User talk:Tesseract2

218:). The additions you've made are very good, and I don't want to lose them, but at the same time, since the free will article is meant to be a summary of all of the different things that people might want to know when they first come to read about free will, we cannot let the article become too heavily slanted towards one particular aspect of the topic, no matter how interesting that topic is to you or or me. In fact, with the daughter article, we can now grow the neuroscience of free will even further, and at the same time, shrink what is on the main free will page. I do not have the time to take this on right now, but I would love to work with you on this to help create a balanced, thorough coverage of the neuroscience of free will that integrates well with the broader issues that are raised on the main free will page. Cheers, 1023:

can not be created or destroyed seems to have this quality as unexplainable. What is determined is done so by people. This is a fact that I from my own perspective have not been able to overcome. Determinism to me is a human trait. I find it extremely hard to say that we live in an infinite existence and then say it has boundaries or edges or ends. I also find it extremely hard to say with any honesty at all that something infinite could be simplistic enough to be completely determined. As things that are infinite by their own accord would manifest a complexity so great that at some point the inter-action between information becomes pure randomness, randomness based on complexity. Forgive me for interjecting

3158: 907:

to believe, and yet I have unfortunately not found the unanimity (like there is for evolution, or is that too stringent a criteria?) that I was hoping for. Then the other day, in the reasonably reputable Discover Magazine, I read that some physicists are seriously exploring the possibility of causality from the future and evolving laws of physics... I get the impression that that the field of quantum physics is pretty chaotic, and so I feel comfortable saying "well I expect the world is deterministic, multiple realities doesn't make any sense to me, and if no one has a terribly persuasive argument to the contrary, I think I'll root for De-Broglie Bohm".

3382: 2442:

even I would find it nearly impossible to verify, as that would require a comprehensive examination of all scholarly literature and every blog and email list on the Internet for the last decade or so, with full disclosure by all participants of their identities and occupations to verify that they are nonprofessionals (even though some have anonymously claimed to be qualified professionals). According to Knowledge’s strict verification criteria, such statements are unverifiable and therefore off-limits for Knowledge editors.

870:

already falsified: By special relativity. While Dirac in the 1930's already encompassed special relativity into non-hidden-variable QM, the dB-B theory has yet failed to do so. The guiding-wave theory is, as of today, a falsified theory, to which the usual response for 60 years has been: "we'll find a way to accomodate for special relativity", which is of course as legitimate a choice of investigation as any other, but which shouldn't be turned into a merit purely on paper while not winning in the field.

3414: 1618:

seems to be a rather unusual and idiosyncratic point of view, I doubt for instance that anyone doing a postdoc is really that interested in the money in the first place (and postdoc salaries are actually much better than they used to be, on average). Also, many students simply don't want to stay in research, rather than failing to "land" a position. If I have time I might therefore rewrite some of this from a more neutral point of view, I just wanted to explain my reasons first. Best,

1353:, which is also listed as a featured article. Logically, i would have thought that an article surely can't be both a featured article and require cleanup to meet quality standards. I don't have enough knowledge of either wikipedia's quality standards or the subject matter of the article to say which is right but i thought i would drop a note to suggest that if you do feel the article needs cleanup that you submit it to featured article review 20: 4272: 4330: 4220: 4083: 4007: 3900: 2901: 61: 445: 2196: 588:

diminished way (it is deterministic in there is no collapse of the wave function the information goes to an alternate reality that we can't see or reach) only if you can determine which world your in. As far as I know the Many-worlds interpretation has no way to allow people a way to determine which world they are in. If it is correct (we are in all at the same time-maybe).

4173: 2700: 1656:

an academic career, with most wanting to go into industry or consulting. Possibly something on the value of a PhD in industry would actually be more relevant than a discussion centred on academia. I doubt that I will have time to contribute much to this section in the near future, but Nature did a job satisfaction survey last year that you may be interested in:

2538: 1893: 3801: 1453: 3582: 4289:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 727:

then Kim) was in person and therefore I will not name them. I will say they stated the same thing and used string theory as the object of criticism. Their remarks were that science and reality is elegant in it's simplicity and that string theory is not simplistic (which is why they don't support the theory). But this is a good discussion.

3057: 2504:

matter of an audience running into the criticisms and walking away thinking someone is a "crank"; here on Knowledge, it is immediately clear that you actually responded to the individuals, and did not even find substance you deemed worth refuting. This would seem one more reason to keep the (now, revised) information.

1539:

simpler explanations is more likely to be correct" very well could be an equivalent way to put Occam's Razor. I guess what I may be asking is: doesn't it seem to be a necessary premise, of any good principle like the Razor which prescribes a simplicity-bias, that the simpler theory is, in fact, more likely correct?-

2128:, but so far Neurorel has mostly simply made edits and avoided the talk pages altogether. Of course, the MNS and ASD section in the Ramachandran biography is not the right place for all of this; the MNS page probably is better suited, but so far, the debate has been on the Ramachandran page. Thanks, 2671:

No, the article doesn't exist. It was merged into another article, but the talk page was left with all the project templates, so it still showed up in the various rating templates. Clicking it would redirect to it's current location as a section in another article. The talk page has since been merged

2499:

I did indeed make too sweeping a claim about professionals. Thank you for your continuing patience. The page now makes what I find is a more verifiable claim that the CTMU has not received much media attention. We disagree that I or wikipedia are acting as a vector for Carroll's stronger language. I

1876:

Yeah, I got that you wanted the tiny little yellow squares to appear in the margin. I'm in favour of a very easy way for readers to leave notes on problems they spotted. But if it is as easy as I hope it could be, I don't like the idea of making them visible on the article's page itself, even if they

1617:

Hi Tesseract2. I agree with many of the points you are making in this section (the first and penultimate paragraphs are very good, although a lot of it only applies to the US system), but some of the rest seems like an assessment of the economics of getting a PhD, rather than a proper criticism. This

1109:

how about we discuss the overall organization? E.g., the current approach is tightly (albeit almost superficially) focused on the evolution of cooperation, and its significance in the broader context. The section you added is between two sections on the context, so it doesn't really fit there. And

1047:

I've deleted this image because it's easily replaceable — you could use this image to produce a new chart that could be freely licensed. Information can't be copyrighted, so there's nothing to stop you from creating a chart with the same data; it's simply this expression of the ways in which a chart

987:

I assume that there is one, highest level of reality. In other words, there is something like an 11-dimensional bubble containing "everything". What do you think? I am not sure what physicists have to say on this matter - whether many world's theorists believe that there is an infinitely large number

982:

I suppose that, if you believe that quantum indeterminacy is complete indeterminacy, then it would follow that will is also indeterminate (recall that I believe - with sources to justify it - that quantum indeterminacy is the result of non-local hidden variables). Here are some questions I have about

941:

I think such a poll exists, look for it! I guess from my fallible memory that amongst real authorities the de-Borglie Bohm theory ranged within less that 10%, if not less (I suspect I'm being conservative). My stance, as another writer here rightly stated, is that until better explanations are found,

906:

Haha thank you for the input. I'll go ahead and assume you're not lying when you say you know your physics on your user page. But I still don't feel too dirty about my stance. I am very aware that quantum physics is one of the deeper sciences where I must resort to meticulous choosing of an authority

715:

The Bohm theories fail on No.2, i.e. they are unnecessarily complicated. They have complex particle stuff that lies on top of ordinary quantum waves. As I and others have shown, the quantum waves are sufficient to describe reality, through their math, which give rise to the Many-World interpretation,

555:

But QI is very well established. Very few scientific theories are as well verified by experience. And remember, the evidence is not just that we don't know what the quantum causes are -- the evidence is that there are no quantum causes. Again, it might turn out to be wrong, but we still ought to take

538:"All modern science is falliblist in epistemology. That means that any scientific theory might be wrong. We all acknowledge this. But scientific theories vary a lot in how likely they are to turn out to be wrong. The present state of physics makes quantum indeterminism a very well-established theory. 321:

Note that even Stanford University's page does address arguments by Von Neumann. For example it mentions that one can easily find, in the quantum physics literature, statements like these: "The proof he published ..., though it was made much more convincing later on by Kochen and Specker, still uses

2374:

I do not presume that you are necessarily terribly interested in how far or wide your ideas spread, but for now, I would want to make one last point (so that we are at least clear about where I am coming from). I would share that I did try to understand your CTMU, but did not manage even to disagree

2364:

I hear your fourth argument most loudly. It was indeed a failure of mine that I did not cover both sides. Your response is now covered as well. You will notice I tried to mention anything else I found: There was that other discussion with Beasley - but it seemed even less substantive, and so I cover

2308:

4. Knowledge editors are required to be evenhanded. Your presentation is non-neutral; it presents only Chu-Carroll's own hostile and non-notable POV, completely ignoring mine. For example, you fail to report that I personally addressed all of Chu-Carroll's main objections on the spot in considerable

2304:

3. The author of that web page, a gadfly named Mark Chu-Carroll, does not appear to be notable by Knowledge standards, but merely has a blog which is highly contentious and often downright insulting in character. (If you and/or Mr. Chu-Carroll believe that he qualifies for a Knowledge bio page, then

2120:

That's all I would expect of anyone. In particular, I'd like input on the mirror neurons and autism section. Note this current debate about the MNS comes in the context of a long history of slow attempts to undermine and discredit Ramachandran in many ways. As for the current version, it might be

1655:

It reads much better now, thanks. Another point that I think should be addressed is that the section is very much written from an academic career path perspective. I don't have a statistic to back this up, but of the students that I deal with, only about one in five (if that) actually want to pursue

1027:

back into the conversation. As for the ethos of determinism. The argument that for the better of the group, collective or society is one that, based on protectionism, does not need free will or determinism to justify criminal prosecution. Free will is a matter of freedom more than one of functioning

726:

I am not trying to be mean. Also the fact that you understand this makes you very very intelligent. I agree that De Broglie–Bohm has it's supporters. I do seek to be objective as I can. Kim is but one physicist I have spoken with about this larger problem in general (complexity). The last one (other

3715:

I'm beside myself trying to update information that I believe to be very relevent. It looks to me like several users who "hang out" at "ANI:Fringe" are working together to remove well sourced, valid, on topic material which shows the state of military research into thought identification. Outside

3326:

article has now lost some of its coherence and structure - there is duplication and inconsistency, for instance over the use of the form "Humanism" rather than "secular humanism" which has been discussed at that talk page previously. Do we actually need an "Overview" section, or should the text be

2441:

While I'm at it, I suppose I'd better point out that Chu-Carroll's critiques are not the only unverifiable (and in fact erroneous) part of your edits. Also unverifiable is your statement that "the CTMU has received little attention from professionals." While I too suspect that this may be the case,

2421:

You see, not only are Chu-Carroll's critiques erroneous, as I explained to him in detail, but he is given to using insults like "crank" and "crackpot" which do not belong in Knowledge biography articles. (Jimmy Wales has made a special point of forbidding their use.) Sadly, when you added that link

916:

Or do I lack information? I could swear there were surveys backing me up that there are legitimate physicists who still have hope for De-Broglie Bohm. I do not otherwise intend to make up my own physics if there are no such polls for me to reference. I am just saying I can barely weigh the evidence

869:

If I may, just randomly here. Warning, I'll be good-faithfully provocative. As of today, support for de-Broglie Bohm sounds a little bit like supporting Newton after Einstein, because "action at a distance seems more plausible". In fact, I dare to say that the de-Borlgie Bohm theory has indeed been

777:

However, you oversimplify Ockham’s razor. It is not simply that “shorter explanations are better” it is that “all other things being equal, shorter explanations are better”. If one theory adds many more postulates but ultimately explains something that another theory does not, we would not defer to

587:

different yes but also related or of sameness. If this is true then the deterministic argument that there is only one possible outcome (one linear world with only one possible sequence of events) is not true anymore because there are many worlds, many outcomes. It is only deterministic in a greatly

2622:

Hi. I was just scanning through the high importance B-class articles for Wikiproject Psychology to add to my watchlist now that I have some time to do some article work, and I found one odd entry. I appreciate that as editors we are proud of our work and passionate about the content, but we really

2431:

Such epithets make it abundantly clear that Chu-Carroll's criticism is born of animosity rather than an honest spirit of scholarly inquiry. Strip away the animosity, and nothing of a constructive nature remains (as I ascertained by direct confrontation). Sadly, without that link, your comments are

2312:

Forgive me if I seem dismissive, but I am not presently interested in your personal opinion of me or my work, mathematics or metaphysics in general, or Chu-Carroll and his blog. I merely request that you observe Knowledge guidelines and remove your biographically irrelevant and potentially harmful

1991:

you think it's important to highlight that material more than it currently is, it would be helpful. I worked long and hard to get the article to the point where it accurately described just how laughable the movie is without taking it to the point that the New Agers felt a need to storm the castle

1852:

Thank you for doing that. I prefer pictures myself, but for some reason the Occam's razor page reminded me of confusing high school textbook that had illustrations and captions that only served to confuse me further. I was already familiar with the Occam's razor when I looked at the page, but that

1022:

Well to your statements about quantum physics, I have to say I don't know. I really don't think that there is a completeness. If we are finite there will always be that which escapes us. Therefore existence is not an opened or closed system. It exhibits properties of both and yet as something that

792:

I rejected Bohm's interpretation for several reasons which no longer seem good to me. Even today, if you look at the Knowledge encyclopaedia on the Web, you will find it said that Bohm's theory is mathematically inelegant. Happily, I did not give that reason in Putnam (), but in any case it is not

2345:

to see just how much a person's work might end up being discussed. I am not sure that the CTMU meets criteria for its very own page and so, faced with the choice of covering the ideas on the page of their creator, or nowhere, I chose the former. If I am not mistaken, many editors would agree with

2247:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be

431:

There are plenty of theories and this article is not about any of that. Its not even about quantum mechanics. Are you saying that hidden variables will be found to be true at some point? Removing randomness. As that You are saying hidden variable theory is believed but not proven. I am correct in

384:

I am not sure how you are using "randomness". I think everyone would agree that there is randomness in the sense that there are things humans cannot currently predict. On the other hand, the question of whether randomness exists at the fundamental levels of reality, objectively, was certainly not

357:

guys think so. But does the randomness of quantum physics manifest (is that a good word for that?) on human beings level of existence, consciousness? That's what Professor Conway and Professor Kochen together are working on. Because if it does we then would have self determination (libertarianism

30:

This includes images. I often see people removing images without a second thought (images that were brought in from Wikimedia Commons). Using images to illustrate concepts is professional if done properly. Accomplishing this can require discussion (to build consensus on an image, or its caption).

2461:

A good rule of thumb to follow in cases like this one is that broad statistical pronouncements of the kind you have chosen to make, being extremely difficult to verify, should be avoided unless quoted from a highly reliable source which has verifiably completed all of the necessary research (you

2379:

an earnest attempt to convey some ideas, I am still curious to know what they are, and how or whether they matter. I cannot promise all publicity will be good, but I would hope that Knowledge mentions any that you and your ideas receive. In the meantime, as a curious mind that, for one reason or

3287:

For what it is worth, I do appreciate your worries and I have made my first attempt at trying to address them. I am open to the input of this community, and if we follow Knowledge policy and my current image is inappropriate then I will happily choose other images (my main goal is to backup the

2503:

Let me finally say I am fully aware of what you think of those two individuals. Personally, I think that these "attempts at criticisms" (which we can at least agree they are) were doing marginally more damage when they were not mentioned on Knowledge than they do now. At least here, it is not a

2296:

No Knowledge biography is to be used as a platform for criticizing the work of its subject, especially in a skewed and lopsided manner. If you want to address the CTMU in any way, you or someone else would first need to write a CTMU article; only then would you be in a position to criticize the

2258:

deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Knowledge's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can

2017:

Can I at least request that the sort of summary of criticism I attempted to provide in the lead be the starting paragraph of the academic reaction section? The skeptically minded have a real right to summaries too. That has always been my main contention. If you think that is too risky still, I

883:

Having said that, I'd totally agree with the statement that maybe out there there's an elegant deBorglie-Bohm-Someone theory waiting for us to discover, which could be better than all that we know of and could imagine today. Yet, letting this hypothetical eventuality be our guiding principle in

300:

of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen states that, if we have a certain amount of 'free will', then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles." If my reference to physics isn't appropriate, it doesn't seem that this reference would be any more appropriate. We could also

1538:

I cannot be sure why some IPs are not satisfied to call the "popular summary" simply "incorrect", but I believe it is because that summary is sufficiently ambiguous to be potentially valid, depending on how they are reading it. I mean, I wonder if you would agree that it seems the summary "the

783:

You even claimed that “This means that the Bohm theories are about at least 10^20 times less probable than the simpler math of Many Worlds.” That is a very bold claim, and I doubt that such a statement about the absolute truth probability of the Bohm theories CAN be made (certainly not without

400:

To your last question: yes, according the the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Bell presented some of the greatest proof against hidden variables theory. Bohm then countered Bell's arguments, and while many physicists continued to believe hidden variable theories impossible based on Bell's

1403:

I object. The reinforcement page describes the psychological mechanisms of reinforcement, while this page describes the neurological mechanisms of reinforcement. However, this subject would recieve much more attention on the reinforcement page, something that this article is in dire need of.

2300:

2. The only source you cite is a web page titled in an extremely deprecating manner. Both the title of that page and your link to it include the offensive word "crank"; the same blogger elsewhere uses the term "crackpot" in reference to me regarding the same essay. This clearly violates BLP

718:

The probability that a longer theory is better, is 2^-n, where n is how much longer it is, in bits, according to algorithmic information theory, the mathematization of Ockhams Razor. This means that the Bohm theories are about at least 10^20 times less probable than the simpler math of Many

1944:

I know you do, so I just wanted to send a reminder. I'll consider that a complement. I'm not here for personal attacks nor an edit war. I can bring a million reliable sourced materials to that article, but that's not what Knowledge is for. Anyways, read my summaries well, then discuss your

3778:? The first two are too broad; the third one is a chaotic mess already, and no reason to increase it without seriously rewriting. I looked at your contribution an I'd rather put each paragraph from it into a separate, much narrower article. In the future I will try to follow your advice. 1796:

lead a picture I had removed. I don't believe the picture belongs in the lead. Could you please explain why the picture better enlightens the reader? I believe it is confusing. I don't believe it illustrates the concept well. I think a more cogent picture would make for a better article.

1581:

Thanks so much! Yeah, I was writing about Givewell on my user page and I realized there's so much to that organization that the Wiki page hadn't captured yet. There's even still plenty of potential to go into more detail about their methodology and reasoning, but I'm definitely done for

1591:

Yeah I love checking page view statistics. As I've re-written now in my talk page, I'm wishing for one page where I can see all the views for all my favourite pages to edit, or even one stat that gives me an idea of how many readers I'm helping through wikipedia. Who even changes such

2500:

purposely avoided any such language (from either side of the debate) in the wikipedia article. I also maintain that such language does not restrict a source from use, and I suspect there are many critical philosophical reviews, book reviews or otherwise with offensive headlines.

1559:

Nice job on current work (maybe your not done yet), much needed. I was the one who cleaned up the "Shortcomings" section which used to comprise the majority of the article.. Saw your home page and agree with your suggestions on tools for readers. Maybe you already know of it,

2890:

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal. As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Knowledge Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study.

2331:

Mr. Langan, let me first respond to your second argument. I ask your forgiveness if any of my writing on your ideas - which are doubtlessly very dear to you - came across as negatively motivated. I hope to prove here that, at very least, I am editing in good faith and out of

1689:

is never a good reason to remove it from a page. Those tags are there to give a visible warning to readers about issues with the article. Tags do not expire just because they have been on the article for "months". Please only remove tags when the issues are resolved. Thanks,

1633:

Valid points. I have since tried to edit the language to be more neutral, and re-organized things to make a little more sense. I'm still interested to see any other edits you think would help (or additions, like that stat about postdoc salaries being better than they used to

793:

true. The formula for the velocity field is extremely simple: you have the probability current in the theory anyway, and you take the velocity vector to be proportional to the current. There is nothing particularly inelegant about that; if anything, it is remarkably elegant!

2301:

guidelines. (The comments on that web page are still active, which raises the likelihood that you are a disgruntled participant trying to get revenge or gain the upper hand, or perhaps merely an annoyed reader. In any case, your edits appear negatively motivated.)

802:

As I have mentioned, I lack knowledge about the Many-Worlds theories and can offer no informed opinions. I will read about it when I get the chance. On your side, I think you could afford to learn more about De-Broglie Bohm theory. As always, I recommend you read

2921:

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

4354:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

4244:

2292:

1. This article is not about the CTMU or any other part of my scholarly work, but is biographical in nature. The CTMU is described only in a very general way, and only insofar as it is informative regarding my activities, opinions, and areas of interest.

3327:

broken up and incorporated in other sections? Do you have strong views on how inconsistencies should be addressed? Do you want to address them yourself, or should I have a go (if I have time)? Or, can we work together on this somehow? Let me know.

2741: 4095:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

4019:

4248:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

950:

right. In other words, nature is as it is, and not as we would like it to be. And my stance is that if (suppose so) it is in fact not encompassingly deterministic, then there isn't very much I could do about it. It's not my choice, it's nature's.

663:

page- so far I'm more of a believer in the De Broglie–Bohm theory (which, I must repeat, has not been disproven. While bell mentions that Local Hidden variables are unlikely, there may be non-local hidden variables). If you are interested, see

2507:

I cannot reiterate enough that I seek to cover information accurately, to apply common sense, and also to honour Knowledge's values. It is especially in light of this last aim that I would appreciate your bringing up any further issues on the

2124:, and after repeated attempts to introduce the material you note above, I rewrote to include more details and references to current review articles. I have even suggested that I was willing to go back to that short version on the talk page 513:

Yes, your link seems to discuss the views of Abner Shimony, who believed indeterminateness to be true. Despite the conviction with which that page states it to be a "fact" - it is not. For example, even if we reject hidden variables, the

4357:

2512:. That way, with more reviewers, you and I could only be more likely to have Knowledge's rules interpreted correctly. There are undoubtedly people who are more experienced than you or I on Knowledge - and we could draw on their wisdom. 2260: 2103:

I can only promise to take science's, wikipedia's, and Ramachandran's side. It will also be a few days before I can make time, but I do admire the neuroscientist in question, and so I would be very happy to take a look when I can.

647:

The last line on that webpage does say “Indeterminacy is an objective fact and not just a matter of scientists' lack of knowledge.” That is why I claimed that the author believed that fundamental indeterminacy to be an agreed upon

2011:

I am frequently disappointed at Knowledge's soft treatment of skeptical issues, but fair enough. I did not appreciate that that was a motivation. I was not aware that the page had that history either. I appreciate your hard work,

1323:

with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage.

590:

Also isn't Hawkings working on this, as a way to reconcile his information paradox? If there are an infinite number of "realities" or "worlds" wouldn't that mean that I would be a self determining agent in that my consciousness

443:

and others, libertarian free will is that I determine or I will which is called self determined free will in contrast to soft determinism which gives us other freedom and calls self determinism "a freedom we really shouldn't

2432:

entirely without support. This is unfortunate, but is one of the more obvious hazards of relying on irascible, personally offensive, and ultimately insignificant gadflies like Mr. Chu-Carroll as sources for your information.

631:

It is exactly that claim that I disagree with: "the evidence is not just that we don't know what the quantum causes are -- the evidence is that there are no quantum causes". I do not disagree out of mere opinion either: the

2967:. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our 2960:

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on

2088:. I might be out of my head, as I've been involved in a slow battle with them, but as a fellow neuroscience contributor, I thought I'd ask for some outside input. I also just asked Looie496 for some input. Thanks, 835:

As I have mentioned you can contact Kim to confirm his comments. He is not the only quantum physicist who does not endorse the De-Broglie Bohm theory. Here is a nice overview for free will from a soft determinist's

2471:

In case you're new on the scene, this is just a replay of official decisions that were made years ago here at Knowledge. So please save everyone some time, carefully consult the guidelines, and use a bit of common

946:. As for being so affectionally attached to hard determinism, I can only respond with Feynman's reply. You could be (an) Einstein, but this doesn't change the fact that while Einstein can still be wrong, nature is 1532:

At least for the moment, the proper use of the Razor is mentioned first, followed by the "popular" summary - which I agree is the best way to do it. Also importantly, the caveats and warnings I've added are still

35:

when we should have (a)written a better caption that grounds the image or (b) chosen another image. This issue is worth mentioning because many Knowledge pages are starved for images (graphs, illustrations, etc).

1856:

As I understand it, the picture was illustrating the argument that because the earth travels around the sun, other planets do likewise. Maybe all it really needed was a better caption, but I do like Leprechauns.

471:

I am saying quantum randomness does exist, but is not yet fully understood. It must be interpreted, as far as I know. Do you acknowledge that there are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, some of them

3860:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 2755:

This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Knowledge and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

2451:

Furthermore, although the CTMU was indeed discussed at ISCID, you cannot possibly know or verify that this was the "only" place it was discussed. Accordingly, you should remove your assertion to that effect as

4123: 4047: 2355:, but what's more, he is one of few sources that offer an outside perspective on your work. We agree that he is decidedly offensive, but unless I am again mistaken (and I may be), that does not invalidate his 651:

Did you also ask me why I talked about Abner Shimony AT ALL? Because you will notice that Shimony is mentioned all over the end of that link. I do apologize for the verb tense- I didn't mean to make him sound

290:

that certain, respected interpretations of quantum physics are also deterministic. It seems relevant to make at least SOME mention to the physics that might fit with the experiments I posted. However...

91:, and have been reverted. Knowledge articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a 362:). We should all be weary of "thought experiments". As for Bell.. What you posted appears to contradict itself, Bell disproved it but then believes in it? According to someones opinion? Please explain. 4107:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 4031:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1877:

only distract my attention in the corners of my eye. It would be acceptable if their visibility has to be turned on by checking an option in the appearance preferences, but not if it is standard. --

693:

Forgive me but I have to disagree. There is a website I enjoy because the physicist likes to try and explain quantum physics and in specific quantum collapse. I love Kim's java. Here is the website.

2369:

to your liking (if you would rather no discussion of the attempt at criticisms at all), or else forgiving me for taking your silence as contentment. Generally, comments and critiques remain welcome.

1739:. Could you help me find an even more appropriate lead image? I thought that one was closest, but I understand that it leaves something to be desired. Just wondering if you'd seen anything better. 700:"I have had "discussions" with some of those before (the De Broglie-Bohm believers), and they have all had defective understanding of science, and an unwillingness to examine arguments properly. 322:

assumptions which, in my opinion, can quite reasonably be questioned. ... In my opinion, the most convincing argument against the theory of hidden variables was presented by J. S. Bell (1964)."

2422:

at the bottom of the page, you inserted the epithet "crank" into my biography, thus transforming Knowledge (and yourself, of course) into a vector for the delivery of Mr. Chu-Carroll's insults.

606:

Robert Kane says metaphysical free will fights for the freedom that I can be free. It states that freedom exists. Metaphysical freewill (metaphysical libertarianism) is the fight to validate

3680:

to the concepts section in the template, since that is a critical part of religious ethics. I don't have to agree that Worship is a part of ethics but I do not think it should be ignored.

498:

And no you did not until now make it clear that you where not going to re-add section. I hope you follow up on some of the things I posted, as they at least show my sources are not opinion.

3528:

Thanks, I just fixed those links. And I'm sorry that you are not the kind of robot that can enjoy another's gratitude, and that you will never read this message in any meaningful sense.-

1517:

I appreciate your attempts on this article, but the popular summary is actually incorrect rather than misleading. This popular and incorrect summary is also too far ahead in the lead.

353:). Now wikipedia is not current on certain things because of article squatters, I have tried but failed, oh well. Is relativity compatible with quantum physics? I think so, I know the 4350: 696:

You can contact him off of his website. Kim does not believe in free will and refers to it as term of art and mainly "nonsense". I will post some of "Kim G. S. Øyhus" comments here.

3816: 978:

I know Kim is not the only physicist who disagrees with Bohmian mechanics- it may be some time before the field of quantum physics has a large majority vote anything like the : -->

1326: 1319: 1303: 975:

That website almost makes it sound like holding individuals responsible, general creativity, and deliberation are each of them impossible according to determinism. I disagree.

1357:

which would probably be a good way of sorting out any issues and determining whether the article either does need significant cleanup or should have the tag removed, thanks.

3563:- basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :). 3228:

is definitely a page I will keep an eye on. As for science communication, I've actually already done a lot of work on that, so I'll catch up with you guys on future pages. -

2250: 1927:

Thank you for your concern. I am well aware of Knowledge's policy. So as you are deleting a cited critic because it makes you emotional, I will keep undoing the deletions.-

2072:

of each other) who are determined to simply enforce their POV an all things related to Ramachandran, and who really do not seem to be into things like talk page use. See

1028:

society and the highest freedom is worth having the freedom toward self determination (that my fate is mine to determine as best as my individual existence can manifest).

3559:. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of 3468: 540:

It may still turn out to be wrong, in the sense that any theory may turn out to be wrong. Just like the "fact" that the earth orbits the sun might turn out to be wrong.

2351:

I suppose we also disagree over whether this "Carroll" individual is notable enough for his criticisms to be worth mentioning on the page. To my eyes, he has engaged

3464: 318:

I can't help but notice "mathpages.com" provides no reliable source besides some vague mention to a "Kevin Brown"? I ask honestly: is mathpages.com a reliable site?

293:

I agree with comments by user Edhubbard that we should avoid turning this page into a full fledged argument over determinism. I leave this matter to his discretion.

27:

My attention may have been grabbed if someone deleted interesting content when it could have been (with only a little more effort) improved. That hurts Knowledge.

475:

Yes, hidden variables theory may be true. The Copenhagen interpretation may prove to be wrong. Do you acknowledge that the Copenhagen interpretation is contested?

436:

is not random? Any theory you post must be universally accepted and not a correct trend. Your response seems filtered. As I really would like you to address what

3270:

So you start this dialogue by immediately assuming bad faith, stating that you doubt this message will do any good? And by linking me to a forum that exists to

2221: 2189: 742:

and in this sense I think "you are also speaking" (maybe?). I do not mean to misrepresent you, please forgive me if I have. All of this is very much all about

3198: 3168: 45: 3110: 884:

interpreting the physical reality that we observe, in the face of much better and less falsified explanations is, in my view, a gratuitous leap of logic. --

2286:

As the subject of this Knowledge biography article, I hereby request that you remove your recent misleading, disparaging, and potentially damaging edits.

428:

does not exist? Please make a statement saying if you do or don't believe in its existence. As established science right now accepts Quantum indeterminacy.

4153:

I'm User:Tessaract2. This is actually my usual username for things (see my talk page) so I might as well clarify that I am NOT trying to impersonate you.

3596: 772:

I am familiar, and fond of, the importance of falsifiability in a theory. You will note that De-Broglie Bohm theory is falsifiable, from what I have read.

3072: 2842: 3106: 997:. I imagine everything is connected, maybe non-locally, and that is why I find indeterminism so unpalatable. Do you believe reality is a closed system? 4339: 4231: 3452: 3120: 3003: 2954: 2933: 2794: 2672:

into that article's talk page, so this was just a message to avoid such instances in the future. Apologies for not being more clear on that. Regards,

3008:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

1996:

what will happen again. This thing was full protected for seven months due to it's apparent flashpoint nature, and we don't need that started again.—

401:

arguments, Bell himself joined the ranks of Bohm and other physicists that believed hidden variables possible or even likely. I think would find the

3029: 2365:

it in just one sentence. I trust you will respond with your thoughts on all this, appreciating that the page should perhaps not be expected to be

166: 2549:

that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use

95:

for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Knowledge also has a related policy against including

108: 4301: 4241: 3971: 2185: 1246: 150: 3157: 2297:

theory and justify your edits under Knowledge guidelines. Even in that event, your present additions would not seem to pass (see points 2-4).

1221:

That is kind of you. If my edits so far have been a success, hopefully I can keep it up for the rest of that page and do determinists proud..-

3448: 3116: 2790: 4137: 4061: 3885: 1310: 2972: 2968: 2918: 2784: 2652: 2623:

shouldn't set the importance for the articles we write for all the applicable projects. It's not meant as an insult, but simply stated,

2337:

I would disagree with you that biographies may never discuss the ideas of their subjects. I would point you to the pages of people like

1288: 390: 3766:

I agree that moving a well-referenced text rather than deleting it is a better approach. However I disagree that the proper places are

3556: 1826:

Yes, I am quite happy to discuss! I only reflexively throw the picture back up because I feel that some editors don't appreciate that

3794: 3744: 2380:

another, did not really get to explore your arguments, I would humbly leave you with words I have always admired - attributed to one

722:

Eliezer Yudkowski has some O.K. essays about this on lesswrong.com, but not any pictures, and he tends to write unnecessarily long."

169:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out

3684: 3492: 2780: 1242: 1114: 572:

dead, you stated that he "believed". The link makes no mention of him where did you derive the co-relation? I also believe that the

170: 1287:

I think the article is outstanding for anyone who's interested in philosophy, psychology or neuroscience. Great work Tesserac :) --

3441:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

78: 3488: 447:

As all of this is covered in the introduction in Robert Kanes' book "The Significance of Free Will. Especially pages 10, 11, 12.

4133: 4057: 3975: 3881: 1901: 3282:

I have started discussion topics on the two pages that you have edited and I think we should continue these discussions there.

3113:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2787:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3445:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3189: 2125: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 1897: 1457: 480:

I don't meant to be rude, but this will be my last reply if you don't understand me this time. I think I'm being very clear.

126:

on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

3272:"shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Knowledge and its related projects; to examine the corruption there" 1067:. You can create them without any issues if you have the right software; if you don't, feel free to post a request at the 257: 2635:

for the Psychology project. ~That task should be left to the individual members of the respective wikiprojects. Regards,

1180:

Thanks a lot! You can check the Positive Psychology talk page to see just how much material I already had to work with. -

917:

for the theories, so I am left weighing the authorities, some of whom, it seems, think it is De-Broglie Bohm for the win.

530:

No the link does not say that. It explicitly states and or calls it a theory, here I'll quote the link to address this.

4116: 4040: 2999: 2953:

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,

2486: 2321: 2205: 1106: 628:

Let me first say that I agree that "all modern science is falliblist in epistemology"- that's a great way of putting it.

135: 74: 3872:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1811:

For example, I believe the Leprechaun picture which is already on the page is a far better explanation of the concept.

4285:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4128: 4052: 3963: 3911: 3877: 3699: 3180: 2946: 2384:: "Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity." 633: 248:

as something treated as unchallenged and established science in its depiction in the article? Also why no mention of

2852:

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about

764:

I am glad we can disagree so completely, but also civilly. And about Kim G. S. Øyhus, to which QI does he subscribe?

4290: 4286: 3967: 2914: 2554: 2237: 1498:

The Nation published a review 27 April 2011 on Sam Harris worthy of mention in the article on The Moral Landscape.

1465: 1423: 1409: 660: 573: 515: 789:

Actually, I disagree that Bohmian mechanics are more complex to begin with. As physicist Hilary Putnam explains:

386: 350: 4365: 4343: 4235: 3740: 3460: 2995: 2927: 2909: 2061: 2053: 1314: 1269: 1064: 942:

the most honest position is to stand by the theory that is simpler and explains most. This theory is not dB-B's,

465: 440: 433: 245: 211: 196: 155: 3950: 3442: 3381: 3257: 3041: 2841:

to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Knowledge. The survey has been

2546: 2462:

can't make such findings yourself, as that would be "original research" and is banned from Knowledge articles).

2212: 2155: 1569: 577: 325:

The article then goes on to explain that Bell himself became a proponent of the De-Broglie Bohm interpretation.

103: 2482: 2317: 286:

After the experiments that suggest philosophical determinism, I cite the page by Stanford University just to

4335: 4320: 4199: 3736: 2509: 2241: 1695: 1665: 1623: 1292: 1277: 1002:

Actually I wonder, do you believe that we cannot hold individuals responsible if the universe is determined?

238: 215: 1830:

people - like me- are visual learners and generally benefit greatly from examples, metaphors, diagrams etc.

1503: 1419: 1405: 4257: 4180: 4166: 3907: 3608: 3591:

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an

2264: 2018:

understand. I have bigger bones to pick than with the healthy criticism section of What The Bleep's page.-

1775: 1744: 604: 345:

The best way to answer this would be to clarify somethings. Randomness exists, science has shown this via

310: 130: 4281: 2305:

he needs to stand on his own merits rather than trying to use the biographies of others as back doors.)

4104: 4028: 3783: 3752: 3721: 3688: 3568: 3214: 3172: 3150:

Hello: I've noticed your contributions to science-related articles, so if you're interested, check out:

3080: 2980: 2881: 2718: 2600: 1024: 743: 425: 162: 3413: 3345:

Thanks for the input. Ideally we would work together, and I will put some ideas on the talk page there.

1945:

concerns/disagreements on the article's talk page, for everyone to join. Thanks for your understanding

807:

look at Bohm theories, particularly the “Objections” section. It links to other resources including an

3779: 1657: 214:, since adding all of that material to the free will page would have unbalanced the main article (see 4361: 3987: 3673: 2674: 2637: 2272: 2233: 2175: 1432:

Oh pardon my non-response. I agreed with you, although I will go and make a minor edit on that note.-

1335: 1211: 1168: 1122: 1033: 852: 751: 615: 568:

This all is not something I am just saying, it is a matter of sources not opinion. Also is Professor

503: 452: 367: 268: 81:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page 2232:

for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on

1206:...your effort shows. From a fellow determinist, thanks for taking the time to make it much better. 840: 837: 778:

Ockham’s razor. As Einstein put it, “explanations should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

3979: 3873: 3830: 3626: 3253: 3098: 3033: 2542: 2541:

Constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article

2170: 2151: 2133: 2093: 1904:

and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please remember that this is

1565: 1473: 1461: 1362: 956: 889: 581: 424:

You are speaking about established science or some potential in the future? So you are saying that

394: 223: 54: 3706: 729:

I think you'll find my science wrong and lacking too, so...I will also comment on one final thing

359: 315:

I agree, nothing should be presented as "unchallenged", especially not quantum physics these days.

4195: 4191: 3775: 3332: 2846: 2834: 2608: 1862: 1816: 1802: 1691: 1661: 1619: 1273: 1254: 607: 145: 3625:

Did you take some courses with Peterson? If I'm not mistaken you've added mention of him to the

676:

We can discuss many-worlds theory another day, when I have at least read the wiki page about it.

4253: 4186: 4091: 4073: 4015: 3997: 3946: 3932:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be

3849: 3840: 3634: 3604: 3516: 3424: 3392: 3136: 2810: 2655:. But yeah I for sure should have checked to see what I was making that article relative to. - 2592: 2550: 2228:, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see 2179: 1957: 1920: 1878: 1771: 1740: 1076: 1053: 297: 253: 1460:

or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to

4226: 4210: 4100: 4024: 3869: 3853: 3748: 3717: 3323: 3076: 2976: 2877: 2826: 2713: 1522: 1499: 1160: 665: 182: 174: 49: 4115:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4039:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3868:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2870: 2651:

Is there even still an article though? I thought we/I ended up just moving that content to

2375:

with it. That is what drove my perhaps too-fleeting contribution on your page: If the CTMU

4309: 4154: 3983: 3920: 3710: 3648: 3592: 3529: 3499: 3475: 3356: 3297: 3229: 3225: 3009: 2866: 2656: 2568: 2516: 2393: 2342: 2268: 2105: 2019: 1967: 1928: 1836: 1755: 1713: 1638: 1596: 1540: 1484: 1433: 1375: 1331: 1222: 1207: 1181: 1164: 1141: 1118: 1087: 1029: 1006: 920: 848: 819: 804: 747: 680: 611: 499: 481: 448: 406: 363: 329: 264: 118: 19: 2955:

requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license

2913:. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of 1853:

picture made me consider the possibility that I actually didn't understand the concept.

738:

spoke of complexity as a cause of randomness. So I think that science should always seek

1793: 1754:

Right now it's a woman doing an experiment. I thought that picture was great, actually.-

44:(although it doesn't really talk about choice of image) or discussions revolving around 4112: 4036: 3865: 3857: 3820: 3808: 3555:

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the

2381: 2229: 2129: 2089: 2069: 1706: 1469: 1358: 952: 885: 808: 794: 249: 219: 112:, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type 3647:

Your preferences don't seem to have an email option. Still, email me and we'll chat. -

3277:

Discussion of arguments completely aside, as far as dialogues go: weak start, brother.

3249: 244:

As a thing of locality which means it can't apply to individuals? So why is it in the

4108: 4032: 3933: 3924: 3861: 3507:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

3328: 3127:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

3102: 2801:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2772: 2632: 2604: 2338: 2225: 2065: 2039: 2001: 1905: 1858: 1812: 1798: 1397: 1354: 1250: 739: 569: 354: 260: 140: 41: 2121:

too much; I wrote it in response to repeated attempts to This was the old version

1866: 1820: 1806: 3630: 3512: 3508: 3420: 3388: 3132: 3128: 2806: 2802: 1946: 1909: 1072: 1068: 1049: 812: 642: 559: 496: 437: 429: 96: 92: 82: 4082: 4006: 3672:

If you don't mind, could you provide your opinion on a not too large issue in the

3028:

was a good idea! I've copyedited the lead section of your interesting new article

2821:

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

2034:

Let the current heightened attention die down a bit, and I'll see what I can do.—

736: 23:

A student presents an image that illustrates an idea - as may images on wikipedia

3560: 2860:

Knowledge is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone!

2740: 2224:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

1526: 1518: 1203: 178: 87: 3573: 2900: 595:) makes the indeterminacy of reality into a determined one by the actualizing ( 518:

is also deterministic, and is also a reasonably popular interpretation for now.

464:

I already agreed with Edhubard that physics has no place in the article on the

402: 323: 309:

An answer to your first question can currently be found on the page you cited:

259:

The way this article is written it implies that the each individuals life is a

4305: 3032:

a little. Please just revert if you disagree with the changes. Best regards,

2628: 1992:

and turn it into a mecca for crystal-worshipers. If you push too hard, that's

1243:

Knowledge:Pending changes/Closure#Feature Requests (what might make it better)

767:

As far as my understanding of science- you can and will form your own opinion.

584: 346: 3956:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

1483:

Certainly, I will be sure to make my sources obvious where I have failed to.-

242: 2768: 1679: 1350: 600: 358:

would be true over all determinism including soft determinism also known as

207: 192: 2699: 2352: 60: 4172: 1561: 3771: 3319: 2204:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

2035: 1997: 1660:

Perhaps some of the points raised there may be worthy of inclusion. Best,

815:

written by Einstein, Shrodinger and Bell in support of Bohmian mechanics.

596: 64:

Disagreement makes for good Exercise (But I will also forgive agreement).

4369: 4313: 4261: 4203: 4159: 4141: 4119:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

4065: 4043:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3991: 3889: 3834: 3800: 3787: 3756: 3725: 3692: 3658: 3638: 3612: 3539: 3520: 3428: 3396: 3366: 3336: 3307: 3261: 3239: 3219: 3140: 3084: 3046: 3014: 2984: 2885: 2814: 2723: 2682: 2666: 2645: 2612: 2578: 2559: 2526: 2490: 2403: 2325: 2276: 2159: 2137: 2115: 2097: 2043: 2029: 2005: 1977: 1959: 1938: 1922: 1881: 1846: 1779: 1765: 1748: 1721: 1699: 1669: 1646: 1627: 1604: 1573: 1548: 1507: 1492: 1477: 1452: 1441: 1427: 1413: 1383: 1366: 1339: 1296: 1281: 1258: 1230: 1215: 1189: 1172: 1149: 1126: 1095: 1080: 1057: 1037: 1014: 960: 928: 893: 856: 827: 755: 688: 619: 507: 489: 456: 414: 371: 337: 272: 227: 186: 3677: 3484: 2776: 1736: 733: 526:

Narrowing down the disagreement, and discussing quantum interpretations

4171: 3224:

Thanks for the info :) I fancy myself a volunteer science writer, so

3252:– Can you please stop adding images of random people to articles? -- 3056: 2833:, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at 2412:

I appreciate the revisions, but that's not quite what I had in mind.

2126:

Talk:Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Let_Ramachandran_speak_for_himself.21

583:

I dare say they are one in the same as is called the concept of the

4190:

with another article. If you are interested, please participate in

1658:

http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2010/100624/full/nj7301-1104a.html

1063:

The same is true, by the way, of the other non-free images used at

730: 301:

argue, on an unrelated note, how much that theory is really saying.

3767: 3576:. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at 710:

2. Ockhams razor: Shorter explanations are better than long ones.

707:

1. Falsification: Explanations different from reality, are wrong.

59: 18: 3856:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

2831: 349:'s work. Bohr put this to rest in his debates with Einstein (see 1086:

Sounds fair enough. I'll get creative when next I get a chance.

592: 4122:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

4046:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

3566:

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want:

2829: 1396:

I already put this in the talk page of the article in question(

1349:

Hi, I noticed that you had placed a cleanup tag on the article

1241:

Hi. I noticed that you added some points about terminology to

599:) of my indeterminate reality by my sentience or intelligence ( 3152: 1835:

I have made some edits based on your suggestions. Thoughts? -

1043:

File:RetrospectiveConstructionOfJudgementOfFreeChoice fig1.jpg

439:

says as it explicitly denies what you say. Since according to

3807:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

2567:

I will happily explain myself further on the discussion page-

4270: 3898: 3799: 3419:

Could you PLEASE respond on my page you NEVER respond to me

2949:, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. 2899: 2194: 669: 2940:

without deleting the original replaceable fair use template

2854:

7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward

432:

saying that of your positions? Like say the outcome of the

3572:

should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo

843:

name for indeterminism and he renames nature libertarians

263:, which is what experiments always have as a short coming. 4149:

Just to clarify, if we run into each other in the future.

1400:), but I wanted to ensure that you recieved the message. 2481:

Thanks for your further attention, and have a nice day.

2254:

to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for

1134:

I will reply there, in case a good discussion gets going

4351:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Revisionary materialism

4334:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

4224:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

4103:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

4027:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

3974:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

3101:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3025: 2963: 2771:, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 2596: 2122: 1686: 784:

multiple sources agreeing on the estimation, at least).

694: 3939:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

2171:

Talk:Occam's_razor#Image_and_description_inappropriate

495:

This link addresses answers and clarify my objections.

102:

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the

1900:

to Knowledge articles. Doing so violates Knowledge's

1304:

Knowledge:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

1272:

article looks interesting. I will keep an eye on it.

1247:

Knowledge talk:Pending changes/Closure#PC Terminology

1159:

Well done for making such a substantial start to the

4338:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

4230:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

2971:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 2712:

We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year!

1735:

I appreciated your comments in your edit summary at

1564:

are fun to see how many people are visiting a page.

3735:As one of very few editors who have contributed to 3318:I appreciate your inclusion of text moved from the 3250:

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=658

2865:To take part in the survey please follow the link: 4300:will be deleted after seven days, as described in 4179:An article that you have been involved in editing— 3387:hEY WHATS UP I HAVEN'T SEEN YOU IN YEARS whats up 2309:detail, thus betraying your lack of impartiality. 2289:The reasons for my request include the following: 2169:A newbie has removed an image that you added; see 1887:Your edits on Quran and Science/ Islam and Science 389:". That is the question being explored by various 3848:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 993:From that last assumption, we would imagine that 641:I must say however, you should re-read your link 3716:comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 2896:Replaceable fair use File:JosephKonyGreenHat.jpg 2867:tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=91289518 1048:displays this information that is copyrighted. 393:(although I noticed wiki's current page for the 3629:page. I started the Jordan Peterson wiki page. 2990:File:JosephKonyGreenHat.jpg listed for deletion 2202: 4302:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion 4296:Note that any non-free images not used in any 3437:Disambiguation link notification for October 4 2917:, but its use in Knowledge articles fails our 2553:for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. — 2226:section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion 1245:. You may be interested in the discussion at 3919:No references, no claim of notability, fails 2060:Hi Tesseract2, Could I get your input on the 33:removing images makes wikipedia less engaging 8: 3093:Disambiguation link notification for April 6 2625:The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane? 2222:The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane? 2190:The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane? 397:captures the gist of our discussion nicely). 46:Knowledge:Choosing appropriate illustrations 4267:Orphaned non-free image File:Raise5Logo.png 3815:redirect, you might want to participate in 1792:Hi, you recently replaced a picture in the 995:reality, whatever it is, is a closed system 3811:. Since you had some involvement with the 3743:to split off the 'standard argument' as a 3322:article. However, one result is that the 3288:wikipedia experience for visual learners). 3030:‪Role of chance in scientific discoveries‬ 2236:subjects and should provide references to 576:is completely compatible with the idea of 405:- as interesting and accessible as I did. 403:Stanford Encyclopedia on Bohmian Mechanics 161:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a 3895:Proposed deletion of Death Anxiety (song) 3603:. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, 3197:To propose future collaborations, please 3071:For your participation in the survey for 3054: 2957:, or by taking a picture of it yourself. 2738: 2627:isn't on the same level of importance as 1908:, not a basket of repeated personal POVs 1896:Please do not add commentary or your own 1317:, this is to notify you that there is an 1313:regarding the ongoing usage and trial of 296:According to the current wiki page, "the 3588:and I'll set you up with an account :). 3073:Anonymity and conformity on the internet 1468:for all of your information. Thank you. 668:or check out the "arguments" section of 210:onto a daughter page, which I've titled 3945:notice, but please explain why in your 2282:Your recent edits to Christopher Langan 2206:the guide to writing your first article 1987:Perhaps if you could explain precisely 716:because the math contains many worlds. 4242:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Raise5 1966:That's great to hear! Let us discuss.- 1330:on this issue is greatly appreciated. 2994:A file that you uploaded or altered, 2595:, have you had any discussions about 1309:Hi. As you recently commented in the 7: 4092:2016 Arbitration Committee elections 4016:2016 Arbitration Committee elections 3179:Please help improve this article to 2064:page. There seem to be a couple of 233:Hidden Variable theory appears as OR 52:(especially "choice and placement"). 4340:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 4232:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 3731:Standard argument against free will 3274:, where you explain this to others? 2653:Citizens Commission on Human Rights 2211:You may want to consider using the 2164: 1113:Should we discuss this here, or at 391:Interpretation of quantum mechanics 282:About my mentioning Physics at all 3934:deleted for any of several reasons 3914:because of the following concern: 3819:if you have not already done so. 3683:Your contribution is appreciated. 3169:science collaboration of the month 3146:Science collaboration of the month 2267:the page or email a copy to you. 2263:to request that the administrator 811:about the theory, along with some 636:is the reason for my disagreement. 85:have not conformed to Knowledge's 14: 4348:The article will be discussed at 4240:The article will be discussed at 4089:Hello, Tesseract2. Voting in the 4013:Hello, Tesseract2. Voting in the 3874:review the candidates' statements 3595:session on Monday 17 December at 1115:Talk:The Evolution of Cooperation 971:Can free will support the burden? 206:I've moved your additions to the 171:Knowledge:Where to ask a question 4328: 4218: 4081: 4005: 3580: 3412: 3380: 3156: 3055: 2934:di-replaceable fair use disputed 2919:first non-free content criterion 2763:Disambiguation link notification 2739: 2698: 2536: 2248:deleted. You can also visit the 1891: 1451: 556:quantum indeterminacy seriously. 3739:, you might be interested in a 3188:Last month's collaboration was 3065:Research Participation Barnstar 2618:Article importance for projects 1345:Cleanup tag on freewill article 839:Note even here you'll find the 703:The principles of science are: 57:is relevant on this issue too. 4262:10:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC) 3880:. For the Election committee, 3850:Arbitration Committee election 3841:ArbCom elections are now open! 3190:List of scientific occupations 2973:Media copyright questions page 2579:14:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 2560:22:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 2527:23:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 2491:15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 2404:03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 2326:23:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 2086:Special:Contributions/Pfstarrs 2082:Special:Contributions/Edgeform 2078:Special:Contributions/Neurorel 2074:Talk:Vilayanur S. Ramachandran 1613:Doctor of Philosophy-Criticism 1392:RE:This article is unnecessary 1374:Sounds good, I'll do it asap.- 1367:21:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 1340:23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 1282:12:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 1259:12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC) 1: 4291:our policy for non-free media 4142:22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) 4105:Knowledge arbitration process 4066:22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) 4029:Knowledge arbitration process 3890:14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC) 3757:16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 3613:23:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 3097:Hi. When you recently edited 2886:11:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 2767:Hi. When you recently edited 2724:20:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 2683:07:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 2667:18:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 2646:05:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 2613:08:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC) 2277:15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 2251:the page's talk page directly 1867:23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1847:22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1821:22:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1807:21:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1780:19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1766:19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1749:18:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1722:20:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 1700:17:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 1670:20:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 1647:15:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 1628:15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1493:19:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC) 1478:01:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC) 1297:10:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 1231:14:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 1216:04:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 1204:the article about determinism 187:17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 131:The five pillars of Knowledge 4370:13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 4160:00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC) 3835:19:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC) 3698:Could you please comment on 3000:Knowledge:Files for deletion 2845:by the Wikimedia Foundation 2815:10:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 2215:to help you create articles. 1902:neutral point of view policy 1605:19:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1574:18:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1549:19:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC) 1527:20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC) 1442:16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 1428:01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 1107:The Evolution of Cooperation 237:Didn't Von Neumann disprove 151:How to write a great article 77:to Knowledge! Thank you for 4314:17:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC) 4126:and submit your choices on 4050:and submit your choices on 3978:allows discussion to reach 3959:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 3942:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 3876:and submit your choices on 3700:Talk:Thought_identification 3676:? I was thinking of adding 3540:16:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 3521:14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 2996:File:JosephKonyGreenHat.jpg 2910:File:JosephKonyGreenHat.jpg 2316:Thanks for your attention. 2313:edits as soon as possible. 2261:one of these administrators 2165:Occam's razor image removed 1414:22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 1384:00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 1237:Pending changes terminology 1190:18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1173:11:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 845:event-causal libertarianism 109:new contributors' help page 4385: 4204:05:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 4134:MediaWiki message delivery 4124:the candidates' statements 4058:MediaWiki message delivery 4048:the candidates' statements 3992:13:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC) 3970:exist. In particular, the 3882:MediaWiki message delivery 3693:17:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 3047:00:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 2928:the media description page 2837:. I am writing to you to 2044:16:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 2030:16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 2006:16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 1978:02:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC) 1960:01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC) 1939:01:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC) 1923:22:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 1882:18:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 1508:18:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 1110:is perhaps too low-level. 857:18:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 847:which are both confusing. 828:16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 756:12:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 689:05:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 661:Many-worlds interpretation 659:I have not read the whole 620:13:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 574:Many-worlds interpretation 516:Many-worlds interpretation 508:03:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 490:03:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 457:23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 415:22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 372:23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 338:03:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 305:As far as physics goes... 273:16:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 228:18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 4271: 3964:proposed deletion process 3793:Meaning system listed at 3659:22:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC) 3639:22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC) 3581: 3498:added a link pointing to 3474:added a link pointing to 3461:Politicization of science 3429:23:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 3397:23:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 3367:15:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC) 3337:22:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC) 3308:16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC) 3262:18:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC) 3141:10:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 3085:08:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3061: 3015:14:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 2985:14:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 2947:the image discussion page 2745: 2697: 2359:at critiquing your ideas. 2220:A tag has been placed on 2180:00:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 2138:20:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 2116:19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 2098:00:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 2062:Vilayanur S. Ramachandran 2054:Vilayanur S. Ramachandran 1787: 1270:Neuroscience of free will 1150:12:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 1127:20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 1065:Neuroscience of free will 1038:16:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 1015:23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC) 578:alternative possibilities 466:Neuroscience of free will 246:Neuroscience of free will 212:Neuroscience of free will 197:Neuroscience of free will 16:Welcome to my talk page! 4342:or whether it should be 4234:or whether it should be 3795:Redirects for discussion 3788:02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 2341:or our mutually admired 2160:14:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 1717: 1678:Removal of POV tag from 1642: 1600: 1544: 1488: 1437: 1379: 1226: 1185: 1145: 1101:Evolution of cooperation 1096:07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 1091: 1081:04:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 1058:04:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 1010: 924: 823: 805:Stanford’s philosophical 684: 485: 410: 333: 104:guide for citing sources 4336:Revisionary materialism 4321:Revisionary materialism 3951:the article's talk page 3817:the redirect discussion 3726:19:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 3240:22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 3220:01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 3020:Serendipity and science 2969:non-free content policy 2599:with one of your own? 2353:even more with academia 1705:I will explain this at 1105:Hi. Before you "sort" 961:11:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 929:02:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 894:01:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 468:. You know that, right? 73:Hello, Tesseract2, and 48:. The MOST relevant is 4276: 4181:Thought identification 4176: 4167:Thought identification 4165:Merger discussion for 3903: 3804: 3737:Dilemma of determinism 2904: 2510:Chris Langan talk page 2217: 2199: 988:of nested realities... 634:De Broglie–Bohm theory 311:Hidden variable theory 239:Hidden Variable theory 65: 24: 4279:Thanks for uploading 4274: 4192:the merger discussion 4175: 4101:Arbitration Committee 4074:ArbCom Elections 2016 4025:Arbitration Committee 3998:ArbCom Elections 2016 3976:articles for deletion 3912:proposed for deletion 3902: 3854:Arbitration Committee 3803: 3762:re: religion of peace 3745:new, separate article 3557:Article Feedback Tool 3405:Some baklava for you! 3173:Science communication 2998:, has been listed at 2907:Thanks for uploading 2903: 2843:reviewed and approved 2749:The Original Barnstar 2198: 1512: 744:Kolmogorov complexity 387:Bohr–Einstein debates 351:Bohr–Einstein debates 177:. Again, welcome! 63: 22: 3908:Death Anxiety (song) 3674:Template talk:Ethics 3509:opt-out instructions 3443:disambiguation pages 3129:opt-out instructions 2803:opt-out instructions 1906:just an Encyclopedia 385:"put to rest in the 88:verifiability policy 40:You could check out 4282:File:Raise5Logo.png 3858:arbitration process 3627:positive psychology 3493:fix with Dab solver 3469:fix with Dab solver 3183:quality standards. 3111:fix with Dab solver 3099:Positive psychology 3077:Michael Tsikerdekis 2930:and edit it to add 2878:Michael Tsikerdekis 2827:Michael Tsikerdekis 2785:fix with Dab solver 2543:Science of morality 1462:The Moral Landscape 1447:The Moral Landscape 1198:Determinism article 979:99% for evolution. 395:Measurement problem 4277: 4177: 4117:arbitration policy 4076:: Voting now open! 4041:arbitration policy 4000:: Voting now open! 3968:deletion processes 3904: 3870:arbitration policy 3805: 3776:Islam and violence 3774:, or did you mean 3747:. Please comment. 3451:• Join us at the 3373:A cupcake for you! 3245:Personality rights 3119:• Join us at the 3024:Hi, ‪Tesseract2‬. 2905: 2847:Research Committee 2835:Masaryk University 2825:Hello, my name is 2793:• Join us at the 2597:replacing the logo 2591:Apart from saying 2483:Christopher Langan 2318:Christopher Langan 2200: 1728:Science lead image 1456:Please do not add 1320:interim straw poll 608:self determination 426:quantum randomness 136:How to edit a page 79:your contributions 69:Welcome Tesseract2 66: 25: 4287:claim of fair use 3601:#wikimedia-office 3456: 3434: 3433: 3402: 3401: 3218: 3209: 3208: 3202: 3193: 3124: 3090: 3089: 3002:. Please see the 2839:kindly invite you 2798: 2760: 2759: 2729: 2728: 2587:Template:Humanism 2150:Hey, thank you! 2068:editors (perhaps 1898:personal analysis 1788:Occam's razor pic 1458:original research 298:Free will theorem 254:Free will theorem 97:original research 4376: 4332: 4331: 4273: 4222: 4221: 4157: 4085: 4009: 3961: 3960: 3944: 3943: 3901: 3827: 3652: 3618:Jordan Peterson? 3602: 3587: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3533: 3489:check to confirm 3465:check to confirm 3446: 3416: 3409: 3408: 3384: 3377: 3376: 3360: 3324:secular humanism 3314:Secular humanism 3301: 3233: 3217: 3215:Northamerica1000 3212: 3196: 3187: 3181:featured article 3160: 3153: 3114: 3107:check to confirm 3059: 3052: 3051: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3012: 2966: 2937: 2876:Best Regards, -- 2788: 2781:check to confirm 2743: 2736: 2735: 2721: 2716: 2702: 2695: 2694: 2691:Merry Christmas! 2679: 2660: 2642: 2572: 2557: 2540: 2539: 2520: 2397: 2244:their content. 2238:reliable sources 2197: 2178: 2109: 2023: 1971: 1955: 1954: 1932: 1918: 1917: 1895: 1894: 1840: 1759: 1464:. Please cite a 1455: 1420:The Cowdestroyer 1406:The Cowdestroyer 1161:Learned optimism 1155:Learned optimism 666:Superdeterminism 434:Copenhagen model 216:WP:Summary style 203:Hi Tesseract2, 124: 123: 117: 31:However, simply 4384: 4383: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4362:Darcyisverycute 4359: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4304:. Thank you. -- 4269: 4251: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4170: 4155: 4151: 4146: 4145: 4129:the voting page 4086: 4078: 4070: 4069: 4053:the voting page 4010: 4002: 3972:speedy deletion 3958: 3957: 3941: 3940: 3899: 3897: 3878:the voting page 3844: 3821: 3798: 3764: 3733: 3711:Lockheed Martin 3703: 3667: 3665:Ethics template 3650: 3620: 3600: 3579: 3577: 3550: 3531: 3500:Chris C. Mooney 3476:Chris C. Mooney 3453:DPL WikiProject 3439: 3407: 3375: 3358: 3316: 3299: 3247: 3231: 3213: 3205: 3199:contribute here 3176: 3148: 3121:DPL WikiProject 3095: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3022: 3010: 2992: 2962: 2931: 2898: 2893: 2823: 2795:DPL WikiProject 2765: 2734: 2719: 2714: 2706:Happy new year! 2693: 2681: 2675: 2658: 2644: 2638: 2620: 2589: 2570: 2555: 2537: 2534: 2532:Uw-wrongsummary 2518: 2395: 2343:Albert Einstein 2284: 2218: 2195: 2193: 2186:Speedy deletion 2176:John Vandenberg 2174: 2167: 2148: 2107: 2058: 2021: 1985: 1969: 1948: 1947: 1930: 1911: 1910: 1892: 1889: 1874: 1838: 1790: 1757: 1732:Hi Tesseract2. 1730: 1685:Hi. That a tag 1683: 1615: 1557: 1515: 1466:reliable source 1449: 1394: 1347: 1315:Pending changes 1307: 1266: 1239: 1200: 1157: 1119:J. Johnson (JJ) 1103: 1045: 973: 528: 280: 256:in the article? 235: 201: 156:Manual of Style 121: 115: 114: 106:or come to the 93:reliable source 71: 12: 11: 5: 4382: 4380: 4327: 4326: 4324: 4319:Nomination of 4317: 4268: 4265: 4217: 4216: 4214: 4209:Nomination of 4207: 4169: 4163: 4150: 4147: 4087: 4080: 4079: 4077: 4071: 4011: 4004: 4003: 4001: 3995: 3982:for deletion. 3962:will stop the 3930: 3929: 3896: 3893: 3847: 3843: 3838: 3813:Meaning system 3809:Meaning system 3797: 3791: 3763: 3760: 3732: 3729: 3702: 3696: 3666: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3643: 3619: 3616: 3549: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3438: 3435: 3432: 3431: 3417: 3406: 3403: 3400: 3399: 3385: 3374: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3352: 3351: 3347: 3346: 3341: 3315: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3294: 3290: 3289: 3284: 3283: 3279: 3278: 3275: 3266: 3254:Michaeldsuarez 3246: 3243: 3207: 3206: 3204: 3203: 3194: 3165: 3163: 3161: 3147: 3144: 3094: 3091: 3088: 3087: 3068: 3067: 3062: 3060: 3021: 3018: 2991: 2988: 2975:. Thank you. 2951: 2950: 2943: 2897: 2894: 2822: 2819: 2818: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2757: 2752: 2751: 2746: 2744: 2733: 2730: 2727: 2726: 2709: 2708: 2703: 2692: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2673: 2636: 2619: 2616: 2601:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2588: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2533: 2530: 2498: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2407: 2406: 2390: 2386: 2385: 2382:Charles Mingus 2371: 2370: 2361: 2360: 2348: 2347: 2334: 2333: 2283: 2280: 2230:Knowledge:Stub 2213:Article Wizard 2201: 2192: 2188:nomination of 2183: 2166: 2163: 2152:Green Cardamom 2147: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2066:single-purpose 2057: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2014: 2013: 1984: 1983:What the Bleep 1981: 1965: 1963: 1962: 1888: 1885: 1873: 1870: 1850: 1849: 1832: 1831: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1729: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1710: 1707:Talk:Happiness 1682: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1650: 1649: 1635: 1614: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1593: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1566:Green Cardamom 1556: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1535: 1534: 1514: 1511: 1496: 1495: 1448: 1445: 1393: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1346: 1343: 1306: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1265: 1262: 1238: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1202:Great work on 1199: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1156: 1153: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1102: 1099: 1084: 1083: 1044: 1041: 1019: 1004: 1003: 999: 998: 990: 989: 983:your views... 972: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 934: 933: 932: 931: 918: 911: 910: 909: 908: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 862: 861: 860: 859: 841:soft causality 817: 816: 799: 798: 797: 796: 786: 785: 780: 779: 774: 773: 769: 768: 765: 760: 728: 725: 721: 720: 717: 714: 712: 711: 708: 702: 701: 699: 692: 691: 678: 677: 673: 672: 656: 655: 654: 653: 649: 638: 637: 629: 624: 589: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 527: 524: 522: 520: 519: 493: 492: 478: 477: 476: 473: 472:deterministic? 469: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 398: 377: 376: 375: 374: 327: 326: 319: 316: 313: 303: 302: 294: 291: 279: 276: 250:John H. Conway 234: 231: 200: 190: 167:sign your name 159: 158: 153: 148: 143: 138: 133: 70: 67: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4381: 4372: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4356: 4353: 4352: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4322: 4318: 4316: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4294: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4283: 4266: 4264: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4250: 4246: 4243: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4228: 4212: 4208: 4206: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4196:Rolf H Nelson 4194:. Thank you. 4193: 4189: 4188: 4185:proposed for 4182: 4174: 4168: 4164: 4162: 4161: 4158: 4148: 4144: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4130: 4125: 4120: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4097: 4094: 4093: 4084: 4075: 4072: 4068: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4054: 4049: 4044: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4021: 4018: 4017: 4008: 3999: 3996: 3994: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3954: 3952: 3948: 3937: 3935: 3928: 3926: 3922: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3913: 3909: 3894: 3892: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3842: 3839: 3837: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3826: 3825: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3802: 3796: 3792: 3790: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3761: 3759: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3730: 3728: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3713: 3712: 3708: 3701: 3697: 3695: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3681: 3679: 3675: 3670: 3664: 3660: 3657: 3654: 3653: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3641: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3623: 3617: 3615: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3598: 3594: 3589: 3586:wikimedia.org 3575: 3571: 3570: 3564: 3562: 3558: 3553: 3547: 3541: 3538: 3535: 3534: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3501: 3497: 3496: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3483: 3482: 3477: 3473: 3472: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3454: 3450: 3444: 3436: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3415: 3411: 3410: 3404: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3372: 3368: 3365: 3362: 3361: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3348: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3339: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3325: 3321: 3313: 3309: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3295: 3292: 3291: 3286: 3285: 3281: 3280: 3276: 3273: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3244: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3234: 3227: 3222: 3221: 3216: 3200: 3195: 3191: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3182: 3177: 3175: 3174: 3170: 3162: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3151: 3145: 3143: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3125: 3122: 3118: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3103:Death anxiety 3100: 3092: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3069: 3066: 3063: 3058: 3053: 3050: 3048: 3045: 3037: 3031: 3027: 3019: 3017: 3016: 3013: 3007: 3006: 3001: 2997: 2989: 2987: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2965: 2958: 2956: 2948: 2944: 2941: 2935: 2929: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2911: 2902: 2895: 2892: 2888: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2874: 2872: 2868: 2863: 2861: 2857: 2855: 2850: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2830: 2828: 2820: 2817: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2799: 2796: 2792: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2773:Sulfur oxides 2770: 2762: 2754: 2753: 2750: 2747: 2742: 2737: 2731: 2725: 2722: 2717: 2715:Pass a Method 2711: 2710: 2707: 2704: 2701: 2696: 2690: 2684: 2680: 2678: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2665: 2662: 2661: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2643: 2641: 2634: 2633:Sigmund Freud 2630: 2626: 2617: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2586: 2580: 2577: 2574: 2573: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2558: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2531: 2529: 2528: 2525: 2522: 2521: 2513: 2511: 2505: 2501: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2405: 2402: 2399: 2398: 2391: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2378: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2349: 2344: 2340: 2339:Roger Penrose 2336: 2335: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2287: 2281: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2216: 2214: 2209: 2207: 2191: 2187: 2184: 2182: 2181: 2177: 2172: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2145: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2110: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2055: 2051: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2024: 2016: 2015: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1990: 1982: 1980: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1972: 1961: 1958: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1937: 1934: 1933: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1919: 1916: 1915: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1886: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1871: 1869: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1854: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1841: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1809: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1794:Occam's razor 1781: 1777: 1773: 1770:Fair enough! 1769: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1760: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1692:MartinPoulter 1688: 1681: 1677: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1662:Rainbowwrasse 1659: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1620:Rainbowwrasse 1612: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1536: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1513:Occam's razor 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1454: 1446: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1430: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1401: 1399: 1398:Reward system 1391: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1344: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1328: 1322: 1321: 1316: 1312: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289:84.251.222.22 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1274:MartinPoulter 1271: 1263: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1197: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1154: 1152: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1111: 1108: 1100: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1042: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1026: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1001: 1000: 996: 992: 991: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 970: 962: 958: 954: 949: 945: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 930: 926: 922: 919: 915: 914: 913: 912: 905: 904: 903: 902: 895: 891: 887: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 825: 821: 814: 810: 806: 801: 800: 795: 791: 790: 788: 787: 782: 781: 776: 775: 771: 770: 766: 763: 762: 761: 758: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 740:Ockhams Razor 737: 735: 731: 723: 709: 706: 705: 704: 697: 695: 690: 686: 682: 675: 674: 671: 667: 662: 658: 657: 650: 646: 645: 643: 640: 639: 635: 630: 627: 626: 625: 622: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 602: 598: 594: 586: 582: 579: 575: 571: 570:Abner Shimony 560: 557: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 541: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 525: 523: 517: 512: 511: 510: 509: 505: 501: 497: 491: 487: 483: 479: 474: 470: 467: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 435: 430: 427: 416: 412: 408: 404: 399: 396: 392: 388: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 373: 369: 365: 361: 356: 355:string theory 352: 348: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 335: 331: 324: 320: 317: 314: 312: 308: 307: 306: 299: 295: 292: 289: 285: 284: 283: 277: 275: 274: 270: 266: 262: 261:closed system 258: 255: 251: 247: 243: 240: 232: 230: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 204: 198: 194: 191: 189: 188: 184: 180: 176: 173:or ask me on 172: 168: 164: 157: 154: 152: 149: 147: 144: 142: 139: 137: 134: 132: 129: 128: 127: 125: 120: 111: 110: 105: 100: 99:in articles. 98: 94: 90: 89: 84: 80: 76: 68: 62: 58: 56: 53: 51: 47: 43: 37: 34: 28: 21: 17: 4360: 4349: 4347: 4323:for deletion 4297: 4295: 4280: 4278: 4254:Assirian cat 4252: 4247: 4239: 4225: 4213:for deletion 4184: 4178: 4152: 4127: 4121: 4098: 4090: 4088: 4051: 4045: 4022: 4014: 4012: 3966:, but other 3955: 3947:edit summary 3938: 3931: 3918: 3906:The article 3905: 3845: 3823: 3822: 3812: 3806: 3765: 3741:RfC proposal 3734: 3714: 3707:John Norseen 3704: 3682: 3671: 3668: 3655: 3649: 3642: 3624: 3621: 3605:Okeyes (WMF) 3593:office hours 3590: 3567: 3565: 3554: 3552:Hey all :). 3551: 3536: 3530: 3506: 3440: 3363: 3357: 3340: 3317: 3304: 3298: 3271: 3265: 3248: 3236: 3230: 3223: 3210: 3178: 3171:article is: 3167:The current 3166: 3164: 3149: 3126: 3096: 3064: 3023: 3004: 2993: 2959: 2952: 2939: 2908: 2906: 2889: 2875: 2864: 2859: 2858: 2853: 2851: 2838: 2824: 2800: 2766: 2748: 2705: 2676: 2663: 2657: 2639: 2624: 2621: 2590: 2575: 2569: 2556:Machine Elf 2547:edit summary 2535: 2523: 2517: 2514: 2506: 2502: 2497: 2400: 2394: 2376: 2366: 2356: 2346:this choice. 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2288: 2285: 2255: 2249: 2246: 2219: 2210: 2203: 2168: 2149: 2112: 2106: 2070:meat-puppets 2059: 2026: 2020: 1993: 1988: 1986: 1974: 1968: 1964: 1950: 1949: 1935: 1929: 1926: 1913: 1912: 1890: 1875: 1872:Sticky notes 1855: 1851: 1843: 1837: 1827: 1810: 1791: 1772:IvoryMeerkat 1762: 1756: 1741:IvoryMeerkat 1734: 1731: 1684: 1616: 1558: 1516: 1497: 1450: 1431: 1417: 1402: 1395: 1348: 1325: 1318: 1308: 1267: 1240: 1201: 1158: 1139: 1112: 1104: 1085: 1069:graphics lab 1046: 1021: 1018: 1005: 994: 981: 977: 974: 947: 943: 844: 818: 759: 724: 713: 698: 679: 623: 567: 554: 539: 529: 521: 494: 423: 360:compatiblism 328: 304: 287: 281: 236: 205: 202: 175:my talk page 160: 113: 107: 101: 86: 83:Heritability 72: 55:WP:TECHNICAL 39: 38: 32: 29: 26: 15: 3780:Staszek Lem 3749:Brews ohare 3718:Damonthesis 3685:192.12.13.7 3561:hand coding 3548:Hand-coding 2977:Closedmouth 2551:the sandbox 1562:these stats 1500:Greenjamese 1163:article! -- 670:Determinism 441:Robert Kane 4183:—has been 4156:Tessaract2 4113:topic bans 4037:topic bans 3984:Richhoncho 3866:topic bans 3622:Hi there, 3511:. Thanks, 3131:. Thanks, 3011:damiens.rf 3005:discussion 2805:. Thanks, 2629:Psychology 2593:WP:ILIKEIT 2332:curiosity. 1951:AdvertAdam 1914:AdvertAdam 1714:Tesseract2 1639:Tesseract2 1597:Tesseract2 1541:Tesseract2 1485:Tesseract2 1434:Tesseract2 1376:Tesseract2 1332:Off2riorob 1327:Your input 1311:straw poll 1223:Tesseract2 1208:Jamesa7171 1182:Tesseract2 1165:Annielogue 1142:Tesseract2 1088:Tesseract2 1030:LoveMonkey 1025:Kolmogorov 1007:Tesseract2 921:Tesseract2 849:LoveMonkey 820:Tesseract2 748:LoveMonkey 681:Tesseract2 612:LoveMonkey 585:multiverse 500:LoveMonkey 482:Tesseract2 449:LoveMonkey 407:Tesseract2 364:LoveMonkey 347:Niels Bohr 330:Tesseract2 265:LoveMonkey 163:Wikipedian 141:Help pages 4358:finished. 4109:site bans 4033:site bans 3980:consensus 3910:has been 3862:site bans 3824:Steel1943 3651:Tesseract 3597:23:00 UTC 3569:this page 3532:Tesseract 3447:Read the 3359:Tesseract 3300:Tesseract 3232:Tesseract 3115:Read the 2964:this link 2789:Read the 2769:Fireplace 2659:Tesseract 2571:Tesseract 2519:Tesseract 2515:Cheers, - 2396:Tesseract 2367:perfectly 2130:Edhubbard 2108:Tesseract 2090:Edhubbard 2052:Input on 2022:Tesseract 1970:Tesseract 1931:Tesseract 1839:Tesseract 1758:Tesseract 1680:Happiness 1470:Cloonmore 1418:Hello? -- 1359:Ajbpearce 1351:free will 953:Gibbzmann 886:Gibbzmann 644:since... 601:Entelechy 220:Edhubbard 208:Free will 193:Free will 165:! Please 50:WP:IMAGES 4298:articles 3921:WP:NSONG 3772:Violence 3669:Hello, 3329:Ghmyrtle 3320:humanism 3226:WP:SCOTM 2915:fair use 2732:Barnstar 2605:Ghmyrtle 2357:attempts 2259:contact 1859:Fleetham 1813:Fleetham 1799:Fleetham 1555:GiveWell 1251:Yaris678 836:website. 597:energeia 252:and his 195:and new 146:Tutorial 4344:deleted 4236:deleted 4187:merging 3678:Worship 3631:RT Wolf 3513:DPL bot 3485:Science 3421:Kelenna 3389:Kelenna 3133:DPL bot 3035:Frutti 2807:DPL bot 2777:Dioxins 2603:much! 2545:has an 2389:Cheers, 2234:notable 1994:exactly 1879:Lambiam 1737:science 1592:things? 1073:Nyttend 1050:Nyttend 813:letters 734:Leibniz 719:Worlds. 288:mention 75:welcome 4227:Raise5 4211:Raise5 3949:or on 3925:WP:GNG 3852:. The 3656:(talk) 3578:okeyes 3537:(talk) 3364:(talk) 3350:Cheers 3305:(talk) 3293:Cheers 3237:(talk) 3211:From: 2926:Go to 2664:(talk) 2576:(talk) 2524:(talk) 2472:sense. 2401:(talk) 2265:userfy 2256:speedy 2242:verify 2113:(talk) 2027:(talk) 1975:(talk) 1936:(talk) 1844:(talk) 1763:(talk) 1687:"ugly" 1533:there. 1519:Vexorg 1355:WP:FAR 1264:Thanks 948:always 444:want". 278:Reply: 179:Crusio 119:helpme 42:WP:IUP 4306:B-bot 3768:Islam 2871:HTTPS 2452:well. 2240:that 2012:then! 944:today 652:dead. 648:fact. 4366:talk 4310:talk 4258:talk 4200:talk 4138:talk 4099:The 4062:talk 4023:The 3988:talk 3923:and 3886:talk 3831:talk 3784:talk 3770:and 3753:talk 3722:talk 3709:and 3705:Re: 3689:talk 3635:talk 3609:talk 3574:here 3517:talk 3425:talk 3393:talk 3333:talk 3258:talk 3137:talk 3081:talk 3043:Mare 3026:This 2981:talk 2882:talk 2862::-) 2811:talk 2775:and 2720:talk 2677:Lara 2640:Lara 2631:and 2609:talk 2487:talk 2322:talk 2273:talk 2269:andy 2173:. -- 2156:talk 2146:Barn 2134:talk 2094:talk 2084:and 2076:and 2056:page 2040:talk 2002:talk 1863:talk 1828:many 1817:talk 1803:talk 1776:talk 1745:talk 1718:talk 1696:talk 1666:talk 1643:talk 1634:be!) 1624:talk 1601:talk 1582:now. 1570:talk 1545:talk 1523:talk 1504:talk 1489:talk 1474:talk 1438:talk 1424:talk 1410:talk 1380:talk 1363:talk 1336:talk 1293:talk 1278:talk 1268:The 1255:talk 1227:talk 1212:talk 1186:talk 1169:talk 1146:talk 1123:talk 1117:? - 1092:talk 1077:talk 1054:talk 1034:talk 1011:talk 957:talk 925:talk 890:talk 853:talk 824:talk 752:talk 685:talk 616:talk 593:nous 504:talk 486:talk 453:talk 411:talk 368:talk 334:talk 269:talk 224:talk 199:page 183:talk 4293:). 3846:Hi, 3599:in 3449:FAQ 3117:FAQ 3039:di 2945:On 2873:). 2791:FAQ 2036:Kww 1998:Kww 1989:why 1249:. 1071:. 809:FAQ 4368:) 4346:. 4312:) 4260:) 4238:. 4202:) 4140:) 4132:. 4111:, 4064:) 4056:. 4035:, 3990:) 3953:. 3936:. 3888:) 3864:, 3833:) 3786:) 3755:) 3724:) 3691:) 3637:) 3611:) 3519:) 3495:) 3491:| 3471:) 3467:| 3427:) 3395:) 3335:) 3260:) 3139:) 3109:| 3083:) 3075:. 3049:. 2983:) 2938:, 2936:}} 2932:{{ 2884:) 2856:. 2849:. 2813:) 2783:| 2611:) 2489:) 2377:IS 2324:) 2275:) 2158:) 2136:) 2096:) 2080:, 2042:) 2004:) 1865:) 1819:) 1805:) 1778:) 1747:) 1720:) 1698:) 1668:) 1645:) 1626:) 1603:) 1572:) 1547:) 1525:) 1506:) 1491:) 1476:) 1440:) 1426:) 1412:) 1382:) 1365:) 1338:) 1295:) 1280:) 1257:) 1229:) 1214:) 1188:) 1171:) 1148:) 1125:) 1094:) 1079:) 1056:) 1036:) 1013:) 959:) 951:-- 927:) 892:) 855:) 826:) 754:) 746:. 732:, 687:) 618:) 610:. 603:). 506:) 488:) 455:) 413:) 370:) 336:) 271:) 226:) 185:) 122:}} 116:{{ 4364:( 4308:( 4275:⚠ 4256:( 4198:( 4136:( 4060:( 3986:( 3927:. 3884:( 3829:( 3782:( 3751:( 3720:( 3687:( 3633:( 3607:( 3515:( 3487:( 3463:( 3455:. 3423:( 3391:( 3355:- 3331:( 3296:- 3256:( 3201:! 3192:. 3135:( 3123:. 3105:( 3079:( 2979:( 2942:. 2880:( 2869:( 2809:( 2797:. 2779:( 2607:( 2485:( 2392:- 2320:( 2271:( 2208:. 2154:( 2132:( 2104:- 2092:( 2038:( 2000:( 1861:( 1815:( 1801:( 1774:( 1743:( 1716:( 1712:- 1709:. 1694:( 1664:( 1641:( 1637:- 1622:( 1599:( 1595:- 1568:( 1543:( 1521:( 1502:( 1487:( 1472:( 1436:( 1422:( 1408:( 1378:( 1361:( 1334:( 1291:( 1276:( 1253:( 1225:( 1210:( 1184:( 1167:( 1144:( 1140:- 1121:( 1090:( 1075:( 1052:( 1032:( 1009:( 955:( 923:( 888:( 851:( 822:( 750:( 683:( 614:( 591:( 580:. 558:" 502:( 484:( 451:( 409:( 366:( 332:( 267:( 241:? 222:( 181:(

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

Index