568:""The risks of overweight and obesity are well-known. We recognize that people are looking for realistic ways to lose weight," Ann Albright, president of health care and education for the ADA, said in a prepared statement. "The evidence is clear that both low-carbohydrate and low-fat calorie restricted diets result in similar weight loss at one year. We're not endorsing either of these weight-loss plans over any other method of losing weight. What we want health-care providers to know is that it's important for patients to choose a plan that works for them, and that the health-care team support their patients' weight-loss efforts and provide appropriate monitoring of patients' health.""
512:? Huh? Did you read the research page? A lot of studies show no weight loss advantage for low carb but many do. More signficantly most of the studies that show equivalent weight loss show significantly better metabolic indicators. And there are a number of studies that have come out demonstrating long term effects (although, of course, the interpretation of those results is not yet endorsed by major medical organizations yet). The "never truly endorse" statement is false. Most still strongly oppose but it is a significant point that some have given the green light (albeit short term) and others are hemming and hawing on the subject.
676:
The onus is on the 'pro' LC group to show that their diet is significantly better than other diets. This has not happened, and this is what is required scientifically. So a 'LC has not been shown to be statistically better or worse than other diets regarding weight-loss' is fine, or something similar. To me the scientific consensus seems to be that LC is comparable to other diets over one year for weight loss. Most studies show small or on differences. However, many of the studies do say that the long term effects are unknown (and possibly dangerous - reflecting much government medical advice).
690:
but certainly does not exist now. And please note that there are multi-year studies coming out (one that analyzed people over 20 years) which show no harmful side effects and, in fact, show possible health benefits for low-carb. In fact I am unaware of any of the recent long-term studies that showed any significant harmful side effects (I am, of course, excluding the 2000 study where they used a computer model instead of human trials). I you are aware of such long-term studies please let me know so I can add them to the medical research page for balance.
696:
there are not enough people actively contributing, and thus bias creeps in. You seem to be keen to get the balance right so that's fine as far as I'm concerned. I only started contributing to them because when I first read them it was like reading an advertisement for Atkins and there seemed to be very little understanding of how scientific process works regarding statistics. Things are better now. I'll just pop by occasionally and let you know if I think things need to be changed. Macgruder (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
192:
that
Liancourt Rocks is that name. Regarding the previous poll. Obviously, since almost all the comments were not by Knowledge policy I'm going to criticize that. Look carefully and you'll see that I've quoting a Korean scholar who states that Liancourt Rocks is the internationally accepted name, it's the name used in major encyclopedias etc. , and that Dokdo or Takeshima are essentially never used alone in respected sources. How much more do you need?
299:...and as much as I enjoy conspiracy theories, they lack a certain lustre when they are simply supposition and inuendo. Whenever there is a widespread academic and scientific support for a view or stance, inevitably, the naysayers and revisionists marshall up with their own theories. Nice to hear, but hardly substantive. FWIW, see Kennedy assassination, Global warming, Amelia Earhart disappearance, ad nauseum...
618:). Unfortunately CNN and company do not appear to have picked up the story. I grabbed that blog site because it is English-language and contains a fair amount of detail. It is not some random blog but a blog from a media outlet. I think that makes it reasonably credible (albeit still not CNN). I have included that e-health link above since it is more credible although it is not in English.
771:
685:". You need to differentiate between weight loss and other medical issues. Regarding weight loss there have been plenty of experts who have said some studies are showing low-carb diets are more effective than low-fat diets (certainly the authors of some of these studies have said that). It is true that the major medical and governmental
470:...the American Diabetes Association "Nevertheless this is arguably the first endorsement, albeit for the short-term, by a major medical organization" is not how I read what the ADA says at all. They simply state that it *may* be effective for *weight loss*. This is not an endorsement. 'Arguably' here is a weasel word.
939:
specifically looking for your input, MacGruder. Essentially, I am only trying to reach an agreement that this article should not cite research on non-chiropractic spinal manipulation which makes no conclusion specifically about chiropractic. I have no problem with using sources where researchers have
689:
in their official position statements tend to say or at least imply that that the diets are the same but it is a stretch to say that these official statements represent consensus in the community or even within their own organizations. The consensus you purport perhaps existed during the 70s and 80s
637:
I agree that statistical significance is the key. I don't agree that there is a good consensus. I see no evidence of that from the media reports (even parsing the various statements from the medical organizations show substantial inconsistencies, i.e. commentary on specific topics that does not jibe
162:
was not neutral (or the body, but only the title is in question here). Perhaps one tag is enough, just based on your comment I wasn't sure if you had seen that part. It's no big deal, but if you add the other tag, it places the article in the "disputed neutrality" (for titles or articles) category
675:
By consensus, I kind of meant there was a consensus that nothing conclusive had been shown ! When there is a lack of concensus it means in a sense that the case has not been proved, i.e. there is no statistical evidence to show that Atkins is better than other diets. I think it is fine to say that.
646:
Honestly I genuinely want to summarize the medical opinions and research more than the article currently does but I know of no way to do that better in a truly NPOV manner. There is simply too little consensus and too many differences of opinion on exactly the same research. Frankly I think it will
191:
Destructive comments?? Only myself and
Komdori are arguing using Knowledge Policy. The fact that finally people are actually reading the naming policy as laid down by Knowledge is proof of a constructive outcome. Knowledge requires the name that is used in English, and I've given multiple instances
180:
I designated that section to outline & clarify opinions & to make assertions, not to debate & argue. Yeah. Thanks. P.S. So far, you've mostly added deconstructive comments against other people's opinions or previous polls, etc. How about adding some constructive comments on your theory?
94:
you to read up on the collective statements linked at the bottom of the page (these are as good a representation of the consensus as you are likely to find), and the entire PPPL issue that includes not only the
Rushton–Jensen paper (which is a truly great paper, no matter what your own position is)
695:
Once again as long as we stick to this, it seems no better/worse and the long term is unknown, I think that this is fine. Early versions of these articles tended to 'promote' the Atkins metabolic advantage which was basically marketing propaganda. The problem with these articles is that at present
314:
Take the time and read the edit history of the Bell article and note all the use of reference sources. I do not wish to revisit the Meucci claims. It is clear in the reference note: Bruce 1990, p. 271-272. Note: Meucci had a "tin-can on a string" telephone that could never have been patented as it
701:
I appreciate that. I have made an effort to balance it but I agree more contributors would be better. As I say, I have tried to avoid summarizing things for which there is not a genuine consensus and, unfortunately, with this topic that applies to most of it. I know my own bias slips in at times.
596:
I think we are getting into tomayto/tomahto territory. I actually did see this comment from the ADA after I wrote to you so I reworded the statement to avoid the term "endorsement" since the ADA doesn't seem to like that. Nevertheless the major news outlets (including the one that you are citing
642:
positions). It is true that most studies show that beyond a year the differences are not great. Of course, one would expect that at some point all weight loss plans converge (i.e. if I put 10 people of the same weight on 10 diets for 10 years and all fall to their ideal weights then the overall
630:
I understand that some studies have shown advantages in weight loss, but many of these were not statistically significant or were no longer there by the end of the study. The overall consensus seems to be that low-carb doesn't confer weight-loss benefits, and if it does it's fairly minimal. A
332:
The invention of the telphone controversy is provided in the article and has been exhaustively argued back and forth for decades right up to modern times. It is given due weight appropriate to the amount of information that exists about Bell and his life's work. Read earlier drafts to see the
280:
article is not well-researched and certainly cannot be considered definitive in challenging the tone and focus of an essentially biographical record. The telephone debate was taken to the courts and over 800 lawsuits resulted. the Bell patent was never rescinded and his role in developing the
787:
status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually
99:
science-oriented people on this article (as on other WP stuff). Most of us working on the R&I article approached the subject like you do (with horrified scepticism), but have come to accept that, as terrible as it is, R&I research is right. I have come to the conviction that the
202:
No offense. Deconstructive. That is... your arguments are shaped as if they were alternate or possible reflection of the current status. What you did just now was perfect. Constructive as in shaping your arguments with your own theories, ideas that support each other.
940:
applied non-chiropractic spinal manipulation to conclusions about chiropractic. My beef is when we make such an application ourselves. Anyhow, take a look at the discussion and you will see my explanation in length. Thanks for your interest! --
1132:. Which is precisely what I did. I suspect that most editors would agree that reverting a user's edit that removes cited material and replaces it with a blog citation under the grounds 'I know a lot' is acceptable. My edits conformed to
1063:. My impression is the reverse, and that you favor using reviews like Ernst & Canter. Levine2112 suggested I contact you and ask for clarification. Can you please clarify this? I suggest leaving comments not only there, but also in
490:
I think you need to be clearer on how effective they are for actual weight loss. From what I can see no studies have shown that they are effective for weight loss - or no more effective than other diets. I feel a general summary should
515:
Anyway, the major point here is that what you trying to do violates one of the cardinal rules of
Knowledge: original research. As there is no scholarly consensus any summary of the research like what you're suggesting would violate
378:, where there's some disagreement with the figures. I don't understand the maths, but I do understand the need for us to cite claims from RS. I'll need to be able to link to a table or something that backs up the stats. --
583:
This is not an endorsement. It is rather simply saying that diabetes patients (and their physicians) can consider such a diet. You can't use the word endorsement when Ann
Albright of the ADA has specifically said "not
281:
technology and scientific concepts underlying the communication device is not in dispute. If you wish to continue the discussion as to the invention and inventors' claims, take it to the other article talk page. FWIW
1251:. 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
142:
Thanks for the recommended reading. There is a huge used book store in
Portland. I'll have to put it on my list of books. If you want to read a really good book about Korea, pick up Micheal Breen's The Koreans.
131:
Hey
Macgruder, I just thought you might want to know you should put new comments on the bottom of the talk page. Maybe you were in a hurry or something. I moved them for you, just wanted to let you know why.
1125:
Editors who find themselves on the verge of a three-revert rule violation have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the page's talk page,
442:
has somewhat hypocritically been altering its recommendations over the last several years encouraging more fiber in place of starch and encouraging more "lean" meats). Anyway please suggest a rephrasing.
437:
Errr, well I think the intro says that (doesn't scream it). What's most interesting in my mind is the gradual change in positions over the last several years (mind you, even the AHA which still condemns
90:
Hey
Macgruder, thanks for the many good questions you ask about the R&I article. Everytime a newcomer comes and bugs us (intelligently and politely), the article improves, so please stay around. I
987:
to talk about the new "according to at least one researcher" change. I hope you don't mind all this commentary! It takes quite some time to come up to speed on both chiropractic and
506:
Major
Governmental and Medical Organizations generally oppose, never truly endorse while stating that weight loss is no better anyway not shown to be more effective for weight loss
597:
here) clearly state that they interpret the ADA's statements to be giving formal support to the diet. Whether or not they favor it over any other diet plan is beside the point.
163:
that some might check. If we have to pick one tag, I'm not sure which is the better one, but I would be leaning to agree with you since this one focuses solely on the title.
828:
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following
1055:
should not cite reviews like Ernst & Canter 2006 (PMID 16574972), and that you argue that these reviews are about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic, so that it's
791:
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the
315:
was not an original invention. Bell's lawyer, William Sorrow later wrote: "Meucci is the silliest and weakest imposter who has ever turned up against the patent." FWIW
276:
Thanks for your contributions to the discourse but the article in question has emerged from a long process of rewrite and revision to the present form. The earlier
431:
Particularly your intro paragraph to "Major
Governmental and Medical Organizations" doesn't really reflect your summaries. Many of them voice outright opposition.
1023:
in its presentation of basic article information. Since you have previously participated in this discussion, I encourage you to come and offer your opinion. ···
788:
sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
841:
65:
837:
49:
609:
Unfortunately, the other 'endorsement' is not a credible source. I can't read Swedish so we need to take care what someone writes on a blog.
1276:
375:
857:
100:"creationists" in this context are those that say that race does not exist or that intelligence is not a genetically determined trait.
25:
to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
481:
1272:
1179:
Yes, you're right. I'd forgotten that initial edit was a revert. I asked the previous editor to revert my revert if he wanted.
1170:
643:
weight loss is statistically the same; it is more significant to look at who got their faster and what were the side-effects).
1113:
822:
818:
68:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
812:
1209:(I'm working as a transplant coordinator) and would like to know what specifically did you have in mind when adding the
239:
there is a difference between administration and occupation, but currently, Japan has no Jurisdiction over Takeshima...
34:
22:
1263:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
559:
1268:
117:
I will try to give a hand there later. I was thinking right now about BoA or Utada Hikaru's, so it may take time. --
1166:
1150:
I'm sorry to tell you that despite your strong protesting, you did indeed break 3RR: Previous version reverted to:
277:
1109:
54:
681:
Again, I think you are letting yourself read into the statements what you want to. First careful with the word "
779:
764:
1136:, yours sadly did not. And can we stop this, 'I know a lot', 'twaddle', 'hypocrite' stuff. It's tiresome.
29:
399:
270:
61:
961:
783:. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the
616:
476:
Perhaps "arguably" is a poor word. In any event are you suggesting that all the news outlets are wrong?
1016:
946:
941:
647:
take several years of discussion for the medical community to establish a consensus on the research.
479:
1264:
1213:
1076:
996:
973:
922:
899:
69:
1101:
1086:
845:
806:
795:
747:
713:
658:
538:
413:
103:
But no matter on which side of the issue you come out (after some reading!), please stay around.
44:
1240:
1231:
1068:
1064:
984:
965:
957:
936:
914:
910:
891:
383:
364:
76:
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
1260:
1244:
915:
Talk:Chiropractic #A starting point for a look at the effectiveness section and introduction
204:
182:
1259:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1069:
Talk:Chiropractic #Request for Comment, Possible OR violation at Chiropractic Effectiveness
1048:
477:
1256:
1248:
1180:
1137:
1072:
1020:
992:
969:
918:
895:
869:
338:
320:
304:
286:
214:
193:
1252:
1220:
1097:
1090:
1024:
1012:
863:
851:
743:
709:
654:
534:
409:
226:
144:
133:
118:
39:
560:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122801106.html
158:
There are (were) two tags on there. The one that you removed said in part that the
1060:
1056:
1052:
1040:
1036:
988:
887:
379:
360:
164:
727:
834:
Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged
1206:
1199:
1133:
983:
Thanks again. I responded to your further comments, and created a new section
104:
77:
402:
page that you might have concerns about. In particular the research section.
917:. Please let us know there of any further thoughts you have on the subject.
784:
770:
736:
I've taken a stab at it. I have a feeling the authors are going to flip out.
334:
316:
300:
282:
261:
240:
530:
Thanks. Please feel free to make whatever edits you think are appropriate.
376:
Knowledge:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Standard_deviations_and_probabilities
1280:
1225:
1188:
1174:
1145:
1117:
1080:
1029:
1000:
977:
948:
926:
903:
872:
751:
717:
662:
542:
417:
387:
368:
342:
324:
308:
290:
264:
243:
229:
217:
207:
196:
185:
167:
147:
136:
121:
107:
80:
462:
Condemnation: Am Heart Assoc, Aus Heart Foundation, FSA, H&S Found
1065:
Talk:Chiropractic #Request for Comment: Excluding treatment reviews
1247:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge
894:; could you please follow up there if you have the time? Thanks.
1019:
on whether or not the current infobox under discussion there is
802:
615:
Well, there are multiple sources for this on the Internet (e.g.
966:
Talk:Chiropractic #Review of draft intro para for Effectiveness
1219:
tag to the Consciousness section in September 2008. Thanks! --
991:, and we do appreciate the new pair of eyes that you provide.
554:
Here's what the ADA says, and quoted from the Washington Post:
769:
248:
What word do you suggest? I can't think of any right now...
631:
non-significant difference is scientifically no difference.
1108:
you're doing a lot of reverting. Can you say "hypocrite"?
956:
Thanks for following up again. I made further comments at
374:
Really pleased to hear from you! Please see the thread at
447:
4 or 5 opposition, 2 or 3 no real opinion, plus the ADA..
730:
scientific studies section, which is uniformly terrible.
524:
Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. Thank for your efforts.
1205:
Hi, Macgruder! I'm interested in reviewing the article
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1151:
937:
Talk:Chiropractic #Other procedures lack rigorous proof
911:
Talk:Chiropractic #Other procedures lack rigorous proof
892:
Talk:Chiropractic #Other procedures lack rigorous proof
883:
829:
357:
958:
Talk:Chiropractic #Summarize what researchers conclude
825:
for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
333:
different versions that previously were in play. FWIW
909:
Thanks for following up. I made further comments at
405:
Please feel free to comment or make your own edits.
856:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
728:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Atkins_Nutritional_Approach
1165:. (i saw this on WMC's talk page, and checked). --
1106:I don't think that edit warring is very productive
1239:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
805:. If you believe the media meets the criteria at
456:Qualified support: Am Diab Assoc, Socialstyrelsen
95:but also the counterpoints in the same issue. We
1071:, where the discussion has migrated to. Thanks.
356:I was wondering how you came up with this edit (
1051:, Levine2112 says that you are suggesting that
256:? I just can't help but think that the word
8:
177:Hey MacGruder, sorry I moved your comments.
459:Wishy-washy opposition: HHS, Am Diet Assoc
60:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
985:Talk:Chiropractic #Simon-says and DeVocht
913:, and also responded to your new section
801:tag can be used to release it under the
225:Google search Liancourt Rocks as well...
1104:. Also, for someone who professes that
819:Knowledge:Image copyright tags#Fair use
840:. If the image is copyrighted under a
1123:The 3RR means 4 or more in 24 hours.
7:
878:Other procedures lack rigorous proof
670:Thanks for the continuing feedback.
962:Talk:Chiropractic #DeVocht's weight
817:or one of the other tags listed at
72:, ask me on my talk page, or place
1100:? You appear to have broken it at
14:
1265:review the candidates' statements
501:appear to be safe for short term
398:FYI: I made some updates to the
935:I have made further comment at
854:after 22:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1271:. For the Election committee,
1241:Arbitration Committee election
1232:ArbCom elections are now open!
1189:11:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
1175:09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
1146:05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
1118:20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
1081:16:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
858:Media copyright questions page
823:Knowledge:Image copyright tags
1:
1281:12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1030:18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1001:19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
978:11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
949:19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
927:19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
904:07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
726:Could you take a look at the
343:17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
325:16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
309:16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
291:15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
213:Oops, sorry. Need to sleep.
30:The five pillars of Knowledge
1096:I wonder if you're aware of
838:criteria for speedy deletion
50:How to write a great article
1267:and submit your choices on
265:23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
244:23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1296:
1273:MediaWiki message delivery
1128:requesting a third opinion
890:, I commented about it at
850:the image will be deleted
278:Invention of the telephone
1226:11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1130:or comment on the article
1049:WP:NOR/N #SYN and DeVocht
1043:to use treatment reviews?
873:22:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
866:of receiving this notice?
752:02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
718:18:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
663:16:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
543:06:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
418:18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
1184:
1141:
780:Image:3 quarter time.gif
765:Image:3 quarter time.gif
496:long term effect unknown
388:13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
369:10:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
230:20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
218:18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
208:18:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
197:17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
186:17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
168:14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
763:Unspecified source for
148:08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
137:12:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
122:15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
108:16:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
81:11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
1007:RFC at Liancourt Rocks
774:
127:Comments on Dokdo Page
21:Hello, Macgruder, and
1245:Arbitration Committee
1017:Talk: Liancourt Rocks
777:Thanks for uploading
773:
758:Image without license
423:Thanks for the reply.
400:Low-carbohydrate_diet
394:Low-carbohydrate_diet
271:Alexander Graham Bell
1110:William M. Connolley
1013:Request for comments
813:non-free fair use in
809:, use a tag such as
173:I moved your comment
1249:arbitration process
1059:to mention them in
70:Knowledge:Questions
1261:arbitration policy
1102:William Nierenberg
1087:William Nierenberg
846:Knowledge:Fair use
836:, as described on
807:Knowledge:Fair use
775:
113:Re: Capitalization
35:How to edit a page
867:
260:gets annoying...
1287:
1218:
1212:
1027:
884:this recent edit
861:
842:non-free license
816:
800:
794:
75:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1269:the voting page
1235:
1216:
1210:
1203:
1167:Kim D. Petersen
1094:
1045:
1025:
1011:I have begun a
1009:
880:
862:Do you want to
815:|article name}}
810:
798:
792:
768:
760:
396:
354:
274:
237:
175:
156:
129:
115:
88:
73:
55:Manual of Style
12:
11:
5:
1293:
1291:
1238:
1234:
1229:
1202:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1093:
1084:
1044:
1033:
1015:discussion at
1008:
1005:
1004:
1003:
954:
953:
952:
951:
930:
929:
879:
876:
767:
761:
759:
756:
755:
754:
740:
737:
734:
733:
732:
705:Thanks again.
699:
698:
679:
678:
668:
667:
666:
665:
651:
648:
644:
635:
634:
633:
622:
621:
620:
619:
613:
612:
611:
601:
600:
599:
598:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
565:
564:
563:
546:
545:
531:
528:
527:
526:
518:
517:
513:
510:
509:
508:
503:
498:
493:
484:
483:
474:
473:
472:
464:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
450:
449:
435:
434:
433:
425:
424:
395:
392:
391:
390:
353:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
330:
329:
328:
273:
268:
258:administration
236:
233:
223:
222:
221:
220:
174:
171:
155:
152:
151:
150:
128:
125:
114:
111:
87:
84:
66:sign your name
58:
57:
52:
47:
42:
37:
32:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1292:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1215:
1208:
1201:
1198:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1162:, 4th revert
1161:
1159:, 3rd revert
1158:
1156:, 2nd revert
1155:
1153:, 1st revert
1152:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1129:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
981:
980:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
950:
947:
945:
944:
938:
934:
933:
932:
931:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
877:
875:
874:
871:
865:
860:. Thank you.
859:
855:
853:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
826:
824:
820:
814:
808:
804:
797:
789:
786:
782:
781:
772:
766:
762:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
738:
735:
731:
729:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
706:
703:
697:
693:
692:
691:
688:
684:
677:
673:
672:
671:
664:
660:
656:
652:
649:
645:
641:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
617:
614:
610:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
595:
594:
593:
592:
585:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
569:
566:
562:
561:
557:
556:
555:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
544:
540:
536:
532:
529:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
514:
511:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
488:
487:
486:
485:
482:
480:
478:
475:
471:
468:
467:
466:
465:
461:
458:
455:
452:
448:
445:
444:
441:
436:
432:
429:
428:
427:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
406:
403:
401:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
351:
344:
340:
336:
331:
326:
322:
318:
313:
312:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
292:
288:
284:
279:
272:
269:
267:
266:
263:
259:
255:
251:
246:
245:
242:
234:
232:
231:
228:
219:
216:
212:
211:
209:
206:
201:
200:
199:
198:
195:
189:
187:
184:
178:
172:
170:
169:
166:
161:
153:
149:
146:
141:
140:
139:
138:
135:
126:
124:
123:
120:
112:
110:
109:
106:
101:
98:
93:
85:
83:
82:
79:
71:
67:
63:
56:
53:
51:
48:
46:
43:
41:
38:
36:
33:
31:
28:
27:
26:
24:
19:
18:
1236:
1221:
1204:
1127:
1124:
1105:
1095:
1061:Chiropractic
1053:Chiropractic
1046:
1041:Chiropractic
1010:
989:Chiropractic
955:
942:
888:Chiropractic
886:of yours to
881:
849:
833:
827:
790:
778:
776:
725:
707:
704:
700:
694:
687:associations
686:
682:
680:
674:
669:
639:
629:
608:
582:
567:
558:
553:
523:
505:
500:
495:
489:
469:
446:
439:
430:
407:
404:
397:
355:
275:
257:
253:
249:
247:
238:
224:
190:
179:
176:
159:
157:
130:
116:
102:
96:
91:
89:
59:
20:
16:
15:
1207:Brain death
1200:Brain death
638:with their
584:endorsing".
250:Disputed by
205:Wikimachine
183:Wikimachine
1257:topic bans
1214:section OR
943:Levine2112
254:Claimed by
74:{{helpme}}
62:Wikipedian
40:Help pages
1253:site bans
1181:Macgruder
1138:Macgruder
1073:Eubulides
993:Eubulides
970:Eubulides
919:Eubulides
896:Eubulides
870:MifterBot
830:this link
796:GFDL-self
785:copyright
215:Macgruder
194:Macgruder
64:! Please
1222:Eleassar
852:48 hours
744:Mcorazao
710:Mcorazao
655:Mcorazao
640:official
535:Mcorazao
440:low carb
410:Mcorazao
227:Kingj123
145:Davidpdx
134:Davidpdx
119:ReyBrujo
45:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
1021:neutral
864:opt out
848:) then
650:Thanks.
516:policy.
380:Dweller
361:Dweller
165:Komdori
86:R&I
23:welcome
1243:. The
1098:WP:3RR
1091:WP:3RR
1035:Is it
964:, and
821:. See
739:Enjoy!
683:better
1057:WP:OR
1037:WP:OR
844:(per
359:)? --
160:title
105:Arbor
78:Arbor
1277:talk
1185:talk
1171:talk
1142:talk
1134:WP:V
1114:talk
1089:and
1077:talk
1067:and
1039:for
997:talk
974:talk
923:talk
900:talk
803:GFDL
748:talk
714:talk
659:talk
539:talk
491:have
453:Huh?
414:talk
384:talk
365:talk
339:talk
335:Bzuk
321:talk
317:Bzuk
305:talk
301:Bzuk
287:talk
283:Bzuk
262:Odst
241:Odst
154:Tags
97:need
92:urge
1237:Hi,
1047:In
1026:日本穣
882:Re
1279:)
1255:,
1217:}}
1211:{{
1187:)
1173:)
1144:)
1116:)
1079:)
999:)
976:)
968:.
960:,
925:)
902:)
868:--
832:.
811:{{
799:}}
793:{{
750:)
742:--
716:)
708:--
661:)
653:--
541:)
533:--
416:)
408:--
386:)
367:)
352:Hi
341:)
323:)
311:.
307:)
293:.
289:)
252:?
210:)
188:)
1275:(
1183:(
1169:(
1140:(
1112:(
1075:(
995:(
972:(
921:(
898:(
746:(
712:(
657:(
537:(
412:(
382:(
363:(
345:.
337:(
327:.
319:(
303:(
285:(
235:!
203:(
181:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.