818:. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Knowledge (XXG) we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point.
1300:. However the vectors and are different. Furthermore, how does one account for possible repetitions of the entries of a vector? It could be that Kolman et al use a nonstandard definition of an ordered set as well (I don't know, I have to wait to check the book) possibly what others would call a "list". Anyway, I can't find this idiosyncratic definition of a vector in any other book, or on Google anywhere, or in any of a number of encyclopedias of mathematics. I think we should hold off until suitable context and references for this addition have been provided and verified.
1071:
1781:, I removed it. You responded to this with overt hostility and incivility. And you continue to personally attack me here, calling my actions "passive aggressive" and "presumptive," saying that I have "wildly overestimated" my personal expertise. Do you see the lack of civility in any of this? Do you see that you are making this
44:
319:
fixing the problem. I'll use undo if it happens again. It makes me look like a vandal, not a good idea if one is trying to argue in favor of keeping an article. If you happen to notice it with any other user, I'd be interested in learning about it. Again, sorry, thanks for apprising me to the problem and how to fix it.
1821:
No, as someone who claims notably mathematical expertise, you should know that a single counter-example is a disproof. And there is no implication of sweeping expertise in possessing a counter-example; for example, were you to claim that your expertise on birds were sufficient that you could deny the
1137:
gives a list of the main uses of the word "vector" in mathematics, followed, rather inexplicably, by a reference to a linearly ordered set. This is definitely not standard usage in most areas of mathematics. It may be that there is some small subset of mathematics which uses this terminology, but I
1480:
Also, returning again to your original post on my talk page, I find it shocking that you think that I somehow deserved to be scolded for removing an obviously silly definition for which there was no indication of how it related to the word "vector". Please read up on the
Knowledge (XXG) policies of
379:
and it was only the second such edit I'd ever made on that page, albeit a constructive one. If you don't mind me asking, why are you so set on this staying on the page? It's obviously irrelevant and a complete non sequitur with the rest of the page. Do you like know the rape victim or something? I'm
1525:
Anyway, I would ask that you try in the future to be more civil in your interactions. Scolding people you do not know on first encounter tends to bring out the worst in them. In my own case, it made be considerably more defensive than I would have been had you initiated the conversation in a more
413:
You are willfully seeking to compromise the integrity of
Knowledge (XXG) by erasing a documented section which has already been successfully defended in mediation. You are doing this to protect the image of a fraternity, rather than just for the joy of trashing the Knowledge (XXG), but it is still
1448:
with respect to ≤. They are, in fact, the same set. However the vectors and are different. I also mentioned the issue of handling repetition: thus the example of {1,2,2}. The definition of a vector as a linear order strikes me as just plain wrong. This one doesn't pass the smell test. I'm
699:
I don't know what you're talking about; stop accusing people of stuff they didn't do. I see the anonymous edits, and they are not mine. Feel free to try to prove that they were. And for your information, I already have unwatched both the article and your talk page because I'm sick of dealing with
1265:
I'm not sure how a quotation would make your life easier, as you'll still want to get the book, find “vector” in its index, and so forth. (The page number and so forth will vary with the edition; they're on edition 5 or 6 now.) But I suppose that I can dig up an exact quote if you haven't first.
318:
There must be a problem peculiar to the computer that I was using. I thought it was a problem with my own display, since I haven't seen it on anyone else's post, and I couldn't imagine that my computer was the only one to do this out of thousands that are linking to
Knowledge (XXG). Thanks for
1776:
tag next to something which is definitely misleading, and probably flat-out wrong. I do not, even as an expert, believe that never having heard of something implies its nonexistence. Indeed, I made an honest, good faith effort, to find this peculiar definition of the term vector, as I have
1516:
In this case, the link you insist on did not pass the judgement of a particular expert in mathematics (myself), and was removed. I did, of course, take the time to subject this to an examination of the sources at my disposal, and I found no evidence of anyone ever saying that a vector is a
266:
Thanks for noticing this, I'd forgotten about it. I'm wondering if it should be nominated for deletion and see what comes of that. I still don't think that an unsuccessful candidate for
Congress from one district in Colorado who has no other biography is notable. What do you think?
442:...why are you so set on this staying on the page? It's obviously irrelevant and a complete non sequitur with the rest of the page. Do you like know the rape victim or something? I'm just curious how one person can be so uninvolved yet so inordinately passionate about a subject. ~
1660:
uncivil. As I have already pointed out, if you want people to respond well to your edits, you might want to consider being a little nicer when you interact with them. Otherwise, you may make other editors defensive. As a new editor here, perhaps you should also go read
964:
I simply wouldn't know whether disyllabic “marked” is now more common in
American English than in British English. Many things largely abandoned by British English have greater currency in American English. (For example, “billion” first entered English as meaning a
1765:
Forgive me for pointing it out, but your position seems to be that your own astonishing personal experience trumps my own. In the end, it is the edits which count, and any material which is unsourced can be removed if challenged. There is no requirement to put a
1496:
familiar with is enough to say when something seems fishy and needs more careful referencing. Perhaps you are relatively new to
Knowledge (XXG), but people often do try to insert outright incorrect information into articles, often in an attempt to prove a
766:
Hell, SlamDiego. I have no problem with a criticism section on the "Quantity Theory Of Money", it is a necessary addition, but the current section is poorly written, and in need of citations. I don't mean it as a personal insult to you. Have a good day.
543:
If you think that your question is appropriate, and that I somehow owe you an answer, then perhaps you should contact an administrator to seek action against me. Suffice it to say that I think that you're behaving as a first-rate ass in even asking.
969:, and Americans still tend to use “gotten” where the British are more likely to use “got”.) Certainly, I wrote the sentence in question (as most of the article) in an American English (of which I note the OED is not a particularly great respecter). —
1028:), then just ask and I’ll add them for you. As a final note, the authors of the quotations for citations don’t need to be “notable” — any use will do, as long as it satisfies Wiktionary’s attestation criteria (enumerated near the beginning of
941:
I have the
Concise OD and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 1974, & neither give that pronunciation or spelling. Of course outside of standard English it's a different matter entirely...Yours markedly,
1521:
of objects with a binary relation ≤ satisfying the trichotomy. Of course in such cases one cannot prove a negative, but that is why
Knowledge (XXG) has policies governing verifiability and reliability of sources.
1093:
1829:
The content in question wasn't wrong. Your claim that it was “probably flat-out wrong” is, again, based upon your exaggerated sense of expertise. As to content that one thinks is misleading, properly one
1047:
Thanks. I'll try to get onto these things. I am reasonably familiar with the IPA. I'm glad to be informed that notability is not required, though I believe that notable sources are still more desirable.
1296:
together with a relation ≤ defined on it satisfying the trichotomy? This seems not to fit with any of the other definitions of a vector. For instance, the "ordered sets" {1,2,3} and {3,2,1} are the
580:
You consider it being an asshole (and inappropriate) to want to know why you keep making this edit? Lighten up man. If you're that uptight about this whole thing, I don't even want an answer. Sheesh!
1138:
for one need convincing before I allow an unreferenced and rather bizarre entry to occupy a list consisting of otherwise uncontroversial and commonplace definitions. (I mean, does someone call the
914:
in any event; I just thought that he might have been sloppy here (though you'd not actually identified your reference as the OED, and there could be inconsistencies across Oxford dictionaries). —
1085:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "
663:
669:
A discussion that you were involved in was closed with the wrong closing decision. Please revisit the above link to review the article in question and your opinion given there. Thanks,
1092:
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
1388:
1256:, without condition that the set be countable, I don't think that they ever apply that definition to uncountable sets. Nor have I elsewhere seen it applied to uncountable sets.
1713:
in my response to your presumption of astonishing personal expertise. You're just flailing with a reaction of wounded pride to being told not to invoke — and certainly not to
1489:. We are all here in an effort to create a better encyclopedia. Your snarky condescending remark on my talk page is completely inappropriate and contrary to that objective.
1145:
I will try to check the reference you have given. To save me the time, perhaps you could post a direct quote on my talk page defining a linearly ordered set to be a vector.
716:
792:
Oh, no, I'm not insulted! I didn't write that awful section! I made a lot of contributions to that article, but mostly I just stared in horror at that section, and fled! —
1492:
Had there been some well-referenced reason for its inclusion, then probably my own personal experience would not qualify. But my experience in an area that I am
837:
My Oxford dictionary says that the accent should be used only (apparently) for playing cards - interestingly, as I always pronounce 'markt' for all meanings.
1870:
There was, again, nothing uncivil in my telling you that your uncivil summary deletion based upon wild presumptions of expertise was inappropriate. I don't
1126:
I find the tone of your message on my talk page to be totally inappropriate. You are, of course, free to disagree with my editorial judgement on whether a
814:
Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the
Economics WikiProject. There is an article called
1648:
edit, on the basis that this is a completely nonstandard usage of the word vector (if it is in fact used this way at all). This is not a violation of
884:
Looking again now in artificial light, I can see they are dots to show the pronunciation of 'markedly' & 'markedness'. So that doesn't contradict
1897:
pursuit of personal vindication that has focussed this discussion on your person. And, in your flailing, you've repeatedly introduced the issue of
1705:
that boldness. Had you instead slapped a {{fact}} there first or placed a notice/query on the Talk page and waited a bit, then your action would
48:
1025:
1593:
Your self-reference, “the judgement of a particular expert in mathematics (myself)” is the key to what's grossly wrong here. Knowledge (XXG)
783:
1859:
changes should not be defended based upon such presumptions of personal expertise. And it is a sad state of affairs that you keep citing
1588:
editor found an entry thereupon with which her or she we unfamiliar, he or she would then just deleted with a toss of his or her hair.
1197:
than is that of the definition that you summarily deleted. Nor could most of those other definitions be said to be standard usage in
1016:
under an “Alternative spellings” heading. You may want to add pronunciatory transcriptions too, but if you’re unfamiliar with either
1777:
indicated repeatedly. I came up completely empty-handed. Feeling that this was, perhaps, a sneaky vandal's attempt to prove a
1201:
areas of mathematics. Conferences that tried to resolve the conflicts in definitions ended in disappointment. (See Cajori's
197:
185:
173:
1620:
Finally, note that your concluding reference to eristicism is simply a petty and, in context, hypocritical attempt to get
161:
149:
137:
125:
113:
101:
89:
77:
65:
1082:
1863:
only to reveal that you violated that very policy: “eeling that this was, perhaps, a sneaky vandal's attempt to prove a
235:
This editor has too many irons in the fire, and may be suddenly inactive on
Knowledge (XXG) for indeterminate intervals.
375:
Why in the world would you tag your edit reversal with a push vandalism against me? I clearly explained myself in the
1737:
your expertise in mathematics to be so great that if you were unfamiliar with such a thing then it must not be. —
282:
I agree. I'm not highly skilled in creating an AfD. Do you want me to do this or are you willing to go forward?
779:
760:
1709:
have been uncivil. (For a disambiguation page, the latter would probably have been better.) There was nothing
1652:. Editting in good faith is never uncivil. In fact, this is explicitly encouraged by Knowledge (XXG) policy
1886:
it is; and, on the other hand, I didn't begin with the esteem for you that you have for yourself nor with a
1037:
301:
287:
272:
771:
1792:
1701:
Again, you keep calling, implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) on your own presumption of expertise to
1680:
1533:
1456:
1307:
1152:
1901:
merit — when logically I could be a Very Bad person without that in any way saying Good Things about you.
775:
1840:-tags it or rewrites it, or calls on the talk page for clarification, rather than summarily deleting it.
705:
596:
518:
460:
447:
385:
364:). I am a new to Knowledge (XXG) and very happy to receive input from more experienced users. Nahraana
1729:
editor and in citing various policies. For example, there was no implication that you were acting in
1551:
ranting about the matter — is illustrative of the vary sense of entitlement to which I first objected.
1337:
1564:. You don't see that for the same reason that you think it uncivil to be told not to do such things.
1127:
1033:
1510:
1930:
1743:
1630:
1412:
1394:
As I said, I'll dig-up a copy, but it is evident that even if I do you will not be satisfied until
1272:
1054:
975:
920:
870:
798:
747:
725:
639:
550:
483:
424:
380:
just curious how one person can be so uninvolved yet so inordinately passionate about a subject. ~
340:
324:
17:
1822:
existence of blue-eyed birds in Southern California, I would not be claiming to know of anything
1107:
template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.
947:
893:
842:
815:
676:
376:
357:
297:
283:
268:
260:
1864:
1778:
1662:
1649:
1612:
1498:
1482:
1130:
should be called a vector. However, leaving a barbed response on my talk page is unnecessary.
864:.) I can call upon competing references, but I'll yield to a consensus if one truly develops. —
1874:
the non-existent incivility that you want me to see because, on the one hand, I actually know
1786:
1674:
1527:
1450:
1301:
1146:
823:
1856:
1718:
1666:
1653:
1645:
1440:
Ummm... No, that isn't the example I wanted to use, but it also works. As I said above, the
629:
I'm evidently not the sort to lighten-up about a gang-rape, and about persistent attempts to
1103:
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
1078:
701:
592:
514:
456:
443:
381:
1860:
1782:
1733:
when you invoked personal expertise — I believed (and it becomes ever more clear) that you
1670:
1486:
1104:
1097:
1086:
513:
talk page, no? Please just answer my honest questions. Thank you for your valuable time. ~
1176:
find it inappropriate to be told not to summarily delete content based on that experience.
1112:
633:
it from history. And I'm glad to see the back of someone who apparently is such a sort. —
1506:
1001:
1218:, but it is obviously a generalization of the notion of the vector as an ordered set of
1925:
1738:
1625:
1526:
civil manner. Or perhaps you enjoy eristicism more than your Userpage would suggest.
1407:
1402:
seen equivalent defintions elsewhere, Kolman &alii sticks with me because it's the
1267:
1049:
970:
915:
885:
865:
857:
793:
742:
720:
634:
545:
478:
419:
335:
320:
1935:
1800:
1748:
1688:
1635:
1541:
1502:
1464:
1417:
1315:
1160:
1116:
1070:
1059:
1041:
1005:
980:
951:
925:
897:
875:
846:
827:
803:
752:
730:
709:
689:
644:
600:
555:
522:
488:
464:
429:
389:
365:
345:
328:
305:
291:
276:
1770:
943:
889:
838:
682:
670:
1009:
1004:
points to something that doesn’t exist. You need to create something like what’s at
1834:
1445:
819:
739:
the checkuser concludes that you are probably responsible for the anonymous edits.
1222:. And computer science folk have been happy to take it up. For example, Java's
1597:
function other than pathologically if such a protocol were widely adopted. And
43:
1108:
361:
1013:
994:
1139:
418:. The fact that you're commenting to the talk page doesn't change that. —
1449:
glad you have decided to reconsider and look at some proper references.
1029:
938:
Inconsistencies across Oxford dictionaries!?! The end of civilisation...
1226:
is named in the context of this conception. (And, ironically enough, a
1094:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/E. M. Washington (2nd nomination)
1573:
1134:
416:
a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Knowledge (XXG)
1021:
1243:, I suggest that you reconsider your sense of entitlement here.
1081:, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for
1441:
1017:
664:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Timeline of cold fusion
247:
Click the “+” tab or this sentence to start a new discussion.
1069:
1656:. Writing snarky, condescending messages to other editors
334:
No problem. I was sure that it were an innocent mistake. —
477:
Well, perhaps you want to complain about that somewhere. —
1509:, particularly when the material seems farfetched; see
1252:
Although Kolman, Busby, and Ross define “vector” as an
1168:
Someone who felt that his personal experience was thus
738:
407:
attempt to compromise the integrity of Knowledge (XXG).
245:
1890:
to esteem you as you seem to need to esteem yourself.
1669:, , and (in light of the recent edit-war you caused)
1556:
Summarily deleting something on the bald ground that
1340:
1230:
cannot have primitive numeric types as its elements.)
403:
any addition, removal, or change of content made in a
38:
1785:, and how I might take offense at your behaviour?
1024:, or Wiktionary’s English Phonemic Representation (
1382:
1501:. We must therefore insist that all material be
360:page. I reverted this action you refered to (in
1721:changes. And I'm simply going to point out the
1826:a blue-eyed bird in pointing you to an example.
1332:What you really want to use as your example is
356:Thanks SlamDiego for your advice posted on my
860:denied that he had found “markèd” in the OED
8:
1377:
1365:
1359:
1341:
1012:, as well as adding a link in that entry to
852:Interesting; that's one used for which I've
1611:civility, part of its restoration involves
230:
25:
1339:
856:before encountered “markèd”. (Meanwhile,
910:Okay. I didn't think that he would be
1214:You may insist that the definition is
1193:definitions in the article is no more
455:You only answered half my question. ~
296:Thanks. I'll jump in with an opinion.
7:
1717:— your personal expertise to defend
1547:Your sense of indignity — and this
1203:A History of Mathematical Notations
56:Some earlier messages may be found
1066:AfD nomination of E. M. Washington
715:Given this response, I have filed
24:
1383:{\displaystyle \{1,2,2\}=\{2,1\}}
42:
1843:I agree that your actions were
1560:had not familiarity was itself
241:
1723:passive-aggression insinuation
450:) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
1:
804:17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
753:08:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
731:08:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
710:06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
645:04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
601:04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
556:03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
523:03:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
509:correct in believing this is
489:00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
465:22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1924:are quite distinct things. —
690:17:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
430:22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
390:21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
366:12:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
346:05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
329:17:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
306:19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
292:19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
277:19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
41:
1725:in your referring to me as
1205:for mention of an attempt.)
1100:with four tildes (~~~~).
1087:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
1960:
1936:18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1851:, but neither of these is
1801:17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1749:16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1689:16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1636:16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1601:is what made what you did
1542:13:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1465:11:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1418:05:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1406:place in which I saw it. —
1316:04:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1161:02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1117:18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1060:03:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
1042:02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
981:00:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
952:23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
926:23:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
898:23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
876:21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
847:15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1673:. Thanks, and goodbye.
1292:define a vector as a set
1277:03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC
828:17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
717:a request for a checkuser
1908:behavior in response to
1444:{1,2,3} and {3,2,1} are
1077:An editor has nominated
1006:wikt:learned#Usage notes
761:Quantity Theory of Money
1613:calling a spade a spade
1398:have dug-up a copy. I
1010:wikt:marked#Usage notes
1002:its usage-notes section
1904:And, no, I don't find
1644:Look. I made a single
1384:
1142:a "vector"? Really?)
1096:and please be sure to
1074:
454:
399:on Knowledge (XXG) as
1385:
1105:articles for deletion
1073:
438:
186:the eleventh orc hive
1715:wildly over-estimate
1338:
1239:As to what you will
1128:linearly ordered set
198:the twelfth orc hive
138:the seventh orc hive
1580:. Yet it would be
1034:Raifʻhār Doremítzwr
700:people like you. ~
588:User talk:SlamDiego
150:the eighth orc hive
102:the fourth orc hive
78:the second orc hive
18:User talk:SlamDiego
1572:of the entries in
1380:
1098:sign your comments
1075:
816:Fortune Global 500
810:Fortune Global 500
195:
183:
174:the tenth orc hive
171:
162:the ninth orc hive
159:
147:
135:
126:the sixth orc hive
123:
114:the fifth orc hive
111:
99:
90:the third orc hive
87:
75:
66:the first orc hive
63:
1582:patently perverse
788:
774:comment added by
695:False Accusations
686:
352:Thanks for advice
253:
252:
240:
239:
204:
203:
193:
181:
169:
157:
145:
133:
121:
109:
97:
85:
73:
61:
37:
36:
1951:
1933:
1867:, I removed it.”
1839:
1833:
1797:
1796:
1789:
1775:
1769:
1746:
1685:
1684:
1677:
1633:
1538:
1537:
1530:
1507:reliable sources
1461:
1460:
1453:
1446:linearly ordered
1415:
1389:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1312:
1311:
1304:
1275:
1229:
1225:
1157:
1156:
1149:
1079:E. M. Washington
1057:
978:
967:thousand million
923:
873:
801:
787:
768:
750:
728:
687:
684:
679:
673:
642:
553:
486:
427:
343:
242:
231:
46:
39:
26:
1959:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1934:
1929:
1912:behavior to be
1837:
1831:
1794:
1793:
1787:
1773:
1767:
1747:
1742:
1682:
1681:
1675:
1634:
1629:
1562:grossly uncivil
1535:
1534:
1528:
1458:
1457:
1451:
1416:
1411:
1336:
1335:
1309:
1308:
1302:
1276:
1271:
1227:
1223:
1154:
1153:
1147:
1124:
1068:
1058:
1053:
998:
979:
974:
924:
919:
874:
869:
835:
812:
802:
797:
769:
764:
751:
746:
729:
724:
697:
683:
677:
671:
667:
643:
638:
554:
549:
487:
482:
428:
423:
373:
371:Push vandalism?
354:
344:
339:
316:
264:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1957:
1955:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1928:
1902:
1891:
1868:
1841:
1827:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1741:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1639:
1638:
1628:
1617:
1616:
1590:
1589:
1566:
1565:
1553:
1552:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1410:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1352:
1349:
1346:
1343:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1270:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1123:
1120:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1052:
997:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
973:
957:
956:
955:
954:
939:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
918:
903:
902:
901:
900:
879:
878:
868:
834:
831:
811:
808:
807:
806:
796:
776:67.189.176.236
763:
757:
756:
755:
745:
734:
733:
723:
696:
693:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
637:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
548:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
481:
470:
469:
468:
467:
433:
432:
422:
411:
410:
409:
372:
369:
353:
350:
349:
348:
338:
315:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
263:
257:
255:
251:
250:
238:
237:
229:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
201:
190:
189:
178:
177:
166:
165:
154:
153:
142:
141:
130:
129:
118:
117:
106:
105:
94:
93:
82:
81:
70:
69:
58:
57:
53:
52:
51:
47:
35:
34:
31:
30:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1956:
1937:
1932:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1918:anticipatable
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1849:in good faith
1846:
1842:
1836:
1828:
1825:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1802:
1798:
1790:
1784:
1780:
1772:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1750:
1745:
1740:
1736:
1735:truly thought
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1711:condescending
1708:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1690:
1686:
1678:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1637:
1632:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1539:
1531:
1523:
1520:
1514:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1495:
1490:
1488:
1484:
1466:
1462:
1454:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1419:
1414:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1362:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1347:
1344:
1334:
1333:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1317:
1313:
1305:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1274:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1150:
1143:
1141:
1136:
1131:
1129:
1121:
1119:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1072:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
996:
993:
990:
982:
977:
972:
968:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
953:
949:
945:
940:
937:
936:
935:
934:
927:
922:
917:
913:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
882:
881:
880:
877:
872:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
832:
830:
829:
825:
821:
817:
809:
805:
800:
795:
791:
790:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
762:
758:
754:
749:
744:
740:
736:
735:
732:
727:
722:
718:
714:
713:
712:
711:
707:
703:
694:
692:
691:
688:
680:
674:
665:
662:
646:
641:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
583:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
557:
552:
547:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
490:
485:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
466:
462:
458:
453:
451:
449:
445:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
426:
421:
417:
412:
408:
404:
401:
400:
398:
395:Vandalism is
394:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
378:
370:
368:
367:
363:
359:
351:
347:
342:
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
313:
307:
303:
299:
298:Wildhartlivie
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
284:Wildhartlivie
281:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
269:Wildhartlivie
262:
258:
256:
249:
248:
244:
243:
236:
233:
232:
228:
199:
192:
191:
187:
180:
179:
175:
168:
167:
163:
156:
155:
151:
144:
143:
139:
132:
131:
127:
120:
119:
115:
108:
107:
103:
96:
95:
91:
84:
83:
79:
72:
71:
67:
60:
59:
55:
54:
50:
45:
40:
33:
32:
28:
27:
19:
1921:
1917:
1916:; but to be
1913:
1909:
1905:
1898:
1894:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1823:
1788:silly rabbit
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1676:silly rabbit
1657:
1621:
1608:
1607:. (Once you
1603:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1585:
1584:if any time
1581:
1577:
1569:
1561:
1557:
1548:
1529:silly rabbit
1524:
1518:
1515:
1493:
1491:
1479:
1452:silly rabbit
1403:
1399:
1395:
1303:silly rabbit
1297:
1293:
1289:
1253:
1240:
1224:Vector.class
1219:
1215:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1173:
1169:
1148:silly rabbit
1144:
1133:The article
1132:
1125:
1102:
1091:
1076:
1032:). Regards,
1000:At present,
999:
991:
966:
911:
861:
853:
836:
813:
765:
698:
668:
630:
587:
585:
581:
510:
506:
441:
439:
415:
406:
402:
396:
374:
355:
317:
265:
254:
246:
234:
205:
1922:justifiable
1517:collection
1288:So, Kolman
1254:ordered set
1030:wikt:WT:CFI
1014:wikt:markèd
995:wikt:markèd
888:after all.
770:—Preceding
702:Triberocker
593:Triberocker
515:Triberocker
457:Triberocker
444:Triberocker
405:deliberate
382:Triberocker
261:Jay Fawcett
1920:and to be
1914:surprising
1893:No, it is
1855:. Again:
1853:sufficient
1511:WP:REDFLAG
1503:verifiable
1170:definitive
685:Disclaimer
362:Teddy bear
1926:SlamDiego
1878:civility
1739:SlamDiego
1731:bad faith
1626:SlamDiego
1576:have not
1549:recurring
1408:SlamDiego
1268:SlamDiego
1195:explained
1174:of course
1140:real line
1050:SlamDiego
971:SlamDiego
916:SlamDiego
886:Adoniscik
866:SlamDiego
858:Adoniscik
794:SlamDiego
743:SlamDiego
721:SlamDiego
635:SlamDiego
586:unwatch:
546:SlamDiego
479:SlamDiego
420:SlamDiego
377:talk page
336:SlamDiego
321:Mandsford
49:Orc Hives
29:Contents
1865:WP:POINT
1783:personal
1779:WP:POINT
1663:WP:CIVIL
1650:WP:CIVIL
1578:citation
1499:WP:POINT
1483:WP:CIVIL
1298:same set
1187:presence
1083:deletion
944:Rothorpe
890:Rothorpe
839:Rothorpe
784:contribs
772:unsigned
1857:WP:BOLD
1719:WP:BOLD
1703:justify
1667:WP:BOLD
1654:WP:BOLD
1646:WP:BOLD
1622:revenge
1609:trashed
1604:uncivil
1220:numbers
1216:bizarre
1189:of the
820:Keizuko
584:clicks
397:defined
314:Sorry!!
1861:WP:AGF
1845:honest
1671:WP:BRD
1595:cannot
1574:Vector
1487:WP:AGF
1228:Vector
1172:would
1135:vector
1089:").
862:at all
833:Markèd
672:Keeper
1404:first
1290:et al
1241:allow
1191:other
1122:Reply
1109:BJBot
1022:SAMPA
992:In re
912:lying
631:erase
591:** ~
188:, or
16:<
1906:your
1888:need
1882:and
1876:what
1847:and
1795:talk
1771:fact
1683:talk
1599:that
1586:some
1570:Most
1536:talk
1494:very
1485:and
1459:talk
1442:sets
1400:have
1310:talk
1199:most
1185:The
1155:talk
1113:talk
1038:talk
1026:enPR
948:talk
894:talk
843:talk
824:talk
780:talk
759:re:
737:And
706:talk
597:talk
519:talk
511:your
461:talk
448:talk
386:talk
358:talk
325:talk
302:talk
288:talk
273:talk
259:re:
1895:you
1884:why
1872:see
1835:huh
1824:but
1727:new
1707:not
1624:. —
1558:you
1505:by
1396:you
1018:IPA
1008:at
854:not
719:. —
681:|
675:|
196:in
184:in
172:in
160:in
148:in
136:in
124:in
112:in
100:in
88:in
76:in
64:in
1931:←T
1910:my
1899:my
1880:is
1838:}}
1832:{{
1799:)
1774:}}
1768:{{
1744:←T
1687:)
1665:,
1658:is
1631:←T
1615:.)
1540:)
1513:.
1463:)
1413:←T
1314:)
1273:←T
1159:)
1115:)
1055:←T
1040:)
1020:,
976:←T
950:)
921:←T
896:)
871:←T
845:)
826:)
799:←T
786:)
782:•
748:←T
726:←T
708:)
678:76
640:←T
599:)
582:**
551:←T
521:)
507:am
505:I
484:←T
463:)
425:←T
388:)
341:←T
327:)
304:)
290:)
275:)
200:.
176:,
164:,
152:,
140:,
128:,
116:,
104:,
92:,
80:,
68:,
1791:(
1679:(
1532:(
1519:X
1455:(
1378:}
1375:1
1372:,
1369:2
1366:{
1363:=
1360:}
1357:2
1354:,
1351:2
1348:,
1345:1
1342:{
1306:(
1294:X
1266:—
1151:(
1111:(
1048:—
1036:(
946:(
892:(
841:(
822:(
778:(
741:—
704:(
595:(
544:—
517:(
459:(
452:"
446:(
440:"
384:(
323:(
300:(
286:(
271:(
194:·
182:·
170:·
158:·
146:·
134:·
122:·
110:·
98:·
86:·
74:·
62:·
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
