User talk:Peteymills

1913:

reality of the science world is, and I pointed this out in my first essay on the topic, if you want to gain traction in the world of science, you need to sell yourself. And if it's true for academic scientists, it goes double for an independent researcher trying to survive on donations. The h-index is through-and-through a popularity rating. It tells you sweet fuck all about the quality of someone's work, just that other people have referred to it. Yes, Knowledge is the most valuable tool I have for promoting my work. If I can't promote my work, I can't survive as a scientist. And if I can't survive as a scientist, no more contributions to Knowledge, because I only ever write about science. I certainly won't bother if I'm not actively involved in the field, and at this point, that is likely because even the small traction I've gained has been hard won and I have received exactly $ 60 in donations up to this point.

1782:

purposes for whatever reason (whether they're selling a product, trying to get personal donations, or even collecting money for a worthy charity) it harms the site. Because if we allow exceptions for you, we have to allow exceptions for everyone. Imagine the result... Knowledge is one of the most popular sites on the entire internet, and receives massive amounts of traffic. As the site that "anyone can edit", that means that people could use this site for free to reach countless people to gather customers and/or collect donations. If we give people the ability to do that, the site would be overwhelmed. As it is, it's a continual struggle to keep that off of Knowledge. By using this site for solicitation you are part of that problem. The site has a hard enough time maintaining trust and integrity, it would lose it completely if it allowed efforts such as what you're trying to do. --

1778:"when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Knowledge, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" That assumes the two are in conflict. They are not. In my original essay on the topic of conflict of interest, I explained that: I work as a scientist. Neutral-point-of-view is built in right from the start. My getting donations does not conflict with the goals of Knowledge, it advances them. If I cannot work because I'm starving, how does that help Knowledge? Unless you assume that any donation I get is one less for Knowledge, but I don't believe that's the case since the work I do is not the same in scope. 1414:. Be a builder, not a destroyer. It is very easy to add your own material while leaving what I've already created still largely intact. This is what was done with the chaotic mixing page. A scientist said she was interested in working on the page along with a couple of students and asked me for feedback. The changes were made and I noticed that there was some duplication so worked on integrating the material better. The result, I think, was an article that was much better than something either of us alone could have produced. 1982:

knowledge eventually gets added to the scientific cannon and so warrants inclusion. In addition, creating new knowledge is a slow process so much of my time is also spent collating existing knowledge as well as writing software that often merely implements existing techniques. It's also a fuzzy line between when a fact is new or simply a new way of presenting an existing fact. If I develop or present an equation in a new way, but the equation is already well known, is this original content? I tend to think not.

1738:

user page here, and that isn't a violation of any guidelines because the link on your user page isn't going to a site that's primarily meant to make money, nor is the link itself soliciting donations. Again, I have no problem at all with that link, and I don't care if it leads to you getting donations, because it would only do so indirectly. (As long as you don't change that page from being an "about me" page that includes a donation link to a "please give me money" page that highlights a donation link.)

1440: 1990:

the article, so the most eager readers, if they want the same, direct experience that I crave, can get it by downloading and running the software or trying some of the examples. All this was done in good faith. I wrote the software, found it worked extremely well for my purposes, so released it to the general public. I think it is good software and I've worked hard in recent releases to make it more user friendly.

102: 1986:

if you reject that interpretation, when someone is writing about science, they are filtering the data through their own lens. They are telling a story: if I reference a lot of my own work, it is because only my own story is mine to tell. I need direct experience with a subject in order to obtain an understanding of it. I try to convey an understanding of the topic rather than producing an exhaustive survey.

1095: 2220: 907: 496: 2143: 1905:

an independent researcher and survive on donations alone, it makes a lot of sense for there to be a donation button. I am not selling anything here: I am already engaged in a public service. I guess it's very much a communist viewpoint: if I already had a salary, I wouldn't ask for donations. But I don't. So I'm hoping that someone steps up and provides me with one.

2403:

others would step in and fill them out a bit but for the most part they have remained untouched. Thus, if unblocked, I intend to use my expertise in the topics and make the articles more complete: e.g. adding more from Ottino's book in the article on chaotic mixing, adding more about pointwise estimators in the article on variable kernel density estimation.

1208:

deal of interest in issues like climate change of which sea ice is a valuable marker. It is important that even ordinary people can learn how the science is actully done: articles like this, by dealing with the more "nitty gritty," as opposed to the lighter surface treatment, which to my eye looks more like spin, make climate science more accessible.

1196:

state-of-the-art, but to improve existing work, thus in writing an article it would make sense to reference my own work: should I not have confidence in my own abilities, that I have done a good job? Or, who would be more qualified to write about these topics than someone who specializes in the field and who has worked in the field for many years?

981: 948: 1202:

original thought in it although it references two of my own papers. Rather it unifies and summarizes much of what came before. The figure which you have removed comes from one of my (peer-reviewed) papers and accurately diagrams the majority of microwave sea ice emissivity models used up to this point.

2023:

And I'm not "in it" for the money either. I work (including making contributions to Knowledge) because I've a passion for science, because I want to share this passion with the world and because I want to develop a model for doing science that is more open, more inclusive and yes, more objective. I

1912:

Honestly, you remove the links in Knowledge, there goes 90% of the traffic to my website. Call it conflict-of-interest, call it advertising, call it whatever the fuck you like. Do you really want to do that to me? I've been working at this for a long, fucking time and I'm damn good at it. But the

1737:

Something else just occurred to me... You have a link on your user page to a self-published page with information about yourself. That's fine. That page has a "donate" link on it. That is also fine. You could indirectly receive donations if someone clicks on a link to your personal web site from your

1507:

Peteymills, please focus and do not consider every input an attack. We all try to make Knowledge better and sometimes personal opinion or views need to be compromised in order to find a common ground. In particular this could mean that we merge articles and or extend content you submitted previously.

1985:

I really wish the whole idea of "objective" knowledge (or neutral-point-of-view: same thing) would finally die. There is true knowledge, but not objective knowledge. Quantum mechanics suggests that subjectivity is built right in to the laws of physics: when you observe something, it changes. Even

1920:

to contribute to Knowledge as a volunteer. You are here to promote your work, and make money. That is not the purpose of Knowledge, and with that I have to block you. This is quite possibly the clearest conflict of interest case I have seen in more than 5 years volunteering at the COI noticeboard. I

1904:

Does this apply equally to articles as it does to user pages? Because it seems to me that there should be a lot more leeway as to what is allowed in a user page than in an article. This is, after all, my personal page, at least as it relates to Knowledge. As such, it should represent me. If I am

1533:

So you have no grounds to claim copyright, you've given them up. You don't deserve any more compensation than any other editor on Knowledge. I've made thousands of contributions to article space and non-article space in efforts to help improve this place and I've never expected a dime for it, nor do

1207:

Which brings me to my second point: the second part of my job as a scientist is to disseminate my findings and knowledge amongst the general public. I can't think of a better platform for doing this than Knowledge. Perhaps it is arrogance, but I consider this a vital public service. There is a great

1989:

The only things of my own I've linked to in articles, other than papers (which are also available from the publisher), are free software projects. This software is licensed under substantially the same terms as Knowledge content itself. All the software does something (or everything) described in

1814:

on the matter. Personally I think no one should be allowed to edit for hire. But if the foundation allows the Kochs to pay someone, it will be hard to see a logical distinction between that and Peteymills' opt-in panhandling. In fact, it will be race between me and everyone else to also put out

1558:

I don't believe the law is all that clear in this matter. I wrote it, it's mine and I don't appreciate people taking advantage of my work by preventing me from seeking compensation for it. Like I said, I don't run off of air. I never said I deserve nor expect "more compensation." I just think I

1375:

section "Radiative transfer modelling", only referenced by a paper located on a private webspace, and appears to be from 2011. 1.) How relevant are these calculations for today's state of science? 2.) Update Ref to the Cryosphere journal, and or other peer-reviewed journal publications. It would be

668:

I'm a physicist working on fluid mixing. With a team of graduate students to whom I teach fluid mixing, I'm planning to complement next week (on February 3rd 2012) the page that you started about chaotic mixing. We would be very pleased if you had the time to review our changes after we work on the

512:

status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if

2463:

I should point out that all of the articles I have authored have remained virtually untouched to this date, what, over half a year after being banned? So my disruption can't have been that serious. Two of them have received 'C' class ratings, including one that was authored almost exclusively by

1809:

e/c Hmmmm..... If it is OK for Kock Brothers to hire someone to come here to edit, then it should be OK for editors to hold their hat out so Koch Brothers can fill it. And of course, once that ice breaks then everyone under the sun will ask for money for editing wikipedia. So what about those

1598:

Also, note that myself and NewsAndEventsGuy were defending your contributions and the potential validity of your self-referencing in articles, and you've managed to change both of our minds through your actions. I've been working with COI editors for many years and this is the first time I've ever

2421:

Although I'm "just" a regular ed, as you know I was involved in the exchange which produced your block and I am opposed to unblock at this time, because your request makes no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate awareness on your part as to the reasons for the block in the first place. For example

2038:

More on COI: I use a lot of examples from my own work, especially for the figures. All the figures in the article on chaotic scattering are from my thesis work, although I do not reference my own (peer-reviewed) paper on the topic, just my thesis papers. Now why do you suppose that I use my own

1981:

The more I think about it, the more I realize there is no conflict of interest. My goals as an independent researcher are substantially the same as Knowledge's. While I am trying to create and disseminate new knowledge, Knowledge is about collating and disseminating existing knowledge. But new

1573:

It doesn't matter, as an administrator I'm obligated to enforce the guidelines and policies, and I do so willingly because they are based on consensus by editors at this project, and by the WMF that created and governs this project. And because I believe they are fair and correct. You essentially

1486:

I disagree. Knowledge solicits donations. Why should its editors not also? To suggest otherwise is hypocritical. If these attacks continue I am going to implement a very simple solution: enforce my copyright claims and remove anything and everything I've written here and revert any attempt to

119:

status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, 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 sufficient

2402:

Rather than focus on why I think there is no conflict of interest (I believe my goals and those of Knowledge are substantially in agreement), I will focus on what I intend to do if unblocked: I have noticed that perhaps, yes, some of the articles I have authored are unbalanced. I had hoped that

1394:

I don't plan on doing any editing at the article, personally. For one thing, I would need to read several of the cited RSs and then read some others on topic (even though they weren't cited) before I felt competent to render an opinion about it being "serious science". Further critique belongs

1257:

The article has many references and generous inline citations. I'm not sure what you mean by "too much synopsis." Isn't synopsis the whole point of an Encyclopedia? I'm also not sure what you mean by out of date data: most of the article deals with physical principles and their application to

1213:

I am not hiding anything. Anybody who cares to check will find that, yes, the same author who wrote this article and many others has also referenced a lot of his own work. And I won't lie either: Knowledge is an important tool for promoting my work. Unfortunately, the harsh reality of science

310:

The latter form has proper spacing between "max" and "P" whereas the former does not. Putting the backslash in \max makes TeX follow standard formatting conventions (including putting the subscript under "max", so "underset" is not needed, and proper spacing before and after "max"). Similarly

1781:

Aside from the occasional request for donations that Knowledge will have (and I think pledge drives are only done once a year for brief periods of time, and those banners can be hidden with a single click) this site strives to be advertisement-free. Anyone that abuses this site for advertising

1294:

That's not correct. Microwave radiometry can detect more than just ice concentration. As we speak, new algorithms are being developed to retrieve sea ice thickness from microwave radiometry (e.g. Huntemann, M. , Heygster, G. , Kaleschke, L. , Krumpen, T. , Mäkynen, M. and Drusch, M. (2014):

1219:

So in this case, it's hard to argue conflict-of-interest. In science, promotion and dissemination go hand-in-hand and disseminating your work is one of the twin responsibilities of a scientist. The question is not whether I am referencing my own work, but whether that work is relevant and of

1201:

Indeed, when I first started working on sea ice remote sensing, it was apparent that there were many issues in emissivity modelling and my first task was to clarify them. The Knowledge article, "Sea ice emissivity modelling," represents a large portion of that work. There is little of my own

1195:

The goal of science is to discern objective facts. Thus, the neutral point of view is built in right from the beginning. How much this is achievable in practice is debatable: few philosophers believe that true objectivity is possible. My job as a scientist is not only to advance the

1908:

As for this "represent the interests of Knowledge" this is nonsense. Unless I get something out of it in the bargain, why should I bother editing Knowledge? In my case, I work on Knowledge because many of its goals are in line with my own for how science should be practiced and

1343:

Meanwhile, a belated welcome to Knowledge, Petey. I see from your list of contribs that you've been around awhile, but I couldn't tell if you have been through procedural wringers yet. You are always welcome to stop by my talk page if you're looking for wikipedia advice.

1470:

Yo, I know the starving scientist thing all too well. Not that many jobs these days. Still, using wikipedia edits to solicit money is lame-o extrem-o. Volunteer here, or don't volunteer here. If you want to solicit donations, start your own blog and do it there.

1508:

It could also mean that some content additions from you are just fine. However, i kindly ask you to stay open minded with any kind of critic, but this only works if you do not start to threaten legal actions or anything else of this kind of behavior, thank you.

1487:

reinstate articles or pieces of articles containing content I've written. I don't deserve this. As I've said already: I work hard at my craft. It's difficult enough trying to make it as an independent scientist. I deserve some compensation.

1336:) " But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Knowledge." See also 1526:

By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0

973:

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

447:. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Knowledge, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. 1371:) Focus on one article and then link to it and use on other articles just a brief outline of this postulated method. So we need one article with the formulas and a broad outline and then link from the related pages to it. Further is the 1921:

have to thank you for being honest with us, but you'll have to find some other means to promote your work and raise funds for it. I do wish you luck in your endeavors, and I mean that sincerely, but Knowledge cannot sponsor them. --

2104:. However, if you do seek to be unblocked, I think you would be wise to discuss your images and explain their copyright status. If there is even a whiff that any images you have posted to the wiki world are not in compliance with 1258:

physical models, not data. I have read the guidelines for original content and conflict-of-interest since it was just as relevant when I first started adding content. I do not believe the article crosses any of these boundaries.

1018:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in

123:

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the

1409:

The paper referenced for RT modelling is from an IEEE journal, a highly respected scientific publisher. Again, if you think the article needs more material or needs to be improved, then improve it. See also my comments at the

1214:

today is that you cannot survive without promoting your work. The h-index is a common measure of a scientist's output. It is also unambiguously a measure of popularity, much as you might find on a social media or dating site.

1559:

should be allowed to ask for it. As I've said already three times: Knowledge is not run for free. They solicit donations regularly. To think that it is not the exact same case for the individual editors is hypocritical.

1189:

When I write an article in my field that strongly references my own work it is unambiguously a conflict of interest. However, it is my belief that in scientific fields, this should be tolerated and I will present several

1977:

You are probably right. Look, you caught me at a bad time here as I suffer from dark moods so gave the flippant response instead of addressing this issue properly. I can be arrogant and abrasive even at the best of

2188:

I apologize for not leaving a standard block notice here, though I did state above that you were blocked, it was indefinite, and the exact reason why. I'll correct that now, and leave the template as a formality. --

1295:

Empirical sea ice thickness retrieval during the freeze up period from SMOS high incident angle observations , The Cryosphere, 8 (2), pp. 439-451). It can also be used to detect snow thickness and other variables.

2327:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

2085:

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me that you are blocked(since there is no user talk notification). I'm not sure but you may ask for re-assessment, that is if you change your position related to the blocking.

1522:

You have no copyright claims. Everything you've submitted to Knowledge, you've released all copyrights. Note that every time you make an edit to any page, your editing page says the following:

751: 747: 263: 387: 2489:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

2057:, are referenced to a report which you are one of the authors (without page numbers). ALso check the talk page there, a user recently made what i consider a constructive input. 1890:) 18:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC) PS Sorry, I should have made it clear that the entire section was just added by me, a moment ago. It's brand new. We'll see if it "sticks". 2024:

certainly wouldn't be continuing to work for free if I didn't. But the realities of this world are: will still live in a reward-based system and you need money to survive.

303: 1708:

Since you say you are going to leave if you can't ask for money, you have proved that asking for money is more important to you than improving our articles. Case closed.

866: 862: 919:. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. 2443:

in the future. (In the interest of full disclosure, I created that shortcut and the PANHANDLE text in response to the example you provided of this type of COI.)

1337: 783: 2484: 2395:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

419: 161:

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 created

811: 516:

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created

1359:

If this is serious science, then we should keep it. However, we shouldn't past all kinds of formulas and snippets containing details in various articles. (

1236:

There are many issues with the page content (poor referencing, out of date data, or to much synopsis). however without going into more detail, please read

931: 584: 779: 625: 1444: 1377: 1008: 807: 1675:

Which guidelines? If there are such guidelines (and I'm not convinced there are) then they should be changed because they are unfair and inconsistent.

876: 699: 635: 621: 589:

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

2260: 1698:

when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Knowledge, that editor stands in a conflict of interest

715: 174: 1599:

seen a person expect that they should be able to use Knowledge as a vehicle for monetary solicitation as compensation for their volunteerism. --

1328:) can relate to that feeling. On the other hand, I wish people would READ their wikipedia rules before they cite them. Taken straight from 1158: 1072:

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

1028: 549: 545: 529: 525: 170: 711: 2108:

and related guidelines, there's a reasonable chance an unblock request would be put in abeyance until that was rectified one way or another.

872: 695: 631: 1993:

In summary, I don't think you should be asking, "is there a conflict of interest?" but rather, if these are true facts I've been presenting.

1696:"'* * * COI editing involves contributing to Knowledge to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests * * * 743: 1069:

tools, as having some issues to fix. The current version of the article reads more like a textbook introduction than a technical article.

2380: 2354: 2182: 1036: 955:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 553: 455: 190: 1961:

Wherever you turn to market your professional skills next, try not to say "fuck" even once, much less three times in the same breath.

1534:

the countless other volunteers here at this site. If your motivation for editing this site is compensation, you don't belong here. --

120:

information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

1857: 1658: 1411: 1325: 1137: 2255: 2162: 2009:

Peteymills, maybe try to extend your YouTube channel with some tutorials on the science. Just narrating would be enough i guess.

1843: 27: 1162: 869:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 628:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1448: 692:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 470: 409: 155: 151: 2439:

I would support your motion if I had a reason to think the primary goal is to improve the articles, and that you'd abide by

922:

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

915: 454:, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on 451: 443: 1012: 1004: 998: 674: 145: 48: 2480: 2071:

That's correct. I can release the copyright if I own it. Are you asking for my input? I'm not much use at the moment.

2054: 1372: 1102: 1088: 1066: 580: 111: 53: 44: 1277: 513:

the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

2166: 1871: 1309: 1150: 1106: 1084: 1380:(since 2013). Thus, the article should draw from other studies too, use latest studies and reference them probably. 2450: 2232:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2113: 1966: 1895: 1887: 1820: 1713: 1666: 1498: 1476: 1400: 1349: 1154: 1032: 992: 537: 465: 139: 2233: 2150: 2101: 850: 481: 63: 2476: 2165:, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 2274: 2227: 689: 670: 101: 57: 1815:

our own koffers. "Talent goes where the money is". That would be a very large rock in the Knowledge pond.

1647:

I'd just like to add that while I don't think too highly of the process that got us here, I'm glad actions by

236: 357: 399: 334: 1314:

Gawd I so wish people - like climate denialists - would READ their RSs before they cite them; I suspect

34: 23: 2446: 2109: 2091: 2062: 2014: 1962: 1891: 1883: 1851: 1816: 1709: 1662: 1652: 1513: 1494: 1472: 1456: 1396: 1385: 1345: 1333: 1319: 1285: 1248: 1174: 1059: 963: 594: 504: 418:

It looks like you were trying to create a user page when you created the above page, I have moved it to

70: 508:. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 115:. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 1073: 775: 561: 533: 477: 198: 74: 2440: 2100:@Peteymills, there are procedures to request unblocking. If interested you might start by reading 1879: 1166: 803: 423: 86: 78: 1753:

guidelines prohibit your link (I'd mentioned our external links guideline on COIN previously). --

1750: 1241: 1237: 1077: 927: 609: 576: 427: 395: 330: 276: 178: 128: 39: 30:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 85:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out 2494: 2105: 1917: 1133: 1119:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be

1044: 956: 892: 835: 651: 394:

This also results in proper spacing between this expression and the ones before and after it.

326: 213: 2389: 2172: 2087: 2058: 2010: 1847: 1648: 1509: 1452: 1381: 1315: 1281: 1244: 1170: 590: 1376:

nice to have microwave imaginary or some infrared showing the sea ice emissivity. Related,

2404: 2368: 2306: 2238: 2203: 2072: 2040: 2025: 1994: 1935: 1865: 1833: 1796: 1767: 1742: 1676: 1613: 1588: 1560: 1548: 1415: 1259: 1223: 557: 194: 1811: 1025:

Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

2158: 1746: 1491: 790: 707: 617: 1875: 1690: 1329: 1120: 883:

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

826:

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

730: 642:

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

184: 2490: 1040: 888: 884: 831: 827: 647: 643: 343:

Similarly, instead of \underset {\epsilon \rightarrow 0} {\lim}, one should write

1443:

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

522:

Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

552:. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the 495: 311:"cases" gives better results more simply than the "array" environment you used. 167:

Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

1011:

justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See

2358: 2191: 1923: 1861: 1784: 1755: 1601: 1576: 1536: 818: 766: 758: 1143:

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

97:

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Wv cadv ecmwf small.gif

762: 726: 722: 509: 318:

Also, one shouldn't italicize digits, parentheses, etc. in expressions like

116: 2142: 1364: 89:, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place 1368: 1273: 941:

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to

2332:

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Knowledge,

2498: 2454: 2412: 2370: 2314: 2208: 2117: 2095: 2080: 2066: 2048: 2033: 2018: 2002: 1970: 1940: 1899: 1824: 1801: 1772: 1717: 1684: 1670: 1618: 1593: 1568: 1553: 1517: 1502: 1480: 1460: 1423: 1404: 1389: 1353: 1289: 1267: 1252: 1231: 1178: 1048: 896: 839: 678: 655: 598: 565: 485: 431: 403: 338: 202: 688:

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to

858: 854: 613: 2305:

Intend to fill out unbalanced articles and make them more objective

542:

the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

902:

File permission problem with File:Asi-n6250-20100102-v5 visual.png

82: 794: 734: 135: 461:

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

217: 2218: 2141: 1093: 905: 494: 100: 1574:

want special treatment, you're not going to receive it. --

969:

to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

1916:

With this most recent admission, it's pretty clear you're

2377:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

270:

when you can just write \max_j P, which looks like this:

16:

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

2397:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2432: 2427: 2288: 2284: 2278: 2269: 2265: 2251: 2247: 2243: 1360: 1161:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1076:. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at 1020: 853:, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 612:, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 517: 437:

Image tagging for File:Asi-n6250-20100102-v5 visual.png

162: 1451:

incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

1126:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1015:

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

158:

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

1434:

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

360: 279: 239: 2344:

will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and

2226:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

1058:

Hi, I'm Sfan00 IMG. Peteymills, thanks for creating

1035:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 189:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 381: 297: 257: 138:. If you believe the media meets the criteria at 2169:by adding the following text below this notice: 362: 281: 991:If you believe the media meets the criteria at 2471:File:EMIRAD footprints.pdf listed for deletion 1661:) brought the more important matter to light. 491:File source problem with File:Brine volume.gif 220:is fairly sophisticated. You shouldn't write 2338:the block is no longer necessary because you 1338:Knowledge:Relationships with academic editors 845:Disambiguation link notification for April 26 8: 1272:The correct place for the entire context is 420:User:Peteymills/collocation (remote sensing) 1395:either at AFD or the article talk page, P. 2341:understand what you have been blocked for, 1812:foundation might be getting ready to speak 1445:Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard 69:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a 365: 359: 284: 278: 258:{\displaystyle {\underset {j}{\max }}P\,} 240: 238: 212:Hello. Please notice my recent edits to 930:or another acceptable free license (see 382:{\displaystyle \lim _{\epsilon \to 0}\,} 134:tag can be used to release it under the 2347:will make useful contributions instead. 1132:notice, but please explain why in your 1114:Self published (COI), to much synopsis. 1031:. You may wish to read the Knowledge's 936:at the site of the original publication 926:make a note permitting reuse under the 410:Peteymills/collocation (remote sensing) 377: 293: 253: 152:Knowledge:Image copyright tags#Fair use 1525: 1005:Knowledge:File copyright tags#Fair use 571:File:Eick svsd.png listed for deletion 93:before the question. Again, welcome! 2475:A file that you uploaded or altered, 1065:I've just tagged the page, using our 1054:Ways to improve Forecast verification 916:File:Asi-n6250-20100102-v5 visual.png 575:A file that you uploaded or altered, 444:File:Asi-n6250-20100102-v5 visual.png 173:. If the file is copyrighted under a 7: 744:Differential absorption spectroscopy 1003:or one of the other tags listed at 456:Knowledge:Media copyright questions 230:which comes out looking like this: 150:or one of the other tags listed at 1874:), please see bold edit #1 in the 1121:deleted for any of several reasons 1109:because of the following concern: 476:Thank you for your cooperation. -- 450:To add this information, click on 14: 1741:Also, I already explained on my 1438: 979: 946: 684:Disambiguation link notification 604:Disambiguation link notification 54:How to create your first article 2181:. However, you should read the 1037:Media copyright questions page 554:Media copyright questions page 471:Knowledge:Image copyright tags 369: 191:Media copyright questions page 187:after 11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 156:Knowledge:Image copyright tags 1: 2053:For instance, the image/s at 1810:Koch Brothers? It seems the 1013:Knowledge:File copyright tags 959:. If you take this step, add 849:Hi. When you recently edited 608:Hi. When you recently edited 35:The five pillars of Knowledge 2499:12:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC) 2481:Knowledge:Files for deletion 2055:Sea ice emissivity modelling 1412:sea ice emissivity talk page 1373:Sea ice emissivity modelling 1103:Sea ice emissivity modelling 1089:Sea ice emissivity modelling 1029:criteria for speedy deletion 840:11:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 679:17:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 656:11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 581:Knowledge:Files for deletion 526:criteria for speedy deletion 298:{\displaystyle \max _{j}P\,} 171:criteria for speedy deletion 112:File:Wv cadv ecmwf small.gif 26:to Knowledge! Thank you for 2230:, who declined the request. 1220:high-quality to begin with. 1165:allows discussion to reach 1146:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1129:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 599:09:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 566:21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 486:19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC) 329:. This matches TeX style. 242: 2514: 2477:File:EMIRAD footprints.pdf 2067:18:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC) 2049:03:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC) 2034:02:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC) 2019:00:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC) 2003:23:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC) 1971:23:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1941:22:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1900:18:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1825:18:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1802:18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1773:17:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1718:17:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1685:17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1671:17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1619:17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1594:17:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1569:17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1554:17:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1518:17:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1503:17:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1481:16:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1461:10:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 1424:23:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 1405:12:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 1390:11:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 1354:08:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 1332:(the pinpoint shortcut is 1290:03:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 1268:02:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 1253:01:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 1232:00:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 1179:23:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC) 1157:exist. In particular, the 993:Knowledge:Non-free content 897:10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 466:Knowledge:Image use policy 140:Knowledge:Non-free content 2381:guide to appealing blocks 2355:guide to appealing blocks 2183:guide to appealing blocks 2102:Knowledge:Blocking policy 1693:reads (bold in original) 1151:proposed deletion process 1049:00:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 980: 947: 851:Vector radiative transfer 817:added a link pointing to 432:14:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 183:the file will be deleted 2455:18:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 2413:17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 2408: 2371:20:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 2315:17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 2310: 2159:advertising or promotion 2076: 2044: 2029: 1998: 1689:First full paragraph at 1680: 1564: 1419: 1263: 1227: 789:added links pointing to 757:added links pointing to 721:added links pointing to 502:Thank you for uploading 404:03:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 339:02:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 203:11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 2214:Request to be unblocked 2209:16:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 2118:16:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 2096:15:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 2081:01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 1138:the article's talk page 351:which looks like this: 49:How to develop articles 22:Hello, Peteymills, and 2357:for more information. 2223: 2146: 1367:(to much synopsis) or 1098: 910: 499: 383: 299: 259: 106: 105:File Copyright problem 2479:, has been listed at 2275:change block settings 2222: 2177:Your reason here ~~~~ 2145: 1447:regarding a possible 1163:articles for deletion 1107:proposed for deletion 1097: 1060:Forecast verification 913:Thanks for uploading 909: 579:, has been listed at 505:File:Brine volume.gif 498: 441:Thanks for uploading 384: 300: 260: 109:Thanks for uploading 104: 1449:conflict of interest 1184:Here is my response: 999:non-free fair use in 995:, use a tag such as 885:opt-out instructions 828:opt-out instructions 776:Atmospheric sounding 690:disambiguation pages 644:opt-out instructions 358: 347:\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} 277: 237: 224:\underset{j}{\max} P 146:non-free fair use in 142:, use a tag such as 1490:Works for me. See 1466:Starving scientists 867:fix with Dab solver 812:fix with Dab solver 804:Polarization mixing 784:fix with Dab solver 752:fix with Dab solver 716:fix with Dab solver 671:EmmanuelleGouillart 626:fix with Dab solver 87:Knowledge:Questions 2224: 2147: 1155:deletion processes 1099: 1027:, as described on 911: 875:• Join us at the 698:• Join us at the 665:Dear Peter Mills, 634:• Join us at the 610:Optimal estimation 577:File:Eick svsd.png 532:. If the image is 518:in your upload log 500: 379: 378: 376: 295: 294: 289: 255: 254: 248: 179:Knowledge:Fair use 169:, as described on 163:in your upload log 107: 45:How to edit a page 28:your contributions 2483:. Please see the 2167:appeal this block 2157:from editing for 1310:talk page stalker 1085:Proposed deletion 880: 703: 639: 583:. Please see the 361: 280: 241: 214:isoline retrieval 77:your messages on 2505: 2447:NewsAndEventsGuy 2394: 2388: 2366: 2353:Please read the 2294: 2292: 2281: 2263: 2261:deleted contribs 2221: 2206: 2200: 2197: 2194: 2180: 2110:NewsAndEventsGuy 1963:NewsAndEventsGuy 1938: 1932: 1929: 1926: 1892:NewsAndEventsGuy 1884:NewsAndEventsGuy 1817:NewsAndEventsGuy 1799: 1793: 1790: 1787: 1770: 1764: 1761: 1758: 1710:NewsAndEventsGuy 1663:NewsAndEventsGuy 1616: 1610: 1607: 1604: 1591: 1585: 1582: 1579: 1551: 1545: 1542: 1539: 1495:NewsAndEventsGuy 1473:NewsAndEventsGuy 1442: 1441: 1397:NewsAndEventsGuy 1346:NewsAndEventsGuy 1313: 1148: 1147: 1131: 1130: 1096: 1033:image use policy 1002: 986: 984: 983: 982: 968: 962: 953: 951: 950: 949: 908: 870: 863:check to confirm 808:check to confirm 780:check to confirm 748:check to confirm 712:check to confirm 693: 629: 622:check to confirm 524:per Knowledge's 388: 386: 385: 380: 375: 304: 302: 301: 296: 288: 264: 262: 261: 256: 249: 175:non-free license 149: 133: 127: 92: 79:discussion pages 2513: 2512: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2473: 2400: 2392: 2386: 2385:, then use the 2374: 2364: 2318: 2282: 2272: 2258: 2241: 2234:blocking policy 2219: 2216: 2204: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2186: 2170: 1936: 1930: 1927: 1924: 1797: 1791: 1788: 1785: 1768: 1762: 1759: 1756: 1614: 1608: 1605: 1602: 1589: 1583: 1580: 1577: 1549: 1543: 1540: 1537: 1468: 1439: 1436: 1307: 1159:speedy deletion 1145: 1144: 1128: 1127: 1094: 1092: 1056: 1021:your upload log 1001:|article name}} 996: 978: 976: 966: 960: 945: 943: 906: 904: 877:DPL WikiProject 847: 700:DPL WikiProject 686: 663: 636:DPL WikiProject 606: 573: 546:speedy deletion 493: 478:ImageTaggingBot 439: 413: 356: 355: 324: 275: 274: 235: 234: 210: 148:|article name}} 143: 131: 125: 99: 90: 64:Manual of Style 12: 11: 5: 2511: 2509: 2472: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2458: 2457: 2444: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2430: 2425: 2375: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2336: 2325: 2321:Decline reason 2303: 2299:Request reason 2296: 2217: 2215: 2212: 2148:You have been 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2098: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1910: 1906: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1745:that both the 1743:user talk page 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1596: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1467: 1464: 1435: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1378:Google Scholar 1334:WP:EXTERNALREL 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1221: 1216: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1192: 1191: 1186: 1185: 1169:for deletion. 1149:will stop the 1117: 1116: 1091: 1082: 1055: 1052: 977:permissions-en 971: 970: 944:permissions-en 939: 903: 900: 846: 843: 824: 823: 822: 821: 800: 799: 798: 797: 791:Regularization 772: 771: 770: 769: 740: 739: 738: 737: 708:Column density 685: 682: 662: 661:Chaotic mixing 659: 618:Inverse method 605: 602: 572: 569: 492: 489: 474: 473: 468: 438: 435: 412: 407: 392: 391: 389: 374: 371: 368: 364: 349: 348: 322: 316: 315: 308: 307: 305: 292: 287: 283: 268: 267: 265: 252: 247: 244: 228: 227: 225: 209: 206: 98: 95: 67: 66: 61: 58:Article Wizard 51: 42: 37: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2510: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2487: 2482: 2478: 2470: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2431: 2429: 2426: 2424: 2423: 2420: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2399: 2398: 2391: 2384: 2382: 2373: 2372: 2369: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2356: 2346: 2343: 2340: 2339: 2337: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2324: 2322: 2317: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2302: 2300: 2295: 2290: 2286: 2280: 2276: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2253: 2252:global blocks 2249: 2248:active blocks 2245: 2240: 2235: 2231: 2229: 2228:administrator 2213: 2211: 2210: 2207: 2202: 2201: 2184: 2178: 2174: 2168: 2164: 2163:contributions 2160: 2156: 2153: 2152: 2144: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1942: 1939: 1934: 1933: 1919: 1915: 1914: 1911: 1909:disseminated. 1907: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1803: 1800: 1795: 1794: 1780: 1779: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1771: 1766: 1765: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1739: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1694: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1620: 1617: 1612: 1611: 1597: 1595: 1592: 1587: 1586: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1552: 1547: 1546: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1523: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1465: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1433: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1341: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1317: 1311: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1212: 1211: 1206: 1205: 1200: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1188: 1187: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1141: 1139: 1135: 1124: 1122: 1115: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1108: 1104: 1090: 1086: 1083: 1081: 1079: 1075: 1070: 1068: 1067:page curation 1063: 1061: 1053: 1051: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1039:. Thank you. 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1000: 994: 989: 987: 985:wikimedia.org 965: 958: 954: 952:wikimedia.org 940: 937: 933: 929: 925: 924: 923: 920: 918: 917: 901: 899: 898: 894: 890: 886: 881: 878: 874: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 844: 842: 841: 837: 833: 829: 820: 816: 815: 813: 809: 805: 802: 801: 796: 792: 788: 787: 785: 781: 777: 774: 773: 768: 764: 760: 756: 755: 753: 749: 745: 742: 741: 736: 732: 731:Line of sight 728: 724: 720: 719: 717: 713: 709: 706: 705: 704: 701: 697: 691: 683: 681: 680: 676: 672: 666: 660: 658: 657: 653: 649: 645: 640: 637: 633: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 603: 601: 600: 596: 592: 588: 587: 582: 578: 570: 568: 567: 563: 559: 556:. Thank you. 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 514: 511: 507: 506: 497: 490: 488: 487: 483: 479: 472: 469: 467: 464: 463: 462: 459: 457: 453: 448: 446: 445: 436: 434: 433: 429: 425: 421: 416: 411: 408: 406: 405: 401: 397: 396:Michael Hardy 390: 372: 366: 354: 353: 352: 346: 345: 344: 341: 340: 336: 332: 331:Michael Hardy 328: 321: 314: 313: 312: 306: 290: 285: 273: 272: 271: 266: 250: 245: 233: 232: 231: 226: 223: 222: 221: 219: 215: 207: 205: 204: 200: 196: 193:. Thank you. 192: 188: 186: 180: 176: 172: 168: 164: 159: 157: 153: 147: 141: 137: 130: 121: 118: 114: 113: 103: 96: 94: 88: 84: 80: 76: 72: 65: 62: 59: 55: 52: 50: 46: 43: 41: 38: 36: 33: 32: 31: 29: 25: 21: 17: 2485: 2474: 2441:WP:PANHANDLE 2418: 2401: 2396: 2378: 2376: 2360: 2359: 2352: 2333: 2326: 2320: 2319: 2304: 2298: 2297: 2270:creation log 2237: 2225: 2190: 2187: 2176: 2161:. From your 2155:indefinitely 2154: 2149: 1951: 1922: 1880:WP:PANHANDLE 1868: 1854: 1840: 1837: 1808: 1783: 1754: 1740: 1736: 1701: 1697: 1655: 1633: 1600: 1575: 1535: 1527:attribution. 1469: 1437: 1342: 1322: 1316:Prokaryotes‎ 1306: 1153:, but other 1142: 1134:edit summary 1125: 1118: 1113: 1101:The article 1100: 1078:the Teahouse 1074:my talk page 1071: 1064: 1057: 1024: 1017: 1007:, and add a 990: 975: 972: 964:OTRS pending 942: 935: 921: 914: 912: 882: 848: 825: 687: 667: 664: 641: 607: 585: 574: 541: 521: 515: 503: 501: 475: 460: 449: 442: 440: 417: 414: 393: 350: 342: 319: 317: 309: 269: 229: 211: 182: 166: 160: 122: 110: 108: 68: 60:if you wish) 19: 18: 15: 2088:prokaryotes 2059:prokaryotes 2011:prokaryotes 1882:. Thanks. 1848:Prokaryotes 1832:Meanwhile, 1751:WP:LINKSPAM 1649:Prokaryotes 1510:prokaryotes 1453:prokaryotes 1382:prokaryotes 1282:prokaryotes 1245:prokaryotes 1242:WP:CONFLICT 1238:WP:ORIGINAL 1171:prokaryotes 591:Bulwersator 534:copyrighted 81:using four 56:(using the 2486:discussion 2405:Peteymills 2307:Peteymills 2266:filter log 2239:Peteymills 2106:WP:COPYVIO 2073:Peteymills 2041:Peteymills 2026:Peteymills 1995:Peteymills 1834:Peteymills 1677:Peteymills 1561:Peteymills 1416:Peteymills 1260:Peteymills 1224:Peteymills 1190:arguments. 887:. Thanks, 830:. Thanks, 819:Reflection 767:Resolution 759:Absorption 646:. Thanks, 586:discussion 558:Sfan00 IMG 548:criterion 327:WP:MOSMATH 195:Sfan00 IMG 91:{{helpme}} 71:Wikipedian 2379:read the 2361:Jezebel's 2285:checkuser 2244:block log 2039:figures?? 1878:cycle at 1167:consensus 1105:has been 1009:rationale 932:this list 871:Read the 763:Substance 727:Substance 723:Integrate 694:Read the 630:Read the 510:copyright 452:this link 422:for you. 208:TeX, etc. 129:GFDL-self 117:copyright 73:! Please 2256:contribs 2175:|reason= 1918:not here 1872:contribs 1858:contribs 1844:contribs 1659:contribs 1326:contribs 928:CC-BY-SA 538:non-free 424:Codf1977 185:48 hours 40:Tutorial 20:Welcome! 2491:Stefan2 2419:Comment 2390:unblock 2279:unblock 2185:first. 2173:unblock 2151:blocked 1860:), and 1747:WP:ELNO 1492:WP:DIVA 1278:Related 889:DPL bot 832:DPL bot 648:DPL bot 325:. See 181:) then 24:welcome 1978:times. 1876:WP:BRD 1691:WP:COI 1330:WP:COI 1136:or on 1041:Dianna 859:Vector 855:Scalar 669:page. 614:Matrix 154:. See 83:tildes 2433:More2 2428:More1 2383:first 2365:Ponyo 1862:atama 1363:, or 177:(per 2495:talk 2451:talk 2409:talk 2311:talk 2114:talk 2092:talk 2077:talk 2063:talk 2045:talk 2030:talk 2015:talk 1999:talk 1967:talk 1896:talk 1888:talk 1866:talk 1852:talk 1838:talk 1821:talk 1749:and 1714:talk 1681:talk 1667:talk 1653:talk 1565:talk 1514:talk 1499:talk 1477:talk 1457:talk 1420:talk 1401:talk 1386:talk 1369:here 1365:here 1361:here 1350:talk 1340:. 1320:talk 1286:talk 1274:here 1264:talk 1249:talk 1240:and 1228:talk 1175:talk 1045:talk 957:here 938:; or 893:talk 857:and 836:talk 795:AMSU 793:and 765:and 735:AMSU 733:and 675:talk 652:talk 616:and 595:talk 562:talk 544:per 536:and 482:talk 428:talk 415:Hi, 400:talk 335:talk 199:talk 136:GFDL 75:sign 47:and 2464:me. 2289:log 2236:). 1846:), 1087:of 988:. 873:FAQ 696:FAQ 632:FAQ 363:lim 282:max 243:max 218:TeX 216:. 2497:) 2453:) 2411:) 2393:}} 2387:{{ 2334:or 2323:: 2313:) 2301:: 2283:• 2277:• 2273:• 2268:• 2264:• 2259:• 2254:• 2250:• 2246:• 2196:am 2193:At 2179:}} 2171:{{ 2116:) 2094:) 2079:) 2065:) 2047:) 2032:) 2017:) 2001:) 1969:) 1928:am 1925:At 1898:) 1823:) 1789:am 1786:At 1760:am 1757:At 1716:) 1683:) 1669:) 1606:am 1603:At 1581:am 1578:At 1567:) 1541:am 1538:At 1516:) 1501:) 1479:) 1459:) 1422:) 1403:) 1388:) 1352:) 1288:) 1280:. 1276:. 1266:) 1251:) 1230:) 1177:) 1140:. 1123:. 1080:. 1062:! 1047:) 1023:. 997:{{ 967:}} 961:{{ 934:) 895:) 865:| 838:) 814:) 810:| 786:) 782:| 761:, 754:) 750:| 729:, 725:, 718:) 714:| 677:) 654:) 624:| 597:) 564:) 550:F7 540:, 530:F4 528:, 520:. 484:) 458:. 430:) 402:) 370:→ 367:ϵ 337:) 201:) 165:. 144:{{ 132:}} 126:{{ 2493:( 2449:( 2407:( 2309:( 2293:) 2291:) 2287:( 2242:( 2205:頭 2199:a 2112:( 2090:( 2075:( 2061:( 2043:( 2028:( 2013:( 1997:( 1965:( 1937:頭 1931:a 1894:( 1886:( 1869:· 1864:( 1855:· 1850:( 1841:· 1836:( 1819:( 1798:頭 1792:a 1769:頭 1763:a 1712:( 1702:" 1700:. 1679:( 1665:( 1656:· 1651:( 1615:頭 1609:a 1590:頭 1584:a 1563:( 1550:頭 1544:a 1512:( 1497:( 1475:( 1455:( 1418:( 1399:( 1384:( 1348:( 1323:· 1318:( 1312:) 1308:( 1284:( 1262:( 1247:( 1226:( 1173:( 1043:( 891:( 879:. 861:( 834:( 806:( 778:( 746:( 710:( 702:. 673:( 650:( 638:. 620:( 593:( 560:( 480:( 426:( 398:( 373:0 333:( 323:0 320:p 291:P 286:j 251:P 246:j 197:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index