User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 169

4620:

the other style guides would follow us in these cases. If you have any contacts or influence in these outside-site universes maybe you can give them a nudge to get on board the obvious. That'd be nice. Yes, if you weren't all in on the arbcom position I'm glad it wasn't to be (this time), as your time is too valuable on policy discussions in the real (Knowledge (XXG)) world. To clarify my praise of your work in my note, I've often said that the only person who can possibly know a good portion of the extent of an editor's contributions and content-flow and development here is the person themselves, and even we individuals get an overview feeling and not a computerized systemized exact look at what influence we've made in either the overall project or in the segmented blocks involving topics. One of the things I'm proud of here are my probably thousands of pedia "fixes" of the abovementioned words to Knowledge (XXG) style, and hoping that off-wiki writers and editors come to the realization that that bright unimaginably large nuclear furnace in the sky maybe does deserve a proper name. Come to think of it and to round out this reply, that it, Moon, etc, are upper-cased here as deserving exceptions to the oft-argued "consistency" guideline maybe could find mention in your clarifying essay? Well, too long of a ramble, enjoy.

4770:. (It's one of those things that some philosophers would argue is a proper name – and some would not, because "moon" can take a "the" in front of it), but it has no orthographic significance since it hasn't become conventionalized to capitalize it in that context.) More people will resist "Sun", "Moon", "Earth" the more that the capitalization is extended beyond a strictly scientific astronomical convention. It reminds me of the "capitalize vernacular names of bird species" thing. People largely went along with it when the argument was that it was an ornithology convention (which it really isn't, though it gets close to being one) and that it wouldn't be applied outside that context. Then the very people making that argument/promise started applying it to primates and cetaceans and felids and plants and amphibians, which led to 8+ years of fighting, and then a return to across-the-board lowercase. We don't need a repeat of anything like that, ever. It's best to avoid specialized style, but if we're going to adopt it in narrow cases (usually only for reader clarity and/or for consistency with something else), it has to be restrained to where it contextually belongs, or the exception will just get eliminated later (with a lot of drama and bad blood). 1194:

initial comment when they get down to the extended response section). I think the approach for something like an RfA is more appropriate than ArbCom, AE, or ANEW (where things are already at a very bad place if they are at that point, which I don't think is the same presumption we should make for an RfC, even a contentious one). My concern that I posed as a question for you was specifically why you decided to move the other person's comment rather than simply starting your own response down in the "extended discussion" section that you created because I felt that it would make more sense to just start that with your own response rather than moving someone else's if your concern was with excessive discussion in the top section. I mean I'm not trying to give you a hard time or anything with this, but I hopefully what I am saying does make sense. I certainly appreciate this discussion, as I have learned a lot from it as well as from the interesting and informative comments being made in the RfC. I definitely learn the most by talking things out, and so thank you. (Please don't hesitate to let me know if I should just shut up though.) –

3373:

upward slope since around 1980, a slope that did not steepen after 2004, and could even be leveling out from about 2017 onward, though the last couple of years in Google Ngrams (in any of its data sets) are not very reliable due to being less complete. If the red and blue lines in the chart were exactly opposite each other, I think that would be good grounds for a move. But what we have is clear proof that while all sources in the aggregate have preferred the Latin name, modern books prefer the English one, starting around 2000. You could still propose a move, on the basis that perhaps sources dating back to the mid-20th century are still mostly reliable for a subject that is so old-history (i.e., sources we'd consider reliable on it probably in total prefer the Latin name). But I think this is a hard sell, because unless the current trend flips itself, we would just have to move the article back later, as older sources fall out of what we'd consider reliable and more and more modern replacements use the English name.

4669:

These are basically homonyms, as they have different definitions (albeit the latter is a one-member subclass of the former). Same kind of case: If I name my cat simply "Cat", that's a proper name for that specific cat, and should not be lowercased. Cf. names that just mean 'girl', 'boy', 'man', etc.: Mädchen, Cailín/Colleen, Chico, Andre/Andrés/Andrew, capitalized when used as individuals' names, including in the originating languages (Mädchen is unfortunately common as an actual name in German; I met a German young woman named this, who hated it and was planning a legal name change). So, it may take a while to settle out. At least doing "Earth", "Sun", "Moon" is just one of those 1000+ style choices a publisher can select from, and we selected that particular approach. And not everyone is happy with it. So, I would expect push back in advocating for the Asteroid Belt and the Solar System (and more so for the latter than for Solar system, though the article is perhaps surprisingly presently at

4641:'the' ..."). The orthography has just come down to publishers' house styles. It's becoming, slowly, conventionalized to capitalize them in an astronomical context, because we capitalize all other such bodies (places): Mars, etc. Retain lowercase for figural usage. Thus, "When the moon hits your eye / Like a big pizza pie" would still use lower case, because the Moon did not literally come out of orbit and strike someone; but "the Apollo missions to the Moon", where the Moon is an astronomical place. "The moon" in the song really means "moonlight". The caps convention was introduced by IAU and similar organizations, and is one that WP has adopted for clarity and for consistency within the class of names (just as we've picked up various nitpicks from ISO and other bodies in 4736:

as add material (the "basics" stuff that MoS leaves out), so the book actually answered a lot more style questions. MoS is constrained to just the matters that become recurrently contentious at WP, and either have a clearly encyclopedically preferable answer or (when there's no encyclopedic reason to prefer one option over another) an arbitrary one that gains sufficient consensus to be imposed to end the cyclical dispute. That's kind of a different rationale than for a guide that people use as a desk reference. :-) The one I've been working on is intended for multiple genres/registers, multiple mediums, different ranges of audience specialization versus generality, and especially a globalized approach to English comprehensibility. The biggest point it borrows from MoS is

1146:

have been more sensitive to how your actions may affect or be perceived by others, which is why I left my initial comment here. (Obviously moving actual votes would be something an editor could be sanctioned for doing.) I'm still not sure why you don't feel that you could have left their comments where they were and then just made your much more extended response in the "extended comments" section, but it's certainly fine if you don't agree with me regarding it. I only offered to move it myself because I want to avoid burdening anyone else's time as much as possible, and I also don't want you to think that you have to provide any further explanation to me since you do a lot of great work here that is far more important. –

404:

the change unannounced with a misleading edit summary, getting reverted again, pontificating about how the MOS commands us to make this change, and then—when asked where the MOS makes this command—you write it up yourself, again leaving a misleading-at-best edit summary. If I'm severely misunderstanding your thinking here, then please enlighten me. I think you've behaved obnoxiously here, but I can see that many in the community hold you in high esteem, and I truly want to do the same. So please help me understand. Otherwise, I'd ask that you stop with this. Either take the question to some broader audience again for a discussion, or just leave well enough alone. My apologies for such a long message. Best,

688:

course, that I had "won" some RfC). (2) Let's dispense with the misconception that this is my "pet peeve". I've never changed an article to the lowercase style. I've always interpreted this as a stylistic difference, and only reverted folks when they come by an article I happen to be watching to enforce their style preference over the existing one. You'll find articles I've worked heavily on that have both styles. I didn't comment at the 2017 RfC because I don't much care what the outcome is. This grabbed my attention because of the talk page activity, not because you dared cross my preferred capitalization quirk.

4721:, other guides may be keeping on eye on the advancing prowler though. Yes, I've kept my wits about me enough to know the differences between the real Sun and sunshine (although sunshine is a physical Sun tossoff at some level), etc., and have actually changed a few lower case 'sun' to 'sunshine' for further language accuracy). One I'm not sure of even now are things like 'Moon goddess' (I like upper case because it's like someone looking at or praying to the goddess and pointing at the physical Moon to say "she's goddess of that"), but I usually leave those lower-cased. Kuiper Belt/belt a good point. 1105:

they also seemed particularly to be responding to you and your comment). Obviously in a contentious discussion, moving other editors' comments may be seen as prejudicial to their views, and given your other comments in the RfC, I thought you would want to be aware of that. I will leave it to Perryprog for how they would like their response reflected on the page, and they can feel free to ping me if they would like any help moving or copying their response to its original location. Thank you for your help with notifying additional talk pages as well. Take care. –

3396: 4740:. It's been slow-going, but I also don't really focus on it. I'll see a good (or terrible) example of something and add it, then build some advice around it and work it into a section, then go back to what I was doing before. I haven't sat down and spent hours on it in months. At some point, I should put it into some kind of database, so I can do things like auto-generate keywords and indices, and be able to separate "rules" (advice), explanatory material, examples, etc., and generate different versions (quick-reference, 3950: 3880: 3132: 4309: 1060:. I think it's great you've started this RfC (and it's interesting who's being smoked out as ... rather unfriendly to TG/NG/GQ concerns of any kind), but trying to "police" refactoring on the behalf of others who haven't even raised any objections is unlikely to be helpful (nor good for your own blood pressure, LOL). PS: One option is adding a "This !vote has followup comments regarding it in the ] section below" hatnote. I think there's even a template for that somewhere. 2782: 815: 31: 4515: 4419: 4364:. However your post had markup in it was was invalid in a least three ways, and it boogered the display of the rest of the page from that point onward. %-) I have repaired it above, and you might want to copy-paste this fixed version to any other talk pages that received one of these. The biggest issue was mis-nested elements, followed by an unclosed one, then font markup that hasn't been valid since the 1990s. For more information, see 2468:: The insertion of the block element terminates any ongoing list, and starts a new one if that block is followed by more list code. (Not because HTML demands this; list items can in fact contain block elements. It's because MW's list-handling code is extremely brittle and not very "smart". If you want a list that has block elements inside list items, you have to build the list manually with explicit HTML elements, not wikimarkup.) 4856: 4237: 4182:

and I decline to walk away from it. Someone has to do it. (Volunteers for that very thankless work are few – it's a lot like ArbCom in several ways!) The other down-vote reason this year was that lame humor essay from almost two years ago. It was less of a factor than I expected, so I think within a year or two it won't be much of one. I think if I ran in 2021 I would also not quite make it, but 2022 seems more plausible.

2793: 3957: 4982:

WP:PROMO and WP:FRINGE concerns, so that's probably enough for blocking. I don't have the blood pressure to deal with this. If they're all coming from a specific IP range (i.e., within Nithyananda's "Kalaasa" compound, then a range block might help, though he uses so much social media, on a global basis, it is likely that there are devotees coming in from all over the place. This might be worth taking directly to

4645:, like putting a space between a measure and its unit; it's not more "correct" in an objective sense, just reader-helpful). The "Sun" and "Earth" style was introduced so we don't bop up and own from upper to lower case in a list of bodies in the Solar System (or Solar system; I forget which is preferred for the system of our star, Sol; not to be confused with "the solar system of Alpha Centauri", a generic usage). 4045: 1506: 313: 192: 4684:, etc. I have started to try establish a little. I participate (slightly) in the American Dialect Society's mailing list, which is populated by some big-name pros in English dialectal study, orthography, etc. (Ben Yagoda and his ilk), but it will probably take years. Almost a decade ago, I pointed out a related pair of clear errors (not matters of subjective opinion, but flat-out objective mistakes) in 3778: 3139: 715:, a firehose of disparate claims and statements and insinuations and complaints and accusations, going off in all directions, such that each attempt to address one of them both results in falling behind on answering the rest of them (which you then use as an "I didn't get an answer" excuse to take actions like reverting material you self-professedly have not substantive only processy questions about), 1189:

discussed, especially when someone is responding directly to a point made by someone else in a limited fashion (for example, no one else has continued that discussion between you and Perryprog in the "extended discussion" section). I believe that discussion should take place in both sections, with limits on the long comments in the top section, and I agree with the sentiments in places like the essay

1665:,I appreciate your time and advice; I am grateful for your help and efforts in correcting my erroneous editing. Some of the parts are trimmed in a rush and kept remainders meaningless now. For instance, the women were used to weave for the dowry. It was an essential item.. And the past present is another failed attempt because it is still in use in rural areas.. Thank you so much for everything. 3368:

demonstrates a general decline for a while in interest in this figure, followed by renewed interest in him later, but using the longer, plain-English name, while some (presumably older) writers continued to prefer the Latin name. The two names reached parity in book sources around 1999–2000, which is before WP existed. Our article was created in late 2004. While there has possibly been a

3312:

usually do, unless in a specialized context no other Notker could possibly be meant (WP is not a specialized context). A requested move will mostly come down to a COMMONNAME analysis, which for a subject like this is probably best demonstrated with a Google Ngrams comparison, and a comparison of searches in Google Scholar. If usage is close to tied, we would use the non-Latin version per

2504:) markup, or the results will be even more confusing for screen readers than they already are, because they'll be told that an all-new list of bulletized or numbered items is beginning inside, and another one after, with no relationship to the material above it, which is not the actual situation. (And it'll be confusing for sighted readers, too, due to misplaced bullets in 931: 3564:; get your Latin right." The person they were talking about was around the corner and heard all of this – "I am here, and my name is actually Gruffydd, which isn't related to any of those other names in the first place. But you're all hostile to Welsh and refuse to learn to even say a word of it properly. A pox on all your houses. And leeks aren't onions." 1120:

problem here. No one is moving other editors main comments (their !votes) and prejudicing again their views. But chatter in an RfC like this needs to be refactored to a section for it or it could get out of hand quickly. You can believe me or not. :-) There's a big difference between someone's views on the question posed by the RfC, and their views on

2529:) is continuation of previous discussion, whether or not it all began with a regular paragraph or with an ordered or unordered list (even though that d-list markup is technically invalid, and not what such markup is really intended for). Strictly speaking, the material inside the collapse box would be best "de-indented" (in the above example, to " 3829: 1419: 1009: 125: 2661: 3917:

detractors, and wild promotional/miraculous claims by adherents. Given the state of the media in India, it's difficult to ferret out exactly what is going on legally. The fact that he's been accused of various things doesn't make him guilty, but fleeing the country as more charges pile up doesn't look good either. I'm a bit reminded of

1987:

time, he wasn't under 1RR, and was trying to stay within 3RR (either out of reasonableness or system gaming – I don't read minds). If it's a topical pattern, then maybe a T-ban should be considered instead? I'm just loath to see indefs or site-bans applied if there's still room to try another remedy. Maybe this makes me a "pushover".

4717:

courses, and other places style guides gather. It should now be able to take its place among the others with much unique language and worked-out discussion points. Toss in a group of backstory and advisory essays and it would be something to let loose on the outside world. Given the example of the effect Knowledge (XXG) has had on

1585:

something that is presently made. What is the mention of women about? I think the implication is that it was mostly produced by women, but this isn't what it says, it just says women made it (i.e. some women made and some men did, and ... why does this matter? If you see what I mean.) Third, the article was mostly talking about

3273:. I'm assuming the reason it has been at "the Stammerer" is because "Balbus" is the Latin word for "the Stammerer" – but is this really a viable reason to have such a name? I would move it myself but I just want to check if perhaps there is a policy or preference for english translations that I'm unaware of. Best - 707:

anything at all about the substance of the discussion (effects on readabilty/comprehensibility, provable usage dominance in RS, etc.); you only want to go over and over again your perceptions of process and whether your (increasingly irrelevant-looking) involvement is being understood from your exact vantage point.

496:

much. What matters is the fact that WP already has had a general principle to capitalize eponyms except under certain circumstances, and your pet peeve will likely not be among those exceptions because the real world very clearly doesn't agree with it. You were pointed directly to it, but feign inability to see it.

4186:

more people who understand WP policy as a system, as an organ in the WP creature. I think we mostly got a good slate of electees this year, and most of the still-sitting Arbs are also pretty reasonable (with maybe 2–3 exceptions, depending on the issue at hand). The number of them intent on overhauling the

5015:

Sorry for so many messages, but just to tell you - no one knows where Kailaasa is. If they did, then the Interpol blue notice would actually be worth more than the paper it's written on. Edits are going to pour in from across USA and India. I don't think he's stupid enough to allow his location to be

4746:

Anyway, to return to your first point, it's not that I'm being disrespected, I just don't have a rep with them yet. I'm just one of many kind-of-faceless editors at a project, rather than a tenured professor or the managing editor of a big-name paper style guide, so I'm not on their radar. I'll try

2569:

habits, of picking pointless sub-sub-sub-arguments about every single point anyone ever raises and recycling your same viewpoints over and over as if they have not already been addressed, are infuriating. We all have better things to do than engage in such circular argument for its own sake. I don't

1281:

Well, I have clearly been on here too much today and need some caffeine as well because I definitely misread that your comment as talking about BLPN, probably because I have made some comments there the past few days. Thank you for already getting to the BLP talk page with the RfC notice! I will make

463:

Nor does most of the rest of the world, even in the same fields. It's easily provable (already proven) that neither the specialist literature in the relevant fields, nor general-audience books in which these terms appear, prefer either of the quirks some of you want to force other editors (and worse,

403:

Now as I said above, the question of whether our house style should mandate adjectival eponyms be in the uppercase is truly unimportant, and I don't wish to discuss it here. The thing I found objectionable was you bringing an issue to an RfC, not getting the answer you wanted, waiting 3 years, making

4755:

as an authority for common names of animal breeds, but it is not one (it only standardizes the scientific names of species, not vernacular names of them, and no names of any kind of breeds); and they say to capitalize breed names, then in the example list include two breed names, one capitalized and

4735:

Something I work on periodically is a style guide intended for book-form publication, based in part on MoS, but without oddities that are particular to WP (usually for technical reasons). WMF could do that officially, I suppose, but they also would have to go through that winnowing process, as well

4585:

there had there been enough seats! That's closer than I got in 2017.) I also value your work here, even if I grouse at you about various bits of style/titles trivia. I think this month was the first time I felt compelled to do that in about a year. :-) Oh, speaking of that specific thing, I saw

4152:

a fiat currency?), after I had no success and even tried reaching out to several people for help. In general, you seem to have a level of common sense which can be lacking on this website, and I think that you could've been a good influence on the committee. I think it's noteworthy that you received

3268:

and am rather confused by his name. I've only ever heard him reffered to as simply "Notker" (which wouldn't work for WP's purposes) or "Notker Balbus". Indeed "Notker Balbus" is how various books of medieval music I have do so (Hoppin 1978, Yudkin 1989, Reese 1940 for instance) and it seems the most

1352:

in an RfC that will inevitably turn into the Knowledge (XXG) equivalent of a reply-all email server crash. I already feel bad enough for anyone using a screenreader that has to deal with the inane amount of incorrectly formatted multi-paragraph list items, let alone LISTGAP violations, so any amount

1043:

Huh? My 2 points are part of my !vote. Perryprog's response material to it involves detailed discussion and even more detail in reply. Several other !votes there have also attracted long-winded replies and re-replies that should probably also be refactored into the extended-discussion section. This

1020:

If you are going to move Perryprog's response to your comment, then I think you should move your two side points in that comment to the "extended discussion" as well or else move back Perryprog's response to where it was and instead leave your response in the "extended discussion" with a diff to his

573:

I'm not Nostradamus, and included that footnote with this dispute in mind, in large part – frankly to appease you and you friends. But you didn't get that, apparently. While I firmly predict that consensus will be against the style quirks you want to force on all other editors (and more importantly

387:

enshrining your preferred style. You use the disingenuous summary "adapting material from MOS:CAPS to create a new list item here (+footnote) on eponyms. It's hard to track down this advice in the MoS pages, and it's common enough a question to be in main MOS." Hard to track down indeed! You leave a

244:

project namespace, but within it. The reason to keep track of these thingsis for examining the appropriateness of cross-namespace redirects. Similarly, we do not have tracking of mainspace-to-mainspace redirs. If we really wanted to track redirs to pages where both are already in the same namespace,

4688:

15th ed., both directly to one of its editorial people and on their forum/blog, and those errors remain in the 17th ed. So, not only do I not have direct influence, I get the sense that they just DGaF about such matters. They seem unwilling to make any changes at all except for things about which

4668:

a just non-proper descriptive label when used generically ("a binary star system with three asteroid belts") but which is serving in the capacity of a proper name when it has the one particular referent that refers to our home system ("the Asteroid Belt is between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars").

4181:

work. Just about everyone has a bone to pick with the MoS, and if you are one of the tiny handful of people who shepherd it and prevent willy-nilly changes to it, you will inevitably earn the ire and spite of a lot of other editors. No way around that other than by not doing MoS stuff any longer,

3194:

Wow, Kudos. I am Paptilian. Thank you generously for coming to my aid. I am impressed with your user page, and a few others I've visited. I want a professional user page myself. I learn something every time I use Knowledge (XXG). I won't waste your time here. Thanks again, and I look forward to yet

3155:

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality

2556:

with IDs and CSS that build a threaded discussion with contextual links between posts so that they are tied together logically, and without throwing annoying list-open/close announcements at screen readers. But we'll get that when Hell freezes over. People have been asking the devs for a fix like

1929:

I caught up on it. The observation "promises or commitments just sort of mean nothing after a while when reblocked for the same thing again." Given Koavf's general productivity, aside from flareups like this, and the nature of the ongoing discussion at this talk page, I'm pretty certain this will

1119:

If Perryprog wants, I can just un-refactor it myself. I don't keep track of what times of day people are editing (or other aspects of their habits). Without the content they were responding to: Well, it's obvious from the context that they're responding to the two points in my !vote. Not seeing a

1048:

stuff, especially in RfCs that are complex and are expected to attract large numbers of comments from heated parties. And that will definitely be anything touching on DEADNAME/GENDERID. I think the record longest-running and largest-byte-size RfC ever held at VPPOL was on this topic, and it was an

739:

the community decides they are valid exceptions), is clearly a non-starter. Other respondents (e.g. Dicklyon) at the WT:MOS thread are already observing that you don't seem to have a substantive objection to the MOS:EPONYM material, that sources prefer "Gram-negative", and that you're being unclear

452:

Ironically, the MOS:EPONYM material you reflexively reverted included a footnote for recording consensus-accepted exceptions, and I added it mainly because the question you care so much about has not been properly RfCed yet and could actually go your way (very unlikely as that may be), resulting in

5051:

It is expected that Indians are upset about Nithyananda approaching the United Nations against their country. But that should not allow them to denigrate him or be abusive. The News Companies are equally parties in the allegations raised by hin. As such much discretion and restraint is required in

4619:

Glad to partly inspire an SMcCandlish essay, and to get your thoughts in one place. Curious, how do you explain the many style guides who lower case such obvious proper names as 'Sun', 'Moon', 'Earth', and 'Solar System'. Knowledge (XXG) upper-cases them, extremely rightly in my opinion and I wish

4185:

For my part, it will come down to whether I project that I'll have the time and willpower to do it for 1–2 years, a decision I'll have to make in Dec. 2021, Dec. 2022, etc. If I do, then I will run for ArbCom, regardless what I think my chances are. The body does need non-admins and it does need

2687:

about this, specifically because you did not correctly read the example code. I'll repeat: "I'm not particularly inclined to continue going over this stuff with you, at this page or anywhere else". In short, please do not post on my talk page unless it has something to do with encyclopedia work.

1986:

Hmm. I'm not sure what if any 1RR stuff he was under before, and when. I've not dug around in the guts of this, I'm just noting that if he's subject to a 1RR henceforth, that's a bright line to easily re-impose a block, and for longer each time (or just indef and with more skepticism). This latest

1160:

I know what you mean, but we're getting plenty of discussion (some quite interesting). Two-section RfCs (a good format for any expect to be non-trivial) helps incoming people get the gist of the discussion without having to wallow through tons of material, and it is a real boon to the closer, who

1145:

I understand your point, I just don't agree it was the appropriate action in this particular case. I think that the whole point of an RfC is the discussion, not just the casting of votes. Considering the concerns you expressed over misunderstanding my use of the word "update", I imagined you would

1104:

Part of my concern is that you refactored their comment after they were done editing for the night, and that it will be harder for them to refactor or even just copy it back to where it was by the time they come back on. Additionally, you copied it without the content they were responding to (when

950:

problem fairly early on: "Even at this stage, there were problems .... This was just a foretaste of the difficulties to come ...." That's patently editorializing (magazine-style writing), and doesn't even make sense in the context (this was not a production riddled with problems and difficulties,

3916:

Thanks! It has indeed been strange. I know someone who became a follower of this guru), though this did not color my approach to the content. I've tried hard (before giving it a rest and letting others do it for a year or so) to keep it pruned of both ranty and insufficiently sourced attacks by

1584:

I've given it a quick cleanup pass for style, clarity, citation cleanup, layout logic, etc. There are some open questions. The three major ones: Why is this changing back and forth between present and past tense? The article mostly sounds like this is a former, historical cloth and folk-art, not

1193:

that separating votes from the discussion can be less beneficial when the RfC is not a more straightforward yes/no, such as by fracturing discussions and making them harder to read (I doubt many are going to search through the top section to find what Perryprog was responding to, or remember your

1165:

first, then look for overall support/oppose patterns and the basic arguments for them, then pore over the nitty-gritty to see whether various rationales have been debunked or bolstered. It's difficult to do that if the whole thing is big jungle of unstructured ranting. This is one of the reasons

543:

Years later, I gnomed that article again, and got reverted. As with most such matters, I shrugged and went on to other things, figuring someone would get around to it later. It seems to have somehow been a mistake in your view, to have not dived into a protracted argument about it on the spot. I

521:

all over the site, in every topic; it's not possible to memorize all of that. If you think I have some plan to drop by this article and make related changes every few months or years, you're imagining some huge "database of nit-picks" in my head that I assure you I don't really have the long-term

4554:

The best and happiest imaginable and unimaginable 2021 to you and yours (insert picture of money, drink/andorother, maskless faces, cake and Indian food here). I'll let you know I voted for you on that arbcom thing because your language and thought-process would have or will raise its issues and

3463:

thing is to help people be sure they're at the right article, and most of them don't read footnotes (esp. on mobile). Yeah, medieval and especially latinised names are a pain, especially when they just went by rough phonetics without any regard for where a name came from and what it meant, e.g.

3311:

most familiar as Notker the Stammerer, and I have never until today seen him referred to as "Notker I", though I have seen "Notker Balbulus" (which isn't spelled "Balbus") as a parenthetical before; meanwhile simply "Notker" by itself is ambiguous, so it seems unlikely this is what sources would

687:

After reading your collapsed additional commentary I'll add two things: (1) I fully understand that you're not spending all of your time thinking about capitalizing Gram. After your June change was reverted I left a message gently reminding you that an RfC hadn't concluded in your favor (not, of

581:

being stonewall-enforced by you and something like 2 or 3 other editors who are still active. You also come across as angry that I'm posting arguments now, not several months ago The difference is my old, forgotten arguments about the matter (which I could have been expected to recycle several

513:

Like various other editors since 2004, I've tried to bring the material in that article and related ones into compliance with our style guide. I (et al.) have met resistance, including from editors no longer a part of the project, but there always seem to be one or another of you holding out on

495:

PS: I'll address something thing here that's not covered over there: You listed a series of events as you saw them, and concluded with: "If I'm severely misunderstanding your thinking here, then please enlighten me." Okay, but this stuff really is tedious to keep rehashing, and it doesn't matter

323:

I've seen several people mention that you do not mince words, so I assume you'd prefer I not do so either. I'm happy to discuss the finer points of capitalizing eponyms at the appropriate pages. But I feel your behavior has been problematic, so I'll bring my perspective here. Do with it what you

4981:

from within Nithyananda's operation trying to whitewash this. They're all new editors with no editing history aside from this page and a couple closely related to it. And they are now revertwarring to re-insert WP:POV material with too-weak sourcing for use in WP:BLP material or to get around

3372:

effect since that time, this is dubious, and nothing in the ngram suggests that. The trend was clearly already well-established: "Notker Balbulus" has been fairly stable since around 1980, after a big decline from ca. 1960, while the increase in "Notker the Stammerer" has been about a 45-degree

1188:

I don't think it's fair to describe Perryprog's response to you as "unstructured ranting", and that is the only comment I was referencing here. I have no problem with an "extended discussion" section, although I do not agree that should only permit a survey of opinions at the top that cannot be

372:

your stylistic preference be used (if true, why did we have an RfC about it in 2017?). Throughout you drop ridiculous-seeming lines like " analysis that presented above... appears to be original research" (followed by a paragraph of your own original research) and "We have learned the hard way

5082:

And this isn't logically sound thinking. The fact that people have filed civil lawsuits against him and that prosecutors have filed criminal charges against him, has nothing to do with whether India or its people are upset about him allegedly asking the UN for protection, which happened later.

4716:

Would think that you'd be more respected now among other style guide editors after many more years of shaping much of Knowledge (XXG)'s guide (which has now evolved into quite the stand along guide - maybe the foundation should publish a hard copy of a date certain guide for libraries, college

3367:

I don't entirely agree with your analysis. "Notker the Stammerer" was vastly increasing in sources from the 1980s onward, while "Notker Balbulus" was simultaneously decreasing precipitously since the 1960s, though the latter was fairly stable during the former's period of sharp increase. This

706:

exercise, a generating of dispute and debate for its own sake, since you are now explicitly disavowing any actual interest in the outcome of the two questions (capitalization, hyphenation) at issue in the long-running disagreement over how to write these articles, and clearly are not absorbing

4763:

We do "moon goddess" lowercase for consistency with other such terms ("war god", etc.), and because the ancients understood the moon as a mystical thing/force, not as a large sphere of rock in orbit around a planet; the moon in that sense is a religio-mythical concept not an astronomical body

4174:

I appreciate the kind words. One thing I will propose for next year's ACE RfC is that the election intro material contain a clear statement that lack of adminship tools in no way would impede an ArbCom member (the only admin tools they need to do the Arb "job" are available via CheckUser and

4640:

For a long time it wasn't conventionalized to capitalize "sun", "earth", and "moon", in any context. This is one of numerous classes of things that are proper names in the philosophy sense (according to some but not all philosophers) yet about which linguists would argue ("But it starts with

4793:

Thanks for your long detailed reply. You have the patience of a waint (a Wikipedian saint). Knowing only a small portion of what you have accomplished here justifies my thought that this place would be a lot different if you hadn't decided to hang your hat in its foyer. Again, nice work.

3342: 379:

You leave several long messages in quick succession that include your analysis that your preferred style is more commonly used (is there a guideline that Knowledge (XXG)'s in-house style shall be whatever style is most commonly used?). Iztwoz pleads with you to leave well enough

3394:

These... are good points. I suppose now I'm left with a different dilemma, in the current format, I don't think the only mention of the "Balbulus" name being in the parentheses is ideal especially since it's far more common than Notker I or Notker of Saint Gall (according to

4190:

system is encouraging, as that was to be my no. 1 priority as an Arb, aside from any ongoing case. PS: It's actually faintly feasible that I would seek adminship anyway before then. That'll only happen if I feel a burning urge to do tech stuff that requires the bit, like

4143:

I've never before bothered to vote in an ArbCom election since I'm not a fan of the site's bureaucratic core, but when I saw that you were a candidate, I put a vote in for you. I've been aware of you ever since you put the kibosh on the Sovereign Citizen crap happening at

3170:

has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

4586:

a common thread in your argument and that of a couple of others, which matched previous "Isn't this a proper name?" debates. They're of a type which are recurrent but always seem to end the same way, going way back to the mid-2000s on WP – a confusing commingling of the

1216:, in RfCs that turn out to be thickly populated, complex, and emotional. Anyway, time being precious, we needn't get too much into the detail of stuff like this. I agree there are various different "kinds" of RfCs, with different approaches that work better for them. 951:

just one that provoked critical consternation. I don't think the sidebar material dwelling on the author is helpful. That spot is where we expect to find summary (infobox) material about the subject of the article. Should be using a page-bottom navigation box instead.

2121: 733:. Your attempt to manufacture a behavioral problem out of my having gathered eponym-related material from MoS subpages and put them in clarified form in the main MoS page – with a footnote on exceptions specifically designed to encompass cases like the one at issue 396:. Looking at MOS:DOCTCAPS I see nothing of the sort. I truly don't know if you just believe yourself to be right so strongly that you can't see that you're blowing hot air. Or if you know you're blowing hot air and are hoping if you blow harder, no one will notice. 140:

for short descriptions. Short descriptions are a prominent part of the mobile user experience, but the discussion so far has had relatively few voices. Since you are a top contributor to one or more Manual of Style pages, I thought you might be interested. Cheers

667:- that's really beside the point. No one is asking "which style is most common?". The only question here is "Should Knowledge (XXG)'s house style recommend X?" (Or I suppose you see it as "Can't you all see that Knowledge (XXG)'s house style already demands X??). 2586:, and it's pretty unimaginable to me that anyone else would continue to do it even after it's explained to them why they're making a mistake. If tens of thousands of WP editors are not doing things your way, then odds are that your way is the one that's wrong. 2008:

I feel kindda sad that such a prolific editor is banned and kindda disappointed about the edit warring situation. Personally, I have adopted a personal 1 revert rule. If someone reverts my revert, I go to the talk page and if nothing happens, I just let it be.

672:

I'm disappointed by your response. I had hoped to see some reflection on behavior rather than MOS content. The two truly are distinct. Instead you seem to have cast me as a hysterical capitalization-focused nut, which ironically is how I've at times seen you.

1055:

wants to un-refactor their reply post about my !vote back into the !voting section, I won't re-revert, but I do not believe this will be a good idea. Given that RfCs run typically for a full month, and this is a hot-button topic, we can expect this to get

4094:

I'm grateful that you ran for ArbCom, Mac. I wish you had been elected but it was encouraging to see that you had a very respectable showing of support despite not being an admin. That's huge, and I hope you'll try again. Happy Holidays to you and yours!

561:

I noticed then that we already have a guideline showing how to write such things (it focuses almost entirely on eponyms, and even says when not to capitalize them). It has been missed because it's not in the main MoS page, and it doesn't include the word

526:. I do these so frequently I probably won't even remember this one in a month or two. So, the kind of one- or two-glitch cleanup at a page like this one you care about so intensely is something I forget even more quickly, unless people draw me back to it. 4555:

deliberation style to new levels (haven't looked for selection results). Since giving year-end yays is the chance to say good things without sounding too sappy, Knowledge (XXG) is so much better for you being here than it even knows. Enjoy the New Year.

2537:"), because the inserted block element has already indicated to the reader (including the screen reader) that it is a discrete block following on whatever was last said in the list material just above it. But, in practice, people often do not bother. 1021:

initial response. I don't think separating just Perryprog's response from the comment it is responding to is beneficial, and the other editor may have desired to have his response to your comment available below it rather than in a separate section. –

3703: 869:

Sorry, I won't remember, - feel free to change to an image of your liking. At least one user changed to the gold ring mentioned, but again, I don't remember which user and which image. - Here, same question for all arb cands: what do you think of

4153:

more Support votes than someone who was successfully elected, but I also think it's understandable why you got the third-highest number of Oppose votes. I encourage you to try running again in a later election, if it still makes sense. Regards,

460:– because you really like how CDC says to do it, or how AMA says to do it (though their two sets of "rules" on it don't even quite agree). But WP has its own style guide and doesn't follow either of the style guides of those other organizations. 5027:

PS: I twiddled with the lead a little, but the entire article is such a trainwreck I gave up doing anything else with it. This just isn't a good day for me to get involved, I think. Other stuff has me irritable and distracted.

3399:). Would you have any ideas on how to format the alternate names Notker I, Notker of Saint Gall and Notker Balbulus so that it's clear that the later is by far the most common of them? Perhaps something along the rough lines of 1353:

of refactoring to separate !votes from discussion is probably a good thing. I think the current state with the note directing to the respond under § Extended Discussion is fine, although an ideal solution might be for a two-way

3695: 3687: 569:

consensus ever agreed it was a good idea (and I noted exceptions we make that were not mentioned at the DOCTCAPS section, because they were not pertinent to that section, further proof we need a general version in main MoS

2845:

which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the

1957:

06:41, 11 August 2006 AmiDaniel unblocked Koavf (Per email discussion, user has agreed to persue other avenues, such as AfD, to bring attention to his concerns, and he has made clear he did not intend to disrupt Knowledge

1805:! Took me a moment to understand what was going on (slow brain at the best of times + insufficient coffee) but I followed it back from the redirect to the RfD and I now absolutely see the point – all very sensible! Cheers 2204:

along with the collapsed portion to the end of the thread, which would also put it in chronological order. I'm fine with it where it is, but please don't use it as a reason to disrupt the proper formatting of the page.

740:

enough that you seem to be in favor of "Gram-negative" in the first place, though that seems (on a deeper review of your input here and in article-talk) to be the opposite of the case. This is, basically, a bunch of

3844: 1237:

Hopefully my next RfC will be much improved! I also just saw your comment about BLPN on the MOS image discussion, and I realized I had never put an RfC notice there, and so I just did that. Thanks, and take care!–

239:

shortcuts, and I've been consistently removing it for years. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to have an rcat for every redir "to" project namespace that includes from-project-namespace-already. That's not

3683: 3896:

page clean! I intended to fix all the poor grammar, but you beat me to it. It must've been quite a ride for you, to see the man's antics unfold over the past three years. Happy editing! Kind regards,

661:- give me a break. I doubt I've ever interacted with Iztwoz or Quercus solaris outside of the gram-x bacteria pages. Believe it or not, there is no anti-capitalization cabal that you're fighting here. 1882:, one of the most prolific editors of Knowledge (XXG), at 09:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC). Did that appear in the Knowledge (XXG) news? Because I think that is big news. I am still digesting it. Geeze. 445:

has evolved to directly address this gist of this (and regardless of your pet style issue, is something that should be summarized on this point in main MoS page because it also has implications for

822: 533:(RfCs, RMs, etc., etc.). They go one way, or they go the other, or sometimes they come to no consensus. I annotate the third kind for later re-proposition, but I usually never get around to it. 2669:. This also creates a separate (description) list. Perhaps you and the tens of thousands of other WP editors could try to get this changed. Until then, I'll stick to what the guideline says. — 4252: 4248: 1749: 2803:

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by

4594:

concepts, only the former of which has (in English and other case-sensitive languages) any connection to orthography. Responding to that as a general matter resulted in a new essay, at

2751:

discussion). An RM can be opened by anyone; it needn't be me re-RMing it. Two-and-a-half years is plenty long enough to let a no-consensus RM sit before RMing it again, so have at it.

4638:

cleanup". It's work that's under-appreciated but important, so WP reads like an encyclopedia instead of like a crappy blog with 30,000 inconsistent (and often poor-skilled) writers.

3179: 438:

An RfC that had too little input to reach consensus doesn't equate to a decision in your favor, much less a rejection of the view you don't like. It simply didn't do anything at all.

279:

I had thought this was resolved a long time ago. I've re-re-raised the matter on the talk page of the template again, in hopes of seeing it get resolved. Maybe we need to do an RfC.

4384:(non-breaking space), and insertion of blank lines, and so on, without having to "white-hide" alphanumeric characters to make them effectively invisible. That'll also be better for 638:- I've never claimed to the contrary. I see the 2017 RfC as "not taking up your favored position" but have never claimed, nor do I currently think, that in enshrined the lowercase. 3349:– so... I don't know what to do here. Looking at the data though the percentages are extremely close, I'd assume this wouldn't fall under the "markedly" more common guideline by 1049:

awful trainwreck largely because no one worked on refactoring it into a division between !vote comments (and maybe short responses to them), versus large threaded argumentation.

1190: 419:

I appreciate your candor (actually). It's better to just have the details of concerns and go over them than to have wondering and assumptions and so forth. However, per the

1723: 1613:). If the term is used both ways with distinct meanings, then this will need to be explained, and sourced as to the explanations. Anyway, I hope the cleanup pass helped. 4940:

Should have thought of that before you started revertwarring. At this point, and given the nature of what's happening, I think this should go straight to a noticeboard.

2725:

with mixed results. If you want to raise the issue again, I will support you in this effort as it is silly that the article is still named using the minority spelling.

2847: 270:. Thanks for explanation and good luck in resolving the matter! I'm always against the redundancy just like you are, and that's what I most appreciate the MoS for. — 709:

It's also becoming clear that further detailed response is a waste of time, and seemingly a trap. I don't mind long and detailed posts and critiques, but this is a

582:

months ago) were fairly subjective. The new ones are not. They demonstrate that the scientific literature, like the general book-publishing market, strongly prefer

554:

Someone else drew my attention back to that page, so I reviewed all the arguments over the last few years, and did some verification. I found that your style claims

456:

You and a few of your wikiproject friends want to do something weird with style on a particular topic – which has repeatedly been challenged by other editors since

3794: 435:) is that you're making a lot of noise and casting a lot of aspersions (some of which are mutually contradictory), but the important facts of the matter are this: 324:

will. Allow me to briefly summarize our interactions as I've seen them. I've tried to strip this of the MOS stuff, to make it more clear what I see as a problem:

1930:

blow over with a 1RR restriction or something like that. "Indefinite" doesn't mean "forever", just "until there's clearly going to be a solution to the issue".

376:

I point out that this is not required by the MOS; your 2017 RfC text had not been accepted. You respond with the same. Again you don't link to any such guidance.

343:

claiming people have been "editwarring about since 2004", a claim that is a stretch. The topic has come up at the talk page once or twice over nearly 20 years.

4664:", which seems completely wrong. This is where simplistic but conflicting approaches to "proper name" really break down. Here we have a descriptive term that 3699: 340: 470:

The fact that DOCTCAPS already addresses this entire class of things (just without using the word "eponym") has escaped you, but it remains true nonetheless.

574:

the readers) in a topic you are holding onto a bit too tightly, it was a good-faith attempt to account for your position and the fact that it's not settled.

4693:

grammar and orthography material, from the 15th ed. at least. And then it would have to get approval of chief editor Carol Saller, and who knows who else.

3552:

It must've been like: "Go ask Geoffrey." "Who? Do you mean Gofraid?" "I think he means Goraidh." "Argh. Just go ask the balding, big-armed fellow with

1964:

13:45, 23 July 2020 Ivanvector unblocked Koavf (Per talk page discussion; user commits to various methods of dispute resolution instead of revert warring)

1861: 1810: 3593:

whom I thought had some of the coolest names for medieval composers, but at some point realized that they were just Robert and Rodericus backward :(

218:

of project (Knowledge (XXG): or WP:) space"? I'd be happy with anything as long as it stays consistent, so as to know what to use the next time. —

2471:

For this reason, if you insert a block into a talk thread, list markup that comes inside and after the block should not begin with d-list markup (

4689:

they receive thousands and thousands of messages, and even then it seems to mostly be in the hands of Bryan A. Garner, who wrote the majority of

3560:

in his name, the one who always smells of onions." Oh, that's Galfridus. If you'd just use Latin, this would be so much easier." "Except it's

332:

to make a change. In brief, it's a stylistic change that goes along with some (probably most) style guides, but goes against others. Your change

4648:

Exactly what to capitalize seems to be in flux; we don't have an entirely self-consistent system deployed yet. I see that we have an article at

423:

principle, it will be pointless to address this long version here in great detail when the gist of this has been posted in short form by you at

245:

some toolserver tool could do that; we have no reason to have it be a category. There is no maintenance need that such a relationship triggers.

2578:), both to avoid stray bullets and to avoid falsely announcing a new, unrelated bullet list to screen readers. In over 15 years on WP, you are 1774: 1758: 1732: 1296:

Know the feeling. My eyes are buggy from all the text I've had to wade through today, what with the invective a thread or two above this. .

1166:

ArbCom and AE (and some other noticeboards like ANEW) impose some much structure, and are so orderly compared to the ANI "deathmatch". : -->

4380:

s was; were they supposed to be visible on a different-colored page background? If they're just intended for spacing, you can do that with

3736: 1901:

stuff like cite cleanup, overhauling someone's draft for MoS compliance, cleaning up after a shortcut retarget, etc. Will go take a look.

1857: 1822: 1806: 467:

Those quirks are not an arbitrary, doesn't-matter style issue, but are directly confusing to the average reader for at least three reasons.

196: 373:

that... linguistic hair-splitting causes more problems than it solves on Knowledge (XXG)" in the middle of your linguistic hair-splitting.

4760:

needs some other work, but it's more subjective, like consolidating its scattered advice on when to use logical quotation into one place.

1282:

sure to keep that page in mind in the future as well. Now I should probably take a break for a while cause I think I probably need it. –

4532:

Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free.

577:

You appear to be angry with me simply because I didn't pre-include your pet peeve as an already-vetted exception. It isn't one. It's a

137: 4751:

a fix for that pair of errors again before the 18th ed. If you're curious, in the section on capitalization and organisms, they cite

4673:). I'll need to go over the guideline language and discussions behind it again to figure how why we're seeing these inconsistencies. 3848: 3264:

Hi SMcCandlish, I have a guess that you may have some insight into this as I've seen you around various move requests.I'm looking at

5094: 5059: 5039: 5005: 4951: 4819: 4782: 4705: 4609: 4399: 4284: 4207: 4126: 3932: 3757: 3653: 3575: 3527: 3384: 3331: 3230: 2762: 2703: 2638: 2601: 2231: 2157: 2146:

Thanks for the note. I have answered there. Didn't expect any more questions at this point, and was buried in other goings-on. :-)

2053: 1998: 1941: 1912: 1842: 1690: 1652: 1624: 1557: 1487: 1437: 1406: 1307: 1271: 1227: 1178: 1135: 1094: 1072: 962: 899: 859: 767: 618: 485: 290: 256: 171: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2652:

gives methods to include block elements within lists, but you didn't use those methods. You did what the guideline explicitly says

389: 317: 4075:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! 1827:

Yeah, it was just a tedious bit of page-by-page link repair so that archived threads and such would not become incomprehensible.

3785: 4994:, etc. It's not a dispute between established editors, but defense of an article from an organized offsite PoV-pushing attack. 4115:

Thanks. It was indeed interesting to get sufficient support (minus opposition) for a 1 year term, had there been enough seats.

3732: 183: 2792: 4480:

Thanks for all your contributions to Knowledge (XXG) this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness.

719:

generates a new re-reply which simply injects another 20 points to try to address. This is not productive discussion, but a

4850: 4231: 3822: 2839:

who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by

2122:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Candidates/SMcCandlish/Questions#Questions_from_David_Tornheim

1212:(I thought they were interesting, and needed serious and detailed response). Rather, I mean interleaved threaded commentary 544:

can't agree. Let's people simmer down, move on to something more productive. If it comes up again, it will in its own time.

346:

Regardless, the RfC doesn't receive much input. Your proposed wording is not accepted. We all go back to what we were doing.

118: 4016: 3415:) was... ? Or maybe the Latin name should stay where it was; gosh who knew a medieval monk's name could be so annoying! - 3033: 655:

addresses this issue. Could you quote out the text you're referring to? We don't seem to be seeing this text the same way.

3459:

That seems reasonable, though I think I would move the other names to the end of the lead instead of in a footnote; the

430: 353:

that was reverted in 2017. You use the edit summary "typographic consistency" (you did the same at two other articles).

4192: 598:. There is no way around this. You can blame me for this if you like (my skin is thick), but it won't change the facts. 4634:

Yeah, if I were at RfA, my answer to the "your best contribution" question would also be along the lines of "years of

2877: 2565:

I'm not particularly inclined to continue going over this stuff with you, at this page or anywhere else, because your

365: 358: 354: 2684: 2722: 4259: 3728: 1287: 1243: 1199: 1151: 1110: 1026: 530: 38: 4175:

Oversight, which are not limited to admins and which are expressly available to all Arbs for their ArbCom tenure).

2590:

was written more with sourcing-and-content disputes in mind, but the philosophical gist of it is applicable here.

540:

for your viewpoint, but it was not. It was simply completely meaningless, having no effect whatsoever on anything.

5074: 5017: 4972: 4918: 4904: 4587: 3911: 3897: 1967:

17:33, 23 August 2020 Newyorkbrad unblocked Koavf (reducing to time served per detailed explanation on user talk)

368:

in the middle of a talk page, drowning us in lengthy monologues to the effect (I think) that you believe the MOS

1570:

Thank you so much for your prompt reply; I removed a template; hence i am seeking this page's approval. Regards

578: 4591: 4061: 3029: 2172: 2129: 3304: 2616: 4106: 3631: 5055: 3350: 3313: 3300: 2570:

know what else anyone can say to you if you continue to refuse to notice and accept that when a list going

720: 4435: 3949: 3843:

This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussion

3802: 3085: 2873: 2692:; Knowledge (XXG) is not a webboard for endless "argument for sport" and we all have better things to do. 2076: 2064: 1670: 1575: 1525: 981: 914: 879: 835: 723:

technique. It could literally go on for years without resolution, and I think we have better things to do.

529:

I'd even forgotten about the RfC from a few years ago, despite caring about the outcome at the time. I do

329: 267: 203: 4453: 4253:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_23#Category:Astronomical_locations_in_fiction

4071:

and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a

5091: 5063: 5036: 5002: 4948: 4816: 4779: 4702: 4606: 4396: 4351: 4281: 4256: 4204: 4158: 4123: 3929: 3879: 3754: 3650: 3572: 3524: 3381: 3328: 3227: 2759: 2700: 2674: 2635: 2598: 2250: 2228: 2210: 2154: 2050: 1995: 1938: 1909: 1839: 1687: 1649: 1621: 1554: 1484: 1466: 1434: 1403: 1343: 1304: 1283: 1268: 1239: 1224: 1195: 1175: 1147: 1132: 1106: 1091: 1069: 1038: 1022: 959: 896: 856: 764: 741: 615: 482: 287: 253: 168: 47: 17: 4068: 3971: 3369: 2612: 2566: 1253: 1162: 1045: 730: 424: 420: 4355: 3131: 4799: 4726: 4625: 4560: 3813: 3265: 2620: 2117: 1542:

Review in which sense(s)? Is there a particular process you're seeking to pass or get prepared for (

145: 4987: 4927: 4578: 2627:) about the likelihood of getting blocked for it, and it happened much faster even than I expected. 2245:. You can insult me all you like, but don't try to make me doubt the evidence of my own eyes. Thx. — 4931: 4249:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_24#Fiction_about_astronomical_locations

3246: 3201: 2929: 2730: 2168: 2141: 2125: 2090: 2068: 2039: 2014: 1977: 1887: 1386: 1368: 871: 779:

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I'll keep it to the WT:MOS page then. Thanks for your comments.

4965: 4867: 4537: 3686:. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 3007: 2955: 2903: 784: 693: 678: 547:

Now you're simultaneously complaining that I didn't engage in an argument about it at that time,

409: 271: 230: 219: 4635: 4369: 4187: 4012: 3692:

Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close.

2512:.) Users of screen readers can already tell that material which our talk pages put into nested 1898: 1828: 814: 703: 518: 4308: 2747:

It's not something I feel all that strongly about (despite having been precise about it in the

4917:, just before yours. What do you think of my revision? Also, thanks for the quick response :) 4886: 4808:

It would definitely have some shorter talk pages, ha ha. I appreciate the sentiment, though!

4431: 4054: 4029: 3967: 3798: 3586: 3081: 3059: 2981: 2781: 2683:

I don't think you're looking at the code correctly, and I see you reverted what you posted at

2072: 2031: 1755: 1729: 1666: 1636: 1571: 1537: 1521: 1458: 977: 910: 875: 831: 565:

So I put it there, with that word, and with a footnote on exceptions that has room for yours,

160:

Thanks, I will definitely look into it. I have seen some really daft ShortDesc instances ....

4595: 4373: 3921:(and I'm not sure our article on him even covers all the stuff he's allegedly gotten up to). 2809:

who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to

1641:

Added a source. Also marked the page "Reviewed", if that's what you were mostly seeking. :-)

1257: 5086: 5031: 4997: 4943: 4811: 4774: 4697: 4601: 4491: 4391: 4361: 4347: 4276: 4199: 4169: 4154: 4138: 4118: 3924: 3861: 3749: 3645: 3567: 3519: 3376: 3323: 3222: 3111: 2754: 2695: 2670: 2630: 2593: 2246: 2223: 2206: 2186: 2149: 2045: 1990: 1933: 1904: 1834: 1682: 1662: 1644: 1616: 1567: 1549: 1479: 1462: 1429: 1398: 1339: 1299: 1263: 1219: 1170: 1127: 1086: 1064: 954: 891: 851: 759: 610: 477: 282: 248: 163: 4991: 4978: 4514: 4418: 4178: 2689: 2587: 1543: 753: 749: 745: 537: 392:

to the effect that you're doing some routine cleaning up and summarizing what's already at

5099: 5077: 5067: 5044: 5020: 5010: 4956: 4935: 4921: 4907: 4890: 4824: 4803: 4795: 4787: 4737: 4730: 4722: 4710: 4629: 4621: 4614: 4572: 4564: 4556: 4541: 4495: 4439: 4427: 4404: 4289: 4267: 4212: 4162: 4131: 4109: 4103: 4033: 3937: 3900: 3865: 3806: 3762: 3740: 3658: 3634:. "Ciredor" would be a pretty cool game-character name though. I may have to steal that. 3602: 3598: 3580: 3547: 3543: 3532: 3489: 3424: 3420: 3389: 3362: 3358: 3336: 3282: 3278: 3251: 3235: 3206: 2767: 2734: 2708: 2678: 2643: 2606: 2254: 2236: 2214: 2176: 2162: 2133: 2094: 2080: 2058: 2018: 2003: 1981: 1946: 1917: 1891: 1879: 1865: 1847: 1814: 1695: 1674: 1657: 1629: 1579: 1562: 1529: 1492: 1470: 1442: 1411: 1390: 1372: 1357: 1312: 1291: 1276: 1247: 1232: 1203: 1183: 1155: 1140: 1114: 1099: 1077: 1030: 985: 967: 918: 904: 883: 864: 839: 788: 772: 697: 682: 623: 490: 413: 295: 274: 261: 222: 176: 155: 147: 142: 4983: 3296: 2748: 4660:, i.e. our, Kuiper Belt, not any Kuiper belt around any ol' star). And we're doing "the 4430:

Sir, Wishing you good health, prosperity, happiness on this Christmas. Merry Christmas!

4422:

SMcCandish, May Jesus Christ bless you and your loved ones on this day. Merry Christmas!

3320:

more common in English-language reliable sources for it to become the WP article title.

756:

thing: WP talk pages do not exist for "the sport of debate" as a form of entertainment.

4744:

style numbered sections, or a more stepwise approach that goes from simple to complex.)

4081: 3956: 3722: 3408: 3241: 3214: 3196: 2925: 2742: 2726: 2086: 2025: 2010: 1973: 1924: 1883: 1382: 1364: 1052: 946:

I gave it a minor cleanup pass. The overall article seems quite good, though it has a

735: 4855: 4236: 4044: 3704:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list

2196:

is what is causing the stray bullet to appear. If you want the list format to be both

427:. My short answer here (which is recyled there, and will mark this thread closed with 4926:

Can we have a discussion on the talk page first before reverting referenced content?

4661: 4533: 3003: 2951: 2899: 1348:

I'm a little late, but I have to agree with the importance of talk page refactoring,

780: 689: 674: 449:

and other matters that don't pertain directly to ISMCAPS's doctrine-focused concerns.

405: 4195:

work. I have no desire to be an admin for the usual "cops on patrol" reasons. Heh.

1516:

Greetings! I would sincerely be obliged if you can spare some time to review a page

536:

In this case, the RfC attracted virtually no input. You keep characterizing it as a

4882: 4878: 4670: 4523: 4025: 3963: 3777: 3138: 3055: 2977: 393: 4577:

Thanks, and happy holler-days to you as well. I'm almost relieved I didn't pass

3849:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity

2657: 1775:"Past-Continuous: Craft, Heritage & Community in India - Craft Revival Trust" 206:, but just to make it clear: doesn't the template currently say "a redirect from 4900: 4653: 4649: 4485: 3918: 3893: 3857: 3460: 3107: 2649: 710: 652: 642: 442: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3307:

is not a valid argument – and easy to contradict, anyway: for me, this subject

1961:

08:21, 25 September 2019 Joe Roe unblocked Koavf (Agreed to stop edit warring.)

972:

I gave it an infobox, I was reverted, and am not in the mood to even go to the

4385: 4096: 4003: 3594: 3590: 3539: 3416: 3354: 3290: 3274: 2197: 3698:, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see 3696:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop

3688:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence

3538:

Geez – I suppose the "dark ages" designation has a new-founded meaning... :)

1601:), but sometimes also using it unexpectedly as a count noun (an object, like 235:

I'm not sure who put that in there. In practice it's not normally used on WP:

4365: 4346:

Hey SMc! Have a good holiday and may you and yours stay well and safe. From

4145: 4072: 4064: 3979: 3716: 3708: 3473: 2071:. I don't like the result, but think it's a waste of to time to fight it. -- 1510: 947: 4977:

Blargh. I would suggest opening a noticeboard action. These are obviously

4903:

I go on a Wikibreak for three days and they're already all over the place

2548:, etc., as list markup at all on talk pages, and to instead treat them as 930: 3999: 3991: 3987: 3975: 3485: 3469: 2574:

is bisected with a block element, it resumes without the bullet (e.g. as

1897:

Hmm, I had not seen this myself yet. I've had my nose buried in various

1381:

than necessary, so I value any improvements to my posts in that regard.

4642: 3501: 3493: 3481: 3477: 3465: 3345:, and interestingly enough, the trend changes right at around when the 2821:

who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to

551:

that I've been engaging in one about it now; that's self-contradictory.

446: 2619:

approach to the sort of topic at which this arose. See in particular

1377:

Oh—and it's also worth mention that I already can be much more (ahem)

1161:

can more easily work through the material step-wise (see if there's a

929: 3995: 3983: 3497: 846: 845:

Maybe the 4th anniversary icon can be a gold ring with Elvish on it.

4990:

actions, so an ANI discussion isn't likely to be useful, nor one at

3684:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda

2829: 1951:...which will, no doubt, work just as well as the previous 1RR did. 4871: 4417: 3270: 4472:

Hi SMcCandlish, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas

4177:

I also got a lot of opposes this year, as in 2017, because of my

4866:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

3516:, sometimes with different spellings for the exact same person. 3166: 3151: 2841: 2823: 1517: 2817: 2805: 2624: 702:

It appears to me that your involvement in this is some kind of

558:

I've suggested you RfC this again more properly. But you don't.

3614:, but it wouldn't make sense for that Iberian composer, since 2835: 2811: 2582:

person I have ever encountered who keeps reverting it back to

1878:

Hey man. I was shocked to learn about the indefinite block of

1363:

link, to and from the !vote and its corresponding discussion.

1252:

Heck, I forgot that one, too. And misread that as being about

517:

I'd actually completely forgotten about these discussions. I

25: 3851:

may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.

3219:

Happy to help. This place has a steep learning curve. :-)

4043: 3955: 3948: 3630:). I see at least one Welsh (and another British) entry at 3137: 3130: 2780: 2544:

solution here is obviously for the MW devs to stop treating

4756:

one not, so they confusingly contradict their own advice.

3174:

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

349:

Three years later, this June, you return to the article to

3847:, and since some related aspects are under discussion at 3303:

and the rest of the article titles policy. Be aware that

4006:, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! 3341:

Yes that was a typo on my part. So an Ngram viewer gives

2623:

for where that tends to lead. I warned that editor (see

2611:

PS: This technical matter aside, please reconsider your

522:

memory for. I regularly do "mega-GNOME" overhauls like

138:

proposal to add dating recommendations to the guidelines

4914: 4870:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3346: 3178:

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

3123: 3120: 3097: 3094: 3071: 3068: 3045: 3042: 3019: 3016: 2993: 2990: 2967: 2964: 2941: 2938: 2915: 2912: 2889: 2886: 2242: 2201: 2193: 1954:

Previous administrators who believed promises to stop:

1802: 1191:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Example formatting

523: 384: 383:

Here's the kicker: you, unbelievably to me, respond by

350: 333: 3694:

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,

3678:

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the

3585:

Oh my gosh just seeing this, I love it! Reminds me of

1083:

I put an inline hatnote there (with shorter wording).

888:

I'm just making nerdy jokes. The image is fine as-is.

4676:

I don't presently have any influence over editors of

2667:

attempt to use a colon to match the indentation level

2200:

and aesthetically pleasing, then you could move your

632:

Ah, I see, you do indeed misunderstand me. Briefly:

3784: 2220:Nope. I've already address this at your talk page. 821: 336:

with the message "unwarranted reversal of styling".

306:

Behavioral issues with an extremely niche MOS topic

2721:Hello, it seems like you raised this issue on the 2262:I'll try addressing this one final time; no more. 399:I asked for clarification, but you didn't respond. 4273:Derp. It was an instance of cerebral flatulence. 1208:Argh. I'm not talking about Perryprog's comments 645:has evolved to directly address this gist of this 361:to remind you of the past RfC. You don't respond. 4843:Disambiguation link notification for December 29 4376:. PS: I wasn't sure what the point of the white 4255:. Would you care to expand on your rationale? – 3700:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Guide to arbitration 3610:in some other case could easily be a variant of 111:Discussion of guidelines for short descriptions 4084:}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 1457:Hi SMCc. Appreciated the encouraging words on 1856:That's the stuff. :) Have a good day. Cheers 8: 5073:Oh look, another SPA. Speak of the devil... 2557:this for over a decade, with zero traction. 2067:. I usually do not even go to the talk, see 807: 659:You and a few of your wikiproject friends... 4765: 3702:. To opt out of future mailings please see 3511: 3505: 1725:Punjab Society: Perspectives and Challenges 1461:'s T/P. It's the little things..Cheers! Si 556:are not supported at all by the real world. 5053: 3974:! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's 3776: 3772: 2852: 2410:collapse box (table) inserted</div: --> 2331: 2265: 813: 806: 651:I continue not to understand what part of 500: 4476:and a very happy and prosperous New Year, 4452: 4407:; PS added: 16:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 4360:Thanks, and well-wishing to you as well, 2120:and I have left new questions for you at 202:Hello! I'm not really into arguing about 4512: 4307: 3403:(c. 840 – 6 April 912 AD) also known as 2405:<table class="db-bXctY29sbGFwcw": --> 2124:. I look forward to your responses. -- 357:. I revert the other two instances with 3437: 3164:As a special recognition and thank you 1714: 909:How about an answer to the question? -- 4067:! This greeting (and season) promotes 1754:. Indian Institute of Advanced Study. 664: 658: 648: 641: 635: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4011:Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ 1751:Signification in Language and Culture 7: 4335:Merry Christmas & Happy New Year 3638:backwards doesn't work out so well: 1016:to everyone's satisfaction, I think. 197:Template talk:R to project namespace 4247:Hi, I'm puzzled by your comment at 3626:or something like that) and Irish ( 3299:. You'll need to be familiar with 2774:New Page Patrol December Newsletter 2553: 2549: 2515: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2497: 2489: 2474: 2472: 4019:}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages 3316:. The Latin name will need to be 2621:User talk:GPinkerton#December 2020 2446:As we were saying .... <dl: --> 1679:Moving over to article talk page. 1589:as a mass noun (a substance, like 464:our readers) to have to deal with. 24: 4652:and I would think it would be at 3886:The Tireless Contributor Barnstar 3706:. For the Arbitration Committee, 3240:Just like my beloved mountains. P 2336:collapse box (div+table) inserted 2270:A simple technical demonstration: 366:start responding to a 2014 thread 5016:leaked by directly using an IP. 4854: 4848: 4513: 4455:File:Christmas tree in field.jpg 4235: 4229: 3878: 3827: 3820: 2791: 2659: 2034:has done likewise. Maybe its a 1504: 1417: 1260:. Coffee... running... low.... 1007: 311: 190: 123: 116: 29: 3160:NPP Technical Achievement Award 1823:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered 453:another entry in that footnote. 328:In October 2017, You appear at 318:WT:Manual of style § MOS:EPONYM 184:Template:R to project namespace 4581:. (Well, I did, for one term, 3186:18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2313:Refactored with a collapse box 2085:A movement! That wold be nice. 1728:. Concept Publishing Company. 744:. It has turned into a combo 505:Timeline nit-picks and whatnot 1: 5100:17:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 5084: 5078:16:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 5068:15:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 5045:15:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 5029: 5021:16:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 5011:15:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 4995: 4957:15:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 4941: 4936:15:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 4922:15:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 4908:14:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 4891:06:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 4849: 4809: 4788:19:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC) 4772: 4731:14:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC) 4711:16:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 4695: 4630:14:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 4615:16:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 4599: 4565:12:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 4542:15:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 4496:15:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 4440:04:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 4405:16:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 4389: 4356:00:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 4290:16:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 4274: 4268:21:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC) 4251:, reversing what you said at 4230: 4213:15:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC) 4197: 4163:22:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 4132:19:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC) 4116: 4110:19:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 4080:Spread the cheer by adding {{ 4034:17:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 4017:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a 3938:19:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC) 3922: 3901:09:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC) 3866:05:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC) 3821: 3812:About titles, honorifics and 3807:16:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3763:08:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC) 3747: 3741:09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 3659:20:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC) 3643: 3603:19:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC) 3581:01:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC) 3565: 3548:02:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) 3533:02:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC) 3517: 3444:Less commonly referred to as 3425:23:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 3390:23:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 3374: 3363:22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 3337:21:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 3321: 3283:18:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 3252:00:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC) 3236:23:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 3220: 3207:23:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2752: 2709:03:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 2693: 2679:18:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC) 2628: 2591: 2221: 2147: 2043: 1988: 1931: 1902: 1832: 1722:Gill, Manmohan Singh (2003). 1680: 1642: 1614: 1547: 1477: 1427: 1396: 1297: 1261: 1217: 1168: 1125: 1084: 1062: 952: 889: 849: 757: 608: 475: 280: 246: 161: 117: 4901:The apologists have arrived! 3845:at this RfC in year going by 2768:18:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 2735:23:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 2723:Orthopedic surgery talk page 2644:20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 2607:19:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 2255:04:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 2237:03:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 2215:02:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 2177:06:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 2163:03:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 2134:02:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 2095:01:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 2081:19:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 2059:18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 2019:01:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 2004:00:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 1982:23:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1947:22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1918:21:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1892:19:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1866:10:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1848:10:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1815:10:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1801:Ah, interesting, thanks for 1748:Gill, Harjeet Singh (2002). 1696:09:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1675:09:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1658:09:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1630:09:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1580:08:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1563:08:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1530:08:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1493:04:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1471:04:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1443:10:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 1412:19:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1391:17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1373:16:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1313:11:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1292:11:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1277:10:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1248:10:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1233:09:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1204:09:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1184:08:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1156:06:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1141:06:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1115:06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1100:05:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1078:05:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 1031:04:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 986:09:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 968:00:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 919:22:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 905:18:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 884:12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 865:10:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 840:11:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 789:23:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 773:21:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 698:16:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 683:15:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 665:Nor does most of the rest... 624:09:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 491:07:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 414:05:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 296:06:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 275:05:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 262:04:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 223:03:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 177:03:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 148:01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 4825:16:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 4804:13:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 4463:Merry Christmas SMcCandlish 4314:... with best wishes for a 2508:and incorrect numbering in 2192:Greetings. The addition of 5120: 5052:the part of the editors. 4846: 4227: 3892:Thank you for keeping the 3818: 3733:MediaWiki message delivery 3680:Flyer22 and WanderingWanda 3672:Flyer22 and WanderingWanda 1502: 1005: 531:F-loads of minor proposals 309: 188: 114: 4588:proper name (linguistics) 4519: 4451: 4295: 3877: 3775: 3642:. Worth a laugh, though. 3504:, often all latinised as 2069:the above-mentioned opera 1779:Google Arts & Culture 812: 649:The fact that DOCTCAPS... 4592:proper name (philosophy) 2717:Orthopedic → Orthopaedic 2488:) that is nested inside 2396:Yakkety yak. <dl: --> 2202:1:53, 3 December comment 729:have been brought up at 3674:arbitration case opened 3632:Trebor (disambiguation) 2425:More noise.</dd: --> 2375:As we were saying .... 2300:As we were saying .... 2030:If I recall correctly, 847:Pre-e-e-e-cioussss .... 727:The substantive matters 4766: 4423: 4321: 4048: 3960: 3953: 3512: 3506: 3412: 3142: 3135: 2785: 2458:The important part is 2398:Blah blah.</dd: --> 934: 636:RfC... anything at all 385:adding text to the MOS 330:Gram-positive bacteria 4506:Natalis soli invicto! 4421: 4311: 4224:Changing your opinion 4047: 3959: 3952: 3840:Hello and greetings, 3141: 3134: 2784: 1520:. Thanks and regards 933: 42:of past discussions. 18:User talk:SMcCandlish 5075:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI 5018:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI 4973:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI 4919:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI 4905:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI 4879:Opt-out instructions 4524:Natalis soli invicto 4318:better year in 2021. 3912:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI 3898:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI 3814:appeal to popularity 3795:The birthday display 3450:Notker of Saint Gall 3401:Notker the Stammerer 3266:Notker the Stammerer 3146:Reviewer of the Year 2394:Yak yak. <dl: --> 2389:The resulting code: 1379:loquaciously verbose 803:Precious anniversary 364:Now in November you 355:Iztwoz again reverts 351:make the same change 3871:A barnstar for you! 3854:Thanks and regards 3769:Beethoven 250 years 3347:article was created 3030:DragonflySixtyseven 2788:Hello SMcCandlish, 2113:Questions at ArbCom 2042:" reference here.) 1972:I'm just saying. -- 976:talk about that. -- 872:Hippolyte et Aricie 809: 431:moved discussion to 4868:Silvery salamander 4424: 4322: 4300:Season's Greetings 4193:WP:Interface-admin 4049: 3961: 3954: 3195:more interactions. 3143: 3136: 2848:redirect whitelist 2786: 2658:Definitely do not 2463:...</table: --> 2462:<table ...: --> 2423:Noise. <dl: --> 2194:collapse templates 2040:Alice's Restaurant 1002:Refactored comment 935: 728: 5070: 5058:comment added by 4969: 4547: 4546: 4503: 4502: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4100: 4060:is wishing you a 4020: 3972:Seasons Greetings 3970:) is wishing you 3906: 3905: 3792: 3791: 3715: 3413:Notcerus Balbulus 3269:common by far in 3182: 3129: 3128: 2874:DannyS712 bot III 2779: 2562: 2561: 2367: 2366: 1760:978-81-7986-015-1 1734:978-81-8069-038-9 1044:is pretty normal 828: 827: 731:WT:MOS#MOS:EPONYM 726: 714: 604: 603: 425:WT:MOS#MOS:EPONYM 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5111: 5098: 5043: 5009: 4976: 4963: 4955: 4858: 4852: 4851: 4823: 4786: 4769: 4709: 4613: 4576: 4517: 4510: 4509: 4498: 4488: 4481: 4477: 4473: 4464: 4458: 4456: 4449: 4448: 4414:Merry Christmas! 4403: 4383: 4345: 4340: 4327: 4320: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4288: 4263: 4239: 4233: 4232: 4211: 4173: 4142: 4130: 4101: 4098: 4057: 4010: 3936: 3915: 3882: 3875: 3874: 3835: 3831: 3830: 3824: 3823: 3780: 3773: 3761: 3713: 3657: 3579: 3531: 3515: 3509: 3453: 3442: 3388: 3335: 3294: 3249: 3244: 3234: 3218: 3204: 3199: 3177: 3169: 3154: 2853: 2844: 2838: 2832: 2826: 2820: 2814: 2808: 2795: 2778: 2766: 2746: 2707: 2668: 2666: 2663: 2662: 2642: 2605: 2585: 2577: 2573: 2555: 2554:<article: --> 2551: 2547: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2518: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2477: 2467: 2461:<div ...: --> 2448:Yep.</dd: --> 2332: 2266: 2235: 2187:Talk:Transsexual 2185:List markers on 2161: 2145: 2057: 2029: 2002: 1945: 1928: 1916: 1852:Ah yes, tedious 1846: 1826: 1789: 1788: 1786: 1785: 1771: 1765: 1764: 1745: 1739: 1738: 1719: 1694: 1656: 1640: 1628: 1561: 1541: 1508: 1507: 1491: 1441: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1410: 1362: 1356: 1347: 1344:Wallyfromdilbert 1311: 1284:wallyfromdilbert 1275: 1240:wallyfromdilbert 1231: 1196:wallyfromdilbert 1182: 1148:wallyfromdilbert 1139: 1107:wallyfromdilbert 1098: 1076: 1042: 1039:Wallyfromdilbert 1023:wallyfromdilbert 1017: 1011: 1010: 966: 903: 863: 817: 810: 771: 713: 622: 501: 489: 434: 370:already requires 315: 314: 294: 260: 234: 194: 193: 175: 159: 131: 127: 126: 120: 119: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5119: 5118: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5110: 5109: 5108: 4970: 4898: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4845: 4738:MOS:COMMONALITY 4570: 4552: 4508: 4486: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4471: 4462: 4454: 4447: 4445:Merry Christmas 4416: 4381: 4343: 4339: 4338: 4330: 4325: 4312: 4306: 4261: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4226: 4167: 4136: 4097: 4092: 4087: 4073:Merry Christmas 4055: 4041: 4023: 3946: 3909: 3873: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3828: 3826: 3817: 3771: 3676: 3457: 3456: 3443: 3439: 3405:Notker Balbulus 3295:The process is 3288: 3262: 3247: 3242: 3212: 3202: 3197: 3192: 3184: 3165: 3156:over quantity. 3150: 2840: 2834: 2828: 2822: 2816: 2810: 2804: 2776: 2740: 2719: 2664: 2660: 2583: 2575: 2571: 2563: 2545: 2534: 2533:" followed by " 2530: 2526: 2522: 2517:...</dd: --> 2501: 2493: 2485: 2481: 2476:...</dd: --> 2460:...</ul: --> 2459: 2456: 2438:</table: --> 2437:</tbody: --> 2368: 2337: 2314: 2278: 2277:Original thread 2271: 2190: 2139: 2118:Robert_McClenon 2115: 2023: 1922: 1876: 1820: 1799: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1783: 1781: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1761: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1735: 1721: 1720: 1716: 1634: 1535: 1514: 1513: 1505: 1501: 1455: 1418: 1416: 1360: 1354: 1337: 1036: 1018: 1015: 1013: 1008: 1004: 805: 605: 579:WP:FAITACCOMPLI 506: 428: 321: 320: 312: 308: 238: 228: 200: 199: 191: 187: 153: 134: 133: 132: 124: 122: 113: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5117: 5115: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5025: 5024: 5023: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4897: 4894: 4853: 4847: 4844: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4771: 4747:submitting to 4694: 4667: 4659: 4584: 4551: 4548: 4545: 4544: 4529: 4528: 4520: 4518: 4507: 4504: 4501: 4500: 4482: 4478: 4474: 4467: 4466: 4459: 4446: 4443: 4415: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4341: 4332: 4331: 4328: 4305: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4234: 4228: 4225: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4196: 4091: 4088: 4076: 4051: 4042: 4040: 4039:Merry December 4037: 4007: 3947: 3945: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3904: 3903: 3889: 3888: 3883: 3872: 3869: 3825: 3819: 3816: 3810: 3790: 3789: 3782: 3781: 3770: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3675: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3455: 3454: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3319: 3310: 3305:WP:IDONTKNOWIT 3261: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3191: 3190:User:Paptilian 3188: 3162: 3161: 3148: 3147: 3127: 3126: 3118: 3115: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3092: 3089: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3066: 3063: 3053: 3049: 3048: 3040: 3037: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3014: 3011: 3001: 2997: 2996: 2988: 2985: 2975: 2971: 2970: 2962: 2959: 2949: 2945: 2944: 2936: 2933: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2910: 2907: 2897: 2893: 2892: 2884: 2881: 2871: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2860: 2857: 2801: 2800: 2799:Year in review 2777: 2775: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2655: 2617:WP:GREATWRONGS 2581: 2560: 2559: 2543: 2521:markup (i.e., 2406:<tbody: --> 2391: 2388: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2339: 2338: 2335: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2276: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2189: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2169:David Tornheim 2142:David Tornheim 2126:David Tornheim 2114: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2037: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1959: 1952: 1920: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1831:drudgery. :-) 1798: 1795: 1791: 1790: 1766: 1759: 1740: 1733: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1632: 1611:three children 1503: 1500: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1454: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1414: 1395:Will do that. 1380: 1351: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1215: 1211: 1123: 1122:someone else's 1081: 1061: 1059: 1006: 1003: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 826: 825: 819: 818: 804: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 775: 738: 718: 670: 669: 668: 662: 656: 639: 627: 626: 602: 601: 600: 599: 575: 571: 568: 563: 559: 557: 552: 550: 545: 541: 534: 527: 524:this one today 515: 508: 507: 504: 499: 498: 497: 493: 473: 472: 471: 468: 465: 461: 459: 454: 450: 439: 401: 400: 397: 381: 377: 374: 362: 347: 344: 337: 310: 307: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 243: 236: 189: 186: 181: 180: 179: 136:There’s a new 121: 115: 112: 109: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5116: 5101: 5096: 5093: 5090: 5089: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5076: 5072: 5071: 5069: 5065: 5061: 5057: 5050: 5046: 5041: 5038: 5035: 5034: 5026: 5022: 5019: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5007: 5004: 5001: 5000: 4993: 4989: 4986:. These are 4985: 4980: 4974: 4967: 4966:edit conflict 4962: 4958: 4953: 4950: 4947: 4946: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4920: 4916: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4906: 4902: 4895: 4893: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4880: 4875: 4873: 4869: 4861: 4857: 4842: 4826: 4821: 4818: 4815: 4814: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4801: 4797: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4784: 4781: 4778: 4777: 4768: 4761: 4759: 4754: 4750: 4743: 4739: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4720: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4707: 4704: 4701: 4700: 4692: 4687: 4683: 4679: 4674: 4672: 4665: 4663: 4662:asteroid belt 4657: 4655: 4651: 4646: 4644: 4637: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4611: 4608: 4605: 4604: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4582: 4580: 4574: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4549: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4531: 4530: 4527: 4525: 4521: 4516: 4511: 4505: 4499: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4469: 4468: 4465: 4460: 4457: 4450: 4444: 4442: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4420: 4413: 4406: 4401: 4398: 4395: 4394: 4387: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4342: 4337: 4336: 4329: 4324: 4323: 4319: 4317: 4310: 4301: 4291: 4286: 4283: 4280: 4279: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4266: 4264: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4242: 4238: 4223: 4215: 4214: 4209: 4206: 4203: 4202: 4194: 4189: 4183: 4180: 4171: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4151: 4147: 4140: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4128: 4125: 4122: 4121: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4108: 4105: 4102: 4089: 4086: 4085: 4083: 4077: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4063: 4059: 4058: 4052:Best Wishes, 4046: 4038: 4036: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4008: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3958: 3951: 3943: 3939: 3934: 3931: 3928: 3927: 3920: 3913: 3908: 3907: 3902: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3890: 3887: 3884: 3881: 3876: 3870: 3868: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3852: 3850: 3846: 3841: 3834: 3815: 3811: 3809: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3796: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3774: 3768: 3764: 3759: 3756: 3753: 3752: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3727: 3724: 3721: 3718: 3711: 3710: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3673: 3670: 3660: 3655: 3652: 3649: 3648: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3577: 3574: 3571: 3570: 3563: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3529: 3526: 3523: 3522: 3514: 3508: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3462: 3451: 3447: 3441: 3438: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3397:this at least 3393: 3392: 3391: 3386: 3383: 3380: 3379: 3371: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3351:WP:USEENGLISH 3348: 3344: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3333: 3330: 3327: 3326: 3317: 3315: 3314:WP:USEENGLISH 3308: 3306: 3302: 3301:WP:COMMONNAME 3298: 3292: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3267: 3259: 3253: 3250: 3245: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3232: 3229: 3226: 3225: 3216: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3205: 3200: 3189: 3187: 3183: 3181: 3175: 3172: 3168: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3153: 3145: 3144: 3140: 3133: 3125: 3124:Page Curation 3122: 3119: 3116: 3113: 3109: 3106: 3103: 3102: 3099: 3098:Page Curation 3096: 3093: 3090: 3087: 3083: 3080: 3077: 3076: 3073: 3072:Page Curation 3070: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3057: 3054: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3046:Page Curation 3044: 3041: 3038: 3035: 3031: 3028: 3025: 3024: 3021: 3020:Page Curation 3018: 3015: 3012: 3009: 3005: 3002: 2999: 2998: 2995: 2994:Page Curation 2992: 2989: 2986: 2983: 2979: 2976: 2973: 2972: 2969: 2968:Page Curation 2966: 2963: 2960: 2957: 2953: 2950: 2947: 2946: 2943: 2942:Page Curation 2940: 2937: 2934: 2931: 2927: 2924: 2921: 2920: 2917: 2916:Page Curation 2914: 2911: 2908: 2905: 2901: 2898: 2895: 2894: 2891: 2890:Page Curation 2888: 2885: 2882: 2879: 2875: 2872: 2869: 2868: 2864: 2861: 2858: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2849: 2843: 2837: 2831: 2825: 2819: 2813: 2807: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2794: 2789: 2783: 2773: 2769: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2757: 2750: 2744: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2716: 2710: 2705: 2702: 2699: 2698: 2691: 2686: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2653: 2651: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2633: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2609: 2608: 2603: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2589: 2579: 2568: 2558: 2541: 2538: 2480:markup, i.e. 2469: 2464:</div: --> 2439:</div: --> 2390: 2377: 2376: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2352: 2351: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2334: 2333: 2322: 2321: 2320:Yakkety yak. 2319: 2318: 2316: 2315: 2302: 2301: 2299: 2292: 2291: 2289: 2288: 2286: 2285: 2284:Yakkety yak. 2283: 2282: 2280: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2241:See my reply 2240: 2239: 2238: 2233: 2230: 2227: 2226: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2203: 2199: 2198:MoS-compliant 2195: 2188: 2184: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2159: 2156: 2153: 2152: 2143: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2112: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2048: 2041: 2035: 2033: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2000: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1953: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1943: 1940: 1937: 1936: 1926: 1921: 1919: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1873: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1837: 1830: 1824: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1796: 1780: 1776: 1770: 1767: 1762: 1757: 1753: 1752: 1744: 1741: 1736: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1718: 1715: 1711: 1697: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1685: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1654: 1651: 1648: 1647: 1638: 1633: 1631: 1626: 1623: 1620: 1619: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1559: 1556: 1553: 1552: 1545: 1539: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1512: 1498: 1494: 1489: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1452: 1444: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1432: 1424: 1415: 1413: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1401: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1378: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1359: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1336: 1314: 1309: 1306: 1303: 1302: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1273: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1222: 1213: 1210:in particular 1209: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1192: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1180: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1164: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1137: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1121: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1096: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1082: 1080: 1079: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1067: 1057: 1054: 1047: 1040: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1001: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 970: 969: 964: 961: 958: 957: 949: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 932: 920: 916: 912: 908: 907: 906: 901: 898: 895: 894: 887: 886: 885: 881: 877: 873: 868: 867: 866: 861: 858: 855: 854: 848: 844: 843: 842: 841: 837: 833: 824: 820: 816: 811: 802: 790: 786: 782: 778: 777: 776: 774: 769: 766: 763: 762: 755: 751: 747: 743: 737: 734: 732: 724: 722: 716: 712: 705: 701: 700: 699: 695: 691: 686: 685: 684: 680: 676: 671: 666: 663: 660: 657: 654: 650: 646: 644: 640: 637: 634: 633: 631: 630: 629: 628: 625: 620: 617: 614: 613: 607: 606: 597: 596:gram negative 593: 592:gram-negative 589: 588:Gram negative 585: 584:Gram-negative 580: 576: 572: 566: 564: 560: 555: 553: 548: 546: 542: 539: 535: 532: 528: 525: 520: 516: 512: 511: 510: 509: 503: 502: 494: 492: 487: 484: 481: 480: 474: 469: 466: 462: 457: 455: 451: 448: 444: 440: 437: 436: 432: 426: 422: 418: 417: 416: 415: 411: 407: 398: 395: 391: 386: 382: 378: 375: 371: 367: 363: 360: 356: 352: 348: 345: 342: 338: 335: 331: 327: 326: 325: 319: 305: 297: 292: 289: 286: 285: 278: 277: 276: 273: 272:Mike Novikoff 269: 265: 264: 263: 258: 255: 252: 251: 241: 232: 231:Mike Novikoff 227: 226: 225: 224: 221: 220:Mike Novikoff 217: 213: 209: 205: 198: 185: 182: 178: 173: 170: 167: 166: 157: 152: 151: 150: 149: 146: 144: 139: 130: 110: 106:December 2020 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5087: 5054:— Preceding 5032: 4998: 4944: 4899: 4876: 4865: 4859: 4812: 4775: 4762: 4757: 4752: 4748: 4745: 4741: 4718: 4698: 4690: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4675: 4671:Solar System 4647: 4639: 4602: 4553: 4522: 4470: 4461: 4432:RAJIVVASUDEV 4425: 4392: 4377: 4334: 4333: 4315: 4313: 4299: 4277: 4260: 4246: 4240: 4200: 4184: 4176: 4149: 4119: 4093: 4079: 4078: 4056:Lee Vilenski 4053: 4050: 4024: 4009: 4002:or even the 3962: 3925: 3885: 3856: 3853: 3842: 3839: 3832: 3799:Gerda Arendt 3793: 3750: 3725: 3719: 3707: 3691: 3679: 3677: 3671: 3646: 3639: 3635: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3568: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3520: 3458: 3449: 3445: 3440: 3404: 3400: 3377: 3324: 3263: 3260:Naming query 3223: 3193: 3185: 3176: 3173: 3163: 3149: 3082:Hughesdarren 2862:Num reviews 2830:Hughesdarren 2802: 2790: 2787: 2755: 2720: 2696: 2690:WP:NOT#FORUM 2685:WT:MOSACCESS 2631: 2610: 2594: 2564: 2550:<div: --> 2539: 2535::More noise. 2519:</dl: --> 2478:</dl: --> 2470: 2457: 2455:</dl: --> 2454:</dd: --> 2453:</dl: --> 2452:</dd: --> 2451:</dl: --> 2450:</dd: --> 2449:</dl: --> 2436:</tr: --> 2435:</td: --> 2434:</dl: --> 2433:</dd: --> 2432:</dl: --> 2431:</dd: --> 2430:</dl: --> 2429:</dd: --> 2428:</dl: --> 2427:</dd: --> 2426:</dl: --> 2412:</tr: --> 2411:</th: --> 2409:<div: --> 2404:<div: --> 2403:</ul: --> 2402:</li: --> 2401:</dl: --> 2400:</dd: --> 2399:</dl: --> 2387: 2261: 2224: 2191: 2150: 2116: 2073:Gerda Arendt 2065:#vision 2020 2046: 2032:Gerda Arendt 1991: 1934: 1905: 1877: 1853: 1835: 1800: 1782:. Retrieved 1778: 1769: 1750: 1743: 1724: 1717: 1709: 1683: 1667:RAJIVVASUDEV 1645: 1637:RAJIVVASUDEV 1617: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1572:RAJIVVASUDEV 1550: 1538:RAJIVVASUDEV 1522:RAJIVVASUDEV 1515: 1480: 1456: 1453:Appreciated! 1430: 1422: 1399: 1300: 1264: 1220: 1171: 1128: 1087: 1065: 1050: 1019: 978:Gerda Arendt 973: 955: 911:Gerda Arendt 892: 876:Gerda Arendt 852: 832:Gerda Arendt 829: 823:Three years! 760: 746:BATTLEGROUND 725: 708: 611: 595: 591: 587: 583: 478: 402: 394:MOS:DOCTCAPS 369: 322: 283: 249: 215: 211: 207: 201: 164: 135: 128: 78: 43: 37: 5088:SMcCandlish 5060:208.95.3.61 5033:SMcCandlish 4999:SMcCandlish 4945:SMcCandlish 4813:SMcCandlish 4776:SMcCandlish 4699:SMcCandlish 4654:Kuiper Belt 4650:Kuiper belt 4603:SMcCandlish 4550:Happy 2021! 4393:SMcCandlish 4362:Simon Adler 4348:Simon Adler 4278:SMcCandlish 4201:SMcCandlish 4170:BirdValiant 4155:BirdValiant 4139:SMcCandlish 4120:SMcCandlish 4082:subst:Xmas2 3926:SMcCandlish 3919:John McAfee 3894:Nithyananda 3751:SMcCandlish 3647:SMcCandlish 3569:SMcCandlish 3521:SMcCandlish 3461:MOS:BOLDSYN 3378:SMcCandlish 3370:WP:CIRCULAR 3325:SMcCandlish 3224:SMcCandlish 2756:SMcCandlish 2697:SMcCandlish 2671:Sangdeboeuf 2650:MOS:LISTGAP 2632:SMcCandlish 2613:WP:BLUDGEON 2595:SMcCandlish 2567:WP:BLUDGEON 2516:<dd: --> 2514:<dl: --> 2510:<ol: --> 2506:<ul: --> 2498:<ol: --> 2490:<ul: --> 2475:<dd: --> 2473:<dl: --> 2465:<dl: --> 2447:<dd: --> 2445:<dd: --> 2444:<dl: --> 2443:<dd: --> 2442:<dl: --> 2441:<dd: --> 2440:<dl: --> 2424:<dd: --> 2422:<dd: --> 2421:<dl: --> 2420:<dd: --> 2419:<dl: --> 2418:<dd: --> 2417:<dl: --> 2416:<dd: --> 2415:<dl: --> 2414:<td: --> 2413:<tr: --> 2408:<th: --> 2407:<tr: --> 2397:<dd: --> 2395:<dd: --> 2393:<li: --> 2392:<ul: --> 2353:More noise. 2293:More noise. 2287:Blah blah. 2247:Sangdeboeuf 2225:SMcCandlish 2207:Sangdeboeuf 2151:SMcCandlish 2063:I try. See 2047:SMcCandlish 2038:! (Insert " 1992:SMcCandlish 1935:SMcCandlish 1906:SMcCandlish 1854:but useful! 1836:SMcCandlish 1684:SMcCandlish 1663:SMcCandlish 1646:SMcCandlish 1618:SMcCandlish 1568:SMcCandlish 1551:SMcCandlish 1481:SMcCandlish 1463:Simon Adler 1431:SMcCandlish 1400:SMcCandlish 1340:SMcCandlish 1301:SMcCandlish 1265:SMcCandlish 1221:SMcCandlish 1172:SMcCandlish 1163:WP:SNOWBALL 1129:SMcCandlish 1088:SMcCandlish 1066:SMcCandlish 1046:WP:REFACTOR 956:SMcCandlish 893:SMcCandlish 853:SMcCandlish 761:SMcCandlish 711:Gish gallop 653:MOS:ISMCAPS 643:MOS:ISMCAPS 612:SMcCandlish 479:SMcCandlish 443:MOS:ISMCAPS 421:WP:TALKFORK 388:message at 334:is reverted 284:SMcCandlish 250:SMcCandlish 165:SMcCandlish 98:Archive 175 90:Archive 171 85:Archive 170 79:Archive 169 73:Archive 168 68:Archive 167 60:Archive 165 36:This is an 4988:WP:NOTHERE 4913:Also, see 4796:Randy Kryn 4723:Randy Kryn 4719:Britannica 4622:Randy Kryn 4579:WP:ACE2020 4573:Randy Kryn 4557:Randy Kryn 4428:SMcCandish 4388:purposes. 4386:MOS:ACCESS 4382:  4090:Thank you! 4004:Saturnalia 3622:, earlier 3618:is Welsh ( 3591:S Uciredor 3488:/Gruffydd/ 2323:Blah blah. 2167:Thanks. -- 1784:2020-12-04 1710:References 1350:especially 1214:in general 721:FILIBUSTER 441:Meanwhile 339:You start 156:JamesLucas 143:jameslucas 4928:Ik.Kaluha 4366:Help:HTML 4257:Fayenatic 4146:US Dollar 4065:Christmas 3980:Christmas 3786:Beethoven 3562:Godfredus 3507:Galfridus 3474:Gottfried 3243:Paptilian 3215:Paptilian 3198:Paptilian 3167:DannyS712 3152:John B123 2926:John B123 2859:Username 2842:DannyS712 2824:John B123 2743:Getsnoopy 2727:Getsnoopy 2317:Yak yak. 2281:Yak yak. 2087:Thinker78 2026:Thinker78 2011:Thinker78 1974:Guy Macon 1925:Thinker78 1884:Thinker78 1546:, etc.)? 1511:Talk:Khes 1509:Moved to 1383:Perryprog 1365:Perryprog 1053:Perryprog 948:MOS:OP-ED 562:"eponym". 316:Moved to 204:this edit 195:Moved to 5056:unsigned 4636:WP:GNOME 4534:Ealdgyth 4370:WP:HTML5 4188:WP:AC/DS 4069:WikiLove 4026:★Trekker 4000:Festivus 3992:Hanukkah 3988:Hogmanay 3976:Solstice 3964:★Trekker 3944:Yo Ho Ho 3682:case at 3628:Treabhar 3513:Godredus 3490:Griffith 3486:Gruffudd 3470:Geoffrey 3446:Notker I 3318:markedly 3004:Mcampany 2952:Onel5969 2900:Rosguill 2818:Onel5969 2806:Rosguill 2580:the only 2036:movement 1899:WP:GNOME 1874:Shocking 1829:WP:GNOME 1603:a donkey 1124:views. 1012:Resolved 808:Precious 781:Ajpolino 704:WP:POINT 690:Ajpolino 675:Ajpolino 519:WP:GNOME 406:Ajpolino 4979:WP:SPAs 4883:DPL bot 4643:MOS:NUM 4596:WP:PNPN 4374:WP:LINT 4148:(is it 3788:in 1803 3746:Blech. 3640:Yerfdog 3636:Godfrey 3624:Trefawr 3502:Guthred 3494:Goraidh 3482:Gofraid 3478:Godfrey 3466:Galfrid 3056:Mccapra 2987:12,901 2978:JTtheOG 2961:19,879 2935:21,697 2909:63,821 2883:67,552 2836:Mccapra 2812:JTtheOG 2656:to do: 2350:Noise. 2290:Noise. 1958:(XXG).) 1599:granite 1499:Help me 1258:WP:BLPN 974:article 447:MOS:BIO 216:outside 39:archive 4992:WP:RSN 4767:per se 4682:Hart's 4656:(it's 4487:SD0001 4372:, and 4179:WP:MOS 4150:really 3996:Lenaia 3984:Diwali 3858:Bookku 3731:) via 3709:KevinL 3620:Trefor 3616:Trevor 3612:Trevor 3608:Trebor 3587:Trebor 3498:Godred 3492:, and 3484:, and 3407:(From 3248:(talk) 3203:(talk) 3121:Patrol 3117:3,958 3108:Utopes 3095:Patrol 3091:4,520 3069:Patrol 3065:4,918 3043:Patrol 3039:6,401 3017:Patrol 3013:9,103 2991:Patrol 2965:Patrol 2939:Patrol 2913:Patrol 2887:Patrol 2833:, and 2588:WP:1AM 2531:Noise. 1607:my cat 1595:cotton 1544:WP:GAN 1358:anchor 1256:, not 1254:WT:BLP 750:SOCIAL 594:, or ' 570:page). 538:WP:WIN 390:WT:MOS 380:alone. 359:a note 341:an RfC 212:inside 4984:WP:AN 4896:Help! 4881:.) -- 4872:Clone 4860:Fixed 4265:ondon 4241:Fixed 4099:Atsme 4062:Merry 4013:subst 3595:Aza24 3540:Aza24 3417:Aza24 3409:Latin 3355:Aza24 3297:WP:RM 3291:Aza24 3275:Aza24 3271:VIAFF 2856:Rank 2749:WP:RM 2625:above 2496:) or 1880:Koavf 1591:wheat 1459:Gerda 754:FORUM 742:noise 586:over 514:this. 210:page 16:< 5064:talk 4932:talk 4915:this 4887:talk 4800:talk 4758:CMoS 4753:ICZN 4749:CMoS 4742:CMoS 4727:talk 4691:CMoS 4686:CMoS 4678:CMoS 4626:talk 4590:and 4561:talk 4538:talk 4492:talk 4436:talk 4352:talk 4316:much 4159:talk 4030:talk 3968:talk 3862:talk 3833:Done 3803:talk 3797:! -- 3737:talk 3717:L235 3599:talk 3589:and 3556:and 3544:talk 3421:talk 3359:talk 3343:this 3279:talk 3180:here 3112:talk 3086:talk 3060:talk 3034:talk 3008:talk 2982:talk 2956:talk 2930:talk 2904:talk 2878:talk 2865:Log 2815:and 2731:talk 2688:Cf. 2675:talk 2615:and 2584:*::: 2576::::: 2572:*::: 2542:real 2540:The 2378:Yep. 2303:Yep. 2251:talk 2243:here 2211:talk 2173:talk 2130:talk 2091:talk 2077:talk 2015:talk 1978:talk 1888:talk 1862:talk 1858:DBaK 1811:talk 1807:DBaK 1803:this 1797:OPED 1756:ISBN 1730:ISBN 1671:talk 1587:khes 1576:talk 1526:talk 1518:Khes 1476::-) 1467:talk 1423:Done 1387:talk 1369:talk 1342:and 1288:talk 1244:talk 1200:talk 1167:;-) 1152:talk 1111:talk 1058:huge 1027:talk 982:talk 915:talk 880:talk 874:? -- 836:talk 785:talk 694:talk 679:talk 647:and 458:2004 410:talk 129:Done 5097:😼 5042:😼 5008:😼 4954:😼 4874:. 4822:😼 4785:😼 4708:😼 4658:the 4612:😼 4402:😼 4287:😼 4210:😼 4129:😼 3978:or 3935:😼 3760:😼 3714:aka 3656:😼 3578:😼 3530:😼 3510:or 3448:or 3387:😼 3334:😼 3233:😼 3104:10 2765:😼 2706:😼 2654:not 2641:😼 2604:😼 2552:or 2466:... 2234:😼 2160:😼 2056:😼 2001:😼 1944:😼 1915:😼 1845:😼 1693:😼 1655:😼 1627:😼 1597:or 1593:or 1560:😼 1490:😼 1440:😼 1409:😼 1310:😼 1274:😼 1230:😼 1181:😼 1138:😼 1097:😼 1075:😼 1051:If 965:😼 902:😼 862:😼 770:😼 736:iff 717:and 621:😼 549:and 488:😼 293:😼 268:see 259:😼 237:FOO 214:or 208:any 174:😼 5085:— 5066:) 5030:— 4996:— 4942:— 4934:) 4889:) 4810:— 4802:) 4773:— 4729:) 4696:— 4680:, 4666:is 4628:) 4600:— 4598:. 4583:if 4563:) 4540:) 4494:) 4484:– 4438:) 4390:— 4368:, 4354:) 4275:— 4198:— 4161:) 4117:— 4107:📧 4104:💬 4032:) 4021:. 3998:, 3994:, 3990:, 3986:, 3982:, 3923:— 3864:) 3805:) 3748:— 3739:) 3690:. 3644:— 3601:) 3566:— 3546:) 3518:— 3423:) 3411:: 3375:— 3361:) 3353:? 3322:— 3309:is 3281:) 3221:— 3114:) 3088:) 3078:9 3062:) 3052:8 3036:) 3026:7 3010:) 3000:6 2984:) 2974:5 2958:) 2948:4 2932:) 2922:3 2906:) 2896:2 2880:) 2870:1 2850:. 2827:, 2753:— 2733:) 2694:— 2677:) 2629:— 2592:— 2527::: 2525:, 2486::: 2484:, 2253:) 2222:— 2213:) 2175:) 2148:— 2132:) 2093:) 2079:) 2044:— 2017:) 1989:— 1980:) 1932:— 1903:— 1890:) 1864:) 1833:— 1813:) 1777:. 1681:— 1673:) 1643:— 1615:— 1609:, 1605:, 1578:) 1548:— 1528:) 1478:— 1469:) 1428:— 1426:. 1397:— 1389:) 1371:) 1361:}} 1355:{{ 1298:— 1290:) 1262:— 1246:) 1218:— 1202:) 1169:— 1154:) 1126:— 1113:) 1085:— 1063:— 1029:) 1014:– 984:) 953:— 917:) 890:— 882:) 850:— 838:) 830:-- 787:) 758:— 752:/ 748:/ 696:) 681:) 609:— 590:, 567:if 476:— 433:}} 429:{{ 412:) 281:— 266:I 247:— 242:to 162:— 94:→ 64:← 5095:¢ 5092:☏ 5062:( 5040:¢ 5037:☏ 5006:¢ 5003:☏ 4975:: 4971:@ 4968:) 4964:( 4952:¢ 4949:☏ 4930:( 4885:( 4877:( 4820:¢ 4817:☏ 4798:( 4783:¢ 4780:☏ 4725:( 4706:¢ 4703:☏ 4624:( 4610:¢ 4607:☏ 4575:: 4571:@ 4559:( 4536:( 4526:! 4490:( 4434:( 4426:@ 4400:¢ 4397:☏ 4378:X 4350:( 4344:X 4326:X 4285:¢ 4282:☏ 4262:L 4208:¢ 4205:☏ 4172:: 4168:@ 4157:( 4141:: 4137:@ 4127:¢ 4124:☏ 4028:( 4015:: 3966:( 3933:¢ 3930:☏ 3914:: 3910:@ 3860:( 3801:( 3758:¢ 3755:☏ 3735:( 3729:c 3726:· 3723:t 3720:· 3712:( 3654:¢ 3651:☏ 3597:( 3576:¢ 3573:☏ 3558:f 3554:G 3542:( 3528:¢ 3525:☏ 3500:/ 3496:/ 3480:/ 3476:/ 3472:/ 3468:/ 3452:. 3419:( 3385:¢ 3382:☏ 3357:( 3332:¢ 3329:☏ 3293:: 3289:@ 3277:( 3231:¢ 3228:☏ 3217:: 3213:@ 3110:( 3084:( 3058:( 3032:( 3006:( 2980:( 2954:( 2928:( 2902:( 2876:( 2763:¢ 2760:☏ 2745:: 2741:@ 2729:( 2704:¢ 2701:☏ 2673:( 2665:N 2639:¢ 2636:☏ 2602:¢ 2599:☏ 2546:: 2523:: 2502:# 2500:( 2494:* 2492:( 2482:: 2249:( 2232:¢ 2229:☏ 2209:( 2205:— 2171:( 2158:¢ 2155:☏ 2144:: 2140:@ 2128:( 2089:( 2075:( 2054:¢ 2051:☏ 2028:: 2024:@ 2013:( 1999:¢ 1996:☏ 1976:( 1942:¢ 1939:☏ 1927:: 1923:@ 1913:¢ 1910:☏ 1886:( 1860:( 1843:¢ 1840:☏ 1825:: 1821:@ 1809:( 1787:. 1763:. 1737:. 1691:¢ 1688:☏ 1669:( 1653:¢ 1650:☏ 1639:: 1635:@ 1625:¢ 1622:☏ 1574:( 1558:¢ 1555:☏ 1540:: 1536:@ 1524:( 1488:¢ 1485:☏ 1465:( 1438:¢ 1435:☏ 1407:¢ 1404:☏ 1385:( 1367:( 1346:: 1338:@ 1308:¢ 1305:☏ 1286:( 1272:¢ 1269:☏ 1242:( 1228:¢ 1225:☏ 1198:( 1179:¢ 1176:☏ 1150:( 1136:¢ 1133:☏ 1109:( 1095:¢ 1092:☏ 1073:¢ 1070:☏ 1041:: 1037:@ 1025:( 980:( 963:¢ 960:☏ 913:( 900:¢ 897:☏ 878:( 860:¢ 857:☏ 834:( 783:( 768:¢ 765:☏ 692:( 677:( 619:¢ 616:☏ 486:¢ 483:☏ 408:( 291:¢ 288:☏ 257:¢ 254:☏ 233:: 229:@ 172:¢ 169:☏ 158:: 154:@ 141:— 50:.

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

Index