Talk:Yogurt/Archive 4

1381:

suggestion: it's entirely obvious that the guideline that applies here is "when all else fails, follow the variety established by the first contributor." If orthographic anti-Americans don't like that, please, let them search their souls and ask whether they are motivated by something other than a desire to improve WP. They can also take heart that Theater was moved to Theatre based on the same reasoning that would lead to Yoghurt being moved to Yogurt. Here, there is the additional factor of Yogurt being the first spelling used. This seems like a no-brainer for any reasonable person. Most of the arguments against the return the original spelling have taken the form "just live with it!" "Leave it alone!" Those aren't arguments.... If people think Americans are fat, too Jewish, money-grubbing or whatever, please try to keep those feelings separate from the process of reflecting on the right name for this article. --

1444:

community. For example, there's a big debate on spoiler warnings going on, I'm sure you've heard of it, and frankly it's taking forever. Now once that debate closes, if someone from the losing side decides that they're absolutely sure they're right - and tries to open the debate again - they'll be reverted. Same goes here. And lastly, as to your comment about how contacting everyone from the last votes was garunteed to preoduce the same outcome - the fact is the last two votes got more attention than this, and while my intrest are including as many as possible in a discussion, based on notion that they are interested which I determined from past activity in the votes, your intrest seem to be isolating the discussion to only people who support yogurt. Either way your argument has no merit since you yourself would not be here if someone hadn't contacted you.

570:

those rules, guidelines and policies. I would not be defending the AE form of a name on an article that was originally created using BE, even if it was switched to AE for a significant amount of time before anyone who cared noticed. The reason we can't achieve consensus for the change is because many BE supporters are voting against the change simply because they prefer the BE version, and not because of WP policies (evidence: dearth of policy based reasons listed in polls for "keep 'yoghurt' side"; preponderance of such reasons listed for "restore original name" side). For those opposed to restoring the original name, it is about AE vs BE. For those who favor restoring the original name, it's about following WP policy in order to resolve conflicts. --

379:

arguments, and that if they truly wanted to end the arguments about it they would support the move. We apparently fail to see that the American English spelling is the "right" way, and we are accused of Anti-Americanism. The person closing the debate is accused of closing it too early (apparently 6 days of debate isn't enough). Finally, the person who laboriously went through the past debates about this naming change and notified all voters of the new debate is accused of "manipulating the straw poll" somehow, even though he notified people on both sides of past arguments. If you feel that all these absences of respect for other Wikipedians is alright, then you need to take a good, hard look at yourself. -

1448:

because of it, and obviously I'm at the position where I have to defend my actions despite the support from the apparent majority per their comments here. The problem is - we would start the debate over if I violated Knowledge policy - and that is what this discussion is about - but some users have interpreted it as just an argument to start the debate over - which wouldn't happen anyway, but that's why there are so many comments (most of which are against starting the debate over). Honestly people, it's an h - it's not like we're changing the spelling of yogurt to trughoy - and this debate has happened enough times that we need to stop now. Let's focus on the article.

158:(No need for "sorry," I understand where you're coming from, though I disagree.) I urge people not to allow disgruntled tyrants to close down discussion on something that hasn't been allowed to reach its proper conclusion. If we address the question seriously, and without violating any Knowledge guidelines, the issue can be put to rest once and for all, because it will have been put to rest in the right way. If we, on the other hand, allow irrational people obsessed with their favorite spellings to break rules and/or violate basic protocols of reasoned discourse, WP is harmed. -- 676:

consensus on this article...or at least no one bothered to revert to the original spelling so it the status quo should prevail'. Needless to say (and yet I will say it), most editors of Knowledge are not much for traditionalism and believe that the quality of the edits and not seniority of the edit or editor should determine which edits to retain. I think this sort of spelling issue is a social problem that can be solved by technology, in this case by applying

31: 1190:

population of WP editors was fixed, then it would still be very difficult to achieve consensus to ceasefire. But given the constant and never-ending influx of "new blood", it's impossible. But the first-contributor rule is much more cut and dried, and it's easy to cite in any situation where someone might propose a name change. Of course, it can't be cited if the current name is inconsistent with the first contributor rule,

1083:... based on a legalistic reading of the article's history would send the message that it's somehow appropriate to continue to war over trivial spelling differences based on technicalities and years-old versions. The spirit of the rule is to stop fretting about these questions, and it is inconsistent with that spirit to find readings of the "rules" that support moving an article from one perfectly good spelling to another. 729:

on a legalistic reading of the article's history would send the message that it's somehow appropriate to continue to war over trivial spelling differences based on technicalities and years-old versions. The spirit of the rule is to stop fretting about these questions, and it is inconsistent with that spirit to find readings of the "rules" that support moving an article from one perfectly good spelling to another.

408:

a concerted get out the vote effort and the Oppose votes were NOT overwhelminginly in the majority, I think it's clear the wider WP community would support this move. Let's give them a chance to consider it, fairly this time! Then, if it's been considered in fair way, the result will be more "stable." If tyranny is what's largely responsible for the closing of a discussion, it will just keep coming up again. --

2094:

you can expect the same result. So in this case, since it's the same people that will vote - you can expect the same result. So why focus on something so miniscule as a letter when you can in fact improve the article. It's like we're starting a company, and we need to decide how it's going to function and how we're going to get started, but we're too busy deciding if the chairs should be padded or not.

1758:

584:

of such reasons listed for 'restore original name' side)." I think this is the crux of the matter. Add to that the fact that many Americans or users of American spelling (like Mets501) are kind people who would rather avoid conflict, and the balance gets tipped slightly in favor of the less sensible spelling. In the case of theater/theatre, which parallels this in many ways (though there, the case for

707:

dozen different arguments in favor of changing it back to the orginal name, "yogurt", each based on WP policy like using the most common name, and using the original name in case of conflicts like this. If "the article had this name longer" alone had much weight, then practically no article name could ever change. Yet that is the only argument offered. Please explain. --

2400:, and also in the BCE/BC date format dispute. One does not effect a good ceasefire by first evening the numbers shot on both sides. The spirit of our rule regarding national varieties is to stop arguing about it, stop considering it important, and stop moving pages between national varieties. That is policy, that is good sense, and we should go with it. 1159:. There is no argument to immediately quash such efforts now, and there will not be then. But if the article is moved to "yogurt", then anyone will be able to quash efforts to move it back to "yoghurt" by pointing out the first contributor policy. The reality is that this article can only be stable at "yogurt", and can never be stable at "yoghurt". 1222:". Have you got any evidence for this claim? My experience tells me otherwise. I've seen strong support for an editing freeze over national varieties. Perhaps an RfC or a post at the Village Pump would help clarify whether community consensus is stronger for the ceasefire or for the first-contributor default in situations such as the current one. - 1173:

policy, while the national-varieties ceasefire isn't (nor well the stable version rule, but you seem eager to lawyer over what counts as stable, in direct defiance of the spirit of the ceasefire). If you refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the ceasefire, then I guess you can guarantee instability at this title, but do you really want to do that?

278:, B) just out of curiousity - who are you? Because I noticed that the comment you just made was your first edit. Ever. So frankly either your talking about things that you probably don't understand - which by the way is "absolutely childish", or you forgot to sign in, or your acting as a sockpuppet - because no one's first edit is on a talk page. 1155:, because yoghurt was not the spelling/usage of the first contributor. Look at the last poll. Some relatively new guy showed up, made the same old arguments for change, they could not be refuted, and we had yet another poll. What's to prevent some other new guy doing this again in 3, 6, 12 months? 3, 6, 9 years? 593:

situation would of course be different! I'm not saying Americans are inherently more kind than Brits. The British are forced into a defensive position, and this makes big-heartedness difficult.) Anyway, instead of focusing on getting along, or restoring the British Empire, I think we should focus on WP policy.

2345:. I believe I've made cogent, well-reasoned arguments, based in policy, precdent, and common sense. If you disagree with my judgment, that's fair, but I don't think it's really appropriate to claim that no such arguments have been advanced. I'm not the only one who's been making those points, either. - 2038:

Mediation was rejected because Daniel Folsom opted out. That's fine, since I don't understand the point of going to mediation when those in favor of keeping the current name/style refuse to discuss the issue. Here's the problem: if you're happy with the status quo, you have little incentive to work

1766:

This article has missing citations - why isn't that being talked about on the talk page. I'd much rather have a well written fully sourced article called youghouert then an article with missing citations called yogurt or yoghurt, so rather than spend time (or more acurately wasting time) about an h -

1443:

Just to let you know I actually am American - so I have no biases against the country - if you look at the color article you'll probably see that i have supported color over colour per mos. And no, "you'll be reverted" is not threatening language - it is a standard that has been established by the WP

1323:

A)I talked with the people that did the article - at least twice as much as on this talk page - which included providing sources and opinions about how to do certain sections. B)I don't know where you get off calling me an agitator when after doing this debate YOU'RE BRINGING IT UP AGAIN. C)Even if I

974:

While I appreciate the comparison to the Bush administration (I've never drawn one of those before!), I have to point out an important difference. The decision to "stay the course" in Iraq costs human lives daily. We, on the other hand, are talking about an 'h' in the middle of a word on a website.

961:

guideline, which was clearly designed to address, stabilize and settle situations exactly like this one. It has been argued that it is insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over (e.g., "stay the course" in Iraq, or leave the name of this article at "yoghurt") and expect something to change

825:

and all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor"? The amount of activity on this article with respect to requested moves, actual page moves, the majority support to change the spelling in the last two polls, and even edits back and forth between the

747:

If an article has no stable history, and we have to make an arbitrary choice, then the guideline suggests going with the original (non-stub) contributor, but that is not the case with this article. We have a stable history, so our policy is to leave it alone, and stop worrying about trivial spelling

728:

says, "If there is no settled spelling and all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor". In this case, there is a settled spelling, namely the one that's been in place for years. This has been a stable article. To move it to another spelling based

717:

The argument for keeping the spelling as it is, per Knowledge policy, is this: We're talking about a difference between British and American English. Ultimately, there's no good reason to choose one over the other — in a vacuum, assuming no pre-existing policies, there's no good reason to prefer one

643:

Serge, I'm sorry, but there simply isn't one unambiguous reading of policy on this matter. You can try to dictate to me what my motivations are, but I oppose the change even though I'm American and prefer American English. I oppose the move because I'm doing my level best to follow Knowledge policy

618:

If you want to talk about policy, then let's do so. I'm telling you, as a Wikipedian and an American, that WP policy supports leaving this article's title alone. Now can we have that conversation, or would you rather make sweeping generalizations and sarcastic remarks about our British brothers and

569:

Mark, the issue isn't about American English vs. British English. It's about whether we follow Knowledge policies, or not. Knowledge editors have worked out rules to resolve these conflicts in order to avoid ongoing arguments like this. The reason this one won't die is because we are not following

407:

What I'm suggesting is that we have a serious discussion about this. We should not let orthographic imperialist tyrants "kill" open, free discussion. We should strive to make Knowledge better. Most of the reasons given for those voting against the change were clearly absurd. Given that Daniel F. made

236:

Wait a second - what policy did I violate - I went through each previous discussion and just told people that voted that there was a discussion - I alreted both people that voted for yogurt and youghurt. That's absolute B.S. that your pushing there - Knowledge is not a democracy - there are no votes,

222:

I also support reopening the discussion and completely agree with Cultural Freedom's argument above. It is a hallmark of Knowledge that decisions, through consensus, are ultimately made based on logic and reason. That has not happened here because of the "disgruntled tyrants". All of the logic and

2626:

Daniel, what are you talking about? We're talking about him saying the way you present your argument is fallacious and I was telling Dscarth he shouldn't have said that because it wasn't true. You're talking about editors being split on whether or not he should campaign for a different name. Doesn't

2606:

I would disagree with taht actually - I would say a lot of editors are split on the issue of whether you should just be on a talk page so you can campaign for a spelling - but regardless - remember how you were going to stop using everyone's name excessively - you're kinda doing that again. You see,

1676:

I think the fact that you have no response to my hung jury example says something. But the point is there are more important things on this article, and we just debated this - why don't we move on to something more important - like citations or questionable sections. Cultural Freedom all you've done

1375:

Dear Daniel, the charge stands that by contacting people already involved in the last vote -- whatever their votes -- you stacked the deck in such a way that the outcome was destined to be the same. Orthographic anti-Americans never change their votes. Ergo, we need to bring this up again. Moreover,

1138:

I answered this above. If we want to have a consistent policy/approach on how to settle conflicts like this, then we should follow it at every opportunity, including this one. Setting a precedent to the contrary just opens up potential for more conflict elsewhere. Leaving this at "yoghurt" leaves

956:

The only thing established or settled here is that there is no clear consensus on what the name should be. I really can't understand how one can claim that there is a settled, stable or established spelling style for this article, or that "all else" has not failed. I mean, that's like claiming the

706:

GTBacchus, I don't know what your argument is. All I know is that the only argument for this article to be at "yoghurt" listed at the top of the previous poll was "article has had this spelling longer". If there were no arguments on the other side, that might mean something. But there were half a

428:

read the arguments. As far as I can tell, in my honest estimation, I've fairly considered both alternatives, and the sensible arguments I saw were for leaving the article where it is. If you want a fair discussion, perhaps you could start by characterizing the opposing side more fairly. It sounds

2511:

That's such bullshit - my point is there was silence - you were the first to bring it up again in a while - which is why you and I are the only ones talking about it - everyone else thinks we left - thus before you brought it up - the discussion wasn't active, meaning I could've archived it. And by

2479:

OHH GOD! Things had finally started to calm down here - no one had commented in forever - I was even thining about archiving it - but you ruined it!!!! Haha, well the problem is, regardless of whether it should've been yogurt this whole time - the past is the past - and basically, per the wp policy

2121:

I'll ignore the immediate irony of someone like you making that statement, but essentially I passed on mediation for multiple reasons. 1) Because I'm planning on leaving the debate soon - and mediation is so time consuming that I'd be locked into a huge ordeal. 2) We couldn't even start immediately

1980:

I'm sorry, usually I would, but I've just been mentally and emotionally worn out by this debate. If it was just about the name it would be easier, but the fact is it hasn't been about that name it's about the tactics used in the discussion. Feel free to still have it though, but if my opinion/input

1728:

And yes, you have made a good point with the first contributor - but that's about it, and I've explained that A) we just voted on it - and a hung jury tends to stay hung for a while, B)the stay with the established spelling rule obviously over-rules the first contributor rule. But, that being said,

1214:

The ceasefire makes very good sense, and can consistently be applied in widely varying situations. All it states is "don't make edits over these spelling differences". That's unambiguous, and consistent with common sense. Encouraging people to dig around in the history to try and find reasons to

1189:

appears to be stable where it is, but nothing prevents anyone from proposing a move based on first contributor grounds. And I simply do not see how a national-varieties ceasefire is a better rule than the first-contributor tiebreaker. The first-contributor tiebreaker is less ambiguous. Even if the

977:

That's why we should agree to not care how it's spelled. Moving it would encourage the idea that it's somehow worth our time to dig around in article histories for reasons that they should be spelled in British or American English, when the spirit of out policy is (rightly) that such investigation

743:

is to provide a default if no decision can be made based on the other criteria from the same list. One of those criteria is "If an article has been consistently in a given variety for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone." It's clear that the intent and spirit of

732:

I understand that people are citing carefully crafted policy-based arguments for ignoring the spirit of the ceasefire and moving the article to an American spelling. An argument that one spelling is supported by a written rule is only compelling insofar as the rationale behind that rule applies to

583:

Serge wrote: "The reason we can't achieve consensus for the change is because many BE supporters are voting against the change simply because they prefer the BE version, and not because of WP policies (evidence: dearth of policy based reasons listed in polls for 'keep "yoghurt" side'; preponderance

423:

If it's already been explained why it's "more sensible", perhaps you can point me to it? I've been paying attention, and seen no such explanation. Second, please don't refer to other editors as "orthographic imperialist tyrants". It's very unlikely to be productive, as is generally the case with

2512:

the way, if it is resolved or if no one else joins or if no one comments again, I will archive it - and if you try to bring it up - I can revert you for trolling because almost everyone here agrees that we shouldn't focus on the title. I wonder how many edits you've actually made to this article?--

2386:

There is no need to go by the first contributor rule when there is consensus on some other name, whether it's because it's the "established" name or the most commonly used or whatever. But when there is doubt, as poll after poll shows no consensus and thus "doubt" is the situation here, the first

2093:

There's a common knowledge factor. Let's assume that you have a jury, and they can't decide on a verdict after a long time discussing it, so it's a mistrial. Now the case will be brought forward again, but with a different jury. Why? Because if it's the same jury, since there's no new information,

1757:

1088:

2539:

I'm not sure how many before the title - cause the title goes pretty far bac, but I found this page by going to the backlog and looking at the pages with missing citations - and I remember adding a bunch of citations, and then I've been doing a few reversions since then, with occasinoal editting.

1447:

Eyedubya - frankly I wish we could stop this debate - it's currently comparable to a George Washington zombie - but the fact is Cultural Freedom specifically brought up my actions as the first comment on this page - and said that I violated Knowledge policy and that we need a whole new discussion

1000:

The name of this particular article is not important at all. The method with which we resolve conflicts like this is very important. In particular, do we follow policy, or not? Following and setting precedent is important in any civil system. The WP policy and precedents about settling this

720:

Because of this lack of consensus in the world, there's no good way to decide what Knowledge should do. The arguments go 'round and 'round in circles and last forever, because neither side is unambiguously right. The only policies we can adopt on the matter are essentially ceasefires. It's the

689:

We reached a similar conclusion when discussing BC/AD vs. BCE/CE, namely, that a technical solution would be the best. Until that gets implemented though, the ceasefire seems to be the best solution. If everyone just agrees to stop messing around with date formats (or in this case, spellings of

463:

Dear Daniel, You are quite right, at least a few of the people you told about the vote had previously voted for the "yogurt" spelling. I didn't look into every single one of them because of time constraints. Either way, my understanding is that directing people to a vote is a WP violation. If the

121:

I don't think punitive action should be taken against Danielfolsom, but the name issue should be dealt with fairly. The reason the issue keeps coming up is that the current name doesn't make sense. The solution isn't to get your orthographic anti-American friends together to shut down the polling

2637:

Generally if you are just on a page to get it renamed to the spelling you want, people look down on that. By presenting the number of edits he had on here Dscarth interpreted that as me trying to lead people off and ignore the actual argument - me being fallacious. What I actually meant was that

2595:

Dscarth, that's your interpretation of what he said. Just because that was your interpretation doesn't mean it's true, Dscarth. In less he comes right out and says "You haven't made any edits on this SO what right do you have to question me", you really have no right to be trying to say it was a

1113:

Why is it too late? Because you and others have decided to dig your heels in? That begs the question: why dig your heels? If you just agree that it doesn't matter whether or not we use the 'h', then you'll be acting in the spirit of our naming conventions. Why are you insistent on the point?

393:

isn't explaining what's more "sensible" about the other spelling. The point of the AmE/BrE ceasefire is that both spellings are perfectly sensible, and that's why we need to stop arguing about it. Nobody will be remotely confused, misled, or misinformed by either title, so let it die, already.

1380:

suggest you stop the threatening language ("just to let you know if you try to start another discussion then you'll be reverted"). You of all people have no right to impose your will on others. Closing down a discussion that's been conducted improperly is a formula for its starting up again. My

479:

Yeah, it's generally discouraged to crosspost to a lot of people's talk pages informing about discussions. On the other hand, it's suggested when consensus is difficult to find, to bring more eyes to the discussion. I wouldn't call what Daniel did a "violation"; that seems to imply that we're

1172:

is stable where it is. All that it takes is for people like us to agree that the national-varieties ceasefire is a better rule than the first-contributor tiebreaker. It is just as compelling an argument, unless people decide to dig in their heels and insist that the first-contributor rule is

378:

This is ridiculous. The discussion to move this article is closed as yet another no consensus for the move. In return, some of those who wanted it moved describe those who voted oppose as "disgruntled tyrants". Furthermore, a claim is made that those who opposed the move had no merits to their

2681:

I've combined the spelling and etymology sections into a single section; they had slightly different information in both. I believe I've merged the two properly, but there's still some etymological info that remains uncited. Please feel free to expand upon things. (In particular, if there are

675:

As an aside, I did look through the people that Daniel Folsom invited and they seemed to include most people who voted both for and against the change previously. This issue has come up and will again, in my opinion, because the argument to keep the spelling boils down to 'there has long been

592:

spelling was the one that was judged to be more universal, the change was made, again, because there are more "Can't we all just get along" Americans than there are "Can't we all just get along Brits," and the mellow Americans tipped the balance. (Note, if the U.S. were a shrunken empire, the

438:

This is honestly bullshit. Seriously did you even look at who I told. You do realize I told near everyone right? I even told schmucky the cat - who was one of the strongest contributors to the yogurt side. Your making completely false accusations. By the way - I love how you ignore 90% of the

1116:

The reason I'm insistent is that I think it's a terrible idea to move a page between British and American spellings for any reason, because doing so encourages the notion that such moves are productive. The ceasefire is concretely better for the encyclopedia than national-variety pagemoves.

865:

has been adding a section on "Goat-soybean yoghurt", which discusses a (published) research project by a Taiwanese graduate school student. This product does not seem to be commercialized or widely used. Ecoinus, could you please explain why you believe this product is worth mentioning in

615:

Cultural Freedom, I'm an American, and I use American spellings. I've been opposing the move on WP policy grounds, and I don't appreciate having false motives attributed to me. I'm getting the impression you don't even know what my argument is. You seem more interested in making unkind

751:

I hope that clarifies the policy-based argument for leaving the article where it is. I reiterate that I am an American, born and raised in Texas, and that I would never personally spell yogurt with an 'h' unless I were trying to pass myself off as a European, or maybe just a communist.

403:

1) What's more sensible about the "Yogurt" spelling has already been explained. 2) "Letting it die" is not the appropriate word choice. It was "killed" by an active effort on the part of Daniel_Folsom to gather votes from people he knows always unthinking vote against American

721:

agreement we came to with "color" vs. "colour", and it's the agreement we came to with BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The agreement is to leave stable articles alone, because trying to argue a case for each article led to the same endless debate happening over and over and over again.

464:

outcome was a "no change" before, and the same people vote again, the outcome is not likely to change. That's (as I understand it) the rational behind not doing any kind of "get out the vote" effort, even an effort that isn't one-sided. I think the rationale makes sense. --

2245:

True, but frankly - given that only a few days ago there was no consensus in putting yogurt on (meaning yoghurt stays on), we can assume that now there is still no consensus (meaning yoghurt will stay on) - so seemingly the only way to get yogurt into the article is by

2122:

because I may be out of town soon (hopefully) and I wouldn't have access to a computer. And by the way - I don't have to explain myself to an editor like you - I don't know where you get off making a comment like that - especially given that you've made a total of ...

1305:

Yeah, yeah. The improvement of this article! Yay! You didn't do diddlysquat to improve this article, did you? Fourteen edits, all of which are reversions. Yet you edited the talk page 62 times. Come clean---you don't give a damn about it. You are just an agitator.

482:

Whether or not Daniel "should have" notified people isn't really germane to the topic, which is that we have a policy against moving pages over trivial spelling differences between British and American English. The rationale behind that policy makes sense, too.

1474:

Serge I have a silght issue with your first argument. you claim that becaus a lot of editors have changed the spelling - therefore the spelling is not stable. The problem with that argument is that on popular pages the spelling is always changed. The article

765:

The fact is we already decided on this. We had the discussion and the result was no conesnsus. You're trying to make a point for yogurt - but this discussion isn't about yogurt v. yoghurt - it's about whether the last vote needs to be redone due to a huge

2584:

So you agree that number of edits coincide with the quality of the editor? He states "I wonder how many edits you've actually made to this article?" Which can be interpreted as "You haven't made any edits on this, what right do you have to question me."

2402:

Moving this article back now would encourage a rules-lawyer-like attitude that it's a good idea to dig around in histories looking for technicalities that make it somehow ok to perpetuate national-variety disputes. I can't support sending that message.

1644:

Agreed, Serge. It also states "The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." Attempts to continue to squash debate are in violation of that policy, as far as I'm concerned. Additionally, there was

237:

only discussions - so even if I did do a "get out the vote" thing, it wouldn't matter. Because you said exactly that I violated WP policy because I did a "get out the vote" thing, then I can assume that you don't have a specific policy to back you up.

1010:

But that's not clear - it is obvious that the "stay with the established spelling" overrules "first contributor" - because if it did not, then there would be no need for "stay with the established spelling" because you would always go with the first

1151:, and on countless others, any similar requests can now be (and are) immediately quashed because the current name has been established per the "first contributor" policy. This will never be the case for this article as long is it remains at 2720:

For all the attention this article gets, I'm appalled at the state of it. Look at the references section—it's a mess. This is a strange article, for example, what is the reason that images are in this div float? There are many red links and

2382:

That's another one, however we can assume that the established spelling rule overrules that one, since obviously if people always went with the first contributor, then there would not be an established spelling rule.22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

2274:

I see only a minuscule advantage to using the "sp" tag. Most people aren't affected by it/aware of it. Anyway, the debate is not over. (It might be for a while, but it will come up again, since it was not dealt with in a sincere matter.)

118:) both 1) always show up on votes where they can keep a Commonwealth or British spelling (like Jooler), and 2) gave, as reasons, things that didn't make sense. (Note, I was also contacted about this vote, though I had already seen it.) 2657:

Daniel has explained on Dscarth's user page that he didn't agree with me and that his argument was fallacious. Sorry about that, Dscarth. I also think the name of this article should be changed to yogurt. It's a shorter spelling.

2126:

mainspace edits, I have about 800 but I would still never say anything like that because it's not my accuse editors of not attending a very long process because I have no clue what's going on in their lives or what there motives

925:

of this article reveals there were variety-based moves in May 2005 (1), Feb 2006 (3), Apr 2006 (2), and Oct 2006 (5). There are corresponding changes to the spelling style used within the article. This is not the hallmark of a

480:

dealing with laws or something. Since people are using it as grounds to continue arguing over the article's name, it might not have been the best idea, but if it was a mistake, it was certainly an honest one made in good faith.

1660:

Yes. This is what Daniel Folsom has been doing all along. He said he's going away soon, so we can take this up again in a bit. Let us all strive to address the question en earnest. That way, we'll reach a "robust" conclusion.

1255:

Serge - you're trying to start the debate again, it's not happening - we just had this discussion - just to let you know if you try to start another discussion then you'll be reverted. There are more important things then

2469:

There would have never been a problem if this article was "yogurt" from the beginning. Everyone would accept that. But you guys are so damn stubborn! I mean really! Just vote for "yogurt" next time and end this forever.

1286:

Saying that I'll revert is not really a threat - I'm saying that I'll follow standard Knowledge practice. We just voted, and the discussions over. Staying around to complain about it only hinders the improvement of this

255:

Second - per Knowledge's policy on Consensus - you can't just do another discussion to try and get consensus - so you trying to push another debate is really worthless, because obviously anything could be reverted per

2447:

is a compromise. In the US, the most widely used spelling is "yogurt", but elsewhere it is "yoghurt" or even "yogourt". This way, more users see the spelling that corresponds to the dominant spelling where they live.

1232:

You present a compelling argument. And an RfC might be in order to settle this question. In any case, I will stop pursuing the issue on this article, and will keep this in mind for any similar disputes that arise.

916:

in the British English variety for a long time, and that the spelling is established and settled. But, there is much evidence that the current article spelling has been anything but stable, established or settled:

957:

situation in Iraq is settled, stable and established. However, unlike the situation in Iraq, there is a clear and obvious exit strategy in this turmoil: follow Knowledge's Manual of Style, and, in particular, the

1203:

I don't see what's ambiguous about "don't made edits or moves to change from one national variety of English to another." Going with the style of the "first major contributor", as the guideline actually suggest,

2696:

It's a great start - I'll try to look up some on the g sometime in the next two days or so - a bit busy now, but again really amazing start, you were absolutely right to combine them and you did it fantastically.

690:

yogurt), then we can stop pouring energy into a stalemate. The whole idea is to stop worrying about it, not to figure out which spelling each article "should" have according to somebody's reading of policy. -

2354:

Ok see I'm kinda worried since it was mentined 100 times, so I'm thinking you can't read, so me saying it now won't make any difference, but here goes nothing. IF the article has an established spelling keep

1545:(Just to let you know I edited your comment because the link was broken). Well technically the entire article should be in british english since yoghurt is currently the title, so he's just following the mos. 975:

If I say "stop caring how we spell 'yogurt'", there's no negative effect on the world. Nobody has begun to argue that the 'h' is actually confusing, harmful or misleading in any way. It simply isn't.

1346:

the agitator is just over-the top. I cannot believe that an editor of your history would actually stoop that low - and franly be that stupid. I guess the userbox is true: Edit count doesn't prove value.

2796:

Yup, Jack is right on this. If the drinks section was a seperate article, we would use American spelling, but generally in articles we like to keep the same throughout. You can check out the

1342:

Honestly with Cultural Freedom - I can almost understand him accusing me of vote stacking without any proof what so ever. He is still a relatively new contributor, so he gets some slack. But

1695:

Daniel, I've done considerably more than call people anti-American. Look again. How I think it's productive? It helps others understand the basis of the irrational behavior of some here. --

227:. Anyone who genuinely wants the debate to end would support the name change, which is consistently shown to be the opinion shared by the majority of editors involved in these polls. -- 2769:

In the drinks section, where the article specifically refers to the names used in US marketing, wouldn't it make sense to use the american spelling there, in the interest of accuracy?

138:

I don't want to censor any comments, so I'll leave it here, but I urge people not to respond to this: we've already wasted too much time talking about names. Sorry Cultural Freedom. —

1479:

has been changed multiple times - but does that mean it's instable? No - it means that people who don't know the rules of Knowledge are vandalizing the page by changing the spelling.

1414:

Especially for us newbies to watching this bunfight between you old hands! it really makes it clear what standards we have to live down to! Thanks for setting a great example, guys!

1536:

seems to have entered the fray by Briticising some of the vocabulary in the article (which I unwittingly undid by committing my combination of the etymology/spelling sections.) --

744:

the guideline is to avoid pagemoves over disputes between national varieties of English. It's purpose is to maintain a ceasefire, under which we don't mess with these spellings.

1033:, so asking me whether "we follow policy, or not" doesn't really advance the discussion. My answer is, "yes, we follow policy, and that's why we leave the article where it is." 1043:

Can you cite a precedent where it's been agreed to rename a page from one national variant to another after years in one location, based on the original contributor principle? -

173:

I support reopening discussion, the whole discussion efforts were blindsided by impropriety as soon as Danielfolsom began to manipulate the straw poll, absolutely childish. --

1959:

Please visit the request page to indicate your acceptance of mediation. I urge you all to accept, as it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere arguing on this talk page. —

2480:

that has been mentioned thousands of times, yoghurt should be kept. And if you honestly believe that changing it to yogurt would end debate then you are a very naive person.

1139:

the article name open for requested moves indefinitely, because "yoghurt" is not in the spelling of the first significant contributor to this article. On other pages, like

1097:

guideline is designed specifically to settle and bring stability to situations exactly like this. Why ignore it? Why not follow it? How does the rationale behind that rule

300:

Oh and ahh ... one more thing. There's a huge difference between policy and guidelines - and the fact that you don't know the difference throws your argument out the window.

655:

Just let it go. Seriously. I speak American English, and would clearly personally prefer it to be spelled Yogurt. But it's not. Seriously, people, we need to move on. —

952:

The latest two polls indicate that a majority of editors agree the name should be reverted to the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor to the article.

424:

name-calling. Thirdly, what you say is "clearly absurd" is not so clear to others, it seems. Perhaps you can explain what's so clear about it, keeping in mind that I

644:

as I understand it. I'm ready to explain this at length, but I won't be dismissed while having false motives attributed to me. That's no way to have a discussion. -

348:! Why don't we agree that all the people "illegally" told about this discussion won't put their preferences ("vote") up the next time? That would be fair by me. -- 2731:

s. You guys are strong editors, and know how to deal with vandalism, so I know it's not that that is keeping this article from becoming as good as it could be.

1601:

The semi-protection was to counter vandalism on the main article, and was not related to this discussion. If you would like more information, please contact

2627:

matter if editors are split on it. He has every right to come here and request the name to be changed from yoghurt to yogurt for whatever his reasons are

736:

The rationale behind going with the most common spelling is to avoid confusion, but nobody has argued that the current spelling is confusing to anyone.

1057:

is in the language/spelling of the first contributor has helped it remain stable. Besides, so far as I know, this article has not been stable at

908:

If there is no settled spelling and all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor to the article.

1840: 608: 104:

I was told that user Danielfolsom violated Knowledge policy (or guidelines or whatever) by engaging in a concerted "get out the vote" effort.

2501:

As silence implies consensus, if you insist on shuttling discussion into another archive, I can raise the issue on a more frequent basis --

1920: 541:(that's what an actual policy looks like by the way, slightly different than on that you just make up so you can attack other editors huh?) 1324:

hadn't done much on this article (which I have) we're still wasting the talk page and calling more attention to the name then the article.

223:

reason with respect to the naming of this article supports the most common name used for this subject, and original name of this article:

866:

Knowledge? Without some evidence that it is more than a research project, I don't think it belongs in the WP Yoghurt article. Thanks, --

274:

Wow I'm not even done - just to let you know IP address - A) again, WP is not a democracy, it was not a straw poll but a discussion, per

1888: 1592:

What did you hope to accomplish by sprotecting the article when the problem is vomituous amounts of talk page foam by registered users?

2232:

Transcluding for regional language difference is nonsensical when the proposed alternate version is the most widely used version. I'm

1856: 2066:

I know it has been discussed. But we have not reached consensus, and you seek to stop discussing (not just by you, by everyone). --

1035:

You say that policy and precedent are clear on this point, but I disagree. I can cite a precedent for leaving pages where they are

2048:

In all fairness we have discussed the issue, and feel free to take a look at archives 1,2 and 3 for why the name was kept the same.

896:

If an article has been consistently in a given variety for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone.

2308:

What if the vote happens/happened without canvassing and if each vote was required to contain an argument based on the merits?

1952: 1872: 821:

GTBacchus, This article has a stable history??? How are you interpreting the meaning of "settled spelling" in "If there is no

2574:

Ohh! I'm sorry, but I disagree so strong with you Dscarth. I havent found Daniel's argument to be fallacious at all, Dscarth.

1823: 830:"settled" (or "established" for that matter). It seems to me use of the "first major contributor" guideline was devised for 1175:

Why is "we have a policy against arguing about national varieities of English," not acceptable as a policy-based argument? -

2145:

If number of edits had something to do with quality of character or validity of debate, I guess you'd have won already. --

2607:

EHC, when you say names multiple times, EHC, it's like you're trying to demean people, EHC, so try to resist that, EHC. --

1904: 2290:

the debate isn't over, but any one with half a brain can assume that if the same people vote the same result will happen.

1093:

Appealing to the spirit of ceasefire is laudable, but I think it's more than a little too late for that, and, again, the

1140: 326:

about the debate that he violated WP Policy - because he did the exact same thing i did, only I did it to more people.

1513:

stable than this article. We can achieve the same stability here, by doing the same thing as was done there (and at

1208:

ambiguous, because people may reasonably disagree as to which contribution first counts as "major". In the case of

2279: 1936: 1834: 1699: 1665: 1627:

Is there a WP policy that declares discussion should cease on an issue when consensus has not been reached? Since

1385: 604: 468: 412: 352: 162: 126: 38: 1079:

To be fair, I did not address this part of GTBacchus' argument, where he argues that claims of instability are...

2638:

they're are policies for and against Yoghurt - and campaigning for our countries' spelling is a waste of time. --

725: 2075:

I already replied to a simmilar comment - but due to odd spacing it might have been missed, so I'll just repeat.

1571:

Really, guys, you have to stop arguing this now before more aggressive means are pursued to end this argument. —

1517:

for that matter, and countless other articles that have stabilized due to using the original name/spelling). --

429:

as if you'd rather call people "tyrants", and get your way. I've never seen such a strategy lead to progress. -

2683: 2668: 2659: 2628: 2597: 2575: 2213:, but the title and defaults should remain yoghurt since we just voted on the title and there was no consensus. 1914: 1729:

one of your main tactics has been to use the conspiracy theory card - tryanist, anti-Americans, vote stackers.

1982: 1882: 718:

version of English. There's no official, international version of English that's consusually agreed upon.

680:, so readers who care about spelling can set their preference and everyone else can focus on other things. 2807: 2757: 2703: 2645: 2614: 2547: 2519: 2487: 2362: 2324: 2297: 2263: 2220: 2161: 2134: 2101: 2082: 2055: 1992: 1850: 1799: 1774: 1736: 1717: 1684: 1552: 1486: 1455: 1353: 1331: 1294: 1263: 1018: 1001:

specific type of conflict is clear: go with the dialect/spelling of the first significant contributor. --

946: 942: 938: 834:

a situation such as this. I mean, if it doesn't apply in a case such as this, where would it apply??? --

800: 793:

Oh sorry, wasn't addressed to you - somehow I screwed up the placement. It should be slightley better now.

773: 548: 526: 450: 333: 307: 285: 263: 244: 2770: 2388: 2276: 2067: 2040: 2028: 1878: 1830: 1696: 1662: 1636: 1518: 1382: 1234: 1195: 1160: 1102: 1062: 1002: 963: 844: 835: 708: 600: 571: 465: 409: 390: 349: 228: 159: 123: 91: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2802: 2752: 2698: 2667:

Actually, I probably can't win this and I think the name should stay the same. heheheheehehehehehehehe

2640: 2609: 2542: 2514: 2482: 2374: 2357: 2319: 2292: 2258: 2215: 2156: 2129: 2096: 2077: 2050: 1987: 1846: 1794: 1769: 1731: 1712: 1679: 1547: 1481: 1450: 1348: 1326: 1289: 1258: 1215:

make these edits despite the ceasefire is not, in my opinion, a good idea, nor consistent with policy.

1013: 795: 768: 543: 521: 445: 328: 302: 280: 258: 239: 174: 2003:

I'd love to be done, but it doesn't seem like some other would be. Oh well, I respect your opinion. —

784:

I'm trying to make a point for "yogurt"? I support leaving the page where it is. Was I so unclear? -

1168:

I disagree with your prediction. This article can be perfectly stable at its current title, just as

596: 2596:

fallacious argument or even an argument. You were totally wrong for saying that, Dscarth. Totally!

2457: 2336: 2309: 1946: 1910: 1866: 1628: 1593: 1533: 1278: 862: 2682:

source/info about how ğ has historically been transliterated to English, I'd love to see it; the

900:

Further, given that that guideline applies, he argues that the "if all else fails" clause in the

2530:

I wonder how many edits you made to this article before you started arguing about its title. --

2396:

The national varieties ceasefire is a better rule to apply in this situation, per precedent at

949:) of this talk page, all dominated by discussions about this article's name and spelling style. 186:

times, and we're not doing it again. Please, just work on improving this article or another. —

2013: 1969: 1898: 1615: 1581: 665: 196: 148: 1677:

on this talk page is call people anti-american, I don't know how you think that's productive.

2779:

NO. ONE spelling is to be used throughout the article. Accuracy has nothing to do with it. —

114:

I was surprised that so many of the people who voted against changing to the sensible name (

108: 2782: 2739: 2205:

If it will solve the issue, I'm fine going through the article and replacing yoghurt with

1309: 537:

O yeah and by the way - stop using the word 'majority'. Knowledge is not a democracy per

2471: 2452: 2404: 2346: 1942: 1930: 1862: 1223: 1176: 1121: 1044: 983: 881: 785: 753: 691: 681: 645: 620: 484: 430: 395: 2797: 2725: 1502: 1415: 889: 867: 538: 275: 2373:"Where in doubt, editors defer to the style used by the first major contributor." -- 884:

argues that because the spelling of this article has been stable for some time, the

826:

two styles all within just the last year all indicate that the spelling is anything

2586: 2559: 2531: 2502: 2237: 2173: 2146: 2113: 2005: 1961: 1894: 1650: 1607: 1573: 657: 188: 140: 2558:

Zero. Which only makes a difference using your fallaciously presented argument. --

2172:

That's about uncivil as I'm going to get. My point is there is no winner here. --

904:

guideline is not invoked, and so that guideline does not apply here. It states:

2687: 2441: 2250: 2208: 1602: 1537: 1040: 677: 47: 46:

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

17: 2317:

WP Is not a democracy - it's not a vote, the outcome is based on the arguments.

2732: 2397: 1029:

Serge, you realize, I hope, that I'm arguing to keep the article where it is

2342: 1926: 380: 2813: 2791: 2773: 2763: 2744: 2709: 2690: 2671: 2662: 2651: 2631: 2620: 2600: 2589: 2578: 2562: 2553: 2534: 2525: 2505: 2493: 2474: 2407: 2391: 2377: 2368: 2349: 2330: 2312: 2303: 2285: 2269: 2240: 2226: 2176: 2167: 2149: 2140: 2116: 2107: 2088: 2070: 2061: 2043: 2031: 2018: 1998: 1974: 1805: 1780: 1742: 1723: 1705: 1690: 1671: 1653: 1639: 1620: 1596: 1586: 1558: 1540: 1521: 1505:(use the language/spelling of the first contributor), and so, changing it 1492: 1461: 1418: 1391: 1359: 1337: 1318: 1300: 1281: 1269: 1237: 1226: 1198: 1179: 1163: 1124: 1105: 1065: 1047: 1024: 1005: 986: 966: 870: 847: 838: 806: 788: 779: 756: 711: 694: 684: 670: 648: 623: 574: 554: 532: 487: 474: 456: 433: 418: 398: 383: 358: 339: 313: 291: 269: 250: 231: 201: 177: 168: 153: 132: 1514: 1152: 1148: 1058: 1053:

Yes, I realize you're arguing on policy grounds. I know the fact that

2112:

Refusing mediation but continuing to argue is disingenuous at best. --

1212:, it's certainly not clear which contribution is the first major one. 443:

Knowledge policies and flaws in your accusation that I mentioned above

1710:

My mistake - you've called people anti-american and irrational! Nice.

1209: 1186: 1169: 1498: 1476: 1220:

it would still be very difficult to achieve consensus to ceasefire

1144: 1054: 616:

speculations about others' motives than in addressing this point.

122:

process, but to take the question of the right name seriously. --

912:

So his argument rests on the premise that this article has been

111:. Focus in particular on the period around 2007-05-16T02:01:25. 25: 2335:

And the opposition made what argument based on the merits?

109:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Danielfolsom

739:

The rationale behind going with the original contributor

2343:#Is the article spelling stable, established or settled? 2341:

Schmucky, please see my arguments above in the section

1095:

follow the variety established by the first contributor

959:

follow the variety established by the first contributor

922: 902:

follow the variety established by the first contributor

876:

Is the article spelling stable, established or settled?

1792:

And the protection was probably to prevent an edit war

1605:, the administrator who actually protected the page. — 1509:

vandalizing. I would add that because of that, it is

2039:

towards consensus, or even defend your position. --

843:

I addressed this further in a new section below. --

182:

I'm sorry, but it will not happen. We have debated

1826:. The following have been listed as participants: 1061:for years. The move log indicates otherwise. -- 1037:rather than going with the original contributor 2154:What? Uhmm try reading the last sentence over. 8: 2750:Great job on the update - more on your talk. 515:And we just closed this debate with a clear 1981:is needed then refer to my last comment on 1120:Your turn - why is this important to you? - 2027:I believe mediation is very premature. -- 2449: 1039:in perfectly analogous situations. See 1822:A request for mediation has been filed 1767:let's actually do something productive. 588:was weaker, in my view), but where the 344:He did it to one person, you did it to 2677:Combination of spelling and etymology. 1635:to "stop arguing" seems illogical. -- 930:article that has been at one spelling 519:- there's no way we should re-open it. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 2686:article isn't terribly complete.) -- 24: 1631:, threatening dissenters of the 322:- did you tell the guy who told 29: 1501:the title was decided per the 886:stay with established spelling 1: 2798:Manual of Style for Knowledge 2387:contributor rule applies. -- 1985:, but I'm out. I'm just done. 320:last but most important thing 1194:, as it is in this case. -- 1101:apply in this situation? -- 611:) 03:19, May 25, 2007 (UTC). 2800:to get some more details.-- 1141:segregated cycle facilities 733:the situation in question. 2832: 1089:the situation in question. 937:There are three archives ( 1629:silence implies agreement 2814:15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 2792:13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 2774:18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 2764:11:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2745:07:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2710:03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2691:02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2684:Ottoman Turkish language 2672:05:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC) 2663:11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 2652:20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2632:20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2621:20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2601:20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2590:17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2579:05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2563:21:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 2554:15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 2535:15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 2526:19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 2506:17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 2494:02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 2475:02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 2408:03:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2392:02:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2378:20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2369:19:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2350:03:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2331:18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2313:18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2304:17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2286:15:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2270:22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2241:22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2227:21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2177:19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2168:19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2150:16:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2141:15:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2117:15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2108:15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2089:15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2071:14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2062:13:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2044:07:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2032:06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 2019:03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1999:03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1975:02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1806:02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1781:02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1743:22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1724:22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1706:17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1691:17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 1672:15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 1654:02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1640:00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1621:22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1597:22:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1587:21:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1559:03:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 1541:02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 1522:07:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1493:02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1462:02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1419:00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1392:00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1360:21:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1338:21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1319:21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1301:20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1282:20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1270:19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1238:05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1227:05:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1199:05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1180:02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1164:02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1125:00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1106:18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 1066:05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1048:02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1025:02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1006:02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 987:00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 967:17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 962:(the turmoil to end). -- 871:18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 848:17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 839:15:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 807:14:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 789:13:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 780:11:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 757:09:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 712:05:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 695:03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 685:03:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 671:02:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 649:03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 624:04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 575:02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 555:01:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 533:01:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 488:04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 475:04:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 457:01:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 434:01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 419:01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 399:15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC) 384:07:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC) 359:01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 340:23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 314:22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 292:22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 270:22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 251:22:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 232:20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 202:18:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 178:18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 169:18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 154:18:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 133:18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 2464:2007 May 27 20:23 (UTC) 1983:User talk:Serge Issakov 892:applies, which states: 389:Agreed. Furthermore, 599:comment was added by 42:of past discussions. 2236:to this proposal. -- 2211:|yoghurt|en=yogurt}} 1534:User:Celtic Emperor 858:Goat-soybean yoghurt 2669:EverybodyHatesChris 2660:EverybodyHatesChris 2629:EverybodyHatesChris 2598:EverybodyHatesChris 2576:EverybodyHatesChris 1649:consensus prior. -- 1497:But in the case of 1277:No threats please. 1412:This is hilarious! 2812: 2789: 2762: 2708: 2650: 2619: 2552: 2524: 2492: 2367: 2329: 2302: 2284:2007-05-27 15:52 2268: 2225: 2166: 2139: 2106: 2087: 2060: 2009: 1997: 1965: 1804: 1779: 1741: 1722: 1704:2007-05-29 17:33 1689: 1670:2007-05-27 15:53 1611: 1577: 1557: 1491: 1460: 1390:2007-05-26 00:50 1358: 1336: 1316: 1299: 1268: 1218:You assert that " 1031:on policy grounds 1023: 982:worth our time. - 888:guideline in the 805: 778: 741:if all else fails 661: 612: 553: 531: 473:2007-05-25 04:11 455: 417:2007-05-25 01:26 357:2007-05-25 01:28 338: 312: 290: 268: 249: 192: 167:2007-05-23 18:15 144: 131:2007-05-23 18:02 97: 96: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2823: 2810: 2805: 2801: 2790: 2787: 2781: 2760: 2755: 2751: 2742: 2737: 2730: 2724: 2706: 2701: 2697: 2648: 2643: 2639: 2617: 2612: 2608: 2550: 2545: 2541: 2522: 2517: 2513: 2490: 2485: 2481: 2460: 2451: 2446: 2440: 2365: 2360: 2356: 2327: 2322: 2318: 2300: 2295: 2291: 2277:Cultural Freedom 2266: 2261: 2257: 2255: 2249: 2223: 2218: 2214: 2212: 2164: 2159: 2155: 2137: 2132: 2128: 2104: 2099: 2095: 2085: 2080: 2076: 2058: 2053: 2049: 2017: 2007: 1995: 1990: 1986: 1973: 1963: 1831:Cultural Freedom 1802: 1797: 1793: 1777: 1772: 1768: 1739: 1734: 1730: 1720: 1715: 1711: 1697:Cultural Freedom 1687: 1682: 1678: 1663:Cultural Freedom 1619: 1609: 1585: 1575: 1555: 1550: 1546: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1458: 1453: 1449: 1383:Cultural Freedom 1356: 1351: 1347: 1334: 1329: 1325: 1317: 1314: 1308: 1297: 1292: 1288: 1266: 1261: 1257: 1021: 1016: 1012: 934:for a long time. 823:settled spelling 803: 798: 794: 776: 771: 767: 669: 659: 601:Cultural Freedom 594: 551: 546: 542: 529: 524: 520: 466:Cultural Freedom 453: 448: 444: 410:Cultural Freedom 391:Cultural Freedom 350:Cultural Freedom 336: 331: 327: 310: 305: 301: 288: 283: 279: 266: 261: 257: 247: 242: 238: 200: 190: 184:many, many, many 160:Cultural Freedom 152: 142: 124:Cultural Freedom 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2831: 2830: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2808: 2803: 2786: 2783: 2780: 2758: 2753: 2740: 2733: 2728: 2722: 2718: 2704: 2699: 2679: 2646: 2641: 2615: 2610: 2548: 2543: 2520: 2515: 2488: 2483: 2458: 2444: 2438: 2363: 2358: 2325: 2320: 2298: 2293: 2264: 2259: 2253: 2247: 2221: 2216: 2206: 2203: 2162: 2157: 2135: 2130: 2102: 2097: 2083: 2078: 2056: 2051: 2004: 1993: 1988: 1960: 1820: 1800: 1795: 1775: 1770: 1737: 1732: 1718: 1713: 1685: 1680: 1606: 1572: 1569: 1553: 1548: 1487: 1482: 1456: 1451: 1354: 1349: 1332: 1327: 1313: 1310: 1307: 1295: 1290: 1264: 1259: 1019: 1014: 878: 860: 801: 796: 774: 769: 763:To Cultural ... 726:Manual of Style 656: 595:—The preceding 549: 544: 527: 522: 451: 446: 334: 329: 308: 303: 286: 281: 264: 259: 245: 240: 187: 139: 102: 100:Name of article 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2829: 2827: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2784: 2767: 2766: 2717: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2678: 2675: 2655: 2654: 2624: 2623: 2593: 2592: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2466: 2465: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2352: 2337:SchmuckyTheCat 2310:SchmuckyTheCat 2202: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2035: 2034: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 1957: 1956: 1940: 1924: 1911:SchmuckyTheCat 1908: 1892: 1876: 1860: 1844: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1594:SchmuckyTheCat 1568: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1445: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1344:you calling me 1311: 1279:SchmuckyTheCat 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1091: 1090: 1085: 1084: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1027: 993: 992: 991: 990: 954: 953: 950: 935: 910: 909: 898: 897: 877: 874: 859: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 653: 652: 651: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 405: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 101: 98: 95: 94: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2828: 2815: 2811: 2806: 2799: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2788: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2772: 2771:75.41.213.135 2765: 2761: 2756: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2743: 2738: 2736: 2727: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2702: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2689: 2685: 2676: 2674: 2673: 2670: 2665: 2664: 2661: 2653: 2649: 2644: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2630: 2622: 2618: 2613: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2599: 2591: 2588: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2577: 2564: 2561: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2551: 2546: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2504: 2495: 2491: 2486: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2473: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2461: 2454: 2443: 2436: 2435: 2410: 2409: 2406: 2399: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2390: 2385: 2384: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2366: 2361: 2353: 2351: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2301: 2296: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2252: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2219: 2210: 2200: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2160: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2125: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2105: 2100: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2081: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2059: 2054: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2042: 2037: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2020: 2015: 2011: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1996: 1991: 1984: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1971: 1967: 1954: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1928: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1912: 1909: 1906: 1903: 1900: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1879:Serge Issakov 1877: 1874: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1836: 1832: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1825: 1817: 1807: 1803: 1798: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1773: 1756: 1744: 1740: 1735: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1716: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1683: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1664: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1617: 1613: 1604: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1595: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1583: 1579: 1566: 1560: 1556: 1551: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1530: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1485: 1478: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1463: 1459: 1454: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1379: 1361: 1357: 1352: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1335: 1330: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1315: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1262: 1239: 1236: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1216: 1211: 1207: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1197: 1193: 1192:for no reason 1188: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1178: 1171: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1118: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1087: 1086: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1067: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1032: 1028: 1026: 1022: 1017: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1004: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 989: 988: 985: 981: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 965: 960: 951: 948: 944: 940: 936: 933: 929: 924: 920: 919: 918: 915: 907: 906: 905: 903: 895: 894: 893: 891: 887: 883: 875: 873: 872: 869: 864: 857: 849: 846: 842: 841: 840: 837: 833: 829: 824: 820: 819: 818: 817: 808: 804: 799: 792: 791: 790: 787: 783: 782: 781: 777: 772: 764: 761: 760: 759: 758: 755: 749: 748:differences. 745: 742: 737: 734: 730: 727: 722: 716: 715: 714: 713: 710: 696: 693: 688: 687: 686: 683: 679: 674: 673: 672: 667: 663: 654: 650: 647: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 626: 625: 622: 614: 613: 610: 606: 602: 598: 591: 587: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 573: 568: 556: 552: 547: 540: 536: 535: 534: 530: 525: 518: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 490: 489: 486: 478: 477: 476: 472: 471: 467: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 454: 449: 442: 437: 436: 435: 432: 427: 422: 421: 420: 416: 415: 411: 406: 402: 401: 400: 397: 392: 388: 387: 386: 385: 382: 360: 356: 355: 351: 347: 343: 342: 341: 337: 332: 325: 321: 318:K Really now 317: 316: 315: 311: 306: 299: 293: 289: 284: 277: 273: 272: 271: 267: 262: 254: 253: 252: 248: 243: 235: 234: 233: 230: 226: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 203: 198: 194: 185: 181: 180: 179: 176: 172: 171: 170: 166: 165: 161: 157: 156: 155: 150: 146: 137: 136: 135: 134: 130: 129: 125: 119: 117: 112: 110: 105: 99: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2768: 2734: 2719: 2680: 2666: 2656: 2625: 2594: 2573: 2500: 2455: 2437:Hi Dscarth, 2401: 2375:65.206.50.97 2280: 2233: 2204: 2201:Title and sp 2123: 1958: 1949: 1933: 1917: 1901: 1885: 1869: 1853: 1847:Danielfolsom 1837: 1821: 1765: 1700: 1666: 1646: 1632: 1570: 1510: 1506: 1411: 1386: 1377: 1374: 1343: 1254: 1219: 1217: 1213: 1205: 1191: 1174: 1156: 1119: 1115: 1098: 1094: 1092: 1078: 1036: 1034: 1030: 1011:contributor. 979: 976: 958: 955: 932:consistently 931: 927: 914:consistently 913: 911: 901: 899: 885: 879: 863:User:Ecoinus 861: 831: 827: 822: 762: 750: 746: 740: 738: 735: 731: 723: 719: 705: 617: 589: 585: 517:no consensus 516: 481: 469: 440: 425: 413: 377: 353: 345: 323: 319: 224: 183: 175:65.206.50.97 163: 127: 120: 115: 113: 106: 103: 75: 43: 37: 2453:D. Trebbien 1532:A comment: 1041:Talk:Honour 923:Log history 678:Template:Sp 36:This is an 18:Talk:Yogurt 2398:Talk:Honor 1633:status quo 619:sisters? - 2716:Disrepair 2472:Maestro25 2405:GTBacchus 2347:GTBacchus 1943:Antonrojo 1863:GTBacchus 1818:Mediation 1256:spelling. 1224:GTBacchus 1177:GTBacchus 1122:GTBacchus 1045:GTBacchus 984:GTBacchus 882:GTBacchus 832:precisely 786:GTBacchus 754:GTBacchus 692:GTBacchus 682:Antonrojo 646:GTBacchus 621:GTBacchus 485:GTBacchus 431:GTBacchus 404:spelling. 396:GTBacchus 92:Archive 7 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 1953:contribs 1937:contribs 1921:contribs 1905:contribs 1889:contribs 1873:contribs 1857:contribs 1841:contribs 1567:Stop now 1416:Eyedubya 1378:strongly 1185:I agree 868:Macrakis 609:contribs 597:unsigned 107:Look at 2587:Dscarth 2560:Dscarth 2532:Dscarth 2503:Dscarth 2238:Dscarth 2234:opposed 2174:Dscarth 2147:Dscarth 2114:Dscarth 1895:Mets501 1651:Dscarth 1515:ice pop 1287:article 1157:Nothing 1153:yoghurt 1149:ice pop 1059:yoghurt 880:Above, 586:theatre 256:policy. 39:archive 2809:folsom 2804:daniel 2785:Lumber 2759:folsom 2754:daniel 2705:folsom 2700:daniel 2647:folsom 2642:daniel 2616:folsom 2611:daniel 2549:folsom 2544:daniel 2540:You?-- 2521:folsom 2516:daniel 2489:folsom 2484:daniel 2364:folsom 2359:daniel 2326:folsom 2321:daniel 2299:folsom 2294:daniel 2265:folsom 2260:daniel 2222:folsom 2217:daniel 2163:folsom 2158:daniel 2136:folsom 2131:daniel 2103:folsom 2098:daniel 2084:folsom 2079:daniel 2057:folsom 2052:daniel 1994:folsom 1989:daniel 1801:folsom 1796:daniel 1776:folsom 1771:daniel 1738:folsom 1733:daniel 1719:folsom 1714:daniel 1686:folsom 1681:daniel 1603:Centrx 1554:folsom 1549:daniel 1488:folsom 1483:daniel 1457:folsom 1452:daniel 1355:folsom 1350:daniel 1333:folsom 1328:daniel 1312:Lumber 1296:folsom 1291:daniel 1265:folsom 1260:daniel 1210:honour 1187:honour 1170:honour 1020:folsom 1015:daniel 928:stable 802:folsom 797:daniel 775:folsom 770:daniel 550:folsom 545:daniel 539:WP:NOT 528:folsom 523:daniel 452:folsom 447:daniel 346:dozens 335:folsom 330:daniel 309:folsom 304:daniel 287:folsom 282:daniel 276:WP:NOT 265:folsom 260:daniel 246:folsom 241:daniel 225:yogurt 116:Yogurt 2735:ALTON 2389:Serge 2068:Serge 2041:Serge 2029:Serge 1637:Serge 1519:Serge 1499:color 1477:Color 1235:Serge 1196:Serge 1161:Serge 1145:color 1103:Serge 1063:Serge 1055:color 1003:Serge 964:Serge 845:Serge 836:Serge 766:flaw. 709:Serge 572:Serge 229:Serge 16:< 2726:fact 2688:moof 2459:talk 2281:talk 2127:are. 2014:talk 1970:talk 1947:talk 1931:talk 1927:Mark 1915:talk 1899:talk 1883:talk 1867:talk 1851:talk 1835:talk 1824:here 1701:talk 1667:talk 1616:talk 1582:talk 1538:moof 1511:more 1387:talk 1147:and 921:The 724:Our 666:talk 605:talk 470:talk 441:real 426:have 414:talk 381:Mark 354:talk 197:talk 164:talk 149:talk 128:talk 2741:.ıl 2355:it. 2010:501 2008:ETS 1966:501 1964:ETS 1612:501 1610:ETS 1578:501 1576:ETS 1503:MOS 1099:not 980:not 978:is 890:MOS 828:but 662:501 660:ETS 590:-re 324:you 193:501 191:ETS 145:501 143:ETS 2729:}} 2723:{{ 2585:-- 2470:-- 2445:}} 2442:sp 2439:{{ 2275:-- 2254:}} 2251:sp 2248:{{ 2209:sp 2207:{{ 1661:-- 1647:no 1507:is 1376:I 1233:-- 1206:is 1143:, 945:, 941:, 607:• 2462:) 2456:( 2450:« 2403:- 2256:, 2124:9 2016:) 2012:( 2006:M 1972:) 1968:( 1962:M 1955:) 1950:· 1945:( 1939:) 1934:· 1929:( 1923:) 1918:· 1913:( 1907:) 1902:· 1897:( 1891:) 1886:· 1881:( 1875:) 1870:· 1865:( 1859:) 1854:· 1849:( 1843:) 1838:· 1833:( 1618:) 1614:( 1608:M 1584:) 1580:( 1574:M 1306:— 947:3 943:2 939:1 752:- 668:) 664:( 658:M 603:( 483:- 394:- 199:) 195:( 189:M 151:) 147:( 141:M 50:.

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

Index