996:
particular) have even pointed out so much in the Batman DC comic book universe? I'm certain that there isn't any question about the dubious moral characteristics of some of Batman's/Bruce Wayne's actions, as some of the things he's involved with are criticized by those within his universe (Superman questions his tactics for example), beyond the ethics of mining and oil drilling (which on the Wayne
Enterprises page doesn't stop the corporation from being called green and environmentally sound). At the very least some of the positive things should be edited OUT but balance should allowed in the form of allowing criticism that is presented even within the pages of the comic book. I think that many superficial fans do not realise the complexity of modern day comic books and this is a prime example. They only allow the good things that are said about the character, they add good things that aren't true, and they block users who cite criticism of the character. As for original research... mine is not -- it is the result of conversation but, since that is not enough, how many blogs would I have to cite. And which organizations would I have to point to that disagree with the morality of manufacturing and distributing hi-tech military weapons?
608:, claiming that it supports your claim that "The Wwachowski and Warner Bros. were proven to be plagiarists in a CA court." However, that story was in error; the judge you claim "proved" the Wachowskis to be plagiarists by awarding Stewart victory on October 4, 2004 (which, of course, did not happen) is the same judge who in actuality dismissed Stewart's case, ruling that "Stewart and her attorneys had not entered any evidence to bolster the key claims in her suit or demonstrated any striking similarity between her work and the accused directors' films" -- which, I guess, would make Judge Margaret Morrow the judge you refer to above, who "would not recuse himself". So... which is it? Are the Wachowskis "proven" plagiarists because the judge said so and the judge can be relied on? Or is Stewart's case severely deficient in evidence because the judge said so and the judge suddenly can't be relied on? Can't be both... --
940:, now if you have citation for it then you would need to reword it entirely to be a neutral statement about how someone else feels, such as "John Smith stated that Bruce Wayne's use of his company to read medical records is morally questionable." Notice the difference? In your version you are flat out saying that what he is doing is wrong (or at least makes us question his character) whereas in the second version you say that someone has questioned his character based on this fact. Also this claim would require citation to wherever "John Smith" said such a thing. As I said before you are showing over and over again that you know very little about Knowledge (XXG) policy, I am not trying to criticise you since we all start out fresh, but I do ask that you read the pertinent policies that you are so blatantly violating time and time again (
715:
crappy scifi story that had very little to do with the matrix. There are millions of different points of view on any given topic and this one is no different, so please accept that yours is not the only one and does not deserve to be presented over the basic facts. I am done discussing this. It is a huge policy violation and you, hopefully, know that by now. Thank you for not re-adding the information, please continue. (And yes, I really don't care whether or not it was plagiarism, as you should since this is supposed to be a neutral place) 22:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
1007:
particular, make Wayne
Enterprises one of the most destructive corporate criminals on the planet." You need to say, "Jimmy Johnson has said that Wayne Enterprises role in the creation of such and such super-villians makes them seem like a company that is doing more harm than good (cite to Jimmy Johnson saying such a thing)." Also instead of, "The military contracts with Wayne Enterprises makes it complicit in any misdeed carried out by the Military of the USA." You should point to a
649:
so out of ignorance. What you are essentially saying is that they (the
Wachowski's) did not plagiarize because someone else told you so and that's all the proof you need. Read her story and then you would be fit to edit and and stand in judgement over this issue -- until then you are just preserving the status quo to make the fanboys and the people with the best lawyers happy.
337:
274:
1053:
1248:
1288:, or more precisely your comment about it, is inappropriate. The present global market collapse began on September 14 in the United States with isolated failures of financial institutions. These events had great portent and have delivered on their promise. Thus information about the preliminary events in September remain relevant.
889:. I suggest you read through both of those pages (just click on "citing" and "reliable sources" to be taken to the policy page). You are coming very close to vandalisim here, you continue to make huge edits with complete disregard for both policy and other editors advice. Please, read up on the pertinent policies (
532:! In the past I have cited characters and events from the comic books and the movies (as well as from the animated shows). I have also cited some literary analysis of the character. I am now looking for quotes from the writers as well. Anything else would be a plus. One of my main concerns is that
818:
You still have not taken my advice and cited sources. You have provided no proof of where this criticism comes from and continually ignored other users suggestions of reading
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Adding your edits without providing any rationale other than Poison Ivy said it is not enough. You are
648:
For one thing, I am obviously not alone in the realization that the
Wachowski brothers plagiarized. For another... majority opinion does not change the facts. At the very least YOU should read that which you are editing about or you are doing so with no first-hand knowledge and thus are clearly doing
577:
I don't give a damn about legal proof if the plagiarism is obvious to me and anyone else who has read the work in question. Don't you ever think that a court of law can be wrong, misguided, or corrupt? Read her book and THEN you won't be able to morally revert my edits no matter what a court of law
1140:
places what it creates at the end of the existing markup for the page. This is consistent across all talk pages. Some editors though prefer, on their own talk pages, that new threads be added at the top. In these cases the editor has to A) add an note on their talk page asking others to do this, and
798:
Your criticism of Wayne
Enterprises is concise and to the point but needs citation and you make it sound as if it is a real company. You might have some good points, but with no citations and without mentioning that fictional people are the ones criticizing it; the sections will probably be deleted.
918:
Frankly I think you are mixing up your emotions over the Matrix/Sophia
Stewart edits. I HAVE CITED SOURCES (movies, animated series) and also used examples relying upon common knowledge about the Batman universe that most people with slightest idea of Batman know about. You act as if you want me to
840:
Well you seem to have just vandalized my user page rather than writing on my talk page. Other than that, how can you have cited more than others when you have not cited at all? I have written a response on the Batman talk page but I'll just say that if you look at any critique section on wikipedia,
1095:
What I find to be uncivil is when other editors, because they are biased fans, refuse to accept or even acknowledge heavily cited sections. Popular opinion is not always absolutely in line with the facts and reality. I realizethat I wen about things a bit abrasively and amateurishly at first but
1006:
It is not what you say, but how you say it that is the problem here. Instead of saying, "In addition to the role that Wayne
Chemicals has played in the creation of super-villains (like The Joker, the Penguin, Two-Face, and others), the environmental harm caused by Wayne Chemicals, and Wayne Oil in
714:
You are missing the point entirely and you cannot see beyond your own point-of-view. As I have said I have read excerpts, these were provided by Sophia, not the
Wachowskis so you cannot say that they were meant to prove it wasn't plagiarism, they were supposed to prove that it was. All I saw was a
702:
That's interesting position you take: "I don't care whether or not it was plagiarized," VERY revealing. But the fact is she didn't "lose" she merely didn't win (due to a technicality and possible corruption) and she continues to seek justice in a court of law. In any case, by defintion, verbatim
995:
Right, so why can't I use the Batman comic books themselves as a source for discrepancy of Batman's "hero" statues? Why is wayne enterprises allowed to be called green and environmentally sound (as if it were a fact) when clearly it is not and characters within the Batman universe (Poison Ivy in
548:
If she had won her case then you could say the things you are, but a judge heard her out and she lost. The funny thing is that she lost because she couldn't even file the paperwork on time, so I guess she didn't take the whole thing that seriously. Please stop adding in the POV stuff you are. The
558:
A judge can very easily be corrupt -l- as can lawyers. Personally, I think you should rely on her text which was obviously plagiarized rather than the results of a potentially corrupt judge and her incompetent lawyers. Did you know that one of the
Wachowski's lawyers was the judges son but the
1144:
Trolling: It isn't so much the "Batman as villain", that's a reasonable thing to bring up given the new film and one of it's primary themes. The problem was the tacked in "Bats isn't gay" section. LSS, the interpretation section is a lightning rod and has been discussed repeatedly, most of the
979:
believe to be facts. It should be written in the third person in the passive tense, as in a science journal. For example, "It is accepted by the majority of doctors (citation) that eating lead is harmful. However a minority led by Doctor Koppelthorn (citation) believe that lead has benificial
935:
since you state the claims that are made by other people as if they were fact instead of saying that a person said it. For example: you say, "His cavalier use of Wayne Enterprises technology to examine such things as private medical records is also of very dubious moral character." This has
536:
and they do not want to acknowledge any negative actions of the Dark Knight character. This obviously violates NPOV standards, but... what doesn't! So I want to make this section well-cited (and able to stand the test of time) before I reintroduce it. Your help would be appreciated.
559:
judge would not recuse himself? In any case... I don't need a judge to realize her work was plagiarized and neither would anyone else who read her text instead of just claiming that she wasn't plagiarized because the courts said so. Nihilozero
1011:
who says that Wayne Enterprises military contracts are a bad thing (the whole "misdeed by the military" thing, I'm hoping, is a reference to an event in the comics that is universally recognized as a "misdeed" otherwise it is most definitely a
1209:
If you want to make the point that discussing "Batman as a villain" is analogous to "Homosexual interpretation", by all means. But do it with in the thread, not as a separate topic, which is what using the header makes it. Further to this:
867:
the information properly. If you continue down this road it will be considered vandalism and I will recommend that action be taken against you. Oh, and when you wish to discuss something with a fellow member please do so on their
601:
1016:
violation). These are only a couple of examples of the huge issues with your additions. As I have said before please read through Knowledge (XXG)'s policies since you seem to have no understanding of them, specifically
1265:
and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
1096:
now new editors are chiming in with the same old complaints despite settled disputes with the issues raised by editors before. In the end I feel my heavily cited section which I added for balance will stick.
380:
needs to be redone, it shouldn't be under 'Marxist theory'- although it's an important component of Marxist theory it's also vital for all economics. That said the article's weight on Marx is also absurd.
1136:
Placement of new threads on talk pages: The common convention is to place them at the bottom of the page. This point is so ingrained that the "new section" tab (right next to the "edit this page" one)
630:
that reads it? Prove it. I want a poll taken of every single human being on this earth showing that everyone who reads it will see it as plagiarism. Until you have such evidence you are inserting
1118:. Did you just revert to your July version? I have reverted your changes as amounted to simple vandalism. Please be more careful in the future. Note, I am not commenting on the pov discussion.
505:
685:
true. And the only things that are proven true are the ones I have stated over and over, she sued, she lost, the end. Until something new happens that is all we can say and no amount of
489:
1213:
I'm not going to but it back in as it was. Doing so will only add confusion as it does not look like it is a part of the discussion you want to have, whether the text is or is not,
364:
should have a separate page that focuses on the philosophical idea of optimism and distinguishes the philosophical view from "positive thinking" and other everyday uses of the word.
509:
463:
A philosophical concept that seems to have fallen exclusively into the hands of the sociologists. Could use some attention; it's a major and complex issue in phenomenology.
1145:
threads having been archived (the 8 archives are linked at the top of the talk page). The upshot is that the real world context is valid for inclusion in the article.
567:. If there's no proof that it was plagerized (which legally, there isn't), then it doesn't belong here, and continuing to add it will be considered vandalism. --
372:, has some okay points but requires elaboration on Wittgenstein and Winch, perhaps other linguistic critiques, whether logical positivist or postmodernist.
513:
246:
48:
203:
872:
page, not their main user page. You have vandalised both mine and Gdo01's pages so far and I would appreciate it if you did not do it to any others.
481:
113:
618:
You are forgetting that Knowledge (XXG) has policies. I don't care if they did or did not plagiarize (which, of course, they didn't), until you can
517:
931:
of the claims you have made require proper citation (as in in-line citation, not just saying it is from something). Plus the whole thing violates
108:
799:
Also, you put it in this info in the intro of the Batman article and I can find no reason for it to be up there with vital character info.
779:
286:
208:
38:
681:
and the facts are, she sued, she lost, the end. I don't care whether or not it was plagiarised, what I care about is presenting what is
327:
855:
Nihilozero, I have looked over your Wayne Enterprises edits, and, as an uninterested third-party, must say that it is most definitely
772:
See the truth for yourselves. Truth ALWAYS comes out!!! The tables has turned in Sophia Stewart "THE MOTHER OF THE MATRIX" favor!!!!
281:
471:
Needs the attention of philosophically minded Wikipedians. This is only the start of an overhaul of perception and related articles.
320:
118:
493:
34:
256:
51:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to
745:
to Change Venue to the Central District of Los Angeles, CA (docket #15) is DENIED; (2) Defendant Dean Webb's Motion to Dismiss
748:(docket #18) is DENIED and his Alternative Motion to Change Venue (docket #26) is DENIED; (3) Defendant Michael T. Stoller's
742:
According, for the foregoing reasons, (1) Defendant Gary S. Brown's Motion to Dismiss ( docket #14) is DENIED and his Motion
93:
30:
751:
Motion to Dismiss (docket #20) is DENIED and his Motion to Change Venue (by joining in other Defendants' motions) is DENIED;
1165:
980:
effects, including curing cancer (citation), improving general wellbeing (citation) and providing super powers (citation)".
136:
754:(4) Defendant Jonathon Lubell's Motion to Dismiss (docket #21) is DENIED, and his Motion to Change Venue (docket #22) is
956:). Once you read these I hope that you will see why your edits are so vehemently objected to by the majority of editors.
179:
161:
156:
368:
103:
1082:
915:
Excuse me, but I thought I cited two movies (at least) for this information on Batman -- are they not valid sources?
455:
This is a very major topic, but still has several sections which are stubs, and several topics which are not covered.
578:
said. I suppose you are republican who agrees with the 200o Supreme Court Decision on the Recount too? Nihilozero
151:
485:
657:
with personal opinion. Even if every single human being in the world thought this was plagiarism, until we have
301:
98:
1220:
I'm also not going to reformat it to add it back in. Doing so would be effectively putting words in your mouth.
1173:
783:
600:
I also can't help noticing that you seem to be relying at least in part on the community college paper story "
291:
251:
1077:
809:
Please stop. If you continue inserting original research into articles, you will be blocked from editing. --
347:
775:
236:
1195:
927:
and find out how to actually cite things. Also you only mention "sources" for a minority of your claims.
549:
article is fine the way it is because it presents the objective truth, they got sued, she lost, the end.
296:
213:
1314:
1292:
1071:. Continued behavior of this type may lead to being blocked from editing Knowledge (XXG) for a time. --
757:
DENIED. Defendants are directed to file an Answer to the Complaint by no later than September 23, 2008.
703:
quotes along with character names and the same plot IS plagiarism -- no matter who accepts or denies it.
609:
424:
1262:
1068:
1064:
429:
The introductory definition is (perhaps) fixed. But, the article is poor. Check out the German version.
241:
88:
408:
1169:
859:
which is not allowed on Knowledge (XXG). If you want the information included then you must find a
497:
451:
393:
1072:
416:
389:
47:
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to
841:
you will see small numbers next to text. These are citations. That is what your section needs.
501:
54:
1034:
1022:
1013:
953:
932:
924:
902:
883:
864:
766:
BY THE COURT: DALE A. KIMBALL United States District Judge
670:
141:
1310:
1289:
1234:
1154:
400:
1030:
949:
898:
882:
You didn't provide any citation at all?! Perhaps you are not understanding what we mean by
820:
666:
583:
343:
218:
146:
1254:
1097:
997:
590:
states, articles cannot contain information that is based solely on someone's opionion. --
404:
first section confuses right action and values and needs a copy edit, moving and wikifying
384:
1026:
1018:
1008:
945:
941:
894:
890:
886:
860:
856:
677:. It doesn't matter one bit what you, I or anyone else here thinks. We are here to state
674:
662:
587:
420:
could do with some tidying and clarification. See the talk page for one suggested change.
1271:
981:
810:
591:
568:
447:
the quality of this article varies wildly and is in desperate need of expert attention.
442:
376:
59:. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing!
564:
1038:
957:
906:
873:
690:
639:
550:
60:
638:
be considered vandalism and I will be forced to place a warning on your talk page.
1206:
This is discouraged, especially if you are using the same level, ie "==" for both.
1230:
1150:
1119:
1060:
351:
1306:
1111:
971:
to report what you've discovered or believe to be a fact. It's to report what
842:
824:
800:
467:
388:
and the articles related to it may need to be rewritten or expanded to avoid
459:
433:
727:
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MATRIX CASE- FRAUD RE-OPENS THE MATRIX/TERMINATOR CASE*
634:
point of view and no one else's. If you continue adding it back in then it
319:
360:
1318:
1295:
1238:
1177:
1158:
1122:
1100:
1089:
1041:
1000:
984:
960:
909:
876:
845:
827:
813:
803:
787:
693:
642:
612:
594:
571:
553:
63:
1052:
905:) and then decide whether or not you want to continue down this road.
273:
1217:
it looks like trolling to open the topic of the HI section up again.
919:
cite a reference where Batman tells the Joker that he is his enemy.
1247:
661:
of that we cannot state it here. You see we have policies against
732:
Case 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 9 of 9
344:
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project
190:
75:
24:
1246:
1051:
335:
318:
272:
1141:
B) accept that others may use the "new section" tab anyway.
1059:
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on
1067:
and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate
1285:
605:
477:
1192:
It's explicit in the functioning of the sites tools.
1110:
Your recent re-introduction of the pov tag into the
626:
articles. You say that the plagiarism is blatant to
967:The essence of it is that the Knowledge (XXG) is
819:on the verge of vandalism and close to violating
528:Please put any ideas or citations for the entry
1274:}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
1168:before you start deleting talk page comments.
37:. If you decide that you need help, check out
524:Proposed Batman section: Batman as a Villain
8:
604:" -- you even cite it in your edit summary
1305:Seems you forgot to make a link from the
1132:On the two topics you posted to my talk:
582:First of all, calm down and stop making
438:the article is shallow and inconsistent.
39:Knowledge (XXG):Where to ask a question
1114:article was accompanied by a bunch of
665:and every statement made here must be
760:DATED this 28th day of August, 2008.
7:
1261:) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
1196:Knowledge (XXG):Talk page#Formatting
99:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
41:, ask me on my talk page, or place
171:Getting more Knowledge (XXG) rules
33:to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for
14:
1166:Knowledge (XXG):Assume good faith
602:'Mother of the Matrix' Victorious
412:needs a more clear explanation.
1123:23:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
788:19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
71:
20:
1296:14:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
1270:Smile at others by adding {{
1101:19:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
1090:07:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
1042:19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
1001:19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
985:22:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
961:02:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
910:23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
877:21:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
846:21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
828:20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
814:17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
804:17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
694:19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
643:06:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
613:00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
595:21:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
572:21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
554:19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
534:fans primarily edit the page
369:Philosophy of social science
114:How to write a great article
64:02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
204:New contributors' help page
128:Getting your info out there
1334:
219:Frequently Asked Questions
1319:11:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1239:21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
1203:Headers as point breaks:
1178:16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
1159:14:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
352:the index of WikiProjects
1258:
622:it you cannot add it to
89:Knowledge (XXG) Tutorial
346:is available. See also
287:Pages needing attention
209:Where to ask a question
1251:
1189:Adding to the bottom:
1056:
340:
328:WikiProject Philosophy
323:
277:
1250:
1055:
1014:neutral point of view
425:Problem of universals
339:
322:
282:Cleaning up vandalism
276:
142:Neutral Point of View
409:Quality (philosophy)
348:the tool's wiki page
452:Analytic philosophy
394:Arthur Schopenhauer
257:Conflict resolution
53:always fill in the
1281:Comment on an edit
1252:
1057:
975:have reported and
653:You are confusing
514:Requested articles
417:Socratic dialogues
341:
324:
278:
109:Be bold in editing
94:How to edit a page
35:your contributions
29:Hello Nihilozero!
1276:
1186:Page formatting:
1116:collateral damage
991:Batman as villain
857:original research
794:Wayne Enterprises
778:comment added by
689:can change that.
663:original research
520:
317:
316:
313:
312:
309:
308:
266:Getting technical
187:
186:
137:Cite your sources
70:
69:
1325:
1268:
1085:
1080:
1063:. Please remain
863:for it and then
790:
687:personal opinion
675:reliable sources
610:Antaeus Feldspar
584:personal attacks
476:
401:Protected values
338:
191:
162:Image use policy
157:Uploading images
76:
72:
45:
25:
21:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1303:
1283:
1278:
1130:
1108:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1050:
1009:reliable source
993:
887:reliable source
796:
773:
767:
761:
739:
659:objective proof
586:. Secondly, as
546:
526:
521:
494:Cleanup listing
385:German Idealism
356:
336:
332:
267:
247:Sign your posts
229:
196:
172:
129:
104:Manual of Style
81:
80:Getting Started
66:
43:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1331:
1329:
1309:article ;-) --
1302:
1299:
1282:
1279:
1267:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1207:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1193:
1181:
1180:
1170:Alientraveller
1147:
1146:
1142:
1129:
1126:
1107:
1104:
1094:
1076:
1073:Chris Griswold
1049:
1046:
1045:
1044:
992:
989:
988:
987:
964:
963:
913:
912:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
833:
832:
831:
830:
795:
792:
780:68.181.199.223
769:
765:
763:
759:
741:
737:
735:
731:
729:
728:
723:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
707:
706:
705:
704:
697:
696:
646:
645:
598:
597:
575:
574:
545:
544:Sophia Stewart
542:
540:
525:
522:
490:Article alerts
478:Edit this list
475:
474:
473:
472:
464:
456:
448:
443:Existentialism
439:
430:
421:
413:
405:
397:
381:
377:Exchange value
373:
365:
334:
333:
325:
315:
314:
311:
310:
307:
306:
305:
304:
299:
294:
289:
284:
269:
268:
265:
262:
261:
260:
259:
254:
249:
244:
239:
231:
230:
227:
224:
223:
222:
221:
216:
211:
206:
198:
197:
194:
188:
185:
184:
183:
182:
180:Policy Library
174:
173:
170:
167:
166:
165:
164:
159:
154:
149:
144:
139:
131:
130:
127:
124:
123:
122:
121:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
83:
82:
79:
68:
67:
49:sign your name
28:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1330:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1300:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1273:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1249:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1202:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1188:
1187:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1143:
1139:
1138:automatically
1135:
1134:
1133:
1127:
1125:
1124:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1105:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1092:
1091:
1086:
1081:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1054:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1010:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
999:
990:
986:
983:
978:
974:
970:
966:
965:
962:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
916:
911:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
885:
881:
880:
879:
878:
875:
871:
866:
862:
858:
847:
844:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
829:
826:
822:
817:
816:
815:
812:
808:
807:
806:
805:
802:
793:
791:
789:
785:
781:
777:
770:
764:
758:
755:
752:
749:
746:
743:
736:
733:
726:
725:
724:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
701:
700:
699:
698:
695:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
644:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
607:
603:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
580:
579:
573:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
556:
555:
552:
543:
541:
538:
535:
531:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
470:
469:
465:
462:
461:
457:
454:
453:
449:
446:
444:
440:
437:
435:
431:
428:
426:
422:
419:
418:
414:
411:
410:
406:
403:
402:
398:
395:
391:
387:
386:
382:
379:
378:
374:
371:
370:
366:
363:
362:
358:
357:
355:
353:
349:
345:
331:
329:
321:
303:
300:
298:
295:
293:
290:
288:
285:
283:
280:
279:
275:
271:
270:
264:
263:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:Getting along
226:
225:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
201:
200:
199:
193:
192:
189:
181:
178:
177:
176:
175:
169:
168:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
152:Verifiability
150:
148:
147:Point of View
145:
143:
140:
138:
135:
134:
133:
132:
126:
125:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
86:
85:
84:
78:
77:
74:
73:
65:
62:
58:
56:
50:
46:
40:
36:
32:
27:
26:
23:
22:
16:
1304:
1284:
1269:
1253:
1214:
1148:
1137:
1131:
1115:
1109:
1093:
1058:
994:
976:
972:
968:
937:
928:
917:
914:
869:
854:
797:
771:
768:
762:
756:
753:
750:
747:
744:
740:
734:
730:
722:
686:
682:
678:
658:
654:
647:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
599:
576:
557:
547:
539:
533:
529:
527:
466:
458:
450:
441:
432:
423:
415:
407:
399:
390:undue weight
383:
375:
367:
359:
342:
326:
302:Village pump
195:Getting Help
119:WikiProjects
55:edit summary
52:
42:
1311:Pgreenfinch
1272:subst:Smile
1198:first line.
1061:Talk:Batman
938:no citation
774:—Preceding
738:Conclusion
292:Peer review
252:Wikipedians
1255:Nihilozero
1112:technology
1106:Technology
1098:Nihilozero
1048:incivility
998:Nihilozero
923:Read over
667:verifiable
518:Discussion
468:Perception
237:Wikiquette
44:{{helpme}}
1286:This edit
1069:edit wars
982:Sockatume
811:InShaneee
592:InShaneee
569:InShaneee
460:Lifeworld
434:Teleology
330:task list
297:Utilities
214:Help Desk
1263:WikiLove
1039:Konman72
958:Konman72
907:Konman72
874:Konman72
776:unsigned
691:Konman72
640:Konman72
551:Konman72
510:Deletion
498:Category
361:Optimism
242:Civility
61:Konman72
1307:macramé
1128:Replies
1035:WP:CITE
1023:WP:NPOV
954:WP:CITE
933:WP:NPOV
925:WP:CITE
903:WP:CITE
31:Welcome
17:Welcome
1231:J Greb
1151:J Greb
1120:Vsmith
1031:WP:VER
977:others
973:others
950:WP:VER
899:WP:VER
884:citing
861:source
821:WP:3RR
683:proven
628:anyone
502:Portal
1301:Links
1164:Read
1065:civil
1027:WP:RS
1019:WP:OR
946:WP:RS
942:WP:OR
895:WP:RS
891:WP:OR
843:Gdo01
825:Gdo01
801:Gdo01
679:facts
671:cited
655:facts
620:prove
588:WP:OR
486:stubs
482:To do
57:field
1315:talk
1293:Talk
1290:Fred
1259:talk
1235:talk
1174:talk
1155:talk
1033:and
952:and
901:and
870:talk
865:cite
784:talk
669:and
636:will
632:your
606:here
565:WP:V
563:See
530:here
350:and
1215:and
969:not
929:All
673:to
624:any
506:RFC
392:on
1317:)
1237:)
1229:-
1176:)
1157:)
1149:-
1088:)
1037:.
1029:,
1025:,
1021:,
948:,
944:,
897:,
893:,
823:.
786:)
516:|
512:|
508:|
504:|
500:|
496:|
492:|
488:|
484:|
480:|
354:.
1313:(
1257:(
1233:(
1172:(
1153:(
1084:☓
1079:☎
1075:(
782:(
445::
436::
427::
396:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.