallacy
666:
659:
647:
616:
603:
602:
601:
600:
598:WP:FIXDABLINKS
574:
562:
560:
550:
548:
547:disambiguation
532:
531:
526:
521:
498:
484:
481:
478:
477:
474:
473:
470:
469:
458:
452:
451:
449:
432:the discussion
419:
418:
402:
390:
389:
381:
369:
368:
365:
364:
353:
347:
346:
344:
327:the discussion
314:
313:
297:
285:
284:
276:
264:
263:
257:
246:
232:
231:
222:
220:
219:
216:
215:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1531:
1520:
1517:
1515:
1512:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1494:
1487:
1486:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1470:
1463:
1461:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1416:
1413:
1410:
1407:
1397:
1394:
1391:
1386:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1367:
1363:
1358:
1356:
1352:
1336:
1330:
1327:
1324:
1319:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1302:
1299:
1288:
1284:
1281:contains the
1280:
1264:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1189:Relation cure
1188:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1159:
1154:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1130:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1071:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1051:Dead Kennedys
1044:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
998:
994:
987:
984:
980:
970:
966:
962:
958:
952:
950:
945:
937:
935:
931:
928:
922:
920:
919:
917:
912:
907:
904:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
885:
879:
875:
873:
872:
871:
868:
864:
860:
859:contradiction
856:
855:
854:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
831:
828:
826:
825:
824:
819:
818:
812:
811:
805:
797:
791:
787:
783:
779:
772:
768:
765:
761:
755:
752:
750:
744:
741:
738:
735:
734:
733:
730:
726:
721:
717:
713:
709:
706:
705:contradiction
702:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
664:
663:contradiction
660:
657:
653:
648:
645:
644:contradiction
641:
637:
636:
634:
633:
632:
631:
627:
623:
618:
614:
612:
608:
599:
595:
594:
588:
584:
580:
579:
572:
570:
569:
567:
563:
558:
555:
551:
546:
544:
540:
537:
536:
535:
534:In addition:
530:
524:
522:
520:
516:
515:
514:
508:
504:
497:
492:
490:
482:
467:
463:
457:
454:
453:
450:
433:
429:
425:
424:
416:
405:
403:
400:
396:
395:
391:
385:
382:
379:
375:
362:
358:
352:
349:
348:
345:
328:
324:
320:
319:
311:
305:
300:
298:
295:
291:
290:
286:
280:
277:
274:
270:
265:
261:
255:
247:
243:
238:
237:
218:
217:
212:
208:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1471:
1467:
1438:
1365:
1361:
1359:
1350:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1217:
1210:
1206:
1192:
1163:
1157:
1128:
1118:equivocation
1095:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1054:
1048:
1045:Jello Biafra
1020:
1015:AukusRuckus:
1014:
996:
992:
986:
978:
915:
910:
902:
862:
836:auto-antonym
829:
822:
816:
809:
804:Kent Dominic
801:
778:Kent Dominic
760:auto-antonym
719:
715:
712:auto-antonym
697:
682:auto-antonym
674:auto-antonym
669:
619:
604:
592:
581:, through a
578:auto-antonym
576:
566:WP:CONSENSUS
539:Kent Dominic
533:
512:
494:
486:
461:
421:
356:
316:
260:WikiProjects
206:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1360:A relation
1153:SMcCandlish
1129:SMcCandlish
961:AukusRuckus
938:immediately
888:AukusRuckus
878:", nor b)
844:AukusRuckus
840:WP:REDIRECT
782:AukusRuckus
642:" to "self-
622:AukusRuckus
503:WP:HOWTODAB
332:Linguistics
323:linguistics
279:Linguistics
250:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
1493:Categories
1364:is called
995:" With a
756:afterwards
749:diff here.
727:Cheers. --
656:good faith
437:Literature
428:Literature
384:Literature
1469:article.
1366:univalent
1289:which is
1203:functions
1059:Nuttyskin
927:WP:INTDAB
823:re-direct
817:through a
583:re-direct
529:WP:INTDAB
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1439:function
1215:relation
1199:calculus
1026:oxymoron
832:DAB page
716:original
678:oxymoron
652:edit war
620:Thanks
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
25:Oxymoron
1472:Note: @
1451:Rgdboer
884:MOS:DAB
880:correct
876:salient
698:exactly
690:paradox
464:on the
359:on the
207:90Â days
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1283:domain
1164:define
1113:WP:NOR
953:always
607:WP:RFC
507:WP:DAB
256:scale.
126:Google
1368:when
1055:jelly
1021:Kent:
979:Notes
949:WP:OR
941:this?
692:, or
615:first
611:WP:3O
559:could
505:, at
501:from
191:Index
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1455:talk
1429:The
1177:talk
1173:Smjg
1102:talk
1098:Smjg
1063:talk
965:talk
892:talk
848:talk
806:: "
786:talk
773:what
769:look
626:talk
525:must
491:).
456:High
351:High
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1285:of
1201:of
1138:đź
923:not
911:and
745:was
573:not
541:'s
176:TWL
1495::
1457:)
1403:âš
1387:â§
1357:.
1320:â§
1312:â
1306:â
1259:â
1245:â
1179:)
1126:â
1104:)
1096:â
1065:)
967:)
894:)
850:)
788:)
688:,
684:,
628:)
499:â
205::
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
1453:(
1417:.
1414:z
1411:=
1408:y
1398:z
1395:R
1392:x
1382:y
1379:R
1376:x
1362:R
1351:A
1337:.
1334:}
1331:y
1328:R
1325:x
1315:B
1309:y
1303::
1300:x
1297:{
1287:R
1279:A
1265:.
1262:B
1256:y
1251:,
1248:A
1242:x
1237:,
1234:y
1231:R
1228:x
1218:R
1211:B
1207:A
1175:(
1155::
1151:@
1136:¢
1133:â
1122:"
1100:(
1061:(
963:(
890:(
863:]
846:(
815:"
810:]
784:(
720:]
670:]
624:(
468:.
363:.
262::
199:2
195:1
188::
172:¡
166:¡
158:¡
151:¡
145:¡
139:¡
133:¡
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
