User:Silence/Archive0006 - Knowledge (XXG)

336:

should not, at least, be divided on a species-by-species basis, else we'll end up with two categories for every single animal in existence, serving only to create unnecessary complications and forking of user categories! Instead, if you could explain your view more clearly to me, we could make something like "Category:Wikipedians owned by their pets" or similar; using such a category along with a unified system of pets would allow us to convey all the same information as an "owned by dog"/"owned by goldfish"/"owned by hamster" etc. system, but in a vastly simplified and centralized format. What do you think? And, is the reason you don't wish to be added to "Wikipedians who own dogs" because you consider this offensive or inaccurate due to your personal views? If so, could you recommend any possible wordings that would allow you (and others who share your views) to categorize yourself with other people who have dogs, etc.? For example, would "Wikipedians with pet dogs" work (since "with" could be interpreted either way, and would have the added benefit of not requiring "ownership", which is less important than association and companionship in this case)? -

867:

over T1's scope), which makes it much more tragic that there's so much ill-will over a simple difference of opinion regarding such a trivial userpage game. What Knowledge (XXG) needs first is a firm, consistent, comprehensive policy for userboxes and any future memes of a similar nature; once that's out of the way, the tiresome, endless policy-arguing can be moved to its proper venue, and the TfD and DR process can be reserved for actually reviewing deletions and templates, not arguing over fundamental aspects of Knowledge (XXG) policy. Arr. Anyway, I'm still hopeful that a peaceful resolution can be found to this; Jimbo's terror over the growing number of userboxes in recent weeks is rather inexplicable, as it will be easy to cull them all or do whatever else is necessary after a Userbox policy is in place, regardless of how many there are. Calm discussion is needed here, not hasty, aggressive, us-against-them (Jimbo's "

1062:, so the former is much more important to focus on than the latter, and it may even turn out that the latter's OK someday in the future, because it's so much less subject to abuse and so much more likely to provide valuable and relevant information than a modern year-link (simple by virtue of their being less significant information from thousands of years ago than from 10 years ago!). Additionally, it's better to be more than less conservative on a matter like this, since we can always fix the dating overlinkage later if necessary, but it will be much harder to re-link those dates if we ever decide to change the policy. I appreciate the hard work you're doing, though! :O I think I'll rethink the matter over a bit before I vote. That or take a nap. Hmmm. - 526:. Also, I recommend that you be wary about making any userboxes that look quite like the ones you currently have on that page, as they are hostile and aggressive enough that they are likely to be deleted, or at least to cause some unnecessary controversy. Remember that the purpose of userboxes and user categories is to self-identify, not to promote any cause or ideology; you can say "This user supports userboxes" in a userbox, but you shouldn't say "USERBOXES ARE AWESOME PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE THEM ARE DELIONIST FASCISTS"; that wouldn't be polite. If you keep the userboxes in your userspace, though (rather than general-usage ones in the templatespace), they should be safe. But, that's up to you. - 368:

between dog and cat userboxes. Pretty simple explanation, ne? But I don't see any pressing reason not to change "who own" to "with", and since that satisfies your terminological problems, I'll rename those usercategories as soon as I have the time. Also, thanks for taking the time to explain the issue to me. Though you'll need a bit more evidence to convince me that people with dogs are owned by their dogs, while people with cats own them. :) If anything, I've seen more well-trained and obedient dogs than well-trained and obedient cats, so... -

389: 351:. The pages speak for themselves. Dog owners do not own their dogs. Wikipedians with dogs would be fine and I could subscribe to that. But saying I own my dogs would be roughly tantamount to saying I own My child or my mother. As I said, take a look at the two pages, take into consideration that cats and dogs happen upon roughly the same number of families/households and come to your own conclusion. -- 164: 892:(Actually, what we were trying to do by deletions was create a defacto policy in the absence of any real one.) Perhaps the row will focus minds on all sides now. Actually, I noticed an attempt on Pathoschild's page (he has been quietly recreating userboxes as subst: on userpages, subverting the effects of our deletions, without actually reversing them). It might interest you: 394: 331:, is there a Knowledge (XXG) article or website I could go to for this view? I apologize for my ignorance, but numerous userboxes use the "This user is owned by X" joke, and I assumed you were just going with that. Either way, it doesn't make sense to me to arbitrarily subdivide users who own (or are "owned by") a certain species of animal, when the ultimate purpose of 1001: 1054:

official "bot". I'd be more tempted to vote "support" if you focused entirely or almost entirely on more recent dates, though, and less so on older ones. I realize that this in itself could cultivate a temporal bias, which isn't good, but purely from a practical standpoint, there are infinitely more articles that link to

1133:

Additionally, your additions, though very very useful and overall a great step up for this article (which was nearly devoid of actual historic information beforehand), seem to rely overmuch on random examples. Examples, although appropriate in some situations, are generally a weak way to sell a point

1084:

All of your additions are unreferenced, and most of the text from before your additions was unreferenced as well. There are two "further reading" links, but with such a general, major topic, it's hard to tell what pieces of the article are and aren't from which reference. Statements I found POVed (if

1027:

You are a delightful man. I'm deeply honored, though slightly curious about which unrelated areas you speak of (based on your recent contributions, I'm assuming the deletion-review WikiProject Pedophilia vote and the deletion-review Userbox Debates for now, though I don't know how much of an effect I

866:

userboxes. There's just too much hostility, more admin action would be adding fuel to the fire. I can understand why both sides have done most of the things they've done (including your actions in deleting userboxes which I feel are perfectly fine but you feel aren't acceptable, a simple disagreement

250:

I have no interest in an alternate version (the "for you" and "If you would like to make an alternate version" implies that I'm merely acting based on my own tastes for a userbox, rather than attempting to make the best possible userbox for general use), just in providing a good version to people who

1110:

The physical and rational certainties of the clockwork universe depicted by the eighteenth-century Enlightenment were shattered not only by new discoveries of relativity by Einstein and of unseen psychology by Freud, but also by unprecedented technological development accelerated by the implosion of

849:

We obviously disagree on userboxes (so what). But can I thank you for your civil tone and calming words in today's debate. FWIW, I have desisted in deletions, and urged others (who ironically went further) to do the same - at least for now. The time may be right to look for a compromise of some type

768:

I participated in that discussion. It doesn't make it any better of an idea; it's still a terrible one. Figuring that I didn't know as much about the subject as most of the people discussing it, I stayed out of it and let things run their course, but if the thing is still going to be absurdly messed

891:

useboxes. That's because the motivated activists on both sides are not being particularly reasonable (OMG it's a userbox delete/keep!). What we need is a policy, either imposed by Jimbo, or better thrashed out by some miracle of consensus. Speedy deletions can then enforce policy and not create it.

790:

back to Ravi Shankar, and check up on the other links to Ravi Shankar to see if they're properly attributed, myself, if that's what it takes to get the pages correctly and efficiently named. Making our readers jump through bureaucratic hoops to find the article they're looking for is not the way to

728:

I am back! I was travelling for a couple of months and didn't have much time each day to spend with computers (just enough to check email). I guess I have missed some good fun. I am sure you have managed to argue against common stupidity well without my help. BTW, I just went to check your December

635:

Wow. You just brightened up my day. And your comment made you seem more likable and good-humored than any politician I've ever seen! :) I'm afraid I can't agree with you that all of the attacks were unprovoked, though; I still have a long way to go with my own ability to remain level-headed in

375:

I guess you're not a dog person. If you knew your way around dogs you'd also know that the issue is not whether they can be trained but rather whether they care about their people. Dogs forge a relationship with their people as no other pet can. They truly love their human families and will die

367:

or anything like that, is because I took the two ("owned by" and "owned") to mean essentially the same thing and added the same category to both types of userboxes. I did the same for the dog 'boxes, but you changed that when you manually made an "owned by" category for them, upsetting the symmetry

358:

Um, the reason the cats category is bigger than the dogs one is because the cat userboxes (which put users in those categories automatically) have been around much longer than the dog ones, and more cat userboxes use usercategories than dog userboxes (partly because I haven't gotten around to doing

294:

Nah, I like your solution too; it never hurts to give people more userbox options. But yeah, you can put a template anywhere and it will work; you can see an example of a userpage template on the top of this talk page, and I could even, for example, type {{George W. Bush}} and the system would read

1242:

at the exact same time without any trouble). If it's a technical error that made you see more being deleted than actually was, your revert is understandable; sorry for the confusion. Using edit summaries all the time can be tough when you're rapidly editing dozens of pages at the same time (it can

886:

have to go, on reflection I think T1 is an unmitigated disaster. Not because it is vauge, which it is (all the deletions were valid interpretations of it), but because it is using CSD to do something CSD was never designed for. Speedy deletion ought to be for things that would always perish in xFD

444:

No prob, and thanks for the kind words! I've been finding the amount of opinion-censorship in some areas of Knowledge (XXG) lately a bit disturbing (i.e. "we find that opinion/self-description offensive, ergo it is uncivil, ergo you can't say it!"), but when that sort of attitude crosses over from

680:

I didn't and don't mind the reclassifying of the category. Though I too am a little dubious about running for office as a "profession", I'm surely not the one to argue, since an elected post is now my day job. Thanks for the tip on how to link to a category, as well as the "nowiki" tag I hadn't

1189:

can also be considered very POVed (for example, most of your examples refer specifically to western art). Using as many examples as you did, in particular, really bogs down the writing quality and coherence to the readers we're aiming for: most readers won't understand a lot of the things you're

1053:

I'm not sure I'm that kind. I'm kind of an asshole, if you hadn't heard. It's tempting, though; this is a great way to fix up a lot of articles, and you're obviously highly skilled in the matter, and meeting some unfair opposition just because you don't have the bureaucratic go-ahead of being an

335:

is to indicate what species of animals users might be interested in or knowledgeable regarding (for example, "category: cat owners" can function as an informal, disorganized "WikiProject:Cats" list, of sorts). Whether or not they think of themselves as "owning" or as "being owned by" their pets

621:

In terms of vicious backbiting, the political wars of my home county have nothing on Knowledge (XXG)'s internal battles, it seems. If my modest and tentative edits ever provoke such a backlash as you have received, I hope I will be able to respond with as much equanimity as you have managed.

376:

for them if need be. Dogs don't lie and will never betray you. Cats tolerate their people and, I dare say, most other pets don't really care one way or another so long as they don't go hungry. Hope that clears things up for you a little... and thanks already for renaming that category. --

662:

Anyway, I like you, and I like that your comment is the sort of one that makes people like me wish to be a better person and do a better job in future edits; if you ever could use any assistance in an article you're working on (such as with copyediting, etc.), feel free to give me a call!

1223:, since it appeared to me that the leading paragraph was also removed (I have a screenshot as proof). I have no problem with the removal of the band redlink. Finally, you might want to make more liberal use of the "edit summary"; I see you've been around on WP for a while now. 1181:(As you can see, most of the problem with overuse of examples is from the early part of the page, whereas most of the problem with POVed statements is from the later part of the page.) Using some examples is fine, but they should be referenced where possible (to avoid 729:

talk page and saw a late reply to a comment I left there before travelling. I have nothing to reply to what you wrote -in other words, I agree with all you wrote. So now, which are the latest interesting and controversial topics being hotly discussed/edited? Cheers. --

449:, it's really gone way over the line and is actually directly harming Knowledge (XXG)'s article content. So, someone had to say it. Whether the WikiProject is deleted or not, though, I expect that a lot of good can still come out of this! The idea of making a broader 314:

I can see that you don't think we need two categories for dogs in the family, however, let it be respectfully stated here, that you eliminated the wrong category. Dogs are not owned by their family. They own them. Therefore, the category was very much

834: 611:

I saw that you modified the categorization of the category "Wikipedians who have run for public office" (hmm, it doesn't linkify properly, so I won't), of which I am the more junior of two members, and followed the link to your user and talk pages.

986:

Wow, you guys are crazy-awesome at welcoming new users. You even tracked me down to here?! You guys totally have the German and French Wikipedias dominated in welcomes, they didn't even notice me. :3 Makes me wish I knew any Spanish. Pozo del oh.

759:

Hi Silence. There was considerable discussion on the talk page about the multiple Ravi Shankars. The consensus was to have the article for the musician to be Ravi Shankar (musician). Please move Ravi Shankar back to Ravi Shankar (musician).

255:

and remember that no template is banned from being edited by other users (and only a few are Protected just to deal with vandalism); if you wanted to make a template that you had a final say over, you should have put it in your Userspace (e.g.

464:

Yeah, Silence, what they said. The project was saved, will probably be renamed to Paraphilia, and hopefully will go on in its small way to contribute to the 'pedia. A lot due to your fine defence, more compelling that I could make, thanks.

1190:

referencing (especially when they aren't wikilinked, but even when they are), making the examples useless to the very people who most need them (i.e., laypeople, not art historians!). Your revision is a great place to start from, though. -

453:

WikiProject is the most appealing alternative I've seen, and would resolve just about all of the delete-voters' complaints. Either way, though, the main hope is that we didn't scare away and valuable editors with this silly controversy.

773:

after the fact, clearly someone's got to do something about it. With only two existing articles relevant, one vastly more commonly (and more likely to be) searched for, and an incredibly easy way to link from each article to the other

359:

all the dog breeds yet, since there are many more breed-specific dog userboxes than breed-specific cat ones, making accurate usercategorization trickier). Additionally, there are numerous "This user is owned by cats" userboxes on

1075:

Hi, I see you have placed unreferenced and npov templates on the article, but there's nothing in talk about it. It would be useful if you could state the unreferenced material and the aspects which you consider POV. Thanks.

930:

Within the next 24 hours, I will submit an Rfc against the admins who continuously speedy userboxes without consensus, and whatever else. If there's anything you think should be included on there, please let me know.

786:, not for links; ideally no disambiguation page should be linked to by any article on Knowledge (XXG)), so either way we'll need to specify where the link goes. I'll manually change all the links to 1085:

you dispute the POV bias, which at best requires sourcing and at worst outright removal, of any of these statements, feel free to say so and I'll explain why I interpreted them as POVed) included:

815: 802:

Hi Silence, thanks for discussing this. Could you explain what you mean by absurdly messed up and mishandled? Also, I don't understand what you are saying about the disambiguation page.

869:

cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun

1028:

had on either). Also you have great style and attitude, love the userpage. Also that is a wonderful and heartwarming page, I will have to try it out sometime. Such a lovely surprise. -

791:

go; in this case, a simple link at the top of each page solves every conceivable problem without any unfortunate and troublesome parenthetical clauses getting involved in the titles. -

618:

Further along, as I read the many chapters of your talk pages, I was very impressed with your calm, reasonable, self-deprecating and good-humored responses to the many attacks on you.

1238:

Sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was just making a routine removal of a band that had recently been speedy-deleted for non-noteworthiness (I made the exact same edit to

655:" probably doesn't either). If you have any preferences or better ideas for a way to categorize it, it can easily be moved. Also, to link to a category (rather than putting a page 862:

I agree entirely; the best way, at least for now, is to let things cool down a bit before proceding with further deletion, even if it eventually becomes necessary to eliminate

810:. I don't see how users were inconvenienced by this. On the other hand, it is a great help when one goes through a disambiguation effort. Naive links will almost all be to 295:

it as a template and paste the entire article's contents into this page. The "Template:" preceding most template names is there for organizational, not programming, reasons. -

700:

Hi - Could you or someone else re-protect Template:User_freedom ? I have had to revert 2 Tfd attempts by User:MarkSweep , who by the way deleted it during a debate on

1144:

During the early Victorian period, the quattrocento artists were considered inferior to those of the High Renaissance - a notion challenged by the Pre-Raphaelite movement.

1101:

Most of the great traditions in art have a foundation in the art of one of the six great ancient civilizations: Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, India, or China.

1243:

make the work take twice as long in many cases, in fact!), but I understand the importance; thanks for the tip. Good luck to you in your future vandalism-reverting! -

1123:

Furthermore the separation of cultures is increasingly blurred and it is now more appropriate to think in terms of a global culture, rather than regional cultures.

275:

Fair enough. I wasn't aware that I could put templates in my user space, though now you mention it there's no reason why not. Perhaps that is a better solution.

1092:

Analysis has also grown into the "political" use of art, rather than the more naive and superficial appreciation of it simply as a wonderful creation of beauty.

1009: 1114:

The history of twentieth century art is a narrative of endless possibilities and the search for new standards, each being torn down in succession by the next.

814:. To fix them, I only need to look at the "what links here" on the REDIRECT page, and I see all the Naive links. I don't know if you have ever undertaken a 778:, the simplest solution in this case is also the best one. If your main concern is that it will be too difficult to tell which Ravi Shankar pages linking to 592: 1134:

because they rely on the assumption that the specific example(s) chosen are the rule, rather than the exception. Examples of examples include:

1019:

has poured oil on troubled waters recently with patience, wisdom, and erudition, in two recent but unrelated high-stress areas. Many thanks."

583: 494:- with X replaced by the name of the template. If the template is for personal use (like the one at the top of this Talk page), instead go to 871:"; how ridiculous) action. We'll get through this silly little conflict before long, and someday, we'll all look back at this and laugh. :3 - 421: 182:

Please stop changing my user box. I designed it as I wanted it. If you would like to make an alternative version, please feel free to do so.

29: 960:

Thanks to your support, this article is now the collaboration of the week. Feel free to help in any way possible during this week. —

1220: 896:. Anyway, as I said, it is time for jaw-jaw and not war-war (although I remain ready to defend my position if anyone forces the point). -- 1117:

Modernism, the idealistic search for truth, gave way in the latter half of the twentieth century to a realisation of its unattainability.

644: 648: 615:

At first, before I figured out that you were joking about the Congress thing, I wondered why you didn't add yourself to the category.

477: 543: 818:. Please don't take this the wrong way, but such an experience might give you a little more sympathy for my position. Sincerely, 893: 483:

you know which one you want... BTW, if you know how to link to a category to group like-minded users together, please modify...

364: 588: 260:), not in the Template space. Just a note for future reference; glad you solved the "it's/its"-versions problem so nicely. - 363:, even more than ones for people "owned by" their dogs; the reason the category is nevertheless populated, and there is no 1104:

In Byzantine and Gothic art, the dominance of the church insisted on the expression of biblical and not material truths.

348: 344: 651:

at least for now, even though "running for public office" may not technically qualify as a "profession" (then again, "

915:

I'm not sure what is the proper format to add to that page. if I could enlist your help, I'd greatly appreciate it.

360: 701: 640: 512: 652: 419: 332: 600: 484: 153: 145: 137: 129: 121: 113: 105: 89: 81: 73: 65: 57: 251:

want one. But a fork is an acceptable compromise, so, looks good to me! However, you should certainly review

787: 782:

are linking to, that problem is hardly solved by having it go to a disambig page! (disambig pages are for

1042: 932: 1098:

The reasons for art's creation and the number of its uses it are as many as the types of art that exist.

900: 854: 257: 887:

debates, but T1 was designed to get rid of certain userboxes when TfD (and now DRV) will never delete

838: 523: 414: 327:... Uh, what? I'm confused. I've never heard of this before; it almost sounds like some sort of dog 963: 748: 596: 382: 1126:

Religious Islamic art forbids iconography, and focuses on the holy word of God found in the Quran.

916: 427:

I've come here to say the same thing. Thank you for your excellent advocacy of this WikiProject.

37: 954: 1020: 897: 851: 730: 466: 1182: 388: 252: 1228: 1000: 942: 882:

Thanks. Actually, although I think we'd be better off without POV userboxes, and that the

682: 626: 502: 835:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free)

498:

McGregor/X and do the same. To use that template, put its name in double brackets, like

1046: 950: 428: 377: 352: 320: 1077: 819: 761: 564: 276: 240: 183: 1095:

There is always an intent and a philosophy behind art, and an effect achieved by it.

28: 1244: 1212: 1191: 1063: 1029: 1016: 988: 872: 792: 779: 709: 664: 527: 455: 438: 369: 337: 296: 261: 200: 43: 17: 1041:

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my

577: 163: 522:

with X replaced by the Category, and categorize that category somewhere within

1224: 938: 717: 547: 450: 393: 1208: 1045:

to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences.

979: 157:: September 2010 to September 2015. Nothing important happened in this one. 1168:

the maintaining of social structure through eighteenth-century portraiture

776:

without even needing a tangled mess of redirect and disambig pages at all!

978:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG) in Spanish. Thank you for giving us a hand! --

639:

As for the category, I moved it chiefly because the miscellania-category

560: 408:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

435: 61:: July 2004 to September 2005. Nothing important happened in this one. 1162:

the considerable employment by the orthodox church in the Middle Ages

1059: 141:: February 2007 to July 2007. Nothing important happened in this one. 1141:

in medieval times for example as workmanship by anonymous tradesmen.

125:: May 2006 to December 2006. Nothing important happened in this one. 491: 1055: 636:

some rough situations. But thank you for the vote of confidence!

328: 1239: 1150:

Thus theoretically Aboriginal art would not be better or worse

647:

was one of the few remaining subcategories, so I put it under

48: 1107:

There was no need to depict the reality of the material world

999: 659:

that category), just add a : right after the initial ].

162: 27: 519: 149:: August 2007 to August 2009. In this one I edited Łobżany. 747:

thanks for the changes u made on my user page. :) xx

495: 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. 1204: 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. 1147:(such as Picasso's derivation from African sculpture) 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

806:

did not go to a disambig page, it was a redirect to

1171:

an anarcho-religious vision exemplified by Van Gogh

645:

Category:Wikipedians who have run for public office

1010:Knowledge (XXG):A nice cup of tea and a sit down 1120:Relativity was accepted as an unavoidable truth 911:deletion review for atheism/evolution userboxes 833:Greetings. You may be interested in voting on 1159:to the paintings of the Tang dynasty in China. 943:Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 708:I am not an admin, and cannot protect pages. - 544:Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_comment/MarkSweep 8: 643:was in the process of being depracated, and 546:regarding user's recent actions. Thank you! 894:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy 1219:Sorry, I think something went wrong with 1008:I had something nice to say about you at 681:known about before. I'm still new here. 518:. To make a user category, input the url 365:Category:Wikipedians owned by their cats 492:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:user_x 490:To make a user template, input the url 1185:) and not overused, especially since 7: 1156:from the megaliths of Western Europe 1071:History of art NPOV and unreferenced 587:. Please come and help it become a 192: 649:Category:Wikipedians by profession 520:http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:X 478:User:Mike McGregor (Can)/code page 24: 1153:than Michelangelo, just different 496:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mike 445:censoring userpages to censoring 349:Category:Wikipedians who own dogs 345:Category:Wikipedians who own cats 319:a joke, but rather the truth. -- 850:that puts all this to an end. -- 392: 387: 1111:civilisation in two world wars. 1215:08:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 1080:07:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1049:20:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1023:16:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 982:21:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 946:14:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 919:14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 858:01:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 841:01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 764:00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 751:20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 739:11:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 720:01:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 629:07:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 603:19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 567:06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 487:03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 469:01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 372:23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 361:Knowledge (XXG):Userboxes/Pets 355:23:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1: 1247:08:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 1231:08:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 1194:09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1066:09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1032:09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 991:09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 904:16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 875:03:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 822:02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 795:02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 712:01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 685:22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 667:16:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 641:Category:Wikipedians by stuff 550:00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 530:04:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 441:15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 431:09:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 423:22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 397:16:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 340:01:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 323:00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 186:03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 559:Thanks for the userbox fix! 458:12:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 299:14:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 279:12:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 264:01:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 243:03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 333:Category:Wikipedians by pet 1264: 199:This user understands the 190:I have forked it for you: 171:Welcome to my chalk page. 1174:(i.e. Zeus' thunderbolt). 584:Collaboration of the week 969:• 2006-02-19 20:20 808:Ravi Shankar (musician) 788:Ravi Shankar (musician) 1005: 716:Ok, sorry about that. 607:Wikipedian politicians 167: 146:Archive IIIVXXXLCCCCDM 33: 1187:which examples we use 1003: 816:disambiguation effort 696:User Freedom template 166: 31: 829:Article for Deletion 524:Category:Wikipedians 513:user:Mike McGregor/X 1043:new bot application 485:Mike McGregor (Can) 1203:Could you explain 1006: 769:up and mishandled 724:Hello sweet caress 412:Simply: well said. 347:and compare it to 168: 34: 1165:Soviet propaganda 970: 945: 902: 856: 385: 258:User:GRAHAMUK/Its 237: 236: 1255: 966: 961: 941: 935: 901: 855: 737: 517: 511: 507: 501: 417: 396: 391: 381: 231: 225: 213: 193: 47:. Feel free to 1263: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1201: 1073: 1039: 998: 976: 968: 964: 958: 933: 925: 913: 847: 845:Comments on DRV 831: 757: 745: 731: 726: 698: 609: 573: 557: 542:Please stop by 539: 537:RFC / MarkSweep 515: 509: 505: 499: 475: 415: 413: 410: 343:Take a look at 312: 238: 229: 223: 211: 180: 174: 170: 161: 160: 138:Archive VVIIIIV 52: 49:leave a comment 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1261: 1259: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1233: 1232: 1211:, perchance? - 1200: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1136: 1135: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1087: 1086: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1038: 1035: 1034: 1033: 997: 994: 993: 992: 975: 972: 962: 957: 951:History of art 948: 924: 921: 917:Cornell Rockey 912: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 877: 876: 846: 843: 830: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 797: 796: 756: 753: 749:XYaAsehShalomX 744: 741: 725: 722: 714: 713: 697: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 671: 670: 669: 668: 660: 637: 608: 605: 597:King of Hearts 581:, this week's 575:You voted for 572: 569: 565:Y0ur talk page 556: 553: 552: 551: 538: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 474: 471: 462: 461: 460: 459: 442: 409: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 311: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 268: 267: 266: 265: 245: 244: 235: 234: 197: 191: 179: 178:User box "its" 176: 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: 1260: 1246: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1199:Re: Dis Pater 1198: 1193: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1173: 1170: 1167: 1164: 1161: 1158: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1132: 1131: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1079: 1070: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1048: 1044: 1036: 1031: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1022: 1018: 1013: 1011: 1002: 995: 990: 985: 984: 983: 981: 973: 971: 967: 956: 952: 949: 947: 944: 940: 936: 928: 922: 920: 918: 910: 903: 899: 895: 890: 885: 881: 880: 879: 878: 874: 870: 865: 861: 860: 859: 857: 853: 844: 842: 840: 837:. Thanks. -- 836: 828: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 800: 799: 798: 794: 789: 785: 781: 777: 772: 767: 766: 765: 763: 754: 752: 750: 742: 740: 738: 736: 735: 723: 721: 719: 711: 707: 706: 705: 703: 695: 684: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 666: 661: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 628: 625:Best wishes! 623: 619: 616: 613: 606: 604: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 585: 580: 579: 570: 568: 566: 562: 554: 549: 545: 541: 540: 536: 529: 525: 521: 514: 504: 497: 493: 489: 488: 486: 482: 481: 480: 479: 473:help yourself 472: 470: 468: 457: 452: 448: 443: 440: 437: 433: 432: 430: 426: 425: 424: 422: 420: 418: 407: 395: 390: 384: 379: 374: 373: 371: 366: 362: 357: 356: 354: 350: 346: 342: 341: 339: 334: 330: 326: 325: 324: 322: 318: 309: 298: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 278: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 263: 259: 254: 249: 248: 247: 246: 242: 232: 226: 220: 219: 214: 208: 207: 202: 198: 195: 194: 189: 188: 187: 185: 177: 175: 172: 165: 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: 1202: 1186: 1074: 1040: 1014: 1007: 977: 959: 929: 926: 914: 888: 883: 868: 863: 848: 832: 812:Ravi Shankar 811: 807: 804:Ravi Shankar 803: 783: 780:Ravi Shankar 775: 770: 758: 755:Ravi Shankar 746: 733: 732: 727: 715: 699: 656: 624: 620: 617: 614: 610: 595:article. -- 582: 576: 574: 571:COTW Project 558: 516:}} 510:{{ 506:}} 500:{{ 476: 463: 447:WikiProjects 446: 411: 316: 313: 228: 222: 217: 216: 210: 205: 204: 181: 173: 169: 154:Archive IIXV 152: 144: 136: 128: 120: 114:Archive VIII 112: 104: 97: 96: 88: 82:Archive IIII 80: 72: 64: 56: 44:User:Silence 42: 36: 35:This is the 18:User:Silence 1021:Herostratus 771:three weeks 734:Anagnorisis 578:Aeronautics 467:Herostratus 106:Archive VII 74:Archive III 1221:the popups 1037:Date links 1004:WikiThanks 839:Descendall 683:Kestenbaum 627:Kestenbaum 451:Paraphilia 201:difference 130:Archive VV 98:Archive VI 66:Archive II 1209:Dis Pater 1205:this edit 1047:bobblewik 927:Silence, 884:templates 743:Userboxes 434:Tritto. 429:Thryduulf 416:brenneman 378:Mmounties 353:Mmounties 321:Mmounties 90:Archive V 58:Archive I 1078:Tyrenius 1058:than to 974:Welcome! 820:BostonMA 784:searches 762:BostonMA 593:standard 589:featured 203:between 1245:Silence 1229:™ 1213:Silence 1192:Silence 1064:Silence 1030:Silence 1017:Silence 989:Silence 873:Silence 793:Silence 710:Silence 665:Silence 528:Silence 456:Silence 370:Silence 338:Silence 297:Silence 262:Silence 1183:WP:NOR 1060:356 BC 702:Jan.22 657:within 653:pirate 601:(talk) 555:Thanks 503:user x 277:Graham 253:WP:OWN 241:Graham 230:it has 215:) and 184:Graham 1225:dewet 718:Sct72 548:Sct72 224:it is 212:of it 16:< 1056:2004 980:Equi 965:0918 955:COTW 953:now 436:+sj 383:Talk 329:cult 310:Dogs 218:it's 38:Talk 1240:Dis 1207:to 996:thx 939:Day 923:Rfc 898:Doc 889:any 864:all 852:Doc 561:Y0u 508:or 386:) 317:not 227:or 206:its 196:its 32:... 1012:: 931:-- 760:-- 704:. 599:| 563:| 239:. 233:). 1227:| 1015:" 987:- 937:- 934:D 663:- 591:- 454:- 439:+ 380:( 221:( 209:( 51:.

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

Index