User:Silence/Archive0004 - Knowledge (XXG)

444:" : Again, the article fails to bridge the gap between "spiritual experience" and "God", completely ignoring the fact that the monotheistic conception of "God" is a relatively recent concept in human history, that a huge portion of the world today experiences strong spiritual feelings and completely lacks belief in God, and repeatedly conflating religious ecstasy with theism. Very dishonest tactics at play here. The analogy is also flawed: we have eyes because there are sights to see, but feelings of spiritual ecstasy do not allow us to "observe" God in any way, to learn anything about him, and there's no way that you could argue that in a Godless world it would be biologically impossible for people to feel euphoria. Hell, drugs are even more efficient ways to reach that goal than spiritual bliss is. In addition, this argument is a 812:

read and respond to my comments so we could have a true discussion and resolve our differences, but you were totally unwilling to drop the hostility so that we could have a "nice level of discussion". Likewise, before you created that thread, I had an extremely high opinion of you, and hadn't found fault with a single statement or edit you'd ever made up to that point. But when you started posting such hateful and acidic remarks, pages and pages of them, my understanding of you rapidly changed, as you demonstrated an extraordinary contempt and disregard for your fellow man, as well as a trollish willingness to disrupt Knowledge (XXG) for the sake of taunting someone you dislike.

1190:

entire "2002" section, since both also need a little work to clarify 'em). I did mention that I thought your FAC nomination of "Early life" right when we needed to focus more than ever on Hugo Chavez prior to his featuring was very poorly-timed to the point of being counterproductive, though some good did come out of it in the end in the form of how much you improved the "Early life" article. But anyway, no point going over all that past nonsense now, it doesn't do any good to point fingers. We can easily start working on improving those sections now, it's not like work on the article should drop now that it's off the main page. -

2121:. I wasn't trying to vilify or subtly accuse you. I was just confused about the back-and-forth conversions concerning such a trivial matter, and I also noted the edit summaries, which were very specific. I see I misunderstood this, and I am glad you explained it to me. Its really not a big deal for me about the spelling anyway — notice how when people make trivial changes such as "flavor" -> "flavour" or "color" -> "colour", I just let it slide. I don't know what you mean by MPF being sloppy, since we all get into edit conflicts accidentally. I am done with that topic now. But anyway, good work from both of you. 926:

since it would probably draw an occasional complaint from people who aren't familiar with the IPA characters or think including it clutters things up. (Of course, if you wanted to seek a Spoken Word version of the article and could find someone who's got great English and can pronounce Venezuelan terms, that'd solve any questions of pronunciation. Though the article might be a bit too long for that to be feasible (we could kill the guy!), and I'd advise waiting a while before pursuing that since it's important to make sure we're happy with every single line of the article before we try for a Spoken Word version.) -

2048:. What he says about the need for European usage is quite logical (there is hardly any saffron grown in America, while far more is grown in nations where Commonwealth/British spellings are used. To stop edit-warring over this, I've tagged the talk page as {{Commonwealth_English}}. Please do not start a revert was over this. Also, I do not like your image placements because you are removing many images that provide valuable information to readers and draw them in. I've worked hard on this article, and my wishes on these matters, considering that they don't violate anything in 1514:

I find that to be very impolite. It is by chance that I think you have a good point, but if I was vehemently opposed to your action there is no reason that you should be able to do it despite my and another editor of the page's opinion. Next time would you please drop a note at the talk page first and wait a bit for discussion. If you are chafing at the bit to change it right away then say so on a talk page message. Maybe say, "I wanted to change it now but revert if you have objections and we can discuss". Thank you.

716:, and was being accused by the antagonist of the opposite, being "obstructionist", and of making personal attacks from the get-go (check the history). I was actually indifferent to one or two articles (hence the conciliatory unibox), but it seems that (from early on) the article has been co-opted by forces wanting only that state (for valid and other reasons). Partially as a result of the antagonist's behaviour (but largely for other reasons stated), I have since been emboldened (unofficially!) for the dual option. 1090:

to conserve space (not a bad idea, many other Talk pages have far too much cluttering their top). Most of the goals I mentioned in the "todo" were long-term ones, anyway, like the "remove pro-Chavez bias", which is practically systemic in its undercurrent, and will probably require integrating all noteworthy and substantiated criticism of Chavez into the article as a whole, possibly instead of having a separate "criticism of Chavez" article (or possibly not, but that idea was recently brought up at the

2063:

reverted. I then took it to MPF's page, and he very nicely clarified for me Knowledge (XXG)'s preferences regarding when to use Commonwealth/American English, so I told him, an inch above your above post, to go ahead with restoring his spelling changes (which shouldn't be hard, considering I've solely been editing the images thus far, not the text). There is no "edit war", as a single revert followed by a reasoned discussion and resolution is hardly a "war".

797:

your own page and in all the edits you made and everything else. So how was it possible that I could keep you going when I wanted you to snap out of it so that we could get to a nice level of discussion. Eventually it happened. But I still do not understand what it is that I did that annoyed you to be so ... unlike you (this is what I want to believe - based on my expectations of you - yes, it is all about managing expectations). Cheers. --

2302:". I treat Christianity the same way I treat all other religions, both current ones and past ones: as an adorable an amusing little story (albeit one with some undeniably dull portions; the Bible needs a good copyedit, in my view). Being offended by two letters of the Latin alphabet, be they BC or AD or ZJ, just because they're derived from some superstitious guys in the Middle Ages who made an error in calculations, is profoundly silly. - 464:" : And here's the sneaky clause again, that most readers wouldn't notice, suggesting that everyone biologically believes in God by stating that only "cultural differences" distinguish the same experience, without showing that the experience truly is "the same". And to jump from this to belief in God is nonsense; you might as well argue that the existence of feelings called "love" proves that Batman created the universe. Total 1548:(except for the "revert" part, since I don't see why reversion is necessary to discuss a matter; it's just as easy to discuss it and wait to revert until an actual problem is found with the new version); why spend 5 minutes typing out a lengthy disclaimer to every edit I make, when there's no way of psychically knowing which edits will be controversial and when until it actually is said by others, and when, in fact, no one 828:, but is only interested in making personal attacks; and you've presumably learned not to go to such great lengths just to try to "knock someone down a peg" or attack someone's character. So, though our argument was unfortunate, at least we can be content in knowing that we were able to resolve it in the end, and in knowing that we've learned new things about interacting with others in the experience. - 742:

nonsense" – inappropriate, yes – was made after he concluded the discussion.) And I do not make threats: if anyone is discourteous here (and there really isn't any reason why the antagonist was from the get-go), I would move to have them disciplined for their actions and would expect the reverse. I don't desmirch his contributions, but people can get a lot more with honey than with vinegar. It's

457:

arbitrarily associated with an imaginary being exist, on the flawed notion that "we wouldn't have those negative experiences if there wasn't an evil Devil for us to experience with them!" This is obvious nonsense, and just as much so as the "spiritual experiences -> God" argument. Intellectual laziness under a thin layer of technobabble is nothing new, I'm afraid.

1532:

possessiveness over the article, acting like people who have edited the article in the past have some sort of strange dominion over or higher authority than those who haven't; have you forgotten that this is Knowledge (XXG)? "Waiting for discussion" is a waste of time, especially since the vast majority of articles that are as small and incredibly stubbish as the

1050: 859:

will be impossible. We'll just have to do what we can. On the plus side, of course, is that the "early life" article will be much better and more expansive than it was before this FAC began, and it will probably get more hits than any of the other Chavez sub-articles since it's almost right at the top of the page. So, every cloud has its silver lining! -

583:

Vader the more central of the two articles, and would have more info on Anakin Skywalker than Anakin Skywalker has on Darth Vader, because Vader's a more commonly-known and iconic figure and the more common name for the character. But having a little info on Anakin's post-third movie life on Anakin Skywalker seems an effective compromise. -

2365:

Encyclopedist deleted this paragraph, so I assume things have cooled down a bit and we won't have to have some big old ugly confrontation about something so silly as a weeks-old Internet poll. Archiving as struck text. No hard feelings, Molotov? I assure you that no one would be more upset than me if

2105:

edit blindly after only a couple of minutes (whereas I at least addressed his edits point-by-point and, after the earlier edit conflict, gave him a number of hours before returnig to edit so he'd have time to finish). He also reverted and screwed up a number of my edits earlier today when he reverted

1697:

I tried following your comments on the talk page in my copyedits. Many other people have copyedited as well. Could you just take a look at the article and make comments of further problem areas? Are some terms still unexplained? Is some prose still unclear? This time, you don't need to spend any time

796:

It still annoys me looking back at the fight we had. Why? Cuz i still do not understand it. Cuz I never thought it would get to that level. I always thought (still think) that you were (are) a smart guy. I knew we could get past any initial disagreement. I concluded this from what I read you wrote in

633:

As well, I think I might have inadvertently removed the dual infoboxes when adding the unified one (in my desire for 'compromise'). No offence intended; my apologies. I agree that a single one is 'cumbersome' ... all the more reason for a split! :) If the articles are split, I largely support

2431:

I don't know what to say. I'm honored. Thank you very much for the barnstar! If I'd known blasphemy would merit me such honors, I'd have mutilated a lot more Biblical quotations! Oh, and if there was a barnstar for being-nice-enough-to-respond-to-old-crap, I'd give you one. I'm a big fan of surprise

2074:

which placements you don't like, and explain why the other version is better, and we'll go with that. Though taking a slightly less imperious tone (making things sound like ultimatums rarely facilitates free discourse) might make discussion a tad smoother; if you disagree, feel free to disregard all

1869:

you re-edited your own comment to change a couple of words, without reverting your deletion. I restored the two comments that you deleted; an edit conflict is the only reason your own comment changes were reverted, please feel free to re-change your comment (just don't re-delete other users' posts).

1840:

It's no problem, the article was short enough that it took little time to edit. You asked so nicely on the WP:AID that I had to do something. It seems like an article with a lot of potential, so I hope it gets expanded in the future; I know very little about African architecture, but it seems like a

1513:

It seems silly that there be argument over this issue but I hope you see my side. I understand that you do not like the template but nothing says that it should be removed from the page. When you change it without asking the page's editors and then revert again when one of the editors has concerns

841:

Saw you writing that as you made some edits in the Chavez article. I agree. We should have kept improving that article instead of moving so fast into trying to get another notch in the belt -with a new article that is far from being FAC quality (it is very POV and with a lot of inaccurate info). Not

815:

I had an overly idealized conception of you from the start, and you apparently had the same for me before you decided for some reason that I was "too proud", so both of us probably reacted a bit too harshly from having our illusions about the other shattered, and failed to realize that even the most

811:

You retracted this comment below, but incidentally, you might be interested to know that I had a very similar reaction to your first (and subsequent) comments as you say that you had to mine. Throughout the entire discussion, I kept waiting for you to "snap out of" your hateful behavior, to actually

582:

Sorry, I don't really have time to participate heavily in this debate, though it seems to be becoming increasingly likely that the article will be split into two. I'm glad you've proposed such an excellent compromise, and it agrees with my own on almost all points, with the exception that mine makes

1620:

Well, Knowledge (XXG) isn't consistent on this matter, so I'd go with the most central Knowledge (XXG) naming policy on this case: use the name that's most common. "Saffron" is clearly the most common name, and what most people will search for this for, so we should use that. Additionally, consider

1400:

It only means "damn!" or "crap! again" Which I am referring to another problem with the article, not with you. Keen eye...If I ever cussed out anyone here I would stick to plain old English....seems to be the best policy. Wow Silence, I am really going to have to do a lot of work on that article.

1281:

The "todo" box isn't such a big deal. And I haven't been very involved in Knowledge (XXG) for that long, either: I only really started editing three months and ten days ago, on August 30th, 2005. So no need to apologize, we've all got plenty to learn; writing good encyclopedias isn't as easy as the

1255:

And, really, it wasn't exhausting; it was refreshing. I've rarely seen an FA that Knowledge (XXG) can be so proud of, and much of that was the direct result of your incredible amount of work on it. The Footnotes and References alone in that article have me in awe! Such painstaking detail! I hope we

1089:

Er, I apologize. I didn't realize that you felt all the issues had been resolved; either you didn't mention that, or I missed it in the many discussions there, sorry. I assumed you'd just removed it for the same reason you removed many of the other boxes at the top of the page around the same time,

925:

I'm afraid I couldn't say if it's correct, because I myself don't know how to correctly pronounce "Rabindranath Tagore" :) IPA is complicated, and I don't understand all of it yet; I advise you not to worry about including it in Chavez until you're certain of how it would be worded, especially

895:

Hi. Thanks for the dit you just made to the Chavez article. You should realize that there were some junk edits and vandalism (such as changing the GDP drop from 25% to 1%) that came right before yours. I don't know if I can get in there and revert these, since I do not want edit conflicts with you.

741:

the archives), so I thought it hypocritical that he would insinuate verbosity (though I don't deny that I can be!) I am generally civil and know when to acquiesce but feel I was wholly justified to respond to him as I did ... eye for an eye notwithstanding. (Oh: note that my quip about "simpleton

436:

about the cause and effect of what he's studying? Sounds like just a way to implicitly advocate theism without providing any evidence to the point, and using weasel words rather than citing anyone who actually said such. In fact, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the entire article is written from a

1220:

Hee. Honestly, I'm disappointed. Half the fun of working on controversial articles is the drama and mayhem, but Chavez got a relatively low-key reception. Even the vandalism was half-hearted, compared to many FAs I've seen! We'll have to credit that to you and Anagnorisis doing such a great job on

965:

When did I say it was forbidden? I just prefer not to have comments deleted when I find them interesting and useful reminders of something I plan to do anyway (copyedit that article). Whether the article is a nominee for FA or not has nothing to do with that. And you can always strike your text if

679:

As for whoever removed the templates (and added a merged one which, though, cumbersome, is actually the best possible way to handle the article if it's kept as only one page; an excellent compromise, though obviously less preferable than the split-article ones), I really don't care, and it doesn't

2206:

It's the common era because it is common to many groups of people, only some of which are Christian. There's nothing logical about "Anno Domini" even from a Christian viewpoint. I'm not saying we should discount "AD" because people counted wrong, but rather because many, many non-Christians use a

1577:

Thank you for your politeness. I just felt that I was trying to defend the rights of other editors who had seemed to want the box... whether that's silly or not I don't know. I believe you do this all to make wikipedia better and respect that :) I agree with you pretty much on the whole...

1536:

article have few, if any, regular visitors. Really, it's surprising that there's so little real information on the page if there's been so much activity in the article's history; I've seen many articles that were five times the size of Ibn currently in less than five edits. I don't doubt that the

1445:

curse me out, though you're right that it's best to communicate in English in most situations on the English Knowledge (XXG). Though, I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your comment. I didn't bring up how much work would be required to improve any article, I was just pointing out that it's

1269:

Hmm. You forgot to uncomment your "todo" box on the talk page. I also acknowledge the pro-Chavez POV undercurrent in the article. You must realize that I've only known about Knowledge (XXG) for less than three months, and have only slowly started to gain some modicum of a grasp of NPOV. Honestly,

1189:

to do all that specifically, and you did do a couple of edits to that section, at last. My requests were directed at the general group of everyone editing Hugo Chavez to work together on the last few sections of the article (and, to a lesser extent, on the first half of the "1999" section and the

946:

Hello. Someone on the FAC has stated this: "A fresh copyeditor (rewriter...) on this job might help...". Could you, as an impartial observer, please help me and copyedit? I've already made a go of it, and apparently have failed. It seems that it your copyedits do the trick, and there are not that

858:

Haha, no problem. Yes, I feel too that we should have stayed focused on the Chavez article; I feel that there are a large number of very important changes to make before the article appears on the main page on December 10th, but we've wasted so much time on this new FAC that most of those changes

823:

Everyone has their faults as well as their virtues and talents, and everyone gets embroiled in unfortunate disputes at times, unless they completely avoid human contact or conflict (not a good alternative!): the trick is to learn to live with it, to try to understand where other people are coming

667:

trying his best to work with us to improve the Darth Vader article. If he wants to remove himself from the process, he should be allowed to, and if he ever chooses to return, he should be welcomed, as his contributions in the past have been superb. This is a complex and contentious topic, so it's

2190:

I said that it's POV to call the "Christian Era" the "Common Era" (and, to a lesser extent, to go out of your way to relabel the current era of man as being chiefly noteworthy for being "Christian"; BC/AD makes sense for historical reasons, but CE/BCE doesn't, and thus its clear POV is much more

1911:

No, I said to unfloat it, where floating it is having it left- or right-aligned like it is now with text and images next to it, and unfloated is the default state, left-aligned with white space next to it. It's not against policy to float the TOC, but it's inadvisable in most articles because it

451:

Furthermore, the "God" concept is not universally associated with spiritual bliss; numerous peoples have associated such euphoria with something completely unrelated, and, in fact, even if "God" was invented based on people trying to come up with reasons for such profound pleasure to be possible

2062:

Um, what do you mean, "keep reverting"? I only "reverted" (actually I manually changed all of the Commonwealth-to-American spellings while leaving his good edits, which took about 45 minutes) a single time, because every time I've seen someone make a switch in dialects for an article it's been

456:

exist. If someone made up a being to explain human greed, apathy, hatred, etc., such as "the Devil", and we discovered the actual physiological reasons for the existence of those feelings and behavior patterns, would the physiological reasons suggest that the Devil exists because the behaviors

387:

Some of the article makes a lot of sense to me. It is absolutely true that human brains are designed to see causal relationships and patterns extraordinarily well, to the extent that we even see such things where they don't exist — like in following superstitions, in seeing images in the

819:

We both clearly found fault with each other in what we did: I objected to your constant insults, dismissive attitude, accusations, attacks, and backhanded jabs, while you objected to my overlong comments, to what you perceived as my being "arrogant" (though you never provided an example of my

662:

Some of your comments toward Phil Welch seem to have been a bit unnecessary (threats like "But let me be absolutely clear: if you demonstrate any additional incivility or impropriety towards me or if I observe you being so to others, you will be held accountable." and insults like "simpleton

1110:

Another reason was that I didn't want to attract the attention of certain undesirable individuals to the "Early life ... " FAC (the "Early life" article was mentioned in the to do list). It is bizarre, since these people presented themselves on the talk page immediately before the main page

1531:

that anyone would be offended by the page. And if anyone was, the easiest way for them to see the change would be to see it with their own eyes, on the page staring at them, not to mention it only on the Talk page. I apologize for the revert, but don't see why you exhibit such a strange

392:" Why does there being a physiological basis (via the brain's neurochemistry) for spirituality suggest that human beings are "hard-wired for God"? There are countless aspects of spirituality that have nothing to do with God—and, indeed, spirituality does not even necessitate 873:(Note: I'm perfectly willing to analyze our behavior in that unfortunate dispute, to help both of us realize where we made mistakes and thus how we can avoid making them in the future, as well as to help us understand each other better. However, I strong recommend reading 420:

superstitious to say "the storm is brewing because of sin", simply experiencing deep and profound feelings of love or oneness or whatever is not superstitious, but saying that these experiences are the result of your connection to an invisible man who created the universe

437:

theist's perspective, rather than a scientific one. Though at least it attempts to learn about the physiological causes of various experiences, even though it fails to have the intellectual vigor needed to question the very basic and flawed assumption that there is a God.

668:

understandable that some less-than-diplomatic exchanges have occurred, and I recommend putting it behind you and continuing to do an excellent job of responding to the points raised regarding the possible article-split (I get the feeling that the comparison to

877:

in depth before we engage in such a discussion, as it will be even more difficult for us to see the discussion in the same light if one of us hasn't even read large spans of the discussion. If you ever feel like doing so in the future, I'm sure you'll find it

396:, as almost anyone in their lifetime will experience what could be described as "spiritual sensations", in such profound feelings as love. Intensely spiritual experiences are just as much based on human biology as intense emotions, feelings, and thoughts are. 510:

in God in the past, which is a neurological and biological and sociological issue, not a cosmological one regarding the nature of existence and of a real being called "God". Pretty flimsy connection this article has drawn between spirituality and God,

399:

So, the article's on the right track, but a bit too sensationalist and vague on some points, failing to prove its topic, but just assuming that because spirituality is biological, humans are "hard-wired" for "God". Interesting, read, though. Note also

302:

Hello again. I just finished making major revisions to the article, and I invite you now (if you want to) to check my work by copyediting (since you've done such a great job on the Hugo Chavez article). If you decide to do it, I just ask two things:

711:

Hey there! Thanks for your reply: I appreciate it. I realise that things can get rather heated and recent exchanges have been unfortunate ... present company excluded. :) Understand, though, that I entered the debate somewhat recently and

917:

peer review to insert an IPA pronunciation guide in the lead sentence. I made some feeble attempts to insert one. Is it correct? I need to know before I put it up for FAC this week. Is it also possible to make one for the Chavez article? Thanks.

663:

nonsense" are not exactly condudive towards civility), and so have some of my comments towards him, and so have a number of his comments towards each of us. So, I think it's fair to say that, though he may have his faults, he's no villain, and

1126:

to get more comments for the FAC, since it would give a wider perspective on it? Votes are always much more accurate and useful the more people there are. I'm afraid I don't understand. Also, trying to hide links to the "Early life" article

479:

question will "forever remain unanswered", because nothing in this universe is 100% certain. The question of God's existence has been as firmly answered as it probably ever will, and has certainly been as firmly answered as the question of

1236:

One last request: would you mind removing all mentions of my username in your comments on the talk page (especially under "Wow"? I don't want that undue attention. Thanks, have a good long rest from that exhausting ordeal, and take care.

2106:

my edit to easily deal with an edit conflict, so there's zero difference between what he did and I did, save that I was less sloppy when handling his edits. Subtly accusing me of trying to provoke an edit war over a mere edit conflict

2006:

Hi Silence - on the change to International English, that's correct (in accord with the Wiki MoS) as it is a European/south Asian species, not an American species. The style use by major contributor is only a 'last resort' choice -

680:

bother me at all (if it did, I'd have reverted the change at the time); the recommended templates are more important than the merged-one currently, however, because they're the ones that aren't featured on any articles. And you can

624:. This is all the more troubling as the antagonist is a Wp admin, whom you'd expect to uphold a sense of decorum - i.e., questionable actions and judgement. Anyhow it was unfortunate, but my actions have been necessary (methinks). 1625:

the plant "crocus sativus". If you renamed it, the spice would be too marginalized. Of course, another possible solution you may want to consider is splitting up the article so it doesn't conflate the spice with the plant, and has

2382: 1634:

for the plant. Or maybe that would be a bad idea, since the spice and the plant are so very closely linked (one coming directly from the other); I don't know. Just don't follow other page examples without thinking about whether

2191:

repugnant than an archaic abbreviation is); I never even mentioned the fact that the system isn't based on when Jesus was actually probably born, which seems irrelevant to what I said to the point of being a red herring. Who

958:<sigh>. I deleted this because I withdrew the nomination, and the comment is no longer relevant. I am not aware of any policy forbidding people from deleting their own comments. If there is, please let me know. Sorry. 603:

Moreover, I'm sure you know of my spat with a certain antagonist ... in review of prior materials, I see you were similarly challenged. I hope I haven't acted inappropriately throughout – I don't think so – but will call

2142:

I was reading your comments on Saravask's talk page about AD vs. CE. You state 'Additionally, it avoids propagating the POV that the Christian erra is for some reason the "Common Era".' I contend that this is a NPOV:

2075:

of my advice, as, like my edits, I mean it purely in the interest of providing assistance wherever I can. And, of course, thanks for taking the time to explain the situation to me, though MPF has already done so. -

502:" : How do these studies have anything to do with the existence of God? The existence of God has already been disproven to the greatest extent it possibly can, simply by virtue of a profound lack of evidence 570:, based on another, that appears to have major support generally and with the apparent support of a key/prior opponent. To ensure there isn't any more equivocating, given the long and contorted history therein, 1094:

article, noting that we don't have any "praise of..." articles, and I find it interesting). So, obviously just a misunderstanding, resulting from both of us not being clear in our intentions regarding that box.

1305:— a much cuter and more pleasant topic than <you-know-who>. You could also offer comments in the current peer review. It'll be much fun if you want to help; but if you decide not, then no big deal. 2147:

I have read many accounts by Christian historians trying to pinpoint the year of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I remember reading 6 BCE, 4 BCE, and 3 BCE, but no one seems to make a good case for the 1 BCE–1 CE

2418:

1 Corinthians 2:11 - "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Also Charles Darwin is a douchebag."

842:

enough time for going trhough several iterations to improve it. BTW, regarding what I rote above, ignore it. I do not know what came to me last night. I was drinking and I guess I got ... mushy. Cheers. --

1938:

Hi Silence - I'm afraid I appear to have inadvertently wiped your edits at Saffron due to an edit conflict - I think I've got most of them to how you'd wanted, but could you check over, please? - thanks,

2324: 1335: 2278:

Anyway, could you please explain why any of what you've said above is significant to this discussion? The fact that the "AD/BC" system (and, as a result, the "CE/BCE" system) is probably based on the

1710:

Agreed. Delinked. I've been going through fixing links to the disambig page for BC, and since the BC in reference of time just points the user to the Anno Domini article, that's what I've been using.

495:. You have sensory perceptions; flawed though they may be, they're the best thing we have for helping understanding the external world, and we must rely on them for improving that understanding. 2029:

That doesn't seem consistent with what I've actually seen editors doing in my time at Knowledge (XXG), but it makes sense, so I won't oppose the spelling changes. Thanks for the explanation! -

1947:

You missed restoring a lot of my edits, like all my image changes in History, Culinary, Trade, and Notes. I'll try to fix those reverts later, when I have more than a few seconds available. -

2366:

you left and no longer generously improved Knowledge (XXG) articles with your great contributions (and if knowing that would upset me would just make you want to leave more, nevermind :F). -

2151:

I have heard many estimates of the date of his birth (late winter is popular, because of the lambing season), but there are no credible cases for either Dec. 25, or, more importantly, Jan 1.

1078:

I hid this list because I thought that the items there were dealt with. That's why I didn't outright delete it, in case someone else disagreed with my belief that those tasks were done.

2097:

Read the second edit again. See the large number of major changes to the page in that edit, completely unrelated to the trivial spelling differences that were reverted? That's because

1552:

yet objected to any aspect of the change yet—you almost seem to agree with me, you just have a strange, conservative aversion to change that makes you fear sudden new edits and

992: 251:

and see countless examples of excellent Rationales. Until this situation is remedied, I can't remove my "object", even though I personally couldn't care less about copyright law. -

984: 594:

Hi there! Again, thanks for weighing in regarding the RfC/poll. I appreciate your input. It looks like a split may occur; time will tell if and how this will unfold. :)

390:

Both men believe the connection between the brain and spirituality suggests there is a physiological basis for religion--that human beings, in essence, are hard-wired for God.

1131:

meant that many fewer people saw a fantastic article that you'd worked hard on, so if that was your intent, it seems rather like biting off your nose to spite your face.... -

2067:, you are too hasty to make aggressive and defensive actions in response to trivial disputes and mistakes that often resolve themselves in the end. Please, just.. calm down. 2447:

Me and my friend and other guys are trying to improve this article to F.A staus, any hep and suggestion is well accepted, By the way what do you think of the article.? --

452:(exactly as one might try to rationalize a natural disaster by saying that it's because of our sin), that in no way suggests that God exists, it merely suggests that the 1562:

to make the change. I'a copyeditor, not a diplomat; I'll gladly discuss any issue you wish, but delicacy and long, meandering bureaucratic disclaimers aren't my thing. -

1065:

Well, you guarangoddamnteedsonofabitch. From the Chavez article and talk page, I see you did quite an excellent job. However, I am disturbed by some comments you made:

1070:

I previously attempted to create the same effect with a To-do List mentioning a few areas where the article could use improvement, but the list was hidden by Saravask,

307:

Please do not eliminate the spaces around any —s. Don't conjoin them to the words they are next to, as it makes it difficult to spellcheck and read in edit mode.

2015:

PS in case you're wondering, I have also sometimes done the reverse and changed articles about American plants from British/International to American spelling, e.g.

412:

do indeed, almost without fail, draw on superstition and arbitrary mysticism. Just as saying "there is a storm brewing" is not superstitious even if you don't know

237:

FAC. Could you please check whether your objections have been addressed. I have tried to do my best but I am not used to the fair-use practice. Could you help?

2432:

trips down memory lane in the form of out-of-date responses; too many things in this world go unanswered! But I'm digressing; thanks again, and seeya next year! -

2195:

when some random dude who might have lived in Palestine about 2,000 years ago was born? We're talking about dating systems and terminological disputes, not Jesus.

2090:

only a few hours later. Sounds rather close to a revert war to me. But OK. I will explain what I have problems with on the talk page, then make changes. Thanks.

2290:

based on the birth date of the guy some people think is the Messiah or Son of God, there's no more reason to be offended by it than there is to be offended by

448:

because it says "A. Humans are hard-wired for God. B. Because of A, there is a real God to experience." without having proven (or even argued the case for) A!

913:

That's OK. I just removed them. I was going if you knew anything about IPA (International Phonetics Association) pronunciation. I got a suggestion in the

2252:

semantics, and, according to most supporters of CE/BCE who I've discussed with, as a POV way to "stick it to Christians" for being so darned oppressive).

1958:

I'll see if I can spot and fix some more them (it wasn't easy with lots of paragraphs all being red text despite what appeared to be the same wording) -

1252:

The attention's not undue, but I'll respect your wishes. Can I use some sort of alias to refer to you, then? Like "Mr. S"? (Anagnorisis can be "Mr. A"~)

748:

that Wikipedians can extricate themselves from discussions whether they've erred or not. In this respect, I too have done so and have put it behind me.

824:

from, and to learn from your mistakes. I've learned not to waste so much time engaging in a discussion where someone is clearly unwilling to actually

1578:

sorry to make this into more of an ordeal than it had to be. Have a good day and hopefully we will meet again under less silly circumstances :)

199: 1256:

can work again on a project in the future, and if you ever want my copyediting help on any articles, or any sort of help at all, feel free to ask! -

676:

will help us seal this deal; I'd been searching for an excellent analogy like that for a while, as I knew there had to be some on Knowledge (XXG)).

1736:

linked because I figured people might be interested in the various things "BC" can mean, but I suppose it's not necessary. Fewer links is best. -

1800:

Darn. Well, I'll find some references and see if I can bring it up to snuff over the next few weeks, then re-nominate it. Thanks for your time.

430:

it is the divine inspiration that activates those areas of the brain, instead of the other way around--but to Joseph, the order is irrelevant.

777:

understand your reasons; thanks for your support and kind words. And I look forward to working with you to whatever end in the time ahead!

2411: 1789:

just isn't up to snuff yet. No references, no images, and no information on the history of hate. But I'll keep you in mind. :) –

29: 2230:

oppose most attempts to rename the system we already have without improving its relevance, purely for the sake of Political Correctness,

2207:

system in which this is 2005 because it is convenient and almost universal, not because it marks (accurately or not) the Christian era.

489:"You can't throw open that veil of the brain and get outside of your own brain and see what's going on in the objective external world. 176: 1270:

some of the material towards the end of the article (most of which I wrote a long while back) makes me absolutely cringe. Thanks.

1602:" should be named that? Or should the article be named "Crocus sativus" instead? For example, the article on bread mold is named 1323:

I swear to god, you've crossed out so many of your comments, I'm surprised you haven't found a way to double-cross-out text. :f -

988: 562:

Hello! I hope you're well. I see that you are heavily involved in discussions regarding discreet articles for our favourite

402:

spiritual experience is not based on superstition but is instead real, biological and part of our primitive biological drives.

2111: 874: 689: 2263:

I'm not them. It's a Common Era. CE is an accurate, descriptive term. It seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.--

1541:

an artificial length and make the article seem much longer than it really is, stunting the growth of its genuine content.

1716: 820:

actually behaving arrogantly), and to my taking your offensive behavior too seriously rather than just shrugging it off.

473:

Newberg acknowledges that at some scientific level, the question of the existence of God will forever remain unanswered.

296: 491:" : Who ever said we needed to? All you have to do to "see what's going on in the objective external world" is to 765:

I think I did remove the two-for-the-one infobox; I added the unified one. As noted, no offence intended, but it's a

2286:

the CE/BCE system, as it shows that the "AD/BC" system is perfectly acceptable on the grounds that since it probably

1881:

hm...yeah, I see that now. The deletion of others' comments was not intentional and maybe a database glitch. —

310:

Please do not delete the commas after the penultimate items in lists. That is to say, I want lists looking like this:

522:

makes it more likely that God truly exists, since even if there wasn't a God people would think there was. :) -

185:...and I've just noticed that, additionally, I'm writing this on the talk page of someone who is not you. Hee, you 644: 462:"If you're a scientist and you find people having the same experience, colored by their own cultural differences, 1091: 373:

Terribly sorry for the long delay. I have indeed been quite busy. Regarding the three links you told me to read:

1903:

article. what do you mean by this? i'm going to amalgamate the sections right now, but please explain that.--

1341:

I'm glad to hear it, but archived FAC votes aren't meant to be edited; the proper place for such discussion is

1158:

and most of my requests to focus on improving that section of the article over the last few weeks were ignored,

685: 388:

clouds... Other parts of the article, however, seem to jump to nonsensical conclusions. For example, the line "

153: 145: 137: 129: 121: 113: 105: 97: 89: 73: 65: 57: 2344: 1841:

topic that could have plenty of interesting facts and details, spanning as much time and space as it does. -

1679: 1489: 1421: 1373: 778: 648: 575: 363:

I think you are missing my replies in that "BUSY BUSY" heading! Are you? I am waiting for he reply! Thanks!

2226:

based on a misestimation of Jesus' birth (I like the one that dates from 50 years ago, for example), but I

1827:

Just wanted to thank you for your edits to this article - it now looks much tidier and reads more easily.

1753:

in the edit summaries when you paste the text into other articles, so that authorship record is preserved.

2114:

next time rather than trying to vilify me. Or at least find a neutral ground between those two extremes. -

1385:

Yes, I love Portuguese profanity too, but that doesn't really address what I said. Anyway, seeya 'round. -

1031: 2328: 1664: 1471: 1403: 1355: 1832: 1205:

Anyway, it's no big deal. The article, under your stewardship, came out of its main page debut looking

500:

I don't think we would ever say we could prove or disprove God just on the basis of our imaging studies

1527:

The only reason I didn't drop a note at the Talk page first was because there was no reason for me to

1301:

Hey, thanks for that. If you want to lend a little help on another article, you could always copyedit

1209:. I'm actually surprised that you didn't come out of the experience with a couple dozen death threats. 2423: 1582: 1518: 445: 364: 2282:

date of Jesus' birth hardly makes the slightest bit of difference, and, if anything, is an argument

2154:

Considering China and India alone, more non-Christians use the CE/BCE dating system than Christians.

1146:

I encourage you to display it again, now that I that realize that you do not see the tasks as done.

914: 287: 2337: 1885: 1858: 1669: 1607: 1477: 1409: 1361: 1342: 906:

Sorry about that. I'll just make one more edit and then stop so the vandalisms can be removed. -

378: 2264: 2159: 1603: 37: 198: 1828: 1723: 1035: 1008: 843: 798: 571: 567: 273: 269: 2049: 713: 533: 1750: 1579: 1515: 1554: 506:

the God hypothesis. All these studies are doing is helping us understand why people have

1749:

I loved your edit summary :) Just a reminder to remember to include the pointer to

442:

In other words, humans are hard-wired for God because there is a real God to experience.

247:

You have failed to make a formal Fair Use Rationale, even though you could easily check

1631: 744: 669: 282: 2122: 2091: 2053: 1924: 1904: 1882: 1855: 1699: 1611: 1544:

And "I wanted to change it now but revert if you have objections and we can discuss"

1314: 1306: 1271: 1238: 1171: 1147: 1058: 996: 959: 948: 919: 897: 767: 544: 346: 2017:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Oenothera&diff=28871268&oldid=27508364

1639:

pages are wrong; surely the fact that there's currently not even a redirect page at

28: 2433: 2410: 2395: 2367: 2303: 2115: 2076: 2030: 1974: 1948: 1913: 1871: 1842: 1813: 1790: 1778: 1737: 1648: 1563: 1447: 1386: 1346: 1324: 1283: 1257: 1222: 1191: 1132: 1096: 1016: 967: 927: 907: 881: 860: 829: 693: 584: 523: 252: 217: 164: 43: 17: 2351: 1674: 1483: 1415: 1367: 1313:

Ah! Never mind. I've asked enough. Just go have fun on your own projects. Thanks.

2386: 1774: 1764: 1711: 1030:

tricky. That was the first time that happened to me. Take a look at the fallout

816:

valuable editors have their share of faults, and shouldn't be vilified for them.

277: 262: 190: 1446:

common practice to bring up such matters on Talk pages, not on archived FACs. -

2448: 1754: 1640: 673: 2394:

No prob. I liked the page, and you asked for additions, so, glad to oblige. -

634:

the provisional ones and boxes you've created; may I edit them (if need be)?

609: 1122:? What? What "certain undesirable individuals"? Wouldn't it have been much 157:: September 2010 to September 2015. Nothing important happened in this one. 1973:

Yeah, I know. Don't worry about it, I'll take care of the changes later. -

947:

many sections. Just a request, and I would be eternally grateful. Thanks.

2327:. If my work is not good enough here, maybe I shouldn't bother to stay. 2291: 2168:

I'm afraid I rather miss your logic (if there's any logic there to miss).

2045: 2019: 2008: 1993: 1959: 1940: 1533: 1507: 1441:

I know it's mild profanity, and don't care one way or another where you

2417: 1900: 1690: 1627: 1599: 1302: 1294: 1049: 238: 268:

As you have contributed to the discussion previously, I invite you to

61:: July 2004 to September 2005. Nothing important happened in this one. 141:: February 2007 to July 2007. Nothing important happened in this one. 2414:

You made this comment a while ago, but it certainly made me smile:

125:: May 2006 to December 2006. Nothing important happened in this one. 2110:

the dispute had completely resolved itself simply isn't very nice;

692:

pages I put up a while back for format ideas regarding the split. -

608:

to account ... particularly those who have obfuscated the issue or

203: 2070:

As for your "not liking" my image placements, please feel free to

1336:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Race of Jesus/archive1

1048: 837:

gonna be hard work keeping this article from sliding back downhill

234: 1865:

No, you deleted two other users' comments when you first posted.

518:" : Correct. Thus, the fact that many people believe in God 2299: 2295: 1786: 516:

whether we create it ourselves or whether there really is a God.

481: 2383:

Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them

2218:

I wouldn't necessarily oppose a unified attempt to introduce a

1621:

that your article currently addresses both the spice "saffron"

48: 1537:

silly infobox fiddling has contributed to that, as it helps

572:

I nonetheless propose mounting an RfC to settle this matter.

27: 1733: 1426:

16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 00:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1378:

16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

149:: August 2007 to August 2009. In this one I edited Łobżany. 1854:

It was part of my own comment that I had deleted. —

574:

I'd appreciate your commentary and input. Thanks again!

432:" : This makes little sense to me. Why would someone 1166:

Uh, what requests? I really wasn't aware that you wanted

737:

aware of his behaviour to you et al. earlier (I reviewed

416:

it's brewing or any of its physical properties, while it

101:: February 2006. Nothing important happened in this one. 85:: December 2005. Nothing important happened in this one. 77:: November 2005. Nothing important happened in this one. 2087: 2083: 2016: 1206: 621: 617: 613: 280:. You are welcome to make a counterproposal as well. — 179:, I have to say, your username is terribly deceptive. 133:: January 2007. Nothing important happened in this one. 93:: January 2006. Nothing important happened in this one. 69:: October 2005. Nothing important happened in this one. 2241:

You seem to have an issue with political correctness.

117:: April 2006. Nothing important happened in this one. 109:: March 2006. Nothing important happened in this one. 41:

page of zeppelin manufacturer and 'big steel' tycoon

2082:

Well, with respect to "color" vs. "colour", you did

1221:

satisfying both sides of the Chavez controversies. -

985:

Portugal from the Restoration to the 1755 Earthquake

2099:that edit wasn't a revert, it was an edit conflict 612:. To give you a little more perspective: witness 1647:isn't a good page to use as a model for others. - 249:any Featured Article Candidate on the entire page 175:After reading your responses at my talk page and 2381:Thanks very much for the excellent additions to 2323:I am absolutely angry, see what I have to say 2298:", or "March" just because it's the "Month of 8: 1282:newbie-welcomers want us to think. :) - 1992:Thanks! I did find and fix a couple more - 1773:I'm afraid I must hate you now for putting 1558:even when you haven't quite found a reason 1053:For your heartbreaking and wantonly cruel ( 1007:Yes, that was quite something...thanks! -- 991:has considerably improved. If you want go 966:it's out-of-date, as you've done before. - 379:Are humans 'hard-wired' to believe in God? 1899:you said i should float the table in the 1606:, and the article on rice blast is named 792:Something that still annoys me about you 2052:, deserve final consideration. Thanks. 1057:, outstanding) copyediting. Take care. 2158:What could be more common than that?-- 404:" — this is true, but while the 163:Welcome to my talk page. I like you. - 551:I'll respond to this soon, hopefully. 539:I'll respond to this soon, hopefully. 7: 2044:I don't know why you keep reverting 1045:@*#&)*#& %&*$ & 1015:Heh. These vandals are tricky, ne? - 1658:You'd be interested in this motto " 1777:on some of my favorite articles. - 177:Talk:Ultimate fate of the universe 24: 475:" : Only to the extent that 2409: 197: 989:History of Portugal (1578-1777) 771:until this is resolved. And I 2294:just because it's the "Day of 2162:15:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2118:00:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2094:22:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2079:22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2056:22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2011:21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1943:12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1912:crowds the article too much. - 1907:17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1861:16:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1836:02:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1781:17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 1757:14:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 1728:22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 1702:21:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 1614:02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 1521:11:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1349:22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1317:01:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1011:02:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 410:descriptions of the experience 1: 2358:05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 2306:16:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2267:20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2125:00:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2033:22:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2022:22:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1996:15:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1977:15:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1962:14:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1951:13:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1927:19:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1916:18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1888:16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1874:16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1845:06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1816:06:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1793:19:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 1740:18:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1685:03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 1651:05:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 1585:11:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1566:11:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1494:06:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1450:01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1389:23:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1327:02:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1309:21:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1286:05:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1274:05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1260:05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1241:04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1225:05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1194:05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1174:04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1150:04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1135:05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1099:05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1061:04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1038:02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1019:02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 999:22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 962:18:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 922:04:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 910:04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 900:04:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 852:04:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 807:01:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 781:15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 696:15:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 690:User:Silence/Anakin Skywalker 651:15:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 643:Thoughts? Thanks again, and 578:02:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 367:13:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 355:12:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 291:21:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 241:13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 208:02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 167:00:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC) 2451:16:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 2179:No, actually, you missed it. 1732:OK, cool. I originally left 1660:Qui tacet consentire videtur 1092:Criticism of Knowledge (XXG) 970:18:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 951:02:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 930:04:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 884:23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 863:04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 832:23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 587:23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 526:23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 255:23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 233:Thanks for your comments to 220:23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 2436:00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 2398:00:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 2370:00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1469:Hey, Silence : ). .... 714:with the best of intentions 2465: 1812:... Hey, wait a minute.. - 1170:to revise those sections. 875:Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive06 684:edit them, as well as the 645:may the Force be with you 297:Early life of Hugo Chávez 733:I have also been acting 686:User:Silence/Darth Vader 408:is real and biological, 2084:revert MPF a first time 1745:Culture of ancient Rome 1345:. Also, welcome back! - 1207:much better than before 878:"interesting". :)) 2405:Barnstar of Good Humor 1823:Architecture of Africa 1185:I didn't say I wanted 1062: 146:Archive IIIVXXXLCCCCDM 33: 1706:List of Latin phrases 1698:copyediting. Thanks. 1598:Do you know whether " 1353:Irra, uma outra vez. 1052: 31: 1034:! See you around! -- 622:the response to that 610:attempt to denigrate 568:I've made a proposal 446:begging the question 2222:dating system that 1546:goes without saying 983:After some editing 915:Rabindranath Tagore 339:One, Two and Three. 2443:Thanks for the tip 2359: 2318: 2088:reverted him again 1630:for the spice and 1608:Magnaporthe grisea 1343:Talk:Race of Jesus 1063: 995:and vote. Thanks. 952: 779:E Pluribus Anthony 649:E Pluribus Anthony 576:E Pluribus Anthony 330:I don't want this: 276:as to the fate of 34: 2322: 2316: 2112:assume good faith 1645:neurospora crassa 1604:Neurospora crassa 945: 566:villain/cyborg. 406:experience itself 351: 2456: 2413: 2356: 2349: 2342: 2335: 1769: 1763: 1726: 1721: 1714: 1682: 1677: 1672: 1667: 1492: 1486: 1480: 1474: 1424: 1418: 1412: 1406: 1376: 1370: 1364: 1358: 979:Featured article 850: 805: 353: 349: 206: 202: 201: 194: 189:a silly goose. 47:. Feel free to 2464: 2463: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2445: 2424:Citizen Premier 2407: 2379: 2352: 2345: 2338: 2329: 2320: 2312: 2140: 2042: 1936: 1923:ight, thanks.-- 1897: 1895:floating tables 1852: 1825: 1806: 1771: 1767: 1761: 1751:Culture of Rome 1747: 1724: 1717: 1712: 1708: 1695: 1680: 1675: 1670: 1665: 1596: 1511: 1490: 1484: 1478: 1472: 1422: 1416: 1410: 1404: 1374: 1368: 1362: 1356: 1339: 1298: 1047: 1005: 981: 943: 893: 844: 839: 799: 794: 560: 558:DV/AS dichotomy 365:PassionInfinity 361: 347: 300: 266: 231: 204: 196: 192: 173: 161: 160: 138:Archive VVIIIIV 52: 49:leave a comment 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2462: 2460: 2444: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2406: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2319: 2314: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2156: 2155: 2152: 2149: 2139: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2101:. He reverted 2068: 2041: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2024: 2023: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1953: 1952: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1918: 1917: 1896: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1876: 1875: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1824: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1795: 1794: 1770: 1759: 1746: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1707: 1704: 1694: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1643:suggests that 1632:Crocus sativus 1595: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1542: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1380: 1379: 1338: 1334:Re: Regarding 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1297: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1276: 1275: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1253: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1161: 1160: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1073: 1072: 1046: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1021: 1020: 1004: 1001: 987:(now moved to 980: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 942: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 892: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 867: 866: 865: 864: 838: 835: 834: 833: 821: 817: 813: 793: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 745:doubleplusgood 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 677: 670:Lord Voldemort 655: 654: 653: 652: 638: 637: 636: 635: 628: 627: 626: 625: 598: 597: 596: 595: 589: 588: 559: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 548: 547: 541: 540: 536: 535: 530: 529: 528: 527: 512: 496: 493:open your eyes 485: 469: 458: 449: 438: 426: 425:superstitious. 397: 382: 381: 375: 374: 360: 359:Are you there? 357: 343: 342: 341: 340: 334: 333: 332: 331: 325: 324: 323: 322: 312: 311: 308: 299: 293: 265: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 230: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 221: 193:ᓛᖁ 182: 172: 169: 159: 158: 150: 142: 134: 126: 118: 110: 102: 94: 86: 78: 70: 62: 53: 26: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2461: 2452: 2450: 2442: 2435: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2415: 2412: 2404: 2397: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2384: 2376: 2369: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2355: 2350: 2348: 2343: 2341: 2336: 2334: 2333: 2326: 2315: 2313: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2266: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2194: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2161: 2153: 2150: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2137: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2095: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2078: 2073: 2069: 2066: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2039: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2021: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2010: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1961: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1942: 1933: 1926: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1915: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1906: 1902: 1894: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1860: 1857: 1849: 1844: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1835: 1834: 1830: 1822: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1780: 1776: 1766: 1760: 1758: 1756: 1752: 1744: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1727: 1722: 1720: 1715: 1705: 1703: 1701: 1692: 1689: 1684: 1683: 1678: 1673: 1671:γκυκλοπαίδεια 1668: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1633: 1629: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1593: 1584: 1581: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1535: 1530: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1520: 1517: 1509: 1506: 1493: 1488: 1487: 1481: 1479:γκυκλοπαίδεια 1476: 1475: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1449: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1425: 1420: 1419: 1413: 1411:γκυκλοπαίδεια 1408: 1407: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1372: 1371: 1365: 1363:γκυκλοπαίδεια 1360: 1359: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1348: 1344: 1337: 1333: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1316: 1311: 1310: 1308: 1304: 1296: 1292: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1268: 1267: 1259: 1254: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1240: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1208: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1193: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1159: 1156: 1155: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1134: 1130: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1098: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1060: 1056: 1051: 1044: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1010: 1002: 1000: 998: 994: 990: 986: 978: 969: 964: 963: 961: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 950: 940: 929: 924: 923: 921: 916: 912: 911: 909: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 899: 890: 883: 879: 876: 871: 870: 869: 868: 862: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 851: 849: 848: 836: 831: 827: 822: 818: 814: 810: 809: 808: 806: 804: 803: 791: 780: 776: 775: 770: 769: 768:modus vivendi 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 747: 746: 740: 736: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 715: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 695: 691: 687: 683: 678: 675: 671: 666: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 650: 646: 642: 641: 640: 639: 632: 631: 630: 629: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 602: 601: 600: 599: 593: 592: 591: 590: 586: 581: 580: 579: 577: 573: 569: 565: 557: 550: 549: 545: 543: 542: 538: 537: 534: 532: 531: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 494: 490: 486: 484:'s existence. 483: 478: 474: 470: 467: 463: 459: 455: 450: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 424: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 398: 395: 391: 386: 385: 384: 383: 380: 377: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 366: 358: 356: 354: 338: 337: 336: 335: 329: 328: 327: 326: 320: 316: 315: 314: 313: 309: 306: 305: 304: 298: 294: 292: 290: 289: 285: 284: 279: 275: 271: 264: 261: 254: 250: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 240: 236: 228: 219: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 207: 200: 195: 188: 183: 180: 178: 170: 168: 166: 156: 155: 151: 148: 147: 143: 140: 139: 135: 132: 131: 127: 124: 123: 122:Archive VIIII 119: 116: 115: 111: 108: 107: 103: 100: 99: 95: 92: 91: 87: 84: 83: 79: 76: 75: 71: 68: 67: 63: 60: 59: 55: 54: 50: 46: 45: 40: 39: 30: 19: 2446: 2421: 2416: 2408: 2380: 2353: 2346: 2339: 2331: 2330: 2321: 2311: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2265:Curtis Clark 2227: 2223: 2219: 2192: 2160:Curtis Clark 2157: 2141: 2107: 2102: 2098: 2071: 2064: 2043: 2005: 1937: 1898: 1866: 1853: 1831: 1826: 1805: 1772: 1768:}} 1762:{{ 1748: 1718: 1709: 1696: 1663: 1659: 1644: 1636: 1622: 1597: 1559: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1538: 1528: 1512: 1482: 1470: 1442: 1414: 1402: 1366: 1354: 1340: 1312: 1300: 1299: 1186: 1167: 1157: 1128: 1123: 1069: 1064: 1054: 1027: 1006: 982: 944: 894: 872: 846: 845: 840: 825: 801: 800: 795: 773: 772: 766: 743: 738: 734: 681: 664: 605: 563: 561: 519: 515: 507: 503: 499: 492: 488: 476: 472: 466:non sequitur 465: 461: 453: 441: 433: 429: 422: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 393: 389: 362: 344: 318: 301: 286: 281: 267: 248: 232: 186: 184: 174: 162: 154:Archive IIXV 152: 144: 136: 128: 120: 114:Archive VIII 112: 104: 96: 88: 82:Archive IIII 81: 80: 72: 64: 56: 44:User:Silence 42: 36: 35:This is the 18:User:Silence 2148:transition. 2040:Please stop 1829:Warofdreams 1785:I'm afraid 1775:Template:GA 1036:HappyCamper 1009:HappyCamper 1003:Good catch! 891:Hugo Chavez 847:Anagnorisis 802:Anagnorisis 618:my response 454:experiences 278:Darth Vader 274:my proposal 263:Darth Vader 106:Archive VII 74:Archive III 1641:Bread mold 1111:featuring. 774:completely 682:absolutely 674:Tom Riddle 647:. :) 504:supporting 321:and Three. 130:Archive VV 98:Archive VI 66:Archive II 2065:Yet again 614:this note 564:Star Wars 520:in no way 348:← S 295:Copyedit 90:Archive V 58:Archive I 2422:Cheers, 2292:Thursday 2123:Saravask 2092:Saravask 2054:Saravask 1925:Urthogie 1905:Urthogie 1883:goethean 1856:goethean 1850:comments 1700:Saravask 1612:Saravask 1555:boldness 1539:simulate 1534:Ibn Hazm 1508:Ibn Hazm 1315:Saravask 1307:Saravask 1293:Thanks; 1272:Saravask 1239:Saravask 1172:Saravask 1148:Saravask 1059:Saravask 960:Saravask 949:Saravask 941:copyedit 920:Saravask 898:Saravask 896:Thanks. 508:believed 434:not care 394:religion 352:— 345:Thanks. 317:One, Two 2434:Silence 2396:Silence 2368:Silence 2340:γκυκλοπ 2304:Silence 2284:against 2116:Silence 2086:, then 2077:Silence 2031:Silence 1975:Silence 1949:Silence 1934:Saffron 1914:Silence 1901:rapping 1886:ॐ 1872:Silence 1859:ॐ 1843:Silence 1814:Silence 1791:Quadell 1779:Silence 1738:Silence 1693:(again) 1691:Saffron 1649:Silence 1628:Saffron 1600:Saffron 1564:Silence 1529:believe 1448:Silence 1387:Silence 1347:Silence 1325:Silence 1303:Saffron 1295:Saffron 1284:Silence 1258:Silence 1223:Silence 1192:Silence 1133:Silence 1097:Silence 1017:Silence 997:Gameiro 968:Silence 928:Silence 908:Silence 882:Silence 861:Silence 830:Silence 826:discuss 694:Silence 585:Silence 524:Silence 350:ARAVASK 270:comment 253:Silence 218:Silence 205:ᑐ 191:‣ 165:Silence 2387:jengod 2377:Thanks 2347:αίδεια 2050:WP:MOS 1725:Lancer 1713:Search 1681:(talk) 1491:(talk) 1423:(talk) 1375:(talk) 1124:better 620:, and 606:anyone 546:links: 511:truly. 2449:Philx 2288:isn't 2280:wrong 2228:would 2224:isn't 2193:cares 2138:AD/CE 2108:after 1755:Zocky 1637:those 1026:Yes, 993:there 735:fully 477:every 288:Welch 235:blues 229:Blues 16:< 2325:here 2300:Mars 2296:Thor 1867:Then 1833:talk 1787:hate 1594:Name 1580:gren 1516:gren 1129:also 1055:i.e. 1032:here 1028:very 688:and 616:and 482:Thor 283:Phil 216::O - 38:Talk 2317:YOU 2220:new 2072:say 2046:MPF 2020:MPF 2009:MPF 1994:MPF 1960:MPF 1941:MPF 1623:and 1583:グレン 1560:not 1550:has 1519:グレン 1187:you 739:all 414:why 272:on 187:are 181:^_^ 171:Hi! 32:... 2385:. 2103:my 1765:GA 1734:BC 1662:" 1610:. 1443:do 1168:me 665:is 423:is 418:is 239:Vb 2354:* 2332:ε 1870:- 1719:4 1676:* 1666:ε 1485:* 1473:ε 1417:* 1405:ε 1369:* 1357:ε 1095:- 880:- 672:/ 514:" 498:" 487:" 471:" 468:. 460:" 440:" 428:" 400:" 319:, 51:.

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

Index