704:
820:"), I have resolved this concern in the revision from 21:55, 16 April 2009. This revision does not mention the author of the paradigm any more. Now the paradigm's authorship can only be found from the verifiable reliable sources that are listed in References section. The sources are all refereed academic publications by international publishers who are comletely independent from the paradigm's author, thus the sources cannot be considered as a self-promotion by the author.
628:
607:
579:
563:
638:
190:
113:
92:
61:
1279:
paradigm allows you to test the framework against its principles and to show the framework's deficiencies (if any), allowing (explaining how) to fix the deficiencies in a possible revision of the framework. And when you want to build a new system modeling framework, e.g. the one used in SEAM, the paradigm provides you guidelines on how to do it assuring the resulting quality of the framework.
32:
465:
434:
475:
1323:
references you use. I think eventually there shouldn't be more then maybe say 25% references to your own work. Then there is a balance. This is a base for any encyclopedic article. To bring some balance to the article I removed two references, and I will maybe even remove more. Some thing have to change, if this article wants to last. --
1361:
Sorry. It think the introduction you just added , and more or less the whole current article, is all focusses on just explaining the paradigm. Did you notice almost every sentce mentions the word "paradigm". If you want to make a more encyclopedic article there are some things a more general audience
845:
Hello. It seems that all references provided in the article are (co)authored by you, except "A. Wegmann, L.-S. LĂŞ, G. Regev, B. Wood, Enterprise modeling using the foundation concepts of the RM-ODP ISO/ITU standard", which does not seem to be about the topic of the paradigm. The paradigm thus appears
1322:
Ok, thanks for explaning. I just added the texts from R.M. Dijkman (2006) to the article with links to Alloy and formal semantics. I think it would be nice if this article would explain more about the general idea and similair ideas in other literature then your own. There should be a balance in the
1278:
Triune
Continuum Paradigm defines a set of scientific foundations (principles) within which conceptual frameworks used for system modeling in different contexts can be build, tested, evaluated and if necessary revised. Thus, when you take an existent conceptual framework, such as UML or RM-ODP, the
850:
because it lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", because such sources exclude "works produced by those affiliated with the subject". Even should you be able to provide independent sources, your writing of the article constitutes a conflict of interest
759:
Hello. It is not a hoax. And yes, I really do think it is something important. If anybody has a real, candid critique of the Triune
Continuum Paradigm, then he or she is welcome to publish it in specialized peer-reviewed academic publications (this is a regular process of resolutions of scientific
1342:
Thank you, Marcel for the suggestion. I added “Introduction” section. I also plan to add more explanations to “Foundations and their implications” section later. Now the article has some more references to sources that are not authored by me. As for your suggested 25% balance for any encyclopedic
1430:
To me your last message presents a good sketch of an article on general system modeling (nice plan, indeed!). I will be glad to contribute to it (when having time for this) in cooperation with anybody who will be interested. But this sketch goes far beyond the scope of the article that we are
1189:
Hi Andrew. Now the article will stay for now, I tagged it with an orphan tag. This tag can be removed if three article link to this page, which I just fixed. However, at the moment I have the feeling this article is orphan in more then one way. This article is rather isolated, in the whole of
928:
1.2 Even though the referred papers are (co)authored by me, I consider the sources to be produced by the independent publishers and not by myself. Indeed, I haven't produced the sources: I (co)authored the material used in the sources, then the material was refereed by independent experts and
211:
1407:
I guess this is the path I would start if I wanted to make this article more embedded in
Knowledge. Unfortunatly I have other priorities, such as getting a PhD research of my own in this field on the road. Hopefully this will give you some ideas to carry on. Good luck. --
1246:
that was discussed in 'Conceptual framework' article talk. That is, the paradigm explains how to build a conceptual framework for a given purpose; more concretely, how to build a logically rigorous conceptual framework with a number of important features such as:
734:
The entire main article is reminiscent of the Sokal hoax. Anyone who doesn't see that doesn't know the subject matter very well. The only question is whether it's an actual hoax or whether the author really does think he's on to something important.
1201:
for UML. Or maybe it can be developed into a reference model. One thing I didn't understand from the article is, what the result is from applying the paradigm to UML, RM-ODP and SEAM...? Does it alter these items? Or create something new?
1270:
Paradigm, as used by Thomas Kuhn (The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962), a set of scientific and metaphysical beliefs that make up a theoretical framework within which scientific theories can be tested, evaluated and if necessary
1076:
As for your argument on issue #3, could you please provide the corresponding proof from the
Knowledge rules that would qualify me to be in an automatic conflict of interest, regardless my primary motivation for this article:
1008:
I disagree and have nominated the article for a community deletion discussion. As one of the leading scientists associated with this topic, you are automatically in a conflict of interest when covering it on
Knowledge.
1431:
discussing now. In my opinion the current article should remain focused on its subject, while a different article on the subject of general system modeling is certainly the one that I will be glad to contribute to.
1337:
P.S. to make this article more encyclopedic, I think an first paragraph about the general idea of paradigms and conceptual frameworks for system modeling could help, maybe with a summary of existing paradigms.
1483:
In the
Introduction section, the first paragraph is a quote that is pretty much repeated in the second paragraph. Would it be possible to remove one of them in favor of the other without losing any quality?
775:
Completely a hoax. It pretends to be about the Triune
Continuum Paradigm, and yet it makes no effort to tells us anything about the paradigm, only its effects. Why is there any debate about deleting this?
1343:
article, this may be good, just let me note that many
Knowledge articles do not fulfill this percentage in their references. And as for me, I do not see any problem in having such articles in Knowledge.
1225:
Hi Marcel. Yes, I agree that the article needs to be integrated with the existing
Knowledge articles in the field of systems science and modeling. And I think the way of doing this could be, in summary:
1368:
The overview section should explain first what system modeling is? And general systems modeling? Which kind of systems modeling methodologies exist? And if they already consist of conceptual frameworks?
813:
does this article violate? I double checked the 5 criteria before deciding to publish the article and triple checked them again now, - in my oppinion all the criteria are fulfilled by the article.
919:
1.1 The aforementioned article of A. Wegmann, L.-S. LĂŞ, G. Regev, B. Wood explains how the paradigm was applied to obtain SEAM ontology, thus it has a direct relevance with regard to the topic.
235:
1155:
42:
375:
929:
published by the publishers who was responsible to produce the sources. And of course, the publishers who produced the sources are not affiliated with the subject of the article.
292:
230:
1396:
With these example you can first establish there is difference between paradigm, conceptual frameworks, modeling techniques, modeling languages, and metamodeling frameworks.
1253:
explicit definition of interpretations that are assigned to the framework concepts, promoting coherency of such interpretations in practical applications of the framework;
1602:
1542:
712:
163:
153:
496:
on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1547:
1537:
1567:
570:
444:
1557:
533:
523:
129:
1562:
1365:
Given the Triune Continuum Paradigm to be a paradigm for general system modeling, which allows for building of conceptual frameworks for system modeling.
337:
1572:
1597:
1552:
953:
Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Knowledge, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
694:
684:
311:
1582:
176:
120:
97:
955:" In the case of the article under discussion, advancing outside interests is not more important to me than advancing the aims of Knowledge ("
1607:
1592:
498:
400:
1402:
And then you have a base to explain some more about the paradigm itself, and what it can add to the current allready complicated situation.
1205:
I do think it would be nice if this article, would be more embedded in the Knowledge. I have been thinking about writing an article about
1197:, where I got the picture the paradigm wants to offer a foundation for systems modelling, maybe even offer a reference model such as the
1577:
744:
283:
1587:
777:
264:
1250:
internal consistency (absence of undesired self-contradictions between the framework’s concepts in their applications in practice).
488:
439:
1080:
958:
356:
823:
Looking forward to receive a timely responce from your side, in order to settle this divergence before the deletion deadline.
1399:
If you established this base then in a history section you can put some of the mayor developments in a historical perspective
798:
You have proposed to delete the article about the Triune Continuum Paradigm from Knowledge based on the following comment: "
651:
612:
321:
202:
72:
1256:
adequacy (necessity and sufficiency) of the framework’s concepts to cover the scope defined by the framework's purpose.
586:
448:
331:
245:
1190:
existing Knowledge articles in the field of systems science and modeling. I wonder if this can be solved here...!?
366:
128:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1315:
R. Audi (general editor). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, second edition; Cambridge University Press 1999.
1287:
An article on system modeling may be a good idea, I need to think on what could be a possible input from my side.
393:
38:
1263:
Triune Continuum Paradigm is a paradigm in the sense of defintion from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:
60:
748:
1084:
962:
703:
643:
1232:
to explain in pertinent other Knowledge articles how the Triune Continuum Paradigm fits in their stories.
1209:
myself. Maybe we can exchange some ideas about this. I would be interested in your ideas about this. --
781:
302:
78:
1372:
1198:
740:
31:
1519:
1489:
1229:
to improve the article with more details and clarifications, referring to other Knowledge articles;
1154:
You should make any further comments on this matter on the dedicated deletion discussion page,
1436:
1348:
1292:
1128:
990:
856:
834:
765:
480:
221:
17:
1206:
273:
125:
660:
627:
606:
1515:
1485:
1161:
1012:
862:
347:
189:
1523:
1493:
1466:
1440:
1417:
1352:
1332:
1296:
1218:
1170:
1132:
1021:
994:
871:
838:
785:
769:
752:
578:
562:
212:
Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
1531:
1462:
1413:
1328:
1214:
948:
852:
847:
810:
1514:
Maybe it's just me, but is this the underlined part correct? Just sounds odd to me.
1432:
1344:
1288:
1124:
1055:
Your disagreement does not state arguments on issue #1, thus I consider issue #1 ("
986:
830:
761:
1375:
is such a conceptual framework, the OMG itself called a metamodeling architecture.
1243:
633:
493:
470:
1382:, consist of their own conceptual frameworks based on own, call it, paradigm.
254:
112:
91:
1457:
One way or an other I keep the feel the context is still missing here. --
1385:
Also modeling languages independent frameworks have been defined, such as
1458:
1409:
1324:
1210:
492:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
1386:
656:
464:
433:
1390:
791:
Talk: after the proposition to delete the article (16 April 2009)
800:
Non-notable research; exercise in self-promotion by the author
330:
Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see
54:
26:
1378:
Other enterprise modelling languages, for example one I know
1362:
would like to know. I would explain this this step by step.
702:
577:
561:
1156:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Triune Continuum Paradigm
1505:
Thus, for an existent modeling framework, the paradigm
1379:
124:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1193:I read the "Triune Continuum Paradigm" item in the
544:
1242:Triune Continuum Paradigm is a possible answer to
1195:Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology
236:Computer science articles needing expert attention
1284:I agree and I am ready to work on the embedding.
897:") to be resolved and closed, and issue # 3 ("
376:WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
889:Based on your comment, I consider issue #1 ("
8:
967:"). Thus I am not in a conflict of interest.
893:") to be still under discussion, issue #2 ("
655:, which collaborates on articles related to
293:Computer science articles without infoboxes
231:Computer science articles needing attention
58:
601:
541:
428:
197:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
171:
86:
1221:P.S. I will remove the orphan tag again.
809:"), could you clarify: what criterion in
1603:Systems articles in software engineering
1543:Mid-importance Computer science articles
895:exercise in self-promotion by the author
818:exercise in self-promotion by the author
1308:
603:
430:
88:
502:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
138:Knowledge:WikiProject Computer science
41:on 17 April 2009 (UTC). The result of
1548:WikiProject Computer science articles
1538:Start-Class Computer science articles
141:Template:WikiProject Computer science
7:
1568:Low-importance epistemology articles
711:This article is within the field of
649:This article is within the scope of
486:This article is within the scope of
118:This article is within the scope of
1185:Article orphan in more than one way
77:It is of interest to the following
1558:Low-importance Philosophy articles
1237:Does this sound reasonable to you?
312:Timeline of computing 2020–present
25:
1563:Start-Class epistemology articles
760:controversies). Andrey Naumenko.
338:Computing articles needing images
1573:Epistemology task force articles
636:
626:
605:
508:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
473:
463:
432:
188:
111:
90:
59:
30:
1598:Mid-importance Systems articles
1553:Start-Class Philosophy articles
1371:For example it seems to me the
689:This article has been rated as
528:This article has been rated as
511:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
158:This article has been rated as
37:This article was nominated for
816:As for the second statement ("
18:Talk:Triune Continuum Paradigm
1:
1583:Low-importance logic articles
1059:") to be resolved and closed.
805:As for the first statement ("
669:Knowledge:WikiProject Systems
392:Tag all relevant articles in
132:and see a list of open tasks.
1608:WikiProject Systems articles
1593:Start-Class Systems articles
901:") as a newly emerged issue.
672:Template:WikiProject Systems
401:WikiProject Computer science
177:WikiProject Computer science
121:WikiProject Computer science
332:List of computer scientists
1624:
1578:Start-Class logic articles
1524:16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
1494:16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
1467:21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1441:20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1418:20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1353:18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1333:22:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
1297:21:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
1219:19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
1171:09:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
1133:09:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
1022:09:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
995:07:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
872:04:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
839:22:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
786:20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
695:project's importance scale
534:project's importance scale
164:project's importance scale
1588:Logic task force articles
770:08:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
753:00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
710:
688:
621:
585:
569:
540:
527:
458:
394:Category:Computer science
170:
157:
144:Computer science articles
106:
85:
1509:the framework against...
396:and sub-categories with
545:Associated task forces:
1079:which is to produce a
957:which is to produce a
707:
644:Systems science portal
582:
566:
489:WikiProject Philosophy
357:Computer science stubs
67:This article is rated
855:(see, in particular,
706:
581:
565:
1373:Meta-Object Facility
1199:Meta-Object Facility
1057:Non-notable research
899:conflict of interest
891:Non-notable research
807:Non-notable research
713:Software engineering
175:Things you can help
1459:Marcel Douwe Dekker
1410:Marcel Douwe Dekker
1325:Marcel Douwe Dekker
1211:Marcel Douwe Dekker
652:WikiProject Systems
514:Philosophy articles
1244:Quinobi's question
708:
583:
567:
499:general discussion
73:content assessment
1169:
1123:Andrey Naumenko (
1020:
985:Andrey Naumenko (
870:
829:Andrey Naumenko (
743:comment added by
727:
726:
723:
722:
719:
718:
600:
599:
596:
595:
592:
591:
481:Philosophy portal
427:
426:
423:
422:
419:
418:
415:
414:
53:
52:
16:(Redirected from
1615:
1316:
1313:
1207:systems modeling
1168:
1166:
1159:
1085:reliably sourced
1019:
1017:
1010:
963:reliably sourced
869:
867:
860:
795:Dear Sandstein,
755:
677:
676:
675:Systems articles
673:
670:
667:
646:
641:
640:
639:
630:
623:
622:
617:
609:
602:
552:
542:
516:
515:
512:
509:
506:
483:
478:
477:
476:
467:
460:
459:
454:
451:
436:
429:
405:
399:
274:Computer science
203:Article requests
192:
185:
184:
172:
146:
145:
142:
139:
136:
135:Computer science
126:Computer science
115:
108:
107:
102:
98:Computer science
94:
87:
70:
64:
63:
55:
34:
27:
21:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1528:
1527:
1501:
1481:
1320:
1319:
1314:
1310:
1187:
1162:
1160:
1038:Dear Sandstein,
1013:
1011:
880:Dear Sandstein,
863:
861:
793:
738:
732:
674:
671:
668:
665:
664:
661:systems science
642:
637:
635:
615:
550:
513:
510:
507:
504:
503:
479:
474:
472:
452:
442:
411:
408:
403:
397:
385:Project-related
380:
361:
342:
316:
297:
278:
259:
240:
216:
143:
140:
137:
134:
133:
100:
71:on Knowledge's
68:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1621:
1619:
1611:
1610:
1605:
1600:
1595:
1590:
1585:
1580:
1575:
1570:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1540:
1530:
1529:
1507:allows to test
1500:
1499:Allows to test
1497:
1480:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1383:
1376:
1369:
1366:
1356:
1355:
1318:
1317:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1285:
1281:
1280:
1275:
1274:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1239:
1238:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
980:
979:
978:
977:
971:
970:
969:
968:
942:
941:
940:
939:
933:
932:
931:
930:
923:
922:
921:
920:
914:
913:
912:
911:
905:
904:
903:
902:
884:
883:
882:
881:
875:
874:
851:as defined by
792:
789:
773:
772:
731:
728:
725:
724:
721:
720:
717:
716:
709:
699:
698:
691:Mid-importance
687:
681:
680:
678:
648:
647:
631:
619:
618:
616:Mid‑importance
610:
598:
597:
594:
593:
590:
589:
584:
574:
573:
568:
558:
557:
555:
553:
547:
546:
538:
537:
530:Low-importance
526:
520:
519:
517:
485:
484:
468:
456:
455:
453:Low‑importance
437:
425:
424:
421:
420:
417:
416:
413:
412:
410:
409:
407:
406:
389:
381:
379:
378:
372:
362:
360:
359:
353:
343:
341:
340:
335:
327:
317:
315:
314:
308:
298:
296:
295:
289:
279:
277:
276:
270:
260:
258:
257:
251:
241:
239:
238:
233:
227:
217:
215:
214:
208:
196:
194:
193:
181:
180:
168:
167:
160:Mid-importance
156:
150:
149:
147:
130:the discussion
116:
104:
103:
101:Mid‑importance
95:
83:
82:
76:
65:
51:
50:
43:the discussion
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1620:
1609:
1606:
1604:
1601:
1599:
1596:
1594:
1591:
1589:
1586:
1584:
1581:
1579:
1576:
1574:
1571:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1535:
1533:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1512:
1510:
1508:
1498:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1478:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1401:
1398:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1312:
1309:
1302:
1301:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1277:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1184:
1172:
1167:
1165:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1023:
1018:
1016:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
996:
992:
988:
984:
983:
982:
981:
975:
974:
973:
972:
966:
964:
960:
954:
950:
947:According to
946:
945:
944:
943:
937:
936:
935:
934:
927:
926:
925:
924:
918:
917:
916:
915:
909:
908:
907:
906:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:
886:
885:
879:
878:
877:
876:
873:
868:
866:
858:
854:
849:
844:
843:
842:
840:
836:
832:
827:
824:
821:
819:
814:
812:
808:
803:
801:
796:
790:
788:
787:
783:
779:
771:
767:
763:
758:
757:
756:
754:
750:
746:
745:76.31.100.148
742:
736:
729:
714:
705:
701:
700:
696:
692:
686:
683:
682:
679:
662:
658:
654:
653:
645:
634:
632:
629:
625:
624:
620:
614:
611:
608:
604:
588:
580:
576:
575:
572:
564:
560:
559:
556:
554:
549:
548:
543:
539:
535:
531:
525:
522:
521:
518:
501:
500:
495:
491:
490:
482:
471:
469:
466:
462:
461:
457:
450:
446:
441:
438:
435:
431:
402:
395:
391:
390:
388:
386:
382:
377:
374:
373:
371:
369:
368:
363:
358:
355:
354:
352:
350:
349:
344:
339:
336:
333:
329:
328:
326:
324:
323:
318:
313:
310:
309:
307:
305:
304:
299:
294:
291:
290:
288:
286:
285:
280:
275:
272:
271:
269:
267:
266:
261:
256:
253:
252:
250:
248:
247:
242:
237:
234:
232:
229:
228:
226:
224:
223:
218:
213:
210:
209:
207:
205:
204:
199:
198:
195:
191:
187:
186:
183:
182:
178:
174:
173:
169:
165:
161:
155:
152:
151:
148:
131:
127:
123:
122:
117:
114:
110:
109:
105:
99:
96:
93:
89:
84:
80:
74:
66:
62:
57:
56:
48:
44:
40:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1513:
1506:
1504:
1502:
1482:
1336:
1321:
1311:
1269:
1204:
1194:
1192:
1188:
1163:
1087:encyclopedia
1078:
1056:
1014:
965:encyclopedia
956:
952:
898:
894:
890:
864:
828:
825:
822:
817:
815:
806:
804:
799:
797:
794:
774:
737:
733:
690:
650:
571:Epistemology
529:
497:
487:
445:Epistemology
384:
383:
367:Unreferenced
365:
364:
346:
345:
320:
319:
301:
300:
282:
281:
263:
262:
244:
243:
220:
219:
201:
200:
159:
119:
79:WikiProjects
47:no consensus
46:
778:64.71.2.189
739:—Preceding
69:Start-class
1532:Categories
1479:Redundant?
1393:and others
1303:References
1164:Sandstein
1015:Sandstein
938:Issue # 3:
910:Issue # 1:
865:Sandstein
857:WP:BESTCOI
505:Philosophy
494:philosophy
440:Philosophy
1516:L1ght5h0w
1486:L1ght5h0w
826:Regards,
255:Computing
1106:Regards,
976:Regards,
846:to fail
741:unsigned
730:Untitled
303:Maintain
246:Copyedit
39:deletion
1433:Aipetri
1345:Aipetri
1289:Aipetri
1271:revised
1125:Aipetri
1081:neutral
987:Aipetri
959:neutral
831:Aipetri
762:Aipetri
693:on the
666:Systems
657:systems
613:Systems
532:on the
284:Infobox
222:Cleanup
162:on the
1387:CIMOSA
949:WP:COI
853:WP:COI
848:WP:GNG
811:WP:GNG
265:Expand
75:scale.
1391:GERAM
587:Logic
449:Logic
348:Stubs
322:Photo
179:with:
1520:talk
1490:talk
1463:talk
1437:talk
1414:talk
1389:and
1380:DEMO
1349:talk
1329:talk
1293:talk
1215:talk
1129:talk
991:talk
835:talk
802:".
782:talk
766:talk
749:talk
659:and
45:was
951:: "
859:).
685:Mid
524:Low
154:Mid
1534::
1522:)
1511:"
1492:)
1465:)
1439:)
1416:)
1351:)
1331:)
1295:)
1273:."
1217:)
1158:.
1131:)
1089:".
1083:,
993:)
961:,
841:)
837:)
784:)
768:)
751:)
551:/
447:/
443::
404:}}
398:{{
1518:(
1503:"
1488:(
1461:(
1435:(
1412:(
1347:(
1327:(
1291:(
1268:"
1213:(
1135:)
1127:(
1077:"
997:)
989:(
833:(
780:(
764:(
747:(
715:.
697:.
663:.
536:.
387::
370::
351::
334:)
325::
306::
287::
268::
249::
225::
206::
166:.
81::
49:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
