User talk:Science&HiTechReviewer

1119:

If you read over the extensive discussions on the talk page, his page, my page, etc, you can see that any improvement is moving at the speed of dark. Again, if there were not a double-standard applied. If he feels so strongly about these affiliations, why, when pointed out, is not the contentious material removed in the very least, that falls well under the wiki standards he speciously advances to cloak inaction. I can only make suggestions for improvements. The page is blocked from my making edits. Yet, this one editor/admin has not only blocked my edit over the past week, but also blocked the efforts of unconnected others, who appear to also have been making some worthwhile suggestions. This is a one-way filter. Scholarship is not decided by a democracy or even fairness, it is decided by merit. The same is true of science, and true here too, and again, we are writing about a living personality, and so one needs to be prudent. If this is so "controversial," then remove all the controversial parts, not just the ones that fit one's particular bias, one way or another.... In editing other sites, and looking at other sites, I can not find any examples of the sort of pedantic arguments used to block credible and important affiliations and awards. Standards, if held, need to be universally applied, regardless of the individual or event. One can't pick and choose. It effects the credibility of the whole enterprise. Information, Misinformation, and Disinformation are what I talk and am now writing about in the Internet age, and how the latter two are contributing greatly to the din of the former. This is that kind of nonsense.

855:

he himself calls himself that. However, the same search shows that he has been the recipient of several very prestigious awards in this area, and in fact, has garnered perhaps the top two: The Albert Einstein for Leadership in Technology and he is a "technology pioneer" of the World Economic Forum. Both of these awards are given out by top leaders in the industry. The editor was dismissive of both awards, and stated he is not a technology pioneer. So, the editor can override these very distinguished awards? This doesn't feel right. I can't take away a biographical recording of Jim Watson's Nobel Prize, because I don't like his views on racism. Whatever one may think of Jain's character, quirky or not, he has earned the rank of being distinguished as a "technology pioneer," and also because he has built up very successful technology companies, and has patents related to Microsoft (it doesn't matter whether one thinks these are an advance or a backwards step). His record in this matter is clear and unambiguous. Yet, again, the spurious character stuff remains.

747:

Jain's and has probably been up there a lot longer, but I wasn't trying to interfere with that, even though there are mistakes there too. The point here is can crowd-sourcing and the various safeguards work. Jim and I have discussed this on many occasions, and we often share the same podium and bar table. I would like to see this process work effectively. I was put off by the rush to remove what may be considered "improved" edits, but not a rush to remove obviously poor edits, such as the one about climate, the reporter's inference that Intelius crashed because of Jain's hype. Anyone familiar with the dot com crash, and I am familiar, knows that many many companies faltered, and there was general hype all around (but many companies faltered that didn't hype, but got pulled in the whirlpool. This is a complex issue, but to oversimplify it and use as a credible source this one's reporter's comment is not scholarship, nor is it accurate without context. That's my point.

587:

pleasant, and the claim is justified, then so be it. I have met enough Nobel Prize winners in my life to know about large, but in many cases, justified egos. I will not refuse to list their Prize just because I don't like their ego. One needs to separate the personalities from the accomplishments. There is too much a focus on personalities, and this is not correct in such an article. Who cares if he has a quirky personality. Lots of people have quirky personalities. Lots of people have big egos. Lots of people are modest. Lots of people are self-deprecating. We need not list all these issues in the biographical information. They are subjective anyway, even if reported. And, who cares? You don't think Bill Gates has an ego? And, all the negative things that have been written about him? Do we report it all? I am a Mac person, so no ties there, btw.

1174:

something entirely different. While i am well aware that a person's perception may differ, Reality is that which exists independently of your perception or beliefs. Sometimes Reality may be in keeping with your perceptions, and then, sometimes it may not be, and you wouldn't know. Gee, I wonder if I said that in a talk at TED? So, I would just like to see this page corrected, so that one can move to the improvement of other pages. I am not advocating edits there that are either controversial or subjective. I am just frustrated that one person is able to undo or block the process in an unscholarly way.

877:

view? Was it decided in a Court of Law? Infospace got caught in the bursting of the dot com bubble along with many companies, some built on hype and others not. There is no justificationfor this type of statement, yet the editor refuses to remove it. To single it out here, as quoted, leaves out the most essential and important part of information, which is historical context. Without the proper context supplied, and with the subsequent paragraph, the reader may come to a conclusion that is not entirely warranted.

925:

allowed through and what isn't. These issues have been pointed out on a number of occasions now. Of course, he has a right to disagree, but the issue here is that this is not a "consensus," there is no vote. He has the one vote, and he decides. This is why I needed to "bump" it up, as efforts to provide sources, explanations, etc., were dismissed, and with cause that was not in keeping with either the standards of Wiki, nor with the standards of material he allowed to be posted. There can not be a double-standard.

1036:

but yet, you refuse to take action. Since you are the one with the One Vote, then, the buck stops with you. If you made any good faith attempts to correct the stated errors, you wouldn't cause controversy and get your own intentions questioned. It is the continual merry-go-round that is getting tiresome. The constant arguments over trivia and symantics, but no applied equally in your decision making process. it is the continual waste of time on these forums rather than just doing your job.

743:

Foundation or Singularity University mentioned, as you stated "overweighted." Such affiliations are completely justified on his page, if accurate and referenced. Dismissing his listing on the WEF website as a reference was also a similar issue. The point here is that you are quick to dismiss the positive and neutral statements, but also quick to accept the negative ones that have been pointed out. That is where the feeling of unfairness comes in with regards to the managing of this page.

851:"...Jain was featured in several business publications which noted his manic demeanor and pointed out quirks in his personality,..." Personality issues, such as "quirks in his personality" are irrelevant, and subjective. Many people have quirky personalities, unusual behaviors, fetishes, egos, and the like, but unless they are a convicted sex offender, etc. this type of character description is unnecessary, especially in a short article, even if true. 1195: 1231: 492: 1394:

for the relevant arbcom info, for whatever good it's likely to do you. I'd be opposed to Jimbo intervening beyond commenting at ANI and to arbcom. A case could be made for unblocking you if you could tone down the arrogance a bit, modify your "experiment", and work up some understanding of why your

1118:

I am definitely trying very hard to operate here in good faith, however, this one adminstrator/editor, is thwarting any attempts to improve the page. By refusing to correct inaccurate statements, and continuously arguing against the inclusion of standard material, it has the same effect as vandalism.

876:

Perhaps the most egregious problem is the following: "The Seattle Times reported that "InfoSpace's success was built on the hype of its charismatic founder."" This is a totally subjective statement and unsubstantiated. Who's opinion is this? A single reporter for the Seattle Times? Is it a consensus

839:

His association on the X PRIZE Foundation board, and the description of his title is disputed as being "overweighted." This sort of affiliation is standard, and is noted in the wiki bios of other X PRIZE board members, such as Larry Page, Dean Kamen, etc., etc. Same is true with his association with

835:

In general that Naveen Jain is associated with philanthrophic activities. This entire section was removed and after badgering put up as "neutrality is disputed." In doing some searches, and looking at the sources, which are not from Jain's own sites, but newsclippings, etc., i.e., well sourced, that

968:

I would love to see this process work. I am encouraged at this point because of the dialogue and the understanding of my points. I will wait to see if the helpful factual revisions that I have suggested will be made and stick, and that this page (among many others!) will earn an A rating rather than

895:

is entitled to disagree with you, and can argue against your points; we must assume he is editing in good faith and has no underlying interests, until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you continue to disagree, it then becomes a content dispute (which is entirely normal), and if you

1085:

cycle, he has the right to revert any changes and request they are discussed further on talk. Your repeated accusation that he acts as a "One Vote" filter is false - even if he wanted to, he does not have the technical capability to prevent changes being made to the page. I strongly suggest you try

1035:

I will file the appropriate complaint, as you are ignoring my concerns and edits. There always appears to be some "excuse" with you of why you will not make the changes. I spent a lot of time providing detailed source material, reasonable requests for edits and changes, which are not controversial,

854:

Another issue was the refusal to allow Jain to have the assignation "technology pioneer." A google search shows that Jain has been described this way by not only himself but others, but the issue is, whether this assignation is accurate or just self-referenced, i.e., others calling him that because

847:

I have made suggestions that "He first worked for Burroughs Corporation (now Unisys) but was not acclimated to the climate of New Jersey." That this issue relating to his not being acclimated to the climate of New Jersey was trivial and not germane considering other material that could be included

746:

I want to see how the process works. I think the problem may stem from the fact that you are frustrated from past history on this page, which may be quite understandable, and therefore, you thought you got more of the same. In this case, however, you didn't. My bio on Wiki is many times longer than

742:

Thank you. This is not a personal issue, and just FYI, I don't have any vested interest in whether Jain is classed a "technology pioneer," or as a server in a fast-food restaurant, but you don't, for whatever reason, like this attribution. Similarly, you didn't want his affiliation with the X PRIZE

580:

My concern here and now, however, is the inability of a wiki user to correct factual errors, inferences, misinformation, and poorly sourced articles. I have read the discussion on the page back and forth from various parties, including yourself, on this bio. There definitely appears to be "history"

654:

I do not see what is necessary to explain further. Your revision edits with regard to sourced edits, not only mine but others, using the cloak of Wiki, were not appropriate. You allow unreliable inferences, trivia to stand, but revert on topic and relevant edits. A formal complaint has been lodged

1286:, i.e. a continuously running piece of software that notices unsigned talk posts and leaves those messages. It won't understand your response to it. Most accounts whose name ends in "bot" (like Miszabot (talkpage archiving), Cluebot (vandal reversion), etc. are used by bots rather than humans. 593:

suits one's own prejudices. This would not be an issue if I didn't notice that certain things got in, which didn't adhere to any standards, but other things of a much more important nature were deliberately left out. Providing proper context is the most essential and important part of information.

586:

The quality of information is not decided by consensus or a democratic vote, it is decided on the basis of merit. That's how true scholarship works. It is the way she will be and that's the way it will come out. If an individual makes a self-aggrandizing claim, and a more modest approach would be

592:

Let's get some of these pages cleaned up. Jain's may not be the optimal place to start, but it is somewhere to start. Doesn't really matter. We can't improve things if the editing is blocked or unilaterally dismissed without good cause. Nor is it proper to unfairly hide behind Wiki rules when it

1173:

I do not believe I am advocating anything that is outside of Wiki rules, and in fact, quite the contrary. Yet, those very same rules need to apply to everyone. That is what I am addressing here. I am not looking for "war," as that has no interest to me. I am looking for excellence, and that is

948:

cycle). Note that Ronz has no special control over the article, it can be edited by almost anyone (except IP editors and very new accounts). If he disagrees with an edit, he can revert it, and then should discuss the matter on the talk page. I would encourage you to continue the discussion, and

924:

Thank you for your comments Trebor. This is not a personality issue here. I neither know Ronz or Jain. I do not want to get into "intent" here either, as I do not possess the power to see into the mind's of either. What I am sensing is that there appears to be a bias in the filtering of what is

858:

Let's not create a reverse toilet here, where only the bad comes in, but the good is flushed out. People and events are complex. Both sides need to be presented if one is to come to a fair determination. If one side is presented, then present the other side, unless the facts has been determined

574:

I am actually not a "new" editor, but I appreciate your concern. My testing of this whole process will lead to an important talk on crowd-sourcing/quality of information. I am well versed in the history of high tech and a very well known entity, but not personally involved with these

984:

I doubt I'll be working with you much. I'd much rather work on other portions of Knowledge instead of a highly controversial article that you are using as an "experiment." I'd much rather work with editors that are far more cooperative and respectful of Knowledge's behavioral

1098:

on the issue; this is the Knowledge method, and even if you disagree, you must abide by it. It pains me to say it, because I sincerely believe you are operating in good faith, but if you continue to personalise the issue and wrongly accuse other editors of vandalism, you

908:

in dealing with this matter - and indeed he has not reverted the latest edits and is discussing on talk. I am not commenting on the content dispute here; I am just encouraging discussions based on content and not on editors (or editors' motives). Regards,

1252:

located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.

513:

969:

a C-. Starting with the suggestions above will go along way. Jain is not sufficiently important in the scheme of things to spend a lot of time here, and I would like to move on to other bios and events. Thanks again for your helpful comments.

655:

not only through the channels of the site, but also through close personal connections at the very top. This sort of behavior just destroys the credibility of the site. It is most unfortunate that you gave ammo to the wrong side of the argument.

796:

Thank you for your comments. However, in this case, after a good number of attempts to just focus on the content, the editor has unilaterally interfered with the due process. This is why the attention has now been brought to an issue with the

831:

Some of these are more meaningful than others, but it is the editor's objection to factual material. Some of which was posted by others not affiliated with me (I will only comment on edits made within the last week):

632:

As I've already pointed out to you, I'm happy to explain myself further on anything that we've already discussed. As to the things that we've not discussed, you might want to try asking first, or at least follow

880:

This is a start. The page can be improved in many other ways too, but my issues here are not confined to just Jain's page (he is only an example), but to the process. I would like to see it work.

1375:

You are completely off base, and you and the various efforts to interfere with proper edits will now be handled at the executive level. I will not waste any more time dealing with this cabal.

891:

as fair and balanced as possible; it's a very important and worthy goal. Additionally, your comments above are exactly the right way to go about arguing for changes to an article. However,

1434:

Thanks for the interesting discussion, I have unblocked this account, please feel free to email me directly if you would like any help dealing with interactions with specific editors.

559:. I've explained that it's a very poor article for new editors to try to edit, and I'm happy to explain further why this is so and what you should do if you choose to continue. -- 995:

Also, I wrote a reply to you yesterday, that I placed on my talk page so as not to distract you from the very productive discussion you were having with Trebor. That reply is

944:

on the talk page yet, and the standard practice is to leave the article as it is until consensus can be established (if you haven't already, you may wish to read about the

1357:

and at worst a smokescreen for POV-pushing and possible sockpuppetry. In short, you seem to be here to create drama, not to document it. Put succinctly: cute, but enough.

25: 1353:

I've reviewed your edits, the discussions on the noticeboards, your talk page and sundry other discussions. It seems to me that your "experiment" is at best cover for

1307: 725: 1158:. I understand you feel strongly about the issue, but you have to accept that others will interpret things differently, and you also have to stick within our rules. 29: 163: 1411:

Science&HiTechReviewer, I would like to have a private conversation, please. Since you don't have email enabled I would ask you to email me, guy <at: -->

940:

Agreed. However, judging from the talk page of Jain's article, Ronz has been engaging in discussion with you and responding to your comments. There is no

883:

I also have some sensitivity to people who are still alive, and therefore, special care and prudence needs to be taken with how things are phrased.

844:

As this is a fairly short bio, there is undue space given to things that are irrelevant and not in keeping with the biographical standards of wiki.

217: 204: 1267:

Thanks. It was only because I accidently made a correction on another computer in my home, which wasn't "logged in." Thanks for the heads-up.

848:

and discussed in his personal life section, and in fact, takes up perhaps 1/3 of the personal life section. Should be removed as irrelevant.

840:

Singularity University. Both of these are neutral, and factual, and verifiable. Editor disputes without any sources to document the dispute.

1396: 1287: 382: 724:

I've asked for help de-escalating the discussions between us, and assessing how to handle you're being here to conduct an experiment:

127: 1249: 510: 59: 1248: 509: 445: 213: 191: 670:"Your revision edits with regard to sourced edits, not only mine but others," It sounds like you're saying that you've edited 1056: 272: 195: 1454: 1376: 1268: 1175: 1120: 1037: 970: 926: 863: 798: 762: 748: 656: 594: 538: 530: 836:

it can be demonstrated that he is active in the philanthrophic space. He has won awards for his philanthrophic donations.

378: 373: 322: 62:

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the

769:

when dealing with other editors. While you may see things in one way, others may disagree, and it is important to build

343: 304: 263: 122: 1326: 459: 309: 992:

is the best introduction that I've found, and one I regularly recommend to anyone trying to learn Knowledge quickly.

441: 404: 334: 326: 246: 242: 225: 268: 1183: 1128: 1063: 1400: 1291: 989: 395: 391: 251: 208: 131: 1202:, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the 351: 233: 200: 1151: 467: 338: 229: 108: 104: 1135: 454: 450: 426: 400: 1333:

four times on 31 December. If you disagree, you are welcome to comment in that ANI thread. Thank you,

1338: 1239: 500: 422: 276: 238: 53: 1235: 1095: 941: 770: 496: 317: 300: 259: 168: 158: 313: 100: 1258: 1203: 519: 437: 369: 63: 765:: you are reminded to focus your arguments on issues related to the article in question, and 1163: 1108: 958: 914: 821: 786: 618: 431: 118: 1462: 1447: 1427: 1404: 1384: 1342: 1319: 1295: 1276: 1262: 1219: 1167: 1112: 1045: 1029: 1008: 978: 962: 934: 918: 871: 825: 806: 790: 756: 737: 711: 683: 664: 646: 602: 568: 546: 523: 75: 1334: 1155: 1094:. The best way (and the only way) to show that you are correct in your beliefs is to gain 1060: 773:

for any controversial edits. If you wish to gain wider input on an issue, you may ask for

463: 45: 1086:

to gain wider input on the content, by asking for other editors to review the issues at

1391: 1315: 1215: 1207: 1139: 1081:

the page - it can be edited by anyone (except IPs and very new accounts) - and per the

1069:

To elaborate upon that: administrator intervention is only for issues relating to user

1025: 1004: 996: 733: 707: 699: 679: 642: 564: 387: 255: 173: 153: 71: 37: 1442: 1436: 1422: 1416: 1367: 1359: 1091: 1082: 1078: 945: 888: 778: 766: 695: 626: 622: 614: 347: 149: 1354: 1254: 1087: 1017: 950: 897: 774: 634: 515: 114: 1198:

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Knowledge, as you did to

1055:

Administrators' noticeboard is not for content disputes. You may like to consider

66:

field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!

1330: 1246:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 1199: 1159: 1104: 954: 910: 817: 782: 671: 507:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 726:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_Science.26HiTechReviewer

58: 1311: 1211: 1021: 1000: 901: 892: 813: 729: 703: 675: 638: 560: 67: 1206:. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been 1325:

I have proposed at ANI that you should be blocked for a violation of the

1142:. Your accusations against Ronz are misguided; as I said before, he 1103:

be subject to sanctions. I hope it need not come to that. Regards,

1243: 896:

cannot resolve the issues you can follow the paths recommended at

504: 52:

on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to

1020:. You might want to contact Trebor to see if he'll help again. -- 694:

Please don't comment on my talk page if you're unable to follow

1138:

tomorrow - you need 4 days and 10 edits because the article is

1283: 287: 174:

Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page

87: 19: 674:

in the past, and I removed those edits. Is that the case? --

1016:. Please take your complaints to an appropriate venue per 56:

on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

1238:

and Knowledge pages that have open discussion, you must

1234:

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

499:

and Knowledge pages that have open discussion, you must

495:

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

32:

to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out

1014: 689: 611: 608: 557: 1134:

You will be able to edit the article after you become

556:

Please don't try to take your frustrations out on me

432:

Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award

1073:- we do not have any special abilities to rule upon 887:I appreciate and commend your intent to make our 169:Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on 8: 1150:autoconfirmed, I strongly warn you against 988:Do you want to learn how Knowledge works? 812:What specific objections do you have to 159:Where to ask questions or make comments 1154:on the page. It is a quick way to get 862:Best wishes, and I hope happy editing. 1189:Removal of templates from Naveen Jain 949:follow the procedures recommended at 7: 1146:act as a barrier to edits. Once you 1051:Administrators' noticeboard‎ message 900:. I cannot see anything wrong about 859:through proper and fair procedure. 24:Hello, Science&HiTechReviewer! 1050: 14: 1395:edit warring was inappropriate. 1013:You've fallen back to blaming me 1306:Your editing is being discussed 1247: 1229: 1193: 537:) 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 508: 490: 57: 15: 763:User:Science&HiTechReviewer 164:Request administrator attention 1057:Knowledge:Requests for comment 1: 1343:23:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 1329:, since you have reverted at 1320:21:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 1277:20:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 1263:20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 1220:20:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 1184:02:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC) 1168:02:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC) 1129:01:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC) 1113:01:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC) 1064:00:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC) 1046:22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 1030:21:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 1009:18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 979:05:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 963:04:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 935:04:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 919:04:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 872:03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 826:03:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 807:03:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 791:03:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 757:02:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 738:02:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 712:20:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 684:20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 665:19:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 647:19:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 603:06:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 569:06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 547:21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 524:20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 218:Biographies of living persons 83: 76:18:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC) 1463:21:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 1448:13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 1372:02:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 889:biographies of living people 128:Intuitive guide to Knowledge 28:to Knowledge! Thank you for 1428:15:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 1412:chapmancentral <dot: --> 1405:05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 1385:03:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 1296:06:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 581:here for whatever reason... 243:Policy for non-free content 1478: 1455:Science&HiTechReviewer 1377:Science&HiTechReviewer 1269:Science&HiTechReviewer 1176:Science&HiTechReviewer 1121:Science&HiTechReviewer 1038:Science&HiTechReviewer 971:Science&HiTechReviewer 927:Science&HiTechReviewer 864:Science&HiTechReviewer 799:Science&HiTechReviewer 749:Science&HiTechReviewer 657:Science&HiTechReviewer 595:Science&HiTechReviewer 539:Science&HiTechReviewer 531:Science&HiTechReviewer 383:Simplified manual of style 150:Frequently asked questions 123:Create your first article 1458: 1453:Thanks Guy. Speak soon. 1390:"Executive level"? See 1380: 1272: 1179: 1124: 1041: 990:User:WLU/Generic_sandbox 974: 930: 867: 802: 752: 660: 598: 542: 534: 1282:Note that Sinebot is a 613:, I suggest you review 183:Policies and guidelines 132:Article Creation Wizard 688:Thanks for clarifying 953:if you cannot agree. 214:What Knowledge is not 192:Neutral point of view 119:Upload and use images 1327:WP:Three revert rule 985:policies/guidelines. 273:Conflict of interest 196:No original research 1355:tendentious editing 1092:Request for comment 779:request for comment 379:The perfect article 323:No personal attacks 951:dispute resolution 898:dispute resolution 451:Join a WikiProject 374:Develop an article 370:Be bold in editing 264:List of guidelines 30:your contributions 1446: 1426: 1371: 1302:Courtesy notice 2 1225:Your recent edits 767:assume good faith 486:Your recent edits 483: 482: 479: 478: 475: 474: 310:Assume good faith 284: 283: 230:Three-revert rule 82: 81: 36:below, ask me on 1469: 1440: 1420: 1365: 1251: 1233: 1232: 1197: 1196: 1077:. Ronz does not 512: 494: 493: 460:Useful templates 405:Featured content 361:Writing articles 335:Community portal 327:No legal threats 305:Resolve disputes 288: 247:Image use policy 226:List of policies 205:Reliable sources 109:Getting mentored 105:Our five pillars 88: 84: 61: 50: 44: 20: 16: 1477: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1413:co <dot: --> 1351: 1304: 1242:by typing four 1240:sign your posts 1230: 1227: 1210:. Thank you. -- 1194: 1191: 1053: 722: 720:Courtesy notice 554: 503:by typing four 501:sign your posts 491: 488: 415: 362: 301:Build consensus 293: 269:Deletion policy 184: 142: 93: 92:Getting started 78: 48: 42: 12: 11: 5: 1475: 1473: 1451: 1450: 1431: 1430: 1408: 1407: 1397:67.122.209.190 1350: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1288:67.122.209.190 1226: 1223: 1190: 1187: 1171: 1170: 1140:semi-protected 1116: 1115: 1052: 1049: 1033: 1032: 1011: 993: 986: 966: 965: 922: 921: 843: 829: 828: 794: 793: 721: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 692: 652: 651: 650: 649: 630: 589: 588: 583: 582: 577: 576: 553: 550: 528: 487: 484: 481: 480: 477: 476: 473: 472: 471: 470: 457: 448: 434: 429: 417: 416: 413: 410: 409: 408: 407: 398: 396:Disambiguation 385: 376: 364: 363: 360: 357: 356: 355: 354: 341: 331: 330: 329: 320: 307: 295: 294: 291: 285: 282: 281: 280: 279: 266: 252:External links 249: 236: 222: 221: 220: 211: 209:Citing sources 198: 186: 185: 182: 179: 178: 177: 176: 171: 166: 161: 156: 144: 143: 140: 137: 136: 135: 134: 125: 111: 95: 94: 91: 80: 79: 54:sign your name 23: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1474: 1465: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1449: 1444: 1439: 1438: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1424: 1419: 1418: 1410: 1409: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1373: 1369: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1356: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1265: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1250: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1224: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1188: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136:autoconfirmed 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1088:Third Opinion 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1048: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1012: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 991: 987: 983: 982: 981: 980: 976: 972: 964: 960: 956: 952: 947: 943: 939: 938: 937: 936: 932: 928: 920: 916: 912: 907: 903: 899: 894: 890: 886: 885: 884: 881: 878: 874: 873: 869: 865: 860: 856: 852: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 810: 809: 808: 804: 800: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 775:third opinion 772: 768: 764: 761: 760: 759: 758: 754: 750: 744: 740: 739: 735: 731: 727: 719: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 690: 687: 686: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 668: 667: 666: 662: 658: 648: 644: 640: 636: 631: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 609: 606: 605: 604: 600: 596: 591: 590: 585: 584: 579: 578: 573: 572: 571: 570: 566: 562: 558: 551: 549: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 526: 525: 521: 517: 511: 506: 502: 498: 485: 469: 465: 461: 458: 456: 452: 449: 447: 443: 439: 435: 433: 430: 428: 424: 421: 420: 419: 418: 414:Miscellaneous 412: 411: 406: 402: 399: 397: 393: 389: 386: 384: 380: 377: 375: 371: 368: 367: 366: 365: 359: 358: 353: 352:Mailing lists 349: 345: 342: 340: 336: 333: 332: 328: 324: 321: 319: 315: 311: 308: 306: 302: 299: 298: 297: 296: 292:The community 290: 289: 286: 278: 274: 270: 267: 265: 261: 257: 253: 250: 248: 244: 240: 237: 235: 234:Sock puppetry 231: 227: 224: 223: 219: 215: 212: 210: 206: 202: 201:Verifiability 199: 197: 193: 190: 189: 188: 187: 181: 180: 175: 172: 170: 167: 165: 162: 160: 157: 155: 151: 148: 147: 146: 145: 139: 138: 133: 129: 126: 124: 120: 116: 112: 110: 106: 102: 99: 98: 97: 96: 90: 89: 86: 85: 77: 73: 69: 65: 60: 55: 51: 47: 39: 35: 31: 27: 22: 21: 18: 17: 1452: 1435: 1415: 1374: 1364: 1358: 1352: 1305: 1266: 1228: 1204:edit summary 1192: 1172: 1152:edit warring 1147: 1143: 1117: 1100: 1074: 1070: 1054: 1034: 967: 923: 905: 882: 879: 875: 861: 857: 853: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 816:'s actions? 795: 745: 741: 723: 653: 555: 527: 489: 468:User scripts 348:IRC channels 339:Village pump 141:Getting help 64:edit summary 41: 38:my talk page 34:Getting Help 33: 1331:Naveen Jain 1200:Naveen Jain 1059:. Regards, 781:. Regards, 672:Naveen Jain 552:Naveen Jain 455:Translation 401:Peer review 115:Edit a page 40:, or place 1335:EdJohnston 1236:talk pages 1061:SunCreator 797:moderator. 777:or file a 607:Regarding 497:talk pages 436:Clean up: 427:Talk pages 423:User pages 392:Categories 277:Notability 239:Copyrights 101:A tutorial 1096:consensus 942:consensus 902:User:Ronz 893:User:Ronz 814:User:Ronz 771:consensus 619:WP:BATTLE 446:Vandalism 318:Etiquette 260:Vandalism 1208:reverted 344:Signpost 314:Civility 113:How to: 1392:WP:BASC 1349:Blocked 1255:SineBot 1156:blocked 1075:content 1071:conduct 906:conduct 700:WP:TALK 575:people. 529:Thanks! 516:SineBot 438:General 26:Welcome 1244:tildes 1160:Trebor 1144:cannot 1105:Trebor 955:Trebor 911:Trebor 818:Trebor 783:Trebor 696:WP:AGF 627:WP:NPA 625:, and 623:WP:RGW 615:WP:AGF 505:tildes 46:helpme 1443:Help! 1423:Help! 1368:Help! 1018:WP:DR 635:WP:DR 464:Tools 388:Stubs 1459:talk 1414:uk. 1401:talk 1381:talk 1339:talk 1316:talk 1312:Ronz 1310:. -- 1308:here 1292:talk 1273:talk 1259:talk 1216:talk 1212:Ronz 1180:talk 1164:talk 1125:talk 1109:talk 1101:will 1042:talk 1026:talk 1022:Ronz 1005:talk 1001:Ronz 999:. -- 997:here 975:talk 959:talk 931:talk 915:talk 868:talk 822:talk 803:talk 787:talk 753:talk 734:talk 730:Ronz 728:. -- 708:talk 704:Ronz 702:. -- 698:and 680:talk 676:Ronz 661:talk 643:talk 639:Ronz 637:. -- 610:and 599:talk 565:talk 561:Ronz 543:talk 535:talk 520:talk 442:Spam 256:Spam 154:Tips 72:talk 68:Ronz 1437:Guy 1417:Guy 1360:Guy 1284:bot 1148:are 1090:or 1083:BRD 1079:own 946:BRD 904:'s 403:• 1461:) 1403:) 1383:) 1341:) 1318:) 1294:) 1275:) 1261:) 1253:-- 1218:) 1182:) 1166:) 1127:) 1111:) 1044:) 1028:) 1007:) 977:) 961:) 933:) 917:) 870:) 824:) 805:) 789:) 755:) 736:) 710:) 682:) 663:) 645:) 621:, 617:, 601:) 567:) 545:) 522:) 514:-- 466:• 462:• 453:• 444:• 440:• 425:• 394:• 390:• 381:• 372:• 350:• 346:• 337:• 325:• 316:• 312:• 303:• 275:• 271:• 262:• 258:• 254:• 245:• 241:• 232:• 228:• 216:• 207:• 203:• 194:• 152:• 130:• 121:• 117:• 107:• 103:• 74:) 49:}} 43:{{ 1457:( 1445:) 1441:( 1425:) 1421:( 1399:( 1379:( 1370:) 1366:( 1337:( 1314:( 1290:( 1271:( 1257:( 1214:( 1178:( 1162:( 1123:( 1107:( 1040:( 1024:( 1003:( 973:( 957:( 929:( 913:( 866:( 820:( 801:( 785:( 751:( 732:( 706:( 691:. 678:( 659:( 641:( 629:. 597:( 563:( 541:( 533:( 518:( 70:(

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

Index