User talk:Jrincayc - Knowledge (XXG)

2003:"But it's not true!" is the battle cry of many POV pushers in controversial articles. One goal of this sentence is to remind editors that their personal beliefs that abortion is/isn't murder, or that climate change is/isn't happening, or that Barack Obama is/isn't an American citizen, or whatever, are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's "really" True™ (according to your personal beliefs). If a proper reliable source didn't say it, then even 1722: 775:

and so the revert without giving a reason probably would annoy them. I see a fair number of posts on forum sites about how wikipedia is too quick to revert, and sometimes I think there might be a case. In other words, I think the there was good reason for you to revert 215.85's edit, however, I think you should have given a specific reason for your revert. (Of course, deleting material is probably your pet peeve ;)

3172: 2700: 3023: 2844: 2756: 2564: 2491: 2418: 2353: 1888: 1527: 2932: 400:

being EntmootsOfTrolls, is that they are from the same ISP. Therefore, from my point of view, it seems that you are operating under the assumetion "all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user." If I am mistaken, I would like to hear why I am mistaken on this point. Again, I apologize for getting out of hand and being uncivil.

2106: 2717:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 3117: 1271:. Hopefully the project will coordinate the creation and editing of articles related to the US State Idaho, its cities, sites, history, etc. It aims primarily to expand Knowledge (XXG)'s resources on Idaho and present the state in a fair and accurate manner. Check it out. You can leave a message on the 1999:

true: For example, if you have personal knowledge that a company is re-stating its earnings from last year, but the new numbers have not been announced yet, then you must list the untrue, published numbers for now, rather than the true, but as-yet unpublished, numbers. The fact that the new numbers

1146:

3. As I know little to nothing about the internal workings of Knowledge (XXG), and having only recently attempted a first edit to correct some obvious typos, I know nothing about the messaging conventions on this page, and I apologize in advance if what I've written here is inappropriate in any way.

2026:

I disagree with WhatamIdoing in every respect. Wanting the encyclopaedia not to be a pack of lies is not necessarily the "battle cry of POV pushers", and it's extremely unhelpful and belittling to stick that ™ sign after the word "truth". It's perfectly possible to seek the truth through published

834:

Since you are interested in economics, I have a question for you. Now, most universities in the U.S. categorize economics as a "social science" and award either a BS or BA, which I agree with. However, some universities (mostly small ones), categorize economics as "business administration" and grant

498:

Okay. The new economics page looks fairly good. I looked at the isoquants section, and added a comment about more that two dimensional isoquants. I have a thesis to write in the next few months (on teaching the pumping lemma), so I will be rather time constrained, but I will try to continue to at

399:

I apologize for getting out of hand. I should not have used BS as an edit summary. While you have not directly stated that "all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user", so far as I can tell, the only evidence that you have about 142.177.92.201

256:

Additional comments : in spite of what Angela says, User:Mediator is not hold by the banned user any more, so there is no sense in removing what has been written by that user. Besides, reverting good edits by banned users is controversial. Feel free to revert any edits you think are relevant. thanks

122:

It is a form a second-degree price discrimination since essentially it is a quantity discount. I have cleaned up the article and added an example (I also removed the coupon and mail in rebates from the list of methods of imlementing since they sort of are, but they are also a third degree method of

1474:

IP licensing program, which includes a handful of potential candidates for patents that may still be in-force, covering MPEG-1. Specifically, any mentioning "frame" "motion" "image" (video), "subband" "filter" (audio), etc., are prime candidates. I haven't done any research yet, so I can't say if

864:

You reverted my revert on that article. You must have overlooked something. The edit I reverted was clearly vandalism. It removed a part of a paragraph that looks like it belongs there. It offered no explanation for doing so. And it left a fragment of a sentence lingering there. Please take another

360:

Most Wikipedians are good contributors, and we encourage people to show good Wikiquette when dealing with them. For example, we suggest that it is almost always better to fix bad edits, rather than revert them. In particular, reverting without some meaningful comment is particularly frustrating and

774:

You managed to hit a pet peeve of mine. I have had a edit of mine that I thought was constructive but was reverted with the default revert message. I was rather ticked off about it for an hour or so. I can agree that the deletion probably was wrong, but I think 212.85 probably was well meaning,

810:

What do you mean you second the request for an explanation for my revert? You should have read the talk page prior to putting that on my talk page because I already left an "explanation". I also edited the article again if you are interested in reviewing it. I changed to "all things equal..." for

443:

this is fine Jrincayc. Some prefer reverting in any cases; others, less numerous, support keeping the good edits. Just do as you feel. And be aware reverting back will anger or sadden or just midly irritate those who prefer removing all banned users stuff. So try to do it *only* when it is really

356:

Funny, I can't seem to find the place where it states that all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user and should be reverted. I am right now working on hand examining the edit to Economics and it is mostly an improvement to the article. That

762:

I don't like deletion of material, when simply updating it could fix it. Have you discussed it with other wikipedians before you deleted? Maybe being informed about it will push someone to update the section. Or since you knew it was wrong why not update yourself? It's essential to have the info

544:

Well, I haven't programmed in basic for a while, and I don't have easy access to quick basic any more (since I use Linux and Mac OS X), but I might take a look some time. If you have specific questions, if you email me the question and the code you have a question about, I will probably respond

2059:

when we were having a discussion of what the true equation should be. I have not seen any discussion that changes my mind about removing the 'not truth' from the verifiability page. I expect that my edit will get reverted tho. WhatamIdoing, I fully agree with your statement, "You may include

1139:

1. I apologize for intruding, and I hope I'm writing this in the right place. Tonight upon searching for a playable version of the world's second video game, Space War!, I found that Jrincayc has had some historical involvement in this matter: he was listed as the keeper of the source code of a

459:

would be improved by adding some price, cost, and output elasticity material to it. My comment at the time was that I wanted to keep the article purely non-monetary because the introduction of prices would be too much for some readers to handle in this introductory article and might reduce the

47:

Hello, and welcome to Knowledge (XXG). sorry to start off on the wrong foot, but I notice you're adding articles which are poorly named. While I'm glad to see you adding to the project, typically we try to name articles in a way that's concise and would fit in a standard sentence. That is,

229:

is a hard banned user. If hard banned users attempt to circumvent their ban and continue editing, the general guideline is to auto-revert them. It's just a way of enforcing the ban when IP blocks don't work. Having said that, if you feel the content is useful, there is nothing stopping you

2503:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

846:

I think that sounds somewhat strange, but I can't say I particularly have a opionion on that. For what its worth, at the University I went to, economics was part of the Agriculture College (you can probably guess that they had a strong agricultural economics program from that fact).

2576:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

267:. You might want to request desysopship of the following at the same time as they have all done exactly the same thing over the past month. If you have an issue with the policy, I suggest you write to the mailing list or something rather than making threats towards me. 569:

I agree with the revert. I just think that the summary "reverting minor useless edit" 1) does not explain why the edit was reverted 2) does not give any hint as to how if the editor had a good reason they should explain the reason. 3) could seem nasty to a newcommer.

412:

said today "IPs tend not to make the kind of sweeping edits, or fully wikified new articles that he makes". Also, I know the topics he works on and the biases he adds to articles, and also the kind of edit summary he makes. He has also created the same articles at

366:

Where is the evidence that the edits by a user from sympatico.ca (an isp with thousands of people) was the same person as the banned user? You have no proof and you reverted edits that are valid nonvandalism edits of an unknown user. I think that was wrong.

1795:

Have you considered open-sourcing this? I looked into this a few years ago, and from time to time I'm contacted by someone who googled to my query and who is looking to do the same thing, asking if I ever found anything; so I think there's a niche for it.

383:

said "all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user". If you refuse to be civil about this (making edit summaries such as "bullshit"), then I do not intend to discuss this further with you. Try reading

2430:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

2365:

52:

wouldn't, because it has an unnecessary capital and is missing a space between "surplus," and "supply". I'm not sure what suggestions others might make, since I'm not at all knowledgeable about economic issues. But in the meantime could you see

906:

My query was more in relation to the profit area being shown. Surely an ATC (or AC) curve is required to derive the cost of production at the Monopoly output? I could be wrong, but I think the diagram and associated description at the moment are

788:

Nah. It's cool. I didn't read enough context before putting it in and got upward/downward sloping backwards. And then I stuffed it in between the wrong two words. It's what I get for doing edits waiting for important stuff to finish running.

142:. That was quite a transformation, from one of the worst economics artcles to one of the better ones. I only have one specific comment. The Porter link needs some explanation. It is not clear what the two part tariff has to do with either 1422:

I use mainly R to create graphics. But it doesn't have a fully functional vector graphics add on yet. Looking at your figures, I can see that for thin lines and figures with loads of detail, this is hugely helpful. Thanks for the links!

169:

I am not sure what the porter competative model is so I can't answer that one. Membership discount retailers definatly can be considered a two part tariff. If you know and it doesn't make sense, then go ahead and remove the link.

1805:

The USPTO as a data source.* The full-text of each patent is available from the USPTO (and now from Google.) What does this data look like? How can it be harvested and normalized to create data structures that we can work

533:

Hi, nice to meet another economist. I saw you are interested in programming languages as well, so I wondered if you might help me with a project about learning I am starting. Please check my user page and let me know.

2280:

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Knowledge (XXG) is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as

3068: 2887: 2799: 2604: 2531: 2458: 2393: 2235:. 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 637:

What you might ask is the Business and Economics Forum? Well, Im not sure yet. At this point it is little more than scattered thoughts in my scattered mind. But I do have a vision of what it could be so I wrote

2055:, and I agree with most of it; I think the essay would be better (and mean about the same) if you just removed the 'not truth' part. I got motivated to this discussion because verifiability was brought up in 1578: 2635:

Is there a common phonetic equivalent to this sentence, that has every English phoneme? The only one I could find was "Hum, thou whirring fusion; yes, Joy, pay each show; vie, thaw two wool dock bags." at

328:

All edits by a hard banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. We ask that users not reinstate any edits made by banned users, but some strongly oppose this

560:

It was just the wrong word. It was just clearly the wrong word. "I specialize in Macroeconomics" isn't something I've ever heard. "I specialize in open currency flow models for developing economies" is.

1484:

You may well be the only person on WP that cares (myself included, as I've happily moved on to Citizendium and now refrain from any work on WP) so I opted to point them out to you directly. Good luck.

642:. I respect your opinion, so I am asking for your input before I mention it to anyone else, or list it on the community portal. I am particularly asking for any ideas you have that might make it work. 1747:

to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

1377:

for the substitution effect is correct. However, I do have to say that I love the figures, they are some of the best I've seen! Can you tell me what you used to create them? (The image in question is

3052:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2871:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2783:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2588:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2515:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2442:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2377:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 94:

Minor request. Can you please fill in the summary field more often, especially when it is not a minor edit. Thanks (makes it easier for me to remember if I have looked a a particular edit before).

1534: 1520: 715:. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later. 417:

recently. Added to this, I knew he was active on Knowledge (XXG) as he had been editing Simple and Meta very shortly before, and his edits on Meta are a dead give away - he was creating pages like

718:

You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a

997:, so the area of the marginal cost will give the total cost to the company. In other words, the marginal cost and the average cost curve are related so either could be used for this graph. 1239: 1209: 1179: 995: 3037: 2857: 2769: 1989:, so it doesn't matter that it's not verifiable". It does matter if it's verifiable: You may include material that is verifiable, and you may not include material that is not verifiable, 309:

Tell me where this policy is so I can go and complain about it there. If this is a general policy, then I severely disagree with it, and not necessarily you for carrying out the policy.

770:

I believe we still can't search locally, but on a database dump, which is not the same thing. I think we should ask some other people for their opinions first. ] 15:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

1143:

2. As open as he has kept his life on the web, I'd love to have an email contact for him which seems mysteriously not listed where I've looked. Can someone supply that to me, please?

3136: 432:

I think that you are probably right about the articles that you reverted. I do however strongly disagree with the revert all edits even if they are useful contributions policy.

754:

Revert MacGyverMagic's edit-summary-less revert back to 212.85.24.83's Justified removal of outdated hardware status (It was old and incorrect since local search is now enabled)

475:. But I realised that I can’t explain welfare economics adequately without dealing with the pricing and optimum usage of factor inputs, so I am going to start an article 1242:. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 1212:. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 1182:. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 111:

My understanding of a two part tariff is when you have 2 components to the price of a product or service. For example an initial price plus a monthly subscriber fee.

1051: 103:? I have never heard the term used to describe segmentation strategies or price discrimination strategies. This looks like a candidate for VFD. What do you think? 737:. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.-- 639: 596: 2060:

material that is verifiable, and you may not include material that is not verifiable, even if that unverifiable material is True." I would also like to list

2154: 1792:. I was thinking of writing something along these lines too, and would rather piggyback off the work that you've already done. Do you have any objection? 2640:

which phonetically is something like "hʌm ,ðaʊ wɝrɪŋ ˈfjuː.ʒən; jɛs, ʤɔɪ, peɪ iʧ ʃoʊ; vaɪ, θɔː tu wʊl dɒk bæɡz." That sentence is a bit awkward however.

885:

I was reading through the monopoly article and saw that your monopoly diagram has Profit shown as a polygon. Is this a mistake, or am I missing something?

1349:

to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with

483:

article I want to add a section on isoquants. Just thought I would keep you informed about what I am doing in case you have any more good suggestions.

2666:"The beige hue on the waters of the loch impressed all, including the French queen, before she heard that symphony again, just as young Arthur wanted." 1333:. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the 3195:

also exists. I can't find any evidence to support an argument for why this portion of the model is independently notable and deserves its own article.

1650:

Actually, I don't think the anon has good faith. The anon cares nothing for Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines, and has been adding material on

3239: 2729: 2159:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

1951: 1605: 1338: 3218: 2989:, and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to 2974: 2709: 2939: 463:

I think you are right that this material should be introduced somewhere, in fact, I have discovered that I have to cover it. I was fixing a stub

3127: 3109: 2052: 1982: 3091: 2910: 2821: 2618: 2545: 2472: 2260: 1318: 2990: 3179: 3165: 1314: 1272: 264: 3243: 1955: 1609: 1479: 1342: 76:

where there are now links to a lot of names of articles, of which about half have been written, and all of which *need* to be. - 142

2000:

are "true" is actually irrelevant: Knowledge (XXG) wants to reflect the published sources, not the spreadsheet on your computer.

123:

price discriminating as well (consumers with more time than money) so it is confusing) so take a look at it now that it is fixed.

2271: 2040: 1822:

Absolutely. I added a comment that it can be used under the GPL 2 or later. If you need a different license feel free to ask.

722:

for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an

2993:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 1017: 3087: 2906: 2817: 2614: 2541: 2468: 2256: 99:

I'll try to remember. I tend to get sloppy late at night. On a completely unrelated topic, what do you think about the article

3061: 2880: 2792: 2597: 2524: 2451: 2386: 2150: 1205: 1140:

version of it written in 1998. It seems to me that it would be appropriate that he be mentioned somewhere in this connection.

54: 17: 2661:"The hungry purple dinosaur ate the kind, zingy fox, the jabbering crab, and the mad whale and started vending and quacking." 1235: 3231: 3183: 3161: 2713:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2112: 1943: 1899: 1877: 1759: 1597: 1538: 1516: 1310: 1268: 584: 2656:"That quick beige fox jumped in the air over each thin dog. Look out, I shout, for he's foiled you again, creating chaos." 1861:

Welcome to the joy of parsing patent text. Sometimes the program only finds month and year, and puts in 32 as the date.

1453: 1250: 1220: 1190: 1021: 3235: 2718: 1947: 1601: 1175: 889:

Yes, profit is a polygon of the revenue minus the cost to produce. If this doesn't make sense, ask on the talk page for

1378: 2247:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

2146: 1986: 1763: 1737: 1446: 1322: 1029: 1025: 321: 230:

reinserting it. In fact, some articles by this user, which would otherwise have been deleted, have been "kidnapped" by

3271: 3073: 2892: 2804: 2609: 2536: 2463: 2398: 2328:

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transfered to Commons.

2252: 622:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#User:Snowspinner_.2854.2F6.2F2.29_Ends_17:06.2C_31_July_2004

444:

worth. Also, Angel knows 142 kind of edits quite well, so likely, when she feels it is 142 edit, it very probably is.

193:

I think I will remove the link because the connection is weak and certainly not clear without much more elaboration.

3255: 2994: 2980: 2174: 1789: 1774: 921: 1744: 2056: 1967: 535: 479:

in which we can add issues like output elasticity, Marginal Revenue Product, and Marginal Resource Costs. In the

243: 221:

The reason no edit summary is given is because I used the rollback button, which automatically inserts the words

143: 2309: 234:

so that other users feeling the content is useful can repost it under their own name. There's a list of them at

3105: 655: 480: 476: 456: 147: 69: 49: 3049: 2868: 2780: 2585: 2512: 2439: 2374: 2977:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 512:. I would like to reciprocate. What are some of the better articles that you have writen or contributed to? 385: 2189: 2016: 1985:. That phrase exists because we have had hundreds of people over the years who have told the community, " 1689: 1658: 790: 562: 3247: 2248: 2004: 1959: 1733: 1613: 1346: 3251: 2944: 2315:

tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the

2301:

added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add

1770: 1428: 1386: 1293:

Hi. I just wanted to compliment your page. It looks nice! And if there was a friends list, I'd add you.

1276: 835:

a BBA degree, which I do not agree with and is totally wrong in my opinion. What is your stance on this?

3131: 1490: 499:

least look at the changes that are happening on wikipedia's economics section. Keep up the good work.

2956:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 418: 3006: 2333: 2319: 2295: 2164: 2036: 1963: 1097: 1090: 707:

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the

684: 680: 643: 513: 491: 194: 151: 112: 104: 29: 3031: 2851: 2763: 2572: 2499: 2426: 2408: 2361: 2343: 2224: 2215: 1769:

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

238:

if you're interested. There are more details of the ban of this user under his other login names at

3151: 1589: 1566: 1424: 1382: 723: 297: 235: 58: 3045: 2864: 2776: 2581: 2508: 2435: 2370: 2244: 2228: 1799:

Also, I see that open-source attorney Van Lindberg is going to be presenting at PyCon next month:

1736:

on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a

1486: 1480:

http://www.ip.philips.com/services/?module=IpsLicenseProgram&command=View&id=52&part=4

1329:

notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on

2061: 1353: 1101: 588: 815:

and I also updated the talk page again if you are interested in reading my "explanation" again.

421:! I am fully aware that not every 142 address is EofT but I strongly believe that this one was. 1313:

process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Knowledge (XXG)'s

3214: 2185: 2012: 1930: 1926: 1686: 1655: 1574: 1457: 1247: 1217: 1187: 816: 741: 472: 287: 239: 199: 33: 3057: 2876: 2788: 2593: 2520: 2447: 2382: 2240: 2232: 1751: 1334: 25: 3080: 2899: 2811: 2673: 1633: 1280: 1115: 509: 425: 409: 392: 339: 271: 250: 226: 3201: 3060:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3053: 2879:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2872: 2791:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2784: 2596:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2589: 2523:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2516: 2450:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2443: 2385:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2378: 2243:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2236: 1913: 1755: 1555: 1547: 726:

channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles.

3002: 2737: 2329: 2160: 2064:

as an exhibit of something that is very verifiable, but does not list a reliable source.

2028: 1721: 1374: 1082: 626: 292: 139: 100: 37: 2714: 767: 658:? We use it on french wp and would like to know the original license. Thanks in advance. 621: 3141: 2959: 1912:

While all contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

1812: 1800: 1554:

While all contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

1360: 1073: 1033: 738: 615: 277: 73: 3200:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

1016:

Greetings! Your user page hasn't been vandalized :-) --it was updated to use the new

759:

True, I could've been better at explaining the revert, my apologies. I'll do it now.

3137:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10 § Surplus,Supply and demand

2680: 2641: 2200: 2131: 2082: 2065: 1862: 1851: 1823: 1698: 1668: 1501: 1405: 1302: 1160: 1125: 998: 894: 876: 848: 824: 798: 776: 692: 667: 600: 571: 546: 521: 500: 433: 401: 368: 310: 171: 124: 1526: 3272:

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-text-that-covers-the-entire-English-phonetic-range

2285: 2277:

Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

1895: 1881: 1667:

Well, there was no comment with the revert, and no discussion on their talk page.

1450: 1243: 1213: 1183: 1069: 408:

Apology accepted. Thanks. You can tell this user by the type of edits he makes. As

335:

How else do you propose to enforce a ban if a user is allowed to carry on editing?

302: 258: 3022: 2843: 2755: 2563: 2490: 2417: 2352: 1654:

and related material without any consideration as to whether it's appropriate. —

2652:

Yes, it seems they are called phonetic pangrams and there are several. Some are

2079: 1907:

No sources given to indicate any notability or wider cultural or academic impact.

2968: 2931: 1617: 1330: 1154: 823:

I missed that explaination when I wrote the message on your talk page. Sorry.

659: 464: 422: 389: 336: 268: 265:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_adminship#Requests_and_nominations_for_de-adminship

247: 21: 1758:, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see 2984: 2733: 2637: 1995:

Similarly, you must occasionally include some material that is verifiable and

1077: 1055: 730: 2011:

meet the threshold (=minimum requirement) for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG).

1936:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

1584:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

1808: 487: 282: 231: 215: 2105: 3224:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

2062:

Stress (mechanics)#Equilibrium_equations_and_symmetry_of_the_stress_tensor

1846:, the patent will never expire. Take a good look at that date in 2015 :) — 719: 708: 2127: 1847: 1843: 1471: 1401: 1118: 890: 734: 225:

and marks the revert as minor. The reason the revert was made is because

3116: 3064:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2883:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2795:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2600:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2527:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2454:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2389:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3041:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2861:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2773:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2231:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

1685:

around the Internet. Where is an appropriate talk page to comment? —

1682: 1651: 1500:

Interesting. Thank you. I will have to take a look at those patents.

866: 691:

You are welcome. Thank you for writing such an comprehensive article.

468: 3259: 3155: 3095: 3010: 2914: 2825: 2741: 2688: 2622: 2549: 2476: 2337: 2264: 2208: 2193: 2180:

Are the scripts written in python2 or python3? I get some TabErrors (

2168: 2135: 2090: 2073: 2044: 2020: 1971: 1870: 1855: 1831: 1816: 1778: 1706: 1692: 1676: 1661: 1640: 1509: 1494: 1460: 1432: 1413: 1390: 1363: 1283: 1254: 1224: 1194: 1163: 1128: 1104: 1084: 1058: 1040: 1001: 897: 879: 869: 549: 538: 24:. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out 3192: 2115:, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about 1306: 1020:

scheme. I have categorized your User Page as a Wikipedian in Idaho (

520:

You're welcome. Supply and demand might be approriate to nominate.

2057:

Talk:The Limits to Growth#Exponential reserve index formula is wrong

3134:. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at 2963: 2951: 2116: 1750:

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

1681:

It's a floating 99.* IP dedicating to spamming information about

3077:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2896:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2808:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1397: 72:

for a good list of good article titles in this field. Also see

3191:

I don't see a strong reason why this article should exist when

3067:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

3035:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

2967:

is sentient has generated conversations on the efficacy of the

2886:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

2798:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

2695:

Orphaned non-free image File:City screen forge of empires s.png

2603:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

2530:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

2457:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

2392:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1475:

any are essential. The list does appear to be comprehensive.

1076:

on that article's talk page, in case you care to have a look.

875:

You are completely right. My appologies. I misread the diff.

2855:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

2767:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

711:

project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at

1535:

European Union 95 year recording copyright extension proposal

1521:

European Union 95 year recording copyright extension proposal

1200:

Image:Indifference_curve_perfect_comp.png listed for deletion

3170: 2698: 2182:

TabError: inconsistent use of tabs and spaces in indentation

1886: 1720: 1525: 1337:, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the 1230:

Image:Indifference_curve_perfect_sub.png listed for deletion

1762:). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found 583:

What kind of problems do you expect to be discussed on the

1325:). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the 1114:

Hi, Thanks for your attention.I should be more careful.--

1788:

Hi, Josh. I stumbled across your Python patent code at

1170:

Image:Discrete_supply_and_demand.png listed for deletion

3242:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

3122: 3048: