User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 12

1593:"intimidation" of Pokemon fans, etc. I also criticized your, individiual, particular, CfD reasoning, which is a completely different matter. I don't understand why you seem unwilling to see past the "any criticism of a woman and how she goes about arguing a feminist position is necessarily a misogynist criticism" logic error. And I'm sorry if my style has put you on edge. But, if this debate had been about "Republican models" or "Christian models" everything I have been saying all along would pertain, precisely as I have expressed it, to anyone arguing a position that criticism of a particular category relating to that topic is automatically anti-Republican or anti-Christian, or that criticism of what I see as logically faulty arguments from a defender of such a category is automatically anti-Republican or anti-Christian. That's all. And frankly, I find it disturbing that you appear to be saying that any use of "aggressive" language is automatically intimidating to woman. I don't think I know any women who would agree with such a disempowering opinion. But perhaps I misunderstand you. Viewed from a distance after a deep breath your meta-argument with regard to this debate (as opposed to with regard to the category) appears to amount to "men aren't allowed to argue with women on any issue relating to women because doing so is automatically mysogynistic and intimidating", and obviously that is an implication that is unacceptable (probably to anyone). 923:, but proven counterfactual OR at that. (If I'd decided in a vacuum that I thought it was OR, different story). I am aware that some people think that all edits other than fxing tpyos are "major edits"; I just don't happen to concur, and I wish far more editors would flag far more of their edits as minor (basically, anything that is not likely to arouse anyone to revert or challenge it; it would make watchlisting much easier). Occasionally (because I have minor checked by default) I submit something that even I don't think was minor as "minor"; in those cases I make a null edit for comment and note my error in the new edit summary and submit that as non-minor. — 827:

master "driver text". Then I want to have "passenger links" relate back to this original master field. This has to do with the popup idea I asked you about. When I scroll over a "passenger link" I want to see the popup text from the "driver" field. If the "driver" field is updated I want the "passenger link" popup reflect the changes. I understand this might be too complicated for WP but I'm asking for my own edification. Can HTML do this? I've asked the gurus at work and despite some honest work we haven't been able to get a Word document to accomplish this. Just asking... Thanks again for the template suggestion.

1703:), but you are the first person in over two years to take this level of offense. It is tempting to think you are just being oversensitive, but for all I know you may represent the opinions of a silent majority, so I honestly will endeavor to use less critical ("aggressive") terimology when characterizing items up for XfD, since I don't really need to take a strident tone to get my point across, and at least in this case doing so clearly backfired. Hope that helps; your words have had a postive effect amid the negative between us, and I hope mine in some way will as well. — 1620:

ones I just mentioned. Models could be classified by any of thousands of possible intersections, but model (sometimes something more specific like "fashion model", where subcategorization is needed) and nationality suffice just fine, and makes sense in the Knowledge (XXG) context, and the rest do not (the very reason that WP:OVERCAT was written was to prevent categorization by random intersections of nondefining character). There are additional points with regard to why the category should be deleted per CfD precedent, but I need not regurgitate the entire CfD thread.

2377:

consider sharing in dialogue to move things along. (Sorry if that sounds touchy or petulant: I'm truly not certain that I'll continue with all these MOS wrangles, or much at Knowledge (XXG) at all, to be honest.) Note in the meantime that I have surveyed a couple of dozen sources on the topic. More than one calls for a space after the ellipsis and before punctuation that follows – at least one explicitly, and at least two others in examples. The topic is an unholy mess, at Knowledge (XXG) and just about everywhere else I have looked.

1425:"This sort of language comes across as highly aggressive, and could be interpreted as misogynist" (You repeat this insinuation with "it may indeed be that there was nothing particularly anti-woman about your use of those terms here" - the "it may" implies that the accusation remains on the table as the default assumption. There was a third one in there somewhere, between these two, but I don't have the patience to re-read the entire thing, and the point is already well-made with these two examples.) 184:, did you mean to say that there should be some kind of description, or that it doesn't appear to work for you? B.t.w. I'm thinking of redesigning the script, such that the pop-up menu's will be located at the top. I'm not sure how to go about it yet, but ideally all the "interface" shouldn't take up more than one line or so. I think the article is what's important, all that clutter in the left pane may be useful sometimes, but when you're reading an article it just gets in the way. 1606:. You have again mischaracterized what I am saying. I have no objection at all to you labeling my CfD comments "aggressive", though I do not agree with the characterization, and I have never raised any such objection. I object to being labeled "misogynist" (for the third or fourth time now!) simply because I disagree with you about something that happens to touch on the topic of women, and I disagree with your debate tactics, and you happen to be a woman. 31: 1649:

CATGRS, is only one of many criteria to consider at CfD (and in my view hardly the most important one). We can rationally disagree on that. The thrust of the CfD was that the category in question is deficient in other ways, ways that obviate any need to ask and answer that question. I believe that the closing admin also understand this point, and that this is one of several reasons that it was closed as "no consensus".

1630:

almost immediate descent into ad homimen character assassation, to be your beliefs, feelings and ideology. I think you confuse me for someone who is dismissive of feminism as belief, feelings and ideology. As I've already indicated twice, this is not my position at all, and I doubt strongly that you and I would substantively disagree on anything about feminism or gender politics. I

407:

on that point. Everyone who is albinistic is also part of some other race/ethnicity, such as Spanish or Tutsi or Japanese or Albanian. There is no "race" of albinistic people, anywhere on this plant, any time in its known history. A "congenital absence of pigment" is by definition a "genetic disorder"; the latter phrase you object to and appear to misunderstand is a

416:. "Person with albinism" is no more like "person with AIDS" than it is like "person with brown hair". This is a really key example of your lack of experience with English causing you to internalize false assumptions. English just does not work the way you seem to think it does. Please, just get over this, move on, and stop harassing me and the other editors of the 1428:"The career of a female model is substantially different from that of a male model, and it is a culturally significant subject which routinely achieves massive coverage in the general press, partucularly in regard to the career options open to women and to effects of female modelling on the female self-image and on societal perception of women." 2637: 2552: 2205: 2141: 1953: 1857: 1805: 1246: 1151: 868: 769: 623: 511: 446: 323: 201: 169: 119: 2260:

compounds more clearly than hyphens would (“hospital” versus “nursing home,” “post” versus “World War II,” etc.), thus preventing ambiguity. In the last two examples, however, to have used en dashes between “non” and “English” and between “user” and “designed” would merely have created an awkward asymmetry; the meaning is clear with hyphens.

2564:

American pool player category. Look at the very bottom of Shane Van Boening's page. The edit somehow makes everything else invisible, thereby Shane's inclusion of American pool player category is gone. Could you maybe see what is going on there? I can't fix it other than undo your edit. I know you will make it right! :: -->

2608:") the HTML comment asking people not to mess with the DEFAULTSORTing of "Van Boening" vs. "Boening, Van", with the result that everything after the DEFAULTSORT was being treated as part of the comment. D'oh. I should have paid more attention to the edit preview. Also, fixed a redlinked category there while I was at it. — 1361: 1406:, which I believe to have much broader support. Just because a guideline exists does not mean that it is perfect and always correct in every situation. Others besides me strongly disagreed with your interpretation of CATGRS's permissiveness, including the closer of the CfD. Your mistake is clear in your wording " 2470:(XXG). Tony, you, and I all want these things, I think. But for me the real worry is that none of this will turn out to be feasible. I'm still considering, as I say above, what if anything I want to do, since it may take up too much time, effort, and life. Anyway, best wishes to you – however things work out. 2701:

You want to do something immediately useful, clean up the damn usage in '8' so it's not referring to '7' which has nothing in usage at all. It's a bit hard for someone to know you know what you're talking about when neither usage repeats, and I fought long and hard for decent documentation capability

2563:

I tried to undo the edit you made yesterday on this page, and I noticed that you changed it back. By my own admission, I am not as good as you with the codes. The reason I changed your edit is because, for some reasons -- and I do not know why -- your edit eliminates Shane Van Boening's name on the

2396:

I hear ya; I don't want to get acrimonious about this stuff either. I agree the section need works. Also agree that sources differ on this. I think that, as with the point about MOS could acknowledge both methods, but prefer one. However, with regard to both of these points I have told PMAnderson

1518:

One of those tests is to establish whether an encylopedic head article can be written on the subject, and on wikipedia the main way we establish that is by discussing sources. You could have participated in that discussion, but instead of actually examining the encyclopedic worth of the subject, you

973:

I'm not sure what the official status of those pages is (the word 'policy' isn't mentioned), and if you choose not to adhere to them, then there's not much sense in discussing this further. If you do, then to me it's pretty clear that the edits I referred to aren't minor, and I believe that's beyond

397:

article, which actually discusses this problem. I am very sorry that you cannot understand, in English, the difference between identifying albinism as a medical condition and labelling anyone albinistic as "diseased" - this is the thrust of your argument at that article's talk page. There's nothing

392:

position as someone who does not really know English at all and who is relying upon software translation, you are not in a position to lecture anyone about English language usage. Sorry, but that's just a fact. The socio-political underlying point you are trying to make, which appears to be that in

222:

I think so; this is a bad week for me, though. Whole lot going on. I can probably gather some co-nominators next week. And thanks for the support/faith. I've actually avoided going there for some time (since I think Jan. 2007, when I first tried), to get more and more experience in XfDs, working on

2654:

Because of my family history, I've spent— oh, say 47 years, give or take one way or another with one foot in the blue collar world, and the other in professional work (only 23 personally, though just as many helping my Dad in his practice)—so I hope you'll forgive me if I spoke strongly, for I meant

1816:

Thanks for the tips. I'd seen other category talk pages within the parent category that had those and strove for consistency. I was right that consistency was needed, but now that I've researched this further, I see that you're right and a different kind of consistency was what was needed. If I goof

1730:

confirms: A Wikipedian (admin or not) does not have a magical "right" to prevent others from addressing concerns about that editor on his/her talk page, and deletion versus archival of such talk pages posts is strongly deprecated by Knowledge (XXG)-wide consensus. (Note: That link will at some point

1658:

If you really do not wish to continue this discussion, here or on my talk page, then please simply move it to your archive pages. If you continue to engage in replies, however, then you cannot expect me to not reply back. That's like duct-taping the other party's mouth so they can't respond and then

1629:

I did not label your raising the idea of "superwaif" to be your beliefs, feelings or ideology. Please stop mischaracterizing what I write. I labeled your turning a simple CfD about redundancy and precendent into a bitter flamewar about feminism, despite all attempts to "not go there" by me, and your

1469:

I'm sorry that we got into such a ruckus; I do not edit Knowledge (XXG) for the purpose of getting into verbal fights. But you have to expect one when you repeatedly insinuate that someone is a mysogynist just because they CfD a category that incidentally happens to be related to women in some way,

1079:

Same here. I just interpret WP:MINOR more loosely than you do, I think. :-) I was quoting it directly (" something requiring no review and not subject to dispute") and indirectly in referencing its example of what consitutes a factual correction that is not a major edit. I perceive the logic in both

406:

imply that albinistic people are "diseased". If you cannot accept this fact, please at least stop writing to me about this on my talk page. Much of the rest of what you've said above is complete nonsense. Albinism is nothing whatsoever like an ethnicity or race. You are simply flat-out, dead wrong

2670:

Around here, things (proposals, actions, etc.) which cost others time, or might do so, tend to be things that get me "hot and bothered", for far too many here are too young to appreciate their impact on others downstream, as it were. It really wears, but only time and experience will cure them, and

2405:

to ack. different takes on the issue, simply recommend one and stick to it. On the other hand, I argued strongly for (and got) space-endash-space and nospace-emdash-nospace equally accepted as separators of parentheticals. I don't think this is hypocritical (the case for this is very strong, while

2093:

decision, after all. I looked at some of the supercentenarian stuff, and tend to side with BHG; the sources are in fact quite shaky in many cases. I can't speak at all as to her use of admin powers in this area, since I haven't been watching it. And I'm not in a position to defend BHG from abuse

1619:

explain, several times, why the category is redundant, the short version being (again) that all of the articles that could possibly be categorized there already have useful, unambiguous homes in the article categorization system; the category is redundant for the same reason as the two hypothetical

1446:

about it, I have little doubt that others would agree with me on that point; but my skin is thicker than that and I prefer to resolve things personally). And b) your very permissive interpretation of CATGRS (which is in such conflict with OVERCAT that I've now brought the issue up on OVERCAT's talk

544:

It should have been tagged as unsourced, since it is a simple statement that can be sourced. It actually needs to be elaborated on, about what roles each organization playes in the market, but I don't have time to do that for now, so I won't revert-and-fact-tag it. Not a big deal really. FYI, the

2523:

Agreed, of course. These things happen, and should be played out on users' talk-pages. Everyone can then move on, with suitably adjusted attitudes. That's what we've done, yes? And now we can communicate productively and cooperatively. All a part of the revised fallible-human-process protocol (see

2469:

Finally, I like your work and I hope that we can collaborate on a few fronts. My own push would be for reforms to the editing system itself (you've noted and supported the one concerning the hard space, I see), and for a trimmed, centralised, and coordinated suite of style guidelines for Knowledge

2344:

doesn't make it sensible; that style guide above all tends to say a lot of things that hardly anyone but its editors would agree with, and it often conflicts sharply with other style guides, both US and UK. I agree with "US–Canadian relations" and "hospital–nursing home connection", but those are

1648:

I acknowledge your point that in order to determine whether an encyclopedic main article on the topic could be written, one has to look into sources. You seem unwilling to acknowledge my point that whether such an article could be written, regardless of whether that question is the main thrust of

1573:

Regarding your "get off my talk page" edit summary, sorry but this is what talk pages are for. If you are unwilling to resolve disputes via talk pages, then I don't know why you bother participating in Knowledge (XXG) at all. If you would rather resolve it on my talk page, that's fine, or we can

1470:

and they express strong feelings that the category is a bad idea because of its uselessness and redundancy (i.e. it is dumb and ridiculous) and it conflicts with consensus and with WP:OVERCAT that F/M split categories should not exist except in exceptional cases, this obviously not being one them.

1458:

3. Re: "if this category is deleted, it is but a small tidyup matter to delete the subcats in a further CfD; the difference with depopulation is that emptying a category removes evidence of what he category was being used for, whereas populating an existing category is a widely-encouraged form of

1064:

I understand where you're coming from though; you try to make other editors' lives better by filtering the stuff you know to be superfluous. Perhaps WP:MINOR should be rewritten; or perhaps we should understand it to be a guideline for 'noobs' mostly. Thanks again for your time and explanations,

918:

sway my estimation of minor vs. major, but honestly not very much. There is nothing non-minor at all about a "yep, me, too, and I'll repeat myself for the 15th time on this issue" chime-in on a talk page. There is also nothing non-minor about removing something that has been demonstrated without

2677:

SO minimizing unnecessary CHANGES is a good thing... it helps expert retention and learning curves for newbies. Not just confusing activity (with dubious payback) with progress. So, forgive me if I think that sort of proposal is precisely the wrong thing to be doing at Tfd... the time cost is too

2259:

The en dash is used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements is an open compound or when two or more of its elements are open compounds or hyphenated compounds (see 7.83). As illustrated by the first four examples below, en dashes separate the main elements of the new

1549:

Now get off my talk page and stay off, and go back to discussing things wherever it is that you find it acceptable to dismiss others ideas as "dumb", "lazy" and "ridiculous", and wherever it is that any argument made by a woman can be acceptably sneered at as "feelings" or "ideological". I do not

1025:

version. WP's editing culture is different from that of Meta, which has for most editors orders of magnitude less activity, and concomittantly less watchlist churn. I've only had other editors raise major/minor concerns with me three time in over two years of editing. I don't ignore the issues

1012:

we must delete known-false information (and in the case BLP even maybe-false), without mercy, that the correction in this case is necessarily removal, since there is nothing to substitute for it. I can't see any reason in WP:MINOR's logic, modulo its warning that deletions are usually non-minor,

1004:, since it contains no personal attacks or other policy violations. This is one of the reasons I mark most talk page edits "minor" unless they raise something new and substantive, are in fact disputes (e.g. someone is making personal attacks and I'm calling them on it), or some other good reason. 248:

Will do. I actually have been concerned a little about being over-qualified in a sense - I remember an RfA that failed last month. While it did so because of COI and civility and other issues for the most part, a common oppose comment was along the lines of "anyone with 30K edits who is not an

2376:

before I go back to it. At the moment it is not. It is also incomplete and wrongly structured, as a quick reading will show. I know we can avoid acrimony, and I'd rather a peaceful life than a well-written policy on the ellipsis, any day! When you or someone else fixes a few details there, I'll

1538:

Anyway, I am astonished that you now have the cheek to come my talk page and complain because an objection was made to your aggressive language. But I am less astonished than I was, because I can't actually see any evidence in any of this that ever wanted a rational debate on the subject of the

1007:

The factual correction example in WP:MINOR is about substituting one date for another, but the underlying logic is simple: If we (collectively, by consensus and/or incontrovertible proof) know for a fact that X=Y, and the article says X=Z, correcting this is a minor change. In the example, the

999:

A chatty post to a talk page in which I simply agree with someone and then repeat myself and others (again) is pretty much by definition something requiring no review and not subject to dispute. Someone could conceivably dispute what I'm opining about, but there is no basis on which to dispute

826:

template while developing my Solar energy glossary... So far so good... I think I need to add the Notes section back to get full use of your template's power but I'll get to that. I have another question you might be able to help with. Here's the situation. I want to define a field of text as a

557:

all-women sister organization, which should have been mentioned there too, are long-standing WPA/BCA-independentent professional leagues run by nonprofit player co-ops, and hold directly-competing national and international events. The upstart IPT is a for-profit corporation that has organized

1020:

WP:MINOR isn't policy, or even a guideline, but a help page copied over from Meta with some (redundant!) comments in it about Knowledge (XXG). I think it is pretty good (if skeletal) advice, but I surmise that too few Wikipedians consider minor/major edit labeling enough of an issue to really

1592:

to do with you being female. Criticizing a category, even harshly, that happens incidentally to have something to do with women is not in any way an intimidation of women editors. By that reasoning, hardly any category could ever be CfD'd; CfDing a category about Pokemon monsters would be an

2582:

I think I fixed it. I had to cut-and-paste the DEFAULT EDIT you inserted and place it elsewhere on the page. I do not know why, but your DEFAULT EDIT eliminated Shane Van Boening's name completely from the American pool player category. Please check it and make sure it is okay. Thanks in

2156:, then your unsolicited comments will have some actual substance. otherwise, please find more constructive use of your time here. wikipedia is not an IM or text messaging system, quite correct. talk pages are not encyclopedia articles. you will not find a single instance where my edits of 1181:

No worries; it was just a missing "User:" typo, and I tried to move it myself, but it got deleted before I could finish the move edit summary. The only content was a copy-paste of a URL (easily recovered) to use as a source, that I can get back any time I want. Oh, and no, it's not about

974:

subjectivity; WP:MINOR is quite strict in defining what's minor. For example, at the very least the person who added the OR point might be inclined to dispute its removal; and I suppose you yourself may have been interested would any other person have removed that point before you did.

2372:. I see that since then you have stayed away from the section. So have I, after I imposed a tag on it calling for work to be done. I'm sure we both are reluctant to revisit that nest of difficulties. My stance is this, as I have made clear more than once: I want that section rendered 1578:

me not to attempt to resolve a dispute. If you believe that you have this magical right because you are an admin, then you should not be an admin. And it's grossly unfair of you to respond to my post here with assertions and even questions and then attempt to deny me the ability to

420:

article, which you clearly do not yet have the English language skills to fully comprehend. I do not mean that as an insult, it is simply a clearly observable objective fact. I sympathize, really, with your underlying concerns, but they are very sorely misplaced in this case. —

1026:

raised; I do consider them, but I think my views on the topic are pretty much equally valid. My sense of, and behavior with regard to, minor edits does change over time (largely in response to such feedback), but it's more of a drift than a leap. Will ponder on it further. —

1872:, before removing the request. I almost tried to do something similar a while ago (I wanted to create User:Bameca to prevent impersonation), but then realized that if you can't create the doppelganger yourself, then neither can an impersonator. So you don't need to use 1638:

feminism (or any other concept), as beliefs, feelings and ideology. I hope you can see the distinction I'm making here, whether you agree with my characterization of your arguments or not. I admit that the characterization is not kind, though I do not believe it to be

558:

national and international tournaments which again directly compete with all of the above for venues, TV coverage, sponsorship, and professional membership. This can all be trivially documented, by someone with a few hours to do it, but that is not me right now. —

2088:

I don't see any problem at all with someone who, say, hates articles on individual minor anime characters having those separate articles devoting a lot of time to AfDing them. Nothing wrong with that, even if it does reveal a personal bias or peeve. AfD makes a

2488:"This" - I hadn't even noticed the repetition. I would rather replace the second "this" with "that" or just rewrite the sentence, though, and lead the sentence with "the". But I don't feel very strongly about it. I.e., won't object at all if you change it back. 2160:

are less than appropriate. we are here to edit an encyclopedia, not bitch about other user's style on talk pages. i don't recall ever having interacted with you in any manner, why do you feel it appropriate to castigate me as you have? Please try to be more

1166:, I was just about to post "Declining speedy deletion. While this was probably meant as a subpage and not for the mainspace, this is an established and trusted user who will do the right thing" but I when I clicked save it had already been deleted.:-)-- 2678:

high far too often when one is converting a generic tool that has long been established. Where is the harm in having a second wrench in the toolkit? Bottom line: Any self-respecting craftsmen would have tens of such, not just one or two.

913:

Have to respectfully disagree. I am at liberty, like everyone else, to define for myself what "minor" means in the context of article editing and talk page commentary, within reason. I do take into account comments like this, and they do

1532:

you think that something is redundant, rather just dismissing it is as "ridiculous". On the other hand, if you want to start a ruckus, just stick with the sneer words. Your call, but don't please don't go doing it with people bigger than

1394:

1. Re: "It's a real pity that when there have been several substantive responses here addressing the criteria in the relevant guideline, ... We have here a specific, relevant guideline; please do try to adress the tests which it sets."

479:, I did take a look at it, and yes, it is an abomination. I weighed in about it over there. For the record I think you were right to bring this to my and other MOSers' attention. If MOS is being misinterpreted (or in this case simply 2727:

I've responded to this at the TfD, where this conversation belongs. Please do not post longwinded and rather incivil rants on the user talk pages of XfD nominators you disagree with; keep the discussion at the XfD, unless there is a

1186:

kind of pool, but a sociologist who happens to be surnamed Pool. :-) I was into him before I was into billiards; random coincidence. I noticed that his article got deleted for blatant copyvio, so I think I'll work up a real one. —

411:

synonym of the former phrasing you appear to prefer for some reason. Offensive? Let's not be silly. "Albino" is considered offensive by most people with albinism, as it is used in a mocking way like "nigger" or "faggot", as an

1542:

When others tried assessing the issues, you responded with your aggressive sneer-phrases, and when people tried assessing the viability of an encyclopedic head article the best you coukd do is to dismiss it as "feelings" or

894:

removal of an OR item. Maybe these were just mistakes or your interpretation is different; if the latter, at least now you know that I, for one, really don't consider those minor. Use that information however you wish :-)

2681:

Were your proposal feasible, the proper way to go about it would be to rewrite the older {'2', '3', ...,'7'} templates to use '8', verify each is working, and perhaps shuffle out the numbers so there were less in the end.

977:

You said you probably wouldn't be swayed, so I wasn't sure whether I should pursue this further, and after this comment, I don't think I will. I just wanted to point out the guidelines laid down in WP:MINOR. Cheers,

1983:

I have no knowledge of that. The issue between us is a personal matter of civility, disagreement over CfD precedent, and a few other things, but unrelated to admin powers. The issues do not seem related to me. —

2697:

None of that addresses the problems you might be causing in template expansion limits, which are likely enough given that such templates tend to be used solely on long complex list articles, not simple pages.

995:

Uw- warnings are almost exclusively for noobs. If an editor is doing something you don't agree with and they've been around for two years, chances are it is a good faith conscious decision with reasons behind

2231:

As for "non–San Franscisco"/"non – San Franscisco", that's a no-brainer. That should be a hypen not an en-dash, and we don't space hyphens that way. I don't care if one magazine does it. They're simply being

1512:

Yet when I illustrate one issue germane to those tests (superwaifs), you didn't discuss sources, you didn't engage in rational debate, you just come here and dismsiss that by labelling it as my "beliefs and

842:

I don't think that's possible here. It is something that could be done with Javascript and stuff on a site at which one had access to all of the source code, but we don't have that kind of access here. —

1280:

Argh. I hardly glanced at MEDMOS and I already have a headache. After I replace my medulla, can you remind me what "previous note" and "this bloated page" refer to? Do I need to check my off-WP e-mail? —

1057:

I think that I myself will stick to WP:MINOR anyhow. The point is, we have this checkbox 'minor edit', and I choose to follow the only documentation provided on how to use it; in fact, there's even a (

954:

Of course, it remains your call, but I just noticed you wrote above "I'm unaware of any consensus discussions about what should and shouldn't be minor-flagged"; does this mean you are also unaware of

2671:

by then, they'll probably be soo soo soooo frustrated they'll have ceased to put up with the hostile environment such constant changes cause that like far too many editors here have in the past,

2491:

It is all very time-consuming, and often frustrating. I still plug away at it, but have been largely working on other things. Despite our grumbling a while back, I respect your work as well. —

2461:

in the same sentence but with a different referent is ever-so-slightly disconcerting and disruptive. The only reason I mention this is to let you know what sorts of innumerable minute agonies

1013:

that its X-correction principle does not remain minor, because the triggering condition has not change (we know for a proven fact the value of X). The two principles are in some tension, but

1388: 934:

18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC) PS: I'll flag this one as non-minor just for you. :-) I don't think user talk page chatter is anything but minor in most circumstances, but what the heck. —

1732: 2102:

and this thread isn't germane to me or my editing, so I'm marking it "Resolved". If people are upset with BHG, they can take that up with her at her page (good luck!), bring it up at

1700: 1434:

And so on, including a couple of sourcing sprees about the issues surrounding women in modeling, a minilecture about superwaifs, etc., etc. You seem to want to talk about nothing

2221: 656:

of yours. Would you mind if I used your post as the reasoning behing my listing that template at TfD? (Or would you consider listing that template at TfD yourself). Thanks. --

1106:

Just FYI, I've been experimenting with bending my "this is minor" meter a little in the opposite direction, and I'm okay with the results so far. (I.e., you had an effect.) —

2397:

on numerous occasions that the MOS is not a style guide in the normal sense – a document advising the world at random on style matters – but Knowledge (XXG) guideline about

1410:

relevant guideline" (emphasis added); you seem to think (and regardless what you really think, you advance the argument that) there can be only one, a fallacious position.

2690:

One thing is certain... were those all to disappear or need special pipetrick coding, someone else will have to PAY A TIMECOST going forward to learn a new syntax, simply

501: 649: 360:

Albinistic is very offensive, "person with albinism" is very offensive because you are considering like a disease "person with albinism" is like "person with AIDS"...

1919:

I saw your comments at WP:ACC. The world makes sense again, glad it worked out. I do understand your concern about impersonators; I had one myself a few weeks ago:

2002:

Please don't talk nonsense, Bart. I have never used my administrative powers to delete any such articles. (Nominating an article at AfD requires no admin powers). --

2406:

the others seem less so), but it does indicate that I'm not totally hard-core about MOS only advising one thing. I guess I'll be neutral on the matter for now. —

1546:

Dismissing women's arguments as "feelings" or as "feminist ideology" is a classic piece of misogynistic belittlement. I don't buy it, and I don't put up with it.

1777:

specifically state that warnings may be removed, as tacit acknowledgment that they have been read); I do not intend this one to be a conversation of any kind. —

743: 462: 1438:: a) Your beliefs and feelings on gender issues, which were not actually germane to the discussion at all, and you managed to engage in multiple borderline 1008:

correction is a substitution of correct value Y for false value Z, but there isn't any reason to suppose, to my mind, that if the value is X=false, and per

2345:

not compounds at all but contrasting juxtapositions; the en dash is a stand-in for a word (variable depending upon context: "versus", "to", "and", etc.) —

1773:, nor does it make you magically immune to having issues with your editing raised on your talk page. Feel free to immediately archive or even delete this ( 554: 2507:

PS: I just re-read some of last month's interpersonal venting, and I'm amazed either of us let it go that far. Yeesh. Let's not do that again. Deal? —

398:

I can personally do to fix this misunderstanding of yours. Please just trust me when I tell you that the English-language Knowledge (XXG) article at

393:

Africa people with albinism are mistreated and misunderstood, is a concern that is well understood by me and by everyone regularly involved in the

1509:

I didn't talk about "beliefs and feelings on gender issues", I constantly tried to return the discussion to the tests set out in the guidelines

1413:

2. Re: "...you prefer to make assumptions about my 'beliefs and feelings on gender issues' when I have not discussed them are not at issue."

2667:

for having the proper tool to do the job is almost always a big time saver, and time is something none of us have enough of in a busy life.

2286:(Abbreviations for compounds are treated as single words, so a hyphen, not an en dash, is used in such phrases as “U.S.-Canadian relations.”) 2011: 1559: 1017:

is policy, so it trumps most other considerations, and lends more weight to the correction-is-minor principle than the deletion-is-major one.

706: 700: 638: 294: 2313:

include a space. But the spirit of 6.85, along with the detail of the special pleading given for the last two examples, strongly favours

531:"The UPA is in competition with the Billiard Congress of America and the International Pool Tour for US market dominance in cue sports." 249:

admin yet isn't an admin for a reason". I guess in my guess the defense is that the reason is my own choice not to ask for the tools. —

373: 2732:

matter to be discussed with that user (e.g. they have been incivil or attacking in the XfD, etc.) that isn't tied to the XfD issues. —

710: 2336:

I don't know where they got that from. I can't find it in any other style guide, and I've only seen it few times in my life. Since

1337: 458: 550: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 2237:

Fair enough to be of that opinion, of course. But it is also well to note that not just "one magazine" would use the en dash in

1964:

I just noticed you're having some trouble with her as well: she also abuses her administrative powers to delete articles about

546: 59: 2340:

says it, I guess we should allow for it, but not require it, and I would actually favor deprecating it. Just because it's in

1892: 1602:

There is nothing "cheeky" about objecting to personal attacks, even if they are carefully constructed to give you a margin of

342:(which are white) and the eyes (which are typically pink). • informal an abnormally white animal or plant : an albino tiger. 1455:, thus the "no consensus" closure – had the keep rationales not been AADD it would have been an overwhelming keep closure). 742:

and I have come up with an alternative infobox to replace this template. We'd appreciate it if you could take a swing by and

727: 670: 181: 109: 534:

I know nothing about the subject but there was a help desk complaint and then I didn't want to just tag it as unsourced.

1398:

I did address them to the extent that I considered them applicable (while you ignored my salient points, simply saying "

1297:

I understand what you meant now. I'm not sure I want to get too deeply into the naming conventions, but I'll stop by. —

882:

I see the issue of flagging edits as 'minor' has been brought to your attention before, but it just caught my eye too.

461:

about this, but got no response. I am now spamming people whe participate in MOS with this request: would you look at

265:

With IP page creation being re-enabled next week we need as many experienced fingers on the delete button as possible.

1163: 138: 2649: 2702:

and find unclear 'references' to other pages offensive. If nothing else, consolidate the usage in one page and use

2305:

along with a compound that does not include spaces. With its usual maddening carelessness CMOS gives no example of

960:"a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute" 38: 2099: 2007: 1555: 1375: 1208: 1171: 135: 2152:

cite me a wikipedia policy or guideline that states that i must capitalize my sentences or personal pronouns

2444:

This difficulty does not arise for double quotes, and this is one of the reasons the latter are recommended.

2049: 1973: 1574:

mutually agree to just drop it and leave it unresolved, but neither you nor anyone else is in a position to

1382:

record of this debate, since BrownHairedGirl deleted my response to it unilaterally rather than archived it.

377: 2434:

The difficulty does not arise for double quotes, and this is one of the reasons the latter are recommended.

2044:

But still no explanation as to why expecially those articles are being attacked by BrownHairedGirl though.

2018: 369: 2705: 2094:

of the term "attacked", since I'm in a position of defending myself from borderline personal attacks from

363:

why the blondes, brown, homosexual... are "natural"... and the albinos a disorder, a "medical condition"?

301:

seems to be a misnomer - it appears to have been imposed by fiat, although only as a short "experiment".

2457:

for a good reason. It is perfectly clear in the context which difficulty is meant; and the repetition of

2589: 2570: 2272:

a quasi-public–quasi-judicial body (or, better, a judicial body that is quasi-public and quasi-judicial)

2170: 1603: 1331: 466: 47: 17: 1774: 1727: 887: 781: 593: 212:

Hi there, are you still interested in becoming an admin? I would be happy to nominate you if you were.

2110:

abuse, not just someone irritated at her focus on a particular type of article at AfD, or whatever. —

1451:!votes didn't go that far, and appeared to amount to "I like it" and "it's useful" mis-arguments, per 2098:, so I have a sort of inverse conflict of interest. That said, I would like to note that this isn't 2003: 1944: 1551: 1204: 1167: 751: 1733:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Archive113#"Ordering" someone to not use one's talk page

1493:

If you don't want fights, don't go dismissing the work of others as "dumb", "lazy" and "ridiculous".

1403: 1203:

Hah. I kind of figured it was pool related, just because, and was curious what it was going to be.--

1817:

on something, I want to learn it quickly, so your remarks are appreciated. We never stop learning.

964:"any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word" 1503: 1399: 1258: 739: 476: 2716: 2281:

a wheelchair-user-designed environment (or, better, an environment designed for wheelchair users)

2045: 1969: 1822: 1701:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 23#Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader

1126:

Thanks for the update :-) Chances are my 'meter' will show some deviation in your direction too.

721: 664: 2162: 1422:"desist from attaching labels such as "dumb", "lazy" and "ridiculous" to issues involving women" 955: 2684:

But the WORK AND TIME COST should be born by YOU... not someone else you victimize unwittingly

2655:

no offense. BUT... in the blue collar world, one of the WORST things one can be accused of, is

2449:

Now, the matter is pretty trivial. But I would like you to know that I thought of and rejected

2531: 2477: 2385: 2325: 2148:

Moved discussion back to other user's page, which I am watchlisting temporarily for responses.

2063: 1931: 1900: 1881: 967: 832: 789: 645: 1499: 1452: 463:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject College football#NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader template usage

2735: 2611: 2585: 2566: 2510: 2494: 2409: 2348: 2183: 2166: 2113: 2031: 1987: 1965: 1906: 1896: 1835: 1780: 1738: 1706: 1680: 1668:

PS: I am perfectly comfortable with Knowledge (XXG)'s informal and formal mediation systems.

1496:

Using that sort of aggressive language deters women from participating in online discussions

1476: 1325: 1313:

Actually, a bunch of people with tempers shorter than my pretty much ripped me a new one at

1300: 1284: 1220: 1190: 1131: 1109: 1083: 1070: 1029: 983: 937: 926: 903: 846: 802: 684: 599: 579: 561: 535: 486: 424: 277: 252: 226: 147: 2369: 2103: 1873: 1869: 1770: 1766: 1443: 1439: 1318: 1314: 453:

Looking at it; will respond there if it seems warranted and I have something useful to say.

1891:

Except that I already HAVE two impersonators; someone has evidently been able to convince

1269: 1058: 747: 302: 266: 240: 213: 127: 1832:

Indeed! I like that phrase, "a different kind of consistency was what was needed". :-) —

1757:

If you persist in personally attacking me, in talk or in edit summaries as you did again

1402:

says..." again and again), and I further noted that CATGRS on this matter conflicts with

920: 2743: 2721: 2619: 2593: 2574: 2534: 2518: 2502: 2480: 2417: 2388: 2356: 2328: 2191: 2174: 2121: 2067: 2058:

Boy o boy. Although using the word attacked is quite an interesting way of wording it..

2053: 2039: 2022: 1995: 1977: 1935: 1914: 1885: 1843: 1826: 1788: 1746: 1714: 1688: 1564: 1484: 1343: 1308: 1292: 1274: 1228: 1212: 1198: 1175: 1135: 1117: 1091: 1074: 1037: 987: 945: 907: 854: 836: 810: 793: 755: 732: 692: 675: 607: 587: 569: 538: 494: 469: 432: 381: 305: 285: 269: 260: 243: 234: 216: 188: 155: 1462:

Not when the category is under deletion discussion! As an admin for a year or so, you

1080:

of WP:MINOR's recommendations there to per more permissive than you do, that's all. —

1014: 1009: 2712: 1818: 992:

Had a long, involved reply, and then the browser crashed. Argh. Anyway, the rewrite:

714: 657: 331: 185: 2059: 1927: 1877: 828: 785: 483:

interpreted) this badly, we may need to say something more explicit about this. —

2180:

Replied back at your talk page so as to not fork the discussion for no reason. —

709:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

1127: 1066: 979: 899: 820: 366:"black people" have diseases that "white people" do not have or "Asian people" 46:

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

2465:

endure in editing MOS: comparable, I'm sure, to those you have to put up with.

1262: 340:

a person or animal having a congenital absence of pigment in the skin and hair

1261:

is long overdue, and strengthens the case for more centralised coordination.

1257:

Further to my previous note, the issue of reconciling this bloated page with

345:

Is not "genetic disorder" or "medical condition"... IS A "NATURAL CONDITION"

1926:

the software is preventing account creation prior to doing it at WP:ACC. --

1466:

know this already. Well, you do now, since the closer chided you for it.

1447:

page), an interpretation others did not seem willing to support (even the

549:

affiliate in the US; as such it promotes and holds ranking events for the

413: 2606:

It was my error; corrected it. I did not properly close (it said "-: -->

417: 399: 394: 784:. I threw up some other points. Could you respond to them if possible? 2293:

The point about the last two examples is ambiguous. It cannot concern

1920: 1899:

would have triggered the "too similar" denial, because I already have

1550:

know where those places are, but this talk page is not one of them. --

239:

You are verging on over-qualified! :) Drop me a note next week then.

2659:, which neglecting monetary and material costs, almost always means 348:

race noun each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct

2661:

one is also undertaking the ultimate incivil (web) act— the one of

1699:

PPS: I am often not excessively polite in XfDs (e.g. "claptrap" in

1528:

you actually want a rational discussion, you'll do best to explain

1588:

To continue the attempt at getting us to see eye to eye: This has

1054:

Just wanted to share my point of view—thank you for sharing yours.

2087:

Everyone cares more about some issues than others. <shrug: -->

1442:

violations in the process. (if I were a whiney-butt and ran to

357:

You remember when the homosexuality was a "medical condition"?

338:

Oxford American Dictionary albino |al?bi-no-| noun ( pl. -nos)

890:

probably shouldn't have been flagged as minor; neither should

25: 2686:

because you happened to have an impulse one day to "trim fat"

274:

Ick! Where is that being discussed? What a dreadful idea. —

1769:. Being an admin does not make you magically exempt from 968:

warning template for not properly marking edits as minor

518:

The articles in question have grown beyond this dispute.

1758: 891: 883: 711:

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page

653: 526: 523: 1368:

Other party to the dispute refuses further discussion.

2368:

Some time back we had some discussion of ellipses at

2688:

or however you rationalize such a deletion package.

1728:

WP:ANI#"Ordering" someone to not use one's talk page

223:

policy/guideline pages, etc. I think I am ready. —

2028:Indeed! We'd be in a world of hurt if it did... — 1868:I noticed you requested a doppelganger account at 1659:declaring yourself the winner of the argument! :-/ 875:Interesting discussion, with bilateral compromise. 502:United States Professional Poolplayers Association 1321:on the naming conventions again any time soon. — 208:Not seeking adminship at this time; too busy IRL. 2245:, certainly a major publication). CMOS practice 1506:. A summary doesn't override the full guideline 2694:anticipating the problem you will cost them. 919:doubt on the talk page to be not only blatant 1387:Some loose ends, since I can't reply at the 144:The merge made sense. Thanks for the note. — 8: 1634:dismissive of illogical debate tactics that 1162:Hey Stanton, long time no speak. Reagarding 2216:Hi SMcC. Just a few small things to raise. 958:? I'll cite a few phrases from that page: 107: 1519:preferred to justify all your sneer words 388:Again, as I've already said to you, your 2710:calls. Be well, and have a good day! // 1217:Maybe it'll turn out he was a player! — 354:You are very offensive, and ignorant... 409:perfectly accurate and entirely neutral 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1876:for doppelganger account creation. -- 707:Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader 701:Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader 634:Hi SMcCandlish. That large, annoying 553:and similar events. The UPA and it's 7: 1895:that their request was legit, since 644:scoreboard posted at the top of the 459:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style 1850:Knowledge (XXG):Request an account? 1416:Um, no. Let's quote you a little: 1021:develop and come to consensus on a 2266:a hospital–nursing home connection 1893:Knowledge (XXG):Request an account 1615:Regarding your "friendly hint", I 330:Misunderstanding best resolved at 24: 2692:because you are insensitive today 2673:they'll stop... and edit no more. 2663:stealing some of his time as well 2545:Please fix Shane Van Boening page 1061:) link right beside the checkbox. 816:Hi again... I've been using your 525:an unsourced statement you added 2635: 2550: 2203: 2139: 1951: 1922:. But yes, we definitely check 1855: 1803: 1359: 1317:, so I don't think I'm going to 1244: 1149: 866: 767: 621: 576:PS: What help desk complaint? — 551:WPA World Nine-ball Championship 509: 444: 321: 199: 167: 117: 29: 2269:a nursing home–home care policy 1960:Not relevant to this talk page. 1524:(Friendly hint for the future: 1239:The Naming Conventions MOS mess 1164:SMcCandlish/Ithiel de Sola Pool 966:. (By the way, there's also a 782:manual of style discussion page 780:Thanks for your answer on the 465:and tell me what you think? - 182:User talk:Gerbrant/hidePane.js 1: 2744:15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2722:15:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2620:13:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2594:08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2575:08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2535:01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 2519:01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 2503:00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 2481:23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 2418:00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 2399:what to do on Knowledge (XXG) 2389:23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 2357:00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 2329:23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 2192:16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 2175:15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 2122:01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 2068:17:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 2054:14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 2040:14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 2023:14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1996:14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1978:14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1936:11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1915:04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1886:04:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1844:02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1827:02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1789:13:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1747:17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1715:21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1689:21:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1565:20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1485:19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1309:21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1293:08:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1275:05:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1229:20:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1213:20:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1199:20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1176:20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1136:11:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1118:08:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1092:22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1075:22:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1038:21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 988:19:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 946:18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 908:18:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 855:19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 837:18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 811:08:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 794:07:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 756:21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 733:06:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 693:18:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 676:15:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 608:01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 588:01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 570:00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 539:12:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 495:13:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 470:07:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 433:11:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 176:Answered at page in question. 2657:stealing another man's tools 2278:non-English-speaking peoples 2158:actual encyclopedia articles 1344:14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 639:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader 616:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader 382:21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 306:23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 286:23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 270:22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 261:22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 244:22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 235:21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 217:21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 189:14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 156:21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 139:02:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 110:Benford's law of controversy 2263:the post–World War II years 162:Re: what pane does it hide? 2760: 2633: 2548: 2201: 2137: 1949: 1853: 1801: 1357: 1354:Female models CfD followup 1242: 1147: 864: 765: 619: 507: 442: 319: 197: 180:Regarding your comment on 165: 115: 2426:A small change of wording 2255:6.85 In place of a hyphen 2100:User talk:BrownHairedGirl 1864:It's all figured out now. 1376:User talk:BrownHairedGirl 2708:|Common usage pagename}} 592:PPS: Nevermind; I found 350:physical characteristics 2309:before a compound that 2249:to require it, in fact: 2446: 2436: 2401:, only. So we do not 2290: 2234: 1502:includes a summary of 2607:" instead of "--: --> 2559:Dumb typo on my part. 2442: 2432: 2252: 2229: 1903:as a doppelganger. — 1604:plausible deniability 1253:Involvement declined. 545:BCA is the nonprofit 42:of past discussions. 18:User talk:SMcCandlish 2524:especially §5.894c). 2220:A recent comment at 1945:User:BrownHairedGirl 2243:Scientific American 2106:if there is actual 1798:Category talk edits 1065:and happy editing! 126:AfD merged it into 2297:per se (given the 2239:non–San Franscisco 1590:nothing whatsoever 699:TfD nomination of 439:Templates as leads 2429:You changed this: 2315:non–San Francisco 2222:Dates and Numbers 2025: 2015: 1966:supercentenarians 1901:User:SMcClandlish 1765:escalate this to 1563: 1341: 646:Chicken Soup Game 384: 372:comment added by 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2751: 2738: 2719: 2709: 2645: 2639: 2638: 2630:Something useful 2614: 2560: 2554: 2553: 2530: 2513: 2497: 2476: 2412: 2384: 2351: 2324: 2213: 2207: 2206: 2186: 2149: 2143: 2142: 2116: 2034: 2016: 2006: 1990: 1961: 1955: 1954: 1909: 1897:User:SMcClandlsh 1865: 1859: 1858: 1838: 1813: 1807: 1806: 1783: 1741: 1709: 1683: 1554: 1479: 1369: 1363: 1362: 1342: 1336: 1335: 1303: 1287: 1272: 1267: 1254: 1248: 1247: 1223: 1193: 1159: 1153: 1152: 1112: 1086: 1032: 940: 929: 876: 870: 869: 849: 825: 819: 805: 777: 771: 770: 730: 724: 719: 687: 673: 667: 662: 643: 637: 631: 625: 624: 602: 582: 564: 519: 513: 512: 489: 475:Bearing in mind 467:Peregrine Fisher 454: 448: 447: 427: 367: 335: 325: 324: 280: 255: 229: 209: 203: 202: 177: 171: 170: 150: 131: 121: 120: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2759: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2734: 2717: 2703: 2646: 2643: 2641: 2636: 2632: 2610: 2583:advance! :: --> 2561: 2558: 2556: 2551: 2547: 2528: 2509: 2493: 2474: 2408: 2382: 2347: 2322: 2214: 2211: 2209: 2204: 2200: 2182: 2150: 2147: 2145: 2140: 2136: 2112: 2030: 2004:BrownHairedGirl 1986: 1962: 1959: 1957: 1952: 1948: 1905: 1866: 1863: 1861: 1856: 1852: 1834: 1814: 1811: 1809: 1804: 1800: 1779: 1755: 1737: 1705: 1679: 1552:BrownHairedGirl 1475: 1370: 1367: 1365: 1360: 1356: 1330: 1328: 1322: 1299: 1283: 1270: 1263: 1255: 1252: 1250: 1245: 1241: 1219: 1205:Fuhghettaboutit 1189: 1168:Fuhghettaboutit 1160: 1157: 1155: 1150: 1146: 1108: 1082: 1028: 1023:Knowledge (XXG) 936: 925: 877: 874: 872: 867: 863: 845: 823: 817: 801: 778: 775: 773: 768: 764: 728: 722: 715: 713:. Thank you. — 704: 683: 671: 665: 658: 648:article now at 641: 635: 632: 629: 627: 622: 618: 598: 578: 560: 522:I have removed 520: 517: 515: 510: 506: 485: 455: 452: 450: 445: 441: 423: 336: 329: 327: 322: 318: 276: 251: 225: 210: 207: 205: 200: 196: 178: 175: 173: 168: 164: 146: 132: 128:Gregory Benford 125: 123: 118: 114: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2757: 2755: 2747: 2746: 2689: 2683: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2549: 2546: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2525: 2505: 2489: 2467: 2466: 2447: 2440: 2437: 2430: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2379: 2378: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2319: 2318: 2301:example), but 2291: 2250: 2235: 2227: 2224: 2202: 2199: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2138: 2135: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2046:Extremely sexy 1999: 1998: 1970:Extremely sexy 1950: 1947: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1854: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1568: 1567: 1547: 1544: 1540: 1535: 1534: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1510: 1507: 1497: 1494: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1426: 1423: 1389:now closed CfD 1385: 1384: 1378:to preserve a 1358: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1324: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1121: 1120: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1062: 1055: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1018: 1005: 997: 993: 975: 971: 949: 948: 865: 862: 859: 858: 857: 814: 813: 766: 763: 760: 759: 758: 703: 697: 696: 695: 652:brought me to 620: 617: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 573: 572: 508: 505: 499: 498: 497: 443: 440: 437: 436: 435: 320: 317: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 198: 195: 192: 166: 163: 160: 159: 158: 116: 113: 106: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2756: 2745: 2742: 2739: 2737: 2731: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2720: 2715: 2714: 2707: 2706:Documentation 2699: 2695: 2693: 2687: 2679: 2675: 2674: 2668: 2666: 2664: 2658: 2652: 2651: 2629: 2621: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2544: 2536: 2533: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2517: 2514: 2512: 2506: 2504: 2501: 2498: 2496: 2490: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2479: 2471: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2453:in favour of 2452: 2448: 2445: 2441: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2428: 2425: 2424: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2411: 2404: 2400: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2364: 2363: 2358: 2355: 2352: 2350: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2327: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2289: 2287: 2284: 2282: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2256: 2251: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2233: 2228: 2225: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2197: 2193: 2190: 2187: 2185: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2159: 2155: 2154:on talk pages 2134:Your comments 2133: 2123: 2120: 2117: 2115: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2092: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2035: 2033: 2027: 2026: 2024: 2021:was added at 2020: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 2000: 1997: 1994: 1991: 1989: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1946: 1943: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1908: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1849: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1837: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1784: 1782: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1752: 1748: 1745: 1742: 1740: 1734: 1729: 1725: 1722: 1721: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1682: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1637: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1618: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1605: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1566: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1548: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1517: 1511: 1508: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1471: 1467: 1465: 1460: 1456: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1427: 1424: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1390: 1383: 1379: 1377: 1372: 1371: 1353: 1345: 1339: 1333: 1329: 1327: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1307: 1304: 1302: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1286: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1268: 1266: 1260: 1238: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1222: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1192: 1185: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1143: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1111: 1105: 1104: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1085: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1039: 1036: 1033: 1031: 1024: 1019: 1016: 1011: 1006: 1003: 998: 994: 991: 990: 989: 985: 981: 976: 972: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 952: 951: 950: 947: 944: 941: 939: 933: 930: 928: 922: 917: 912: 911: 910: 909: 905: 901: 896: 893: 889: 885: 880: 879:Hey Stanton, 860: 856: 853: 850: 848: 841: 840: 839: 838: 834: 830: 822: 812: 809: 806: 804: 798: 797: 796: 795: 791: 787: 783: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 736: 735: 734: 731: 725: 720: 718: 712: 708: 702: 698: 694: 691: 688: 686: 681:Go for it. — 680: 679: 678: 677: 674: 668: 663: 661: 655: 651: 647: 640: 630:TfD launched. 615: 609: 606: 603: 601: 595: 591: 590: 589: 586: 583: 581: 575: 574: 571: 568: 565: 563: 556: 552: 548: 543: 542: 541: 540: 537: 532: 529: 527: 524: 503: 500: 496: 493: 490: 488: 482: 478: 474: 473: 472: 471: 468: 464: 460: 438: 434: 431: 428: 426: 419: 415: 410: 405: 401: 396: 391: 390:self-declared 387: 386: 385: 383: 379: 375: 374:213.97.77.181 371: 364: 361: 358: 355: 352: 351: 346: 343: 341: 333: 332:Talk:Albinism 316:Albino people 315: 307: 304: 300: 296: 293: 287: 284: 281: 279: 273: 272: 271: 268: 264: 263: 262: 259: 256: 254: 247: 246: 245: 242: 238: 237: 236: 233: 230: 228: 221: 220: 219: 218: 215: 193: 191: 190: 187: 183: 161: 157: 154: 151: 149: 143: 142: 141: 140: 137: 129: 111: 103:November 2007 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2740: 2733: 2729: 2711: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2685: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2669: 2662: 2660: 2656: 2653: 2647: 2616: 2609: 2562: 2515: 2508: 2499: 2492: 2472: 2468: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2443: 2433: 2414: 2407: 2402: 2398: 2380: 2373: 2353: 2346: 2341: 2337: 2320: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2288: 2285: 2283: 2280: 2277: 2274: 2271: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2253: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2230: 2215: 2212:Just a chat. 2188: 2181: 2157: 2153: 2151: 2118: 2111: 2107: 2095: 2090: 2036: 2029: 1992: 1985: 1963: 1923: 1911: 1904: 1867: 1840: 1833: 1815: 1812:Just a chat. 1785: 1778: 1762: 1756: 1743: 1736: 1723: 1711: 1704: 1685: 1678: 1635: 1631: 1616: 1589: 1575: 1529: 1525: 1481: 1474: 1472: 1468: 1463: 1461: 1457: 1448: 1435: 1433: 1415: 1412: 1407: 1397: 1393: 1386: 1381: 1374:Copied from 1373: 1323: 1305: 1298: 1289: 1282: 1264: 1256: 1225: 1218: 1195: 1188: 1183: 1161: 1158:Just a chat. 1114: 1107: 1088: 1081: 1059:what's this? 1034: 1027: 1022: 1001: 963: 959: 942: 935: 931: 924: 915: 897: 881: 878: 851: 844: 815: 807: 800: 779: 744:check it out 716: 705: 689: 682: 659: 633: 604: 597: 584: 577: 566: 559: 533: 530: 521: 504:competition? 491: 484: 480: 456: 429: 422: 408: 403: 389: 365: 362: 359: 356: 353: 349: 347: 344: 339: 337: 298: 282: 275: 257: 250: 231: 224: 211: 179: 152: 145: 133: 78: 43: 37: 2736:SMcCandlish 2612:SMcCandlish 2586:RailbirdJAM 2567:RailbirdJAM 2511:SMcCandlish 2495:SMcCandlish 2410:SMcCandlish 2349:SMcCandlish 2198:MOS matters 2184:SMcCandlish 2114:SMcCandlish 2108:admin power 2032:SMcCandlish 2017:—Preceding 1988:SMcCandlish 1907:SMcCandlish 1836:SMcCandlish 1781:SMcCandlish 1775:WP:USERPAGE 1739:SMcCandlish 1707:SMcCandlish 1681:SMcCandlish 1543:"ideology". 1490:McCandlish 1477:SMcCandlish 1326:SMcCandlish 1301:SMcCandlish 1285:SMcCandlish 1221:SMcCandlish 1191:SMcCandlish 1110:SMcCandlish 1084:SMcCandlish 1030:SMcCandlish 938:SMcCandlish 927:SMcCandlish 886:comment on 861:Minor edits 847:SMcCandlish 803:SMcCandlish 738:Hey there. 685:SMcCandlish 600:SMcCandlish 580:SMcCandlish 562:SMcCandlish 536:PrimeHunter 487:SMcCandlish 457:I asked at 425:SMcCandlish 368:—Preceding 303:Tim Vickers 295:This thread 278:SMcCandlish 267:Tim Vickers 253:SMcCandlish 241:Tim Vickers 227:SMcCandlish 214:Tim Vickers 148:SMcCandlish 36:This is an 2374:consistent 2226:You wrote: 2167:Anastrophe 1513:feelings". 1459:editing." 1404:WP:OVERCAT 748:JKBrooks85 746:. Thanks! 95:Archive 15 90:Archive 14 85:Archive 13 79:Archive 12 73:Archive 11 68:Archive 10 2644:Old news. 2091:community 1539:category. 1504:WP:CATGRS 1400:WP:CATGRS 1319:tresspass 1259:WP:MEDMOS 898:Regards, 717:Jreferee 660:Jreferee 654:this post 477:WP:CANVAS 299:discussed 108:I put in 60:Archive 5 2730:personal 2640:Resolved 2555:Resolved 2439:to this: 2365:Ellipses 2208:Resolved 2144:Resolved 2012:contribs 1956:Resolved 1860:Resolved 1819:Doczilla 1808:Resolved 1731:move to 1579:respond. 1560:contribs 1338:Contribs 1249:Resolved 1154:Resolved 1002:the edit 956:WP:MINOR 916:slightly 871:Resolved 799:Done. — 772:Resolved 626:Resolved 514:Resolved 449:Resolved 418:Albinism 400:Albinism 395:Albinism 370:unsigned 326:Resolved 204:Resolved 172:Resolved 134:regards, 122:Resolved 2741:‹(-¿-)› 2617:‹(-¿-)› 2529:Noetica 2516:‹(-¿-)› 2500:‹(-¿-)› 2475:Noetica 2415:‹(-¿-)› 2383:Noetica 2354:‹(-¿-)› 2323:Noetica 2247:appears 2189:‹(-¿-)› 2119:‹(-¿-)› 2037:‹(-¿-)› 2019:comment 1993:‹(-¿-)› 1928:barneca 1912:‹(-¿-)› 1878:barneca 1841:‹(-¿-)› 1786:‹(-¿-)› 1744:‹(-¿-)› 1712:‹(-¿-)› 1686:‹(-¿-)› 1639:unfair. 1500:WP:OCAT 1482:‹(-¿-)› 1453:WP:AADD 1306:‹(-¿-)› 1290:‹(-¿-)› 1226:‹(-¿-)› 1196:‹(-¿-)› 1115:‹(-¿-)› 1089:‹(-¿-)› 1035:‹(-¿-)› 943:‹(-¿-)› 932:‹(-¿-)› 852:‹(-¿-)› 829:Mrshaba 808:‹(-¿-)› 786:Mrshaba 740:NMajdan 690:‹(-¿-)› 605:‹(-¿-)› 585:‹(-¿-)› 567:‹(-¿-)› 492:‹(-¿-)› 430:‹(-¿-)› 414:epithet 283:‹(-¿-)› 258:‹(-¿-)› 232:‹(-¿-)› 186:Shinobu 153:‹(-¿-)› 112:for Afd 39:archive 2370:WP:MOS 2232:goofy. 2104:WP:ANI 2008:(talk) 1874:WP:ACC 1870:WP:ACC 1771:WP:NPA 1767:WP:ANI 1753:Notice 1724:Update 1636:misuse 1556:(talk) 1444:WP:ANI 1440:WP:NPA 1315:WP:NCP 1271:(talk) 1128:Phaunt 1067:Phaunt 980:Phaunt 900:Phaunt 888:WT:MOS 762:Popups 194:Admin? 2299:other 2163:civil 1576:order 1533:you.) 1364:Stale 1334:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1332:Talk⇒ 962:and 921:WP:OR 776:Done. 402:does 16:< 2650:this 2648:re: 2590:talk 2571:talk 2532:Talk 2478:Talk 2459:this 2451:this 2403:need 2386:Talk 2342:CMoS 2338:CMoS 2326:Talk 2311:does 2307:non- 2303:non- 2295:non- 2171:talk 2064:talk 2060:Neal 2050:talk 1974:talk 1932:talk 1882:talk 1823:talk 1763:will 1761:, I 1759:here 1735:.)— 1464:must 1449:keep 1380:full 1265:Tony 1209:talk 1172:talk 1132:talk 1071:talk 1015:WP:V 1010:WP:V 984:talk 904:talk 892:this 884:This 833:talk 790:talk 752:talk 596:. — 555:WPBA 378:talk 136:Rich 2718:nkB 2713:Fra 2455:the 2275:but 2165:. 2096:her 2010:• ( 1924:why 1617:did 1558:• ( 1530:why 1436:but 1408:the 1184:our 1144:Hey 996:it. 650:DRV 547:WPA 404:not 2704:{{ 2642:– 2592:) 2584:) 2573:) 2565:) 2557:– 2527:– 2473:– 2381:– 2321:– 2210:– 2173:) 2146:– 2066:) 2052:) 1976:) 1968:. 1958:– 1934:) 1884:) 1862:– 1825:) 1810:– 1726:: 1677:— 1632:am 1526:If 1473:— 1391:: 1366:– 1251:– 1211:) 1174:) 1156:– 1134:) 1073:) 986:) 970:.) 906:) 873:– 835:) 824:}} 821:rp 818:{{ 792:) 774:– 754:) 642:}} 636:{{ 628:– 594:it 528:: 516:– 481:un 451:– 380:) 328:– 297:- 206:– 174:– 124:– 64:← 2665:, 2588:( 2569:( 2463:I 2317:. 2241:( 2169:( 2070:. 2062:( 2048:( 2014:) 1972:( 1930:( 1880:( 1821:( 1562:) 1340:. 1207:( 1170:( 1130:( 1069:( 982:( 902:( 831:( 788:( 750:( 729:c 726:/ 723:t 672:c 669:/ 666:t 376:( 334:. 130:. 50:.

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

Index