1725:, human, animal, mineral, vegetable. I believe Ludwigs2 is the one who objected to listing TCM/Acupuncture in the alt med article or pseudoscience article on the basis that "none of its practitioners claimed TCM to be science", therefore it is not pseudoscience. I recently found the article you refer to where one of the venerated practitioners says the opposite, but instead of using it in the article Luwigs2 objected to, I posted at talk for his response, which was not given at all, but you were puzzled as to why I posted there. Ludwigs2 constantly rails against science, skeptics, and editors, calling them names. For example he is constantly calling me names and accusing me of bad faith, recently stating that I have a "fascination with the penis", stimulating my ex to edit again yesterday. He advised a financial COI TCM related practitioner as to how to essentially censor info they did not like that they thought hurt their image several weeks back. Two days ago, he threatened to remove science, anatomy, physiology, criticism, etc. from the article lead and remove things from the list and images that he did not like, not based on RS, but pure POV. He implied that he intended not to discuss at talk, but instead to edit war. He went so far as to say if he started one, I would lose, implying that he had friends at WP who would act as surrogates for him. He is acting as surrogate for User:Calus, who apparently is surrogate for User:BrendanMatson and Herbxue. Ludwigs2 is constantly very insulting and derisive, for example just yesterday saying I have a "fascination with the penis". In fact, a Chinese person would not notice anything unusual about the article, and Ludwigs2 was commenting on his own fascination. The metaphor section explains why there is such "fascination" in TCM. Also fascination with toxics, animals and their perceived strengths, leading to a practice that is a mere list with what appear to be exotica to Europeans, as pointed out in
1743:
editors in charge of content via POV surrogates like
Ludwigs2 and his political manipulations to achieve POV via unwitting and uninformed surrogates? I asked Ocaasi for advice after Ludwigs2 made his threats yesterday, after which I walked away, as he added insults to me as well as starting edit warring. What should be done with the COIs, who are deliberately lying about their sock/meat status with phony discussion forums to explain what they are doing at WP? I believe that reacting to your notice will only create hostility and a bad editing environment, so will not do so, and defer to your experience as to how best to de-escalate this and stop the deliberate removal of content from the article to achieve a public image for financial COI. I would just walk away, as I did at acupuncture when WLU suggested it, but I do not think allowing the COI/SPA/Sock-meat removal of content to go through based on a lie about a discussion forum re sock-meat. Also, given the attempts to deliberately CFORK to create a COI "presentation", I also do not think it is appropriate to just sit and watch. On another matter, I did research and found RS for ALL material I ever deleted from TCM over the past months, no matter what POV the material supported. I just did not always do so in a matter of hours, as the COI/SPA complained I should have, when he had BURDEN.
1779:
narrow-mindedness, instead of poking fun at PPdd, I chimed in seriously, from an anon, then I created an account. I logged off because I was using someone else’s computer. I may have forgotten to log on. I asked for opinions of others, but not for others to express them at WP, but I may have been lax in my words and they may have expressed opinions at WP, as an unintended result, or they might have all been mine. I am not checking since I take responsibility for them in any case, but there was certainly no intention to meat by anyone. I am editing from PPdd’s laptop right now, since I forgot mine, and am so disclosing so as not to create still another problem, but I thought it was best to quickly dispel this now and not wait until I got home. I will be careful to log on in the future, which might not be for a while, and be more careful that if I ambiguously ask for opinion about whether or not there is censorship or bias, that I make it clear that I am not asking for edits, but only for opinions to be given privately to me. There is another problem in that WP:MEAT seems to be unstable in content, and it is different than what I remember, but I will err on the side of caution in the future.
2444:"What kind of violence might be done to a system of knowledge when met and deconstructed by another? Is it possible to understand an epistemological world vastly removed from one’s own either in time or space? This question, which lies at the heart of any attempt to understand local epistemologies… (footnote: By “local epistemology” I mean a way of understanding the study of knowledge-making that acknowledges that there are different forms of epistemology, i.e., equally justifiable systems of knowledge that operate on different principles or in different contexts… See Ian Hacking “Historical Epistemology”… and in “styles of reasoning” – “Historical Ontology”… These and related approaches acknowledge a phenomenon that I also explore here: there are a plurality of justifiable systems of gathering knowledge about the world. /footnote)"
1828:
in this inundation; ye — anyone who; nā bhāse — does not float; sei — that; jīva — living entity; chāra — most condemned; koṭi-kalpe — in millions of kalpas; kabhu — at any time; tāra — his; nāhika — there is not; nistāra — deliverance. TRANSLATION "Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. PURPORT The kalpa is explained in the
Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas.
1911:(1) Saying that I'm deceiving myself is a nice unpology. Why are you unable to see that while you started by improving the article (via removing unreferenced or unadequately referenced content) you ended up introducing a POV? To achieve NPOV, it's usually best to read reliable sources and try to summarise them, NOT try to remember what you once heard or read and then google for sources saying that. Why? The way our brain works we remember the wackiest stuff best, so writing from one's recollection isn't very likely to result in a neutral representation of the subject (unless the subject is one's bread and butter - a historian specialised in post-revolution China will probably be able to write a history of TCM section easily, but it's highly likely that they'll also remember their sources).
2278:
learn the ropes here at WP. Part of that learing is to learn to respect and not insult other editors. One thing I like about you is that you are critical of my edits, explain why, and othersise you just say a brief "OK" and things move on. Do you have any advice on how to deal with such "expert" editors, whose advise is taken by other editors, not based solely on RS or their editing history, but on their coming in new and claiming "expertise" as a basis for deleting things from the article while it was in construction. Another example is an editor there who claims not to be POV because they were a "student of allopathic medicine", like you ever heard a med student describe themselves that way. Another claims to live in
Shanghai as a "doctor", not to practice TCM, and is to the extreme
886:
with such insults does not have to feel alone, or therefore, may be less likely to react with the same. So long as the admonishment is polite and friendly, this should not be a problem, and indeed, I was careful to do this. I did not "tell off" Steven. I did, however, admonish him, in part because this is the second time he has insulted someone with whom he disagreed with. While frustration is understandable, the comments with which Steven expressed it was not, and thus, I think my statement to him was the proper one, given that this is not the first time he's done this. If he cannot help but fly off the handle every time he encounters a policy violator or someone he disagrees with, then the problem is not the admonishment, or the people he's disagreeing with, the problem is
1716:
threatened to do to disrupt editing. Ludwigs2 declared a couple of months ago that TCM medicines should not be on that page because it would be like listing pharmacy prescriptions in a medicine article. Ludwigs2 knew nothing about TCM except that he was an advocate and did not like skeptics, which he said again and again. In fact, most of TCM is a random list of medicines with no organizational system because it is based on superstition and not reality. Most of TCM is practiced at home. Of the remainder that practiced by doctors, 75% is medicines, the rest things like acupuncture, massage, Chinese alchemy and astrology. The list not only elucidates what TCM is, it is
2055:
every single medicine that can be (or has historically been) used by TCM. Let's have section on medications that says that they can be of plant, mineral and animal origin - humans are animals, too (even though some of our species don't want to admit that), and then list a few often used examples. The article's main focus should be on the practice as such, not on the substances used (similar to our articles on scientific medicine subjects - in an article about dentistry we can certainly say that they also give or prescribe pharmaceuticals, yet we don't need to list every single medication, but instead focus on how they're educated, what techniques they use, ...).
541:
stemming from the inability to motivate elected officials, government officials and the media/medical system to inform the public and to effect the removal of this substance from the human food chain." - a.k.a. a self-published fringe source - isn't even RS, let alone MEDRS) I feel confident to say that source is low-quality. When I take a further look at this source and discover that it's not even accurate, I feel I can go further and say it's a no-quality source. Of course you're allowed to think differently, but I'm not the only one thinking that this isn't a good source - you need to look no further then to the author's reply to this comment.
1330:
found her "alluring" and she should be "wearing a lab coat" and WP was giving acupuncture a bad name? I was a political cartoonist for 3 years and speak better with images, than speak with words (you likely already figured out the past clause long ago). The image of the woman professionally giving moxy, was replaced by an image of a male without gloves giving unprotected acupuncture. My question was legitimate, and the concept I intended to express clear from the images to those familiar with the history of the images. More clear than I can make it with words. I did not understand your edti and your edit summary.
2202:. Turing's test is that you input "Chinese" into the black box room, and if it "whispers" (actually, no one said "whisper") back and you can't tell if there is a Chinese human or computer, the computer "understands" Chinese. Searle didn't understand Chinese, but could read a computer program. So Searle said that if you gave him enough time, he could take the input, follow the computer program like a recipe's instructions, and whisper back Chinese, and then would "understand Chinese" per Turing. But he does
1735:
intentioned editors are being manipulated in ignorance of his history, and what he calls "politics". He is essentially acting as surrogate for
BrendanMatson and his socks/meats. One of them, Calus, "explained" why the 12 of them suddenly appeared to censor the image of TCM in the article. Herbxue (financial COI) had "explained" that they were reacting to a discussion forum. When asked to provide a link for it, Herbxue refused, but Calus just recently responded with this
31:
1478:
neck or chest, and maybe even part of the shoulder when leaning over. In the South
Pacific where it's broiling hot, practitioners wear tank tops. The acupuncture pic with the "conservative suit" is outright obscene. Especially with the hypocrisy of claiming "safety" found in the reviews, while at the same time not mandating safety via latex gloves, which even the receptionist wears if they come in contact with anyone if they work for an MD.
2132:
medicine” was a list of medicines, a large portion of them made from such “disgusting” raw materials even though I know that most of them aren't prescribed very often or are produced synthetically nowadays. I'd probably find it disgusting if reading the article gave you the idea that lots of western medicine is made from slaughterhouse waste (or if the en.wikipedia article gave you that idea), and I'd definitely try to change that citing
2001:), metaphysics of the self-propelled by qi force blood (The cornerstone of TCM), metaphysics of the basis of symptoms and diagnosis (5 Phases astrology and alchemy, the cornerstone of TCM symptoms, diagnoses, and cures, and of pao medicine preparations), etc. He deleted all early and recent Chinese description and criticism of TCM, like Lu Xun. He deleted any image he personally felt to be disgusting, but which are the
2312:
others. Ideally, the decision for either disclosure of expertise or anonymity should be made before you start editing an article, or at the latest when problems arise - IOW: it's too late for that now (and as I said before, people won't accept it as a reason to edit against consensus anyway). There are certainly some things I think you should (or shouldn't) do, but most of that is my personal opinion,
1972:, and he says "she is getting a little better". The words I put at talk were from him, and I modified it as such. So he was one source for content suggestions about the medicines I looked up RS for. Another was one of my best friends, a celebrity MD and TCM advocate. A third, when I was accused of POV, was to go to TCM advert sites and see what they said, and then try to find RS to back it up.
575:? I have personal experience of side effects, and that does admittedly make me wish to edit in the other side of the debate, an action deemed verboten it seems, which is not the usual way in wikipedia (which is why I find the really vehement and trenchant opposition curious). As an inclusionist, I simply cannot see why both sides of the debate cannot be equally presented, despite the
515:
produced a pro-product review by hand-picked "experts" who are (apparently) known givers of industry-exonerating comments, you'd be effusive in agreement. I also suspect yr low edit count combined with yr close knowledge of wikilaw a sign that you are a habitué of wp using a secondary account to block my edits, like a few others doing the same thing. It's most unusual.
2305:, so there's no probably need to mention that experienced Wikipedians won't care much about who somebody claims to be. That said, I first heard that Herbxue (you should really stop using his abandoned username elsewhere) was a TCM teacher from you, so I don't have the feeling that Essjay's case is important here. A lot of editors are almost allergic to
1523:
1914:(2) That's illogical: you think he'll attack other editors and use uncivil language, so the suggestion to let him edit for a while is good? About the sources and Ludwigs2's “NCCAM only approach” - I don't see anything wrong with following NCCAM's style there, in my eyes their explanations of AltMed modalities are pretty accurate and comprehensible.
412:
1004:
1730:
advised a COI practitioner how to work the WP system to get information deleted from an alt med article so as not to provide information to readers they did not like. He is now carrying that out. He implicitly threatened to bring in editors he knew to create a false consensus without knowledge of TCM but a view as to how it should look,
2273:. However, I have a related issue best discussed here. After you read that message, I have concerns about writing it because it insults two editors, although worded as lightly as I could because it is an important point. I stayed quiet about lots of things as others insulted the expertise of me and others. I might not have mentioned
1249:. It's really annoying to have to read comments several times because new stuff is added. If you're not sure your comment is completed, you can use the preview function. When someone doesn't understand what you are asking you can always add a reply to the answer you received, explaining that, without changing your first comment. --
676:
that initially (or a few years after approval) over half of the researchers had some concerns about aspartame's safety, but it doesn't need to say that today it's considered safe? You're not including the majority view in the lead, but then ask me how I get the idea that you want to give fringe views undue weight? --
2398:
P.S.: About the “allopathic student” - I definitely heard that before and think in some countries where what we consider “AltMed” is a respected branch of medicine, e.g. in India (where it's pretty normal to consult a homeopath first), saying you're an allopath (or studying to become one) would sound
1959:
work as a volunteer for anything I ever do, so I declined pay as usual. I met the president of the company while doing volunteer work reading advanced science journals to intellectually high end elderly people in their 90's with macular degeneration blindness, who get thrown away into assisted living
1827:
I offer millions of obeisances unto the lotus feet of
Vrindavana dasa Thakura. No one else could write such a wonderful book for the deliverance of all fallen souls. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 3.255 e-vanyāya ye nā bhāse, sei jīva chāra koṭi-kalpe kabhu tāra nāhika nistāra SYNONYMS e-vanyāya —
1742:
they came on, so it is all a deliberate lie, one of the few things I have difficulty tolerating, unless admitted to. As you know, I am a fairly new editor, though my edit counts are high, there are many tiny edits on only a handful of articles. How do you propose dealing with this without leaving COI
1623:
Ok, it seems that you have dropped your objections about sources. Let's move on. If you feel that the entire voicemail is too long, I have no objection to it being shortened. But the reader deserves to know why a man would want to commit suicide if a voicemail was made public. Otherwise it would seem
1608:
The problem is that you worded the paragraph in a way that makes it look like you only included the material about him feeling suicidal as a ‘wrapper’ to quote the message to his daughter. Why do you think that needs to be quoted? Why verbatim? If it is needed (I don't think it is), then you can just
1431:
If you think the hypocricy pic cut deep re "showing skin", you should definitely avoid being the subject of one of my political cartoons. It well summed up my style, to let people think and get a conclusion on their own by tying things together without words telling them how. Things stick better that
1370:
Asking for a picture is legitimate, but the way you did wasn't. If you ask about my opinion on the photo question, here it is: The photo with the female acupuncturist is of poor quality and in the small version that was shown at the TCM article really looked more like “erotic art” than like a medical
1329:
I did not understand your edit at acupuncture talk. Are you familiar with the history of the images on these pages and the mass SPA SP/MEAT attack (so far resulting in 5 blocked accounts) claiming the image of the woman must go beause her new age dress did not meet their cultural standards since they
1155:
Wow, just wow. Apparently there are some people you cannot disagree with unless you're part of some conspiracy. That kind of baseless accusation is the reason I sometimes wonder if I really want to spend my time here at all. :( Unfortunately, what looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me will only
704:
OK, about two hours ago you said that the article should state that it's safe according to the scientific consensus, now we're back at reporting what might be scientific consensus next year? I'm not ignoring anything, I'm merely waiting for it to actually happen before I include it. Right now none of
190:
Thanks for explaining. I don't have a problem with people who have opinions different from mine, so this won't stand in the way of us or anyone else involved working together constructively on homeopathy's article and talk page. However, reading (wrong!) accusations of citing out of context (whomever
2510:
ask the editor who placed it there for an explanation, but I think it was just a mistake and they won't even remember that they tagged you, let alone why they did it. btw: the TCM article is looking better and better! When I have more time (perhaps this weekend) I'll read it thoroughly and give some
2365:
keep in mind we're writing an encyclopedia, not a textbook or a scientific paper. While scholarly texts can give a lot of information on certain aspects of a subject, we have to make sure that we provide a balanced, comprehensible overview, and secondary sources like the NCCAM website can help us do
2005:
displays in TCM stores, because of their high cost (and thus not high usage), like deer penis. I could go on, but he is not even done deleting according to his own taboos yet. A Chinese person looking at the pre-deletion article would not even blink. NCCAM is RS, but it is a political body that does
1964:
like altruism, try it, and you will understand that you will get much more than give doing this.) The brother of the president was a math undergrad turned architect, whose father-in-law coaches the math olympiad for a major
Chinese university, and I, too, work with young mathematicians, so we hit it
1729:
and other academic books. There is also an aspect of deliberate bizarreness so as to appear occult and esoteric, just like the history of other any medicines and their quackeries. The difference is veneration for tradition and ancestors, whereby quackery is not gotten rid of, but enshrined. Ludwigs2
1685:
Actually it's mandatory to notify anyone who is mentioned in an ANI request (though I would have done it anyway). You can add a comment, but you don't have to, it's really more of a notification in case things become too messy on the article talk or in mainspace. PPdd's account is quite old and with
1477:
I'm still mystified as to the objection to the pic. Go to any new age non-Chinese TCM moxy clinic north of San Fran and they all look the same, frilly "new age version of conservative" blouse, shoulders, and all. Even the men sometimes wear these loose hippy-Rennaisance shirt-blouses that expose the
1416:
Why do so many think the pic looks like "erotic art". If the woman was 70 years old, or 300 pounds, or a man in a tank top, all dressed new age style, no on e would object. It does not seem right to choose pictures, not for looking exactly the way TCM looks in
Northern California, but based on dress
579:
majority scientific opinion. Things can change. Why are readers not allowed to see the whole argument, in all its complexity? Hiding or suppressing the dissenting studies, or mentioning them only in a derogatory way, seems wholly unencyclopedic. I continue to wonder if the vast profits this compound
341:
The "laboratory website" (boiron.com is the website of a manufacturer who - of course - advertises his product there) doesn't give the reason for homeopathy's "recognition" by the EU, and it mentions neither
Hahnemann nor Hippocrates, so even if we considered it to be a reliable source your addition
174:
Six words, that comment was not directed towards you or our discussion. I understand that you disagree with me on the underlying point, as we were having a similar discussion earlier. But the progression of our discussion was very different from the one with this user, in my view. In our discussion,
2311:
The part about your own expertise and that of your advisors is a little tricky. While recruiting them to edit the article will be seen as meatpuppetry on your side, editing based on what they think is important makes it look like your their meatpuppet, neither of which is going to go down well with
2131:
Well, it's always difficult to judge on a person's reasoning via “Chinese whispers” (no pun intended) as one doesn't know the context. I know I wouldn't find it funny if I were able to read
Chinese, Hindi, or another Asian language and found that on their wikipedia 60% of the article about “western
1367:
Addendum: I don't intend to get sucked into this Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet discussion any deeper, but let me tell you that just because people disagree with you, they don't have to be either. The sockpuppet investigation page says two editors were blocked because they did the same edit and at least one
737:
Your idea of "undue prominence" (IOW even mentioning many of the issues) is quite different to mine. I'm an inclusionist. I don't like spinning articles the way you do. I want to present all reasonably well sourced data and allowing people to read and decide. You want to pre-digest data and present
675:
Perhaps we're looking at two different versions of the working page - what I see is that you removed the part about aspartame being safe at current levels of consumption from the lead and instead inserted some lines about what I would call historical concerns. Why do you think the lead needs to say
543:
MEDRS says WebMD is an acceptable source, but it doesn't say it's superior to peer-reviewed scientific journals. In fact, it states the opposite. I've said it on the Aspartame talk and I'll say it here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I don't agree with you that your sources are
134:
Since I am new to Inkscape, I don't know how to make little boxes for the nations that speak the language regionally, so I just colored nations all together. I am getting close to making little boxes for the images, so just give me some time to work on that and it will look just like the old one.
1694:
problematic), but anyone spending some time to look into the situation can see that's not the case. I hope Ludwigs2 will come back today (or this week) to improve the article, but I'd understand if he'd lost interest. Let's just keep our fingers crossed and see what happens in the next week or so.
537:
You brought up both your profession and your motives, so why wouldn't I be allowed to comment on that? Anyone taking a closer look at your own contribs can find you're commenting on editors' motives based on less. I can assure you I'm neither a secondary account of anyone, nor do I have one, and I
232:
Sure, and I would have preferred a longer, more detailed discussion/evaluation of the trials' outcomes, too, but the paper was published that way. Do you know if this review was cited in other articles? I can't access the Web of Knowledge outside university, so I can't search for it on SCI for the
2249:
PS, as to weight, you have a good point. A counter point is that the substances I included are commonly discussed, and some uncoomonly used substances are only so because of their rarity (deer penis), or communist dictate, appearance (eew, that's disgusting), or good ethics of people like Herbxue
2054:
The article's focus should be on the practice as a whole (history, education, current practice, diciplines, ...). While there certainly needs to be a section on the medicines TCM practitioners use (or Chinese/Japanese/Korean/? self-medicate on), we shouldn't bloat the article by trying to mention
1306:
Calus, if you wanted the article I could have given it to you. Just ask. I got my copy by algorithmically using google search with alternative selections frompast rsults, cutting and pasting the new results, and repeating until I constructed it. I am surprised no one markets such software, as any
885:
I appreciate you giving your thoughts on the matter. A polite admonishment on the page where the incivility took place is not at all inappropriate, since it sends the message to the targeted editor that others have noticed the transgression, and are addressing it. In this way, the editor targeted
2277:
those advising me as to what should at least be included, whereby I looked for RS. I don't want to "out" people who are not even "in" as editors. I could have just asked them to edit at WP, but then it would be meat. I am editing at alt med articles not out of interest in alt med, but to quickly
2092:
He said "disgusting" was why on another page. I actually made the same point in response as you did , but my examples of evidence based medicine were even more extreme. Observing him interact with others, he might be a little hot-headed, and lose perspective. I know I do. By the way, thanks for
2057:
Our policies gear into each other, so you can't just focus on one (verifiability) and hope if you use a broad enough spectrum of sources the article will somehow turn out be in accordance with the other content policies and guidelines (neutral point of view, notability, consensus, ...). What we
2051:
I really don't think Ludwigs2 is deleting anything just because it's “disgusting” - I don't have to tell you that some of our “scientific medicines” (and foods) are made from things that are see as disgusting by many, too - just think of heparin (animal intestines), premarin (urine of pregnant
514:
I felt your comment was a personal attack, as it directly commented on my profession and status as a scientist, as well as impugning my motives. Aside from that, I find your characterisation of my sources (PubMed, WebMD, NYT, Guardian) as "low- to no-quality" simply astonishing. I suppose if I
2478:
Hi - I'm comparatively new to wikipedia so what I'm asking probably sounds pretty stupid - but may I remove that tag on my userpage now? Or is it going to be removed automatically? I can't find any result of that investigation clearing me from being a sockpuppet of this brendan matthews yet.
1734:
doing research to achieve that look. Ludwigs2 actually said he was deleting info then going to try to find RS to justify his predetermined view of how TCM should look at WP. He threatened to bring in editors to cause bureaucratic headaches to disrupt editing, which he has done. I believe well
540:
When you cite a "review" (I don't think this is a review in the scientific sense) that is published on DORway (a quick look on that page is enough to find out they're a "site dedicated to informing the public about the many unhealthy aspects of aspartame" that "was created out of frustration,
1778:
PPdd did not ask me to edit. Just the opposite, I came in to this to join Ludwigs2 in poking fun at PPdd because Ludwigs2 tried to insult PPdd by saying that PPdd had a “fascination with the penis”. When I saw what was happening, which seemed like blatant whitewash, censorship, and cultural
1715:
Hi. It might have been best if you discussed with me and got history before escalating to a notice board. If you were familiar with the history and threats of Ludwigs2, you might not have posted there, and advised Ludwigs2 as to how to de-escalate rather than make threats and escalate as he
1024:
was not happening. I come from Stanford, which has a particle accelerator that shoots an electron into another electron, both travelling at relatively near the speed of light It can only function by the most extreme nit picking. Your nit picking (compliment) has resulted in substantial
1588:
I have to say I find your arguments rather absurd. Firstly, the material you deleted was sourced not only from the Daily Mail, but also from People Magazine and ABC News. During my many years on Wiki, this is the first time I have seen anyone claim that ABC News does not qualify to be
631:. You have yet to present high quality studies that find aspartame isn't safe at or under the ADI (that's what the article says, not that it's safe at any dose). Please don't waste my time by citing case reports or internet anecdata, stick to RCTs or studies of equal or higher quality.
2021:. However, I stopped thinking about POV during construction, only about adding RS content. More content would balance any POV later. Deleting RS is not the way to achieve NPOV. Adding what one thinks is lacking is. And personal cultural taboos like what one thinks is "disgusting", is
2421:
Incidentally, Ludwigs2 thinks (or thought) I am a "radical skeptic". That may be so, but I am so radical I may have come out the other side. My unspoken "expertise" comes from being educated by some of the exact same people as Carla Nappi, who wrote the main TCM analysis from
2454:) but I predict that within 2 years, it will be used as a basic text in phil of sci classes, since it is so full of concrete examples (using TCM) of abstract concepts, a sure fire way to get your book read by undergrads in history, phil, and med departments. Thanks Again.
1368:
IP was, too, that would make three and they're not confirmed sockpuppets but were blocked on circumstancial evidence. Or is there another sockpuppet case? Please stop calling people sockpuppets or meatpuppets, you've initiated an investigation and that should be enough.
262:
209:
I understand. I'm just having serious (genuine) difficulty matching up quantitative results that show something very close to an even split (in terms of evidence of effects beyond placebo), with qualitative conclusions that are interpreted as wholly negative.
1720:
based on obscure medicines, but medicines listed and discussed in major TCM and alt med journals, and which are illustrative of the concepts of symptoms in the section immediately preceding the medicines list. The classification system is typical of before
957:
I noticed your commenting on conciseness at the homeopathy article, and I liked your nick, "six words". A few weeks ago, I was advising a company on shortening their long winded advertisements, and I recommended that they limit any header to only have at
2358:
when someone questions something you wrote, don't refer them to something you wrote or contributed to a lot - they don't question whether you think you're right but for independent confirmation; of course an article or essay you wrote will confirm your
1567:, and if his depression is only mentioned so this “angry voicemail” quote be in the article, that's not acceptable. If you ask my personal opinion, it's due to those rags that he was “on the brink of suicide” in the first place, but that of course is
610:
Yes, scientific consensus can change, and we'll adjust the article accordingly if and when that happens. As long as the scientific consensus is that aspartame safe (and no, it's not only "industry funded studies" saying that, it's also the FDA, the
337:
is encouraged here at Knowledge (XXG), but on a topic like homeopathy any edit that goes beyond copyediting or minor rewording is likely to be challenged. Therefore you should discuss changes on the talk page first and get consensus for your
1850:
Sorry, but Knowledge (XXG) isn't the place to publish or advertise your book. I'm not sure I understand what you wrote, something like that: reading what you added to the atheism article will convert atheists? That's not what the article is
713:
be next year's), so it shouldn't be given undue prominence. When and if that changes, we're including it in the article. I won't have problems accepting that a small group of people are sensitive to aspartame once it is proven. Right now it
111:
It's a remake/spinoff/whatever you want to call it of Kenny vs. Spenny. That means it's a related topic, and as a result, like you pointed out, it's in the same category as Ed vs. Spencer. Having the template makes it easier for navigation.
1955:(1b) It’s sort of bread and butter for me. I work as a field botanist and doing US real estate and operations research as chief American scientist for a huge Chinese conglomerate in Gansu, which makes pharmaceuticals from TCM stuff. But I
2052:
horses), insulin (some people still use porcine insulin), gelatine (hide and bones), rennet (calfs' stomachs), citric acid (‘mold’) - the preparation may be different, but the “yuck-factor” is the same; I think it's a question of weight.
2322:
once others have replied to something you said on a talk page, try not to change your comments (except for grammar and spelling). If you feel you're being misunderstood, make a new comment. If you realize you were wrong, you can either
1371:
intervention. She also didn't use gloves so why is it unacceptable that the male acupuncturist doesn't wear gloves? Also please remember that you added a third picture, captioned “hypocrisy” - did you really think that's appropriate?--
570:
The reviews exonerating asp. may be right, I don't know, and neither do you. There are many drugs and chemicals that were consider totally safe for years and years ... until someone found they weren't. May I ask you to read this
1408:
looked at the woman as a sex object. Edit summaries were "we need a picture of a woman who is not alluring", or "wearing a lab coat", or some such. If you read the supersection context at acupuncture, it has nothing to do with
2161:
Part of the nature of TCM is the listlike structure of 75% (per deleted RS) of it. But as to "Chinese whispers", it turns out that "breath" is a "substance" (herb) used in TCM medicines! Souls of hanged criminals, too, a
1921:
tell you that the article seems biased against TCM, it probably is. Keep in mind that you're not immune from all the self deception and subconscious bias you're able to see in others' reasoning - you're a person, too.
1872:(1) Your nonAGF wording was over-strong and somewhat uncivil, so I reacted to the wording, not the content. On reconsidering afte a night's sleep, the content was accurate, not as WP:bad faith, but as self deception
1072:
Boring if everyone agreed?... I'm sure everyone would agree with that. I'm not sure we really disagree on much (without nitpicking). (Incidentally, I put homeopathy talk page material at WP:BJAODN's most recent page
175:
neither of us were repeating the same point over and over, ad nauseam, blind to additional reasons without saying anything fresh. Also, I thought there was much more consideration and reflection in our discussion.
2413:
things I have done that need improvement. Re "outing", I am the one who helped Herb do a name change and bury any reference to his past use. He keeps bringing up his expertise and blowing his own cover. Likely he
1738:. I had been giving them the benefit of the doubt, over and over, despite their admitted COI and SPA assertions that their intent was to censor to achieve POV, but note that the date of the "discussion forum" is
2531:
Great, thanks! Some feedback would be very welcomed indeed. Since PPdd left the the article I don't get a lot of input anymore. I sometimes don't even get an answer when I put up questions at the TCM talk page.
756:, can I take that as an admission of you liking to spin articles? No, seriously, this conversation is not leading us anywhere, so since this is my talk page, kindly go speculate somewhere else. This thread is
1456:(no need to “fix” the links so the pictures show here - I know how to insert images and chose to link to them instead); I guess there are even some who admire the new age style). The “hypocrisy” picture
2495:
373:. I'm going to bed (and I'm listed as "involved" on one of the Homeopathy ArbComm rulings, so I couldn't block, or even semiprotect, on my own). If you want to, please keep updating the entry at
738:
only the majority view as far as is possible, suppressing dissenting voices and cautionary studies by (incorrectly citing DUE and FRINGE). I can only speculate as to why you would want to do this.
1592:
Secondly, for heaven's sake, the material you deleted also had Alec Baldwin's "A Promise To Ourselves" as a source!!! I mean, if Alec Baldwin isn't a RS for how he was feeling, who exactly is???
2250:(ecologically conscious - tiger penis), but are ignored by many who don't share concerns for ecology, etc. (big black martket of TCM, just as there was in the west when abortion was illegal.)
962:"six words", and that was before I ever saw your nick. I was wondering if "six words" is a nick having to do with not using too many words when it is avoidable, or is that just a coincidence?
2301:
people what you wanted to say was that you'll never, ever do that to anyone, neither friend nor foe (because that's a foolproof way to get yourself blocked). I see you already know about the
1651:
No, I still object to some of the sources, but the wording is a more serious problem. Anyway, we're not going to build consensus on my talk, so please discuss this on the article talk page.--
1446:
If the picture was different, I might look at it in a different way, but it is what it is (and I can't help pointing out that it might still look erotic to some people if the woman was old,
1983:. So I stopped looking at POV altogether, and just added RS content, first finding RS for anything I deleted, then for what my two TCM friends said. At the point of reading about Lu Xun's
552:. You're free to dislike the funding source and its conclusions, but personal anecdotes and low-level evidence won't invalidtate its conclusions. The aspartame article currently says
1883:
bodily fluids, excreta, or anything relating to sex in any way, from TCM, to replace the lead with "NCCAM only" content, and to attack other editors and use uncivil language, before
131:
I don't mind that my image was removed, but you don't need to make fun of my work! (Government Plot?) The image is just an SVG image of the previous PNG image that was on the page.
1990:, the article creep swung toward the cannibalism stuff, and I recalled reading about this in what I viewed at the time of reading sections as a botany history and metaphysics book,
1670:
Thank you for posting that notice on my page, I will add my 2 cents when I have time. Enough is enough, and hopefully some sane individual will agree that a topic ban is in order.
1917:(3) I try to keep away from everything related to Scientology so I'm not familiar with that case, and I don't really think it's important here. When TCM practitioners and sceptics
88:
to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. I have listed you as a party in the dispute. Let me know if you would not like to be involved. The request can be found at
1241:
No, go ahead and delete it, but in the future please try not to alter your comments (and also the section title) once someone has answered (except for grammar/spelling) - see
1288:
for reasons) - you can send E-mails instead. I'll try to keep an eye on the article, but know very little about TCM so I probably won't be able to comment much on content. --
910:
2446:. I pulled that quote out of her doctoral thesis for L2. If you like history and phil of science/medicine/epistemoloy/ontology, this TCM book would be right up your alley.
1994:, hence the search term in the link I provided; I am from Stanford doing phil of math/sci and data analysis, and I peripherally knew the reviewer on that book's back cover.
556:
so what would be needed to change that are a bunch of high quality studies indicating that at these levels (10 mg/kg bw?) it's unsafe. So far I haven't seen any of those.--
2355:
value (but make sure it's at least seven days - some editors only find time to edit on weekends). Resist marking older discussions as resolved, as that'll reset the clock.
1349:
new section you added to the TCM talk - I'm really disappointed you'd think this is a good idea when things are already very tense there. Perhaps I should have mentioned
538:
don't think any of the others participating on the Aspartame talk is/does, but if you think otherwise you could ask someone with CheckUser rights to find out for sure.
2319:
stay focused and concise: when discussing on talk pages, don't get sidetracked on marginally related things and don't use anecdotes to illustrate or prove your point.
1473:*FYI: I'm a woman, so I'd actually find it more erotic if it was a woman being treated by a man in a tank top, but that doesn't mean it's not looking like erotic art.
932:
476:
Sorry, due to my limited English skills I can't make what I consider to be a civil criticism more civil. If you feel it was uncivil, you can ask for outside views on
690:
If it's considered universally safe today, why is the UK government investigating it again? You are ignoring the fact that this is not necessarily a settled issue.
656:
Well of course the article should say that it is safe according to the majority opinion ... where did I say otherwise? Please don't put words in my mouth. There
1504:
Hi, good morning from the UK. I appreciate you weighing in there, sometimes its like the lunatics are in charge of the asylum here. Have a nice day, regards.
1585:
Apparently your position now is that it is a sourcing problem. You write "sourced and worded very carefully" and "you added to the article wasn't" wasn't so.
2230:. Incidentally, something for the TCM article. My Gansu/Shanghai partner said that in western Chinese culture, when someone's family member is sick, it is
488:
tone, though frankly I don't really care about your tone towards me. What I do care about is your tone towards others, and think that your accusations of
333:
and textbooks by major academic publishers. In case your lecture notes cite sources, there's a good chance that those qualify as reliable sources. I know
1545:
I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that "being on the brink of suicide" is not important enough to be included in an article about a person?
2409:
Well, thanks for a very thorough and thoughtful reply. I will try to keep in mind all of it. I say "thoughtful" because all of it seems repsonsinve to
633:
About the Scientific American article: Yes, "bad science" happens, but using that to dismiss every industry funded study is a faulty generalisation. --
2186:
event there. Koch had this "complexity as consciousness" razzle-dazzle using all of the functions you ever saw as an undergrad in math. I asked about
1997:(2) Ludwigs2 deleted RS and MEDRS content on the basis of declaring it "disgusting", and deleted all "alternative anatomy" and physiology (with MEDRS
390:
OK, thanks. I restored the wording as it was before edit warring started for one last time. If it doesn't stick I'll definitely update your report. --
2384:
As I said, most of it is just my personal opinion, and if I were to think about it for a longer time, there'd probably be more, but it's a start. --
2234:, not polite, to ask, "How is your mother-in-law doing?". It is kind of peripheral to TCM, but best fits in a Chinese medicine article. Cheers. :)
326:
discuss this in a much more detailed way, but in short one can say that reliable sources for medicine-related articles are preferably published in
2226:
such a program, which is plenty bad enough." I assume that is not what you meant by "Chinese whispers". I didn't get your pun, so had to think of
2025:
a good basis to delete RS and MEDRS content. It’s like a Chinese person deleting the cheese article content because they think it is disgusting.
427:
to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
1979:
to describe my experience where researching in one area while an article in construction, leads to POV, and that this will all work out under
415:
Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
152:
Oh... so sorry, please forgive me. ^^; I thought you were the one who said that, I just get angry when people comment negatively about me. —
1020:
Sorry about accusing you of bad faith. You should consider an accusation of "nit picking" as a compliment. Nit picking was needed to show
89:
1835:
554:"the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener"
2178:, related to "Chinese whispers". Koch was giving a talk at a multi-media event where I had choregraphed and semi-composed a drumming and
2170:'s page with an anecdotal reply related to "Chinese Whispers", I might as well finish that anecdote here. Crick (DNA guy) referred me to
1609:
say that when his daughter didn't answer a pre-arranged call, he left an angry voicemail message that found its way to the internet. --
1736:
2502:
showed Herbuxe and his former username were the same person (no surprise there) and everyone else was unlikely to be the same person
1876:(like a hypochondriac might have). I have reworded per the content of your comments. Is there other rewording that might be in order?
580:
generates is not behind some or all of the opposition to my edits, which is not necessarily a comment on you or any specific editor.
1389:
Yes, I meant TCM. The sock master admitted to it being an attack on WP orchestrated from his facebook page. He is a prof of alt med.
2206:
understand Chinese! My examkple was a little more subtle and complex. Koch then just waved his had and called me a "philosopher"
720:. If you feel you have something else to say, please say it on the aspartame talk, your own talk page or elsewhere - not here. --
442:
TM, I didn't see any personal attacks, except in your reply where you refer to "covert motives", PR shilling etc etc. Please see
416:
847:
1400:
looked at the picture of the man in a dress suit and thought it looked appropriate. No one, including me, noticed that it is
1045:
2418:
an expert at what he does, which is also likely not pure TCM, but a modified version more akin to Chinese Integral Medicine.
544:
extraordinarily good. A review by experts, unaware of the source of funding, published in a high quality toxicology journal
304:
If lecture notes and a controlable mention of a legal decision on a laboratory website are not reliable sources which are?--
71:
66:
496:
are quite uncivil and won't help you gaining consensus for the inclusion of what I think is low- to no-quality sources.--
1879:(2) Ludwigs2's future addition of content will likely have value. The only way he is going to contribute is by removing
1269:
You mentioned not having access to the article in question, and so i thought I woudl post it here; hope you dont mind.
1307:
article online can be pretty much fleshed out this way, even when the pages don't show except for one line at a time.
2218:
My Singularity modification is, "Can a Singularity computer be programmed to derive sadistic pleasure from torturing
1887:
contributing with RS. Your suggestion that he be allowed time for this is a good one, and I will try to support that.
1690:
like Herbxue and you are the problematic editors in this conflict (understandably, because those accounts very often
1563:
have to be sourced and worded very carefully - what you added to the article wasn't. Daily Mail and the like aren't
1451:
1181:
616:
38:
1976:
2442:. As she put it in her Princeton doctoral thesis (in history and phil of sci and phil of medicine, aboutut TCM),
2306:
2175:
660:
studies that say it may not be safe for susceptible individuals at doses close to the ADI. Re-read my Temp edit.
1686:
a lot of edits, so I guess most admins without knowledge of the back story would assume that the low edit-count
424:
1839:
1180:. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at
1177:
1138:
914:
865:
You're welcome. I'll try and have a look at a few of those old disputes, thanks for making me aware of them. --
1980:
743:
695:
665:
585:
520:
432:
158:
141:
1831:
1413:. It has to do with the fact that the alt med is so unregulated that they can get away with such practices.
1139:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Again.2C_at_aspartame_controversy
1033:
1189:
978:
943:
855:
381:
97:
2513:
2371:
2494:
Yes, you can remove that tag - it won't be removed automatically. The case is archived, it can be found
895:
2369:
work towards consensus and be open to compromise. This is so important, it cannot be stressed enough
1404:
what is said to be an "unsafe practice", especially with all the bleeding that goes on in acupuncture.
1284:
Thanks, I'll try and have a look at it, but next time please don't post non-free content on-wiki (see
2537:
2533:
2484:
2480:
1509:
450:. Also, giving a "welcome to wikipedia" message to an established editor is very rude and amounts to
309:
2345:
2338:
2171:
1818:
Cc Adi 8.38: ‘Chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana
1350:
628:
2522:
2389:
2141:
2067:
1968:(1c) His mother-in-law has ovarian cancer and they refuse treatment with surgery or chemo, instead
1927:
1856:
1803:
1763:
1700:
1656:
1629:
1614:
1597:
1576:
1550:
1532:
1465:
1376:
1358:
1293:
1254:
1208:
1161:
1145:
1122:
1059:
986:
922:
870:
811:
765:
725:
681:
638:
561:
501:
395:
354:
238:
215:
196:
180:
47:
17:
2376:
2298:
2133:
1246:
890:. Beyond this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. But thanks for your message. Happy Holidays.
705:
us knows what Prof Atkin's study will find, and we won't until next year. The view that aspartame
2302:
1784:
1081:
1041:
967:
739:
691:
661:
581:
516:
428:
349:
I hope this answers your question sufficiently, if not feel free to ask for additonal details. --
153:
136:
2309:
anyway, so attempts to edit against consensus based on claims of authority will certainly fail.
1965:
off and became partners, whereby I own 20% of a Chinese import/export company based in Shanghai.
1346:
1345:
To my knowledge I haven't edited acupuncture or its talk lately. What I did do was deleting the
493:
443:
323:
85:
1821:
If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee.
624:
2059:
1952:. Bad faith as used off-wiki is very similar to POV, as one does not see it when they have it.
1185:
1107:
939:
851:
378:
117:
93:
1824:
Cc Adi 8.40: Vrindavana-dasa-pade koti namaskara aiche grantha kari’ tenho tarila samsara
1624:
rather mysterious to the reader. So some information about the voicemail should be included.
1025:
improvements to the article. Thank you for actually reading my extensive talk page remarks,
734:
489:
481:
451:
334:
2334:
just delete or change the wrong comment as that will leave other's comments without context.
2222:
and keep them alive forever?" I even have a Singularity answer, "It doesn't matter. One can
2167:
1074:
891:
462:
284:
2499:
1687:
1560:
1417:
styles and mores of male dominated culture. That is not the way encyclipedias should work.
1242:
1226:
Do you mind if I blank the section at alt med and start over, since I worded it so poorly?
1117:
Thanks, I didn't see that comment at all. I have now removed the worst personal attacks. --
485:
477:
447:
375:
WP:AN3#User:121.213.164.165 and User:203.51.62.245 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )
374:
370:
2271:
1988:
1675:
1505:
1274:
825:
793:
330:
305:
92:. You may add a statement of 500 words in this section that describes your experiences. --
1568:
1564:
1285:
319:
233:
next weeks. Would be interesting to see how other researchers responded to the review. --
909:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at
752:
Feel free to speculate all you like. Since you mention you don't like spinning articles
276:
For your tireless contributions in defence of wikipedia policy and against POV pushing.
2518:
2459:
2385:
2287:
2255:
2239:
2211:
2137:
2102:
2063:
2030:
1923:
1898:
1852:
1799:
1759:
1748:
1696:
1652:
1625:
1610:
1593:
1572:
1546:
1528:
1483:
1461:
1437:
1422:
1372:
1354:
1335:
1312:
1289:
1250:
1231:
1204:
1157:
1141:
1118:
1055:
982:
918:
866:
850:, where more than one thousand articles have been listed for more than two years now.
846:. If you've got time, you might consider helping out with the worst of the backlog in
807:
761:
721:
677:
634:
557:
497:
420:
391:
350:
234:
211:
192:
176:
620:
343:
261:
1780:
1077:
1037:
963:
327:
2541:
2526:
2488:
2463:
2393:
2291:
2259:
2243:
2145:
2106:
2071:
2034:
1931:
1902:
1860:
1843:
1807:
1788:
1767:
1752:
1704:
1679:
1660:
1633:
1618:
1601:
1580:
1554:
1536:
1513:
1487:
1469:
1441:
1426:
1380:
1362:
1339:
1316:
1297:
1278:
1258:
1235:
1212:
1193:
1165:
1149:
1126:
1111:
1085:
1063:
990:
971:
947:
926:
899:
874:
859:
829:
815:
797:
769:
747:
729:
699:
685:
669:
642:
589:
565:
524:
505:
469:
436:
399:
384:
358:
313:
291:
242:
219:
200:
184:
163:
146:
121:
101:
2351:
leave the archiving to bots. If the talk page is very active, you can set down the
2191:
1103:
612:
423:. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
113:
2194:
as a counterexample to what he had just said. Searle's Chinese Room is a reply to
2431:
2199:
2195:
2187:
1447:
1021:
456:
278:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1671:
1270:
821:
789:
2455:
2283:
2251:
2235:
2098:
2062:, and each edit on this way should be “good” in regard to those criteria. --
2026:
1894:
1890:(3) I commented on what I thought of the "L. Ron Hubbard editing style" here
1873:
1744:
1479:
1433:
1418:
1331:
1308:
1227:
572:
484:- if you have something to say you can use your own words, preferrably in a
1891:
627:
and others), that is what the article should say - Knowledge (XXG) isn't a
132:
2210:, and went on. I applied the Turing test to the Singularity, related to a
1454:
2179:
1722:
1774:
Why was I blocked? Will this show up as a permanent stain on my history?
913:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
411:
2498:. tbh, I have no idea why this tag was even placed at your user page -
2006:
not want to rock the TCM-believer/voter boat, so is certainly not the
1054:
No hard feelings, how boring would it be if everyone always agreed? --
2093:
wasting time on me once again. That said, now for the name calling -
806:
Never mind, I must have edited an old version of the discussion. --
2430:
is written from the perspective of trying to be an application of
2450:
is fairly new, (there just came out this month a brief on it in
2375:! Don't edit against consensus, it'll only lead to avoidable
788:
Hi, Please refrain from uncollapsing personal attacks, thanks.
90:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration#Edits by User:Jörg ÖA
25:
454:. Please start being civil and engaging with other editors.
2013:(3) Again, my bad faith self deception comment referred to
2328:
and leave a short note explaining you realized being wrong
1519:
Good afternoon from only about a thousand kilometres away
1156:
reassure Killdec that we're indeed all out to get them. --
2166:
example in metaphysics. And having just finished filling
1203:? Thanks for notifying me, I'll leave a comment there. --
548:
a good source, especially if it confirms the findings of
2297:
OK, I take it when you were talking about trying not to
1795:
1137:
You have been mentioned here, thought you should know.
1099:
843:
709:
safe is a fringe view (this year's standards, not what
1960:
because their bodies go before their minds. (It only
911:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
804:
I don't know what you're talking about, diff please.
933:
Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse
716:As I'm growing tired of this circular discussion,
613:European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food
1758:I'm not going to discuss this on my talk page. --
2174:about something I was working on related to the
2316:. Off the top of my head, some advice for you:
625:Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment
2330:or you can say that in an additional comment.
1325:I did not understand your edit at acupuncture
8:
2282:(or left) of Calus and Herb as per alt med.
1944:(1a) The self-deception comment referred to
2136:or the other language wiki's equivalent. --
1265:Historical article in question per TCM page
573:article copied from the Scientific American
1027:and responding to them in a meaningful way
848:Category:NPOV disputes from December 2007
259:
2314:other editors may tell you the opposite
1527:, I sometimes get that feeling, too. --
1571:and strictly forbidden in articles. --
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
2270:I left a message for you at TCM talk
1520:
977:Pure coincidence, it's a hommage to
1392:Re pics - My edits were more about
1176:A complaint has been filed at AN/I
1133:Thought you might want to see this.
1094:Personal attacks on Talk:Homeopathy
1460:out of place at the talk page. --
191:they're directed at) annoys me. --
24:
2362:keep in mind we're all voluteers.
2010:thing that should be in the lead.
1450:, or it was a man in a tank top*
270:The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
84:Please note that I have referred
1796:your block log wouldn't be clear
1521:
1002:
410:
260:
29:
2426:of many western perspectives -
1794:You're not blocked, otherwise
938:You're welcome to comment. --
842:Just wanted to say thanks for
1:
2058:should aim at is producing a
1561:biographies of living persons
1213:22:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1194:22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
948:21:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
927:11:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
900:14:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
419:other editors, as you did on
400:11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
385:11:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
359:11:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
314:10:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
102:05:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
1999:Journal of Biocommunications
1166:08:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1150:01:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1127:21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
1112:21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
1098:He made similar comments in
1086:01:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1064:18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
991:06:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
972:22:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
2506:they tagged your page. You
2266:Message for you at TCM talk
2216:"Can a computer feel pain?"
1814:Cryptic message re: Atheism
875:14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
860:05:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
735:Food Standards Agency study
292:10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
243:15:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
220:07:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
201:11:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
185:08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
2560:
2527:15:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
2489:14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
2464:12:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
2394:11:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
2292:23:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
2260:22:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2244:21:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2146:20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2107:19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2072:18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2035:16:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
1932:15:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
1903:14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
1861:11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
1844:10:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
1808:20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
1789:20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
1768:20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
1753:14:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
1727:The Monkey and the Inkwell
1705:14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
1680:13:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
1661:20:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
1634:20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
1619:20:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
1602:19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
1581:19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
1555:18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
1537:14:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
1514:13:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
1488:14:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
1470:11:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
1442:10:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
1427:10:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
1381:09:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
1363:09:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
1340:09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
1317:09:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
1298:20:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1279:19:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1182:Talk:Aspartame controversy
1000:
784:enabling personal attacks.
617:UK's Food Standards Agency
2542:01:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2348:, it'll be misunderstood.
2176:Technological singularity
1992:The Monkey and the Teapot
1259:22:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
1236:22:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
686:23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
670:22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
643:21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
621:French Food Safety Agency
590:13:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
566:11:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
525:10:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
506:10:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
480:. In the meantime please
470:10:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
437:09:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
266:
164:16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
147:16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
122:03:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
2474:Sockpuppet investigation
2428:The Monkey of the Inkpot
830:18:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
816:17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
798:17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
770:00:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
748:00:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
730:00:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
700:00:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
135:Please and thank you. —
2436:Historical Epistemology
1688:single-purpose accounts
1172:AN/I notice...Aspartame
718:this thread is "closed"
80:Request for Arbitration
1975:(1e) I wrote an essay
1353:in my edit summary. --
1184:in recent history. --
2339:“Show preview” button
1970:using only purist TCM
42:of past discussions.
2448:Monkey of the Inkpot
2307:appeals to authority
2208:in front of everyone
1559:No, I'm saying that
1245:, more specifically
915:About User:BeatriceX
369:Already reported to
2440:Historical Ontology
2344:don't use jokes or
2095:"You exclusionist!"
107:Re: Elton vs. Simon
18:User talk:Six words
2326:
2325:STRIKE the comment
2303:Essjay controversy
1500:/* Alec Baldwin */
805:
253:A barnstar for you
170:Clarity and Truth?
2400:
2372:C O N S E N S U S
2329:
2324:
1834:comment added by
1569:original research
1474:
1050:
1036:comment added by
803:
482:don't template me
467:
297:
296:
289:
127:Re: Deutschophone
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2551:
2452:Harvard Magazine
2396:
2327:
2168:User talk:Ocaasi
1977:WP:Article creep
1846:
1565:reliable sources
1526:
1525:
1524:
1472:
1049:
1030:
1006:
1005:
468:
465:
461:
414:
331:medical journals
290:
287:
283:
264:
257:
256:
161:
156:
144:
139:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2559:
2558:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2476:
2268:
1869:
1829:
1816:
1776:
1713:
1668:
1522:
1502:
1327:
1267:
1224:
1199:This is at ANI
1174:
1135:
1096:
1031:
1018:
1009:
1008:
1003:
955:
936:
907:
883:
840:
786:
463:
455:
408:
367:
302:
285:
277:
255:
172:
159:
154:
142:
137:
129:
109:
82:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2557:
2555:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2514:general reader
2511:feedback as a
2475:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2419:
2402:
2401:
2399:pretty normal.
2397:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2367:
2363:
2360:
2356:
2349:
2342:
2335:
2320:
2310:
2267:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2212:Daniel Dennett
2182:dance for the
2172:Christoph Koch
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2056:
2053:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2011:
1995:
1981:WP:Eventualism
1973:
1966:
1953:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1915:
1912:
1906:
1905:
1888:
1877:
1868:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1836:95.132.117.210
1815:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1775:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1667:
1664:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1590:
1586:
1540:
1539:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1429:
1414:
1390:
1384:
1383:
1369:
1365:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1301:
1300:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1223:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1134:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1102:on the page.
1100:his first post
1095:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1067:
1066:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1001:
954:
951:
935:
930:
906:
903:
882:
879:
878:
877:
839:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
785:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
754:the way "I" do
715:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
632:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
542:
539:
530:
529:
528:
527:
509:
508:
473:
472:
421:Talk:Aspartame
407:
404:
403:
402:
366:
363:
362:
361:
347:
339:
301:
300:Reliable notes
298:
295:
294:
273:
272:
267:
265:
254:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
225:
224:
223:
222:
204:
203:
171:
168:
167:
166:
128:
125:
108:
105:
81:
78:
75:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2556:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2516:
2515:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2486:
2482:
2473:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2425:
2420:
2417:
2412:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2378:
2374:
2373:
2368:
2364:
2361:
2357:
2354:
2350:
2347:
2343:
2340:
2336:
2333:
2321:
2318:
2317:
2315:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2276:
2272:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2009:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1993:
1989:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1958:
1954:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1920:
1916:
1913:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1889:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1867:Reconsidering
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1825:
1822:
1819:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1693:
1689:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1665:
1663:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1499:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1452:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1430:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1415:
1412:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1366:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1324:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1093:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1028:
1023:
1015:
998:
994:
993:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
975:
974:
973:
969:
965:
961:
952:
950:
949:
945:
941:
934:
931:
929:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
904:
902:
901:
897:
893:
889:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
863:
862:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
837:
831:
827:
823:
819:
818:
817:
813:
809:
802:
801:
800:
799:
795:
791:
783:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
740:TickleMeister
736:
733:
732:
731:
727:
723:
719:
712:
708:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
692:TickleMeister
689:
688:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
672:
671:
667:
663:
662:TickleMeister
659:
644:
640:
636:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
591:
587:
583:
582:TickleMeister
578:
574:
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:other reviews
547:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
526:
522:
518:
517:TickleMeister
513:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
471:
466:
460:
459:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
434:
430:
429:TickleMeister
426:
422:
418:
413:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
386:
383:
380:
376:
372:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
340:
336:
332:
329:
328:peer reviewed
325:
321:
318:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
299:
293:
288:
282:
281:
275:
274:
271:
268:
263:
258:
252:
244:
240:
236:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
221:
217:
213:
208:
207:
206:
205:
202:
198:
194:
189:
188:
187:
186:
182:
178:
169:
165:
162:
157:
151:
150:
149:
148:
145:
140:
133:
126:
124:
123:
119:
115:
106:
104:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
79:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2512:
2507:
2503:
2477:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2427:
2423:
2415:
2410:
2370:
2352:
2331:
2313:
2279:
2274:
2269:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2220:Homo sapiens
2219:
2215:
2207:
2203:
2192:Chinese Room
2183:
2163:
2160:
2094:
2060:good article
2022:
2018:
2014:
2007:
2002:
1998:
1991:
1984:
1969:
1961:
1956:
1949:
1945:
1918:
1885:meaningfully
1884:
1880:
1826:
1823:
1820:
1817:
1777:
1739:
1731:
1726:
1717:
1714:
1691:
1669:
1650:
1503:
1457:
1410:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1328:
1268:
1225:
1219:
1200:
1178:located here
1175:
1136:
1097:
1032:— Preceding
1026:
1019:
999:is one word.
996:
959:
956:
937:
908:
887:
884:
852:WhatamIdoing
841:
787:
757:
753:
717:
710:
706:
657:
655:
629:crystal ball
576:
553:
549:
545:
457:
425:welcome page
409:
379:Arthur Rubin
368:
365:Homeopathy
342:wouldn't be
303:
279:
269:
173:
130:
110:
94:Linkswechsel
86:User:Jörg ÖA
83:
60:
43:
37:
2432:Ian Hacking
2224:approximate
2214:questions,
2200:Turing test
2196:Alan Turing
2188:John Searle
2003:centerpiece
1830:—Preceding
1022:cold fusion
953:"Six Words"
905:AN/I notice
892:Nightscream
881:James Randi
490:tag teaming
36:This is an
2534:Mallexikon
2481:Mallexikon
2411:particular
2377:wikistress
1506:Off2riorob
1351:WP:SARCASM
452:WP:BAITing
344:verifiable
335:being bold
306:Ha-y Gavra
2519:Six words
2500:CheckUser
2386:Six words
2359:position.
2228:something
2138:Six words
2134:WP:WEIGHT
2064:Six words
1987:about TCM
1924:Six words
1874:bad faith
1853:Six words
1800:Six words
1760:Six words
1697:Six words
1653:Six words
1626:Nevadaone
1611:Six words
1594:Nevadaone
1573:Six words
1547:Nevadaone
1529:Six words
1462:Six words
1394:all of us
1373:Six words
1355:Six words
1290:Six words
1251:Six words
1247:WP:REDACT
1205:Six words
1186:Brangifer
1158:Six words
1142:Dbrodbeck
1119:Six words
1056:Six words
995:Ah, ha.
983:Six words
940:Brangifer
919:Kleopatra
867:Six words
844:this edit
808:Six words
762:Six words
722:Six words
678:Six words
635:Six words
558:Six words
498:Six words
406:June 2010
392:Six words
351:Six words
338:addition.
235:Six words
212:Dbrisinda
193:Six words
177:Dbrisinda
72:Archive 3
67:Archive 2
61:Archive 1
2337:use the
2232:impolite
2180:Capoeira
1985:Medicine
1832:unsigned
1781:DanieliM
1723:Linnaeus
1078:HkFnsNGA
1046:contribs
1038:HkFnsNGA
1034:unsigned
1007:Resolved
979:Weird Al
964:HkFnsNGA
820:Thanks!
444:WP:CIVIL
324:WP:MEDRS
2346:sarcasm
1411:editors
1402:exactly
1104:Brunton
577:current
155:Nuclear
138:Nuclear
114:Pwnage8
39:archive
2504:before
2164:famous
2017:, not
1948:, not
1851:for.--
1732:before
1666:Notice
1347:pointy
1243:WP:TPG
838:Thanks
758:closed
714:isn't.
619:, the
615:, the
494:cabals
478:WP:WQA
458:Verbal
448:WP:AGF
417:attack
382:(talk)
371:WP:AN3
280:Verbal
160:Vacuum
143:Vacuum
2508:could
2366:that.
2332:Don't
2280:right
2097:. :)
2023:never
1962:looks
1740:after
1672:Calus
1448:obese
1432:way.
1396:. We
1286:WP:CV
1271:Calus
1201:again
1016:Faith
822:Unomi
790:Unomi
711:might
707:isn't
486:civil
377:. —
320:WP:RS
16:<
2538:talk
2523:talk
2517:. --
2496:here
2485:talk
2460:talk
2456:PPdd
2438:and
2390:talk
2288:talk
2284:PPdd
2256:talk
2252:PPdd
2240:talk
2236:PPdd
2184:next
2142:talk
2103:talk
2099:PPdd
2068:talk
2031:talk
2027:PPdd
2008:only
1957:only
1928:talk
1919:both
1899:talk
1895:PPdd
1857:talk
1840:talk
1804:talk
1798:. --
1785:talk
1764:talk
1749:talk
1745:PPdd
1711:Note
1701:talk
1676:talk
1657:talk
1630:talk
1615:talk
1598:talk
1577:talk
1551:talk
1533:talk
1510:talk
1484:talk
1480:PPdd
1466:talk
1438:talk
1434:PPdd
1423:talk
1419:PPdd
1406:Many
1377:talk
1359:talk
1336:talk
1332:PPdd
1313:talk
1309:PPdd
1294:talk
1275:talk
1255:talk
1232:talk
1228:PPdd
1209:talk
1190:talk
1162:talk
1146:talk
1123:talk
1108:talk
1082:talk
1073:here
1060:talk
1042:talk
997:This
987:talk
981:. --
968:talk
960:most
944:talk
923:talk
896:talk
871:talk
856:talk
826:talk
812:talk
794:talk
766:talk
760:. --
744:talk
726:talk
696:talk
682:talk
666:talk
639:talk
586:talk
562:talk
521:talk
502:talk
464:chat
446:and
433:talk
396:talk
355:talk
322:and
310:talk
286:chat
239:talk
216:talk
197:talk
181:talk
118:talk
98:talk
2434:'s
2424:one
2353:age
2299:out
2275:all
2204:not
2198:'s
2190:'s
2019:you
1950:you
1881:all
1718:not
1692:are
1589:RS.
1458:was
1398:all
1076:.)
888:him
658:are
492:or
2540:)
2525:)
2487:)
2479:--
2462:)
2416:is
2392:)
2290:)
2258:)
2242:)
2144:)
2105:)
2070:)
2033:)
2015:me
1946:me
1930:)
1922:--
1901:)
1893:.
1859:)
1842:)
1806:)
1787:)
1766:)
1751:)
1703:)
1695:--
1678:)
1659:)
1632:)
1617:)
1600:)
1579:)
1553:)
1535:)
1512:)
1486:)
1468:)
1440:)
1425:)
1379:)
1361:)
1338:)
1315:)
1296:)
1277:)
1257:)
1234:)
1220:OK
1211:)
1192:)
1164:)
1148:)
1125:)
1110:)
1084:)
1062:)
1048:)
1044:•
1029:.
989:)
970:)
946:)
925:)
917:--
898:)
873:)
858:)
828:)
814:)
796:)
768:)
746:)
728:)
698:)
684:)
668:)
641:)
623:,
588:)
564:)
546:is
523:)
504:)
435:)
398:)
357:)
312:)
241:)
218:)
199:)
183:)
120:)
112:--
100:)
2536:(
2521:(
2483:(
2458:(
2388:(
2379:.
2341:.
2286:(
2254:(
2238:(
2140:(
2101:(
2066:(
2029:(
1926:(
1897:(
1855:(
1838:(
1802:(
1783:(
1762:(
1747:(
1699:(
1674:(
1655:(
1628:(
1613:(
1596:(
1575:(
1549:(
1531:(
1508:(
1482:(
1464:(
1453:/
1436:(
1421:(
1375:(
1357:(
1334:(
1311:(
1292:(
1273:(
1253:(
1230:(
1222:?
1207:(
1188:(
1160:(
1144:(
1121:(
1106:(
1080:(
1058:(
1040:(
985:(
966:(
942:(
921:(
894:(
869:(
854:(
824:(
810:(
792:(
764:(
742:(
724:(
694:(
680:(
664:(
637:(
584:(
560:(
519:(
500:(
431:(
394:(
353:(
346:.
308:(
237:(
214:(
195:(
179:(
116:(
96:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
