User talk:Ninmacer20 - Knowledge (XXG)

308:

camps. I think this is a downright shameful way to argue, akin to what Richard Dawkins criticizes as "appeal to authority" instead of appeal to fact or logic. I don't think you are taking part in this game, but believe it's worth thinking about this issue as a potential source of biased attribution by biographers or others. Schrödinger's worldview, in his own words, did not sort him into traditional Western camps of thought. To make my own perspective (or bias) explicit, I don't think that Islam, Judaism, & Christianity have a monopoly on conception of God(s), such that disbelief in these three traditions is always equal to atheism (e.g. there were ancient Greek and Roman theists, too). Polytheism and pantheism are also varieties of theism. It's fascinating to me that a wild variety of different beliefs exist in people who have made major contributions to science, and it is troubling when this fact is obscured ... especially in service of a hero-worship 'argument' for a particular brand of disbelief or belief. My apologies for being long-winded on these subjects. I want wikipedia to be as factual as possible, as I'm sure you do as well.

277:. I don't know when Schrodinger made this statement on page 290, however, it shows that his statement was written around the same time when he included religious texts on Eastern Mysticism in his works (Possibly between 1943-1956, when he writing religiously inspired poems to his second wife.) It's best to look at the official biographies of an person than quote a text that may not represent his views accurately. Anyway, I acknowledge Schrodinger's use of religious concepts in his works (such as 'What is Life?'). However, he was said not to have taken these concepts very seriously. According to Walter J. Moore: "He rejected traditional religious beliefs (Jewish, Christian, and Islamic) not on the basis of any reasoned argument, nor even with an expression of emotional antipathy, for he loved to use religious expressions and metaphors, but simply by saying that they are naive." - Walter J. Moore, Schrodinger: Life and Thought. I don't claim to be an expert on Schrödinger's personal life. I just look at the primary sources. 452:

talk-page is not the most direct way of getting your message across. Go to the Niels Bohr's talk-page if you want to voice your concerns with other Wikipedian users. I understand that Bohr's philosophical and religious views were complex. However, I don't see how Bohr's statements explaining how religions tend to use a different metaphorical language in order to explain reality is saying the same thing as Bohr being religious. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you're are completely against religions. You don't have to believe in God in order to be part of a religion (see articles such as

304:

of fact and interpretation. Encyclopedias are supposed to be mainly factual (ideally all factual). In places of uncertainty it is preferred to make sources explicit (E.g. "Schrödinger's biographer SoAndSo described him as an atheist, while SuchAndSuch described him as a mystic pantheist"), highlight differing interpretations if they are from respectable sources. When biography conflicts with autobiography, my heuristic is to trust first-person accounts, though even in these cases it's probably a good practice to explicitly highlight the conflict.

285:, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it." If you want more evidence for this claim, please read this article: 416:

that semantically integrated into the overall flow of the previous text. Furthermore, your deletion, based on arguable and vague stylistic opinion while ignoring a more important semantic correction—without which many are misled to believe that Bohr was an atheist unarguably—makes you appear to have done it in an attempt of an ideological censorship. Although I'm sure you have had no such intentions, your removal of only one side of the story points directly to your own dogmas on the subject.

1623: 2318: 2196: 1938: 1759: 1492: 1313: 1240: 1044: 476:" Interpretations of quotations based on the opinion of Knowledge (XXG) users (professional or not) can be skewed unless they are written by professional biographers (who probably has more access to primary sources or work from their subjects than we do). By the way, it is not my judgement alone on what stays or goes in Knowledge (XXG), you must ask the administrators for their POV of the issue. 552:

create a new paragraph like for example, "Bohr expressed his view that religions tend to uses "insert a quotation here"". That would fine in an another paragraph. However, try to be concise and orderly. Plus, ask other administrators if your addition is ok to add in the article. I can give you some names if you wish. We can discuss more of this topic in the "Niels Bohr" talk-page.

1387: 540:

Bohr being an atheist. Anyway (in the current article), the first citation reference that Bohr disagreeing with some of Kierkegaard views in reference to his non-belief. The other two citations just reference Bohr being an atheist. I could bring the quotes of those citations (even more if you like) on Bohr being called an atheist.

519:, and other forms of mystic thought that can not be labeled as belief or non-belief. This is why I used the terms "a more intricate thought pattern", that is, not to allude to theism, but to the fact the Bohr did not label himself as either, but admitted to either possibility—that being a primary, and most reliable source. 904:

even if the document seems authentic. I haven't had the time to listen to it and find the part about Bauhaus but I saw that it is related in the comments. For this kind of document, it would be better if you had at what moment he namedrops their name is it at 1:00 or 8:30 (it is just an instance) and

415:

Hello and thanks for your critique on my slight, though important changes to the article. I'd like to comment that previous to my changes, the particular part was absolute horrible writing, strictly from a stylistic point of of view, while my changes morphed that into a well balanced, clean structure

367:

Hiya, just found your message. I've given the chap a boot up the bum, but it seems he's removed tons, and I 'm not sure of the best way to proceed. I think each removal should be put on the Talk page where the references (one way or the other, if he has any) can be checked. But I've never gotten into

307:

The reason I took an interest in this particular bit of belief/disbelief attribution to Schrödinger is that it appeared to potentially be part of a larger controversy; namely an attempt to argue about the validity of belief/disbelief by sorting famous thinkers, scientists in particular, into opposing

269:

Okay, I can try to consolidate those multiple citations based on the same source. To be honest I've never reference 2 additional sources with one note before. I'm not active wikipedian user, so my knowledege of the Knowledge (XXG)'s computer language is limited. I think it is better if you could find

502:

I now understand more about your reasoning, and I can see a point to it, but it also seems to me in the same way incomplete. The three sources cited for the original quote mention nothing about Bohr's views on Kierkegaard's philosophy. The one referenced sentence simply declares Bohr an atheist, and

498:

Thank you, Ninmacer20, for your quick response. I also appreciate your advice to voice my concern about this on Bohr talk page, however I do not quite understand it. How would speaking to other Knowledge (XXG) users help the case move along if it was you who made the decision to remove this edit? Or

471:

Bohr's disagreements with the philosopher mostly stemmed from Bohr's atheism, although statements such as, "The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not

322:

I see what you mean. I actually agree with you that even notable biographies can have biased as well. I'd respect Schrödinger regardless whether he was an atheist or a devoted theist. If you want to, you can post your views on Schrödinger's talk page to discuss (in detail) about Schrodinger's views.

303:

I think I agree with (or at least don't dispute) nearly all the points you make above, with one caveat. Biographers can also be biased (everyone is in some way or another) and project an interpretation on their subjects that may or may not be true. Every biography (even autobiography) is a mixture

543:

In response to your third paragraph, the words that I highlighted that I had some issues with is the words "Some believe that" and "may indicate an intricate thought pattern". Even though your analysis may be correct, we should avoid using "may" or "Some believe" (unless you are biographer of Bohr

539:

Thank you for your response in my talk-page. I understand your concerns now. Anyway, what I mean (in your first paragraph) is to move our conservation to the Niels Bohr talk-page. In response to your second paragraph (regarding the citations), some months ago there were as many as five citations on

522:

One thing I am certain of, is that this is a very important point to be precise about. Tensions are very high on the subject of religion within the theoretical physics community, and so it receives a great disservice when misleading information is posted in spaces reputed to be objective on related

423:

Finally, as we are on the subject, I have done an extensive search, and to my knowledge Bohr never called himself an atheist, and the references for this statement "Bohr's disagreements with the philosopher mostly stemmed from Bohr's atheism" seem completely unsupportive of the thesis—statements by

247:

On a related topic, here's one of the quotes attributed to Schrödinger that made me think the label of atheist conceals a more complicated set of views... "The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union

1894:

Woovee's stirring up trouble again, removing content under the same bullying rationale as before. I reported him but the admins say "just talk discuss it on the talk page" but you know as well as I that he'll just ignore any actual points and dismiss anyone trying to give the band's perspective on

479:

Anyway, I think three citations more than suffice labeling Bohr as an atheist. If the sources were not reliable secondary sources about the subject (in this case Bohr), I can understand your concerns. However, Knowledge (XXG) states that unless a person is still living, you can put these labels if

551:

In response to your last paragraph (in my talk-page), remember I understand your concerns. I wish we would come to some sort of conclusion on this sensitive topic. Just a piece of advice, try to be avoid words like "believe" or "may" as those words in wikipedia are "weasel words". You could just

506:

Also, I don't understand where you see a speculation in my post. I do not believe to have interpreted opinions, unless by that you mean the part "Some believe...", in which case you are implying that the thing I interpreted is mere opinion, which then would warrant deletion of both sentences. I'm

202:

Regarding your edits about Erwin Schrödinger's worldview: It appears potentially misleading (even if not deliberate) to list a single source as if it is 3 separate references supporting a claim. I don't know the official Knowledge (XXG) policy on this, but it would seem best practice to cite the

1126:

you agreed to remove atheist category tags from his page. I scarcely knew him, but I saw him take an aliyah at his grandchildrens' Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, and I heard him say kaddish at the grave of his son. Did you know him? Why do you believe his "atheism is relevant to notable activities or

217:

In regards to adding extra sources, do you mean by the same author? Schrodinger's biographer, Walter Moore, has written multiple books on him. Out of the four references near Schrodinger's name, only 2 of them were from the same book: "A Life of Erwin Schrödinger" by Walter Moore. The other two

419:

As someone who, I believe, appreciates freedom of speech and honest representation of views in Knowledge (XXG), you can understand my arguments. If you wish to discuss the style of the change, I'm more than open to discuss it with you, but I think your fine reputation ought to prevent you from

451:

The main reason I removed your edit was because it had little relevance to Kierkegaard and Philosophy. If you're so adamant about inserting your work, discuss your views in the talk-page under the Niels Bohr article. By the way, your edit was removed by another user with similar concerns. My

1197:, I didn't add Joesph Weber back to that list. I didn't keep adding him back since our last discussion and I understand your concerns. I added Erwin Schrodinger and Paul Dirac back to the list. It was the user "DeusNovo00", who added Joesph Weber back. Here is the link to justify my claim: 1252:

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.

1325:

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.

1895:

their legacy (bizarrely) as Cure haters (even though I remember being will to compromise by not mentioning the Cure). I don't have the energy for this, but if you want to take up the torch, I thought I'd let you know. I'm unwatching the page and moving on as I've done all I can.

156:

I'll try to look into it. When I've think about it, I think I've heard of this film before. For some apparent reason, I didn't look into it. Right now, I've to prepare for 2 exams. However, I'll make time for it in the near future. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion!

1649:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

274: 1056:

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.

46:

and we'd have to discuss if those are going to get merged or not. A lot of discussion has to happen first. If you need help starting the RFC, let me know and I can help. But in the meantime: please rename that scientist article. Thanks!

251:

I'm trying to verify the source to see if it is reliable enough to include on the page. My impression from reading a whole lot of Schrödinger is that his worldview evolved over time, from religious to atheist to eastern mystic pantheism.

792:

capacity. Do not add his reviews to review charts, or his opinions in reception sections. Since this is a long running dispute, any contributor warned by the situation and who doesn't respect it, would encounter sanctions and could be

514:

vary, some including agnosticism, some not, and using such a vague term, many definitions of which strictly oppose Bohr's view, misleads many readers I've talked to, not to mention reeks of ideology. That said there is such a thing as

323:

A panel of wiki commentators would then try to decide what to do based on the arguments. On a personal note, please remember, I'm not trying to make other people into atheists (My views are personally closer to agnosticism).

2363: 2241: 1981: 1802: 1535: 1353: 1280: 1084: 547:

In response to your fourth paragraph, remember again if those citations didn't state that Bohr was an atheist (which I can bring many more but that would be superfluous) it wouldn't be included in the first place .

280:

On a side note, I want to say that a person can still be spiritual and also identify himself as an atheist. For example, British scientist Roger Penrose, who has identified himself as an atheist, states in the film

30:. Actually, I agree with the renames you are proposing! Myself and another editor tried to rename these list article about 2 years ago, but we could not get a consensus. The right way to do it is (1) Do an 1653:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

999:. 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 232:

I think keeping all the sources is fine and good, but maybe consolidate multiple citations that direct to a single book. So the 2 different citations to the same Walter Moore book would become one note with 2

555:

P.S. Sorry for any grammatical/syntax errors or misconceptions. I understand that I being very repetitive here, however, I hope this answer most of your questions. Send me another message if you wish.

2347:. 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 2225:. 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 1965:. 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 1786:. 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 1519:. 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 1337:. 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 1264:. 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 1068:. 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 218:

sources that I used were: "Schrödinger: Life and Thought" by Walter J. Moore and "Spooky Physics" by Andrea Diem-Lane. Could tell me which sources you wish to get rid of? I'll be fine with that.

2332: 2210: 1951: 1772: 1505: 1402: 134:

Sure thing. In fact, since you like the genre, I actually expected that you had already heard of this movie. It seems to me that most people who like this genre do enjoy this movie. It was

1849:. Concerning the time stamp for the Steve Albini interview, you can do like this, add this &t=5100s at the end of the link if the part in question is for instance at 1h25, whatever 255:

It would be really great to have dates (from E.S.'s life) attached to quotes and attributions of belief. I hope to have some time to work on this, but would welcome all contributions.

510:

About your statement, "Being an atheist doesn't mean that you're are completely against religions.": I certainly agree with you, there is such a point of view, but there are others.

175:

to watch it. I just thought it could be a useful suggestion—and appropriate in the context of what you had chosen to share on your user page—but what you do with that suggestion is

248:

with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the way." As quoted in The Eye of Shiva: Eastern Mysticism and Science (1981) by Amaury de Riencourt

621:

did you mean to? You only noted the separate addition in your summary. I'm guessing it was a mistake, as the deleted sentence seems appropriate. If so, please self-revert. --

1646: 1160:

saying that both she and Weber were atheists as your reference for adding him to these lists, I would like to draw your attention to another quote, from the Preface to

480:

they are cited by reliable secondary sources. The point of reliable citations is to give validity to controversial statements that may result in conflict without them.

483:

By the way, my personal views are closer to agnosticism and I have removed unsupported claims from both theists and non-theists in many articles in Knowledge (XXG).

503:

is not relevant to the subject you mention. If you were to follow the same logic all the way, the original quote is to be removed as well, or did I miss something?

424:

anybody but the man himself can hardly prove such a blunt declaration about such rigorous subjects as religion and philosophy. What are your thoughts on that?

544:

yourself, which in that case you may have access to more sources than we do). I recommend not using that phrase especially when the citations are credible.

905:

you also have to add |quote= "...." and put his sentence at the end of the source {cite=...}. The title of the document doesn't seem to be entirely correct.

1635: 1457: 953: 870: 751: 677: 499:

are you implying that you wish to continue this conversation on the mentioned page? My apologies for not being well versed in the customary practices here.

1128: 1119: 27: 368:

WP editing (only adding, and discussing!) enough to know if one can undo one old edit while leaving later stuff intact -- I'd have thought not, but...

741: 667: 420:

silently deleting it in the future. Therefore, relying on it, I'm reposting the correction, which we can later collaboratively polish to your liking.

737: 663: 1394: 860: 464:, etc). If you had only added just that one quotation from Bohr, that would be just fine (in another paragraph not relating to Kierkegaard). 22: 1453: 949: 866: 747: 709: 673: 440: 1380: 2386: 2264: 2004: 1824: 1557: 1367: 1294: 1098: 1024: 594:

I had to re-work some of the material you added on this article. Basically, I added sources for many bands and I reverted things that were

1199:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology&type=revision&diff=750625941&oldid=750578172

856: 1691: 396:. I understand you're busy. I already sent Nick Graves a message a while ago, but he seems to be busy. Thanks for at least responding. 1163: 1172: 833: 2382: 2260: 2000: 1820: 1679: 1553: 1363: 1290: 1094: 1020: 342:

Ninmacer20, the topic of what, if anything, the article should say about Saul Alinsky's Lucifer passage is under discussion at

188: 147: 111: 2356: 2234: 1974: 1795: 1528: 1346: 1273: 1077: 863:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 744:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 670:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 946:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 786:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews

595: 286: 21:

Regarding names of the "list of atheist ..." articles: Could you please rename them to their original names, especially

1846:, mix up two different quotes to make one new different for the sake of it. On the Cult article, you should have done this 2126: 1588: 1443: 1687: 1639: 1011:

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

901: 371:

I think we need someone more expert here. First person to come to mind (and about the only one else on here I know) is

2368: 2246: 1986: 1807: 1540: 1358: 1285: 1089: 1016: 829: 1204:

I have no problems with Joesph Weber being removed from the list. You can remove him and I would have no objections.

1146: 938:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

900:

For Ian Curtis, it is a primary source which is good. However this comes from youtube which is not considered as a

847:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

728:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

654:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

184: 143: 107: 1853:. So the correct part is directly available when clicking on the link and the reader won't have to search for it. 702:

Please could you check that I have added a reference correctly to the page "Arthur Lupton". thanks so much Mike

939: 713: 578: 530: 436: 383: 2344: 2222: 1962: 1783: 1516: 1334: 1261: 1065: 788:- there's a very clear consensus here that Scaruffi is not to be used as a source in music/album articles in 2092: 2058: 282: 91: 1447: 1134: 705: 428: 1663: 574: 526: 432: 1843: 1179:(pages xii - xiii): "my marriage to physicist Joe Weber...partially motivated my conversion to Judaism." 1012: 1900: 1584: 1439: 63: 344:

Talk:Saul_Alinsky#Why_hide_the_fact_that_Alinski.27s_most_famous_book_was_dedicated_to_.22Lucifer.3F.22

467:

However, your writing seems to be speculative on your part as I quote your addition in that article: "

1430:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

777: 393: 379: 2326: 2204: 1945: 1766: 1499: 1321: 1248: 1052: 1034: 988: 979: 1416: 457: 71: 52: 2340: 2218: 1958: 1915: 1779: 1512: 1330: 1257: 1061: 1008: 992: 569:

Thank you for your reply. In accordance with your wishes I've continued the discussion on Bohr's

516: 139: 814: 794: 2301: 2179: 2145: 2111: 2077: 2043: 1919: 1872: 1740: 1706: 1655: 1603: 1473: 1169: 1123: 969: 886: 767: 693: 343: 43: 2352: 2230: 1970: 1791: 1524: 1342: 1269: 1073: 1004: 996: 2375: 2253: 1993: 1896: 1858: 1814: 1725: 1547: 1157: 910: 810: 729: 655: 603: 372: 313: 260: 238: 208: 39: 2355:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2348: 2233:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2226: 1973:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1966: 1794:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1787: 1527:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1520: 1345:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1338: 1272:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1265: 1076:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1069: 1007:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1000: 31: 1876: 1850: 1205: 920: 785: 733: 659: 636: 626: 570: 556: 484: 453: 397: 324: 290: 219: 158: 121: 1450:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 2160: 1721: 1630: 1614: 1576: 1431: 1406: 1223: 1184: 1142: 852: 588: 375:. I'd love to get involved more, but Real Life is a bugger at the moment :-( Sorry :-( 353: 67: 48: 1464:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

960:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

877:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

758:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

684:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

582: 564: 534: 492: 444: 135: 2297: 2293: 2282: 2175: 2171: 2164: 2141: 2137: 2107: 2103: 2073: 2069: 2039: 2035: 2024: 1736: 1732: 1702: 1698: 1599: 1595: 1469: 1465: 1435: 1115: 965: 961: 943: 882: 878: 848: 763: 759: 689: 685: 2317: 2195: 1937: 1758: 1491: 1312: 1239: 1043: 203:

source once, and subdivide the 3 notes under that single citation. Do you agree?

2286: 1854: 1580: 1218:

I see the page revision history, and I apologize for the incorrect accusation.

906: 806: 599: 309: 256: 234: 204: 2062: 622: 2028: 1219: 1194: 1180: 1138: 378:

Do keep me posted though, and I'll look in as often as I can. Best of luck.

349: 99: 1871:" article. That's fine. I also fixed that Steve Albini citation for the " 1868: 919:

Ok, I'll try to fix and add extra information on the source by tomorrow.

2390: 2359:

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

2305: 2268: 2237:

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

2183: 2149: 2115: 2081: 2047: 2008: 1977:

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

1923: 1904: 1884: 1862: 1828: 1798:

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

1744: 1710: 1668: 1607: 1561: 1531:

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

1477: 1420: 1386: 1371: 1349:

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

1298: 1276:

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

1227: 1213: 1188: 1150: 1102: 1080:

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

1028: 973: 928: 914: 890: 837: 771: 717: 697: 644: 630: 607: 405: 387: 357: 332: 317: 298: 273:

On the topic of Schrödinger's beliefs, read pages 288-290 in this book:

264: 242: 227: 212: 192: 166: 151: 129: 115: 75: 56: 2336:

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

2214:

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

2130: 1955:

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

1776:

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

1509:

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

995:

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

511: 461: 1683: 1168:. Masters of Modern Physics. Springer Science & Business Media. 138:'s first movie to write a soundtrack to—you know, the guy who wrote 1379:

List of atheists and agnostics in science and technology listed at

90:

go—and perhaps, Jewish culture, considering your activity on the

38:

articles so they have consistent names. In particular, we have

2372:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2281: