2863:, there are serious NPOV and BLP problems with your recent edits. Can you please revise or revert your edits to ensure that policies are properly and fully complied with? As it's getting rather late I may consider it necessary to undo your changes, and under BLP policy would not consider this to be counted in terms of the 1RR probation. To avoid any unpleasantness, I'll be most grateful if you can first attend to the matter yourself. Thanks,
2283:
the general populace. Is it possible that the billions (no exaggeration) of dollars these industries stand to lose in the event of carbon trading have prompted them not only to pay for disinformation campaigns, like the ones we have documented on the article page, but also for the diligent and tireless efforts of a group of wikipedia editors? I don't know, but it's not outside the realm of the possible, is it?
1790:
844:? That is at least one example in the article that does not fit into the "interpretation functions" framework. It is true that, at that level of generality, one cannot say too much, so the article goes on to discuss more common systems. But the article is also just missing content about other sorts of interpretations (for example, interpretations of scientific theories should probably be discussed). — Carl
264:
899:
we are dealing with ideas, not marks on paper. Logicians use the marks on paper as a tool to help understand the ideas. Unfortunately, this practice can lead to paradox if the distinction is not made explicit. That's why "metalanguage" and the "type-token distinction" is important. This is the way responsible analytic philosophers and logicians deal with these things.-GB
2112:. I plan on filing an independent request against you and Ratel should this (currently ancillary) point not be addressed by yourself or admins in the current section. Apologies for not responding in German, but this diff would become an example of a warning in said future request for enforcement and so should be comprehensible to English-speakers (subjunctive tense). --
435:... Of course book titles 'normally' have all important words capitalized. We have an abnormality on our hands. It's likely that he actively chose to lowercase each word, for the same reason he actively (and explicitly) chose to lowercase the word truth to demarcate it from Truth, which he discussed in this very same book. Please reconsider making the deletion. --
4873:
1347:
328:
sect member. I also appreciated your comments on whether or not
Dawkins' criticism of postmodern work is relevant, and the witty idea to include his comments in the "postmodernism is boring" section :) His empty remarks had no place in that article. Feel free to send me more funny youtubes on R. Dawkins' crusade for science. Take care
1401:. I appreciate you support, and think everyone who has signed does. While I understand that everyone is frustrated with the current situation would you please consider refactoring your comment to put your best foot forward? Things are likely tentative at best so every little bit will help. Thanks. --
3549:
Not sure who you think is baiting whom. I assure you I wrote in good faith and am baiting no one. So, Computer World got moved to the documents article; it should be easy to simply delete that from your 2nd suggested paragraph and go ahead with it. I'll put in two more cents' worth on the article
2563:
violation, which I would bring to the attention of the RfE page. You can find the disputations yourself. Go to the talkpage. There are numerous NPOV contentions being made against the title. The section titled "Requested Move" contains many of them. One way of finding some of them is by searching for
1949:
by another user). I don't disagree with your close at all, I just disagree with the reasoning stated there (namely, "FAQ#5"). It doesn't seem worth closing on those pretences as FAQ#5 doesn't satisfactorily address the concerns raised and is highly out of date. tl;dr: HeyitsPeter has liked all of the
1202:
Oh, I get it - you think that saying "he assertion in the edit summary was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for that," is the same as saying "You know, Hipocrite, it wasn't right for me to have accused you of misrepresenting sources. I'm going to stop accusing you of malfeasance now, because you
1144:
Your added source dosen't say what you say it says. Please revert to the version supported by sources - I'm not going to argue with you about it further, rather, I'm going to take your false edit summaries (which accused me, wrongly, of misrepresenting sources which you didn't check) to the probation
4740:
myself, but as we discussed before my exposure to biologists has shown me that biologists tend not to believe Darwin was a teleologist.) Concerning my second concern, the main point is that when you quote someone you should choose words that can be understood without you saying what the words mean.--
3859:
Apologies - I saw this earlier and I thought you were just being funny (you were!). To be honest, most of it seems like just explaining the reasoning behind your question, which seems straightforward enough. You could contribute evidence toward one or both or many sides of the issue and then later
3770:
Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning
3756:
The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should
2544:
I asked you a very simple question about why you added a POV tag; Your non-answer was "Search the talkpage for "UNDUE" or "WP:DUE". I don't consider that an answer to my question, so I'll consider this discussion closed with the conclusion "Heyitspeter cannot justify his rationale for adding a POV
2282:
suspect an element of bad faith in editors trying to insert FUD into climate-related article though, so I did not inform them. Guilty as charged. Is my assumption of bad faith a crime? I would contend not, given that the whole topic is about how industry is paying people to create similar FUD in
913:
Carl, it is not essential for the existence of a formula that there be any actual token instances of it. This is the only way it makes any sense to talk about a language with uncountably many formulas in the first place. There just is no such thing as an object language that floats out there with no
487:
My phrasing was poor but I stand by my statement. You're thinking of interpretation as hermeneutic. This is interpretation as logical function. You're proposed header should go on another page called "What does formal logic signify?" or something. Please read the section above the one you just voted
177:
during
Lucretius' time. The author of the above text is claiming that, because Lucretius never explicitly referred to himself as a "scientist", his works cannot be treated as scientific. I agree with you that he made "scientific" (if that word means anything) evaluations of his surroundings. I think
4890:
Hello
Heyitspeter. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Knowledge, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The
3502:
1. I don't see a consensus. By my count, Hipocrite, Guettarda, and
Viriditas disapprove Peter's suggestion. Arthur, Tony, and I tend to agree with it but fall short of endorsing it. For my part, it's absolutely fine for him to go ahead, but also absolutely fine for it to be subsequently edited.
898:
Carl, this is a wild presumption that just everything is an idea so there is no point in identifying ideas. The point here is that the things we are dealing with are the type of idea that does not appear to the mind as an image, and therefore the only precise way to define them is to recognize that
342:
I might get an account but I prefer if the material speaks for itself. On looking at your above comments I presume you are referring to the postmodernism addition I made. The stuff I added was all referenced, the article had given the impression that PM began in architecture of all things, one of
4848:
I saw your comment on my talk page about my last comment on the modal logic talk page. The point is just that the
Tarskian definition of logical necessity are necessary truths for all interpretations of the symbols, whilst regular necessity is just necessity for the interpretation that happens to
4769:
So do you see my concern about that? Any reader coming to this is going to have to trust your words about what Mayr means, and what your words say is that Mayr was contrasting himself to Darwin. This is not only bad practice in quoting (because you are at least potentially distorting your source),
4739:
Well, up to you as I can not see what Mayr really said. I would for the record actually be interested anyway. Just so it is clear: my first paragraph above is the most important, not my second. I do not say that we can mention arguments that Darwin was a teleologist. (I have some sympathy for them
4701:
that he in opposition to Darwin on this point, and how does he actually explain this as being a contrast? You have to realize that "adaptedness ... is a posteriori result rather than an a priori goal-seeking" is so cut up that it no longer means anything. The reader will only be able to trust what
923:
The claim "The formal languages used in mathematical logic and theoretical computer science are defined in solely syntactic terms, " is false. For example, the set of sentences in the language of arithmetic that are true in the standard model of the natural numbers is a formal language, but is not
463:
The formulation that you reverted is strictly more correct than yours. No it is not a function in an object language, it is an expression in a metalanguage talking about an object language (i.e. saying what the symbols of it mean). Most significantly to observe is that ontologically, it is an idea
327:
Thank you for the "public service announcement" from
Richard Dawkins :) I'm sorry about the late reply (this is the first time I've actually logged in before viewing wiki pages since the end of October). I think Dawkins means well (at least in his mind) but comes off just as fundamentalist as any
4689:
article in your preferred direction. I know we've been through this before but it is still a minority position to call Darwin a teleogist and that is what the article in
Knowledge should allow people to understand. Please make sure that all normal understandings are properly and fairly explained.
2990:
No biggie, but I don't get why you archived my comment about a third report on the CRU scientists in the offing. I was pointing out that there's no need to worry too much about editing right now since the article will have to be updated when the
Russell report comes out shortly. As it turned out
1266:
Since you "believe that anthropogenic global warming is occuring" you should have no problem in providing an example where you have argued this point in global-warming related articles. It is my assumption that the editors who argue for a name change to the hacking incident article oppose global
1031:
Now the article does spend some time on interpretations of propositional and first-order logic. It probably spends too long on those, as they are covered in depth in other articles, and so can be just summarized. But the article does not spend long enough on interpretations of modal logic, nor on
148:
I maintain that when
Lucretius claims that we can't know the reasons for eclipses and the phases of the moon, when his predecessors had already made good scientific demonstrations of those reasons, he is making a scientific claim. Any article about his work should evaluate that claim, within the
3910:
Yes. The
Committee will analyze the questions as a way to focus their eventual decisions, and they will also help to focus further evidence and the eventual workshop proposals - sort of like having an early framework. Speaking of which, can you please reformat your recent questions into single
3749:
All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very
3609:
LHvU has recently shown that he is confusing the rules on this issue. In a way I don't really mind my stuff on the talkpage being collapsed it is just on the main page of the sanctions where I feel it had some relevence. If Cla, who started the discussion, requested that it was collapsed I would
3382:
I have never made such a claim. As I clearly wrote above, "Threatening to make edits against consensus which will result in automatic reverts is a threat to engage in edit warring." Multiple editors have rejected your proposed edits. Please stop turning Knowledge into a battlefield. You have
3175:
You can sign up somewhere in the top right of the page. I would recommend it, because you would then be able to add pages that interest you to a watchlist where you can find them easily, because it lends you social credibility on this website, and because as is your IP address may shift which is
2172:
I still fail to see how the bullet point you cite applies, as there is, to my knowledge, no question of socks here at all. But no, I will not remove any of my comments. I have a strong history of watching the probation page and commenting on it. Ratel's message had no significant influence on my
4798:
Well that just shows that people CAN misunderstand it that way. And misunderstandings are not good. So I am just asking if you can keep that POTENTIAL misunderstanding (if you prefer it that way) in mind and try to tweak wording when editing to avoid misunderstandings. I am suggesting that when
3142:
I need to know if a person can copy and paste tables from Microsoft Word 2007 or not since the tables do not come out correctly. I haven't signed up for a user name yet. Not sure if it takes a person to a page where they send you something by email or not--did not get that far. It said I wasn't
966:
A formal language is any fixed set of sentences over a fixed alphabet. Therefore the set of sentences that are true in the standard model of the natural numbers is a formal language. Hunter is somewhat idiosyncratic on this point, which is why it is important to consult more than one reference.
929:
I think you have unintentionally mish-mashed syntax and semantics inappropriately for two languages. A formal language must be capable of being defined entirely in terms of its syntax and without regard to any interpretation of it otherwise it is not a formal language. This is also from Hunter.
543:
It sounds trivial but this ambiguity affects the entire article. The section on truth-functional connectives that I just altered originally claimed that the connectives are interpreted. This only makes sense if you take interpretation other than in the technical sense. Again, sorry I was overly
3958:
Arbcom have said they're going to supervise this case fairly closely (though there's little evidence so far that they're actually doing this). Safer to point out the error on the editor's talk. You could also do it on the Evidence talk page although that might engender more drama and pointless
3176:
disorientating from the reader's perspective. You could then also use your talkpage as a stable platform with which to draft your ideas about history. That would be best, as everything you post to the Fomenko page will be deleted within minutes and will not reach the audience you're hoping for.
3587:
That page is consistently derailed by tangential discussions. Collapses seem to me to be a good way of cutting the page down to the bare relevancies. I stand by the decision to collapse, though I won't edit war over it. Do you have another idea? As an alternative, could you perhaps move the
4332:
to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the
2277:
heyitspeter: Well, the current proceeding is not a consensus-seeking exercise, but an examination of events by admins. It's not the same thing as trying to influence the encyclopaedia's content by stacking the votes on a Talk page — not as I interpret it anyway. If I wanted to recruit
1074:
Cool I like that. It seems like a usage of interpretation that doesn't fit my understanding of the term as it relates to logic. Let's include it. How do you want to handle that? Should we make a clear distinction between the two types of interpretation, in separate sections? You seem more
524:
I agree with you that "extension" should be included (in place of "meaning" is just fine and appropriate clarification), however I don't think anyone else in the group cares about that kind of stuff -- at all. I also would love to see a section on interpretations of modal logic as well.
2441:
Only if you want to continue down this avenue of false sock puppetry accusations. I'm willing to stake my editorial reputation that I am not a sockpuppet of Heyitspeter as we have very different editing histories. Are you willing to stake your editorial reputation that I'm wrong?
1429:
OK, thanks. You are likely correct. Sorry I didn't understand the jp. I tend to run into the same problem when I make jokes where the tone I am using in my head doesn't make it through the keyboard. Anyway I removed our comments just to avoid any additional confusion by others.
365:
Hey, whatever works. At the very least it'll be a good experiment. Maybe I'm the first to demonstrate unconscious bias against unregistered users! In any case, the Postmodernism article definitely does need work, and hopefully we'll get more like you (or even from you) as we go on.
1875:
Actually no. Nigelj rewrote a section. Nsaa reverted it. Nigelj restored his rewritten section and then you reverted it. That's a continuation of an edit war started by Nsaa, not Nigelj. Either way, you have perpetuated an edit war and should be blocked for it, in my opinion. --
1462:. The deal is IMHO that there is no known continuity between the classical and modern element systems. However, the article profits from the comparison of classical and modern elements. Take a look, and if something should be improved, drop a post on the Talk, if you'd like to.
1681:
Also, note that you have in the same sentence defended what in my view was an unambiguously negative comment, branded my expression of that opinion "irrelevant sniping," all while referring to me in the third person. If you want your input to be appreciated, use tact. It works
1075:
mathematically inclined, so maybe you'd be able to translate the general mathematical definition of interpretation from that article you linked into layman's terms and then use the rest of the article to discuss the broader senes of "interpretation"? Have fun on your trip.--
3610:
agree with him but I wouldn't be so presumptive to collapse his comments or my reply to them without his agreement. I would always follow wider consensus but it seems as though your collapse did not have consensus therefore as you rightly say best not to edit war on it. :)
3013:
I was archiving what I konsidered to be komments not direktly koncerned with the konstruction of a kompromise wording for the lead, because I wanted to make that section straightforward and approachable, and thought these 'extraneous' comments would make the process more
144:
My spin on Lucretius is that of a historian of science. If we go by the definition that no one before Whewell was a scientist, we rule out Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy, and Aristotle, all of whom occupy major places in the literature of the history of science.
2485:
I already resolved it in the above response. If you missed it again, I'll repeat it: "Asking questions isn't remotely similar to a false accusation." Now, if your name is not Heyitspeter, the next time I ask him a question, I'll expect a response from him. Thanks.
892:
The "idea" sentence in particular is misguided; we could start every article on mathematics with "XXX is an idea,..." but that would not help anything. An interpretation, in many cases of interest, is a function; I have no idea what a physical token of a function
978:
a token, as it is a syntactic object. Again, you cannot look only at one reference. It is telling that most books on mathematical logic manage to describe formulas perfectly well without using the word "token". It would be silly to claim such books are not by
166:"Actually, Lucretius was a philosopher. As a poet he was competent. But as a scientist, he never claimed to be one, nor did his work claim to be scientific. "De Rerum Natura" is an epistemological foundation for what should be studied, not a study itself."
3456:
3042:
While I am concerned that Lar has a particular bias regarding the content of the articles covered under the probation, I am more worried about his pattern of judgements against WMC. I do not believe that an individual holding biases against a particular
2177:. I don't see how Ratel's actions can limit my right to comment. I strongly discourage you from opening a misguided enforcement request on this issue - it will be a complete waste of time. However, if you are set to do it, you may as well start ASAP. --
4770:
but I think your personal interpretation of Mayr presupposes that your preferred understanding of Darwin being a teleologist is the only reasonable and commonly held one, and is also the one Mayr holds. I think we can't do that, for better or worse.--
3197:
I think I'm going to disagree with you here. Editors shouldn't be using any pages for developing original research. This editor is new and doesn't understand how we work yet, her tables, her ideas, all belong elsewhere, perhaps on a personal website.
343:
our more conservative arts-- though for that reason a good indicator of entrenchment! It also left out the fact that the word was used as early at 1870 and a number of other uses, eg Pannwitz from Nietzsche in 1917, and others that the OED showed.
471:
in dealing with ideas is well known and used to clarify this very thing (see Carnap Quine, Putnam etc). On a brighter note, I am glad to see your contributions in general. I think there are some things we may agree on that others do not. Be well
1026:
Another interpretation of the same language assigns each word to a location on the Cartesian plane. You start at the origin facing North. Then, working from left to right: each "A" means go forward one unit, each "B" means turn 90 degrees to the
4702:
you say that Mayr meant, which was that this was in contrast to Darwin. That's not a good way to do quotes, so please consider if you can put a few more words in. By the way, I presume some more words are missing than are indicated because "is
1584:
I'm suggesting that your comment there is not constructive at all. It is unlikely to further the discussion. In general, if you have a comment that is only relevant for a single user, I suggest you talk to that user in an appropriate venue.
732:
You still haven't realized that you're dealing with two uses of the word interpretation. First reread the comment you just now responded to. Then read the now-edited section on logical connectives in the disputed article. This is explained
4200:
forbids removing anything other than obvious vandalism. If they really get up your nose, I suppose we could archive the page but that seems pretty silly. Just put a sheet of A4 over the top of the screen next time you visit that page, ok?
4259:
Clean slate though, I hope. I honestly look forward to working with you. Although I'd take Stalnaker over Kripke any day, you knowing enough about Kripke to call yourself a fan is enough to put us on the same page in many respects. Happy
3114:
Says the editor whose allegation that Lar is operating on the basis of a grudge prompted the comment under discussion here. I'm sure you can find the diffs yourself. Since we're both talking about the same set, it'd help your own case as
4754:
Ah I see, and sorry to have misread. To clarify: Ernst Mayr never explicitly placed himself in opposition to Darwin, so far as I'm aware. "In opposition to Darwin..." was just a connector phrase between the two paragraphs meant to ease
1094:
which had existed previously with a lot more sections, more complete sections, etcetera. It was filled with overly complex material however I admit, but the current version is still lacking some of the material covered in it. Be well,
2153:
2109:
1807:
prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
1508:
article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name
1950:
contributions of yours he's come across these past days, but in this specific case, he didn't think that the stated reason for the close was going to satisfy people. (It hasn't in fact, as discussion is continuing below it.) --
1114:
I have challenged your most recent revert on the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident on the talk page. Please respond as soon as possible - it appears you were mistaken about who was "misrepresenting" what sources said.
2083:
For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one
4891:
survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
4215:
I could argue that what I did is covered under "Refactoring for relevance". But I'm not worried about it, and leaving the comments in is fine with me. If I'd thought it was a big deal I would have mentioned it in the edit
505:
A) an interpretation is an idea, and the written marks on a page are tokens of the idea. (I understand that people commonly don't make this distinction in casual language, however the idea here is to be as precise as the
1514:
2947:
FWIW, it wasn't a revert (see my comments on the article talk page) and it was inadvertent anyway - I had the editing window open while I was trying to find the right template and inadvertently overwrote your edit. --
4784:
You misunderstand. "In opposition to Darwin..." wasn't added to explain what Mayr intended, but as a connector between the two paragraphs written with deference to their content in order to facilitate comprehension.--
3403:, so I expect no reverts from them. You are the only person who continues to object to the proposed addition, and given that you have failed to provide any justification for your objection it is fair to ignore you
1890:
Then please take this up at the request for enforcement page, or perhaps with LhVU, the administrator who blocked Nigelj. I'd appreciate the outside opinion, as it really did seem to me that all I had done was RV
3367:
You are telling me you will 'automatically' revert the proposed edit without providing any rationale on the talkpage, despite repeated requests? I can't imagine your request for enforcement will go very well for
4955:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
3308:"To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated."
918:. It make no sense to me to talk about object langauge without talking about metalanguage. If there are further distinctions to make as you claim, then they should be elucidated (perhaps in its own section).-GB
3766:
Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best
3896:
I did after seeing it linked on your talkpage when I was previewing my talkback post. I don't quite understand it though. I suppose these issues, if accepted, will be discussed at a later stage? Thank you!--
3714:
The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other
2456:
Asking questions isn't remotely similar to a false accusation. If I'm interested in your answer to a question, I'll let you know, but I'm asking Heyitspeter why he added a POV tag, not you. Is that clear?
3707:
3017:
On an only superficially related note, I do not see 'there will be more information later' as a reason to avoid ameliorating the article 'now'. There are problems with the article 'now'. That the article
3139:(if you are interested). I'm new to Editing anything on Knowledge so my tables don't come out to what they should. I don't have a table icon on my edit on the user page (or at least I did not see one).
3721:
Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a
3077:... Could you be more specific about what you mean? Perhaps you could make it more clear at the enforcement page as well. Thanks! (To abate your curiousity: I imagine Lar would, for obvious reasons.)--
3099:
That's not the way I remember it at all. I may be wrong. But if you're going to accuse me of dishonesty and "fanaticism", you really need to supply diffs. Those are mighty serious accusation to make.
666:"or", while admitting that the symbol is uninterpreted. Remember that a logic has multiple interpretations (2^n where n = the number of sentence letters), but the logical connectives remain constant.
2564:
the strings "WP:DUE" or "UNDUE" following the instructions I've given you. You can also read the posts by Jimbo, who has commented several times that the current title violates WP:NPOV. Please stop
1841:
is a clear example of edit warring. Not a "technical" violation of 1RR, but since are clearly aware of the issue from your edit summary, your actions are also a violation. Recommend you self-revert.
1537:
2471:
No, I'm concerned about your thinly veiled accusations that I am a sockpuppet of Heyitspeter. You can easily resolve the situation by explicitly stating that your are making no such accusation.
2126:
Ummm....have you read the bullet point in question? Do you claim there is any uncertainty about the the possibility that Ratel and I (and, presumably, others) are "one user with sock puppets"? --
4608:. I think arbitration needs to be completed before any constructive editing can be done on those pages and plan to await its end. I don't feel the need to formally 'restrict' myself in any way.--
3135:
If I don't get booted off of Knowledge for my researched ideas, I will be writing many of the things I recently placed on the Discussion page of Anatoly Komenko (with additional information) at:
3050:
Consequently, I must decline your invitation to withdraw my statements. Out of curiosity, could you be more specific when you state that "it'd probably be appreciated" if I removed my comment?
2010:
talkpage, fine. Just be conscious of the fact that where you ignore requests for improvement you're aiming straight for a request for enforcement. Be more careful with your edits in the future.--
312:
Thanks for bringing it to my attention! There's so much hate directed towards the post-modernists, it seems. It's nice to read an article by someone who can understand them, and is empathetic.--
1481:
Thanks you! That wasn't on my watchlist. I won't be able to add much to the article itself right now because I've misplaced my Presocratic collections, but I'll get that under control I hope.--
4321:
3722:
3700:
3696:
2718:
title of all is probably "Climategate" (or perhaps "Climategate scandal"). The fact that you keep asking this question implies to me that you haven't paid attention to what other editors (or
1678:
My own comment pointed this out and apparently led to its removal. That's constructive in my book, though I agree with Stephan Schulz that WMC's talkpage would have been a better place for it.
3812:
I have removed the portion that was not a question, as the Committee has requested only simple questions in that section. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts elsewhere, though. ~
2582:
Asking for an explanation of why you added a POV tag is not disruption; It's a legitimate question based on neutrality template usage. You're supposed to place the tag on the article and
1379:
and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them
3572:
Peter. It's Julian here. Aka Polargeo. Don't collapse my comments without consensus please. I don't care about admins in this situation, they should have no more power than you or I do.
3278:
I've looked, and still do not see unaddressed concerns. If you have any to add I'd be happy to hear them. Anything to get a better product. Barring that, we're still on that 24h clock.--
464:(or concept or abstraction depending on your POV). I am puzzled by your apparent confidence given that this isn't a difference of formulation, you are saying it is something it isn't.
2108:
My understanding of the bullet point is that one is guilty of meatpuppetry in acting as a meatpuppet, as you are currently. I respectfully request that you withdraw your comments from
1415:
Sure. It was just one of those cases where tone doesn't translate when put into plain text. I tried to indicate that it was a joke. I've responded there, and thanks for the heads up.--
4182:
If you wish. It is my opinion that they would be better off excluded for the sake of the reader, being 3 years old and not formatted to WP standard. You sure you want them to stay?--
3744:
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
3595:(I agree that admins should have no more power than you or I do, though LHVU, for example, seems to disagree. In any case, one's status as 'uninvolved' might count for something.) --
2385:
Sorry, but if you won't answer a simple question about why you added a tag, I'll consider removing it. Due to this exchange, however, I must ask, are you and AQFK the same editor?
586:
to define meanings for them. That does not mean that they are not interpreted. The article is not only about first-order interpretations; it also includes interpretations in which
4001:. As you can see from the adjacent edits ZP5 was in the process of gnoming his comment while I was busy calling him out on typos. If you can read this right now, ZP5, I'm sorry!--
2530:
Seriously, though. You can search webpages for specific words (on Firefox or Safari) by pressing Command+F on a mac or Ctrl+F on a PC. You can find the POV contentions that way.--
1383:. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --
908:, which is a collection of sets. There are uncountably many interpretations, and thus most of them cannot be "expressed" in any reasonable (i.e. finitely definable) metalanguage.
2278:
meatpuppets, I could have sent private emails, not so? I was being open about what I was doing, and merely chose the editors from an edit history of the page. However, yes, I
3236:
Just adding to the request of two other editors that you refrain from your proposed edit. Some severe flaws have been noted and to my knowledge they have not been addressed.
1332:
I'd also like to see an example of your support for your alleged belief that AGW is occurring. Or was that claim simply a rhetorical device on your part, to phrase it kindly?
3047:
ought to represent themselves as 'uninvolved' for the purposes of enforcing probation. He is fully entitled to comment in the other sections of the request for enforcement.
2302:
BATTLEGROUND does not apply here, and you have failed to show how I have GAMED the system. And collapsing my comments after directing admins here to read them is a bit rich.
1016:
I completely understand what an interpretation of propositional logic, predicate logic, or modal logic is. And the books you have cited use the usual terminology for that.
3692:
3685:
226:, the article focuses almost entirely on the ethical side of L's writing. From reading it, one would scarcely know that most of his book was about the physical world. --
2630:(ec)No, no, no. If an editor is going to remove a long standing POV tag, the burden of proof is up to them to prove that consensus to remove the tag has been achieved.
1023:
For the language consisting of words on the two symbols "A" and "B", one interpretation assigns each word an integer by subtracting the number of Bs from the number of As
2357:
AQFK, unlesss "Heyitspeter" is your alternate account, please treat people as individuals, not as clonal bodies. I am asking Heyitspeter a question, not you or Jimbo.
713:
4045:
is a good idea. This is clearly an article that we have some problems with, so the more fresh eyes we can get looking at it, the more likely we are to resolve them.
715:, even if we have a truth value for A and for B. Whenever we assign semantics to a symbol, that is an "interpretation" in the sense of the article in question. — Carl
624:
687:
661:
604:
580:
3383:
already been the subject of at least two enforcement requests. If a third one is filed, I will ask for a block and/or topic ban based on your previous two cases.
747:
Yes, I do realize that. I am saying that the article is about the broader concept of assignment of semantic meaning to symbols, not about the narrower concept of
1675:
constructive, it is only rude, and if you believe it adds to the discussion, reflect on it for a moment. I request in advance that you not make similar comments.
414:
4907:
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated
4374:
If you edit my talk page again, at all, I will seek to have you prohibited from doing so. No, never, for no reason, should you ever edit my talk page, period.
1861:. Care to explain how you see it as an edit war? An editor reverted an edit, which was then reverted in violation of 1RR. I restored the original reversion. --
1159:
I agree the assertion in the edit summary was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for that. I've admitted this in the section you created on the talkpage. --
1035:
By the way, interpretations of intuitionistic logic are one place where the connective are not given the same meaning as in classical logic. For example, the
2698:
Because I'm trying to figure out why you keep asking this question. This issue has been discussed to death on the talk page. The current title is far from
1915:
1510:
4799:
adding connecting words to a direct quote it is important keep those connecting words neutral. Try not to let them tell more than the chosen quoted words.--
4586:
2784:
It was sarcasm of the 'this is actually inconvenient' kind, and not of the 'you are being dishonest' kind. Best to avoid entirely when online, I suppose.--
4329:
3861:
3624:
If you look back, you'll see that Cla did not start the discussion I collapsed. You did. I cannot imagine he would be opposed to its move or collapse.
3010:
Okay. Unarchiving is alright with me, but here's my reasoning since you asked (with Cs and CHs occasionally exchanged for Ks for no apparent reason).
774:
we use a given interpretation function, and this would broach a lot of the subjects that you seem to want to address. For example, why assign "1" to
2427:
Is your name Heyitspeter? I have asked Heyitspeter a question twice, and twice you have responded in his place. Should I be concerned about this?
4230:
You can argue it all you like but you'd be completely and totally wrong. Just don't remove other users comments. The policy is pretty unambiguous.
3964:
3459:. Your fanatical harassment is growing tiresome. I have now put your talkpage on my watchlist. If you want to discuss something with me, bring it
2325:
1800:
1505:
1372:
75:
1945:
Hey 2over0, thanks. I considered closing it again with a different heading (and upon rescanning the talkpage I'm going to, as it seems yours was
4337:." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~
3179:
I registered for an account several years ago. The only email I have ever received was a request to verify that I was not a bot at the outset.--
4455:
2804:
Did you just file a request against Dave? For some reason, it's in the middle of the page, and not the bottom where new ones should be file.
35:
to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
3153:
3292:
No, we are on no such clock. If you make the edit after more than three editors have asked you not to, I will file an enforcement request.
904:
The "expressed in a metalanguage" claim is also off, for the same reason. In the specific case of first-order logic, an interpretation is a
4980:
3725:
of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
209:
As to keeping track of replies, I prefer to keep replies in one place and usually put pages where I've posted on my watch list for a while.
3353:
Threatening to make edits against consensus which will result in automatic reverts is a threat to engage in edit warring. Is this clear?
4060:
Thanks! I may not be able to comment much more than I already have, but I imagine the RfC can sort itself out just fine without me. :) --
1039:
is an "interpretation" in some sense, but does not assign the same meanings to the connectives that classical interpretations do. — Carl
187:
p.s. I made those edits while logged out; accidentally. I've copied these comments and pasted them to my talkpage. This is my username.--
140:
Accusing Lucretius of not claiming to be a scientist - a word coined by William Whewell in 1833 - doesn't help to contextualise his work.
3252:
1617:
It's blatantly obvious that WMC's comment was a positive contribution to the discussion, stating his agreement with another editor, and
350:
301:
4908:
2666:
Which just goes back to my original comment. Are you serious? Did you not read Jimbo's comments? Or anyone else's for that matter?
4651:
4548:
4501:
4356:
3960:
3930:
3883:
3831:
3794:
410:
770:
But none of the article is about that, even just as a fact of the matter. I was thinking about this, though. I suppose you could ask
3706:
Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please
4604:
Thanks for the head's up. I've done extremely little editing on those articles for some time now and haven't even been monitoring
222:
needs work; I see the problem as one of putting some balance in the article's presentation. As I've mentioned in the past on its
4416:
I don't think that it's a 1RR violation. The first diff doesn't restore the article to a previous state. Only the second one.
3532:
1601:
Will do. That would have been better, I just hadn't thought of it for whatever reason. Thank you for explaining what you meant.--
4976:
4421:
4050:
3955:
Just wanted to suggest that editing other people's evidence probably isn't a good idea, even to correct obvious factual errors.
2809:
2727:
2671:
2635:
2476:
2447:
2418:
2404:
2348:
751:. The point of logical constants is not that they are uninterpreted, but that they are always interpreted the same way. — Carl
1375:
and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review
4295:
3974:
I'll refrain if edits of the brand I made aren't wikidecorous. Wikimanners are a work in progress. Thanks for the heads up.--
2774:
1813:
905:
748:
583:
582:
to denote conjunction. But, because these are usually treated as logical constants in first-order logic, we do not require a
4140:
No, it was the content of the removed comments, which would not be visible on his talkpage presently as they were removed.--
4082:@I have edited your statement here, stephan being german can as you imagine does not appreciate the SS, hope you don`t mind
4080:
2877:
Neither NPOV nor BLP problematize any of my edits. I have continued the discussion on the talkpage. Please do not engage in
78:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
3306:
Please attempt to follow the thread of the conversation at that page. The concerns raised have been addressed. Also, note:
4896:
4235:
4206:
4172:
59:
4515:
Cool. Thanks for letting me know! When you say "ask the arbs"... should I go to one of their talk pages? Thanks again.--
3763:
Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Knowledge.
1934:
223:
44:
32:
4967:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
2140:
I do not think you understand my statement. I mean that, as per precendent (and as per the rest of WP:MEAT as well) a
4972:
2819:
Yeah. I put it there because there was already a thread opened. Do you think I should move it to the bottom? Thanks.--
1809:
1804:
3771:
will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
3455:
Neither of the requests for enforcement brought against me resulted in sanctions. Not all requests are warranted, as
3753:
Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
3651:...and your endorsement turned into a placeholder, at your request. Please review, you may no longer agree. Best. ++
243:
Indeed. I'll try to help add as I have time. The article is on my watchlist as well, now. We'll see where it goes!--
159:
If you look at what I took out, I think you'll see that our views aren't particularly opposed. I deleted this chunk-
4829:
4804:
4775:
4745:
4711:
4417:
4046:
2805:
2723:
2667:
2631:
2472:
2443:
2414:
2400:
2344:
2039:
1566:
If you're suggesting that my comment wasn't constructive beause WMC won't listen, perhaps so. If otherwise, please
790:
as shorthand for "Peter is on Knowledge" and 1 as shorthand for "Truth." That isn't irrelevant to this article. --
432:
4291:
3660:
3157:
2770:
2608:
disputes plastered all across the talkpage that AQFK and I have repeatedly pointed you towards would be a direct
2144:
is as guilty of meatpuppetry as the user who recruits him/her/it. That is to say: you are currently in violation
1831:
1272:
64:
2148:. I will request enforcement against yourself and Ratel should you refrain from removing the relevant comments (
1760:
Saw your edit comment on the RFE page, to strike through all you need do is edit your post and do the following
889:
a section in the article on nonclassical logics, although it is short. As for particular issues with your text:
4231:
4202:
4168:
3760:
All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
3059:
2513:
2182:
2131:
2098:
1895:. I note that most people who break 1RR or 3RR self-revert, but this didn't happen before Nigelj was blocked.--
1741:
1709:
1590:
1556:
3509:. Viriditas, do you spot more? If so, let's take this to the article talk page and discuss it like adults.
2413:
BTW, your question betrays a gross absurdity in your understanding of my and Heyitspeter's editing patterns.
1203:
aren't being dishonest. I'm really sorry I accused you of being dishonest." Not "I'm sorry I made a mistake!"
1636:
I want to point out that you (Dave Souza) have exemplified what you here refer to as "irrelevant sniping" in
178:
the article discusses this adequately, but it could be expanded, of course! Thoughts, concerns, criticisms?--
4463:
4164:
3399:
Viriditas. You do not understand what is going on at that page. The concerns of the other editors have been
3248:
2878:
2399:
Viriditas, knock it off. Heyitspeter is on my Watchlist. That's why I responded to your absurd question.
2244:. How do you apply this to the current situation, or are you simply extrapolating as you see fit, HeyPeter?
354:
298:
3161:
4918:
4645:
4542:
4495:
4350:
3924:
3877:
3825:
3788:
2212:
1459:
841:
468:
457:
39:
2604:
The explanation is written on the tag. Removing the tag on the basis of an unwillingness to look for the
4825:
4800:
4771:
4741:
4707:
4482:. As requested, you can ask the arbs to make sure you aren't wasting your time or confusing theirs. ~
2035:
179:
71:
399:
is actually only for article space, not talk pages. The correct way to flag a redirect for deletion is
136:
You used the following remark to your recent edit note to your recent edit of On the Nature of Things:
3737:"Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
2953:
509:
B) an interpretation is expressed in a metalanguage whose expressions talk about some object language.
4087:
3240:
3203:
3149:
2868:
2613:
1626:
1287:
1268:
1228:
346:
4968:
4379:
4130:
4036:
4020:
3710:. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
3505:
2. The only thing I can find in his proposal that I can't find in the main body is a reference to
3463:. This is a formal request for you to cease from discussing this particular topic on my talkpage.--
3407:
3388:
3358:
3339:
3329:
3297:
3104:
3055:
2914:
2689:
2657:
2595:
2550:
2491:
2462:
2432:
2390:
2362:
2333:
2178:
2127:
2094:
1817:
1737:
1705:
1586:
1552:
1513:. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known
1208:
1186:
1150:
1120:
422:
277:
227:
150:
113:
79:
689:
was uninterpreted, then we would have no semantics (no extension, no truth value, no meaning) for
4459:
3615:
3577:
3555:
3514:
3244:
3000:
2949:
2711:
1992:
1925:
1881:
1847:
1795:
1504:
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the
1100:
1036:
1019:
My concern is that the article is intended to cover interpretations more generally. For example:
957:
530:
477:
293:
54:
1013:
I think the conversation there is getting somewhat frustrating, so perhaps we can start fresh.
971:
set of sentences forms a formal language; thus most of them will not be syntactically definable.
3757:
preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
413:
is actually the correct title as book titles normally have all important words capitalized per
4944:
4935:
4913:
4639:
4536:
4489:
4344:
3918:
3871:
3819:
3782:
3343:
2565:
2003:
1455:
1435:
1406:
1388:
270:
86:
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
3845:
Where do you think would be an appropriate venue? I'll accept the answer 'nowhere'. Thanks!--
3022:
be better is not a reason to stop working towards that ideal future version in the present.--
1671:
WMC's statement was, in its entirety: "Lar is wrong, obviously. Stephan is correct." This is
4964:
4948:
4854:
4785:
4756:
4726:
4666:
4609:
4562:
4516:
4432:
4394:
4306:
4261:
4217:
4183:
4141:
4098:
4061:
4002:
3975:
3897:
3846:
3670:
3628:
3596:
3536:
3464:
3369:
3311:
3279:
3265:
3213:
3212:'*sigh* That's true. Irresponsible of me, but I just wanted to read more of her stuff. :) --
3180:
3116:
3078:
3023:
2963:
2933:
2882:
2834:
2820:
2785:
2703:
2617:
2616:, as would your repetition of an answered question here. I will not be responding further.--
2569:
2531:
2517:
2372:
2264:
2220:
2159:
2113:
2050:
2011:
1968:
1951:
1929:
1896:
1892:
1862:
1858:
1769:
1723:
1683:
1656:
1618:
1602:
1571:
1482:
1467:
1416:
1295:
1241:
1160:
1131:
1076:
791:
734:
692:
545:
489:
436:
403:
367:
313:
244:
188:
4963:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2240:
My reading of MEAT is that it refers to attempts to recruit editors to influence consensus
609:
4594:
4249:
4083:
3998:
3695:. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page,
3307:
3199:
2864:
1622:
1567:
1522:
1315:
1294:
as well. Pointing out a personal attack is not an example of an accusation of bad faith.--
1240:. Seems more pertinent to explicating my comments (or their absence near the end there).--
1224:
672:
646:
589:
565:
219:
96:
1651:. (You continue to participate in "irrelevant snip" even after commenting on this thread
3324:
Disruptive editing against consensus in order to fuel edit wars is not a minor offense.
2652:
the tag. Please familiarize yourself with basic Knowledge procedures before you reply.
2093:
in the written medium, but my artistic sense is too limited to understand the meaning.--
4960:
4952:
4375:
4197:
4126:
4016:
3994:
3531:
You appear to be right. It had been added but must have been deleted. It's still here:
3525:
3384:
3354:
3325:
3293:
3100:
2929:
2910:
2904:
2715:
2707:
2699:
2685:
2653:
2609:
2605:
2591:
2560:
2546:
2487:
2458:
2428:
2386:
2358:
2329:
2260:
2256:
2208:
2204:
2145:
2072:
2065:
1641:
1319:
1237:
1204:
1182:
1146:
1116:
418:
117:
1789:
4956:
4253:
4245:
3656:
3627:
This is not a big deal, obviously. Just meditate on it or some such. Happy editing.--
3611:
3573:
3551:
3510:
2996:
2174:
1988:
1877:
1843:
1291:
1283:
1260:
1096:
1063:
1046:
991:
953:
942:
851:
758:
722:
633:
526:
473:
393:
329:
286:
49:
3592:? Given that you've already moved some of it you may as well go the rest of the way.
2586:
explain your reasons on the talk page. Did you do that? If the answer is no, then
1924:, thank you for using an informative edit summary. That discussion was wending into
1056:
P.S. I will be traveling for a few days and so my responses will be delayed. — Carl
2719:
1825:
1821:
1431:
1402:
1384:
2030:
Concerning your deletion on the four causes article, I have started a talk thread
1371:
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the
1177:
for you accusing me of misrepresenting sources? Why aren't you reverting when you
3691:
An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located
2173:
participation or opinion. As such, your claim otherwise is a strong violation of
4839:
4686:
4605:
2007:
1463:
974:
As I have pointed out before, there is an equally valid argument that a formula
4697:
may I ask you, as I do indeed not have the Mayr book, whether Mayr really says
3136:
914:
metalanguage. It exists as an idea and there is nothing anyone can do about it
263:
4685:
Hello again. I see you've been steadily trying to increase the leaning of the
4590:
2303:
2284:
2245:
2216:
1518:
1350:
1333:
1323:
643:
Nah, that's not it. Since interpretation isn't meaning, it's okay to say that
90:
3131:
Population Statistics Correlating to Fomenko's Dating System by Ruth Jacobsen
2089:
I don't think this is what you want to say. If it is, it's a nice example of
4425:
4015:
No problem, you inadvertently helped. Appendages and fish may be overkill.
3959:
back-and-forth. I don't mean to be critical, just trying to avoid problems.
3093:
2706:
that the scandal is about the hacking. Even the compromise titles are not
2684:? I'm sure Heyitspeter can think for himself without you doing it for him.
2681:
1645:
1536:
It has come to my attention that you are eligible for charter membership in
1220:
292:
Thank you for that link. It is, as you said, a beautiful article. Cheers,
3718:
Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
4984:
4924:
4858:
4833:
4808:
4793:
4779:
4764:
4749:
4734:
4715:
4674:
4659:
4617:
4598:
4570:
4556:
4524:
4509:
4467:
4440:
4402:
4383:
4364:
4328:
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read
4314:
4299:
4269:
4239:
4225:
4210:
4191:
4176:
4149:
4134:
4106:
4091:
4069:
4054:
4024:
4010:
3983:
3968:
3938:
3905:
3891:
3854:
3839:
3802:
3678:
3663:
3636:
3619:
3604:
3581:
3559:
3544:
3518:
3472:
3392:
3377:
3362:
3333:
3319:
3301:
3287:
3273:
3256:
3221:
3207:
3188:
3124:
3108:
3086:
3063:
3031:
3004:
2971:
2957:
2918:
2890:
2871:
2842:
2828:
2813:
2793:
2778:
2731:
2693:
2675:
2661:
2639:
2625:
2599:
2577:
2554:
2539:
2525:
2495:
2480:
2466:
2451:
2436:
2422:
2408:
2394:
2380:
2366:
2352:
2337:
2308:
2289:
2272:
2250:
2228:
2186:
2167:
2135:
2121:
2102:
2058:
2043:
2019:
1996:
1976:
1959:
1939:
1904:
1885:
1870:
1851:
1820:
among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
1777:
1745:
1731:
1713:
1691:
1664:
1629:
1610:
1594:
1579:
1560:
1526:
1490:
1475:
1439:
1424:
1410:
1392:
1355:
1338:
1303:
1276:
1249:
1231:
1212:
1190:
1168:
1154:
1139:
1124:
1104:
1084:
1068:
1051:
996:
961:
947:
856:
799:
763:
742:
727:
638:
553:
534:
497:
481:
444:
426:
375:
358:
332:
316:
306:
280:
247:
230:
191:
182:
153:
120:
102:
4706:
result" is not good English? At the very least there has to be an "an"?--
4389:
Just for outside reference so I don't come across as too much of a dick,
4163:
Please stop removing other users' comments as you have done twice now at
3652:
1059:
1042:
987:
938:
847:
754:
718:
629:
4872:
2991:
some editors got so concerned about seeing their perspectives in print
2371:
AQFK answered just fine. Search the talkpage for "UNDUE" or "WP:DUE."--
1704:
WMC has struck his comments - please could you do the same for yours.
2767:
and, if you can, return from your very conveniently placed wikibreak.
4305:
I was confused about what section I was in. Self-reverted. Thanks!--
1964:
I've now closed the section again with different reasoning provided
1380:
1376:
1346:
4431:
Aware at this point, and I've retracted a RfE over it. Thank you.--
4125:
from his talk page. Personal affront is not a reason for a revert.
3728:"Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
2031:
3862:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#When a case is accepted
4951:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge
4561:
Got it. Thanks again, and sorry you have to deal with all this.--
3699:. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page,
1090:
Say Hey (itspeter), I think perhaps you may be interested to see
2090:
1454:
FYI, I rewrote some, but mostly added, some info in the section
502:
Okay help me out here...what statement do you disagree with ...
4845:
Ah, a fellow few visits per year WPian. What's your reason?
4244:
I disagree, and in any case suggest you refresh your memory on
3860:
follow up in the workshop phase of arbitration. Have you read
3503:
Edited and tweaked, but not reverted. Curtis and Thepm approve.
2995:
that the whole article's on lockdown. I was suggesting calm.
1812:. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
4824:
BTW, why does your talk page say you are retired from this?--
4632:
of yours was indeed welcome - do feel free to restore it. ~
3988:
And after looking back over the two edits you're referencing
3731:"Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
4871:
4121:. Surely you're not saying that you reverted simply because
3143:
logged in. Maybe you can help me on my talk page with this.
262:
3701:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop
3697:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence
2680:
Again, why are you answering for Heyitspeter? Are you his
4721:
We appear to respectfully disagree. I'm reverting myself (
778:
when you're doing philosophy? The answer seems to be that
4585:
Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained
4097:
Oh yeah haha I didn't even think about that. Thank you.--
3993:, I'll reiterate my refrain, this time with reference to
3734:"Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
2648:
of what you claim. The burden of proof is on the editor
1916:
Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Climategate
4902:
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
4722:
4694:
4690:
That's my main request. It will be checked eventually.
4629:
4479:
4414:
4390:
4289:
4122:
4118:
4043:
3991:
3989:
3956:
3533:
Climatic_Research_Unit_documents#Code_and_documentation
2860:
2856:
2512:
I'm sorry, but are you currently threatening to make a
2076:
1965:
1946:
1921:
1838:
1652:
1648:
1637:
1548:
1399:
1091:
782:
are the interpretation function, and you assign "1" to
4196:
What I want is not the issue; I'm fairly certain that
3498:
How sad to see the two of you bickering like children.
2343:
Are you serious? Did you not read Jimbo's comments?
1764:
When you edit this post you`ll see whats been done :)
4456:
Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com
3172:
you get the distinct rows you seem to be looking for.
1824:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
1458:(now renamed), based on my postings at the talk page
695:
675:
649:
612:
592:
568:
4335:
workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible
3168:
As regards your tabling queries: If you press enter
4330:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop
112:Another response to your message has been added on
3686:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change
1621:'s was irrelevant sniping. HiP should desist. . .
707:
681:
655:
618:
598:
574:
4943:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
4725:) since I don't think it's worth fighting over.--
4333:Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "
3350:contributions to the discussion at the talkpage?
3137:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:137.186.166.120
2002:If you're not interested in cutting back on your
1816:to work towards wording and content that gains a
544:harsh. That was unwarranted on various levels.--
2928:the disputed revert, not before. Please do not
3346:. Instead of harassing me, why don't you make
3130:
2769:is a clear violation of AGF. Please redact it
1640:you brought to my attention on this talkpage.
200:I got your message; your point was well taken.
3338:There is no such edit war. And please review
1092:another version of the Interpretation article
562:interpreted. We could equally well interpret
415:Knowledge:Naming conventions (capitalization)
8:
3054:would be appreciative, and for what reason?
2851:NPOV and BLP problems with your recent edits
2158:). Please do so even if only to humor me. --
1511:Climatic Research Unit documents controversy
916:from the moment there is any object language
4393:a link to the edit I made. I'd forgotten.--
3775:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~
515:Geoffery Hunter, ''Metalogic''</ref: -->
23:This user is no longer active on Knowledge.
2962:That's fine. Thanks for the explanation.--
2516:violation? That's hardly motivational. :)
2324:I noticed you added back the POV tag into
2198:
2152:, all of them) from the relevant section (
1799:according to the reverts you have made on
1309:
70:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
1793:You currently appear to be engaged in an
1032:interpretations of intuitionistic logic.
694:
674:
648:
611:
591:
567:
269:Hello. Please don't forget to provide an
4154:That's what I meant by "disambiguation."
1828:. Please stop the disruption, otherwise
1344:Hmm, as I suspected, there is no proof.
2328:. Could you very briefly explain why?
2326:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
2201:
1801:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
1506:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
1373:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
1312:
2255:The word 'content' does not appear at
173:Philosophy and Science were viewed as
4624:Your self-revert at on the CC PD talk
4478:To avoid confusion, I've undone your
3588:herementioned thread to the talkpage
2075:is (and has been for at least a year
1367:Please consider signing our proposal.
7:
3264:I'll look for them as I have time.--
2644:The reality of the situation is the
1290:. Please review these policies, and
4681:Your Darwin was a teleologist thing
4288:You've removed some of H's comment
4117:I think you have the wrong diff in
3069:But a pattern of judgments against
82:, ask me on my talk page, or place
2901:It's rather impolite to ignore an
2714:than the current title. The most
2049:Thank you! :) I'll check it out.--
558:As I have been pointing out, they
411:Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity
14:
4969:review the candidates' statements
4867:
4581:Voluntary CC article restriction
1928:territory, though. Good luck, -
1857:? I see this as a clear case of
1788:
1345:
4454:Could you give your opinion on
2924:The 'inuse' template was added
514:Both are quite true<ref: -->
4975:. For the Election committee,
4945:Arbitration Committee election
4936:ArbCom elections are now open!
3750:considerable body of evidence.
1722:Done. (He has not, in fact.)--
1282:Arguing the point would break
1105:20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
1085:22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
1069:11:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
1052:11:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
997:02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
962:01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
948:01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
857:10:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
842:Interpretation_(logic)#Example
800:03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
764:02:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
749:structure (mathematical logic)
743:02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
728:02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
639:01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
626:indicates disjunction. — Carl
584:structure (mathematical logic)
554:01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
535:00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
498:00:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
482:00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
4985:16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
3961:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
3457:you of all people should know
2800:Request concerning Dave souza
2722:for that matter) are saying.
1905:02:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1886:02:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1871:01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1852:01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1814:discuss controversial changes
1778:07:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
1746:13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
1732:22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
1714:20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
1692:22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
1665:23:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
1630:10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
1611:22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
1595:10:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
1580:10:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
1561:10:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
1527:05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
1491:19:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
1476:13:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
1456:Modern classic element system
1450:Modern classic element system
924:definable in syntactic terms.
333:21:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
273:. Thanks, and happy editing.
103:00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
40:The five pillars of Knowledge
4859:09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
3073:does not imply bias against
2940:) 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC
2612:violation and astonishingly
1440:23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
1425:23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
1411:22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
1393:15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
1304:19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
1277:15:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
1250:20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
1232:12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
1213:11:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
1191:11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
1169:10:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
1155:10:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
1140:10:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
1125:10:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
60:How to write a great article
4971:and submit your choices on
4834:19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
4809:19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
4794:20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
4780:10:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
4765:08:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
4750:06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
4735:22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
4716:21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
4675:19:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
4660:18:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
2881:to duck 1RR restrictions.--
2259:nor at its parent article,
2071:The "third bulletpoint" of
1570:as it's not self-evident.--
1236:Really? I'd have linked to
1130:Thanks for the heads up! --
121:06:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
5000:
4977:MediaWiki message delivery
4618:02:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
4599:01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
4413:Regarding this discussion,
3911:sentences? Thank you. ~
3125:02:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
3109:20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
3087:04:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
3064:04:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
3032:02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
3005:06:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
2972:02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
2958:22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
2919:20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
2794:18:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2779:16:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2732:13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
2694:20:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2676:12:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2662:04:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2640:04:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2626:04:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2600:04:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2578:04:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2555:04:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2540:04:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2526:04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2496:03:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2481:03:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2467:03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2452:03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2437:03:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2423:03:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2409:03:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2395:03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2381:03:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2367:02:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2353:02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2338:02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2309:09:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2290:09:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2273:09:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2251:09:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2229:09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2187:10:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2168:09:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2136:09:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2122:08:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2103:08:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2059:10:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
2044:10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1356:10:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
1339:10:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
606:indicates conjunction and
4925:11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
4864:Dispute resolution survey
4571:21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
4557:20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
4525:18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
4510:11:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
4468:12:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
4441:23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4426:23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4403:23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4384:23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4365:20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4315:18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4300:16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4270:20:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4240:20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4226:18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4211:18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4192:16:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4177:15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
4150:03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
4135:03:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
4107:01:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
4092:22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
4070:23:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
4055:22:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
4025:23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
4011:03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3984:03:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3969:03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3939:11:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
3906:23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3892:22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3855:11:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3840:04:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3803:00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
2891:23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
2872:22:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
2843:22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
2829:22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
2814:22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
2020:19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
1997:18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
1977:23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
1960:23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
1940:21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
952:Be well Carl. Stay cool.
317:18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
307:04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
149:criteria of his time. --
114:User talk:BlueNight#Logic
4789:
4760:
4730:
4670:
4613:
4566:
4520:
4436:
4398:
4310:
4265:
4221:
4187:
4145:
4102:
4065:
4006:
3979:
3901:
3850:
3679:08:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
3674:
3664:02:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
3637:18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
3632:
3620:14:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
3605:18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3600:
3582:14:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3560:04:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3545:04:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3540:
3519:04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3473:04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3468:
3393:03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3378:03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3373:
3363:03:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3334:03:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3320:03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3315:
3302:03:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3288:03:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3283:
3274:03:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3269:
3257:03:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3217:
3184:
3120:
3082:
3027:
2967:
2937:
2932:unless it's necessary.--
2886:
2838:
2824:
2789:
2621:
2573:
2535:
2521:
2376:
2268:
2224:
2163:
2117:
2054:
2015:
1972:
1955:
1900:
1866:
1773:
1727:
1687:
1660:
1606:
1575:
1486:
1420:
1299:
1245:
1164:
1135:
1080:
795:
738:
549:
493:
445:08:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
440:
433:Check the bookcover here
427:03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
376:20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
371:
359:16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
281:16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
129:Lucretius as a scientist
31:Hello, Heyitspeter, and
4529:Evidence talk page. ~
4165:Talk:Two_dimensionalism
4123:V removed your question
3222:05:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
3208:04:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
3189:03:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
3162:03:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
3146:Thanks, Ruth Jacobsen
708:{\displaystyle A\lor B}
338:Thanks for your Message
248:04:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
231:03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
192:03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
183:03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
154:21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
4876:
4849:prevail in context. —
2833:I've done it anways.--
1568:state as much directly
1460:Talk:Classical element
1009:Interpretation (logic)
709:
683:
657:
620:
619:{\displaystyle \land }
600:
576:
469:type-token distinction
458:Interpretation (logic)
267:
4949:Arbitration Committee
4881:Dispute Resolution –
4875:
4418:A Quest For Knowledge
4047:A Quest For Knowledge
4042:I think that your RFC
3500:I offer two comments:
2806:A Quest For Knowledge
2724:A Quest For Knowledge
2668:A Quest For Knowledge
2632:A Quest For Knowledge
2473:A Quest For Knowledge
2444:A Quest For Knowledge
2415:A Quest For Knowledge
2401:A Quest For Knowledge
2345:A Quest For Knowledge
1768:Ahh yeah thank you!--
1644:or perhaps plain old
710:
684:
682:{\displaystyle \lor }
658:
656:{\displaystyle \lor }
621:
601:
599:{\displaystyle \lor }
577:
575:{\displaystyle \lor }
266:
4695:this particular edit
4292:William M. Connolley
2771:William M. Connolley
2559:To do so would be a
2008:CRU hacking incident
1223:seems apposite. . .
840:What do you make of
693:
673:
647:
610:
590:
566:
4953:arbitration process
4232:BrideOfKripkenstein
4203:BrideOfKripkenstein
4169:BrideOfKripkenstein
4037:Climategate scandal
3808:Sub-issues question
3647:Revised my RfC view
2710:, but are at least
2242:in content disputes
2207:and admission of a
1540:exclusive enclave.
885:Re Gregbard: There
80:Knowledge:Questions
4965:arbitration policy
4877:
4409:Self-revert? con't
4324:moving to Workshop
2986:Archiving comments
2590:being disruptive.
1822:dispute resolution
1267:warming science.
1175:MY FUCKING APOLOGY
1037:BHK interpretation
705:
679:
653:
616:
596:
572:
268:
45:How to edit a page
4932:
4931:
4927:
4857:
3260:
3243:comment added by
3152:comment added by
2514:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
2316:
2315:
1938:
1810:three-revert rule
1805:three-revert rule
1363:
1362:
1097:Pontiff Greg Bard
1067:
1050:
995:
954:Pontiff Greg Bard
946:
855:
762:
726:
637:
527:Pontiff Greg Bard
474:Pontiff Greg Bard
361:
349:comment added by
305:
100:
4991:
4923:
4921:
4916:
4906:
4868:
4853:
4826:Andrew Lancaster
4801:Andrew Lancaster
4772:Andrew Lancaster
4755:comprehension.--
4742:Andrew Lancaster
4708:Andrew Lancaster
4665:Thank you. :) --
4658:
4654:
4648:
4642:
4635:
4555:
4551:
4545:
4539:
4532:
4508:
4504:
4498:
4492:
4485:
4363:
4359:
4353:
4347:
4340:
4198:talk page policy
3937:
3933:
3927:
3921:
3914:
3890:
3886:
3880:
3874:
3867:
3838:
3834:
3828:
3822:
3815:
3801:
3797:
3791:
3785:
3778:
3259:
3237:
3164:
2908:
2879:WP:Wikilawyering
2720:reliable sources
2704:fringe viewpoint
2702:and expresses a
2306:
2287:
2248:
2199:
2036:Andrew Lancaster
1932:
1803:. Note that the
1792:
1762:your stuff here
1532:You are eligible
1497:CRU article name
1472:
1353:
1349:
1336:
1310:
1057:
1040:
985:
936:
845:
786:because you use
752:
716:
714:
712:
711:
706:
688:
686:
685:
680:
662:
660:
659:
654:
627:
625:
623:
622:
617:
605:
603:
602:
597:
581:
579:
578:
573:
408:
402:
398:
392:
344:
296:
94:
85:
20:
19:
4999:
4998:
4994:
4993:
4992:
4990:
4989:
4988:
4973:the voting page
4939:
4919:
4914:
4912:
4899:to participate.
4886:
4866:
4851:Charles Stewart
4843:
4683:
4652:
4646:
4640:
4636:
4633:
4626:
4583:
4549:
4543:
4537:
4533:
4530:
4502:
4496:
4490:
4486:
4483:
4480:recent addition
4476:
4449:
4411:
4408:
4372:
4357:
4351:
4345:
4341:
4338:
4326:
4286:
4161:
4115:
4078:
4040:
3953:
3951:Arbcom evidence
3931:
3925:
3919:
3915:
3912:
3884:
3878:
3872:
3868:
3865:
3832:
3826:
3820:
3816:
3813:
3810:
3795:
3789:
3783:
3779:
3776:
3689:
3649:
3590:in its entirety
3570:
3238:
3234:
3154:137.186.166.120
3147:
3133:
3097:
3040:
2988:
2902:
2899:
2853:
2802:
2764:
2568:my talkpage. --
2545:tag". Thanks.
2322:
2317:
2304:
2285:
2246:
2231:
2213:WP:BATTLEGROUND
2069:
2028:
1985:
1919:
1826:page protection
1786:
1758:
1546:
1544:Pot, Kettle,...
1534:
1499:
1468:
1452:
1369:
1364:
1351:
1334:
1326:
1269:The Four Deuces
1264:
1181:you are wrong?
1112:
1011:
691:
690:
671:
670:
645:
644:
608:
607:
588:
587:
564:
563:
453:
406:
400:
396:
390:
384:
340:
325:
323:Richard Dawkins
290:
274:
260:
220:De Rerum Natura
131:
110:
101:
83:
65:Manual of Style
24:
21:
17:
16:
12:
11:
5:
4997:
4995:
4942:
4938:
4933:
4930:
4929:
4904:
4901:
4888:
4879:
4865:
4862:
4842:
4837:
4822:
4821:
4820:
4819:
4818:
4817:
4816:
4815:
4814:
4813:
4812:
4811:
4682:
4679:
4678:
4677:
4625:
4622:
4621:
4620:
4582:
4579:
4578:
4577:
4576:
4575:
4574:
4573:
4475:
4474:Added evidence
4472:
4470:ChaosMaster16
4448:
4445:
4444:
4443:
4410:
4407:
4406:
4405:
4371:
4368:
4325:
4322:Climate change
4319:
4318:
4317:
4285:
4282:
4281:
4280:
4279:
4278:
4277:
4276:
4275:
4274:
4273:
4272:
4257:
4160:
4157:
4156:
4155:
4152:
4114:
4111:
4110:
4109:
4077:
4074:
4073:
4072:
4039:
4033:
4032:
4031:
4030:
4029:
4028:
4027:
3952:
3949:
3948:
3947:
3946:
3945:
3944:
3943:
3942:
3941:
3809:
3806:
3773:
3772:
3768:
3764:
3761:
3758:
3754:
3751:
3746:
3745:
3741:
3740:
3739:
3738:
3735:
3732:
3729:
3719:
3716:
3688:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3648:
3645:
3644:
3643:
3642:
3641:
3640:
3639:
3625:
3593:
3569:
3566:
3565:
3564:
3563:
3562:
3529:
3504:
3501:
3499:
3496:
3495:
3494:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3490:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3476:
3475:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3429:
3428:
3427:
3426:
3425:
3424:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3411:
3233:
3230:
3229:
3228:
3227:
3226:
3225:
3224:
3192:
3191:
3177:
3173:
3132:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3096:
3091:
3090:
3089:
3056:TenOfAllTrades
3039:
3036:
3035:
3034:
3015:
3011:
2987:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2898:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2852:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2801:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2763:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2646:exact opposite
2628:
2528:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2321:
2318:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2233:
2232:
2202:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2179:Stephan Schulz
2128:Stephan Schulz
2095:Stephan Schulz
2087:
2086:
2068:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2027:
2024:
2023:
2022:
1984:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1962:
1918:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1785:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1757:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1738:LessHeard vanU
1717:
1716:
1706:LessHeard vanU
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1679:
1676:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1587:Stephan Schulz
1553:Stephan Schulz
1545:
1542:
1533:
1530:
1498:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1328:
1327:
1313:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1263:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1111:
1108:
1088:
1087:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
982:
981:
980:
972:
933:
932:
931:
926:
925:
920:
919:
910:
909:
901:
900:
895:
894:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
768:
767:
766:
704:
701:
698:
678:
652:
615:
595:
571:
519:
518:
517:
516:
512:
511:
510:
507:
506:academicians).
452:
449:
448:
447:
409:. That said,
383:
380:
379:
378:
339:
336:
324:
321:
320:
319:
289:
284:
278:Midnightdreary
261:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
236:
235:
234:
233:
228:SteveMcCluskey
213:
212:
211:
210:
204:
203:
202:
201:
195:
194:
185:
170:
169:
168:
167:
161:
160:
151:SteveMcCluskey
142:
141:
130:
127:
125:
109:
106:
93:
76:sign your name
68:
67:
62:
57:
52:
47:
42:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4996:
4987:
4986:
4982:
4978:
4974:
4970:
4966:
4962:
4958:
4954:
4950:
4946:
4937:
4934:
4928:
4926:
4922:
4917:
4910:
4909:research page
4903:
4900:
4898:
4895:Please click
4892:
4887:
4885:
4884:
4883:Survey Invite
4874:
4870:
4869:
4863:
4861:
4860:
4856:
4852:
4846:
4841:
4838:
4836:
4835:
4831:
4827:
4810:
4806:
4802:
4797:
4796:
4795:
4791:
4787:
4783:
4782:
4781:
4777:
4773:
4768:
4767:
4766:
4762:
4758:
4753:
4752:
4751:
4747:
4743:
4738:
4737:
4736:
4732:
4728:
4724:
4720:
4719:
4718:
4717:
4713:
4709:
4705:
4700:
4696:
4691:
4688:
4680:
4676:
4672:
4668:
4664:
4663:
4662:
4661:
4657:
4655:
4649:
4643:
4631:
4623:
4619:
4615:
4611:
4607:
4603:
4602:
4601:
4600:
4596:
4592:
4588:
4580:
4572:
4568:
4564:
4560:
4559:
4558:
4554:
4552:
4546:
4540:
4528:
4527:
4526:
4522:
4518:
4514:
4513:
4512:
4511:
4507:
4505:
4499:
4493:
4481:
4473:
4471:
4469:
4465:
4461:
4460:ChaosMaster16
4457:
4452:
4446:
4442:
4438:
4434:
4430:
4429:
4428:
4427:
4423:
4419:
4415:
4404:
4400:
4396:
4392:
4388:
4387:
4386:
4385:
4381:
4377:
4369:
4367:
4366:
4362:
4360:
4354:
4348:
4336:
4331:
4323:
4320:
4316:
4312:
4308:
4304:
4303:
4302:
4301:
4297:
4293:
4290:
4283:
4271:
4267:
4263:
4258:
4255:
4251:
4247:
4243:
4242:
4241:
4237:
4233:
4229:
4228:
4227:
4223:
4219:
4214:
4213:
4212:
4208:
4204:
4199:
4195:
4194:
4193:
4189:
4185:
4181:
4180:
4179:
4178:
4174:
4170:
4166:
4158:
4153:
4151:
4147:
4143:
4139:
4138:
4137:
4136:
4132:
4128:
4124:
4120:
4112:
4108:
4104:
4100:
4096:
4095:
4094:
4093:
4089:
4085:
4081:
4075:
4071:
4067:
4063:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4056:
4052:
4048:
4044:
4038:
4034:
4026:
4022:
4018:
4017:Zulu Papa 5 *
4014:
4013:
4012:
4008:
4004:
4000:
3996:
3992:
3990:
3987:
3986:
3985:
3981:
3977:
3973:
3972:
3971:
3970:
3966:
3962:
3957:
3950:
3940:
3936:
3934:
3928:
3922:
3909:
3908:
3907:
3903:
3899:
3895:
3894:
3893:
3889:
3887:
3881:
3875:
3863:
3858:
3857:
3856:
3852:
3848:
3844:
3843:
3842:
3841:
3837:
3835:
3829:
3823:
3807:
3805:
3804:
3800:
3798:
3792:
3786:
3769:
3765:
3762:
3759:
3755:
3752:
3748:
3747:
3743:
3742:
3736:
3733:
3730:
3727:
3726:
3724:
3720:
3717:
3713:
3712:
3711:
3709:
3704:
3702:
3698:
3694:
3687:
3684:
3680:
3676:
3672:
3668:
3667:
3666:
3665:
3662:
3658:
3654:
3646:
3638:
3634:
3630:
3626:
3623:
3622:
3621:
3617:
3613:
3608:
3607:
3606:
3602:
3598:
3594:
3591:
3586:
3585:
3584:
3583:
3579:
3575:
3567:
3561:
3557:
3553:
3548:
3547:
3546:
3542:
3538:
3534:
3530:
3527:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3520:
3516:
3512:
3508:
3507:Computerworld
3474:
3470:
3466:
3462:
3458:
3454:
3453:
3452:
3451:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3447:
3446:
3445:
3444:
3443:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3439:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3434:
3433:
3409:
3406:
3402:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3395:
3394:
3390:
3386:
3381:
3380:
3379:
3375:
3371:
3366:
3365:
3364:
3360:
3356:
3352:
3351:
3349:
3345:
3341:
3337:
3336:
3335:
3331:
3327:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3317:
3313:
3309:
3305:
3304:
3303:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3290:
3289:
3285:
3281:
3277:
3276:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3258:
3254:
3250:
3246:
3245:Tasty monster
3242:
3231:
3223:
3219:
3215:
3211:
3210:
3209:
3205:
3201:
3196:
3195:
3194:
3193:
3190:
3186:
3182:
3178:
3174:
3171:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3163:
3159:
3155:
3151:
3144:
3140:
3138:
3126:
3122:
3118:
3113:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3106:
3102:
3095:
3092:
3088:
3084:
3080:
3076:
3072:
3068:
3067:
3066:
3065:
3061:
3057:
3053:
3048:
3046:
3037:
3033:
3029:
3025:
3021:
3016:
3012:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3006:
3002:
2998:
2994:
2985:
2973:
2969:
2965:
2961:
2960:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2946:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2942:
2941:
2939:
2935:
2931:
2927:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2916:
2912:
2906:
2896:
2892:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2858:
2855:As discussed
2850:
2844:
2840:
2836:
2832:
2831:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2817:
2816:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2799:
2795:
2791:
2787:
2783:
2782:
2781:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2768:
2761:
2733:
2729:
2725:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2709:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2696:
2695:
2691:
2687:
2683:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2651:
2647:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2637:
2633:
2629:
2627:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2614:WP:DISRUPTIVE
2611:
2607:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2585:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2562:
2558:
2557:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2537:
2533:
2529:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2449:
2445:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2406:
2402:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2327:
2319:
2310:
2307:
2301:
2300:
2291:
2288:
2281:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2249:
2243:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2215:violation by
2214:
2210:
2206:
2200:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2156:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2085:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2077:
2074:
2067:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1963:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1948:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1936:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1917:
1914:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1842:
1840:
1835:
1833:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1797:
1791:
1784:February 2010
1783:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1763:
1756:strikethrough
1755:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1702:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1680:
1677:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1649:seem apposite
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1543:
1541:
1539:
1531:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1507:
1502:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1471:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1449:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1366:
1357:
1354:
1348:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1337:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1322:violation by
1321:
1317:
1311:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1288:WP:NOTSOAPBOX
1285:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1262:
1259:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1173:And where is
1172:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1109:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1065:
1061:
1054:
1053:
1048:
1044:
1038:
1033:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1008:
998:
993:
989:
983:
977:
973:
970:
965:
964:
963:
959:
955:
951:
950:
949:
944:
940:
934:
928:
927:
922:
921:
917:
912:
911:
907:
903:
902:
897:
896:
891:
890:
888:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
858:
853:
849:
843:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
760:
756:
750:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
731:
730:
729:
724:
720:
702:
699:
696:
676:
668:
667:
665:
650:
642:
641:
640:
635:
631:
613:
593:
585:
569:
561:
557:
556:
555:
551:
547:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
523:
522:
521:
520:
513:
508:
504:
503:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
486:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
470:
465:
461:
460:
459:
451:Hey its Peter
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
431:
430:
429:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
405:
395:
387:
381:
377:
373:
369:
364:
363:
362:
360:
356:
352:
351:84.203.45.210
348:
337:
335:
334:
331:
322:
318:
315:
311:
310:
309:
308:
303:
300:
295:
294:Iknowyourider
288:
287:Richard Rorty
285:
283:
282:
279:
272:
265:
257:
249:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
232:
229:
225:
221:
218:I agree that
217:
216:
215:
214:
208:
207:
206:
205:
199:
198:
197:
196:
193:
190:
186:
184:
181:
180:134.10.121.56
176:
172:
171:
165:
164:
163:
162:
158:
157:
156:
155:
152:
146:
139:
138:
137:
134:
128:
126:
123:
122:
119:
115:
107:
105:
104:
99:
98:
92:
87:
81:
77:
73:
66:
63:
61:
58:
56:
53:
51:
48:
46:
43:
41:
38:
37:
36:
34:
29:
28:
4940:
4905:
4894:
4893:
4889:
4882:
4880:
4878:
4850:
4847:
4844:
4823:
4704:a posteriori
4703:
4698:
4692:
4684:
4637:
4627:
4584:
4534:
4487:
4477:
4453:
4451:Pifeedback
4450:
4412:
4373:
4342:
4334:
4327:
4287:
4162:
4116:
4079:
4041:
3954:
3916:
3869:
3817:
3811:
3780:
3774:
3705:
3690:
3650:
3589:
3571:
3550:talk page.
3506:
3497:
3460:
3408:WP:CONSENSUS
3404:
3400:
3348:constructive
3347:
3340:WP:CONSENSUS
3235:
3169:
3145:
3141:
3134:
3098:
3074:
3070:
3051:
3049:
3044:
3041:
3019:
2992:
2989:
2925:
2900:
2854:
2803:
2766:
2765:
2649:
2645:
2587:
2583:
2323:
2279:
2241:
2154:
2149:
2141:
2110:that request
2088:
2082:
2070:
2029:
1986:
1920:
1859:RV vandalism
1837:
1834:from editing
1829:
1794:
1787:
1761:
1759:
1672:
1547:
1535:
1503:
1500:
1469:
1453:
1377:the proposal
1370:
1331:
1284:WP:NOT#FORUM
1265:
1201:
1178:
1174:
1113:
1089:
1055:
1034:
1030:
1018:
1015:
1012:
979:"logicians".
975:
968:
915:
886:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
663:
559:
466:
462:
455:
454:
388:
385:
341:
326:
291:
275:
271:edit summary
258:Edit summary
174:
147:
143:
135:
132:
124:
111:
95:
88:
69:
30:
26:
25:
4840:Modal logic
4786:Heyitspeter
4757:Heyitspeter
4727:Heyitspeter
4693:Concerning
4687:Four causes
4667:Heyitspeter
4610:Heyitspeter
4606:Climategate
4563:Heyitspeter
4517:Heyitspeter
4433:Heyitspeter
4395:Heyitspeter
4307:Heyitspeter
4262:Heyitspeter
4218:Heyitspeter
4184:Heyitspeter
4159:Please stop
4142:Heyitspeter
4099:Heyitspeter
4084:mark nutley
4062:Heyitspeter
4003:Heyitspeter
3976:Heyitspeter
3898:Heyitspeter
3847:Heyitspeter
3671:Heyitspeter
3629:Heyitspeter
3597:Heyitspeter
3537:Heyitspeter
3465:Heyitspeter
3370:Heyitspeter
3312:Heyitspeter
3280:Heyitspeter
3266:Heyitspeter
3239:—Preceding
3214:Heyitspeter
3181:Heyitspeter
3148:—Preceding
3117:Heyitspeter
3079:Heyitspeter
3024:Heyitspeter
2964:Heyitspeter
2934:Heyitspeter
2883:Heyitspeter
2835:Heyitspeter
2821:Heyitspeter
2786:Heyitspeter
2762:AGF failure
2618:Heyitspeter
2570:Heyitspeter
2532:Heyitspeter
2518:Heyitspeter
2373:Heyitspeter
2320:Re: POV tag
2265:Heyitspeter
2221:Heyitspeter
2160:Heyitspeter
2114:Heyitspeter
2051:Heyitspeter
2026:Four causes
2012:Heyitspeter
1969:Heyitspeter
1952:Heyitspeter
1926:WP:NOTFORUM
1922:Fair enough
1897:Heyitspeter
1863:Heyitspeter
1830:you may be
1770:Heyitspeter
1736:Thank you.
1724:Heyitspeter
1684:Heyitspeter
1657:Heyitspeter
1619:Heyitspeter
1603:Heyitspeter
1572:Heyitspeter
1517:. Thanks,
1483:Heyitspeter
1417:Heyitspeter
1296:Heyitspeter
1242:Heyitspeter
1161:Heyitspeter
1132:Heyitspeter
1110:Most recent
1077:Heyitspeter
792:Heyitspeter
735:Heyitspeter
546:Heyitspeter
490:Heyitspeter
437:Heyitspeter
389:As an FYI,
368:Heyitspeter
345:—Preceding
314:Heyitspeter
245:Heyitspeter
189:Heyitspeter
4961:topic bans
4447:Pifeedback
4260:editing!--
4216:summary.--
4113:Rationale?
3344:WP:DISRUPT
3200:Dougweller
3014:difficult.
2909:template.
2865:dave souza
2712:less wrong
2566:disrupting
2217:User:Ratel
2142:meatpuppet
2004:disruption
1682:wonders.--
1623:dave souza
1324:User:Ratel
1225:dave souza
175:synonymous
84:{{helpme}}
72:Wikipedian
50:Help pages
4957:site bans
4723:done here
4376:Hipocrite
4127:Guettarda
4119:this edit
3767:behavior.
3669:Thanks!--
3385:Viriditas
3355:Viriditas
3326:Viriditas
3294:Viriditas
3101:Guettarda
2930:bother me
2911:Guettarda
2686:Viriditas
2682:majordomo
2654:Viriditas
2592:Viriditas
2547:Viriditas
2488:Viriditas
2459:Viriditas
2429:Viriditas
2387:Viriditas
2359:Viriditas
2330:Viriditas
2305:► RATEL ◄
2286:► RATEL ◄
2247:► RATEL ◄
2203:Collapse
1893:vandalism
1839:This edit
1818:consensus
1646:hipocrisy
1352:► RATEL ◄
1335:► RATEL ◄
1314:Collapse
1221:Notpology
1205:Hipocrite
1183:Hipocrite
1147:Hipocrite
1117:Hipocrite
906:structure
419:ThaddeusB
224:talk page
118:BlueNight
74:! Please
4250:WP:CIVIL
3999:WP:TROUT
3612:Polargeo
3574:Polargeo
3552:Yopienso
3524:I plead
3511:Yopienso
3368:you...--
3253:contribs
3241:unsigned
3150:unsigned
2997:Yopienso
1989:Scjessey
1947:restored
1878:Scjessey
1844:Scjessey
1796:edit war
1466:dixit. (
1316:WP:FORUM
733:there.--
382:PROD tag
347:unsigned
330:Timeloss
55:Tutorial
27:Welcome!
4699:himself
4630:comment
4076:Stephan
4035:Rfc at
3997:and/or
3995:WP:DICK
3723:section
3526:WP:BAIT
3115:well.--
2716:neutral
2708:neutral
2700:neutral
2610:WP:HEAR
2606:WP:NPOV
2561:WP:HEAR
2261:WP:SOCK
2257:WP:MEAT
2209:WP:MEAT
2205:WP:GAME
2146:WP:MEAT
2084:entity.
2073:WP:MEAT
2066:WP:MEAT
2006:of the
1832:blocked
1642:WP:GAME
1638:an edit
1501:Hello,
1432:GoRight
1403:GoRight
1385:GoRight
1320:WP:HEAR
1238:WP:IPAT
1145:board.
984:— Carl
935:— Carl
404:db-move
386:Hello,
33:welcome
18:Retired
4947:. The
4915:Steven
4855:(talk)
4391:here's
4254:WP:AGF
4246:WP:IAR
3715:means.
3405:as per
3045:editor
2950:ChrisO
2897:In use
2650:adding
2588:you're
2175:WP:AGF
1464:Rursus
1292:WP:AGF
1261:WP:AGF
1027:right.
4920:Zhang
4634:Amory
4628:That
4591:Cla68
4531:Amory
4484:Amory
4339:Amory
3913:Amory
3866:Amory
3864:? ~
3814:Amory
3777:Amory
3461:there
3170:twice
3094:Diffs
2905:inuse
1935:cont.
1549:black
1519:Oren0
969:Every
664:means
488:on.--
108:Logic
91:Ruakh
4981:talk
4897:HERE
4830:talk
4805:talk
4790:talk
4776:talk
4761:talk
4746:talk
4731:talk
4712:talk
4671:talk
4614:talk
4595:talk
4587:here
4567:talk
4521:talk
4464:talk
4437:talk
4422:talk
4399:talk
4380:talk
4311:talk
4296:talk
4266:talk
4252:and
4236:talk
4222:talk
4207:talk
4188:talk
4173:talk
4146:talk
4131:talk
4103:talk
4088:talk
4066:talk
4051:talk
4021:talk
4007:talk
3980:talk
3965:talk
3902:talk
3851:talk
3693:here
3675:talk
3633:talk
3616:talk
3601:talk
3578:talk
3556:talk
3541:talk
3515:talk
3469:talk
3389:talk
3374:talk
3359:talk
3342:and
3330:talk
3316:talk
3298:talk
3284:talk
3270:talk
3249:talk
3218:talk
3204:talk
3185:talk
3158:talk
3121:talk
3105:talk
3083:talk
3060:talk
3038:Bias
3028:talk
3020:will
3001:talk
2968:talk
2954:talk
2938:talk
2926:with
2915:talk
2887:talk
2869:talk
2861:here
2859:and
2857:here
2839:talk
2825:talk
2810:talk
2790:talk
2775:talk
2728:talk
2690:talk
2672:talk
2658:talk
2636:talk
2622:talk
2596:talk
2584:then
2574:talk
2551:talk
2536:talk
2522:talk
2492:talk
2477:talk
2463:talk
2448:talk
2433:talk
2419:talk
2405:talk
2391:talk
2377:talk
2363:talk
2349:talk
2334:talk
2269:talk
2225:talk
2211:and
2183:talk
2164:talk
2155:viz.
2150:viz.
2132:talk
2118:talk
2099:talk
2091:dada
2055:talk
2040:talk
2032:here
2016:talk
1993:talk
1973:talk
1956:talk
1901:talk
1882:talk
1867:talk
1848:talk
1774:talk
1742:talk
1728:talk
1710:talk
1688:talk
1661:talk
1653:here
1627:talk
1607:talk
1591:talk
1576:talk
1557:talk
1551:? --
1538:this
1523:talk
1515:here
1487:talk
1470:bork
1436:talk
1421:talk
1407:talk
1398:RE:
1389:talk
1381:here
1300:talk
1286:and
1273:talk
1246:talk
1229:talk
1209:talk
1187:talk
1179:know
1165:talk
1151:talk
1136:talk
1121:talk
1101:talk
1081:talk
1064:talk
1047:talk
992:talk
958:talk
943:talk
930:.-GB
852:talk
796:talk
759:talk
739:talk
723:talk
634:talk
550:talk
531:talk
494:talk
478:talk
467:The
441:talk
423:talk
417:. --
394:PROD
372:talk
355:talk
133:Hi,
116:. --
97:TALK
4941:Hi,
4284:Err
3708:ask
3653:Lar
3568:Hey
3535:.--
3401:met
3052:Who
2993:NOW
2263:.--
2078:):
2034:.--
1987:--
1930:2/0
1836:.
1673:not
1655:)--
1474:!)
1060:CBM
1043:CBM
988:CBM
939:CBM
893:is.
848:CBM
780:you
772:why
755:CBM
719:CBM
669:If
630:CBM
560:are
456:Re:
4983:)
4959:,
4911:.
4832:)
4807:)
4792:)
4778:)
4763:)
4748:)
4733:)
4714:)
4673:)
4650:•
4644:•
4616:)
4597:)
4589:.
4569:)
4547:•
4541:•
4523:)
4500:•
4494:•
4466:)
4439:)
4424:)
4401:)
4382:)
4370:No
4355:•
4349:•
4313:)
4298:)
4268:)
4248:,
4238:)
4224:)
4209:)
4190:)
4175:)
4167:.
4148:)
4133:)
4105:)
4090:)
4068:)
4053:)
4023:)
4009:)
3982:)
3967:)
3929:•
3923:•
3904:)
3882:•
3876:•
3853:)
3830:•
3824:•
3793:•
3787:•
3703:.
3677:)
3655::
3635:)
3618:)
3603:)
3580:)
3558:)
3543:)
3517:)
3471:)
3391:)
3376:)
3361:)
3332:)
3318:)
3310:--
3300:)
3286:)
3272:)
3255:)
3251:•
3232:No
3220:)
3206:)
3187:)
3160:)
3123:)
3107:)
3085:)
3062:)
3030:)
3003:)
2970:)
2956:)
2917:)
2907:}}
2903:{{
2889:)
2867:,
2841:)
2827:)
2812:)
2792:)
2777:)
2730:)
2692:)
2674:)
2660:)
2638:)
2624:)
2598:)
2576:)
2553:)
2538:)
2524:)
2494:)
2479:)
2465:)
2450:)
2435:)
2421:)
2407:)
2393:)
2379:)
2365:)
2351:)
2336:)
2280:do
2271:)
2227:)
2219:--
2185:)
2166:)
2134:)
2120:)
2101:)
2057:)
2042:)
2018:)
1995:)
1983:No
1975:)
1967:--
1958:)
1903:)
1884:)
1869:)
1850:)
1776:)
1744:)
1730:)
1712:)
1690:)
1663:)
1625:,
1609:)
1593:)
1585:--
1578:)
1559:)
1525:)
1489:)
1438:)
1430:--
1423:)
1409:)
1391:)
1302:)
1275:)
1248:)
1227:,
1211:)
1189:)
1167:)
1153:)
1138:)
1123:)
1103:)
1083:)
1062:·
1045:·
990:·
976:is
960:)
941:·
887:is
850:·
798:)
757:·
741:)
721:·
700:∨
677:∨
651:∨
632:·
614:∧
594:∨
570:∨
552:)
533:)
496:)
480:)
443:)
425:)
407:}}
401:{{
397:}}
391:{{
374:)
366:--
357:)
4979:(
4828:(
4803:(
4788:(
4774:(
4759:(
4744:(
4729:(
4710:(
4669:(
4656:)
4653:c
4647:t
4641:u
4638:(
4612:(
4593:(
4565:(
4553:)
4550:c
4544:t
4538:u
4535:(
4519:(
4506:)
4503:c
4497:t
4491:u
4488:(
4462:(
4458:?
4435:(
4420:(
4397:(
4378:(
4361:)
4358:c
4352:t
4346:u
4343:(
4309:(
4294:(
4264:(
4256:.
4234:(
4220:(
4205:(
4186:(
4171:(
4144:(
4129:(
4101:(
4086:(
4064:(
4049:(
4019:(
4005:(
3978:(
3963:(
3935:)
3932:c
3926:t
3920:u
3917:(
3900:(
3888:)
3885:c
3879:t
3873:u
3870:(
3849:(
3836:)
3833:c
3827:t
3821:u
3818:(
3799:)
3796:c
3790:t
3784:u
3781:(
3673:(
3661:c
3659:/
3657:t
3631:(
3614:(
3599:(
3576:(
3554:(
3539:(
3528:.
3513:(
3467:(
3410:.
3387:(
3372:(
3357:(
3328:(
3314:(
3296:(
3282:(
3268:(
3247:(
3216:(
3202:(
3183:(
3156:(
3119:(
3103:(
3081:(
3075:x
3071:x
3058:(
3026:(
2999:(
2966:(
2952:(
2936:(
2913:(
2885:(
2837:(
2823:(
2808:(
2788:(
2773:(
2726:(
2688:(
2670:(
2656:(
2634:(
2620:(
2594:(
2572:(
2549:(
2534:(
2520:(
2490:(
2475:(
2461:(
2446:(
2431:(
2417:(
2403:(
2389:(
2375:(
2361:(
2347:(
2332:(
2267:(
2223:(
2181:(
2162:(
2130:(
2116:(
2097:(
2053:(
2038:(
2014:(
1991:(
1971:(
1954:(
1937:)
1933:(
1899:(
1880:(
1865:(
1846:(
1772:(
1740:(
1726:(
1708:(
1686:(
1659:(
1605:(
1589:(
1574:(
1555:(
1521:(
1485:(
1434:(
1419:(
1405:(
1387:(
1318:/
1298:(
1271:(
1244:(
1207:(
1185:(
1163:(
1149:(
1134:(
1119:(
1099:(
1079:(
1066:)
1058:(
1049:)
1041:(
994:)
986:(
956:(
945:)
937:(
854:)
846:(
794:(
788:P
784:P
776:P
761:)
753:(
737:(
725:)
717:(
703:B
697:A
636:)
628:(
548:(
529:(
492:(
476:(
439:(
421:(
370:(
353:(
304:)
302:c
299:t
297:(
276:-
89:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.