692:
the answer is simple: take it down. I have only replaced one that was taken down, and that was on
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Someone had removed my links to subpoena, and I put them back up, thinking I hadn't done it in the first place. But I am not interested in getting into a war over any of this. The Magna Carta is significant since that document is involved in due process, of which subpoena is a vital part. But, as I have written, that is a matter of judgment. I have a suggestion for you and the rest of the Wiki community: why don't you work on repairing the many articles that are clearly sub par? For instance, the individual who removed my subpoena links from the Administrative Proecdure Act article wrote that the APA article needed work. It sure does. Why don't you add to it by telling about Goldburg v. Kelly, and Perales v. Richardson? To be honest, there are a lot of really poor articles in Wiki. I quit writing on Wiki once because of the excessive and coflicting demands of the editors. I changed my mind, and have been trying to repair some articles I could legitimately write about. As I said, I am not interested in fighting anyone. I have run into readers and commentors who like lots of links. But links aren't essential. Many articles don't have any links. It is a matter of judgment, and how one perceives Wiki should be. I have run into editors who don't think Wiki should be written above a junior high school level. If that is the standard, I won't be writing anymore. There are also editors who don't want any mention of religion, etc, etc. Let's have some peace on this. If you don't like the links, then take them down. I'm not going to fight you. But why don't you, and the others who are obsessing over my links put that energy into repairing some articles? Your energy would be better spent.
1058:
figures which are better avoided. They just draw too much attention from nuts who have an agenda, or want to pick a fight. To be honest, not many really care about
Bracton. This spring, besides Bracton and Trover, I have written Quia Emptores, Subpoena ad testificandum, Subpoena duces tecum, Continuance, United States v. Reynolds, Jencks v. United States, Jencks Act,and Cestui Que. I have been writing Federal Tort Claims Act. This has proven to be problematic in many ways, but I think I will get it done soon. I am also working on Brown-Sequard Syndrome. There are several US cases I have on my list. I wouldn't mind cleaning up Conversion, which as you mention, is a bit of a mess. I am always leery of getting into an article which is under the watch of some nasty troll. Apparently, Conversion is not one of these. Others I have thought about are Frankalmoign, Detinue, Assumpsit, among others. Many of the medieval statute articles could be re-done. I am interested in English Common Law from the Normans on. There is a real vacuum in US education in these areas. Anyway, thanks for your kind message, and keep in touch.
818:
to link the Fourth
Lateran Council to articles on subpoena which do mention it? (Assuming that the this is factually correct, which it is.) The same can be said of trial by ordeal, Magna Carta, etc. I have run into this quite a bit on Wiki: If the editor doesn't know it, then it doesn't exist. This, in my opinion, is why so many articles on Wiki are lacking. And the attitude of some of the editors (not you nor DGG) is so overbearing, that people who know things are highly reluctant to correct or add to articles. For instance, the article on Administrative Law and the Administrative Procedure Act should discuss Morgan v. US, Goldberg v. Kelly and Perales v. Richardson. But after this, there is no way I am going to go on those articles and try to write about these cases. Is Wiki made better by that? You answer the question. As for linking: that is simply a judgment call. Are we writing Wiki for a junior high level? Or something more informative? Writing with an element of informative detail is not like writing a comprehensive text, or an authoritative learned treatise.
666:
also) (top) 03:40, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Trial by combat‎ (→See also) (top) 03:39, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Fourth
Council of the Lateran‎ (→External links) (top) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Trial by ordeal‎ (→See also) (top) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Trial by ordeal‎ (→See also) 03:34, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Due process‎ (→See also) (top) 03:31, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Certiorari‎ (→Administrative law) (top) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Deposition (law)‎ (→Related Linkds) (top) 03:48, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Habeas corpus‎ (→See also) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Reporters' Privilege‎ (→See also) (top) 03:37, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Social Security (United States)‎ (→See also) 03:33, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure‎ (→External links) 03:29, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Interrogatories‎ (→United States)
839:. Removing a cross-reference hardly testifies to the non-existence of the subject, or the connection. But as DGG pointed out more succinctly than I, "see also" cross-references are disfavored. If something is important enough tot he subject to have a link, it is better that it be mentioned in the text itself. If that cannot be done, or no one cares to do it, the "see also" section is a poor substitute. That's just a general principle. More specifically, I am of the impression that the articles on subpoenas are high-quality, *but* they articles about technical terms, too technical for what the average reader looking to find information about trial by combat would need to know. I'm not opposed to them being here, or beinga available, but to include links to them everywhere, especially without contemporaneous explanation, changes the look of wikipedia for the worse.
898:
v. Kelly and
Perales v. Richardson). Morgan v. US led directly to the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. If Morgan v US deserves an article, I can write it. APA was modelled directly on Social Security Law and procedures. There was a host of cases which tested the constitutionality of social security, namely: Steward Machine Co v. Davis 1937; Helvering v. Davis; Carmichael v. Southern Coal and Coke; Fleming v. Nestor; Social Security Board v. Nierotko, are the prominent ones. My personal feeling is that while these may interesting to constitutional scholars, they probably don't belong in Wiki. But Morgan, Goldberg and Perales probably do. It is a matter of judgment. (Tony Francis)
383:
singling it out makes it seem like he is especially notable for it. Much more important to him was reconciling hylomorphism with
Christianity, something which was shocking to his contemporaries, and which his attempt may well have been a (brilliant) failure, and which is provocative and fascinating (to professional philosophers, at least). Here we have one of his most singular contributions to philosophy, and it's not there at all. LIkewise, the question of forced baptism was nothing very important to him; nobody seriously suggested forced baptism, and his response to the question is a commonplace. But can we discuss this on the talk page? Others may be interested too.
1028:
changing stuff (I encountered this in a few places when I started, and it drove me bananas). What I realise more and more is that you can go into endless detail on any given subject, and
Knowledge allows you to do that, with sub pages, sub sub pages, subsubsub, etc. Can I suggest this tactic if you're in a subpoena type situation? I only say this, because it might save getting angry. One thing that we can never have too many of is simply cases: lots of cases; or statutes. Also, good referencing is really important for lawyers (I try to make what I write just look like a textbook, or practitioner book might) and I definitely structure (more in
788:
subpoena", which seemed a good link to me. But, as I have written, this is largely a matter of judgment. I'm not really wanting to get into a battle with anyone over this. I can live with whatever the community wants to do. As I have written, it seems a small matter to take the links down. The reference on linking mentions that a rule of thumb for hyperlinking is having more than 10% of the words in an article "linked", which isn't the case with the articles I have written. Relevance is another matter, and is a judgment call.
417:. This makes a little superscript number show up (I'm sure you've seen them before, like here:). It's possible to use Harvard citation templates which also generate a reference list at the bottom of the page, but I haven't seen this used anywhere in practice. It's your decision what citation format to use (more or less) since you've been putting so much work into that article. I'm willing to help you convert the references to inline refs since all the information is there and it's just a formatting issue. Let me know. -
555:
you cannot sensibily discern those who have it, from those who do not, you have no personally-suffered injury, even if
Congress wishes otherwise. Cf. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)(Scalia, J., effectively equating an injury suffered by all to an injury suffered by none). I would apply similar reasoning here: if you can't say why two articles should cross-reference one another on a way that justifies why they should be, as opposed to another, they should not be cross-referenced.
743:
reference, it can be distracting. this is after all a general encyclopedia. Now I know that the manner of cross referencing in legal treatises is very dense, for the very good purpose of making sure that nothing is overlooked that might affect a case. But that doesn't really apply here. Despite the excellent work of yourselves and a few other editors, there are so many topics still missing or inadequate, that anyone doing serious legal research would be much better off elsewhere.
575:
those laws/institutions, they can click to learn more. Does someone reading about the FTC or the
Robinson-Patman or Clayton antitrust acts need to know about subpoenas to get a sufficient and encyclopediac understanding of those subjects? I am not sure. If they are, perhaps it should be explained in the body article instead of "see also" where it's value is apparent only to people like you and I, who already know it already.
3313:
1955:
3232:
2240:
3389:
2970:
922:
3528:
3672:
3145:
2865:
2792:
2663:
2477:
3494:
803:
similar to what I read in my civil procedure casebook), but I still don't think the see-alsos are necessary. DDG articulated the "necessity" aspect of this far better than I did. In any case, I am sorry that you feel excessive discussion of this has detained you, but I think that comity between editors requires discussion before editors take action that undoes the bona fide work of another.
3053:
2170:
3567:
768:. The two specific forms are not specifically mentioned. If they are considered sufficiently important to include in this general article, then they should be included that way, rather than as an external link. How to do it best I of course leave to the experts. And so on. Hope this helps. When experts write articles, they should write them so they can be used as models.
1536:
was seperated out into the sub article still belongs on the main page though. Some of what we try to acheive is a consistant formating between pages. This is so that no matter what page you look at descriging a specific disease you know were to find what you are looking for. Hope this helps. And do not worry what you have written will not be discarded or deleted. --
453:
at the end of the thought, with the full citation at the bottom. As I have learned, this is called the
Harvard method. I am used to it. Anyway, there are too many references in my original writing, so I am trying to get them down to a useful minimum. thanks again. (Those links of the supreme court cases looked dorky in blue... so I am glad you changed them!)
2734:
2618:
254:
225:. It could be argued that this approach reduced the sacrament of baptism to nothing but a "magical" right. The Second School: That it violated natural law to disrupt the order of the family by interferring. Therefore, even if children were being reared in error, the Church had no authority to intervene. This was the position taken by Aquinas.
238:
page.... there was also some disagreement (mild) with Dave aukman whether these tihings belonged on the Thomas Aquinas page in the first place. This is a matter of opinion, and taste. So I am more than willing to move these. I am typing as fast as I can. I will also leave whatever "tags" behind you think are appropriate.
513:
added these links have very little connection to issues of trial process and procedure, to which subpoena procedure is relevant. Because the connection is too attenuated, these links are inappropriate in these articles. I intend to remove these links from the articles on antitrust law and the 4th amendment.
2935:
A few hours ago, you reverted an edit I'd made, to the "Quia Emptores" article. I've reviewed the original, and compared it with my own edit, and I don't understand your reasoning, for reverting what I'd done. Would you please explain why you found my contribution to be inferior to the version that I
1281:
Wiki-policy is to make it as clear to users as possible by putting the full book in the bibliography and just a standard Harvard-system inline in the text. Also, it's generally a bad idea to have a reference of a reference; instead of the maitland/pollock, put a reference with the page of the Kiralfy
817:
Matt: I don't mind discussing any topic. The issue of linking is is a worthy topic. But here's the rub: If DGG does not know that subpoenas were proximately caused by the actions of the Fourth Lateran Council, and the article on the Fourth Lateran Council doesn't mention it, then is it legitimate
554:
I would observe however, that if we look only to what is germane, we would run the risk of overlinking. Consider if you will, an analogy to the "generalized greivance" doctrine in Art. III "standing" cases, wit which I am sure you are familiar. That doctrine holds that if an injury is so general that
492:
Frank -- yes, I am going to stick with the Harvard method for the time being. There are about 30 case sites that I have left out, because they are mainly old and have been superceded for the most part. They are contained in the ALR and Am Jur references. I am not locked into any particular system,
1650:
I know that the quality of medical info here will never reach that provided by Uptodate. I know that there is lots of vandalism which makes it a pain to edit sometimes. But wikipedia is the 7th most accessed site on the net. The page I have contributed to on Obesity gets 5000 hits a day. You can
724:
Matt: I think you are making a big deal out of not very much. If you don't like the links to the subpoena articles, take them down. The "subpoena" articles were a sentence or two before I wrote them. If that is the "status quo" you are worried about preserving, then reconsider your position. If
574:
The other thing is that, unless I'm mistaken, not all cross-references need to be reciprocal. The subpoena article which mentions the antitrust acts and the FTC rightly links to their main articles. Do those articles need to link back? If someone is reading the subpoena articles and is curious about
558:
Here, we are dealing with articles about subpoenas - a procedural tool, available to many agencies, in many cases. Almost every article about a law topic could have some connection to these articles. If all else fails, you could quip about what evidence it might be helpful to subpoena. As you are an
452:
Frank, thanks for the comment. Actually, I started putting this article only a few days ago, and am in the process of editing in the various references... and re-reading for the many typos... I used to edit a medical legal journal, and the usual method is to write the short version of the reference
2115:
I have more to write about the social justice and existentialism, though the part about the usury and forced baptism doesn't strike me as imperative for the article on Thomism, however. (Thomism refers moreso to the school of philosophy rather than very particular beliefs of Aquinas in general.) If
897:
Hi Dave: I will take your suggestions seriously. I have noticed there are a lot of stub articles in the legal, or legal history sections, and I have intended to expand some of these. Concerning Morgan v. US: this is one of three cases which have defined modern due process (the others are Goldberg
725:
you don't think these articles should be linked to other articles, then take them down. What's so difficult about that? I still think your efforts would be better directed at improving some of the poor articles on wiki, instead of fretting about the propriety of what article should link to what.
691:
Hi Matt. Those links are justified because each of those topics is discussed, or mentioned, in a meaningful way, in my articles. Who put you in charge of editing my links? Clearly, related links are a matter of judgment. To me, it is no big deal. If someone doesn't think a link is appropriate,
512:
AE Francis: I have noticed that recently, you have inserted links to the subpoena articles into the "see also" sections of several law-related article pages. These sections contain links to related articles. Except for the article on the Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure, the articles to which you have
1535:
Wikimedia has a whole bunch of open source pages. Knowledge is the encyclopedia part. Case studies are a little bit beyond the scope of Knowledge however and would be a good addition to either wikibooks or wikiversity, which we can than link to from the Brown-Sequard syndrome page. Some of what
1296:
I removed one section; I was just about to message you with the reasoning. Little mini-headers like that tend to clutter the page a bit. If the sections were long enough I'd put standard equal-sign headers in, but there isn't the material to justify that; this is the best that can be done for now.
1131:
Do you have copies of Plucknett and Pollock? Maitland I've encountered; Holdsworth's 16-volume text (particularly the first volume) was invaluable for writing the article; I love his style of writing, for some reason. Basically anything you have from Pollock and Plucknett that isn't in the article
1057:
Dear Wikidea: Thanks so much for your kind words. I have found that concentrating on little known topics which most are not interested is a good tactic when writing on Wiki. Adding a lot of references is useful. I think there are some topics like controversial ones, or ones concerning religious
802:
DDG's concerns are similar in essence to my mind. As for whether too much is made of this, well, that is the nature of a community project like wikipedia - anything can be discussed, and sometimes, you don't realize how much discussion something gets. I appreciate your historical elaboration (it's
750:
as currently written, does not appear to deal with subpoenas. The article discusses only some of the canons adopted there, but reading them all, though some refer to procedure in canon law, they do not appear to deal directly with the equivalent of this subject either. I am not sure just what the
665:
Mr. Francis: The proliferation is as follows: 12:58, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Court of Chancery‎ (→See also) (top) 12:56, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Summons‎ (→See also) (top) 03:48, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Danelaw‎ (→See also) (top) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Magna Carta‎ (→See
609:
Hi Matt... yes I did it in Legal Medicine. I was a spinal surgeon for a while, and went to law school on the side. I got the LLD in 1987, but it doesn't seem that long ago. I am 54 years old this summer. I have a company called "Legal Medicine Research"... I used to write quite a few tort cases.
562:
I see a stronger case for inclusion of the cross-references in the articles on the 4th Amendment, and a slightly stronger case for the FTC and Robinson-Patman act articles, in that, at least the subjects of those articles are mentioned in the subpoena duces tecum article. By the time we get to the
547:
Here, we are looking of articles, all of which are about law. More specifically, one about Constitutional protection of the rights of accused and suspected criminals, and two about acts of Congress modifying the competition law regime. Are links to articles about the subpoena procedure relevant to
220:
The question frequently arose whether the children of Jews and other heretics and non-believers should be baptized against the will of their parents. Two schools of thought were generally followed: The First School: That since all persons who were not baptized would be damned to hell, all children
3639:
Your edit warring at that article resulted in an admin applying full protection; you were warned at the time that if the disruption started up again when the protection expired, blocks would be forthcoming. You can still use the article talk page to suggest improvements, and if you are willing to
1175:
Just saw your expansions: Wow. I've corrected a couple of links and clarified what Glanvill's treaties actually is for readers, and the Common Pleas was disestablished as a court in 1873, not 1875. Be careful, by the way, to put things in chronological order; Some of the stuff you put in repeated
873:
AE, the thing to do is to use your knowledge to expand the relevant articles so they do mention what is important. Now that you remind me, i do recall the significance for English law, but its not obvious enough for a bare sa. It would not be appropriate to list as a see also everything the 4LC
787:
DGG and Matt: Thanks for your comments. I am not "set in concrete" about any of this. I can live with whatever the community wants to do. If the links seem inapropriate, then they should come down. The Fourth Lateran Council ended trial by ordeal in England, which led to the use of the "writ
578:
I hope I've explained my reasoning adequately. I would be more than happy to hear from you more on the subject and I will always entertain reconsideration for any good reason. For the sake of convenience, why don't we stick to using just one user page (yours?) for the remainder of the discussion?
1146:
Didn't know that last bit, but then it wasn't my area of focus. The most interesting thing I found out was that due to the constitutional rule that senior english justices are impossible to remove, when it came to merging the three highest english common law courts in 1273 they had to wait seven
1027:
If I could just add another comment: I just read some of the above on the page. It's obvious that you've got a vast amount to contribute (I expect you can do much of it off the top of your head too), and what can be really frustrating is when editors just want to block it because they don't like
709:
A E Francis, I don't want you to look at this as "you against me" and I'm not taking charge of any aspect of wikipedia. There are no "my" articles and no "your" articles on Knowledge. See . It's a community project. Under that community project, there's a certain aesthetic. Your edits change the
742:
happened to drop by, and thought another opinion might help here, since it sounds like an impasse, and the rule is a little subjective. Per the Manual of Style, we try to use only essential see alsos--everything in the world is linked to everything else, and if we make every possibly help cross
1654:
We all agree that what you have written is well presented and well referenced. A number of people chimed in with nonse aguements such as calling it original research. But they are obviously wrong. The only concern is the case studies are not really in the proper format for an encyclopedia.
382:
I didn't say the article should be deleted; I said the opposite. But my concern is that it is currently POV. Why are these the right topics? The death penalty, for example, was not a major concern for Aquinas. He said nothing new, and was addressing nothing controversial for his time. But
237:
22:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Yes, I understand, but here is what happened: I started typing on the Thomas Aquinas site a few weeks ago.... the article was 95 KB which was way over the limit of 32 KB, so I have started new pages... there are links I have added at the bottom of the Thomas Aquinas
1464:
I feel that these case studies definitely have a place on Knowledge and see that you have put a lot of work into them. We have other pages that are collections of studies done on a specific medicine related topic. When it comes to pages about specific disease this page is a great resource.
673:
I do not want to stifle your contributions to wikipedia in any way. However, I am concerned that is excessively technical. Knowledge is not a practice guide nor a historical treatise on the law. It is an encyclopedia. Personally, I think this is inconsistent with that aesthetic. I am not the
2339:
I see you largely wrote this article, which is in fine shape except that the ciations are missing a lot of info (journal title, PMIDs, and DOIs). I've begun filling in the missing info, but the easiest way to do that is to use the Diberri PMID citation template filler, which means I'm also
1190:
The common form of referencing on WP, by the way; taking Plucknett as an example, you'd have the full book title and citation in a "bibliography" below the "references". When you put an inline citation in just put (for example) "Plucknett p.52" instead of the full citation and page number.
630:
Hi again, A E Francis. I see you are continuing to proliferate the mainspace with see-also cross-references to the pages on subpoenas. Thank you for paying attention to wikipedia, and I'm glad I have not in any way discouraged you. I've noticed though, that while some of your additions are
2675:
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
2877:
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
2804:
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
1647:. The correct formatting is lower case S after the proper name. You need to have admin privaleges to make this move as the move was to a page that was already there. Therfore the editor who wrote that comment was looking for an editor with admin privaleges to make the correction.
1774:) who asked if I could do it for her. The information itself has changed little and on Knowledge, nothing is ever lost. The case material has not been deleted; it has been moved to a separate page, and whether or not it should be deleted will depend on the deletion discussion.
353:
clear changes with you, and that seems to be what you are doing. Moreover, I checked out the talk pages, and I don't see a lot of working through of compromises there either. Please remember that this is a collaborative enterprise, and that the Knowledge policies apply to
198:). The point I'm making is that you've cut a lot of info out of the article, which isn't visible anywhere on wikipedia at the moment. Also it's important to leave behind enough info for a basic overview of the info you're removing, and clear links to the info's new location.
1418:) 06:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I told you, it was not done on purpose, I just happened to click on the revert button when my browser froze and I tried to click everywhere to get it unfrozen. Please do not spaz out on other people's talk pages. A nice note would do. Thanks.
527:
Reply: Mr. Francis, I did read the articles. They're very good; I know you're not a hack. I also appreciate your constructive approach to discussing our disagreement. I hope you will not take the speed with which I pursued my agenda as any kind of a rebuke of your edits.
1111:
Just saw this article; I've seen some of your other work and keep meaning to drop by but never do. Anyway: fantastic article! Could I perhaps ask a favour? You obviously know a lot about law-related topics; I've significantly (read:fivefold) expanded the article on the
669:
Including The 4th amendment article, which I did not molest, you have now added "see also" or "related links" to 16 pages. I do not conclude whether there is any "big deal" or not, however, if you haven't yet noticed it, this proliferation is unusual, and unorthodox.
3413:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
2994:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
183:
22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Well, it isn't at all clear how to cut and paste these from the original section, so I am re-typing them here. They have been removed from the original sites. There is no redundancy. What are you, some kind of anti-Catholic bigot?
1759:
I understand that psychiatrists with little experience might be confused by an article history. Even for regular users, page history merges can be confusing. I assure you that no admininstrator power trips have taken place; in fact, the move was requested by
1366:
1226:
I've corrected some grammar and styling, particularly; references should immediately follow the full stop without a space, so it would be. rather than . . Secondly, you seem to use double spacing, which I'm afraid the Manual of Style isn't a big fan of.
2489:
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.
710:
status quo. I don't know if it's for the better or the worse, but I have some concerns. I'm speaking up for the status quo, not because I don't like your edits, but because that's part of our jobs as editors wanting to make wikipedia a better place.
3417:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
2998:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
1241:
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I do need to emphasise again; please read the article through before inserting new bits. I'm grateful for your additional information, but you just added a section on plea rolls repeated half a paragraph down.
755:
also does not mention this. Obviously the general topic of procedure is relevant , but I do not see how this specifically is. Perhaps there is something more specific, but in that case the article should make it evident. On the other hand,
1663:
after having mutiple edit wars with an editor Scuro. Scuro thankfully has stoped editting and pushing his POV. Knowledge does have politics and part of the skill is bringing in people to support you point of view and back you
2991:
566:
Still, even the Robinson-Patman Act and FTC articles bother me. Yes, the FTC has subpoena power over records to investigate anti-competitive practices --- but what federal agency doesn't have extra-judicial subpoena power over
202:
I'll try and give an example - e.g. the section you've just removed on Forced Baptism. You should leave behind a summary paragraph with the basic info and a link to the new article where the more in depth info is now listed.
1658:
We see these problems with any large group of people. I for example have had pages I have created posted for deletion. Have reversed the decisions in all cases but took some effort. I have been brought to a RFC committe
362:, where you seem to have essentially declared that no matter what the policies may be, you will do as you please on "your" article. Degrees--I have a fancy one too--are not relevant here, nor are questions of ownership.
1211:
The initial judicature act was '73, and the full merger was '80. I've added the bibliography citation for Plucknett, so just go through and replace them with Plucknett, p.52 or whatever it is. Thanks for all your help.
3122:
15:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC) What good is accomplished when one "editor" indiscriminately edits out a whole article and never leaves a word anywhere why it was done? No warning and nothing afterward? Corrected
631:
understandable, I am scratching my head to understand others. I think you've run the risk of overdoing it. May I suggest you post at the WP:LAW talk page and see how your fellow editors feel about this endeavor?
2432:. 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
3717:
3190:
2905:
2832:
2703:
2517:
539:
The concern I have is about something of a grey area in the wiki policies. Knowledge articles are supposed to be rich with internal links, however only those that are relevant to the subject of the articles.
1820:. Congratulations. There are a number of things that need to be fixed up though. Will work on a few if I have time. One of course is formatting so that one can easily link to the original research. --
1565:
Yes it depends on the type of writing you want to do. If you want to write encyclopedia stuff this is the place. If you want to write books or write course material than the other places are good.
990:!). Keep up the good work on these law articles! We need more lawyers like you on Knowledge! And if you feel like attacking the occasional high-school-esque student, don't worry, I know how you feel.
126:
explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
3701:. 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
3410:
3174:. 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
2889:. 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
2816:. 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
2687:. 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
2501:. 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
603:
Did you study anything in particular for your LLD? Did you do a dissertation, and if so, on what (and whom to?). The LLD/JSD are quite rarely-seen; I have only ever met one man who has one.
2196:
2184:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also
1036:" rather than putting country-specific material on the general, cross jurisdictional page. This is something I've been doing more lately. You've probably worked all this out anyway. :)
3686:
3159:
2195:
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to
404:
Ahh, at first glance it appeared that there were only a list of references at the bottom. Now I see you're using the Harvard method of inlines, but that you're doing it manually (use
2316:
Hello, you may be interested in this discussion, as from what I can tell from edit histories of talk pages, you've assessed a fair number of the articles in this category. Regards,
878:-- it is in fact rather astounding we don;'t have an article on it, but I suggest that writing such an article is much more important than trying to describe it in related articles.
2754:
to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
2638:
to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
1335:, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Knowledge.
1466:
341:
may have done or not done. I have also found him to be difficult to work with at times. But regardless, adopting a position of ownership is not appropriate, nor is violating
3472:
If you feel that the only way someone can disagree with you is if they are acting in bad faith, you will have difficulty in participating in a large collaborative project.
1991:
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following
551:
As you observe, the subpoena articles themselves mention the subjects of the articles to which you added the cross-refs. That strengthens the case that they are germane.
1569:
is the article I have spend most of my time on. Hope you continue editing here. Knowledge is a good source but needs a lot more people who are medically oriented. --
3532:
3348:
3275:
1502:
One thing the case study page needs is proper formatting of references. Here is a tool were are you need is the PMID and it does the rest of the formatting for you.
764:
is somewhat different. "Subpoena" is, as one would expect, mentioned three times in section 1.6. The first of these is, correctly, linked to the general article on
760:
is obviously a very closely related concept. But the article should discuss the relationship, not just have a see also which will not be very clear to the beginner.
179:
I'm not quite sure how you're going about this, but you need to leave summaries behind of the information you're moving out, and clear links to the expanded info.
2269:, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at
2144:
I was planning on writing more about existentialism and the views of Thomism by other philosophers; I'm currently working through my notes on that, as I said. --
493:
but I am used to that harvard method. I don't mind using a number system, but it can be sort of distracting if there are a lot of numbers. Thanks for your input
322:'s edits seem to be done in good faith, and certainly do not qualify as vandalism. They may be incorrect, but the solution is to discuss them in the talk page.
1176:
content already there at a later date; reasons for the creation of the common court, followed by location, followed by reasons. Thanks for your help so far :D.
467:
First I hope you don't mind my reformatting your response. By using colons you can indent your response and it won't get mixed up with other text on the page.
1840:) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the info. Will work to change the references to make them more friendly. Thanks for all your help and support.
1077:- a good guy - has a nice sort of guide for writing featured articles (he's done and been involved with quite a few) which you could find interesting. Also,
610:
Now that I have this job with the federal courts, I don't have the need, nor the time to mess around with trial lawyers so much, although I don't mind them.
2046:- I would suggest moving the case histories as being suggested before the relevant sections of Knowledge's articles get trimmed down (i.e. cut entirely).
2749:
1116:; not sure if you know much about it, but if you do would you mind helping out? I'm thinking with some good hard work we could get it to GA or even FA.
3400:
2981:
2633:
1859:
Hey Francis I will look into what happened to the text you edited. I presume that it has been transwikied. Give me a few days to sort things out.--
949:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
3533:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A E Francis: calls me a vandal, adds back unsourced (BURDEN, OWN) content in a very slow edit war
3060:. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
1655:
However the other parts of Wikimedia have very similar formatting to Knowledge and if this is move it should be easy to link to from wikipedia.
3103:
1380:
For A E Francis, for superb work on a growing number of excellent socio-historical and purely legal articles, but in particular for completing
1783:
If you have any other questions or concerns about the recent edits to the Brown-SĂ©quard syndrome article, please don't hesitate to contact me.
3268:
1660:
3740:
3213:
3094:
to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
2919:
2846:
2717:
2531:
2457:
3640:
edit constructively, and to abide by our content policies and guidelines, then you can apply to be unblocked by following the guidance at
3274:
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's
471:
tags), the reference shows up as that floating blue number and links to a corresponding reference at the bottom of the article. Check out
1695:
I have responded to your message on my talkpage. In general, I would suggest withdrawing the threat of taking this into the blogosphere.
3611:
3329:
3256:
3029:
2741:
2043:
1999:
1470:
1384:. Knowledge is lucky to have experts like you that display such a high quality of knowledge and professionalism in writing. Well done!
1339:
257:
Welcome to Knowledge. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
2340:
converting your manual citations to cite journal templates-- please let me know if that is OK with you, and I will continue the work.
1771:
1328:
3450:
3347:
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Knowledge's
215:
761:
230:
This gives the reader of the main article some idea and context, and he can read the main article for a more in depth treatment.
1469:
If you have any questions let me know. If you want to ask questions of the larger medicine editor community here is the page.
3736:
3209:
2915:
2842:
2713:
2527:
2453:
2159:
1113:
262:
3592:
3585:
3509:
3395:
3379:
3356:
3236:
2745:
2629:
2310:
1980:
1324:
123:
3477:
747:
258:
130:
2625:
1963:
875:
3710:
3600:
3341:
3337:
3317:
3264:
3240:
3183:
3118:
3099:
3065:
2898:
2825:
2696:
2510:
2398:
1931:
1905:
1872:
1833:
1677:
1616:
1582:
1549:
1519:
1486:
571:? What, so to speak, is "special" about the FTC? Like Scalia, I'm looking for their plane ticket, and I can't find it.
470:
I don't think you should pare down your references: more is better for the most part. If you use footnotes (<ref: -->
414:
107:
2444:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
2101:
as you sent me that message. Please tell me what you think of my additions, though I'm not completely finished yet. --
1161:
Excellent, thanks! My uni law library tends to focus more on current than historical law, so I'm loosing out somewhat.
110:, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add
3722:
3604:
3195:
2910:
2837:
2708:
2522:
2449:
2285:
1410:
It was probably one of the clicks I tried to click when my browser froze. Sorry for the incovenience. Happy New Year!
290:
85:
24:
17:
2329:
Yes. I would be interested in the general area of legal articles - thanks for asking. 00:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
1503:
1033:
3283:
2774:
2759:
2177:
1798:
1651:
easily move from one topic to another. And really Knowledge is a good place to start researching nearly anything.
950:
856:
Hi Matt: I can live with your judgment and assessment of this situation. Whatever you decide, I will live with.
583:). At this point, it does not seem necessary - I have confidence in our ability to privately-order the resolution.
359:
40:
3580:
3499:
3404:
3360:
3287:
3109:
2985:
2976:
2960:
2289:
2255:
2181:
2163:
1644:
1347:
405:
398:
1603:
By the way the editing community is slit between moving these case studies to wikibooks and keeping them here.--
3575:
3505:
3473:
3325:
3252:
2402:
1954:
1935:
1909:
1876:
1837:
1681:
1620:
1586:
1553:
1523:
1490:
674:
authority on the aesthetic of wikipedia, but "the community" is. I would like the community to weigh in on it.
51:
50:
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that
3286:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in
559:
attorney, I don't think I need to start rattling off half-baked examples for you to see where this is going.
3550:
A E Francis, if you wish to respond to what has been said at the ANI thread, I would not delay any further. -
579:
Also, FYI, if we have any intractable disagreement, I'd also be happy to get a neutral editor's comment via (
2262:
944:
844:
808:
715:
679:
636:
591:
518:
44:
2034:
Whilst, as a doctor, I found your case histories interesting and nicely presented in their succinct style.
1032:). Oh, and one more, peevishly British thing, there's nothing wrong with writing new pages entitled, e.g. "
978:
Hello A E Francis, I just wanted to say, it happened that I came across two articles you've written today:
3653:
3627:
3095:
3057:
2351:
2270:
2149:
2135:
2121:
2106:
2083:
2068:
1765:
1640:
1073:
Cheers. Tort is one area I'm particularly interested in, so I'll look forward to seeing what you do. Btw,
921:
266:
874:
affected indirectly. As a general encyclopedia, what we need are more articles. For example, you mention
563:
Clayton act article, we are so attenuated in our justification that we blur into "generalized linking."
3698:
3555:
3171:
2886:
2813:
2770:
2755:
2684:
2652:
Well there isn't much to say.... it is fair use of an image that is on the 'Net... thanks.. A E Francis
2643:
2498:
2320:
1793:
937:
2254:
on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a
2220:. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --
88:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done for the following reason:
3438:
2300:
2225:
2185:
1967:
1438:
1343:
1332:
1320:
480:
422:
36:
2380:
2295:
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
35:
for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on
3596:
3333:
3260:
3072:, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
3069:
3061:
2445:
2382:
for reassessments of articles you have contributed extensively too rather than changing your self.
2266:
2251:
1889:
1423:
1415:
1302:
1287:
1271:
1247:
1232:
1217:
1196:
1181:
1166:
1152:
1137:
1121:
964:
338:
319:
294:
3435:
That was my answer to your suggestion that this article be deleted. I am curing your vandalism.
2941:
1892:. I will work on moving it to wikibooks and than see about linking this to the main wiki page.--
1731:
1716:
1700:
1275:
1078:
840:
804:
711:
675:
632:
587:
541:
514:
298:
3469:. Vandalism is when there is no possible way for the person to have been sincere in their edit.
2078:
or a similar Wikimedia Foundation project, which would doubtless appreciate this information.
3680:
3645:
3619:
3540:
3517:
3426:
3368:
3302:
3153:
3037:
3007:
2873:
2800:
2671:
2599:
2580:
2562:
2485:
2467:
2421:
2412:
2344:
2145:
2131:
2117:
2102:
2079:
2003:
1761:
1450:
1323:. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Knowledge uses a set of
475:
for more information. Have you decided to stick with Harvard referencing for the time being? -
270:
31:, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see
3729:
3694:
3551:
3442:
3293:
3202:
3167:
3124:
3025:
3017:
2945:
2882:
2809:
2680:
2639:
2494:
2441:
2425:
2394:
2361:
2317:
2206:
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
2016:
1927:
1901:
1868:
1841:
1829:
1673:
1612:
1578:
1545:
1515:
1482:
1105:
1074:
1059:
987:
983:
899:
857:
819:
789:
726:
693:
649:
611:
494:
454:
239:
222:
185:
166:
3709:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
3182:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2897:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2824:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2695:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2509:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2440:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
3255:
with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the
3091:
2333:
2296:
2221:
2064:
2057:
2047:
1985:
1029:
752:
476:
418:
115:
60:
1327:
to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from
1966:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge takes
3706:
3244:
3179:
2894:
2821:
2692:
2506:
2437:
2429:
2277:
2039:
1419:
1411:
1298:
1283:
1267:
1243:
1228:
1213:
1192:
1177:
1162:
1148:
1133:
1117:
960:
533:
472:
409:
286:
234:
180:
156:
146:
142:
138:
73:
69:
32:
2176:
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for
27:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under the
3702:
3641:
3175:
2937:
2890:
2817:
2688:
2502:
2433:
2281:
2217:
2210:
template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
2207:
2200:
2189:
2035:
1727:
1712:
1696:
1442:
1338:
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on
885:
775:
580:
529:
346:
342:
195:
134:
129:
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria
99:
28:
2063:
I've moved the beautifully written, but clearly non-encyclopedic, case studies from
3536:
3513:
3422:
3364:
3328:
with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the
3298:
3033:
3003:
2595:
2576:
2558:
1446:
1391:
1386:
1092:
1087:
1043:
1038:
1016:
1011:
997:
992:
388:
367:
327:
265:. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
145:. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
3671:
3231:
3144:
2864:
2791:
2662:
2476:
2239:
1504:
http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id
1365:
72:. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
54:
wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template
3114:
2386:
1919:
1893:
1860:
1821:
1665:
1604:
1570:
1537:
1507:
1474:
1082:
349:
exceptions are extremely narrowly drawn. It is not right to insist that people
345:, no matter how sure you are the edits are wrong. Be very careful of that one:
3493:
2284:, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see
2169:
1381:
155:
By the way - add the hangon tag to the article page, not your user talk page.
2265:
to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only
3235:
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge, as you did at
2075:
986:: both of which are superb (you might even like to have a go at the mess in
3566:
2992:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Thought of Thomas Aquinas (2nd nomination)
108:
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article
3744:
3658:
3632:
3559:
3544:
3521:
3481:
3454:
3430:
3372:
3306:
3217:
3132:
3041:
3011:
2953:
2923:
2850:
2778:
2763:
2721:
2647:
2603:
2584:
2566:
2535:
2461:
2406:
2369:
2355:
2324:
2304:
2229:
2153:
2139:
2125:
2110:
2087:
2050:
2024:
2010:
1939:
1913:
1880:
1849:
1803:
1736:
1721:
1705:
1685:
1624:
1590:
1557:
1527:
1494:
1454:
1427:
1397:
1351:
1306:
1291:
1251:
1236:
1221:
1200:
1185:
1170:
1156:
1141:
1125:
1098:
1067:
1049:
1022:
1003:
968:
907:
889:
865:
848:
827:
812:
797:
779:
734:
719:
701:
683:
657:
640:
619:
595:
522:
502:
484:
462:
426:
392:
371:
331:
302:
275:
242:
188:
169:
159:
149:
76:
3610:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
2071:. Please do not add such case studies to any more Knowledge articles.
880:
770:
765:
93:
Already covered in the main Thomas Aquinas article - completely redundant
3713:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
3614:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
3186:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
3080:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2901:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
2828:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
2733:
2699:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
2617:
2513:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
253:
3690:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
3163:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
2098:
2015:
The image in question is in the public domain and has been since 1982.
1566:
757:
648:
Hi Matt: Just where have I proliferated? And why is this a big deal?
384:
363:
323:
165:
The information in Thomas Aquinas is going to be removed, post haste!
2343:
I also left some comments on the article talk page. Happy Holidays!
544:. As per MOS, articles should neither be overlinked, nor underlinked.
3535:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
2038:
applies and Knowledge is the wrong location for this vs. educational
979:
928:
1970:
very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the
586:
Thanks again for replying and I hope to hear from you again soon.
318:
about "my articles". Knowledge articles are not owned. Moreover,
269:
to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —
2944:) 05:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I liked the original writing better.
2428:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge
2276:
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious
3726:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
3199:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
932:
3716:
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
3684:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All
3189:
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
3157:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All
2904:
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review
2831:
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review
2702:
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review
2516:
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review
1998:
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the
1950:
File copyright problem with File:Salt_of_the_earth_00000120.jpg
210:==Aquinas and forced baptism of children of Jews and heretics==
3411:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Thomistic sacramental theology
3090:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
1978:
of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a
1639:
The bored admin was wrt the formatting of the title. It was
3565:
2732:
2616:
2238:
2168:
1953:
1918:
Good glad you found it. Will try to make the link better.--
408:
for doing it more automatically). I get my information from
106:
basic Knowledge criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
3461:
Please note that there is a significant difference between
2288:). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found
3599:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
2729:
File:Salt of the earth 00000051.jpg listed for discussion
2613:
File:Salt of the earth 00000120.jpg listed for discussion
2197:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Thought of Thomas Aquinas
3697:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
3393:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
3170:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
2974:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
2885:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
2812:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
2683:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
2551:
2497:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
2383:
2341:
1992:
316:
313:
2590:
I've never seen a citation on a pronunciation before.
68:
to the page and state your intention on the article's
3603:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
2311:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Law#A-class legal articles
2261:
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not
1467:
Knowledge:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)
3399:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to
3355:
If you continue to disrupt Knowledge, as you did at
2980:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to
3263:with them. Alternatively, you can read Knowledge's
746:Let's look at some of the examples. The article on
3336:with them. Alternatively you can read Knowledge's
3085:Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
2385:. Also refs need to be properly formated. Cheers.
2097:I'm actually substantially editing the article on
1888:Francis currently what you wrote is at my sandbox
3340:page, and ask for independent help at one of the
3267:page, and ask for independent help at one of the
2420:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
1441:article, have you considered putting it up for a
1081:is, I've always found, a good contributor, as is
3282:Please ensure you are familiar with Knowledge's
1816:The article content you wrote has been voted to
1262:New section so this doesn't get too long to read
1282:book that the maitland/pollock bit appears on.
1085:. Copying how other people edit can be useful.
2769:Seems I'm wrong.. and went to FFD to quickly.
2116:I'm wrong, though, go ahead and add to it. --
1009:By the way, why not give yourself a userpage?
221:should be baptized. This was the position of
216:Thomas Aquinas on the issue of forced baptism
8:
1147:years until two of the Chief Justices died.
122:on the top of the page and leave a note on
3591:During a dispute, you should first try to
3436:
3102:. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
2931:Edit reversion, on "Quia Emptores" article
2246:Hello. Your account has been granted the "
2044:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine#Again?
916:
835:A.E.: I think you're misstating the issue
358:content. I have in mind there especially
39:subjects and should provide references to
3056:You currently appear to be engaged in an
2130:Sounds good. Thank you for your work. --
2074:I sincerely hope that you will look into
1711:Response to your message on my talkpage.
1315:License tagging for Image:C6 FRACTURE.JPG
1266:What's the "H. E. L., I" you referenced?
941:was updated with a fact from the article
3616:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
2571:Hi Apokrif. What don't you understand?
1132:already would be incredibly helpful :).
2216:This is an automatic notification by a
436:
3508:material to Knowledge, as you did at
1363:
3349:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
3276:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
2740:A file that you uploaded or altered,
2624:A file that you uploaded or altered,
2575:Why you removed {{citation needed}}.
2002:. Thanks again for your cooperation.
1661:Knowledge:Requests for comment/jmh649
1342:. Thank you for your cooperation. --
337:I'm not defending or addressing what
7:
3681:2023 Arbitration Committee elections
3154:2022 Arbitration Committee elections
3106:. If you engage in an edit war, you
2874:2018 Arbitration Committee elections
2801:2018 Arbitration Committee elections
2672:2017 Arbitration Committee elections
2486:2016 Arbitration Committee elections
1261:
194:Er - no I'm not a bigot (Please see
3665:ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
3531:There is currently a discussion at
3401:Knowledge's policies and guidelines
3292:Stop adding unsourced information,
3138:ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
2982:Knowledge's policies and guidelines
2742:File:Salt of the earth 00000051.jpg
2626:File:Salt of the earth 00000120.jpg
1964:File:Salt_of_the_earth_00000120.jpg
1471:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine
1340:Knowledge:Media copyright questions
876:Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1
233:Do you get what I'm trying to say?
2871:Hello, A E Francis. Voting in the
2858:ArbCom 2018 election voter message
2798:Hello, A E Francis. Voting in the
2785:ArbCom 2018 election voter message
2669:Hello, A E Francis. Voting in the
2656:ArbCom 2017 election voter message
2483:Hello, A E Francis. Voting in the
1726:Again, responded to your message.
14:
3409:The article will be discussed at
3324:If you are engaged in an article
3251:If you are engaged in an article
3104:request temporary page protection
2990:The article will be discussed at
2446:review the candidates' statements
2258:scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
289:today. Please do not violate the
3670:
3526:
3492:
3387:
3311:
3230:
3143:
3051:
2968:
2863:
2790:
2661:
2475:
1364:
920:
762:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
412:, and I tend to use <ref: -->
252:
86:Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I
25:Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I
18:Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I
3720:and submit your choices on the
3193:and submit your choices on the
2908:and submit your choices on the
2835:and submit your choices on the
2706:and submit your choices on the
263:Talk:Aquinas and the Sacraments
3588:) for disruptive editing..
3586:Thomistic sacramental theology
3510:Thomistic sacramental theology
3396:Thomistic sacramental theology
3380:Thomistic sacramental theology
3357:Thomistic sacramental theology
3237:Thomistic sacramental theology
3064:with others, to avoid editing
2746:Knowledge:Files for discussion
2630:Knowledge:Files for discussion
2452:. For the Election committee,
2422:Arbitration Committee election
2413:ArbCom elections are now open!
2000:media copyright questions page
1034:Subpoenas in the United States
285:That was your third revert to
1:
3745:00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3699:Knowledge arbitration process
3593:discuss controversial changes
3218:00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
3172:Knowledge arbitration process
3133:15:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
3042:13:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
3012:20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
2924:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
2887:Knowledge arbitration process
2851:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
2814:Knowledge arbitration process
2685:Knowledge arbitration process
2536:22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
2499:Knowledge arbitration process
2462:17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
2407:15:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2370:02:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2356:14:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2250:" userright, allowing you to
2230:01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
2088:17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
1850:01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
1804:21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1737:21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1722:20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1706:20:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1686:20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1625:18:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1428:07:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1398:00:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
748:Fourth Council of the Lateran
276:18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
261:other editors, as you did on
3584:from editing certain pages (
3482:16:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
3455:15:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
3431:11:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
3373:15:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
3307:15:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
2722:18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
2360:Yes - that is fine. Thanks
2325:12:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
2154:18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2140:16:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2126:16:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2111:01:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
1591:22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1558:20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1528:18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1495:18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1455:18:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
1352:09:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
1307:01:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
1292:00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
1276:00:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
1252:00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
1237:00:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
751:relevance is of the links.
102:, articles that do not meet
100:criteria for speedy deletion
29:criteria for speedy deletion
3506:unsourced or poorly sourced
3032:. This is my last warning.
2520:and submit your choices on
2448:and submit your choices on
2286:Knowledge:Reviewing process
2180:. The nominated article is
1222:23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
1201:23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
1186:23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
1171:23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
1157:20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
1142:20:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
1126:17:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
291:Knowledge:Three-revert rule
281:Knowledge:Three-revert rule
3763:
3737:MediaWiki message delivery
3659:16:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
3633:16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
3560:14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
3545:12:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
3522:11:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
3288:loss of editing privileges
3239:. Your edits appear to be
3210:MediaWiki message delivery
2954:12:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
2916:MediaWiki message delivery
2843:MediaWiki message delivery
2714:MediaWiki message delivery
2604:15:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
2585:18:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
2567:15:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
2528:MediaWiki message delivery
2518:the candidates' statements
2454:MediaWiki message delivery
2267:a small number of articles
2025:14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
2011:05:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1940:02:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
908:01:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
890:00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
866:18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
849:17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
828:12:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
813:06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
798:03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
780:02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
735:00:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
720:23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
702:12:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
684:08:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
658:00:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
641:22:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
620:04:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
596:04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
523:00:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
503:14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
485:13:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
463:03:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
427:02:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
360:Aquinas and the Sacraments
3612:guide to appealing blocks
3243:and have been or will be
2977:Thought of Thomas Aquinas
2961:Thought of Thomas Aquinas
2305:02:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
2252:review other users' edits
2203:with four tildes (~~~~).
2182:Thought of Thomas Aquinas
2164:Thought of Thomas Aquinas
2051:01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
1914:16:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
1881:16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
1370:
1099:23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
1068:22:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
1050:19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
1023:19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
1004:19:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
406:Template:Harvard_citation
399:Subpoena ad testificandum
393:21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
372:21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
332:21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
303:20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
243:23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
189:22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
170:22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
160:22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
150:22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
84:A tag has been placed on
77:22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
23:A tag has been placed on
3734:to your user talk page.
3446:
3403:or whether it should be
3207:to your user talk page.
3128:
3070:try to reach a consensus
2984:or whether it should be
2949:
2936:had changed? Thank you.
2779:15:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
2764:15:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
2365:
2271:Special:OldReviewedPages
2020:
1962:Thank you for uploading
1845:
1473:Keep up the good work --
1063:
969:23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
903:
861:
823:
793:
730:
697:
653:
615:
498:
458:
3502:without further warning
3284:policies and guidelines
3096:appropriate noticeboard
2648:22:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
1443:Good Article nomination
951:Did you know? talk page
945:Jencks v. United States
913:Jencks v. United States
124:the article's talk page
3570:
3504:the next time you add
3024:Please stop violating
2737:
2621:
2243:
2235:You are now a Reviewer
2173:
2069:User:A E Francis/Cases
1986:image description page
1959:
1958:File Copyright problem
1691:Brown-SĂ©quard syndrome
1645:Brown-SĂ©quard syndrome
1641:Brown-Sequard Syndrome
3695:Arbitration Committee
3678:Hello! Voting in the
3569:
3342:relevant noticeboards
3269:relevant noticeboards
3168:Arbitration Committee
3151:Hello! Voting in the
2883:Arbitration Committee
2810:Arbitration Committee
2744:, has been listed at
2736:
2681:Arbitration Committee
2628:, has been listed at
2620:
2594:That's not my point.
2495:Arbitration Committee
2468:ArbCom Elections 2016
2426:Arbitration Committee
2242:
2208:articles for deletion
2190:What Knowledge is not
2172:
1957:
1855:Brown Squard syndrome
1643:with a redirect from
1321:Image:C6 FRACTURE.JPG
1319:Thanks for uploading
1114:Court of Common Pleas
3500:blocked from editing
3361:blocked from editing
2199:. Please be sure to
2186:Knowledge:Notability
2042:. See discussion at
1439:Statutes of Mortmain
1433:Statutes of Mortmain
1374:The Society Barnstar
1325:image copyright tags
3330:article's talk page
3257:article's talk page
3028:and other policies
2609:What's your point?
2550:I don't understand
2430:arbitration process
2093:Thoughts of Aquinas
1890:User:Jmh649/Sandbox
206:E.g. (rough draft)
3711:arbitration policy
3601:dispute resolution
3571:
3338:dispute resolution
3318:disruptive editing
3265:dispute resolution
3184:arbitration policy
3100:dispute resolution
2899:arbitration policy
2826:arbitration policy
2738:
2697:arbitration policy
2622:
2511:arbitration policy
2470:: Voting now open!
2442:arbitration policy
2244:
2201:sign your comments
2174:
2056:Case reports from
1960:
1079:User:Non Curat Lex
415:citation templates
413:tags with various
378:Thought of Aquinas
3747:
3457:
3441:comment added by
3316:Please stop your
3220:
2748:. Please see the
2632:. Please see the
2379:Please post here
1802:
1794:Steven Fruitsmaak
1734:
1719:
1703:
1437:Good work on the
1403:
1402:
957:
956:
3754:
3735:
3733:
3674:
3651:
3648:
3625:
3622:
3617:
3530:
3529:
3496:
3391:
3390:
3315:
3314:
3234:
3208:
3206:
3147:
3075:Points to note:
3055:
3054:
2972:
2971:
2867:
2794:
2771:ShakespeareFan00
2756:ShakespeareFan00
2665:
2479:
2391:
2348:
2249:
2007:
1924:
1898:
1865:
1826:
1796:
1750:Hi A.E. Francis,
1732:
1717:
1701:
1670:
1609:
1575:
1542:
1512:
1479:
1394:
1389:
1368:
1361:
1360:
1106:Henry de Bracton
1095:
1090:
1075:User:Yannismarou
1046:
1041:
1019:
1014:
1000:
995:
988:conversion (law)
984:Henry de Bracton
924:
917:
548:these articles?
444:
441:
273:
256:
223:John Duns Scotus
121:
120:
114:
66:
65:
59:
47:their content.
41:reliable sources
3762:
3761:
3757:
3756:
3755:
3753:
3752:
3751:
3750:
3749:
3727:
3675:
3667:
3656:
3649:
3646:
3636:
3635:
3630:
3623:
3620:
3615:
3608:
3605:page protection
3589:
3527:
3490:
3467:content dispute
3420:
3392:
3388:
3384:
3326:content dispute
3312:
3253:content dispute
3228:
3223:
3222:
3200:
3148:
3140:
3121:
3052:
3049:
3022:
3001:
2973:
2969:
2965:
2933:
2928:
2927:
2868:
2860:
2855:
2854:
2795:
2787:
2731:
2726:
2725:
2666:
2658:
2615:
2545:
2540:
2539:
2523:the voting page
2480:
2472:
2450:the voting page
2416:
2387:
2377:
2346:
2337:
2334:Spinal stenosis
2314:
2256:two-month trial
2247:
2237:
2167:
2095:
2065:Spinal stenosis
2061:
2058:Spinal stenosis
2036:WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK
2032:
2005:
1952:
1920:
1894:
1861:
1857:
1822:
1814:
1693:
1666:
1637:
1605:
1571:
1538:
1508:
1475:
1462:
1435:
1408:
1406:Spinal Stenosis
1392:
1387:
1359:
1344:ImageTaggingBot
1317:
1264:
1109:
1093:
1088:
1044:
1039:
1017:
1012:
998:
993:
976:
915:
753:Trial by combat
510:
449:
448:
447:
442:
438:
402:
380:
312:You speak here
310:
283:
271:
250:
177:
131:for biographies
118:
112:
111:
96:
63:
57:
56:
21:
12:
11:
5:
3760:
3758:
3718:the candidates
3687:eligible users
3676:
3669:
3668:
3666:
3663:
3662:
3661:
3654:
3644:. Best wishes
3628:
3609:
3590:
3573:You have been
3572:
3564:
3563:
3562:
3489:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3470:
3386:
3385:
3383:
3378:Nomination of
3376:
3353:
3352:
3345:
3280:
3279:
3272:
3227:
3224:
3191:the candidates
3160:eligible users
3149:
3142:
3141:
3139:
3136:
3117:
3088:
3087:
3082:
3048:
3047:September 2022
3045:
3021:
3015:
2967:
2966:
2964:
2959:Nomination of
2957:
2932:
2929:
2906:the candidates
2869:
2862:
2861:
2859:
2856:
2833:the candidates
2796:
2789:
2788:
2786:
2783:
2782:
2781:
2730:
2727:
2704:the candidates
2667:
2660:
2659:
2657:
2654:
2614:
2611:
2607:
2606:
2588:
2587:
2544:
2541:
2481:
2474:
2473:
2471:
2465:
2419:
2415:
2410:
2376:
2373:
2336:
2331:
2313:
2308:
2282:BLP violations
2236:
2233:
2166:
2162:nomination of
2157:
2094:
2091:
2060:
2054:
2040:WikiUniversity
2031:
2030:Case histories
2028:
1951:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1856:
1853:
1818:not be deleted
1813:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1744:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1692:
1689:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1461:
1458:
1434:
1431:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1377:
1376:
1371:
1369:
1358:
1355:
1316:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1144:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
975:
972:
955:
954:
925:
914:
911:
895:
894:
893:
892:
854:
853:
852:
851:
785:
784:
783:
782:
744:
707:
706:
705:
704:
663:
662:
661:
660:
625:
624:
623:
622:
509:
506:
490:
489:
488:
487:
468:
446:
445:
435:
434:
430:
401:
396:
379:
376:
375:
374:
309:
306:
287:Thomas Aquinas
282:
279:
249:
246:
200:
199:
176:
175:Thomas Aquinas
173:
163:
162:
90:
81:
52:administrators
33:Knowledge:Stub
20:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3759:
3748:
3746:
3742:
3738:
3731:
3725:
3724:
3719:
3714:
3712:
3708:
3704:
3700:
3696:
3691:
3689:
3688:
3683:
3682:
3673:
3664:
3660:
3657:
3652:
3643:
3638:
3637:
3634:
3631:
3626:
3613:
3606:
3602:
3598:
3594:
3587:
3583:
3582:
3578:
3577:
3568:
3561:
3557:
3553:
3549:
3548:
3547:
3546:
3542:
3538:
3534:
3524:
3523:
3519:
3515:
3511:
3507:
3503:
3501:
3495:
3487:
3483:
3479:
3475:
3471:
3468:
3464:
3460:
3459:
3458:
3456:
3452:
3448:
3444:
3440:
3433:
3432:
3428:
3424:
3419:
3415:
3412:
3406:
3402:
3398:
3397:
3381:
3377:
3375:
3374:
3370:
3366:
3362:
3359:, you may be
3358:
3350:
3346:
3343:
3339:
3335:
3331:
3327:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3319:
3309:
3308:
3304:
3300:
3297:
3295:
3289:
3285:
3277:
3273:
3270:
3266:
3262:
3258:
3254:
3250:
3249:
3248:
3246:
3242:
3238:
3233:
3225:
3221:
3219:
3215:
3211:
3204:
3198:
3197:
3192:
3187:
3185:
3181:
3177:
3173:
3169:
3164:
3162:
3161:
3156:
3155:
3146:
3137:
3135:
3134:
3130:
3126:
3120:
3116:
3113:
3112:from editing.
3111:
3105:
3101:
3097:
3093:
3086:
3083:
3081:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3073:
3071:
3067:
3063:
3059:
3046:
3044:
3043:
3039:
3035:
3031:
3027:
3019:
3016:
3014:
3013:
3009:
3005:
3000:
2996:
2993:
2987:
2983:
2979:
2978:
2962:
2958:
2956:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2939:
2930:
2926:
2925:
2921:
2917:
2913:
2912:
2907:
2902:
2900:
2896:
2892:
2888:
2884:
2879:
2876:
2875:
2866:
2857:
2853:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2840:
2839:
2834:
2829:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2806:
2803:
2802:
2793:
2784:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2753:
2752:
2747:
2743:
2735:
2728:
2724:
2723:
2719:
2715:
2711:
2710:
2705:
2700:
2698:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2682:
2677:
2674:
2673:
2664:
2655:
2653:
2650:
2649:
2645:
2641:
2637:
2636:
2631:
2627:
2619:
2612:
2610:
2605:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2586:
2582:
2578:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2569:
2568:
2564:
2560:
2555:
2553:
2548:
2542:
2538:
2537:
2533:
2529:
2525:
2524:
2519:
2514:
2512:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2491:
2488:
2487:
2478:
2469:
2466:
2464:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2414:
2411:
2409:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2390:
2384:
2381:
2374:
2372:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2358:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2342:
2335:
2332:
2330:
2327:
2326:
2323:
2322:
2319:
2312:
2309:
2307:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2293:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2274:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2263:autoconfirmed
2259:
2257:
2253:
2241:
2234:
2232:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2209:
2204:
2202:
2198:
2193:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2171:
2165:
2161:
2158:
2156:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2142:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2128:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2113:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2092:
2090:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2072:
2070:
2066:
2059:
2055:
2053:
2052:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2029:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2012:
2009:
2008:
2001:
1996:
1994:
1989:
1987:
1983:
1982:
1981:copyright tag
1977:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1956:
1949:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1923:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1897:
1891:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1864:
1854:
1852:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1825:
1819:
1811:
1805:
1800:
1795:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1773:
1770:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1738:
1735:
1729:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1720:
1714:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1704:
1698:
1690:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1669:
1662:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1646:
1642:
1635:Brown Sequard
1634:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1608:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1574:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1541:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1511:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1478:
1472:
1468:
1459:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1432:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1405:
1399:
1396:
1395:
1390:
1383:
1379:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1367:
1362:
1356:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1336:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1314:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1145:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1107:
1104:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1091:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1042:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1002:
1001:
996:
989:
985:
981:
973:
971:
970:
966:
962:
952:
948:
947:
946:
940:
939:
938:Did you know?
934:
930:
926:
923:
919:
918:
912:
910:
909:
905:
901:
891:
887:
883:
882:
877:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
863:
859:
850:
846:
842:
841:Non Curat Lex
838:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
825:
821:
815:
814:
810:
806:
805:Non Curat Lex
800:
799:
795:
791:
781:
777:
773:
772:
767:
763:
759:
754:
749:
745:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
722:
721:
717:
713:
712:Non Curat Lex
703:
699:
695:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
676:Non Curat Lex
671:
667:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
633:Non Curat Lex
629:
621:
617:
613:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
602:
598:
597:
593:
589:
588:Non Curat Lex
584:
582:
576:
572:
570:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
545:
543:
537:
535:
531:
525:
524:
520:
516:
515:Non Curat Lex
507:
505:
504:
500:
496:
486:
482:
478:
474:
469:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
451:
450:
440:
437:
433:
429:
428:
424:
420:
416:
411:
407:
400:
397:
395:
394:
390:
386:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:User:Carlaude
336:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
321:
320:User:Carlaude
317:
314:
307:
305:
304:
300:
296:
293:-- thanks. --
292:
288:
280:
278:
277:
274:
268:
264:
260:
255:
248:February 2008
247:
245:
244:
241:
236:
231:
228:
227:
224:
218:
217:
214:Main article
212:
211:
207:
204:
197:
193:
192:
191:
190:
187:
182:
174:
172:
171:
168:
161:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
148:
144:
143:for companies
140:
136:
135:for web sites
132:
127:
125:
117:
109:
105:
101:
95:
94:
89:
87:
82:
79:
78:
75:
71:
67:
62:
53:
48:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
26:
19:
16:
3721:
3715:
3692:
3685:
3679:
3677:
3581:indefinitely
3579:
3574:
3525:
3498:
3491:
3466:
3462:
3437:— Preceding
3434:
3421:
3416:
3408:
3394:
3382:for deletion
3354:
3310:
3291:
3281:
3229:
3226:January 2023
3194:
3188:
3165:
3158:
3152:
3150:
3107:
3089:
3084:
3079:
3074:
3066:disruptively
3050:
3023:
3002:
2997:
2989:
2975:
2963:for deletion
2934:
2909:
2903:
2880:
2872:
2870:
2836:
2830:
2807:
2799:
2797:
2750:
2739:
2707:
2701:
2678:
2670:
2668:
2651:
2634:
2623:
2608:
2589:
2570:
2556:
2549:
2546:
2521:
2515:
2492:
2484:
2482:
2417:
2388:
2378:
2375:Reassessment
2359:
2338:
2328:
2321:
2315:
2294:
2275:
2260:
2245:
2214:Please note:
2213:
2212:
2205:
2194:
2175:
2146:LightSpectra
2143:
2132:LightSpectra
2129:
2118:LightSpectra
2114:
2103:LightSpectra
2096:
2080:WhatamIdoing
2073:
2062:
2033:
2014:
2004:
1997:
1990:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1961:
1921:
1895:
1862:
1858:
1823:
1817:
1815:
1768:
1762:WhatamIdoing
1743:
1694:
1667:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1638:
1606:
1572:
1539:
1534:
1509:
1476:
1463:
1460:Case studies
1436:
1409:
1385:
1373:
1337:
1318:
1265:
1110:
1086:
1056:
1037:
1010:
991:
977:
958:
943:
942:
936:
896:
879:
855:
836:
816:
801:
786:
769:
723:
708:
672:
668:
664:
627:
626:
600:
599:
585:
577:
573:
568:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
546:
538:
526:
511:
491:
439:
431:
403:
381:
355:
350:
311:
284:
267:welcome page
251:
232:
229:
226:
219:
213:
209:
208:
205:
201:
178:
164:
128:
103:
97:
92:
91:
83:
80:
55:
49:
22:
3723:voting page
3552:Ad Orientem
3497:You may be
3443:A E Francis
3332:, and seek
3259:, and seek
3196:voting page
3125:A E Francis
3062:collaborate
3030:I described
2946:A E Francis
2911:voting page
2838:voting page
2709:voting page
2640:Jon Kolbert
2362:A E Francis
2318:Bencherlite
2048:David Ruben
2017:A E Francis
1842:A E Francis
1812:Not deleted
1331:, click on
1083:User:Cutler
1060:A E Francis
900:A E Francis
858:A E Francis
820:A E Francis
790:A E Francis
727:A E Francis
694:A E Francis
650:A E Francis
612:A E Francis
542:WP:MOSLINKS
495:A E Francis
455:A E Francis
443:Example ref
308:Ownership??
240:A E Francis
186:A E Francis
167:A E Francis
3707:topic bans
3488:April 2023
3241:disruptive
3180:topic bans
3123:vandalism.
2895:topic bans
2822:topic bans
2751:discussion
2693:topic bans
2635:discussion
2507:topic bans
2438:topic bans
2297:Courcelles
2222:Erwin85Bot
1792:cheers, --
1382:conversion
974:Trover etc
477:FrankTobia
432:References
419:FrankTobia
98:Under the
3703:site bans
3655:(blether)
3629:(blether)
3597:consensus
3595:and seek
3463:vandalism
3334:consensus
3294:WP:BURDEN
3261:consensus
3176:site bans
3092:talk page
3068:, and to
3026:WP:BURDEN
3020:, warning
3018:WP:BURDEN
2891:site bans
2818:site bans
2689:site bans
2503:site bans
2434:site bans
2389:Doc James
2278:vandalism
2076:Wikibooks
1993:this link
1968:copyright
1922:Doc James
1896:Doc James
1863:Doc James
1824:Doc James
1668:Doc James
1607:Doc James
1573:Doc James
1540:Doc James
1510:Doc James
1477:Doc James
1420:JoshuaKuo
1412:JoshuaKuo
1333:this link
1329:this list
1299:Ironholds
1284:Ironholds
1268:Ironholds
1244:Ironholds
1229:Ironholds
1214:Ironholds
1193:Ironholds
1178:Ironholds
1163:Ironholds
1149:Ironholds
1134:Ironholds
1118:Ironholds
961:BorgQueen
628:Follow Up
569:something
139:for bands
70:talk page
3465:, and a
3451:contribs
3439:unsigned
3245:reverted
3119:Contribs
3098:or seek
3058:edit war
2938:catsmoke
2557:Thanks.
2543:Subpoena
2399:contribs
2248:reviewer
2178:deletion
1974:and the
1932:contribs
1906:contribs
1873:contribs
1834:contribs
1772:contribs
1678:contribs
1617:contribs
1583:contribs
1550:contribs
1520:contribs
1487:contribs
1357:Barnstar
1030:WP:STYLE
837:slightly
766:Subpoena
508:Linking?
295:Carlaude
3730:NoACEMM
3576:blocked
3537:Veverve
3514:Veverve
3423:Veverve
3405:deleted
3365:Veverve
3299:Veverve
3203:NoACEMM
3110:blocked
3108:may be
3034:Veverve
3004:Veverve
2986:deleted
2596:Apokrif
2577:Apokrif
2559:Apokrif
2347:Georgia
2099:Thomism
1984:to the
1972:license
1567:Obesity
1447:Lampman
758:Summons
534:WP:Bold
473:WP:FOOT
410:WP:CITE
37:notable
3650:Summit
3642:WP:GAB
3624:Summit
3115:DatGuy
2424:. The
1976:source
980:Trover
929:7 June
581:WP:RFC
530:WP:AGF
347:WP:3RR
343:WP:3RR
259:attack
235:exolon
196:WP:NPA
181:exolon
157:exolon
147:exolon
116:hangon
74:exolon
61:hangon
45:verify
3647:Girth
3621:Girth
2403:email
2345:Sandy
2188:and "
2006:Chris
1936:email
1910:email
1877:email
1838:email
1799:Reply
1682:email
1621:email
1587:email
1554:email
1524:email
1491:email
601:P.S.:
272:BradV
141:, or
43:that
3741:talk
3693:The
3556:talk
3541:talk
3518:talk
3478:talk
3447:talk
3427:talk
3369:talk
3303:talk
3214:talk
3166:The
3129:talk
3038:talk
3008:talk
2950:talk
2942:talk
2920:talk
2881:The
2847:talk
2808:The
2775:talk
2760:talk
2718:talk
2679:The
2644:talk
2600:talk
2581:talk
2563:talk
2552:this
2547:Hi,
2532:talk
2493:The
2458:talk
2395:talk
2366:talk
2352:Talk
2301:talk
2290:here
2226:talk
2192:").
2150:talk
2136:talk
2122:talk
2107:talk
2084:talk
2021:talk
1928:talk
1902:talk
1869:talk
1846:talk
1830:talk
1766:talk
1733:T@lk
1718:T@lk
1702:T@lk
1674:talk
1613:talk
1579:talk
1546:talk
1516:talk
1483:talk
1451:talk
1424:talk
1416:talk
1393:idea
1348:talk
1303:talk
1288:talk
1272:talk
1248:talk
1233:talk
1218:talk
1197:talk
1182:talk
1167:talk
1153:talk
1138:talk
1122:talk
1094:idea
1064:talk
1045:idea
1018:idea
999:idea
982:and
965:talk
933:2008
904:talk
886:talk
862:talk
845:talk
824:talk
809:talk
794:talk
776:talk
731:talk
716:talk
698:talk
680:talk
654:talk
637:talk
616:talk
592:talk
519:talk
499:talk
481:talk
459:talk
423:talk
389:talk
368:talk
351:must
328:talk
315:and
299:talk
104:very
3618:.
3512:.
3363:.
2418:Hi,
2280:or
2218:bot
2160:AfD
2067:to
1728:JFW
1713:JFW
1697:JFW
1664:up.
1388:Wik
1089:Wik
1040:Wik
1013:Wik
994:Wik
927:On
881:DGG
771:DGG
536:.
356:all
3743:)
3732:}}
3728:{{
3705:,
3558:)
3543:)
3520:)
3480:)
3474:DS
3453:)
3449:•
3429:)
3407:.
3371:)
3320:.
3305:)
3290:.
3247:.
3216:)
3205:}}
3201:{{
3178:,
3131:)
3040:)
3010:)
2988:.
2952:)
2922:)
2914:.
2893:,
2849:)
2841:.
2820:,
2777:)
2762:)
2720:)
2712:.
2691:,
2646:)
2602:)
2583:)
2565:)
2554:.
2534:)
2526:.
2505:,
2460:)
2436:,
2405:)
2401:·
2397:·
2368:)
2354:)
2303:)
2292:.
2273:.
2228:)
2152:)
2138:)
2124:)
2109:)
2086:)
2023:)
1995:.
1988:.
1938:)
1934:·
1930:·
1912:)
1908:·
1904:·
1879:)
1875:·
1871:·
1848:)
1836:·
1832:·
1730:|
1715:|
1699:|
1684:)
1680:·
1676:·
1623:)
1619:·
1615:·
1589:)
1585:·
1581:·
1556:)
1552:·
1548:·
1526:)
1522:·
1518:·
1506:--
1493:)
1489:·
1485:·
1453:)
1445:?
1426:)
1350:)
1305:)
1290:)
1274:)
1250:)
1235:)
1220:)
1199:)
1184:)
1169:)
1155:)
1140:)
1124:)
1066:)
967:)
959:--
953:.
935:,
931:,
906:)
888:)
864:)
847:)
826:)
811:)
796:)
778:)
733:)
718:)
700:)
682:)
656:)
639:)
618:)
594:)
532:;
521:)
501:)
483:)
461:)
425:)
391:)
385:Tb
370:)
364:Tb
330:)
324:Tb
301:)
137:,
133:,
119:}}
113:{{
64:}}
58:{{
3739:(
3607:.
3554:(
3539:(
3516:(
3476:(
3445:(
3425:(
3367:(
3351:.
3344:.
3301:(
3296:.
3278:.
3271:.
3212:(
3127:(
3036:(
3006:(
2948:(
2940:(
2918:(
2845:(
2773:(
2758:(
2716:(
2642:(
2598:(
2579:(
2561:(
2530:(
2456:(
2393:(
2364:(
2350:(
2299:(
2224:(
2148:(
2134:(
2120:(
2105:(
2082:(
2019:(
1926:(
1900:(
1867:(
1844:(
1828:(
1801:)
1797:(
1769:·
1764:(
1672:(
1611:(
1577:(
1544:(
1514:(
1481:(
1449:(
1422:(
1414:(
1346:(
1301:(
1286:(
1270:(
1246:(
1231:(
1216:(
1195:(
1180:(
1165:(
1151:(
1136:(
1120:(
1062:(
963:(
902:(
884:(
860:(
843:(
822:(
807:(
792:(
774:(
729:(
714:(
696:(
678:(
652:(
635:(
614:(
590:(
517:(
497:(
479:(
457:(
421:(
387:(
366:(
326:(
297:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.