816:. You are not interested in knowledge, you are pushing an agenda and trying score points against "enemies", and using Knowledge (XXG) to do so. That makes you the worst kind of editor, in my view. Vandals are comparatively harmless and easily correctible. You are someone who exploits the letter of the law the better to corrupt its spirit. If I was an employee or admin of Knowledge (XXG), I would actively find ways to deter you. But I'm not; and I've got better things to do with my life. But I will resist your attempts to disrupt and degrade the small handful of articles that both interest me, and have attracted your baleful attention. And I am happy to say I largely have. Because I have the truth on my side, and I (and others) will happily provide that truth in the form of citations to refute your polemical edits. The paragraphs you have assailed in the Deleuze article are more securely hedged with verifiable references than ever. So who's "not accomplishing anything"? At least I'm making Knowledge (XXG) better. Maybe the constant friction from your axes keeps you warm at night. Go harass somebody else and come back when your life is momentarily empty again; I'll still be here.
689:) his edits serve destructive, rather than constructive, ends. His edit history on the Deleuze article is a case study of this: he has no knowledge to share, he simply finds content he disagrees with and then seeks out any available policy which allows him to remove it. His reporting my comment about Jimbo Wales on the Talk:Philosophy page is another example: my passing comment about Wales (which was based on incontrovertible matters of fact) was hardly likely to tarnish Jimbo's image (or in any way bother him), especially as it occurred in a Talk page rather than an article. But Skoojal evidently sought it out by following my edit history (he is not a regular or even occasional editor on the Philosophy article, and has little to no knowledge or interest in philosophy, so I presume he followed me), and seized upon it as a pretext to subject me to potential blocking. This borders on stalking and harassment, but unlike some, I frankly don't care and am not going to cry about it to the nearest admin.
2256:
verifiable sources for my edits — reference works from the most prestigious university presses, reflecting the most recent scholarship — while you have presented no sources at all, just empty proof substitute hand-waving about what you regard as "quite obvious". As I said, Grotius does turn up in reference works on the early modern period. If you wish to relocate him to the long list in early modern, I will not object. (I had him there when I was drafting it myself, but moved him when I noticed he was already mentioned in the earlier section, and felt a specific tie to political philosophy was more desirable than the current, temporary laundry list in early modern.) Yes, there are no sharply-cut boundaries in the history of philosophy, but given the current structure of this section of the article — which is by its nature
1966:
of
Wikipedians; rather, as Knowledge (XXG) should be, that term and its usage is a verifiable reflection of expert consensus. Bacon straddles the line in the literature, and is more often included among early modern, true, but is not a "canonical" figure on par with the Descartes-Spinoza-Leibniz-Locke-Berkeley-Hume-Kant sequence. Machiavelli chronologically and thematically belongs to the Renaissance (which is where he is already mentioned in the article). What sources you may have I don't know, of course.
1262:. You have twice refused to answer my simple question about whether the edits you keep re-inserting are well-sourced. That you have reacted so violently to a request for better sourcing betrays that you are the one pursuing an edit war, not me. I engaged you and Lancaster in discussion; as I said in my last response on the Philosophy talk page, I've given reasons, you've given no justification for your edits, beyond that you don't like it. Your melodramatic templating of my talk page is childish.
1441:. It may be summarised as follows: He knows he lacks knowledge of the topics he chooses to write about, but defends the idea that it's fine to write about things you know little or nothing about. He knows his writing is poor, but defends the idea that the purpose of Knowledge (XXG) is not to produce "compelling writing." On this basis he grants himself free license. Add to this his propensity to falsely imagine himself the defender of "minority" positions, and what results is not merely a
1409:
rules themselves) to justify your insertion of your own views. (The second is what you've done above by inventing a new and idiosyncratic jargon about "canonical" and "academic" sources when you've been presented several times in the last day with a completely simple distinction between primary sources -- philosophical texts -- and secondary sources like textbooks and histories of philosophy.) This is not how
Knowledge (XXG) works. Since Knowledge (XXG) is
1185:
2540:
2004:. Certainly the series of people you mentioned tended to mention Bacon especially as "canonical" in the type of philosophy they represent. Philosophy does not work strictly according to chronology either. The main controversy about Machiavelli is only whether to consider him as a philosopher. His position as a critical influence upon the
1864:
literature (though I did not check the
Cambridge History for my last edits). All the recent scholarly literature seems to have settled on 1600 as the approximate "start date" of early modern philosophy. That is artificial, but it does reflect expert consensus, which is supposed to be Knowledge (XXG)'s guide.
1316:"philosopher of science". That is an insufficient claim, as it would entail adding persons such as John Hick, Jerry Fodor, and Paul Feyerabend to the list, and as it fails to match the sourced material in favor of the persons already on the list (who are described as important philosophers of the 20th century
1592:, summarized by User:Tercross as "grammar and clarity", which adds a capitalization error ("The Levelling-off"), multiple omitted periods ("ie" for "i.e."), a diction error ("wain" for "wane"), and a sentence fragment ("Something prefigured perhaps in the eighteenth & nineteenth century theory of the
2097:
If your canonical works say anything like the material I moved from
Renaissance to Modern, and which you reverted, then it was more or less saying that apart from typical Renaissance philosophy, new things were starting to happen. In other words, Machiavelli, Bodin, Grotius, are normally see as a new
1965:
The scope of your final question was unclear. I was taking it to cover all your questions. The term "early modern philosophy" is now used in a more or less consistent way among professional philosophers and historians of philosophy to cover western philosophy from 1600-1800. It is not an invention
1847:
One of the things most concerning to me is that you have removed all reference to
Machiavelli and Bacon as well as the 1500s. Surely you aren't claiming that there is no source for calling them modern, or at least predecessors of modern philosophy? In other words, that aspect of your edits looks like
768:
271828182, you aren't accomplishing anything with this. You're free to dislike me as much as you like, but the issues you mention, and your comments on my editing in general, have nothing to do with your BLP violation on Talk:philosophy. A BLP violation is a BLP violation, regardless of your personal
391:
271828182, you recently restored this passage, 'A parallel in painting may be Bacon's Study after Velázquez—it is quite beside the point to say that Bacon 'gets Velázquez wrong'. (Similar considerations apply to
Deleuze's uses of mathematical and scientific terms, pace Alan Sokal.)' to the article on
296:, except I never got round to the second section, as you see. Would love to hear from you, I think some order has gone round from high. Indeed, you had better delete this from your page in case they spot it - two other people tried to get in touch but were threated with block. Many thanks again.
200:
Hi #27. I am almost certainly moving to
Citizendium. There's a good community there, a number of good philosophers, and (apart from some questions I have as to whether the Ludvikus problem could theoretically occur there) seems a good home. I would very much welcome your involvement. Your writing
2303:
I was just composing a talk page comment outlining the contention. It seems to me that we'd require a source that points it up. I don't think that the original French-language edition satisfies that. I doubt you are the only one to have noticed the difference. So I've left a talk page comment to see
2255:
Your claim that "Machiavelli, Bodin and
Grotius are quite obviously mentioned in many works as early modern philosophers", like much of what you have said above, is unwarranted by the literature, at least for the first two. It is silly to accuse me of original research when I am presenting multiple
965:
On "Continental
Philosophy" the funny idea is defended, against all my friendly erasures that France was liberated (not by the US army , not by De Gaulle), but by the communists. For a time, the communists were the strongest political movement there, it says. a) even if this was true, what has it to
395:
I stand by my comment that the part about Bacon shouldn't be there. It might be very interesting in an essay about
Deleuze, but it certainly isn't right for an encyclopedia article. And yes, the comment about Sokal is snide and inappropriate in tone. You say that this is conjecture; all I can say in
2200:
mentioned as Renaissance period authors. Don't forget that the term renaissance philosopher is generally chronological, renaissance referring to a period, so it is like the term "16th century philosopher" and not (despite your way of editing the article) a clear category that everyone distinguishes
2144:
I don't get what you are driving at. I didn't say the sources are canonical, merely that they use the word "canonical" to describe some philosophers and not others. Machiavelli and Bodin are extensively discussed in the cited sources on Renaissance philosophy, and identified as being part of that
1863:
Machiavelli is mentioned in the preceding section on Renaissance philosophy, and, as he died in 1527, it is very hard to justify inserting him into a section on 17th and 18th century thought. Bacon is a borderline case, but he doesn't get prominent mention in the 'canonical' lists in the secondary
1408:
synthetic interpretation or historical explanation, and then tried to defend it by either (a) derailing the discussion into interpretive minutiae and simple airing of opinions or (b) inventing new terminology and wildly misinterpreting specific passages of policy (often the examples rather than the
1282:
You seem to have picked up the habit of making an edit regardless of the talk page position after leaving things for a few days. You are also throwing around ownership accusations without justification. In the most recent case a majority of editors are for keeping Popper, and on Lewis the debate
524:
271828182, if you think, as you wrote in one of your edit comments, that there are better things to do than war with me, could you please try to convince Peter Damian of this? Looking through the history of the Deleuze article, I see that you added a reference to Deleuze's comment being 'oft-cited'
276:
Thanks for your note about removing the influences/influenced sections from the philosopher infobox. I seem to recall it generating a lot of opposition, however, so I think we may have to drop the issue and just enforce the rule that was suggested (and which someone said was already the rule): if
2195:
You are setting up distinctions in a more absolute way than any fair reading of literature on the subject of philosophy would justify. In effect you are imposing original research. Machiavelli, Bodin and Grotius are quite obviously mentioned in many works as early modern philosophers, even if they
1886:
implies that modern philosophy starts in 1600 is obviously not meaningful for this discussion. We Wikipedians can adjust it. Modern philosophy is a notable term used in a more or less consistent way and that can be reliable sourced. And Bacon and Machiavelli are two of the most important starting
862:
271828182, my removal of your BLP violation was not "harassment." If you think that the spirit of BLP policy is that one cannot remove BLP violations by someone one has disagreements with, or that anyone who does so should be deterred from doing it, then you have a serious misunderstanding of BLP
693:
I would suggest, Gwen, that your energies as an admin are better used monitoring Skoojal's edits rather than warning editors who have disinterestedly contributed expertise and knowledge to numerous articles. (—Since I assume that you are interested in improving Knowledge (XXG) rather than merely
291:
In fact I have been indefinitely blocked, with one admin asking that I be community banned. I shouldn't even be on your talk page, as very very serious offence punishable by death. Don't know how much you know about the alleged offence that has led to this death sentence. Happy to provide more
2046:
The use of "canonical" is readily justified by the sources: I added two that explicitly use that word today. As for Bacon, I added him as well, in a more inclusive ... list (fortunately, I think there will be less disagreement about a list where everyone has been dead for 200 or more years). I
1417:
than just relying on published sources, since it's easy to base a novel interpretation or synthesis on existing texts). I don't mean this as hostile in any way, and I won't use the word "troll" because it appears your intentions are good, but I have to say that I (and apparently several other
684:
The purpose of the no personal attacks policy is to improve the quality of Knowledge (XXG). The problem is that many of Skoojal's edits routinely hurt the quality of Knowledge (XXG), by needlessly antagonizing editors with captious applications of policies to drive his POV agenda (such as his
1315:
clearly states, inclusion of content is not about what editors think is true, it is about whether "whether readers can check that material in Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source". As I have repeatedly pointed out, the sources on Popper merely say he is an important
811:
Skoojal, I don't care about you. Unlike you, I don't sift through your edit history to seek out technical infractions of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies for the express purpose of subjecting you to admin threats (though I have in the past browsed your edit history to see if you are a consistently
1403:
have now tried to point this out to you), I'd like to ask you, politely, to read the policy again and reflect more carefully on why it exists. This is not meant as an attack, but an observation about a repeated pattern in your edits -- I've seen many cases now where you've introduced a 100%
1107:
This is bizzare. I believe it once just compared analytic philosophy to continental philosophy, which makes sense considering how analytic and continental philosophy are often defined by contrasting them with one another. To mention Thomism and Marxism is just random. Why not rationalism and
1418:
contributors) am becoming increasingly dubious about whether your edits have been constructive or helpful at all. Again, I'd like to ask that you re-read the original research policy carefully, and consider why your contributions have seemed like original research to many Wikipedians. --
769:
opinion of whether it's actually likely to hurt anyone's image or not. You're perfectly correct that I followed your edit history. Big deal. Your comments about my knowledge of philosophy are pretty silly, given that you obviously have no way of knowing whether they're correct or not.
2201:
concerning the nature of the philosophy being practiced. To revert me in such an uncompromising way concerning this matter does not appear to be justified by any source you have because even your own footnotes show that there is no canonical way of categorizing some of these men.--
1311:, and no one has ever presented any source-based justification for keeping Popper or excluding Lewis, I am unimpressed by your preferences. As I just wrote on the talk page: "the content of WP is not a matter of a five-person vote of a likely-to-be unrepresentative sample. As
2260:— choices have to be made about where to mention philosophers. I suggest those choices must be guided by verifiable sources, preferably of the reference work variety that WP guidelines suggest. I have given such sources to answer your criticisms. What else do you want?
2145:
broad category, not being "apart from typical Renaissance philosophy". By contrast, Machiavelli and Bodin do not figure in volumes on early modern philosophy (though Grotius also gets mention in the Cambridge History, which is a more strictly chronological work).
2552:
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
2047:
don't know what sources you have for saying Machiavelli influenced Bacon or Descartes, except in a very vague, Zeitgeistlich sort of way. I do know that Machiavelli is extensively discussed in the Oxford History of Western Philosophy, vol. 3 (
999:
the last time I had a look (and I also changed a bit) it spoke of the role of the communists in liberating France and of communism as having been for a time the strongest political force in France. Perhaps I am having anticommunist visions?
311:
Oh and if I did Barnstars I would give you one for the excellent work you have done on Deleuze. As you know, I don't sit on that side of the fence, but I recognise good work when I see it. In place of a Barnstar, here's a link to an
141:. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all.
622:
should be put through on Knowledge (XXG). Please don't do that again. If you have worries about how Knowledge (XXG) has handled something, please talk about them without stooping to personal attacks and stay within the bounds of
685:
publicly expressed desire to use Knowledge (XXG) articles to make people look bad, or his attempt to replace the word "gay" with "homosexual"). He hides behind fine points of policy, but all too often (note I am not saying
233:
Note the 'dubious claim' was not mine! I left the material about Hegel in as I don't know the subject. Do check over any of the rest. Thanks. I note it mentions 'absolute idealism' without any explanation of what it is.
218:
Did you say you were planning work on the continental philosophy section? I'll support you on that. I'm not an expert, but can provide tail-gunning work and trench-digging and call air-strikes from time to time. Best
1372:. Lucas has a history of ungrammatical and unsourced edits, and persists in a confrontational attitude to other editors, many of whom have expert knowledge in their subject area. He also fundamentally misunderstands
863:
policy. Regarding the Deleuze article, I don't have a problem with the 'famously' part, now that there appears to be a source, but your past edits could look like an attempt to violate the No Original Research policy.
596:
271828182, some of your recent comments on talk:philosophy have been removed, since they were both off-topic and contained a BLP violation. I have left a comment about this on the administrators noticeboard/incidents.
2580:
2495:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
1283:
is open. You have not responded to questions raised on the talk page, or engaged with other editors. Its a form of slow edit war. Please use the talk page, edit the article when you have agreement, abide by
1108:
empiricism? I tried to re-write it without the mention of Thomism and Marxism but then you undid my revision. I want to avoid an edit war, so why do you think Thomism and Marxism should be mentioned here?
2564:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
1104:
The last line of the opening paragraph now states: "Analytic philosophy is sometimes understood in contrast to other philosophical movements, such as continental philosophy, Thomism, or Marxism."
1320:). There is no reliably sourced reason to include Popper on the list. If voting mattered, Ayn Rand would get on this list. Please stop reverting my efforts to make this article better sourced."
215:
I checked Citizendium out, and there is no one there - yet. Meanwhile, thanks for the support on the philosophy page. I see you are still having to revert the analytic/continental nonsense.
1210:
states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the
201:
is first class, and you have a firm grasp of areas of philosophy I have never even approached. Let me know if you have any questions about login &c. It really has got too mad here.
1935:
You have sources that say that I do not have sources that say that Machiavelli and Bacon are recognized as beginning points of modern philosophy? :D (I think you misread my question.)--
1882:
What "canonical" lists are you talking about? Are there "canonical" lists? Of course Bacon and Machiavelli are modern and of course this can be sourced. That the sub-section title that
2367:
Hi. Just wondering, how do Vered's winnings add up to 496,602? The numbers provided in the article don't add up to that. Are some of his winnings not mentioned in the article? Thanks.
525:
as a replacement for the reference to its being 'famous.' That was a sensible thing to have done. Damian has insisted on adding 'famous' as well, which does not make the least sense.
2325:
as a precedent. But there are English-language translations that use that title. Unless you have a source that offers the translation you want to use, it should appear as published.
1413:, it is most important that we avoid any original interpretation and synthesis of the material and stick to presenting familiar, well-established accounts (note that this means
812:
disruptive editor, which I concluded is glaringly true). This entire incident is merely further evidence that you purposely violate the most fundamental policy of all:
1675:] - Another diff showing the insertion of the Lucas OR agenda into a philosophy article (the claim that philosophy of mind is a branch of analytic philosophy only).
1437:
I believe Lucaas has been described as incorrigible. This is the precise term for what Lucaas is. My experience of his editorial practice is confined to the entry on
48:
156:
1586:(under this account), a bizarre, though self-reverted, vandalism of the article on Condoleezza Rice. Again, this user's first edit immediately yielded a warning.
2434:
981:
No idea what you're talking about. The current revision refers to "interest in communism" in post-war France, which is not the same as what you are alleging.
21:
Excellent rewrite of the introduction! I looked at this article a few days ago and noted how gawd-aweful it was. You have made it intelligible. Thank you.
51:. I hope you'll continue to patrol and clean up the often nonsensical additions to Knowledge (XXG)'s continental-philosophy articles – it's a big job. --
913:
Of course, Skoojal, you're just disinterestedly applying Knowledge (XXG) policies. Suuuuuure. You're not fooling anyone who reviews your edit history.
100:
1798:
1303:
No, I wait at least a couple days to allow other editors ample time to offer suggestions or objections. When no one responds or objects, I edit. As
316:
for your amusement. The best bit is "In 453 Attila died in bed with his new wife. As a result, the Hun Empire collapsed." but it is all good value.
1505:
Four articles whose opening sentences Lucas edited to insert a POV judgment, all of which provoked multiple reverts and acrimonious Talk discussion:
658:
I should block you for that personal attack, after you'd been warned, but you lucked out, I'm not in the mood. Please don't do that anymore. Cheers,
728:
Thanks for taking the time to show me you canny know the difference between a personal attack and a scathing take on someone's edits. All the best,
1538:(note from Lucas: this user tercross is actually another person, a guy who was a roomate, and who started using wiki and then passed it on to me.
946:
Addendum for anyone reading this: Skoojal was indefinitely banned from Knowledge (XXG) six days after his last comment above. Shocking, I know.
574:
Fine by me. There is a long list of people who have left messages on your talk page, I'm sure some of them would be more than willing to help.
292:
detail, you can email me from my talk page, or d3uckner AT btinternet.com. Very good to hear from you and very cheering, glad you liked the
2594:
2520:
180:. I'd almost forgotten what those felt like. And splendid work on the problem editors page. I hadn't realised it had gone on so long.
2415:
966:
do with anything? b) it reinforces the stupid impression that "idealist" philosophers simply have not the brains to do real philosophy--
317:
297:
1336:
And your claim that I "have not responded to questions raised on the talk page, or engaged with other editors" is demonstrably false.
1038:
338:
Sorry about messing up links on the Deleuze page. I normally check every external link I remove but I was a bit to fast this time.
1211:
2590:
2516:
2573:
1449:
on doing so. Working on the entry is presently unrewarding to the point of being impossible, due to the efforts of this user.
1227:
396:
reply is that most people know a snide comment when they see one. Also, not all readers would understand the use of the word
112:
2008:
followed by Bacon, Descartes etc in contradistinction to classical, medieval and renaissance writers is non-controversial.--
1848:
POV pushing, and is frankly a little inexplicable to me. I write here wondering if it is just something you didn't notice?--
1231:
1126:
Because Thomism and Marxism are neither analytic nor continental. I shall provide multiple references to verify shortly.
2442:
1166:
Your edit summaries do not make your justification clear. I think it best to start a discussion on the article talk page:
2507:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
1237:
445:
seems rather odd. I'm not an expert in the existentialist bit I know but this seems a bit dubious. Can you comment?
369:
as far as is possible (I moved the sections back to the traditional order of intro, branches, history, &c. Best.
2585:
2512:
137:
I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page
47:
No need for thanks on the AfD for that article. But you might be interested in commenting on its deletion review at
2206:
2103:
2013:
1940:
1892:
1853:
1174:
442:
138:
2330:
2309:
2296:
1602:
in which Tercross removes three tags without justification and adds a false claim to the article on ontotheology.
91:(note that existentialism and Bergson are already reserved, articles such as *Deleuze* could be suggested to JR)
1223:
1207:
1190:
2438:
374:
2561:
1203:
1082:
If it's about Foucault's criticism, there needs to be a reference from Foucault, not from a secondary source.
2419:
321:
301:
88:
346:
1026:
2465:
2457:
2321:
1819:
579:
556:
271828182 suggested on the talk page recently that some outside involvement may be needed. I second this.
545:
507:
493:
474:
450:
2508:
1909:
Yes, and I will be happy to provide you with multiple references from scholarly sources. Hang on a bit.
1531:
actually the day of Lucas' arrival in Wikiland. Previously he logged up a horrendous record of edits as
1215:
2202:
2099:
2009:
1936:
1888:
1849:
1395:
is such a fundamental policy, and because your editing shows that you don't understand it (though I and
1170:
1070:
1034:
76:
1491:
of said warning from his Talk page and a retaliatory complaint by Lucas. These violations resulted in
419:
I remind you that we comment on the article, not the editors, when discussing on an article talk page.
341:
248:
I liked the new introduction. Good work. And now I need to look at the Analytic philosophy article!
2326:
2305:
1837:
1593:
2548:
2530:
2484:
2475:
1199:
2433:
Hello, 271828182. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at
2411:
1834:
1775:
1682:
1676:
1571:
733:
663:
632:
370:
362:
293:
263:
249:
235:
220:
202:
181:
177:
142:
2557:
2504:
2488:
2395:
2376:
642:
Oooooo. Truth hurts. Skoojal, this would be funny if it weren't commentary on your character.
163:
108:
1833:, started by Tercross and still maintained by Lucas. Mostly rambling, disconnected nonsense.
2461:
1423:
868:
774:
602:
575:
561:
541:
530:
503:
489:
470:
446:
405:
56:
39:
2569:
2500:
2492:
1050:
I agree it should be there, but am looking up a better citation, based directly on Foucault.
1544:
1149:
1116:
1066:
1030:
2572:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2565:
2503:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2496:
1392:
1373:
1308:
1284:
624:
615:
1887:
points according to a plethora of strong sources. Seriously, are your arguing otherwise?--
540:
I'll leave it up to 271828182. If he reverts, so be it. I personally prefer 'famously'.
2456:
When you start an SPI, you should inform the involved parties. I have done so for you on
2343:
James Williams uses "the ideal synthesis of difference" in his book on DR (pp. 139ff.).
2344:
2261:
2146:
2056:
1967:
1910:
1865:
1487:, coming four hours after his very first edit under this account, followed promptly by
1337:
1321:
1263:
1127:
1083:
1051:
1005:
982:
971:
947:
914:
817:
729:
695:
659:
643:
628:
1312:
1304:
1259:
1184:
95:
2387:
2368:
1532:
1522:
1450:
426:
160:
104:
22:
2361:
1754:— n.b. that Lucas' current "archive" includes no mention of his blocks or warnings.
1419:
1380:
1288:
1243:
864:
770:
598:
557:
526:
401:
361:
I thought after a suitable time I would come back. Made considerable additions to
52:
2539:
1661:("stick to philosophy and leave translation to those who are qualified for it").
1559:
1541:
1388:
1369:
1145:
1112:
277:
it's not supported in the text of the article, it shouldn't go in the infobox.
1822:, including evidence of Lucas's multiple re-creations of the deleted material.
1558:
where Tercross was blocked for 24 hours for using it to avoid the block on the
1365:
1214:
to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains
1195:
366:
691:
It is not a personal attack to point out that someone is a disruptive editor.
1830:
1368:
page and its neighbourhood. One has been blocked for a week. The other is
1001:
967:
1466:
Reverting an version of an article which had been agreed by three editors.
89:
http://www.utas.edu.au/philosophy/staff_research/reynolds/IEParticles.html
421:
278:
2576:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
1065:
The article I cited speaks explicity of Foucault and desire v. pleasure
2598:
2524:
2491:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)
2469:
2446:
2423:
2399:
2380:
2352:
2334:
2313:
2269:
2210:
2154:
2107:
2064:
2017:
1975:
1944:
1918:
1896:
1873:
1857:
1679:
1574:
1548:
1453:
1426:
1345:
1329:
1297:
1271:
1252:
1178:
1153:
1135:
1120:
1091:
1074:
1059:
1042:
1009:
990:
975:
955:
922:
872:
825:
778:
737:
703:
667:
651:
636:
606:
583:
565:
549:
534:
511:
497:
478:
454:
430:
409:
378:
351:
325:
305:
281:
266:
252:
238:
223:
205:
184:
166:
145:
116:
59:
42:
25:
2437:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
1022:
Should this not be in the "reception" area of the the Deleuze page?
77:
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~klement/IEP/desired_logic_articles.txt
2055:, whereas he is not discussed in the next volumes in either series.
1100:
Thomism and Marxism in the Opening Paragraph of Analytic Philosophy?
469:
seems wrong on purely stylistic grounds. Is there a problem here?
70:
1167:
2579:
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review
1206:
with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the
1808:, not to mention his prolix and dismissive comments generally.
502:
Hi left a reply on mhy own talk page per the new guidelines.
400:
in that sentence; this isn't how an encyclopedia should read.
82:
1230:. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
1745:
A warning (promptly ignored) about reverting his Talk page
1770:
on an important article after his edits go to the winds.
1570:
is Lucaas removing the record of the block on Tercross.
2560:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
1812:
1805:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1767:
1759:
1751:
1744:
1737:
1730:
1723:
1716:
1709:
1702:
1694:
1666:
1658:
1651:
1640:
1633:
1623:
1612:
1599:
1589:
1583:
1567:
1563:
1555:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1499:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1400:
1396:
1258:
My edits are made following WP policies, in particular
611:
485:
466:
313:
2429:
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
2304:
if anyone else may be aware of a source we could use.
1495:
in his first day of contributing to Knowledge (XXG).
1752:
A warning about removing warnings from his Talk page
1813:
giving evidence of Lucas's shoddy use of references
96:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jbeebe2/DesiredIEP.htm
49:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 January 17
2098:trend. Please check your canons and let me know.--
1826:Articles which haven't been nominated for deletion
1391:, your opinion here is just not correct. Because
157:Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_comment/ForrestLane42
2483:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
2435:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
1220:do not edit war even if you believe you are right
1500:removing his second 3RR block from his Talk page
2000:I asked how you feel justified using the word
1364:There are a handful of problem editors on the
38:Sure thing. Thanks for asking for my opinion.
1717:kd's comment on history of philosophy article
1411:primarily a project to create an encyclopedia
8:
2053:Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy
1825:
1194:according to the reverts you have made on
465:I know next to nothing about the man, but
1738:An early warning against personal attacks
1356:This is archived from Ed Buckner's page:
1188:You currently appear to be engaged in an
1724:kd's comment on strange edits by Lucas
1659:abuse directed against expert editors
592:BLP violation on philosophy talk page
7:
2549:2016 Arbitration Committee elections
1218:among editors. If unsuccessful then
2562:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process
1820:The deletion review on said article
14:
2509:review the candidates' statements
2386:That's OK. Thanks for the reply!
694:enforcing policies, of course.)
2546:Hello, 271828182. Voting in the
2538:
1778:8 February 2007. More problems
1760:Complaint by User:The hanged man
1383:sums up the problem as follows.
1222:. Post a request for help at an
1183:
71:http://uh.edu/~psaka/IEPlist.htm
1794:Articles nominated for deletion
1710:271828182 forced to undo revert
1643:that Lucas misunderstands WPOR.
1352:Archived Dossier on User:Lucaas
614:, which also can be taken as a
2515:. For the Election committee,
2485:Arbitration Committee election
2476:ArbCom elections are now open!
2381:17:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
1799:The Afd on an article by Lucas
1535:, after which he was blocked.
923:04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
873:02:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
826:04:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
779:02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
738:16:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
704:16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
668:14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
652:13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
637:06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
607:06:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
2599:22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
2525:13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1346:18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
1330:18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
1298:04:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
1234:. If edit warring continues,
961:Communist liberation of Paris
239:08:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
224:10:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
206:08:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
2270:19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
2211:12:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
2155:17:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
2108:17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
2065:23:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
2018:20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
1976:16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
1945:07:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
1919:21:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1897:18:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1874:17:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1858:13:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1838:12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
1680:19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
1667:An early transgression of OR
1624:refusal to comply with WPNOR
1575:12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
1549:17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
1454:23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
1427:02:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
1272:01:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
1253:12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
1179:19:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
352:23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
326:12:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
306:12:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
185:19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
167:15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
146:12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
117:22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
60:17:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
43:22:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
26:13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
2583:and submit your choices on
2511:and submit your choices on
2470:08:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2424:07:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
2400:04:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
1806:attempt to moderate the Afd
1562:account. The block log is
1242:without further notice. --
956:05:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
2616:
2591:MediaWiki message delivery
2581:the candidates' statements
2517:MediaWiki message delivery
2319:You've reverted, claiming
1463:Constant mindless reverts
1092:01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
1075:04:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
1060:22:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1043:23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
443:Existence precedes essence
436:Existence precedes essence
379:16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
282:15:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
267:19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
83:http://www.malone.edu/2909
65:Want to make a difference?
2447:07:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
2353:18:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2335:17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2314:17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2297:Difference and Repetition
1607:Refusal to comply with OR
1584:User:Tercross' first edit
1512:Philosophy of mathematics
1445:to ignore others, but an
1154:01:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
1136:00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
1121:23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
584:09:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
566:09:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
550:18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
535:09:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
512:08:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
498:11:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
479:11:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
455:11:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
431:22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
253:12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
2348:
2265:
2150:
2060:
1971:
1914:
1869:
1493:a 48 hour block on Lucas
1341:
1325:
1267:
1162:Your edits on Philosophy
1131:
1087:
1055:
1010:01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
991:00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
986:
951:
918:
821:
699:
647:
410:07:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
1634:refuses to comply again
1224:appropriate noticeboard
976:18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
314:incredibly crap article
258:Early Modern Philosophy
2458:User talk:Barnabas2000
2406:The Philosophy Article
2322:In Search of Lost Time
2049:Renaissance Philosophy
1652:tendentious claim here
1515:Philosophy of language
244:Continental philosophy
81:History of Analytic:
2558:Arbitration Committee
2531:ArbCom Elections 2016
2489:Arbitration Committee
1613:escalate all you want
1518:Philosophy of science
814:you edit in bad faith
272:Influences/Influenced
196:Moving to Citizendium
103:comment was added by
1884:we Wikipedians wrote
1703:complaint by Rbellin
1641:complaint by rbellin
1594:Association of Ideas
488:I prefer as it was.
2493:arbitration process
2452:Informing about SPI
2439:Polisher of Cobwebs
1776:Talk:Being and Time
1527:Note the above was
363:Medieval philosophy
294:Medieval philosophy
178:Analytic philosophy
2574:arbitration policy
2533:: Voting now open!
2505:arbitration policy
2410:You are mentioned
1509:Philosophy of mind
1228:dispute resolution
1018:Desire v. pleasure
155:Please comment at
1731:further complaint
1697:by user 271828182
1485:first 3RR warning
1433:Comment on Lucaas
1296:
1251:
1208:three-revert rule
1200:edit disruptively
1046:
1029:comment added by
350:
211:OK not moving yet
120:
2607:
2542:
2391:
2372:
2203:Andrew Lancaster
2100:Andrew Lancaster
2010:Andrew Lancaster
1937:Andrew Lancaster
1889:Andrew Lancaster
1850:Andrew Lancaster
1547:
1295:
1293:
1250:
1248:
1187:
1171:Andrew Lancaster
1045:
1023:
612:Here is the edit
365:, and tidied up
357:Greetings friend
344:
264:edward (buckner)
262:Phew - thanks.
250:edward (buckner)
236:edward (buckner)
98:
2615:
2614:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2586:the voting page
2543:
2535:
2513:the voting page
2479:
2454:
2431:
2408:
2389:
2370:
2365:
2327:DionysosProteus
2306:DionysosProteus
2301:
1845:
1828:
1811:N.b. also KD's
1796:
1691:
1609:
1539:
1461:
1435:
1362:
1354:
1289:
1280:
1244:
1232:page protection
1164:
1102:
1024:
1020:
963:
616:personal attack
594:
522:
463:
438:
417:
389:
359:
334:
289:
274:
260:
246:
231:
213:
198:
174:
153:
135:
99:—The preceding
94:Epistemology:
87:Continental:
67:
36:
19:
12:
11:
5:
2613:
2611:
2544:
2537:
2536:
2534:
2528:
2482:
2478:
2473:
2453:
2450:
2430:
2427:
2407:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2364:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2338:
2337:
2300:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2051:), and in the
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1877:
1876:
1844:
1841:
1827:
1824:
1817:
1816:
1809:
1795:
1792:
1774:
1772:
1771:
1763:
1762:
1756:
1755:
1748:
1747:
1741:
1740:
1734:
1733:
1727:
1726:
1720:
1719:
1713:
1712:
1706:
1705:
1699:
1698:
1690:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1677:KD Tries Again
1671:
1670:
1663:
1662:
1655:
1654:
1647:
1645:
1644:
1637:
1636:
1629:
1627:
1626:
1619:
1617:
1616:
1608:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1597:
1587:
1489:Lucas' removal
1460:
1457:
1439:Being and Time
1434:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1379:
1361:
1358:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1333:
1332:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1163:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1139:
1138:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1063:
1062:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
994:
993:
962:
959:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
593:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
569:
568:
553:
552:
521:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
462:
459:
458:
457:
437:
434:
416:
413:
388:
387:Gilles Deleuze
385:
383:
371:Renamed user 5
358:
355:
339:
337:
333:
330:
329:
328:
288:
285:
273:
270:
259:
256:
245:
242:
230:
227:
212:
209:
197:
194:
192:
189:
173:
170:
152:
149:
134:
131:
129:
126:
123:
66:
63:
35:
32:
30:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2612:
2601:
2600:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2587:
2582:
2577:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2563:
2559:
2554:
2551:
2550:
2541:
2532:
2529:
2527:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2477:
2474:
2472:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2451:
2449:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2428:
2426:
2425:
2421:
2417:
2416:86.180.187.79
2413:
2405:
2401:
2398:
2397:
2393:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2379:
2378:
2374:
2363:
2360:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2323:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2299:chapter title
2298:
2295:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2258:chronological
2254:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2199:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1885:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1842:
1840:
1839:
1836:
1832:
1823:
1821:
1814:
1810:
1807:
1804:N.b. Lucas's
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1793:
1791:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1769:
1765:
1764:
1761:
1758:
1757:
1753:
1750:
1749:
1746:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1736:
1735:
1732:
1729:
1728:
1725:
1722:
1721:
1718:
1715:
1714:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1704:
1701:
1700:
1696:
1693:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1681:
1678:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1656:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1642:
1639:
1638:
1635:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1606:
1601:
1598:
1595:
1591:
1588:
1585:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1577:
1576:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1552:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1536:
1534:
1533:User:Tercross
1530:
1525:
1524:
1523:User:Tercross
1520:
1519:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1496:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1481:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1464:
1458:
1456:
1455:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1421:
1416:
1412:
1407:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1382:
1377:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1360:Case of Lucas
1359:
1357:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1294:
1292:
1286:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1249:
1247:
1241:
1239:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1202:or refuse to
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1186:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1161:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1099:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1017:
1011:
1007:
1003:
998:
997:
996:
995:
992:
988:
984:
980:
979:
978:
977:
973:
969:
960:
958:
957:
953:
949:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
874:
870:
866:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
827:
823:
819:
815:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
780:
776:
772:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
705:
701:
697:
692:
688:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
669:
665:
661:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
649:
645:
641:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
626:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
604:
600:
591:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
563:
559:
555:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
519:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
435:
433:
432:
428:
424:
423:
414:
412:
411:
407:
403:
399:
393:
386:
384:
381:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
356:
354:
353:
348:
343:
332:Deleuze links
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:81.151.183.93
315:
310:
309:
308:
307:
303:
299:
298:81.151.183.93
295:
286:
284:
283:
280:
271:
269:
268:
265:
257:
255:
254:
251:
243:
241:
240:
237:
228:
226:
225:
222:
216:
210:
208:
207:
204:
195:
193:
190:
187:
186:
183:
179:
171:
169:
168:
165:
162:
158:
150:
148:
147:
144:
140:
132:
130:
127:
124:
121:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
92:
90:
85:
84:
79:
78:
73:
72:
64:
62:
61:
58:
54:
50:
45:
44:
41:
33:
31:
28:
27:
24:
16:
2584:
2578:
2555:
2547:
2545:
2480:
2455:
2432:
2409:
2394:
2375:
2366:
2362:Jerome Vered
2320:
2302:
2257:
2197:
2052:
2048:
2005:
2001:
1883:
1846:
1829:
1818:
1797:
1773:
1646:
1628:
1618:
1578:
1553:
1537:
1528:
1526:
1521:
1507:
1504:
1497:
1482:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1436:
1414:
1410:
1405:
1381:User:Rbellin
1378:
1363:
1355:
1317:
1290:
1281:
1245:
1240:from editing
1235:
1219:
1198:. Users who
1189:
1182:
1165:
1110:
1106:
1103:
1064:
1021:
964:
945:
813:
690:
686:
619:
610:
595:
576:Peter Damian
542:Peter Damian
523:
520:A suggestion
504:Peter Damian
490:Peter Damian
471:Peter Damian
464:
447:Peter Damian
420:
418:
397:
394:
390:
382:
360:
342:Mats Halldin
335:
290:
275:
261:
247:
232:
217:
214:
199:
191:
188:
175:
154:
136:
133:RfC on Lucas
128:
125:
122:
93:
86:
80:
74:
68:
46:
37:
29:
20:
1560:User:Lucaas
1389:User:Lucaas
1370:User:Lucaas
1318:simpliciter
1307:supersedes
1236:you may be
1204:collaborate
1067:Anand011892
1031:Anand011892
1025:—Preceding
69:Language:
34:A/A & C
2570:topic bans
2501:topic bans
1843:Philosophy
1766:An editor
1689:Complaints
1579:See also:
1447:insistence
1366:Philosophy
1196:Philosophy
1144:Thanks. -
627:. Thanks.
367:Philosophy
172:Good edits
2566:site bans
2497:site bans
2345:271828182
2262:271828182
2147:271828182
2057:271828182
2002:canonical
1968:271828182
1911:271828182
1866:271828182
1831:Sublation
1695:Complaint
1338:271828182
1322:271828182
1278:continued
1264:271828182
1216:consensus
1212:talk page
1128:271828182
1084:271828182
1052:271828182
983:271828182
948:271828182
915:271828182
818:271828182
730:Gwen Gale
696:271828182
660:Gwen Gale
644:271828182
629:Gwen Gale
620:no editor
392:Deleuze.
17:Heidegger
1835:Dbuckner
1768:gives up
1572:Dbuckner
1459:Evidence
1451:Mtevfrog
1406:original
1226:or seek
1191:edit war
1039:contribs
1027:unsigned
618:, which
287:HI there
221:Dbuckner
203:Dbuckner
182:Dbuckner
161:goethean
143:Dbuckner
113:contribs
105:Zeusnoos
101:unsigned
75:Logic:
23:Zeusnoos
1600:An edit
1590:An edit
1566:. And
1483:Lucas'
1443:license
1420:Rbellin
1397:several
1387:Again,
1291:Snowded
1246:Snowded
1238:blocked
865:Skoojal
771:Skoojal
599:Skoojal
558:Skoojal
527:Skoojal
461:Deleuze
402:Skoojal
336:Hello,
53:Rbellin
2487:. The
2006:method
1545:(Talk)
1498:Lucas
1399:other
1393:WP:NOR
1374:WP:NOR
1309:WP:BRD
1285:WP:BRD
1146:Atfyfe
1113:Atfyfe
687:always
625:WP:BLP
2388:Zagal
2369:Zagal
1542:Lucas
1401:users
441:This
229:Hegel
2595:talk
2556:The
2521:talk
2466:talk
2443:talk
2420:talk
2412:here
2349:talk
2331:talk
2310:talk
2266:talk
2207:talk
2198:also
2196:are
2151:talk
2104:talk
2061:talk
2014:talk
1972:talk
1941:talk
1915:talk
1893:talk
1870:talk
1854:talk
1788:here
1786:and
1784:here
1780:here
1596:.").
1568:here
1564:here
1556:here
1554:See
1478:here
1476:and
1474:here
1470:here
1424:Talk
1415:more
1376:.
1342:talk
1326:talk
1313:WP:V
1305:WP:V
1268:talk
1260:WP:V
1175:talk
1150:talk
1132:talk
1117:talk
1088:talk
1071:talk
1056:talk
1035:talk
1006:talk
1002:Radh
987:talk
972:talk
968:Radh
952:talk
919:talk
869:talk
822:talk
775:talk
734:talk
700:talk
664:talk
648:talk
633:talk
603:talk
580:talk
562:talk
546:talk
531:talk
508:talk
494:talk
486:this
484:And
475:talk
467:this
451:talk
427:talk
406:talk
398:pace
375:talk
347:talk
322:talk
302:talk
159:. —
139:here
109:talk
57:Talk
2481:Hi,
2414:.
2396:^^^
2377:^^^
1551:).
1540:--
1529:not
422:DGG
415:NPA
279:RJC
176:On
151:RFC
40:CHE
2597:)
2589:.
2568:,
2523:)
2499:,
2468:)
2462:LK
2460:.
2445:)
2422:)
2392:jo
2373:jo
2351:)
2333:)
2312:)
2268:)
2209:)
2153:)
2106:)
2063:)
2016:)
1974:)
1943:)
1917:)
1895:)
1872:)
1856:)
1790:.
1782:,
1683:KD
1502:.
1480:.
1472:,
1344:)
1328:)
1287:--
1270:)
1177:)
1169:--
1152:)
1134:)
1119:)
1111:-
1090:)
1073:)
1058:)
1041:)
1037:•
1008:)
1000:--
989:)
974:)
954:)
921:)
871:)
824:)
777:)
736:)
702:)
666:)
650:)
635:)
605:)
582:)
564:)
548:)
533:)
510:)
496:)
477:)
453:)
429:)
408:)
377:)
340:/
324:)
304:)
115:)
111:•
2593:(
2519:(
2464:(
2441:(
2418:(
2390:e
2371:e
2347:(
2329:(
2308:(
2264:(
2205:(
2149:(
2102:(
2059:(
2012:(
1970:(
1939:(
1913:(
1891:(
1868:(
1852:(
1815:.
1669:.
1615:.
1422:|
1340:(
1324:(
1266:(
1173:(
1148:(
1130:(
1115:(
1086:(
1069:(
1054:(
1033:(
1004:(
985:(
970:(
950:(
917:(
867:(
820:(
773:(
732:(
698:(
662:(
646:(
631:(
601:(
578:(
560:(
544:(
529:(
506:(
492:(
473:(
449:(
425:(
404:(
373:(
349:)
345:(
320:(
300:(
164:ॐ
119:.
107:(
55:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.