User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 7

260:

that has now been re-worded). Anyway, regarding the use of "has" v. "have" in "one of the eight plant family names" etc, I think your examples of other use of specifiers are not comparable in this instance. "One of the cities has fallen" is specifying only one city out of several - the other cities have not fallen - hence the singular use of the verb. However "one of the eight plant family names that have accepted alternative names" is including Brassicaceae with the other seven - all of the eight have accepted alternative names not ending with the suffix - hence it (Brassicaceae) is not being specified in an exclusive way. The equivalent cities statement would be something like "London is one of the nine cities that have a port that is protected by a tidal barrier"; it would be incorrect to write "London is one of the nine cities that has a port that is protected by a tidal barrier". The first use of the word "that" effectively trumps the earlier "one of" specifier, as it itself specifies the nine cities (or eight plant family names), which of course are plural. I think the sentence construction is complicated by the double use of the word "that", the first of which refers to a plural (the nine cities or eight plant family names), the second to a singular ("a port" or "an accepted alternative name"). The other example you give (using the specifier "either") is of course not comparable because "either" does indeed specify a singular. ?

4855:. There's no pressing need to act. (2) Yes, EP has failed to respond. No small wonder that, given how ArbCom has rushed to push this case through before Brad finally brought you all up short. Of course, that was well after EP had left the project. Why can't ArbCom accept they were in error and admit it, and come at this with neutral eyes? (3) Being accountable doesn't mean that as soon as you make an error you get desysopped. But, that's the attitude ArbCom is taking, despite prior decisions. (4) You "regret to say" there's been consistently poor judgment...over six actions. How the *@#)(# is six incidents, which no one has actually investigated (unless, gosh, ArbCom is investigating on its own and jumping to its own conclusions), make "consistently poor judgment". Let me ask you this, if I find six actions of yours which were questionable, will you agree to step down from ArbCom and resign adminship? (5) Oh yes, you solve problems. But, when a request for a case in front of you goes off the rails and people start insulting the subject of the case you look the other way? The hypocrisy reeks. I ask again, and if you answer nothing else then answer this; will you step down if I find six faults of yours and if not why is it ok for you to desysop EP but not accept you are in error and step down? -- 2842:

is a valid family. I'm assuming Sphenophyllum is a member of that family because that would only make sense. I don't know what other genera are part of that family. I know there are other genera in Sphenophyllales, but I don't know which families they belong to. Encyclopedia Britannica has a page on Sphenophyllales. "2 families: Sphenophyllaceae and Cheirostrobaceae." Zipcodezoo makes no mention of Sphenophyllales, and instead uses Bowmanitales. On their page, they list Cheirostrobaceae along with Eviostachyaceae and Bowmanitaceae as families, but not Sphenophyllaceae. Taxinomicon is the same way. Those are really the only other places I can find on Google that even mention Cheirostrobaceae. I can't find a list of genera that belong to any of the families. Bowmanitales is definitely synonymous with Sphenophyllales, but I'm not sure if that guarantees Bowmanitaceae is synonymous with Sphenophyllaceae (not that I can find a list of genera for either of them). Then there's Cheirostrobaceae which almost certainly contains the genus

2846:, but who knows what else? Then Eviostachyaceae. I can't find much on Google. Perhaps it's part of a different classification system? I can find places that list some genera for Sphenophyllaceae, but they also place the family in Equisetales, so I know it's a different classification system. AAARRGGHHHH!!!! I have no idea! What you're asking is impossible given what I have to work with. I can find information about some species in the genera. That's it. The genera must be listed somewhere. Otherwise the users won't be able to access them, and what's the point of an encyclopedia that users can't use. If you have any information on this subject please share it. I'd love to know it. I am at a dead end. Without those missing links, the way I changed the page is the only way to present the information. The listing of the family there may have been the only information we had, but it was basically useless information. A dead end. I have removed it and replaced it with something that can be explored further. 3662:

happen. Just resign. In this case, resigning under a cloud means you can't get it back without an RfA but so what? I am not an administrator, and don't want to be. It hasn't affected my ability to edit. Resign your sysop bit and this problem vanishes, without having to waste time defending yourself. Defending yourself is futile now anyway, with the Arb case about to go live. I like your statement "I feel railroaded and surrounded by hungry sharks" Very apropos. What they want is your sysop bit. So give it to them. You don't need it anyway. If the sharks wanted your surfboard, would you give them your legs instead? Just not worth it. Give them the surfboard and end this before it gains a full head of steam (mixing metaphors again!). --

3563:

editor. Therefore when you use administrative tools in situations that you have also edited as an editor, this makes you involved. You have a disagreement with another editor about the specific content. This dispute between you and that other editor was not a "purely administrative role", applying the Manual of Style to an article is not an "administrative role" in any way, interpreting the guideline and applying it to an article is purely editorial. It wasn't as an administrator that these edits were made, and in this editorial dispute between two editors, you used administrative tools to gain the advantage in a content dispute, and this isn't the first time this has happened. That makes you an involved administrator. -

4929:@BD, thats the problem I see as well. In the past Arbcom has only used 3 punishments; Sanctions, desysopping or blocking/banning or a combination. Usually its desysop with a ban but in the past they used sanctions with various degrees of success. The problem with the sanctions is that they were worded in such a way that the user almost always was trapped into a failing situation so of course they failed. I don't think EP has helped his case but on the same token as someone who has been under the pressures of editing in the past and acted rashly myself when no one would listen or cared, I think taking a Wikibreak until things settle is probably an acceptable solution to the problem. 4344:, and were determined to desysop him for less than 2% of his admin actions containing errors (even if those are legitimate errors). But it gets better with this latest approach from ArbCom; if EP confesses his sins, he can avoid the summary banishment. AGK and SilkTork have apparently concluded that EP is guilty. If he confesses said guilt and promises not to repeat it, it will cleanse his soul. If he confesses not, or refuses to respond, they will strip him of his sysop bit. I guess when you commit a colossal screwup your only option really is to follow it through to its illogical conclusion, else risk the admitting an error and losing face. ArbCom is never wrong. -- 276:

plural, but since the subject is "Brassicaceae" / "one", I interpret botht he prepositional phrase and dependent clause pointing back to that referent. Your "London is one..." I would likewise interpret that way. Yes, the other cities have ports of that sort, but they are not being discussed. Compare "London is one city that has..." with "London is one of the cities that has...", and notice that both sentences are saying exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the second phrasing moves "city" into a prepositional phrase so that more descriptives may be included. --

4074:. This, over what apparently are six uses of admin tools. That constitutes less than 2% of his admin actions. So, 98% of the time he's apparently doing just fine, but the community is ready to string him up from the nearest tree? Enough people tell ANYone they're a piece of crap and that person will eventually get irritated. I don't blame EP in the slightest for wanting to leave, and he sure as hell isn't being a diva for doing so. The people insulting him should be brought up short and warned. Instead, ArbCom's rushing...absolutely 470:, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Knowledge (XXG) administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community 4124:@EP, I know that you have been an admin for quite a while and have done a lot of good that many just aren't seeing at the moment, but I hope that no matter what the outcome you continue editing. I recently attempted RFA myself for the 2nd time andn although I think I would make a fine admin, the community feels otherwise so I continue to edit. In the end, I enjoy editing and if the community doesn't want me to do more, to use my skills and to help out then that's fine, its really not that big of a deal, there's still lots to do. 3930:

around to do this work, and is not allowed to have the tools to do this work, most likely it doesn't get done and the quality of the encyclopedia suffers for it. Otherwise, other admins are going to need to pick up the burden of learning correct botanical nomenclature to be confident that we're setting things right, and to perform all of these deletions and page moves and history merges. I hope a solution can be found that allows EP to continue carrying out these tasks which, fortunately for the rest of us, interest him.

4256:. When a complex, long-running, or technical issue crops up, sometimes you have a choice between admins who understand what's going on, and won't help because they became involved in the process, and admins who don't understand what's going on, and won't help because the issue can't be summed up in three bullet points. And breaching it in obscure low-traffic areas means you're not going to get the sort of epic smacking that would occur if you did it in a controversial area. But...there's pretty strong 4121:

that could be very hard. As other users have suggested I also agree that this user should do everything in their power to keep out of Arbcom. Some comments have been made that its not that bad but the Arbcom's mission, whether I agree with the end results of cases or not, does not grant them the requirement of being benevolent to editors so if the case is accepted its just going to force a negative outcome on the user and likely ruin their attitude for editing. Which would be a sincere shame IMO.

106:, that might hinge on dismissing an 1880 name as invalid, and (2) two in Brassicaceae where genus transfer was involved, and that don't seem to involve applying the Kew Rule (which ought to have disappeared around 1905). When I get a chance to spend some time in the library, I'll read the introductions to as many of the Codes as are there, to see what are said to be the major changes, and perhaps home in on the problem that way. It is rather a sad situation, because my first thought was that the 3238:. I thought the article that existed before August 1st was not very good and completely rewrote it in my userspace. Another editor took exception to my new version which he describes as rubbish, repeatedly stating that 2/3 of it was faulty. Would you be able, as a member of WikiProject Plants, to look over the article, point out errors I have made and make suggestions? I took a view that anyone who looked up "Tree" in wikipedia did not want anything too technical. 4998: 35: 4280:

taken hold of the harness. I think a far more reasonable motion would be that the case is suspended pending his return to active editing, if under such active editing he does not resign as an administrator. ArbCom was grossly out of line for coming at him full bore without there even being the opportunity for him to respond to the case. I am not at all surprised he felt pressured to leave. But, I'm confident ArbCom won't accept any culpability in that. --

3045: 611: 2677: 4496: 1814:, etc. I started trying to fix what I saw as some of their problems, which range from the trivial (use of zoology-style authorities), to slightly more misleading ones (wikilinks from Chase & Reveal names which lead to articles based on traditionally defined groups where the wikilinked name is not discusssed), to the most misleading (no comment on the degree to which this classification has been taken up or used by anyone else). 1948: 319: 2419:(2) The fact that you feel my concerns are not worth bothering over is not a problem on my part. If someone were to accuse you of raising "numerous subordinate technical concerns", would you consider that to belittle your position? Based on what you said in (1), do you think that it is OK to belittle other's opinons and points? And you have not identified the place where this is discussed on the 1759:

readers). It seems that cladograms look best in the Safari/Chrome/Opera group of browsers if the branching increases downwards, i.e. generally if they are drawn with the earliest diverging groups at the top, whereas there's a tendency to draw them the other way up, with the latest diverging groups at the top, which, I agree, can look horrible in this group of browsers.

2664: 3768:

expect you'll be validated in most, if not all cases); but ask yourself "Should I have asked another admin for help? Would I feel this was fair if I was on the opposite side? Would I do this again?" Think about it and post what you come up with, whether you feel that some, all, or none of your decisions were correct. Then go edit something technical and obscure like

3522:

do not plan to alter your behavior? In the previous ANI thread, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears that this is a pattern of behavior, and that you are unwilling to stop. I am beginning to assemble diffs for an ArbCom request for your desysop, but there is no sense in doing that if you plan to listen to the feedback of everyone at ANI. --

4154:; and 2) will make a determined effort, when the use of your tools is reviewed by the community, to honour the decision of that review and to recognise when you have erred as an administrator. To some degree, I believe the latter assurance follows the former. Probably, you were only unwilling to recognise your previous administrative decisions were wrong 4790:

see) and everyone has moved on. EP has basically stopped editing so perhaps just letting them take a Wikibreak for a while to cool down is enough. If they come back with a clear head and a clean slate great, if not thats too bad but the auto desysop function will kickin and act accordingly. There really is nothing for Arbcom to do at this point IMO.

1694:

straight up about it. And if you are going to create messes for other editors to clean up, and refuse to clean up after your own messes, then you really shouldn't be considering yourself a member of the Association of Structurist Wikipedians, for which one of the central tenets is structuring information both for readers and for future editors. --

3296:), and there is no article for that use of velum, and the articles had a descriptor of "a thin, transparent covering" I thought it was best to unlink them. I suppose the best approach would be to write an article or section on that use of velum and link to it; but I haven't the background to do that. What do you think we should do? Thanks. 3094:

equates to "angiosperms". Until the scientific community reaches a clear consensus otherwise, that's unlikely to change. Otherwise, we use APG III for angiosperms, Smith for monilophytes, and Goffinet for mosses. Some groups have highly unstable classifications (e.g. liverworts) and so no set classification is yet in use. --

4944:

must be stripped of his sysop bit. I wonder, have they bothered to contact him on the other projects where he's supposedly been active? They didn't bother to notify him there was a motion under way to desysop him, so I doubt it. So far as ArbCom has any real evidence of, the last thing EP was aware of vis-a-vis this case was

4162:

view) our concerns are not borne of the wilful efforts of any "cabal" of your opponents to have you desysopped. However, the arbitration request unarguably raised legitimate concerns. I would like us to resolve these concerns with minimal fuss, much preferably while retaining you as a contributor and administrator.

4875:? Can it leave an admin the bit while setting forth specific prohibitions on that admin's conduct that, if breached, would trigger additional consequences? It concerns me that if ArbCom sees desysopping as the only tool in its toolbox, then every problem will end up looking like a reason for desysopping. 4976:

that sometimes when this place stresses you out to the breaking point, it's probably a better choice to just take a long wikibreak rather than commit suicide by Arbcom. Despite what is said above, I think the current incarnation of the committee has some very good people on it, and they will probably

4466:

I strongly advise you to just accept AGK's proposal, and keep the tools, even if the only thing you use them for is seeing deleted things, thumping the occasional wacko vandal who adds "sexual usage" sections to every vaguely-phallic-shaped vegetable, and deleting the odd hoax here and there. Even if

4381:

Well, Carcharoth (former Arb) has weighed in and suggested that suspension of a case isn't a logistical hardship, so I need to admit to a screw-up, if not a colossal one, on my part. I do agree (per my earlier comments) that the resolution of the case is unduly punitive: forcing EP to re-submit to an

3125:

3. it is an academic website I was quoting from, not a commercial site, they themselves acknowledge that they are freesource and built on the research of others, they cite the academic literature that they derived their material from, therefore whose copyright am I violating? I draw your attention to

2622:

No. "Fern ally" excludes the traditional leafy ferns, while "pteridophyte" includes them. The term "fern allies" is also usually restricted to just the three traditional modern groups (lycophytes, horsetails, & whisk ferns), while "pteridophyte" includes all fossil organisms with a similar life

2532:

b. I appreciate that characterizing arguments as being "numerous subordinate technical concerns" is critical, but I submit that it doesn't carry the same personal effect as the quotes above. And no, I don't support belittling. Again, I think input from someone else would be the best way to discover

4797:

On point 3 I think every admin does things wrong sometimes and that's life, it happened here, it happened to Puyalup and a variety of others only in the last few weeks. It will happen again, but until Arbcom shows some consistency in how and why they choose the cases rather than give the appearance,

4462:

Petey, I don't know if you remember me, but once upon a time we were comrades in the WP:PLANTS crowd, back when gajillabytes of text were posted on that project's talk page every week (-- Proper common names??? APG vs. Cronquist??? Should italics be used in taxoboxes??? --): I miss those days, and I

4279:

suggesting he should get a free pass. I am objecting to him being desysoped under a cloud when he isn't even logging in. ArbCom has no need of rushing to a decision when he isn't even doing anything on the project. Whether or not his conduct was inappropriate is discussing the cart before we've even

4186:

Echoing what AGK has said. As things stand we are looking at a motion to desysop because of what has been presented to us. A statement, however, showing awareness of why the community are concerned, and a commitment to avoid the same issue, would be helpful. Simply put - you have made a mistake, and

4120:

Although I think EP could have acted a bit better on the case, simply saying I won't use the tools on articles I have edited can be a little hard when you have a lot of edits like EP and Myself. With over 100, 000 edits across several thousand articles, many of which are FA and or in the public eye,

3993:

Perhaps the principle needs to be that no administrator is so worthless as to be deserving of being tossed off the project for making a few errors. Lynch mobs are fun and all, but the key problem is there's a victim. Regardless, it's all a moot point. EP seems to have taken a hike (and I don't blame

3646:

I am sorry. I don't know, you or your work but I saw your goodbye at the Plants Project. If your intention is really goodbye -- as in leaving the project -- it seems bad all around, but perhaps there is an interim measure? Perhaps just leave admin behind (goodbye to it) for the time being and just

3521:

of WP:MOS, with which it is possible to disagree in good faith. In other words, this is a content dispute. You are enforcing your interpretation by use of page protection, a tool unavailable to non-admins. You have previously used blocks to enforce your interpretation. Do I understand correctly you

3121:

2 yes I used many of the same phrases as one of the original sources, they are botanical descriptors, can you tell me why botanical descriptors should be altered to please Knowledge (XXG). It is an encyclopaedia, "no original research", so if including botanical and ecological descriptors relying on

2926:

It was a redirect because some wise guy assumed there was only one family. There are more families. I can source them. Since there is more than one family, it should not be a redirect page. I've worked with the auto taxoboxes before. They're really pretty simple once you get it. I just haven't

2819:

Seriously? If I remember correctly, I was the one who put that information there in the first place. It really doesn't seem to contribute anything valuable. It was a dead link. I also don't know where those other genera go. I did it to provide a more user-friendly access to the genera. This is

2482:

1. The statement was "I don't understand why you are so strongly opposed to the extra three letters". I really doubt my opinion will count for any more than it did before, so I do suggest that you inquire with someone whose input you do value. You might also ask about the related statement "And I

2356:

I am concerned how productive expansion on my part will be with my observations viewed as "unfounded" or "fabrications" or "misinterpretations". Note that my concerns expressed above about reversion were apparently dismissed. Inquiry with someone else whose opinion you hold in higher esteem may be

275:

Your example of "one of the cities has fallen" is sturctured without a dependent clause, and so isn't a comparable example. A better example would be "one of the cities that has fallen". I do undersatnd what you are saying, and there are situations where I would agree with you about the use of the

4305:

The deeper problem here is that the only way to deal with administrator conduct is by desysopping, and because RfA is and remains a Big Deal, a desysopping is effectively permanent. So admins can engage in questionable behavior for a long time, because no one wants to nuke them over it (zOMG! admin

4169:

My colleagues on the committee and I have put the arbitration request on hold, to allow you some breathing room, but the concerns about your previous actions now require a resolution. The proposal I have set out here is my own preference for reaching a resolution, and I am willing to make it happen

4161:

Many of the administrators the committee has desysopped have serially or grossly misused their permissions. You are an excellent content contributor, and you use your sysop tools infrequently. I do not believe you are cut from the same cloth as these people, and I would like you to know that (in my

3746:

Not railroaded, a witch hunt, and a confession will get you hung; you have already spoken once to the charges so you won't be pressed, at least. Problematically, you spend far too much time editing and not enough time socializing, couple that with your willingness to monitor articles on topics that

3631:

threads separated by five months, and without any other steps in the dispute resolution process you're being dragged before ArbCom. Absolutely, categorically unreal. EncycloPetey, if recent history is any measure you can expect ArbCom to remove your administrator status post haste, and possibly ban

3093:

The taxobox conventions are not all spelled out in any one place, but we don't list Embryophyte as a taxon. The major groups that have traditionally been treated as divisions (e.g., Lycopodiophyta, Pinophyta) are the highest rank usually included below the rank of Plantae, and for angiosperms that

2841:

I don't know if there is only the one family. I don't know what genera belong to it either. I've looked and looked. There doesn't seem do be a plain and simple document of the taxonomy anywhere. One person says one thing. Another person says something else. All I know is that Sphenophyllaceae

1187:

I am indifferent in that either system is acceptable to me, and I have used both systems in the past. I do believe, now that a discussion has opened, that there are reasons to use one system over the other for this particular article, but I do not believe that one system should be favored over the

259:

has run with this subject matter as far as they wish, so I thought it preferable to continue here. I hope you don't mind my pursuing this particular question - it's really for my own interest rather than because I'm pushing a view (and it's all rather academic as far as the article is concerned, as

208:

The IP gets blocked by default, and you can verify that the status of the IP is currently blocked. Drphilharmonic was not blocked for vandalism, but for violation of the 3-revert rule. He was warned against violating the rule (for the second time in less than a month), and he reverted 5 times over

4260:

evidence that some of his conduct was inappropriate, he's been warned about it at least once, and his last statements indicated, in essence, that he couldn't spare the time to justify his conduct. Right now, the impression I get is that he interprets WP:INVOLVED in a different way than most of the

4247:

to anyone, rightfully or wrongfully accused, to escape sanction by walking away from the proceedings and returning in less than a year. This is not a hypothetical case, nor limited to administrators; the name escapes me, but I remember that within the past year or two, there was a lengthy RFC on a

4165:

If you are happy to make these assurances, I would like to propose a motion to my colleagues which recognise the concerns about your use of the tools, but suspends the concerns for, say, 3 months. The motion would also say that, absent recidivism by you, the concerns are dismissed in light of your

4146:

Hi. I'm writing you in my capacity as an individual arbitrator, not on behalf of the committee. Many of our peers have suggested above that you clearly assure the committee, on the arbitration requests page, that you will improve as an administrator. I would like to know whether you are willing to

4023:

As has been brought up on the case request page, this has happened with other, shall we say, more esteemed admins on the project. Response? Nothing. Here we have EP, an admin typically operating well beneath the radar, who has been an admin for five years, who gets into a dispute and BOOM it's all

3914:

did, and resigned their administrator status for a while to remember what it's like to edit without being able to resort to protection and blocking tools. Again, no one has alleged that you've done anything but good work as an editor, and I'm afraid some folks have been trying to pour gasoline on

3767:

doesn't make you guilty, but it does mean you probably ought to take a deep breath and look back over your record, which I suggest you do. Sit down, read the guideline carefully, and look over the incidents listed in the ArbCom case. Don't get tied up in the question of which content is correct (I

3698:

Personally, my faith in ArbCom doesn't extend that far. They've got their hooks into EncycloPetey now to the tune of 7-0 in favor of accepting the case. A "mea culpa" isn't going to do anything at this point. They want their pound of flesh, even if they're completely undermining the entire dispute

3661:

I echo Alanscottwalker's comments. Just resign your sysop bit. To be honest and certainly non-accusatory, you don't use your sysop bit very much; about once a week on average. You have much more productivity in the editing realm, with more than 30,000 edits. Being a sysop is a dramafest waiting to

3471:

Just weighing in after seeing the ANI thread, I strongly recommend responding to it as soon as possible. The consensus among participants thus far is that there are some legitemate concerns regarding your use of the protect button in content disputes, specifically as to whether or not such actions

3020:

page, I created that just to see if creating a page would get it to be recognized is a child of Ginkgoales. Ginkgoales does have some text (one sentence), but as I read my book more, I will get more information. Soon, all the different families will have some information posted. (I am aware that

1881:

might be useful in creating a project guideline for merging content or allowing distinct articles when the topic is really just a name. We've been through a round of this sort of thing before back when I first joined, so putting something in writing with a rationale could solve the issue both now

906:

prohibits such an action. Instead, you're meant to provide a very good reason on the talk page for changing it. However, you've never written anything on that talk page. You broke the rule and now you're making it worse by starting an edit war in the article and telling me off on my talk page even

4943:

Indeed, a Wikibreak is a good idea at times. But, ArbCom's not even satisfied with that. They've decided to pursue evidence outside of this project and find out if he's been active on other projects. Finding evidence of that, they've decided to be upset that he hasn't responded here, and conclude

4789:

On 1 above, it isn't an emergency action I agree however multiple members of Arbcom have taken every complaint against EP and won't hear anything from EP other than I'm guilty with the user is not required to do whether you like that or not. The problem was easily resolved (and is from what I can

4222:

for desysoping inactive administrators. There is no need to desysop him by summary judgment of malfeasance when he isn't even around to defend himself, nor is there any pressing need of prevention of damage to the project. If ArbCom really wants to have a cordial discussion with EP, they would be

3793:

EncycloPetey, since you seem to be receiving some conflicting advice from various parties, can I confirm that a case is accepted on the basis that it is something that Arbcom should look into. The vote to accept the case is not a vote on sanctions, so no decision as to the outcome has been taken.

3676:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on record saying this shouldn't have gone as far ArbCom and I think there's a risk of you abandoning Knowledge (XXG) and walking away. Speaking personally, a comment along the lines of "I did protect an article I'd just been editing content in, and I see how

3001:

creating the children, then there will be a server lag of an hour (or even a day) before the parent template is checked again by the server and children are recognized. Any template that calls on other templates will not immeditely register a change in those other templates unless it is edited.

2284:

I believe that your concerns are unfounded, as many of your points appear to me to be either fabrications or misinterpretations of policy. Some of your concerns apply to others involved in the discussion, but not to me. To help illustrate this, please clarify two of the above points for me: (1)

1693:

links to disambiguation pages, which is what you did with your move. The Guideline explicitly states that links should point to relevant articles; that's why so many people have to spend time running bots to help repair disambiguation links. If you're not going to follow Guidelines, at least be

564:

It is a collaborative on-line encyclopedia, just one step removed from being a wiki. The article writers are frequently writing well outside their area of expertise, and I've seen some really weird content given undue emphasis as a result. I wouldn't use it as a source at all. For example, the

3929:

I'd like to pitch in a thought towards this discussion: what about the rest of us? EP does a great deal of dull necessary work in organizing plant-related articles - and, yes, this is admin work, this is deleting bad titles and moving and merging duplicate pages and similar matters. If he is not

3562:

You are involved in a content dispute on that page, as you were applying the Manual of Style to the article in a disagreement with another editor. Even if your interpretation of the MoS was completely agreed upon by the community, this is not "a purely administrative role", it is the role of an

2867:

It's the only species I know of at the moment. I don't know if it's the only member of its genus. With the fossil stuff, the taxonomy is such a mess. One can never be sure. The source did refer to the genus by itself, but made no mention of other species. I figured it's better to create the

1758:

in the other class of browser (e.g. Safari) – I'm a Mac Firefox user which displays cladograms "properly". Reversing the other one makes them ok in both classes of browser, as far as I can tell (and there was no reason to have the two cladograms different ways round which could have misled naive

56:

I'm not familiar enough with conifer morphology to say with certainty. They could be anything from flakes of cuticular wax to depression pits for stomata. However, this is almost certainly not a pine branch. Pine needles have a characteristic base that isn't present in this photo. however, I

4329:

This deeper problem is an interesting abstract issue, but it doesn't really apply here. EP performed at most 6 questionable admin actions over a five year time span, constituting less than 2% of all his admin actions. Yet, without a full case ArbCom is willing to summarily remove his sysop bit.

3829:

If EncycloPetey agrees it was a mistake, he gets my full support to remain an admin, and if someone wants to "strongly remind him" about something, then fine. Of course my full support would probably completely damn him as far as most of ArbCom is concerned, but it would be there nonetheless.

2337:

2. Pettifogging: numerous subordinate technical concerns were repeatedly raised in objection while neglecting progress toward the main goal of finding an acceptable solution. I identified the issue by name in my comment of 00:15, 28 April, and I find that your statements in the discussion are

1959:

until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Knowledge (XXG) about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to

1832:

In general, I don't think these taxa are noteworthy enough to have their own articles. They've been published in a single paper, and aren't being used by either the scientific community or textbook publishers. All of the groups have a "synonym" (for the clade) with a full and proper article.

3804:

I see above that someone has suggested that if you voluntarily handed in the sysop bit, that would be the end of it. While it is your choice as to whether this is even something you want to think about, I believe the commentator has accurately judged the mood of the community. This matter only

3211:

Sorry, but Italian and episcopal heraldry / insignia are outside the scope of my resources and personal knowledge. I did have a look when you first contacted me, but could find nothing helpful. I'd like to have helped, but just don't have either books or knowledge to assist in this instance.

2366:

Your characterization that it was others who were dismissing your points underscores my concern about receptiveness. I suggest you reread the discussion from the beginning (as I have, a number of times now). To me it is apparent that it was yourself that was repeatedly unresponsive to points

2088:

OK, that makes sense now. I've heard it both ways, and have said it both ways, but think that the two-syllable pronunciation is the one I hear (and use) more often. Mind you, I'm hearing it from academic botanists rather than gardners or botany club members, but that's as a result of my more

4339:

and leaves the project. But that's not good enough for ArbCom. Now, if he does absolutely nothing at all, ArbCom's going to remove his sysop bit without a case, without submitted evidence, without a defense. ArbCom played a direct role in effectively kicking this long time contributor off the

4398:

I agree but its sorta mute at this point. EP has stopped editing here for the moment and seems to be focusing their time and efforts into other projects instead. I suspect the user anticipated the outcome and just felt it was better just to move on but hopefully they come back at some point.

3772:

to take the taste out of your mouth. Forget the agendas. If you think you were right, you shouldn't be posting an insincere apology to retain the admin bit. If you think some of your decisions were wrong, you shouldn't clam up for the sake of playing the martyr. Square yourself with your own

3704:

ArbCom. Everything else matters not now, and once they want a case, there's no more stopping it than doing do with a toothpick against a freight train. The best out here, with the least amount of effort, is to resign adminship and keep on editing. Second best is walking away from the project

1398:

Just so it's known, the individual who was unblocked, WP_Editor_2011, is going around warning everyone who has ever changed BC to BCE, or AD to CE, even when the edits were yeras ago. I don't know if this is considered acceptable or not because I am not as knowledgable as I ought to be about

441:

Coming in to the office requires a rather long trip on a day off. I might be able to pop down the week after next, when I have a week off from work and will want to visit the UC Berkeley library and Jepson Herbarium for some research. Failing that, we might have to do something by e-mail.

3909:

I wanted to drop by and back-up what Elen said: If you aren't having fun as an admin, in light of the scrutiny and rules attached to the responsibilities, it is entirely acceptable to "hand in" that responsibility, and go back to being an editor. I personally wish more admins would do what

2966:

Not quite sure what you mean. I went and found the Ginkgoaceae template and accessed the Ginkgoales template from there. It had it so when you clicked on Ginkgoales, it would take you to Ginkgoaceae. I might have changed that first. Then, I went and added the children. If you go to the

1125:

I wasn't aware of the lone change by an IP, and frankly don't see that it's relevant for my actions. Few editors would scan four years of an article's history for such details before standardizing style. An arbitrary choice to standardize was made, and an editor now wants to change that.

4805:

The only comment I can say here is that some less than appropriate comments have come from a couple members of Arbcom. If the Arbcom members are calling users diva's, etc. prior to a determination of guilt (which is also a foregone conclusion once the case is accepted) then that to me is

4190:

Just bear in mind that we all make mistakes, or step over the line now and again. That's not a big problem. It's the refusal to accept that a mistake has been made that escalates a small problem into a big one. It's not making a mistake that matters, it's how we deal with that mistake

4024:

the way up to ArbCom. Better yet, even before he's had a chance to respond to the case, ArbCom's already rushed just as fast as they can to accept the case, achieving net 4 in favor of acceptance before he logs in again. That's about as clear as you can get without typing in words. --

4008:

There's nothing wrong with making errors. But there is something wrong with repeatedly making the same errors, refusing to accept they are errors, and refusing to listen to a large number of people saying they are errors. And nobody here wants EncycloPetey "tossed off the project" --

3747:

the vast majority of administrators have never heard of, and your apparent holding of a full time job outside of editing Knowledge (XXG) and it is a wonder you were ever made an administrator. Good luck, and I hope you waste no time on assisting the judges and magistrates of Salem.

2039:

I've usually heard it pronounced as two syllables, and can't imagine how it could be heard as a single one. Perhaps I'm not understanding your question. However, there are a number of suspect pronunciations in the table you pointed to. I'll try to attend to those this weekend.

4431:

Just resign the buttons and keep editing. No need for drama and you're not being attacked, it's just that the tools have fairly clearly been misused in the course of an editorial disagreement, so plead No Contest and move along... You do good work, keep doing it. best, —Tim ////

3719:

I would like to add that this is a project-by-project consideration. Whatever happens here does not affect Petey's admin status at Wiktionary, where the process has not grown quite so touchy (and where I doubt it ever will), and where there's always plenty to be done. Cheers!

1358:, which changed the fact that the issue was thought resolved. Although you are of course not required to comment there, it is not up to you to determine if "further discussion is to be posted", because the issue has not "already been resolved", nor is the the issue closed. - 474:, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students. 4793:

On point 2, the complaint is legitimate, but so are the users complaints about the process and how they have been treated. For a user with 5000 edits its easy to not do admin actions on an article you edited, when you have a 100, 000 like EP or 380, 000 like me, its a lot

4223:

well advised to first apologize for leaping to conclusions against him even before he'd had a chance to log in and defend his actions. Second, they shouldn't be threatening to desysop him under this cloud of summary judgment just because he isn't logging in to respond. --

2294:

dodging questions. I do therefore believe that you are mistaken in many, if not all, of the points you have enumerated above. I await your reply on the two specific points I have raised in the previous paragraph, as I believe they will form the start of a clarifying

3970:

That is exactly why there needs to be a third option that allows productive editors to continue using editing tools such as page deletion and history merging, even if there are challenges raised to their use of anti-vandalism tools such as blocks and page protection.

1998:

I changed the two dozen articles I added that to, per your observation. I've heard various pronunciations, and the OED would suggest that a disyllabic pronunciation is more formal, but if -/eisi:/ (full vowel!) is that dominant, we should probably just go with that.

3132:

So, guilty until proven innocent, I have contacted Dr Edelin, project coordinator, to clarify the situation. I doubt his main work tool is web-trawling bots and that he is busy with other work, how long before you make an un-investigated deletion of my contribution?

4053:

Thank you! I do understand the view of others who have been (or are) on the other end of the spectrum. There is no question that EP has used his tools improperly. I'm just deeply troubled by the responses EP has received. Looking through the case, he's been called

3879:

No one is questioning the quality of your editing. Some of the methods you employ with the admin bit are a little shocking to me at least, but this isn't a statement on your capability as an editor, which appears to be quite good and an asset to Knowledge (XXG).

4972:

I have been weighing back and forth whether or not to put my two cents in for a few days. While it appears to be a moot point now barring some drastic change of events, I have to agree with what is being said above. This is coming from someone who knows very

1383:

Sorry, just to clarify - you still believe your initial block was valid, you believe at the time you made that block, you were not involved and were merely acting in an administrative capacity, and if you had to do it over again, you'd make that block again?

4684:- Its really no surprise that Arbcom is voting for Desysop. Once they accepted the case, that result or worse was bound to happen. Arbcom doesn't accept a case unless they think the person is guilty of something which in itself causes the whole case to be a 4302:. Letting people trigger a "suspension" in their cases by going off and disappearing strikes me as unnecessary and convoluted, and likely to break down as suspended cases accumulate and the ArbCom clerks or whoever would maintain this miss returning users. 2300:

Do be aware that I intend to abide by consensus, but would appreciate it if people who disagree with my point of view could address the valid points that I have raised in counter argument, rather that simply dismissing them as if they had not been made.

1500:

On a semi-related issue, I see you have been working on some merges of your own, and I hope that you check the links at azure(color) to make sure that all are correctly sent to shades of blue. (I see that you have already been working on the redirects.)-

1105:, should not have been made. While the statement that it was using BC consistently from 12 December isn't accurate, it is accurate to say that the article consistently used BC prior to your lone insertion of BCE, the only other instance of BCE being an 3632:

you from the project for a time, after which you'll have to grovel, accept your guilt, lay out your plans to never err again, and agree to be under editing restrictions. ArbCom has become grossly obtuse, and you're the latest victim. I feel for you. --

110:

taxonomist was batty. P.S. It is so refreshing to see Latin being used; I rely in it quite a lot in publications where the main language is something that I can't even read; not that I can produce passable Latin, just reading it is enormously useful.

4545: 765:(both genus articles). At the very top of the article, the title Monotropa is italicized, but in the Sarcodes article this is not so. On wikipedia which way is it supposed to be and how do I change it to make it so? I made some edits to Sarcodes too. 4310:

not to wheel war. (zOMG! abuse of admins! ArbCom capricious!) A more sensible approach might be suspending people's bits until they've actively edited for "x" amount of time, rather than having to decide between doing nothing and cashiering them.

3773:

conscience, and let the rest of Knowledge (XXG) take that as it will. Regardless of what you decide, I hope you'll find the spirit to continue editing here; I keenly feel the loss of any editor who can make intelligent commentary on cryptogams.

3626:

Well, before you've even had a chance to log in and respond the case has already achieved a net 4 in favor of acceptance. The case can go live even before you can respond! Isn't this fun? You spend five years being an administrator, have two

2903:, but with fossils, you can't be sure that means there aren't other members of the genus. I guess I'm just giving you a head's up about what's going on so you don't have to wonder. If you think there is a better way to proceed, let me know. 494:

The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and

4948:

of the request page. They have no way to prove he's been on to read proposals, requests by various people, etc. Yet, they're certain he must be desysopped because he won't respond. Why is this motion necessary if he isn't even editing? Why?

1151:

says "Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page." Your changes didn't standardise the article, as there were still two uses of "BC".

4870:

I would add to the above that ArbCom has taken a narrow-sightedly binary view of this case. Without ever setting forth a menu of options, a vote has been called for the death penalty against adminship. Does ArbCom have the power to issue a

4194:

I don't think I have seen so many Committee members reach out to someone involved in a case request. That's a measure of the respect that people have for you, and the desire of the Committee that you allow us to resolve this in the fairest

3114:

Hello EncycoPetey, yes I am new to editing Knowledge (XXG), though I have worked as an academic archaeobotanist for many years. So I was a little surprised at the guilty until proven innocent "Copyright Violation" notice. Why? 3 reasons:

2089:

frequent contact with academic circles. I couldn't say how prevalent the three-syllable pronunciation would be outside of academic circles. To my ears, the three-syallble pronunciation sounds more affected and Classically-conscious. --

4726:

You misunderstand (or misrepresent) that principle, and ignore that the principle says "consistently poor judgement may result in suspension or revocation of adminship". I regret to say that, unambiguously, there is 'consistently poor

1171:

If you are merely acting in an administrative capacity, you are indifferent between BCE and BC on the article, correct, and you would have no problem with someone putting the whole article as "BC." Please confirm that here. Thanks.

3915:

the situation by suggesting that you're up for some sort of extraordinary sanctions. Feel free to email the committee address if you'd like to discuss the possible ways forward with the committee without such an audience. Cheers,

1597:

of a section and corrected the redirect links. If links have been hard coded into the linking articles, then a bot will be needed to correct those. This is what redirects were designed for, but some editors refuse to use them.

1459:

Please note that this ANI thread has been reopened, and you should consider participating in it. I briefly considered re-adding the post you made there, which you removed when you saw it was closed, but that isn't my place.

2402:(1) "I don't understand" means that I don't understand. You may choose to feel whatever emotions you wish about my ability to understand, but my inability to understand does NOT constitute a personal attack. Please read 907:

though you broke the rule, not me. Your excuse of "I made it consistent" is wrong anyway, since the format was already entirely consistent. You're wrong; just stop being difficult and stop messing up the encyclopaedia. (

4248:

user for questionable editing behavior. The editor simply disappeared while the RFC was running; it fizzled due to the lack of constructive response; and they resumed editing shortly after it closed. "Is this a system?"

4539: 1778:; I hope it's clear. So if you notice any cladograms which look particularly bad in Safari, you can draw the creator's attention to this section. I think I've often drawn cladograms the 'wrong' way round in the past. 3954:. I don't think a pattern of inappropriate blocks and page protections should be excused so that an editor doesn't have to occasionally use RM or request a history merge. Between abuse of administrative tools that 5104:

Per the above I have, with regret, removed your sysop bit. There are a number of other flags such as rollback that you may feel qualified to use, let me know and I'll sort you out as soon as I can. All the best,

2285:

What personal attack did you see in the discussion? (2) Pettifogging. What do you mean by this, and where is it discussed on the page you have linked to? I could not find it, and so am not certain what you mean.

1524:

were heraldry and flag articles that correctly pointed to the article about the heraldic tincture. Now, all of those links point to a disambiguation page, and the links therefore need to be adjusted accordingly.

3329:

But disambiguation pages aren't the place for descriptions. Disambiguation pages "are designed to help a reader find Knowledge (XXG) articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term"

4166:

assurances to improve in future. (Plainly, the pervading policy that administrator misconduct may be reviewed at any time by the committee would still apply, and the motion would probably have to restate this.)

193:

That's not so relevant anymore, maybe, but I'm wondering--should you not have let someone else block the editor, given that you have reverted them a bunch of times and this is not a clear-cut case of vandalism?

4251:

I have a lot of sympathy for EP, and I'm really going to miss him—we're shorthanded enough on WP:Plants as it is. As an admin who only sporadically uses the bit, I really understand the frustrations imposed by

883:

The policy on dates is not to prefer either one or the other. There is nothing about such a change being "not allowed". The change that I performed made the internal dating fora=mat consistent, which is what

1059:, namely using your administrative tools to stop another editor from reverting your own edits. However, perhaps there are details about this that I'm overlooking, but would you please mind clarifying this? - 3490:

I find it odd that several people have asserted that I was "involved" in this case, without actually providing any explanation or evidence as to why they think that. Is this what Knowledge (XXG) has become?

1593:, so the links do need to be corrected. Additionally, you've introduced an extra step between the reader and access to the information. I myself have made no mergers yet; I have proposed one only. I made a 57:

couldn't make a guess at the correct genus without knowking the locality, whether the tree was native there, and probably a mature seed cone. You might be able to get better information at the talk page for

1284:, given that you had an opinion on something, you reverted to your preferred version, and then blocked your partner in edit warring. Please convince me this will not continue, or resign your tools. Thanks. 3677:

that could have appeared as problematic. I'll take it to the talk page but I'd advise another admin to keep an eye on this IP's civility." would probably have you out of this whole palava, to be honest. --

4038:

Yeah, I do understand what you mean, and I certainly don't want EncycloPetey to leave us - he's a great contributor, and I regret not emphasizing how much respect I have for his contributions earlier. --

2174:

should accurately describe what happened in an edit. This is the case with my edit summaries. Thank you for finally opening a discussion about the issue, but it would have been better to discuss first.

4801:

On 4 I have not seen a clear pattern, I saw an isolated couple incidents over a multi year period. Maybe you are seeing more than me but I am not seeing a deliberate and repeating cycle of abuse as you

1657:

intended for the heraldry page. So with a mish mosh of varied links, it is all the more reason of having the dab page in place. If you still disagree, you are welcome to check out the links yourself. -

4533: 1551:

are clearly linked on the dab page, any editor coming there looking for the heraldry tincture will assuredly find the page they are looking for. It's common practice. And part of why we have dab pages.

4158:

those wrong decisions were made when you were "involved"—and therefore when your ability to make an neutral decision was impaired. Nevertheless, you would need to resolve to improve in both respects.

4470:

Yes, the place has been taken over by the WP:ACRONYM jerks, but it's still our Knowledge (XXG)... perhaps the old schoolers will feel welcome again after the folks in charge realize what happened. --

569:. His article on the cactus says that most cacti have a high woody content to their stems, which I rather doubt as there are many small and fleshy cacti. It's a gross over-generlization at best. -- 1055:

You don't think it was a bit inappropriate to block an editor for edit warring, when you yourself were the one engaged in an edit war with the editor you blocked? This appears to be a violation of

1653:

linking. That said, if you feel I am breaking the "honour code", so be it. I don't think that this is really worth debating. Especially since I have a feeling that more than a few of the links are

5015: 3548:, but please do so in the discussion forum set aside for this topic. Splitting this discussion across multiple pages will make it harder both for myself and for others to follow and respond. -- 488:

All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

3797:

At this stage, a well thought out statement taking in the source of the community concern and suggesting a way forward may still be sufficient to halt any further action. On the request page,

2456:, "I do not think those words mean what you think they mean." And I still don't understand how so many people can be so fussy over three extra letters in a disambiguation page description. -- 2328:

1. Personal attack: as I noted at the time, your statement of 22:04, 22 April, "I don't understand why you are so strongly opposed to the extra three letters," belittled my position.

4218:, and hasn't edited since despite being reasonably active before this. Inactivity on his part shouldn't be a reason for ArbCom to yet again leap to a conclusion and desysop him. We 4688:. So really once the case is accepted the user can count on being Desysopped, blocked or both. I just don't have much faith in Arbcom decisions anymore myself. Its too much like a 4467:

you never feel compelled to create content again, you've done an awful lot of good work over the past several years, and you shouldn't throw away the access you so fully deserve.

4187:

what you need to do is say something like: "Ooops - sorry, didn't realise. Won't do that again. Thanks for pointing it out." With such a statement a desysopping could be avoided.

2949:

They just won't show up in the taxobox. It's absolutely maddening. I was hoping somebody could find where my error was. I'm just going to use a normal taxobox for the moment.

295:, you will see that originally that line was not my example, but rather your own. (I hope that I do not appear indignant about this, as that is not my mood. I am just curious). 4447:

I think this is the best course of action as well. It's been recommended by myself and others above. But, EP's apparently chosen to leave the project. Can't say I blame him. --

2552:

Regarding replying, a statement that follows another's but doesn't address their points is not responsive. When points are neglected repeatedly, it clearly becomes ignoring.

967:. The first version of the article used "B.C.", not BCE. By the time you first edited the article in April 2006, the article contained 2 BC references and no mentions of BCE. 5094: 3436: 1443: 4895:

It's very simple. There are no options available if EP has decided not to engage. Respect EP's decision, to leave WP:EN and the tools rather than adjust his behavior.--

4847:@AGK: (1) Perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough. Kumioko got the gist of what I was saying. There simply isn't a need at this point for ArbCom to act. EP is doing 3826:

Really the page protection was a bad call, but completely understandable. To de-sysop someone over that would be ludicrous, unless they can't see why it was a bad call.

3062: 624: 471: 4812:

You can call it trolling AGK but in the end if the Arbcom doesn't act appropriately, consistently and fairly they are bringing the negative comments on themselves.

4298:

OK, I agree with you about "under a cloud"; if ArbCom removes EP's bit, it should be clearly stipulated that he retains the option to retrieve it by means short of

2347:

As to dodged questions, mine inviting suggestion for more accessible language were repeatedly ignored, despite the copiousness of statements posted in subsequence.

666: 5010:

Thank you for sharing your knowledge in many languages on "... Paleobiology, Latin, Galician, ... and ... almost any other academic subject", - keep working on

4555:

You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go

2797:

Yes, this a serious flaw in the way that bots work. I wish people would check the edits made by their bots rather than letting faulty ones run all the time. --

2338:

replete with it. Not once, prior to my statement about disruptive editing, did you offer anything suggesting the possibility of a mutually acceptable solution.

491:

All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

3118:

1 I comprehensively referenced all material, just as in my academic work, published by publishing institutions, published in monographs and academic journals;

2693: 2685: 2669: 3805:

concerns the use of tools. No-one has raised concerns with your editing generally - you appear to be a good editor, who has made many valuable contributions.

737:

Good call. There seem to be certain times of the year when major topic articles suddenly are hit by waves of vandalism or bizarre non-constructive edits. --

424:

Hi! It was nice to meet you last weekend! Would you be interested in coming in to the office for a one-on-one interview? Is there a time that works for you?

291:

I agree that "one of the cities has fallen" is not a comparable example, but that indeed was the point I was making. If you revisit the dialogue at Drmies's

83:

I've returned to this article. I've outlined in the Talk page what I would like to do. You might like to look in, since you were taking an interest earlier.

2692:, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the 2376:

I bring this issue up, difficult though it may be, because a hospitable atmosphere is key to WP's long-term vitality. The number of WP English editors has

1734: 1497:

Hi. By moving the dab page to azure, that pretty much resolves the navigation issue. If there are further issues though, please feel free to drop me a note.

4909:

EP's decision to engage or not engage - which I do respect - is immaterial to the question of whether ArbCom is going forward with an unnecessary action.

2196:

remain. I am concerned about a lack of appreciation for this point, but unfortunately also concerned whether I can say anything that would develop it.

988:

as BC was the established format and you had sought no consensus to change that, as is required by WP:ERA. Arguing that your changes were made because "

2251:(comment at 06:49, 21 April), purporting to respond to a point raised (distracting language as a dab page issue), but actually sidestepping it entirely 1188:

other generally. However, the AN/I discussion has already been closed, before either person involved was able to participate, so the point is moot. --

970:

Using the same criteria we use for determining date formats and English variants, "BC" was clearly the established form, especially given the links to

500:

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at

1109:

violation. Therefore I can certainly see the logic that BC is the "consistent" version, and is undoubtedly the oldest and most consistent version. -

4717:? The complaint is legitimate, yet EP has refused to make a statement other than to suggest the complaint is a fabrication of some faction of haters. 4606: 4341: 3899: 2971:

page, I have created a traditional taxobox with the other families. We'll see what happens. Perhaps you're right about giving the server some time.

2839:

Due to conflicting sources, the families cannot be listed. An explanation is given below, but it is partially just an expression of bewilderment.

4556: 3589:

EncycloPetey, I am afraid your actions here and your responses so far are deeply unsatisfactory. I am filing an Arbcom request in this matter now.

2723: 4568: 3194: 485:

Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

2152: 809: 4198:

The matter is now in your hands; though if you prefer the Committee to remove your tools then you need do nothing more, and we will understand.

4102:

It's not overly complicated. Simply make a definitive statement "I will not use admin tools on articles I've edited" and the community will say

1080:

is not from December, it is much older than that. The original version did in fact use only BC, not a mix of the two, therefore WP Editor 2011

4786:

I am going to move onto other tasks since this users fate is pretty much sealed at this point and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

3311:

We should have at least a short description on the disambiguation page and either an article linked or else a section of another article. The

504: 5050: 4582: 3951: 3603: 1240:. What can you do to convince me you will no longer use your tools in content disputes in which you have an opinion, to enforce your opinion? 1411: 335: 1628:

Moving a fairly significant section to another page, in particular since it involves several other previous merges, would indeed be a merge.

3315:

is simply any thin, transparent covering, it is a specific morphological feature of quillworts, just as petals are for flowering plants. --

161: 4219: 2367:

raised. Again, you would probably give more weight to the input of someone else on such matters, someone not involved in that discussion.

1817:

I noticed that you had commented on the talk pages of a couple of the articles, and thought I'd ask for your views before doing any more.

650: 2942:

I've created the templates for the other families, but they won't show up as children. They're listed as children in the category here:

3593: 1807: 930:

who chose to make a wholesale "illegal" change without discussion to start an edit war. Please do not engage in such behavior again. --

4711:

This is not an emergency action. You appear to have forgotten we afforded EncycloPetey many days to respond to the arbitration request.

4299: 3455:

In case it's not clear from this cryptic note, the link is to an ANI thread. Please respond there the next time you're online. Thanks.

1965: 3892: 3441: 3079: 1076:, I'm afraid the statement that "WP Editor 2011 did not make that article consistent with the original version." isn't accurate. The 503:(to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name 1961: 867:. Performing a huge string of short edits (like you did) instead of performing just a few is also frowned upon if I'm not mistaken. ( 549:

presently where it's used as a source (by a previous editor I hasten to add). Superficially it looks reliable; can you enlighten me?

3175: 1258:

I've already replied above (edit conflict). The AN/I on the issue was pushed through without my participation; it is now closed. --

4261:

community. Without some kind of explanation, it's hard for a favorably-disposed onlooker like me to go bail for him, so to speak.

3950:

Looking through the recent log, it looks like most of the recent moves done do not require any administrative tools. Regardless,

2637:

Ah, right; I looked at the articles too quickly. The names for the vascular cryptograms have changed so much that I get confused.

4977:

give you the option to appeal to them rather than go through a new RfA if you ever choose that you want the bit back that badly.

3687: 978:. However, in a string of 107 edits in December 2011 that was interrupted only once by a reversion of the "BC" to "BCE" changes, 330: 325: 2889:

I have obtained a copy of the book I have been referencing. There is good info about species in the other genera I listed on

2420: 2219: 3590: 2508: 2504: 2406:

to find out what constitutes a personal attack. Accusing people of making such attacks when they have not is inappropriate.

1973: 1969: 1430: 2290:

The fact that I am actively engaged in the ongoing discussion, and am seeking to have my point understood, shows that I am

587:

and find a better source. (There are quite a few rather poor web sources put there by earlier editors which need sorting.)

4044: 4014: 3823:

Elen - you are presenting this just like a police siege in the US. Two ways out, be shot by the police, or shoot yourself.

2483:

still don't understand how so many people can be so fussy over three extra letters in a disambiguation page description."

2193: 2190: 657:, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at 3958:, and having to ask an admin for an RM, I think the second option is by far the least disruptive to Knowledge (XXG). - 2824:

taxobox? You hardly ever see anything about the family anyways. All you ever really see is the order and the genera.

3813: 3150: 714:

I noticed you've rightly been protecting some articles lately. Although it's outside your usual area, please consider

5058: 4720: 3513:

Several people have explained why they believe you are "involved"; please re-read the ANI thread, and the wording of

2264: 902:

The entire article had been using AD/BC since its creation until you decided all by yourself to change it to CE/BCE.

209:

three other editors. I recommend reading Drphilharmonic's own comments on his own talk page to see the situation. --

3449: 5110: 3540:

that I was "involved". No one has explained why they think so, and one person has categorically stated that I was

2189:

The comment about "finally" opening discussion seems inaccurate and baiting. In any case, the negative effects of

300: 265: 4612:

Attempted to force you to admit guilt under pain of being desysopped (see especially SilkTork's comments above at

3348:

I disagree. The explanation does not cover the topic. An article, or part of article will need to be created. --

3261:

and restored the original. One or two editors seem to have a bit of a campaign to replace "division" by "phylum".

2997:

edit the parent template, the server will seek out children templates immediately. If you do not edit the parent

1956: 637: 3864: 3837: 3652: 2708: 2820:

the only way I could come up with to do it (unless you've got another idea). How about if I refer to it in the

2234: 2006:, which gives my attempt at pronunciation for all the regular endings (though I left out optional syllables). — 5082: 4798:

correct or not, that they favor some editors over others, there is always going to be an element of scepticism.

4040: 4010: 1803: 1426: 1407: 912: 872: 2377: 1909: 155: 926:

of BC and BCE before my edit, and I changed only the article summary to match the body of the article. It is

3411: 3375: 3339: 3301: 3266: 3078:. I admit that i did have my suspicions about it. Where are the conventions for what to put in the taxobox? 2642: 2612: 1976:

page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation!

1917: 1860: 1822: 1783: 1764: 794:

Ah, so what other ranks in taxonomy get italicized? I also guess there's a way to do it without the taxobox.

727: 592: 554: 1590: 5023: 4838: 4809:

Again it seems to me as well that Arbcom is choosing the bad over the good actions and assuming bad faith.

4613: 4518: 4514: 3887: 3809: 3553: 3496: 3445: 3393: 3353: 3320: 3217: 3159: 3138: 3099: 3083: 3007: 2802: 2753: 2628: 2461: 2306: 2180: 2094: 2062:

I meant as three syllables rather than two: /ˈ-eɪ.si.iː/ (what the OED would transcribe as /ˈ-eɪsɪiː/). —

2045: 1981: 1887: 1842: 1699: 1603: 1530: 1487: 1482:

Please make sure that the 400+ links to the heraldic article that were broken by the move are repaired. --

1345: 1315: 1263: 1221: 1207: 1193: 1157: 1131: 1037: 1019: 935: 893: 785: 742: 643: 574: 447: 431: 405: 390: 373: 281: 214: 66: 17: 4215:

Do I read this right? If he "do nothing more", you'll desysop him? He said his goodbye nearly a week ago

150: 5106: 4900: 4830: 3527: 3460: 3367: 2124: 2067: 2026: 2011: 1465: 1029: 671:

This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.

649:

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at

399:

Just a quick reminder about this, and that you can find location info etc. on the meetup page. Regards,

296: 261: 116: 4253: 4151: 3764: 3473: 3334:). I think the descriptor of "a thin, transparent covering" for velum meets the reader's need. Thanks. 2254:

Avoiding consensus building by repeatedly dodging questions or requests for proposals toward compromise

1355: 1325: 1237: 1056: 3362:

Sounds good. For now shall we change them to the eventual article or redirect name with red links for

1354:

The issue was closed because the issue was thought resolved, then you commented about how you weren't

1310:

You are free to take any actions elsewhere that you wish, but the matter has already been resolved. --

565:

author of their "cactus" article (and author of many of their articles) is C. Michael Hogan, who is a

4954: 4860: 4655: 4581:

Not that they cared to inform you, but ArbCom has now started voting on a motion to desysop you. See

4564: 4452: 4349: 4285: 4228: 4107: 4083: 4029: 3999: 3860: 3834: 3710: 3685: 3667: 3648: 3637: 3363: 3243: 3051: 3044: 2700: 2607:)? Shouldn't they be merged? I know that you usually keep an eye on articles in this area of botany. 2603:

actually about exactly the same group, the old Pteridophyta as per Sporne's 1966 book (referenced in

888:

states should be done. There is no policy about the number of edits; you are mistaken about that. --

817: 4983: 4864: 4842: 4743: 4659: 1403: 1399:

Knowledge (XXG) policies, but here is what I posted about it to the first admin whose page I found.

5078: 4730:

We are not judges, and cannot find users in contempt of court. We solve problems, and nothing more.

4499: 4471: 3962: 3567: 3403: 3026: 2976: 2954: 2932: 2912: 2875: 2852: 2829: 1450: 1422: 1389: 1362: 1332: 1289: 1245: 1177: 1113: 1063: 908: 868: 4714: 4366:

you talking about?! If you commit a "colossal screw-up", you admit so. You need to stop trolling.

3293: 1878: 58: 4207: 3920: 3407: 3371: 3335: 3297: 3292:

back to the disambiguation page. Since we aren't supposed to have links to disambiguation pages (

3262: 3021:

articles need text. I was just in a hurry and figured nobody would be looking at it anyways yet)

2638: 2608: 2574: 2385: 2274: 2201: 2160: 1913: 1856: 1818: 1779: 1760: 1340:

I've been to the AN/I board, and the issue was closed. No further discussion is to be posted. --

1012:. For consistency, as required by WP:ERA, the article should really be changed to use one format. 723: 588: 550: 77: 46: 4997: 3514: 2943: 1877:

I'd prefer to see the additional name discussed in the article for that group. A discussion at

385:

Looking forawrd to it. I actually recognized a couple of the names of prospective attendees. --

4616:), and attempted to force you to respond under the same penalty (which they are now acting on). 4150:

In my view, you need to promise that you: 1) will not use your sysop tools in contravention of

135: 102:

About the illegitimate names in the 1910-1930 interval, what I've seen is (1) within the genus

34: 5066: 5037: 5019: 4934: 4834: 4817: 4697: 4619:

Refused to take any action regarding the people who launched attacks against you, calling you

4437: 4404: 4129: 3881: 3859:

And laying the burden down, should be made easy and with support. 'No big deal' and all that.

3549: 3492: 3389: 3349: 3316: 3213: 3202: 3183: 3155: 3134: 3095: 3003: 2907:

Goodnight to you, or if you're on the other side of the world, good morning. Whatever. haha

2798: 2749: 2624: 2503:

a. I'm sorry, I did miss your question about pettifogging in relevant guidelines. Please see

2457: 2302: 2176: 2090: 2041: 1977: 1883: 1838: 1695: 1599: 1526: 1483: 1341: 1311: 1259: 1217: 1203: 1189: 1153: 1127: 1033: 1015: 931: 889: 831: 799: 781: 770: 738: 722:

shows a large number of entirely time-wasting edits throughout the whole of February. Thanks.

700: 617: 610: 570: 443: 427: 401: 386: 369: 353: 277: 210: 62: 3700: 3628: 2722:

If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from

1281: 658: 654: 4919: 4896: 4885: 4387: 4316: 4266: 3994:

him). He said goodbye, and hasn't edited since, though I grant it has been just two days. --

3981: 3940: 3778: 3730: 3523: 3481: 3456: 2788: 2689: 2676: 2319:

All of my enumerations are considered, and I stand by them. I don't see them as misapplied.

2120: 2063: 2022: 2007: 1461: 953: 860: 677: 527: 292: 236: 199: 183: 112: 5070: 4589:

Neglected to recognize that there is no impending emergency requiring action on their part.

4495: 4330:

ArbCom rushes to judgment in accepting the case before EP even has had a chance to respond

3955: 3801:

has provided a very good explanation of why this particular issue is such a hot topic now.

2763:

Hello EncycloPetey, thanks for your correction. I can explain why bots modify in that way.

2403: 2239: 1148: 1106: 1102: 999: 985: 903: 885: 864: 665:

regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at

662: 4950: 4856: 4757: 4672: 4651: 4560: 4448: 4345: 4281: 4224: 4079: 4025: 3995: 3911: 3752: 3706: 3678: 3663: 3633: 3239: 2890: 813: 3952:

no individual contributor is so essential that consistent poor behavior will be tolerated

2171: 173: 5114: 5086: 5027: 4958: 4938: 4924: 4904: 4890: 4821: 4778: 4761: 4701: 4676: 4642:

Failed to recognize that more than 98% of your administrator actions were without fault.

4479: 4456: 4441: 4408: 4391: 4376: 4353: 4320: 4289: 4270: 4232: 4210: 4180: 4133: 4111: 4087: 4048: 4033: 4018: 4003: 3986: 3965: 3945: 3924: 3904: 3868: 3843: 3817: 3782: 3756: 3735: 3714: 3689: 3671: 3656: 3641: 3619: 3596: 3570: 3557: 3544:

involved. Please do not tell me what I am doing, as that is unhelpful. Tell me rather

3531: 3500: 3485: 3464: 3415: 3397: 3379: 3357: 3343: 3324: 3305: 3270: 3247: 3221: 3206: 3187: 3163: 3142: 3103: 3087: 3058: 3030: 3011: 2980: 2958: 2936: 2916: 2879: 2856: 2833: 2806: 2792: 2757: 2714: 2646: 2632: 2616: 2578: 2465: 2389: 2310: 2278: 2205: 2184: 2164: 2128: 2098: 2071: 2049: 2030: 2015: 1985: 1921: 1891: 1864: 1846: 1826: 1787: 1768: 1743: 1714: 1703: 1664: 1607: 1568: 1534: 1507: 1491: 1469: 1453: 1442:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

1393: 1365: 1349: 1335: 1319: 1293: 1267: 1249: 1225: 1211: 1197: 1181: 1161: 1135: 1116: 1066: 1041: 1023: 1004:" falls flat, because the article is still a mix of BC and BCE, due to the existence of 998:

The change that I performed made the internal dating fora=mat consistent, which is what

939: 916: 897: 876: 835: 821: 803: 789: 774: 746: 731: 704: 681: 596: 578: 558: 531: 451: 435: 411: 394: 379: 357: 304: 285: 269: 240: 218: 203: 187: 139: 120: 92: 70: 50: 4978: 4689: 4685: 4522: 3959: 3564: 3385: 3022: 2972: 2950: 2928: 2908: 2905:

Also, I hope I didn't seem like I was b*tching at you before. I just tend to be blunt.

2871: 2848: 2825: 2003: 1947: 1775: 1447: 1385: 1359: 1329: 1285: 1241: 1173: 1110: 1060: 1005: 971: 960: 130:

I find this area very interesting. Thanks for correcting my mistake and explaining it.

88: 5069:

are revoked. To regain administrator permissions, EncycloPetey must make a successful

167: 4776: 4741: 4374: 4200: 4178: 3916: 3798: 3617: 3388:

would be better, as there are extinct relatives that possessed the same structure. --

2821: 2570: 2381: 2270: 2197: 2156: 1799: 42: 2448: 4930: 4813: 4693: 4433: 4400: 4306:

abuse! ArbCom protects abusers!), and then periodically ArbCom hangs a few of them

4243: 4125: 3198: 3179: 3017: 2895: 2600: 1811: 1088:

BCE into the article in 2008, the article had consistently used BC for seven years.

827: 795: 766: 696: 632: 349: 318: 131: 3122:

rigourously applied criteria, how do I not use the same terms as source material;

4333:. It's no small wonder that EP felt "railroaded and surrounded by hungry sharks" 3197:

and tell me whether I am wrong in distinguishing a coat of arms from an emblem.

1216:

Yes, he would have, as he was unblocked long before the discussion was closed. --

1202:

WP Editor 2011 wouldn't have been able to participate, as you had blocked him. --

4910: 4876: 4692:

than a fair and just system of checks and balances based on facts and evidence.

4383: 4312: 4262: 3972: 3931: 3774: 3721: 3477: 3402:

I've gone ahead and made the changes. You can see where the red link is used by

2784: 692: 673: 523: 511: 501: 467: 334:. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of 256: 232: 195: 179: 2776: 4753: 4668: 3748: 3285: 2968: 2248: 2227: 1755: 947:- For the record, I've had to warn WP Editor 2011 previously for edit-warring, 856: 31:

Just curious about the white spots on this image - do you know what they are?

1960:

participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate

545:

based on the Encyclopedia of Earth. I know nothing about it, but am revising

3289: 2780: 2768: 2734: 2604: 2596: 1739: 1710: 1660: 1564: 1503: 762: 84: 3127: 1837:

for the same topic is counter to what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. --

1446:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -

4769: 4734: 4583:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motion:_EncycloPetey_desysopped

4367: 4336:. So five minutes later, and now nearly a week ago, he makes his goodbye 4171: 3769: 3610: 3016:

That's interesting. I will keep that in mind. Thanks. Also, about the

2771:

not, so bot ignore the link. But listing other interwikis, bots can find

758: 2663: 2442: 510:

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at

4484: 3331: 2927:

done them for a while, although I can't find anything I'm doing wrong.

2772: 1084:

make the article consistent with the original version. In fact, until

339: 4614:

User_talk:EncycloPetey#Arbitration_request_concerning_your_permissions

2569:

Re your frustration, people are crazy. But we're all one of 'em. :)

5011: 1547:

I appreciate your concern, but as all the different pages related to

1009: 975: 964: 584: 546: 4646:

The gross incompetence being exhibited by ArbCom is sickening. I am

1418: 1400: 4599:

from the project, as they were insanely quick to judge against you

4510: 2764: 780:

If the name is omitted from the taxobox, the title is italicized.--

4494: 2783:

too) and thus modifiy a disambiguation page to a real article. --

2223: 2148: 1521: 1476: 542: 516:

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

33: 4521:. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact 3808:

So you see, there are options open to you, even at this point. --

3705:

entirely. Going along with the ArbCom charade is unproductive. --

3002:

Otherwise, there is a delay in the response from the software. --

2899:, it only talks about one species. Google search only pulled up 1093:

Aside from that insertion, the only other mention of BCE in the "

3258: 3235: 4546:

A sunset and harvest moon bridges, palace, boats and tower tour

2436:

If I'm replying to your comments, then I'm not ignoring them.

2119:

I have the same impression about it sounding a bit affected. —

61:, where there are some folks more experienced with conifers. -- 4170:

if you are. I look forward to your response. Warmest regards,

2944:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Immediate_children/Ginkgoales

2244:

Tendentious editing, placing one perspective beyond all others

715: 231:

Please see my response to your note, on my talk page. Thanks,

3763:

Obviously, having a bunch of editors accuse you of breaching

3608:

I've also added a section header, for your ease of reference.

3280:

Hello EncycloPetey, I saw that you had changed the links for

1968:. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the 1964:

and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our

1754:

I should have remembered to check the cladogram I changed at

3065:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3043: 1946: 1798:

I've only recently come across a set of articles created by

627:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

609: 367:

Hey, happy to see you can join us for lunch on Saturday! :)

317: 4592:

Ignored the fact they've heard evidence only from one side.

3699:

resolution process. The dispute resolution process is now

2870:

I must say, you are really fast with checking this stuff.

1554:

However on the converse, the merges you are working on do

984:

I can see how WP Editor 2011 thought this was a breach of

3606:. Please submit your statement when you are next online. 956:, the article contained 3 occurrences of BC and 2 of BCE. 1802:

for taxa in the Chase & Reveal classification, e.g.

1401:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Toddst1#WP_Editor_2011

810:

Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (flora)#Italicization

5062: 5045: 4974: 4945: 4636: 4632: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4600: 4596: 4337: 4334: 4331: 4216: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4055: 2868:

genus page for now until more information is available.

1098: 1094: 1085: 1077: 1073: 982: 979: 968: 957: 948: 852: 719: 3604:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case#EncycloPetey

1955:

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the

1708:

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion... -

1444:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

3234:

There has been some controversy over at the article

1972:, and of course, if you share your successes at the 1028:

The struck-through content above has been posted at

2357:

more illuminating, particularly for subtler points.

2247:Gaming the system, e.g. in the second paragraph of 1589:point to disambiguation pages, and such linking is 1324:It hasn't, the AN/I discussion is ongoing, and the 950:but I don't believe he was entirely at fault here. 3517:. You are not enforcing WP:MOS, you are enforcing 3074:Thank you for alerting me to the unreliability of 1520:the problem. The articles previously pointing to 667:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals 693:Talk:Botany#Botany_article_structure_and_concerns 149:Hey EncycloPetey, I saw you didn't block the IP, 4595:Ignored the fact they had a direct hand in your 4104:Okay, cool, let's go back to what we were doing. 1558:involve a dab page. So fixing links in some way 981:you added 4 BCEs and replaced 1 "BC" with "BCE". 324:Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be 4605:Ignored the existence of prior principles that 4340:project. They ignored their own principle that 4142:Arbitration request concerning your permissions 3050:Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at 2507:, which relates to disruptive editing, and the 1735:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Azure 1649:As for the rest, that section is talking about 616:Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at 583:Ah, thanks. I'll look at what it's used for in 513:. I will be more than happy to speak with you. 482:Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes. 1562:be appropriate in this case, I would think. - 605:A bit late, sorry, I'm always late at replying 255:Hello EncycloPetey. I get the impression that 4721:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators#Accountability 4607:administrators are not expected to be perfect 4342:administrators are not expected to be perfect 3476:, and that this is not an isolated incident. 2775:(introduce around 2006 in some articles like 2623:cycle (rhyniophytes, calamitaleans, etc.). -- 8: 4534:A bike ride along San Francisco's waterfront 3602:EncycloPetey, the arbitration request is at 3149:Replied at the duplicate of this posting on 655:Knowledge (XXG) requirements for a stub type 541:Hi, I noticed your revert to an addition to 4513:, we're organizing two photo events in the 4490:Wiki Loves Monuments - San Francisco Events 2989:What I mean is: if you create the children 2724:Knowledge (XXG):Meetup/San Francisco/Invite 661:. Please feel free to make any comments at 4650:sorry you have become a victim of this. -- 2153:Knowledge (XXG):Revert only when necessary 1910:WT:PLANTS#Do taxon names deserve articles? 1794:Chase & Reveal classification articles 5051:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case 3431: 3176:Talk:Coat of arms of the Holy See#Dispute 653:. The stub type most likely doesn't meet 5057:For using his administrator tools while 3257:Yes, I should have done what you did at 3128:http://www.biotik.org/res_technical.html 2147:I noticed that you reverted my edit on 651:Knowledge (XXG):Stub types for deletion 604: 4602:, before you had even logged in again. 4551:We look forward to seeing you there! 1774:I've now updated the documentation at 478:So a few things about the interviews: 4538:September 22-23rd, Saturday-Sunday - 2021:Any comment on the extra syllable? — 863:. This is not allowed, as it says in 808:There's some detailed information at 7: 5065:), the administrator permissions of 2004:Taxonomic_rank#Terminations_of_names 1808:Magnoliidae sensu Chase & Reveal 1280:That's nice. I'm willing to file an 2696:, and edit the picnic as you like. 2222:that I believe I have witnessed on 1101:from BC to BCE, which according to 2748:. The change in link is wrong. -- 1776:Template:Clade#Browser differences 959:Two of the mentions were links to 952:Prior to your December 5 edits at 24: 4220:already have a procedure in place 2505:Knowledge (XXG):Gaming the system 2170:Thank you for the advice, but an 2155:: reverting drives away editors. 4996: 4528:There are three events planned: 2675: 2662: 1957:Smithsonian Institution Archives 1833:Having an article about another 1236:Hi. I believe you have violated 5077:For the Arbitration Committee, 2767:is an disambiguation page, and 2740:This is equivalent with French 1328:issue has not been resolved. - 1078:original version of the article 945:Comment by an uninvolved editor 3956:potentially drive away editors 3193:Would you please intervene in 2863:Re: Hamatophyton verticillatum 2684:You are invited to the second 1855:I agree. So what can be done? 178:. Is that on purpose? Thanks, 1: 5115:14:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 5087:14:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 5036:Arbitration motion regarding 5028:05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 4984:03:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 4959:19:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4939:19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4925:19:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4905:19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4891:19:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4865:17:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4843:16:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4822:16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4779:15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4762:15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4744:15:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4702:14:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4677:14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4660:14:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4569:00:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4525:with questions or concerns. 4480:23:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 4457:19:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 4442:19:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 4427:Absolutely uninvolved comment 4409:03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC) 4392:02:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC) 4377:15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 4354:18:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 4321:03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 4290:02:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 4271:00:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 4233:22:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 4211:10:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 4181:09:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 4134:03:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 2511:which refers to pettifogging. 1733:Note: I thought your note at 705:01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 682:14:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC) 638:12:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 597:08:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 579:05:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 559:19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4463:assume you probably do too. 4241:Come now. That's granting a 4078:...to join the lynch mob. -- 3536:No, a couple of people have 3070:The Plant List and taxoboxes 2668: 2440:with you is not the same as 1908:Ok, I've now raised this at 1030:Talk:Book of Habakkuk#BC/BCE 994:of BC and BCE before my edit 532:18:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 452:04:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 436:17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC) 412:00:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 395:03:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 380:20:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 358:06:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 305:11:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC) 286:01:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC) 270:06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 251:Brassicaceae/specifiers etc. 241:20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 219:19:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 204:16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 188:04:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 5014:, we need it! - You are an 4851:. Desysopping him achieves 4829:I asked a related question 4112:12:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 4088:17:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 4049:16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 4034:14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 4019:13:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 4004:12:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 3987:13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 3966:03:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 3946:03:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 3925:19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 3905:23:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3869:15:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 3844:02:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 3818:22:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3783:04:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 3757:19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3736:17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3715:17:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3690:16:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3672:15:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3657:15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3642:13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3620:11:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3597:10:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3571:05:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3558:05:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3532:03:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3501:02:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3486:17:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 3465:13:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 3450:11:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 3416:02:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 3398:20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 3380:20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 3358:19:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 3344:19:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 3325:02:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 3306:16:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 3271:09:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 3248:17:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 3222:21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 3207:20:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 3188:09:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3151:Talk:Dipterocarpus costatus 2452:. To borrow a phrase from 2218:I am concerned by apparent 342:. Thanks and best regards! 140:04:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 121:12:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 93:01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 71:05:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 51:22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 5133: 4308:pour encourager les autres 3164:20:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 3143:12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 3104:19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 3088:09:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2901:Hamatophyton verticillatum 2265:failure to "get the point" 2206:15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 2185:06:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2165:22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2143:Revert only when necessary 2129:09:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2099:07:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2072:07:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2050:06:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2031:04:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2016:02:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1986:20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 1922:08:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 1892:07:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 1865:06:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 1847:16:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC) 1827:09:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC) 1470:19:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1454:18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 1431:05:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 1412:05:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 1394:14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1366:14:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1350:14:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1336:14:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1320:14:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1294:14:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1268:14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1250:14:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1226:14:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1212:14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1198:14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1182:12:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1162:14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1136:14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1117:05:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1067:02:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 1042:06:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1024:06:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 940:14:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 917:06:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 898:01:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 877:15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 4995: 4574: 4544:September 29, Saturday - 4532:September 15, Saturday - 4382:RfA is disproportionate. 3059:15:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3031:00:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC) 3012:22:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 2981:22:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 2959:22:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 2937:21:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 2917:02:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 2880:02:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 2857:14:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 2834:02:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 2807:03:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 2793:20:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2758:07:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2674: 2661: 2655:San Francisco Wiknic 2012 2260:Rejecting community input 2002:You might want to review 1940: 1788:23:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 1769:10:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 1744:05:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 1715:05:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 1704:04:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 1665:03:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 1608:02:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 1569:02:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 1535:02:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 1508:02:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 1492:02:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC) 1097:" version of the article 836:01:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 822:01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 804:01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 790:01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 775:22:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 747:03:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 732:12:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 466:My name is Jonathan Obar 420:Wikimedia Stories Project 4147:give such an assurance. 2715:18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 1804:Equisetopsida sensu lato 3851:Please, Admin is not a 3472:are in compliance with 2647:13:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC) 2633:06:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC) 2617:16:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 2579:13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC) 2466:01:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC) 2390:17:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC) 2378:fallen by about a third 2311:18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 2279:17:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 1941:Science lovers wanted! 1689:The Guideline is about 1099:was an arbitrary change 5075: 4519:Yosemite National Park 4515:San Francisco Bay Area 4503: 3110:Dipterocarpus costatus 3052:SuggestBot's talk page 3048: 2686:Great American Wikinic 1951: 1934:Science lovers wanted! 1585:Links should normally 922:No, the article was a 644:Category:Areceae stubs 614: 322: 38: 18:User talk:EncycloPetey 5071:Request for Adminship 5055: 4625:abusing the community 4498: 4300:sitting in the stocks 4060:abusing the community 3178:might interest you. 3047: 2533:new information here. 2423:page, as I requested. 1950: 1737:wasn't a bad idea. - 1002:states should be done 753:Botany genus question 613: 321: 37: 4633:community confidence 4511:Wiki Loves Monuments 4068:community confidence 3276:Velum disambiguation 2672:at Golden Gate Park 2670:San Francisco Wiknic 1750:Layout of cladograms 659:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 537:Encylopedia of Earth 462:Dear EncyclopPetey, 402:Steven Walling (WMF) 370:Steven Walling (WMF) 328:in contributing to 4540:Wiki Takes Yosemite 4500:Palace of Fine Arts 4041:Boing! said Zebedee 4011:Boing! said Zebedee 3789:Arbitration process 3585:Arbitration request 3519:your interpretation 3432:I've "reported" you 3253:Division or phylum? 2815:Re: Sphenophyllales 1591:considered an error 618:ZxxZxxZ's talk page 331:WikiProject Romania 310:WikiProject Romania 5016:awesome Wikipedian 4629:self centered diva 4504: 4064:self centered diva 3855:it is more like a 3368:Velum (quillworts) 3174:The discussion at 3063:remove this notice 3049: 2744:, not with French 2454:The Princess Bride 2421:disruptive editing 2220:disruptive editing 2214:Disruptive editing 1952: 990:the article was a 855:you changed BC to 710:Article protection 625:remove this notice 615: 323: 78:Biblical cosmology 39: 5067:User:EncycloPetey 5038:User:EncycloPetey 5033: 5032: 4571: 4110: 3903: 3895: 3890: 3847: 3810:Elen of the Roads 3609: 2885:Fossil Horsetails 2731: 2730: 2727: 2712: 1991: 1990: 1882:and in future. -- 672: 346: 345: 98:nomina illegitima 5124: 5107:The Rambling Man 5048: 5000: 4993: 4992: 4981: 4917: 4883: 4774: 4739: 4554: 4502:in San Francisco 4476: 4372: 4203: 4176: 4106: 3979: 3938: 3897: 3893: 3888: 3842: 3728: 3683: 3615: 3607: 3066: 2721: 2713: 2706: 2703: 2690:Golden Gate Park 2688:taking place in 2679: 2666: 2659: 2658: 1938: 1937: 954:Book of Habakkuk 861:Book of Habakkuk 848:Book of Habakkuk 670: 628: 522:Jonathan Obar -- 410: 408: 378: 376: 314: 313: 297:PaleCloudedWhite 262:PaleCloudedWhite 177: 5132: 5131: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5079:Alexandr Dmitri 5044: 5041: 4991: 4979: 4911: 4877: 4806:innappropriate. 4770: 4768:Stop trolling. 4735: 4579: 4576:You're Screwed! 4493: 4486:You're invited! 4472: 4429: 4368: 4201: 4172: 4144: 3973: 3932: 3912:User:Iridescent 3861:Alanscottwalker 3791: 3722: 3679: 3649:Alanscottwalker 3611: 3587: 3434: 3364:Velum (Isoëtes) 3278: 3255: 3232: 3195:this discussion 3172: 3112: 3072: 3067: 3056: 3041: 2924: 2891:Sphenophyllales 2887: 2865: 2817: 2738: 2701: 2697: 2657: 2593: 2509:meaning section 2240:Personal attack 2216: 2145: 1996: 1936: 1796: 1752: 1480: 1440: 1072:In response to 859:in the article 850: 755: 712: 689: 647: 629: 622: 607: 539: 460: 422: 406: 400: 374: 368: 365: 312: 253: 153: 147: 128: 100: 81: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5130: 5128: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5099: 5098: 5089: 5040: 5034: 5031: 5030: 5007: 5006: 5001: 4990: 4987: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4810: 4807: 4803: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4787: 4784: 4765: 4764: 4747: 4746: 4731: 4728: 4724: 4718: 4712: 4705: 4704: 4690:Kangaroo court 4686:Drumhead trial 4679: 4644: 4643: 4640: 4617: 4610: 4603: 4593: 4590: 4578: 4573: 4549: 4548: 4542: 4536: 4523:User:Almonroth 4492: 4483: 4460: 4459: 4428: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4395: 4394: 4379: 4357: 4356: 4324: 4323: 4303: 4293: 4292: 4249: 4236: 4235: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4143: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4122: 4115: 4114: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3927: 3907: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3848: 3827: 3824: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3760: 3759: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3693: 3692: 3674: 3659: 3644: 3623: 3622: 3586: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3468: 3467: 3439: 3433: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3386:Velum (botany) 3277: 3274: 3254: 3251: 3231: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3171: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3111: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3076:The Plant List 3071: 3068: 3057:Message added 3055: 3042: 3040: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2947: 2946: 2923: 2922:Re: Ginkgoales 2920: 2906: 2904: 2886: 2883: 2869: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2847: 2840: 2816: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2777:es:Caducifolio 2737: 2732: 2729: 2728: 2718: 2717: 2694:attendees list 2681: 2680: 2673: 2667: 2656: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2592: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2314: 2313: 2297: 2296: 2287: 2286: 2268: 2267: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2245: 2242: 2237: 2215: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2151:. Please see 2144: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2034: 2033: 1995: 1992: 1989: 1988: 1953: 1943: 1942: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1850: 1849: 1795: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1552: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1511: 1510: 1498: 1479: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1439: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1423:WP Editor 2011 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1253: 1252: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1120: 1119: 1090: 1089: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1006:7th century BC 996:" and saying " 972:7th century BC 961:7th century BC 909:WP Editor 2011 869:WP Editor 2011 849: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 754: 751: 750: 749: 711: 708: 688: 685: 646: 641: 621: 608: 606: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 538: 535: 499: 497: 496: 492: 489: 486: 483: 477: 465: 459: 456: 455: 454: 421: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 364: 361: 344: 343: 311: 308: 289: 288: 252: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 224: 223: 222: 221: 151:76.173.217.206 146: 145:Drphilharmonic 143: 127: 124: 99: 96: 80: 75: 74: 73: 28: 27:Stomata revert 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5129: 5116: 5112: 5108: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5097: 5096: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5088: 5084: 5080: 5074: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5054: 5052: 5047: 5039: 5035: 5029: 5025: 5021: 5017: 5013: 5009: 5008: 5005: 5002: 4999: 4994: 4988: 4986: 4985: 4982: 4975: 4960: 4956: 4952: 4947: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4936: 4932: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4923: 4922: 4918: 4916: 4915: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4902: 4898: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4889: 4888: 4884: 4882: 4881: 4874: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4862: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4845: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4823: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4796: 4792: 4788: 4785: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4777: 4775: 4773: 4767: 4766: 4763: 4759: 4755: 4752: 4749: 4748: 4745: 4742: 4740: 4738: 4732: 4729: 4725: 4722: 4719: 4716: 4713: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4687: 4683: 4680: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4667: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4641: 4638: 4634: 4631:, destroying 4630: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4615: 4611: 4608: 4604: 4601: 4598: 4594: 4591: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4584: 4577: 4572: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4552: 4547: 4543: 4541: 4537: 4535: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4526: 4524: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4501: 4497: 4491: 4487: 4482: 4481: 4477: 4475: 4468: 4464: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4426: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4397: 4396: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4380: 4378: 4375: 4373: 4371: 4365: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4338: 4335: 4332: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4309: 4304: 4301: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4278: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4259: 4255: 4250: 4246: 4245: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4221: 4217: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4209: 4208: 4205: 4204: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4179: 4177: 4175: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4157: 4153: 4148: 4141: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4066:, destroying 4065: 4061: 4057: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3992: 3988: 3985: 3984: 3980: 3978: 3977: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3964: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3944: 3943: 3939: 3937: 3936: 3928: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3913: 3908: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3896: 3891: 3885: 3884: 3878: 3877: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3849: 3845: 3840: 3839: 3836: 3832: 3831: 3828: 3825: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3806: 3802: 3800: 3799:User:SilkTork 3795: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3771: 3766: 3762: 3761: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3745: 3744: 3737: 3734: 3733: 3729: 3727: 3726: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3702: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3691: 3688: 3686: 3684: 3682: 3675: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3660: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3647:contribute? 3645: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3630: 3625: 3624: 3621: 3618: 3616: 3614: 3605: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3595: 3592: 3584: 3572: 3569: 3566: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3469: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3438: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3408:SchreiberBike 3405: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3372:SchreiberBike 3370:? Thank you. 3369: 3365: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3336:SchreiberBike 3333: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3298:SchreiberBike 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3275: 3273: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3263:Peter coxhead 3260: 3252: 3250: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3229: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3152: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3130: 3129: 3123: 3119: 3116: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3069: 3064: 3060: 3053: 3046: 3038: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3019: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2945: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2921: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2892: 2884: 2882: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2845: 2844:Cheirostrobus 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2822:Sphenophyllum 2814: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2736: 2733: 2725: 2720: 2719: 2716: 2710: 2705: 2704: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2671: 2665: 2660: 2654: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2639:Peter coxhead 2636: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2609:Peter coxhead 2606: 2602: 2598: 2590: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2501: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2446:you or being 2445: 2444: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2299: 2298: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2266: 2262: 2259: 2256: 2253: 2250: 2246: 2243: 2241: 2238: 2236: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2213: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2142: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2000: 1993: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1945: 1944: 1939: 1933: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1914:Peter coxhead 1911: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1880: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1857:Peter coxhead 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1819:Peter coxhead 1815: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800:User:Nonenmac 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1780:Peter coxhead 1777: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761:Peter coxhead 1757: 1749: 1745: 1742: 1741: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1666: 1663: 1662: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1570: 1567: 1566: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1509: 1506: 1505: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1437: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1402: 1396: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1367: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1001: 995: 991: 987: 983: 980: 977: 973: 969: 966: 962: 958: 955: 949: 946: 943: 942: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 920: 918: 914: 910: 905: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 887: 882: 881: 880: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 847: 837: 833: 829: 825: 824: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 806: 805: 801: 797: 793: 792: 791: 787: 783: 779: 778: 777: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 735: 734: 733: 729: 725: 724:Peter coxhead 721: 717: 709: 707: 706: 702: 698: 694: 686: 684: 683: 679: 675: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 645: 642: 640: 639: 636: 635: 626: 619: 612: 598: 594: 590: 589:Peter coxhead 586: 582: 581: 580: 576: 572: 568: 563: 562: 561: 560: 556: 552: 551:Peter coxhead 548: 544: 536: 534: 533: 529: 525: 520: 517: 514: 512: 508: 506: 502: 493: 490: 487: 484: 481: 480: 479: 475: 473: 469: 463: 458:MSU Interview 457: 453: 449: 445: 440: 439: 438: 437: 433: 429: 428:Victor Grigas 425: 419: 413: 409: 403: 398: 397: 396: 392: 388: 384: 383: 382: 381: 377: 371: 362: 360: 359: 355: 351: 341: 337: 333: 332: 327: 320: 316: 315: 309: 307: 306: 302: 298: 294: 287: 283: 279: 274: 273: 272: 271: 267: 263: 258: 250: 242: 238: 234: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 220: 216: 212: 207: 206: 205: 201: 197: 192: 191: 190: 189: 185: 181: 175: 172: 169: 166: 163: 160: 157: 152: 144: 142: 141: 137: 133: 125: 123: 122: 118: 114: 109: 105: 97: 95: 94: 90: 86: 79: 76: 72: 68: 64: 60: 55: 54: 53: 52: 48: 44: 36: 32: 26: 19: 5095:Discuss this 5093: 5076: 5056: 5043:Resolved by 5042: 5020:Gerda Arendt 5003: 4971: 4920: 4913: 4912: 4886: 4879: 4878: 4872: 4852: 4848: 4846: 4835:Gerda Arendt 4828: 4771: 4750: 4736: 4707:Hammersoft: 4706: 4681: 4665: 4647: 4645: 4580: 4575: 4553: 4550: 4527: 4506: 4505: 4489: 4485: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4430: 4369: 4363: 4307: 4276: 4257: 4244:liberum veto 4242: 4206: 4199: 4173: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4155: 4149: 4145: 4103: 4075: 3982: 3975: 3974: 3941: 3934: 3933: 3898: 3883:Dennis Brown 3882: 3856: 3852: 3833: 3807: 3803: 3796: 3792: 3731: 3724: 3723: 3680: 3612: 3588: 3550:EncycloPetey 3545: 3541: 3537: 3518: 3493:EncycloPetey 3442:89.79.88.109 3435: 3390:EncycloPetey 3350:EncycloPetey 3317:EncycloPetey 3312: 3281: 3279: 3256: 3233: 3214:EncycloPetey 3173: 3156:EncycloPetey 3148: 3135:Brunswicknic 3131: 3124: 3120: 3117: 3113: 3096:EncycloPetey 3080:66.91.100.63 3075: 3073: 3018:Karkeniaceae 3004:EncycloPetey 2998: 2994: 2990: 2948: 2925: 2900: 2896:Hamatophyton 2894: 2888: 2866: 2843: 2818: 2799:EncycloPetey 2781:en:Deciduous 2769:en:Deciduous 2750:EncycloPetey 2745: 2741: 2739: 2699: 2625:EncycloPetey 2601:Pteridophyte 2594: 2458:EncycloPetey 2453: 2449:unresponsive 2447: 2441: 2437: 2380:since 2007. 2303:EncycloPetey 2291: 2269: 2257:Pettifogging 2235:Edit warring 2217: 2177:EncycloPetey 2172:edit summary 2146: 2091:EncycloPetey 2042:EncycloPetey 2001: 1997: 1970:request page 1884:EncycloPetey 1839:EncycloPetey 1834: 1816: 1812:Lycopodiidae 1797: 1753: 1738: 1709: 1696:EncycloPetey 1690: 1659: 1654: 1650: 1600:EncycloPetey 1594: 1586: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1548: 1527:EncycloPetey 1517: 1502: 1484:EncycloPetey 1481: 1441: 1404:J'onn J'onzz 1397: 1382: 1342:EncycloPetey 1312:EncycloPetey 1260:EncycloPetey 1218:EncycloPetey 1204:AussieLegend 1190:EncycloPetey 1170: 1154:AussieLegend 1128:EncycloPetey 1095:pre-December 1086:you inserted 1081: 1054: 1034:AussieLegend 1016:AussieLegend 997: 993: 989: 951: 944: 932:EncycloPetey 927: 923: 890:EncycloPetey 851: 782:Curtis Clark 756: 739:EncycloPetey 713: 695:. Thank you. 690: 687:Input sought 648: 633: 630: 571:EncycloPetey 566: 540: 521: 518: 515: 509: 498: 476: 464: 461: 444:EncycloPetey 426: 423: 387:EncycloPetey 366: 347: 329: 290: 278:EncycloPetey 254: 211:EncycloPetey 170: 164: 158: 148: 129: 126:Metzgeriales 107: 103: 101: 82: 63:EncycloPetey 41:. Regards: 40: 30: 4897:Cube lurker 4727:judgement'. 4621:incompetent 4585:. They've: 4517:and one in 4509:As part of 4258:prima facie 4254:WP:INVOLVED 4191:afterwards. 4152:WP:INVOLVED 4056:incompetent 3765:WP:INVOLVED 3524:Floquenbeam 3474:WP:INVOLVED 3457:Newyorkbrad 3366:or perhaps 2591:Same topic? 2438:Disagreeing 2295:discussion. 1462:Floquenbeam 1356:WP:INVOLVED 1326:WP:INVOLVED 1238:WP:INVOLVED 1057:WP:INVOLVED 691:Please see 519:Sincerely, 468:user:Jaobar 338:related to 257:User:Drmies 113:Nadiatalent 4951:Hammersoft 4946:this state 4857:Hammersoft 4652:Hammersoft 4561:EdwardsBot 4449:Hammersoft 4346:Hammersoft 4282:Hammersoft 4225:Hammersoft 4108:Nobody Ent 4080:Hammersoft 4026:Hammersoft 3996:Hammersoft 3838:Farmbrough 3707:Hammersoft 3681:Ritchie333 3664:Hammersoft 3634:Hammersoft 3406:. Thanks. 3240:Cwmhiraeth 3170:Discussion 3061:. You can 2969:Ginkgoales 2779:which has 2773:fr:feuillu 2263:A general 2249:discussion 2228:Talk:Azure 2194:reversions 1966:to-do list 1756:Bryophytes 826:Thank you. 814:Melburnian 326:interested 4980:Trusilver 4637:liability 4597:departure 4474:SB_Johnny 4072:liability 3591:Fut.Perf. 3404:this link 3384:The name 3294:WP:INTDAB 3290:Isoetales 3023:Ushakaron 2973:Ushakaron 2951:Ushakaron 2929:Ushakaron 2909:Ushakaron 2872:Ushakaron 2849:Ushakaron 2826:Ushakaron 2735:Deciduous 2702:Max Klein 2605:Fern ally 2597:Fern ally 1879:WP:PLANTS 1516:No, that 1386:Hipocrite 1286:Hipocrite 1242:Hipocrite 1174:Hipocrite 763:Monotropa 567:physicist 507:instead. 495:properly. 363:Thankspam 293:talk page 59:WP:PLANTS 5063:evidence 5059:involved 4989:Precious 4733:See 4). 4715:Evidence 4635:, and a 4202:SilkTork 4070:, and a 3917:Jclemens 3900:Join WER 3770:oil body 3538:asserted 3515:WP:ADMIN 3039:Talkback 2893:. Like 2765:fr:caduc 2571:ENeville 2443:ignoring 2382:ENeville 2271:ENeville 2198:ENeville 2191:repeated 2157:ENeville 1974:outcomes 1691:creating 759:Sarcodes 757:Look at 720:This dif 623:You can 350:Codrin.B 336:articles 162:contribs 43:Greg5030 5073:(RfA). 4931:Kumioko 4873:warning 4853:nothing 4849:nothing 4814:Kumioko 4794:harder. 4694:Kumioko 4682:Support 4666:Support 4434:Carrite 4401:Kumioko 4156:because 4126:Kumioko 4076:rushing 3857:burden. 3853:bullet; 3703:--: --> 3701:WP:AN/I 3629:WP:AN/I 3332:MOS:DAB 3286:Isoëtes 3199:Esoglou 3180:Esoglou 2746:feuillu 2595:Aren't 1518:creates 1282:WP:RFAr 828:512bits 796:512bits 767:512bits 697:512bits 340:Romania 5053:that: 5046:motion 5012:Muscle 5004:muscle 4914:bd2412 4880:bd2412 4802:infer. 4751:Oppose 4648:deeply 4384:Choess 4313:Choess 4263:Choess 3976:bd2412 3935:bd2412 3775:Choess 3725:bd2412 3478:Kurtis 2993:, and 2785:Sisyph 2404:WP:NPA 1994:-aceae 1651:future 1149:WP:ERA 1107:WP:ERA 1103:WP:ERA 1010:598 BC 1000:WP:ERA 986:WP:ERA 976:598 BC 965:598 BC 904:WP:ERA 886:WP:ERA 865:WP:ERA 674:Dawynn 663:WP:SFD 585:Cactus 547:Cactus 524:Jaobar 233:Drmies 196:Drmies 180:Drmies 132:?oygul 5061:(see 4362:What 4275:I am 3963:Ghost 3568:Ghost 3313:velum 3282:velum 2999:after 2991:first 2742:caduc 2224:Azure 2149:azure 2121:kwami 2064:kwami 2023:kwami 2008:kwami 1978:Sarah 1560:would 1549:azure 1522:Azure 1477:Azure 1451:Ghost 1363:Ghost 1333:Ghost 1114:Ghost 1064:Ghost 543:Plant 174:WHOIS 16:< 5111:talk 5083:talk 5024:talk 5018:! -- 4973:well 4955:talk 4935:talk 4901:talk 4861:talk 4839:talk 4833:, -- 4831:here 4818:talk 4783:@AGK 4758:talk 4698:talk 4673:talk 4656:talk 4627:, a 4565:talk 4557:here 4478:| ✌ 4453:talk 4438:talk 4405:talk 4388:talk 4350:talk 4317:talk 4286:talk 4267:talk 4229:talk 4195:way. 4130:talk 4084:talk 4062:, a 4045:talk 4030:talk 4015:talk 4000:talk 3960:Sudo 3921:talk 3865:talk 3835:Rich 3814:talk 3779:talk 3753:talk 3711:talk 3668:talk 3653:talk 3638:talk 3565:Sudo 3554:talk 3528:talk 3497:talk 3482:talk 3461:talk 3446:talk 3437:Here 3412:talk 3394:talk 3376:talk 3354:talk 3340:talk 3321:talk 3302:talk 3288:and 3267:talk 3259:Moss 3244:talk 3236:Tree 3230:Tree 3218:talk 3203:talk 3184:talk 3160:talk 3154:. -- 3139:talk 3100:talk 3084:talk 3027:talk 3008:talk 2995:then 2977:talk 2955:talk 2933:talk 2913:talk 2876:talk 2853:talk 2830:talk 2803:talk 2789:talk 2754:talk 2709:chat 2643:talk 2629:talk 2613:talk 2599:and 2575:talk 2462:talk 2386:talk 2307:talk 2275:talk 2226:and 2202:talk 2181:talk 2161:talk 2125:talk 2095:talk 2068:talk 2046:talk 2027:talk 2012:talk 1982:talk 1962:here 1918:talk 1888:talk 1861:talk 1843:talk 1835:word 1823:talk 1784:talk 1765:talk 1740:jc37 1711:jc37 1700:talk 1661:jc37 1604:talk 1595:move 1565:jc37 1531:talk 1504:jc37 1488:talk 1466:talk 1448:Sudo 1438:AN/I 1427:talk 1419:here 1417:See 1408:talk 1390:talk 1360:Sudo 1346:talk 1330:Sudo 1316:talk 1290:talk 1264:talk 1246:talk 1222:talk 1208:talk 1194:talk 1178:talk 1158:talk 1132:talk 1111:Sudo 1074:this 1061:Sudo 1038:talk 1032:. -- 1020:talk 1008:and 974:and 963:and 936:talk 913:talk 894:talk 873:talk 853:Here 832:talk 818:talk 812:. -- 800:talk 786:talk 771:talk 761:and 743:talk 728:talk 701:talk 678:talk 593:talk 575:talk 555:talk 528:talk 505:HERE 472:HERE 448:talk 432:talk 407:talk 391:talk 375:talk 354:talk 301:talk 282:talk 266:talk 237:talk 215:talk 200:talk 184:talk 168:info 156:talk 136:talk 117:talk 108:Rosa 104:Rosa 89:talk 85:PiCo 67:talk 47:talk 5049:at 4772:AGK 4754:Eau 4737:AGK 4669:Eau 4507:Hi! 4370:AGK 4364:are 4277:not 4174:AGK 3749:Eau 3613:AGK 3546:why 3542:not 3284:at 2500:2. 2292:not 1655:not 1587:not 1556:not 1421:. ( 1082:did 992:mix 928:you 924:mix 857:BCE 716:Ape 5113:) 5085:) 5026:) 4957:) 4949:-- 4937:) 4903:) 4863:) 4841:) 4820:) 4760:) 4700:) 4675:) 4658:) 4623:, 4567:) 4559:. 4488:- 4455:) 4440:) 4407:) 4390:) 4352:) 4319:) 4288:) 4269:) 4231:) 4132:) 4086:) 4058:, 4047:) 4032:) 4017:) 4002:) 3923:) 3889:2¢ 3886:- 3867:) 3841:, 3816:) 3781:) 3755:) 3713:) 3670:) 3655:) 3640:) 3556:) 3530:) 3499:) 3491:-- 3484:) 3463:) 3448:) 3440:-- 3414:) 3396:) 3378:) 3356:) 3342:) 3323:) 3304:) 3269:) 3246:) 3220:) 3212:-- 3205:) 3186:) 3162:) 3141:) 3102:) 3086:) 3029:) 3010:) 2979:) 2957:) 2935:) 2915:) 2878:) 2855:) 2832:) 2805:) 2791:) 2756:) 2645:) 2631:) 2615:) 2577:) 2464:) 2388:) 2309:) 2301:-- 2277:) 2230:: 2204:) 2183:) 2175:-- 2163:) 2127:) 2097:) 2070:) 2048:) 2040:-- 2029:) 2014:) 1984:) 1920:) 1912:. 1890:) 1863:) 1845:) 1825:) 1810:, 1806:, 1786:) 1767:) 1702:) 1606:) 1598:-- 1533:) 1525:-- 1490:) 1468:) 1460:-- 1429:) 1410:) 1392:) 1348:) 1318:) 1292:) 1266:) 1248:) 1224:) 1210:) 1196:) 1180:) 1160:) 1152:-- 1134:) 1126:-- 1040:) 1022:) 1014:-- 938:) 919:) 915:) 896:) 879:) 875:) 834:) 820:) 802:) 788:) 773:) 745:) 730:) 718:. 703:) 680:) 669:! 631:-- 595:) 577:) 557:) 530:) 450:) 442:-- 434:) 404:• 393:) 372:• 356:) 348:-- 303:) 284:) 268:) 239:) 217:) 202:) 186:) 138:) 119:) 91:) 69:) 49:) 5109:( 5081:( 5022:( 4953:( 4933:( 4921:T 4899:( 4887:T 4859:( 4837:( 4816:( 4756:( 4723:. 4696:( 4671:( 4654:( 4639:. 4609:. 4563:( 4451:( 4436:( 4403:( 4386:( 4348:( 4315:( 4284:( 4265:( 4227:( 4128:( 4082:( 4043:( 4028:( 4013:( 3998:( 3983:T 3942:T 3919:( 3894:© 3863:( 3846:. 3812:( 3777:( 3751:( 3732:T 3709:( 3666:( 3651:( 3636:( 3594:☼ 3552:( 3526:( 3495:( 3480:( 3459:( 3444:( 3410:( 3392:( 3374:( 3352:( 3338:( 3330:( 3319:( 3300:( 3265:( 3242:( 3216:( 3201:( 3182:( 3158:( 3137:( 3098:( 3082:( 3054:. 3025:( 3006:( 2975:( 2953:( 2931:( 2911:( 2874:( 2851:( 2828:( 2801:( 2787:( 2752:( 2726:. 2711:} 2707:{ 2698:— 2641:( 2627:( 2611:( 2573:( 2460:( 2384:( 2305:( 2273:( 2200:( 2179:( 2159:( 2123:( 2093:( 2066:( 2044:( 2025:( 2010:( 1980:( 1916:( 1886:( 1859:( 1841:( 1821:( 1782:( 1763:( 1698:( 1602:( 1529:( 1486:( 1464:( 1433:) 1425:( 1406:( 1388:( 1344:( 1314:( 1288:( 1262:( 1244:( 1220:( 1206:( 1192:( 1176:( 1156:( 1130:( 1036:( 1018:( 934:( 911:( 892:( 871:( 830:( 816:( 798:( 784:( 769:( 741:( 726:( 699:( 676:( 634:Z 620:. 591:( 573:( 553:( 526:( 446:( 430:( 389:( 352:( 299:( 280:( 264:( 235:( 213:( 198:( 182:( 176:) 171:· 165:· 159:· 154:( 134:( 115:( 87:( 65:( 45:(

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

Index